Talk:Meša Selimović/Archives/2005/December

Without public

Ajmo (bar za pocetak) malo bez publike... --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Ajd kad kazes da je to bosnjacka porodica, mada je poznato da je upravo on znao svoje rodoslovlje (odnekud iz Crne Gore, valjda)... Ali, da ne ulazim u ta pitanja nacionalne konstitucije i od kada postoji bosnjacka nacija. Tako da sam to ostavio. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Konstrukcija iz one recenice koju sam obrisao je vrlo losa. Ne mozes reci "Iako je bio Bosnjak, on se izjasnjavao da je Srbin." To znaci da ti nekom nameces sta je bio po nacionalnosti, a to je, ako nista drugo, neumesno. Uostalom, objasnio si prvim pasusom da se u poslednjih jedanaest godina svog zivota izjasnjavao kao Srbin. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Ako se izjasnjavao da je bio Srbin i da pripada srpskoj kulturi, onda je, ako nista drugo, i srpski pisac. Mislim da to nije sporno. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Dakle, ajde ovo da resimo bez uplitanja stranaca. Mislim, ako nije moguce, preci cemo na engleski. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That nationalist part about the power-hungry demagogue Alija Izetbegović has no place in an article about a (very talented if I may add) writer!!! HolyRomanEmperor 16:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not participate in this discussion but it is my strong reccomendation that you switch to english as soon as possible to avoid accusations of lack of transparency . --Dado 22:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Emire, mozemo li ovo resiti mi sami ili moramo da prelazimo na engleski? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Trenutna verzija clanka je zadovoljavajuca. U dogledno vrijeme bi trebalo navesti razloge zbog cega je Selimovic otisao iz Sarajeva u Srbiju kako se ne bi izgubio kontekst cijele price, s obzirom da je clanak u startu postavljen u stilu kao hajde da zgrabimo Selimovica sto prije za sebe, kako ga Bosnjaci ne bi imali?! Tipicna nacionalisticka logika. Nigdje veze. Mogu samo reci: Jebes zemlju koja Bosne nema. Cak mi je i drago pomalo da se ovako otimaju sto Srbi sto Hrvati za nase pisce...jer u krajnjem slucaju nije ni bitno kako se ko izjasnjavao u pojedinim periodima svoga zivota, bitno je sta je pisao i sta je radio. Siguran sam da pola Srba koji su procitali Selimoviceva djela nije ni razumjelo pogotovo "Dervis i smrt", sto radi leksike, sto radi Kur'anske pozadine. Ali hajde neka bude...Emir Arven 15:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Drago mi je da mozemo da resimo to ovako. Hajde da napisemo clanak o Selimovicu koji ce opisati prvenstveno njegovu knjizevnost a ne nacionalnu pripadnost (koju treba razjasniti do kraja ali ne napadno). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dodaj u napomenu na osnovu cega je bas jedanaest zadnjih godina svog zivota sebe smatrao Srbinom (verujem da si to napisao na osnovu nekog konkretnog podatka). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Pa zvanicno je to bilo od 76. koliko se sjecam, ali ono sto je Selimovica ganulo u pozitivnom smislu je uvrstavanje "Dervisa" u "Srpsku knjizevnost u sto knjiga", sto je on prihvatio kao znacajno priznanje (od tada se moze pratiti njegova okrenutost Beogradu, a to je bilo 1971 ili 1972. godine od tada do njegove smrti proteklo je 11 godina, iako ce mnogi reci da je to zadnjih 6 godina). Bas u to vrijeme nad njim je u Sarajevu vrsen teror od nekih kvazi-bh. intelektualaca, zatim slucaj Cvjetin Mijatovic itd. Da bi se to razumjelo potrebno je zivjeti u Sarajevu u kojem ne postoje zvijezde. Ako si zvijezda onda gore po tebe. Pa na carsiji su neki momci sreli Andrica i pitali ga: "wozdra pisac, napisel se sta?". Ako pogledas o cemu je Andric pisao (npr. Travnicka hronika) onda mozes shvatit koliko je Andric bosanski pisac, iako se i Srbi i Hrvati polomise da izbroje njegova krvna zrnca. Sto se tice Selimovica mislim prije svega da se radilo o revoltu izrazenom u tako svojstvenom bosanskom inatu (klasicni ters), kada ga nisu cijenili u Sarajevo Selimovic se pokupio u Beograd koji mu je otvorio sirom vrata. Ima tu jos mnogo uzroka. Opet kazem za sada je ova verzija zadovoljavajuca, iako npr. parcijalni citat naveden u clanku je prije svega naveden u svrhu etiketiranja pisca po nacionalnosti. Meni su dovoljna njegova djela, koja rado s vremena na vrijeme iscitavam. Takodjer napomena o izjasnjavanju Bosnjaka do sada je detaljno obrazlozena. Svako zna da prvi Ustav FNRJ nije dopustio Bosnjacima da se izjasnjavaju kako su se osjecali. Protiv tog ustava je glasao Bosnjak, poslanik iz Mostara, jer tu cinjenicu nisu uvazili srpski i hrvatski poslanici (pogotovo srpski). Nakon toga Bosnjacima se nudi da se izasnjavaju ili kao Srbi ili kao Hrvati (takva iskustva imam u vlastitoj familiji, kao i vecina Bosnjaka), nesto kasnije se uvodi rubrika Ostali. Tek dvadeset godina nakon donosenja ustava nametnuto je Bosnjacima ime Musliman s velikim M uz teska lobiranja, nametanja, pregovore, prijetnje itd. Ali eto ta su vremena prosla, a Bosnjaci su zadrzali sjecanje na svoje pravo ime, svidjalo se to nekome ili ne. Zbog toga smatram da je napomena o izjasnjavanju Bosnjaka zlobna u sadasnjem obliku u clanku, jer se implicira da je lider Bosnjaka Alija Izetbegovic bio Srbin. Dakle, taj primjer je svjesno ubacen ne kao informacija, nego kao provokacije. To znam i ja, a to znas i ti. Tebi na cast. Emir Arven 16:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sroci tu pricu o Mesi sa pocetka malo "naucnije", pa je stavi u tekst. Ocigledno je da ce o Mesi biti prvo dobrano ispricano u vezi sa njegovom nacionalnom pripadnoscu, pa tek onda o njegovoj knjizevnosti. U svakom slucaju, dobro je da to stoji detaljno razlozeno, pa da se jednom zavrsi sa tim. Vazno je imati faktografski ispravan i fer clanak kako ne bi bio predmet stalnih prepucavanja. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Moram da priznam da mi je jedina sala (dakle, nista zlonamerno) u ovom clanku bila konstatacija da je Mesa "Bosnian Serb". Eto, nisam mogao da odolim. Sto se tice objasnjenja o nacionalnom izjasnjavanju, namera mi je definitivno bila da pojasnim o cemu se radi. Ali, u nekoliko recenica se svakako ne moze sve zadovoljiti. Treba sve to prosiriti... Postoji i razlika izmedju Alijinog i Mesinog izjasnjavanja. Koliko je ocigledno da je Alija to tretirao kao nuzno zlo, toliko je i ocigledno da je Mesa imao "porodicno pamcenje" da potice iz srpske porodice (tri brata koja su se razdvojila...) i da je malo verovatno da bi se, da je doziveo devedesete, izjasnjavao kao Bosnjak. Ali, kao sto rekoh, tesko je to objasniti u nekoliko recenica, pa te molim da ne paranoises :) Ne radim nista zlonamerno. (I nemoj mi sada prebacivati salu koju sam ti priznao, jer sam i sam odustao od te konstatacije.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Andric i Selimovic su definitivno bosanski pisci. Naravno, u smislu ljudi i prostora koje su opisivali. To niko ne spori. Kao sto je Tesla i hrvatski naucnik i kao sto u ovom trenutku znam bar trojicu Madjara koji su znacajni srpski naucnici, tj. kulturni radnici. Andric i Selimovic su se, sa druge strane, jasno etnicki i nacionalno deklarisali kao Srbi. I verujem da ce svi biti zadovoljni samo ako se samo konstatuju prethodne recenice. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Po cemu je to Tesla hrvatski naucnik? Nikola 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you re-work a little on the part regarding the über-nationalist, Alija Izetbegović? The article should containt as less as possible nationalism (sincerely, I see no reason to mix politics and art) HolyRomanEmperor 21:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

E, cekaj malo. Vidis da pokusavamo da resimo clanak i mislim da ce clanak biti sredjen kako valja. Alija je najbolji primer za proces konstituisanja bosnjacke nacije. Kao sto je Emir gore napisao, postojao je jak pritisak da se ljudi ne izjasnjavaju kako zele, vec im je nametano sta su po nacionalnosti. Alija se uistinu izjasnjavao kao "Srbin muslimanske veroispovesti" dok se Muslimani kao nacija nisu ozvanicili. Verovatno je da cemo preformulisati ceo taj paragraf, ali za to treba vremena i, pre svega, koncenzus. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ne zaboravi da su Izetbegovići došli iz Beograda. HolyRomanEmperor 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ne zaboravi da su Izetbegovići došli u Bosnu iz Beograda. HolyRomanEmperor 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Meša died before the proclaimation of the Bosniak nation. HolyRomanEmperor 14:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

And the quotation clearly states that he is a Serbo-Croatian writer and a member of one nation (a Serbo-Croat, just like me) User:Emir_Arven claims that the Bosnian language is very old and distinct, yet even Meša (a Muslim) disagrees. How could then Emir claim that the Serbs are "grabbing Selimović" for themselves? HolyRomanEmperor 14:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how can he be Bosniak? HolyRomanEmperor 16:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

He was born in a Bosniak family in Bosnia (Tuzla), his novels are about Bosnia. His name: "Meša" is a typical Bosniak name. Language in his novels is a typical Bosnian language. He was aware of his roots in 1966. when he wrote "Dervish" (before he declared himself as a Serb in 1976.). This is his quotation about Bosniaks/Bosnian Muslims/Bosnians (ethnicity/religion/nationality whatever you like): "A mi nismo ničiji, uvijek na nekoj međi, uvijek nečiji miraz...Živimo na razmeđu svjetova, na granici naroda, svakome na udaru, uvijek krivi nekome. Na nama se lome talasi historije, kao na grebenu. Sila nam je dosadila i od nevolje smo stvorili vrlinu: postali smo plemeniti iz prkosa." Which means: We dont belong to anyone...etc. --Emir Arven 17:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain me how can you be a Serbo-Croat? What are criterias for that? Emir Arven 17:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hajd da odgovorim (Holiju)... Insistiram na prici na nasim jezicima zato sto ovako ne pravimo predstavu za druge, cime nase probleme sami resavamo. Holi, zato te molim da nastavis i ti na nekom od navedenih jezika po izboru. Evo odgovora: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

1. To sto su Izetbegovici u Bosnu dosli iz Beograda nije nesto preterano relevantno. Mogli su doci i sa Marsa, ali ako se izjasnjavaju kao Bosnjaci, onda su Bosnjaci. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ne mogu se nikako sloziti: da su dosli sa Marsa bili bi Marsovci, a mogli bi da se izjasnjavaju kako god hoce. Nikola 08:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Kada se pise da je neki pisac od tih i tih, onda se ne uzima jezik nego kultura. Srpskohrvatska kultura nikada nije postojala kao jedinstvo, vec kao izrazita dvojnost, odnosno implicitno multikulturna zajednica. Srbo-Hrvati, kao sto ti sam sebe deklarises, su ekstra retka pojava i mislim da je to i samom jasno. Mesa se izjasnio "da je Srbin muslimanske veroispovesti" i "da je njegova knjizevnost pisana srpskim jezikom" iza cega navodi striktno srpske autore (ukljucujuci i Andrica koji je u slicnoj poziciji kao i on). Podrazumeva se da neke sedamdeset i neke (ili vec koje godine) nikako nije smeo/mogao/zeleo napisati da pise srpskim jezikom (mada sam uveren da bi to pisao da je doziveo razdvajanje standardnih jezika; ali, to je šbb kbb, svakako). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Moze se smatrati Bosnjakom zato sto su podele na ovim prostorima u 99% slucajeva konfesionalnog karaktera: 99% onih koji su katolici ili ciji su preci bili katolici danas se izjasnjavaju kao Hrvati, 99% onih koji su na taj nacin vezani za pravoslavlje izjasnjavaju se kao Srbi, a 99% onih koji su na taj nacin vezani za islam danas se izjasnjavaju kao Bosnjaci ili Muslimani (od cega se 95% izjasnjavaju kao Bosnjaci a 5% kao Muslimani). Imaj na umu da ti ljudi koji se izjasnjavaju Bosnjacima nisu preko noci postali Bosnjaci, vec da je postojao visevekovni proces njihovog etnickog i nacionalnog konstituisanja. Pogotovo se jasno moze ustanoviti da je taj proces postojao od 19. veka do 90-ih godina dvadesetog veka, pa se ceo taj period moze uzeti kao prednacionalni period Bosnjaka (odnosno nesto manje, posto su Muslimani kao nacija konstituisani dvadesetak godina ranije). Drugim recima, to ima smisla, iako licno nemam neki poseban stav ovim povodom. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ovde nisi u pravu: ne moze se smatrati Bosnjakom jer su se Bosnjaci konstituisali 1993, deset godina posle njegove smrti. Ne postoji nacin da se sazna da li bi Mesa da je jos ziv sebe smatrao Bosnjakom ili ne. Ali ako bismo trebali da spekulisemo, najverovatnije je da bi Mesa bio u onih 1% muslimana koji se ne izjasnjavaju kao Bosnjaci. Nikola 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ovo je bio lapsus. Nisam mislio na Mesu nego na njegovu porodicu. To sto je odredjena grupa ljudi u odredjenom trenutku dobila medjunarodno priznanje da se zove pod imenom Bosnjaka tacno odredjenog dana, ne znaci da se ti ljudi nisu osecali pripadnicima posebne nacionalne skupine i ranije. Uostalom, po tome ni Srbi nisu postojali pre stvaranja drzave u 19. veku, pa onda niko pre ne moze biti tretiran kao Srbin u nacionalnom smislu. Niti kao Nemac pre ujedinjenja Nemacke. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Pa i sto se tice Mesine porodice, prvo, poznato ti je da je nekada procenat muslimana koji su se osecali Srbima bio i veci nego danas. Postoje li ikakvi podaci o porodici (i kakvo se to crnogorsko poreklo pominje)? Drugo, ako se i jesu osecali pripadnicima neka posebne skupine, kako su oni zvali tu svoju skupinu? Bosnjaci? I da jesu, da li je to tada znacilo isto sto i danas?

A ovo za Srbe ti nema veze. Srbi su bar kao pleme pomenuti jos pre nove ere a nekoliko vekova kasnije vec se mogu smatrati narodom. Nikola 00:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Pored toga sto nemas pojma o naucnom metodu, sada pokazujes da nemas pojma ni o razlici izmedju etniciteta i nacije. Nacije nisu postojale pre 19. veka ili ti pokusavas da dokazes suprotno? Takodje, Bosanci su se kao etnicitet pojavili ako nigde drugde, a onda u krunisanju Tvrtka. Ili su i ti Bosanci bili Srbi, je li? I to po nacionalnoj pripadnosti? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 12:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Znas sta, bolje je nesto ne znati nego znati naopako. A ti sa tvojim tvrdnjama da nesto ne postoji ako nije navedeno, da minimalni par moze da postoji izmedju reci i ne-reci, da lingvistika izucava jezike ali ne moze definisati sta je jezik svakako pokazujes da nemas pojma o mnogim stvarima a ne samo o naucnom metodu.

Da nacije nisu postojale pre 19. veka je zapadna izmisljotina koju je kominterna zdusno prihvatila. Da, nisu postojale, ali postojali su etnosi koji tacno odgovaraju danasnjim nacijama. Nije sija nego vrat. Bosanci se kao etnicitet nisu pojavili nikada, ne znam zasto Tvrtka pominjes. Nikola 16:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sad smo stigli i do zavera. Etnosi jesu postojali i pre. Tvrtko se proglasio "kraljem svih Bosanaca i Srba". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Vidi, a ja mislio da se proglasio kraljem Srba i Bosne (tako se barem za vreme vladavine potpisivao). Stono rece Nusic, vidis kako covek moze da se prevari. Nikola 08:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Da, u pravu si, o veliki istoricaru ;) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Sa druge strane, aproksimativno govoreci, zapadnojuznoslovenski muslimani (koji su se deklarisali kao Srbi i Hrvati) su preci 2,5 miliona ljudi. I ne govorimo o desavanjima u paleolitu, nego o desavanjima u skoroj proslosti. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Necu sada vracati clanak na prethodnu izmenu jer cekam tvoju saglasnost. Smatram da je moja prethodna verzija dovoljno fer i da daje dovoljno jasna objasnjenja. Treba vremenom jos precizirati neke stvari, ali o tome treba prvo ovde pricati. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Imaš moju saglasnost. Ali želim da Srpsko-hrvatski ostane. Slažem se sa ostalim, samo mislim da treba naglasiti Musliman (po nacionalnosti?) Hoću još nešto da kažem: on se rodio u zemlji gdje je ranije bila Osmanska vlast. U takvom sultanatu, zakon kaže da su svi islamski stanovnici Osmanlijskog carstva - Osmanlije i da trebaju znatu turski jezik. On se izjasnio tako jer nije više bilo potrebe. 13:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Izmene

Dakle, mozete videti sta sam izmenio. Pokusajte da sledece izmene koje se ne ticu njegove knjizevnosti (tj. koje se ticu njegove nacionalne pripadnosti) prvo ovde obrazlozite da ne bismo ulazili u nove ratove izmena. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes are perfect except for the infulence and the ian and n in SerbIAN and BosniaN could buffed into a link together. HolyRomanEmperor 21:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

And, a picture could be imported from the Serbian wikipedia. HolyRomanEmperor 21:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

E, ne razumem te sta si hteo da kazes sa "SerbIAN and BosniaN". Sliku cemo staviti, ali ne znamo kopirajt status slike (sto moze da prodje na srpskoj Vikipediji ali ne moze na engleskoj). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. HolyRomanEmperor 12:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I repaired the article a little. Any objections? HolyRomanEmperor 12:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Vidim sada na sta si mislio; ok je sto se mene tice. Postoji i clanak Muslims by nationality koji mozda treba pomenuti, mada ne znam gde u ovom trenutku. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Emir Arven appears to glorify Alija Izetbegović, a man who signed the London Agreement (cantonization of Bosnia on Moslem, Serb and Croat cantons; just like the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1991 with the Serb and Croat representatives and then betrayed the understanding as soon as he returned to Bosnia, strongly supporting a unitarian Bosnia with a central government in Sarajevo; eventually leading to a civil war (aside from other reasons that followed). HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

According to ur logic, it is called Alijofobia from ur side. U two, should write an article about that...--Emir Arven 23:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Very funny :) there is no such a thing as a phobia from persons bearing a name... If there is; give sources. HolyRomanEmperor 16:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For Emir

I'll explain my edits and you can explain what you find disagreeable.

1. He was not Bosnian as most people would understand the term, in the ethnic sense. He was from Bosnia and hence he was a Bosnian in the sense that I'm a Londoner(i.e. denoting geographical origins). That's why I rephrased this sentence. I doubt you'd refer to someone from Sandzak as being "Serbian" just because they were born on the territory of the Republic of Serbia.

He was Bosnian. You cannot say he was from Bosnia but not Bosnian?! --Emir Arven 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

::::He was also European, Yugoslavian, a Tuzlak usw. Saying he's Bosnian gives the impression that he belongs to the(a?) Bosnian nation. Saying he's from Bosnia is not ambiguous.

2. His family were not Bosniaks, as, quite simply, that nation only came into existance in the 90s. No amount of pseudo-historical literature change that.

His familiy was a Bosniak family. Bosniaks as a nation were not born yesterday but much earlier. During Austro-Hungarian period, Bosniak as nowdays, declared themselves as Bosniaks. --Emir Arven 19:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if that is true (you haven't provided a source), it doesn't mean his parents belonged to that nation. Also, you can't pretend that Bosniak meant the same then as it does now. Then it meant the same as Bosnian does now. To be honest I think we should sidestep the whole issue as I doubt we could ever agree and just say he was born to Muslim parents. I don't really want to get into a discussion of Bosnjastvo/Muslimanstvo. --estavisti 01:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me to explain my other edits. --estavisti 18:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Na redu je knjizevnost Mese Selimovica

Dakle, molio bih Estavistija da prestane sa izmenama onog oko cega je vec postignut kakav-takav dogovor. (Emire, tebe bih zamolio da vratis verziju na dogovorenu, posto sam vec izgubio iz glave sta je dogovoreno a sta ne. Tj. sta je prihvatljivo svima, a vidim da se moja i tvoja poslednja verzija razlikuju.) Dakle, molio bih da se sledece izmene bave Mesinom knjizevnoscu a ne Mesinom nacionalnom pripadnoscu. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Evo ja ću malo o njegovim djelima uskoro... (ako bude bilo vremena) HolyRomanEmperor 16:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop the edit war!

Stop the edit war now and discuss here. HolyRomanEmperor 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Damir is a vandal. He was blocked twice because of violation of WP:3RR. He is not making edit war only on this article. And I don't see that talk is possible. I said where Selimovic said his quote and this is not relevant for him. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 01:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh you said where he said it, and you want me to take you for your word without you citing any source. Well in that case you should also take me for my word and I saw recently a rather old interview with Mesas's wife on HRT channel where she stated that mesa never decalerd himself as serb and she herself is even serb. Millosh you need to let go of the old communist Yugoslavia mentality, those days are over now let's live like normal humanbeings for once and all. I haven't called you lier or vandal even once whereas you constantly are calling me that, don't bring it to a personal level please, wikipedia is not on life and death, Have a nice day. And concerning Izehars blocking, I don't know why he did it when its obvious that you reverted as much as I did without being blocked yourself. Damir Mišić 12:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Because WP:3RR is not applicable when reverting "simple vandalism", which is the category where 99% of your edits belong. Duja 14:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you milosevic, mladic and karadzic followers maybe have izehar as your allie, the statements you have in the article is pure simple vandalism signed with the mentality of a greater serbia. Damir Mišić 14:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you cared to read the discussion above, this version was agreed by prominent Bosniak and Serbian editors. No one has denied so far that Meša did say that (e.g. Google gives this) and he was entitled to have his opinion on his own ethnicity, didn't he? You're approaching dangerously close to everyone's patience here and don't be surprised if someone takes an action (WP:AC, WP:Probation) soon.Duja 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please come on the sources that are being provided are ridiculuos: Author of the article provided: Dušan STANKOVIĆ. Please provide some statements that aren't made by "Yugoslavs" and are without source as well then we may dicuss. Are you threatining me with (WP:AC, WP:Probation), for your info I haven't done anyhting against wikipedia law so just leave it will you. Damir Mišić 17:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So, if his name is Dušan STANKOVIĆ he's presumably a liar, according to you, no? He says: "Da on pripada nedvosmisleno srpskoj književnosti, potvrdio je pismom koje se čuva u SANU. Napisao ga je 1975." Should I travel to Belgrade, dig it out from archives and scan it just so you could be happy?. Duja 13:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dušan STANKOVIĆ makes the same mistake as you he too cites no sources in his article. And no I am not calling this man a liar but as known it is always best to provide sources that are by persons not ethnically or religiously involved in the matter, yes?. Damir Mišić 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This so called letter must be copied somewhere on the net, if the charter of kulin ban from 11th century is on the net then selimovic letter must be somewhere also presumingly this letter actually excists, which I frankly doubt. I say remove the quote and the note 1. And then we have a deal. Damir Mišić 14:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read the article on bs:Meša Selimović. It does not deny his own ethnic affiliation either. As for the quote, you can Google e.g. [[1] [2]], although it's possible that some are mutual rewrites. Both the quote and the note were made by a previous concensus to make everyone happy. (Although I'd be happier to have more about his literature in the article, instead of focusing on localpatriotic quarrels that Mesa himself was horrified with.) The author of the article, and this Wikipedia article likewise, did quote the letter, the age and the event, and the existence of the letter, which can be verified, but don't expect us to go ahead and scan it. Why do you suspect forgery? Admittedly, these Internet quotes come from Serbian sources, and most of them are biased, but primarily by selection of his quotes. His ethnic affiliation is a well-known fact and was a source of Bosniak-Serbian nationalistic quarrels for a long time. Now, you're insisting on your own (Bosnian) PoV about him.Duja 14:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not insisting on anything, my proposal is to remove all the quotes and national suggestions of Mesa's nationality. As you said I think the article should purely be about his works, let us make an arthicstic article instead of quotes and suggestions. The only privat thing the article should mention about him is as following: Serbian and Bosnian writer born in a Bosniak family. And we'll just leave it at that. The rest of the article should continue his books and studies at school. And observe nothing should also be mentioned about his language since that is also controversial. Mesa's language in books is the most similiar to bosnian, no wonder since he grew up in a bosnian family, but however nothing of that should be mentioned since it is controversial - the only thing that is needed to be mentioned is that he is a serbian and bosnian writer born in a bosniak family. Okej Duja? Let's forgett those nationalistic matters concerning his nationality, and it seems like the quote can't be verified after all sorry. But even if it can be verified it makes no difference - the matter is way to controversial and shouldn't be brought up! let's make an article on mesa as writer and not an article on mesa as a subject to nationalistic discussions. Damir Mišić 23:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

All controversial issues should be described as controversial. After people from Bosniak and Serbian communities made agreement about sentences in the article, we should continue to work on his literature. But, I don't see anything controversial in the fact that Selimovic was born in Muslim/Bosniak family and that he declared himself as Serb and Serbian author: both are facts. Damir, keep in mind that you are not the first nationalst who is not happy with this article and that communities decided about content with concensus. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That quote lacks concensus. I wonder which communities you are talking of, I asked Bosnian editors about this article and they did not have a clue about what you have done to it. The only "bosnian" editor that I can think of who approved to this is Live Forever. But anyhow this article is not only for serbs and bosnians, but for croats and anyone who is interessted in Mesa's work as well.Damir Mišić 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"Damir, keep in mind that you are not the first nationalist who is not happy with this article" - ok good one, lol. Damir Mišić 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

let's make an article on mesa as writer and not an article on mesa as a subject to nationalistic discussions. Damir Mišić 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the obviously polemical issues appearing in this discussion, I think I should point out that there are factual inaccuracies in the article as well. Selimovic's brother did not go to Goli Otok--he was executed in Bosnia. Furthermore, the Fortress is not the only one of his work that has been translated in English—Dervish and the Death was also published in the US. Selimovic wrote a memoir called "Sjecanja" or "Remembrances" in which he speaks about his life and work. Perhaps some of the people here should make the effort to consult this book. (User:L-K)