Talk:Meša Selimović/Archives/2017/August

Nationality

I've read the current version of the article, and while it presents the author's life and works fairly well, it's clear that the controversial topic of his ethnicity is not handled very well. It seems some editors have camped on this page to enforce their point of view, despite the many sources to the contrary. The message above claims that the current state of the article is "by long-standing consensus", yet it appears to have been added by one user off their own bat without any discussion with anyone else (User:No_such_user 6th Februrary 2015 Link to the edit concerned).

Firstly, he author himself was extremely clear about the fact that he was a Serb. The letter he wrote to the Serbian Academy has been quoted here before, but I would like to quote it more broadly:

Kako u našim književnim prilikama naglo dolazi do novih momenata i olakih odluka, a ja ne mislim mijenjati ni svoja uvjerenja, ni stečeno mjesto u književnosti kojoj pripadam - može se dogoditi da ja, ili moja porodica, i dalje budemo izlagani neprijatnostima nečijih upornosti i nerazumijevanja. Da bih zašti-tio svoj lični i književni integritet, ja se obraćam Srp-skoj akademiji nauka i umetnosti, čiji sam redovni član, s molbom da se u njoj nađe i sačuva ova moja pismena izjava.

Potičem iz muslimanske porodice iz Bosne, a po nacionalnoj pripadnosti sam Srbin. Pripadam srpskoj literaturi, dok književno stvaralaštvo u Bosni i Hercegovini, kome takođe pripadam, smatram samo zavičajnim književnim centrom, a ne posebnom književnošću srpskohrvatskog jezika. Jednako poštujem svoje porijeklo i svoje opredeljenje, jer sam vezan za sve ono što je odredilo moju ličnost i moj rad. Svaki pokušaj da se to razdvaja, u bilo kakve svrhe, smatrao bih zloupotrebom svog osnovnog prava zagarantovanog Ustavom. Pripadam, dakle, naciji i književnosti Vuka, Matavulja, Stevana Sremca, Borisava Stankovića, Petra Kočića, Ive Andrića, a svoje najdublje srodstvo sa njima nemam potrebe da dokazujem. ...

Nije, zato, slučajno što ovo pismo upućujem Srpskoj akademiji nauka i umetnosti, sa izričitim zahtjevom da se ono smatra punovažnim autobiografskim podatkom.

As our literary life is undergoing changes and unthought-through decisions, and since I do not intend on changing my convictions, not the place I have earned in the literature to which I belong - it is possible that I, or my family, may be further subjected to the incivility of some people's doggedness and misunderstanding. In order to preserve my personal and literary integrity, I am addressing myself to the Serbian Academy, of which I am a member, with the request that it holds my written statement.

I originate from a Muslim family from Bosnia, and by nationality I am Serb. I belong to Serbian literature, while the literary corpus of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which I also belong, I consider only a local literary centre, and not a separate/particular literature of the Serbo-Croat language. Every attempt to divide [the two], for whatever purpose, I would consider an abuse of my basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I equally respect my origin and my orientation, since I am attached to all that has shaped my character and my work. I belong therefore to the nation and literature of Vuk, Matavulj, Stevan Sremac, Borisav Stanković, Petar Kočić, Ivo Andrić, and I have no need to prove my deepest affinity (literally kinship) with them. ...

Thus it is not by chance I send this letter to the Serbian Academy, with the explicit request that it be considered an official autobiographical detail

I have never heard of anyone disputing this letter, whether they look on it favourably or not, although finding a primary source for it is rather difficult, since the archives of the Serbian Academy are not digitised and available online. However, here is at least one example of someone quoting the letter extremely critically yet not disputing its contents.

Secondly, the apparent consensus is that Selimovic was a Yugoslav writer. While he certainly was that, he was also a Serbian writer. He himself considered that an important fact about himself. From the above letter, it was clearly not only a personal matter, but a matter of deliberate public cultural self-identification - something very relevant to his work. Therefore, it is relevant to include this in the introduction, especially since after a quick browse of other articles in the "Yugoslav writer" catergory most if not all open with "sos-and-so was a Croatian writer".

Thirdly, this sentence sets up a false Muslim-Serb dichotomy:

Selimović argued that despite his Muslim roots (he was a descendant of a notable bey family)

Although most Serbs are Orthodox Christians, and most Muslims in the former Yugoslavia are not Serbs, there are many, many people who are both. The two are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, in his autobiography Selimovic explicity states that his father was Serb as well (Sjećanja, p. 33 in my copy, writing about his father: "po nacionalnom osećanju bio je Srbin")

Finally, there seems to be in general great inconsistency in how Wikipedia deals with this area. Sholem Aleichem is properly introduced as a Yiddish author, not a Russian one. Clearly, his cultural belonging is more important than the state he happened to be born in, something that was very fluid and subject to change in first half of the 20th century in Central and Eastern Europe.

I hope the reasoning for my edits is clear.--Jednokratno79 (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the origin from the Drobnjak clan, I wanted to upload a photo of the relevant page in the book Sjećanja. Unfortunately, my account is too new, but here is a quote:

Eto tako (da se vratim na porijeklo porodice), negdje valjda početkom 17. vijeka, moj daleki predak Vujović iz Vranjske okupio je oko sebe sinove, devet ih je bilo, pa su se dogovorili da dvojica prime neprijateljsku vjeru, da brane ostalu braću i rodbinu.[...]Izgleda da moji časni preci nisu bili suviše kruti što se tiče religije, a ni suviše iskreni: više ih je interesovala moguća korist, ili manja šteta, nego vjera.

And so (to come back to the origin of the family), somewhere around the beginning of the 17th century, my remote ancestor Vujović from Vranjska gathered around himself his sons, nine of them, and they agreed that two of them would convert to the enemy's religion, in order to defend their remaining brothers and relatives.[...]It appears that my honourable ancestors were not too rigid in matters of religion, nor too sincere: they were more interested in the greater advantage, or lesser harm, [to themselves], than in religion.

--Jednokratno79 (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You can assess the long-standing consensus by perusing the talk page archives, such as /Archives/2015/August, /Archives/2012/December or /Archives/2011/April which continually revolve on this same perpetual issue. MOS:OPENPARA#Context clearly states that In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or 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. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. His nationality was Yugoslav, he spent all of his life in Yugoslavia, fought in Yugoslav Partisans, and his Serb ethnic affiliation stated late in his life is not particularly relevant for his notability and opus, which mostly revolves around historical Bosnia. And English sources do not tend to refer to him as "Serbian writer" – even if you search for "Meša Selimović Serbian writer", the references include "Bosnian writer", "writer from Bosnia". No such user (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I don't really see that there is a consensus. Secondly, whether there a consensus exists or not does not say anything about its merits. If the version you reverted to really is the consensus, it is a bad consensus that is not based on sources, evidence and impartiality.

1) The policy you refer to itself leaves space for alternatives where appropriate ("most modern-day cases" - not all). Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, Poland after the partitions, the Russian Empire etc are not "most modern-day cases". They are diverse areas with multiple languages, multiple cultural traditions, multiple literary traditions. Hence the example of Sholem Aleichem. (That you did not respond to.)

2) Next, you kindly link to the article on nationality, which helpfully explains that nationality is a word with multiple meanings. Sometimes it is used to refer to ethnicity and sometimes it is used to refer to citizenship. What I am attempting is to unpack the different facets and not paper over nuances, nor elide different meanings into one.

3) The point I was making above is that the issue is only tangentially about ethnicity. It is about the cultural self-identification and belonging, which I'm sure you'll agree is relevant to an article about an author.

I belong therefore to the nation and literature of Vuk, Matavulj, Stevan Sremac, Borisav Stanković, Petar Kočić, Ivo Andrić, and I have no need to prove my deepest affinity (literally kinship) with them.

The author is declaring not just his personal identity, but to which cultural and literary tradition he belongs, emphasised by reference to a series of major figures in Serbian literature. He could have written "I am a Yugoslav author", "I am a Balkan author" etc. Yet he did not. There are ethnically Serb authors who have written in English, who do not speak Serbian and whose work is not informed by Serbian culture. In those cases, nationality/ethnicity is indeed irrelevant or merely a background curiosity. However, that is not the case here - where the author consciously, deliberately and emphatically rejects any possibility that he and his work do not constitute a part of Serbian culture.

5)

he spent all of his life in Yugoslavia, fought in Yugoslav Partisans, and his Serb ethnic affiliation stated late in his life is not particularly relevant for his notability and opus, which mostly revolves around historical Bosnia.

Again, the issue is not mere ethnic affiliation, but cultural belonging which is of course relevant when talking about an author. You also seem to imply mutual exclusivity to "historical Bosnia" and Serbian culture, which is somewhat perpelexing given the huge contributions authors from Bosnia have made to Serbian literature, including two that Selimović identifies himself with (Petar Kočić, Ivo Andrić). Also, it is not true to say he spent all of his life in Yugoslavia, given that he was born in Austria-Hungary and that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia only came to be under that name in 1929 a few months before Selimović turned 19. Also, most of the figures from the Yugoslav era are referred to in other articles as Slovenian, Croatian, Macedonian, Serbian etc not Yugoslav (another point I made above that you did not address). He was of course a Yugoslavian writer and that was noted in the version I proposed - just as it is noted that Sholem Aleichem was born in the Russian Empire, spent much of his life there, his name is given in Russian Cyrillic etc, but none of that makes him a Russian writer. This situation is largely analogous - citizenship being just one part of a more complex reality.

Furthermore, you say he stated his Serb ethnic affiliation later in life. First of all, it does not matter when he stated it, just that he stated it. Secondly, he stated it only when it became a matter of setting the public record straight. Most people do not have to pre-emptively leave a written statement so that they will not be misrepresented. Thirdly, he states in his memoirs (Sjećanja) when writing about his childhood that his father was also a Serb ("po nacionalnom osjećanju bio je Srbin"). Finally, you refer to Google. What some website you found on Google says is neither here nor there, especially when you have the author's own written statement. --Jednokratno79 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The primary meaning of "nationality" in English is "legal relationship between an individual person and a state"; as outlined in the article, "the word nationality is sometimes used to refer to an ethnic group". And the MOS, quoted above, is crystal clear that the former meaning is intended.
Now, you fail to explain why Selimović's ethnic affiliation is so important to be mentioned in the lead sentence. Articles are intended for general English-speaking public, and the duty of the lead sentence is to explain where the subject comes from. His ethnic affiliation is prominently discussed further down in the article.
Now, particularly for persons from former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, who stem from different republics now turned independent states, it is not always clear which descriptor is the most appropriate. In the majority of cases, we go with the sub-republic from where the person unambiguously belongs to. However, there are difficult cases, where an apt and neutral descriptor is tricky to get:

• Ivo Andrić, born in Bosnia to Croat parents, who was a Yugoslav diplomat and eventually identified as a Serb, is "a Yugoslav novelist"
• Goran Bregović is "Serbian and Bosnian". Here, Yugoslavia is rather inappropriate (despite his Yugoslav identification) as he's still alive and the country does not exist
• Zdravko Čolić is "Bosnian-born Serbian singer", as with Bregović
• Nele Karajlić is described as "Yugoslavian". Take what you want from this.
• Emir Kusturica is "Serbian director". No objection on my part, he's been living in Serbia for, what, 20 years now.
• Željko Bebek is a "Bosnian and Croatian singer". etc.

However, in none of these tough cases, we don't define them in terms of their ethnicity, but in term of the countries they can be most closely associated with. Deliberations about their ethnic backgrounds are left to the article body. And none of the articles goes into so much details about the ethnicity issue, except perhaps Kusturica, whose political statements have caused considerable controversy. Yet the article does note that Kusturica refused to see himself as either a Bosniak or Serb. Instead, he had continued to insist that he was simply a Yugoslav (that's from 2005, I'm not sure if it's still the case).

Now, I don't see why Selimović, who was equally subject to controversy, should be described differently. His self-identification as Serb is noted, but it does not erase the fact that he had lived in Bosnia for the larger and most productive part of his life, and his books all take place in Bosnia. Now, if we analyse reliable sources, here are the results on first two pages of google book search for "Meša Selimović writer":

• Meša Selimović (1999). The Fortress. Northwestern University Press. ISBN 978-0-8101-1713-6., back cover: "one of most significant writers to emerge from Bosnia and Herzegovina"
• Marko Živković (2011). Serbian Dreambook: National Imaginary in the Time of Milošević. Indiana University Press. p. 162. ISBN 0-253-22306-7.: "the great Bosnian writer Meša Selimović"
• Stanislav Fabic (10 January 2012). My Life on Three Continents. Xlibris Corporation. p. 208. ISBN 978-1-4691-4188-6. : "Mehmet (Meša) Selimović, a well-known Bosnian writer who grew up in Tuzla"
• D. Norris (25 August 1999). In the Wake of the Balkan Myth: Questions of Identity and Modernity. Springer. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-230-28653-5. "another Bosnian author who was about to appear in English translation; the writer Meša Selimović"
• Robert M. Hayden (2000). Blueprints for a House Divided: The Constitutional Logic of the Yugoslav Conflicts. University of Michigan Press. p. 136. ISBN 0-472-08756-8.: "novelist MeSa Selimovic, who identified himself as a Serbian writer even though he was of Muslim heritage"
• Goran Gocić (2001). Notes from the Underground: The Cinema of Emir Kusturica. Wallflower Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-903364-14-7.: A distinguished writer from Bosnia, Mesa Selimovic, announced that he was a Serb of a Muslim faith
• John Taylor (31 December 2011). Into the Heart of European Poetry. Transaction Publishers. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-4128-1221-4.: "classic Bosnian writer Mesa Selimovic"
• Fundación Jose Luis Pardo (14 October 2010). Hesperia Nº 15 Balcanes II Culturas del Mediterráneo: Especial Balcanes II. Ibersaf Editores. pp. 60–. GGKEY:G45YX28KYRU.: "prolific Bosnian writer Mehmed Mesa Selimovic (1910-1982)"

As you see, majority of sources identify him with Bosnian cultural circle, and his ethnic affiliation is only discussed in appropriate context. I don't know about Sholem Aleichem, but Yiddish is a language name, not an ethnic identification, and he lived in Russia and the U.S.

WP:AGF notwithstanding I must say that I'm uncomfortable with you choice of username (jednokratno means "one-off") and your contribution history indicates that you're here only to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No such user (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are not responding to my main point. You again focus solely on ethnicity, while ignoring the wider main point about cultural self-identification and belonging. Let me give you another example that might make the difference clearer. Sándor Petőfi is considered the national poet of Hungary (and the Hungarian language and culture). He was born as Aleksandar Petrović in a family of mixed Serb and Slovak descent i.e. he was ethnically not Hungarian. The internationally recognised state he was born in was the Austrian Empire. Yet no one would ever dispute his Hungarian self-identification and participation in Hungarian culture. Going by the logic you are forcing here, every artist in the Austrian Empire should be identified in the appropriate article introduction as an "Imperial Austrian" artist. There may be a case that could be made, but it is definitely not the currenty accepted practice across Wikipedia.

Articles are intended for general English-speaking public, and the duty of the lead sentence is to explain where the subject comes from. His ethnic affiliation is prominently discussed further down in the article.

Another case of mixing up ethnicity and cultural belonging. The author situated himself within the context of Serbian culture, deliberately and consciously. The article appears to be trying to downplay that as much as possible - it's simply a fact, that should neither be over-emphasised nor downplayed and misrepresented. So it seems obvious to me that situation him as belonging to Serbian culture and originating in Bosnia (exactly how he characterised himself) is much more accurate that simply saying he's "Yugoslav", which covers the entire area from Slovenia to Macedonia and has no nuance whatsoever. Also, as I stated above (without receiving a response), Yugoslavia came into existence a few months before Selimović's 19th birthday and no longer exists. That, in addition to his own written statement, makes the insistence that he be bluntly characterised as a Yugoslav author somewhat confusing.

You then give a list of people for whom a neutral and accurate descriptor is difficult to pin down. I agree that it can be tricky. How lucky for us, then, that the author himself left a written statement shorn of all ambiguity! You also say the situation with Selimović is "controversial". It seems that a lot of people are not happy about it and that would certainly be a interesting addition to the article - a section on the vitriolic debates about Selimović within mainstream Bosniak literary circles. But it is not controverisal at all - even people who absolutely despise Selimović do not dispute his cultural self-identification - that he affirmed in a formal written statement so that third parties would not be able to misrepresent him. As for the quotes you give from various sources, some of them refer to him as a Bosnian writer, which is of course correct in the regional sense. Some of the other quotes are written by obvious dilettantes. For example, one states "identified himself as a Serbian writer even though he was of Muslim heritage" as if this is rare, shocking or unheard of, or as if there is some essential contradiction between the two. Another identifies Selimović as a Muslim, although he was not (he was an atheist). Anyway, all of those carry very little weight when we have the author's own written statement (it's getting boring typing that out!). And on top of that, the version of the introduction I propose identifies him a being from Bosnia; the previous one does not!

Another point I apparently haven't expressed clearly (as you don't appear to respond to it) is that geographic and cultural identification do not always coincide (which is why I think it's best to include both in the introduction). Selimović is obviously a Bosnian writer. He is obviously a Yugoslavian writer. He is obviously a Balkan, European, 20th century, atheist etc writer. We can classify people in many different ways. Some classifications make more sense than others. As Selimović himself wrote: "I belong to Serbian literature, while the literary corpus of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to which I also belong, I consider only a local literary centre." Again, you seem to be holding to the unspoken premise that Serbian culture is "the culture of Serbia", when instead it includes many people who lived and worked in a Serb cultural context outside of Serbia. Selimović himself is cognizant of this when he refers to Simo Matavulj (from Dalmatia), Petar Kočić (from the Bosnian Krajina), Ivo Andrić (from central Bosnia), Stevan Sremac (from what was then the Austrian Empire).

Regarding my username, I've edited Wikipedia a little in the past. When I saw this article I wanted to correct it, and I registered an account so that I could have this discussion with anyone who deemed it necessary without my IP being public. Indeed, the reason I stopped editing Wikipedia a long time ago (which apparently is somewhat of an issue facing the project), is that the environment had became too toxic.--Jednokratno79 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)