Talk:Vlaho Bukovac

The lead

@Shokatz: 1) No ethnicity is allowed in the lead. 2) There was no state of Croatia during his life, which you well know, that can not be an argument. 3) Do stop pushing your POV, you have no arguments. 4) He can still be Croatian, Yugoslav and whosever painter, regardless of the lead. What is your reason for edit warring, please? ty Sadko (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

1. There is no ethnicity in the lead. 2. Wrong. There was Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) that was later reformed into Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (officially known as Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia 3. Bold statement for someone deleting sourced content and making unfounded claims and historical fallacies. 4. That is besides the point. What is your reason for edit warring? Shokatz (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

1) I guess that Bukovac is not an ethnic Croat? :) 2) That kingdom on paper was a dependancy (with Austrian/Hungarian overlords and a smaller local-scale executive power), not an independent state. That is a fact. Dependencies are not eligible for the lead, which you well know. 3) Sources or not, it is off the point in this case. Nobody is saying that he is not Croatian painter (and Yugoslav for that matter), the lead is plain wrong and sources are not per context. The same way Koča Popović could be declared a Serbian politcian, which is just incorrect and not per Wiki rules. Sadko (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

1. It doesn't matter what his ethnicity was or what he considered himself, what matters is how modern historiography views him and that is as a Croatian painter. 2. Again, this doesn't matter as it refers to modern-day Croatia. Plus your views whether something is or is not eligible is irrelevant. 3. It is not "off the point" it is in fact a standard form for the lead. I am not interested in your escapades. Leonardo da Vinci was born 15th century and is still described by all (including Wikipedia) as an "Italian" despite the fact no Italy existed until 1861 at all unlike Croatia which did exist. Now the fact that you are going around Wikipedia and removing mention of Croatia from the articles (sourced content) is a big red flag and I am telling you now that all these articles fall under WP:ARBEE sanctions and can result in your perma ban if you continue. Shokatz (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a big NO, you are ignoring arguments given by other fellow editors, ignoring basic Wiki rules. There was no state of Croatia in that time and referring to a modern-day country in that manner is not only against Wiki rules but also ignorant. I do not see a need for pushing one nation's POV nor am I in a plot against Vlaho Bukovac. I made a version of the lead which said a painter from modern-day Croatia. What is the problem with that? I am not deleting anything out of my whim, but per Wiki rules, facts and references. If you have anything which is irregular - you are most welcom to file a proper report. Da Vinci is not an argument, it is a totaly diferent scenario (Italian man in Italian state), but ty for trying. It is not about just putting any sources which would work for the version which is one user's liking, but making a stable NPOV lead, which was done for Gundulić and other articles. Your edits are disruptive, than I can say. I assumed good faith and did not report you for 3RR. Your imagination works wildly; I guess that you imagine me as a a great big evil Greater Serbian agent working from a dark dungeon. Nothing new under the Sun. Those insinuations are not only incorrect but hateful and offensive. The fact that you are still reverting the article with ongoing discussion is saying a lot. One more thing, "ban threatning" is not a good way to go with users in general and it can easily lead to a boomerang reaction. Maybe @Surtsicna: would like to give a comment on this? Sadko (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything. I am going by sourced content and it is well sourced that the person in question is described as "Croatian painter", exact words in several sources. Not "painter from modern-day Croatia" or whatever version you want to push for whatever reason. So to make a counter-question: what exactly is YOUR problem with that? And I have come up on similar case on Ivan Gundulić where you did exactly the same as you did here...removing sources which mention the person in the article as "Croatian" which leads me to an obvious conclusion...how such an obvious fact can be described as "insinuation" and "incorrect, hateful and offensive" is beyond me. Now the only fact I haven't reported you, not only for 3RR but for blatant vandalism and edit-warring (especially on mentioned Ivan Gundulić article) is my good faith and the fact I am hoping you will stop with this nonsense. Shokatz (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor Sadko is absolutely correct in pointing out that this type of labels does not belong to the leading paragraph in the articles (WP:LEAD), and especially in these cases, when it comes to people whose nationality and/or ethnicity cannot be absolutely ascertained without primary sources. If you can summon @Surtsicna: all the better, but this is not a problematic thing to edit-war about. If secondary sources refer to a subject as "Croat", and he can also obviously be Italian, that should be part of "biography" subsection.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you both go and read MOS:OPENPARABIO. Shokatz (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, and what is the "(C)ontext (location or nationality)", exactly ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The locality (country or nation) with which the said person is associated with. I.e. in this case the said person is associated with Croatia and is thus described as Croatian. It may be applied even anachronistically...see Leonardo da Vinci and many other numerous examples. In short it is a standard form of opening paragraph and furthermore prescribed per MOS:OPENPARABIO. Shokatz (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

He worked and lived in Croatia for just a few years, that is per this very article and bios all over the web. Considering that he was a painter of the court of Karađorđević dynasty, by using the same logic given above, he could be called Yugoslav or even a Serbian painter.

We could use that "logic" if that "logic" had NPOV sources claiming he was Serbian or Yugoslav, yet we don't. Literally every source there is describes him as "Croatian". Period. There is no contention at all. Shokatz (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be 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. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

And this is relevant for this discussion how? Shokatz (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There was no independent Croatia at the time and no Croatian citizenship (only the one of Hungarian/Austrian overlords who pretty much held all the power, including the budget). The same way Zrinski can not be called Croatian in the lead and the man is a Croat hero. It is not that complicated. Sadko (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

First, it doesn't matter whether Croatia was independent or not. It's not a merit for anything. Second, there was in fact Croatian citizenship both within the Habsburg Monarchy and later within Austria-Hungary. Passport of Nikola Tesla f.e.. And BTW all members of the Zrinski family are described as Croatian in their opening paragraph...so I am not sure wth are you talking about. In any case we (and least you) are not here to reinterpret the Wikipedia rules as we see fit and what agenda they can suit us at any given moment....we are to follow MOS:OPENPARABIO and the sources provided. Tbh there is nothing here really to be discussed as this is a fabricated non-issue heavily contaminated by your POV-pushing agenda. Shokatz (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

How is quoted portion of MOS guideline, which you put forward as your main argument in the first place, relevant for this discussion ?! Are you saying that now suddenly isn't relevant anymore? You must be joking, right, you must be pulling our legs !?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, on the point. By the way, that "passport" is acctually Austro-Hungarian, it just happen to have the name of Croatia in one part of it, the same was done for other royal domains. A name does not make a state. And yes, it is very relevant if a country of the name existed with full sovereignty, the same way that people from colonial Africa are not Nigerian (or any other modern-day country). This is a fine example - Yaa Asantewaa.

Once again, please:

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be 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. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Sadko (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed relevant. What is not relevant is your dubious interpretation of it which has nothing to do with the actual guideline. Shokatz (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to define a person by the constituent state with which the person is associated. It would not be against MOS:CONTEXTBIO to define Austrians, Bohemians, Croatians, Dalmatians, and other citizens of Austria-Hungary as such, just like it would not be against MOS:CONTEXTBIO to define a person from the Socialist Republic of Serbia as Serbian - despite Serbia being only a constituent state of Yugoslavia at the time. That said, in this case, I believe the subject should be defined as an Austro-Hungarian painter due to his connection to other parts of Austria-Hungary, namely Dalmatia (where he was born and where he painted for a few years) and Bohemia (where he spent the last 20 years of his life and career). Those are my two cents. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Defining him as anything but Croatian (as per overwhelming number of sources) would be borderline WP:OR, so no, let's not. Furthermore for almost first and half decade of his life he would be national of Austrian Empire as Austria-Hungary did not exist until 1868. From 1918 he would be a national of Yugoslavia (Kingdom of SHS more correctly) while having residence in Czechoslovakia, however he was, is and will be noted (see part on MOS for notability) as a Croatian painter and the current version has been in the article for years now and as long as I can have something to say about it we will follow the sources not someone's personal estimate or POV. Shokatz (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this helps discussion a bit about him being Croatian painter. When invited to exibit in Venice 1897, he conditioned that under his work was to be inscription - Croatia. Interview with Igor Zidić. [1]

Već su ga 1897. godine pozvali da izlaže na Biennalu u Veneciji, a on je postavio uvjet da ispod njegova rada stoji natpis - Croatia.

Already in 1897 he was invited to exhibit at the Venice Biennale, and he laid down the condition that under his work was the inscription - Croatia.

103.246.36.73 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It is of no help, but thank you for trying. I shall change the lead one of these days. We clearly have no consensus here. My idea is to write this new version here and to together try and come up with a solution. Sadko (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The painter may have described themselves as Croatian nationality wise, but his ossport would Austro-Hubagrian Croatian. This is how passports were done with situations like Kingdom of Croatian, a recognized Kingdom in Austria Hungary. Also Sadko why restore “Italian” family” when he is clearly of Italian and Croatian descent? Nor is his family from Italy but Dalmatia. This can come across almost as de-Croatification.I also suggest the IP explain their edits on the talk page. As I have seen this same song and dance edit wars on this pge in recent past OyMosby (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1) Major hounding. Added to the list. 2) First of all, painters who worked for members of any royal family were considered to be elite of their craft of the time. That is of great note and reference and if anybody things otherwise - they are fooling themselves. Lead should give all the relevant information about painter's life, and painting for 3 royal dynasties is very much important. 3) The real reasons why the IP is removing it is because members of those 3 dynasties were Serbs, which is a major WP:NATIONALSIT editing. 4) I have already asked for protection, if this continues I'll ask for arbitration and let's see if painting for 3 courts is irrelevant for the lead that is - if it's not a major event in 19/20th century painter's life. 12:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally said I am familiar with this article and talk page in the past. You are accusing me of hounding (over one recent article) when I have been on this article (have it saved as I planned to add more down the line) before? This one article you edited on recently? Yeah, I’ll add that to my list then. Stop accusing and learn to talk with people. Why not be civil? Unless you are referring to not mw but someone else then disregard my interpretation and apologies. I had agreed in my reply with you about the nationality/ethnicity issue so don’t understand what I did wrong. I did not support the IP edits but did the opposite. Removed Croatian for example as there was no separate state. The painting for the dynasties is in the article.

Also being well educated on lead not having ethnicity why add back Italian background? “Italian family” disregarded his half Croat background? I’ll mention Santasa99}} as they dealth with that conversation on this page in earlier months agreeing “Croatian” is wrong. I didn’t remove the paintings to the dynasties from the lead. When I was here the lead had two sentences and was changed a bunch of times with various versions so I returned it to the long standing stable version month ago. He is most known internationally for his French painting. Also is his Czech membership not as valid as his Serbian to the Academy? Academic like Eclectic pipe to the explanation articles. Notice how I changed it to Austro Hungarian not “Croatian” painter???? Christ sake. By all means report me and being in arbitration, I welcome it, friend. :) OyMosby (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see no prior edits and I keep my right to suspect. For example [2] That is off-topic. If you did edit the article before, I am willing to say that I am sorry.

We do agree that the intro. was not per MOS:LEAD and I am fine with your edit.

The reply was also for the IP editor/s, of course.

I'm not sure that he is best-know for his French painting. Do we have more sources for that?

Well, the way I see it, and I might be wrong, is that if he is a full member of SANU and that makes him an academic, if he is a corresponding or honorary member, then he should be in the lead as - corresponding or honorary member of this or that academy. That is the practice where I worked at least, it may not be the same case in the US, UK or other countries.

Do you agree that the info about painting for the royal dynasties is relevant for the lead? I think that something about his work as university professor is also of relevance. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You have undone me in numerous articles same “right to suspect” can apply. I was looking into editor Ahmet Q. and saw the edit he made in the article which was almost a thousand characters and wanted to look more closely. I saw you reverted him but didn’t see the reason why. I didn’t edit but I said I follow this article and followed months prior the conversation that went on earlier. So it’s in my watch list as I was planning to add in the future. If I was hounding you I would be on multiple articles right after you edit? Otherwise can I not edit and article you recently edited? Come on now this is off topic and undue. We both edit the same part of Wikipedia. Notice I removed the IP’s blanking and MOSLEAD violation..... I have no issues with listing othwr works auchas his work for the dynasties. We have non source he is internationally known for them but seems fine to me. Would even add his contribution to Czech and Zagreb Theater paintings. He was involved in many major projects due to his talent and style. Une fleur And Croatian National Revival and Mrs. LeDoux are notable works of his that were listed. This is different than being hired to paint for Serbian Dynasties. But we can list if are considered specific paintings of Dynasty royals or diplomats, we can add that to the infobox. Just a matter of diving into news articles and books about him. A project over time as was the plan while back as I got tied up and adhd lost track. OyMosby (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not object to any part of your comment. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Glad to here and I am happy to work with you on the article. As for the IP have you filed a report to have them blocked? They seem unwilling to go to the talk page as I asked of them.....OyMosby (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Me as well. I've added the info. about his work in MNE. I have requested protection for now and a report would help little because they'll just change their IP. In any case, I rarely report any editors directly, that is the last option for me, after other options do not work at all.

The lead seems fine. Maybe we should change Serbian academy to "Serbian royal academy" and Croatian academy to "Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts" because those were the original names, while piping to the modern-day names/articles. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I see about the IP. As for naming the artist is still listed under those institutions correct? For Czech as well. So Modern naming should suffice. Also for Croatia it was in 1905 I think so it would predate Yugoslavia also they had their own institutions so not sure why changebit to Yugoslav Academy of Sciences. In fact then both Serbian and Croatian would be Yugoslavian going by this rational as he was Yugoslavia existed in his last days.Per a source you added From 1919 he was an honorary member of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts for all regions. I’ll have to see how the sources label itOyMosby (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So apparently this is still an issue, as I reverted an edit that stuffed an apparent primary source referring to the topic of the article speaking Serbian. A quick search of https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Vlaho+Bukovac%22+Serbian doesn't seem to produce corroboration for this, but isn't equivocal in designating him as Croatian either, so there has be a more nuanced way to present this information than this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)