Talk:Josif Pančić

information from the source

• @Theonewithreason:Reedit of editor Sadko[1].

• This is information from the source and in the article does not write "origin" of Josif Pančić. Consensus is reached when we edit article. Everything is explained to you in edit summary, ie if something is wrong with the source you have WP:RSN. Information from the source "Croat from a distinctly Croatian region", I do not know what I should write to quote this information. If in the source must state that he is of Croatian origin then we must apply this rule in all articles. Information from Goran Bregović article (Born in Sarajevo, PR Bosnia-Herzegovina, FPR Yugoslavia to a Croat father Franjo Bregović and Serb mother Borka Perišić,) in the sources does not write that his parent are Serb or Croat origin, etc, etc articles. These sources just say Croat or Serb as in this case. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Where does it says "Croat from a Croatian region" ? In a political speech which btw gives numerous factual errors? Like senior editor wrote it needs to be said in his biography with sources not in political speech by some person. I don't see anywhere that the author of the text says that he was born a Croat or that he mentions his ethnic origin, and btw as I can see when you edited this few months ago there was also a mention with sources that he was born in Serb or Bunjevac family, so it can be that the editor Sadko acted per WP:GOODFAITH, but I am not going to write in their name, since you called them let them answer it. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you don't understand? Information from the source, page 100: "Rođen Hrvat iz izrazito hrvatskog kraja", on je sav svoj naučni rad razvio u Srbiji...Born Croat from a distinctly Croatian region he developed all his scientific work in Serbia". I entered information from the source into the article. This information has consensus and I don't know what else I should do. Not every source says that someone is Croat or Serb by origin. If you think that this should be the case then you will support me in other articles when we remove together Serb or Croat mention because the sources in many cases does not say and "origin". WP:GOODFAITH and edit of editor Sadko has nothing to do with my edit and information from the source, because editor Sadko saw that it was information from RS but he was reedit my information and I respect his edit. In any case, we must respect information from the source. Mikola22 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a quote from a source or biography or from a person who gave a political speech? It is second, there is a huge difference. It would be the same thing if someone would write an article about Obama and quote politician like i.e. Trump who comes and in his speech says "Barack Obama is Kenyan born in Africa" and then we post an article as RS use this as reference without posting who said it and in which context even though contrary to his claims (that he used few times) there are sources which prove that he wasn't, in this source the author himself doesn't say anything about his ethnicity or he quotes a source that claims that, he posted a speech from a politician who gives a speech regarding 200 years of his birth, that same politician is also quite bias by saying that "Pancic contributed a lot to Croatian culture and a little bit to Serbian" how come when he dedicated his life work by exploring flora in Serbia and not in Croatia. We are talking here about botany, a specific science. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This is information from the source on the occasion of the birth anniversary of Josip Pančić. Which political speech? The professor("Ivan Barbarić, Grižane, profesor povijesti u mirovini..Ivan Barbarić, Grižane, retired history professor"[2]) in scientific work talks about Josip Pančić. If something is problematic you have WP:RSN, until then we must respect information from source. Which biography? Do you read Wikipedia articles? Where is the biography sources in Zlatan Ibrahimović, Goran Bregović, Dražen Petrović, Svetozar Boroević etc, etc articles? Which politician? I don't know what you're talking about? You cannot remove information from quality sources because of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Mikola22 (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Typical WP:GAMING and you're acting like nobody can read the source. This is not a quote from professor Ivan Barbaric (btw no PHD) the author of the text but from Antun Barac when he was giving a speech regarding the anniversary. In the article the author writes that Barac in his speech says... and then there is a whole page of his speech. So you are not quoting the author of the text or the source in biography ,you are quoting the speech from Barac. Read what I wrote about Obama Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And who says it is a quality source, most of it is just copy paste from other sources which just proves that there are known information, added speech is just an opinion of one person. We can then equally use other sources to confirm what is already known and exists in text. But in every other source this speech does not exists, there is no quotation from some neutral international source who confirms that or which took this speech because it taught that it is relevant. Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Source is from Ivan Barbarić and information is from academic dr. Antun Barac and speech from 1954 where the Serbian academic also participated. They are not politicians they are academics. I am quoting a speech which exists in the source, this speech is from academic. For many people exist information's that someone is Serb or Croat and information is from some anonymous journalist. This information is from public speech on the occasion of the unveiling of his monument. This speech is information which exist in RS. If there is a problem with that there is RSN where that question can be asked. If you do not know how to ask that question, then I will ask. ("And who says it is a quality source"), I see hundreds of such sources but information's from such sources exists in the articles and cannot be removed without checking if they are RS or not(unless there are some other problems). Do you know how Wikipedia works? Mikola22 (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No consensus is not reached "when we edit an article" it is reached if either A. an edit is made and in not reverted in a relatively short space of time. B. People object on the talk page.

Then you discuss it until you have consensus, on the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you btw I support the state of the article after your edit. Meaning at 10:29 27.12. [[3]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "an edit is made and in not reverted in a relatively short space of time", yes this is case wit this information, it is reverted and reedit at the same time, and from then is in the article. Mikola22 (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

So we now discuss it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with Mikola22 there had been numerous edits in last few days [[4]], including this info and from more than one editor, so consensus is not reached, it would be good to see opinions from other editors who were part of reedits. Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree there is no consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: for what in this case we need consensus? Mikola22 (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreement to add it. Please read wp:consensus and wp:ONUS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand? Which agreement to add it? This is information from the source, if source is not reliable and this will now be determined on RSN, then this information cannot be part of the article. I do not know what agreement has with some information from the source. This is important information which should and must be part of the article, if this information is fringe information then it must be determined on FTN. If in the source needs to be written "origin" fact then we will apply this to all articles and not just to this one. And that's it, everything else in this specific case is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and that cannot be part of the consensus. If this information or source had a problem it would already been established somewhere. It started when information's that he was a Serb or Bunjevac was deleted or disputed, but what that has to do with this information? Mikola22 (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It is simple. Since there have been numerous edits in last few days and some editors removed this information (like the editor with long name and User Aeegnath too, so not just me) we need to reach a consensus should this info be part of the article, same goes for other informations since they were reedit multiple times too.Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Its simple enough. Being in an RS is not a guarantee of inclusion, you must make a case its needed (see [wp:undue]] for example), its is down to you to make the case, and convince other editors. When (and if) you get that agreement it can be added. You have been here long enough to know that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I know that, but everything started with Serb or Bunjevac issue, when someone remove this information as well. That's not how it's done. This is the highest quality source available so far. If in many articles exist information's from various newspapers and internet portals then here may be information from scientific paper as well. If this is not important information for the article then I don’t know which information to put in the article at all. Otherwise what undue has with this information? Explain me in more detail, thanks.

• If you two don't think that this is important information then say it clearly here and when some other editors come here who don't think as you two then we will return this information to the article. And that's it. Let's move on to new victories. Mikola22 (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I gave my opinion above and wrote that I support current state of the article [[5]], mostly because there are different sources that claim different, not all of them were marked unreliable so WP:UNDUE Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK problems with the suggested text.

A:"Some sources claim that he was born as a Croat.", no, one source (the speech) does. The book may (or it may just be referring to the speech). Thus this would need to be attributed " Antun Barac claims that he was born as a Croat.". B: wp:undue and wP:fringe, this is one speech and one book, it may not be enough to give it weight for more than one line, in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A) My first edit was "He was Born as Croat in a distinctly Croatian region" while editor Sadko reedit this information to "Some sources claim that he was born as a Croat". I think that in this case information "Antun Barac claims that he was born as a Croat" is fine but an "academic" should be added. Also he speak(information from the source, page 100) on behalf of the Yugoslav Academy in Zagreb (today the Croatian Academy, HAZU) So that could be added as well.

B) As for fringe issue, Croatian Encyclopedia say that he is of Croatian origin[ https://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=46390]. Regarding undue issue, information that he is Bunjevac is from source which is not RS(Serbian genetic portal Poreklo) while Serbian origin fact is from old source from 1930 with title "O poreklu Bunjevaca..About the origin of Bunjevci", this source is not publicly available and verifiable but the source probably consider that all Bunjevci are Serbs(including a large number of Croats), considering that this book is from year 1930 and the thesis itself I think the source is not reliable. That's why I'm saying that so far we have one quality source in the article and this is not undue problem. Mikola22 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Then we leave it all out and say only what his nationality was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Senior editor Slatersteven, there is also this source that claims that he is Serb [[6]] which only confirms uncertainty about his ethnicity, so in case of Josif Pancic we should leave it all out. Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

One source mentions that he is Croat and we also have and this source "Savremenik, Opseg 13, publisher: Knijiževne novine, 1967 ("Književne novine su srbijanski časopis za književnost i kulturna pitanja. Osnivač i izdavač je Udruženje književnika Srbije.."Književne novine is a Serbian magazine for literature and cultural issues. The founder and publisher is the Association of Writers of Serbia") and information: page 180, (Prvi biolog koji se bavio filozofskim pitanjima bio je Josip Pančić(1814-1888) porijeklom Hrvat...The first biologist which deal with philosophical issues was Josip Pančić (1814-1888), a Croat origin) [7]. We must respect what the sources say. Mikola22 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Another magazine, like this one that claims that he is a Serb [[8]] it all comes down to reaching a consensus.Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Given that his ethnicity and ethnic background are disputed we leave it out, we just say where he was born, and what nationality he was.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed per Slatersteven Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Where it is visible, that this is disputed? Another source: Autobiografija i drugi spisi(Autobiography and other writings), Jovan Cvijić, Srpski knjiž. zadruga, 1965, in Serbian, page 360, "Јосип Панчић пореклом Хрват.. Josip Pančić Croat by origin" [9]. Another source: O filozofiji kod Srba(About philosophy among Serbs), 1997, Dragan M. Jeremić, page 86, in Serbian, "Јосип Панчић пореклом Хрват...Josip Pančić Croat by origin". [10] Another source: Дијалектика, Универзитет у Београду, 1971, (Dialectic, University of Belgrade, 1971,) page 135, in Serbian, "Naročito Hrvat Josip Pančić koji je bio prvi predsednik Srpske akademije nauka..Especially the Croat Josip Pancic, who was the first president of the Serbian Academy of Sciences" [11] Another source: Ivan Čolović (srbijanski etnolog-antropolog i pisac...Serbian ethnologist-anthropologist and writer) and Aljoša Mimica(Serbian sociologist), Druga Srbija(Another Serbia) 1992, page 120, in Serbian, ("Prvi predsednik akademije nauka bio je Hrvat Josip Pančić..The first president of the Academy of Sciences was the Croat Josip Pančić") [12]. Therefore, very valuable information which deserves be part of the article, it is confirmed information from multiple sources and we must respect that. And who created the artificial undue problem putting some information from not reliable sources promoting his alleged Serbian origin has nothing to do with these sources which talk about Josip Pančić. Mikola22 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well two users have so far produced sources both claiming he was one thing or the other, thus it is disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Show me which sources, page, and what the sources say? Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As I have not seen the sources I can't. but I have to take another user's word they have unless I have very good reason to assume otherwise.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: therefore these sources and information do not exist, please stop creating artificial undue problem. I ask all included editors to respect information which has been confirmed in multiple sources and to stop playing with Wikipedia. We can't make Serbs out of all Croats. Let's have a little good faith in article editing. Mikola22 (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well some of them have actually been linked to, so they do exist (also read wp:agf, right now you are accusing another user of lying, and that is a wp:pa). You want sources that say he was a serb?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Serb origin, porijeklom Srbin, српског порекла, show me, so far I haven't searched for it on google. Where it says so? You check first. Mikola22 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Do any none Croation RS say he was Croatian?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well there was this source that other editors used and it was part of the article and it says he is a Serb [[13]] it is even written in english, just to disprove the theory that this sources don't exist Theonewithreason (talk) 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I exposed them above, Serbian sources in Serbian languages, ie some from Yugoslavia in Serbian language. Mikola22 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

So? Your sources are all in Croatian, does that mean the other user can reject them? This is why I say emove it, I have no idea which side is accurate, and which side is just pushing a nationalist POV. So unless third party (I.E. neither Serbian or Croatian sources) make the claim I would say neither sides should get any coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I am with fellow editors Slatersteven and Theonewithreason on this one. All other versions make less sense. I can also see a lot of WP:GAMING in this discussion... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I will add, what does it add to the article that tells us anything about him or his work? Why do we need to know this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

One more source, and this is from Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, year 1965, page 19 (Јосип Панчић, Хрват из Угрин-села код Брибира y хрватскоm приморјy...Josip Pančić, a Croat from Ugrin-selo near Bribir on the Croatian Littoral) [14] Mikola22 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)