Talk:Đorđe Novković

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ethnicity

Molim vas da prije nego sto ponovno promijenite njegovu narodnost u srpsku, da napisete referencu, tj. odakle vam to. Unaprijed hvala.

Before you change Boris' ethnicity in the article again, please cite the reference. Thanx.

place of birth

I don't think that's a different city reference in that Samobor paper, because the article just says "Šabac (BiH)", which may simply indicate that the journalist doesn't know geography. --Joy [shallot] 11:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Googling can't find a place named Šabac that's in Bosnia. It's most likely an error. --Joy [shallot]

Yeah, you're right. There's no Šabac in BiH. That's probably just jurnalist not knowing geography. --78.1.85.131 12:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic name

Evlekis wrote: replace Cyrillic. It represents where he was born, Cyrillic being the primary script of the language of the place. We don't remove the Greek script for people born if they are not ethnic Greeks

That explanation makes no sense. Firstly, we do not even know for sure that he was born in a Cyrillic-using place. Secondly, the relevance of Cyrillic might be that it's the script of his birth certificate -- and nothing else, AFAICT. Thirdly, the analogy with non-ethnic Greeks is completely unintelligible to me. --Joy [shallot] 22:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was: here on Wikipedia we give all relevant information. A non-Arab born in an Arab country, or non-Greek born in Greece or Cyprus will still primarily have their names written in Greek and the countries only accept names which are intelligible to their languages for reasons of issuing a birth certificate.
Great, so let's get back to your first sentence - what is relevant about that information, if it's not even sure that its premise is factually correct? --Joy [shallot]
The point is that a Serbian version does exist and we need to respect that this is a person born in Serbia and this is how Serbs would refer to him, as for never using Cyrillic, neither to 80% of Serbs, most would rather die than be associated with it.
Umm, what? Serbian is officially written in Latin just as it is officially written in Cyrillic. Serbs know the Serbian Latin script just like they know the Serbian Cyrillic script; there is nothing even remotely controversial about a Serb person having his name written in the Serbian Latin script.
I happen to know that there are people out there among the Serbs who are hell-bent on using the Cyrillic script everywhere. However, the English Wikipedia is not a soapbox for those. If this person has written his name in the Latin script, and condoned the use of the Latin script by others when they were writing his name, and lived in places where Latin is used by and large exclusively, then that's how the English Wikipedia should record his name, too. The article should not use a spelling that was not relevant to him. The Serbian Wikipedia article on him can do that, but in the English Wikipedia article it doesn't make sense. --Joy [shallot] 15:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But then again, being Croat and the information not being accurate that he was definitely born in Serbia, I'm happy to withdraw the Cyrillic along with his place of birth until we know better, but what I'm saying Joy, is that the two should go together on articles whether the subject is Serbian or not. Evlekis 08:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]
All right, this has gone off topic. For the time being, whilst we cannot verify whether he was born in Sarajevo or Šabac, the name will not appear in Cyrillic. I think you spoke totally against yourself in your last statements, yes Serbian has a Latin script and so does every single non-Latinic script language, obviously you won't find speakers of Hebrew or Pashto publishing texts in their transliterations, but we are not discussing whether Latinic is used in Serbian, nobody disupted that, your only argument for removing Cyrillic could be that Cyrillic is not official in Serbia; you know that this is not the case; if a language has two alphabets and it is decided that the language needs to be used for a specific purpose, then both scripts will be used, just as all of a subject's names will be given if there is more than one.
Actually, Serbian doesn't just have a Latin script as all other non-Latin script languages; it has an *official* Latin script. The Serbian linguists don't treat their Latin script as a mere transliteration, they treat it as another native script. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that this is so.)
Hence, both of the spellings are appropriate in Serbian. However, we're in English here. This English reference doesn't have to treat the two scripts as equal - it can use whichever is more appropriate in the context. And in this context, the more appropriate spelling is Latin. --Joy [shallot] 10:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now as I said, this is off-topic, but there are many non-Serbs whose names are given in Serbian Cyrillic across English language Wikipedia with the purpose being that the individual was born in Serbia.
I'm not sure which one you are referring to... do you have an example? --Joy [shallot]
Of course if one is born in India, I expect to see the name written in Hindi if nothing else. Take Burhanuddin Rabbani, an ethnic Tajik born in Afghanistan; his name is given in the Daro form with which his territory is most familiar, and not Tajiki, a seperate Persian language. You go onto his site and remove the Daro spelling on account of Daro also being ale to be written in Latinic (which it is) and being something different from Tajiki and the locals will have you blocked before you can log out. Serbian is written in two scripts, that is acceptable, so both will be used where needed; it is they who oppose this who use Wikipedia as a soapbox, they who have the alleged knowledge that a certain notable person chooses only Latinic, like those in the Turbo Folk world, well? Are we going to carry out surveys who uses which script and tie it to the relevant person? Of course not. We are not going to debate whether Cyrillic constitutes Serbian when it is the only alphabet perfectly safe to use at all times without ever being questioned or challenged. The question is whether the Serbian language is itself necessary.
I can sympathise with the argument that if Serbian uses both scripts, then in all references both have to be used. But that is a slippery slope, because you can easily add much more overhead to the English articles by doing that, without an observable benefit for the English readers.
The question whether the Serbian spelling is itself necessary has been answered in my argument as well - the spelling Đorđe Novković is used. That is the Serbian spelling (one of two possible, but one nonetheless). If we were insisting on an Anglicization, we'd be using something like Djordje Novkovic, but we're not doing that. --Joy [shallot] 10:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this is answered by asking another question: when is a language necessary for someone or something. When an object has some importance to a population for whatever reason, their language is given, when someone is born on a certain territory, that is a good enough reason to give the local language at the time of birth.
About this point, let's delve into the specific issue again - why is Cyrillic relevant if we don't have tangible evidence that he ever used it to write his name. Sarajevo, Zagreb, Rovinj - those are all places where he would have used the Latin variant almost exclusively. He most likely knew how to read and write the Cyrillic variant, yes, but why does the English article have to care about that? --Joy [shallot]
Note that Mother Teresa was born in what was then Uskub (Skopje), and I have myself removed the Cyrillic on that count (so I am not one who is hell-bent on displaying it). Teresa as you know was Albanian. Look at Vojvodina, and User:Panonian who has contributed vastly to the majority of its towns and villages has provided translations of the settlement's name in all of the official languages where there is a single speaker of that language, even where the place has a historical reason to display a certain language but there are no speakers left there.
Frankly, I think that's an exercise in futility. In most cases it makes the
lead sections of those articles so repetitive and boring, that many English readers will either skip over or even give up. We had a similar situation in the Vienna article, before someone finally decided to throw it out. --Joy [shallot
]
Many articles across Wikipedia have translations in an array of languages which would cause you to ask "why this language?" only to realise its slight significance in a single sentence half-way down the page. One needn't read too far to see ones place of birth. So this is why I will fight to the death even if it gets me thrown off Wikipedia over the removal of any language deemed necessary on any article I visit. Let the Serbs collectively decide how many alphabets they have, we are only here to provide information upon what they have decided. Evlekis 18:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

Ethnicity again

A Yugoslav and Croat of Serbian ethnicity?? What the heck is that! It's all a bit cumbersome now given that all three are technicly seperate entities. I don't mind rearranging Yugoslav to state that his work was best known in Yugoslavia, but we don't know where he was born, we're reasonably sure that he identified as Croat, so if his parents just happened to be Serb, it is probably not relevant. "Born to Serbian parents" might just suffice but that too needs evidence. So?? Now? Evlekis 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

He was an adherent of the Serbian Orthodox Church, was born in Serbia and bears a Serbian name - the Croatian variant of his name is Juraj, although some Croats have accepted the somewhat Serbian-like (serbianized?) "Djuro" or "Djura", although very rare (especially nowadays with non-existence of a Serb-Croat state). --PaxEquilibrium 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not go to the onomastics because it can't help you shit on Balkans. The fact that he is called Đorđe doesn't mean he is a Serb. But, the fact that he designated himself as a Serb can help us. Let's keep it simple. This is no Andrić situation, situation here is clear: he was born to Serb parents (maybe in Serbia, maybe in Bosnia, but not in Croatia), he moved to Croatia when he was around 30 years old, and he never publicly declared himself to be of Croat ethnicity. Plain and simple. Now, just move on, nothing to see here. --78.1.125.132 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's this about not being born in Serbia? He himself said he was born in Sabac... --PaxEquilibrium 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I heard that too. But I can't source that one out. So until we find source for that, we have a problem: all of his official biographies name Sarajevo as his birthplace. --78.0.69.42 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Joy

I find you a little hard to follow at times, I wish you'd submit a continuous text, but then it is your choice.

I find your continuous text hard to follow. Sorry :) I am trying to answer each point strictly. --Joy [shallot]

Firstly, Serbian Latinic has never to this day been equal to Cyrillic in the Republic of Serbia, nor in the standard language. Article 8 of the Serbian mirrors Article 12 of the Croatian.

Er, you're contradicting the article Serbian language, which consistently speaks of two scripts. It talks about history of inequality between them, but it doesn't extend that into the present. Perhaps you need to address that over there. (Your second sentence there is a bit broken, but I think you omitted the word "constitution". That is certainly relevant, but not necessarily authoritative on the entire language as in our context.) --Joy [shallot]

Secondly, no "Đorđe" will not suffice for the Serbian variation. It is his name, it is how he was born. "Dj" is nothing but an alternative to Đ. The spelling of his name is legitimate in any Roman script alphabet and there has been no Anglicisation of his name nor anyone elses. It doesn't even need to be; if it were not legitimate, a further character would need to be employed for romanisation purposes (such as Runic þ {th} used in an otherwise Latinic Icelandic literary language).

I do not understand the relation of the above comments to what I wrote previously...? --Joy [shallot]

Another thing, if Latinic is equal to Cyrillic, the only argument you can produce is which one comes first; something worlds away from omitting one of the alphabets. This is English language Wikipedia, and the reason for consulting a Wikipedia is to develop knowledge on a subject; it is not for the reader to decide how things should be, it is for the informed editor who is providing the information.

Developing knowledge certainly is the purpose of an encyclopedia. But I fail to see how we are helping the reader gain any knowledge by adding a barely used Cyrillic version of a name into the English text. Yes, it's another factoid, but an encyclopedia is more than a sum of factoids. If the reader wishes to acquire more knowledge, they can go about clicking through and find the same information (that is, they can find the page about the alphabet within a few clicks). If you just throw more and more factoids at them wherever possible, that makes it more likely that the reader will start discarding information as superfluous. --Joy [shallot] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that Latinic is more appropriate for one, so does that mean Cyrillic is more appropriate for someopne else? If so then for whom? And why?

Perhaps a person who used it consistently, and references to whom have been mostly in Cyrillic? I'm sure there are numerous examples of people who lived in Cyrillic-using places (like Serbia), who regularly signed their names like that, etc. In such cases, if a reader was looking up the name in that form, the inclusion of that form in here would help search engines lead them here.
But in this case, that seems fairly unlikely. A Google search for '"Ђорђе Новковић" -wikipedia' turns up only seven hits; a search for '"Đorđe Novković" -wikipedia' turns up 212,000. This person simply doesn't appear to be commonly referred to by the Cyrillic spelling of his name. --Joy [shallot]

Young Serbs barely use Cyrillic, is there any officialdom which constitutes importance? Or simply how a man wishes to write? His name is Djordje because that is what his parents called him, is he known as Juraj to all other Croats? If so Joy - you simply provide your sources, go back to the text, re-edit it writing "Juraj", known in Serbian as Djordje etc. and even then you parenthesise Cyrillic because you have chosen to give the Serbian variation. If you really believe for some reason that Serbian language doesn't matter, then that is a seperate issue, but whilst you give Serbian on Wikipedia, a language with two standard alphabets, you give both variations.

So you do believe that there are two standard alphabets, as in, both of them are equally standard? Okay, that's fine, but please be consistent, the remark about the official use threw me off. --Joy [shallot]

I don't bloody know whether Nemanja Vidić or Miodrag Stojković use Cyrillic or Latinic, for all I know one might be illiterate and the other might write in Arabic shorthand whilst swearing that it is a form of Serbian, it is his choice. Their names are both given in Cyrillic. What I do know is that just about anywhere you look on Wikipedia, Serbian translations or source names are given in both alphabets and there should be no exceptions, and "what ones simply prefers" does not, I am afraid, amount to a reason. Does Jozsef Kasza require the Serbian language when talking to other members of the Hungarian language community? He not only writes the word "Hello, how are you?" in the Roman alphabet, he even goes as far as to spell it "Szervusz, hogy van?", in other words, he uses Hungarian with his kith and kin. But he has a reason to be listed in Serbian, and as such both of his spellings are given.

Well, I have two responses to this...
Firstly, Wikipedia in itself is not necessarily a good primary source. What you are seeing can be the result of diligence of just a single editor. It would be more appropriate if you provided information on some external publication which does the same.
Secondly, in case of those three people, all were born and raised (schooled) in Serbia, and the Cyrillic spelling of their names has a modicum of relevance for all of them simply because they are directly related to the said environment where Cyrillic is used.
--Joy [shallot]

Pax believes that Novkovic has Serbian parents, but I say that if Novkovic identified as Croat, then whilst he may have been born in Bosnia, he does not require Cyrillic. But if it ever becomes certain that he was born in Serbia, then Cyrillic will be engraved onto his name, if you wish to reproduce his Latinic name on your argument that Serbian has two alphabets, then be my guest, I won't touch it, but whilst his title name (though not Anglicised) does not give the Cyrillic, it will be required. If the municipality of Valjevo publishes its literature in Latinic, that is not a licence for taking out its Cyrillic on the article. Serbian has two scripts, so both should be used when demonstrating to outsiders how ones name is written in that language: otherwise, let one publish his own biographies instead. Evlekis 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

Actually, Cyrillic is facing dying out in the Serbian-speaking areas. It's alive amongst the Bosnian Serb community (to which Djordje Novkovic belonged), e.g. in the Serbian Republic, but that's just because it's being enforced - but in Montenegro practically everyone wrote in Cyrillic up to just a few years ago and today practically everyone uses Latin and Cyrillic has been practically pushed out of usage (very bizarre...). In Serbia Cyrillic is practically equal to Latin - as nowadays even the conservative part of Serbia endorses both, while *just Cyrillic* is usually tied to the Serbian Radical Party, and that mostly. In the past few years hoards of non-governmental organization have been founded with the sole purpose to propagate the preservation of the "endangered" Cyrillic script and campaigning for its survival is strong. However, with the bringing of the new Constitution of Serbia, Cyrillic became the sole official script in the Republic of Serbia and has been completely pushed out of the state media and the administration. I think this will counter the reaction - but only to that extent that the two will remain practically equal (just due to different political situation and ruling ideologies in Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina). --PaxEquilibrium 20:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, it's not really correct to say that Đorđe Novković belonged to the Bosnian Serb community, when he didn't live there for most of his life nor did he appear to maintain substantial connections with that community; in fact, he seems to have violated various customs that are nowadays associated with said community, what with all the corny Croatian patriotic lyrics and whatnot... but anyway. --Joy [shallot] 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see it's calmed down a bit here. Would anyone object to the removal of "Yugoslav" from the intro, will "Croat to Serb parents whose work was known across Yugoslavia etc" be all right? Joy? Pax? Views? Evlekis 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

If he never expressed his serbdom out loud, i believe we shouldn't write he was serb. Make an arcticle without making it related to ethnicity. Just put that he's composer who worked in former Yugoslavia and Croatia. Keep Serbian Cyrllic since his parents, or at least, his father was an serbian orthodox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.106.198 (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Đorđe_Novković&oldid=1213682817"