Jump to content

Talk:Josif Pančić/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Origin

Since I last checked, the origin of his family changed to "Serbian/Bunjevac", but without explanation, and made by an anonymous editor. What is the source for this? The Pančić family from Bribir was Serbian? --Joy [shallot] 20:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I googled a bit and found that several sources (although many of them were anonymous posts on forums) refer to Pančić as a Bunjevac, so I'll put that in. But I still don't see a Serbian connection. He is mentioned in the context of Jelačić and Matoš, and I've seen no mention of other Bunjevci from that region or time period who were reported as of Serbian ethnic origin. --Joy [shallot] 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbian-Bunjevac doesn't exist. It's a fiction, made by Serbian nationalists. "Bunjevac" is a Catholic Croatian from Eastern Slavonia. Bribir is at the sea. Josip was born in Croatian Catholic family. He was a CROAT. Not a Bunjevac, not a Serb. He married a Serbian girl, and became an Orthodox Christian, because of love (!), and changed his name to JosiF (Serbian name equal to Croatian JosiP). He was the first president of the Serbian Academy, and you can clearly see that this is the reason why Serbian nationalists can't accept the fact that he was a Croat. They call him "Bunjevac" and even "Serbian", but that's far from the truth. I hope you won't let the nationalists to "write the history".

I have found that Pancic was of Bunjevac origin. Bunjevci are a Catholic people living in Vojvodina province of Serbia. Some of them declare as Croats, while there are some who declare as Catholic Serbs (Serbs are usually Orthodox), or a separate Bunjevac ethnic group. The Croatian side considers Bunjevci executively as Croats, while Serbian side generally accepts them as a separate people (and Serbs are nationalists, sure!). Later Pancic declared as Serb and accepted Serbian Orthodoxy. Now, he was of Bunjevac origin (wasn't he?), no matter are Bunjevci actually Croats or a separate people. That's why I changed "Catholic Croatian family" to "Catholic Bunjevac family". Now I see it is Croatian again (so, Serbs are nationalists?). Can you make some proofs that he was not Bunjevac, but a pure Croat? --Djordje D. Bozovic 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Vidim da se zoves Djordje, pa cu ti pisati na nasem jeziku, laksemi je. Nisam nacionalist, niti smatram sve Srbe nacionalistima - ne generaliziram i nisam sovinist. Molim Te, ne stavljaj mi "rijeci u usta". Josip-Josif Pančić je rođen u zaselku Ugrini blizu Bribira, što je blizu Novog Vinodolskog. Ta se regija (od Rijeke do Paga) tada i danas zove Hrvatsko Primorje. Školovao se u Bribiru, Gospiću, Rijeci, a studirao u Pešti. Dakle, rođen je u katoličkoj obitelji u Hrvatskoj. Pa što je onda bio? Bunjevac? Bunjevci u Hrvatskom primorju? Zar Bunjevci nisu u Vojvodini? Ja smatram, i uvjeren sam duboko u to, da je Pančić rođen kao Hrvat katolik. On je to stvarno i bio. ALI, ovime ja ne smanjujem njegovo "srpstvo" i "pravoslavlje". Srbija i srpski narod bili su njegov drugi dom, njegov narod, njegova druga domovina. Ima li išta bolje od toga, da čovjek može imati dvije domovine koje jednako voli? Ono što ja smatram u vezi tog njegovog navodnog "Bunjevstva" je ovo: srpskim nacionalistima (dakle, nacionalistima, ne svim Srbima, ne većini Srba) prvi predsjednik Srpske akademije ne može nikako biti Hrvat. Oni mogu prihvatiti da je bio katolik, ali nek je onda Bunjevac. Samo da nije Hrvat. Bunjevci kao nacija ne postoje. Ali, to je druga i jako duga priča. Oprosti ako ovo vrijeđa tvoje uvriježeno mišljenje, ali ja sam duboko uvjeren u to. "Katolički Bunjevci iz Hrvatskog primorja" - e, to je bila najslabija karika u ovoj maloj srbizaciji Josifa Pančića. Evo, našao sam na jedom srpskom sajtu da je u Srbiju stigao u 32. godini života. Pa ti zaključi što god želiš. Uistinu ne želim poticati nacionalnu netrpeljivost. Ono što bi mi bilo drago jest da Srbi i Hrvati prihvate da se može biti Srbin na kojeg je ponosna Hrvatska (npr. Tesla) i da se može biti Hrvat na kojeg je ponosna Srbija (npr. Pančić). Politička nacionalistička podmetanja mi idu na živce. Jednako hrvatiziranje Tesle i anti-hrvatiziranje Pančića. Marko Puljak

Pravo govoriš. Ja ne znam sigurno da li je Pančić doista bio Bunjevac. Ja sam samo taj podatak pronašao, te ga stavio u članak. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pančić was a Bunjevac and here is a quote. Dr Jovan Erdeljanović, On the origin of Bunjevci, Belgrade 1930 is arguably the most serious study on the Bunjevci ever done, written by one of the most distinguished ethnologists of early 20th c. The book is written with numerous sources (as you will see later) and with material gathered in the fieldwork by the author more than hundred years ago, while traditions lived far better than today and when they were less afflicted with nationalism. The book has 408 pages and despite its title has actually a much broader scope with chapters investigating language, traditions songs etc. of Bunjevci. I will quote here two sections dealing with surnames Pančić and Pandžić, which obviously stem from the same root.

“Pančići and Pančini in Subotica from 1686 (Danica 1891 24, see Szab. II Okm. 37, Neven 1896 83, 123); catholic Pančići in Croatian Littoral (where Josip/Josif was born – my addition) (M. Milićević: Pomenik znamenitih ljudi, Beograd 1888, s. 497, Jeremić 161) and orthodox in Slavonia (Šem. Pakr. 31)

Pandžići in Bačka: in Boršod and Jankovac, from 1715 (Razpr. 112); in Subotica, from 1759 (Danica 1893 38 & 40, Neven 1896 83, 142); orthodox Pandžići or Panžići in Lika (Šem. Gor.-karl. 1883 89; Grujić 321); catholics in Brnze and orthodox in Suhač near Sinj (J. Savo); catholic Pandžići in Bosnia (Jeremić 161); orthodox Pandžići i Pandža in west and central Bosnia (Šem. Dabr. 116, 21, 39, 41; Etn. Zborn. XI 228 and XII 363); orthodox Stojan Pandžo in 1682 in Sarajevo and descended from the vicinity of Sarajevo (Skarić 55); Mohammedan Pandžići in Bosnian Krajina nad central Bosnia (Etn. Zborn. XXXV 623, 652; Filipović); Pandžići, orthodox in Slavonia (Šem. Pakr. 31). In west Bosnia orthodox village Pandže (Imenik B. H. 261). In Drobnjaci there lived an old family of Pandža on whose destiny nothing is known (A. Luburić, Drobnjaci, Beograd 1930, s. 254). By all chances they moved in central and west Bosnia and gave the name to the village Pandže and from them descend all the families with surnames Pandža, Pandžić et cetera. Two families of orthodox Pandža in Bosnia have as their family saint Đurđevdan (that is St George – my addition) (Šem. Dabr. 39 & 41) and the same saint is venerated by many from Drobnjaci. “

There you go. If you read this you will see the complexity of ethnicities in Balkans. On the other hand it is quite clear and proved that Pančići from Croatian Littoral are Bunjevci that stem from some Pandžići in Bosnia and these probably from Pandže in East Herzegovina. Therefore, I would kindly ask to correct the part at the beginning of the article.

Pančić was a catholic Bunjevac who later became orthodox Serb, same as Petar Preradović was Serb Orthodox until he became catholic and Croat (or at least Yugoslav) and he is celebrated as one of the greatest Croat poets. I don’t see why Pančić then can’t be a Serbian scientist? Please correct this or I will. --Dultz 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem...not really. It is not clear and it does not prove what you claim. We do not have the sentence which clerly say "he was Bunjevac and not a Croat". Btw. you might want to know that all Bunjevci born in Croatia also consider themselves Croats. Pancic's family would be no different. Also I don't get it why this article is named "Josif Pancic"...the man was born as Josip not Josif. --Factanista 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: I changed the article a bit adding the fact he was Croatian and left the Bunjevac reference since it doesn't go against it. I also looked around and found out he actually changed his name and converted to Orthodox Christianity. --Factanista 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem... yes. What's not clear? It does not prove my claim that Pancic was Bunjevac??? We have a sentence that he was a Bunjevac. And one more thing: you're judging the situation from 1814 on the base that "all Bunjevci born in Croatia also consider themselves Croats. Pancic's family would be no different." ??? And nowadays all Babylonians consider themselves Iraqis but that doesn't mean that Nabuhodenazar was Iraqi!! The man was surely born Josip (and that wasn't his choice), but lived his life willingly as Josif. So, Josif it is. I'll agree that Pancic is Croatian if anyone can find me some proof where he tells so. As far as his Serb feelings I'll just post this quote: (from his speech in Serbian Academy) "To preserve in the writings of Academy the purity of our beautiful language as it is given to us by the people, and as it has been defined by our great teachers Vuk Karadžić and Đuro Daničić. (...) For start we should narrow our interest to those sciences that concern Serbdom and South Slavdom and especially the lands of the Balkan peninsula." etc.--Dultz 00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because no one's sure - so little is known 'bout him. Then again if it's true - it's the more notable one. --PaxEquilibrium 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the course of assimilation... people cannot be Bunjevci by nationality if they wanted to (same as with Shokci, or Muslims in Bosnia). --PaxEquilibrium 18:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Bunjevci (or Sokci) especially were not ethnic designation...they were regional sub-ethnic deisgnations...so to say. Only in recent times we have small group of Bunjevac people in Vojvodina, Serbia designating themselves as separate ethnic group...all other still consider themselves Croats. --Factanista 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Bunjevci, you can check the caption dealing with them. They are of course a sub-ethnic designation of Serbs. And Bunjevci in Vojvodina were recorded as such from the time they settled there in the 17th c and only recently (from 1945) they were forced by communist authorities to declare as Croats while the name of Bunjevci was prohibited! Check their own page at [1] and see the original document on this.--Dultz 00:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They were no such thing. No one forced them anything...there are thousands of Bunjeci all over the world and they all declare themselves as Croats (save for a very small group in Serbia...suprise, suprise...), furthermore it is scientific consensus that they all originate from Croatia (Dalmatia and Herzegovina) from where they migrated north fleeing the Ottoman Turks similar as another group of Croats Šokci and similar such as Boduli who fled in a opposite direction to the islands and to Istria and coastal Croatia. --Factanista 06:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What amazes me is that Factanista so openly puts the Bunyevs as a subgroup of Croats - but in the case of any Serb subgroups (e. g. Narentines, Zachlumians, Docleans, Zetans, Travunians, Canalites or even Bosnians or Montenegrins) he radically accuses it of being Serb POV. I suppose the existence of Bosniacs separate from Serbs is Croat POV. :D Don't make me laugh. Bunyevs were indeed assimilated into Croats - and the period of croatization was the strongest in Communist time; and yes - Bunyevci aren't Serbs - but they have a lot more common with them, rather than with Croats. --PaxEquilibrium 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course...the point and the blatant fact is that 95% of Bunjevci declare themselves as Croats (until recently it was 100%). This especially goes for those born and raised in Croatia. Those that you counted above as supposedly being Serbian are all regional designation not sub-cultural or sub-ethnic such as Bunjevci, Šokci, Janjevci or Boduli and so on. And don't make me laugh....Bunjevci having more in common with Serbs than with Croats? Thats a good one... --Factanista 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they do - a lot of prominent Serbians are ethnic Bunyevci (great Botanist Joseph Pancic - the founder of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Blasko Rajic - a great Serbian patriot and leader of the voice of Serbian Vojvodina, national footballer Goran Bunjevcic; the other famous Bunyevs're mostly non-national [Ivan Saric, Zvonko Bogdan]). I believe that most Bunjevci live/lived in Vojvodina - you must've mixed them (probably) with the Shokci. A large number self-identify as Croats, yes - in the same manner that a large number of Montenegrins self-identify as Serbs. Did you ever hear about the Assembly of Serbs, Bunyevs and other Slavs of Vojvodina - that annexed Vojvodina to Serbia in 1918? Its vicepresident was a Bunyev... and you should visit the Bunyev's official website - it's full of Serbian patriotism and even to an extent an anti-Croat sentiment (to be frank). Despite Bunyevs existed over the centuries in Vojvodina as a distinct people, they were grouped together with Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No they do not. Bunjevci live all over the world and everywhere you go you will witness that they declare as Croats meaning not only do they have more in common with Croats - they are Croats. Only in Serbia recently (during and post Milosevic's goverment) we have a small group of Bunjevci declaring separate ethnicity. All those people you mentioned are Croats, Pančić chose to be a Serb, as for Rajić I don't know much about him, Bogdan and Sarić are Croats, Bunjevčević is from a mixed Croatian-Serbian marriage. --Factanista 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
But I could claim the same thing - that only recently they had been Croatized plainly because of the Communists (during and post the Communists). Before the croatization, Bunjevci were a separate people (perhaps closer to Serbs than to Croats). I can't understand how could they live in the world - when for almost 4 centuries they live in Vojvodina (where most of them always lived). I repeat - do not mix them with the Shokci. --PaxEquilibrium 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No you cannot claim the same thing. --Factanista 20:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh? And why is that? --PaxEquilibrium 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it would be absurd to claim such a thing. --Factanista 21:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That is one POV. To me it is absurd to claim that they're a "Serbian fabrication", when they only finally got their own nation (re)recognized. Can't you see that you're a bit one-sided? Applying one logic to one situation - but a totally different one to a parallel? --PaxEquilibrium 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You are not making any sense. Anyway Bunjevci are still to this day a Croatian minority in Vojvodina and they will remain as such. --Factanista 22:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What does "Croatian minority" mean? --PaxEquilibrium 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
National minority --Factanista 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Vojvodina is in Serbia, and not Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? Didn't know that... --Factanista 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You would've said "Serbian minority" or "Vojvodinian minority" - but you said "Croatian minority" instead. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Explanations for revert

  1. See WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph: "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening". His Croatian origin is mentioned right in the next sentence.
  2. Frankly, I don't get the whole "Bunjevci" thing: he was born in Croatia, lived in Central Serbia, I don't know what was his personal ethnic affiliation, and Bunjevci live in Bačka. They probably arived there from the Dalmatian hinterland in 16th century, but that does not Pančić a Bunjevac make? Or is it a part of "Bunjevac"="Serb Catholic" game? I don't get it. Duja►

Herzegovina and Military Frontier

I don't think we have been presented with enough evidence that his family originates from Herzegovina, We've been presented with some speculation that people with surnames Pandža and Pandžić might all hail from the same village of Drobnjaci (without even saying that this village is in Herzegovina) via Bosnia. Firstly, Pančić and Pandžić is not the same, and even if it were, pandža is an ordinary word for claw or paw, making the claim that all people with the surname share the same origins less probable. As I haven't found any confirmation of the claim in any traditional sources, I have removed it until it is more substantiated.

Bribir was never part of the Military Frontier [2]. Senj was, but Bribir isn't that close to Senj anyway so I changed the reference to the much nearer Crikvenica which is also larger than Senj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylad (talk • contribs) 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Serbian botanist

I would like to hear from those who keep editing this page, and presenting Pančić as "Croatian" or "Serbo-Croatian" botanist. What makes him "Croatian"? Nationality? Croatian state didn't exist then. Region he lived and worked in? Again, he neither lived nor worked in Croatian part of Austria-Hungary. He lived, worked and made his professional career in the independent state of Serbia. Ethnicity? He wasn't a Croat, nor he ever referred to himself as such. Anyway, that would only make him a Serbian botanist of Croatian origin/ethnicity, and not a "Serbo-Croatian" or even "Croatian" botanist.

What makes him Serbian? Nationality and region he lived in. He lived, worked and made his career in Serbian state, was part of its institutions and had actively participated in social and scientific life of Serbia of his time. Region he lived in. He lived within borders of modern Serbia, so there's no reason to "share" him with anyone else. Ethnic affiliation. He considered and declared himself as Serb. Ethnic origin? Some say that he is of Bunjevac ethnic origin. I see no problem there, if that is true. The thing is he simply just wasn't a Croat, and there's no way to make him one.

If Croats claim him (with absolutely no reason) because they share the same language, culture and ethnic origin with many Serbs as Josif Pančić, I insist that he be presented as Serbo-Croato-Bosniako-Montenegrine-Bunjevac botanist, and that his name, within brackets, be presented in languages of all mentioned modern nations. For example: Josif Pančić (Serbian: Josif Pančić, Serbian Cyrillic: Јосиф Панчић, Croatian: Josif Pančić, Bosnian: Josif Pančić, Bunjevac: Josif Pančić, Montenegrin: Josif Pančić). Perhaps only then it will strike everyone what nonsensical edits are being made. Marechiel (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are again saying user:NovaNova b......You need to start finding new statements for your puppets. Croatia has not existed ???? Maybe in this words we can find little historical jealousy ? If Kingdom of Croatia has not existed why title of Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor is king of Croatia ? --Rjecina (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not the point, and stop reacting dramatically with series of question marks, supposed surprise and, again repeated senseless accusations about my account. It's childish and immature. I stated the fact that Croatia wasn't an independent nation in that time. Of course it existed, but I wanted to present what could be named as "Croatian". At that time, since Croatian state (and not country or people) didn't exist, in order for one to be named "Croatian" would be at least that he was a subject of Austrian-Hungarian state, of Croatian ethnicity and engaged solely in Croatian cultural/scientific life in Austria-Hungary. Josip/Josif Pancic did neither of that. First, he lived, worked and was a subject of Serbian state, engaged in Serbian cultural/scientific life, which makes him
Serbian, in the sense of nationality. He could, and I stress it as but a mere possibility, be named as Serbian botanist of Croatian ethnicity, but, oh what a surprise, he never declared him as a Croat, but he did as a Serb. On what basis is he "Serbo-Croatian"? Because some Croats claim that he is of Croatian ethnicity? But that aside, he wasn't Croatian in the sense of nationality/state. Example: try to present Sándor Petőfi as "Serbo-Hungarian" poet. You would be laughed at, just as you are now. And Petőfi was at least Serbian by birth, while it's highly argumentative if Pančić was a Croat at all. 79.101.65.24 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Austrian Emperors were crowned as dukes of Grand-Dukedom Serbia as well. 79.101.65.24 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you please show me on wiki where is writen that Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor is great duke of Serbia ?
You can speak what you want but Croatia has been kingdom which has choosen Habsburg for rules. Even in 19 century Croatia is kingdom which is having official language different of Austria (example). How is this possible if Croatia do not exist ?
Can you please tell me which is similarity between Sándor Petőfi and Josif Pančić. First has from begining declared himself like Hungarian and second has declared himself to be Serb only after recieving job in Serbia when he has been 30 years old. Maybe I am mistaking but Josif Pančić has been nationalistic opportunist--Rjecina (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1. I said 'Austrian Emperors', and not 'Francis II'. Namely, last two emperors Franz Joseph I and Charles I. See the appropriate articles on Wikipedia. But that all is not the point - what does Francis II have to do with Pančić not living and working in Croatia among Croats, but in Serbia?
2. First, it's chosen, not 'choosen'. Second, don't try to bring ever-occurring issue of Croatian history when it's not the point, and stop imputing me that I said that Croats didn't exist. I didn't say so. I only said that there's no proof that Pančić was one, and even if he was, it wouldn't make him Croatian or Serbo-Croatian botanist, but only Serbian botanist of Croatian ethnicity. Since there's no reference about his supposed Croatdom, and plenty of those about his Serbom, there's no reason even for that. Third, I was speaking about nation as modern concept of independent nation/state, and not as ethnicity.
3. There is no similarity between Pančić and Petőfi. Petőfi is a confirmed Orthodox Serb by birth, and Magyar and Hungarian by ethnic/national affiliation, while Pančić was Serb and Serbian by ethnic/national affiliation, while there's no proof that he ever considered him a Croat, since there were Catholic Serbs in the area as well. And Bunjevci as well, someone seems to bring them up also. It is true that Petőfi was Hungarian since his youth (but he was also Hungarian-born), and that Pančić went to Serbia only after his university studies, but beside being Croatia-born (more precisely: contemporary Croatian-born) as many other Serbs - what makes him an ethnic Croat? Nothing.
4. Conclusion: he wasn't a Croatian scientist, period. If there is solid proof that he was born as Croat by ethnicity, and not Serb or Bunjevac, it should be mentioned as such, that he was born as one, and that he changed his ethnic affiliation. But beside his conversion from Catholicism to Eastern-Orthodoxy, we have no data on that. Marechiel (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Josif is not "Serbian equivalent" to Josip, but common Eastern-Orthodox

Both names Josip and Josif exist among Serbs, and are recognized as Serbian names, and are variations of Biblical name Joseph. Josif (with F) is official version insisted by Eastern-Orthodox Church, while Josip (with P) is popular folk version, where non-Slavic F is replaced with more easily pronounced P, as in Filip -> Pilip (Philip). Josif Pančić changed his name from Josip to Josif as part of his conversion to Eastern-Orthodoxy, and not because Josip is a "Serbian equivalent". There are, and there were Serbs named Josip, as well as there is an existing Serbian surname Josipović. Marechiel (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another F->P example is the name Stefan, with popular folk pronunciation as Stepan, Stjepan and Stipan, and derivates as Stevan and Montenegrin Šćepan. Today, a formerly popular name Stepan is extremely rare among Serbs, while Stjepan and Stipan are extinct and existing only with Croats. Only surnames Stjepanović and Stipanović and 19th century poetry testify about Serbs named Stjepan and Stipan. Marechiel (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The origin question

Why do Croatians have the compulsion for labelling people born in Croatia who happen to be Catholics as ethnicly belonging to Croatia. This is totally absurd especially because it is a Serbian known fact many Serbians living in the Austro-Hungarian Empire were forced to convert to Catholicism or they were repressed and discriminated against otherwise (since the time of Maria Theresa). Pancic has converted to Serbian Eastern Orthodoxity which may suggest that his family is of Serbian origin therefore he was "reverting" back to his family's religion (since there was no reason what so ever for him to convert to Eastern Orthodoxity as Catholics weren't (aren't) subjugated in Serbia). Also names were automatically given their Catholic variant if applicable on the birth certificate, which were then used (needed) for public and legal purposes and therefore used regardless of the desire of the individual. His origins are from Hercegovina were Serbians have been the only ethnic group - bear in mind its a totally different demographic picture today (and for the past 100 yrs). The Empire had problems with Serbian Nationalist movements and Pan-Slavism hence they sought a way to minimise this problem within the Empire through propagandistic schemes to croatisise the Bunjevci (as they were Catholics) and other Serbs since the 18th century and even more so during the final years of the Empire. Finally, isn't it a bit strange that a Croat/Catholic would, with the option of living and working Austro-Hungaria, come work and live in Serbia? Very strange if you ask me. He has acquired his education in the Empire so he would, with the assumption that he was a Croat, make his career there and not in an Orthodox country. I hope you see the logic (or the lack of it thereof). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.253.115 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

József Sadler and other edits needed

I have removed the link to the disambiguation page for Sadler as there is no-one relevant of that name on that Disambiguation page. After a bit of research, this turns out to be Joseph Sadler, who only has an article on Hungarian wikipedia: hu:Sadler_József. Perhaps someone might like to create an English wikipedia page on him and then insert the relevant link?

They might also wish to expand Pančić's botanical contribution to Serbia with information from this source: http://147.163.105.223/flora/23-209.pdf

There also seems to be a very detailed article on this wiki page: sr:Јосиф_Панчић

I've also added some nice images, but the captions probably need enhancing - I tried my best with Google translate. Parkywiki (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic background

A source must say his family, not just the name, is Serbian.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: I apologise for pinging you but it appears that Mikola22 says that you approved and reedit this last inputted information [[3]] . Maybe I am wrong but I don't see that you were part of conversation on TP or like Mikola22 wrote that consensus was reached, also I read 2 times through this source and there is no mention of his origin in this source (I also believe that it is not a RS but no matter) , I will post this source here if you have time you can read it (maybe I am wrong) and if I am wrong we can restore it. Until then I believe this information is WP:FRINGE - [[4]] User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. December 2020 (UTC)

information from the source

  • 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"[6]) 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. [[7]]. 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 [[8]], 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 [[9]], 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 [[10]] 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) [11]. 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 [[12]] 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" [13]. 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". [14] 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" [15] 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") [16]. 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 [[17]] 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 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) [18] Mikola22 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josif_Pančić/Archive_1&oldid=1240644606"