Talk:Mustafa Golubić

Tito played a role in MG capture?

There are multiple sources about Tito having a role in capture and subsequent death of MG. The article does not mention it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have the sources, perhaps you could add this information? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationality: Bosnian

A Herzegovinian, born in Herzegovina, grew up in Serbia, and spent his entire life in time when neither Bosnian nation, nor people who nationally identified with Bosnia even existed, was - Bosnian by nationality? By what standard, when not even Orthodox and Roman-Catholic Christians from true Bosnia of the era are anywhere described as "Bosnian by nationality". Was he Bosnian by nationality, unlike his Christian countrymen, because he was a Muslim? Does a religion affiliation, namely being a Muslim from Bosnia (~30% of Bosnian population at the time) make you a Bosnian nationality, a nation which didn't exist (and even does not exist now)? 87.116.179.38 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mustafa Golubić/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 21:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll start reviewing this shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• "In 1920, after allegedly making death threats against Alexander, he relocated to Vienna, where in 1923, he began writing for a Soviet-linked publication under a pseudonym." A few commas can be removed here: In 1920, after allegedly making death threats against Alexander, he relocated to Vienna where in 1923 he began writing for a Soviet-linked publication."

• Done.

• "In 1941, Golubić returned to Yugoslavia on a secret assignment." Is there anything specific about this assignment?

• Golubić is an enigmatic figure and his activities have been frustratingly under-explored in scholarly literature. Somewhat predictably the source doesn't say what the "secret assignment" was, only that it was a secret assignment. Some authors have speculated that it could have had to do with blowing up the German ammunition dump in Smederevo ahead of Operation Barbarossa (this is mentioned in the article) but nothing is known for sure. Unfortunately, Serbia doesn't have its own equivalent of FOIA so perhaps we'll never know.

• "Golubić arrived with a letter of recommendation signed by the academic Jevto Dedijer." Is there relevance to having a letter from Dedijer? I'm not sure I see the connection here.

• Probably doesn't contribute at all to a reader's understanding of the subject. Removed.

• "Golubić subsequently traveled to France, where he was arrested and imprisoned in Toulon." What was he arrested for? I'm assuming because of the assassination plot?

• That would be my guess as well, but the source doesn't explicitly say this.

• "After being accused of making death threats against Alexander, in late 1920, Golubić left the country and settled in Vienna." This is worded oddly, and can be cleared up: "After being accused of making death threats against Alexander, Golubić left the country in late 1920 and settled in Vienna."

• Done.

• "He subsequently survived an assassination attempt..." Any idea who was behind this?

• My guess would be King Alexander, but the source doesn't say. I'm not aware of any academic sources, English or otherwise, which explore this incident in-depth.

• "...and only forty of these survived the Gulags." Gulag is singular, as it's an abbreviation.

• Done.

• Images and sources look solid. I can't speak for the non-English sources, but based on the publishers of the English works am assuming they are all reputable.

Overall not a lot here, mostly clarifications for myself (I'm not too familiar with the subject), so once these are addressed will pass the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for grabbing this nomination Kaiser matias. I hope I've satisfactorily addressed all your comments. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Great looks good to me. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Serbian?

The statement in the first sentence of the lead and infobox that he was Serbian is not supported in the body. He was not born in Serbia or to Serb parents for starters, they were both clearly Bosnian Muslim. What is in the article (including his given name) indicates that he was Bosnian Muslim, the family name is of course derived from the Serbo-Croatian word for pigeon, so isn't closely associated with any particular ethnic group. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Albertini refers to him as "Bosnian" [1]. So do MacKenzie [2], Remak [3] and others. Almond calls him "Bosnian Muslim" [4]. Popov calls him "Yugoslav" [5]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, it should be changed to "Bosnian", unless multiple reliable sources exist that say he was a Serb. Personally I think that is extremely unlikely given what I have laid out above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Just checking the above, Albertini actually states that he was a Bosnian and a Moslem, and there are plenty of sources that say he was a Bosnian Muslim/Moslem [6]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the revision was made several months ago by an IP while no one was paying attention. Feel free to do whatever you like, just take note of WP:ETHNICITY. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

On this AB -- and Sadko -- are right. Imo. Bosnian Muslim is his ethnic background but his national allegiance was Serbian, and a mostly Western Anglophone readership does not equate ethnicity to nationality and yes WP:ETHNICITY is a thing.--Calthinus (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Where is the "national allegiance" to Serbia referenced in the article? Bosnian Muslim is both an ethnicity and a nationality (in the Yugoslav context), and the lead sentence needs something to indicate what background he came from, and without mentioning it, it begs the question. Based on the sources, I've changed it to Bosnian Muslim. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Well in the infobox (regarding espionage), Allegiance Kingdom of Serbia (1912–1918). Back in 1912 that did not in any way contradict a Bosnian Muslim ethnic identity as Bosniaks variously supported Bosniak, Serbian, Croatian, "Osmanlilik", Turkish, pan-Hapsburg, and other national endeavors, whereas nowadays... one might end up with a "rep" similar to that of Lepa Brena. Sadko's edit eschewed any such labelling per WP:ETHNICITY. Imo that was correct. But I'll shut my trap now. Cheers all, --Calthinus (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

For Birthplace, should it not be Modern Day Bosnia as it was part of the Austrian Empire at the time? This is how it was done for the Nikola Tesla page.74.101.190.2 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It clearly states and is reliably cited in the article that his parents were Bosnian Muslim. Several sources mentioned here agree with this. No source has been provided here that contradicts it in any way, except those that state that he was Bosnian. Nothing in the article indicates that he was Serbian by ethnicity or nationality, not the reliable sources mentioned in the article or here, and not the obvious alignment of his parents' and his given names with Bosnian Muslim identity. As I've stated above, Bosnian Muslim is both an ethnicity and a South Slavic national identity, which is why WP:ETHNICITY doesn't strictly apply. Allegiance is a separate matter from nationality, and the infobox accurately reflects his. I suggest Sadko engages with the arguments here in the talk page instead of reflexively edit-warring, as failure to engage in an ongoing discussion but persisting in edit-warring will get you sanctioned. I've fixed the place of birth and death issue raised by the IP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker, for birthplace, as the Tesla page example, the overall empire is listed after the town, not the name of the interior region or state. As occupied Bosnia was not independent from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was within the empire. In fact the wiki page says this on the Bosnia Vilayet page. Same way the Croatian Military Frontier or Kingdom of Croatia was not separate from The Austrian Empire. Hence the Empire itself is named. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1) WP:ETHNICITY does apply 100% as nationality is closely related with a formal state organisation. Do I really need to explain to you what nationality is and what's ethnicity? Claiming that Bosnian Muslim is some sort of exception is not backed by sources and it is a wild claim. Creative interpretation of MOS:Lead is textbook fringe and finding reasons for one's POV. 3) Several sources agree about his ethnicity - which is not debated here. Just copying those sources for lead of the article is, again, not per MOS:Lead. 4) his ethnic identity is part of his notability, as Muslim Chetniks were few and far between This is another POV which makes very little sense overall. We are not calling Zvonimir Vučković Croat Chetnik or Ivan Prezelj Slovene Chetnik or Stanislav Krakov Polish Chetnik. A. 5) Three users were so, far, okay with my edit which did not call him Serbian in the lead but was completely neutral, which would be the best way to go all-around. Calling him Yugoslav could be another option. 6) I did not edit war at all, but went per Wiki rules. Ignoring other editors who were okay with my edit is something else. Please do not resort to scare tactics, peacemaker. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Zvonimir Vučković page is a good example of how I think the birthplace for this page should be. Ideally I think it should be town, interior state or territory, Austrian Hungarian Empire, however some on Wikipedia strongly disagree with including interior states or territories on some other pages. Perhaps some with pov or nationalist reasons. as for ethnicity, it should definitely at least be mentioned in the body of the article. As for the intro, I agree with peacemaker67 and I could see general rules not apply as ethnicity is significant given the subject matter. But a source confirm would be solid, instead of my pov. Is there a source that names his Bosniak heritage as a significant characteristic to his service with the Chetniks? 74.101.190.2 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bosniak is both an ethnicity and a national identity, however in such cases there are often individuals whose ethnicity and national identity do not match. While I don't see any source here for him identifying as Serbian (have not probed for Yugoslav though?), I also don't see one for him identifying as Bosnia(n/k). WP:ETHNICITY is what it is -- frankly I dislike it, as it has us describing Catalan separatist leaders as "Spanish", but this is not the venue for fixing that. --Calthinus (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, Bosnian Muslim is both an ethnicity and a nationality, like Welsh and Catalan. See Six Nations Championship for more examples. Such nationalities are not defined by borders or passport ownership and do not require a formal state. There is no Welsh passport, yet the Welsh are a nation. If you don't understand this basic fact about nationalities, I don't know what to say to that. Frankly, to reject that premise is an indication of a strong POV unsupported by the reliable sources. It is akin to those who claim that all South Slavs are "really" Serbs. The reliable sources support Bosnian Muslim, both for his parents (and therefore him), and him independently, so that is what should go in the article. I am not utilising "scare tactics", I'm telling you what will happen if you keep reverting without discussion of what the reliable sources say. Yet, despite my advice that you should use reliable sources to support your point of view, you have failed to bring any. That is how we decide what goes in the article, not your unsupported opinions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

1) We are not talking about a person from modern times. He was not Bosniak but Bosnian Muslim (an ethnic group and not a nation). And you would need to prove that they were widely considered a nation, because ethnicity is not allowed in the lead, which you seem to ignore. That should be your job, per WP:Burden. Once again, Bosnian Muslims were not a nation at the time. They became one under the name Bosniaks in later times. There was no independent Bosnia during Mustafa's life. Kurds are not a nation, for now. Nations started forming after the French revolution and some nations are still work in progress. 3) Another thing: Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state. 3.1) Definition of nationality also varies from continent to continent and you can't compare Welsh to Bosnian Muslim. That is a generalisation and a logical mistake. 4) We are not talking about what goes in the article but about respecting MOS:Lead. Copying sources directly is not the way to go for the lead, as all of the quoted sources are speaking about Golubic's identity and ethnicity and not nationality. Those are separate things. By that twisted logic Alexander I of Yugoslavia would be called "Serbian king" in the lead. 5) Sure, sure, and because you have admin. privileges and a history of undermining editors who do not agree with you - I should take that for granted? [7] 6) Example of "South Slavs=Serbs" is saying a lot. Note that you should set examples as admin. and not push the version which you personally consider to be good, while 2 other editors do not agree with it. Very disturbing... [8] A sad day for Wikipedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationality is not the narrow construct you suggest. You fail to take into account the national identity of Bosnian Muslims, which goes back to the millet (literally "nation") system under the Ottomans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not understand what's the problem with Bosnian Muslim in the lead of the article (it'is problematic on several levels and very debatable) and it also seems to me that your understanding of the term nation is not very much European. It is problematic on several levels (as state above) and very debatable. Modern nations came to be after the French Revolution - Full stop. I suggest that you revert yourself, as we clearly have no consensus and TP discussion is not doing much good. Frankly, I do not see what's the problem to go without Serbian/Muslim/Yugoslav/Soviet in the lead. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you don't understand what the problem is with not indicating his national identity in the lead. You haven't established that is is problematic or on what levels it is problematic to do so. You provide no reference for your claim that modern nations came to be after the French revolution. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

And what would that be? Yes, I have established why it is problematic and I will not repeat myself. Since you are the only one for that option and 2 editors are not in favour, you must do the hard work of explaining and proving your point/thesis and not edit war.

He is not any less Muslim if that's not included in the lead. Bosnian Muslim, at the time, was an ethnic category and it was treated as such on every Yugoslav census (Muslim), which my previously posted reference, academic work from Research Gate confirms. That's really basic stuff and failing to understand that the European concept of nation is closely related to nation-states (but not always) is making this discussion meaningless. Po Gelneru, „nacija“ je stvorena i nova društvena pojava, karakteristična samo za moderni ili savremeni period ljudske istorije u kome je, nakon Francuske revolucije, nacionalna država postala norma političkog života. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If you know your Yugoslav history you would know that nationality (narodnost) was used in Yugoslavia to refer to those populations living in large clusters within the state, including Germans, Hungarians and Albanians. Some authors, like Francine Friedman, use the Yugoslav meaning of nationality, not the narrower one you are so insistent upon. Friedman defines "nation" as a "psychological construct or state of mind of a group of people who share a sense of solidarity that has little or nothing to do with citizenship". She differentiates this from ethnicity, drawing on the work of Paul Brass, but acknowledges that many analysts consider that ethnicity and nationality are not distinctively divided, and uses the term ethnonationalism to forge together the concepts of nationality and ethnicity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

General theory is not that relevant and Wkipedia is not a forum. Exactly, narodnost = ethnic group, which any native speaker can confirm for you, as well as every Yugoslav census. You have failed to give sources which would prove your point, per WP:BURDEN. I am restoring my version which was not opposed by 2 more fellow editors, with the edit by Ktrmi included. If you have a problem with it - take it to RfC and I shall be happy to discuss further, with more sources. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

References