Talk:Matija Divković

Poor Matija, he turns in his grave a lot, these days.--Santasa99 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Matija Divković. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117002803/http://www.hrvatska-rijec.com/2011/04/matija-divkovic-otac-bosansko-hercegovacke-i-hrvatske-knjizevnosti-u-bih/ to http://www.hrvatska-rijec.com/2011/04/matija-divkovic-otac-bosansko-hercegovacke-i-hrvatske-knjizevnosti-u-bih/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

IP is inserting WP:UNDUE content which can be discussed in the article Bosnian Cyrillic but not here. This BIO already contains all the info WP:BIO requires. The sources contributed by IP just reiterate that "he" called "letters" Serbian. Not one of these sources says that those really are Serbian Cyrillic, they just discuss relation. I won't go into historical revision problem, and the fact the Serbian authors, just as much as Croatian if not more, all too often use their platform to negate anything related to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and go on to appropriate its cultural, historical, literary and linguistic phenomenons,Stop with your personal POV and misreading of sources and move it to appropriate article if you wish to discuss Bosnian Cyrillic. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but it feels a POV rhetorical blackmail. The Serbian sources does not debates about filiation of script if it's Bosancica or Serbian Script. But Serbian Scholars describes being a part of Serbian Cyrillic literary corpus. If it have sufficient sources that affirms Serbian Scholars labels as Serbian Cyrillic (it is). So should be cited in article. I doesn't affirms exclusively as Serbian Cyrillic. But Serbian Scholars labels as Serbian Cyrillic (and a lot of valid reasons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-10116-44 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, you have somewhat softened your tone, and I appreciate that. But it is not a blackmail to say that everything in regard to Bosnia and Herz. was and still is negated and/or appropriated by either Serbian or Croatian nationalism, whether in academia or media. There is nothing which comes from Bosnia that some Serbian scholars didn't affiliate with being Serbian, especially from medieval era when things didn't have ethnic labels. You will always be able to find some scholar that claim that all people from medieval and modern era Bosnia are Serbs, or that culture as a whole is Serbian, and so forth. There are many things that all four literary corpuses (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian) share, from works to authors, but we are careful when we chose which one are considered as shared and which are not. I don't think there is an academic consensus on sharing Divkovic, unless it is simply considered part of Serbo-Croatian cultural and literary circle by those less ethnic centered. Divkovic is not considered to be shared heritage even though some Serbian scholars are eager to claim him for Serbian literary circle. All this ethnicization compels us to be extremely careful when using Serbian and Croatian sources on Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian topics, to avoid allowing any ethno-nationalistic claims seep into Wikipedia. So, let's, then, use only those sources coming from Divkovic's homeland with a foreign, out-of-Balkans, sources as a sort of litmus test and confirmation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)