Talk:Peter Handke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Milosevic funeral

"On 18. March 2006, Handke spoke at the funeral of Slobodan Milošević in front of over 20.000 visitors." There were, actually, more than 80000 people gathered.

According to press reports, there were approx. 80,000 people present in Belgrade. But Handke spoke before an audience in Pozarevac, Milosevic's home town. That audience counted approx. 20,000, so the article seems to be correct on that point. Asav14:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

I added a bibliography for Handke. Wherever I couldn't find an existing English edition, I translated the titles to the best of my ability. It seems I spent so long on the page that my login timed out. I'll add a list of English translations later. Asav 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Added a short biography, leaning heavily on the German Wikipedia. It is rather incomplete and should be expanded. The Works section is still a stub. Also needs weblinks. Asav 15:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the revision of the works section (which I originally compiled) to its former version. There is no point in lumping Handke's work into three categories (plays, novels and misc.), since Handke has a most ambiguous attitude towards literary genres, and most of his "Erzählungen" would normally be considered novels. Furthermore, the new (and erraneous) categorzation placed several of his books, which were marked as novels in the 'Other' category. Lastly, there was no reason to place a 'stub' marker in the section, since the list was complete at the time of revision. Asav 15:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Prize money

"In 2006 Handke was nominated for the Heinrich Heine Prize, but the prize money of 50,000 euros is subject to approval by the city council of Düsseldorf. Members of the council's major parties stated they would vote against awarding the prize to Handke, resulting in the prize being withdrawn]. [2]" -> Well, Handke spent Easter holidays in the Serbian enclave on Kosovo and Metohija (Velik Hoca, precisely) and he gave a gift to remaining Serbs. He stated that it was 50.000 euors that he got as a prize money for winning Heinrich Heine prize.

I'm little confused here, cause this article says that he didn't receive prize money? Dragoljub Kojadinovic 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't receive it, but there was an initiative which collected the money. So he did get the 50 000 Euros, however not for winning the prize, but for the wise decision of Düsseldorf's council members not to award him. --84.152.59.199 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maturation

Has he mellowed? Is he still motivated by his adolescent feelings of rebelliousness?Lestrade (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, that depends on your perspective on time. His writings about the Balkan wars certainly were seen as rebellious. Asav (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed quote

There was a quote section consisting of one (newspaper article?) excerpt with a reference to someone called "Müller" without any further explanations. As it was, the quote was hanging in midair, and the reference link (pointing to the Frankfurter Rundschau web site was non-functional. Searching the FR site for the quote didn't result in anything either. Additionally, the quote related to a discussion with a Slovenian author about the Balkan conflict, which is covered in some depths in the preceding paragraphs. In short, I removed it. There are far more well-known Handke quotes; some of them some of them have even become part and parcel in German, such as "Die Angst des Torwarts beim Elfmeter". If there really is a need for a quote section, one should chose something representative for the author Handke. Asav (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Die Angst des Torwarts beim Elfmeter

I reverted the English version to "The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick", since that's the novel's title in the English translation. See http://www.amazon.com/Goalies-Anxiety-Penalty-Kick-Novel/dp/0374531064/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6145910-6414533?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214231985&sr=1-1 . Asav (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobel politics

The article claims that Elfriede Jelinek stated that she considered Peter Handke a more worthy Nobel Prize recipient than herself and that she had been awarded the prize merely because she is female. Is it possible that the Nobel Committee awards prizes for political reasons? Does every nationality and gender get a turn at receiving a prize?Lestrade (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mind reading

At the very beginning of the article we have the words: According to some of his biographers, his stepfather Bruno's alcoholism and the limited cultural scope in the small town have contributed to Handke's revolt against habitualness and restrictions. Isn't this a presumptuous assertion about the interior contents of Handke's mind? Would anyone, even Handke himself, really know what thoughts and feelings motivate his actions?Lestrade (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Marriage

The article claims that: He has two daughters: Amina, from his relationship with Libgart Schwarz, and another daughter with Sophie Semin. Handke has been living with the German actress Katja Flint since 2001. Is he opposed to the institution of marriage? If so, is it possibly because of his opposition to middle–class morality or has he been influenced by the entertainment industry, which is virulently opposed to traditional marriage?Lestrade (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia

I reverted the English version to "A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia", since that's the novel's title in the English translation. See http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Rivers-Justice-Serbia/dp/0670873411 One may well be dissatisfied with certain translations, but an encyclopedia has to state facts, and the fact is that "A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia" is the book's English title. Also see above para. Asav (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit of 22 September - Ibsen award etc.

I think the recent edits by User:Bjerrebæk is not totally neutral; there are those who protest the prize, but also those who defend it and both views should be presented. I also believe the current lead has an overemphasis on controversies and am unsure if it's correct to refer to Handke as a history revisionist in the lead, as he isn't primarily know as a historian. Iselilja (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried to balance it a wee bit. Asav | Talk 20:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I further removed the fascist claim per WP:Weasel (some critics) because such a claim needs a clear attribution to someone who are clearly notable (If it is in the body of the article, I have missed it). I wasn't so happy with my own copy-editing of the lead, so I welcome improvements. Most needed is somehing more on his ordinary literary work (I am not familiar with him myself). That's an underlying problem with the whole article, see the German version for comparison. Iselilja (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, his work in this regard (both fiction and non-fiction) concerns mostly the press coverage and Western perception of the war, and while it certainly does not define m major part of his oeuvre, it is the one thing that has caused most controversy since the nineties. But the current version is fairly balanced, I guess. And while a very minor, but vocal, crowd, considers him fascist, his work has been all but right wing, see e.g. 'Publikumsbeschimpfung'. Asav | Talk 22:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Two or more people, or a group

The reference says that "Today several [people] turned out to show their opposition when the author were to accept the prize". The cited reference does not say that it was a group, although it seems that other media has made claims about the ethnicity of the several demonstrators. I can not see that the cited reference indicates a group.

"I dag hadde flere møtt opp for å vise sin motstand da forfatteren skulle motta prisen." Italic text. --Pankycont (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of information

There is a push to remove information about Handke in this article. The edit remark "revert messy ...", has been used. --Pankycont (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaining about a perceived mess, can be quite convenient, when one does not bother coming forth with very specific faults with text in the article. --Pankycont (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pankycont, I replied to your user talk page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If my user page [sic!] contacts you, then that will be fine. In the meantime, if you have problems with the text of this article, you are advised to discuss the issues here. Regards, --Pankycont (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry if I insulted you by using the word "messy", but I think your edits are too unfocused and little selective. Today, you inserted a line about Handke's speech being published in Aftenposten. I consider that information undue, since Handke has a long, international and notable career; the fact that Aftenposten published his speech is hardly noteworthy information in the long run. There is a lot of similar problems in the current version (Pankycont's). "Norway is a small country in the world" as a former Norwegian foreign minister correctly noted; for the world the controversy in Norway isn't all that much (hardly any international coverage). Iselilja (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Printing an entire speech almost a month after the fact, is notable in this case. Aftenposten has sensed a controversy that has not calmed down, nearly a month after the award ceremony. Can you share with us your check list for what kind of coverage is needed for something to be notable? Can you name a major Norwegian newspaper that has not covered the controversy? --Pankycont (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Revert section blanking"-edit remarks

Someone has been removing my edit remark in the article's history.

Yesterday's (and expected future) edit remarks: "Revert section blanking". --Pankycont (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Citing the speech at the Milosevic funeral

The speech at the Milosevic funeral, we have cited with webarchive.org.

Is that an acceptable citation, or is more needed? --Sluccer (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Handke. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=culture/20060503.OBS6399.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Update after Nobel Prize

Sorry that I can begin updating the article only now. Condition as I start is this. My first step will be to take away the tags because they discredit the article and our work in the eyes of a public. I also don't want to add a tag "under sonstruction" but avoiding edit conflicts will be appreciated. I promise to keep edits short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that it's now formally done, although far away from what he'd deserve. Whoever want to work: expand, polish prose, format references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Maternal grandfather: Slovenian or Serbian?

I can't find any sources stating that Handke's maternal grandfather was Serbian. That claim is currently in the lead section, but not mentioned (or sourced) later. All I found indicates that Handke's maternal grandfather Gregor Siutz/Sivec was Slovenian. If nobody provides a reference within the next 48 hours, I will remove that claim. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I was confused, sorry. Will add the ref (Munzinger). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The ref was already in the body, which said Slovenia correctly. I removed the grandfather from the lead as the relevance may not be obvious without an explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I had assumed that part being there before you tackled the article. The relevance is, in fact, far more convoluted, and I think it's better not mentioning that particular heritage in the lead, especially in the context of his stated controversial political positions. Thanks again! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. There was no lead when I "tackled" the article, look a bit above, for Update. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

protect this site from editing for a while

Could somebody please limit editing possibilities for a while? there seems to be one specific person (editing without a user name) that keeps on being destructive and vandalising this pake. thanks. --LH7605 (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What is his relationship to Serbia?

Handke gave a speech in Serbian, is a member of the Serbian church, and has expressed pro-Serbian political views, but the article never explains the nature of his connection to Serbia. His family is of Slovene origin, not Serbian. The languages are related, but these are distinct cultures with distinct languages. So where does his Serbian language and other associations with Serbia come from?Bill (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I would have to search for a source. It's past midnight where I live. Please do it yourself, and if you find something feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It was probably that his own ""utopistic"" attitudes were "guilty" that he could not divide and border themselves from reality, so he found something that reflected his thoughts (uncomprehensible regret for Yugoslavia breakup and making Serbia again aside from BiH, Croatia etc.) and used that also in his literar contribution to the world. And almost always when current "positioners" call something utopia, it is actually distopia; that's why I used double double quotes and that's why such attitudes always get rewarded because they are true enlightenment (one of literature main goals). I do not want to discuss it furthermore because it would be orig research or personal ratio (currently I believe it is overtalked summary of two articles at the end of my comment); clear link to Serbs or Serbia (by family, by birth place etc.) does not seem to exist. Only other reason would be money but those would be serious allegations (I mention it just as useful hypothesis, as speech freedom allows everything to be publicly questioned and stated with no pulling-it-inward only because controversial, even if actually false statement on someone/something). More about that ""utopian"" views direct-from-the-barrel (i.e. domestic sources, BCSM): here (DW) and especially here (BBC). --5.43.99.155 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bill: It is interesting that you say Handke is (still?) a member of the Serbian church. I have never heard about it. Could you tell us a bit more and give a source? It might be noteworthy in the article?Niemandsbucht (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Niemandsbucht (talk), in this article it says that Handke left the catholic curch in 1999 in protest of their position on the Kosovo war and that he joined the serbian-orthodox church. Article (in German) can be found here. Greetings, --LH7605 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, LH7605, I will look at it.Niemandsbucht (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

In "A journey to the Rivers" Handke says that his main reason for travelling to Serbia (in November 1995) were the wars and the majority opinion in the Western media that "the Serbs" were "the aggressors". He also mentions that Serbia was the Yugoslav republic he knew the least. I think one cannot understand Handke's interest in Serbia without understanding his connection to Yugoslavia. In principle, he remained committed to the idea of Yugoslavia, even when from 1995 onwards his main interest was Serbia. By the way, to say that his family was of Slovene origin is not quite correct. In Abschied des Träumers Handke says that his father was a German soldier (I assume this means he had German 'roots').--Niemandsbucht (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

How much room for controversies

Re: [1]

1. I have removed the third mentioning of why Handke is a controversial figure. (I would have left it if a different reason had been given than what we already know from lead and article.)
2. I have removed one statement by him, about the prize (2014), while we have no quote from his literature.
3. I have removed "with deep regret" because it says much more on the one wrote it than about the subject of this biography.

What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Your rationales and editing style are very confusing and, more important, apparently biased. It is not same third mentioning nor third mentioning at all thus, because this mention is directly related to Nobel and is in the proper section (directly defining the aspect of the negative criticism). Remove it from other places if needed but I don't think so.

No "quote from his literature" is needed if reliable media say he stated that. His literature is totally other segment.

What does it say about the one that wrote it? It is simple summary of PEN's official statement that, as I have already said, contains much harsher words. I removed deep and left regret only because it is very clear that it is regret. "Deep regret" is actually in PEN's own title on its official website: https://pen.org/press-release/statement-nobel-prize-for-literature-2019/

--5.43.99.155 (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC) [e]

I actually asked "others", but am happy that you are willing to discuss. Thank you for removing "deep". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What do others think about a link to Serbophilia? Piped to "pro-Serbian"? And what about an offline source given for that term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If the media is so "reliable" then how come they have failed to provide substantial proof for Handke denying genocide? No article, video interview, audio recording, nothing. Luka0188 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Per several guidelines, Wikipedia does not go not even close to self research. Your comment questioning largest Muslim media Al Jazeera reliability (even admitting from your side indirectly that it is reliable), and others' reliability as well because others published same info too, is a sort of orig res and gets near trolling so please do not continue that way. We just care about restating (not copying as whole) reliable AND relevant info. (1) PEN statement is such info (regarding relevance of that organization), (2) background on why many people judge choosing Handke is relevant and needed right after the statement on negative criticism in Awards section to get "picture of why" (if available and not orig res nor essay rationale, of course), (3) info on him calling to abolish prize he got five years after is relevant too, etc. There is also a guideline that WP is not truth necessarily but verifiability of relevant statements (not necessarily facts as such). Also, questioning reliable not-online sources is not acceptable; that ref is used on :de: WP in the lede and is valid. Genocide is not mentioned in the part I contributed nor anywhere else so I do not know at all why it was introduced in this discussion by you. Pro-Serbian already redirects to Serbophilia, it is the indirect (over-from-state/national-to-people/ethnic) meaning (because term pro-Serbian refers to state Serbia and term Serbophilia not to all Serbians but only Serbs).--5.43.99.155 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC) [e]

On casual reading, what kind of NPOV article jumps straight from giving the formal reason for why he was awarded the Nobel prize, to discussing who was unhappy about it and why? Not sure about the best way to present it, but it reads a bit oddly as-is. 129.174.252.250 (talk) 03:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the article needs to elaborate further on the 'controversies', rather than just mentioning people's reactions, and explain about what Handke actually said that caused such offence. Currently, it doesn't mention that he's been accused of genocide denial (and denying the Srebenica massacre in particular): "The Austrian playwright, whose Slovenian heritage had inspired in him a fervent nationalism during the Balkans war, had publicly suggested that Sarajevo’s Muslims had massacred themselves and blamed the Serbs, and denied the Srebrenica genocide."[2] Robofish (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is not enough to just mention the reactions to the Nobel award for Handke. Some of these reactions are either a misrepresentation of Handke's stance or outright defamation. It is an inherent problem in Wikipedia that one relies on newspaper articles, which are published for the sake of making money and often imply the short-term interests of editors (trying to publish something that can be sold as "new" and "relevant" today but might be obsolete after a few days or weeks). This is true especially for opinion pieces, which do not necessarily need to be based on facts or research. Many comments regarding the Nobel award for Hanke are opinon pieces. The statement by the US charter of PEN is also an example of an opinion piece. It certainly represents an array of important writers, but it is tainted by a high degree of distortion. Handke himself has not always helped either, because he made some very polemical remarks about journalists (of course, this can be no excuse for journalists who flatly lie about Handke's position). So it is necessary to ask: What is the point of including those statements here? Is it sufficient in the article to state clearly that this is the opinion of someone? Or is it necessary to scrutinize -- and discuss -- the contents and only then decide what to include in the article?--Niemandsbucht (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article!

Considering the wide-ranging debate about Handke that is currently ongoing in Germany, Austria and Sweden concerning the extent of his genocide denial and association with the Milosevic regime (just yesterday it was found that in 1999 he was issued Serbian passport by Milosevic authorities, which lists his nationality as Yugoslav), I was surprised to see there is no section in the article actually dealing with this issue, except one sentence in the awards section. Both German and French Wikipedia pages contain a detailed section on this issue (also indicate the problem already in the heading of the articles). I would my self work on this, but reading this talk page I suspect such an attempt would be suppressed, which is problematic. Accursius (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, have tried to edit some and encountered some resilience/un-edits. But don't give up before you even started, I'd say. Where is it stated, that Serbian authorities issued Handke a Serbian passport? Do you have solid references for that? --LH7605 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It was me who added and pushed for the sentence in the award section. Even that had its moments. Anyway, I agree with having a separate section on the issue on Genocide denial and links with the Milosevic government. Its all quite notable. If you would like Harac, LH7605 write something up with RS sources and we'll take it from there. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Mind the biographies of living persons policy

We don't intermix (or taint) awards presentations with controversies in other biography articles and we don't do it here. Keep any reporting on controversies factual, neutral, verified - and don't place them all over the article, especially next to the praise!

Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, ONLY, in this case there was an extra "Controversies" section when the prize was announced, and Main page appearance was granted at the time only if that section disappeared, for minding BLP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting we clean articles to meet policy only when up for main page exposure? If the Controversy section doesn't meet BLP it should be removed, and not just when featured In the News. I've started a separate talk discussion for this purpose. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't me, and it's a while ago. I was the one to add literature to his page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Siblings

The article states Handke had a half-sister Monica. His mother had two children with Handke's step-father Bruno. Please add (sourced) info about this:

1. that there was a half-brother too
2. his given name and birth year (alternatively remove the sister's details)
3. that these children were half-siblings on his mother's side (not children to Erich Schönemann)

Thx CapnZapp (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Note the sibling info lacked a direct source before and still do. CapnZapp (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Controversy section

I invite all editors to judge whether the Controversy section currently meets our criteria for a neutral point of view, in particular WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION. Do note I would find "yes, it's ok" an acceptable answer (followed by the removal of the template) - I just want to put the spotlight on the section, and direct the community's scrutiny to a potentially inflammatory subject. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's ok. It's all properly sourced and seems an accurate reflection of the controversy. Captainllama (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is not OK because there are certainly some relevant defences for those allegations and they are not included at all. Current "Controversy" section could be renamed "Negative criticism", and that is not the meaning of controversy (a controversy is is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate per article here; I do not see any debate, only negative criticism for apparent Srebrenica genocide denial – if we agree with court it was genocide and it is bad to do genocide, then current "Controversy" section could even be renamed "Reactions to author's biased non-literar activism" and not "Negative criticism"). --Obsuser (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is far too short and watered down. It's as if the article on Hitler would describe him as a painter and have a short section on the Holocaust. And yes, I do think that the comparison to Hitler is appropriate when we are talking about an individual like Handke who has repeatedly defended genocide, denied genocide and belittled genocide. Most media coverage about him is, quite rightly, about both his views and his rude and arrogant behavior towards those who call him out. The current controversy section is far too short compared to the extent to which the media coverage focuses on these aspects. Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I too agree that its watered down. Just because a person produces great works of cultural significance and wins a Nobel Peace Prize does not mean that the negative things they said or done in their life should be omitted or lessened from their biography, especially when it was done in such a public way, as with Handke.Resnjari (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Haha, negative in this case is yet another POV. Having this sort of Controversy sections is not per Wiki policy and the text from that paragraph should find a place within the rest of the text. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sadko: Could you point to which Wiki policy that prohibits such a section? --T*U (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately content on Handke's controversies were slimmed down in the article after the Nobel Peace Prize win. Handke had those opinions, was public about them, he never denied them and nor has he refuted them (unless some can point to something where his has). They influenced some of his works and actions in the 1990s and 2000s. Regardless of his cultural achievements, this aspect of Handke exists however uncomfortable it may be.Resnjari (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I for one am not that uncomfortable with that aspect of Handke, as you would put it. The only problematic thing is his support for evil incarnate i.e. Slobodan Milošević. My POV aside, this is far more important: Wikipedia:Criticism. The Controversy paragraph has run its course. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sadko just an idea, maybe I'll get burnt for this, but, insofar as the controversy is about his views, the title of the section (if that is your concern) could indeed be "Views", wherein we describe the controversy concerning those. He is known to a degree for the controversy, but (correct me if I'm wrong) the controversy concerning him and him receiving the Nobel... have to do with his particular views, no? Full disclosure I have not exactly avidly followed info on this particular individual, just a suggestion.--Calthinus (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Views could work but we would need to split it in subsection such as Literature, Politics etc. This would also mean that additional text is needed (and I belive it is). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sadko, the issue with Handke is that apart from his support of Milosevic he has done genocide denial for what happened to the Bosniaks [3], [4]. I mean really, this is not some secret.Resnjari (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Austria or the Third Reich?

Where was born Handke? In Austria or in the Third Raich? De jure and de facto Austria did not exist in 1942. On 13 March 1938 Arthur Seyss-Inquart announced the revocation of Article 88 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain, which prohibited the unification of Austria and Germany, and approved the replacement of the Austrian states with Reichsgaue. Thus, an Anschluss or annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany was realised. See: Anschluss. Jingiby (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, you got reverted. That means your change is contested: it's time to talk while leaving the page unchanged. CapnZapp (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

CapnZapp, formally you are right. Are there some objections to edit the state of birth of Handke from Austria to the Third Reich as follows: Griffen, Third Reich (now Austria) Jingiby (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The edit by Jingiby is an important clarification. Unless there is actual reasons for opposing the edit (that are not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT), it should stand.Resnjari (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

CapnZapp, can you elaborate as to why you reverted Jingiby's edits? I ask because i see no reasons given in your edit summaries nor here in the talkpage. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is well written in the infobox - [Austria under National Socialism|Austria]. We could simply delete the right part. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Austria under National Socialism is not description of a state, or of an other subject of the international public law. This is simply some way of popular non-encyclopedic description. The real and accurate description according to the juridical status of the area is: Nazy Germany, Reichsgau Kärnten. All other formulas are some kind of mumbo-jumbo, designed to conceal the objectionable truth and are for a non-encyclopedic purpose. Jingiby (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby is absolutely correct. There was no Austria at that time. Saying "Austria under National Socialism" is like saying "Romania under Communism", as if Austria remained a separate state from Germany. It did not. It was southeast Germany, an integral part of Germany, the homeland of many the most powerful men in the Nazi government, after Anschluss passed with considerable popular support (see Anschluss#Plebiscite). This isn't pleasant, and many people from modern Austria dislike being reminded of it, but it is fact, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.--Calthinus (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not easy: propagandistic self-designation until 1939: "Drittes Reich/Third Reich"; official state designation from 1943: "Großdeutsches Reich/Greater German Empire" Grimes2 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Whichever of these we use is a separate discussion. What we can't use is Austria.--Calthinus (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we can use as a compromise the following combination: the standard Wikipedia name - Nazi Germany and the current link - Austria under Nazi Germany: Nazi Germany (now Austria). Jingiby (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Official name was (Anschluss to) "Deutsches Reich" between 1938 and 1943. (Handke was born in 1942). As link, we could use Nazi Germany. Grimes2 (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In this way: [Anschluss|Nazi Germany]? Jingiby (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No, Deutsches Reich Grimes2 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Not all English speakers know what that is.--Calthinus (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't Deutsches Reich translate to German Reich in English sources and like this it would be the closest rendering without having the Nazi part.Resnjari (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Third Reich or German Reich will be better. Deutsches Reich is all in German. Jingiby (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby, either one is ok. I am more inclined toward using German Reich.Resnjari (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, then. Are somebody against the formula German Reich? Jingiby (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm against. See my comment below. WP:BLP is non-negotiable. Khirurg (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

German Reich sounds reasonable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Support German Reich.--Calthinus (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

(unindent) Pretty obvious attempt at guilt by association and poisoning the well (trying to associate Handke with Nazism) by a group of editors with a clear agenda. I'd like to remind everyone that WP:BLP applies here and is non-negotiable. Disruption will be reported. Khirurg (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg as i have said to you previously, don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS of other editors about an "agenda" etc. Engage in good faith or don't bother.Resnjari (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg, I see your point and understand your POV, thank you. Do we know for other writers born under Nazis? We could take a look at their infoboxes. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no way to avoid "aspersions" if someone seriously suggests Wikipedia should say our article subject was born in "Third Reich". Even with the maximum GOOD FAITH that edit comes across as galactically clueless. I cannot begin to say how monumentally problematic and unacceptable that would be.

Frankly I personally don't have that kind of good faith reservoirs. I find it simply impossible to separate any good faith action from the vandals that are unhappy with him getting the Nobel Prize and now try to smear him as a fascist - just look at this very talk page, where Godwin's Law has already come true. It would instantly become world-wide news if we didn't treat "he's born in Nazi Germany" as the obvious vandalism it is, and must be.

Full disclosure: I reported this to the BLP Noticeboard, and I wanted to hold off my reply until that had an effect, which to my huge relief I now see it has had. Bottom line: it will never stand. You will never gain consensus that it is even close to permissible under WP:BLP. Note: this has nothing to do with "Austria" - I have no opinion on the accuracy of using that. But any place names that connect the article subject to the Third Reich in the reader's mind will be violently opposed - Wikipedia simply is better than that. CapnZapp (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Note: This article was discussed at (now archived) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive295#Peter_Handke_(2nd_take) CapnZapp (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

CapnZapp, casting aspersions over the intent of edits by other editors is frankly that. There is the talkpage, you reverted a editors edits without giving an explanation in your edit summary and thus this thread exists. Whether or not it states the full name of the political entity of the time he was born in, that's trivial. But to state that editors are somehow "vandals unhappy with him getting the Nobel Prize" is missing the point about Handke. A Nobel Prize does does not absolve his views he has held of Slobodan Milosevic or his forces and what happened during the Yugoslav wars. Now it may be a trivial matter to some editors, but people who lost family members in those wars and the Bosnian genocide have not in anyway forgotten the enablers and deniers who tried to spin the actions of Milosevic around the world as being in the right via genocide denial etc [5], [6]. And recently 5 countries Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Turkey boycotted Handke's Nobel Prize award ceremony as a protest to state that very point [7]. Kosovo declared him persona non grata just in case their stance was not clear enough [8].Resnjari (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari That comment (not by you) should be stricken. He knows I have a personal relationship to the topic of Nazis. He knows that that relationship has nothing to do with Handke or the Balkans. But I will not ask.--Calthinus (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I will not engage. If you feel butthurt, that only confirms my suspicions. I will simply keep contesting any birth place name that a reader can associate with nazism. Have a nice day. CapnZapp (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

CapnZapp, my suspicions are that some editors here want to water down all of Handke's controversial past into oblivion because now he is a Nobel Prize winner. That's where that real "butthurt" lies for those wanting to do away with it.Resnjari (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Would not the obvious solution be to say he was born in "Griffen, present-day Austria" with no link to country? Clean and simple! --T*U (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me! CapnZapp (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor and CapnZapp: Not good to me. This is not a BLP matter. Being born in Nazi Germany was not his choice. But it is a fact, and it was still relevant to his life. What his father did -- serve in the Nazi German army -- is not his own actions. But it is relevant to his life. BLP is not about enabling denialism.

Sadko Since you asked -- yes, we do state outright that people born in Nazi Germany were born in Nazi Germany. See the BLP infobox of Gerhard_Schröder. I -- strongly -- think that if it is okay for Schroder, it better be okay for Handke. Just a -- strong -- thought.

TU-nor, proposing that we simply omit, rather than outright cover up, the fact that Austria was a willing part of Nazi Germany in the infobox of someone whose father served in the Wehrmacht -- this is just a fact, he is not guilty because of it -- is not clean and simple. I know you made that statement in good faith, which is why I want to tell you that, to me, it feels like its being ignored that many people have a right to be offended at attempts to obscure Austria's membership in Nazi Germany. Of course there is context as it took Austrian politicians a rather long time to apologize and Austrian society has still not yet come to terms with the role that many still living people or the parents of living people played. Because it took Austrian politicians four decades and Austrian society 7.5 decades and counting to acknowledge basic historical facts, Austria was never denazified the way West Germany was, and even today we have the continual electoral success of the the successor party of the local Austrian Nazi party, among other things. I do not want to offend anyone; I've been to Austria, I'm not saying its still some place full of Nazis, but there are some feelings that at least I have about this. I will not post here again. I've realized I'm not impartial on this matter and don't particularly want to attempt "impartiality" on the matter of denialism, but thanks for at least hearing me out.--Calthinus (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus My thoughts about this follows more or less this pattern: This is an article about Handke, not about war-time Austria. If we just say he was born in Austria and link to Austria, we fall into the apologetic ditch you are describing. On the other hand, if we say he was born in Nazi Germany or similar and link to Austria under National Socialism or similar, we are (mis-)using Handke to make a statement about Austria. By saying he was born in "present-day Austria", we avoid the ditches on both sides, but we just may trigger an interest in the direction of "What does 'present-day Austria' mean? Wasn't it Austria at that time?", thereby perhaps getting some people to explore further. I certainly have no love lost for Handke, and I have also no love lost for Austria, but using the Handke article to "get at" Austria's disability to cope with their history is not the way to go. --T*U (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this is an encyclopedia and its content must be neutral and objective and not just politically correct from today perspective, or simply expressing some kind of modern point of view, with the obvious intention to hide the historical truth. Jingiby (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Griffen, present-day Austria works for me as well. Khirurg (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking. Maybe Griffen, Anschluss Austria. Like this it refers to WW2, the status in which Austria was under and internationally recognised (let’s not forget the allies first acknowledged the union before they disavowed much later). Like this it avoids the words Nazi or Germany, but is still factually correct. (pinging others involved in the discussion: Jingiby, Sadko, TU-nor, Calthinus, CapnZapp, Khirurg). Thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I sympathise with the idea, Resnjari, but the problem is that the phrase "Anschluss Austria" is never used by any kind of sources. This is the usual problem with facts in infoboxes; the infobox is not the place for lengthy explanations, so I feel the "present-day Austria" solution is the best. In the "Early life section we can elaborate: "Griffen in present-day Austria, at that time part of the Third Reich" or something like that. --T*U (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Re-signing to get the pinging correct. --T*U (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree wit the compromise above made by T*U. Jingiby (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Support TU-nor's proposal.--Calthinus (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Support TU-nor's proposal for the infobox and a sentence in the mainpage about the birthplace.Resnjari (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have been aware of this content dispute for awhile, but I am not interested in it. However, I am posting here what I posted in the other discussion at RSN. For those interested, IMO, there are many ways how this can be solved. After all, the first section of the article already says that Handke comes from a family with Nazi background, sth that makes it obvious that Austria at the time was in a way or another part of Germany's influence. That part of the infobox is just a small detail. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

In general: Yes, my point the entire time is that we can never separate an "objective" "just the facts" approach from a determined smear campaign when it comes to an infobox precisely because there is no space for context. If we can agree on something that is neutral even to the most slanted viewer, then sure okay, but in the end the fallback position is leave it out: it's not that we must display any given factoid in the infobox. Indeed, any time a simple word or two is insufficient to explain and give proper context, we simply don't use the infobox.

In particular: I have no issue with "Griffen, present-day Austria" (or a variant thereof) in the infobox. My only concern is including any geographical terminology that a reader associate with Nazi Germany, and "Griffen in present-day Austria" of course passes that test easily. What we write in the main text has never been an issue, because there we are unlikely to fail to provide proper context. CapnZapp (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Guess I"m back on here. Why are you worried about making something "neutral even to the most slanted viewer"? They will think what they want anyways, and what they think is not our concern. Why do we care about readers who are so irrational that they would blame a man for Nazism who was not even three years old when Nazi Germany collapsed? The context is clear -- his birth year is 1942. If readers either blame genocide on toddlers, or can't do basic math... they are beyond salvation anyways :) --Calthinus (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

CapnZapp, spare a thought about Gerhard Schröder (and who knows how many other others as well may have this). The guy is way more notable then Handke as he was German chancellor, yet his infobox has Nazi Germany as his birthplace. In light of your line of reasoning, that too could make a reader think that Schröder is somehow affiliated to the Nazis. My thing is, if its not ok for Handke, this would need to be applied elsewhere as well. What's the consistent approach here?Resnjari (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby, Sadko, TU-nor, Calthinus, CapnZapp, Ktrimi991, Khirurg. I had a look around and there are many other articles of notable people from the German speaking world who have Nazi Germany listed in their infobox as their birthplace: Markus Lüpertz - (painter, sculptor, graphic artist and writer), John Kay (musician), Oskar Lafontaine - (finance minister, Saar state Minister President, chairman of the Social Democrats), Wolfgang Schäuble - (politician and current president of the Bundestag), Edmund Stoiber - (Bavarian state Minister President, chairman of the Christian Social Union [CSU]), Joachim Gauck - (politician, civil rights activist, President of Germany 2012-2017), Sepp Maier - (football player), Ulf Merbold - (astronaut), Gudrun Ensslin - (political anarchist). This topic we are discussing here affects many more articles. Its important that whatever we decide here that it’s consistent for other articles that have to deal with birthplace details from the Nazi Germany period and that Handke is not treated as outside that context.Resnjari (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question I asked over at BLP/N. Maybe best to discuss issues "consistent for other articles" there then. CapnZapp (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari: As far as I can see, none of them are Austrians, so this discussion is only tangentially relevant for them. --T*U (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

TU-nor, the main objection, to paraphrase @Khirurg, was that Handke having Nazi Germany in the infobox would give off the appearance that he is somehow associated or linked to Nazis. Now if we take that as our departure point, there are other articles of notable people from the German speaking world with a similar thing. Those individuals having Nazi Germany as their birthplace is factually correct. When Handke was born, Anschluss was still active and it was a reality recognised by the allies just before the war. As with all those other people i listed, they and Handke were born in what was one country at the time. It was the surrender of that Germany in 1945 which formally dissolved Anschluss. From my point of view i feel we have to apply the same standard (whatever we settle upon) for Handke and not nitpick. Either its removed or kept for all in their infobox. Because if we say there is one standard for those people from Germany, but it’s different for Handke, why? I will also point to Markus Lüpertz. He wasn't even born in what are now the modern boundaries of Germany. Lüpertz was born in the Sudetenland, which just before the war commenced was once again recognised by the allies as part of Germany. So in his infobox it says Nazi Germany. My point is we have to be consistent. Maybe a BLP/N is needed. From appearances this is a wider issue.Resnjari (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue is more complicated, because except Austria, other countries or parts of such were annexed by Nazi Germany as for example Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Western Poland, Eastern France (Alsace-Lorraine), Luxembourg, etc. Jingiby (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby Austria and the Sudetenland were agreed upon internationally, even when the Czechoslovaks disagreed on Sudetenland the allies overrode them. Later Hitler took the rest and all other land acquisitions were annexations. So yeah it’s complicated how this would be applied, especially areas that had to do with annexations, which did not have any form of allied support at any time, unlike Austria and the Sudetenland.Resnjari (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• First, unless excellent sources are presented that Austria in no way shape or form existed between 1939 and 1945, we have to reject the claim because it is an extraordinary claim: Bavaria existed and still exists -- indeed, many places around the world exist for thousands of years under all kinds of governments. Locations are useful that way. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, the Nazi government kept many of the regions going, i.e Carthinia, Bavaria etc. The main issue that arises is the use of Nazi Germany in the infobox as the birthplace of so and so person. If we choose to place the regional state instead of the bigger polity they were part of that fine too. Anyway, as i said above, this affects much more people than Handke. I don't have much time at the moment, but i will open a thread at the BLP noticeboard some days from now. From my point of view whatever is decided (include/exclude, i.e on so and so reasons), the outcome has to be at the very least consistent in the way it’s applied to pages about the people i cited above.Resnjari (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Note: There are two reports on Peter Handke on the BLP noticeboard already. CapnZapp (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

CapnZapp, true, but those focused on Handke alone and that was before there was awareness that other articles had a similar issue. My BLP thread will be about all. We have to have a way of treating the bit about birthplace the same for all articles cited above, not just Handke.Resnjari (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We are going in circles here. On the other hand, latest edits by users Santasa99 restored Criticism section. Currect section falls under - sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have combined the two paragraphs, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout - The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What is your point?

OK @Khirurg:, I made those edits, and your reaction appears to me as quite simple "I don't like it" garnered with threats and accusations - so, what is your issue with those edits in case of this BLP article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs)

This is no way to start a discussion. Edits should not be made with such diffs. It's not the first time. Not to mention that you are ignoring 2 editors, based on some sort of "impression". Plus, 3RR is broken, once again. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks to NPOV. Jingiby (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind saw wrong version. However, A Serbian author along with others “denounced” Handke while the other two found his views “frightening” and “shameful”. Likely should mention their various short takes. Though a ton of quotes as the editor who initially added the content, was indeed overboard. Still needs work. OyMosby (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko, well, whatever my reaction is, it's a reaction, it can be appropriate or exaggerated. As for your removal of entire section of this article, you came with rationale that if my edit is to stay, positive reactions should be added as well to balance it, and since there is non you have reason to remove it - I don't think that that's how this works - editors should not remove something because something else is lacking - if you think that balance should be restored, go ahead, it's not my obligation to write both sides of the story, or to balance things around here. Issue is important, nothing is more important regarding this BLP at this point in time, and we see evidence of that in all international media.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Santasa99 What is the point of adding the commentary from Sontag that he was "finished" after his play "Voyage by Dugout"? This appears to be a commentary on his playwrighting, not related to his political views i.e. on Serbia. If that is to be added, then add it to his career section. Then again, I'm not sure why it's necessary, other than to trash his work.

Salman Rushdie never named him "Moron of the Year" but a candidate for it. Per your own reference: "In the battle for the hotly contested title of International Moron of the Year, two heavyweight contenders stand out. One is the Austrian writer Peter Handke.." The other "moron" according to Rushdie is Charlton Heston and at the end of his article actually hands him the "prize" by stating: "By reason of his folly’s greater effectiveness, I hand Charlton Heston the palm." Also he doesn't say it was because of "idiocy", though that can be supposed but that's taking a little bit too much liberty in paraphrasing. What he says is: "Mr. Handke’s previous idiocies include the suggestion that Sarajevo’s Muslims regularly massacred themselves.." So your text doesn't support the sources.

Speaking of which you have two which are duplicate, the Rushdie article itself, with and without a link. The Slobodna Dalmacija article says "Salman Rushdie ga je 1999. godine proglasio kandidatom za međunarodnog morona godine.." which translated reiterates the point that he was named a candidate. The BBC article appears to erroneously claim that he was named the moron. But this is indeed overcitation when the article itself and the SD ref are sufficient. Hopefully my edit makes sense now, lest you claim again it is because of "I don't like it" reasons. --Griboski (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unlike Sadko you at least offer some arguments that we can talk about. Sontag's proclamation is not simply on some of his plays, she said that after his war play "Voyage by Dugout" was staged in NY, which concerns Serbs as much as Muslims of Serbia and Bosnia - here's one bit from the play: "You know it was we who protected you from the Asian hordes for centuries. And without us you would still be eating with your fingers."this is a character defending the Serbs and their attendant massacres.

Salman's award is not real award at all, so it is irrelevant if he was a mare "candidate" or a "winner" - it was an anecdotal declaration, but if you really believe this is so important, go head, change it into "candidate" - it will look silly, but but it is your prerogative as an editor to request that any sentence or word abide sources that strictly.

That ref without url is original media outlet where the article appeared, and this other ref is with link where article can be read - the other two refs confirm that he said what he said in 1999 and in 2019.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You can read it for yourself, here: Voyage

If you can't unlock the content I can sand it to you.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop behaving like a child if you want other users to take you seriously. And more importantly, stop edit-warring (3RR broken), this is not anyone's pet article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't cross the line Sadko, please, keep it without an ad hominem - unless you have some evidence for this "child behavior" on my part.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't view it but I'll take your word for it. A search on it reveals that the play does indeed relate to the war. I think it would be helpful to add some context to Sontag's commentary though, otherwise the average reader is just left with the impression that it's an unrelated criticism. I realize Rushdie's award isn't real and he's being facetious but there's nothing silly about having the text accurately portraying what the source is actually saying. The one ref without the link is not necessary. I'm also skeptical about the BBC one since it misrepresents Rushdie's statement. However, it does point to a tweet of his where he says that he wrote about Handke's "idiocies" so it might be worth leaving it in. --Griboski (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Go head, I am OK with changing it to "candidate for the moron of the year", I don't mind removal of ref without url, either. I would prefer that BBC ref, though, exactly for the reason you noted - namely, the tweet. I don't mind adding some context to "Sontag" line, if you have some OK idea. And finally, please, don't take too personal my "silly" remark, I meant that in a context of "award" anecdotal nature it could be silly go that far - and as said at the beginning of this comment, no objection on "candidate".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries. I figured that's what you meant. As an aside, I noticed that Jingiby recently made a good NPOV edit which condensed some of the text in the criticism section. You added some new information and a new paragraph which perhaps could be trimmed down more or balanced with opposing views. --Griboski (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Jingiby made some good edits, but at that point my own edit consisted some over excessive quotations which made his appropriate to a degree, as you can see above that User:OyMosby had few justified objections in which I strongly support him. Now, these new quotations which I added yesterday and today consist some "short takes" which puts them in line with OyMosby remarks, and I would argue, in line with some User:Drmies comments, which they made on their TP. I’d love to hear from them too, so let’s not rush into NPOV argument and overreact on currently included quotations.

As for opposing views, go ahead, but I'd say they better be individuals with at least formidable public profile as those that I had to choose myself for this article, so if you can find some people of Rushdie, Lipstadt, Finkielkraut stature, go ahead, but place them into separate paragraph.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm I don't really know what to say. That whole section is kind of like me during COVID-19: fattening up nicely, but in the wrong places since the rest of the article isn't growing. In fact, while a kind of balance might well be achieved by adding the committee's (or committee members') responses, compared to the rest of the article the section is UNDUE, of course. (BTW, "his comments were misunderstood" is pretty cheap.) But while off-Wikipedia I have a dog in this fight, and an opinion, on-Wiki I am just looking at the article, thinking y'all are fighting over just one bit of an article and not looking at the rest, which suggests that maybe some of you are less interested in the writer and his article then in the opportunity to either praise or condemn. Anyway, I hope that while you all are looking for sources and stuff you'll come across material that will help you improve the rest of the article. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Good point. There are some interesting and well written retrospects on his career and opus online - this one at TLS, for example, could be used by all editors, regardless of how well acquainted with Handke the artist they may be, whether they read any of his writings or not, only if they are willing to develop sections on both his career and his views in general. Although we all have our preferences in term of topics and interests when we come to edit, I agree that other parts of the article, or article as a whole does look neglected. If only we could somehow get through all this squabble over how much of criticism should be included in individual responses, maybe we could concentrate at one section at the time. I couldn't find this "his comments were misunderstood" remark?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, found it in article body - "support for Serbs had been misunderstood". But that's how it is, it's a tricky business to balance the views on this character, without the risk of introducing another layer of denial.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

How is it cheap? It's a direct quote from one of the Nobel members, although maybe I should have put "misunderstood" in quotes. It's just that there's so many of them. I was trying to strike a balance for the section where there are comments like "asshole", "moron" and "monster" (the last from a writer who is a Croatia and Tudjman fanboy no less). Admittedly, I am not familiar with his writings so I'll certainly leave it to more interested and knowledgeable editors to improve other sections. I'm not a fan of anyone who denies or excuses crimes against any ethnic group. Still, BLP, NPOV, etc. policies should apply to even those with controversial views and opinions. --Griboski (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography selection

The Nobel prize bibliography selection is "of little relevance"?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC) The para is another sets of responds and reactions to subsequent committee's statement, which is issued as their respond to ensuing controversy, in attempt to differentiate between "art" and "political views", while obviously neglecting the fact that his political views are part of the series on Serbs and Serbia, which that same committee included into bibliography selection. This prompted whole new series of responds and reactions, as referenced. In other words, edit is refed statement of fact about issue of bibliography selection, which directly contests committee's reaction via official statement, and it's altogether different, or new issue - first is a reaction on award, and this was reaction on committee's (official) justification.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Those two journalists are not relevant, one of them even does not have an article of his own. All key information have been presented in previous sentences, therefore nothing new is added. You are adding a bunch of material in order to make sure that he is thoroughly labeled as genocide denier, which was touched in other parts of the article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

POV

Countless reviews of his works over the decades have been ignored, the Reception and criticism section only covers negative reactions to the Nobel Prize (should be relocated to the Nobel Prize controversies) and criticisms of his political views. It is obvious that only one aspect of the criticism has been intentionally added. I will do my best to improve the section, and maybe some other editor will want to. It is important that the template remains.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That is not a reason to tag the section, it looks more like a WP:JDL. You haven't disputed what has been written already, you just said that more should be written. Make your edits and if there are disputes, a tag may be reasonable about your concerns, but not until then. The same editor has tagged other articles and they have remained in a tagged states for ~3 months without any talkpage discussion or edits. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? That is simply not true. When I mark a problem, in the next period, I have always tried to solve it by correcting the article and participating in discussions. It’s not ok to label other editors (WP:AVOIDABUSE), and previous messages look like WP:PASSIVE at best. Assuming good faith is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. The section is really biased and does not cover all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The perfect example for the template. We have to be especially careful in BLP cases. (WP:BLPBALANCE) The criticism sections are always controversial. (WP:CRIT) --WEBDuB (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree there's a balance problem if this section is exclusively concerned with the political controversy about his Balkans opinions. This guy is, first and foremost, a prominent author with a long list of literary achievements that are totally unrelated to that controversy and have been the object of critical appraisal for decades, and we are saying next to nothing about that. Imbalance is also, by its nature, an NPOV defect. BTW, there may be some conceptual issue here about the word "criticism". Do we expect this section to be about "criticism" in the political sense of "negative things that have been said about him", or about "criticism" in the sense of literary criticism, i.e. literary critical appraisal and analysis? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point about the difference between political and literary criticism. We can change the section to "Politics" and be done with it.-Maleschreiber (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I want to say that it is recommended to avoid sections that focus on negative opinions (“controversy” or “criticism”), especially in the WP:BLP articles. “Negative material about living persons may violate privacy policies or damage the person's reputation; therefore, strict rules are in place to govern such information.” (WP:CRIT) In fact, literary criticism has been completely ignored here. Of course, reactions to the Nobel Prize are important, they are often the subject of controversy (there is a separate article). Certainly, numerous positive criticisms during the career are ignored. Especially since he is a widely recognized writer.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby: I think that it is more logical and neutral to first mention the congratulations and criticisms related to the literary work, and then the reactions that arose from his political views. There were controversies in the case of Bob Dylan, Dario Fo and many other Nobel laureates, but they are not chronologically first in the section. We should be careful with negative material, especially in with the Biographies of living persons.--WEBDuB (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps but maybe others can chime in as well. I see a number of positive attributes being added to balance the article and that is good though lets not get to undue territory. The man is an amazing writer and storyteller deserving of accolades regardless of his views. But also holds horrid and inhumane personal views on genocide, certain leaders, groups, and events. So we should represent both. How exactly to do so should be discussed here not just one editor’s mission I think. That way we can makes sure there is consensus on the sections and hopefully everyone will be contented. I appreciate your effort so far in the article however. Your latest addition about In 2019 Handke receiving the award makes more sense in the Career section not Reaction as he did not get an award in reaction to his award though. OyMosby (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, there is, and I think, should be only a "Criticism" (sub)section, where we can bring a critical analysis of his work. That being said, there should be no confusion or mystery that his work, like any other piece of literature, cinema, etc., contains fair amount of ideology and/or politics. That his "Balkan opus" is burdened or even tainted with so much of it is the main reason why that portion of his work has been heavily criticized as politically engaged literature. Distinction here, in my humble opinion, is not between "political views" vs. "literary" criticism, as Future Perfect suggested/asked, because such can't be made anyway, the only distinction is between criticism of his "Balkan opus", viewed as being steeped into ideological chasms of genocide apologia, pro-Serb nationalism, and anti-Muslim sentiment, overwhelmingly, vs. his works on other subjects and with other themes. In short, his political and ideological views are inseparable from his literary work, especially in his Balkan opus. We don't need "Politics" (sub)section, as Maleschreiber reluctantly suggested, although we have (sub)section "Views" where his political engagements/involvements are described.

@OyMosby:, WEBDuB, I agree that his views are of such a nature that they are seen, worldwide, as important for assessment of his literature, but I would add that his views are entangled with his literature as its ideological frame, context even, as pointed in above para, you can't separate two. I wish you all a good health and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. That reminds me of accusations that Petar II Petrović-Njegoš and Ivo Andrić promoted a policy of ethnic cleansing, and that the Gone with the Wind is racist. The works of art are a testimony of a certain period of time, they also show the world seen through the eyes of certain characters or real people. They should not be taken literally. They are usually intentionally overemphasized or symbolize something completely different. Handke is neither a historian nor a war reporter. In his case, the Balkans represent symbolism, probably under the influence of personal experience, mother's origin, etc. It can be said that the symbolism of his works and fiction influenced them to misunderstand the real events, rather than the opposite.

Certainly, these are all speculations. It is important to understand what a work of art is, what a private opinion is. Moreover, in works of art, the plot is not crucial, but the narration, tone, symbolism, stylistic devices, dialogues... That makes a writer great. Furthermore, travelogues are a records of what he encountered. Their goal is to get to know the landscape through the eyes of the people who live there. They should not be understood as the views of the authors and should not insist that his political views are inseparable from his literary work. The Swedish Academy tried to explain all this, so that his works do not promote what he was accused of. In conclusion, this article should be written in accordance with the fact that Handle is a writer, a highly recognized writer. From the previous version, it would be concluded that there are more people who criticize his literary work, that he is one of the “ordinary” writers who was practically accidentally awarded the Nobel Prize, so later everyone was surprised and criticized where it came from. --WEBDuB (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with any opinion which says that we can't criticize artistic work because it is a "product of its time". We can criticize its politics, analyze them as a product of their environment and even acknowledge artistic merit. Symbolism in literature symbolizes a specific, real world situation, it's not an empty signifier. @Santasa99: I agree with the fact that politics and art are entangled- with my suggestion I meant to separate the two in terms of creating two distinct sections which would make the subject more accessible to the readers. Political criticism of Handke has entered academic discourse: Remembrance and Forgiveness: Global and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Genocide and Mass Violence is getting published in October 2020. David Pettigrew writes in the afterword: Genocide denial and triumphalism in Bosnia and Serbia have culminated on the global stage with the award of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2019 to Peter Handke, someone who denies the Srebrenica genocide and aligns himself with Serb extremism, having appeared and spoken at the funeral of Slobodan Milošević..--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)