Talk:Republic of Ragusa/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Questions

On the picture displaying the coat of arms I counted 54 of them however under the rubrique of "patrician families" only 25 are listed. Could anyone clarify this discrepancy? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.74.11 (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Article name

In the book of Robin Harris "Dubrovnik - A history" (ISBN-13: 978-0863563324), the author uses the name "Dubrovnik". Also, the other toponyms are in Croatian. Similar is with personal names. Kubura 07:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it uses the name "Dubrovnik" throughout the whole book, not just in the title (I've been able to see the book in the bookshop). Kubura 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And why not, because today the name of Dubrovnik is internationally accepted. But in his book Dubrovnik: A History, the British author Robin Harris sets out, in his own words, to create for the first time “a modern, well-sourced and readable account of the history of the Ragusan Republic” (p. 17). see here --DaQuirin 13:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: It would be fine to have a break in this fruitless discussion! Please end the naming dispute for a while and try to improve the article (maybe with the help of this interesting, probably balanced book)... --DaQuirin 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His book is translated into Croatian also (in 2006). It's titled "Povijest Dubrovnika", ISBN: 953-212-257-5. Kubura 07:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming dispute is important thing, DaQuirin. Maybe this naming thing sounds and looks like a comical funny nagging of a small eternally unsatisfied balkanic tribe, but all imperialistic attempts/actions started with such things. When you belong to a big nation, you don't see and recognize such things. But when you belong to a small nation, you recognize the sh*t coming.
To make it more "closer" to you, DaQuirin, why don't you try to provoke the French and Belgians with writing the historical articles on en.wiki (concerning their countries) with toponyms in German? Or the Poles. Try to write the article about the "Warschau getto".Kubura 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In previous discussions, it was stated again that "Ragusa" is not Italian or Croatian, but Ragusan-Dalmatian. On the other hand, in my opinion the mentioned toponyms (of smaller places, villages) should be transformed to Croatian forms. Maybe some people here could find a compromise here. --DaQuirin

Present territorial claims (are there such Italian claims for Dubrovnik today?) are not under discussion here. You may include this topic into the Dubrovnik article. The dominant use in academic research ("Republic of Ragusa") is undisputed in all major Western countries. --DaQuirin 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

DaQuirin, have you followed the discussion here? Have you seen the categorization attempts? Giovanni Giove insisted on categorizing this article as "Reppubliche Marinare of Italy", althought this city never belonged to Italy, neither during WWII.
If you don't know, even today, on Italian universities, there're works (available on the Internet), that speak about the "reitalianization of Eastern Adriatic coast". These works are in Italian. At last, neither a year ago, there were few severe diplomatic incidents, because of things said and done by Italian high officials. Veeeery high ones. I'll dig you the links later (with short translations what they've said and done).
"Undisputed dominant use"? Hey, wait! Slow down. You say "it's undisputed and dominant", just like that? How can you say something like that? Look at the archive of this article, in United Nations' material, which dealt with the attempt of Serbo-Montenegrin aggressors, in which they tried to "establish" (puppet) state of Republic of Dubrovnik (indictment against Milošević), that'll be "under their protection"?
In 19th century, international sources (mostly western ones) used term "Ragusa" more often. But, this is not 19th century. Many things have changed since then. As I gave you the example, in contemporary English language, the name "Dubrovnik" is exclusively used, when referring to Dubrovnik. At last, no tourist guide takes you to "Ragusa in Croatia", but to Dubrovnik in Croatia. Kubura 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the article about Dubrovnik but the article about a historical state. I don't want to go into our earlier discussion again - with one exception: Your remark concerning the UN document was exactly not referring to the historical Republic of Ragusa/Dubrovnik but to a new political entity that the Serbs wanted to create during the Croatian War. Therefore, the argument is completely misleading (again, we discussed all this before!). You are putting present political arguments into the discussion how to name this article referring to the historical state that ended its existence in 1808 under the self-styled name of "Republic of Ragusa". --DaQuirin 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-styled name? Here's a scanned page from the book from Dubrovnik from 1747. Printed in Venice.
To check catalugue search results, see here [1] (enter the text content into the "author" box, if the "title" box fails to give results).
The book is categorized under: Eshatology, Death (Christianity), Croatian rare books 18th c.
Here, I repeat the things I've wrote previously (15 May 2007) in the section "The name of the country", in the archived page.
Here's the link from HAZU.
It confirms the name of the country in Croatian, as well as that the name of language is Croatian.
"Pokripglenie umiruchi, za dobro i sveto pochi umilosti Boxioi sovoga svita / iztomaçeno, i skupgleno pria po Don Luczi Terzichiu. Koie da boglie, i upraunie izgovara u haruaski iezik; popravi i pristampa po ozcu P. Fra Bernardinu Paulovichiu iz Dubrovaçke Darssave ... Dedicato a sua eccellenza Simon Contarini .... - U Mleczi : Po Bartalu Occhj, 1747." Scan of the first page [2].
The translation is "...in order to better be spoken in Croatian, fixed and reprinted by father fra Bernardin Pavlović from the country of Dubrovnik...".
Few interesting lines from that page are "Jod istoga nadostagliuni mnogi i rasliçiti Blagosovi, i Druge Stuari Svete, i Kriposne za korit Naroda Harvasckoga Kakose moxe viditi nassuarsi isti knigat".
Here's the second edition. [3] and the scan of an internal page [4]. Kubura 06:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here. [5].
"The settlement of Dubrovnik was first mentioned in written records by an anonymous cosmographer of Ravenna in 667. Known in Latin as Ragusium, it was long known by its Italian name, Ragusa, before its Croatian name Dubrovnik (from Dubravka, «forest of oaks») acquired general acceptance. ".
The source is United Nations - Security Council - "Final report of the United Nations Commission of Experts established pursuant to security council resolution 780 (1992), Annex XI.A, The battle of Dubrovnik and the law of armed conflict". Kubura 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of names "After the fall of the Republic"

This part of the list (no citizens of the republic!) should be removed, it belongs instead to the Dubrovnik article. --DaQuirin 11:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Mato Vodopić (1816-1893) - bishop
• Federico Seismit-Doda (1825-1893), Italian politician
• Luigi Seismit-Doda (1817-1890), soldier, Italian marshall.
• Francesco Ghetaldi-Gondola (Baron Frano Gondola) (1833-1899) - soldier, statesman, nobleman, Knight of Malta
• Medo Pucić (Orsato Pozza) (1821-1882) - writer, politician and nobleman
• Niko Pucić (Nicola Pozza) (1820-1883) - politician and nobleman
• Ivan August Kaznačić(Giovanni Agostino Casnacich) (1817-1883)writer, artist.
• Pero Budmani (1835-1914) - linguist
• Vlaho Bukovac (Biagio Faggioni) (1855-1922) - painter.
• Ivo Vojnović(Conte Iván de Vojnovich) (1857-1929) - writer,nobleman
• Frano Supilo (1870-1917) - politician and journalist
• Blagoje Bersa (Benito Bersa)(1873-1934), musician
• Ottavio Missoni, (1921) fashion designer
• Domenico Stoich (-1853)
• Giorgio Sagrivi

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move article. There has been strong evidence presented that "Republic of Ragusa" is the name most commonly used in English language sources. Per our naming conventions, we aim to reflect common English usage.

I would further remark that this is not a good way to set up a move discussion. Structuring the conversation as a vote is detrimental to consensus-building discussion. There's no need for separate sections, nor for numbered lists. The discussion template used to look like that, and we changed it for a reason. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Republic of Ragusa→ Republic of Dubrovnik Dubrovnik is name very well known around the world. The majority of the population have always been Slavic speakers.Ragusa is just Latin name ,which many countries had during the middle ages, unknown by anybody except Italophones.Today is convention that are beeing used native names of the cities, not borrowings from "world languages" of the colonizers. So it is Beeijing, Kalimantan, Sulawesi not Peking ,Borneo, Celebes. Last name were always most famous during the fact that languages of colonizers were more widespread

I question the validity of this poll discussion since many of the votes points are based on rather lopsided canvassing by User:Aradic-en (an almost single use account) at Croatian Wikipedia. (Examples here, here, here, here, and here among others. See hr:Posebno:Contributions/Aradic-hr for complete list.) I don't personally oppose canvassing but it should ideally target all previously interested parties and should occur at English Wikipedia in English. — AjaxSmack 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support - as the nominator.--Anto 08:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - Explained above. Also, terminology solution from 19th century isn't always good for 21st c. (obsolete, wrong, unaccurate). Dubrovnik was term used by its majority Croat population (in concerned centuries, centuries during independence - see the archive, section "Croathood of Dubrovnik and translations" (contains links to scanned pages of 16th, 17th c. books). Last, but not the least, Croat parties won the elections there, in 19th c., during Austria-Hungary. Croatian was official there also, so the name "Dubrovnik" was official during 19th c.. Kubura 19:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Support - as per nominator's rationale. Though the "Republic of Ragusa" should be preserved in the article for informational and historical purposes. --Raguseo 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - already explained. Zenanarh 13:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support- nothing else to say, explained above...--Drozgovic 20:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC) -This is the third edit of this user. (DaQuirin)
6. Support - Edgar Allan Poe
7. Support- The Republic of Ragusa does possess some historical weight, but- where would we have been had we insisted on Cathay, heathen Chinee, Muscovy, ...Mir Harven 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - Dvorsky 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Support- Mir Harven nicely put it above, Ragusa is mentioned in history books, but also is Muscovy. There are more examples of such naming, but what for? As time passes, some names are forgotten, and to insist on archaic name on any article is simply to deny Wikipedia users easy understandable information. So support per WP:COMMONNAME SpeedyGonsales 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   Support - If we were certain "Ragusa" was the name used at the time of the Republic, we would be obliged to use it. However, we must remeber that with a majority Slavic population (beyond question - see Mauro/Mavro Orbini, for example), the actual local name even in those days would have been "Dubrovnik", therefore the (Latin) name "Ragusa" truly is comparable with "Cathay" and other archaic names. It has strong contemporary historic backing, but is actually incorrect. We must remember that, after all, the actual accuracy of Wiki content (such as this) is of the utmost importance, it supercedes even the frequency of use. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   • The current local name is utterly irrelevant in this case; English Wikipedia should use English per WP:UE. We use Albania, not Shqiperia, and Montenegro, not Crna Gora, even though the two are Italian because they are also English. I wouldn't presume to go to Croatian Wikipedia and demand changing hr:Engleska to England because Engleska is copied from the Serbs or is archaic or is not the native name. — AjaxSmack 05:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
     • When you mention Serbs. As I see, we don't stick to the rules here. District of Syrmia (the name used in English) is called "Srem district" here, but the "Split-Dalmatia County" is called here under that name, not as "Split-Dalmacija County". However, the old Republic is named after a city, and no guide in English knows Ragusa, but Dubrovnik. Kubura 14:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
     • AjaxSmack, I think we may have a misunderstanding. The current name IS inded irrelevant when discussing a 200-year old Republic. However, the name "Republic of Dubrovnik" was used 200 years ago as well, by the vast majority of the population, no less. Moreover the name for the city in the English language is, after all, not "Ragusa", but "Dubrovnik". (Kubura, take it easy, there is no "Serb conspiracy" on Wiki...) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note: DIREKTOR changed his opinion to "oppose". - Ev 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

10. Support - Using common name like argument is not accepted for rule on Wikipedia. Examples for this statement are articles John VIII Palaiologos, Manuel II Palaiologos , John V Palaiologos ... English common name for this dynasty is Palaeologus but we have made decision to use local Greek name. Because of this there is no reason for not using local name for Dubrovnik. --Rjecina 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NAME, which is policy, says otherwise; the unwise and pedantic treatment of Byzantine names should be fixed, not imitated. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose In English-speaking (and in all major Western) countries, "Republic of Ragusa" is the correct name used for the historical state (which was the official name of the state during its existence). The name of the modern city is of course Dubrovnik. --DaQuirin 11:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose and agree with DaQuirin. Although "Republic of Dubrovnik" is used in English, "Republic of Ragusa" is the more common terminology. Olessi 13:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose and agree with DaQuirin. BTW the "real" name does not tell us anything about the "nationality" of the Republic (if this concept make sense, in the present case).--Giovanni Giove 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose and agree with DaQuirin. "Republic of Ragusa" is far more common in publications in English and Dutch (the languages that I read most literature in) and probably in most other languages, except perhaps in the South Slavic ones (this is not an offence!), which may explain this dispute. I know it is not a good argument, but if you take a look at the interwiki links, you see that almost all wikipedias in other languages call it the "Republic of Ragusa". Maarten 10:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I doesn't matter what the majority of speakers are or were. The English name of the state is Republic of Ragusa and this should be the title per WP:UE. (By analogy, the majority of Chinese speak Chinese but the article for People's Republic of China is not at People's Republic of 中国.) Furthermore, applying the tenets of nationalism to the pre-national era is a bit messy. — AjaxSmack 03:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Not much to be said, really. Duja►
7. Oppose I see nothing here to suggest that the normal usage, as attested by Black Lamb and Grey Falcon, has been, or should be, changed. Dubrovnik is used in English as the name of the modern city, not of the Republic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Historically the designation for this state has almost always been "Republic of Ragusa", and the Italian name is still the most common form used nowadays when referring to the Republic (in the English language). Húsönd 03:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   Just a little comment - Ragusa is Dalmatian, not Italian. Dalmatian is not Italian. Zenanarh 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose per all above. Our general naming conventions and the specific ones on using English & for geographic names require us to follow common English usage: "[i]f you are talking about a [...] country, [...] use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."
     In other words, we're asked to passively refect the names with which most English-speakers are already familiar, instead of actively promote the adoption of the forms we prefer.
     It is my personal perception that "Republic of Ragusa" is the form commonly used in English-language publications, and the opinions above & AjaxSmack's examples below seem to confirm it.
     So far this discussion has failed to even suggest that this usage has changed. Of course, if at some point in the future "Republic of Dubrovnik" becomes the common English form, then, and only then, this article should be renamed accordingly. - Ev 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Sorry guys, but to be fair, AjaxSmack is right: "Republic of Ragusa" is a lot more common than "Republic of Dubrovnik" in modern English publications. I conducted a little web research of my own and it is strikingly obvious that the former is used uncomparably more. Because of this I decided to change my vote. It would be wrong to vote both against one's conscience and Wikipedia policy. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The nomination does not present significant evidence that "Republic of Dubrovnik" has replaced "Republic of Ragusa" for the historical state in English usage.

I don't have time for extensive research on the subject at this time but, in addition to Robin Harris's Dubrovnik: A History mentioned above here are just a few English works that use "Republic of Ragusa" I found on my shelves:

• H. T. Norris. Islam in the Balkans. 1993
• Harriet Bjelovučić. The Ragusan Republic: Victim of Napoleon and Its Own Conservatism. 1970.
• David M. Crowe. A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia. 1996.
• Bernard W. Lewis. The Muslim Discovery of Europe. 2001.
• William Miller. The Ottoman Empire and its Successors, 1801-1927. 1966.
• Alisa Meyuhas Ginio. Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the Mediterranean World after 1492. 1992.
• Lonely Planet's Eastern Europe travel guide (old edition)

I found "Republic of Dubrovnik" also used in a few:

• Christopher Bennett. Yugoslavia's Bloody Collapse: Causes, Course, Consequences. 1995.
• Rick Steves' Best of Eastern Europe travel guide (old edition)

The preponderance of Republic of Ragusa is also reflected in Google Books results (ICBIDT): 698 for "Republic of Ragusa" vs. 297 for "Republic of Dubrovnik".

And, not that its relevant to English Wikipedia, but most other Western European interwikis use variants of Ragusa, too, (e.g., ca:República de Ragusa, de:Republik Ragusa, es:República de Ragusa, fr:République de Raguse, hu:Raguzai Köztársaság, nl:Republiek Ragusa, pt:República de Ragusa) so its not really that unusual.

— AjaxSmack 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced, you appear to be right on this one, Ajax. I'll change my vote. (Hmmm, the "votes" are now even, I'l probably look like some kind of defector for this...) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To AjaxSmack's list I would add that "Republic of Ragusa" is used by:

• The Times Atlas of World History, Fourth Edition, London, 1994, ISBN 0-7230-0534-6, pages 136 & 183.
• NGS maps: Italy, February 2005 (using "Rep. of Ragusa" in a small map for the year 1492).

Best regards, Ev 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources request for the "Italian language was official" claim

Just because the Ragusian aristocrats spoke both Croatian and Italian, it doesn't make them Italian. Until 1918 the German houses of Baden and Würtemberg only spoke French BUT that doesn 't make the German state Baden Würtemberg a French state. And that's why Ragusa was not an italian state. Italians should therefore stop leering at Ragusa trying to regard it as Italian.

I must respectfully demand that some kind of evidence (RELIABLE source) be brought forth to support the claim that Italian was the official language of the Republic of Ragusa. This keeps up reappearing and I think it's really high time people have a look at the backing behind this statement. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So let us check, for example, the book by Robin Harris "Dubrovnik - A history", to get an answer. Does somebody know what actually happened "in 1492"? As for the requested move, I would like to understand your change of opinion, see [6]. So far, we only know that Croatians prefer "Republic of Dubrovnik". --DaQuirin 19:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

sigh* yes, I was young and wild then... ;D I did change my mind for a good reason though. It was because of the simple fact I explained in my vote. While the name "Ragusa" was well known within the city, the name "Dubrovnik" was used by the majority of the people, the Slavs (the upper classes were Romance Dalmatians). Therefore, that name should be considered primary, though I do not particularly mind the current situation.

As for the book, I really would like to see it. Is there any link on the net? I doubt I'll find it in shops around here... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. (letting me think about the Bandwagon effect...) At least, somebody is interested here and asks questions. So here is the mentioned book: Robin Harris: Dubrovnik. A History, London 2003. ISBN 0-86356-332-5 see also [7]. User Kubura told us that the book is also available in Croatian (in 2006) ("Povijest Dubrovnika", ISBN: 953-212-257-5) DaQuirin

Now for the language question. I checked Engel's very old, but interesting book Geschichte des Freystaates R." (Freistaat = Republic). This very old book was published still during the existence of the Republic (Vienna 1807). It has many references of texts going back centuries ago. It contains above all some original documents. For the language situation, he plainly states: The native language (in the recent period) is "Slavonic" (Croatian), but you can easily get along with Italian. Most Ragusans were bilingual, with Croatian being their mother tongue. Nothing new. And for the 'official language': There is a lot of Latin (Treaties, coins), but the relevant question is here, what did they use in their official State papers, protocols etc. I think, this should be most relevant for your question. It seems that until the end, Italian was (but to what degree?) used in the public documents (but again, the Harris book, making full use of the archives, as it seems, will probably give answers). Very interesting is the documented original report of the Ragusan diplomats about their official mission to Constantinople (1792) Giornale del Viaggo etc.. In an introductory remark, Engel explains how difficult the situation was for the Ragusans, they had to pay the regular tribute to the Sultan, were not treated as equal diplomats etc. This aspect of the Republic's history (no full independence) should be more explained in our article. Also it would be interesting to know more about the Republican institutions (and their 'official names'). Just to make it clear: For our name dispute, the language or ethnic issues are not relevant. But let's wait and see, we will find some arbitration in the end and - why not - manage a compromise. DaQuirin

We still can't really verify the source of this claim. I propose we remove all references to an "official" language until we can get to the bottom of this. I don't like it, but this is a pretty outrageous claim as far as Croats are concerned (the Republic is one of the founders of the Croatian language, so to speak) and it appears to be the only way to prevent hostility on this issue. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We can not talk about the presence of Italian language at that time. At that time there was no Italy but Republic of Venice, Republic of Genoa, Kingdom of Naples, Papal State etc. We can say only that there was a presence of Venetian, Toscany or some other Latin-derived language.

Names Italian language and Italians emerged after Risorgimento. Before that nobody from the (what is today ) Italy declared himself as Italian. Neither anybody of named them like that.

For example , Dante always declared himself as Florentin (citizen of Florence ) and his contemporaries called them like that. Whether they were from Rome, Naples , Zagreb , Athens, Paris or Berlin.

--Anto 06:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is all well known, the claim is that the Venetian language was official. I personally do not consider it possible, but I will accept this if someone can provide me with a (reliable) link where I can verify that Harris clearly states this. Otherwise (or until then) I believe all references to an "official" language (if there even was such a thing) should be removed. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would consider Italian here (like used in the Ambassadors' Report of 1792), Venetian used as vernacular language (or 'dialect'), not in written texts from Dubrovnik (if anybody knows better, please tell us!). The claim that there were no Italians before the Risorgimente is nonsensical. Engel's book (1807) explains, how "Italians" actually were complaining in 16th-18th century period about the multiple (political, whatever) allegiances of the Republic (le sette bandiere di Ragusa = the seven flags of Ragusa"), thereby demonstrating the smart diplomacy of the Republic... DaQuirin 12:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Venetian was used as vernacular (mostly by merchants), that's beyond dispute. The question here is where are the cold hard reliable sources here that support the claim that it was "official"? If there are no verifiable references this should not be included. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, my search was in vain, can anyone present a verifiable link that verifies the Italian language (Venetian dialect) was the "official" language of the Republic of Ragusa?
(I TEMPORARILY removed all such claims in anticipation of confirmation.) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are you coming back again to the "Venetian dialect"? To a certain extent, Standard Italian was used in public documents of the Republic. With foreigners, Ragusans communicated (or had to communicate) in Italian, probably in some dialect form, using Italian or Italian-Venetian as a lingua franca in the region. That's all. It's not that difficult to understand? --DaQuirin 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear DaQuirin, neither Italian neither Venetian Italian were ever lingua franca in Dalmatia. Only small part of Dalmatians were able to speak it and understand it. I've already noticed the same claim in several related articles but it's not objective at all. Only distinguished minority (noble society) used it in some periods and in some occasions and international communication was made mainly by Latin language as elsewhere in half of Europe. Zenanarh 16:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

When all educated people (and many ordinary people as well) know a certain second language, we call it a Lingua franca, believe it or not. Ragusans had to communicate with many foreigners, and so they knew Italian, used it in documents etc. etc. Contrary to your blatant nationalism, they were both cosmopolitans and proud of their culture. There is another quote from Engel's book: Ragusans, when confronted with their relation to money, accused of being "deceptive like the Jews or rapacious like the Turks", they would often answer: Non siamo ne Turchi, ne Evrei, ma siamo poveri Ragusani. (We are neither Turks nor Jews, but we are poor Ragusans.) see here --DaQuirin 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

DaQuirin, there's a difference between an official language and lingua franca. While it is obvious the Ragusan merchants and a part of the upper classes had to speek Italian, they also had to speak Turkish in equal measure (lets also not forget Greek). Will you please stop beating around the bush and bring forth a verifiable (net) source for the "Italian language was official" claim, if you support it, that is. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fernand Braudel is his La Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen a l'époque de Philippe II wrote that there were repeated warnings and remindings to speak Italian in official meetings, and uses that to prove that preferred language was not Italian -- if it was, why people should be constantly reminded that they should talk in Italian? Obviously, language of the citizens was not noble enough for the ruling ones.

--Daniel Nikolic (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

About the Italianism of Dalmatia

Talking about the Italianism of Dalmatia is equal nonsence as talking about the Italian spirit of Albania or Ethiopia. Or Claiming that Czech lands are German or Slovakia Hungarian territory.

Dalmatia was occupied/colonized (use the word that you prefer) by Venetian republic . And Italy has no right for the inheritage of Dalmatia. As well as Spain has no right on the inheritage of Mexico , Uruguay , Argentina. or Portugual on Brazilian.Aradic-en --Anto 06:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the beautiful architecture of Prague that draws tourists was built at the time when most citizens of Prague were German. Spain has "only" language and colonial architecture in Latin America. Isn't that what heritage is? 99.229.96.231 08:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you help by providing sources concerning what language was official in the Republic? That's what is discussed at the moment (see the article). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try but you have entire paragraph for it! :) --Anto 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(never mind the article, its a huge mess) We need reliable sources about the official language of the Republic in the period after 1492. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubrovnik was cosmopolitan city settled by Croats who were using all languages of the known world at that moment, but in the senate it was Ragusan, later Croatian too I think but I'm not sure. I'm sure it was not Italian, why would it be? Using of Italian was much more a kind of fashion because of Italian reinnesance influence on all Europe, but it was far away from official. A reliable source is travelling to me by post next days, I'm hardly waiting. Zenanarh 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Congradz, Zen. Maybe you can finally end this matter. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this before, see the archive.
It was the case around the Europe, where the feudal lords and higher classes spoke other language, to distinguish themselves from the lower classes.
E.g., in Italy, see the case in ...Piedmont, if I remember well. There, their intellectuals spoke French, as opposing to lower classes that spoke Italian. Kubura (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC) No, you are wrong my family is from Piedmont and there everybody spoke Piedmontese, from the king and the nobility to the populace. However the educated could speak French too and some Tuscan. As far as Ragusa is concerned they spoke their own language which is unmistakebly 'Italian' ie an Italian dialect. See the famous letter that is supposed to be only extant document of Dalmatic Ragusean. I can understand it very well being a native Italian. It does not look close to Northern Dalmatian (Vegliot), Friulan or Istriot. It is a mixture of Central Italian dialects, some Venetian influence too. Raguseans were Italians and the official language of the Republic was Italian. The documents of the republic are all writtten in Latin or Italian. The list of the Rectors is only made up of Italian names, just read it as it is, ie without arbitrarily making interpretative alterations, adding some ic at the end etc. I can testify that a gentleman from Ragusa I met in 1985 told me that his family was original Ragusean and they had always been speaking Italian (ie Tuscan, not Venetian) to that date. His surname too looked Italian but not Venetian. Is it possible to say that Filippo Diversi is a Croatian name? What about the decree that forbids the use of the 'lingua sclava'? Does not it mean that the original Raguseans were Italians? The English speaking readers should be made aware of the facts if this entry has to have any historical value.61.138.212.66 (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubrovnik should be called Ragusa

Oh please...the only official name for Switzerland is "Confoederatio Helvetica" just as the only official name for Dubrovnik was "Res Publica Ragusina". And yet Dubrovnik remains Dubrovnik just as Switzerland is Switzerland or Svizzera or Suisse or Scheiz or Schwyz or whatever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.74.11 (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you people talking about?? You all know nothing about Dubrovnik, Ragusa, it's history and present! You are discussing about changing the name of the article into "Republic of Dubrovnik" which is absolutly incorrect! Before the 1806., when the army of France penetrated into the wals of Dubrovnik, the city was called Dubrovnik only by the Slavs who lived outside the borders of the Republic. But the people who lived in the city called it Ragusa. The official name of the state was RES PUBLICA RAGUSINA and if you want to change that, you want to change history and that can not be done. In fact, article in croatian wikipedia about this subject is wrong and should be changed into "Republika Ragusa". I am telling all this as a historian and the citizen of Dubrovnik!

And you are... Zenanarh 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As a native of Dubrovnik I doubt you are one too. --Raguseo 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ma ne seri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.44.240 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove 08:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Language ?

The discussions in the article about the language and literature are inconsistent and misleading.

quote 1: "the modern Croatian language was standardized on the base of the Shtokavian dialect"

So was Serbian, so what was the point?

quote 2: "The Ragusan literature in which Latin, Italian and Croatian languages coexisted blossomed in the 15th and 16th century"

Can that language at that time be called Croatian ?

quote 3: "a part of the Illyric literature ... written before the development of the Croatian standard language"

Judging by this quote, the standard Croatian language isn't developed yet.

quote 4: "The Ragusan works were written by the same people or writing circles, which wrote indifferently in Italian and Slavic (Croatian)."

Slavic interchangeable with Croatian? This is perverting the facts.

The unbiased solution would be to call the language: "the (South) Slavic language of Dubrovnik", or "the Slavic dialect of Dubrovnik", or "Shtokavian dialect"

I agree with you, but Croatian users do not agree, and somebody think that these claims are offensive. BTW Shotkavian, even today, is spoken in Serbia and Bosnia, why do not call it "Serbocratian". Or, if this last is "offensive", "Southslavic" Giovanni Giove 08:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

99.229.96.231 08:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you read the archive of this talkpage? See the sections "title" [8], "Slavic language" [9], "For those who doubt about Croathood of Dubrovnik" [10], "Illyrian language" [11], "Croathood of Dubrovnik and translations" [12], "Croats' dialects in old Dubrovnik Republic" [13], "The name of the country" [14]. Dear users, you don't have to reply on the message of every troll that appears (or the troll that plays dumb and pulls newcomers by the nose, thinking that when the talkpage is archived, that the unwanted evidence is removed). If somebody messes with this topic, it should read the discussion. We don't have to explain to every passer-by that the fire and the wheel were discovered/invented long long ago. Kubura 15:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, take it easy! I hope your not one of those Serbian nationalists...

Re quote 1: There is no "point", its a statement of fact. It should be clarified, though. Serbian does not draw its roots from Dubrovnik, Croatian does (Gundulić, Držić, etc...).

This is a doubtful fact. First modern Serbian dictionary from 1852. included words noted in Dubrovnik. See also: Ivo Vojnović.

Re quote 2: Yes it can, Ivan Gundulić, Džore and Marin Držić, for example, are considered early Croatian writers.

Yes.... by the modern Croats. But they did not regarded them self as "Croats", nor called the dialect "Croat". Last by not least, they were all bilingual (Italian and Slavic), so I wonder why theu should be reagarded just as "Croats. Acctualy they were Ragusans (a mixed city!)

No, by the whole World (i.e. modern-day historiography). The fact that they did not consider themselves Croatian does not mean much to historians. Example: people from the Kingdom of Wessex did not consider themselves English, but they are considered such by scientists.

You must tell me, are you inventing a brand new nationality here or are you just saying Ragusan citizens are really Serbs? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is little or no validity in the claim that Ragusans are Serbs. But, what is validity of claiming they were Croats? The consequential fact that this city ended up in Croatia, or the fact that Ragusians and Croats are catholic, or the fact that Croatian literature embraced the heritage of Ragusian literature? Ragusa was an aristocratic city state which combined italian and slavic influences (apparently, early Dalmatian and Roman influence as well). It is justifiable to say that the heritage of Venice is Italian (no other claimants exist), but this is not the case with Dubrovnik. BTW, what is the nationality of the Swiss? German? French? 99.229.96.231

Ragusa is as Croatian as Venice is Italian, one might say. In any case, we are not discussing what might have happened. A Mongol fleet could have captured the city and turned it into a Mongol town, for all we know. What matters is that modern historiography allocates the Southern Slavs living in Dubrovnik back then as Croats, thats all there is to it. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re quote 3: You need to differentiate between the existance and standardization of a language. Just because Croatian was not standardised until the 19th century by no means is to suggest that it did not exist before the 19th century.

Re quote 4: This quote clearly does not mean that Croatian is "interchangeable" with Slavic, it means Croatian is a Slavic language (as opposed to Italian, Turkish, Albanian, Greek, etc...)

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Some people here are trying to discuss and make general conclusions from half facts and their total ignorance concerning agenda.

Re quote 1: Chakavian, Kaikavian, Ikavian, Stokavian are generalized dialects Of South Slavic languages. However there are differencies inside each of it, so there's situation that Stokavian is found in three modern standardized languages: Croatian, Serbian, Macedonian. For better understanding it's not easy for a Croat to understand all said by a Macedonian, while Croatian and Serbian are much closer but still there are differencies in grammatics and a lot of words. Kaikavian, Chakavian and Ikavian are older dialects in the Western Balkans and historical Croatian dialects, at present still in massive regional use in Croatia (Kaikavian in Zagreb and northern Croatia; Chakavian and Ikavian in Dalmatia, Istria; Ikavian in Herzegovina, Slavonia). Also there are slight differencies among Stokavian speakers from the different regions in Croatia, Dubrovnik dialect, Herzegovinian, Slavonian, Lika... It's impossible to connect some of these dialects to specific ethnic group since ethnic differentiation was made by languages. Dialects are crossing. Croatian and Serbian standardized languages share the same "dialect" - Stokavian, in the same time Stokavian, Chakavian, Ikavian, Kaikavian Croatian use the same "word pool" different from Serbian and Macedonian Stokavian word pool. Different dictionaries make different languages like everywhere else: Italian, French, German, English...

Macedonian is a language from a similar, but different language group (And you criticized using half-facts and ignorance!?). Word pool is one of the least important factors in language differentiation (it is the most unstable language component). Most of the explanation is still OK.

Re quote 2: Can that language at that time be called Croatian ? Can Italian from 15th, 16th can be called Italian? What was called French language spoken in France in 15th century? Maybe people didn't speak 500 years ago!

Croato-serbian/Serbo-croatian, if you wish.

C-S/S-C was "discovered" during communistic pan-Slavistic Yugoslav years and actually it made Croatian and Serbian languages somewhat closer than before. In Bosnia it was admixture of Croats, Serbs and Muslims and question what is spoken there. C-S/S-C was the answer and the easiest resolution. Zenanarh 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re quote 3: The most of European languages were standardized in 18th and 19th century.

Re quote 4: "Slavic", "Croatian" and "Illyrian" were Medieval synonims of the same language spoken by Croats, after 19th century it's officialy Croatian language. Zenanarh 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First, all those terms were not medieval. "Slavic" was first, and it is the only term used by the people of Dubrovnik in its Golden Age. "Slavic language" has 3+ very similar children. 99.229.96.231

Medieval Croatian authors were using all 3 names, Illyrian was used by some authors in 15th, 16th, 17th century, don't misinterpret it with Illyrian national movement in 19th century Croatia. Zenanarh 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I personally believe we all pretty much speak the same language but use different dialects. The fact of the matter is that, for whatever reason, the South Slavs from Dubrovnik are considered Croatian. Are you inventing a new nationality here? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"modern historiography" - I pretty much know what history books in Croatia say, but I doubt books in Italy and Serbia say the same. And I can strongly argue on behalf of all three of them!

Example 1: Ragusians were Italians by personal choice, if not by ethnicity.

Example 2: Ragusa is very distant (in most senses) from historic Croatia. Their later association is a product of common religion and similar language.

Example 3: Current citizens of Dubrovnik consider themselves Croats.

99.229.96.231 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.201.5.100 (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re ex.1: Not correct! Ragusans didn't recognized themselves as Italians at all! Or nothing similar.

Re ex.2: depending what is historic Croatia for you... Zenanarh 17:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing - Croatia was a specific country with specific boundaries at the time the Republic of Ragusa existed. Those boundaries did not include any of Dalmatia, and certainly not Dubrovnik. It seems highly problematic to refer to its inhabitants as "Croatian" before the 19th century. john k (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Croatia as a country originated in Dalmatia, also during existance of Dubrovnik Republic, Croatia was changing its territory several times and did include Dalmatia or almost the best part of it. Zenanarh (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubrovnik and "distant" historic Croatia

Here's the reference [15] and [16] Pavao Krmpotić: Kazneni postupak prema srednjovjekovnom statutarnom pravu Dubrovačke Republike, Pravnik, 40, 2 (83), 2006, p. 89. (Criminal procedure according to the statutary Law of Republic of Dubrovnik):
Venice has concquered Dubrovnik in 1205. With the Peace Treaty from Zadar from 1358, the rule of Venice over Dubrovnik ended. Until 1526, Dubrovnik recognised the King of Croatia and Hungary as the sovereign (dinasties: Angevins, Luxemburg, Habsburg, Hunyadi, Jagiellon).
There you have "far away" country of Croatia. However, if you look those sections (archived) I suggest you to read, you'll see the texts in which the Dubrovnikan authors from that very century explicitly speak about Croatian language in Croatian language in their works (e.g., Dominko Zlatarić, 1597). Kubura (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by anonymous

One just needs to go into the Sponza Palace, the Ragusian state archive in Dubrovnik and see any of the official documents. The laws regarding inner policy are clearly stated in Croatian: Those regarding foreign policy are written both in Croatian and Italian. All of the ruling families of Ragusa from Sorkocevic to Gucetic to Restic etc were Croatian. The greatest Ragusian poet and writer Ivan Gundulic, an aristocrat and one of the rulers, famous for his book "Suze sina razmetnoga", was one of the greatest Croatian nationalists. Source: "Dubrovnik, a history", written by Robin Harris 2006.

Just because the official name of the republic was Ragusa it doesn't mean that it was Italian. Ragusan despised and hated all Italian republics. Ragusa with it's fleet capacity of 700.000 tons surpassed Venice in 1660 and was the main rival of Venice in the Adriatic. The last Venitian rector was sent home packing in 1358. According to the Harris book he packed in a hurry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.74.11 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because the Ragusian aristocrats spoke both Croatian and Italian, it doesn't make them Italian. Until 1918 the German houses of Baden and Würtemberg only spoke French BUT that doesn 't make the German state Baden Würtemberg a French state. And that's why Ragusa was not an italian state. Italians should therefore stop leering at Ragusa trying to regard it as Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.243.74.11 (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Whoever said that Ragusa was Italian? Maarten (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deal

Deal between Dubrovnik and Dušan of Serbia has been finished only after Stjepan II (in dokument master of Hum land) of Bosnia has confirmed agreement. Serbia (Dušan) has recieved 8000 perpera for Rat Stonski, Posrećnicu in Neretva (?) and Prevlaka + every year gifts of 500 perpera. Rjecina (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On other side for confirmation of deal Bosnia (Stjepan II) will recieve every year gifts of 500 perpera until end of time (words from document). --Rjecina (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Doge/Knez

"Duke of Ragusa" is a good translation of course, though Doge is used in English sources, maybe to make a difference with the new title of "Duke of Ragusa" created by Napoleon for Auguste de Marmont --DaQuirin (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, though some may argue that Knez is the proper term, I think Duke (or Prince, maybe?) is a good compromise. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Knez is not known in English, whereas Doge is properly used in historical sources, be it Italian or not. You were really improving the article, but then ... again this nationalistic Balkan crap (sorry, it's not personal, but this is what it looks like to Non-Croatians and Non-Italians). --DaQuirin (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If Doge hurts the Croatian soul, "Rector of Ragusa" seems o.k. "Duke of Ragusa" is misleading, as I said, because it was used later with a different meaning. --DaQuirin (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hurts the Croatian sole",?!! I resent the implication that I'm another irrational nationalist (I don't even believe in "souls" ;). I was merely acting logically. "Doge" is an Italian term, whereas it would be more appropriate to equate it with an English title (since we are not dealing with Venice). I agree that "Duke" may be misleading, however, so I'd like to propose we use the term "Prince". After all, the ruler of Ragusa did not consider himself a "Duke", no matter what language we translate the title to ("Knez" translates to "Prince"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not Doga? :) Duke, doge and knez were the same titles in Marmont's age, in different languages. Zenanarh (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Marmont was Duc de Raguse, the only one ever probably, now look at this odd category: Category:Dukes of Raguse --DaQuirin (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not precisely. We are dealing with two different titles in three languages here:

English: Duke, Prince

Italian (Venetian): Doge, Principe

Croatian: Vojvoda, Knez

In Venice, the title of Duke was the ruling title, and we can therefore safely translate the title of the Venetian Doge to "Duke". In Dubrovnik, however, the title "Duke" is incorrect and misleading (as DaQuirin pointed out) and we cannot use it in any language whatsoever (no matter how frequently "Doge" is used). The correct title in English would therefore be "Prince" (a ruler in general), with the added benefit of the middle-ground between the two points of view (Knez and Doge). (In Croatian the word "Princ" is used for a royal heir, but not in the context of a ruler in general.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, it's not up to us to find the proper translation. Maybe someone can check the Harris book. Is "Rector" not fitting? I don't think "prince" is appropriate for a republic. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think Rector can be used here, "Rector" was a different function. Wasn't the Venetian overseer known as a Rector? (When I say "we", I mean people in general.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. It is not an urgent problem. If someone can check the English-speaking history books, we will then find the proper term. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Prince can be used for medieval merchant republics, the Medicis for example were Princes of Florence, weren't they? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. "Prince" was only used when the Republican institutions were not working normally. Again, let us wait until we can check some translated sources. In the Doge article it is stated: "The title of Doge was used for the elected chief of state in a number of Italian 'crowned republics'. The two best known such republics were Venice and Genoa..." What would be interesting to know: Didn't the Ragusans create their constitution and the Latin names of the institutions under the influence of the model maritime republic (and their arch enemy of course) Venice? So finally, under the impact of our interesting discussion here, later this year, I will do some book research myself, starting with Harris maybe. Greetings to all of you, interested in the history of the splendid city of Dubrovnik! --02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaQuirin (talk • contribs)

The historical title used in Ragusa was 'Doge', and if don't like there is nothing we can do. The title of Duke was different and unelected. Don't change history with nationalism ;)

The head of the Ragusan Republic was always called RECTOR (While it existed, i.e. 1358-1808). During the time the Venetians ruled Dubrovnik (1205-1358) it was count(lat. comes), and before that it was also rector. I don't know how you came up with duke, but that title didn't even exist in the Ragusan Republic. It was only after the Republic was abolished that the title duc de Raguse was created. The rector was a position, not a title. He was an administrator (lat. rector, from regere – to govern), he was elected, his station wasn't hereditary and after his term expired he wasn't the rector anymore (so he can't be called a duke, a prince, or a doge).

Rag. Historian (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dobrons, Dubrons...

In the article "Dubrovnik" I found the under the subtitle "Name" the mention of a Slavic tribe Dubroni or Dobroni. I've been searching for any information related to that tribe, a book or sth. I've found a form of their name in about 50 (!) settlements scattered throughout the Slavic lands but I can't find anything written by an expert. Can anyone help me? (maybe the person who wrote about them in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragusinus (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Serbs of Dubrovnik

In the later 19th century 15 of 36 Dubrovnik deputies were of the Serb Party.

The 1953 Yugoslavian population census showed 8,813 Serbs and 4,709 Montenegrins in Dubrovnik's municipality. These together formed a huge part of Dubrovnik's population and most were Roman Catholic Christians. Anti-Note (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Note, we're talking about the times of Republic of Dubrovnik, not the times after. Stick to the topic.
Now, to deputies.
These elections in Dubrovnik were boycotted by Croat parties, and then Serb party got that unreal share of deputies.
Seeing the consequences of their internal fight, Croat parties in Dubrovnik had settled things amoung themselves, and on the very next elections, that very big success of Serb party faded.
YU census from 1953 showed... blah, blah, and they were Christians. You say that just like that.
Also, that political movement of "Serb Catholics" was financed from Serbia. Interesting, when Yugoslavia came to life in 1918 (under name Kingdom of SHS), that "enthusiasm for Serbhood in Dubrovnik" has vanished.
Now, to census.
I can also say that YU census from 1953 showed that there were 10,000 Clingons living in Dubrovnik, and they were of Bayoran religion.
Now, the warning again. Stick to the topic, don't go off-topic. You came here with other intentions. The topic is the Republic of Dubrovnik. Kubura (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The political movement of Dalmatian Croats was financed from Croatia. Both sides tried to get as much as they can, just like Serbia and Bulgaria strugled on the other side. Akinful cultures are destined for those places of intercultures [all one people in truth].

No it didn't vanish. As we see, it went on and on and on. At first you made me think it disapeared in 1929 when it became Catholic=Croat and Orthodox=Serb, but that is obviously not the case, as it maintained even through the Ustashas and into Communists. The Ustashis rein is actualy the best pruf of their streangth. Thrugh Communism they very slowly died out and were asimilated into Croats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-Note (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Klingons were of Ferengi origin, Kubura. Do not discuss matters you don't know anything about ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait... Klingons or Clingons? Zenanarh (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Kubura is not knowledgeable in this line of conversation, the proper term is obviously Klingons. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Note:User:Anti-Note is the sockpuppet of the banned user:PaxEquilibrium. Kubura (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical name

the historical name of the ancient Republic of Ragusa was 'Respublica Ragusina' and not Republic of Dubrovnik, that name was not used in the middle ages, even by the Ragusan people.

I'm sure you know The Truth, but the fact remains that as the city was known by its majority Slavic noblemen and commoners as "Dubrovnik". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it was called in the medieval age (or later) by its inhabitants. Here it's about the general use in English-speaking history books. The name "Republic of Ragusa" is still the widely used name for all the known reasons. In touristical guides and some modern books you will also find "Republic of Dubrovnik" (mostly by Croatian authors, but not only). --DaQuirin (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you recall I voted against the move to "Republic of Dubrovnik". But the Republic of Dubrovnik should stay at least in brackets as the second name. We should not be completely inflexible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

List

There are two issues with the list, 1) its way too big and needs a separate article (don't create it yet), 2) the use of Italian names and titles is debatable. Any hypothetical article for this list needs to have a title agreed upon by consensus, and needs to use a Croatian/Italian name format. "Rettore"? how about "Rector"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DIRECTOR. Maybe the ethnicity issues can be evaded by just giving two names where they exist in the history books. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That would appear to be the only way. I remind everyone that they are not Italian nobility, but that they are (most of them) historic Croatian nobility, despite the dual use of their names. We should try to avoid this complex issue. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1) The Ragusan nobility were not an historical croatian nobility, the ragusan nobility were a DALMATIAN NOBILITY, the union of Croatia and Dalmatia is a modern concept of the XIX century, tha Republic of Ragusa and the aristocracy were bilingual, but the official names were in latin and italian, if you see the old records in Ragusa, are all in italian language. Ragusino —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.186.242 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All Croatian names in Medieval Dalmatian cities were written in Dalmatian or Latin language format. It was because of the Latin script and alphabet. Original scripts for Croatian language were Glagolithic and western Cyrillic. Since these cities (especially those largest ones) were cosmopolitan in high degree in cultural sense (connected by the sea to the rest of Mediterranean), the documents were written in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Venetian, French, etc as well as Dalmatian and Croatian language, by using several different scripts: Greek, Latin, Glagolithic, western Cyrillic,... Even the most part of the documents written by the Croatian courts and in the Croatian royal cities in the northern Dalmatia were written in Latin language and Latin script.

Ethnicity of the citizens was something completely different. Dalmatian cities were constantly populated and repopulated by the settlers of the same sea coast - Croats, Slavs. It was enough to move from a village (islands, inland) to a city and here there to become its citizen. That's how a huge majority of the population was ethnically Croatian: the most part of the noblemen and citizens, all agrar surrounding. Because of its cultural accessibility, there were also foreigners in these cities, mostly those who had "money" or "job": some noblemen, scholars, artists, merchants, traders, politicians,... most of them in transition, but not really the city masses, paisants, fishermen...

Names were simply translated to Latin (or Dalmatian but in Latin script) because of tradition. In the early Medieval it was thought that only Latin and Hebrew languages were sacred ones and suitable for liturgy which influenced public usage too in the documents (Medieval church had a lot of influence on public life and culture). Strenghtening of the strategic postion of Venice in the Adriatic sea as a leading trade force, by the time, meant more documents in Venetian language with Dalmatian formed names and less Latin. Glagolithic script disappeared until 18th century.

Chakavian Croatian spoken in the most part of Dalmatia and Istria was/is direct result of this assimilation both in the cities and countryside. Modern Croatian language is standardized Dubrovnik Stokavian dialect. Too many people who are writing here don't know it. Zenanarh (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But, The Republic of Ragusa was an Aristocratic Republic, the masses, paisants, fishermen... don`t take part of the goverment, the aristocracy comes for different cities of old Italy, Taranto, Lucca, etc. The only one slavs was Zlataric family. In this fact in the XIX century the most powerfull politic party was the Autonomist (italian) in Dalmatia, they said :Conte Francesco Borelli (*1810 +1884) said: we are slavs for nationality but italian for culture (the dalmatian were born to the sea (adriatic sea).... the autonomist want a multicultural region, with respect for the ancient italian roots and the slavs tradition, about the Dalmatia destiny, they deny the unification with Croatia, because Dalmatia had different roots and multicultural traditions: croatian catholics, serbian orthodox, serbian-croat muslims, italian dalmatian, the people were bilingual, spoken slavonian (dialect modern serbo-croat) and Italian (istrian, dalmatian-veneto dialect), etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.187.228 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dalmatian language was not Italian, neither dialect of it. It was original Romance idiom developed in the early Medieval from Vulgar Latin after 500, 600 years of Latinization of the locals - Ilyrians, a link on a chain between Romanian and Italian. Was Medieval Romanian Italian too? Venetian came much later, mostly after 15th century. Dalmatian language vanished in the largest part because of Chakavian Croatian which preserved a lot of Dalmatian words and toponims. Venetian finished it. 12th - 18th century Glagolithic inscriptions in central and northern Dalmatia were all Chakavian. In 14th century Dubrovnik it was Stokavian in western Cyrillic script (in general Stokavian dialect was/is shared by Croatian and Serbian languages). In Dalmatia both dialects were called by the same name during Medieval. It was slavinski, harvatski or ilirski language, which was by the authors in 16th century defined as the same. And yes, the people were bilingual, some even multilingual. Zenanarh (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I was to talk with Saraca, Caboga, Ghetaldi families member today, for example Andreas Saraca tell me than the Austrian-Hungary Empire try to erase amd forget all the venetian(italian) heredity of the Ragusa city in the XIX century with your policy, the cause was the war independence againts Italy between others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.186.254 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your English is very bad. I'm not sure that I understand what you want to say. Noble families were often moving during Medieval between 2 Adriatic coasts in both directions. They had titles, money and properties. The most of the foreigners in Dubrovnik and other Dalmatian cities were the noblemen-merchants. Venice as well as Dalmatian cities were developing the mostly because of trade. However the noblemen made just really small number of the citizens. They were just nobiles - the members of the highest class. Other classes in the Medieval cities were cives and habitatores. In every such Medieval city-commune there were 10-20 such families (in some moment) wich means maybe max. 100 family members. Zadar and Dubrovnik had 5.000 - 6.000 citizens during Medieval. The real carriers of the social and cultural life in these cities were actually cives - the citizens in the full sense of meaning. The nobiles were there because of the cives and habitatores, not contrary. Republic of Ragusa was not what it was because of the few noblemen, it was because of its citizens. USA is not Africa because of Obama and C. Rise. Zenanarh (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Siebmacher; The Kingdom of Dalmatia

Schon seit Beginn der neuen Ausgabe des grossen Siebmacher'schen Wappenbuches stand ich dem Herausgeber, dem nun verstorbenen Herrn Otto Titan von Hefner in München mit meiner heraldischen Sammlung unausgesetzt helfend zur Seite, wesshalb mich der damalige Verleger, später bei Gelegenheit einer XJrlaubsreise, welche mich durch Nürnberg führte, anging das inzwischen durch Zwistigkeiten mit dem Herausgeber in's Stocken gerathene Unternehmen fortzusetzen. Durch meine dienstlichen Verhältnisse beim kk. Ingenieur-Corps in Italien jedoch zu sehr in Anspruch genommen musste ich den damaligen Antrag des Verlegers ausschlagen, empfahl demselben aber den mir als fleissigen und tüchtigen Heraldiker persönlich bekannten Herrn Alfred Grenser in Leipzig, welcher auch die Herausgabe übernahm und dann die Lieferungen N2. 67 und N2. 68 wirklich bearbeitet hat. Nach dem Kriege des Jahres 1866 aus Italien nach Wien versetzt, betheiligte ich mich endlich selbst direct an der Fortsetzung des Werkes, von welcher Herr Grenser in Folge anderweit übernommener Verpflichtungen wieder zurückgetreten war. Da ich jedoch kein ausgearbeitetes Manuscript bei dem Verleger vorfand, so war ich genöthiget, die Fortsetzung der Wappen des deutschen Adels im Allgemeinen einstweilen liegen zu lassen, und mich zunächst der Herausgabe der dalmatinischen und überhaupt aller mit denselben in irgend einer Verbindung gestandener Adels-Geschlechter ^zuzuwenden, für welche ich schon vorher nach Kräften das Material gesammelt hatte, und zu dem ich noch während des Druckes, durch die reichhaltigen Archive in Wien unterstützt, viele Nachträge geben konnte. Für die fernere Bearbeitung der Wappen des deutschen Adels empfahl ich dann den Herrn Maximilan Gritzner, königlich preüssischen Lieutenant in Berlin welcher nebst noch andern mittlerweile vom Verleger gewonnenen Herren das Wappenbuch bis jetzt glücklich gefördert haben. — Die Eintheilung meiner Arbeit über den dalmatinischen Adel hängt theils mit der Combination meiner Quellen, theils mit dem Umstände zusammen, dass dieser Adel ein Gemisch der verschiedensten Nationalitäten ist und sieb, je nach dem Wechsel der Herrschaft, gleichsam schichtenartig neben und übereinander gelagert hat. Der Adel Dalmatiens besteht nämlich zunächst aus dem' Uradel des Landes, welcher meistens s l a v i s c h e n Stammes ist, dann aber auch aus eingewanderten a l t r ö m i s c h e n , byzantinischen, g r i e c h i s c h e n , a l b a n e s i s c h e n , u n g a r i s c h e n , i l l y r i s c h e n , venezianischen und sonstigen i t a l i e n i s c h e n , endlich aus d e u t s c h e n , insbesondere ö s t e r r e i c h i s c h e n und einigen f r a n z ö s i s c h e n Familien. — Nur der Adel R a g u s a s war stets selbstständig und durchgehends slavischen Ursprunges („siehe bei Ragusa das Nähere)." — Ueber den Ursprung einer Familie kann übrigens leicht der Umstand irre leiten, dass manche der slavischen Familien ihre Namen in's Italienische oder Lateinischo übersetzt haben j so nannten sich z.B. die Damianich später „Damiani" und die slavische G o s p o d n e t i c h, auf lateinisch de Dominis u. s. w. Schliesslich erlaube ich mir noch diejenigen geehrten Herren, welche mich bei meiner Arbeit erfolgreich unterstützt haben, meinen verbindlichsten Dank auszudrücken und zwar den A II VORBERICHT. Herren: Conte Borelli, Johann Danilo "Weltpriester und Reichstags-Abgeordneten für Dalmatien, in Zara, Conte Fanfogna-Graragnin, Kasnacie, Machiedo, sowie Alois Mery Doctor der Rechte und kk. Statthaltereirath in Zara, welche ich auch theilweise bereits betreifenden Ortes besonders hervorgehoben habe. D a r m s t a d t am 1. Juli 1872. Friedrich Heyer von Roseni'eld, k. TJ. k. Hauptmann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.187.228 (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment, it is I think the case that what we see now as the modern 'Croatian identity' or the 'Italian identity' (spiritual, cultural, political) is a relatively recent construct, maybe 150 or more years old, while being something that has almost universal approval among the people these days. Historically, it was the case that people saw themselves as being patriotic to a more local identity (in this case Dalmatia). So if we are talking about the 'Ragusans', nobility or otherwise, they would not in any sense have identified with what we see as Croatia, or Italy, so it's a silly argument. While Dalmatians and Slavonians now would see each other (in certain senses, but not others, football being the obvious example) as brothers and sisters, I don't think this would have been the case 400 years ago. So we can see their political and diplomatic identity as an entity and a thing that is part of Croatian history but not necessarily 'Croatian' - I hope the difference is clear, what I mean is that our term would be hard for them to understand - but it's definitely true that linguistically and culturally they were/are each one of the main strands of the plait that is now the nation state. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The concepts of nationalism cannot be translated to the middle ages. However, since Dubrovnik is in Croatia (and has never during the course of its entire history been a part of Italy), and since the Republic itself possessed a Slavic culture, Croatian names cannot be simply ignored. That being said, I don't think this whole discussion is necessary, we can simply use both names. The noble title should be "Rector", not "Rettore", though. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. As usual :-) What I was trying to do was say that the terms "Croatian" and "Italian" are irrelevant here. As usual though, Dalmatia articles cannot get on with being just articles as they are always hijacked by nationalist nonsense. My extremely helpful and enlightening intervention - Hell, all my interventions are helpful to both the tone and outcome of the discussion, I think that can be agreed - followed a lengthy copy-paste interjection in German. German??? How helpful is that?AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It would probably take me more than an hour just to read all this :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yaa sucker, that's because I am vóden, and you are merely vôden. Ha!!! And the first to spot the next reincarnation of PIO wins a whole evening with Blanka Vlašić --AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You know I saw her a while back, we prefer the same pub, apparently (the O'Hara) Now all I've got to do is find that freak 8) .... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So I'll need to rely on you for a little local knowledge, DIREKTOR, good friend, great guy, Wikiassociate, bla bla... AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In this article, is about the former Republic of Ragusa, not the modern Croatia, the modern nationalism cannot be translated to the Republic, in that sense DIREKTOR, if you want write about Croatia and Dubrovnik, make in the Dubrovnik wikipedia article.

Yes I know what the article is about. It is about the Republic of Ragusa, a bilingual Dalmatian merchant republic. It is not about an Italian city state, and when I say "bilingual", I mean Dalmatian language/Croatian language bilingual. The citizens of this same state, though bilingual, were mostly Slavs, and thus mostly used Croatian (or "Slavic", if you prefer). The state also had a developed Slavic culture, which was also, logically, more present among the people than Romance culture.
All this cannot simply be ignored, as it leads to a biased POV article. Please try to keep an open mind, once again, this is not an Italian city-state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have open mind, put all the names of the cities, in italian and croatian, Sipan also Sipano, Gruz also Gravosa, etc. The ragusan were open minds people, when they changes this political views, the Republic was death! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.29.166 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea: lets create an article called "Notable Ragusans" where we can place both the long list of notable Ragusans and the rulers? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag

No comments about the flag? It's not really good quality, DIRECTOR :) --DaQuirin (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I know, feel free to remove it. Though, since it is historically correct (sort of), I recommend we leave it until we can find something better? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember we had a flag, but it was removed (why) ? You write that "it is historically correct (sort of)" and that's why we should better remove it, I think. But you are completely right - we need a flag to be included. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What about this one, or is it only a modern flag of Dubrovnik?

Libertas flag of Dubrovnik

--DaQuirin (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See [17] and [18], the Republic had a flag with S. B. (Sanctus Blasius) and Saint Blasius/Vlaho. This is also similar to the modern flag of Dubrovnik. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The article has been tagged since last August [19] as having disputed neutrality. This was done by the legendary GG, who is sadly no longer with us. I'd like to ask what his problem with the article was, and what if anything the resolution was. Can somebody point out what is disputed? If nobody does so in a few days, I'd suggest removing the tag. Articles should not be tagged indefinitely, and it seems to me that this is another case of an article being tagged just because "I don't like it, it doesn't say what I want it to", rather than any real problem existing. Comments? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I think there will always be some kind of dispute here, if only one person's name... Though since it's not really a battleground anymore, I think old GG's tag should definitely go (MAN am I glad to be rid of that freak! We should hold a No More Giove commemoration holiday every six months :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don` know who this GG guy is,but curent article is not neutral definitely,`cos it has a croatian POV.

Using only terms like croatian language and croatian literature is a very big POV,`cause Slav citizens of Dubrovnik called their own native language also serbian(i.e.lingua serviana),also used some other names(dubrovacki/ragusian,naski/ours,slovinski/slovene/slav language,ilirski/iliryan) and only few times croatian(according to Aleksandar Milanovic from Philology Faculty in Belgrade).Also,there are scientist(Milan Rešetar,Pavle Ivić this is oficial view in Serbia) who consider ragusian literature part of serbian literature or serbocroatian(but closer to serbian),since it has some characteristics of both.

There is no mentoning of use of cyrilic in Dubrovnik by it`s people and also by catholic priest(i.e. Libro od mnozijeh razloga written in 1520).In one of the molitveniks(from word molitva which means prayer) written in 1512 in cyrilic inscription is mentioned that it is written "in serbian letters and language".

I will not return POV sign,but this matter shuold be dealt with.Best way is to replace(or remove) croatian language and literature with ragusian language or add /serbian on every place(i.e. croatian/serbian language) and all of this I can backup with references. CrniBombarder!!! (†) 17:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wishie-wish, Crni. Da ti je dočepat se Dubrovnika, a? Don't misrepresent.
Milan Rešetar's political attitudes significantly influenced his works: he was the member freshly organized political movement in Dubrovnik, financed from Serbia, called "Serb Catholics".[20] Later he changed his declaring by nationality into "Yugoslav".
Pavle Ivić, AFAIK, politically compromised himself in linguistics, especially in late '80's Sumrak srpske lingvistike (a response to interview Pavle Ivić gave to Serbian magazine "Intervju" on Aug 3, 1991.: "Hrvatska će izgubiti rat" (Croatia'll lose the war). Very academical title. What can you expect from such person?
. About Illyric language, please, read archives (also , we don't have to copy the same message ten times. Here's the link from archives Talk:Republic_of_Ragusa/Archive_1#Illyrian_language. See also [21]. Kubura (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okey,I`ll try to stick to the topic and avoid using argumentum ad hominem.

I said what they claim,if you wish to discredit their linguistic work by some aspects of their lives,it`s your choice.

Now,back to the topic,in Serbia (oficial view of modern serbian scientists who are teaching on Philology Faculty in Belgrade) it is considered that Ragusian literature and native language of his Slavonic population should be considered either as serbian or as serbocroatian.Ragusian literature is learned as separate course inside serbian literature and language educational profile, while croatian literature is learned as part of southslavonic literatures course on same profile.I can back this up with references of course,signed by leading scolars of Philology Faculty in Belgrade.I have already quoted Aleksandar Milovanovic and his book “Short history of serbian literal language”(“Кратка историја српског књижевног језика”, Belgrade 2004).

So,we have croatian scientist and their view against serbian scientist and their view of the problem.Curently,only croatian side has been shown in article.

I only mentioned illyrian language as a part of a quote and that`s not part of my interest in this POV article.

(Just to notice,in link regarding Rešetar there is no mentioing of Serbia or her financing that movement,it is just said that Rešetar himself belonged to this highly organized movement in second half of XIX century.

Also,I haven`t understood how an interview which he gave on Aug 3, 1991 on the begining of the war can be put in the late `80,but okey.) CrniBombarder!!! (†) 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Financing from Serbia? OK, I owe you this reference.

2) Of course, 1991 is not late '80's. As I've read various works, and as far as I've comprehended the texts (maybe I got it wrong, , it seems that he compromised himself earlier (in '80's). I'll search for that. As first, here's the article Jezik i rat of Croatian linguist Ivo Pranjković (and Croatians find him as Croatian linguistic weakliner) in the magazine Vijenac, where he explicitly says "Autor joj je beogradski anglist i profesor opće lingvistike Ranko Bugarski, jedan od rijetkih srpskih jezikoslovaca koji su aktivno sudjelovali u antiratnim manifestacijama (znatno su nažalost bili brojniji oni koji su, kao npr. Pavle Ivić ili Radmilo Marojević, bili pokretači i glasnogovornici ratnohuškačke propagande" Translation and summary: "Very few Serbian linguists participated in anti-war manifestations (unfortunately, more numerous were ones, that were the starters and spokesmen of warmongering propaganda, like Pavle Ivić and Radmilo Marojević". Also, Pavle Ivić was the member of the workgroup on the Memorandum of the SANU. See also Sumrak srpske lingvistike, first two paragraphs.

3) Interesting message on a forum, I don't need to copy it here (Veliko)Srpska opsesija Dubrovnikom. You can read whole 7-pages topic. Kubura (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why 1032(year of the battle on byzantine side) is shown as year of the begining of the Republic? CrniBombarder!!! (†) 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that croatian side (croatian scientist and their view) including the people of Dubrovnik have the same view as Ragusan writers for centuries (did you read Kubura's comment? Mentioned archives?) and is based on the same tradition (BTW modern standard Croatian is Stokavian Ijekavian Croatian that was earlier spoken in Dubrovnik, Serbian language is out of this story), while serbian scientist and their view is based on pan-Serbism (maybe some other phrases like revisionism, expansionism or something worse are more suitable) from last 100 years. It's very sad if Serbian scientists, due to a lack of Serbian literacy from Medieval or Reinessance, search it in their neighbours traditions. Very pathetic. Serbian identity chrisis is not a problem of Croatia, nor English Wikipedia. Zenanarh (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No,it seems that someone here is lying,either it is croatian scolars who are claiming that Ragusians never considered their language to be serbian or serbian scolars who are claiming that they called it with many names,including serbian and only few times croatian.(Did you read my quotes?)

I`m missing your point regarding standardisation of croatian language,`cause it`s based on same dialect of shtokavian speak (east-herzegovian) as serbian,and some uniqe parts of Ragusian speak are integrated in modern serbian language. CrniBombarder!!! (†) 23:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a rather ridiculous discussion. The differences between Serbian and Croatian are so insignificant that trying to distinguish what was what 700 years ago is comical. It is certain, however, that they were Catholics and used Latin script. This is the reason their language was considered early Croatian in the 19th century, and this is why Croats will feel outraged when anything else is insinuated. What is certain, was that it was an early form of a Serbo-Croatian language and used the Latin alphabet. I don't know if it was "Croatian" or "Serbian" but it certainly isn't closer to Serbian than to Croatian.

Croatian and Serbian are generally impossible to distinguish in the Middle Ages. Scholars usually use local religious affiliation, alphabets, or traditional national territories to support a claim one way or another. In reality, languages like Bosniak, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin are so historically intertwined that very rarely a grammatical point can truly be used as an absolute argument. Of course, nationalist pride usually moves in and we get a political argument... For instance, the difference between Kajkavian and Chakavian, both Croatian, are faaar larger than those between standard Croatian and standard Serbian, however, both those areas are traditionally Catholic so the dialects are considered Croatian (this is just one argument of many). As stupid as it may seem, local religious affiliation is the main argument scholars are forced to use to see what's what in this politically induced and wholly artificial modern separation. This is obviously about the history of a region in question, and not about its language. Like modern linguists, we have no choice but to do as the politics dictate. We can't say the language was "a Serbo-Croatian language" since that does not exist, and would probably cause outrage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your colleague tried to use standardisation of modern croatian language,as some kind of argument in this discusion,not me.

Whell,they we`re catholic and slavonic populatio use glagolits and cyrilic letter and from XV century started to use latin inscription.Using of latin script to write slavonic language and catholic religion are not unique to Croatians,so it can`t be used to prove anything,especially since standard serbian language uses both cyrilic and latin script equally.We`re not talking here about someones rage,where dealing with things that are represented as facts in Croatia and Serbia.

So what shall we do now?

Ragusian vs croatian/serbian language?

It should be mentioned in the article that Ragusian literature is considered both croatian and serbian by scolars,depending on their mother language/political affections/etc. CrniBombarder!!! (†) 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This "Ragusan literature" you speak of is considered a part of Croatian literature by 99% of all relevant sources today. The only ones who insist on some alleged "Serbianism" are politcally motivated Serb scholars, remnants of unsuccessful efforts of Karadžić, Ivić, Rešetar and other Pan-Serb philologists to incorporate Croatian cultural heritage into Serbian (from Srbi svi i svuda up to Slovo o srpskom jeziku - 2 centuries of delicate propaganda and fabricating history). Old Dubrovnik literature and history is part of Croatian cultural heritage by name (prevalent designatation as Croat by themselves and by external sources, but never Serb AFAIK), culture (Roman Catholics, thousands of Chakavisms in written pieces, exchange with Chakavian writers), linguistically (Western Štokavian). Modern-day Dubrovnikans consider themselves, their language and culture as Croatian, and insisting on some alleged Serbdom would be pure POV-pushing. Perhaps Serbian WP tolerates edits like this, but not here, sorry. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion is used to distinguish between Serbs, Muslims, and Croats in this specific area (they were certainly not Slovene), so religious afiliation has been used and is still used, and can be used to distinguish between Serbs and Croats in this area. Facts mention by Stambuk merely illustrate this. I myslef am an atheist so I may claim objectivity in this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah DIR, do you really think that your atheism has anything to do with ethnography, ethnology and philology? It gives you right to claim objectivity in this? No comment. You wrote in the next section that there are no sources. No, DIR, there are, but not online. There are a plenty of books, many written by native Dubrovcans, you can find there nothing except story of Croatian heritage. It just needs someone to go to library and translate parts of it here. If you have enough time, why don't you simply do it and feed your objectivity with relevant data instead of atheism? Have you ever seen that famous painting "Gundulić's dream" made by Vlaho Bukovac? Do you know why it was named so? Make a little investigation. Do you know that in Dubrovnik historical archives (estimated as 5 km long shelf of original documents, writings,...) there are 16th century records of the letters sent by Dubrovcans to Habsburgians where people of Dubrovnik desperately asked for protection vs Ottomans because they were "Croats too, as well as the rest of Dalmatian and Croatian population who already had got that protection"? Do you know that Dubrovnik writers from 16th to 18th century, described that their language was "Ilirski, Harvatski or Slovinski", defined by 18th century Dubrovnik historian as 3 names of the same language. Do you know that the same definition of these 3 names was recorded by one Zadar writer in 16th century (if I remember well). In 16th century Serbian language was called Serviano by Dubrovcans! Not Illirico!

You can easily see Serbian POV concerning these names in one sentence given by our well known sockpuppeteer and profilic GS pusher Pax in Lika article: The Zadar Archbishopric from 1760 calls them "Illyrian, Wallachian, Slovin or Serbian people", uniting all names given to it in one sentence. - referring to the refugees who escaped before the Turks and came to the northern Dalmatia and Lika. Actually I know about this document, but it said that there were refugees of different etnicities: Illyrian, Wallachian, Slovin and Serbian! Where Illyrians were Chakavians (Croats), Wallachians were Vlachs (darksinned speakers of non-Slavic language, Serbianized later thanks to their Orthodox religion) and Slovins were the other Slavic speakers (non-Chakavian, non-Serbs), like Ikavians (Croats from inland) who massively inhabitted Dalmatian islands (only strenghtening islanders Croathoood - moment after which Venetianization of Chakavians became "mission impossible"). And Serbs were Serbs of course. But not for Serbian quazi-historians, for them they were all Serbs.

An so on and so on...

Well DIR don't be GG (your atheism argument is GG level), you can do better. BTW Štambuk is an academic, languages are his profession, I wouldn't compete with him if I were you. Reading your comment after his one only shows that you have no basic knowledge about South Slavic languages and dialects at all. Sorry but it's a fact. Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Zen, I don't think if you read all the above but I actually supported Štambuk's view ("competeing" with him?!). It is also simply a fact that religious afiiliation and history of the region have been used in the 19th century much more than any grammatical argument to distinguish between Croatian and Serbian in the middle ages. Even today, if a person is orthodox, he is immediately labeled as a Serb by most Croats, and vice versa. All I am saying is that religion plays more of a role than grammar in "fringe areas" between Croatian and Serbian, and that it is hard to distinguish between the two in the middle ages. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL I'm not an academic ^_^. Pax is insane POV partisan, Illyrian never meant Serbian! It's defined as Illyrian=Slavic (slovinski, slavenski etc.)=Croatian in all dictionaries from Kašić to Stulli, and was used to self-designate their mother tongue by Štokavian, Čakavian and Kajkavian writers! How and why ilirski came and continued to be used to designate supra-regional Croatian idiom is a very interesting story, lots of info and citations on it can be found here (PDF, in Croatian) for those interested. After the Illyrian movement, Illyrian became ambigous and obsolete term (today it's revived in some other meaning by some proud Alabanians..).

I wouldn't say that religion is the primary criterion for nationality. It only became so after the 1918 in SHS Kingdom when Bosniaks and Montenegrins where effectively erased from ethnic space. Prior to that lots of Orthodox Slavs (mostly Vlachs) thought themselves as Croats. In middle ages and prior to the advent of extreme nationalism at the beginning of 20th century, vulgus used regional appellatives or just thought of themselves as "Slavs". Try registering freely on ellisisland.org site and entering in the last name search box some nowadays "common Serbian" surnames such as "Tesla" ^_^ and see what folks comming from nowadays-Croatian area with Slavic first names wrote in their "ethnicity" field. You can find lots of Orthodox who have ethnicity Croat, ando also lots of Montenegrins, Dalmatian...lots of Istrians are Slovenes (!) There are 2 "Ivan Stambuk"s with Dalmatian ethnicity ^_^ This being Orthodox=Serb and Catholic=Croat is only of recent origin. Up until recently, "Croathood" was never exclusively associated with some pure ethnical stock or Catholic faith. Lots of influential figures of the Illyrian movement were Slovaks, Greeks, Slovenes..by birth, some of them even Orthodox by descent (Harambašić, Preradović), but that doesn't make them any less "Croatian". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not an academic? Oops. Nevermind, Academia was just a name of a forest near Athens. Zenanarh (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey,I`ll respond on all posts separately.

1. Kuburas post
   1. Okey,but it still is argumentum ad hominem.
   2. Mistake,it could happen to anyone.Still it is argumentum ad hominem.(I`ve seen first two paragraphs,links are dead.)
   3. Interesting indeed,one serbian academic in 1967 said that Ragusian literature is croatian with elements of serbian(I assume that was the main point of it).Leading profesors. As I said,todays leading scolars of Philology Faculty in Belgrade have said that it`s both croatian and serbian, but more serbian then croatian. (I was wondering when Mir Harven and his works will come up.)
2. Ivan Štambuks post
   1. If say 99%,then it must be 99%.
   2. You are accusing Serbs for fabricating history about Ragusa?Nice.
   3. Once again,we`re talking about republic of Ragusa,not modern Dubrovnik,his inhabitants or their problems.
   4. AFAIK,you are wrong,or so I heard (Do you know how is Alexander the Great called in Osman and why?) (regarding name)
   5. Croats are not only Roman Catholics in Balkans,Chakavism has been used in poetry and can`t be found in prose or common talk,they lived by Adriatic sea,had similar language,used latin/italian in their life,hadn`t anything better/close,due to the Otoman rule over the rest of the Balkans(regarding culture)
   6. As I said above,parts of Slavonic ragusian talk have been used in standardatsation of modern Serbian Language (regarding linguistically)
   7. Perhaps Serbian WP tolerates edits like this, but not here, sorry. You deffinetly need to read this article.It`s okey that you are trying to use it,bad thing is that you doing it badly.Your diff shows that I`m not some crazy Srbija do Tokija guy (if I was, I`ll do something like this), but someone who is trying to achieve neutrality,on sr,hr,or here on en.wiki.
3. DIREKTORs post
   1. Religion is used to distinguish between Serbs, Muslims, and Croats in this specific areaToday we could say yes,in the past,hardly.
   2. You`re atheist?Good for you,you want burn in hell,you`ll be eaten by the worms,From Here, to Eternity.
4. Zenanarh`s post
   1. Most of the post is adresed towards DIREKTOR or HRE,not about this topic.
   2. Štambuk is an academic?Good for him,but what it has to do with this topic?
   3. Last part is pure argumentum ad hominem (Reading your comment after his one only shows that you have no basic knowledge about South Slavic languages and dialects at all.).
5. All the rest posts hasn`t ofered nothing new to opose what I`m quoting above,mostly chit-chat.

CrniBombarder!!! (†) 02:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Copyright violation

Unfortunately this edit [22] that introduced the subsection Governing_Doctrine is a copy-paste from here [23] and has to be either deleted, or completely rewritten with that article named as the source, in line with WP:COPYVIO. Pity. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Or it can be edited as citation from that article named as the source. Zenanarh (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said, "completely rewritten with that article named as the source". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Maybe like this:

“ Bla bla

Nya nya

Eya eya

Woooah.

” — by XY

and reference instead of "by XY" Zenanarh (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've taken out the offending section. If anyone fancies (completely) rewriting it, it's available in the history. In fact, that'd be great. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ragusan Italian

Question: What is "Ragusan Italian"? Why does the link lead to "Italian dialects" and what is the significance with the over-all meaning of Italy/Italian and the present-day region of Dubrovnik? Even Venetian, with which the region has its closest post-Latin link (besides Dalmatian), is not scientifically classed as Italian. Can this section be revised? Evlekis (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(Oh no, not the language again) You have no idea what can of worms you're opening :P. I'm not sure about Venetian, I believe it is considered "an Italian language", though I personally hold that the term "language" was introduced mainly for political reasons, which is not uncommon with languages and their "independence".

The section definitely needs revising, but the problem is we do not have any real sources on the use of Italian/Venetian/whatever in Dubrovnik. We know that during the middle ages the Ragusan dialect of the romance Dalmatian language was known by a majority of the upper classes, but also that the early Slavic (Croatian)language was the primary language used among the ordinary citizens very early on, and was certainly known by those of the upper classes that didn't use it as a primary language. This Dalmatian dialect was slowly absorbed into an apparent mixture of Tuscan and Venetian dialects, which continued to be used by the portion of the upper classes that used Dalmatian in the past. This is as much as I can tell you about "Ragusan Italian", besides the fact that there certainly is no dialect of Italian (or "Venetian") known as "Ragusan Italian". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I realised it was political from the onset. I know the point you're making about the way historical populations and languages are often revised to conform to modern day conventions. But you made one interesting point which could warrant the use of "Italian", the fact that Tuscan emerged. Venetian is said to be closer to Spanish than Italian, and closer yet to French than Spanish; samples of the language testify to this, but Tuscany is the heart of the modern Italian entity. Its location is somewhat remote from Dubrovnik, are you sure that there was a Tuscan presence in Ragusa? I would be interested to follow these leads myself. Evlekis (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick note - about something you said 11 months ago. "The people of the Kingdom of Wessex did not consider themselves English": that's an interesting point but I think they did (having lived in England since birth), I believe that England as a Germanic language entity as is best known originates primarily from the various tribes originating from three continental nations, Angles, Jutes and Saxons (rather like Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), but with passing time, their identities rolled into one and it was the "Anglo" demonym which outlived the others (unlike Serb, Croat and Slovene who maintain their identities); the kingdoms of old England were more like todays Arab Emirates, various subregional thrones answering to one superior body. I believe that the name "English" or "Anglo" did exist among the population, and the kingdoms were created so smaller regions could be governed whilst it was difficult to rule over a wide territory, especially with the next bus due to arrive 1,100 years later! This is just a side not, and my basis for this is what I learned in secondary school - nearly 20 years ago. Don't take it as gospel. Evlekis (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Trade was the main source of money for Dalmatian cities. It automatically meant a lot of merchants and traders, strangers too. During Medieval a branch of nobility developed in Europe, noble families financed only by trade business, tied to the ships and Mediterranean ports, not to the real estates, so therefore more mobile. Many of them moved and changed their seats. That's why in Dalmatian city-communes there was presence of some foreigners recorded, mainly of cives class (citizens), but also some nobiles (noblemen). Unlike the most of Dalmatian cities, Dubrovnik was much more liberal and accepted some foreign nobility in the city society (Zadar nobility was more conservative, so 1st foreign nobleman listed in the register of domestic nobility was recorded in 16th century). Language spoken in Dubrovnik was predominantly Slavic and Dalmatian, but probably 10 or 20 different languages were heard and spoken in this important Mediterranean port, with a lot of the ships and people in transition. That's why there were some Venetian and Tuscan speakers there, as well as Greek, Turkish, Hebrew,... They were people from Venice, Ravenna, Genoa,... Nothing special.

Some Italian users (mostly IP's) immidiately change any Venetian or Tuscan to Italian, wherever they find it in Wiki. Zenanarh (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When sources are difficult to find, it is a lost cause for all conflicting parties when inserting opposing texts. Tuscan is good enough to be Italian, but Venetian for any non-political reason, isn't. But even with Tuscan, it ultimately depends on the sources (and as I stated, often nobody has them). Italy, as has been known since 1861, and the former Yugoslavia shared a surprising number of freak similarities: you could compile a list as long as your arm, though there were many differences too. Venice (and the Veneto, surrounding region) joined Italy in 1866 (I think) as an alternative to being absorbed into Austria; compare this to Slovenia joining the first Yugoslav kingdom 50 years later, again, as an alternative to Austria. But Venice as a republic with an expansionist history existed for the best part of an entire millennium, it was independent and all its dealings and ventures were down the eastern side of the Adriatic, circling the Balkan peninsula and strecthing to Greek islands, even taking in Cyrpus (1469-1571) - possibly farther eastwards, this is whre my own knowledge runs dry. The actual language is, I believe, documented as Venetian. The term Venetian is often applied to the architecture of Croatia's coastal towns although the ethnic origins of the architects have historically sparked bitter disputes. Many travel books tend to give the architect's name as it is today in both Italian (to represent Venetian, though they are different) and Croatian (to represent the local Slavic of the time, though that too has changed). But going back to the main point: if the presence of Italians in the republic were significant - in that they settled and registered on the census - then it is fine to include Italian, but it would be pure Italian (however it may have been then) rather than Ragusan which suggests that the Tuscan settlers developed a new dialect. Nobody truely wishes to add Hebrew, Greek and Turkish to the language list. Maybe Italian does have a place there, but do you agree to remove the "Ragusan" part of it? Evlekis (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, "Ragusan" Italian is somebody's funny invention. Zenanarh (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All right. On the basis that Tuscan is today's Italian standard language, and that in turn was spoken by a known portion of the population (though not necesarily a majority), I'll change it to "Italian". If anyone objects and reverts, I'll rest my case and mind my own business in future! :) Evlekis (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Now I see you've already done it. Thanks. Evlekis (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Year of 1032

Any reason why this year should be placed as founding year?Yes,the battle of Byzantines (with Ragusian help) vs. Arabs occured,but what it has to do with founding of the Republic?

Any toughts on this topic? CrniBombarder!!! (†) 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Patrician families still living in Dubrovnik and related subjects

I’m new to Wikipedia so please bear with me if I am not following proper etiquette. Concerning the section on the End of the Republic, there are at least three patrician families still living in Dubrovnik today: Bona (2 branches), Gozze (Gučetić) and Sorgo. A search in the Dubrovnik white pages on line gives the following: Bona or de Bona: 7 entries - Bunić: 0 entries Gozze: 2 entries - Gozze-Gučetić: 1 entry (I have noted that this is sometimes incorrectly (?) written as Goze or Gocić in the article on the Republic of Ragusa.) Gučetić:0 Sorgo: 2 entries Sorkočević: 0 entries Giorgi: 0 Đurđević : 9 entries (4 seem to be for the same person. I am not sure they are part of the aristocratic families but I’m going with Robin Harris’ list of Ragusan families (ref. below)). Does anyone have any info? I have made the change and also to Georgi, which should be Giorgi – George(s) is an English/French spelling. Giorgi is Italian (like Giorgio – not Georgeo). The patrician families living Dubrovnik are Croatian citizens and do not use the Slavic version of the name (except for 1 Gozze- Gučetić). From personal observation in Dubrovnik, the Slavic version is dominant in any public space (museums, commemorative street plaques, street names) and official brochures for tourists, etc. During “Yugoslavia” the Dubrovnik Museum only showed the Slavic names on all the descriptive tags (in Croatian and English) next to paintings of aristocrats, even when the painting itself had the non-Slavic name painted on it (Ghetaldi, Bona, Pozza, etc.). Since 1991, the English labels (but not the Croatian) also have the non-Slavic name, but not always. My point is that these families (who still exist!!) have used non-Slavic sounding names for centuries and continue to do so today. Even Croatian passports have this “non-Slavic” version, which I prefer to call authentic Ragusan aristocracy (pre-1667 earthquake) version. Many of these families came from other countries (Germany via Italy for the Bona family, others from Albania, Greece, etc.). Why is the Slavic version being “pushed”? Does adding an ić make them more Croatian? Does it embellish Croatian history? Is it a Croatian defense mechanism to silence Italians (who not knowing any better) would claim that these families were Italian? Is it not possible to accept that not all Croatians have names ending in ić and these people are Croatian? Viewing any Croatian TV program will show you a vast array of names that have German, Italian, Hungarian, etc. origins. Are these people less Croatian than everyone else? As I have discussed with Ivan Štambuk on the (so far incorrect) entry for “Marin Bunić” (Marino de BONA of Lima, Peru), this is like calling Giuseppe Verdi, Josip Zeleni, if he were born in Croatia. Who has this right to change people’s names? From Robin Harris’ book “Dubrovnik – A history” (ISBN-13: 978-0863563324) he states on page 13: “A note on Names: Both personal and place names in Dubrovnik and elsewhere in Southeastern Europe are subject to many variants reflecting political change and cultural mixture. The great families of Dubrovnik had both Italian and Croatian variants of their names. Scholars have chosen one or the other form or even the Latin version that most often appears in official documents. All these options are equally valid, and none is absolutely so. I have used the Slavic form throughout simply because that is the most commonly found in the historiography.1 No other significance is implied.” Note 1 is explained on page 434: “1. It appears that from late medieval times the great Ragusan families were more likely to use the Italian version of their names, while commoners increasingly used the Slavic version of theirs. But the pursuit of uniformity and simplicity seemed to me more important to try to catch these shifting nuances.” In our family (de Bona), only my great uncle used the combination “de Bona-Bunić” as he was a military career man and because it sounded more “Yugoslav/Croatian”. So, shouldn’t the Pučić Palace be called the Pozza Palace and Buničeva Poljana, Bonina Poljana (it is surrounded by three buildings with the Bona family crest)? I know that’s not going to happen but I hope some of you will think of it when you walk by these two places ;) Nikolica Bunić …Nikolica de Bona? (see the original plaque inside the entrance of the Dubrovnik City Hall in Latin – Nicolaus de Bona). Tombs of the patrician families can be seen in Boninovo and Sveti Mihajlo including very ancient Ghetaldi and Gondola tombs. All have the non-Slavic names…even for burials taking place in the 20th century and during Tito’s Yugoslavia. If anyone has (reliable) sources showing the use of the Bunić name prior to 1918, I would be interested in knowing about them. I would like to rest assured that this is not something that came out of a Ministry of Culture in Belgrade during the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Excuse my ignorance…should I be wrong. It is interesting to note that even during the Austrian time, Dubrovnik street names had “Italian” names like Ulica Zuz(z)erina (for Fiora Zuzzo(e)ri or Zuzzeri (Cvijeta Zuzorić) ….a distant relative (my paternal great-grandfather’s maternal grandmother was born Zuzzori – in Albania!)). Regarding the meeting of the Greater Council which met for the last time on August 29, 1814, it seems all the names are preceded by the Italian “di” whereas as far I know it was never used in our family and does not appear in our family tree, which goes back to the 13th century. We use the Latin “de”. It is interesting to note the Zlatarich (Slatarich) name…no one seems to have forced them to change it to “Zlatari/Slatari” or even the Italian “Orafo”! Regarding language, my great-grandparents who were both from 100% Ragusan families (in Dubrovnik for centuries – Bona, Rubricius, Bizzarro, Bersa, etc.) spoke Italian among themselves because this was the language of the upper class (along with a mixture of other languages (they had a French governess)). With my grandfather and his brothers, they spoke Croatian, and the children spoke Croatian among themselves. I may have opened (another) can of worms but facts are facts (the descendants of these three families use the non-Slavic name) and history should not be changed because it suits someone for xyz reasons. Debona.michel (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Debona.michel (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Debona.michel (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Debona.michel (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So what is wrong in the article from your point of view? --DaQuirin (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think all the non-Slavic names of noble families should appear throughout the article. For example, Ivan Gundulić should also appear as Giovanni Francesco Gondola, Ivan Bunić Vucić as Giovanni Serafino de Bona, etc. As far as the de Bona family is concerned, I would not put the Bunić name anywhere as it has not been used by our family. For all the other entries of families which did not use the Slavic name, the non-Slavic name should come first and the Slavic equivalent should be in parentheses (if at all in some cases).

Debona.michel (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Slavic names are prevalent (>95% of all sources in all languages excepting the Italian) in today's scholarship, and they should be used throughout the article accordingly. All the nobilities' family names are listed bilingual in Dalmatian/Croatian, and all the individual articles on noble personae have Italian/Dalmatian/Latin "variety" of their name in the lead. The change that you're proposing, of using e.g. 'Ivan Gundulić/Giovanni Gondola' consistently in running text, would render the article's appearance very strange. Articles on Old Dubrovnik noble families already emphasize their Italian name "counterpart" more than any other English (or any other FL other than Italian) source, which should be more than enough. WP should IMHO just follow what mr. Harris concluded, in the excerpt you provided: I have used the Slavic form throughout simply because that is the most commonly found in the historiography. No other significance is implied. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think putting both versions of names everywhere would really be a problem in a 10-page file. If it's a problem, Robin Harris' phrase “1. It appears that from late medieval times the great Ragusan families were more likely to use the Italian version of their names, while commoners increasingly used the Slavic version of theirs." should appear somewhere at the top or bottom of the patrician family names section. Also, I would enter "Bona / Bunić" rather than "Bunić / Bona" as Bona is the original name, which later received a Slavic form for nationalist and political reasons. Gundulic came from Gondola rather than the other way around (I'm assuming that you agree with me on that or is the gondola a Croatian boat?). Re your statement that more than 95% of all sources showing the Slavic form as being prevalent, is there any that shows a document signed with the name Bunić? I suppose that if I ever become famous, my entry in Wikipedia will say "Miho Bunić" (with Michel de Bona in paretheses with the "de" removed) even though I have never been known as this person?

Debona.michel (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a problem, but it would look very awkward. There is a similar dual-naming dispute with toponymics (not just Croatian vs. Dalmatian/Italian/Latin etc. but with lots of other languages in border regions where diglossia is common and where dialects are shared with several ethnicities), and per WP:NCGN policy page and some other related ones, this dual-naming should be avoied at the expense of lesser used name. Hence no Munich/München, it's just Munich in the running text with German equivalent (also frequently used in English), in the lead.

Statements like "Slavic name was use for nationalist and political reasons" are perhpas correct in some individual cases, but judging from covers of e.g. Gundlić's works which were printed in Venice during his very lifetime and which you can see on his WP article, they all have Gundulich and none Gondola, so it follows that at least one highly-prominent individual preferred his "Slavicized" name as opposed to the "noble patrician" Italian/Dalmatian equivalent.

It is possible that some of those nobility names were subsequently Slavicized for some political purposes, but we'd rather see some evidene before you make edits like this, in which you claim that e.g. Marin Bunić was politically-motivated coinage, or Slavicism spread to other languages. So far the only evidence you've presented is someone's personal web page, and a WP mirror.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree with Munich/München but here were are talking about family names that are still in use today. The evidence is my name and all the Bona (not Bunic), Gozze and Sorgo in Dubrovnik and the tombstones in Sveti Mihajlo and Boninovo. Do we have to give evidence that we exist? Aren't the phone book entries enough? Should I take pictures of the tombstones and post them? Why doesn't the Gondola tomb in Sveti Mihajlo say Gundulić (or Gundulich) on it? 82.226.211.122 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Debona.michel (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem of the languege is not a problem for the Ragusan people, they were bilingual, but in Europe, speak a common language (German, Italian, Spanish) and the local or region dialect, In Venetia, they called the Standar Italian and the Veneto Dialect, In Munchen, speak the german and the Bavarian Dialect, and in Ragusa/Dubrovnik, they speak the italian (modern concept) and the local dialect "SLAVONIAN". For other part, the Gondola or Gundulic family, used the Gondola name in the official documents, tomstones and others, but in the local spell was accept the bilingual dualist term, GUNDULIC, my mother lines comes from the Ghetaldi-Gondola family, all the old documents were in italian and the testament of the last male member Sigismondo de Gondola (1712 -1800) was wrote and signed in italian. The signed of Segismondo Ghetaldi-Gondola (1795 -1860) were alls in italian. --Ragusino (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also just checked my great-great-grandfather's testament (Eduardo Biagio de Bona - born 1816 - Captain in Senj). The testament is written in Italian and signed Eduardo de Bona. He had six children (5 girls and 1 boy) and the first names are Slavic except for the boy, Marino (not Marin). The girls' first names are mentioned as Mare, Ida, Nike, Guste (Augusta) and Lize. Officially I think they had an equivalent Italian-sounding official first name like Augusta (for Guste) because we have a picture of her and it says "Augusta de Bona" on it. Further searching the Bona Bunic debate, I came across this document that seems to be written in Vienna in 1904. It mentions all the prominent Ragusan and Kotor families.

http://www.archive.org/stream/denkschriften49stuoft/denkschriften49stuoft_djvu.txt

For Bona, it does mention Bunic as being the Slavic equivalent so now I know that it existed before 1918! Also, it mentions the Bona name in relation to Lokrum island (Lacroma) already in the 10th century. The document mentions some families as having the same origin but changing their name to a Slavic form when they lived in a different city (like Ston). I will try to find a document showing the first mention of the Bunic name to see when it started appearing.

Debona.michel (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Debona.michel (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael Debona, i was create all the Patrician Families article, you have genealogical info about Francesca de Bona +1785, wife of Segismondo de Gondola (+1800)?, and for other part the ultime Ragusan male line of the Ragusan families are: de Bona, de Saraca (live in Italy), Gozze and de Zamagna, the Sorgo family doesn`t exist, only exist the Mirosevic-Sorgo family (female line). Regards, pd: i live in Chile.--Ragusino (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.64.226 (talk)

Hi Ragusino,

The family tree we have comes from a book written by Irmgard Mahnken. Unfortunately, her research goes from the 13th to the 16th centuries only. We were able to work our way back to the 16th century with our own family documents and we were able to find our branch. If we find anything on Francesca de Bona, I will let you know but as far as we can see, she was not from our branch.

Debona.michel (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Michael Debona, for other part, What`s the date and place of Eduard de Bona?, you could send me or added the info in the House of Bona? you can complete the info?. thanks, my e-mail is abogado_dechile@hotmail.com.Ragusino (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.68.67 (talk)

This discussion continues on the "House of Bona" discussion pages on Wikipedia. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:House_of_Buni%C4%87/Bona

82.226.211.122 (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI - House of Bona page has been deleted. Dr. Zaius and General Ursus (judge+jury) don't like Taylor to bring up unpleasant topics and to enter the Forbidden Zone.

Debona.michel (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Debona.michel (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Established? When? Let`s end this (if we can),once and for all.

Republic of Ragusa was established in which year and why?

1. 1032...Why?Battle,yeah and?
2. 1358...date of independence from Venice...Why not use year 1458,independence from Hungary?

Any other toughts?

(Earliest knez/duke mentioned by name in documents is Lampridije(Lampridius in latin,I supose) in the year 1023 (that`s what I have found in books),so Republic must be older then this date.) CrniBombarder!!! (†) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a real mystery on our hands... Does anyone know the exact year of the Republic's foundation? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm It's very important to notice that concept of vasalage in Medieval ranged from very loose symbolical connection of a "vasal" to the mighty imperor (protectorats of any degree), to direct service to his interests territorially or in religious way. So we have situation that Venetian Republic was Byzantine vasal for a few centuries in the beginning, which can be seen in the early Venetian Republic official documents - all mentioned the name of the Byzantine Emperor in its leads or titles, but in the same time the Venetians didn't have some special duties to serve him, except in global occassions. The very same situation was with the cities of Byzantine Dalmatia, there was Byzantine strategos in Zadar, a capital of Byzantine thema, but this Byz Dalmatia never had the real thematic organization (military province with its army), also Dalmatian cities didn't always pay their tribute to Byzant and in the last century of this "vasalage" it's impossible to find any relation of these cities to Byzant.

Another fact: concept of "republic" didn't reflect its total indenpendence, republic could have been "protected" by some ruler of royal legacy, as seen in Venice example, but also in Dubrovnik case and Hungary. Dubrovnik "protected" by another authority in the beginning doesn't eliminate neccessarily its republic organization. Anyhow in this case dates are known.

The real birthday of Dubrovnik indenpendence was 18th February 1358 - Treaty of Zadar agreement. But the real base of Ragusan Republic was Višegrad contract signed with Louis I in 27th May 1358, which gave special privilegies to Ragusan commune. Until the middle of 15th century Ragusan documents never mentioned "republic" - it was Communitas Ragusina (from 12th century), from 15th century it was Republica Ragusina. However, officially Republic existed from 1358 to 1808 according to all relevant sources, change in the documents in 15th century was not reflection of some important constitution change or political position. It seems that someone mixed the concepts of commune and republic. Zenanarh (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems off topic, since the Republic was not "independent" in the modern sense, see "Ottoman suzerainty". --DaQuirin (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

??? the discussion is not about "indenpendence", it's about Republic. 1st half of my comment is answer on Crni Bombarder's allusions: indenpendence=Republic. Zenanarh (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK Once again, contract signed in Visegrád on 27th May 1358 between King Louis I of Hungary&Croatia and the Archbishop Ivan Saraka is considered to be the basis of the Republic establishment. In Ragusan documents used for their international relations it was still "commune" for the next 100 years, from 2nd half of 15th century there was "republic". "Commune" was recorded in Ragusan documents from 12th century, it seems that someone has misinterpreted it and concluded that 12th century should be the age of the Republic establishment. Which was not the case, otherwise other Dalmatian city-communes could be also recognized as republics. User CrniBombarder removed year 1358 from the info box with comment: removing 1358,`cause it was founded centuries earlier. Well, it was not. It was 1358, but because of "Visegrád Contract" and not because of a few months earlier "Treaty of Zadar". Zenanarh (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article encompasses the Communitas Ragusina (later renamed) as well. The research literature on the Ragusan Republic does not take the 14th century as starting point (otherwise it should be clearly stated here). There were of course other Dalmatian city-communes as you said. --DaQuirin (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Different dates can be seen. Croatian Heraldic and Vexillologic Association says 1272-1808 [24]. 1272 was year of the city Statute, not the Republic establishment!

Zdenka Janeković-Römer, Višegradski ugovor temelj Dubrovačke Republike [Visegrád Privilege: Foundations of the Republic of Dubrovnik]. Zagreb: Golden marketing, 2003. [25] You can download full text in English. It's 1358.

The most of sources use 14th century as beginning. What literature do you use? Zenanarh (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly with "establishment", if it's not about "independence" (see above). Many city-states and republic did not use "res publica". I think, you give too much weight on the name change here. For the literature: * Francis W. Carter: Dubrovnik (Ragusa): A Classic City-State. London und New York 1972 ISBN 0128129506 * Harriet Bjelovučić: The Ragusan Republic. Victim of Napoleon and Its Own Conservatism. Leiden 1970 * Robin Harris: Dubrovnik. A History. London 2003. ISBN 0-86356-332-5 * Ilanga von Mettenheim: Die Republik Ragusa. Zur Geschichte des heutigen Dubrovnik. Frankfurt a.M. 1989. ISBN 3-89228-388-5 --DaQuirin (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When I say "establishment" I mean: gaining special previleges which made that city-commune more autonomical than the rest. It's wrong to use term "republic" in Medieval in modern meaning, of course. However, the Medieval Mediterranean was a region where a few of such "city-republics" developed. Only "Visegrád contract" gave such privileges to the Ragusans. One of the reasons why there is so much differencies in dates could be often (inconsiderate and a little bit romantic) retrograde usage of the term "Republic of Ragusa" in the books, reffering to the pre-14th century occasions or accidents, making it very easy to misinterpret. But looking from scientific perspective, it's wrong. In 13th century Dubrovnik was nothing different than the other Dalmatian cities, like Trogir, Zadar, Rab,... While these cities fell into Venetian hands in 1408 and therefore lost completely their city-commune autonomies, Dubrovnik was saved mainly because of its position based on Visegrad contract, which made it distinctive from the others in political sense. The city statute in 1272 was nothing special. The most of other Dalmatian cities had it too, from 12th, 13th or 14th century. Treaty of Zadar in 1358 didn't result with 15 Dalmatian city-republics. It was a peace signing with Venice. But a few months later "Visegrad contract" did result with Dubrovnik recognised as the city-republic soon after. That's the point. Zenanarh (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right concerning the name change, I've mentioned it only as supplement to the story, but it appeared like I was leaning on it, which was not the case. It just made my comment less understandable. Sorry. Zenanarh (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Names of (notable) Ragusans

Let's get something straight once and for all. Ragusan names are Slavic. Ragusan children have been given these names for hundreds of years. Their Italian or Latin versions were only used when in contact with the Italians or with foreigners in general. More than 90% of Ragusan names are short, two-syllable names that end in –o (male) and in –e (female), for example Đivo, Frano, Maro, Pero (male) and Đive, Frane, Mare, Pere (female). Ragusans used only this variant, not other, longer variants used in this article. One can find numerous evidence of this in Ragusan literature.

To illustrate, I will use the names of two Ragusan writers from the 17th century. In all their books (originals, not 20th century editions) we find their names written like this: Đivo Frana Gundulić and Džono Palmotić. In the article the names Ivan Gundulić and Junije Palmotić were used for these two writers, names that they never used by themselves, names that are just translations from Latin or Italian to Croatian. My question is: if there is a valid Ragusan (Slavic) name, then why on earth would someone want to translate it from Italian or Latin into Croatian, if it is the same language?

Another thing about the names, Ragusans rarery (read: never) had two names, e.g. John Matthew. In cases like Đivo Frana Gundulić, we are not dealing with two names. The writer's name was Đivo Gundulić and Frana is a Slavic genitive referring to his father Frano, in English it would look like this: Đivo Frano's Gundulić. This was neccessary beacuse there was another Đivo Gundulić at the time, so there was a need to differentiate between the two namesakes. When they translated these names into Latin, Ragusans just put the „second“ name into genitive, e.g. Lucas Marini Sorgo (Ragusan rector in the year 1710). For those that don't understand Latin, Marinus is the basic form of the name and Marini means „of Marinus“. In Italian, however, there is no such genitive. Gundulić's name would look like this: Giovanni de Francesco Gondola. Since this is not estetically pleasing, Ragusans then just decided to „lose“ the genitive and to write Giovanni Francesco Gondola. Hence the wrong translation Dživo Frano Gundulić, like he had two names.

Just another friendly advice for all Slavic speakers, Croats, Serbs or any other (non-Slavic speakers can ignore this paragraph). Koristite Đivo, ne Dživo, koristite Džono, ne Đono. Ovo su imena kojijeh još ima danas u Dubrovniku, posebno u prezimenima ko što su Đivanović, Đivović, Đivoje i Džono (iz Konavala i Dubrovačkog Primorja). Također, deklinacija dubrovačkih imena je drukčija nego što bi očekivali. Đivo se deklinira Đivo, Điva, Đivu, Điva, Đivo, Đivu, Đivom, ne kao što je vama uobičajeno. Ovakva deklinacija se koristi i u Imotskoj krajini, u Istočnoj Bosni, južnim dijelovima Srbije i u Crnoj Gori. Smatra se krivom u Hrvatskoj, u BiH i u Srbiji su oba dvije dopuštene, a u Crnoj Gori se, mislim, samo ova smatra točnom. U Dubrovačkoj regiji se ova deklinacija koristi i službeno i neslužbeno, i u imenima ulica i na sudovima.

And now for my contemplative conclusion.

Why can't Ragusans write down the names of their ancestors in the correct, Ragusan way. Why does every Croat, Serb and Italian have an opinion, and their opinions count and the opinion of Ragusans is judged so insignificant that it is not even worth asking for? Imagine if your grandfather, that you loved very much, was called John. How would you feel if someone kept telling you that you are wrong to call him that because he was really named Peter. Think about this for a minute... I believe I'm right to assume that in remembering him and in mentioning him you would stick with John.

That's all we ask. Please, pretty please, don't write OUR history for us.

--A Ragusan Historian (professional, not amateur) Rag. Historian (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

They also in their mother tongue writings called the city Dubrovnik, themselves Dubrovčani, and basically never "Ragusa" and "Ragusans", and yet you speak of them as Ragusans, this article is called "Republic of Ragusa" etc. Go figure.

Most of the articles on writers have in their lead 'Đivo', 'Džono' or whatever they signed themselves with, so it's not much of a problem. If what you say it's true, it would be interesting to find when exactly in the history did Đivo become 'Ivan' though, and who enforced that practice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Don't write OUR history for us?" I'm afraid that you are quite confused about Ragusa for a "professional Ragusan Historian". Ragusa is Dubrovnik. Ragusans are Dubrovnikans (Dubrovčani), not just those who live abroad. Finally, Ragusans are Croats. If you need census information to that effect I will provide it. And let me assure you that I speak with absolute certainty when I say this: the VAST majority of modern Ragusans would never dream of calling Ivan Gundulić "Giovanni Gondola". Also, may I ask what gives you the right to claim the name "Ragusan" exclusively for those who agree with you? For that matter, who are you to so heart-wrenchingly protest in the name of all Ragusans (Dubrovnikans)? I must express my displeasure at your presumptive attitude here, I wonder if you were even born in Dubrovnik? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

??? Rag. Historian, my great-grandfather's name was officialy Marino de BONA but he was known as "Maro" and is buried as Maro de BONA. His son's name was Marino de BONA (always known as Marino -- probably to distinguish him from "Maro" and his grandson was also Marino (known as Marinci)). The latter two are buried as Marino de BONA (and not Marin Bunić for some people...) My grandfather's name was officialy Ivo but everybody called him GINO and spelled it with a G not a Đ or Dž. This is just an example from a very Ragusan family...

Debona.michel (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dragi gosparu Bona-Bunić,

I understand what you're saying. But there is a context in which it should be said. You've opened an issue with your post that is quite important and contested among Ragusan historians today: how to write the last names of Ragusan nobles? Do we say Bunić, Bona or Bona-Bunić. I understand that, being that you are a member of this great Ragusan family, you feel that you should have the say on what's the right way of calling them. However, as I previously mentioned, this is a bigger question than just family history.

If we just used the Italian versions, we are helping Italian nationalists (who are already very vocal on the Wiki) to claim Dubrovnik and the whole of Ragusan culture as their own. In fact, we are giving it to them on a silver platter. And Italians know how to use an opportunity - just look at the success of their tourism. On the other hand, using Slavic names exclusively would look very well for the Croatian and Serbian nationalists, also to claim Ragusan culture as their own (which they have been doing for a long time - just remember the dispute about Ivan or Jovan Gundulić). You can just take a look at this discussion page and see that, for example, Croatian nationalists are trying to rename the Ragusan Republic to the "Dubrovnik Republic" for the same goal (they claim that this is the "correct" translation of Dubrovačka Republika). This is absurd. And it is done by people who have never bothered to look up any Ragusan legal document. In ALL of them, as you must know, the term Respublica Ragusina is used. In numerous dealings with the Italians, the Spanish, the French, the English etc. they always used this term. Even in the writings of Shakespeare, we find mention of a Ragusian pirate. The very name Argosy, denoting rich cargo ships, comes from the word Ragusa (Aragosa - Spanish variant). It is clear to anyone who knows Dubrovnik that the Slavic variants (names of the city and of the people, first names, last names...) were used when dealing with its Slavic neighbors and domestically, while Latin/Italian variants were used when dealing with all other (non-Slavic) foreigners, i.e. to a man from Moscow it would be Dubrovnik and Dubrovčani but to a man from France it would be Ragusa and Ragusans (sorry for not putting it in their own languages).

As Ragusan historians know (and this is in all the History books), Ragusan nobles have been using the Italian versions of their last names since time immemorial, but to a different end than most outsiders would believe. It was not because they considered themselves Italian and then used it as naturally as any Italian would. What it really was is a way to distinguish themselves from all the commoners, to show their difference - they were the nobility. It is for a similar reason that they so emphasized their Slavic background and culture in their works - to show (to the world) that they were not Italians. The fact that Ragusans spoke a Slavic language as their own is obvious by just looking at their works or by the fact that non-Slavic speakers assimilated so quicky when residing in Dubrovnik. Marko Bruerović is a perfect example: his father was a Frenchman, the ambassador of France in Dubrovnik, but Marc chose to be a Ragusan - he changed his name from Marc Bruere Desriveaux to Marko Bruerović because he was under such a strong Ragusan (Slavic-speaking) influence from his felow writers (nobles, I might add). When they wrote in their own language, they all signed their works with the Slavic variants of their names:

 Suſe sina raſmetnoga Gospodina Giva Frana Gundulichia, vlastelina dubrovackoga
 Mandaliena pokorniza Gospodina Giva Vucichia Bunichia, vlastelina dubrovachoga

When they wrote in Latin or Italian, they would put their names in the Latin or Italian variants. But in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic, because after the abolishment of the Republic things got very messy. And here we are, having these problems today, while our (and certainly your) ancestors would probably have no problems at all.

I understand why you would object to using the last name Bunić. After all, that name also exists in Zagorje, so why should you be associated with a peasant family that farmed and had pigs and chickens during the time your family was creating masterpieces or saving the Republic, visiting and talking with kings, emperors and popes. You should however keep in mind that the respect the name brings with it, and the legacy, is associated to the Bunić name, not the name Bona (which is, incidentally, the fault of your ancestors, who used that name in literature). A great man in Ragusan history, even though he is Nicholas Bona to the English (for example), for Ragusans he will always be Nikolica Bunić. We link our deepest respect, admiration and patriotism with this name, with what it represents: a man who died for his country and his people (regardless of how poetic the truth might be). Do not rob us of this, of this feeling of community, that he, that you, are a part of our people, because we are of the same genes, the same blood runs in our veins. Every time you (the descendants of the Ragusan nobility) insist on the Italian version, it is like you're saying: "We are not one of you, we are different." And saying that you fail to see you created us, without you there wouldn't be a Ragusan people (regardless of the genes).

  Gospar Lukša (govori dalje, gledajući u mirno nebo): "Da smo bili baš veliki kako Nikolica i Marojica i Pracat i svi naši pomorci
  i vlastela, bili bismo u sužanjstvu iskali da u puku sačuvamo dušu koju smo mi na ovijem hridinama usadili bili."
  (Ivo Vojnović, Dubrovačka trilogija)

So you see, you should not try to difference yourselves, you should be a part of the Ragusan people. You can see what's going on with us now. Why don't you act as you did in the past? If for nothing else, then let it be a great end to a majestic family history.

What I was trying to do in the article "List of Ragusans" (which was reverted) was to try to correct the Slavic versions of Ragusan names (like Junije Palmotić or Ivan Bunić Vučić), which are often just translations from Italian or Latin. I tried to write the names of those Ragusans in the way that they used themselves, the original version (in this case, Džono Palmotić and Đivo Vučić Bunić) because the incorrect translations I mentioned often involved nationalistic ideas in their making and were simply, not correct.

On another note, your great-grandfather, that was known as Maro, when was he born, was it perhaps in the first half of the 19th century? The fact that he was "known as Maro" would agree with that, because that's what the nobles did during the Republic: they officialy used Italian names but really called themselves in proper Ragusan names (Maro, Vlaho, Baro...). His son probably wasn't known as Marino because they wanted to distinguish him from his father (because then he would be known as Marin, Maroje or Marojica), but very likely because they stopped the practice of using two version of their names and decided to use the "official" one.

In the end I'd like to express my deep respect for your family, and ask you to contact me, if you wish. I would like to hear an opinion of an informed noble about certain things from Ragusan history and culture, to better understand the unique perspective of the nobility. So, if you would like to talk or you know someone to direct me to, send me an e-mail to nemo_2085@yahoo.com (I would appreciate it if other Wiki users refrained from sending me anything to this mail)

A Ragusan Historian

Rag. Historian (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, some of those Old Dubrovnik writers were patriotic Croats (though for the most part were agnostic when it comes to modern-day nationalistic conceptions), unambiguously explicitly and implicitely putting their language and culture into Croatian cultural matrix. It would just kill you to wrote Croatian instead of Slavic, would it? Dubrovnik was buy no means a self-contained island, having a literature and language exclusively of its own. It would be very misleading to treat it as such. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Signore IP 151.48.61.210,

You asked for me, and here I am. First let me comment on something. You are evidently Italian. In your research you are restricted to sources written in Italian and it is obvious, according to your posts, that you cannot speak any Slavic language. This is a problem of many of your countrymen that are nationalistically-inclined - lack of information (but that's a trademark of any nationalism). This means you can only see one side of the medal that is Ragusan history and culture. The evidence of this is your mentioning of Đivo Frana Gundulić. If you could speak the language he was writing in and if you could read his works, descibed by Robin Harris, an English historian, as the most beautiful poetry ever written in any Slavic language, you would probably quiet down immediately and leave this discussion promptly, with your tail between your legs.

But now let's talk about Roger Joseph Boscovich. It is excellent that you chose him of all people and I will explain why. His grandfather from his mother's side was a wealthy and influential noble Bartolomeo (Baro) Bettera, who decided to settle in Dubrovnik, an Italian. (Incidentally, some of my family ancestors served as serfs to that family). His daughter Pavle (Pavica) was already assimilated into Ragusan society (similar to Marko Bruerović in my previous post) and wrote short essays in Slavic. She married Roger's father Nikola, a Hercegovian (a region east to northeast of Dubrovnik), therefore a Slav (The scientific jury is still out on whether he was a Croat or a Serb, but this is irrelevant to our discussion, although I personally consider such questions to be inappropriate for that time, when nationality didn't exist in today's sense). The duality (Italian-Slavic) is obvious.

Roger was one of nine children in the Boscovich family. His brother Baro is remembered as a skilled latinist, but he also wrote in Italian and Slavic. His sister Anica, a pious, educated and intelligent woman, wrote exclusively in Slavic, although she was well versed in several languages. Roger translated one of her poems into Italian. A lot of what we know about these two siblings of Roger is precisely because of his regular correspondence with both. Although he also wrote correspondence in French, to his brother Baro Roger mostly wrote in Italian (to answer you question, IP 151.48.61.210), however, he wrote the delicate, confidential information within his letters to him in Slavic, which you can see by simply browsing though them. To his sister, however, Roger wrote only in the language that he calls:

  "slovinski, ilirski, naški" (Slavic, Illyrian, our language)

Furthermore, in one of his works, "Diary of a trip", Roger mentions a conversation with a fellow priest about his journey from Istanbul to Poland (I believe) and he says:

  "Jezik te zemlje narječje je slavenskog jezika, a kako je taj također moj prirodni jezik dubrovački, mogli su me oni razumjeti,
   a i ja nešto od onoga što su oni govorili."
  "The language of that country is a dialect of the Slavic language, and since that is also my natural Ragusan language, they  
   were able to understand me and I could understand some of what they were saying."

Roger also writes that he uses this language in his home and in one of his works states that "in Dubrovnik all exact sciences are studied with fervor but good literature is even more appreciated, whether written in Latin, or in Illyrian, the language that we speak."

Finally, when the famous French mathematician D'Alembert mentioned him in a discussion as an "Italian geometrist", Roger responded that he "wasn't Italian, but a Dalmatian from Dubrovnik." He added: "I am not considered Italian in Italy, so they haven't put me in any of their works."

Relevant to all of this, because it shows a lot about Ragusan mentality is the fact that Baro Boscovich, Roger's brother, who mostly wrote in Latin, once also wrote the poem "U pohvalu jezika slovinskog" ("In praise to the Slavic language"), which he then translated into Italian. This clearly shows that Ragusans didn't consider Italian their own language but used it a great deal because it was the lingua franca of that time, as Latin was before it, and French and English after it. Before the Renaissance, when Latin was still the lingua franca, Ragusans wrote in Latin and didn't even speak Italian and from the end of the 18th century Ragusans started using French for the same purpose (can you see a pattern here?). Such flexibility and versatility was neccessary for a people and a country in their delicate geopolitical situation. This is similar to the famous sentence of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V: "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."

And as an answer to Ivan Štambuk, I didn't use Croatian because it wasn't neccessary and historically most accurate. Ragusans mostly called their language the way that I wrote it - slovinski (Slavic) - the biggest number of references. The second in number of references is the name ilirski (Illyrian - corresponds roughly with the territory of former Yugoslavia, although sometimes used to denote only Catholic areas within that territory, used until the mid 19th century, when it was forbidden by the Austrian court), after it dubrovački (Ragusan) and finally hrvatski (Croatian).

A note for Italian and Serbian nationalists: no Ragusan EVER, in the history of time, called his language Serbian or Italian.

As you can see, Boscovich used the names Slavic, Illyrian and Ragusan. His sentence that the language of Poland is a dialect of the Slavic language shows without question that Ragusans thought that all Slavs spoke a single language and that Croatian, Serbian, Polish, Russian etc. were only dialects (there are other examples of this). Also, to use Croatian in this discussion would be pointless, because we are discussing the opposition Italian-Slavic, not Croatian-Serbian. One of the first rules a historian is taught (ask any historian) is that it is wrong to project present political or national views to a time in the past. Precisely this projecting created nationalistic regimes such as fascism, nacism, or any of the "Greater" ideas in the Balkans, such as "Greater Serbia".

I got the material for the Boscovich family from these two articles (one scientific, one newspaper):

http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/24875 http://www.vjesnik.com/Pdf/2004%5C01%5C20%5C17A17.PDF They're in Croatian, so I don't belive you'll be able to understand them, IP 151.48.61.210, but you can use the option Find to search for the exact quotes.

In the end, I'd like to make a conclusion based on the facts I've presented in this post. It is clear that there was a duality Italian-Slavic in the Boscovich family and in Ragusan culture in general, simply because of the constant contact with the Italian city-states to the west and the Slavic states to the north and the east. However, as it is shown by their own words, Ragusans always opted for the Slavic identity and considered it their own, so the duality is similar to the Ragusan language used during the Republic and sometime after, not 50-50 Slavic and Italian words in the vocabulary, but closer to 70-30 in favor of words of Slavic origin.

A Ragusan historian

P.S. Here are some photos of the Bettera family summer-house (villa): http://www.zupa-dubrovacka.hr/media/images/album/beterina/beterina11990.html

Rag. Historian (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, except for the opposition you make between Croatian and Slavic/Illyrian. There was no no such opposition, at least not as explicitly as you claim it. I agree that it's generally wrong to retroactively project present-day political viewpoints to the past, but it's equally wrong to ignore the fact that certain greater cultural and historical perspective doubtless exists, and that continuity of the written language can be established and encompassed under the ethnicon Croat from the earliest written bits and pieces in Cyrillo-Methodian Glagolites tradition down to the present times.

The terms Illyrian (ilirski, ilirički etc.) and Slavic (slavinski, slovinski, slavonski, slovjinski etc.) are problematic because they both mean different things to different people in different historical periods (Even Ilyrii proprie dicti were stratified, as on the basis of onomastics evidence several "Illyrian languages" can be discerned). But "Slavs" and "Illyrians" don't really exist a language group, or as a language family. The usage of these terms was prevalently result of a tradition (you write what you heard in a way your predecessors did). These were not used by Old Dubrovnikers alone - they were a also used by other Croatian writers whose works they've read and closely studied, moreover used them as a basis for the writing of dictionaries — so the e.g. the unpublished manuscript of Kašić's was used by Jakov Mikalja in his Blago jezika slovinskoga, and the word knjižnica Bartul calqued after Latin bibliotheca in his manuscript made its way to modern Croatian standard language. Numerous epistles were written in the triangle Dubrovnik-Hvar-Koručula among writers who personally knew each other and who, more importantly, left us numerous attestations of the words Illyrian and Slavic in their various senses. Croatian ethnicon was abundantly used synonymously to those two. I won't (ab)use wikispace quoting the works directly here, I'll just point you to these two studies written by Katičić and Bogišić, and this paper that deals with Croatian name in pre-Illyrian-movement grammars, who have plentiful of direct evidence inside.

Once again - it would be extremely wrong to portray or consider Dubrovnik as a some kind of "cultural island" - writers were influenced by, and influenced, other Slavic writers from neigbouring areas ("Sagledavanju tog okvira piscima u dalmatinskim komunama nije smetala čak ni činjenica što su bili odijeljeni državnim granicama. Tu činjenicu u svojim odnosima hrvatski renesansni pjesnici naprosto su ignorirali."). We cannot just say that with the spread Croatian national awareness initiated by the Illyrian movement in the 19th c. the spread of supra-dialectal Croatian literature marked by Croatian ethnicon began. We had Džore and Šiško abundantly using Čakavisms (prevalently Ikavianisms) in their works as stylemes (practice continued for several centuries afterwards), or Ozaljski književni krug utilising a fascinating Ča-Kaj-Što mixture as a literary language (even codified in Juraj Križanić's grammar of "Russian") long, long before Ljudevit Gaj and Ante Starčević were born, let alone their ideologies. Ignoring the supra-regional context of Old Dubrovnik literature would be one big PoV, a practice to this day, to my knowledge, used only in Faculties of Philosphy in Serbia where still teach Držić, Gundulić, Vojnović et. al in courses like "Istorija srpske književnosti", claiming that Dubrovnik is something "separate" from Croatia and is thus linguistically as much Serbian as Croatian, and that Croatian name is something "separate" from Illyrian and Slavic in the works of Old Dubrovnik writers (Too bad that Mikalja's and Stulli's dictionaries explicitly equate those two). That enables ad-hoc inclusions of Croatian literary heritage, like this. And we don't want that, do we. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Štambuk,

As a matter of fact, I was already familiar with everything you said. And, as I expected, you claim that slovinski=ilirski=hrvatski (Slavic=Illyrian=Croatian). What you said about slovinski and ilirski - that they meant "different things to different people in different historical periods" is completely accurate. You fail to mention, however (or maybe you are not familiar with this), that it is the same situation with hrvatski (Croatian). What you're doing is exactly what I thought you would, based on your previous posts - that's why I mentioned the first rule of history - "don't project present political or national views to a time in the past". You base your reasoning on the assumption that the Croatian name is like a rock thoughout history, immovable, unchangeable ("od stoljeća sedmog"). This is an old Greater Croatian idea, that all of these terms: slovinski, ilirski, dubrovački, dalmatinski actually always mean hrvatski (Croatian). What it is doing is separating the name hrvatski and putting it above the others, saying that this it the way that is was throughout history. Well, it wasn't.

In fact, Croatian is the name that changed its meaning the most out of all these previously mentioned names. In the 7th century, when the Croats migrated to the Balkans, the name Croatia and Croatian meant only the northern part of today's Dalmatinska Zagora (the Dalmatian Inlands). During the time of the Croatian Dukes the name became a synonym for all of Dalmatia. When the Turks invaded and especially during the time the Croatian Kingdom was the smallest ("Reliquiae reliquiarum"), some of the population and the nobility of the Dalmatian Inlands (i.e. the Croatian Kingdom) migrated to what is today known as "Continental Croatia", but at that time it was called Slovinje (lat. Sclavonia) and had nothing to do with Croatia. With the arrival of the Croatian population and nobility, the name Croatian started to appear sporadically in Slovinje, but remained in secondary use until the 18th century (the people of Slovinje called their language slovenski - Slavic). In the 19th century the Croatian name took primacy (particularly after January 17 1843, when the Habsburg court forbade the use of the Illyrian name - to prevent the dissolution of the Monarchy, because the Illyrian idea also included Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, which were not in the Monarchy). The reaction of the Illyrian movement was to limit its activity to the territory of the Triune Kingdom, which was entirely in the Monarchy. Ljudevit Gaj, the leader of the Illyrian movement, was the only one who always "remained true" to the Illyrian name. The meaning that the Croatian name had in that time (different than now) he expressed like this:

"Za Ilirstva ne biaše drugo nego da budeš Ilir ili Magjaron. Reći da si Hervat, znamenova da si Magjaron."

This also explains why the Habsburg court decided that Illyrian would be replaced with Croatian - to appease the Hungarians, who preferred Croatian because Croatia was de facto under their administration. A half a century after the Croatian name became (or was made) dominant, the territorial claims of Croatian nationalists started to encompass the same area as the Illyrian idea before. This is a quote from Wiki article "Greater Croatia":

The rightist newspaper Hervatska (Croatia) writes in the article Which is the True Croatian Policy and Who Represents It? (No. 6  
of 1871): "The lands to which Croatia's state rights extended, in terms of history and nationality, stretch from Germany to 
Macedonia, from the Danube to the sea and according to their separate provincial names, they are: Southern Styria, Carinthia, 
Carniola,  Gorizia, Istria, Croatia, Slavonia, Krajina, Dalmatia, Upper Albania, Montenegro, Herzegovina, Bosnia, Rascia, Serbia  
- have one true name - the State of Croatia. These lands extend over four thousand square miles and their inhabitants number 
up to eight million people."

In conclusion, the same thing happened to Croatia as it did to Serbia, both tranformed the Slavic/Illyrian name to their own - Croatian and Serbian, respectively. So you see, hrvatski (Croatian) is just as vague as slovinski and ilirski, maybe even more, because its boundaries moved much more than of those two names (in all time periods, Slavic and Illyrian could mean one of three things: all Slavs, South Slavs or Catholic South Slavs - there were no more possibilities).

Here is what the Illyrian name meant in the 19th century, very explicitely stated in the three editions of this book written by a Croat:

Ignjat Alojzije Brlić, Grammatik der illyrischen Sprache, wie solche in Bosnien, Dalmatien, Slavonien, Serbien, Ragusa &   
c. dann von den Illyriern in Banat und Ungarn gesprochen wird. Für Teutsche verfasst und herausgegeben von Ignatz Al. 
Berlich, Ofen, 1833;

Grammatik der illyrischen Sprache wie solche in Dalmatien, Kroatien, Slawonien, Bosnien, Serbien, und von den   
Illiriern in Ungarn gesprochen wird. Für Deutsche verfasst und herausgegeben von Ignaz Al. Berlić. Zweite durchgesehene und 
verbesserte Auflage, Agram, 1842;

Grammatik der illirischen Sprache, wie solche in den südslawischen Ländern Serbien, Bosnien, Slavonien, Dalmatien, 
Kroatien und von den Illiriern und Serben in Ungarn und der Vojvodina gesprochen wird. Für Deutsche verfasst und 
herausgegeben von Ignaz Al. Berlić. Dritte Auflage. Agram, 1850.

Note how Ragusa is mentioned in the first edition (probably because it wasn't yet completely considered a part of the Kingdom of Dalmatia) and Croatia is not even mentioned. In the second edition the Triune Kingdom is mentioned in the correct order (according to the coat of arms) and Ragusa is not mentioned (this means that it was now considered part of the Kingdom of Dalmatia). In the third edition Serbians are excluded from Illyrians, most likely because of the effect of the Serbian national movement - two years after the second edition (in which the Serbs are still considered Illyrians) the Greater Serbian program was released in a small book called Načertanije, where they refused the idea of unification of South Slavs (Illyrians) and instead presented a claim that all South Slavs are Serbs (if I may comment, a dark day in the history of the Balkans)

There is a theory (the noted philologian Radoslav Katičić writes about it - http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik2.html) on how the Croatian name appeared south of Neretva, a territory that was never under the original Croatian Kingdom. The first time the Croatian name appeared in writing was in glagolic books, replacing the name slovenski (Slavic). There it signified (as the several quoted examples below show) the Slavic name entirely, e.g. Croatian meant Slavic, Croatian nations meant Slavic nations.

"Glagoljaške knjige, i druge nastale pod njihovim utjecajem, proširile su se po nekadašnjim neretvanskim otocima Braču, Hvaru i  
Korčuli, po neretvanskom kopnu, dospjele su do dubrovačkoga kraja i do Boke. Vrela kojima raspolažemo ne daju jasnu sliku o njihovoj  
rasprostranjenosti u dubini kopnenoga zaleđa. S njima se proširio i naziv hrvatski do u predjele koji su bili daleko od staroga 
hrvatskoga vladanja, pa se hrvatsko ime kao naziv za jezik, a po tome i za narod, našlo i tamo gdje prvobitno nije bilo 
ukorijenjeno"
"The glagolic books, and others created under their influence, spread all over the former Neretvan islands of Brač, Hvar and  
Korčula, in the Neretvan shore, and reached the Ragusan region and Boka (Bay of Kotor). The sources we have don't present a clear 
image of how deep it was spread in the inlands. With them, the name Croatian was spread to areas that were far from the old Croatian 
rule so the Croatian name as the name of the language and consequently, the people, was found there where it originally didn't have 
roots."

These are a few examples (most of them also from one of the pages you gave as examples - the page listed above):

(the croatian version of Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, from the 14th century)

Original:
"I tako sveti muž Konstanc naredi popove i knjigu harvacku
i istumači iz grčkoga knjigu harvacku:
istumači evanjelja i sve pistule crkvene,
i tako staroga kako novoga zakona,
i učini knjige s papinim dopušćenjem
i naredi misu i utvrdi zemlju u viru Isukrstovu."

In the Latin original version:
Itaque Constantinus, vir sanctissimus,
ordinavit presbyteros et litteram lingua sclavonica componens:
commutavit evangelium Christi atque Psalterium et omnes divinos libros veteris
et novi testamenti de Graeca litera in Sclavonicam,
nec non et missam eis ordinans more Graecorum, confirmavit eos in fide Christi."

Modern Croatian:
«I tako je Konstantin, muž nadasve svet,
zaredio svećenike i sastavivši pismo za slavenski jezik
promijenio Kristovo evanđelje i sve božanske knjige staroga i novoga zavjeta
iz grčkoga pisma u slavensko, uredio im također i misu po grčkom običaju
i učvrstio ih u vjeri Kristovoj».

Šimun Kožičić Benja, Knjižice (Rijeka, 1531): "mnogi ini hrvatski narodi obrnu na krstjansku veru." (A lot of other Croatian nations have converted to Christianity) - explained in the article (http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik2.html) that Croatian is used here as a term for all Slavs.

Maro Dragović from Kotor in a song to Bartol Kašić (1617):

"Kada s' navijestio u pjesnijeh glas tvoj,
naši Dalmatini, i vas rod hrvatski,
držat će i čini pjevanja glas rajski.
Od našega mora do mora ledena
živit od govora dika će plemena."

- explained in the article (http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik2.html) that Croatian is used here as a term for all Slavs.

And finally I leave you with a poem by Đivo Bolica, also from Kotor (note that he uses the words "do mora ledena" as the previous poet)

"Prvo doba kad jezike
vlast nebeska sve razdijeli
građani se bijehu uspeli
na visine jer velike,
plemeniti među ove
i slovinski nam otvori;
ne zna, cijenim, šta govori
oni ki ga robom zove.
Dalmacije sva država,
Ercegovci i Bošnjaci
besjedom su svi jednaci,
ku im rodna zemlja dava,
Moskovije i Poljaka
svi gradovi, sva širina,
mnoga druga mjesta ina
govorom su neinaka;
čestito se ki prostire
Ledenoga priko Mora,
a đe sunce zdrak otvora
svuđe njegov glas dopire.
Mnoge vrijedne pjesni mile
u ovi se čuju pjeti,
kijeh po svijetu slava leti
s kriposću su ku dobile ..."

A Ragusan Historian

Rag. Historian (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rag. Historian, please have a look at your talkpage. It seems the disagreement between you gentlemen is minor at best, and I suggest we all start working on the many problems of this article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Direktor, how can I contact you if I need to discuss something? Because your talk page is protected. I answered your post on my talk page.

Rag. Historian (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Kabudžić" or "Kaboga"

Apart from the Italian rendering, the name of the House of "Kabudžić" or "Kaboga" can be found in both these variants. I myself am not familiar with the family's history, and cannot draw a conclusion. Convincing evidence that the family's proper name is "Kaboga" has been presented by User:Caboga on Talk:Brno Kaboga, and Google appears to agree. However, I still have doubts as it is unlikely the name "Kabudžić" (Kabudjich) was simply invented out of thin air (I certainly did not introduce it). Does anyone have any further information regarding this dilemma? (After we come to a conclusion I'll fix the incorrect version throughout Wikipedia.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason why you could not find KABUDŽIĆ is because it's made up.

There are (were) two forms in use: KABOGA and KABUŽIĆ (without 'd') Try googling 'Kabužić and you'll see.

As for the arguments in favor of 'Kaboga' by User:Caboga on Talk:Brno Kaboga - you cannot list solely the official documents because they were written only in Latin and Italian. So of course they used the Latin and Italian versions of the name. You should check the literary sources in Slavic and then you'll find mentions of the Slavic version. The name Kabužić didn't just appear out of nowhere.

It is the Slavic version of the name of the Caboga family. True, in original it was Caboga, but they themselves chose to use both the Latin/Italian and the Slavic variant (that's why they created the Slavic variant in the first place, as did the family Gundulić, Crijević, Pucić, Bunić etc.). As for the local mentioning of Kaboga, it is because later on Ragusan nobles chose to use only Latin/Italian versions of their name inside the Republic, to show that they are different that the commoners and the peasants, who had Slavic surnames.

P.S. Another mistake - It is not Bobavljević, but Bobaljević. (FYI) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.234.225 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Caboga" is the hereditary surname

I would like to clarify some open questions that editors have in respect to the surname of Dubrovnik patriciate. Various versions of the family name Caboga are or have been in usage such as "de Chaboga", "de Caboga", "Kaboga", "Kabuzic". "Kabudzic" is not one of these versions, I first saw it introduced in Wikipedia. (Direktor you might have forgotten this edit last summer)

One has to differentiate between the original hereditary name that family members legally use as their surname since generations to this day(i.e. the surname that is inherited from one generation to the next and appears in modern identification documents) and the versions that have also been used in publications, articles in modern times or are in common public usage in Croatia. In this case, "Caboga" is the name that has been inherited by family members since generations and is/has been actively used by family members, whereas "Kaboga" is predominantly in usage in public life (including Croatian literature) in Croatia also since a longer time.

Fact is that with all other noble Dubrovnik families, we see this similar practice of one legally inherited surname that is of latin form and slavic versions of this name in usage in public life. This practice is also described in Mahnken's seminal work on the Dubrovnik patriciate where the genealogy and the origins of each family is traced. By researching documents from the Dubrovnik archives, it was shown that the inherited surnames of these families were established as early as the late 13th century, whereas surnames of non-noble merchants in Dubrovnik during the early 15th century. The reference for Mahnken's work is stated in the article on House of Caboga/Kaboga.

So please lets state these historical facts clearly in the articles on the Dubrovnik patriciate. Historians conclude that this practice of a latin surname and slavic versions is reflective of the bilingualism that was present in medieval Ragusa, hence also the practice of dual naming (latin/slavic) in academic publications. But I have not yet come across a fact-based explanation of the mechanism how this practice within the Dubrovnik patriciate originated or explanations if there were motives other than bilingualism for this naming practice in an academic publication. Caboga (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Another explanation Ragusium = Rrush (alb)- Grapes (English)

It look like there are some notable scholars who agree with this [26] Aigest (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian in the infobox

Could someone explain why Italian is used in the infobox? Even Latin shouldn't be there.

• Latin is there because it was "official" (even though no such thing as an "official language" existed), but we are forgetting that most Western European states used Latin as the "official language" or "language of state" in the Middle ages, and even much later. By that logic every single Medieval state article should have the Latin name in the infobox, as that was the "official language". Ragusa was arguably slow to drop that practice, so I can maybe see this exception, still...
• Italian was not the "official language" of the Republic (there was none, aside from Latin arguably ). It was not spoken by the inhabitants of the Republic. It was spoken by some merchants because of the economic links with Italy, but this is also true of Greek and even Turkish. Italian was also spoken by some nobles out of tradition (many traced their lineage hundreds of years back to Italy), but still mostly not on a normal day-to-day basis. Does that mean it was "a language of the Republic"?

The only language spoken by 99% of the normal inhabitants of the Republic, was the local dialect of South Slavic Shtokavian or "Serbo-Croatian", in a narrower sense mostly viewed as early Croatian (per Gundulić, Držić, etc..). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a type of mixed Ijekavian Shtokavian dialect. Today the speech and writings of Old Dubrovnik are incorporated into Croatian literary corpus retroactively, but at those days the concept of "nation" was not so well-developed, and 90% of all writings of Old Dubrovnikan writers do not contain any kind of national designation as we perceive them today. Those that you mention - Držić and Gundulić, never called themselves Croats, or their language Croatian AFAIK. When ethnical/national designation was used, it was in most cases some kind of generic supraregional one, like Slavic, Dalmatian or Illyrian. Sometimes Croatian was used and very rarely Serbian. Croatia(n) affiliation can often be deduced directly and indirectly, but also quite the opposite (which some of my fellow Croats wouldn't like, but we should mention this too): e.g. in Držić's Dundo Maroje there's the character called Gulisav Hrvat ("Gulisav the Croat"), and if you analyze his speech you notice that he's non-Štokavian speaker (e.g. spomenul instead of spomenuo, Čakavianisms such as obnajti, pineza). And so on.

Today Dubrovnik is Croatia, Dubrovnikans are prevalently self-declared as Croats, call their language Croatian, and we should prob. do it to. I'd personally have no problems seeing Serbo-Croatian as the language name (because Štokavian dialect is by no means exclusively Croatian), but that's just me. Shtokavian would be the most neutral and truthful term. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. The problem being that "Shtokavian" isn't really a language. I think we should probably avoid any label and simply explain it all in the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Italian, Ferdinand Braudel wrote: "At Ragusa (...) Italianism was a commodity: Italy was the commercial language of the entire Mediterranean. But fashion and snobbery entered into it as well. Not only was it considered desiderable that the sons of noble families should go to study at Padua, and that the secretaries of the republic should be as fluent in Italian as in Latin (the archives of Ragusa are almost all in Italian), but the ruling families, who governed trade and politics, unhesitatingly invented Italian genealogies for themselves. In fact, of course, these haughty gentes were descended from some mountain Slav, the Italianized names betray their Slavonic origins, the coastal population continued to be drawn from the mountains, Slavonic was the spoken langauge, the familiar tongue of the women and people, and even, after all, of the elite, since the registers of Ragusa frequently record strict orders to speak only Italian at the assemblies of the Rectors; if an order was necessary, clearly Slavonic was being spoken." (F.Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philipp II, University of California Press 1996, pp. 131-132). So, Italian was one of the official languages in Ragusa. The only prohibited language at the time was the Slavic, as the Major Consilium stated: "In arenghis Consiliorum nostrorum uti lingua Slava nequeant" (Rag.Decr., 1472).--151.21.249.99 (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes all right, but I am sick of this esuli irredentist fanatic and his annoying editing. He follows me around and counters everything I do out of spite - because I reported his sockpuppeteering. Are you aware he was blocked over a year ago and is still actively editing on this encyclopedia? I swear, if he so much as signs his IP here I'm building a case for a range block.

Anyway, as I said, an "official langauge" is "a language that is given a special legal status".

• Determining languages in use only within the council itself does not mean the language is now the language of state. This was tradition, not much more. Too much is based on this, we have this whole almost completely Slavic state represented as "half-Italian" because of meaningless custom.
• More importantly, just because "Slavonic" was prohibited does not mean Italian was given "special legal status". If there was a proper source stating that Italian was proscribed by law as the language of state, the situation here would be different (either way, make sure you don't post it Luigi - you are banned). In fact, I believe Latin was the only such "official language".

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone present a reference to a law in the Republic instituting the Italian language as the language of state? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[27]--MacLot (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean evidence of the traditional use of Latin/early Italian in the council and (most) documents, I am fully aware of all that. I mean an actual law proscribing the use of the Italian language as language of state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Liber Viridis cited by Harris was the official book of the fundamental laws of the Republic, from 1357 until 1460. From this date until 1791 the laws were put into another volume, the Liber Croceus, and from 1791 to 1808 the last laws can be found in the Parti dei Pregadi.--MacLot (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(None of this is noted in the article.) As I said above, decreeing use in documents is not equal to actually establishing Italian as the official language of state. This is not much more than a custom in the highly traditionalist Republic, taken over from Latin. These people did not, or rather could not, speak Italian it in their normal lives. I've still not seen references to legislature determining the status of the Italian language itself.
Furthermore, if my memory serves me right, the Liber Viridis simply prohibits the use of the "Slavonic tongue" in the council. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

None of this is noted in the article? Very strange, but you can read the Croatian article (with the Italian name in the infobox!). Robin Harris stated: "Latin was used in official documents, changing to Italian (to judge from the decrees contained in the Liber Viridis) in the 1420s.". So, Italian was used in official documents from the 1420s until 1808, when in most documents the Republic was named "Repubblica di Ragusa". In official documents. However, do you have seen some references determining the status of the Latin or Croatian language? 'Cause Latin and Croatian names are also in the infobox...--MacLot (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Restating acknowledged facts is not helpful. Obviously "Croatian" (Shtokavian) was overwhelmingly the spoken language and needs to references. This is not really disputable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So, Croatian can stand without references. Well. But what about Latin? Regarding Italian, this was overwhelming the written language, in the official documents, for four centuries. Also this is not really disputable, however, we have two sources about this fact: Braudel and Harris. Other opinions?--MacLot (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Croatian. What do you mean "without references"? Read any work on that subject and it will clearly indicate that early "Croatian" was the spoken language, overwhelmingly. Just look at Braudel above, for example...
• Latin. Latin was used in an official capacity all over western Europe, should we name every medieval state by its Latin name in the infobox? (Regnum Aragoniae?) I think its time to end all the silliness in this article.
• Italian. If this bias is to be pushed, kindly provide a reference to the legislature addressing the the legal status of the Italian language in the Republic. Prohibiting Slavic does not make Italian "official" by default, and ancient tradition does not equate to actual law.

The fact of the matter is, there was no "official language" in the Republic, as not a single language was actually granted that status by Ragusan legislature. I believe that too much is based on a Romance council tradition - the whole Slavic state is being presented as half-Italian, when you would never even be able to buy a head of lettuce in that city without knowing Shtokavian. Its not like there was even a significant Italian minority: they were all South Slavs. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to answer your question: "Could someone explain why Italian is used in the infobox?". Braudel and Harris - from my point of view - are simply two sources. I don't know anything about the heads of lettuce in Ragusa in the XIII or XVIII century, but above Braudel stated that "the archives of Ragusa are almost all in Italian".--MacLot (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But you failed to answer him correctly. "the archives of Ragusa are almost all in Italian". - Sorry but this is typical irredentistic fake, doesn't mean that Braudel was an irredentist, his source definitely was.

The most of the archive books and writings, especially those in the older periods, were written in Latin language, official diplomatic language of those times, but there were also numerous documents in Italian and Croatian, and in Turkish (more than 15.000 Turkish documents), while in somewhat smaller amounts there were documents in Spanish, Arabian, Portugese, French, Greek, Hebrey, Russian and Armenian. Also, important to say, many of those "Italian" documents were actually "Dalmatian" documents, see Dalmatian language, especially those from 13th and 14th century, since D. language was classified as a unique language, in the 20th century, while before that, It. irredentists usually counted it for some kind of Italian. Italian documents were mostly those connected to some kind of popular use, while those related to the republic business were predominantly Latin. Where/who from did Braduel get information about Dubrovnik archives? Some Italian writter in the 19th century? 83.131.74.198 (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a source, and the source seems not "italian irredentistic source" (*) [28], so I think that this source can be used, and maybe should be used in the infobox at page's top. --Il palazzo (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(*) If Harris has used only "italian irredentistic sources" please provide a detailed bibliography to confirm it, or this remains only a simple opinion. (See also [29], it not seems a reunion of italian irredentistic fascists) Bye--Il palazzo (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is that older Italian writers were rewriting what their 19th century compatriots had written, without any criticism. Then some western authors rewrite what Italians wrote and that's how some fakes or incorrect data came to the present time. It's not neccessary to look in some books what language is used in Dubrovnik archieves, since it's not some secret. 83.131.74.198 wrote "The most of the archive books and writings, especially those in the older periods, were written in Latin language, official diplomatic language of those times, but there were also numerous documents in Italian and Croatian, and in Turkish (more than 15.000 Turkish documents), while in somewhat smaller amounts there were documents in Spanish, Arabian, Portugese, French, Greek, Hebrey, Russian and Armenian." and it seems like taken from the official site of the Dubrovnik history archieves. 78.3.55.184 (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

About the Italian language: Italian language was standardised in the second half of the 19th century along with creation of Italian state. So, that's about italian language spoken in Dubrovnik. Venetian language, the one that some of you are refering to be Italian was a separate language (see Veneto). And to be honest, neither Italian (because it did not exist because Italy did not exist) was not spoken in Dubrovnik. The real romance language that was spoken was Dalmatian (a mixture of Venetian and Croatian, with the first being dominant). On the other hand, If you want to call this twisted latin dialect - Italian language, then it is fair to call the language of the people that lived in Dubrovnik Croatian.

Anyway, my point is that there was no today's standard language that was spoken in Dubrovnik, but if you really want to be objective, there was Latin, Dalmatian and Croatian language as spoken ones in Dubrovnik. (Italian didn't exist at that time nor did Italy) Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ Hammer, Italian existed as a litereary language well before the unification of Italy. Italian literature starts, as we learn at school, with S. Francesco in the early 13th century. Within 100 years Italy had produced a rich vernacular literature whose most noted examples are Dante, Petrarca and Boccaccio. Petrarca also wrote a well known 'Canzone all'Italia' which proves beyond doubt that Italians (at least the educated) had already a clear national conscience. Dante also defined its natural borders as the Alps. Thence this language remained almost unaltered for centuries. It makes me laugh (and cry) to see such ignorance being so widespread throughout Europe. One cannot argue that because there was not an Italian state there was not an Italian nation too, with its culture and language. By the 14th century almost all significant literary production was written in Tuscan vernacular, apart from humanistic literature that was written in Latin. Our writers and poets included Ariosto, Tasso, Macchiavelli(advocate of a united Italy), Guicciardini, Botero, Alfieri, Foscolo (Dalmatian), Leopardi, Genovesi, Beccaria, Manzoni etc. all of whom wrote well before the formation of an Italian state but were clearly conscious of the identity of the nation. BTW Ragusean 'hommes de lettres' all used this language in their foremost works. See Italian wikipedia. Why did they choose to write in Tuscan vernacular? because it was, relatively speaking, the closest relation of their own native tongue. BTW as far as I knew the original Ragusean Dalmatic was documented only by two letters (of which I read only one, and it looks pretty much common Italian vernacular). Here above it seems there is somebody who knows more: would he be so kind to provide the evidence he has on hands? It would be a great breakthrough contribution for glottology. By all means it stays without doubt that Raguseans' original Dalmatian language must have been closer to the various Italian vernaculars than to any Slavic language.

For a coincidence I met years ago a local inhabitant of Ragusean descent who had an Italian surname and that told me that in his family they: "had always been speaking Italian". BTW his Italian was good and did not sound particularly influenced by Venetian.

Now to the other previous posts: it is up to you to prove that these historians were using Italian irredentist biased-fake literature. If you make any accusatory allegations the onus probandi lies onto you. Is the Liber Viridis a document manipulated by Italian irredentists? If you read carefully all the discussions here there are still many direct relible testimonies that documents were all written in Italian if not in Latin.Aldrasto (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I really admire Aldrasto. But he has a point in some sayings. If you call the language that was spoken in 1300 around the today's Italy, then today Italian is spoken by nobody. For example, a quote from english Wiki :After unification a huge number of civil servants and soldiers recruited from all over the country introduced many more words and idioms from their home languages ("ciao" is Venetian, "panettone" is in the Milanese dialect of the Lombard language etc.). Only 2.5% of Italy’s population could speak standard Italian when the nation unified in 1861. End of quote. A sense of belonging to a nation was iniciated in the 19. century, and that is why so late modern national states like Germany (Bismarck) or Italy (Garibaldi)were created. People didn't know what is nation, they were living in monarchies under the kings and did not know nothing about national awarenes of belonging to a certain nation. The best example is Italy and Germany, that comprised of hundreds small states and they were ultimately united in 19. century. On the other hand, there were many states like Habsburg monarchy that comprised of many today's nations, but people didn't know much about to which naton do they belong. The only difference was that they were speaking different languages. Like said, in Habsburg monarchy (today's Austria, Hungary, Chech R., Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, parts of Germany, Poland and Italy) King spoke German as mother language, but German was spoken by (let's say) 20% of population as native language. And noone at that time didn't care for not having a national state. The main concern of people was how will king rule abowe them.

Aldrasto, I agree that you can call this language that was spoken 7-8centuries ago, but this is anachronism, i.e. using a modern term to name something that was at that time called differently, especially because 2,5% of people spoke "Italian" in 1861. It is the same with all other languages, we take this historical dialects that were spoken as parts of today's standard languages. Nonatheles, I suggest to call this lanuguages with prefix "early".Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Serb" Dubrovnik

In older Western literature, there often reigned confusion about the terms Croats and Serbs (or the difference was not seen as too important). This goes for Ranke (mentioning the "Latin Serbs of Ragusa") or books written in the aftermath of WW I. Until the 18th century, terms like "Slavonic" were used etc. What is missing in our article, is some information about the existing small Orthodox (or "Serb") minority in Ragusa/Dubrovnik before the 1800s. Do we have any data available? --DaQuirin (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DaQuirin, have you ever read any discussions here? "Until the 18th century, terms like "Slavonic" were used etc. What is missing in our article, is some information about the existing small Orthodox (or "Serb") minority in Ragusa/Dubrovnik before the 1800s." There was a section that spoke exactly about that. Please, don't say claims without any coverage. Further, there was a ban for Orthodox Christians - they were not allowed to stay overnight in Dubrovnik. After diplomatic pressures from Russian Empire, Rep. of Dubrovnik allowed the construction of small chapelette in the city, for the needs of Russian personnel. Kubura (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're only choosing to "debunk" one text. What about the first source I put up (not 22, but 21)?

Here, I'll post it again. http://books.google.com/books?id=lxrJn7xIZC4C&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=Serbs+Ragusa&source=bl&ots=Qpd812YHN8&sig=QGOzcw1UTHBzh10kUiKsv3BamR0&hl=en&ei=yiiUSrfTEoX-Maex5fkH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=Serbs%20Ragusa&f=false

Your explanation is ridiculous. This article isn't about your personal opinion. As long as I have published sources backing up my claim, I don't see a logical reason as to why you're deleting it. I'm pretty sure the research of Western historians is far more valid than your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As you could (and should) have found out yourself, Schevill (in his book published in 1922) restricts the term "Croats" to - "the extreme northwestern section" that means, "embracing the districts of Croatia, Slavonia, and Istria". The inhabitants of Dalmatia are instead taken for Serbs. The text belongs in the category of Western literature after WWI mentioned above. On p.507 Schevill makes an interesting observation: "Apparently Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croatia and the other historical entities composing the new state are earmarked for disappearance. The kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes is to be a unitarian rather than a federative government." So much about the Latin Serbs of Ragusa... --DaQuirin (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is likely a sock of User:Mike Babic. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, plus he has violated the three revert rule who knows how many times.--Jesuislafete (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whenever you see a Serbian user pushing outrageous nationalist POV in half-good English, be sure its more than likely a sock of a decent Serbian guy who's sadly turned radical because he used to live in the Krajina. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

DaQuirin, you fail to explain anything whatsoever. Basically, all you said was that he was a Post WWI author (which is entirely irrelevant) and that he considers the people of Dalmatia to be ethnically Serbian. Remind me, how is your opinion more valid than that of a Western scholar?

His "interesting observation" is just as irrelevant as him being from the post WWI era. He was correct in saying that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a unitary state but if he was of the opinion that all of its peoples were Serbs than i doubt he would have bothered establishing where Croats live, rather he would simply said they too were just Serbs, but he didn't.

Lastly, Leoplod von Ranke's source is perfectly valid. You're assuming he was "confused" as to what a Serb is and what a Croat is. This isn't about your personal opinion or your assumptions, its about historical facts. If he was as "confused" as you say he was, than why didn't he use the word "Slavonic" rather specifically Serb? I'd like for you to cite a couple published sources referring to the inhabitants of the Republic of Ragusa as Croats.

Also, if you reread the sentence, it doesn't say "the ethnicity of the Ragusans was...". It says "Discussions about Ragusa's demographic structure often use the words.." Clearly, if two reputable Western, published, sources list them as Serbs, than discussions about Ragusa's demographic structure do use the words Serbs to describe the inhabitants of Ragusa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look Serbia, its simple. It is blatantly obvious that this "western scholar's" mistaken opinion is that all Dalmatians (which includes Ragusans) are "Latin Serbs". This is a mistake common for authors of that period. What you're pushing here is the long-abandoned Greater-Serbian concept that Dalmatians are "Latin Serbs". You can forget about that right here and now. Find a modern "western scholar" that considers the inhabitants of Ragusa to be Serbs, and you may have something to work with.

Furthermore, you are dismissing everything people write as "their opinion", which is typical of any POV-pusher that thinks he's got a source. Do not think that your lack of proper discussion and the fact that you've ignored other people's point is going unnoticed. Discuss properly, and stop revert-warring to push your edit. It has been reverted and you are supposed to wait. Any violations of 3RR will be reported, along with a checkuser request.

P.S. Mike if this is you again, I'm sorry you got blocked but you had better stop right now. Your IP range may very well be blocked by Wikipedia for good if you continue to be such a nuisance with your socks. You may have to move to your (crappy) forums for good. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Serbian Orthodox Church was not built in Dubrovnik until the late 19th century. Now, no one is saying that there were no Serbs at all period in Dubrovnik, we are just saying that your information is grossly outdated and wrong. Your "sources" were written at a time when nationality in Jugoslavia was a very confusing concept. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're not backing your claims with any sources, its just your opinion that he made a mistake. How on earth do you know what was going through Leopold Von Ranke's mind 130 years ago when he was writing his book and whether he was confused or not? Last I checked, published sources meant a lot more than a biased (I'm saying this because you are Croatian and its understandable why you don't want the word Serbs mentioned at all) opinion.

Now, since you didn't catch it the first time, I'm going to bold it and write it in big letters:

Also, if you reread the sentence, it doesn't say "the ethnicity of the Ragusans was...". It says "Discussions about Ragusa's demographic structure often use the words.." IT DOES NOT SAY DIRECTLY THAT THE INHABITANTS OF RAGUSA WERE SERBS OR CROATS, IT SAYS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT RAGUSA'S DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE INCLUDE THE WORDS. Clearly, if two reputable Western, published, sources list them as Serbs, than discussions about Ragusa's demographic structure do use the words Serbs to describe the inhabitants of Ragusa.

Lastly, check my IP, I've been editing wikipedia for quite some time now and if I was a sock puppet of anyone I'm pretty sure they would have found out a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You can write it in wingdings if you like. Your sources are using dated terms. Try to understand that. Be sure I will check you if you make it worth my while, in the meantime, even if you're not User:Mike Babic, you can expect a report if you start edit-warring to push your edit. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this question even makes much sense. It seems as though both sides are digging in on nationalist positions that refuse to engage with the complexity of the situation. The inhabitants of Dalmatia were Catholic and Slavic. In modern context, that effectively makes them Croats. However, as I understand it the Shtokavian dialect spoken by Catholics and Muslims as well as Orthodox in Dalmatia and Bosnia is more similar to the language spoken in Serbia than it is to the dialect spoken in Croatia proper (the area around Zagreb). As such, older works might treat Shtokavian speakers as "Serbian" as opposed to Kajkavian dialect speakers, who would be "Croatian." This would be especially true during the period when "Croatia" properly referred largely to the area around Zagreb, when the rest of the country was "Istria" or "Dalmatia" or "Slavonia." Of course, the Catholic Slavic nationalists who in the nineteenth century standardized the literary language of Catholic South Slavs were largely Dalmatian, and decided to call the whole group "Croatian" while at the same time standardizing the Shtokavian dialect as the literary language of "Croatia." But the distinctions here are basically arbitrary, and most of them apply to a period after the one when the Republic of Ragusa existed. Perhaps it would be best to refer to the city's Slavic inhabitants. john k (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh its a lot more complex than that, as someone was sure to point out soon enough. :) Croatian and Serbian are virtually the same language, that's the core of all this. Its all the same thing. Kajkavian and Chakavian are simply dialects of this language. The problem is, Serbs like to claim its all "Serbian", while Croats like to claim its all "Croatian" (though since Serbs outnumber Croats, they are more prone to dismissing the latter as "Catholic Serbs" than vice versa). The fact is, the distinction between "who/what was Croatian and what was Serbian" was eventually made on the basis of religion (though other factors played their part again). Catholic = Croat, Orthodox = Serb, Muslim = Bosniak. An "Orthodox Croat" is a very rare thing, even "weird".

Since you were talking about regions ("Istria", "Dalmatia", "Slavonia"), I'm not sure if you know that Dubrovnik always was and considered itself a part of Dalmatia. "Serbia proper" is as remote from Dubrovnik as "Croatia proper", and shares little in common with Dubrovnik speech. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know that Dubrovnik is in Dalmatia, and I wasn't suggesting that people there should be described as Serbs, even if there was a time when westerners trying to make sense of the ethnic situation might have called them "Latin Serbs." My point was that the Shtokavian dialect is spoken in Serbia and in Dalmatia (and Slavonia and Bosnia)), the Kajkavian dialect in "Croatia proper," so it might make sense that older sources would have called Catholic Shtokavian speakers "Latin Serbs," or whatever, by just conflating Shtokavian with Serbian. But then I guess there were also genuine "Latin Serbs" - Serbs in the Military Frontier who converted to Catholicism in the seventeenth or eighteenth century. The whole thing is kind of a mess. It's certainly true that at some point the distinction was made that "Croats" were the Catholics and "Serbs" the Orthodox, but my sense is that this wasn't necessarily the original distinction made. There are virtually no Orthodox Croats, certainly, but "Catholic Serb" doesn't seem like it's necessarily an oxymoron. john k (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

DIRKETOR, you didn't even bother responding to my argument, all you told me was to stop using bolded letters. Oh, there using dated terms now? Well, ain't that just dandy? I still don't see how that has to do with anything whatsoever or how the term "Serb" is dated at all? The fact of the matter is, the opinion of two Western scholars is far more valid as a reference than some random Croatian guy, no offense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your name.--Jesuislafete (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the tone of your post. I did answer your argument. Your argument is based on your sources. Your sources are using dated terms, and yes, the term "Serbian" is indeed dated when used for virtually everyone in Yugoslavia. The matter has been explained to you in detail. The fact that you refuse to accept this is strangely familiar. Kind of like the standard Serbian nationalist POV-pushing I see every week.

It may very well be that Serbia123 is User:Mike Babic editing from another IP. When accused of being a sock he withdrew, only to come back now and claim he's not a sock. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, THAT is your explanation? No my friend, that is your opinion. Provide sources backing up your opinion or that is all that they will remain. I'll say it again. The fact of the matter is, the opinion of two Western scholars is far more valid as a reference than some random Croatian guy, no offense. We can't cite your opinion in the reflist now can we?

I don't see how anything I said was even remotely nationalist. As soon as I even try to include Serbs in any article (even when I have sources backing up the claim), I'm immediately labeled a nationalist and its ridiculous, because if I was a Serbian nationalist then I would have removed the Croatian part all together. If anything, you're the nationalist in all of this for refusing different POV's other than your exclusively on the basis that they are Serb ones.

And I don't like the tone of your post either, cry me a river. And I'm not a sock, check already, you're all talk man, contact an admin or whatever the hell the procedure is and do it already.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are dated, therefore the terms they use are dated as well. This is fact, not "opinion". Everything anyone writes is an opinion to you, I see? How typical... Whenever a POV-pusher thinks he's got a source I hear the same silly rhetoric: everything else is an "opinion". :)

Once again, as DaQuirin has explained, the terms in use by your sources are archaic. By your definition, all Macedonians are actually Bulgarians because a hundred years ago people wrote sources claiming that. Get a modern source describing Dubrovnik as "Serbian" or else you have absolutely nothing. And that's another statement of fact. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but were talking about a state that existed hundreds of years ago and hasn't been in existence for over 200 years so how on earth would modern sources be any more valid? The Republic of Ragusa hasn't even been in existence for 200 years so how could any modern source accurately describe the demographic structure of a nonexistent state without looking at sources from the PAST? We are talking about what the ethnicity of the Ragusans was not is.

You're telling me that if I use any other source other than one written in the last 10 years (ie. modern), than its invalid? That's absolutely ridiculous, if we didn't use sources from the past than we wouldn't even have any in the modern era.

Furthermore, the sentence does not read "the ethnicity of Ragusans is..." it reads "discussions about the demographic structure of Ragusa include the following". Clearly, if two Western historians consider them Serbs, than discussions about the demographic structure of Ragusa do indeed include Serbs.

Lastly, where the hell are your sources saying Serbian is some sort of made up term or whatever it is you're claiming.? If I have nothing than I guess that means you've got even less than nothing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Modern sources are always the best. You're saying a 1930s source is actually better than a modern one? Wikipedia always depicts the views of the modern scientific community. Don't you know these things?? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll say it again. The sentence does not read "the ethnicity of Ragusans is..." it reads "discussions about the demographic structure of Ragusa include the following". Clearly, if two Western historians consider them Serbs, than discussions about the demographic structure of Ragusa do indeed include Serbs.

All I said was that modern sources are based on past ones and I don't even see why mentioned these ones is such a huge problem for you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbia123 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Modern sources are based on past ones? Well then, do find me a modern source that ("based on past ones") refers to Dubrovnikans as "Serbs". "Discussions" does not mean 1930s discussions, it means proper scientific ethnological discussions using modern methods and terms. Should we write "discussions about the demographic structure of Macedonians include the possibility that they are Bulgarians"? I'll be waiting for your (published, NON-SERBIAN) source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just avoid the whole issue? They were Catholic South Slavs speaking the Shtokavian dialect, right? Why can't we just say that? john k (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm while I am inclined to insist that the ethnicity of Dubrovnik be presented as (early) Croatian, from a strictly objective point of view I wouldn't object to your proposal - but only if all mention of specific ethnicity be removed. If we're "going general" that's the only way to do it in a neutral way. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Slavonic" is the term that would have normally been used at the time, no? john k (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Slavonic would be an acceptable solution. I'll find you the sources however, I'm gonna be busy these next few days so it may take a little while.

"Slavonic" is an archaic adjective, it basically means "Slavic". "Catholic South Slavs speaking the Shtokavian dialect" (not necessary phrased that way) sounds much better than "Slavonic". The latter sounds like we're inventing some new "category" by using an old term. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a need to "compromise" with outdated "sources". Despite numerous attempts to try to convince Serbia123 of this, he simply refuses to accept it. I think his rabid insistence at adding these "sources" is frankly bizarre. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Jesuislafete. I just support this as a more accurate depiction of Ragusan ethnicity, not because I think Serbia/Mike has any real "argument". I don't regard this as a compromise, more like an improvement and there's no way those "sources" of his will be included... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Slavonic is definitely archaic; I wasn't necessarily suggesting it. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to say Croats, it's just that in the eighteenth century, "Croat" would have been taken to refer to people living in Croatia proper, so we should be careful about using it without explanation. "Dalmatian Slavs" might be another possibility. Basically, what we have here is an ethnic group which was later encompassed within the "Croatian" national identity, but which was not considered to be so at the time. I'm not really sure of the best way of dealing with it. john k (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're all talk Direktor, do it already, prove that I'm a sock. In fact, I demand that you track my IP, contact an administrator, do whatever the procedure is and see for yourself whether your accusations are true. Enough of this BS and personal slander.

And by the way, its clearly a compromise, you yourself said you would rather it say Croats and now you're saying the articles being "improved". Call it what you want (and whether my sources are included doesn't matter shit to me).

Yeah, you win Serbia, Serbia finally wins something. ;) Stop flattering yourself - every single user who saw your sources knows they are nonsense. If you think people had to compromise with that, well, fine. As for you being a sock, you probably found another IP to edit from and came back, only to "demand" that you are checked. I saw no such "demands" earlier. But I don't really care... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever man, I got part of what I wanted and you had to settle for less. Tell me, what country and state/province did this Mike live in? Compare it with mine. I don't need you gossiping to your little "wikifriends" that I'm a sock or something. And really, just because two people have a similar opinion on a matter does not mean they are the same person. There's 6.5 billion people on the planet, some of them are bound to have the same opinion on a matter.

Well I'm glad we both arrived at an amiable solution. I'm looking forward to cooperating with you on other issues. Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Golden Age of Dubrovnik

Can we put in Contents of the article: Golden Age of Dubrovnik. Golden Age of Dubrovnik was from the fall of Istanbul in 1453 to the catastrophic earthquake that devastated Dubrovnik in 1667. Maybe history section can have subsection Golden Age of Dubrovnik, which can have subsection: Ottoman suzerainty. --Kebeta (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

to the editors

This is the English section of Wikipedia and not the Croatian one. This article has clearly been compiled by Croatians, not by British or American scholars. (I made a quick search and discovered that DIREKTOR is a young man from Split of Croatian nationality; he has received awards by the Croatian governments for his work on Wikipedia). I think by letting this happen the Wikipedia project has abdicated its mandate of providing the English speaking community with objective and unbiased information. The Croatian compilers have been shrewd enough to quote almost only alien sources (ie neither Croatian nor Italian), however thier bias becomes apparent in the section on Ragusean ethnicity, culture and list of patrician families as well as by the almost systematic alteration of names of charachters into the Croatian form. The bibliography and quotations openly skirt (with one exception in the bibliography) the enormous mass of historical production by Ragusean authors in Italian.

From reading the article one gets no idea of the true nature and charachter of this peculiar and extraordinary 'sea republic'. Why did it exisit? The reader is hoodwinked into thinking that Raguseans were mainly or almost Croatians and the main reasons for their existence were linked to the neighbouring Slavic states. If such assumptions were true, how did they come to establish a sea republic whose motto was 'freedom cannot be exchanged even for all the gold of the world'? Is this historically plausible? Have the Croatians or other neighbouring Slavic political entities have ever created anything similar? Moreover if Ragusa was a Croatian state as opposed to a Dalamatian Latin one, how come the use of Croatian (lingua sclava) was forbidden in public debates (since the 15th century to the end)? Does this make any sense? Why from the very early beginning til the XIX century their literary works were almost all in Italian? This is a point on which the article is heavily flawed in that it deliberately ignores this fact and presents the reader with a list of writers of Slavic or Slavicised names who are listed for writing works in Croatian. The reality is that Raguseans who were able to write wrote almost always in Italian and their works in Italian are by far more significant by number and quality. I shall attach a list here below. Moreover how come that all private and public documents were written in Italian if not in Latin? Most importantly how did they develop their unique culture, art and architcture? Where in Croatia something of sort did ever take place? Does Ragusa even today look a Croatian town? Are its place names Croatians? Eg the famous 'stradun' is a dialectal form of italian 'stradone' ie large street.

It is simply unadmissible that this biased, messy entry be rated B. Ragusean republic had just one official language, Italian (after Latin). The English speaking public has the right to know this simple truth. The surnames of the local (patrician and other) families are almost all Italian, documents and archives are in Latin or Italian, tombstones are in Italian. Not one single document is written in Croatian.

I list here the Ragusean 'Italian' (ie writing in Italian) writers and artists: Franco Sacchetti, poet and novelist; Bonino de'Bonini pioneer of the press; Mauro Orbini, writer, historian; Marino Darsa, renaissance writer; Elio Lampridio Cerva, great humanist poet, author of the unfinished Epidaurum poem on the old Roman town from which Raguseans originated; Mauro Vetrani; Luca and Antonio Sorgo, composers; Marino Ghetaldi, mathematician and physic; Giovanni Gondola, patriotic and religious poet; Giovanni Serafino Bona, poet, politician; Sigismondo Menze, trobadoric poet; Giorgio Darsa, trobadoric poet; V. Appendini historian and 'literatus' (wrote a history of Ragusa published in 1802).

Rector Filippo Diversi testifies that the original Ragusean (Dalamtic) language was still in use in 1434-40 in tribunals. Humanist Lampridio Cerva (born 1460) remembers it as a childhood memory. Afterwards the nobles and citizens started speaking (good) Italian (more or less Tuscan). I leave it to the good sense of the readers to decide whether they were in any possible way Croats.

For their convenience I shall add here a brief bibliography in Italian on the subject:

Cristoforo Caracci, La luce di Ragusa, Treviso 2005

Giacomo Scotti, Ragusa, la quinta repubblica marinara, LINT Trieste

Giorgio Gozzi, La libera e sovrana repubblica di Ragusa, 1981

Giacomo Scotti, Terre perdute. Riscoperta dell'italianita' della Dalmazia, Salerno, 1994

I invite here those who can read Italian to refer to the relative entry on the Italian Wikipedia. The Croatians compilers should be stigmatised. BTW even here they can make up their minds by reading the list of the rectors. No, I read further, they have changed all names to Croatian!

Beware of sockpuppets! :)
User:Pantaleone is a sockpuppet of
PIO.

I wish to give English speaking readers a simple but effective key in order to discover the lie: when you meet a Slavic form of a name try and think if such a name was ever attested in that tongue outside Dalmatia or if it is possible, according the usual usual rules of name formation of that language. A simple example: Paulic, Persic, Gundulic etc are clearly Slavicised forms of Latin-Romance-Italian names as the corrispondent Slavic does not exist, does not mean anything or it would be different (not Paulic but Pavelic in Croatian). This is a quick and effective key to help you detect the manipulation. BTW I was told about the -ic trick in Istria-Dalmatia by a Slovenian student many years ago. Parish priests changed Latin patronomic to Slavic by this sleight of hand.

Who runs Wikipedia? These peole write what they want on the English Wikipedia which means they are allowed to falsify (cleverly) history and con readers worldwide! This is totally unacceptable and the reputation of Wikipedia is at stake. Aldrasto (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Dubrovnik was completely Slavicized by the 14th/15th century, and Slavic (Serbo-Croatian) was living vernacular in the city. Nobility learned Italian thru schooling, and almost all literary production was in Slavic. Your precious "Darsa" and "Gondola" signed their works as Držić and Gundulić. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not only Držić: [30].--151.21.249.213 (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when they adressed the local public. However their ancestry was local and not Slavic. 'Slavicised' BTW does not mean 'Slavic'. They adopted Italian when the local Ragusean died away, because it was their most closely related language. They perceived themselves as Raguseans and not Croatians so used Italian. Why otherwise? Plz read the above historical works if you wish. They are all by authors above any suspicion of irredentism. One of them at least is an authentic Ragusean.Aldrasto (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is very likely a sock... probably best to ignore. The idea that the government gave me some sort of "award" is a flattering one, but not very factual... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User Aldrasto is a valid guy: I agrree his arguments. DIREKTOR, Er-vet-en, Zenanarh and GregorB are very POV pushers. Are these Croat guys all socks?--Pantaleone (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

LoL... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

your trolling is funny and....--Pantaleone (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And what? =) PIO, what are you doing? You're not fooling anyone... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

PIO, Luigi, Bruno, Giovanni, MacLot, Miranovic, Babic, Sir Floyd and.. they can organize a syndacate for you and your compliance admins! Goodbye troll--Pantaleone (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Pure comedy. PIO, you are like Baldrick. Anyway, I'd say your incarnation at User:Pantaleone will be mercifully brief - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PIO. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Al, did you get that bit about me getting some award(!) for my Wiki edits? "The Supreme Order of the Croatian Internet Editor"? "For exceptional bravery in the face of irredentist socks"... xD I wonder what other fantasy fairy tales Bruno's spinning out there.

Also looks like he fancies the idea of spending some time in a Balkans prison. :) Another thing, PIO, if I recall you got banned about something that had absolutely nothing to do with me or Dalmatia... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

32 minutes. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Readers, Aldrasto's comments are entirely valid. Don't be fooled by the smoke screen (above entries since Oct 31) -- always the same people on all Croatia-related pages. Talk about SOCKPUPPETS!!The descendants of the Ragusan aristocratic families living in Croatia today still use the the non-Slavicized forms of the family names and these are recognized in Croatian identity cards, passports, etc. I entirely agree that the Wikipedia Croatian editors (at HQ in San Francisco??) are biased (and I think I know why but won't get into here) and the American ones are not sufficiently informed about the subject matter to be objective. If you want to know what's going on, please refer to the scene in "Planet of the Apes" where Taylor is being questioned by Dr Zaius...sorry to use such an analogy, but this is really what's going on. I can't accept that the name Gondola comes from Gundulic and not the other way around.

Let's see, who will be making nasty/condescending comments about this...Let me look into my crystal ball: Direktor, Ivan Stambuk, AlasdairGreen, Admiral Nelson (maybe?) 82.226.211.122 (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC) oops, didn't sign my name correctly: Debona.michel (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we, in your opinion, be painfully polite to an obvious sock troll accusing us of various nonsense? Or should we answer the "nasty/condescending comments" with sarcasm and humor, just as you did right above? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You can sign your name whatever you want, the fact remains that 1) since the 14th-15th century Dubrovnik was completely Slavicized and Slavic was vernacular speech in the city 2) Nobility learned Italian thru schooling 3) Your precious "noble" ancestors signed their works as Gundulić, Držić etc. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

the same people, with the same speech!... you put here in the english site, letters in serbo croatian style, Š, ć, why?, in the croatian version of wikipedia, but not here. When you new country join the EU, you can not use more this letters LOL

The European Union recognizes the alphabets of every member country. The Euro notes include EYPO (omega) for Greece. Your comment seems to be very anti-Croatian...

Regarding claims that Dubrovnik was completely slavicized (how can you make such sweeping generalizations??), I think such a claim can only be made once WWII was over et encore. It is even more true today because a large percentage of Dubrovnik's population is now from Herzegovina (people who settled in the area during the tourism boom of the 70s and 80s). My great-granmother's family (Rubricius/Bersa -- yes, related to the famous composer) always referred to place names in Dubrovnik by their Italian names (Gravosa rather than Gruž...and that was in the 1960s)!

Where can I find authentic/original documents in Croatian with the signatures Držić and "Bunić"? Re "Bunić", I am asking because in our family we have a lot of centuries-old documents and the name is always BONA even in documents written in Croatian (as I proved to you on the House of Bona and Marino de Bona pages on Wikipedia which were quickly deleted when they became too disturbing...kind of like the scene in Planet of the Apes where they find a human doll that can speak :) Too bad our ancestors can't tell their version history, I'm sure they would be LOL reading all of this.

Debona.michel (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this, a Wiki sock convention? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I would ignore this but aren't you (the pot) calling the kettle black? Debona.michel (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What?? I'm a sockpuppeteer? So you think that I would be able to report 10 people for sockpuppeteering and still be stupid enough to have my own socks? Moreover, do you honestly think I wouldn't get checked? Debona, I insist that you file for a checkuser immediately. You can find all the instructions here at WP:SPI (its not very complicated). If you do not intend to file a checkuser, I'd appreciate it if you did not post vague accusations. I hope you do file, however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If the cipela fits, wear it. Debona.michel (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you think I'm a sock may be silly, but I will still report you for violations of WP:NPA if you continue to slander without a checkuser. Whomever you think is my sock or vice versa, feel free to checkuser me. I'll even make a note of the fact that I insist the checkuser goes through. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You have some images on the article on Marin Držić with Slavic surname in -ić, which I had to upload only to convince another irredentist fellow on yours. The cover of Tirena is particularly insightful, because it was printed in Venice, and it contains Venetian/Italian all over the place, but the writer's name is nevertheless in Slavic :) Too bad the works of Ivan Bunić Vučić weren't published during his lifetime. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So, other than this document from Venice that you keep mentioning and the images on the Darsa page (excluding the coin which is not old), we are talking about a tiny percentage of their work that was PRINTED with a Slavic name...and Držić is Darxicchia or Darxichia (with an Italian spelling...)on the documents you mention. And by the way, he doesn't SIGN it this way...that seems to be just an assumption. Where is the signature? And I still have to see a BONA signing his name Bunić...other than my great-uncle who used the combination de Bona-Bunić. If Giovanni Serafino de Bona was rector of the Republic of Ragusa several times, why would he use the slavicized name (Bunić) to refer to himself when the official language of the country he was in charge of was Italian/Latin. Was he agaisnt his own country's laws and rules? Debona.michel (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you blind or something? How on earth is this "Italian spelling"? It has Slavic patronymic in -ić and Serbo-Croatian genitive singular ending -a (Marin-a Držić-a = "of Marin Držić"). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The case ending may be genitive but the spelling is still Italian-style "cchia" Debona.michel (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Debona you really are extremelly boring POV pusher. Official language Italian/Latin? What is that Italian/Latin language? Italian was never officiall in Republic of Ragusa. It was only used by the noblemen in common speech, who wanted to distinguish themselves from the masses of the citizens and population from the city surrounding. Latin language was official in almost every Medevial city in the Mediterranean, but it had nothing to do with ethnicities in those cities; it had everything to do with developement of Latin language based notary in Europe which started around 12th century and resulted with a half of European administration written in Latin in the next centuries. Take some toy and play, stop with this irredentistic crap! Zenanarh (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because I don't agree with the excessive slavization of names (Ragusan aristocracy) does not make me an irredentist! Is this somekind of "ili ste s nama, ili ste protiv nas" (either you're with us, if not you're against us) attitude? That's your POV. Did I ever say that the population was "Italian" or that Dubrovnik should be part of Italy? Debona.michel (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debona don't accuse me of POV pushing for words I haven't said. Introduction by Aldrasto in the beginning of this section is full of well-known Italian irredentistic claims on Dalmatia; when someone shows such absolute lack of knowledge on the matter it becomes questionable is there any sense to reply; and you wrote: Aldrasto's comments are entirely valid. I don't think that people of that poor knowledge of Dalmatian history can edit Dalmatia related articles. They can only produce miles of controversial and tragi-comedic discussions in the talk pages. Zenanarh (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I invite all those who can read Croatian to go to Zenanarh's talk page and look at all message's in Croatian from Direktor and others...The proof of collusion is right there. Debona.michel (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL Would you be so kind to translate it for anyone who is interested? Zenanarh (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget to put it in proper context - indef. banned User:Giovanne Giove who was terrorizing tens of Dalmatia related articles with his irredenta.it "source" so tens of users and a few of administrators lost 2 years to clean that mess in the articles. Debona I invite you to read history books and learn something. Zenanarh (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia vs. Kingdom of Hungary in the infobox

Well, if Croatian Kingdom did not have sovereignity over Dubrovnik Republik, neither did the Hungarian Kingdom. The king of these two kingdoms was coronated separately (once in Budapest for the Hungarian throne and once in Biograd na moru - for the Croatian throne) as these kingdoms were totaly separate. The only thing they had in common was the person of a king (personal union, so called).

The best manner to illustrate this is that Croatia had independent parliament, tax system, laws, nobleman rights etc. that King himself could not influence or change without consent of Croatian parliament and ban.

Therefore, if Croatian kingdom had no influence on the Dubrovnik republic, I don't see how could that be done by Hungarian kingdom that had its borders more than 700 km distant from the Dubrovnik state. It is better to state, to avoid the kingdoms' issues that Dubrovnik republic was quite independent from these two kingdoms at that time, as it really was. If not, it was then influenced by the King of Croatia that was coronated in Biograd na moru for the Croatian throne, that was at the same time and king of the Hungarian kingdom.

The sovereignity of Croatian kingdom is disputed, but the sources that are utmost biased towards the thesis that it was a one kingdom state that there was a big autonomy of Croatian Kingdom (they call it Croatian province) and that the person of the king had to be coronated for the Croatian throne in Croatian city of Biograd na moru.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On 18th february 1358 Dubrovnik was among the Dalmatian cities that signed Treaty of Zadar - peace treaty with Venice. On 27th June 1358 archbishop Ivan Saraka from Dubrovnik and King Louis I of Hungary&Croatia signed Visegrád contract which gave real indenpendence to Dubrovnik - it was establishment of Dubrovnik republic. Zenanarh (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See Treaty of Zadar (King of Hungary). Dubrovnik was not part of medieval Croatia, so please end this useless discussion. --DaQuirin (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not the point. Territory of Dalmatia was divided onto 2 parts already during Early Medieval. Byzantine Empire held only some littoral cities with its agers, Zadar, Trogir, Split, Dubrovnik... In the beginning it was Byzantine archonty headed by Zadar, later it was Byzantine thema with a capital Zadar. All the rest of cities and territory was under other political formations, like Medieval Croatia. However, in some moment Croatian king became a protector of these Byzantine Dalmatian cities and they paid some symbolical tribute to Croatia. Also some of these cities were dirctly involved in Croatia in some periods. Whether Dubrovnik was attached to Croatia or not is unimportant, since "Byzantine" Dalmatian cities made some unity and were treated as such by the others. It was situation directly before Venetian occupation. The Venetians, however, conquered these cities by force of weapon and tried to subjugate it economically.

So Treaty of Zadar was peace treaty between "Byzantine" Dalmatian cities and Venice, not between Croatia and Venice. After this treaty all these cities returned under crown of Croatia/Hungary and not to Byzantium since relations to Byzantium became almost completely "invisible" already during 11th and 12th century. However, when Dubrovnik, unlike the others (Rab, Zadar, Trogir,...), signed Višegrad contract it became indenpendent from Croatia/Hungary. If we dive into more detailed discussion there's a lot more to say, but this is the shortest simplified version. Zenanarh (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The only real issue here is was it Kingdom of Hungary or Kingdom of Croatia, since Hungarian king was also Croatian king - Pacta Conventa. But what is use of that section in infobox when it's about something before Dubrovnik became republic? It has nothing to do with "Republic of Ragusa"!!! It must go to Dubrovnik article, Republic of... is only for a period when there was no any direct outside authority over the city. Zenanarh (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Noone interested? OK. I'll rearrange it myself. Dubrovnik Republic (1358-1808) was indenpendent but signed 2 contracts, one with the king of Hungary/Croatia, another with the Ottomans. No Byzantium, no Venice have place in that infobox. However it wasn't a territory of Croatian Kingdom nor Ottoman Empire. Neither it was a part of Hungarian Kingdom (impossible! - Croatian kingdom was "Croatia and Dalmatia" - it never had Hungarian name!). Although being territorially indenpendent from "Croatia and Dalmatia", it was subject to Croatian/Dalmatian Ban (traditionally Croatian ruler, before and after period of the Croatian kings) only for general political issues but this relation was not defined by any tribute to the Ban. Also when the Habsburgs came at the scene, Dubrovnik Republic was not under their authority. Zenanarh (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Zen, I looked into this a few months back. The "personal union" and the "pacta conventa" theories are almost exclusively supported by (a percentage of) Croatian historians, pushing the POV of the "continuity of Croatian statehood". It is highly debateable whether the medieval country everyone knows as the Kingdom of Hungary was in fact a personal union of the Kingdom of Hungary and the Kingdom of Croatia. And even if it was, then it was a personal union not only of those two, but also the Kingdom of Dalmatia (and perhaps others), which means that in the case there existed some kind of "personal union", the kingdom to be listed is that of Dalmatia (the crown of Dalmatia was held seperate). A seperate coronation that was reportedly(!) held by the first few kings does not prove much in and of itself. I reccomend you drop this. Its the Kingdom of Hungary. The most ridiculous of all versions is that of the "Croatia/Hungary" or "Hungary-Croatia", which is a 1930s (ultra)nationalist fantasy resurrected in the 1990s. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

DIR it has nothing to do with ultra or any other nationalism. It's not almost exclusively supported by a percentage of Cro historians, since this dispute exists only between Cro and Hung scientists, the others don't care. The others will only report what is concluded by those who are involved. This struggle about PC was started in the 19th century in the age of both Hungarian and Croatian nationalist movements. What is the most important about PC is that it obviously worked in the beginning and didn't at the end. Koloman was crowned twice, separately for Hungary, separately for Croatia. There was no dual title. There were 2 titles. Coatian/Dalmatian territory had its own "codex diplomaticus" as well as separate church organization during Medieval - imopossible if it was only one kingdom. Also back in those times, what we call Croatia was actually "Croatia and Dalmatia". How PC became "invisible"? The Austrians made use of Ottoman breach into Bosnia and destroyed Croatian nobility in the 16th century. People without noblemen were not only people without cultural and political elite, they were also people without their former royal tradition - or better to say in the eyes of their neighbors they became people "without history"! From here the Hungarians created dispution of PC later. Simple question related to Dubrovnik Republic and PC: Dubrovnik Rep. paid tribute to the Hungarian king and later also to the Ottomans, in both cases "tribute for freedom", but in the same time Dubrovnik Republic was subject to Ban of Croatia and Dalmatia only in important questions concerning general and global politics; how can you explain this relation if Croatia and Dalmatia didn't exist or they were a part of Hungary??? Zenanarh (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Its the Kingdom of Hungary. That's how that country was known, its subdivisions are irrelevant. The very existance of the pacta conventa is disputed. The "personal union" idea is disputed. I don't want to go Google Books fishing again but let me assure you that non-Croatian/non-Hungarian authors do not accept the personal union idea because of the complete lack of evidence to such a status. For all we know today the pacta conventa may well have been a complete fantasy.

• Trbovich, Ana S.; A legal geography of Yugoslavia's disintegration; Oxford University Press US, 2008
  • "Many present-day Croat historians find the position of Croatia's subservience to Hungary difficult to accept, because it testifies to the loss of Croatian statehood in the Middle Ages. Contrary to the established scholarly evidence, they tend to describe the Croat position as a voluntary sharing of power and a personal union between Croatia and Hungary. (...) Nevertheless it is important to emphasize the firm belief of most Croats in its factuality since nationhiood tends to be based on belief rather than reality. (...) Historical legalism based on the continuity of the Croat state is characteristic of Croatian historiography."
  • "A document called "Pacta Conventa" that was supposedly signed in 1102 but not saved was claimed by leading Croatian historians to be a contract stipulating personal union of Hungary and Croatia. However, even if its authenticity were accepted, the document still would not represent anything more than a contract between the feudal ruler of Croatia, Hungarian King Coloman, and his Croatian vassals, i.e. it would not be perceived as an inter-state agreement in domain of public international law."

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no a lack of evidence, there's a lack of hard evidence. I repeat, in the official Medieval papers, concerning civil and church authority, Kingdom of Cro/Dalm remained K. of Cro/Dalm. You can't understand the politics in Medieval with our modern concept of territorial suzereinty of national states. Observe this: Hungarian country was subject to the Hungarian king, Cro/Dalm country was subject to the Hungarian king, Dubrovnik R. was subject to the Hungarian king; but that's only worth: Cro/Dalm country was not subject to Hung country, only to the king; Dubrovnik R. was not subject to Hung or Cro/Dalm country, only to the king. Institution of king was carrying political power, not territory ruled by him! When Dalmatian cities were paying tributes once to the Cro king, once to Venice etc. they considered that those authorities were obligated to organize defence of these cities, they didn't consider it was their own obligation. Get it? Zenanarh (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Zen, I'm no idiot. I understand the difference between the 20th century and the Middle Ages. However, you must understand that there are a number of myths that the entire Croatian culture is absolutely permeated with. If I may be so graphic, this is but a taster of the incredible pile of nationalist X#$%& we've been fed (others including "King" Tomislav, the chequy that originated in the 1500s, the "Triune Kingdom", etc.). Its pretty obvious that there was no "personal union", and that the established scholarly evidence is against that myth.

Now lets not squabble. The sources are there. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalism? You use this "etiquette" too often for nothing. There is no a lack of evidence, there's only a lack of hard evidence – there's no Pacta Conventa document saved. But from many other details it's obvious that this agreement existed. You say subdivision of Hungarian Kingdom? There were no documents with that kind of subdivision in the next centuries! Codex diplomaticus papers remained separately writen for "Regni Dalmatiae, Croatie et Slavoniae" and "Regnum Hungariae" in 12th cent. Dalm/Cro dioceses remained listed in "RDeC" and Hungarian in "RH" in the official documents of the Roman church in 13th cent. Here it's interesting that under title of "20" dioceses in "RDeC" only 19 were listed while, the last one (Kaptol) was added to "RH" list, so church organization was nominally adjusted to the similar situation of public authority where the Dalm/Cro Ban was a vassal to the Hung king. But diocese in Split had no any relation to Hungary - only to Kaptol and Rome! City of Split was not subject to any Hungarian territory, only to Cro/Dalm Ban and Hungarian King. Hungarian king in the Medieval didn't have any need to rename Cro and Dalm, since they respected his crown, it was his primal goal. Example: in 1102 Pope Alexander III cruised in "Dalmatia" (not in Hungary!), passing by "Dalmatiae insulas" (Split archipelago) and found shelter from the storm in Zadar - "civitatem Iaderam, que sita est in capite Ungarici regni" (under authority of the Hungarian king, it didn't say in the Hungarian Kingdom!) surrounded by "Slavorum insulas" (Zadar archipelago and Kvarner). As you probably know Croatia was often called Regnum Slavorum in the Latin inscriptions. Another example: In 1360 king Ludovic sent his mother Elizabeth to Zadar "pro reformatione status regnorum Dalmacie et Croacie" and she was helped by "24 referents for examination of the royal rights as well as 12 referents for the courts and general justice in the Kingdom of Croatia". So Hungarian king defined Zadar as the city in Kingdom of Hungary? No. In Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia? Yes. Pacta Conventa? Obviously. Result of reformation by Elizabeth was "marturina", as general tax for the land, until then unknown in Croatia. But known in Hungary. Subdivision? With different official names, separated or better to say never joined church organizations, different laws and taxes, different territories and only the same king?

I must repeat, we can't understand Medieval politics by our modern concept of territorial suzerainty of our modern national states. During Medieval the carrier of jurisdiction was not a „territory“, it was a „ruler“! Hungarian land was subject to the Hungarian king and Cro/Dalm land was subject to Hungarian king, but Cro/Dalm was not subject to Hungarian land nor it was its subdivision. There were also many levels of jurisdiction and vassalty. Example: position of Dalmatian city-communes in the 13th and 14th century – their city governments (communal councils) were working independently or they were trying to - under Venice they were usually pushed to economical slavery. That's the main reason why they were the enemies to Venice, not ethnicity! Ethnicity was different and the Venetians sometimes used ethnical restrictions but it was not the matter when it came to vassalty. Their vassalty to the Byzantine Emperor, Venetian Great Council or Croatian or Hungarian king was question of protectorate - higher level of jurisdiction in global politics. It means that Dalmatian city expected its protector to organize defense of province in hard times, it was protector's task, not the city's. That's why they were paying tributes. When Ludovic asked Dubrovnik and Trogir to help Zadar against new Venetian sneaking in a period before Treaty of Zadar, they simply refused. It was not their business. It was his weakness that royal army was not there.

If you understand hidden complexity then you must realize that Pacta Conventa disputation is not some big deal, maybe only to those who are starting from nationalism or those who don't understand history. And nationalism was the one to start this dispute, Pacta Conventa was not problematic issue until the 19th century formation of the nationalities and national states. In the 2nd half of 19th there was crisis of authority in the Habsburg Monarchy, concerning Croatia and Dalmatia, between the Austrians and Hungarians. The Hungarians propagated their „historical right“ to posses it and some Hungarians started to dispute PC, parallely reflecting term „Hungarian king“ to all territory under his crown. At the end there is no pro no con argument about PC. Just because of scientific criticism as wanted methodological element, „all others“ (except directly involved „parties“) take neutral position today. According to all known this issue is not settled, wikipedia can't take position, it can only report. Why in revial tone?

Stop hidding your ignorance behind heavy words like "nationalism", "myth", etc. This way you give information about yourself, not about the matter of discussion.

Info boxes are catastrophe in some history articles, built by the 21st century POV like this one. What should be written there is that Republic of Ragusa paid 500 ducats to the Hungarian King and the same and larger sum to the Ottoman Sultan as tribute for neutrality, not tributes to their crowns/kingdoms. The Ragusans were neutral in the Battle near Lepant and supplied both sides, Ottomans and western alliance. If this infobox points to protectorate or tributary to any of these, then infobox of Republic of Venice should point to tributary to the Byzantium or even earlier taxes paid to German king Otto, it's almost the same relation, the Ragusans also paid 2 sides. What is with bank accounts and car credits of the noble Ragusans? Can we include it too as republic status in the infobox? Or average annual traffic of salt in the port? Zenanarh (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Zen, you really ought to make much shorter posts. Your text up there would take an hour to analyze and it would be almost impossible to fully reply to it. WP:TLDR (Too Long, Didn't Read :). The point remains that the "personal union" is not much more than a fringe theory. Use "Kingdom of Hungary" for the post 1102 - 1527 period. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL "an hour"? Yes I've already noticed that you never read anything longer than a few lines. That's where many of your your conclusions are coming from. Use "Kingdom of Hungary" for the post 1102 - 1527 period.??? Really? And king Ludovic who's in focus of this discussion (14th century) used "Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia"! Now, you are the one who will change this historical mistake? Is this short enough? Maybe I'll have to make it even more shorter so you can read it. Maybe I should write only: LOL. Zenanarh (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be frank: you write the longest posts I've ever seen anyone write on Wikipedia. Without competition. :) You should admit that they are way too long to be replied in full. You should make your points short and clear, instead of attacking other users when they find themselves intimidated by the HUGE essay in front of them. You should use published sources to support your points, instead of turning discussions into vague debates that do not really solve anything.

The above is not critiscism, it is advice. Your tendency to write massive replies is not necessarily a bad thing, you like to be thorough and that can only be positive, but it renders conversation meaningless. Even if I did reply to your post fully, after 30 - 45 minutes of writing and analyzing, how could that possibly be productive? Not only would it be hard work, it would be uselesss work. In my experience, massive posts destroy debates. Well organized replies solve problems. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I've erased that section in info box. It gives completely wrong information to a reader. Dubrovnik R. had only one real relation in meaning of political protectorate, tribute to the king of Hungary and Croatia/Dalmatia from 1358 (Višegrad contract) to 1526 (Mohacs battle). Tribute to the Ottomans was not completely of political nature, it was for free trade in a region and section "Ottoman suzerinty" in the article is based on ill definition. It must be changed too. Zenanarh (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that was rash. This state was a tributary of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the Venetian Republic and that will be made note of in the article. The scholarly university publications (Wikipedia policy WP:V) clearly place a "personal union" in the status of a fringe theory. The state was the Kingdom of Hungary, and the title of the King is irrelevant to the issue of the existence of an actual personal union. Autonomy, yes, personal union between two countries - no.

As for the pacta conventa even if it did exist, which is pure speculation, we have no idea whatsoever what its terms were. Furthermore, "the document still would not represent anything more than a contract between the feudal ruler of Croatia, Hungarian King Coloman, and his Croatian vassals, i.e. it would not be perceived as an inter-state agreement in domain of public international law."

In either case we are talking about a country that is known in English sources overwhelmingly as the Kingdom of Hungary. Any dispute here is irrelevant as that is the common name for this entire country, and that means that WP:COMMONAME also applies in this matter. This state, this political entity which you claim was a personal union is known as the Kingdom of Hungary. Please be brief(er) in your response and address the specific arguments listed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really boring. OK Let's go step by step. Can you explain tributary of Republic of Ragusa to Republic of Venice first? Zenanarh (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What's there to explain? The Republic paid triubute to those states therefore it was their tributary... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you will have no problem to find source for tribute paid by the Republic of Ragusa to Republic of Venice. Show me. Zenanarh (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not sure about that, but it was certainly a tributary! Its in its motto, ffs. "Liberty is worth more than gold", i.e. "we'll give our gold for our liberty" :). Its the tributary state. It certainly paid tribute to the Ottoman Empire and Byzantium. I'm not that sure about Hungary, but I think so as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Title "Republic of Ragusa" refers to Dubrovnik from 1358 to 1802. Before 1358 it was not republic. So only payings to the Hungarian king and the Ottoman sultan are worth to mention. But back in those times there were many kinds of tributes because there was complex world of political relations. It's much more simple now, with UN, international laws, national state suzereinties, etc. What we have here are not tributes paid by a vassal to a master, like Ragusa to Constantinople in 11th or Ragusa to Venice in 13th. We have Republic with relations to Hungary/Croatia and later to the Ottomans based on contracts and they really paid their "freedom". This perspective cannot be equalised to common tributaries of the other city-communes in the region. This is one of those "no info is better than wrong info in the infobox". Zenanarh (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Again with the schoolteacher attitude... I am aware of the difference between modern and medieval politics. In fact I know quite a bit about medieval politics. The state was a tributary of the Ottomans. When I get back from my wikibreak I'll introduce that absolutely 100% correct information in the infobox. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The name Kingdom of Hungary is used instead the correct term "Lands of the st. Stephan crown" in english written papers. That is the biggest problem in the discussion. Also, Koenigreich Ungarn in german means the same "Lands of the st. Stephan crown". These lands were Magyar kingdom and three croatian kingdoms. There is a lot misinterpretation in these expresions. The fact of existing croatian kingdoms as independent ones is that the parliaments of these kingdoms assembled on regular basis (abundance of papers about it) and it would be impossible to do it without having a separate sovereignity. Otherweise they would meet in the capital of Magyar kingdom. The problem of neglecting cro kingdoms sovereignity was created by Magyars i 19.cent. when they claimed (to Austrian King) that these kingdoms were part of Magyar kingdom to get better negotiation positions when creating double monarchy. But only the existance of croatian crown (separate one) is argument enough that it was not one kingdom. Even in the time of Habsburg monarchy (look at the title of any Koenig und Kaiser) Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia is separate part of his title, not included in "King of Hungary". As stated at the beginning, there is vast misinterpretation of the term Kingdom of Hungary in modern english written papers.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Look at the article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lands_of_the_Crown_of_Saint_Stephen and check the coat of arms, 3/4 of it are coats of arms of croatian kingdoms and the last quarter of the kingdom of Hungary (magyar) and the central one is of the king. For smart people - enoughHammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)