Talk:Republic of Ragusa/Archive 1

message: I moved the historical info for the post-Republic of Ragusa period (i.e., post-ca. 1815) to Dubrovnik#History since it was not about the Republic but about Dubrovnik.  - 
AjaxSmack 07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-Rep of Ragusa historical material moved

message: , this however did not prevent that many of their members learned the illirico (Croatian Dalmatian), and wrote component in such language. As an example Giovanni Gondola (Ivan Gundulic) is considered one of the fathers of the Croatian literature. Obviously these patrizie wrote also in Italian and many of they left literary works in this language. Unfortunately in Croatia (but not only), the names of the patrizie families are often introduce to you with the single Croatian dizione (than however it does not have historical base, being be introduced in posterior age). It is moreover stretched to introduce such families like “pure Croatian”, ignoring their Italian roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.255.131 (talk • contribs) , 00:54, 10 August 2006 
Which Italian roots? They spoke and used Italian language, only to differ them from the serfs and other lower social classes. That is the case that existed all over Europe. Kubura 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to know that all the European social strata were Italian;-)--Giovanni Giove 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Italian roots argument has no base in historical reality since Italy didn't exist until much much later. The only time Dubrovnik was part of Italy was during WWII while occupied by Italian fascist troops. The ruling class family names undeniably have Latin root but that does not make them Italian. gb 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The patrizie families of Ragusa were Italian 

message: This article is a major catastrophy. Not only does it feature blatant rasist remarks such as "ome time later some Slav (that had surpassed the barbaric stage)", but it seems to be based solely on original research. There is one reference added towards the end of the article from an Italian minority newspaper, hardly a neutral source. The article needs to be rewritten. 83.131.1.242 10:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ther is no racism. We are speaking about VII century. Ragusa was plundered by Avars and Slavic during barbaric invasions. It is evident that the phrase (translated from the cited reference), means that two century later the slavic where no more "barbarians". I remember you that the original meaning of "barbar" is foreigner. Barbaric invasion = foreigner invasion.--Giovanni Giove 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here the link with the word "barbarians" . It should be so evident it's no racistic! Nel frattempo gli slavi, usciti dalla fase barbarica, si stabilirono in insediamenti permanenti nell'area del'odierno monte Sr'D, che nei documenti latini dell'epoca viene chiamato  Mons Virgatum il monte degli arbusti, nome che altro non è che la trasposizione di un toponimo slavo assai diffuso: Dubrava, la macchia delle querce--Giovanni Giove 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an English-speaking edition of Wikipedia. Please use sources in English to support your claims. Noneedforthis 09:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So you instead of talking about "Slavs who are surpassing their barbaric stage" you are claiming the following: "some time later some Slav (that had surpassed the foreign stage"? Sorry, but this explanation makes no sense whatsoever. I have also checked the references you added. They originate from a site called DalmaziaNews and from an essay published on some guy's personal pages. This all is unsettling to say the least. After all, you question Encyclopaedia Britannica, but the references you have added (and for goodness sake they are all in ITALIAN) leave certainly much to be desired even if we disregard blatant racism. I am placing "totally disputed" and "weasel" tags until we can sort this out. Please do not remove them until we can agree that this page adheres to Wikipedia standards. Noneedforthis 09:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just telling you the origin of the word "barbarian", that had the original meaning of forigner, later it has assumed another meaning. Anyway when slavs has arrived in Balkans, they where, as a matter of facts, "barbarians". As the Germans and the Huns. Is it offensive? I'd say no. Later they adsoberd the Roman (and Greek) civilzation, and they were no more "barbarian". Such has the founders of "Dubrava". Do you still find racism in this version?  I was looking for an English source for the origins, but I have found nothing. Anyway, as far as I can remeber, the version is correct. I can not see a reason to tag all the article just for one section.--Giovanni Giove 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've found this English source that confirm the version. You sholud delete the general tag, and to tag just the single sections. I shall remember you that the NPOV tag is inserted, after a discussion. You have inserted it without a previous discussion and this is not allowed. It's possible to correct the single section, without this extreme, resource. For this reason I'll delete it, but I expect further discussion on the single problmes.--Giovanni Giove 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Would it be possible to stop playing these little games? Just what exactly does 1911 Britannica corraborate in the current Wikipedia article? Nonetheless, this is a huge step forward as we finally have a relevant source which, coupled with a modern edition of Britannica should bring the article to the official Wikipedia standard. All your other claims, unless backed by relevant sources, will have to go. I will start working on the proper version of this article when I find time. In the meantime, refrain from removing NPOV and weasel tags. The article hopelessly needs to be brought up to some standard. Noneedforthis 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not playing "Little game" as you are doing. I'disegree with your decision and I told you why. You should ask the help of a moderator,  instedad to impose your point of wiev: these are the rules. Anyway, stop to do the false stupid: the 1911 Brit. article, corroborate just the "Origins", paragraphs. The later paragraphs are disorganized, and I've tried to made some order, reorganizing them in the proper cronlogy, But still they are not ok. I rember that it's not "you" that have to work to article "when you have time": you are not a moderator, you can just give your contibution. Furhtermore don't tell me "refrain", just call a moderator if you disagree with me. I suggest that the proper way it's to work toghther, and not "against". When we disagree, all the (referenced) points of view, shall be reported. These are the rules. I disagree with you, but i don't want to start an edite war. I pray you to contact a modertor. I'm afraid he's necessary. See you soon. Bye.--Giovanni Giove 14:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words and POV 

message: I am leaving the disputed and weasel tags in order to facilitate exchange of opinions on the proposed changes although the POV, and poorly referenced or unreferenced statements have been removed. Every single paragraph which has been rewritten or in one case renamed now features statements based on English-speaking peer-reviewed quality sources. All the POV statements basing their claims on information contained in other editions of Wikipedia or in other Wikipedia articles (as well as those based on information contained on some obscure sites or personal pages) have also been removed. Statements which are irrelevant to this article such as sejourns of different Serbian dukes (also happened to be unreferenced) belong in their respective articles. 
I have also used Ragusa/Dubrovnik in order to neutralize contentions related to the name of the Republic. Exceptions are quotes. This solution is used in several of the books quoted as sources. Besides both names are used interchangeably in most of the sources.
Language and nationality section will be expanded in due course. Noneedforthis 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the first several paragraphs of Noneedforthis (explanation) 

message: Removed the first paragraph which is unreferenced, POV or at best original research. Please, do not substantiate it with wikilink comments and/or information from other editions of wikipedia. Find an English-language peer-revied high-quality source to back your claim.
For the same reason, a comment based on what appears an Italian reference that came out of nowhere has been removed in the languages section. But more importantly, the insertion of claims WITHIN paragraphs that are REFERNCED is unaccaptable and misleading. Noneedforthis 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revered the action of the user. The comment is referenced and neutral. Further information are avalaible in the wikilink. Anyway the origins of Venice and of other Adriatic city is a mistery for nobody. Just buy a touristic guide, a school book, or just do an internet search. It is enough: the concept is of public domain. I don't need a citation to write that Columbus did a trip to America, for the same reason I don't need a citation for the origins of Venice. I remember to the above user, that non-english reference are valid, and it should be hard to speak about Ragusa, avoiding Italian sources. I warn the user to avoid a further deleting. If he thinks I broke the rules, the first step is to try to discuss with me and to revert or modify my contributions. If I do non accept his critics, the next step is to contact a moderator. He will judge if my comments are good or not. Mr. Noneedforthis can not impose his own rules or his own point of wiev. Those are the wikipedia rules, not mine. --Giovanni Giove 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giovanni Giove's changes - comment 

message: Charles VIII of France granted trading rights to the Ragusans in 1497. These rights were also granted by Louis XII in 1502. In the first decade of the 16th century, Ragusans consuls were in France with French consuls being in Ragusa. Prominent Ragusans were in France during this period and include such dignitaries as Simon Bonesa, Lovro Gigants, D. Bonda- Bondic, Ivan Cvletkovic, Captain John Florio, Petar Luccari-Lurarevic, Seraphin Gozze-Gucetic, Luka Sorgo-Sorkocevic. The Ragusan aristocracy was also well represented at the Sorbonne University in Paris at this time. Croatian Regiments were in French service in the 1600's and were called by Louis XIII's to be the Royal-Cravates. Because these soldiers wore a colorful scarf around their neck to distinguish themselves, this neck wear became known as cravats or ties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.21.2 (talk • contribs) ,  00:51, 8 January 2007
:I don't see how cravats fit into article about Ragusa/Dubrovnik Republic? gb 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE ADDED 

message: Here are some citations of the persons from Dubrovnik or neighbourhood in Middle Ages.
Here are the links:  and 
Translation and more to follow. Kubura 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any desputing of the Croathood (or Italianhood) of Ragusa or, by its contemporary name, Dubrovnik Republic is nonsense. It was founded by Latin population so the ruling class remained Latin or Italian but majority population was Slavic all along. If these people figured out how to prosper in harmony for circa 1400 years, I hope contributors to this article will work in harmony to enrich the article without denying historical contributions from either population group.gb 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: First I'm not here to fool anyone but to contribute to Wikipedia. Second, I don't propagate anything - the names are well documented. Third, I did not avoid adjective 'Croat'. Fourth, non-Latin and Slavic population did not consist exclusively of Croats even if Croats were possibly in majority. Lastly, this is a free encyclopedia and it's not your place to tell me what I should do. Ragusa/Dubrovnik is world heritage. That's why we are all contributing here. Your harrasing tone simply shows that your contributions are POV and should not be taken seriously. I suggest to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies to avoid antagonizing contributors. gb 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Kubura, you are NOT the one to talk about POV and you should be ashamed for the manner in which you discuss. Use of "possibly" or "probably" is appropriate when sources are lacking. I stand by my statement that ruling class remained Latin (which is documented) and majority population was Slavic (exact distribution is not documented). It would be highly unlikely that other neighboring Slavic states did not contribute to population of Dubrovnik over the ages as well as other countries with which trade was established. Neither you or I have population census of 800AD we are both just guessing. Since you are as certain as if you were there every 10 years counting the population, please provide supporting documents and then criticize use of "possibly". gb 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PLESE *nobody doubts about the Slavoc presence in Ragusa, It's you the on who doubts abaout the Italianess. --Giovanni Giove 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those who doubt about Croathood of Dubrovnik 

message: Dubrovnikan Franciscan Joakim Stulić in his work "Lexicon latino-italico-illyricum", printed in 1801 in Buda, gives this explanation of the term "illyrice": "Slovinski, harvatski, hrovatski, horvatski". Nowhere any "Serbo-", just Croatian.
The "Lexicon latinum" of the Jesuit Andrija Jambrešić printed in 1742 has the annex: Index Illyrico sive croatico — latinus". 
The Archbishop of Split Stipan Cosmi declares new orders  for its parishes in 1688 in Latin and in Croatian, in the was that he has translated the term "illyricus"  with the term "hrvatski" (idiomo Illyrico - harvaskoga izgovora; clero Illyrico - klera harvaskoga). See the first page . The link is from HAZU.
The Franciscan Lovro Sitović Ljubušak in his work"Pisma od pakla : navlastito od paklenoga oggna, tamnosti, i viçnosti, koju iz svetoga Pisma staroga i novaga zakona, takoger iz sveti otacza i nauçiteglia / izvede i harvatski jezik pivagne otacz F. Lovro Gliubusckoga reda S.O. Francesck, darxave Bosne Argentine ... u pet poglavj razdigliena."  (printed in Venice in 1727) has said that is wrote it in Harvatski jezik, and in the introduction in Latin he calls that language illiricum idioma The first page ; the link is from HAZU.Kubura 06:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illyrian language 

message: Now, to some links. Here  is a link to a library of Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. This link shows a picture of first pages of a book named "Zarcalo dvhovno od pocetka i sfarhe xivota coviecanskoga : razdieglieno, i razreyeno u petnaes razgovora, a u stoo, i pedeset dubbia, alliti sumgna poglavitieh. Vcignenieh meyu mesctrom, i gnegoviem vcenijkom. / Istomaceno iz yezikka italianskoga u dubrovacki po D. Mauru Orbinu Dubrovcaninu Opattu od S. Marie od Backe, od Reda Sfetoga Benedikta. ". Printed in Venice, in 1621. These  and  are pages from the edition from 1703. Here are the catalogue search results , . 
The important part is where it states "istomaceno iz jezika italijanskoga u dubrovacki" (translated from the Italian language into Dubrovnik's language), translated by  the Dubrovnikan (not "Ragusan") D.Mauro Orbin.
Dubrovnik's language, a Slavic one. If Dubrovnik (not "Ragusa") was Italian-speaking, why it states in an old book that it was translated from Italian into Dubrovnik's language? Kubura 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, a link from HAZU. catalogue search result. Elektra tragedia. Glivbmir, pripovies pastirska i Glivbav i smart Pirama i Tisbe iz vechie tugieh iesika u Harvackij isloxene. K tomusu pristavgliene niekolike piesni u smart od razlizieh / po Dominkv Slatarichiv. - V' Bnezieh : Po Aldv, 1597.Kubura 09:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In that grammar/dictionary, under the entry "Hrvat, Hervat" says "Hrvat, Hervat = Illyricus, Croata". Kubura 08:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Croathood of Dubrovnik and translations

message: Interesting for the "neutrality". 
Authors from all over the world, but no Croat author. Interesting. Kubura 13:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Some users here persistently try to avoid Croat name in this article. 
Not "Croatian", but some "amorphous Slavs", or "Croats and Serbs" or even "Serbs"(?!) only. 
Obviously, someone wants to lessen the Croathood of Dubrovnik as much as possible. The policy of Italian imperialists. 
Despite a bunch of history facts.
I don't know what admins are doing.
I don't know what to do anymore. 
I don't want to go into editwars. Kubura 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned up a bit. But - the only mentions of "serb" in the article are where specific references to the Kingdom of Serbia or the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes are made. The references to "Slavs" in the early portion of the history I've left alone, because there's no evidence presented that the Slavs of the region had differentiated into Croats and Serbs and Bosniaks and Slovenes. Later mentions I've changed to "Croats", as such differentiation had occurred. Αργυριου (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evading the name of Croats 

message: I commented out the section listing people who were born after 1808; Ragusino removed the comment-marks. This list of people does not belong in this article; it belongs in the article on Dubrovnik. The history of the Republic of Ragusa has a definitive end, in 1808. Anything which happened afterwards is part of some other history; in this case, the history of Dubrovnik. Αργυριου (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's ridiculous to have people like Vlaho Bukovac and Frano Supilo since they were born soe time ater the republic was abolished, and also they weren't even born in Dubrovnik/Ragusa. Tar-Elenion 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People born after the end of the Republic of Ragusa 

message: I think some trivia should be perhaps added. Not many people actually know this but Republic of Ragusa was the first one in the world who started the practice of quarantine and was also the first country to officially recognize the United States of America when they issued their declaration of independence from Great Britain. Also it had some colonies in India (Goa I think), which later passed to Portuguese. Tar-Elenion 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including a "trivia" section is frowned upon, though I can't find the explicit guideline for that. Recognition of the U.S. used to be in the article, but was removed. Such a statement requires a reliable source, and none has yet been provided. If that claim (and the claim about Goa) can be sourced, they ought to be worked in to the general history section of the article, not called out separately. Ditto quarantine - that could be included in a section on Ragusa's trade practices. Αργυριου (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia? 

message: Juraj Šižgorić unimportant? Georgius Sisgoreus from 15. century? Kubura 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unimportant Croat latinist? 

message: About dialects. Dubrovnikans wrote in štokavian; still, there're are historical documents from those times that point to stronger influence/presence of čakavian dialect. Kubura 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Croats' dialects in old Dubrovnik Republic

message: Here's a link. Žarko Muljačić, "Iz dubrovačke prošlosti". Newspaper article and the book . Kubura 11:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some helpful literature 

message: Is peculiar that even survived when the classes were divided by internal disputes. When Marmont arrived at Dubrovnik in 1808, it was whereupon the nobility was divided in two blocks, the “Salamanquinos” and the “Sorboneses”. These names alluded to to certain controversy arisen from the wars between Charles V of Spain and Franz I of France, happened hardly two hundred fifty years back. It was that in the 1667 earthquake a great part of the noble class was annihilated, being necessary to give back his force to him with the inclusion of certain plebians. To these the salamanquinos, those in favor of Spanish absolutism, did not treat them like equal; but the inclined sorboneses, added to the frenchs,  and to a certain liberalism, accepted them without reserves. Another factor that could take part in this conduct is that the sorboneses had been very decreased by the earthquake and they did not want to lose cash. In any case, both sides had he himself status and they seated together in the Council, but they did not maintain relations social and not even they were greeted by the street; an inconvenient marriage between members of both groups was of so serious consequences as if it occurred between members of different classes. This social split was also reflected in the inferior layers: “The plebians, as well, were divided in the brotherhoods of San Antony and San Lazaro, who was so unfriendly in their relations as salamnaquinos and sorboneses”. He was in the essence of the Republic, that always had to be defended of neighboring empires --“first Hungary, soon Venice, later Turkey”-- and that was structured for a reduced number of people, around the 33 original noble families of century XV.
:It should be Francis I of France.
:Salamanquinos and Sorboneses seems Spanish for people who studied at the university of Salamanca ("salmantinos" in modern Spanish) or Sorbonne. How did these Spanish words name Ragusan parties?
: --84.20.17.84 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation between Nobility 

message: I've proposed merging both :Category:Maritime republics and :Category:Repubbliche Marinare of Italy into :Category:Maritime Republics. Discussion is at this entry in CfD. Αργυριου (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Vegliot was the dialect of romanic Dalmatian language from the island of Krk.
Ragusean was the dialect of romanic Dalmatian language from the city of Dubrovnik.
There were also some others dialects, these were most known. There was big unintelligibility among those dialects. 
From Krk to Dubrovnik there's approximately 350 kilometres of distance. Kubura 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalmatian Romanic and its dialects 

message: Giovanni Giove, please don't drop completely irrelevant changes when you revert on POV grounds. --Joy [shallot] 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that user Giovanni Giove should be blocked because of constant vandalism of Croatia-related pages. PANONIAN 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes yes... so tell me where I am wrong.... if you can. Meanwhile don't revert again my sourced edits just because you don't like them.--Giovanni Giove 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleting Slavic name of this Slavic state for example. That is very wrong. PANONIAN 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This 'slavic state' has Italian as official language, so that his official name was ' Repubblica di Ragusa. The problem has been several time discussed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In the past official languages of the countries were mostly in artificial use and were not spoken by majority of inhabitants (that could be seen even today in many African states). Italian was official language of this republic mainly because of trading relations with foreign countries, but the main language spoken by its population was Slavic (only few persons from the upper levels of the society spoke Italian as native language). I do not object that infobox contain Latin or Italian name, but it also should contain Slavic name, which was name used by majority of its inhabitants. Therefore, I propose following order of names in the infobox: English - Latin - Italian - Slavic. PANONIAN 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I mainly reverted edits of user Giovanni Giove because he deleted Slavic name, but I did not saw his entire edit (and I apologize for that of course). PANONIAN 06:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting 

message: Yes, Vlaho Bukovac croatized his birthname and ...birthsurname. Croat national renaissance movement caught him also. Who painted the picture "Croatian national renaissance"? Kubura 09:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatized 

message: 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." and the scan of the first page .
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.  and the scan of an internal page . Kubura 12:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the country 

message: About the "ethnicity" paragraph.
Why isn't such a paragraph in articles about other historical states? 
Someone inserted it here with the purpose of removing any possible connection with Croathood of Republic of Dubrovnik. 
Now, when it's obvious that the links to historical documents proove the Croathood, then appears the paragraph with following lines:
"These discussions are mainly meaningless". Such line in an article? is this encyclopedic??.
"The attribution of a definite ethnicity is impossible". Really? Few African slaves also lived in Paris, but that didn't made attribution of Paris to Frenchood impossible.
"after the Middle Age the Republic had always a mixed population, Latin and Slavic". And in tribe of Yanomami in Amazonia lived one English explorer. So the village of Yanomami had mixed population, English and Yanomami. Kubura 06:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the extent of Italian presence and influence in Ragusa in 1500 is rather more extensive than the English influence and presence on your Yanomami tribe.  The awful  analogies hurt my brain. john k 07:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt any of these people, esp. the Italians know anything about the history of Croats in Dalmatia from their edits. A Croatian scholar would be laughing in his pants at "shtokavian" language. My advice to people who do not know the history of Croatia is to leave it alone, read up on it, or have good faith in other people's edits. Do you people honestly think that Croats suddenly showed up in Dalmatia/Dubrovnik only a hundred years ago? I can trace my family's Dalmatian roots back several centuries. --Jesuislafete 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity paragraph 

message: Please refrain from using article talkpages to discuss specific complaints about other editors.  I've reverted the addition.  WP:ANI or a user WP:RFC is the appropriate place for this.--Isotope23 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussing editors on talkpages

message: Toponyms, language, ethnicity, surnames, evading the mentioning of Croats and Croatian language. Kubura 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed sections 

message: I think, Ragusa was an Italian-speaking area, some of its most important families came frm Italy etc. So it reasonable to add it to Italian Projects. It doesn't mean that Ragusa was part of Italy!!!! --Attilios 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian template

message: Lexicon: 1) Italian was not an official language of Ragusa, Dalmatian was. 
2) The Republic was under Venetian control for a time that is true, but it was independent before that, and prior to that, was part of the Byzantine Empire. 
I will not revert anything as yet, in anticipation of your response/explanation. DIREKTOR 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the article about Dalmatian language says: "In the 16th century, Ragusan (Dalmatian) fell out of use and became extinct." So, in the period from 1492 on until 1807: Italian or (extinct?) Dalmatian was the official language in Ragusa? --DaQuirin 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article also states: "The available sources include hardly 260 Ragusan words." What is your reference for the claim that Dalmatian was official language until 1807? --DaQuirin 21:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is with the understanding of what Italian actually means in this context. From a Ragusan perspective Italian was applied to all Italic languages, this including the Dalmatian and Venetian. So when we speak about Italian being the official language of the republic we are not speaking of modern standard Italian that has developed in the 19th century but we are speaking of local romance dialects and languages, namely Ragusan dialect of Dalmatian language and Venetian language under the influence of Toscan, Umbrian etc. --No.13 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and I forgot to mention an interesting fact. Although Slavic (Croatian) was in fact forbbiden to be used in official communication until 15th-16th century all spoke it. There are noted humurous situations where the senators (who forbade the use of Croatian) debated in Croatian in the senate and then published their decisions in Italian (Dalmatian Ragusan or Venetian) and Latin. I find that very funny actually. --No.13 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Old Ragusans like Joakim Stulli would disagree with you. As a contemporary expert on the subject he made a clear distinction writing that the 'Slovin', 'Illyric' and 'Croatian' are all the same thing. --No.13 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No it wasn't. None of the languages at that time had anything similar to standardization save perhaps Latin language. --No.13 11:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Direktor, in the time of Republic of Dubrovnik, it existed standardised Croatian. Start with Bartol Kašić. Look at the list of Croatian grammars and dictionaries. Kubura 09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No it wasn't. The common men spoke Croatian shtokavian, it was also spoken by the nobility as well. The only thing written and spoken in Latin and Italian (Venetian, Dalmatia, etc) were official announcements, documents, agreements and so on. This however has little with the fact Croatian was spoken. --No.13 12:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No I am not wrong. Croatian was so widely spoken in Dubrovnik by 15th century both by nobles and common people that the Senate in order to protect the Latin/Romanic legacy banned all discussion in languages others than the Latin or Italian (Ragusan dialect of Dalmatian) in the Ragusan senate. Even so there were cases where Croatian was spoken in the senate and that was the reason for parody at that time. --No.13 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Direktor, <U>read</U> the sources we've gave above, some of them also speak about the widespread (and even majority use) use of Croatian. Direktore, which Croatian writer from Dubrovnik spoke about "ljudi nahvao" and "ljudi nazbilj". Are these words in Croatian or in Dalmatoromanic? Kubura 09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not so much primary as an attempt to preserve the link with the ancient foundations of the city-state. Anyway this is not in dispute. I agree with you that the Dalmatian (or even more specifcally Ragusan) should be pointed out as the official language.  --No.13 14:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dalmatian language (Dalmatski) is Roman, neo-Latin speaking, used in Dalmatian cities before Venetian arrival. That idiom was born in Medieval at direct continuum of  spoken Latin in Romanized Dalmatia. It originated spontaneously, as Italian in Italy or French in France. Dante Alighieri didn’t mention this language in his writing “De vulgari eloquentia”, but many travelogues writers were reporting about it, so Venetian chronicler Giustiniani (16th) named it “schiavo ma diverso dall’atro” (Slavic but different than that other) and more precise: “un idioma proprio, che somiglia al calmone”. Dalmatian language was never used as official language in the  notes and writings, except sometimes in Dubrovnik.  Latin language was the official one. With arrival of Venetian and then Italian (Toscana) languages in Dalmatia, this Dalmatian language was disappearing by the time. It’s presumed that it vanished the most earlier in Zadar – the centre of Venetian government of Dalmatia, where Venetian influence was the most strongest. It was the most longest preserved in island of Krk. Mateo Giulio Bartolli (from Istra) wrote 2 toms of “Das Dalmatische”. Bartolli noted this language as “neo-Latin” or “Roman” - not Italian! – Dalmatian in fact! Also he noted that Italians as well as the other neo-Latins didn’t understand  this language… 
Official language in the present and in the early-Medieval are different conceptions. Latin was used only by writers, notars and similiar as an administrative language format, while Dalmatian and Croatian were spoken but literary too. Now, what does it mean official language in Medieval Dubrovnik? Administrative, literary or spoken? It's obvious that it was noble to speak Dalmatian and practical to speak Croatian. Zenanarh 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a strange question. The official language - if this term makes any sense - is the language used in official (or administrative) documents of a state (or used on coins etc). The mostly spoken language (or the one used in literature) may widely differ from that. All this goes without saying. I have a question myself: Please can you give an example when Dalmatian ('official language', as the article now claims, was used in Ragusan Republic documents (from 16th century to 1808)? A language that seems to have been 'fallen out of use' in 16th century and became extinct, if the article about Ragusan Dalmatian offers correct information? --DaQuirin 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian in Ragusa 

message: For what it's worth, I found a few tangentially related passages in  Encyclopaedia Britannica:
*"A great flourishing of art and literature, in the 15th–17th century, earned it the title of 'the South Slav Athens.' For the first time in the history of the South Slavs, the language of the people was introduced into literature." --"Dubrovnik"
*"In the 16th and 17th centuries, Ragusa and other Dalmatian cities under the rule of Venice became the centre of the Croat Renaissance, which, in addition to works of art and science, produced an extensive and powerful literature that had a lasting influence on the development of the Croatian literary language." --Croatia
*"Most of the other evidence for Dalmatian derives from documents from Zara (modern Zadar) and Ragusa (modern Dubrovnik) dating to the 13th–16th centuries. It is possible that, apart from isolated pockets, the language was then replaced by Croatian and, to a lesser extent, by Venetian (a dialect of Italian). It is certain, even from scanty evidence, that Dalmatian was a language in its own right, noticeably different from other Romance languages." --Romance languages
*"Ragusan Dalmatian probably disappeared in the 17th century" --Dalmatian language. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica.  Retrieved August 24, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9000725
nadav (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the last straw, Giovanni Giove, do you have anything to support your claims? Anything AT ALL (not from radical right Italian sites)? This is the Encyclopedia Britannica we are talking about. If you choose to ignore once more legitamate demands for sources, I think this farce can finally end. I'll do my best to bring this to the attention of the ARBCOM. DIREKTOR 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Giovanni may be right that the Italian place names were prevalent in English during the time of the Republic, no? If this is true, then the guideline does say to use whatever name is more common in modern English historical treatments. Frequently, the historical names are used. nadav (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not during the time of the Republic. The sources he quotes are from the second half of the 19th century. Even if he is right in what he says (really doubtful), I believe an acception may be made here, because of total historical innacuracy. Note that "Ragusa" is not only Latin and Dalmatian, but was at first used by Croats as well (it has nothing to do with Italian). DIREKTOR 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but if for some reason the Italian names are the most commonly used today in historical discussions in English about a certain period, then the rule is to use those prevalent names. The reasoning is that Wikipedia uses whatever name the (English-speaking) reader would be more accustomed to hearing in that context. nadav (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sensible, but I simply doubt that these toponyms mean anything to English readers, especially in the articles like this one which is general talking about Ragusan Republic. The exception could be some specific accident which occurred in a specific place and related to a specific source. When there's description of Republic territory with Italian toponyms it's not very helpful for a general reader, since these toponyms are not in usage. Zenanarh 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not mean to exclude the Italian names completely, Giove wants them as the only names, his edits are in accordance with this. We can always add them in brackets to ensure everyone understands, and to ensure that users become familiar with official English names (the same as Slavic). DIREKTOR 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You lye as usual. There were always the present name in brackts. BTW yoy know that this RfC is already expired duet to your uncivil attidute.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 13:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
I do not "lye". As for the "uncivil attitude", it is ridiculous slander! As far as I'm concerned, your RfC is just as ridiculous as you have not a SINGLE SOURCE to confirm your claims. DIREKTOR 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical place names

message: Typical. When Chetniks unite with Italian iredentists they make a great anti-Croat team. Please change the name back to what it was.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UstashkiDom (talk • contribs). 
Oh no. I mean no insult, but please do take two steps back. I tried to tell you that isults and expressions of radical views help noone except you, to vent your frustration. Discuss normally and with real arguments, your radical edits thus far may only serve to label us all as fascists or something. And that is exactly what we absolutely do not need. Do you understand? Cool down, seriously, man. DIREKTOR 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical 

message: I am disturbed that the falsehood that Ragusa was the first country to recognize the US has become so common. In truth, Ragusa was one of the last states to do so, as it feared provoking the British. I added a couple links that describe Ragusa's early relations with the Us. nadav (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubted the accuracy of these claimes myself for quite a while. Thanks for cearing that up. Do you know that there is even a myth circleing for decades around here that the White House was built with (the pretty good) stone from  Brach island? You should try talking a believer from around here (Dalmatia) out of believing it!  :D     DIREKTOR 21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one, I didn't hear about :) But the "first to recognize the US" myth I heard a number of times when I was in Dubrovnik, but, oddly enough, not once when I was here in the US. nadav (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition of United States 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of Jews? --84.20.17.84 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews 

message: :Ragusa derives its name from Lausa (from the Greek xau, "precipice");
It seems that somebody has taken text (not making the reference) from this Britannica scan:
:The name Ragusa is of uncertain origin. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in the 10th century, connects its early form, Lausa, with Xau, a "precipice." 
That page has many scanning mistakes so probably that X was a lambda and a was alpha.
Somebody should check the original Greek spelling and correct, making the proper references.
--84.20.17.84 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Lausa 

message: I made some changes to the Former Country Infobox and someone should make sure it now contains correct (and appropriate) information. The reason for me tempering with it was the association of the date of the Treaty of Zadar (June 27) with the year of establishment (1032), which I deemed incorrect. This sets up my follow-up questions: 1) what exactly occurred in 1032 to consider this year the start of the Republic, and 2) shouldn't that be covered in the article body? Damir 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishment (i.e. important years)