Wikipedia

Talk:Fausto Veranzio/Archive 2

< Talk:Fausto Veranzio
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Arbitrarily0 in topic Requested move
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Requested move

Latest comment: 13 years ago162 comments34 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus for move at this time. Since this request has gone stale, re-request is welcome in the future, especially once the article has undergone more improvements (in order to use a name that aligns with most of the sources). Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Faust Vrančić → Fausto Veranzio — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • A quick Google check doesn't seem to support the slavic or slavicized form of the title. Above all Fausto Veranzio is widely the name commonly used in English writings, and globally recognized as his original name, per sources.
  • Fausto Veranzio is the only name recurrent in modern ecclesiastical actual documents.
  • Despite the recent, quick and undiscussed "move-and-change" by an unique user, Fausto Venanzio is the name which seems to have consensus developed among editors on the related talk page.
  • Last but not least, leaving a part all anacronistic and sterile claims about his modern nationality (!), he had a clear romance origin, he was Venetian mother-tongue (and for that reason he chose to receive education in Venice and in Padua) he was born in the Republic of Venice, Venetian citizen, with a Venetian name and family name: Fausto Venanzio.

Theirrulez (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Addendum:

Addendum 2 Testing a quick search on scholar sources, we always have to set as searching parameters "only English sources in order to avoid fake results:

Google Books:
"Faust Vrančić": 237 hits -
"Fausto Veranzio": 324 hits
Google Scholar:
"Faust Vrančić": 26 hits
"Fausto Veranzio": 33 hits
Google Scholar (if we esclude citations):
"Faust Vrančić": 19 hits
"Fausto Veranzio": 26 hits
The most evident thing, about sources reliability, pertinency and neutrality, is that every single scholar hits of Faust Vrančić is from Slavic authors and belongs to Croatian historiography school (plus a very large number of Crotia Travelguide), while all scholar hits of Fausto Veranzio are from English authors, mainly academic sources, most of them about non history-related or non history-influenced matters, witnessing his predominat use in scholar and scientific English.
For further details see


  • Strongly oppose. The selective and biased representation of information in the nomination, as well as the wording itself, are appalling. The Google tests were essentially ambiguous, hence the LONG move. "Faust Vrančić" gets more Google Books hits in a general search, but "Fausto Veranzio" gets slightly more when you narrow it down to English (322 vs. 242). However, the narrowed-down English language search is as packed full of foreign language publications as the general search, thus basically invalidating the whole premise of researching English usage this way (in this case). "Faust Vrančić" also gets more hits on Google Scholar (191 vs. 75), and ten times more English hits on Google itself (3,650 vs. 365).
    In addition to this, this person's most notable achievements in modern times are his massive contributions to the development of no less than four South Slavic languages, spoken today by cca. 25,000,000 people. This is why the article was created in the first place. Not to mention that there is quite obviously no consensus for the move in the community. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Fausto Veranzio is the historic name.--172.130.27.185 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The more common name in use is Faust Vrančić. Note - WP:COMMONNAME says the following: "Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common. When searching, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. For detailed advice, see Wikipedia:Search engine test". Therefore, that the nominator used "a quick Google check" is profoundly out of process. Furthermore, the conclusion drawn from the "quick Google check" is plainly incorrect mathematically. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support or Use the latin name I have followed the guidelines but I have excluded all blogs and personal web sites which can change the result in a "non scientific point of view" (the blogs are "personal point of view"). In any case I would ask to the same scientist which is his name, I would ask: "Mr.Veranzio or Vrančić what is your name?" probably he can say me: "Read my books and see how I sign my books". In any case in my opinion I prefer the latin name because the old scientists were used to write with the latin language which has been perceived like the "language of the science and the philosophy". My support would be for Faustus Verantius without any connection with a nationality because there is no English version of the name. The latin version seems to me more neutral and more NPOV. --Ilario (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Even if we were to assume he called himself by his Latin name, Wikipedia does not use the name biography articles after the name people called themselves by, but by notability, which in turn is usually determined by Google test on various engines. This I'm sure you already know, and is obvious from even a cursory glance at similar articles (Alexander the Great, i.e. Mégas Aléxandros, comes to mind). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Comment: The biography makes clear that the italian name is preferable. Giuseppe Phoenix (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC) this user votes two times: he reiforced his position in his second edit, so this vote should be better marked as Comment.--Theirrulez (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


    • Always nice to see a WP:CANVASSED single-purpose-vote-account. :) Setting aside the fact that the vote states no reason for the rename, this account is also a buddy of User:Theirrulez from itWiki and has a grand total of eight (8) edits on this project, including this one [1]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
User:DIREKTOR Do you mean your vote has a different weight? Do you mean every users aren't equal and hasn't same rights? Thanks to offer your apologize to Mr.Giuseppe Phoenix who is a respectable member of wikipedia, altough you can be reported for this single-purpose, ad hominem and discriminating comment. --Theirrulez (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, the above is completely incorrect and furthermore makes no sense. This article's original name was "Faust Vrančić". It was moved (without a discussion) to place it in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. This however, has been shown to be incorrect, therefore it was reverted back to its original, most common name. (It only came to my attention via the edit summary on that article.)
Since you seem to support the previous WP:COMMONNAME renaming, Salvio, I wonder why it is that you are supporting this one when it clearly contradicts that policy. Or are you supporting this "only to make a point"? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia is not a democracy. None of the above posts display any real reasons why Wiki naming policy should be ignored. The votes should probably be disregarded accordingly. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose use Croatian or Latin name. He used Italian in some of his writings, but he was not Italian, neither ethnically nor regionally or culturally. It would be wrong to insinuate otherwise. I don't know what exactly are the Wikipedia guidelines for humanists who wrote most (if not all) of their works in Latin and used Latinized pen-name, but if one exists it should apply here :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. Why User:DIREKTOR begun with WP:CANVASSED inviting users Ivan Štambuk, Kebeta and Kubura [2] ?--172.130.227.64 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I was wondering the same.. This is at least strange, considering his accuses to other users here above...--Theirrulez (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That is not WP:CANVASSING. Read up on that. The users are involved on the page and I informed them of new developments in perfectly neutral wording. Now this, this is WP:CANVASSING and WP:MEAT: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Remind me why you weren't blocked for that? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. As far as the message on my page goes, it was neither WP:CANVASSING nor WP:MEAT; it was merely a request for help, for he had been welcomed with accusations of being a WP:SOCK right from the get go; and I was glad to help him — just as I'd be glad to help any Italian experiencing problems here, due to his being a newbie —. You can find my name listed here, after all. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment (confl.)I feel confused and worry since I saw this other call by User:DIREKTOR on User talk:Ivan Štambuk followed immediately by this edit by User:Ivan Štambuk (which is the one above). This is not the way Wikipedia should work. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • "Confused and worried"? Again. If you think WP:CANVASS was breached feel free to report me. Or were you hoping your buddies would swing the vote before other involved users notice the move proposal. User:Theirrulez, you have a history of CANVASSING [7] [8] [9] [10]. What are you doing? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again... guys you have to create shared rules to solve these fights. Every voice of historical Dalmatia can be read with a Slavic or Romance point of view. These skirmishes are a waste of time.--Grifter72 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Not so, Grifter. The article's title cannot be moved contrary to notability. Have a look at the Google tests, what in the world is there to discuss:
  • Google tests:
    • "Faust Vrančić"
      • Google - 19,000 hits
        • Google Books - 669 hits
        • Google Scholar - 191 hits
    • "Fausto Veranzio"
      • Google - 1,630 hits
        • Google Books - 650 hits
        • Google Scholar - 75 hits --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: This Google test is deeply flawed and thus invalid: see here for reasons Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoever renamed the article was not acting in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME.----186.105.72.158 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

      • The message directly above was posted by User:Ragusino, who is indeffed for, among other things, "continued block evasion via IPs". Old habits die hard. And your numbers are extraordinary, Ragusino. I clicked on your first Google search (which is not even about the individual Faust Vrančić, by the way) and 825, not 17,000 came up. Oh dear. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Fausto Veranzio should be on italian wiki, and Verancsics Faustus or Faust Verantius on latin wiki. For usage of italian name on english wiki (for a person who is not an etnic italian, and is not from a territory of modern Italy) is a POV (if nothing else). Kebeta (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sir, I have to underline that your vote is moved by this invitation by User:DIREKTOR on your talk page. It doesn't seem to be the right way, isn't it?--Theirrulez (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Not quite truth! Look at this. I reverted your edit (07:21, 10 May 2010) on Faust Vrančić article before DIREKTOR (11:56, 10 May 2010) wrote anything abouth it on my talk page. Moreover, I was well aware of this move proposal which I didn't even consider seriously. Furthermore, had anything influenced me to vote on this amazing "Move proposal", than it would be your comment on Direktor's post on my talk page. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as well. I think this quote from Kebeta says it best: "For usage of italian name on english wiki (for a person who is not an etnic italian, and is not from a territory of modern Italy) is a POV (if nothing else)." This seems to be a very POV-initiated move. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again Woops!! the gang are return! Danger! :P --186.105.72.158 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ragusino, you are indeffed, you have abused your privileges across Wikipedia, and we don't welcome your contributions anymore. The reason you were indeffed is that you exhausted our patience. Please leave respected editors to debate this. If you try to edit this page again, I will delete your posts. See you at AN/I. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose This is ridiculous from the very start. It is clear and obvious that the main name should be the croatian one, but the italian one should be mentioned in the lead sentance. At any rate, this is only a POV personal feud that FKP wants to have with Direktor. (LAz17 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)). this vote has been changed from Support into oppose after few days by its author user. --Theirrulez (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • comment Canvasing is taking place, no? Direktor is luring in his brethren Croats, almost all of whom 100%ly oppose this. Nice way to "build up support", eh? - we see the "calling" taking place - getting his bro's like Kubura, Ivan Štambuk, Kebeta, to come here in an attempt to "tally up votes". This is not a vote, and that is what should be understood. [11] (LAz17 (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).
  • comment Not true. Many of us (such as myself) edit similar articles associated with Croatia and the region, and it was only a matter of time until people found out about this. And I wouldn't call people here a "bro" if I were you. Not appropriate or true. --Jesuislafete (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Man, my unblemished block record on Wikipedia got tarnished (three days in the cooler) when I called a 12-year-old and his/her sycophants rude names. It turned out that the 12-year-old in question was seeking to add "things/stuff/words" to the article on Tito directly from a Fascist website. And to relieve the Wiki stress of working on Tito, he/she spent ages on Honey the cat. FFS. So knock yourself out. Nobody gives a flying fuck what Wikipedia calls 17th century academics/nobles etc.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(Out of crono) Sir, please note this is not a forum. Thanks to use an appropriate language and not to add stalking comments after any vote. --Theirrulez (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a response to me or a general comment? I agree that it is not too important, but I figured to vote anyways. Honey the cat... lol. I didn't know wikipedia went into such stuff. (LAz17 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)).
Lol, you could suggest this to 'em, The Cat in the Hat. (LAz17 (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)).

I Strongly Suppport as per Theirrulez and Ilario. Moreover Fausto Veranzio is by far the most used in English Literature and English academic publications. It is not an Italian name, it is Venetian, and it was the original family name, as reported in primary and secondary sources. At least I want to underline that I'm not a meat of anyone, I'm a free and respectable wikipedian, so every accuse or manipulation will be immediately reported.Giuseppe Phoenix (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

[second vote in the same survey 1st 2nd]—Preceding unsigned comment added by DIREKTOR (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  • comment This is ridiculous. You (Giuseppe Phoenix) already voted for support above. Maybe another vote like Week Support will satisfy our expectations from a person who is not a meat of anyone. Kebeta (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • User:Giuseppe Phoenix has indeed voted twice in this survey [12] [13]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
(out of crono)User:DIREKTOR, User:Kebeta, sirs please note, once again, this is not a forum. Thanks to use an appropriate language and not to add stalking comments after any vote. It's obvious that Giuseppe Phoenix's intention was to explain and motivate his first edit, which can be considered as a comment. Is so also evident that he don't voted twice, but his two edits will be considered as only one. So please do not keep to push your comments after every edit you disagree. Thanks --Theirrulez (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Theirrulez, if you find any infraction of Wikipedia policy you dislike, please feel free to report either of us immediately. If not, I think we'd both appreciate it if you do not approach us with any more of your thoughts and feelings that unrelated to specific changes in the article. Furthermore, permit me to add that I do not think you are the person to instruct others in matters concerning Wikipedia policy, with all due respect. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the common English name. This is the English Wikepedia. 124.185.6.208 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

*Support Romance form is a historic name.--Kanalesi (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

*comment DIREKTOR, you only want change the name for politcal reason... behind this wiki guidelines WP:COMMONNAME, not for the common name or others, not import if the name is italian, romance or slav. regards--Kanalesi (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

    • comment Do you have proof for your accusations?--Jesuislafete (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Google results say something. 19,000: 1,630. Further, this is not 19th century. Science has developed a lot since then, and terminology has significantly changed. Šibenik is now Šibenik. So does Faust Vrančić. Kubura (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh my gosh! What's this sir? Is also your edit moved by that invitation to vote from User:DIREKTOR? Isn't It Canvassing, Clique? --Theirrulez (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No. If it were canvassing my notification would be biased and would try to influence his vote. This is not the case. Telling three involved users about a WP:RM in a 100% neutral tone is not canvass. Please learn a thing or two before you start accusing people all over the place.
Agaian, relax a bit User:Theirrulez. Your tone is starting to sound irate. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You surprise me more and more sir: you're able to hear my tone just reading my words.. You weren't hironic, didn't you? --Theirrulez (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. "Fausto Veranzio" is the historic name; he lived his life as a Venetian, not a Croatian.
  2. "Fausto Veranzio" is the more common name in English-language scholarly sources:

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I've been meaning to have a word with you, User:Gun Powder Ma.
Firstly, I'd like an explanation as to what exactly prompted you to move an article so obviously controversial without a proper WP:RM? Did the move-war not suggest that the issue is a typical controversial Balkans matter? Are you aware that directly contradicts WP:MOVE [15]?
Secondly, when determining English usage one does not simply pick the one search engine test that gives the preferred results. A proper test includes the three basic Google search engines, at the very least.
Google
Fausto Veranzio (Google in English): 365
Faust Vrančić (Google in English): 3,650 (about ten times more hits, yet again)
Google Books
Fausto Veranzio (Google Books in English): 322
Faust Vrančić (Google Books in English): 242
Google Scholar
Fausto Veranzio (Google Scholar): 75
Faust Vrančić (Google Scholar): 191
Forgive me, but it seems as though you picked the only one that supported you. Which brings me to my thrid point. The Google Books search of yours is "deeply flawed", as you would put it. Selecting the English language option in this particular instance does not do anything to improve the test. We are not here to blindly count hits - if you look with more care you will notice that the vast majority of the supposedly English book hits are in fact - not English at all, effectively rendering the whole thing pointless.
In conclusion, and with all due respect, I feel I must say that the Google test and in fact, your entire conduct on this page, are "deeply flawed" as far as WP:SET and WP:MOVE are concerned. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, unfortunately Google has allowed to let some non-English publications slipped in, but the settings I chose, as you can see, are "pages in English", so correct.
      1. Google books, as the largest online-pool for scholarly works is certainly the single most important yardstick
      2. Google counts irrelevant hits like names of restaurants, enterprises, unrelated people of the same name etc. etc., all of which greatly distorts the real picture of what term is more used in English.
      3. Google Scholar counts should be completely discounted as it does not allow counts per language (lacking this feature). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • So, the real count is:
    • Google Books: Fausto Veranzio (in English): 324
    • Google Books: Faust Vrančić (in English): 242
    • Google: "Fausto Veranzio" -wikipedia (in English): 364 hits
    • Google: "Faust Vrančić" -wikipedia (in English): 3,630
    • Conclusion: The most important parameter, Google Books, yields a 1/3 more hits for Fausto Veranzio, while Google yields ten times more hits for Faust Vrančić. However, as for the latter, since a quick survey shows that on the first page alone 4 out of 10 entries are actually Croatian pages (www.croatians.com/INVENT-PARACHUTE-VRANCIC.htm ; www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et22.html ; www.otokprvic.info/dok/Evrancic.htm ; www.infoadriatic.com/did_you_know_04.shtml), I would argue that the result of Google Books outweighs the Google seach, since the former search is much more reliable and scholarly opinion clearly a more important guideline than the poutpourri of other sites. This follows Wikipedia:SET which holds that A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability, therefore Fausto Veranzio as per Google books (and the dominant historical use). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I say again, the Google Books results displays a vast majority of non-English publications regardless of the English language parameter, effectively rendering the whole exercise pointless (in this particular case). A cursory glance the supposed "English search" reveals Latin, French, German, Italian, Croatian hits far outnumbering the English ones. What is the point? How can one call this an English search? According to your criteria as stated above, the Google Books results should be disregarded as well, and frankly I see no foundation at all in your claims, in particular the offhand dismissal of an overwhelming Google test majority (10x).
        If you don't mind me repeating the inquiry, what is it that prompted you to so blatantly ignore WP:MOVE and rename this article without a WP:RM in the first place?? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This is nonsense--Ex13 (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An analitic approach

Ok sirs, I feel compelled to write a long edit (please everyone accept my apologies for it) because last edit on the article if related to the quick move-and-change performed without careing of the consensus need to fix a point.

This article -is necessary to underline it- has been victim of deep changes after it had been deliberately moved. This kind of changes seems they are transforming the content of the article in a one-way easy to understand: page history once again can't hide the truth: [16].

Leaving this premise apart, the article must be finally moved under the title Fausto Veranzio for three reasons:

  1. This requested move must be performed res ipsa loquitur because the move made by User:DIREKTOR is clearly in conflict with the consensus and above all with Wikipedia:RM#Uncontroversial_requests and Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves.
  2. This discussion has already and clearly expressed consensus in support the proposed move: each opposing comment is suspected to be moved by action of inappropriate canvassing or votestacking as already reported by many users above, and as shown by users contribution history, so they can't be considered in the consensus analisis because in contrast with Wikipedia behavioral guidelines.
  3. This requested move is based on a conscientious and scrupulous application of the method to determine the most common English name as below explained.

Fausto Veranzio was his original name. His family name was Veranzio ([17]), Counts from the Republic of Venice. His father was Michele, ([18]) and his uncle was Antonio. As I said they belonged to a noble Venetian Dalmatian family that time resident in Zadar nearby, ([19]) since long time before the Republic of Venice,[1] with no trace of Slavic ancestry.[2] In fact all family members reached their education in Italy, or properly in the Venice region (Padua or the same Venice).
This is CLEARLY stated in a very reliable source in English (Travels Into Dalmatia, Abbe Albert Fortis, pubblished in 1778) which can be considered as a primary source, (the only one available).

  1. ^ Here, an English source of the 19th century stated (describing Martino Rota's works and citing Cardinal Veranzio) which is the relation between Italy and the Dalmatian region until that time
  2. ^ A branch of Veranzio family joined with Draganich, forming the Draganich-Veranzio.

He was Venetian as stated above, his family was Venetian Dalmatian ancestry, with a secondary branch moved to Hungary, but he is today often considered Italian by many English sources (in an encyclopedia is by far better and more correct to use the adjective Venetian): for example [20], or [21].

The most reliable English sources mostly report Fausto Veranzio instead the slavicized form:
You can check this source. It's from Stanford University, California, and shows perfectly what I mean: the name listed is Fausto Veranzio, but because the book shown is in croatian, the website advices the (english) reader: At head of title: Faust Vrančić.
You can check this one also, "just" from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where is clear which is the name used in that website. These can be absolutely considered a reliable secondary source.
Check also this: an English 20-volumes History of technology, in which always and only Fausto Veranzio is cited.
Or in Cambridge University, Janus Library Archive: listed exclusively as "Fausto Veranzio".
This, also in English is a 8-volumes work of 2009, "Ancient Engineers' Inventions: Precursors of the Present"; he's exclusively cited as Fausto Veranzio.

Other examples, less important is this from The Canadian National Parachuting Federation, in American English.
Or Parachuting English website on Wordpress.org

In French: Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, only Fausto Veranzio cited, no Vrancic.
In Polish: Biography of Fausto Veranzio.

Also many Croatian sources refer to him exclusively as "Fausto Veranzio": [22]; or ex yougoslavian Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, Issue 391: [23], only Fausto Veranzio appears in the book, despite it's in Serbocroatian.
This is very interesting: Encyclopaedia moderna, by Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Institut za filozofiju znanosti i mir, Hrvatska Akademija znanosti i mir: is an Enciclopedic upgrade by Yugoslavian/Croatian institutes in which never appear the slavicized name (Faust Vrancic) but only Fausto Veranzio.
Or again this one.

This one, (Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji, Vol. 10 By Konzervatorski zavod za Dalmaciju, a modern volume edited by the Conservation Institute of Dalmatia) has to be remarked because is really interesting: the text clearly shows, wherever is mentioned a Veranzio family member, next to the croatized name, the name "Veranzio" in brackets, to emphasize "(better known as)" or "originally known as".

At last, leaving apart all strange lucubrations about using websearch with this so particular historical argument, this can clearify the situation:

I performed a gogle books search setting results only in English:

("Faust" Vrančić -Veranzio) [24] 267 hits (look at the advice: Did you mean "Fausto" Vrančić -Veranzio ?
("Fausto" Veranzio -Vrančić) [25] 434 hits

Another search on Gogle Books (advanced settings: only english sources admitted):

("Vrančić" -Veranzio) [26]: 359 hits (most part of it from English/Croatian tourist guides of Croatia)
("Veranzio" -Vrančić) [27]: 633 hits

or also always on google book, all languages, different keys:

("Faust Vrančić" -Veranzio) [28]: 238 hits also in this search google ask -Did you mean: "Fausto Vrančić" -Veranzio-
("Fausto Veranzio" -Vrančić) [29]: 320 hits

I performed same search on google scholar, choosing only sources in English of course:

("Faust Vrančić" -Veranzio) [30]: 25 hits (most part of it from English/Croatian tourist guides of Croatia)
("Fausto Veranzio" -Vrančić) [31]: 33 hits

Fausto Veranzio is popular mainly for his parachute, so let'see on google scholar (only English sources as usual):

("Faust Vrančić" parachute) [32]: 7 hits
("Fausto Veranzio" parachute) [33]: 14 hits (double)

While on google books we have

("Faust Vrančić" parachute) [34]: 50 hits
("Fausto Veranzio" parachute) [35]: 200 hits (four times more common)

Thanks for your patience, but what was happening to this article needed a more serious analisis. Regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Strongly Support as per nominator I was forgetting to remind my position after what explained above :) Theirrulez (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
That's all very nice Theirrulez, I'm sure if I thought it worthwhile I could find a set of specific search parameters that favor my point. I can't imagine why anyone would do that, however... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sir, that's the point. While you think to find a set of specific search parameters that favor your point, I just set as only parameter only English sources to determine what's the most common name in English. It's very linear. --Theirrulez (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No, Theirrulez, I just write in the search topic, exclude Wikipedia and foreign languages, and click the big "Search" button. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sir, I'm sorry to disprove again your position. If what's written above it's not enough for you I can cite from Wikipedia guidelines: «Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common. When searching, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia". It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals.» You can agree or not sir, but is exactly what i did. And is the exactly reason for which other users had kept the article with the right title before your quick move-and-change. Regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sigh... the bottom line is: "Faust Vrančić" is at least ten times more common in English... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry sir, Faust Vrancic is ten times mor common in Croatian and in other Slavic languages. On the contrary, historically and statistically his original name, Fausto Veranzio, is by far most common in English. Its use is consolidated since long time, roughly since Abbe Fortis first publication of Travel into Dalmatia (in English). You see, scientific or literary uses, standards and method, including naming convention, generally can't change in few days, and unlikely can't follow a quick and shallow websearch not performed on a proper sample or not matching basilar criteria of reliability. --Theirrulez (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
My friend, but this names couldn`t be written and read in english! how the people than don`t know croatian could read and wrote this names? --172.190.152.12 (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, per sources. I was very dubious, but the investigation of Theirrulez convinced me. It seems that the main english sources use the name "Veranzio" as "historical name". Last, to Jesuislafete, I don't think this is tout court "POV", I think it's just analysis of the sources. I'm Italian, of course, but I don't think this can be "automatically POV". --Retaggio (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC) PS - I tried to search also with "parachute" (in order to eliminate non english results) in english books: Parachute Veranzio (305) Parachute Vrančić (49)
  • Support Comment, yes, per sources. The same user:DIREKTOR, with any source, change a few hours this [36] in the Republic of Ragusa page,? strange, claims only wiki policy, he claims different policies (wiki:commons, english use, etc, foreing language), for the names problems, different wiki policies!, strange point of view about the wiki:rules?. thanks.--172.129.64.71 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • [second vote in the same survey 1st, 2nd] Please note: this is the second vote by the same IP. There are currently two double votes in this survey. This one by the above IP (two votes: 1st, 2nd), and two (1st 2nd) by User:Giuseppe Phoenix. I don't know what you folks are up to, but this double-voting is just weird. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see what is the problem, sir. This is not a voting, this is a discussion. Just count them once if you like. Please note, for example, how User:LAz17 has "turned" his vote: that has a secondary importance in the discussion, cause he left a more telling comment there below --Theirrulez (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Then I will show you the problem: this is a survey and a discussion - both. Just do not attempt to defraud the vote count. Do NOT revert the crossing over of false votes contrary to WP:RM or I will report you to the closing admin. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you can write over other users comments, sir. If there's some guidelines that allow you to do that please show me. If you think there's something to report to the closing admin feel free to do that. Anyways Thanks for not continuing in your stalking comment below each single user vote, is not a fair behaviour, and please do not use intimidation tone. Moreover I underline how User:Giuseppe_Phoenix just reinforced his vote without showing different position but just correctly motivating his vote as asked BY YOU, sir. So be so kind to remove your deliberate modification or overline to his comment. I'm sure that the closing admin is enough careful and will be able for sure to consider these votes once. I'm also sure that the discussion above has clearly provided all the data and arguments to reach the point. Thanks again. --Theirrulez (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Call it "reinforcing" call it "vote fraud", whatever - one of those two votes should be crossed-out. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I call it perfectly legitimate "providing a right explanation to his vote". As asked to him. I suppose his first vote should be consider as a comment, so please remove your crossing-out on his edit sir, also because it don't seems to be substantial, but only formal, for the discussion closing.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Voting twice is not perfectly legitimate. What are you talking about? Perhaps if everyone were to "reinforce" their votes a couple of times we could really make it fun for the closing admin? Using "Comment" is "perfectly legitimate", voting again is NOT. I cannot believe I am explaining this - just please keep one of the two votes either crossed-out or re-termed a "Comment" and feel free to "extra-mega-double-reinforce" everything you like. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Please this is not a blog and not a voting. We are not electing an admin. We are discussing, we just have to show our position and to provide motivation. I think the discussion reached a point so please sir, be serious and kindly stop this stalking: i'm quite sure the closing admin will be able to understand everything even without you help. --Theirrulez (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a tough one but, putting aside nationalist arguments that really don't have much applicability to figures from the prenational era, "Fausto Veranzio" seems to be used more often in relevant quality English-language sources. Opposition to a move seems to rely mostly on mixed search engine tallies that can rely on more dubious sources. — AjaxSmack 02:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Google test isn't decisive, if anything Croatian version has a lot more results in main Google search. This whole requested move is here only for nationalist reasons. Faust Vrancic is one the most important figures in Croatian history. Koven 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • No, and your statement is what I was talking about. Veranzio never set foot in the nation-states of Croatia or Italy because neither existed at the time. You folks can argue which nation and history he "belongs" to all you want but it's all anachronistic original research. Veranzio lived in the prenational era in the non-national trading state of Venice. Faced with that, what should be analysed is contemporary English usage. Google hits are one tool to determine it but they are not ideal for more obscure subjects. Scholarly usage is a little better and English scholarly works seem to marginally favor the spelling "Veranzio". — AjaxSmack 14:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
      • As far as I can see, User:Koven990 is not referring to his ethnicity, but is merely pointing out that this person's significance in the context of Croatian history is what we should be looking at. I also feel it is necessary to point out that the Google test is also clearly NOT DECISIVE, since the opposite seems to be the impression now. Frankly, I cannot believe anyone would fall for Theirrulez's "trick-test" and a few select links above. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Leaving apart Direktor's attempt to influence a serene and now clear discussion, what Koven990 said appears a little fuzzy: opposers had until now appeal at WP:COMMONAME claiming for a google webtest. Now he stated: "This whole requested move is here only for nationalist reasons(!)" that seems a little incoherent as a third edit of newer user from Croatia. But everyone here must be free to espress his own opinion and he is of course welcomed to do that. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The investigation of Theirrulez furnishes significant elements on the family of the Venetian Fausto Veranzio. The attempt of reading the question in terms of modern Italy or modern Croatia is a nonsense. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • comment I imagine the approach i used is the right approach for every single article of this encyclopedia. I'd like to underline this in opposition of all those bad habits about moving an article with smart move, or justifying the move with silly arguments like google test or whatever. An example: I will never try to move Raphael to Raffaello Sanzio, just because the second one is his original name and because he's an important figure for Italian (or Tuscan) arts. I will never move Rome into Roma just because after a quick google search which shown Rome -wikipedia: 90,000,000 hits, Roma -wikipedia: 120,000,000 (Ratio 3:4). That's why I consider the deliberate move before this requested move a manipulating POV action. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Mind you, this above is Theirrulez "asking permission" to start edit-wars and move half of Dalmatian articles by "using the approach he feel compelled to use". Nobody here has any idea what can of wild, man-eating worms is being opened here. I get the feeling ARBCOM will be hearing about this mess. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Now just hold on, AjaxSmack, "Faust Vrančić" is also used in English sources, and a lot of them 670 hits. You're under the false impression that anyone is trying to prove his ethnicity. Its Theirrulez who claims he's Italian, nobody else is trying to pin any national label on the fellow. Its just a fact that the guy's name brings up more Google hts and more Google Book hits than "Fausto Veranzio" which is the name used only in publications that deal with him superficially. "Faust Vrančić" is used by practically all publications that refer to his literary work, since his impact on Croatian literary development was incomparably more significant.
    Regardless of what you may think, a cursory glance at Theirrulez's edits will reveal that this is part of a far larger campaign and has little or nothing to do with this person or the English language notability. Either way, there is clearly no consensus for the move, and I cannot imagine how a nationalist-inspired RM of this sort could pass under any circumstances. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope sir, your search doesn't show at all english sources. As you can see, Faust Vrančić give back mostly touristic guide of Croatian or Croatian books. You have to set right parameter, only English sources, and above all you should deeper analize your results. IMHO I consider the discussion above perfectly exhaustive for finally move the article under his old title (before your quick move). I want finally report you sincerely not fair and not correct behaviour in writing this incredible and absolutely unacceptable post on AjaxSmack talk page. You throw on me load of insults and accuses, why? Just to stalk another user who is not in-line with your position? Please sir: never more this unacceptable kind of action. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
LoL, I am sorry, but will you please stop with the act? A user with your appalling record forfeits entirely the right to lecture others in propriety. Your edits are those of a POV-pusher of the most obvious order, "sir", and you may feel free quote me on that. Your campaign on these articles has seen you use every devious POV-pushing method available, from incessant edit-warring, move-warring, and MEATPUPPETEERING, all the way to sock-recruitment. Yet you insist on this incessant (badly spelled) "shocked-innocent-user" charade. From now on, please spare me the thought and opinions you may have about me and discuss article changes, only. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what everyone, on this project, would have liked to discuss with you. Only. --Theirrulez (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as per Gun Powder Ma, Theirrulez (WP:COMMONAME and WP:UE) and above all per AjaxSmack. Even, if I correctly understand page history, per undoing an undiscussed move. Sarah desan (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. I want to make this perfectly clear for everyone: the move from Fausto Veranzio -> Faust Vrančić I performed earlier was a revert in itself of an undiscussed move by Gun Powder Ma (who bypassed WP:RM on a very obviously, highly controversial topic). The original title of this article was "Faust Vrančić", and the article was created due to this person's notability in Croatian historiography. This person, I'll remind everyone, is from the city of Šibenik. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. When I joined wiki, I barely knew how all things function. But, from this move proposal I concluded that, apparently I was just to slow in learning, since several editors who voted "support" have less then ten edits, and they already participate in move proposals. Kebeta (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment When I joined wikipedia, in 2006, it was at least since early 2005 I already was used to do many edits as anonymous IP. Despites many opposite voter on thise move proposal, on the contrary, since that time I had never received or sent invitation messages like this this or this during a voting for an AfD o for a RM. About who performed an undiscussed move I'd like to see Gun Powder Ma openly explained in the discussion why Fausto Veranzio should have been the right title, prior to perform the move, while Direktor, instead, performed his undiscussed move doing PRIOR this edit on another article, as already reported above by User:Salvio giuliano. About his anachronistic claiming on Fausto Veranzio roots I prefer not to comment about, AjaxSmack already perfectly fixed the point. (just I would note his first opposing vote was per WP:CN, but WP:CN and WP:UE clearly support the move). --Theirrulez (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


Compromise: Faustus Verantius, the Latin form

What about taking his Latin name, which is Faustus Verantius, I believe? There are some precedences for Renaissance scholars such as Nicolaus Copernicus which is neither the German nor Polish name. Or Georgius Agricola where the Latin form is preferred over his German birth name. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)-Because it's the most common in english sources, Gun Powder Ma, tht's not a compromise.--Theirrulez (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose the compromise: I can't accept a compromise after the discussion above, with canvassing, votestacking, and after it has clearly shown Fausto Veranzio is the most used name in English sources. You are moved by a noble intent Gun Powder Ma, but there are many problems with the users who partecipated in this discussion, and I really sorry and afraid about what's happening. You see Gun Powder Ma (despites your nick you seems a zen) if this requested moved will not be accepted, since tomorrow everyone can feel free to move this page just after a silly webpages counting. --Theirrulez (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The canvassing and vote-stacking, if there was any (I take no position on that question) is all for naught. I don't count votes. Since you've got me, an old-school Wikipedian, looking to close this discussion, you can be sure that I will weigh arguments rather than count noses.

      The merits of Gun Powder Ma's compromise depend on whether the Latin name is commonly used in English-language sources, and not on the behavior of anyone on this page. If we based editorial decisions on the behavior of people in discussions, then where would we be as an encyclopedia? Truth determined by whoever plays the nicest? Not on my watch! -GTBacchus(talk) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree, what i wrote above was moved by stress and frustration I suffer for some users behaviour during the discussion. Glad to read it. --Theirrulez (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Venetian citizen

There seems to a side dispute about Veranzio being a Venetian or Croatian slowly deteriorating into an edit war. I am more and more under the impression that the nationality of Veranzio lies at the core of the problem and that the naming dispute is just a proxy. I propose that if the edit war goes on we take a broader approach by reverting the whole page to the original Fausto Veranzio and take if from there, as there seems to be a deeper nationalistic agenda at work which would need to be carefully adressed. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Theirrulez (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Altough, despites the anacronistic attempt to demonstrate absurd theories about Veranzio's nationality, it seems also useful to solve the situation about the page title, recently moved against consensus. --Theirrulez (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Saying he was from the Venetian Republic is obviously true and does not really do anything for the issue. The Venetian Republic's Dalmatian provinces were populated by a majority of Slavs. This person is from Dalmatia. The issue therefore is whether he was a "Venetian Italian" or a "Venetian Croatian". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Your anacronistic approach about Slavs and Slavic culture, where there wasn't any trace of it, is sincerelly more and more worrying and it's making anyone waste time. Moreove your folk and absurd thesis on Croatian identity across the centuries was dangerously disruptive, for example in the discussion above about restoring the right name after your POV-pushing undiscussed move.
You seems not able -everybody now see- to open a little bit more your view to understand that you cannot say «The Venetian Republic's Dalmatian provinces were populated by a majority of Slavs.»(!): you seems the farthest thing from an historian. Dalmatia was populated by Dalmatians, neither Croatian (not at all) nor Italian. Under the Republic of Venice the language spoken was Venetian which is very similar to the Dalmatian -they are both Italic languages- and easily adopted in those lands by everybody. Veranzio family members, particulary were not just Venetian citizens and had not just Venetian ancestry, but also and above all they had Italic culture: every single member, Fausto in primis, choosed to receive their education in the northern Italy schools and universities (Venice, Verona and Padua).
Be since now extremely more accurate in you statement about Croatian identity of people when any Croatian nation was not even an idea, and about Slavic demography in those lands which for centuries had preserved their Romance identity like Dalmatia and Venice.
Moreover, please be, since now, more careful in writing what you cannot support with sources. What you wrote just above is incredibly historically inaccurate (someone can say historically false) and disrupting: it could force many others users to provide tons of reliable sources in order to restore a bit of accuracy in this historical discussion.
You said you are 21, so you are adult enough to understand that you cannot say: «the issue therefore is whether he was a or "Venetian Italian" or a "Venetian Croatian"»(!) because is a flashing anacronism. It doesn't exhist anything we can call Venetian Croatian: Venetian culture was predominant wherever and whenever it spread, and believe me, it had been predominant in Dalmatia for long time.
Thanks to understand and to keep a more equilibrate approach in your posts related to historical matters. Theirrulez (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What a world you live in... :) "Dalmatians" are a regional category. People who live in Dalmatia are naturally "Dalmatians", like me (yup, I'm actually a dog using the internet xD). You could be not only Slavic or Italian, but also a Frenchman by ethnicity and still be a "Dalmatian" if you live here (like a few people I know). However: this is all besides the point. We are talking about this person's ethnicity, and the scientific community does not recognize the existence of a "Dalmatian ethnicity", neither now, nor in the 16th century. Of course, there are regional characteristics of both the Slavic & Italian ethnicities, hence "Dalmatian Slavs" or "Dalmatian Italians" (today of course, "Dalmatians" just means "Croats from Dalmatia").
Wordplay just confuses the discussion, so I'll be perfectly clear, the ethnicity issue is whether he was 1) a person of Dalmatian Italian ethnicity from the Venetian Republic OR 2) a person of Dalmatian Slavic (Croat) ethnicity from the Venetian Republic. Most people in the Dalmatian provinces of the Venetian Republic were (and still are) of Dalmatian Slavic ethnicity. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Despites the nuclear war you decided to unleash over this article, I decided to answer your anacronistic original research with the millionth reliable source, remaining hopeful you will be finally coherent accepting Veranzio just has prenational ethnicity and Venetian ancestry and culture. He was Venetian as stated above, his family was Venetian Dalmatian ancestry, Venetian language speaking with a secondary branch moved to Hungary, but he is today often considered Italian by many English sources (of course in an encyclopedia is by far better and more correct to use the adjective Venetian): for example [37], or [38].
Johannes Lucius, who today in Croatia is considered the father of modern contemporary Croatian historiography, wrote (in Italian!) in his book "Delle memorie di Tragurio hora detto Traù" ("In Venetia presso Stefano Curti, 1674") that in Dalmatia were spoken some languages, but only one was the ethnicity: the Dalmatian one: he named this (and his) people Dalmatini. After two centuries, you can read similar ideas in Simeone Gliubich (croatized and know in Croatia as Šime Ljubić), Dizionario biografico degli uomini illustri della Dalmazia. Last but not least, John Van Antwerp Fine stated that: "When one examines the sources about Balkan populations from the seventh throught the eighteenth centuries, one of the first things that stikes the examiner is the fact that the labels denoting peoples change too frequently. This fluidity is possible because none of of the identities is inherent in a person or in a community, but all the identity labels have been invented and often subsequently reinvented. (...) Thus, even if the medieval Slavs in regions of Croatia were writing something linguists can label a "Croatian" - as opposed to "Serbian" or "Bosnian" - dialect, if those writing it did not call their language (or anything else about themselves) "Croat", then they did not have Croat consciousness and thus were not, of course, ethnic Croats" (John Van Antwerp Fine [39] When ethnicity did not matter in Balkans. A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods, University of Michigan 2006, pp. 3 ss). You, sir, seems to follow the Croatian linguists customs, croatizing original or historical names, and inventing identity labels on every single Dalmatian people: [40], even when no sources support your position. - Theirrulez (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.49.159 (talk • contribs)
(Censoring my comments, yet again, is going on your "permanent record" and will be included in my report on your behavior.) Theirrulez, I can't help you understand unless you read my posts. Modern historiography does not recognize the existence of a "Dalmatian ethnicity". Period. No such thing in the 17th century. Indeed your thesis that Italian-speakers and Slavic-speakers were all part of some super-ethnicity displays a lack of knowledge of some of the most basic terms we are dealing with here.
Before you write another essay, I'd like to see some source about your Dalmatian super-ethnicity. The idea of which is, by the way, one of the classic relics of 19th century irredentist gibberish. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Dalmatian culture, language, ethnicity are something by far different from any irredentist thesis. I suppose that this misunderstanding could have lead you to be so confused about the issues we discuss. About the image you added to my post, I have already commented about it on your talk page. Regards.--Theirrulez (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, how nice. I was wondering when you'd start teaching me about Dalmatian culture. It looks to me like you're trying to create a separate nationality here, much like "Ragusan", that would justify your "italianization" agenda. And please, cut the wordplay, "Dalmatian culture" is that of the region, not any nationality, the "Dalmatian language" is a (non-Italian) Romance language (like Spanish or Romanian) that became extinct in the Early Middle Ages, and a seperate "Dalmatian ethnicity" does not and did not exist (apart from a regional descriptive term).
Quite simply, provide evidence of a scholarly consensus on the existence of a Dalmatian ethnic denomination (in the 17th century) or stop claiming it exists. Also, please don't write essays on Wikipedia talkpages, read WP:TLDR. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. One question: what language did people of the "Dalmatian nationality" speak? Very few people were bilingual in Medieval Dalmatia. Was it the extinct Dalmatian language? Or was it Italian? Was it, perhaps, the Chakavian and Shtokavian dialects which were spoken by these new and exciting people? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we continue maybe in the Dalmatia Talk page or in the Dalmatian Language talk, or in mine?
..'cause we risk to drift off-topic and because we are loading too much this talk.
I'm used to add sources or to cite passages in order to better explain to my interlocutors what i'm talking about, but I saw you invited me to read WP:TLDR. When I read it, I was surprised reading that some consider citing this essay during internal discussions dismissive and rude. As an alternative to citing WP:TLDR, consider creating a section on the editor's talk page and politely ask them to write more concisely.. Theirrulez (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is related to the issue at hand. You should know - you started talking about it. This person was not "Dalmatian" by nationality, simply because such a thing does not (and did not) exist. Prove otherwise or withdraw from your claim. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The person was Venetian, his name was Fausto and his family name was Veranzio.
You see, I don't have to prove anything, I usually don't give demonstration of my point of view, I don't do original research needing proof. I usually offer reliable sources, valuable references, in order to give the community instruments to understand and eventually to agree about subjects of discussions. This is what I did. You didn't and don't do the same. You also ask others to provide proof for their statements supposing yours are right a priori.
This talk page is overwhelmed by your incessant, uninterrupted comment. Not fair. Sorry but I don't have to convince you, you lead me deliberately off-topic. Please read above, there's tons of sources waiting to be examined by you. I already showed, clearly and deeply, what was necessary to be explained about Fausto Veranzio, all the rest are anacronistic ramblings. So I'm not interested in arguing anymore.
Frankly I'm tired. Theirrulez (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Veranzio was born in the Venetian Republic, he long lived in Venice and he died there. Threfore, it is self-evident that the burden of proof rests on those who want him to claim as something else, as Croatian as much as Chinese. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

  • Question - There's a lot to read in this discussion. I'm here from Wikipedia:Requested moves, and I'd like to close this request, either moving the page or not. I have one question: Which spelling is most commonly used in reliable, English language sources? I'll read the above, but I'd like to see a succinct answer to this question, please. Thank you in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
If you define reliable as publications listed in Google Books, then all searches have yielded the same result: "Fausto Veranzio" is more common in reliable English language sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd say that publications in Google Books are often reliable. Another apposite question to ask is this: On which sources is the article actually based? What spelling do they use? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, GTBacchus, you're getting info from only one side of the move discussion. :) The Google tests were basically ambiguous. "Faust Vrančić" gets more Google Book hits in a general search, but "Fausto Veranzio" gets slightly more when you narrow it down to English (322 vs. 242). However, the narrowed-down English language search is as packed full of foreign language publications as the general search, thus basically invalidating the whole premise of researching English usage this way (in this case). "Faust Vrančić" also gets more hits on Google Scholar (191 vs. 75), and ten times more English hits on Google itself (3,650 vs. 365).
To answer your second question, the sources upon which the article is based use "Faustus Verantius" and "Faust Vrančić", none use "Fausto Veranzio".
This person is a HUGE historic figure in Balkans historiography, being the author of the first dictionary of the South Slavic language. This is where the article draws its significance from (as well as its original title - "Faust Vrančić"), and this is why it was created in the first place.
I've seen my share of RMs, and I'll add that in my honest opinion, it is obvious from the move discussion and the poll that there is clearly no consensus for the move in the community, at this time at least. If this is "consensus" then it certainly contrasts with my experience of the term on enWiki, a very strange precedent indeed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Direktor. Don't worry; I'm getting info from the whole discussion, because in addition to asking my questions here at the bottom, I'm going to read it all before I close the request. It's also worth saying that consensus works slightly differently with move requests than it does with, say, deletion discussions.

At articles for deletion, a "no consensus" result defaults to "keep". In this case, we've got the article, and it has to be located at some title. We could leave it where it is, we could move it as requested, or we could move it to some third or fourth option. We can do whatever seems most consistent with our naming conventions, and with being a source-based encyclopedia, as informed by this discussion. A lack of clear consensus for the suggested move doesn't necessarily default to keeping the article at the current title, although that is often what happens.

We do, of course, try to avoid moving an article from one controversial name to another, without a very clear reason why. Carrying out such moves tends to result in long, slow move wars, which are not good for the project.

I italicize that paragraph because it is perhaps the most direct response to your last paragraph above.

I can see that I've got a bit of reading to do, so I'll pour myself a cold beverage and start perusing the discussion now. At this point, all I can really say is that I need to learn more before I can say anything intelligent. Thanks for your summary, Direktor. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 23:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Always nice seeing another innocent victim forced to make sense of the quagmire of Balkans conflicts :), happy reading. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes... Balkan names do come up a lot in move discussions. One has to choose one's battles on Wikipedia, and I refuse to touch anything related to Israel or any nation that borders it. Because of that act of laziness, I think I have to pay my dues in Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Italian/Latin disputes. :)

Just to reply to one theme in the discussion above - you can be sure that I'm not "counting votes", so anyone's attempt to inflate or deflate numbers on one side or the other will fail. Perhaps that's reassuring...? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Some philological basis of English name etymology

I already definitely decided to not comment or arguing in this discussion, but now, even because I'm the one who opened the move request, I'd like to answer to the pertinent question asked by GTBacchus, which seems to fit perfectly the sense of my proposal.
Me and other users (pratically everyone who expressed support for moving to Fausto Veranzio) tried to put aside nationalist arguments that really don't have any applicability to figures from the prenational era. Despite what I read above, this requested move don't belong at all to any balkans naming dispute category. There's not ethnicity matters in this move issue. This move was requested to preserve most common English name. I will try to explain what I mean.
Some users start disputing about Fausto Veranzio ancestry, culture and ethnicity in order to justifing the keeping of the slavicized version of the name: if Croatian historiography consider Veranzio an important figure can be comprehensible but it doesn't matter with the naming: Fernão de Magalhães, or Fernando de Magallañes (in Spanish) is very important for Portuguese hisotriography, but his English name (Ferdinand Magellan) doesn't consider any national claim: Ferdinand Magellan was an anglicized form of Ferdinando Magellano, name used by Antonio Pigafetta, Venetian scholar who wrote a journal which is the unique primary source for much of what we know about Magellan voyage. What we know about Fausto Veranzio, as well, was described esclusively in the first and only English (primary) source about his life: Travels into Dalmatia by the Venetian Abbe Albert Fortis, in which only "Fausto Veranzio" is used as his name. Since the first publication of Fortis' work, English scholar Literature used for century esclusively the name Fausto Veranzio, until recently took place a little influence by Croatian authors and/or Slavic literature start using instead mainly their own slavic form Vrancić.
In my opinion, and according to what I could see, most higher English sources refers him as Fausto Veranzio, while Faust Vrancic is just used by Slavic authors, either in English (often in non-academic sources) and by far in Croatian.
At the end, I would like to note that clicking on the search results links posted above I see very different results than what is claimed. That's easy to explain: I usually perform any kind of google search setting only English sources as default, so even if we didn't use the analitic approach suggested, google test anyways support the move:
Google Books: "Faust Vrančić": 237 hits - "Fausto Veranzio": 322 hits
Google Scholar :"Faust Vrančić": 27 hits - "Fausto Veranzio": 33 hits
Google Scholar (if we esclude citations): "Faust Vrančić": 19 hits - "Fausto Veranzio": 26 hits
The most evident thing, about sources reliability, pertinency and neutrality, is that every single scholar hits of Faust Vrančić is from Slavic authors and belongs to Croatian historiography or Croatian literature, while all scholar hits of Fausto Veranzio are from English authors, mainly about non history-related or history-influenced matters, witnessing his predominat use in scholar and scientific English text. --Theirrulez (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi; thanks for commenting, and thank you also for adding so many sources to the list. :) I have read your comments here, and I hope it won't seem rude if I address them indirectly. As I was reading your account of the scholarly literature regarding this historical figure, I found myself thinking, "this should be in the article."

I mean, I'm not sure exactly how that works, because it would probably happen via the finer-grained sourcing of specific facts about the man. I don't know how much sense that sentence made... it seems that the weight of scholarship using one name versus another should be reflected in the article by the number of facts citing source material in the two languages. Concretely: If there is a preponderance of historiography on our subject in Italian over Croatian, then it should be reflected in a preponderance of facts in the article being cited to Italian rather than Croatian sources.

That paragraph was totally abstract; feel free to take it out back and shoot it. This next part counts:GTB

  • Proposal - Anyone interested in this naming dispute, help fill in the list below, and try to maximize the number of sources that you can decorate with a "cited in article" label by improving the article. That means, use your sources to flesh out the article. Get it from C-class up to B-class, and see which language's sources are more effective. If the article can clearly be better by a preponderance of sources using one spelling, then we'll use that spelling in the title.

    Obviously, the editing is not to be done mindlessly. The article has to actually be improved, and if there's any problem with over-sourcing, we'll deal with it practically and prudently. We also obviously aren't bound to any form of contract. We don't do contract law on Wikipedia, and IAR is always in play. What do people think? Does this idea have merit? -GTBacchus(talk) 08:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A small aside regarding arguments on Wikipedia

I would point out something I've observed, in carrying out thousands of move requests: I have never seen anyone change another person's mind about any argument topic on Wikipedia, unless it happened within the first three exchanges. All effort expended trying to convince the person who disagrees with you is wasted. They won't be convinced, by any argument. I'm sorry, but it doesn't happen. Arguing is fun, and it's fun to write tens of thousands of words telling the other fellow why he's wrong, but it's pointless.

It makes much more sense to invest that energy in some alternative strategy such as opening a neutral request for comment. Of course, in Balkan naming disputes, as noted above, neutrality is very elusive. I have the advantage of not caring at all about the topic at hand, nor having any ethnic feelings for or against Italians or Serbians (although I do enjoy Italian food - what is Serbian cuisine like?). This might still be a bigger knot than I'm able to untie.

Back to my reading assignment... -GTBacchus(talk) 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(Heh, its "Italians or Croats". Though one can't really blame you, the two nationalities are virtually identical... :)) I agree completely with the above, my experience has been pretty much the same, though you are overlooking something - sometimes one guy gets bored and gives up (usually me :).
Serbian/Croatian cuisines are a specific blend of Turkish, German, Hungarian, Italian and local influences. Very few dishes are completely indigenous. Where I live, seafood and local variants on Italian cuisine are most popular. Around here (Mediterranean shore of southern ex-Yugoslavia) we practically eat like Italians (pasta pasta pasta! :), with local variations of course --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh my goodness, how embarrassing! I somehow swapped "Serbian" for "Croatian" in my brain... I apologize.

I spent part of last summer in Trieste, and ate once at a more Balkan-flavored restaurant. We had a plate for the whole table, consisting of about nine different cuts or sausages of beef and pork, served with bread, mustard, sauerkraut and beer. For a carnivore such as myself, it was practically a religious experience. So there you have it: I'm equally happy to dine with Italians and Croatians! Back to the sources now. I'm working on a little something that might be helpful... -GTBacchus(talk) 00:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Side note - There's another naming dispute I'm working on at the same time as this one, over at Talk:Shelby House. I'm sure anyone from here would be quite welcome to voice an opinion over there. It's got nothing at all to do with Italians or Croatians, so your neutrality is virtually assured. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, joining you now, coming from the Talk:Shelby House dispute... Yes, it does seem similar. About this Faust Vrancic / Fausto Veranzo / whatever-named dude, how about titling the article as "Veranzio", which the article states was his signed name in some unpublished works. Or, what else did he sign his works by? But giving it as Veranzio, with immediate mention of alternate names, seems like it could be compromise giving complete satisfaction to neither side, always a worthy goal. :) Also, yes, the dude seems really cool with his highly influential 5 language dictionary and other accomplishments, a Renaissance man. Also, about 3 times then no convincing, is a good observation. In another long-running dispute i was involved in, i wondered about proposing a rule, that participants could only post once in the Talk page arguments per 1 (or 10?) significant edits contributing real material in mainspace. I woulda been able to meet that and we could had a tracking page to account for it without too much difficulty, and it would have completely stopped my then-opponents, or they woulda had to change their stripes. :) --doncram (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Some attempt at order

Ok. I've read the discussion. Most of it is off-topic, but never mind that. I find the raw Google numbers to be almost entirely useless, largely because the restriction to English-language sources simply doesn't function properly. As noted, the English searches are riddled with non-English sources.

Both the Croatian and the Italian names seem to occur in multiple reliable and modern English-language sources. Therefore, I think the best approach might be to compile a list of sources, with preference given to high-quality scholarly ones, according to whether they primarily use the Croatian name, primarily use the Italian name, or don't come down clearly on either side.

The most important sources to consider are those actually cited in the article, and the next most important are other high-quality, scholarly, modern publications.

I'll start a list here, and people can add sources to it, with a minimum of gloss - simply stating, without specially formatted or emphatic text, what the source is, and how the name appears in it. I request that any further commentary be kept out of the list, and placed somewhere below it. The idea here is not to persuade anyone with impassioned rhetoric, nor to make any claims about any editor. Rather, the idea is to compile a list that will be easily readable and understandable by a reader, like myself, who has no previous knowledge of this person or his work. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

List of sources

moved to Talk:Faust Vrančić/List of sources. Thank you for helping build the list. :)
Croatian name used primarily
  • Cultural Link Kanada, Deutschland This is a collection of essays from an exchange program between universities in Canada and Germany. The relevant essay is in English, and is titled "Three Early Slavic Lexicographers: Sigismundus Gelenius, Faustus Verantius, and Petrus Lodereckerus". Despite the Latin name occurring in the title, the Serbian name is used throughout the essay itself. Cited in article. "Faustus Verantius" recurs 4 times, "Faust Vrančić" recurs 4 times, "Fausto Veranzio" also cited (better to move in different names featured list?
  • The Rough Guide to Croatia. This travelers guidebook includes a historical sidebar on "Faust Vrančić" (Faustus Verantius). Cited in article both Vrančić and Verantius used in text
  • Encyclopaedia moderna, Issue 36not acceptable: impossible to determine which name most recurrent [41]. - Can anyone see this source? - No trace of Faust Vrancic, to be cancelled?
  • The Renaissance p.25. "In 1617 Croatian Faust Vrancic tests the first parachute, and in 1620 Dutchman Cornelius Drebbel...."
  • The history of lexicography: papers from the Dictionary Research Centre, pp.68-71. Excerpts on p.68 and on p.71 not visible in preview. From p.70: "On the last six pages of his book Vrancic recorded the complete Croatian text of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Apostle's Creed and Ave Maria in the Croatian vernacular spoken in Dalmatia in the 16th century."
  • Inventions that changed the world, p227: "The Croatian Faust Vrancic went as far as making a parachute based on Leonardo da Vinci's drawing, and used it when he jumped from a tower in Venice in 1617. Vrancic wrote a book entitled New Machines in..."Remainder of passage not available in preview.
  • A history of the Croatian language: toward a common standard. p.79 "Faust Vrancic of Sibenik was the author of the first Croatian dictionary which was published as a separate book. His Dictionarium . . . Linguarum" p.133:"Slavonia had always had 'enough native words for naming things...' and according to Faust Vrancic of Sibenik was distinguished from all other Slovin nations by...."
  • Dutch contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists p.471: "In some cases attention is drawn to the evidence of early texts which render vowel length with some degree of consistency, in particular: [list of examples, including] Faust Vrancic (1551-1617) Dictionarium . . . Linguarum (1595). Vrancic came from a well-known Sibenik family."
  • Lingua, Volume 38 p.167 names his dictionary. p.168: "Analyzing the lexical material of Vrancic's dictionary, with special reference to Hungarian, the eminent lexicologist Janos Melich wrote in 1906 that Vrancic's dictionary in in every respect an independent and original work, which does great credit..." p.169: More about the dictionary, plus: "Faust Vrancic (1551-1617) is renowned in the international world of science as the author of Machinae Novae, Venice, 1595...."
  • A short history of the Yugoslav peoples p.65: "In the late fifteenth century and throughout the sixteenth a number of Slav scholars from Dalmatia achieved European fame in a wide range of intellectual and artistic fields. [text omitted] Autun Vrancic (1504-73, Antonius Verantius) of Sibenik, a truly Renaissance man traveled widely as a diplomat, had love poems published in Krakow, and became Primate of Hungary. He also made translations from Turkish to Latin. His nephew Faust Vrancic (1551-1617) invented machines, wrote texts on logic and ethics, and compiled a dictionary in Latin, Italian, German, Croatian and Magyar."
  • Croatia: travels in undiscovered country p.129: "While the locals may be right [about some previously discussed claim], the rewriting of history in this part of the world and its integration into the national consciousness and school curricula also suggest a need to put the area on the map. Common under communist regimes (that erased the Trotsky image), such rewriting is now practiced by Croat patriots at all levels, especially those operating the tourist machine. For example, [text omitted]. Other sources say Faust Vrancic, author of a book on mechanics and inventions, "Machinae Novae" (1615) designed, constructed and tested the first parachute in history, and even that his first sketch is mistakenly attributed to Leonardo da Vinci."
  • Lonely Planet Croatia Margin note on p.30: "Sibenik-born Faust Vrancic (1551-1617) made the first working parachute."
  • Pont, Issues 1-5 page uncertain: "Faust Vrancic's dictionary of five language is not the oldest lexicographical work in Croatian, but it is more complete and better presented than any before it. Only with Vracic did Croatian lexicography take a serious place in European terms and it was the first of a number of other dictionaries. Vrancic included more than 5,000 words. Being from Sibenik, he took the [illegible] dialect which, like the Tuscan in Italy, he considered the most beautiful Croatian variant. . . " Other excerpt: "And Faust Vrancic included the Croatian language of Dalmatia in his Dictionarium . . . linguarum, ranking it alongside Latin, Italian, German and Hungarian as one of the five noblest languages of Europe."
  • Footprint Croatia p.219: "Not so well documented but even more innovative for its time, several decades later, the local scientist Faust Vrancic (1551-1617) published Machinae Novea[sic], in which he anticipated the invention of the parachute."Something's wrong w/ the grammar in that sentence, never mind the misspelled Latin.
  • History of Yugoslavia p.161: "The versatile writer and inventor Faust Vrancic (1551-1617) set out his various inventive ideas (the parachute, turbine, tide-driven mill) in his work Machinae Novae (1595)." from p.162: "The aforementioned Faust Vrancic composed a Dictionary of the Five Most Distinguished...."
  • Die Welt der Slaven, Volume 28 p.291: "Faust Vrancic himself took holy orders after his wife's death in 1600 and became bishop of the Hungarian diocese of Csanád. / Analyzing the lexical material of Vrancic's Dictionary, with special..."Remaining text not shown in preview.
  • Seminar on Social and Cultural Problems, Volume 1961 p.112: "A number of Serbo-Croatian dictionaries have been published in both Croatia and Serbia since 1595 when Faust Vrancic first published his Dictionarium . . . linguarum:..." Remaining text not available in preview.
Italian name used primarily
  • Lynn White, Jr.: "The Invention of the Parachute", in: Technology and Culture, Vol. 9, No. 3. (1968), pp. 462-467 (463): "Since its form is pyramidal, it may be the source of the next, also square-based, parachute pictured in the work of Fausto Veranzio published circa 1615."
  • Francesco di Giorgio Martini: "Francesco di Giorgio Martini's Treatise on Engineering and Its Plagiarists", in: Technology and Culture, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Summer, 1963), pp. 287-298 (290): "...including horizontal windmills, antedating Besson's and Veranzio's by a hundred years..."
  • Ladislao Reti: "The Two Unpublished Manuscripts of Leonardo Da Vinci in the Biblioteca Nacional of Madrid - I", in: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 110, No. 778, (Jan., 1968), pp. 10-22 (21):"In the West, the idea seemed an impractical fancy, first in Taccola's manuscripts,33 and later, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in the books of Besson and ofVeranzio. Veranzio described several kinds of horizontal windmills: ..."
  • Ocean Energy: Tide and tidal power by Roger H. Charlier and Charles W. Finkl. "The Brooklyn Mill, built after plans by the Italian Veranzio, is one of the few still standing in the New York City area."
  • Chora: Intervals in the Philosophy of Architecture, by Alberto Pérez-Gómez and Stephen Parcell. "Among the books he brought with him to England as a student were... [text omitted] ...the sixteenth century Machine novi by the Italian Veranzio Fausti,..."
  • Leonardo Da Vinci - The Tragic Pursuit of Perfection, A. Vallentin, READ BOOKS - STRATFORD PRESS, 2007, ISBN 9781406729238 «More than a hundred years later the Venetian Veranzio, who may have been acquainted with Leonardo's manuscripts, prepared a square sail...»
  • "Bridges and men", Joseph Gies, Doubleday, University of Michigan, 2009 - «..A more sophisticated version of the same device appeared in an Italian Renaissance engineering book by Fausto Veranzio. ..»
  • Aspects of Materials Handling‎ Dr. K.C. Arora, Vikas V. Shinde - Firewall Media, 2007, ISBN 8131802515, - «The next application was to pull oneself in a basket that also had a few belongings of the traveler. Although Fausto Veranzio of Venice illustrated a bicable passenger ropeway in 1616...»
  • A look at those jumping balloonatics D. Gold, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Aerodynamic Decelerator Conference, 8th, Hyannis, MA; United States; 2-4 Apr. 1984. «..A retrospective of ballooning and parachuting is presented. The balloonists/parachutists considered include Leonardo da Vinci and Fausto Veranzio (who first described parachutes), Sebastion Lenormand, the Montgolfier brothers, and Jeanne-Pierre Blanchard.»
  • Engineering in history‎, Richard Shelton Kirby, Technology & Engineering, 1990 «In 1595 and again in 1617 Fausto Veranzio (1551-1617), Dalmatian bishop, illustrated in print his conception of a truss bridge made with metal rods and...»
  • Everybodys Book of Facts, F. L. Dunbar, History, 2006 ISBN 1406737216 - «Leonardo's ideas were expanded by Fausto Veranzio who, in 1617, published a detailed plan for die construction of a parachute. ...»
  • Means and Methods Analysis of a Cast-In-Place Balanced Cantilever Segmental Bridge: Veranzio’s Machinae Novae Gunnar Lucko - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2000 «Brown (1993) mentions the ideas of another outstanding architect and engineer, Fausto Veranzio (or Faustus Verantius, 1551 - 1617), who published his Machinae Novae (Veranzio 1615) in about 1615. [omissis] Veranzio compiled a comprehensive volume of existing and theoretical mechanical engines, mostly watermills, windmills, clocks, a parachute. [omissis] Two editions of Machinae Novae are known, one of which contains the copperplate engravings and the text in Latin and Italian, another edition additionally contains the text in old-fashioned Spanish, French and German. Several other books of mechanical engines were published in aboutthis time. The afterword of Veranzio’s facsimile edition mentions a number of other authors.»
  • The Invention of the Parachute, Lynn White, Jr. © 1968 Society for the History of Technology. - JSTOR "Since its form is pyramidal, it may be the source of the next, also square-based, parachute pictured in the work of Fausto Veranzio published circa...."
  • Dangers in Sport Parachuting, Anton Westman, Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Umeå University, Sweden ISSN 0346-6612 ISBN 978-91-7264-751-3 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum "Another possible parachute design proposed in Renaissance Italy predates the da Vinci parachute with about a decade. In 1595, Italian Fausto Veranzio also designed a parachute."
  • Ancient Windmills (abstract), Allan Gomme, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics - «...which appear to be copied directly from the sixteenth century sketch-books of Besson (1569), Ramelli (1588), and Veranzio (1595).»
  • The birth of modern science The making of Europe, P. Rossi, Wiley-Blackwell, 2001 ISBN 9780631227113 «...Three books on mechanics by Simon Stevin or Stevinus (1548-1620); Machine Novae (1595) by Fausto Veranzio and Novo theatro di machine et edifitii by Vittorio Zonca (1568-1602); and the navigational treaties of Thomas Hariot (1560-1621) and Robert Hues (1553-1662)...»
  • History of Technology History of Technology, Graham Hollister-Short. The auctor is Honorary Lecteur of the Imperial College of London. A brief history of the technology through the centuries. Hollister-Short uses esclusively "Fausto Veranzio" as his name.
  • INNOVATIONS IN AIR INSERTION (INVOLVING PARACHUTES), Sam Brasfield, Gordon McCormick (Chairman, US Department of Defense Analysis) Naval Postgraduate School Monterrey, Ca, USA; Pub. Defense Technical Information Center -- «...Although very few people believe that da Vinci ever tested his parachute, a century later, his countryman Fausto Veranzio built a similar parachute and reportedly used it to jump from a tower in Venice.» and «...Leonardo da Vinci and Fausto Veranzio’s canopy designs from the 15th and 16th centuries, respectively, left to right.»
  • ISES Congress 2007 Nothing New Under the Sun or Every Little Bit Helps Tidal Power: Status & Perspectives R.H. Charlier, M.C.P. Chaineux, C.W. Finkl, A.C Thys, Vol. I–V, Springer « ..The Brooklyn tidal mill, one of the numerous such mills of Long Island (NY), was built after the plan of another Italian, Veranzio.»
  • A History of Aeronautics, E. Charles Vivian, «One other a Venetian architect named Veranzio. studied da Vinci's theory of the parachute, and found it correct, if contemporary records and even pictorial.. [omissis] ..Veranzio modified it to a 'sort of squared sail'..[omissis]..Veranzio intended to convey that the sheet must be of such content as would enclose sufficient air.. [omissis] ..Veranzio made his experiments about 1617-1618, but, naturally, they carried him..»
  • Michael John Haddrick Taylor, History of Flight (1991). Haddrick Taylor is one of the most important historian of the aviation in the world, editor of "Jane's Encyclopedia of the aviation" «...Da Vinci's parachute was followed by the first published design, to be found in the Venetian work Machinae Novae, by Fausto Veranzio (c. 1595). The Veranzio design had a cloth attached to a square frame...»
Both names highly featured, or neither version preferred
  • "Innovators and Innovations" from the Hungarian Quarterly, 2001. "Several countries may claim Faustus Verancsics (1550-1617), who was born in Dalmatia, and educated in Hungary from childhood (in the Pozsony home of his uncle, Antal Verancsics, the Archbishop of Esztergom)." Cited in article

Discussion

I've made a start. I've included the sources cited in the article that I was able to view and find the name in. I also added two of the sources that User:Theirrulez cited in his "Analitic approach" post above. I invite others to add sources to this list, and we'll see what kind of picture emerges. A nice side-effect of this strategy, besides shifting the focus away from editors and onto specific sources, is that we may end up fining good material to add to the article, thus improving it as a result of this discussion.

Does that sound good? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I just want to add this, and then I want to get out of the way and see what happens. Yesterday, I couldn't have cared less about the relatively obscure early-modern-era polymath Faustus Verantius, by any other name. Now, after sifting through all of this, I'm kind of interested and impressed. Not only did he write a 5-language parallel dictionary, which is awesome; he was also a parachute pioneer, who demonstrated his invention by personally jumping off a building! And he was a bishop! And what, a fortifications specialist or something? That's amazing.

    I want to know more about him now, and I think that, for two ethnic groups who are each proud and eager to claim this amazingly talented man as their own, my increased interest is a triumph for both sides.

    That energy can be directed into the article, and you can expose his history to more people than just a bored admin/graduate math student who enjoys closing move requests. Maybe this should be how we settle naming disputes? Everyone wins. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I like it! I'm kind of interested and impressed too. :) Sir Floyd (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me say I really apreciate the method you proposed which is the only one IMHO can be used to improve the article. Altough let me emphasize again it shouldn't be a dispute between two ethnic groups, even if it seems to be, or someone want it to be right now. Someone was, and is, disputing about how can be translated his pre-national ethnicity (Venetian) into a modern citizenship (Italian or Slavic/Croatian), in an anacronistic attempt to make him a national patrimony.
As said above, two different approach can be founded scrolling and reading related sources, one from all English (British and American) authors, naturally using the native name "Veranzio" in their works; another from all Croatian historiographers, who, using mainly the croatized version Vrančić, had gradually given him a more and more important position in Croatian History Literature, almost in order to contribute in building a Croatian national self consciousness background. This aspect is not pertinent with the choice of the most commmon English name, so I hope it will keep separated from it, just for not feeding bad approach to the discussion and above all to the result of this proposal. - Theirrulez (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. three approaches. One the native (Croatian) and 1 by Italians and 3rd party. Yes, in history 3rd party preferred an Italian ones (simply copying them) but that is the history. Now English sources use native Croatian names. As for the cities so for the persons.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.75.3 (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. As you can see in the list above, also today many English sources use the "Italian" name.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, you can sit here and say what modern English sources use, but the point is to show it by collecting reliable sources that use either name, getting them into the article, and then seeing afterward which name seemed to come up more often.

The idea isn't to somehow already be right; the idea is to improve the article and then find out which name is more common in our sources. Therefore, please put aside the abstract argument over why one name occurs more often, and work on the article. The truth will come out in the wash, but only if you actually do the wash. Let's work together. Find the good sources --> List them here --> Use them in the article. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

These comments are exactly what I mean to avoid, asking to examine only sources and not to feed nationality dispute. :( - Theirrulez (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Theirrulez, I agree that we want to avoid talking about nationality, so let's really not talk about it. Let's talk about the sources. Let's not talk at all about why someone might bring nationalism into it, and ignore anything along those lines.

On topic, can anyone explain what's going on with the Encyclopedia Moderna source in the first list above, and why it says "not acceptable", and "impossible to determine which name most recurrent"? Does that mean it should be moved to one of the other lists, or... what does that mean? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean " Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World: Their Ships, Aircraft, and Systems"? This sourse is about a ship. Koven 23:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I saw that one appear and disappear, and it made sense. Someone had added a comment about the Encyclopedia Moderna source, but it's gone now. I'm not sure what happened. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree not to talk at all 'bout it. Whatever, two or more comments are smartly gone exactly this way: [42]...--Theirrulez (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is getting to be a sizable list. I'm already thinking about how to chop it up and make it more useful as a writing aid. One first level of sorting should be to separate out the truly trivial sources, which don't contribute anything to the article, such as cases where Verantio's name only occurs in a list, which doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know from better sources in both lists. Those can then be removed uncontroversially. After that, I imagine separating scholarly sources from more informal ones, not with an eye to throwing away either.

What we really want is to get them organized according to which part of the article they support, and we can choose the best sources for the various citations. I think double-citing as we work would be a reasonable safeguard against undue friction. I don't know, we could go lots of directions with a thing like this.

I hope people here don't mind the unconventional RM closure. I didn't want to just pick a side, or count "!votes".

I wonder if we should set up a sub-page for the list of sources? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You seems alone in this hard job my friend =)) --Theirrulez (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I normally wouldn't work this hard on anything; I'm a very lazy person. It's just that I'm trying something here, and it intrigues me. Like I said, I realize I'm hijacking this move request, but I don't think just closing it would have been better. If this works, that is to say, if we improve the article and settle the naming dispute in a sensible way... then I'll recommend it as a general strategy for controversial naming questions.

It's true that someone has to do some legwork, but you put in a great effort on half of the list, and I couldn't let all those links just sit there undecorated. :)

Meanwhile, I've just set up: Talk:Faust Vrančić/List of sources. Check it out! -GTBacchus(talk) 04:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While you think what and how to do, I will restore comments magically erased ;) --Theirrulez (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That's good. I like the way it's looking. I think a couple of ideas are suggesting themselves:
  1. If it's a guidebook, it's not going to tell us anything new; those are almost trivial mentions by definition.
  2. If there's any question as to whether a certain name is used primarily, then we can move it into the unclear section for discussion, with no prejudice against moving it back if we agree which name is primary in that source.
I'm okay with both of those. Others? Any objections to how this is going so far? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm ok too, it seems working. --Theirrulez (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
One thing should probably be noted, GTBacchus: User:Theirrulez's main pursuit on enWiki since his itWiki account was blocked was the indiscriminate translation of Croatian history articles to Italian (as a cursory glance at his contribs can reveal). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
No comment. --Theirrulez (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC) I promised.
Indeed, what is there to comment? I'm merely describing your commitment to your point of view, and I don't see anything in my statement that isn't overtly evident. It seems this is your one and only interest on enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, I'm not interested in your claims about each other; I'm interested in improving the article. I'm quite observant and intelligent, and if Theirrulez' behavior here is not in keeping with how Wikipedia works, I will notice it. Please trust me to do that, and please stay on topic on this page. Thank you.

Comment on the content, not on the contributor. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about procedure

Forgive me my ignorance, but I don't still quite understand what the procedure now is to determine the name of the article? I think what is needed is a clear answer to that point before we can proceed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koven990 (talk • contribs)

The name of the article will be determined after the article is improved, at least to B-class quality. There is no deadline, and we are not in a hurry. Just add sourced material to the article, and the naming issue will come out in the wash. Like I said earlier, though, this will only happen if people agree to do the wash, i.e., add sourced facts to the article, using high-quality sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and no worries about "ignorance" of this process. We're inventing it right now. :) I think it's going well so far, though we haven't yet started editing the article constructively from the list. There's more work to be done sorting sources first. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The choice to not rename the article until it will not be improved is an hard choice. I didn't try yet, but when I underlined biography section was completely unsourced, unverified and pov, ethnicity matters xploded in the talk page and the only think I earned is some slurs about my nationalism (I'm not Venetian, the only Venice I ever visited is a beach on the west coast). Of course I don't agree with what's stated in the article and I think it will be a good idea to take a look to some primary sources.- Theirrulez (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there's hard work to do. I just don't see any other solution that accomplishes more than raising tensions without improving the article. I think it's clear from our list of sources that the article can be made much better than it is now.

The work won't involve adding tags to the article, pointing out how it's unsourced. Doing that, as you found out, only raises tensions. We actually have to use the sources to fix that section, and the other sections, as well.

It'll be fun. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 19:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's try. --Theirrulez (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fausto_Veranzio/Archive_2&oldid=1136721642"