Talk:Republic of Ragusa

Active discussions


From what I understand, the original motto was in Latin and I don't know Latin, but the motto in Italian would be better translated in English as "Liberty is not to be sold for all the gold in the world".MihaiC (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's would be a better translation. --Theirrulez (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Article's use of language.Edit

This article needs quite a bit of editing. Parts of it are in terrible English and other parts look like they could have come from Gibbons Decline and fall of the Roman Empire!1812ahill (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Coat of ArmsEdit

I remember clearly that the coat of arms on this page was this [1], this is also the official CoA of Dubrovnik even today and it was shown here as well before someone changed it into current version. First let me start by saying that the current coat of arms is not a historical one. In fact it is a result of a wrong interpretation. It is well sourced that the CoA of the Dubrovnik Republic was the old Hungarian royal CoA (barry of 8 argent and gules - Arpad dynasty CoA with 8 red and white (silver) lines) and that the flag was the one with St.Blasius. It was decreed by law since 1360s when the Dubrovnik Republic accepted suzerainty of the Hungarian (and Croatian king) Louis I, all other symbols were outlawed as in the city and also in the republic as a whole. The change of white lines into blue ones was a wrong interpretation that appeared in later period after the republic was abolished due to CoA's with templates within the white lines (it was common at that time to decorate CoA's with various templates and decorative lines) which turned to blue color due to deterioration of the paper and the ink. These first appeared in around 18th century to emphasize to the silver (white) color. Shokatz (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Several Examples: Doors of the Sponza palace (seat of the Republic's govt. till the republic is abolished by Napoleon [2], CoA preserved in the state archive museum in Dubrovnik [3], documents of Ragusan consul kept in Portugal (clearly shows red and white lines) [4], In his book Copioso ristretto degli annali di Rausa (in which he described voting procedure in the republic) Giacomo Di Pietro Luccari (Jakov Lukarić) describes the state emblem/coa of arms of Ragusa (on the voting boxes) as the one of Hungary (page 155), red and white lines [5]. Etc, etc. Shokatz (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you're right. If I recall, I only switched the coa because a couple Italian users complained the old one was unsourced (as it was). One request: please insert the sources so we don't have to go through this again. -- Director (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Will do. Do I just insert them in the source section of the image? I was actually thinking of maybe even creating/translating the 'Coat of Arms of Dubrovnik Republic' article from Croatian Wikipedia since it is very well written and well sourced. Or maybe to create a subsection on this article? Shokatz (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
My advice would be to create a Coat of arms of Dubrovnik article, since both the Republic and the modern city apparently use the same coa. In fact, I just created one :). Also created the Flag of Dubrovnik article. -- Director (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah well...since you already created them I will see to expand on those. :) Shokatz (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In European and World HistoryEdit

Removed the section "In European and World History," as its only assertion (that Ragusa was the first nation to recognize US independence) was both not supported by the supplied source (which only says that Ragusa was "among the first") and contradicts the lengthy and well-supported article "US-Morocco relations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utuu (talkcontribs) 20:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Ragusa vs. Republic of DubrovnikEdit

The latter, surprisingly (at least to me), seems to yield more results on search engines (about twice as many as Republic of Ragusa). Same for Does that have any bearing on how this article should be named? The only reason why I even compared the search volumes to begin with is because a user implied, while making a revert on another article on WP (Dalmatia), that "Republic of Dubrovnik" is not how it's called in English and that "Republic of Ragusa" is the proper name. (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have 18,000 hits for "République de Raguse" and 8,400 hits for "République de Dubrovnik'...--Lubiesque (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but this is about English usage and the English Wikipedia, not about French language. Conventions will obviously differ between languages (with local Slavic terminology not even having a "Republika Raguza" or anything similar). For one, the English Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't seem to have a mention of "Republic of Ragusa" in its article about Dubrovnik, instead it uses "Republic Dubrovnik". (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Gbook hits, in this case, is inessential. I don't see a move to "Republic of Dubrovnik" plausible. 21st-century English sources favour Ragusa, while the use of "Republic of Dubrovnik (Ragusa)" and likes is widespread. As per hisorical actuality, "Ragusa" is the name.--Zoupan 17:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
I stumbled by chance upon this article and discussion. I agree with Zoupan. Ragusa is ubdoubtedly the historical name of the city. All tags and official documents visible in the city and dating before the 1900s refer to it with this name. The name Dubrovnik started appearing on documents and tags in the 20th century, when the Republic was no longer existing. Greetings from Dubrovnik/Ragusa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Being it is an English Wikipedia, English results make more sense than Italian. Seems obvious to me. I think changing to Republic of Dubrovnik or perhaps have it in parentheses makes more sense and is fair. The names Dubrovnik and Ragusa coexisted for centuries. Dubrovnik used since the 12th century. Dubrovnik was a name used for a while before the 20th century by citizens there. They are different names for the same city in different languages. Seems kind of like Croatia/Hrvatska. It confuses people often it is the same country or city. And every language has a different adaptation. (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


For other side the Serb-Catholic movement in Dubrovnik was a pan-Serb cultural and political campaign in Dubrovnik active at various periods between the 1830s and the interwar period. The group of local Catholic intellectuals, known as Serb-Catholics, espoused a Serb sentiment, who understood to Dubrovnik as a city historically under Serbian heritage. [1] [2]

Before the fall of the republic, nobody talk about the etnicity, The modern concept of nationality, based on ethnic concepts as language, culture, religion, custom, etc., was developed only in the 19th century. For this reason the attribution of a definite "nationality" or ethnic affiliation to personalities of the previous centuries, living in ethnically mixed regions, is often indeterminable;[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"the attribution of a definite "nationality" or ethnic affiliation to personalities of the previous centuries, living in ethnically mixed regions, is often indeterminable" correct, but then why do you want to mention a movement that covered 0,1% od Dubrovnik's population in the late 19th century? That doesn't even relate to this article as this one covers the period of the Republic of Ragusa that lasted until 1807. Tzowu (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this does not even belong to the same period covered by this article. Detoner (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I get a list of their rulers?Edit

Do they have their own Wikipedia page? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Ivanov, in these cases it always helps to check the Wikipedias in the related languages (i.e. Croatian/Italian here) as well as the major Wikipedias (German, French, Spanish, Russian). The itwiki has a list: [6]. Constantine 14:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I forgot to check them. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Banac, Ivo (1983), "The Confessional "Rule" and the Dubrovnik Exception: The Origins of the "Serb-Catholic" Circle in Nineteenth-Century Dalmatia", Slavic Review (Slavic Review, Vol. 42, No. 3) 42 (3): 448–474, doi:10.2307/2496046, JSTOR 2496046;
  2. ^ *Goran Mladineo: Prikaz knjige: Nikola Tolja, Dubrovački Srbi katolici – istine i zablude, vlastita naklada, Dubrovnik, 2011., 711 str, Časopis za suvremenu povijest br. 3/2012., str. 800-803
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Whyte-1961 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

IP editsEdit

Regarding this and this, comments are needed on the material. IP initially reverted with "nationalist propaganda" rationale. Then the IP reverted claiming to have read the sources. I'll alert the relevant WikiProjects (those seen at the top of this talk page) to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Quote from source cited within article:

The Serbs and the Slavs of the south were rapidly converted to Orthodox Christianity. The Croats in the north, however, were finally to be won over to the Roman form of the faith by missionaries sent to them by the papacy and the Franks.

From source I believe his edits are correct; although Christianization of the Serbs and the other Slavic tribes also began at this time. should be modified to mention that the southern Slavs were so christianized, not all Slavs. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the subject, but if those are the only sources, I would argue against including this text. I would be wary of using only Serbian sources here to back such statements. DaßWölf 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Iazyges and Daß Wölf, thanks for weighing in. I just wanted more eyes, and especially those more knowledgeable on the topic than me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Rampant Croatization of the history of RagusaEdit

This article, as most of the articles dealing with Istria and Dalmatia, displays a manipulative, one sided, ultra-nationalistic approach by Croatians editors. It is not allowed any attempt to correct blatant lies about circumstances, people and events concerning the history of Ragusa. In the specific, it has been reverted the addition of the corresponding italian names of Ragusan writers who are only described in their croatian version.

This is not congruent with the affirmation:".......Literary works of famous Ragusans were written in both Croatian and Italian...." just above the list of the mentioned writers. If they wrote both in italian and croatian why we should not give also the italian version of their names?

Magnagr (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I would urge you to remain civil and assume good faith. The reason you give for adding extra names is not relevant to WP policy nor reasonable -- cf. Franz Kafka who spoke Yiddish as well as German, yet it would add little clarity to include his name in Hebrew script in parentheses wherever he's mentioned. Anyone who's interested in a writer's name in other languages can easily find them at their respective article, if the names in these languages are notable as to be included. DaßWölf 23:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
No offence, but I don't think yours is an appropriate example.
Kafka was a jewish but Prague was not founded and ruled along all its history by jewish. In the Universities of the Austrian empire lessons were not delivered in Yiddish and books were predominantly written in Germans. Jewish were a minority in the Habsburg empire while Italian/Romance/Latin population was not a minority in Ragusa. Surely jewish cultural contribution to Prague was hugely superior to the one given by Croats to Ragusa. The original name and surnames of the Ragusan writers listed in the article were Italians not Croatian.
When it was abolished in 1808 by the Napoleonic army, the small but influential and immensely rich maritime republic left a gigantic archive in which all government documents were written first in Latin, then in “vulgar” Italian and finally in modern Italian. In the daily business of the government and in diplomacy (Ragusa had over 80 consulates in every major European and Middle Eastern city), the official language of the small republic was Italian. Furthermore, at one point the Slavic language – spoken by an ever increasing number of immigrants and refugees – was even officially banned by the Ragusan government.
The mentioned writers should not even be remembered with the croatian version of their names. Result? I am not even allowed to add their italian original family name.
All this boil down to the concepts expressed in my first passage: rarely a reader can come across to such amount of half truths, tendentious presentations, patriotic rhetoric and grotesque nationalistic grandiosity as it happens when dealing with wikipedia articles about Istria and Dalmatia.
Magnagr (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You're also not supposed to add (习近平) next to every link to Xi Jinping nor (Kaiser Wilhelm I.) next to every mention of William I, German Emperor. Whose irredenta is to blame for that? DaßWölf 22:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I am promoting friendship and mutual understanding among different cultures and my proposal goes in this direction.
Romanization of (习近平) in Xi Jinping is like transforming Nikola Nalješković in Niccolò Nale with the difference that the original name of Niccolò Nale was Niccolò Nale and not Nikola Nalješković.
If a french guy from Marseille whose name is Julien Martin become bilingual because surrounded by north african immigrants and decide to write some books also in arabic, it does not authorize someone to remember him as Junaid Marwazi instead of Julien Martin.
The prevalent culture in Ragusa was italian, attaching only slavic names to people Italian by ethnicity, culture and ancestry is an anomaly and an open provocation.
Magnagr (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. You're saying we need to highlight everywhere that Nale/Nalješković was italianised?
I'd also ask that you stop with the insulting insinuations for reasons of civility as well as common sense. Speaking from experience: when you find yourself believing that Wikipedia has conspired against your POV, it often so happens that your POV is not as neutral as you used to think. DaßWölf 17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Xi Jinping name has been used instead of 习近平 because most of humanity does not understand mandarin and use latin alphabet instead of chinese characters.
Regarding Niccolò Nale there was no need of translating his name into Nikola Nalješković since pure latin alphabet is better known than Gaj's Latin -official version of croatian alphabet was established in 1830, 22 years after the Republic of Ragusa was abolished and 300 years after Niccolò Nale was born - and since Niccolo'Nale came from an italian family and grew up in an italian cultural environment of a city whose identity was italian.
I don't take it personally.
In this article:
someone dared also to add the italian (original) version to some people associated with the Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik Nobility). See the names associated with the coat of arms of the nobility from which came most of the writers who are now labelled as croatian. Are they croatian or italian names? do they use both the languages?
This is in conflict with your position:
"........The reason you give for adding extra names is not relevant to WP policy nor reasonable....."
So I don't think I am doing something unreasonable or breaking WP rules. I am even too good by allowing to keep the croatian version of the original italian name.
Magnagr (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any of this as arguments in favour of keeping both names, but rather arguments for removing non-Italian language names, based on reasons of WP:EXISTS, WP:OFFICIAL (this not backed by sources), assumed (and unsourced) conceptions about the personal life of the link target, etc. None of this carries much weight on Wikipedia -- even if it argued in favour of using names in parentheses. As I understood your last sentence, your goal is to only use a single name -- the Italian one -- so I'm not sure why we're arguing adding parentheses at all. DaßWölf 23:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Please don't try to put in my mouth words that I did not say . Unlike you, I am more than happy to keep both the languages.
You are against one of the pillar of WP which is common sense WP:Use common sense.
There are many examples of people related to Ragusa whose names are both indicated in croatian and italian.
The practice of adding names of people in different languages is common in WP, so it would be only your personal decision, and not the general one, to apply the rule of not including in this article the italian version of the writers'names.
I am not trying to add the armenian or vietnamese version of the croatian names but the italian one. Italian culture was the prevalent one along all the history of Ragusa and does not need to be sourced, if you really need sources about that just read my last comment on "The official language was Italian not Venetian".
Moreover, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an integral party of the Lisbon Treaty, stipulates that language diversity is one of the fundamental values respected by the EU, political and economic union which includes Croatia and Italy.
Magnagr (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Names in other languages may be added to the WP:LEAD or discussed in a separate section of the article concerning the name. They aren't appended to passing mentions in other articles. As I said, you're not going to encounter "Xi Jinping (习近平)", "Emperor William I (Kaiser Wilhelm I.)", "Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła)", etc. unless there's a good reason to elucidate why this person needs to be identified by this name too. For instance, does our featured article Romeo and Juliet state "However, the reference is part of a polemic against the moral decay of Florence (Firenze), Lombardy (Lombardia), and the Italian Peninsula (Penisola italiana)..."? Even so, these non-English names would all be more pertinent to their respective subjects than "Niccolò Nale", "Niccolò di Nale" and other various forms appearing on surviving documents (the idea of an "official" name was rather more fleeting at that time, especially in a bilingual culture, than in the modern world; not to mention "ò" is actually a modernised form of "o'", so neither of those renderings were actually official in the 16th century) are to a person who, as our article states, self-identified as a Croat, wrote a great deal in Croatian language and fought for the recognition of Croatian people and language separately from the "Slavic"/"Illyrian" epithet for non-Romance Dalmatians. DaßWölf 02:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems funny to me the other editor doesn’t deem it “ultra-nationalistic” to use Ragusa the Italian dominion instead of Dubrovnik. By their logic that is Italianization. Which was a factor when Venice took over and instilling the Italian language set. One could say they have a bias here with such accusatory language. I’ve seen Croatization, Serbianization and Italianization of the region’s history and citizens. Truth is there was a huge slavic presence there. Mostly Croats. A significant amount of Serbs and Italians as well. With a lot of intermixing. The territory was passed around through so many powers. (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The official language was Italian not VenetianEdit


1m.31s Magnagr (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit because it wasn't backed by sources, and because the sources supplied here aren't satisfactory to establish the official language. Firstly, these are not reliable sources in the context of the article. Secondly, it seems readers are expected to understand they need to read a certain text appearing in this source, presume that this is written in the official language, and then reckon which language it is. That would be synthesis, a form of original research. DaßWölf 23:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not my POV
".........The Italian spoken in Dalmatia before that time was not the Venetian dialect; in some parts it had a distinct form of its own, in others it resembled the form into which Latin had passed in the south of Italy or Umbria, and it was only after 1420 that it began to assimilate itself to the Italian of Lombardy and Venetia. At Ragusa it never became Venetian at all, and to this day resembles rather the Tuscan dialect than any other, while the patois of the common people is a curious medley of Italian and Illyric, with traces of rustic Latin, Vlach or Rouman...."
T. G. Jackson, Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, 1887
".....At the present day, at Cattaro or Spalato, along the Dalmatian coast-land on each side of Ragusa, you hear the Venetian dialect; at Ragusa the language is pure Tuscan=italian. St. Blasius, and not the lion of St. Mark, adorns the mediaeval walls and gates of Ragusa...."
Sir Arthur Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina on Foot During the Insurrection, 1877
".....“Ragusa is built in the Italian style, and assimilates with the Italian towns, both in the customs and language of its inhabitants.......”
Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, Volume 23, 1845
".........It is to the Latins of Dalmatia that we must look for evidences of culture and intellectual progress, and not to the Slavs. ... Ragusa, the Dalmatian Athens, has sometimes been held up as an example of Slavonic culture, but this is only partially the case, for the history of Ragusa is uniformly that of a Latin rather than a Slavonic city. The public acts were recorded either in Latin or Italian, never in Illyric, except in case of correspondence with a Slavonic power...."
T. G. Jackson, Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, 1887...."
As a side note, even in Venice italian and not venetian was the official language:
Yes, it seems that there is a stronger case for calling this language Italian than Venetian, so I'm going to leave that alone for now. However, these sources don't obviously agree the language should be called Italian either. For example, to cite Jackson, "in some parts it had a distinct form of its own" -- that's obviously not a way to refer to Standard Italian. Besides, Jackson was a travel writer who travelled the region a good century after the Republic was disbanded, and during the peak of the Italian irredentism. I'm not sure that what he encountered would've been a good fit for the centuries during which the Republic existed. DaßWölf 02:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Stated in the article that Dubrovnik was Derive by a Turkish word?Edit

I don’t believe I see a source or strong one at that backing this up. The Name had existed before Turks moved into the area, no? The name Dubrovnik of the Adriatic city is first recorded in the Charter of Ban Kulin (1189).[1] It is mostly explained as dubron, a Celtic name for water (Gaulish dubron, Irish dobar, Welsh dŵr, dwfr, Cornish dofer), akin to the toponyms Douvres, Dover, and Tauber[2]; or originating from a Proto-Slavic word dǫbъ meaning 'oak'. The term dubrovnik means the 'oakwood', as in all other Slavic languages the word dub, dàb, means 'oak' and dubrava, dąbrowa means the 'oakwood'. (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

POV by some users?Edit

@Sadko:@WEBDuB: please stop edit warring. You do not have a consensus for such changes. I have given the recent edits good faith but it has been pointed out that your recent edits are POV. False interpretation of citations shows bad faith on your side. Please stop doing that and explain your actions. There is also concern that he provided sources are not RS. Please stop edit warring. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out that there is only one non-Balkan source used in these edits by the two users, apart from the one from 1875, and that one was misquoted. Tzowu (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Just a note in observation, it seems the two editors POV pushing in this article are doing so on multiple same articles together. Where one is present, the other appears too. For example the U boj, u boj article. Perhaps just a coincidence? Another note, just because there is a source for an edit doesn’t mean it is necessarily RS, placed in context or even properly reflecting the cited source. OyMosby (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple sources that describe the native language of Ragusan citizens was Serbian. Certainly, neither Serbian nor Croatian were used at the time, so it may be only fair that it be referred to as “neutral” Serbo-Croatian everywhere or something like Slavic / Illyrian. Futhermore, it is worth mentioning interesting information about the use of Cyrillic script, which is also confirmed by Croatian sources. Therefore, it would be fair to write the name in Cyrillic, as it exists in Latin, etc. @OyMosby: what do you want to say? It is common for the some authors to follow similar articles. Most of the other things we edit are unrelated topics. In fact, I often face multiple “associate” editors in such sensitive topics.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It is a wide variety of specific articles in a very very narrow time window. OyMosby (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
What seems to be wrong? I have added material from a book by noted professor of Ragusan literature. Why are you removing sourced content under the "consensus" narrative which is just means of keeping the status quo? Professor S. Stipcevic is an expert on the subject. Furthermore, Cyrilic script is at the core of Republic of Ragusa and most of its older text were written in Cyrilic. I do not see any real issue here. Calling my edits here "POV" is really sad on several levels. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
No, what’s sad is the ethnic driven POV pushing. The lead was changed to have Ragusa in Cyrillic despite it being a mainly Latin based Republic. Trying to paint Cyrillic as it’s core is not factual. Nor is claiming “most of its old texts were written in Cyrillic” Italian historians would laugh you out of the room for that claim. OyMosby (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Cyrilics was in RR from the very start. You have no idea what you are talking about.[3][4] The oldest poem from Republic of Ragusa was written in 1421 in Cyrilics by Džonko Kaličević.[5] Or you can take a look at Ninac Vukosalić or Frančesko Micalović Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I have to say that this kind of editing and some statements are very disturbing. Edit warring is not acceptable. Falsely representing what the sources state indicates a certain attempt to make a POV push. Stating that "The documents were also written in Cyrillic script" was misleading and backed with a "handwritten copy". Was the Cyrillic script the official script of Republic of Ragusa? Arguments like “neutral” Serbo-Croatian need to be generally applied all across Wikipedia and no just when it suits the users in question. The noted professor of Ragusan literature is not RS. "Certainly, neither Serbian nor Croatian were used at the time..." what the author wanted to say escapes my imagination. If users are prepared to make such arguments then they need to be consistent and not just use different arguments when it suits them. This just shows bad faith. Especially proclaiming that "There are multiple sources that describe the native language of Ragusan citizens was Serbian" and then using a 19th century source. That kind of undue weight can be and is misleading. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yap, Ragusans were hardcore Croats (only they didn't know it for some reason) and this is all our Great Serbian agenda. Everything about Ragusa must be only about Croatian culture. Why? - Because we can. Luckily, this is not Croatian Wikipedia, but and we must have WP:NPOV. Lo and behold. those filthy Servs/Vlachs have no culture nor state and they want to steal from their neighbours. I know the drill in and out. That is, indeed, distrubing. Even more disturbing is that such fringe/POV views are promoted by heads of university departments in Cro.[6][7] Enough off-topic, that is not my problem.
Serbo-Croatian is the best option when it comes to Ragusans. Do you really think that "Ilyrian", "our language", "Slavic" "Servian letters" should be translated as only and only Croatian? That is POV pushing, and pointing fingers at user/s who are providing sources is...
She is a great university professor and her book is not about politics, but about literature. Why isn't it RS, based on what? I have that book in my library, what is so suspicious about it? Her nationality? I hope not.
Cyrilic script was official in one of the state organs of the RR, see Serbian Chancellery in Dubrovnik + [8]
This kind of editing? Please do not preach about morals and etiquette, considering that you have previously accused me that I am "pushing some information" while there is a a big earthquake in Croatia, in order to "get away with it". You have discredited yourself with that statement for good. Focus on the content, do not make generalisations, stop ignoring sources and waving WP:IDONTLIKEIT flag, pretty please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This is one of those articles where neutral, reliable sources do matter, and not fringe theories that these two users are trying to push on a variety of Croatia-related articles, particularly on the period of the Republic of Dubrovnik (a topic ban should be seriously considered). So this is what reliable sources say:

R. Anthony Lodge, Stefan Pugh: Language contact and minority languages on the littorals of Europe, 2007: "at the end of the 14th century, most inhabitans of Dubrovnik spoke Croatian"[9]

Robin Harris, Dubrovnik - a history, 2006 (first published in 2003). Section on language in Dubrovnik: "There is thus, for example, no evidence that Ragusans felt that their general use of Croatian, apparent in everyday speech from the late thirteenth century, and increasingly so in literary works from the mid-fifteenth century, marked out an alternative cultural direction." [...] "Diversis notes that in his day there was still in use in the debating chamber and the courts what was known as Old Ragusan. It contained elements of Italian and Croatian and was probably a survival of Dalmatian Latin, a distinct Romance language spoken in urban centres on the Dalmatian and Albanian coast for many centuries after the end of the Roman Empire" [...] "Other clues suggest that at about this time the use of Croatian in everyday parlance may have increased. In 1284 a merchant accused of ignoring an order to appear before the Ragusan count claimed that he had only read (and presumably understood) the Croatian translation of the summons, which had arrived too late to allow him to respond"[10]

The book by Robin Harris is probably the best one on the history of Dubrovnik, and the article should be based on that book. He also wrote this regarding "Serbian language" on page 418:

"[...] Ragusan writers were often strongly conscious of their links with the wider Slavic world. They felt, as has been noted, particularly close ties with other Dalmatians. They sometimes described the language they wrote as Croatian - never Serbian - but they were as likely to call it Slavic or llyrian."

And the so called "Serb-catholic movement" has nothing to do in an article with a time span of 1358–1808. Tzowu (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That particular source is not "the best" and it seems like it was dug up using basic Google books search. There is no "definitive work" on RR in the academic world. So what? Other sources are contradict it, therefore see WP:Conflicting sources.
How not to handle conflicting sources - Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the current sources + Do not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrectt.
The movement was not "so called" but they considered themselves to be Serb Catholics, there are tons of literature on this. Calling Serb Catholics and their movement "so called" just shows a tremendous level of bias and ignorance.
I am still waiting to see which sources are "fringe" and why. You got nothing on professor S. Stipcevic, who got her PhD and her whole career dedicated to the literature and culture of Republic of Ragusa.
Try to be polite and do not call for other user's ban on a random talk page, just because you disagree with them, please. You are digging your own grave with such outbursts, not to mention several prior moments like this, which have all been neatly noted. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Just on this talk page you implied that other users are "sad", that they "have no idea" what they are talking about, that they are "frustrated", went on a rant about "university departments in Croatia", and now you are calling me to be polite?
I'm sorry, but your behaviour, constant use of unreliable sources ("Alliance of Serbs in the Region", Večernje novosti tabloid,, and clear POV pushing and edit wars on articles such as this, just confirms my comment about a topic ban. Other users got it for much less.
Also: "A still more important qualifying consideration is that – as noted above – the Renaissance Croatian literature of Dubrovnik and Dalmatia existed alongside a large output of Humanist Latin literature, which was at least as highly esteemed by contemporaries." Harris, p. 260 Tzowu (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
No one said that all sources stated that Serbian was spoken in the Republic of Ragusa. Still, there are many that claim that, and it should not be ignored. Even Arthur Evans, a famous British archeologist and a man who knew the Balkans perfectly, claimed that. It's a source from 2013, based on records from 1985. It is an important fact that Cyrillic was used, which is most commonly associated with today's Serbian language. There was a well-known movement of intellectuals who identified themselves with that Serbian heritage. Everyone knows that. “Arguments like “neutral” Serbo-Croatian need to be generally applied all across Wikipedia and no just when it suits the users in question.” - No, but only when we have such inconsistent information. The optimal solution is Serbo-Croatian (in today's way) as neutral or something like Slavic / Illyrian (originally).--WEBDuB (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tzowu do not mistake my impressions (sad etc.)/comment with personal attacks. You should know the difference. I am absolutely free to discredit Grcevic and several more uni. professor from Zagreb because they are fringe and some users want to use their work on Wiki. Using one or two local news websited is nothing compared to books used here and on hundreds of article which I have improved with adding RS. I am still waiting to see - what is wrong with the book by Ragusologist S. Stipcevic? If I wanted to make some sort of "war" (an implication, misleading), I would not be here, discussing with fellow editors, even though some ignore sources which are not to their liking per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, you should be more polite. No real arguments were presented why we should not include Cyrillic. Is Arthus Evans not reliable, is his work fringe? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We follow what the majority of reliable sources say, not those that "depart significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views", or the ones from 1875. At least not for some controversial/dubious statements. And again, this "Serb-Catholic" movement became active in mid-19th century, meaning after the time period which this article covers. Therefore, I see no reason to include them in the article or make some significant changes based on their existence, just like we don't make changes elsewhere based on the existence of a small number of Orthodox Croats. Tzowu (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Majority? Which majority? If we have RS stating otherwise/giving conflicting information, we should include both. If nobody is opposed to WEBDuB's idea to use Arthur Evans, that source should be introduced to the article. I agree that Serb-Catholic movement should not be indluded. There is no parallel with "Orthodox Croats"/Catholic Serbs, because Serbs were mostly Catholics before the rule of Stefan the First-Crowned.
@Tuvixer: and other parties involved, will you give me a fair explanation why the book by S. Stipcevic is not RS? I have asked this question several times now. That would be much better and a sign of good faith, rather than making guesses about alleged ongoing plots/teaming up (which are untrue, by the way). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Another great source about Cyrillic used by Ragusans for their official documents/correspondence. The author is a member of old Ragusan nobility.[11][12] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
How would notary of Republic of Ragusa wrote to Serbian authorities? I guess and on the letter which is used there. Not everyone in Republic of Ragusa wrote in Cyrillic. 90% of people are illiterate at the time and make conclusions based on official correspondence between statesmen and proving something with this and some RS makes no sense. Republic of Ragusa, information from 1618, I quote: Obavijestite nas također, da li se mogu dobaviti barabanti i u kom broju, ali da budu Hrvati, našeg jezika i katolici (Crouati de nostra lingua e cattolici), "Please also let us know if the barabants can be supplied and in what number, but that they are Croats, of our language and Catholics".[7][8] Mikola22 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Arthur Evans is the 1875 source I am talking about. What was presented here is just a reprint of the 19th century book, which is basically a travel guide, so it falls under WP:RS AGE. The other source you now added is even older, from 1858, though I don't understand what does correspondence with other countries in different languages have with the official language of the maritime republic. As was already noted by two RS, the citizens called their Slavic language "Croatian, Illyrian, or Slavic".
And let's look at that "main source". Svetlana Stipčević, whom one Croatian author described as an "ardent advocate of the Serbian identity of Dubrovnik literature" [9], wrote this in the prologue of her book (page 11):
"At the time of the creation of the Serbian nation-state, the Serbian literary elite would not seek and find their roots and foundations in ancient Dubrovnik literature, as the Croats did in the time of Illyrianism. It seems to us that such religious and every other exclusivity has only harmed us, and it still hurts us today. In doing so, we renounced all Serb Catholics in Dalmatia and Dubrovnik, and therefore their literature and culture. Today, with the Serb people in Croatia before their final disappearance in the places where they lived for centuries, we think it is more than ever our duty to include the literary heritage of their ancestors in our common Serbian cultural tradition"
From this I conclude that these ideas are not even mainstream in Serbia. Tzowu (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I also just noticed that some of the content in the article wrongly reflects what the cited sources for it say. For example, the sentences in the infobox:

  • "a) A Romance language related to both Italian and Romanian" - referenced to Lodge and Pugh, but on page 235 of that book it says: "Old Ragusean was a spoken variety of Dalmatic, i.e. Vulgar Latin that developed in towns forming part of the Roman and later Byzantine province of Dalmatia. During the Middle Ages, it was in close contact with Croatian due to several centuries of Croatian-Romance symbiosis and bilingualism developing primarily as a result of frequent intermarriages, as attested e.g. in onomastic sources."
  • "b) While present in the region even before the establishment of the Republic, Croatian language, referred to as Slavic at the time, had not become widely spoken until late 15th century" - referenced also to Lodge and Pugh, but on page 235 it says: "At the end of the 14th century, most inhabitants of Dubrovnik spoke Croatian, some spoke Old Ragusean or Venetian, and some were even trilingual (Old Ragusean/Venetian/Croatian)."

and in the "Language and literature" section:

  • "by the end of the 15th century inhabitants of the republic were mostly native speakers of Serbo-Croatian" - referenced again to Lodge and Pugh, but Lodge and Pugh on page 235 explicitly say "At the end of the 14th century, most inhabitants of Dubrovnik spoke Croatian".

It seems that throughout the years of editing this article, some users were making changes with not much regards to what's actually in the cited sources. Tzowu (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tzowu, I shall not comment on other issues, as there are multiple problems when it comes to this particular aticle. It would be better to open a new thread about those.

Age of Pucic's work is irrelevant (it's not a scientific reaserach or work), because it's a corpus of medieval documents taken from Ragusan Archive. The same documents have been used and reprinted ever since (see Google Book link).
S. Stipcevic partisan? I still can't see any arguments presented - why, and I am making the same question for the third time, which borders with stonewalling.
Professor Stipcevic pretty much skipped most political aspects/politics and is focusing on literature and culture; that can be seen from the presented quote as well (everything stated is about historical facts and heritage, nothing fringe whatsoever).
Ragusan literature has been studies as one out of four big parts of Serb literature, ever since the time of Pavle Popović and earlier.[13]
Ragusan literature is still one of exams at the University of Belgrade and University of Novi Sad. If I'm not mistaken, current professor of Ragusan literature is dr Irena Arsic.[14]
Other works also prove the core presence of Cyrillic and (to some degree) Serbian language in RR.[15] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"we think it is more than ever our duty to include the literary heritage of their ancestors in our common Serbian cultural tradition"
This is what Stipčević wrote in her book, which seems like a classic example of trying to right great wrongs, because, in her words, "we renounced all Serb Catholics in Dalmatia and Dubrovnik, and therefore their literature and culture". And based on what? A correspondence with the then-Kingdom of Serbia, which they did with a variety of other entities as well, and some manuscripts that were translated into Cyrilic script. You'll need to find much more than that. Or else we'll end up having the Turkish language too because there was a Turkish Chancellery in Dubrovnik. Tzowu (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
And now I've noticed yet another false information added by Sadko. In this edit [10], explained as "new info. and ref.", he added the following: "In XVI century and even earlier, the majority of citizens of Konavle, Pelješac and other parts outside the city of Dubrovnik were Serbian Orthodox Christians."
With Stipčević, p.9 as a source. However, on page 9, there's something completely different:
"The Serbs inevitably shared the fate of the rest of the Romance and Slav populations living in these regions." ... "Ever since the middle of the 16th century, in Pelješac, in Konavle, in the hinterland of Dubrovnik, the majority of the Serb population was Orthodox" ("Srbi su neminovno delili sudbinu ostalog romanskog i slovenskog življa nastanjenog u ovim krajevima." ... "Još od sredine XVI veka, na Pelješcu, u Konavlima, u dubrovačkom zaleđu, većina srpskog stanovništva bila je pravoslavna")
So all key information is falsely cited. The source says "ever since the middle of the 16th century", and not "In XVI century and even earlier". The source also clearly says that in these regions, there were other "Romance and Slav populations" and that the majority of Serbs were Orthodox, and not the majority of all citizens. And that's without going into the obvious POV issues with that source. Tzowu (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yet another? Haha, that's bold. Anyways: 1) Hinterlands refers to the area outside city walls. 2) She mentions in other pages that there was the same presence even earlier, which is confirmed by other RS.[16] 3) It is possible that a smaller part of wider context was lost in translation, I have no problem with that, thank you for bringing it up. Now we can add it to the article. 4) It's interesting that the source was ignored and declared "partisan" without real arguments or checking it, only to be mentioned several days later. That's really something. Not to mention ignoring all other sources presented with unclear idea that better sources are needed, which has never been fully adressed or explained. We have, so far, concludet that: 1) There was long presence and use of Cyrillic in RR - none of it is mentioned in the article. 2) There was a lot of Serb Orthodox and Serbian language preset in RR - none of it is mentioned. Rather than having an open mind and trying to improve the article, we are going in circles and thus damaging the article and its NPOV which should present every information, and not just focus on one or some aspects. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
That may be your unique understanding of a conclusion. However, what we really determined here is that you have fabricated what the sources you cited say (I just noticed you did that on Pelješac and Konavle articles too. Unlucky for you, I'm always checking sources used for controversial claims), and that you have relied on highly unreliable sources which have a "right great wrongs" agenda to try and push some POV that is not even mainstream in Serbia. There are zero reliable sources for these ideas that you are advocating for here, and no consensus for their inclusion. Case closed. Tzowu (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Not really, there was a single mistake, but quite enough for some editors to label people they don't agree with which is not per WP:ETIQUETTE. More sources were presented, it's you choice to ignore them. Sure thing, a random Wikipedia editor with limited knowledge on the subject, can claim that a university professor, scholar and academic, who devoted her entire career to the particular topic is "highly unreliable", based on personal wishes and interpretations of one quote. If being taught the exact thing in every university and high school (for at least 100 years) is not mainstream, I don't know what is. Once again, why did you not work on the formulation and tweaked it, rather then deleting it? It's very much on-topic. No problem, even more RS can be found about this, and there is a proper way to verify them. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Bosna". Leksikon Marina Držića (in Croatian). Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography and House of Marin Držić. 2017. Retrieved 2 March 2017.
  2. ^ Whitley Stokes; Adalbert Bezzenberger (1894), "dubron", in August Fick (ed.), Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen: Wortschatz der Keltischen Spracheinheit, 2 (4th ed.), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 153–154
  3. ^ Fine, John V. A. (Jr ) (2010-02-05). When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods. University of Michigan Press. p. 155. ISBN 978-0-472-02560-2.
  4. ^ Ivanović, Miloš. "Cyrillic Correspondence between the Commune of Ragusa and Ottomans from 1396 to 1458". State and Society Before and After Establishment of Ottoman Rule, eds. S. Rudić and S. Aslantaş, Belgrade 2017.
  5. ^ Milanović, Aleksandar (2004). Kratka istorija srpskog književnog jezika. Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
  6. ^ (2019-11-16). "Dr. sc. Mario Grčević: 'Josip Runjanin sebe je smatrao Hrvatom, a ne Srbinom'". (in Croatian). Retrieved 2020-04-28.
  7. ^
  8. ^ "Stefan Tvrtko I Kotromanic: Povelja Dubrovackoj republici [XIV vek]". Retrieved 2020-04-28.
  9. ^ R. Anthony Lodge, Stefan Pugh: Language contact and minority languages on the littorals of Europe, 2007, p. 235
  10. ^ Robin Harris (January 2006). Dubrovnik: A History. Saqi Books. p. 247-248. ISBN 978-0-86356-959-3.
  11. ^ Pučić, Medo (1858). Spomenici srpski: to est pisma pisana od Republike Dubrovačke kraljevima, despotima, voĭvodama i knezovima srʺbskiem, bosanskiem i primorskiem. Spomenici srbski od 1395. do 1423.
  12. ^
  13. ^ "Duh samoporicanja : u senci tuđinske vlasti : Milo Lompar". (in Serbian). Retrieved 2020-05-01.
  14. ^ "Irena Arsić". (in Serbian). Retrieved 2020-05-01.
  15. ^ Варница, Невена П. (2018). "Злата, Бојовић... [и др.]. 2016. Дубровачка књижевност у српској историји књижевности. Речник проучавалаца. Београд: Филолошки факултет Универзитета, 549 страна". ZBORNIK ZA JEZIKE I KNJIŽEVNOSTI FILOZOFSKOG FAKULTETA U NOVOM SADU (in Serbian). 8 (8): 179–182. doi:10.19090/zjik.2018.8.179-182. ISSN 2217-8546.
  16. ^ Ивић, Павле (1995-01-01). Српски дијалектолошки зборник 41 (in Serbian). Институт за српски језик. p. 14.
Return to "Republic of Ragusa" page.