Debona.michel
Welcome!
Hello, Debona.michel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi edit
Michel, I want you to please understand why you are encountering resistance to your edits. There are 2 reasons:
1) Articles on Ragusan people and Ragusan noble families have been fought over for months on end in the past. Some Ragusans are undoubtedly more Croatian, while still others are more Romance in culture (and therefore use the Romance names). However, things are not that simple: the Ragusan noble families are agreed upon to have a dual-ethnicity, Slavic and Romance Dalmatian. Therefore the difference between who was "more Slavic" and who was "more Romance" is often quite blurred and obscure ("obscure"=no good sources), which causes veritably endless conflicts. At that time, after much debate, a "format" was agreed-upon: (Slavic/Romance), a format which you will find is used in every single noble family from Ragusa. Exceptions from this editor consensus must be very rare and very well proven.
2) You are not using proper Wikipedia procedure for the changes you wish to achieve. You are not proposing moves, and you are not using hard verifiable sources (images are not verifiable). Half the time you are not even discussing but are only edit-warring.
All in all, I suggest you put together a strong case with verifiable sources and then propose an article move. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Warning edit
Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, as you did to Marin Bunić, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
DIRECKTOR is the owner of Wikipedia, Tito of Wikipedia, he have the true!
Warning edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on House of Bunić/Bona. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
November 2008 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Marin Bunić has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. MatthewYeager 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ragusan noble families edit
-- Hello DeBona
I have been following the discussion on Ragusan noble families for some time.
I have included some facts and proposals regarding Ragusan noble families on the talk/discussion page of the House of Bona. I have also addressed Direktor there regarding discrepancies in his statements e.g. editor consensus and Wikipedia policies.
I would like to point out that I am not aware that there is any editor consensus regarding ragusan noble families. Somewhere in June/July 2008 the names of all families were being changed to slavic version with original forms left out or put as secondary colloquial forms ("known as") with no explanations or sources whatsoever by direktor.
In the case of Caboga family and Bernard Caboga, a slavic version was introduced by direktor that does not exist. Inspite of me initiating communication as well as warnings on his user page and article discussion pages, he never replied, never gave sources or similar, he just engaged in edit warring. So much for his second comment about edit warring.
Additionally I would like to point your attention to the following Wikipedia policy: [1]
especially
"Consensus can change" Policy shortcut:WP:CCC
Citation: Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.
Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.
Caboga (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Debona
It is evident that the editors consent that Direktor was constantly mentioning does not exist. We repeatedly inquired about it, never got an answer. Editors consent is not a justification for original research, Wikipedia policy clearly regulates that. Wikipedia allows editing when verifiable sources are cited, policy of no original research. So go ahead and edit, since verifiable sources are in place. Include the sources on legally inherited latin/roman surname forms and put in a note about the duality in language in Ragusa. This is not a controversial edit.
Just because somebody claims the world is flat doesn't mean it is.
Regards Caboga (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- How nice, someone finally reads Wiki policy... well then, I'm looking forward to a real argumented discussion on the subject, provided of course, that you can find WP:SOURCEs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Debona
It is evident that the editors consent that Direktor was constantly mentioning does not exist. We repeatedly inquired about it, never got an answer. Editors consent is not a justification for original research, Wikipedia policy clearly regulates that. Wikipedia encourages editing when verifiable sources are cited, policy of no original research. So go ahead and edit, since verifiable sources are in place. Include the sources on legally inherited latin/roman surname forms and put in a note about the duality in language in Ragusa. This is not a controversial edit.
Just because somebody claims the world is flat doesn't mean it is.
Regards Caboga (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Caboga (and the good example of Bernard Caboga -- all excesses become unsustainable at some point).
Direktor, you don't seem to practice what you preach. What gives you the right to change the pages that were created by Ragusino? Aren't you the one who started the edit warring?
Debona.michel (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
November 2008 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on House of Bunić/Bona. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Practice what you preach Direktor/Alisdair/Admiral Nelson...
The sources are listed on the House of de BONA page. Who changed the original entries to begin with?
User notice: temporary 3RR block edit
Regarding reversions[2] made on November 17 2008 to House of Bunić/Bona edit
You'll also want to carefully consider the question of conflict of interest, which has been raised.
William M. Connolley (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Leaking confidential data edit
like the real name/surname, of users otherwise using a handle as a WP username, against their will will get you indefinitely blocked really soon, and I suggest you drop that kind of practice. cf. WP:PRIVACY:
Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.
--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerning Ragusan names edit
Dragi gosparu Bona-Bunić,
I understand what you're saying. But there is a context in which it should be said. You've opened an issue with your post that is quite important and contested among Ragusan historians today: how to write the last names of Ragusan nobles? Do we say Bunić, Bona or Bona-Bunić. I understand that, being that you are a member of this great Ragusan family, you feel that you should have the say on what's the right way of calling them. However, as I previously mentioned, this is a bigger question than just family history.
If we just used the Italian versions, we are helping Italian nationalists (who are already very vocal on the Wiki) to claim Dubrovnik and the whole of Ragusan culture as their own. In fact, we are giving it to them on a silver platter. And Italians know how to use an opportunity - just look at the success of their tourism. On the other hand, using Slavic names exclusively would look very well for the Croatian and Serbian nationalists, also to claim Ragusan culture as their own (which they have been doing for a long time - just remember the dispute about Ivan or Jovan Gundulić). You can just take a look at this discussion page and see that, for example, Croatian nationalists are trying to rename the Ragusan Republic to the "Dubrovnik Republic" for the same goal (they claim that this is the "correct" translation of Dubrovačka Republika). This is absurd. And it is done by people who have never bothered to look up any Ragusan legal document. In ALL of them, as you must know, the term Respublica Ragusina is used. In numerous dealings with the Italians, the Spanish, the French, the English etc. they always used this term. Even in the writings of Shakespeare, we find mention of a Ragusian pirate. The very name Argosy, denoting rich cargo ships, comes from the word Ragusa (Aragosa - Spanish variant). It is clear to anyone who knows Dubrovnik that the Slavic variants (names of the city and of the people, first names, last names...) were used when dealing with its Slavic neighbors and domestically, while Latin/Italian variants were used when dealing with all other (non-Slavic) foreigners, i.e. to a man from Moscow it would be Dubrovnik and Dubrovčani but to a man from France it would be Ragusa and Ragusans (sorry for not putting it in their own languages).
As Ragusan historians know (and this is in all the History books), Ragusan nobles have been using the Italian versions of their last names since time immemorial, but to a different end than most outsiders would believe. It was not because they considered themselves Italian and then used it as naturally as any Italian would. What it really was is a way to distinguish themselves from all the commoners, to show their difference - they were the nobility. It is for a similar reason that they so emphasized their Slavic background and culture in their works - to show (to the world) that they were not Italians. The fact that Ragusans spoke a Slavic language as their own is obvious by just looking at their works or by the fact that non-Slavic speakers assimilated so quicky when residing in Dubrovnik. Marko Bruerović is a perfect example: his father was a Frenchman, the ambassador of France in Dubrovnik, but Marc chose to be a Ragusan - he changed his name from Marc Bruere Desriveaux to Marko Bruerović because he was under such a strong Ragusan (Slavic-speaking) influence from his felow writers (nobles, I might add). When they wrote in their own language, they all signed their works with the Slavic variants of their names:
Suſe sina raſmetnoga Gospodina Giva Frana Gundulichia, vlastelina dubrovackoga Mandaliena pokorniza Gospodina Giva Vucichia Bunichia, vlastelina dubrovachoga
When they wrote in Latin or Italian, they would put their names in the Latin or Italian variants. But in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic, because after the abolishment of the Republic things got very messy. And here we are, having these problems today, while our (and certainly your) ancestors would probably have no problems at all.
I understand why you would object to using the last name Bunić. After all, that name also exists in Zagorje, so why should you be associated with a peasant family that farmed and had pigs and chickens during the time your family was creating masterpieces or saving the Republic, visiting and talking with kings, emperors and popes. You should however keep in mind that the respect the name brings with it, and the legacy, is associated to the Bunić name, not the name Bona (which is, incidentally, the fault of your ancestors, who used that name in literature). A great man in Ragusan history, even though he is Nicholas Bona to the English (for example), for Ragusans he will always be Nikolica Bunić. We link our deepest respect, admiration and patriotism with this name, with what it represents: a man who died for his country and his people (regardless of how poetic the truth might be). Do not rob us of this, of this feeling of community, that he, that you, are a part of our people, because we are of the same genes, the same blood runs in our veins. Every time you (the descendants of the Ragusan nobility) insist on the Italian version, it is like you're saying: "We are not one of you, we are different." And saying that you fail to see you created us, without you there wouldn't be a Ragusan people (regardless of the genes).
Gospar Lukša (govori dalje, gledajući u mirno nebo): "Da smo bili baš veliki kako Nikolica i Marojica i Pracat i svi naši pomorci i vlastela, bili bismo u sužanjstvu iskali da u puku sačuvamo dušu koju smo mi na ovijem hridinama usadili bili." (Ivo Vojnović, Dubrovačka trilogija)
So you see, you should not try to difference yourselves, you should be a part of the Ragusan people. You can see what's going on with us now. Why don't you act as you did in the past? If for nothing else, then let it be a great end to a majestic family history.
What I was trying to do in the article "List of Ragusans" (which was reverted) was to try to correct the Slavic versions of Ragusan names (like Junije Palmotić or Ivan Bunić Vučić), which are often just translations from Italian or Latin. I tried to write the names of those Ragusans in the way that they used themselves, the original version (in this case, Džono Palmotić and Đivo Vučić Bunić) because the incorrect translations I mentioned often involved nationalistic ideas in their making and were simply, not correct.
On another note, your great-grandfather, that was known as Maro, when was he born, was it perhaps in the first half of the 19th century? The fact that he was "known as Maro" would agree with that, because that's what the nobles did during the Republic: they officialy used Italian names but really called themselves in proper Ragusan names (Maro, Vlaho, Baro...). His son probably wasn't known as Marino because they wanted to distinguish him from his father (because then he would be known as Marin, Maroje or Marojica), but very likely because they stopped the practice of using two version of their names and decided to use the "official" one.
In the end I'd like to express my deep respect for your family, and ask you to contact me, if you wish. I would like to hear an opinion of an informed noble about certain things from Ragusan history and culture, to better understand the unique perspective of the nobility. So, if you would like to talk or you know someone to direct me to, send me an e-mail to nemo_2085@yahoo.com (I would appreciate it if other Wiki users refrained from sending me anything to this mail)
A Ragusan Historian
Rag. Historian (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Rag. Historian, I can only apologize that I got you all wrong earlier. I completely agree with you, and I hope we will be able to cooperate on various issues, particularly the proper spelling of ancient Ragusan names. If I may inquire, is your involvement on Wikipedia temporary or will you be assisting us further?
- Debona.michel, I hope you can understand my earlier reservations towards your claim of descendance from the Bunić/Bonas. One of the main reasons I was upset by this was the fact that I myself descend from a Split (previously Venetian) family with a long tradition and heritage (you may not believe me, of course :) ). This is the internet, after all, and I do not have any opportunity to verify one way or the other (I can't say I lean one way or the other), but in the case that you are, in fact, telling the truth, I apologize for my earlier behavior. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Ragusan historian,
- you wrote: "But in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic (...)". Are you really sure? We have 202 letters between Roger Joseph Boscovich and his brother Bartolomeo (Baro). Maybe do you know if they always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) version of their name? I've seen that letters... Another example: in the archiv of Dubrovnik we have two letters from Ivan Gundulić to the "Rettori" of the Republic (26-27 June 1619). They are - I think - the only surviving Gundulić's manuscripts. Do you know the language used by Gundulić? Have you seen his subscription? Thank you for your answer.--151.48.61.210 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Think about it, Luigi, its a matter of pure logic more than anything else: by the year 1800, the common language in Ragusa was Slavic for more than 400 years, more specifically, the Ragusan dialect of early Croatian (or Serbo-Croatian) known then as the "Illyrian language". People spoke Illyrian in the street, in the market and on the Stradun. Italian (Venetian, mostly) had to be learned by anyone of import, of course, as it was the lingua franca. However, it is impossible to imagine a family that lived in a Slavic city for almost half a millennium that has a foreign language as a mother tongue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- The question is very simple: we have 202 letters between Roger Joseph Boscovich and his brother Bartolomeo/Baro. This letters were published in the "Edizione Nazionale delle Opere e della Corrispondenza di Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich" here in Italy some years ago. Among the editors we had also some Croatian historians. Mr 'Ragusan historian' stated that "in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name". Always. So, wich kind of language used Roger and his brother? The same question for the only two surviving Gundulic's manuscripts to the "Rettori" (Rectors) of the Republic. Wich kind of language used Gundulic? Attention: I do not want to say absolutely that the Ragusans were Italians. It's a nonsense. But I want to prove that it's untrue what 'Ragusan historian' said: we have many evidences about it! In addition, I have in my collection of postcards a postcard sent from an American military from Ragusa in 1920. He writes he hears many Italians in the city, but in the countryside only Slavic people. I also have another card (1904) with the insignia of a shop in Ragusa in Italian. How can you explain these facts?--151.48.61.210 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Luigi, the Dalmatian coast was occupied by Italian forces in the aftermath of WWI to bolster Italy's claim at Versailles. Italian can often be heard in cities under Italian occupation. During the early 20th century, Dubrovnik and Split were completely Slavic (unlike Zadar and Pula).
- I ask you: can you imagine a family that lives in a Slavic city for 500 years and has a foreign language for a mother tongue? Remember, we're talking about a time well before the advent of nationalism. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ivan, maybe you don't know that after the WWI the Italian forces occupied only the Dalmatian cost considered in the London Pact of 1915 (do you know the London Pact?). They don't occupied Ragusa (and also Spalato, so you can learn something new about your town). Pola doesn't belong to Dalmatian coast. I repeat for the third time my question: what kind of language used Roger Boscovich and his brother in their letters? You don't know it, so I'll wait for "Ragusan historian".--151.48.61.210 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- ...another thing, about the complete slavization of Spalato in the early 20th century. You have to read something more. I suggest two books: L.Monzali, Antonio Tacconi e la comunità italiana di Spalato, SDSP 2008 (about the Italian community of Spalato in the 20th/30th) and E.Bettiza, Esilio, Mondadori 1998. Enzo Bettiza is a Dalmatian-born Italian journalist. He left his hometown only in 1946. Also today (today!) in Spalato we can find an Italian Community. His president is Mladen Culic Dalbello. Here you can see his face.--151.48.61.210 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Luigi, don't be an idiot as well as banned. Italian troops did indeed occupy Split for a short period before the Americans and British arrived, simply because they were the closest Allied forces, I've heard eyewitness testimonies and it was even on film. I do not ramble. I admit I assumed the same took place in Dubrovnik, i.e. a short period of Italian occupation prior to the arrival of other allied forces.
Further, Split was vastly Slavic by the 20th century. A small Italian minority did exist, of course, I should know: my family was considered a part of it (at least my great-grandfather did). However, these are insignificant portions of the population, I've heard the figure "9%" used (though I'm not sure if its accurate). We were talking about language, I was illustrating the linguistic side of the matter when I said "completely Slavic".
Please remember you are talking about my home town. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- 1. Do you heard some eyewitness testimonies about the Italian occupation of Split in 1918? People born in 1900 or so on?
- 2. "Completely" vs. "9%".
- Who is the idiot, here?--151.48.61.210 (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You, Luigi. I did not actually go around interviewing people from 1919. You'd have to be an IDIOT to assume that is what I meant (or you'd have to have a poor grasp of the English language). Further, you'd have to be an IDIOT not to understand me when I carefully explain that "I was illustrating the linguistic side of the matter when I said 'completely Slavic'." What I meant, obviously, is that the city spoke Croatian as a whole.
For the record, now I am "nervous". Even though that expression actually means "mildly afraid" in English, rather than "angry" (but hey, only an IDIOT would use an expression he does not comprehend, right?). I am "nervous" because I once again find myself engaged in a pointless discussion with a wise-ass moron. byby PIO --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words, but now, please, let me speak with mr "Ragusan historian". This is enough for you.--151.48.61.210 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Signore IP 151.48.61.210,
You asked for me, and here I am. First let me comment on something. You are evidently Italian. In your research you are restricted to sources written in Italian and it is obvious, according to your posts, that you cannot speak any Slavic language. This is a problem of many of your countrymen that are nationalistically-inclined - lack of information (but that's a trademark of any nationalism). This means you can only see one side of the medal that is Ragusan history and culture. The evidence of this is your mentioning of Đivo Frana Gundulić. If you could speak the language he was writing in and if you could read his works, descibed by Robin Harris, an English historian, as the most beautiful poetry ever written in any Slavic language, you would probably quiet down immediately and leave this discussion promptly, with your tail between your legs.
But now let's talk about Roger Joseph Boscovich. It is excellent that you chose him of all people and I will explain why. His grandfather from his mother's side was a wealthy and influential noble Bartolomeo (Baro) Bettera, who decided to settle in Dubrovnik, an Italian. (Incidentally, some of my family ancestors served as serfs to that family). His daughter Pavle (Pavica) was already assimilated into Ragusan society (similar to Marko Bruerović in my previous post) and wrote short essays in Slavic. She married Roger's father Nikola, a Hercegovian (a region east to northeast of Dubrovnik), therefore a Slav (The scientific jury is still out on whether he was a Croat or a Serb, but this is irrelevant to our discussion, although I personally consider such questions to be inappropriate for that time, when nationality didn't exist in today's sense). The duality (Italian-Slavic) is obvious.
Roger was one of nine children in the Boscovich family. His brother Baro is remembered as a skilled latinist, but he also wrote in Italian and Slavic. His sister Anica, a pious, educated and intelligent woman, wrote exclusively in Slavic, although she was well versed in several languages. Roger translated one of her poems into Italian. A lot of what we know about these two siblings of Roger is precisely because of his regular correspondence with both. Although he also wrote correspondence in French, to his brother Baro Roger mostly wrote in Italian (to answer you question, IP 151.48.61.210), however, he wrote the delicate, confidential information within his letters to him in Slavic, which you can see by simply browsing though them. To his sister, however, Roger wrote only in the language that he calls:
"slovinski, ilirski, naški" (Slavic, Illyrian, our language)
Furthermore, in one of his works, "Diary of a trip", Roger mentions a conversation with a fellow priest about his journey from Istanbul to Poland (I believe) and he says:
"Jezik te zemlje narječje je slavenskog jezika, a kako je taj također moj prirodni jezik dubrovački, mogli su me oni razumjeti, a i ja nešto od onoga što su oni govorili." "The language of that country is a dialect of the Slavic language, and since that is also my natural Ragusan language, they were able to understand me and I could understand some of what they were saying."
Roger also writes that he uses this language in his home and in one of his works states that "in Dubrovnik all exact sciences are studied with fervor but good literature is even more appreciated, whether written in Latin, or in Illyrian, the language that we speak."
Finally, when the famous French mathematician D'Alembert mentioned him in a discussion as an "Italian geometrist", Roger responded that he "wasn't Italian, but a Dalmatian from Dubrovnik." He added: "I am not considered Italian in Italy, so they haven't put me in any of their works."
Relevant to all of this, because it shows a lot about Ragusan mentality is the fact that Baro Boscovich, Roger's brother, who mostly wrote in Latin, once also wrote the poem "U pohvalu jezika slovinskog" ("In praise to the Slavic language"), which he then translated into Italian. This clearly shows that Ragusans didn't consider Italian their own language but used it a great deal because it was the lingua franca of that time, as Latin was before it, and French and English after it. Before the Renaissance, when Latin was still the lingua franca, Ragusans wrote in Latin and didn't even speak Italian and from the end of the 18th century Ragusans started using French for the same purpose (can you see a pattern here?). Such flexibility and versatility was neccessary for a people and a country in their delicate geopolitical situation. This is similar to the famous sentence of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V: "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse."
And as an answer to Ivan Štambuk, I didn't use Croatian because it wasn't neccessary and historically most accurate. Ragusans mostly called their language the way that I wrote it - slovinski (Slavic) - the biggest number of references. The second in number of references is the name ilirski (Illyrian - corresponds roughly with the territory of former Yugoslavia, although sometimes used to denote only Catholic areas within that territory, used until the mid 19th century, when it was forbidden by the Austrian court), after it dubrovački (Ragusan) and finally hrvatski (Croatian).
A note for Italian and Serbian nationalists: no Ragusan EVER, in the history of time, called his language Serbian or Italian.
As you can see, Boscovich used the names Slavic, Illyrian and Ragusan. His sentence that the language of Poland is a dialect of the Slavic language shows without question that Ragusans thought that all Slavs spoke a single language and that Croatian, Serbian, Polish, Russian etc. were only dialects (there are other examples of this). Also, to use Croatian in this discussion would be pointless, because we are discussing the opposition Italian-Slavic, not Croatian-Serbian. One of the first rules a historian is taught (ask any historian) is that it is wrong to project present political or national views to a time in the past. Precisely this projecting created nationalistic regimes such as fascism, nacism, or any of the "Greater" ideas in the Balkans, such as "Greater Serbia".
I got the material for the Boscovich family from these two articles (one scientific, one newspaper):
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/24875 http://www.vjesnik.com/Pdf/2004%5C01%5C20%5C17A17.PDF They're in Croatian, so I don't belive you'll be able to understand them, IP 151.48.61.210, but you can use the option Find to search for the exact quotes.
In the end, I'd like to make a conclusion based on the facts I've presented in this post. It is clear that there was a duality Italian-Slavic in the Boscovich family and in Ragusan culture in general, simply because of the constant contact with the Italian city-states to the west and the Slavic states to the north and the east. However, as it is shown by their own words, Ragusans always opted for the Slavic identity and considered it their own, so the duality is similar to the Ragusan language used during the Republic and sometime after, not 50-50 Slavic and Italian words in the vocabulary, but closer to 70-30 in favor of words of Slavic origin.
A Ragusan historian
P.S. Here are some photos of the Bettera family summer-house (villa): http://www.zupa-dubrovacka.hr/media/images/album/beterina/beterina11990.html
Rag. Historian (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. The question was very simple. You stated that: "But in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic (...)". Now, you wrote : "to his brother Baro Roger (Boscovich) mostly wrote in Italian". Dear Ragusan historian, all your words about my supposed nationalistically-inclined-I-don't-know-what are a complete nonsense. Regarding the corrispondence between Roger and Bartolomeo, we have 202 letters in Italian and 16 in "Illirian"/"Croatian". Regarding his corrispondence with Natale Boscovich (Bozo)? 335 letters, only in Italian! 9 letters to/from L.A.Sorgo, only in Italian. 100 letters to/from the Ragusan Senate, only in Italian. I've read the Harris' book, but the question about Gundulic (absolutely a Slavic writer and poet!) was the same, and you know - I think - that the only two surviving Gundulic's manuscripts are also in Italian. He wrote his name "Gondola". When studying at university, I have learned that making false allegations was a serious thing, and then - my dear Ragusan historian - I would much more careful not to give false information. Now we can establish that is not true that the Ragusans wrote in their correspondence to their fellow countrymen always and only in Slavic. This is another nonsense. Best wishes.--151.48.23.132 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Now Luigi, why do ou go around trying to make people "nervous"? Behave yourself and try not to insult non-banned people (who actually provide links) with your inane babble and wild claims. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not speaking with you. Your ignorance about the Dalmatian-Ragusan things is astonish.--151.48.23.132 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It would appear everybody's "ignorance" is astonishING when compared to your vast knowledge, even Rag. Historian's. If only you could spell correctly we'd have to make you an admin. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dad! Daaaaaad! Someone is beating meeeeee!--151.48.38.225 (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
xD your "wit" translates very badly... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr. IP 151.48.61.210,
I had the common sense to check the location of that IP that you so willingly display. The bigger picture is very clear now that I know how to address you.
Apparently, this IP is identified as coming from the city of Venice (Well, whadda ya know!). Your efforts are now revealed, Mr. Venetian, as the imperialistic ideas that they are - just another attempt at claiming Dubrovnik and Ragusans as your own, among so many attempts of you countrymen in history. Methods like that earned your people an infamous reputation. That's why my people didn't have the highest opinion of Venice (to put it lightly).
I feel obliged, now that I know who you are, to point out a few things I noticed on the wiki article Venice and the Republic of Venice.
It doesn't mention the Ragusan Republic even once (other than regarding the Treaty of Zadar), even though the Ragusan Republic was the biggest contender to Venice in the 15th and 16th century. From that time until well in the 18th century the Ragusan navy was the third largest in the world.
It was the Ragusans (in 1377) that made the first quarantine (lazareti) and not the Venetians (in 1403), as the Wiki page claims. In fact, until the Ragusans invented quarantine the humanitarian Venetians used this method on those suspected to carry the plague - they encased them in stone.
Also, in the 18th century, when Venice's ships weren't that successfull anymore, Ragusans (for a price) were the only ones that kept the contact between Venice and the Western Mediterranean and Atlantic ports, as mediators - they were very well respected in Venice. The Ragusan navy, you see, never had the problem that Venice had - that their sailors went to work abroad. The pay of Ragusan sailors was much higher, so only a dozen of them at all times worked abroad and the Ragusan navy also employed about 1400 foreign sailors, in addition to their own. (http://www.shipmodelling.com/hrvatski/html/povijest.htm)
Let me list some other facts about Dubrovnik (because I doubt the Italian/Venetian school system or your historian friends will teach you this):
- The seventh book of the Ragusan Statute contains exclusively regulations concerning Maritime Law,
which is the oldest such document in the world.
- In 1296 Dubrovnik had a sewerage (and Venice doesn't have a sewerage, even today, which is the cause of many comments
of tourists on the "smell" of the back alleys)
- The first European pharmacy that has been working continuously until today was opened in Dubrovnik in 1317.
- Ragusan 1395 Insurance Law is the oldest in Europe. It had all the aspects of contemporary maritime insurance. This law is three
centuries older than Lloyd's insurance, London, which dates from the end of 17th century.
- Slave trade on Ragusan ships was forbidden in 1272 and completely in the territory of the Ragusan Republic in 1418 (in the British
Empire in 1833 - usually the British are considered the first to abolish slavery). Venice, however, was "a thriving centre of the
slave trade." (Catholic Encyclopedia)
- The first public hospital (Domus Christi) in Dubrovnik was opened in 1347 (in Venice, in the 19th century - before that there was
only a hospice for pilgrims)
- The first orphanage in Dubrovnik was founded in 1432. ("In Venice, the first orphanage was created in 1811 as part of a campaign
meant to reduce begging. Before that, vagrant orphans would be locked up with tramps and people with disabilities in the main
hospitals, which were more like detention centers than treatment centers." →-> http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Me-Pa/Orphans.html)
- Dubrovnik also has the oldest arboretum in Europe - Trsteno, founded in 1498
Finally, the map on that site with Venice's territories in the year 1000 is grossly inaccurate and out of context. The Ragusan Commune was not a part of the Venetian Republic at that time. Allow me to put everything in context. The year 1000 was the time that a Venetian dux made a campaign against the Neretvan pirates (whom Venice was forced to pay tribute to before). A lot of the territories the Venetian dux "won" during that campaign, Venice lost when his ships sailed home. His army never set foot on Ragusan soil. The Ragusan Commune was under the protection of Byzantium at the time (In the year 1032, Ragusan ships take part in an important battle as a part of the Byzantine fleet against the Arabs). Even the time Venice controlled the Ragusan Commune (1205-1358) is not so homogenous - most of it is intermittent with periods of Dubrovnik breaking free, Venice capturing it, Dubrovnik breaking free again etc. During all of this time, Venice managed to slow down the progress of Dubrovnik and to impose a Venetian count and bishop as heads of administration, but complete control (especially over Ragusan trade) always eluded them.
In conclusion, the Ragusan Republic was always a thorn in Venice's eye. The lack of mentioning of Ragusa paradoxally reveals a bounty of information. I guess self-amnesia can be very comforting...
I bid you farewell by paraphrasing an old Ragusan proverb (it sounds better in the original because of the rhyme):
"Kuća Vam daleče, gosparu Bneče." (Stay away, Mr. Venetian)
A Ragusan Historian
P.S. It is not true that the only surviving Gundulić's manuscripts are in Italian.
Rag. Historian (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I see that your arguments are at the end, since you even go to insults. I has demonstrated that your statement "in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic (...)" is simply a fake, and now I become a "Venetian imperialist"!!! In fact, I have the strong suspicion that your proclaimed "historical profession" is another fake, because I had attended the world of professional historians, and I know that when one is denied by sources, the "really historian" not offends, but revises its theories . This is the final figure: you have written something untrue. Regarding the Gundulić's manuscripts with his signature, now I know that there are others. In fact my source - an Italian author (I have also the copies of this documents) - could err, so you wonder: how many are these documents with the Gundulic's signature? Where they are?--151.48.38.225 (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, have "strong suspicions" that you might be BANNED and not allowed to edit this website, including the talkpages of your fellow Venetian imperialists. (For all users not informed in this matter, the above IP user is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned User:PIO.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I and you know that was a false allegation without a checkuser. Even the newcomer "Ragusan historian" sees that i'm writing fron Venice. Please, Rag.Hist., watch from where wrote User:PIO! However your words are another ad personam: when you have nothing to say... I repeat another time the question: this statement "in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic (...)" is correct or no? After Boscovich, I have others Ragusan letters to analize.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Every single banned sockpuppeteer claims he's "innocent". That's mostly not true, just like your claim that checkuser was not used is false. Your case was characterized as "Possible" by checkuser, and your edits provided the remaining evidence for your ban. You've also confirmed with your own words that this IP is that of User:Luigi 28. Ergo, User:PIO = User:Luigi 28 = IP 151.48.38.225. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- You did not own more arguments, my dear ignorant. As your friend, to whom I am writing if it is convinced of what he says, and he answered me talking about the sewers in Venice...--87.28.126.85 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the Venetian (name??). I find it difficult to accept claims like "....always wrote in Slavic....". Looking at our family documents, Ivo Vojnović wrote to the family in Italian and my great-grandparents' love letters are all written in Italian -- with a few words of Croatian here and there.
Ragusan historian, thank you for all your explanations. I agree with some of things you said but not all (sorry, I don't have the time to go into it right now -- maybe later). It's not a matter of being "one of us"...I am not insecure when it comes to Dubrovnik's history and I don't have to worry about Italians claiming that my ancestors were "Italian" because I use the name de BONA instead of Bunić. I can still be and feel Croatian (and most importantly - a citizen of the world -) and be called de BONA. To me "Bunić" says "I'm insecure about my history and that's why I need to use this name to defend myself against Italians". As I said before, no one used this name in our branch of the family except my great-uncle Eduard (Edo/Edy) de Bona-Bunić [He signed his name Edy de Bona-Bunić -- the Wikipedia entry is spelled incorrectly but of course Stambuk won't agree...and I'm not going to waste my time proving that to you like I did for Marino de BONA of Lima, Peru].
Direktor, please be a little bit more indulgent when it comes to other people's English skills. I am assuming you have spent quite a bit of time in the US. Not everybody has had such an opportunity to master another language in their youth.
Debona.michel (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wonderful words, mr De Bona. I would like to assure you and the other Croatians here that the words "Istria" or "Dalmatia" or "Fiume" haven't been said by any leader of a party in any speech in the last nine election campaigns: 2008-2006-2001-1996-1994-1992-1987-1983-1979 (I made a research about it: the last was Giorgio Almirante - a neofascist - in 1976, because in 1975 Italy and Yugoslavia signed the Treaty of Osimo). It is time that someone (paranoid?) adjusts his clock.--151.48.55.216 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Luigi, noone actually thinks Italy will invade and annex Dalmatia, Rijeka and Istria (especially after the end of the cold war). This is a historical debate we are engaged in. Also, I must once again point out that both the Italian and Croatian name forms have valid arguments in their favor, certainly more than "collective insecurity" on the part of all opposed users. I'm not the one to aggrandize Croatian history, it is what it is, but the idea that we're trying to incorporate Italians into our cultural legacy because of some psychological state of mind is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If you recognized this we may just get moving towards a compromise. I remind you that Ragusan legacy has been perceived as Croatian very early on, and was considered an integral part of Croatian culture by the start of the Croatian nationalist revival in the 1800s. If this is an "insecurity problem", its been here for centuries... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in psychology. I know only that when I asked if it was true that "in letters to their fellow countrymen, Ragusans always wrote in Slavic and used Slavic (not Italian) versions of their name. At least during the Republic (...)", your friend said: "Your efforts are now revealed, Mr. Venetian, as the imperialistic ideas that they are - just another attempt at claiming Dubrovnik and Ragusans as your own, among so many attempts of you countrymen in history. Methods like that earned your people an infamous reputation." I strongly hope that this is not a historian, because this answer is simply paranoid. But for sure this guy is not a historian, because he wrote: "the Ragusan Republic was the biggest contender to Venice in the 15th and 16th century". Only the largest of the ignorant among historians can write a nonsense of that kind, knowing that in 1509 was formed the League of Cambray, which was the biggest danger of Venetian history (except Napoleon, of course). Regarding the "compromise", few hours ago you called me "PIO", so: what are you talking about?--151.48.48.2 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That is your argument with Rag. Historian. I suggest you ask him about it on his talkpage, politely, if possible. Be to the point and I'm sure you'll be able to get to the bottom of the misunderstanding. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Politely"? You wrote to me that I'm an idiot, so please: don't use words wich you don't understand. "Misunderstanding" may be another interesting word, for you and also for the false Historian. In the last three days I found more corrispondences between Ragusans in (or also) in Italian. No one true Ragusan historian can be so ignorant.--151.48.31.49 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I called you an idiot because you generally treat other people like idiots (like trying to teach people the history of their own home town). I used the word "misunderstanding" because he never actually responded to your inquiry. People tend to do that in internet debates, that's why I use numbers (1), 2)) to clearly indicate which party of my text I want others to respond to. He appears to be new to Wikipedia, and if you really want to confront him with the issue, I suggest you contact him directly and simply ask him the question. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I hate people who talk about things that do not know. You are even worse, because you are ignorant, but you think to know something about this kind of articles. You wrote immense bestialities without sources. You wrote other bestialities against the sources! You wrote against the sources even when the sources are presented to you. And this is ignorance and bad faith.--151.48.32.212 (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
LoL Confucius say: "He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him." So what you're basically doing is calling me an ignorant fool? Here's a question for you, though: The Wikipedia community has banned you, that's a fact. Whether you think that was appropriate or not is not what I'm interested in right now. What I'm interested in is why do you stick around on this website when you've clearly been ordered off and forbidden to edit here again? (Bear in mind that your IP range is not too wide to avoid a block.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Confucius! A block! In point of fact, you ignore many subjects you edited. Your style of editing describes perfectly yourself: a confident boy who has a monstrous side of ignorance, and the other side, an equally monstrous presumption. I hope not to be ever your patient, but you must hope not to appear ever in a conference of historians. They might laugh at you.--151.48.32.212 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question, Prof. Luigi. You're missing the point just like Rag. Historian. Also, considering that I'm going for Psychiatry you may well be in need of my services. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- You are to going for Psychiatry, but regarding the history you are a perfect ignorant of the ermeneuthic model, and write perfect bestialities.
To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli--151.48.5.92 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you still didn't answer my question (and probably won't). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, since both parties in this yelling match are gaining nothing and neither is open to peruasion regarding the other's points, I suppose that disengagement would be the way forward. To DIREKTOR, I would recommend trying not to interact with this IP editor. To 151.48......, I would recommend lessons in civility and humility. I am persuaded that you are not PIO, if only because PIO always yelled in capitals, with significantly less grammatical ability. Poor PIO. Just a foot soldier, only the cannon fodder. My firm belief is that Luigi 28 was originally PIO, and he then passed the account to you, as a somewhat older, perhaps wiser neighbour. However, I am, to say the least, unimpressed by your recent schoolyard behaviour. Your sneering at Rag. Historian has utterly convinced me that your mission here is to triumph your arguments regarding Italy and Dalmatia, not to discuss history at all. I suppose that you do not wish to have your IP range blocked. If this is the case, I would sternly admonish you to moderate your language, as, on the next occasion that I see the words 'idiot', 'ignorant' or anything similar from your keyboard then your edits will be swiftly restricted to opining at Bruno's blog. Have I made myself clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Al, I notice that I used only the word ignorant, and ever "pour cause". If you want to block the editor who used "idiot", please: mr Direktor (your kind guy in Dalmatian-Istrian-things) is here. But I'm absolutely sure that in your wonderful mind "idiot" is a pure world, used from your friend, when "ignorant" is a terrible insult... I notice also that I'm the same: I'm not PIO, I was not PIO. Your accuse was simple a fake, and I was judged without a checkuser. PIO is from Apulia, I write from Venice: <---> 1,000 km. You have a lot of imagination, thinking that someone can create an account and then pass the same account to another people. By the way: also you have written a series of bestialities on articles involving the Italians of Istria and Dalmatia. I'm sorry, but I believe that in reality you have not ever read any book on the subject. Your sources are only those that you find on the Internet. When I say that some articles are in the hands of the ignorants, I am expressing a purely technical opinion. Nothing personal, Al.--151.48.61.175 (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing different from yesterday. When the things become too difficult for you, you simply deleted everything. This shows once again that you do not have the cultural bases to address a peaceful debate on these issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.38.41 (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
NOW YOUR HISTORY BELONGS TO US edit
While visiting the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic Sea, western journalists usually admire her ancient towns. They notice almost everywhere that the regional architecture is “heavily influenced” by a “Venetian” (or “Italianate“) “accent” or “flavor”. Years ago, a famous chef posing in front of a XVI century Dalmatian building for a documentary, claimed that its architecture was “quintessentially Croatian“. In the past, certain Western writers were almost convinced (and disgusted) that Croatians “imitated” Venetian and Italian Renaissance architecture in building Dalmatian towns. Today, Croatian and international tourist guides are presenting the rich artistic patrimony of Dalmatian coastal towns as essentially “Croatian” or “a reflection of Croatia‘s history“. They almost never mention the autochtonous Italians (about 80.000 in 1800s) who lived there since Roman times and who built those architectural jewels before disappearing in modern times. Where did they go? Almost all of them became refugees. They were the victims of the first ethnic cleansing documented in the Balkans. The history of Dalmatia is compromised by strategic interests and political correctness. The current ignorance about the eastern Adriatic coast is appalling and widespread. It is, in short, the consequence of a “damnatio memoriae” of political nature. On one side, in the West nobody knows the real history of the region. On the other side, ”’today a phalanx of nationalistic Croatian historians, political leaders, journalists and tourist operators, profiting from this vacuum are erasing, falsifying and misappropriating the real history on an international level using books, newspapers, tourist propaganda and Internet sites”’. The ethnic cleansing of the autochtonous Italian population of today’s Croatian coastline started in the second half of the 1800’s. Then, towns like Zadar, Split, Sibenik, Trogir, Dubrovnik had Italian names, Italian communities in a dominant position and a cosmopolitan population (of Croatian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek, Jewish, etc. origin). Everybody spoke Italian and Venetian dialect, the “lingua franca” of the time. Helped by the Austrian government (then all Eastern Adriatic coastline was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), Croatians launched a political campaign against the “Italian Dalmatia” to annex the territory. Since the beginning it was an integral part of the political national aspirations of Croatians struggling to form their own state. It continued to be so during the turbulent formation of the first, monarchic, Yugoslavia, when Croatia accepted willy-nilly the Serbian domination and on the same time continued the assault - violent, almost a civil war - against all Dalmatian towns inhabited by ethnic Italians. Following a first exodus toward the end of the 1800s, in 1905 in Rome a Dalmatian Italian Association to help the refugees was founded. Then, after WWI tens of thousands of Dalmatian Italians abandoned their towns and villages in 1920-1930s and settled on Italian territory. During WW2 a third and final exodus: the winning Communist movement embraced the Croatian’s irredentist cause and included it in its war strategy and national political platform. The consequence was the violent expulsion of 350.000 Italian speaking autochtonous inhabitants from all the Eastern Adriatic coastline - from the southern Dalmatia to the Istrian peninsula - and the consequential erasing of two millennia of a very rich civilization. Ethnic cleansing had happened in many parts of Europe in both old and modern times, so the demographic and cultural extirpation of Italian presence in Dalmatia, the Quarnero region and Istria is not really a new phenomena. But this slow, brutal and in 1945 also military operation had an unexpected development, something very peculiar. After erasing almost all the Italian speaking population in Dalmatia proper, without succeeding completely in the Quarner region and Istria, Croatia adapted a new form of genocide: the stealing of the “enemy’s” history in order to obliterate his memory and aggrandize the country. Completely ignored in the West, this skullduggery is a new Pandora’s vase “Balkan style“. Sack and disinform. Croatia, a country of about 5 million inhabitants, has “nationalized” the history of her Adriatic coastline, a territory that had never been part of the Slavic hinterland, either historically, politically or culturally. In order to totally “Croatianize“ the coastal territories, the country is manipulating their history and striving to “show” the world that Dalmatia, the Quarner region and Istria have “always” been Croatian. There is no actual political contingency to justify this operation: the old Italian irredentism ended up definitely in the dustbin of the history, and no other countries - except for Slovenia - have pressing territorial ambitions toward Croatia. Never methodically investigated, nobody knows how and when these history misappropriations started. In 1858-60 Ivan Kukuljevic Sakcinski, who belonged to Croatian nobility, published his “Slovnik umjetnikah jugoslavenskih”, an encyclopedic dictionary of Yugoslav artists (then, Croatia was under Hungarian domination and Yugoslavia was still a dream). In this book among Slavic artists you can find the painter Vittore Carpaccio - born in Venice, 1460/65 ca. - 1525/26 ca. - only because Carpaccio used to create religious paintings commissioned by churches in Istrian peninsula and Dalmatia. Kukuljevic Sakcinski, a hot headed nationalist, “opined” that the artist’s last name derived from a Croatian root: “Krpaci, Skrpaci or Krpatici”. Take for example the history of the Republic of Ragusa, officially known as Dubrovnik only from 1919 on. Ragusa has been an independent republic governed since the Middle Ages by a Latin/Illirian oligarchy. 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 Italian “volgare” and finally in modern Italian (the Republic had an office in charge of translations from Slavic vernacular). 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, The Republic of Ragusa is remembered as ”The fifth Maritime Republic of Italy” (with Venice, Pisa, Amalfi and Genoa). For centuries, the well-to-do Ragusan families sent their children to study in the Italian universities. Across the Adriatic sea, Ragusans had daily contacts with Italy. The celebrated libraries of Ragusa were full of Italian editions of every kind, but no books printed in Serbo-Croatian language. Today in some Croatian history books the real history of Ragusa disappears almost completely. The historians maintain that Dubrovnik “is an important page of the history of Croatia”, although Ragusa had only commercial liaisons with a Croatian territory that has not been a state for nine centuries. They repeat obsessively that the maritime republic was Croatian “almost since the beginning of her history”, that her merchant fleet was completely Croatian. Every family of the town’s aristocracy - Basilio, Cerva, Ghetaldi, Luccari, Menze, etc. - is given arbitrarily “the equivalent Croatian name“. All Ragusan state institutions are receiving Croatian denominations, all monasteries in town are presented as “Croatian”, although the clergy was Italian. You find all these misappropriations in Wikipedia “the free encyclopedia” site, where the authors (clearly Croats) are demonstrating how grotesque are their pretensions when, at a certain point, they report the list of Ragusan senators who attended the last session of their Greater Council, the one in which it was announced that the glorious republic was dissolved (Aug. 29, 1814): of a little over forty incontestable Italian names of the senators, only one is of Croatian origin: Marino Domenico, count of Zlatarich. In 2006, with his book “Dubrovnik - A history” published in England and sold in every English speaking country, the British author did an unwanted favor to the extremely voracious Croatian nationalistic historiography. Using only Croatian sources and materials, he wrote an essentially extremely nationalistic Croatian book in English language. Explaining his readers the mystery of place, institutions and personal Italian names translated into Croatian, he wrote: “I have used the Slavic form throughout, simply because that is the one most commonly found in the historiography” (obviously Croatian). “No other significance - he pointed out - is implied”. And with this elegant explanation, the deontology of the historian took a vacation. A “patriotic mission”. Some Croatian historians and researchers are a legion of agit-props engaged in the “patriotic mission” of promoting the grandeur of their homeland. Their patriotism obey to a categorical imperative: the country comes first, at any cost, even lying. They “Croatianize“ everybody and everything. Literally hundreds of public figures, artists, scientists, academics - Italian Dalmatia had in XIX century 32 newspapers and periodicals, a rich history, an incredible artistic, academic and literary life, and glorious maritime traditions - today are mentioned as “Croatian“. In 1998, writing for “The Atlantic” magazine Robert D. Kaplan (author of influential “Balkan Ghosts”) seemed to be the first American essayist to reveal the truth about the suppression of the Italian past of Ragusa by Croatia (and by extension of Dalmatia). “A nasty, tribal principality - he wrote - who was attempting to transform, in the old Republic, its character subtly from that of a sensuous, cosmopolitan mélange into a sterile, nationalistic uniformity”. Of the original Italian speaking population of the town only about 40 individuals survived the ethnic cleansing. Unnoticed by academic authorities in the West, an implacable (first Panslavistic, then Pancroat) “nationalization” of non-Croatian history continued for decades in a dramatic crescendo. In the last half century it reached epidemic proportions: Andrea Antico, born in Montona (today Motovun) in Istria, a composer and music publisher of the 1500s (he is studied in every music school of this globe), was rebaptised Andrija Staric (or Starcevic); the Renaissance painter Lorenzo De Boninis, born in Ragusa/Dubrovnik, is presented in Croatian history books and tourist guides as “Lovro Dobricevic”; Nicola Fiorentino, an Italian born XVI century architect active for decades in Dalmatia, becomes the fake Croat “Nikola Firentinac“. Giovan Francesco Biondi, a writer born in 1572 on the Dalmatian island of Lesina (Hvar) is introduced to the Western cybernauts as an improbable “Ivan Franc Biundovic”, although he was a diplomat (and maybe a spy) in the service of the Venetian Republic and with his three books is considered the first modern Italian novel writer. (The “superpatriotic” Croatians historians completely ignore the “Italian” aspects of his biography, reducing his creations to “an excellent history of the British civil wars while living in England” to be added to Croatian merits). The case of Francesco Patrizi, a XVI century philosopher and scientist who was a teacher of “La Sapienza” university in Rome, is almost incredible. He became “Franjo Petric” (or “Petricevic”), that means a “Croat”, only because he was born on the island of Cherso (Croatian “Cres“) in the Quarner gulf. Croatian academic and political circles are so proud of “Franjo Petric” that almost every year they are holding in Zagreb, the capital of the country, and on “Cres“, an academic symposium dedicated to this magnificent intellectual mind. Many years ago they published one of his books printed in Italy in 1500s. They took the original, ornate volume, translated it into modern Croatian language and published it presenting the book as an anastatic edition of the original, in order to demonstrate the high level of their national civilization in the 1500s (when Croatian capital Zagreb was still a village and Croatians in toto were still an agricultural/pastoral population). But they made a mistake: they used the Croatian diacritic signs (“accents” on certain consonants) invented only in the middle of the 1800s. Another example is that of Pier Paolo Vergerio, a catholic bishop and an historical figure in the turbulent times of the Reformation. He lived in Capodistria, a small town on the Istrian peninsula. In a Croatian history book, written by a Croatian academic and published in the USA, the bishop is presented as “Petar Pavao Vergerije”, without pointing out that he was Italian, that the town of Capodistria never had anything to do with Croatia, never had a noticeable Slavic minority among her population and today is part of… Slovenia. There is a Ragusan writer who, from 1909 up to today, underwent involuntarily to a name-change quiet a few times: Benko or Beno Kotruljevic, Kotruljic, Kotrulic or Kotrulj. Croatian historiographers do not care much in this regard. To them is important that this was “one of the first Croatian writers on scientific subjects”. “Croatian”, they repeated a hundred times in their essays on this historical figure. But that gentleman’s real name was Benedetto Cotrugli (or de Cotruglis). This is the way he signed his correspondence and also his famous book, “Della mercantura et del mercante perfetto”, one of the first manuals on merchandising, book-keeping and “the good merchant”, published in Venice in 1573. This book is known in every university and a college with an Economy department. Cotrugli went to school and lived for all his adult life in Italy, serving as a diplomat the Kingdom of Naples and as director of the Mint in L‘Aquila. He never wrote anything in Croatian language. By the way, his book was published in Croatia only in 1963, five centuries after it was written. But he is considered “Croatian”. This kind of uncontrolled appetite is also directed toward classic antiquity. A reliable Croatian archeologist, Josip Vlahovic, studied a bas-relief in the Split (Spalato) Baptistery, portraying a Middle Ages king on the throne, with a crown on his head and holding a cross. At his side there is a figure, maybe a court official, and in front of him another figure prostrated on the floor. Examining the clothing, hairstyle and other details, Vlahovic concluded, honestly, that the bas-relief was ”most probably” created by a band of Longobards, who settled in Dalmatian interior in the VI century before moving out of the territory, in an uncertain period, and disappearing. According to Daria Garbin, an archeologist living in Spalato (Split), who wrote extensively about that barbarian band, that Medioeval king “could be” the Longobard Alaric. Finally, the elegant and rich book “Croatia in the Early Middle Ages - A cultural survey”, published by the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, printed in London in 1999, and distributed in all English speaking countries, is embellished by a magnificent, full-page picture of the same bas-relief. Beside the picture, there is the explanation: “Marble carving of a Croatian king (maybe Zvonimir)”. Here the Longobards do not receive any attention. One of the most frequent tricks in this “propagandistic history” is to find a couple of Croatian personalities and squeeze between them the Slavicized name of an Italian local personality in order to “demonstrate” that a Dalmatian town was, yes inhabited by “some” Italians, but was predominantly Croatian. Take for example Trogir, known for a millennia as the Italian Dalmatian town of Traù, incredibly rich in arts and architecture, and since 1997 protected by the UNESCO. On a Croatian Internet site you can notice that a humanist and writer from Trogir, Koriolan Cipiko, active in 1500s is sandwiched between two Croatian historical figures that had nothing to do with him nor Trogir. Here the intention is to “neutralized” completely that gentleman, whose real name was Coriolano Cippico, a member of an illustrious centuries old Dalmatian dynasty (of bishops, writers, philosophers, army and navy leaders, you name it) of Roman origin. Another Croatian site says that “during this period Italian citizens, until 1918 the ruling class and almost half part of the population, were forced to leave for Italy”. Forced by whom? The authors of the site cautiously don’t say it. In another Croatian site we find that in the same period Trogir had 16.000 inhabitants, that means that 8.000 were Italians. Today the Italians living in Trogir are only a handful. There are literally hundred of episodes and cases like these, in numerous Croatian history books and tourist guides published in English language and distributed in the West, and now also on Internet. Outright falsehoods, half truths, tendentious presentations, patriotic rhetoric and grotesque nationalistic grandiosity are very common in them. This part of the Croatian academic world knows no limits in the national appetite for glory, veneration of patriotic heritage, and stealing of other people’s cultural icons to show off. Nowadays in Croatia (and through Internet in the United States also) they maintain that Marco Polo was born on Croatian island of Korcula (historically Curzola; up to 1920s the main town of the island was populated by an Italian majority) and that he was a Croat, not a Venetian, without any document to prove it. They also appropriate Giovanni da Verrazzano, the Tuscan explorer who is considered to be the first European to have discovered the bay of New York, in 1524 (decades before Henry Hudson). For this primacy his name was given to the spectacular modern bridge that connects Brooklyn with Staten Island. But now Verrazzano is proclaimed “Croat”. Why? Because while exploring the Eastern Atlantic coast going North, he used to give some Dalmatian names to certain territories and islands he discovered during his voyage. So Verrazzano becames “Vranjanin or Vrancic”. The same destiny is reserved to an Austrian composer, Franz Joseph Haydn, only because he was born (in 1723) in an Austrian region inhabited by a community of Croatian origins who settled there in V or VI century A.D. during barbarian invasions of Europe. Certain Croatian nationalistic historiographers are busy creating for their country the desolating fake image of a civilized and highly spiritual nation, using the heritage of a civilization the country eradicated in the first historically documented, but still unknown, Balkan ethnic cleansing. Today nobody is noticing and condemning this threatening phenomena. These charlatans with a master degree are doing a tremendous disservice first of all to their own country. They are also dangerous. In a region in the past tremendously violent and today with so many unsolved problems, this kind of piracy is very ominous and should be stopped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pile (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.16.153 (talk)
January 2010 edit
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to the page House of Bunić. Blank pages are malicious to Wikipedia as they often confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the deletion process for how to proceed. ADI4094 08:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Debona.michel (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Bunic/de Bona edit
Before mr Direktor erased my words, I wrote in the talk page of Republic of Ragusa: "Very interesting point, mr De Bona. If you had an article about yourself here, someone could change your name in "Bunic". You know: today in Dubrovnik you can't find any family "Bunic", and six families "Bona" (or "de Bona"): Ivana Bona, Margita Bona, Mihael Bona, Rene de Bona, Diana Bona-Pende and Marija-Kristina Bona-Salame. Someone here maybe would change also their names..." PS I wrote the Italian article about the Bona family.--151.21.251.206 (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback edit
Message added 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ADI4094 09:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Article edit
Do you want the article deleted again? I seem to recall you stated that would be ok for you. Do I have your support in filing for an AfD? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- First I have to make one point: I am NOT a "Croatian nationalist". I am not motivated by nationalist sentiment. I am frequently in conflict with actual Croatian nationalists on enWiki.
- Yes I know the article is of higher quality now. Even though the article was recreated by a banned person who threatened to stalk me (in real life), I never like to delete sourced information. In case you've not noticed, I did reluctantly file for WP:SD yesterday, and I received the recommendation to go to WP:AfD and finish the matter for good (AfD-deleted articles are automatically deleted if recreated, apparently). I don't want to delete the article, but I am really sick of edit-warring and conflict in Dalmatia-related articles, so if the thing is going to be a problem, I'm for deletion.
- Now to answer your concerns. The reason why the South Slavic/Croatian names are generally in use on enWiki is because we all know from sources that the language spoken in the Republic of Ragusa was predominantly the South Slavic Shtokavian dialect, as I'm sure you know and agree (I really hope I won't have to debate such basic facts). In addition to this, modern historiography generally considers the people of Dubrovnik to have been Croats. If a family originated in Italy and moved to a South Slavic state in 1300 (completely arbitrary year), are we to consider the family "Italian" in 1800? My family branch moved to Spalato in the latter half 18th century from Venice (reportedly, this is not completely certain), am I Venetian? :) Therefore for the sake of accuracy and detail, NOT for the sake of any nationalist POV, the language we use in writing the names of the people of the City of Dubrovnik is Shtokavian.
- I know what you mean, though, I'm not a moron, and I understand family tradition and what it means. I know Italian was considered the "high language of culture" while Shtokavian was "base and primitive" (this is why as you say tombstones often had Italian names), but you must understand that notion is racist, highly offensive and should not be promoted on Wiki in the face of common usage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- So the question is: when the Bunic family changed his name to "Bona"? 'Cause today the "Bona" or "de Bona" are still living in Dubrovnik! And if someone would create a new article about the last descendant of this family (mrs Mercy de Bona, for instance), what kind of name had to use: Bona or Bunic?--151.21.252.153 (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- (Let me make an exception here and not remove your post, Luigi.) I understand what you mean. I must point out that it is not very easy to compare medieval Ragusa with the 21st century, and living persons(?) with historical figures from the 15th century. I hope you will not try to forge fake arguments with such tricks. It goes without saying that the Mercy de Bona article would use the lady's name. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why are we going into individual cases? The situation there is perfectly clear: source Captain Bona's name with a (non-Italian language) reference and we have nothing to discuss. I am talking about the default practice. Again, we can hardly compare the 20th century with the middle ages in any case. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
We are going into individual cases, because an Enciclopedia often is formed from individual cases. The name "Bunic" today is absolutely correct for Ivan Bunic Vucic, but for the family I suggest the form that I have used to create the article in the Italian wiki: "La famiglia Bona (nelle fonti anche de Bona, in croato anche Bunić)...". Here can be: The House of Bunic (in the sources you can often find the italian form Bona or de Bona...).--151.21.252.153 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- User 151-21.252, etc., I don't agree with you that "Bona" or "de Bona" is "Italian". I would agree that it's a Croatian name of "Italian" origin. If this is your reasoning, do you know how many names in Croatia would have to be Slavicized? Direktor, if your family is of Venetian origin, do you think your name today should be changed because you are Croatian? Should it be ---oric? I would think that you agree that your name doesn't need to be Slavicized for you to be Croatian? Imagine if one of your ancestors were famous and that everybody called him ---oric yet you would still be ---ora...Wouldn't you think that would be odd (especially if all your family's documents for centuries say ---ora?).Debona.michel (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"...ora" is slavized. Venetian form is without final "a". You can verify here: http://www.gens.labo.net/it/cognomi/genera.html
I don't want to enter in the discussion, but I think you should base on historical documents. I agree with Luigi that Ivan Bunić Vučić or Ivan Gundulić are absolutely correct, but family names are more complex. --Grifter72 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Direktor, ok good to know + thanks for the link (but you get my point). Interesting.
- Grifter72, all of the old documents in Dubrovnik point to Bona. It's the Bunic documents we are looking for. Please explain your "absolutely correct". What if Ivan Bunic also wrote (mostly) in Italian and used the name Giovanni Serafino de Bona at the time? Debona.michel (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Michel, I agree with you: "Bona" is the historic name of the family. The Ragusan historic name.--151.21.253.51 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Luigi Vanvitelli was born Lodewijk van Wittel. Ivan Bunić wrote especially in a Croatian dialect so it's correct to call him with the Croatian name. For the family name I think it is better to use the romance form "de Bona" that is used in all the historical documents. In my opinion should be good to open a discussion on the Croatian Portal page to create rules for the Dalmatian family names. Here you are not able to solve the problem: you have an opinion and Direktor has another opinion.--Grifter72 (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- In the case of Luigi Vanvitelli, the Italian born descendants continued using the Italian form. In Dubrovnik, this is not the case. The aristocracy continued using (in most cases) non-Slavic names (until this day) or a combination thereof. Debona.michel (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
"Muro contro muro" does not work. You need to create consensus. The only way is to open a discussion. The better page is this: Croatian Portal page . We already did it for the Italian names of the Istrian municipalities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Croatia/Archive_1 --Grifter72 (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion has already been going on for over a year on the Republic of Ragusa and the previously deleted House of Bona and Marino de Bona pages. I have suggested both names side by side - even though personally I don't agree with it. Re Direktor's note about what Ivan Bunic would have been called in his time, I'm quite sure he would have been "Gospar Bona"...just like my great-great grandfather, great-grandfather and grand-father were called in their time. I don't want to make a big deal out of this because I know the majority of Croats will not agree with me -- but I think they would if they knew a little bit more about the family. In Dubrovnik, most real Dubrovčani, all know the family as Bona -- and the name still carries a lot of respect/interest there. I think we have reached some kind of truce. Debona.michel (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Debona.michel (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Giovanni di(?) Serafino Bona edit
A question, if I may. The name in the Ragusan Shtokavian dialect for Giovanni Serafino Bona is "Đivo Sarov Bunić". "Saro" is a Ragusan abbreviation/nickname for "Serafin" (i.e. Serafino). In the form "Sarov", it means "son of Saro". So "Đivo Sarov Bunić" basically means "Đivo son of Serafino Bunić". My question is: is his proper Italian name "Giovanni di Serafino Bona"? Was his father named Serafino de Bona? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Giovanni Bona was the name of two Ragusan poets. To distinguish the two, Francesco Maria Appendini called the older with the patronymic: Giovanni di Serafino Bona (Notizie istorico-critiche..., p. 236). Appendini added the slavic surname of Giovanni Bona: Vucicevich. But today in Italy we use the (incorrect) name "Giovanni Serafino Bona".--151.21.253.51 (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
House of De Bona edit
Hi Debona.michel! I think you might have a point. May be we can come to some sort of consensus. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Email sent to Debona.michel concerning: Move request of House of Bunic (by 84.221.67.86). Sir Floyd (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll just repeat: the page has been recreated by a banned account after it has been deleted by admins due to the edit-warring and lack of relevance. I am against its deletion ONLY if nobody tries to restart the old Dalmatian edit wars here. "Escalating the conflict" is ill-advisable for everyone. (P.S. that's User:PIO/Luigi 28's very well noted alternative 84. IP.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Only to say that I haven't any kind of "alternative IP". Luigi--151.21.249.234 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Inform edit
I inform you: read user talk:Jimbo Wales#Ex Yugoslavia case —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)