Talk:Republic of Ragusa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 title 2 the Slavic language 3 Braudel 4 Italian 5 Post-Rep of Ragusa historical material moved 6 The patrizie families of Ragusa were Italian 7 Vandalism of Kubura 8 Weasel words and POV 9 Changes to the first several paragraphs of Noneedforthis (explanation) 10 Giovanni Giove's changes - comment 11 Name of the Republic 12 The last council of Ragusa and your members

[edit] title

In English, this is almost always referred to as the "Republic of Ragusa". Would people object if I move it? john k 16:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have already been moved from "Republic of Dubrovnik", since other pages link there and the intro never mentions "Dubrovnik Republic". Shouldn't the intro use the same terminology as the title?--The Human Spellchecker 03:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we should.

Sargeras 11:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the midst of all this, I see nobody objecting to Republic of Ragusa as the proper title for this article. It is always called Ragusa in this time period, and not Dubrovnik, and the elites were Italianized, so I'm going to move it. john k 14:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Kubura had moved it back to Republic of Dubrovnik, but it was done via copy&paste and without any reason shown, so I reverted it. --Joy [shallot] 19:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the Slavic language

What is with Croatian in the official languages list? The Serbo-Croatian language was poorly used in the Republic before SFRJ (which is long after the Ragusian Republic)

Before and during Napoleon's reign, they had still their own culture, and it is widely spoken with Croatian only recently (if you seperate Serbian and Croatian, I don't). If you already seperate the name, then you should put Serbian, because the Croatian language was completly recent. Sargeras 11:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And somebody wanted to have this person ("Sargeras" a.k.a. "HolyRomanEmperor" a.k.a. "HRE") as an administrator? Four times? A "neutral person"?? This text above is a typical example of open greaterserbian expansionism. Denying of belonging of Republic of Dubrovnik to Croatia and Croatian culture. Denying the Croatian culture and Croats at all. Kubura 08:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We have had this discussion several times on other Wikipedia articles, and User:Mir Harven has yet to see a rebuttal of his opinion, and the opinion of most Croatian literary historians, that the Dubrovnik language is Croatian heritage.

From Talk:Serbo-Croatian language:

virtually all literature written in shtokavian vernacular prior to Serbian language reformer Vuk Karadžić, ie. cca. 430 years of literary texts, belong to the Croatian linguistic and literary heritage. First major vernacular shtokavian text is "First Croatian prayer book", kept in Vatican library- date cca. 1380-1400. Then follow major authors covering Renaissance, Baroque, Classicist and Sentimental literaure: Držić, Menčetić, Gundulić, Bunić, Palmotić, Zlatarić (Dubrovnik), Kavanjin (Split, Dalmatia), Kanavelović (Korčula, Dalmatia), Divković, Posilović (Bosnia), Kačić(Dalmatia), Relković, Ivanošić, Došen (Slavonia)..The majority of these texts are titled as works on "Illyrian" or "Slovinian"/"Slavonic" language, but they explicitly equate Illyrian with Croatian- dor instance, first major shtokavian-based dictionary, Mikalja's/Micaglia's "Thesaurus linguae illyricae", Loreto 1649. "Hrvat, Hervat = Illyricus, Croata". Further info on older Croatian lexicography can be found at http://www.hlz.hr/eng/povijest.html

So- virtually everything written on shtokavian dialect (dramas, epic poems, sonnets, didactic epics, the first (unpiblished) Bible translation (1622-1637), grammars, dictionaries,religious texts (missals, prayer books, breviaries,..) from 1400s until 1810s (the commencement of Serbian reformer Karadžić's activity) is exclusively Croatian. More than 400 years of written word in multifarious forms, in shtokavian dialect, belongs to the Croatian culture. As Serbian-Jewish writer Oskar Davicho said: " Some still speak that Croats "got" their language from us. It seems it was the other way around." (A 1978. comment on a book by Croatian philologist Zlatko Vince)

From Talk:Greater Serbia:

a significant part (say, cca. 50%) of štokavian writers from 1500s to 1800s identified their name as Croatian, and virtually all as Slovin or Illyrian (and these terms were, in štokavian dictionaries like Mikalja's (1649) and Stulli (1810) explicitely identified as equal in meaning and content to the term Croat. Also- they never mentioned Serbian name as the name of their ethnic or national identity.

I'll try to dig out other quotes, I know I asked the Dubrovnik question even more directly at some page. --Joy [shallot] 12:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, it was at Croatian language (doh, the obvious place):

The topic of language with the writers from Dalmatia and Dubrovnik prior to the 19th century is somewhat blurred by the fact they by and large placed more emphasis on whether they were Slavic rather than Italic, given that Dalmatian city-states were then inhabited by those two main groups. There was less notable distinction being made between Croats and Serbs, and this, among other things, has been used as an argument to state that these people's literature is not solely Croatian heritage, thus undermining the argument that modern-day Croatian is based on old Croatian.

However, the major part of intellectuals and writers from Dalmatia who used the štokavian dialect and were of Catholic faith had explicitly expressed Croatian national affiliation, as far as mid 1500s and 1600s, some three hundred years before the Serbo-Croatian ideology had appeared. Their loyalty was first and foremost to the Catholic Christendom, but when they professed ethnic identity, they called it "Slovin" and "Illyrian" (a sort of forerunner of Catholic baroque pan-Slavism) and Croat — these 30-odd writers in the span of ca. 350 years themselves never mentioned Serb ethnic affiliation any time. A Croatian follower of Vuk Karadžić, Ivan Broz, noted that the Serbian affiliation was as foreign as Macedonian and Greek appellation at this time. Vatroslav Jagić pointed out in 1864:

"As I have mentioned in the preface, history knows only two national names in these parts – the Croatian and Serbian. As far as Dubrovnik is concerned, the Serbian name was never in use; on the contrary, the Croatian name was frequently used and gladly referred to"

"At the end of the 15th century [in Dubrovnik and Dalmatia], sermons and poems were exquisitely crafted in the Croatian language by those men whose names are widely renowned by deep learning and piety."

(From The History of the Croatian language, Zagreb, 1864.)

--Joy [shallot]

Having said that, I also agree that the most accurate and neutral way to phrase this is simply "Slavonic language", because it's silly to try to put only Croatian and omit Serbian - it's fairly apparent that both of the languages meant by those titles today drew from this dialect. --Joy [shallot]

Of course put only Croatian language and omit Serbian. No some "undetermined" "Slavonic language". If you want to put it that way, than change the lines in the articles about Nederlands and all Dutch areas (possibly even about early medieval England, because of - Saxons), and put "German language", because the languages from those areas all drew their origins from "Plattdeutsch". Kubura 08:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In the official Ragusan documents, their native language was called ILIRIAN. In that time it was a usual name for a language that will later be called Serbo-Croatian, and now Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian (depending on official ideology). On the top of that, every year, during a ceremony at the Sultan's court, when Ragusan diplomats were delivering a tax money (it is haed to translate HARAC), thay had a right to address sultan in their Ilirian language. My souce is Bogdan Krizman, Consuls and diplomats in Old Dubrovnik (in Croatian). In the beggining of his career, Krizman was an expert for Ragusal diplomacy. His PhD had that issue as its main subject.

Illyrian language (ilirički jezik) was one of synonyms of Croatian language. See, e.g., Joso Voltiggi's Ričoslovnik iliričkoga, italijanskog i nimačkoga jezika) from 1802/03 , Šime Starčević's Nova ričoslovica ilirička from 1812 (in these grammars, e.g., monthnames are equal as in Croatian, nothing in common with Serb language). Many scientist works were written about that, that proof that Illyrian language=Croatian language.Kubura 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Or if you want it this way, Croat's national renaissance movement, Croat risorgimento, was named at first as "Illyric" movement. Serb movement didn't have that name. Kubura 13:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Braudel

If anyone feels like doing some book research, there is a lot of good material on Ragusa in Fernand Braudel's History of the Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II. (I'm not watchlisting this page, so if anyone wants to communicate with me on this, hit my talk page.) -- Jmabel | Talk 22:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italian

There is nothing on the role of Italian language. According to it:Repubblica di Ragusa:

l'italiano (con una certa influenza veneta) costituì per secoli (accanto al latino) una prestigiosa lingua di cultura, nonché la lingua ufficiale della Repubblica dal 1492 sino alla sua fine.

L'incremento della popolazione croata della città grazie all'immigrazione dal contado circostante si intensificò nel XVIII secolo, ma non riuscì a scalfire il prestigio dell'italiano fino alla fine del XIX secolo, epoca in cui gran parte della popolazione italofona si era gradualmente assimilata.

From Dalmatian language:

which were quoted by an Italian, Fillipo Diversi, the head of school of Dubrovnik in the 1430s.

[edit] Post-Rep of Ragusa historical material moved

I moved the historical info for the post-Republic of Ragusa period (i.e., post-ca. 1815) to Dubrovnik#History since it was not about the Republic but about Dubrovnik. -

AjaxSmack 07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The patrizie families of Ragusa were Italian

, this however did not prevent that many of their members learned the illirico (Croatian Dalmatian), and wrote component in such language. As an example Giovanni Gondola (Ivan Gundulic) is considered one of the fathers of the Croatian literature. Obviously these patrizie wrote also in Italian and many of they left literary works in this language. Unfortunately in Croatia (but not only), the names of the patrizie families are often introduce to you with the single Croatian dizione (than however it does not have historical base, being be introduced in posterior age). It is moreover stretched to introduce such families like “pure Croatian”, ignoring their Italian roots.

Which Italian roots? They spoke and used Italian language, only to differ them from the serfs and other lower social classes. That is the case that existed all over Europe. Kubura 08:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to know that all the European social strata were Italian;-)--Giovanni Giove 20:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're playing stupid, G.Giove. I'm speaking about that, that higher social classes spoke other language, to differ them from lower classes. In other areas, higher classes spoke German, French, Latin, Russian, English... You're speaking about Middle Ages and aristocracy, but you don't know that? Kubura 13:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Kubura

The repeated vandalisms operated by Kubura have been reported to a moderator. The question of the names has already been discussed. The italian historical names in the article have just an historical meaning. They are reported because they were the names used in the old times. They are not a way for the espansionism of "fascist italians", and Ragusa is not a "fascist imposed name" as Kubura claims. --Giovanni Giove 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words and POV

This article is a major catastrophy. Not only does it feature blatant rasist remarks such as "ome time later some Slav (that had surpassed the barbaric stage)", but it seems to be based solely on original research. There is one reference added towards the end of the article from an Italian minority newspaper, hardly a neutral source. The article needs to be rewritten. 83.131.1.242 10:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ther is no racism. We are speaking about VII century. Ragusa was plundered by Avars and Slavic during barbaric invasions. It is evident that the phrase (translated from the cited reference), means that two century later the slavic where no more "barbarians". I remember you that the original meaning of "barbar" is foreigner. Barbaric invasion = foreigner invasion.--Giovanni Giove 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here the link with the word "barbarians" [1]. It should be so evident it's no racistic! Nel frattempo gli slavi, usciti dalla fase barbarica, si stabilirono in insediamenti permanenti nell'area del'odierno monte Sr'D, che nei documenti latini dell'epoca viene chiamato Mons Virgatum il monte degli arbusti, nome che altro non è che la trasposizione di un toponimo slavo assai diffuso: Dubrava, la macchia delle querce--Giovanni Giove 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an English-speaking edition of Wikipedia. Please use sources in English to support your claims. Noneedforthis 09:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So you instead of talking about "Slavs who are surpassing their barbaric stage" you are claiming the following: "some time later some Slav (that had surpassed the foreign stage"? Sorry, but this explanation makes no sense whatsoever. I have also checked the references you added. They originate from a site called DalmaziaNews and from an essay published on some guy's personal pages. This all is unsettling to say the least. After all, you question Encyclopaedia Britannica, but the references you have added (and for goodness sake they are all in ITALIAN) leave certainly much to be desired even if we disregard blatant racism. I am placing "totally disputed" and "weasel" tags until we can sort this out. Please do not remove them until we can agree that this page adheres to Wikipedia standards. Noneedforthis 09:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just telling you the origin of the word "barbarian", that had the original meaning of forigner, later it has assumed another meaning. Anyway when slavs has arrived in Balkans, they where, as a matter of facts, "barbarians". As the Germans and the Huns. Is it offensive? I'd say no. Later they adsoberd the Roman (and Greek) civilzation, and they were no more "barbarian". Such has the founders of "Dubrava". Do you still find racism in this version? I was looking for an English source for the origins, but I have found nothing. Anyway, as far as I can remeber, the version is correct. I can not see a reason to tag all the article just for one section.--Giovanni Giove 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found this English source that confirm the version[2]. You sholud delete the general tag, and to tag just the single sections. I shall remember you that the NPOV tag is inserted, after a discussion. You have inserted it without a previous discussion and this is not allowed. It's possible to correct the single section, without this extreme, resource. For this reason I'll delete it, but I expect further discussion on the single problmes.--Giovanni Giove 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to stop playing these little games? Just what exactly does 1911 Britannica corraborate in the current Wikipedia article? Nonetheless, this is a huge step forward as we finally have a relevant source which, coupled with a modern edition of Britannica should bring the article to the official Wikipedia standard. All your other claims, unless backed by relevant sources, will have to go. I will start working on the proper version of this article when I find time. In the meantime, refrain from removing NPOV and weasel tags. The article hopelessly needs to be brought up to some standard. Noneedforthis 13:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not playing "Little game" as you are doing. I'disegree with your decision and I told you why. You should ask the help of a moderator, instedad to impose your point of wiev: these are the rules. Anyway, stop to do the false stupid: the 1911 Brit. article, corroborate just the "Origins", paragraphs. The later paragraphs are disorganized, and I've tried to made some order, reorganizing them in the proper cronlogy, But still they are not ok. I rember that it's not "you" that have to work to article "when you have time": you are not a moderator, you can just give your contibution. Furhtermore don't tell me "refrain", just call a moderator if you disagree with me. I suggest that the proper way it's to work toghther, and not "against". When we disagree, all the (referenced) points of view, shall be reported. These are the rules. I disagree with you, but i don't want to start an edite war. I pray you to contact a modertor. I'm afraid he's necessary. See you soon. Bye.--Giovanni Giove 14:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the first several paragraphs of Noneedforthis (explanation)

I am leaving the disputed and weasel tags in order to facilitate exchange of opinions on the proposed changes although the POV, and poorly referenced or unreferenced statements have been removed. Every single paragraph which has been rewritten or in one case renamed now features statements based on English-speaking peer-reviewed quality sources. All the POV statements basing their claims on information contained in other editions of Wikipedia or in other Wikipedia articles (as well as those based on information contained on some obscure sites or personal pages) have also been removed. Statements which are irrelevant to this article such as sejourns of different Serbian dukes (also happened to be unreferenced) belong in their respective articles.

I have also used Ragusa/Dubrovnik in order to neutralize contentions related to the name of the Republic. Exceptions are quotes. This solution is used in several of the books quoted as sources. Besides both names are used interchangeably in most of the sources.

Language and nationality section will be expanded in due course. Noneedforthis 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni Giove's changes - comment

Removed the first paragraph which is unreferenced, POV or at best original research. Please, do not substantiate it with wikilink comments and/or information from other editions of wikipedia. Find an English-language peer-revied high-quality source to back your claim.

For the same reason, a comment based on what appears an Italian reference that came out of nowhere has been removed in the languages section. But more importantly, the insertion of claims WITHIN paragraphs that are REFERNCED is unaccaptable and misleading. Noneedforthis 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've revered the action of the user. The comment is referenced and neutral. Further information are avalaible in the wikilink. Anyway the origins of Venice and of other Adriatic city is a mistery for nobody. Just buy a touristic guide, a school book, or just do an internet search. It is enough: the concept is of public domain. I don't need a citation to write that Columbus did a trip to America, for the same reason I don't need a citation for the origins of Venice. I remember to the above user, that non-english reference are valid, and it should be hard to speak about Ragusa, avoiding Italian sources. I warn the user to avoid a further deleting. If he thinks I broke the rules, the first step is to try to discuss with me and to revert or modify my contributions. If I do non accept his critics, the next step is to contact a moderator. He will judge if my comments are good or not. Mr. Noneedforthis can not impose his own rules or his own point of wiev. Those are the wikipedia rules, not mine. --Giovanni Giove 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the Republic

Can you please tell me what exactly do you find "nationalistic POV" in minor edits I made? Also you reverted all the grammar corrections I made...were they also nationalistic POV? Get a hold of yourself... --Factanista 08:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You should stop to introduce Croatian POV without a previous discussion. The name problem was already discussed.--Giovanni Giove 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Croatian name is not "Croatian POV". As Repulic of Ragusa is part of Croatian history (it is not part of Italian history) there should be a contemporary Croatian name and this is a fact. If it can have an English name it can have Croatian as well. Now I would really like you to explain to me at least once for a change what exactly is POV in my changes? --Factanista 12:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. --PaxEquilibrium 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The last council of Ragusa and your members

The greater Council met for the last time the 29 of August of 1814 and the senators were the following ones:

Orsato Savino, conte di Ragnina; Niccolo Matteo di Gradi; Niccolo Niccolo di Pozza, Clemente, conte di Menze, Marino Domenico, conte di Zlatarich, Wladislao, conte di Sorgo; M. Conte di Cerva, Niccolo conte di Saracca; Pietro Ignazio di Sorgo-Cerva; Paolo Wladislao, conte di Gozze; Nicollo Gio, conte di Sorgo, Matteo Nicollo di Ghetaldi; Savino conte di Giorgi; Pietro Giovanni conte di Sorgo; Marino Nicollo conte di Sorgo, Sebastiano di Gradi; Matteo Niccolo di Pozza; Segismondo di Ghetaldi; Niccolo Luigi conte di Pozza; Wladislao Paolo conte di Gozze, Marino di Bona; Marco Niccolo conte di Pozza; Giovanni conti di Gozze, Francesco conte di Zamagna; Matteo Niccolo conte di Sorgo; Carlo conte di Natali, Orsato conte di Cerva, Matteo Conte di Cerva, , Niccolo conte di Giorgi; Segismondo conte di Sorgo; Biagio M. Di Caboga; Conte Giovani di Menze; Niccolo Matteo di Sorgo; B.D di Ghetaldi; Gio Biagio, conte di Caboga; Marino Matteo di Pozza, conte di Sagorio, Luca Antonio conte di Sorgo; conte di Giorgi Bona; Giovanni conte di Sorgo; Giovanni conte di Natali, Antonio Luca conte di Sorgo, Rafaelle Giovanni conte di Gozze; Natale Paolo conte di Saraca; natale Conte di Ghetaldi.

please added!!!