Talk:Giulio Clovio/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NPOV tag 2 Giulio Clovio Croata nonsense 3 False reference 4 Finally 5 Requested move 5.1 Survey 5.1.1 Survey - Support votes 5.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 5.2 Discussion 5.2.1 Simple tests 5.2.2 On canvassing 6 Nationality 7 Comment on the nationality debate 8 On his real name 9 Again 10 Note 11 Latest changes 11.1 On Clovio's Croatian name 11.2 On Clovio's origin 11.3 On the Kingdom of Croatia 11.4 On GiorgioOrsini's sentence 11.5 On the use of "Italian artist" 12 Calm down, please! 13 About non-existent Kingdom of Croatia 14 Cleanup 15 About 'Croatian' name of Clovio 15.1 Goebbels 16 Disagreement vs. knowledge 17 Kingdom of Croatia 18 Hungaro-Croatian reign did exist

[edit] NPOV tag

Apparently, one more 'translation' of the Italian painter name. Avoiding to list references where this painter is exclusively listed as an Italian painter - yet another reason for the NPOV tag.

Here is a few references mentioning Giorgio Clovio exclusively as the Italain painter Clovio Giorgio Giulio Artcyclopedia, Giulio Clovio Encyclopaedia Britannica, Clovio Giorgio Giulio Masters, Clovio Giorgio Giulio Infoplease , Clovio Giulio Bartleby

As to the 'famous' tag 'Under Klović's bust, beside his name, is written the name of his homeland, which he always emphasized: Julio Clovio de Croatia.' - it's a nonsense. The tag was added much later (19th century) and not immediately after the painter's death.

During his lifetime (1498–1578) there was no Croatia and the Clovio's birthplace could be only in Hungary. It is ok to mention today's name of his birtplace, but original names coming from that time shall be used on the first place.--GiorgioOrsini 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I only read your post here afterwards. Anyways, you claim I vandalized the article by "deleting sources". Actually, you have not sourced anything. All you did was post a lot of external links. Until you actually source your info, you can't make such significant claims. Now, on the other hand you have vandalized the article by deleting my sourced info. Until you can prove that my info is wrong (which you can't with little passing references to Italianism) you can't remove it. Cheers. --Thewanderer 04:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, I sourced a lot. You did not have anything that is not a link written by someone in Croatia and today. I posted the links and the books that are not supporting the name as given here (Klovic). The links and books are not written in Itally which gives them an aura of neutrality and credibility. I found just speculations that his name might be Glovicic or Glovischich. Apparently another political propaganda with 'properly' naming great Italian people. Also, the books and links emphasized his Macedonian origins. But all references are listing him exclusively as an Italian painter - like it or not.--GiorgioOrsini 02:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giulio Clovio Croata nonsense

Clovio was nicknamed as Grovato by some of his contemporaries - which might be seen as a mutilated word Croata. Also, some of his paintings he really signed by Macedo. No proof that he ever claimed to be a Croat.--GiorgioOrsini 00:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't proved any of this. In fact, all you have done is delete my sources. You say there is no proof that he ever claimed to be a Croat. I have at least one source which says he did. However, you have shown exactly zero proof in which he claimed to be an Italian. Stop vandalizing the article and cite sources if you want changes to be made. --Thewanderer 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False reference

Please, check the validity of claims you are trying to sell here cheap. Your reference/link [1] openly claims this nonsense:

Giorgio Vasari, a friend of Klović's wrote his biography. In his second edition of biographies of famous artists (Le Vite, 1568), Giorgi notes that the famous minaturist war born in the Province of Schiavonia or Coruatia (Croatia) in a town called Grisone in the Modruša Diocese (diocesi di Madrucci).

The same book (Le Vite, 1568) is fully reprinted and available today as:

Lives of the Artists (2 Volume Set) (Hardcover) by Giorgio Vasari, Peter Smith Publisher Inc. (June 1993) ISBN: 0844666785

Even from the book Contents it is clear that Vasari did not write the Clovio's biography. The book Contents is visible here.

Once again - please, refrain from removing the links and references I've provided!--GiorgioOrsini 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, a non-Croatian source [2] (as well as many others) verifies that he is in Vasari's book, and he appears to be located in the third part. That may be an abridged version you are looking at, or Klović's biographical notes may not form a separate section. Whatever the case, Klović is definately in the book, as it is one of the main sources of info we have about his life.

Also, I have not removed any of your sources or links. Only you have done this. I have even had the common courtesy to incorporate the few sourced parts of your edits into the article. --Thewanderer 17:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Klović's given name was Juraj Klović - this is nonsense - due to the fact that it is not confirmed by any reliable source. He took on the Italianized version his Croatian/Slavic name Giulio Clovio after his fellow artist Giulio Romano when he entered the religious order. - no source for this claim also. His exact ethnicity is unknown, but he was allegedly also called Macedo, or Macedone, to connect him with his supposed Macedonian ancestry. - he used to sign his works as Macedo or Il Macedone - no one says 'unknown' or 'supposed'. And finally your 'non-Croatian source' is badly beaten by - Wikipedia and - unabridged Italian edition. Looks like you like forgeries, don't you?--GiorgioOrsini 21:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That link points to the 1550 Florence edition. That was the first edition. This article specifically states that he was in the second edition of 1568. Also, Wikipedia itself is not a valid source. So, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop insulting me and give some respect. I have sourced that he changed his name to the Italianized version. The source is a little out of place, so I can easily remedy that. As to reliable sources, we'll have to get a third party to decide that. You obviously don't respect any of my sources, so you're not in a position to adequately judge them.

Also, sites claim that he was called Macedone, but they have not provided any direct instances only vague assertions. You have demanded of me rigourous proof of everything, but you do not rigousously proven anything yourself. Show where he signed as Macedone, as I have already shown his tomb says he was a Croatian painter. --Thewanderer 23:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Which article 'specifically states that he was in the second edition of 1568'??? --GiorgioOrsini 21:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This one (that we are editting) does. The renowned Giorgio Vasari, the first art critic of the modern world, considered Klović to be the greatest miniaturist of the time and included him within his famed artists' biographies (second edition, 1568). You may have missed this section as you repeatedly deleted it. Therefore, to disprove my sources, you'll have to at least find the actual text. --Thewanderer 00:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So, self-referencing. Are you serious at all????--GiorgioOrsini 16:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please. I have already referenced that he is in Vasari's text. You are the one using incorrect info to try to show my sources are inaccurate. I am not self-referencing - you simply are't bothering to read the article. --Thewanderer 16:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finally

I found proper Italian references confirming that Vasari wrote about Clovio. Tried to force this Thewanderer to give us the correct reference i.e. the primary source which Thewanderer escaped regularly. The reason is here [3]

For those who can read Italian, Vasari says clearly: "della famiglia de' Clovi, fussero venuti di Macedonia, et il nome suo al battesimo fu Giorgio Iulio" i.e. Clovio's name at baptism was Giorgio Iulio, his family name was Clovi and he is a Macedonian. Therefore, insisting on Juraj Julije Klovic is baseless, doubting into his Macedonian origins is nonsense.

Searching the web I found that 'Giulio Clovio Croata' comes from the Croatians sites and a few of them citing the Croatian sources. All other are using exclusively Giorgio Giulio Clovio, Giulio Clovio, or Giorgio Clovio. So, the claim 'known worldwide as Giulio Clovio Croata,' is yet another (nacionalistic) nonsense that simply pollutes this article.--GiorgioOrsini 17:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

His usual name in English is Giulio Clovio, as used by the British Library etc; the article should be renamed as this. Johnbod 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--GiorgioOrsini 19:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

These references regarding Klović/Clovio by GiorgioOrsini simply aren't adequate to declare him Italian. The references are anything but rigorous. Klović/Clovio is Italian in the sense that he worked in Italy. But he is Croatian first and foremost because it was his homeland and the site of his upbringing (first language, family, etc.). As mentioned above the Getty Union List of Artist Names has this: "Clovio, Giulio (Croatian illuminator, 1498-1578, active in Italy)". This is a respectable, neutral site whose focus is on confusing situations such as these. --Thewanderer 21:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

His nationality not in question nor it can be claimed using any rational reason. From the today's point of view i.e. the contemporary definition of the nationality - Clovio was a Hungarian or/and Venetian, not a Croat. As a state, Croatia that time did not extst at all. Here, he is mentioned just as an Italian Renaissance painter and miniaturist - as it can be seen from the references. Also, be advised not to put the pseudo historical claim about never existed Croatia-Hungary 'personal union'.--Giorgio Orsini 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo historical claim? What was kingdom of two Sicilies during the sixteen century, when it's kings were Habsbourgs? Part of Spain or Austria? Croatia had its own parliment and other sign's of its statehood, no matter that its kings were not Croats.
Second he was born in Modruš diocese, which is in modern central Croatia (Lika, Gorski Kotor and Rijeka) which was never part of Venice. How could he be Italian just based on a fact that he worked in petty Italian kingdoms (Italy did not exist at that time, remember:)
Ceha 5:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, the Italian Renaissance painter is commonly accepted term that marks the medieval Italy (common name for the Papal State, Genoese and Venitan Republics) and a well-known period and place in the European art history (Italian Renaissance). Clovio is not born in modern Croatia - rather was born in Hungary of that time. As to the 'personal union' and the 'Croatian parliament' of that time - take a course in the late medieval history of the Hungarian kingdom. As to the Venitian republic - Clovio was her citizen and Giulio Clovio was the legal painter name.--Giorgio Orsini 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a course? Please do. There is a very good history course in University in Zagreb. Would you like a link?:)
There is a difference between this to notions which you mentioned. Italy as a geografical therm (apenines peninsula) and Italy as a modern state. Same goes for Hungary. Modern state of Hungary is much smaller then the acient medieval Croato-Hungarian kingdom. Klović lived with Croatian people (not Italian, or Hungarian) and he was raised as a Croat...
--Ceha 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

GiorgioOrsini, there is absolutely no reason to be dismissive of other users' views. I would also appreciate if no further reverts take place till the survey ends. Thanks, Asterion^talk 04:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I used to respect only those pieces of advice bringing to me an effective knowledge. The above one is not of that type.--Giorgio Orsini 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio Orsini (or Juraj Dalmatinac in Croatian) it is little bit odd for someone who grow up in another continent (you are from USA right?) to judge about "effective knowledge" of somebody who lives few thousands of kilometres away. And we realy have a great historical study here, you should try it

--Ceha 22:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with words of Ceha Some guys need to take some history classes. --Anto 08:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the nationality debate

Note: I was directed to this page by the anonymous user who was spamming users to come here, so I will not be participating in the above vote, as it would be "improper".

First of all, to GiorgioOrsini, your above argument is not valid (i.e he's not Croatian because at the time it was part of Hungary). By your logic, Klovic/Clovio cannot be called Italian, because Italy did not exist at the time - he would be called Venetian since he became a citizen of Venice. However, if I was to vote in the above requested move, I would support the name change to "Giulio Clovio". "Clovio" is much more well known as his name in the English speaking world. But, it has been established that his ethnicity was Croat - which brings me to my next point, that nationality and ethnicity are different things, and in the modern sense of the word, his nationality would be Italian, but his ethnicity would be Croat. I would suggest the title of the page be changed to "Giulio Clovio" and the lead sentence be changed to "Giorgio Giulio Clovio (1498–1578), (sometimes known as Juraj Julije Klović), was a Italian illuminator, miniaturist, and painter, of Croat descent." I think most people could settle for this compromise.

Another thing I'd like to say is, too many people place too much importance on the ethnicity/nationality of historical figures like Klovic/Clovio, instead of focusing on the person's contribution to society. I mean, I've seen talk pages much longer than their article, and the only focus on the talk page was the person's origin (see Talk:Ivana Miličević for a good example, as it's now featured on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Anyway, I think what I've written above is a good compromise, and most people could settle for it. —KingIvan 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Giorgio Giulio Clovio (1498–1578), known in Croatian as Juraj Julije Klović, was an illuminator, miniaturist, and painter, of Croat origin, who worked in Italy."

- "descent" rather implies his parents came from Croatia, but not him. I note (recent edit summary to article) that Giorgio Orsini does not think an adjectival Croat or Italian before "illuminator" is a statement of nationality - but I'm sure many people take it to mean that. This phrasing removes that ambiguity, I think. Johnbod 03:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. User:Ivan Kricancic totally misses the fact that Clovio/Klović was born and lived in the Kingdom of Croatia until he was 18 (as confirmed by Vasari), apart from being an ethnic Croat. Croatia was never a part of Hungary before the 19th century, although certain texts will erroneously claim this to give a simpler, less exhaustive explanation of the region. User:Johnbod's intro is fair, and those who have a great deal of opposition are probably editting in bad faith, whether they are Croatian or Italian.

I'd also like to say that it is not my intent to start edit wars, but it sets horrible precedent when Medieval and Renaissance Croats who (by necessity) worked abroad are unfairly labelled as the nationality of the country they worked in, without considering the wider picture. I have tried and I have offered to make compromises, but the Italian side has failed to make a single compromise in return. You may notice I have tried to expand the article with bits and pieces of info along the way, because I am getting just as tired of this edit war as anyone. --Thewanderer 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Clovio considered himself being a Macedionian - not a Croat. Respect his own words, please.--Giorgio Orsini 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point - I knew he was born and raised in Croatia. But what I was trying to do was reach a compromise so there wouldn't be any edit warring on this article. And yes, I would also agree to Johnbod's re-phrasing of the intro, above. —KingIvan 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put it in now Johnbod 16:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, this is getting into denying (in any possible way)Klović's ties with Croatia and Croats, either by claiming he's Italian or Macedonian. Like 19th century slogan of Italian irredentist propaganda in Croatian provinces: "any name, any nationality, but Croat". Still, if he's Macedonian, he still wouldn't be Clovio, but Klović. Kubura 12:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

?? we have "of Croat origin" in the lead sentence, which is fair & accurate, I think Johnbod 16:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, avoid tagging me as Italian iredentist. Bear in mind that Klović name is a primitive translation of his orignal name (Clovi). A man being of the Macedonian origins might be equaly Greek or Slav. There is no single document coming from the times of Clovio's life and work confirming that Clovio ever used Klović name, nor any public document (taxation, birth certificate, baptismal or death record) contains the Klović name, nor any of his contemporaries ever mentioned him under this fake Klović name.--Giorgio Orsini 16:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Klović a fake name? And Clovi his original? Clovi is just a name under which he was know in Venice, Florence and Rome... --Ceha 18:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that Giorgio Giulio Clovio (1498–1578), was an Italian Renaissance illuminator, miniaturist, and painter - has nothing to do with Clovio's supposed nationality. The idea of nationality used today is simply not applicable to the people lived long ago. The Italian Renaissance illuminator simply locates Clovio's life and work in an history of art period of the European culture. Also, Clovio considered himself being a Macedonian (because of his ethnic background) and, therefore, used to sign his works as Il Macedo.--Giorgio Orsini 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it ignores compleatly his Croatian sides of character (early years of life, education, etc) and defines him soley throught the place of his work (appenine peninsula) and his macedone roots. Nothing to do with nationality at all. --Ceha 18:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, saying that Giorgio Giulio Clovio (1498–1578), was an Italian Renaissance illuminator, miniaturist, and painter - does have to do with his "supposed" nationality. If it just said "Giorgio Giulio Clovio (1498–1578), was an Renaissance illuminator, miniaturist, and painter", then it would have nothing to do with his nationality. Whether or not the Italian Renaissance differed from the Renaissance in other parts of Europe is irrelevant - if the lead section states "Italian Renaissance illuminator", people are going to assume it means "an Italian painter from the Renaissance period", especially if you don't link "Italian renaissance" (i.e Italian Renaissance). However, I wouldn't object if you changed the lead sentence to "Giorgio Giulio Clovio (1498–1578) (sometimes known as Juraj Julije Klović), was an illuminator, miniaturist, and painter during the Italian Renaissance period." —KingIvan 06:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why I added " He was the greatest illuminator of the Italian High Renaissance" when I put in my new version. A leading adjective is ambiguous, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise, Giorgio. It is fine as it is. Johnbod 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On his real name

The discussions above lead nowhere. What is needed are verifiable reliable secondary sources that we can cite, so that we can write something along the lines of: Art historians like Smith, Jones and Bond consider that his actual name was Whatever ^{ref ref ref}, while the genealogist Phillips concluded that this name was Whatever ^ref.

Our own especulations and interpretations of primary sources are original research, which may be all very interesnting but have no place in Wikipedia. - Best regards, Evv 20:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It was already done here [5]--Giorgio Orsini 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

lol I hadn't read the article beyond the introduction :-) I wrote the previous comment after seeing some comments posted a few hours ago about real & fake names, which made me assume the worst, sorry.

I will give those references a proper format in a few moments. Thanks for pointing me there :-) Best regards, Evv 04:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again

For the Croatians editors

- here, the Italian Renaissance painter is commonly accepted term that marks the medieval Italy (common name for the Papal State, Genoese and Venitan Republics, Sicily, Tuscan Duchy) and a well-known period and place in the European art history (Italian Renaissance); I've provided nine English language reference supporting this fact;

- there was no Kingdom of Croatia that time; this is definitively forgery coming only from Croatia

- Clovio worked once for the Hungarian king, not in Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen

- also, Clovio claimed only Macedonian origins which might be equal of Greek or Slav ethnicity; he was born in the place that is in today's Croatia and that fact is not hidden here

- I've respected the fact that Croatia honors this great painter; nothing wrong with that even though that has nothing to do with his biography--Giorgio Orsini 03:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Croatia certainly existed. It is the reason why Croatia was represented by a ban, and a Sabor (parliament) of some form survived for most of its history. Clovio/Klović worked in the court of the Hungarian king for a few years, but he must have also worked/studied in Croatia for some time during his youth. It's just easier to lump these two together as the Crown Lands of St. Stephen. You have also not shown any primary sources about this Macedonian issue, and even your secondary sources are vague. How and when did he call himself Macedonian? "He did because a website says he did" is not good enough if it is just a vague, unexplained reference.

No one denies that the Kingdom of Croatia existed at this time. When Klović worked in Buda, Croatia and Hungary were still in union, but they soon fell under Habsburg control. The Habsburgs also took on the title of Kings of Croatia, separate from their Hungarian title. --Thewanderer 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Feudal Hungary did not have a parliament and it is far from true that a 'personal union' ever existed. See what [6] says about Hungary. About his Macedionian origins, read Vasari [7]

He says clearly: "della famiglia de' Clovi, fussero venuti di Macedonia, et il nome suo al battesimo fu Giorgio Iulio" . Also there are paintings Clovio signed as Il Macedo--Giorgio Orsini 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the picture Clovio signed as Il Macedo [8]--Giorgio Orsini 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vasari should be treated as a primary source only, requiring interpretation by modern scholars. What is needed is a modern reliable source argumenting that he was Macedonian. - Best regards, Evv 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Feudal Hungary did not have a parliament. I have no idea. Croatia, on the other hand, did. It was made up of various nobility and clergy for most of its history. Also, the Hungary article says nothing about Croatia, while the Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages affirms that the union existed. Lastly, that painting is not signed as "Il Macedo". It is visibly, and clearly, signed as Dó Iulio clovio inventor. --Thewanderer 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

About Clovio's nationality

I'd rather accept the modern point of view, accepted on the West - nationality = citizenship. For sure, Clovio was subject of Venitian Republic - therefore, Italian painter in the broad sense - where 'Italian' attributes medieval Italy.

About Clovio's ethnic origins

Valid historic documents say that Clovio was an ethnic Macedonian. No clue Slav or Greek.

About Under Clovio's bust, beside his name, is written the name of his homeland: Pictor de Croatia[1] (Painter from Croatia) - I simply would not buy it. Why and who wrote it - is a bizzare detail that has nothing to do with Clovio's life and work.

About Kingdom of Croatia

The named 'Kingdom of Croatia' vanished after being conquered by Hungarians at the end of 12th century. The 'Kingdom of Croatia' was restored just as a Hungarian province in the year of 1862 - in order to appease nacionalistic tensions which were on rise after 1848 in Europe and Hungary. So, the claim that Clovio was born in 'Kingdom of Croatia' is nonsense.--BarryMar 18:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Barry - a suggestion; why not try this out on the El Greco or Ghandi pages. They were born subjects of Venice and Britain respectively! Johnbod 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is a plain nonsense. Most of Clovio's life and work took place in the medieval Italy (after his 18th year of age - to his death). You have at least 11 references (in the English and in the Italian languages) already confirming it here. About that time non-existent 'Kingdom of Croatia', please, read A.J.P.Taylor's book - The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 - in order to learn when was re-established the Kingdom fo Croatia and why.--BarryMar 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are several things which are wrong in your logic:) Let go through them one by one:

About Clovio nationality: You say that nationality=citizenship. Clovio was subject of Venetian republic and Venetian citizen. Venetian republic was abolished by Napoleon and at Congress in Viena it became part of Habsbourg Monarchy. So Habsbourg monarhy is it's legal soucessor, no? At that time Clovio(if he would have been alive, of course:) would became citizen of Habsbourg Monarhy, no? Venetian Republic was made from Dalmatia, Istria and Veneto. After Austro-Prussian war 1867 new kingdom of Italy got Veneto, not entire teritory of ex-Venetian Republic. So Habsbourg Monarhy (Austro-Hungarian empire after 1868) is still it's legal soucessor. Habsbourg Empire broke apart in 1918 and Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) was one of it's succesors. Croatia is legal sucesor of that state. So by your logic he is Croat.

About kingdom of Croatia: Your arguments are the same as if you woud say that there is no Scotland. That it does not exist, because you can not find it on the map. From 1102 Croatia had its Parliment, ruler (ban), and always some sort of autonomy, no matter in which asociation it was. Please look more about Croatian history before you storm out with your opinion (google it out). Drvenik (birth place of Klović) is for the last 1300 years in Croatia.

.--Ceha 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Barry, this is not a nonsense. Your comment:
" I'd rather accept the modern point of view, accepted on the West - nationality = citizenship. For sure, Clovio was subject of Venitian Republic - therefore, Italian painter..."

- would make El Greco Italian, Ghandi and George Washington British, Kafka Austrian and so on. It is simply not tenable. You have completely removed all references to Croatia, which is blatent POV. Giorgio does not go this far. Of course all his mature work was done in Italy - this is not in dispute. The formula I am reverting to of the first sentence is balanced and accurate. I am getting fed up with this continual edit warring and may take matters further. Johnbod 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest changes

• As to the Clovio's Croatian 'name' - no any reference that Clovio eve used that name or was ever known under that name during his life.
• Croatian 'origin' - respected that he was born in the place that belongs today's Croatia - his ethnicity was obviously Macedonian where there is no knowledge whether of the Slav or the Greek lineage
• Kingdom of Croatia ceased to exist at the end of 12th century - re-established as the Austro-Hungarian province under Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia in the year of 1862. When Clovio was born, his place of birth belonged to Hungary.
• Claim to support by references the sentence However, not a single reference claiming Klović, or Glovichic name provides any valid legal document (birth, baptismal record, contract signature, tax document) confirming that Clovio ever used those names or were ever given to him. is nonsense. Simply the very references claiming this name do not provide any valid and verifiable source - only speculations or the plain claim.

--Giorgio Orsini 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To simplify the discussion, I copied GiorgioOrsini's four points under different headings, to see if we can solve these issues once and for all. - Regards, the editor formerly known as Evv Ev 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Clovio's Croatian name

As to the Clovio's Croatian 'name' - no any reference that Clovio ever used that name or was ever known under that name during his life. --Giorgio Orsini 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this Croatian name/s, the article presents two kinds of clear facts:

1. Today he is known in Croatian language as Juraj Julije Klović.

   Bear in mind that personal names are simply not translatable. Doing so means simply lack of respect of a man whose name you are 'translating' into other languages.--BarryMar 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Certain authors speculate on "possible original Croatian names".

The article merely states those facts, without asserting who's right and who's wrong, and letting the reader make his own mind on the issue. This is standard Wikipedia practice.

If you want to mention in the article's body that those authors are wrong, or that he didn't have an "original Croatian name", you would have to bring a really good reliable source to back it up, to ensure that such mention complies with WP:A (especially WP:NOR). - Best regards, Ev 21:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

BarryMar, sometimes personal names are simply very translatable, and are translated on a daily basis, especially those from people who lived over 300 years ago.

An example taken from this article: I guess that we all first heard about Clovio in relation with the Farnese Hours, made for and named after Alessandro Farnese (es:Alejandro Farnesio, fr:Alexandre Farnèse, pl:Aleksander Farnese).

Your example is called transliteration and is not translation. Learn the very basic language notions, at first - before trying to teach others! Farnese remains in all languages Farnese as well Clovio is Clovio in all languages - and not Cloviere in French nor maybe Clovierer in German!!--Giorgio Orsini 01:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In Spanish, "Farnese" becomes "Farnesio". In any case, the paragraph below remains valid. - Ev 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, regardless of the translatability or not of the name, the simple fact remains that Croatians call him Juraj Julije Klović. We're not passing judgement on their right to call him so, but merely mentioning this clear and verifiable fact, for which incontestable evidence is presented at Giulio Clovio#Croatian. - Best regards, Ev 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

About removing Croatian 'name' from the article

• This 'name' is invented i.e. meaningless name not used by Colvio or by his contemporaries ever, and therefore, this 'name' is of no biographical value here
• This 'name' is not in use in the English speaking world nor any editors of the Clovio's biographical notes or biography saw it rational to include into the biographical text
• Italian and Russian Wikipedias did not include this 'name'
• However, to make Croatian nationalists happy, this 'name' is still mentioned later -as a sort of trivia knowledge - and there is no need to have it at the beginning of this article

--BarryMar 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The preceding comment by BarryMar was copied here from the "Calm down, please!" section bellow to simplify the discussion by keeping focus on each specific topic (his full original comment remains in the said section). - Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BarryMar, today's inhabitants of the region where he was born have choosed to call him Juraj Julije Klović in their own language, Croatian. As the sources presented in the article show, the Croatians sometimes use this form even when writing in English. This is a clear verifiable and already sourced fact, which I find interesting and worth mentioning in the article.

I believe it should be included in the first paragraph, as it is in "my preferred version", so that readers can immediately make the connection between those two names (especially important for readers who came here after reading a Croatian text using this form).

Let's try to gauge editors take on this simple issue, by means of a simple straw poll. - Regards, Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[BarryMar, y]our reasoning for removing the Croatian name is totally flawed. Also, Wikipedia itself is not a valid reference. Even if, as you contend, the name has no historical basis, the fact that it is in standard use in Croatia and through Eastern Europe is enough to include it in the header. --Thewanderer 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The preceding comment by Thewanderer was copied here from the "Calm down, please!" section bellow to simplify the discussion by keeping focus on each specific topic (his full original comment remains in the said section). - Ev 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll:

• I agree to include it in the first paragraph. Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Clovio's origin

Croatian 'origin' - respected that he was born in the place that belongs today's Croatia - his ethnicity was obviously Macedonian where there is no knowledge whether of the Slav or the Greek lineage. --Giorgio Orsini 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's check the external links included in the article:

• 1911 Britannica : "...by birth a Croat... He was called Macedo, or Macedone, to connect him with his supposed Macedonian ancestry."
• The Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent : "b. at Grizani, on the coast of Croatia... His family appear to have come from Macedonia..."
• The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition at Bartleby.com : "... also called Macedo or Il Macedone because of his Macedonian origin."

Books:

• Vasari, Volume 6, p.213 : "Nacque costui nella provincia di Schiavonia, overo Crovazia, in una villa detta Grisone, nella diocesi di Madrucci, ancorché i suoi maggiori, della famiglia de' Clovi, fussero venuti di Macedonia..."
• Bradley, John William: The Life and Works of Giorgio Giulio Clovio, Miniaturist: with notices of his contemporaries, and of the art of decoration in the Sixteenth Century, London, 1891, p.17 & 20:

p.17: "Giorgio Clovio... was by birth a Croatian." p.20: "The familiy seemed to have been tolerably well-to-do, for a Macedonian ancestry is alluded to as denoting a position of some consideration, possibly as nobles –at least as substantial cultivators of the soil. "Macedo" is one of the names by which Clovio's signature is frequently acompanied..."

This hardly contitutes a clear consensus on his Macedonian ancestry. To reflect this ambiguity, I modified the first paragraph using the text of the 1911 Britannica, to read: "He was also called Macedo or Il Macedone because of his supposed Macedonian ancestry." - Best regards, Ev 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Clovio was born in a place that belongs today's Croatia - is fully respected. All the efforts above by Ev are just attempt to support his claim and not to grasp nonsense about his 'supposed' Macedonian origin. Nothing is supposed nor it was claimed by Vasari.--BarryMar 22:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

BarryMar, I will make it more clear, using only some precise fragments from my post above:

External links included in the article:

• 1911 Britannica: "...his supposed Macedonian ancestry."
• The Catholic Encyclopedia: "His family appear to have come from Macedonia..."
• The Columbia Encyclopedia: "...because of his Macedonian origin."

Books:

• Vasari, Volume 6, p.213: "...i suoi maggiori [...] fussero venuti di Macedonia..."
• Bradley, John William (p.20): "...a Macedonian ancestry is alluded to as denoting a position of some consideration..."

Do you really consider these sources as clear, unambiguous references to a firmly demostrated Macedonian origen/ancestry, thus allowing the article to mention the said ancestry as an undisputed fact ?

Let me be clear about one thing: I don't know whether he was of Macedonian ancestry or not, nor do I care. I'm just pointing out that the references currently used in the article do not support an undisputed claim for any ancestry whatsoever, be it Macedonian, Swedish or Chinese. – Maybe, if you find other sources, you could convince me (and others) that he was indeed of Macedonian origin. Please, provide such sources. Until you do so, any user can remove that statment per WP:A. - Best regards, Ev 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I might accept above to some point - and at the same time ask you why is deleted the fact that Clovio was an Italian painter. --Giorgio Orsini 01:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To simplify the discussion by keeping focus on each specific topic, GiorgioOrsini's comment on the use on "Italian artist" are discussed at "On the use of "Italian artist"" (his full original comment can be seen here) - Ev 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GiorgioOrsini, to which point might you accept that there's a lack of sources to assert his Macedonian origin as an undisputed fact ? Since that comment, you have already reverted twice to your preferred version:

• 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

...thus adding "because of his Macedonian origin, which explicitly denies the first reference".

The first part, the factual mention of "his Macedonian origin", is not supported by the sources and external links used in the article, as discussed above.

The second part, "which explicitly denies the first reference", is your personal comment, added to the body of the article, where it doesn't belong. And it's based on your personal beliefs only, since so far it's not supported by reliable sources.

Please, stop adding such claims and your personal comments to the article, and use that time to search for better sources to support your POV instead. - Best regards, Ev 02:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

About his ethnic origins - apparently he was a Macedonian due to the fact pointed in the Vasari's book and to the fact that Clovio used Il Macedo signature. --BarryMar 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The preceding comment by BarryMar was copied here from the "Calm down, please!" section to simplify the discussion by keeping focus on each specific topic (his full original comment remains in the said section). - Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BarryMar, that's your own personal interpretation based on a 16th-century book and the artist's signature: it's a textbook example of original research. - Regards, Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have requested for comments on this issue. - Do the sources used in the article suffice to mention his Macedonian ancestry as a clear fact, or only as a supposition ? - Ev 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Kingdom of Croatia

Kingdom of Croatia ceased to exist at the end of 12th century - re-established as the Austro-Hungarian province under Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia in the year of 1862. When Clovio was born, his place of birth belonged to Hungary. --Giorgio Orsini 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

About his birthplace - that time it was in the Hungarian kingdom, today in Croatia - fixed accordingly. --BarryMar 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The preceding comment by BarryMar was copied here from the "Calm down, please!" section to simplify the discussion by keeping focus on each specific topic (his full original comment remains in the said section). - Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On GiorgioOrsini's sentence

Claim to support by references the sentence However, not a single reference claiming Klović, or Glovichic name provides any valid legal document (birth, baptismal record, contract signature, tax document) confirming that Clovio ever used those names or were ever given to him. is nonsense. Simply the very references claiming this name do not provide any valid and verifiable source - only speculations or the plain claim.--Giorgio Orsini 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

GiorgioOrsini, please read Wikipedia:Attribution: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."

In other words, as long as no reliable source publishes that same argument, it constitutes original research by you based only on the references used in this article.

Wikipedia:Attribution clearly states that "[e]ditors should provide attribution for [...] any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Or, adapted by me to this particular situation :-) "if a sentence/paragraph has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not include it in the article." - Best regards, Ev 18:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you do not understand the Wikipedia rules and guidance.Ask somebody to help you out in clear undertstnding the rules you are referring to and their applicability to this case. Best regards. (UTC)--Giorgio Orsini 03:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

lol I misunderstood the meaning of that sentence. I took it for a general assertion on all references and literature about the Croatian names, while I now see that it actually is a simple comment on only the references used in the article itself to source the said names. My initial confusion stemed from the custom of placing this kind of comments on the text not in the body of an article, but in a footnote instead.

I suggest that we start by transforming that sentence into a footnote, and only then discuss if it is appropriate to have it there at all. - Best regards, Ev 05:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited that sentence into a footnote (diff.). - Ev 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Since my last post, the comment has been re-added to the article's body three times:

• by BarryMar 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• by GiorgioOrsini 01:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• by GiorgioOrsini 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Ev 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have requested for comments on this issue. - Do editors' personal comments on the sources belong in the body of the article ? - Ev 03:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the use of "Italian artist"

The first comment by GiorgioOrsini was moved here from the "On Clovio's origin" sub-section to simplify the discussion by keeping focus on each specific topic (his full original comment can be seen here) - Ev 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I ask you [Ev] why is deleted the fact that Clovio was an Italian painter. Following your technique, I got:

1. [9] Giorgio Giulio Clovio [Italian Painter, 1498-1578]

2. [10] Italian miniature painter and priest.

3. [11] Artist: Giorgio Giulio Clovio (1498 - 1578) Nationality: Italian

4. [12] Clovio, Giorgio Giulio 1498–1578, Italian illuminator, miniaturist, and painter, also called Macedo or Il Macedone because of his Macedonian origin.

5. [13] 1498–1578, Italian illuminator, miniaturist, and painter, also called Macedo or Il Macedone because of his Macedonian origin.

6. [14] (Also known as Giulio Clovio)

A famous Italian miniaturist, called by Vasari "the unique" and "little Michelangelo",

7. [15] GIORGIO GIULIO CLOVIO (1498-1578), Italian painter,

8. [16] Creator Dates/Places: Italian; 1498-1578 Europe,Italy Creator Name: Giorgio Giulio Clovio

9. [17] Italian miniature painter and priest.

--Giorgio Orsini 01:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue was previously discussed at the "Comment on the nationality debate" & "Note" sections above.

Far from being removed, the fact is merely mentioned in the article with other words (and even repeated): "an illuminator, miniaturist, and painter, of Croat origin, who worked in Italy [and an] illuminator of the Italian High Renaissance".

In the links listed above, the word "Italian" doesn't convey ethnicity or our modern concept of nationality (even citizenship), but refers to the notion that he was active in Italy and spent at least his whole adult life fully immersed in an Italian cultural enviroment.

As Johnbod mentioned before (03:47, 2 January 2007), "an adjectival Croat or Italian before "illuminator" is [not] a statement of nationality - but I'm sure many people take it to mean that. [The current] phrasing removes that ambiguity."

In any case, the links listed above are mostly very brief texts that don't dwell on his origins (perhaps the most detailed on this issue is your n. 7 :1911 Britannica , which states "Italian painter, by birth a Croat and..."), or even just "index cards", that resort to the word "Italian" as the briefest possible description. - Best regards, Ev 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

About removed Italian painter - there are the two reasons not to remove it from this article

• First of all, this is the English Wikipedia and in the Enlish speaking countries (USA, Canad, UK, Ireland, New Zealans, Australia, ...) nationality=citizenship. Clovio was a citizen of the Venitian Republic - a medieval Italian state
• As we see in the overwhelming number of references Clovio is listed as Italian painter due to the fact that he worked and lived in medieval Italy and, as a painter, belonged to the Italian Renaissance

--BarryMar 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The preceding comment by BarryMar was copied here from the "Calm down, please!" section to simplify the discussion by keeping focus on each specific topic (his full original comment remains in the said section). - Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BarryMar, On your first point: if you want to mention his "Italian or Venetian or Whatever citizenship", you can do it much better by clearly stating that "he was a citizen of X political entity". Of course, in order to do so, we must cite a reliable source making the exact same argument (i.e. , that "he was a citizen of X political entity"), since such things were not as simple in the 16th century as they are today.

On the second point, as I mentioned above, most links presented so far list him as an "Italian painter" because they don't dwell on the issue, and so resort to the simplest possible description. - I find "Italian" is too ambiguous a word to use in this case without adding a lot of caveats immediatly afterwards, thus complicating the sentence's redaction. Luckily, we can convey the exact same idea using different words - Best regards, Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down, please!

• About removed Italian painter - there are the two reasons not to remove it from this article
  • First of all, this is the English Wikipedia and in the Enlish speaking countries (USA, Canad, UK, Ireland, New Zealans, Australia, ...) nationality=citizenship. Clovio was a citizen of the Venitian Republic - a medieval Italian state
  • As we see in the overwhelming number of references Clovio is listed as Italian painter due to the fact that he worked and lived in medieval Italy and, as a painter, belonged to the Italian Renaissance

• About removing Croatian 'name' from the article
  • This 'name' is invented i.e. meaningless name not used by Colvio or by his contemporaries ever, and therefore, this 'name' is of no biographical value here
  • This 'name' is not in use in the English speaking world nor any editors of the Clovio's biographical notes or biography saw it rational to include into the biographical text
  • Italian and Russian Wikipedias did not include this 'name'
  • However, to make Croatian nationalists happy, this 'name' is still mentioned later -as a sort of trivia knowledge - and there is no need to have it at the beginning of this article

• About his ethnic origins - apparently he was a Macedonian due to the fact pointed in the Vasari's book and to the fact that Clovio used Il Macedo signature

• About his birthplace - that time it was in the Hungarian kingdom, today in Croatia - fixed accordingly

• About Under Clovio's bust, beside his name, is written the name of his homeland: Pictor de Croatia
  • Utter nonsense - invented by the editor of this 'reference' - therefore removed

--BarryMar 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

To simplify the discussion by keeping focus on each specific topic, I copied BarryMar's comments under the appropiates headings above (with the sole exception of his last point). - Ev 06:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't be exhaustively responding to these points, because you are only bringing up topics that I (along with others) have already refuted. Instead, I'll deal with your changes to the article.

• Your basic argument revolves around Croatia apparantly not existing at the time of Clovio's birth, including deleting a reference (which you have hurled names at, but haven't really refuted). The Kingdom of Croatia obviously existed during this time (not even the Hungarians dispute this!). Vasari, whom you yourself are referencing for a lot of your info, said that Clovio was from Croatia.

Kingdom of Croatia ceased to exist in the year of 1102 - after being defeated and conquered by Hungarians. Vasari's reference fully respected--BarryMar 03:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your reasoning for removing the Croatian name is totally flawed. Also, Wikipedia itself is not a valid reference. Even if, as you contend, the name has no historical basis, the fact that it is in standard use in Croatia and through Eastern Europe is enough to include it in the header.

--Thewanderer 19:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave at least 10 other references, among them Encyclopaedia Britannica, not finding rational to include this Croatian 'discovery'. However, this nonsense ('Juraj Julije Klovic') is still in this article and there is no reason to put it at the beginning of this article. No it is not used in Eastern Europe at all. All I see is a number of Croatian nationalists pushing this 'name' as something valid - who even tried to write an article on the Italian Wikipedia under the 'Juraj Julije Klovic' title. As I see, after investigating more about some Croatian 'names' - Marco Polo shall be Croat Marko Pilic?!?! How about George Washington? Might he be actually Croat Juraj Zagreb?--BarryMar 03:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Rationale to include it" is given in the article: Juraj Julije Klović Comemorative Coins-in English , "Croatians - Christianity, Culture and Art", Croatian Government Bulletin, September / October 1999 & Croatian post stamp: Christmas 1998 – 500th anniversary of the birth of Juraj Julije Klović clearly prove that the 'discovery' is currently used in Croatia. The article restricts itself to mention this fact. - Regards, Ev 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No it is not - non-biographical data yes, political propaganda yes! Wikipedia is not a place for political propaganda.--Giorgio Orsini 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

GiorgioOrsini, I guess that by "no it is not" you meant that the usage of "Juraj Julije Klović" in Croatia is not a valid rational to merit its inclusion in the article. - If that is the case, I strongly disagree.

First, because it's an interesting fact, one worth mentioning.

Second, because "Juraj Julije Klović" is not only used in the Croatian language, but also by Croatians in English-language texts. - Regards, Ev 19:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Even though so - everything in your comment has nothing to do with this biography. As BarryMar said above, you might claim that George Washington is called Juraj Zagreb in Croatia - it is something that shall go into articles about Croatia and her people - and not about George Washington!--Giorgio Orsini 01:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a biography, but an encyclopedic article. And, had George Washington been born in Zara, the name by which he's known in Croatia would merit inclusion in his article. - Best regards, Ev 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Look Giorgio, sorry if I was brutal, but you are behaving in a very disruptive way. Now, you should understand that if you insist in editing against consensus, even if you may not formally break the 3RR you could all the same be blocked by an admin. Like it or not, the references you removed respect WP:RS, and removing reliably sourced material is considered vandalism in wikipedia.--Aldux 18:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The first reference is not a reference - just a librarian classification of names. The second one is back but under the Croatian links. I've put it back and please, be involved into a rational discussion, without any threats. Also, do not remove my warning from your talk page.--Giorgio Orsini 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About non-existent Kingdom of Croatia

In order to get a good understanding of the Croatian history - here are very good references showing clearly that Kingdom of Croatia existed only 16 years and namely from 1075-1091!!!

• Kings, Bishops, Nobles, and Burghers in Medieval Hungary by Erik Fugedi, Janos M. Bak, Erik Feugedi Published 1986 by Variorum Reprints

• The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 By Pal Engel Published 2005 by I.B.Tauris

• Nobility, land and service in medieval Hungary by Martyn Rady Published 2000 by Palgrave Macmillan

• A History of Hungary's Nationalities By Ernst Flachbarth Published 1944 by Society of the Hungarian Quarterly

p 708 Hungary in the late fifteenth century - a map showing Wallachia, Hungary and Turkey and Ragusa - no clue about 'Kingdom of Croatia'

• The Medieval World By Peter Linehan, Janet Laughland Nelson

p 80 Figure 5.1 Map of medieval Hungary showing areas of Cuman settlement (times of King Bela V (1235 - 1270) - no clue about 'Kingdom of Croatia'

More interesting ...

• The Early Medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century by John Van Antwerp Fine - Published 1991 by University of Michigan Press

Page 248

Sources on Medieval Croatia

Early medieval Croatian history fits the concluding line to the old jingle: the more you study the less you know. When I was and undergraduate studying Balkan history I thought I knew quite a bit about Croatia; but as I study more about Croatia, one by one "facts" that I knew before turn out to be dubious, based on questionable sources or no sources at all. Most of the existing literature in western languages on medieval Croatia is extremely poor; and frequently it is marred by nationalistic bias.

Much of the information about medieval Croatian history comes from later (seveneenth- and eigteenth-century) narrative histories. These were written by enthusiastic people but ciontain a mixture of fact and legend; and since many of the documents they based their works on are now lost, it is extremely difficult to judge wheter their information came from reliable source or not.

• The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895-1526 by Pál Engel - 2005 I.B.Tauris edition, Translated by Tamas Palosfalvi

Pages 33-34

One of Ladislaus's most significant achievements was the occupation of Hungary's southern neighbour, Croatia. ... The small kngdom, born in the tenth century, streched from the Kapela mountains to the Adriatic sea, its center being Biograd, located on the coast.

... King Demetrius Zvonimir, who, not being a member of the ruling dynasty, obtained his throne throug election, asked Pope Gregory VII fo a crown in 1075, and, in return, declared his kingdom as a papal fief. After his death, Ladislaus laid claim on his realm by the right of his sister, Zvonimir's widow, and had no difficulty in taking possession of Croatia in 1091. He bestowed the new kingdom, together with royal title, on his nephew, Almos, son of Geza I ...

I further entertained myself reading yet another great discoveries of contemporary Croatian historians (soc.culture.yugoslavia) ....

The exclusive revelation is the result of "scientific" research by Croatian historian Dragutin Pavlicevic, and found its place in history books. The Split newspaper "Feral Tribune" reveals that Pavlicevic authored a chapter entitled "Croatian Indians", included in the second grade history textbook, shedding new light on the history of native Americans and their ties with Croats, "one of the oldest nations in Europe". He affirms that in North Carolina "a tribe has been living for more than 4 centuries differing in the color of skin, hair and facial features from other tribes". According to the same historian this is not surprising because the members of these tribe "have the noble blood of ancient Croats from Dubrovnik in their veins". Mr. Pavlicevic also speaks about the Mateo Indians, named after their ancestor Mateo - a Croat named Mate. "In his work, Dragutin Pavlicevic stresses that he estimates that presently there are more than 2 million Croatian descendants throughout the United States", states the Split newspaper.

...and this one form soc.culture.europe

Croats Sailed To New World Before Columbus And Vikings

Andrija Zeljko Lovric bases his theory on recent archeological finds of Islamic coins and Glagolitic writings in Paraguay

A theory that Croatian sailors, in the service of the Moorish caliphs, probably reached the coasts of the Americas not only before Columbus, but also before the Vikings themselves, may be corroborated by exceptional findings. One of the chief adherents of this theory is Andrija Zeljko Lovric. He presented his paper on the latest finds of Islamic coins and Glagolitic writing in Paraquay on the second day of the symposium called The Islamic World in the Twentieth Century, held in the Zagreb Islamic Center, in Croatia. The paper speaks of 61 plates with inscriptions written in the Glagolitic alphabet which have been found during the past decade on the cliffs of the Amambay massif in Paraguay, dating back to pre-Columbine times, from the seventh to fourteenth century. Previous explorers did not understand the script and believed it to be Viking runes.

Lovric lists numerous data contributing to the theory that the traces lead to Croatian sailors. First of all, among all Slav peoples that used the Glagolitic alphabet, only the Croats were renowned as sailors and, technically speaking, were the only ones who could have reached America. In addition, the Glagolitic script was used the longest by Croats. Second, American anthropologists believe the writers of these plates to have participated in the construction of the first early American town of Taiwanaku, where the statues of Guarani rulers bearing Croatian coats of arms on their chests were found.

--NovaNova 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Croatian kingdom maps;

[18]

[19]

Then what? The above site is just an Internet merchandise site. Christos Nüssli is just a cartographer - not historian. He did ont reveal scholastic/scientific sources supporting his maps. Rather, he published this disclaimer which completely disqualifies his maps as a serious reference.

http://www.euratlas.com/shop/conditio.htm

DISCLAIMER

This site is provided by euratlas on an "as is" and "as available" basis. You expressly agree that your use of this site is at your risk. Christos Nüssli will not be liable for any damages arising from the use of this site.

Nuessli apparently sells Croatian propaganda - for plain commercial reasons!

--NovaNova 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Second; What are you traying to say? That there were not Croatians at that time? That Croatian nobility did not exist? And that today's population of southern Croatia (which is known as cradle of Croatian state:) came for somewhere else (try explaining that to some people which got 20 generations of theirs in that area....

--Ceha 14:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL: Great maps of a Great Kindgom that existed for less than 80 years. That was the only time in which part of Dalmatia belonged to a Croatian state. I remember you that the real name of "s Croatia" is dalmatia. Greetings--Giovanni Giove 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't see the links right or what? See that Croatia which is from 7th to 21th cetury?

And Dalmatia is originly name for Roman province wich included today's Bosnia and Herzegovina, parts of Montenegro and Slovenia and Croatia south of city of Karlovac (which would be Gorski Kotar, Lika, part of Istria, and today's Dalmatia region).

Real name? Is that your or my country?>:)

Modern borders of today's Dalmatian region were only drawn in 18th century. Before 1409 it was under control by Croatian nobility. Šubići, Nelipići, Hrvatinići... were they italians maybe?

--Ceha 1:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

• known in Croatian as Juraj Julije Klović, was an illuminator, miniaturist, and painter, of Croat origin, who worked in Italy.[1] - removed and replaced by the earlier version due to several facts
  • it was mentioned later that Croats thinks that Clovio's 'real' name was Juraj Julije Klovic - no need to say it twice

    See "On Clovio's Croatian name" above. - Ev 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    Still - no need to mention it twice.--Giorgio Orsini 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    As I pointed out at "On Clovio's Croatian name", it's not mentioned twice: the first paragraph mentions the name by which he's known in Croatia (a clear, unquestionable fact), while the "Origins" section deals with speculations on what his original name could have been. - Regards, Ev 07:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Croatian origin - rather his birth place is in today's Croatia. He was of Macedonian lineage

    See "On Clovio's origin" above. - Ev 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    Your comment is not answer to the NovaNova's objection. NovaNova's changes I found rational and supported by facts.--Giorgio Orsini 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    As I mentioned at "On Clovio's origin", his birthplace is in today's Croatia & the references used don't support a factual affirmation of his Macedonian ancestry. - Regards, Ev 07:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • who worked in Italy - imprecise and incorrect; he was educated (trained) in Italy, lived in Papal State and Venice, died in Rome, and belonged to the Italian Rennaisance painters circle

    See "On the use of "Italian artist"" above. - Ev 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    Your comment is not answer to the NovaNova's objection. NovaNova's changes I found rational and supported by facts.--Giorgio Orsini 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

    As I mentioned at "On the use of "Italian artist"", the use of plain "Italian" is susceptible to misinterpretation as an assertion of nationality. Less ambiguous wording is preferable. - Regards, Ev 07:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No plain "Italian artist" rather Italian Renaissance paiter - which has nothing to do with nationality. Please avoid deliberate misinterpretation of the well-known historic notion.--Giorgio Orsini 02:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• about non-existent Kingdom of Croatia - full report given above

• removed Vatican City post stamp: Christmas 1998 – 500th anniversary of the birth of Julius Clovius Croatus as a valid reference due to the fact that this 'reference' is a chat site

  Look where it was located . It's not a reference, but an external link. - Ev 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Anything used to support someone's editorial work is a reference - no matter where it is located--Giorgio Orsini 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  This link is not used to support any editorial work whatsoever, but constitutes merely a piece of trivia which I found interesting: the philatellic celebration of his 500th birthday by the Vatican :-) In any case, I just found the stamp at the Vatican's site and modified the link. - Regards, Ev 07:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• moved http://www.posta.hr/main.aspx?id=193&idmarke=312 from International to the Croatian references

• removed completely Under Clovio's bust, beside his name, is written the name of his homeland: Pictor de Croatia[1] (Painter from Croatia). as a false claim. Also, reference [1] has another false claim Klovic used to sign himself as GEORGIVS JVLIVS CLOVIVS CROATA which disqualifies [20] completely as a valid reference.

--NovaNova 02:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About 'Croatian' name of Clovio

Jozef Georg Strossamyer is quoted in this book written in the year of 1906

"Najdivnije minijature, najuzvisenije slike svecenici su negda sami slikali, n.pr. nas Clovio, Angeliko Fiesole i brat mu Benedetto i t.d."

Nacrt zivota i djela biskupa J.J. Strossmayera: izabrani njegovi spisi, govori, rasprave i okruznice by Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Tadija Smičiklas - 1906 - Page 251

Translation of the Strossmayer's words:

The most beautiful miniatures, the most elevated paintings the priests alone painted some time ago, i.e. our Clovio, Angeliko Fiesole and his brother Benedetto e.t.c.

So, Strossamyer lived in 19th century and used the correct name - Clovio!!! Sond proof that the invented one came later!--NovaNova 01:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First, regardless of its "historical legitimacy", today's Croatians use the name Klović. This is a clear fact, worthy of mention in the article's lead. Having said that, it's quite possible that Croatians used to call him Clovio until not that long ago. But, hey, I used to say Peking until not that long ago :-)

In fact, if a good source is found (remember WP:NOR), a brief description of the usage of Clovio & Klović in Croatian publications would be most interesting.

Second, I can't get myself to accept the idea that people who lived over 300 years ago have "correct" names, much like I don't accept absolut correct names in general. People and things have many different names, in many different languages, including simple ortographical alternatives, some of which may be more correct than others in some specific contexts. But the concept of "absolute correctness" is too mathematical to be used for names (especially in an historical context). - Best regards, Ev 02:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A man has always correct names - to respect him is not to invent a new name for him three hundreed years after his death and for purely political purposes. Even so, it has nothing to do with his/her biography and, even more, it was mentioned in this biography as a trivia knowledge and no need to say it again as a most important thing at the very beginning of this article. You might report that 'knowledge' (Juraj Julije Klovic) when writing about Croatia and Croats. As BarryMar already mentioned earlier - I would not object if you Croats claim that Geroge Washington is actually Croat Juraj Zagreb.--NovaNova 03:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we fully disagree about "correctness" and on the issue of respect :-)

In any case, as I mentioned before (01:42, 14 March 2007), this is not a biography, but an encyclopedic article, intended to cover more than just Clovio's life. From this broader perspective, his current Croatian name is worthy of mention in the lead paragraph.

By the way, we Croats are busy lobbying Congress to pass the Juraj Wašingtonić Act ;-) Best regards, Ev 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goebbels

Jozef Georg Strossamyer is quoted in this book written in the year of 1906

"Najdivnije minijature, najuzvisenije slike svecenici su negda sami slikali, n.pr. nas Clovio, Angeliko Fiesole i brat mu Benedetto i t.d."

This is an obvious proof of an Italian propaganda: Strossmayer died in 1905! So ,who has written that book ??? What is the power of Goebbels school ??? Huge!

--Anto 14:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And Godwin's Law is fulfilled again :-) Best regards, Ev 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement vs. knowledge

I see two things in the above discussion

- blind refusal to accept that Clovio was Italian Rennaisance painter

- refusal to accept his ethnic origins - Macedonian. Vasari is clear and there is no a single document of that time denying him

i suoi maggiori, della famiglia de' Clovi, fussero venuti di Macedonia,

I see that someone (see above discussion) tried to hint that 'fussero' means 'alluded'. The very simple truth is that the word 'fussero' shall be spelled in the contemporary Italian language as 'fossero' which is the past participle of the auxiliary verb 'to have'. So, correct translation of the Vasari's text above shall be - his ancestors, the Clovi family, had come from Macedonia.

Also, there is no need to delete note about Kukuljevic's 'expertise'. He wrote many nonsenses and it seems that Bradley, while writing his book, did not verify validity of Kukuljevic's 'assertions'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.3.225 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is, as has been well covered above, is the ambiguity of what the grammatical subject of "italian" in "Italian Renaissance" is - Renaissance or Clovio? The previous wording avoids this ambiguity. A now-blocked editor frequerntly made the same change you are trying to make. Please do not repeat it. Johnbod 15:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The point above is laughable. The Italian Renaissance is a Wikipedia's entry and is properly linked in order to avoid any ambiguity. Moreover in the same text it reads - He is considered the greatest illuminator of the Italian High Renaissance,... Yes, please, do not repeat it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.6.191 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring over this article is no laughing matter. The ambiguity exists, especially to the majority of readers, who will not stop to see if it is Italian Renaissance or Italian Renaissance. As you say, it is more precisely and unambiguously linked in the following sentence, so no need to say it twice. Johnbod 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Croatia

Kingdom of Croatia di exist at that time. As it has existed Union Poland-Litva for 2-3 centuries. --Anto 08:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[21] [22]

Seine Kaiserliche und Apostolische Majestät, Franz Joseph I.,

von Gottes Gnaden Kaiser von Österreich, König von Ungarn und Böhmen,

König [der Lombardei und Venedigs,]1 von Dalmazien, Croatien, Slavonien, Galicien, Lodomerien und Illyrien; König von Jerusalem; Erzherzog zu Österreich; Großherzog von Toskana und Krakau, Herzog von Lothringen, von Salzburg, Steyer, Kärnthen, Krain und der Bukowina; Großfürst zu Siebenbürgen; Markgraf von Mähren; Herzog von Ober- und Niederschlesien, von Modena, Parma, Piacenza und Quastalla, von Auschwitz und Zator, von Teschen, Friaul, Ragusa und Zara; gefürsteter Graf von Habsburg und Tirol, von Kyburg, Görz und Gradisca; Fürst von Trient und Brixen; Markgraf von Ober- und Niederlausitz und in Istrien; Graf von Hohenembs, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg etc.; Herr von Triest, von Cattaro und auf der Windischen Mark; Großwojwode der Wojwodschaft Serbien etc. etc.

His Imperial and Apostolic Majesty, Franz Joseph I,

By the Grace of God, Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia,

King [of Lombardy and Venice,]1 of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem etc., Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine, of Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and of the Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz [Oświęcim] and Zator, of Teschen [Cieszyn/Těšín], Friuli, Ragusa [Dubrovnik] and Zara [Zadar]; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent [Trento] and Brixen [Bressanone]; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro [Kotor], and in the Wendish Mark; Grand Voivode of the Voivodina of Serbia etc. etc.

1 removed from the title in 1866/1869 after the loss of the italian countries.

--Anto 09:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is three centuries later! Please don't fill up the page with irrelevant nonsense! Johnbod 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not irrelevant neither nonsense!

This is a proof that Croatian kingdom preserved continuum of some authonomy from 1102 until 1918. W"hich is beeing denied by some guys here.

Please , let's do not use some hard words!

--Anto 16:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungaro-Croatian reign did exist

In order to response some historiographerss who deny existence of Kingdom of Croatia I quoted some veryfieable sources

The time history of the world, 5th edition, ISBN:953-6510-62-6 pages 138,142,143, 145,147, 150-151, 186.Name Croatia is displayed on the maps.

The World book Encyclopedia volume 4, 1994 ISBN:0-7166-0094-3 Pages 1148b-1148c " In 1102, Kalman, the king of Hungary, also became king of Croatia, thus creating a political union between Croatia and Hungary that lasted for more than 800 years. Despite this Union, the Croats always kept their own parliament , called the Sabor "

Encyclopaedia Britannica , 15th edition , vol.3

"Croatia became a kingdom in the 10th century, and in the 1091 Ladislaus I (Laslo I) of Hungary assumed control; the ensuing union with Hungary lasted for 8th centuries. During the union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own assemble, the Sabor, and was legally an independent kingdom."

[sub]Digital edition of Britannica 2007 Ultimate reference suite[/sub]

"Croatia retained its independence under native kings until 1102, when the crown passed into the hands of the Hungarian dynasty. The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute; nonetheless, even under dynastic union with Hungary, institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Sabor (an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy). In addition, the Croatian nobles retained their lands and titles. "

Collier's Encyclopedia, 1995, vol.7 , Library of Congress catalog number 94-70743 Dynastic struggles amoung the leading Croatian families facilitated the task of foreign powers and finally king Kalman of the Arpad dinasty of Hungary seized Dalmatia from Venice and brought Croatia under his control. Seeking to prevent a popular uprising against their own authority , the tribal chiefs of župans of Little Croatia( the territory between Dalmatia and Slavonia) negotiated an agreement with Kalman in 1102, which authorized a personal union between the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia under the rule of the king of Hungary, and which excluded the Croatian nobility from taxation and guaranted inviolability of their properties

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/cr/Croatia.html

A part of the Roman province of Pannonia, Croatia was settled in the 7th cent. by Croats, who accepted Christianity in the 9th cent. A kingdom from the 10th cent., Croatia conquered surrounding districts, including Dalmatia, which was chronically contested with Venice. Croatia’s power reached its peak in the 11th cent., but internecine strife facilitated its conquest in 1091 by King Ladislaus I of Hungary.

In 1102 a pact between his successor and the Croatian tribal chiefs established a personal union of Croatia and Hungary under the Hungarian monarch. Although Croatia remained linked with Hungary for eight centuries, the Croats were sometimes able to choose their rulers independently of Budapest. In personal union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own diet and was governed by a ban, or viceroy.

So, mr. GiorgioOrsini/NovaNova/Purger/BarryMar (or however you call yourself this time)and your companions (Giovanni Giove) I do not where have you picked those "historiographers" who deny the existent of Kingdom of Croatia. Are they experts like Arrigo Petacco  ???

Or you just fabricated your own quotes???

--Anto 18:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)