Talk:Republic of Ragusa/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Republic of Ragusa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

title

Marin Držić wrote in good native language (today called Croatian) and in his plays he says "Republic of Dubrovnik", that was in 1500s. So this whole article is utter nonsense, and talk page is full of Italian and Serbian nationalism (Sargeras). Complete article needs to be rewritten. Official languages of the Republic were Italian and Latin, that's why Republic of Ragusa in all foreign (non-Croatian) historical sources. It's utter stupidity that Serbo-Croatian was poorly used - it was commonly used (particularly that Croatian is "recent" - Dric wrote in excelletn Croatian language, as did Mavro Vetranović and other writers),but in diplomatic and birocratic jobs Latin and Italian (and Turkish) were used. About the language itself, it was (and still is!) South-Slavic officially known as "Serbo-Croatian" between 1945 and 1990, but it's (in Drzic's plays and today in common speech of Dubrovnik area) the local "shtokavian" speech, which is now of course part of Croatian (as Dubrovnik is in Croatia since fall of the Republic, and by the way all Dalmatian reinessance writers which communicated with Dubrovnik writers considered them as part of same Dalmatian South-Slavic culture, which later became foundation of modern Croatian culture. But indeed, the name of language then wasn't Serbian nor Croatian nor Serbo-Croatian because languages were standardized only in late 1800s, so it's best to de described as local Dubrovnik koine (maybe with notion that it's still local dialect in Dubrovnik area and is part of /officially called/ Croatian language now). Tomsak 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

"...'South-Slavic officially known as "Serbo-Croatian" between 1945 and 1990..".
Wrong. The AVNOJ/ZAVNOH decisions, explicitly declare those languages as two separate languages ("decisions should be given in Slovenian, Croatia, Macedonian and Serbian". That was also in a decision from the times of DFJ (before FNRJ was declared!). Reference to follow.
"...name of language then wasn't Serbian nor Croatian nor Serbo-Croatian because languages were standardized only in late 1800s...".
Wrong. The name of the language was Croatian, much before. See the links in the sections under. Here is also a link (from HAZU) to the work of Franciscan Bernardin Splićanin : "Pistvle i Evanyelya po sfe godischie harvatschim yazichom stumacena . - Novo pristampana i spomgnom priuiyena, po nacinu nouoga Missala nareyena po sfetoy materi Crichui - Prodayuse v Bnetcih pri sfetomu Xulianu v chgnigara chi darxi zlamen od Macche, 1586. [1]. This is the second edition of his "Lekcionar". The first edition [2] is from 1495.. ISBN of its reprint is 86-7397-129-2. Kubura 12:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of word "Croatian" is not only in one part of Croatia; it was also used in other parts of Croatia, although under foreign ruler, the conscience of Croathood existed.
E.g., see "Katekizam : jedna malahna knjiga v hrvatski jazik istumačena" by Stipan Konzul Istranin (Stipan Konzul from Istra peninsula).
Translation: "Katekism: a small book in Croatian language explained". The book is from 1564. Here is a link from HAZU [3]. Kubura 12:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.131.15 (talk • contribs) , 09:39, 18 September 2006

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)

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)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.143.131 (talk • contribs) , 10:40, 26 January 2006

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.255.131 (talk • contribs) , 00:54, 10 August 2006

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)

Italian roots argument has no base in historical reality since Italy didn't exist until much much later. The only time Dubrovnik was part of Italy was during WWII while occupied by Italian fascist troops. The ruling class family names undeniably have Latin root but that does not make them Italian. gb 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither then. During WWII, it was under military occupation of fascist Italy. Dubrovnik wasn't given (as idiotic puppet ustashi did with other areas) to Italy, it was part of ISC. So, even according to Axis order, Dubrovnik was within Croatia. Kubura 08:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Italian roots of all families are very questionable. I'm not speaking about the families that came from Italy (and had origins from Italy!). Kubura 08:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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" [4]. 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[5]. 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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.89.241 (talk • contribs) , 14:27, 1 December 2006

Elena Pucić-Sorkočević (1786-1865)

was the first female composer in Dubrovnik/Ragusa. After the fall of the Dubrovnik/Ragusa Republic, musical performances were mostly held in private houses of the noble families. Ragusino, please added!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.91.19 (talk • contribs) , 21:42, 27 December 2006

PLEASE ADDED

Charles VIII of France granted trading rights to the Ragusans in 1497. These rights were also granted by Louis XII in 1502. In the first decade of the 16th century, Ragusans consuls were in France with French consuls being in Ragusa. Prominent Ragusans were in France during this period and include such dignitaries as Simon Bonesa, Lovro Gigants, D. Bonda- Bondic, Ivan Cvletkovic, Captain John Florio, Petar Luccari-Lurarevic, Seraphin Gozze-Gucetic, Luka Sorgo-Sorkocevic. The Ragusan aristocracy was also well represented at the Sorbonne University in Paris at this time. Croatian Regiments were in French service in the 1600's and were called by Louis XIII's to be the Royal-Cravates. Because these soldiers wore a colorful scarf around their neck to distinguish themselves, this neck wear became known as cravats or ties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.21.2 (talk • contribs) , 00:51, 8 January 2007

I don't see how cravats fit into article about Ragusa/Dubrovnik Republic? gb 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Propagandism from the header

Croatian nationalism is getting the better of the article. Today Ragusa is a Croatian city known as Dubrovnik, however, this article pertains to the historical republic of Ragusa. Ragusa was an Italian Republic, not a croatian one. Today the city is Dubrovnic, a croatian city. lets not confuse the two. The ancient republic of ragusa was never known as the republic of Dubrovnic, and the language of the native citizens was an Italian dialect related to venetian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.173.80 (talk • contribs) , 04:08, 8 January 2007

Ragusa=ancient Italian republic on dalmatian coast. Dubrovnik=ragusa annexxed to yugoslav/croatian state. Republic of Dubrovnic=modern croation revisionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.173.80 (talk • contribs) , 04:19, 8 January 2007

For those who doubt about Croathood of Dubrovnik

Here are some citations of the persons from Dubrovnik or neighbourhood in Middle Ages.
Here are the links: [6] and [7] Translation and more to follow. Kubura 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Any desputing of the Croathood (or Italianhood) of Ragusa or, by its contemporary name, Dubrovnik Republic is nonsense. It was founded by Latin population so the ruling class remained Latin or Italian but majority population was Slavic all along. If these people figured out how to prosper in harmony for circa 1400 years, I hope contributors to this article will work in harmony to enrich the article without denying historical contributions from either population group.gb 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruling class remained Latin? Italian? Whome are you fooling? Are you one of those who propagate "Italians that have surname -ich"? And where have you left romanized Illyrians?
Second, I see your game with avoiding the adjective "Croat". Dubrovnik Republic had Croat population, not "some amorphous Slavs", learn that.
What do you mean by "harmony"? Don't make resistence to claims that "Dubrovnik Republic was Italian"?
Gbajramo, it's easy to share somebody else's meal. Do it with your own country. Kubura 12:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First I'm not here to fool anyone but to contribute to Wikipedia. Second, I don't propagate anything - the names are well documented. Third, I did not avoid adjective 'Croat'. Fourth, non-Latin and Slavic population did not consist exclusively of Croats even if Croats were possibly in majority. Lastly, this is a free encyclopedia and it's not your place to tell me what I should do. Ragusa/Dubrovnik is world heritage. That's why we are all contributing here. Your harrasing tone simply shows that your contributions are POV and should not be taken seriously. I suggest to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies to avoid antagonizing contributors. gb 04:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gbajramo, your assertions are very POV. "...non-Latin and Slavic population did not consist exclusively of Croats even if Croats were possibly in majority". Shame on you, Gbajramo. I don't know what to say anymore.
About "Slavic population", "not exclusively Croats": possibly there were some Czech or Polish traders. Of course, there was a Russian embassy in Dubrovnik.
About majority, you should read history books. Kubura 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Kubura, you are NOT the one to talk about POV and you should be ashamed for the manner in which you discuss. Use of "possibly" or "probably" is appropriate when sources are lacking. I stand by my statement that ruling class remained Latin (which is documented) and majority population was Slavic (exact distribution is not documented). It would be highly unlikely that other neighboring Slavic states did not contribute to population of Dubrovnik over the ages as well as other countries with which trade was established. Neither you or I have population census of 800AD we are both just guessing. Since you are as certain as if you were there every 10 years counting the population, please provide supporting documents and then criticize use of "possibly". gb 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"...when sources are lacking..."? "...not documented..."?
"...contribution to population..."? No country had 100% ethnic purity, except small isolated tribal states. Few Albanian traders don't change the picture.
About other neighbouring Slavic states, what states did you had in mind?
About POV, I don't know for you, but I've "covered" my contributions and my assertions with references.
User Giovanni Giove denied here the Croat nameforms of persons from Dubrovnik (see the section "Vandalism of Kubura" - he even dared to call my contributions as vandalism), under the excuse of "historical reasons". As you see in my recent contributions, he's wrong.
Also the city name in Croat language, Dubrovnik, was brought in question. Argument was "...it is always called Ragusa..." and similar. Somehow, on those links with scanned pages of those 15th and 16th century books, that I've posted here, it says "Dubrovnik". Kubura 15:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, this [8] is wrong. You haven't read the links I've posted?
OK, I'll be faster with my translations. I've promised something in the text above. Kubura 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PLESE *nobody doubts about the Slavoc presence in Ragusa, It's you the on who doubts abaout the Italianess. --Giovanni Giove 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you see your comments: "in Ragusa the slavic dialect was Illyric, later reconignzed as a Serbo-Croatian dialect"?
What are you doing? Spreading new pseudo-science here? Inventing new Slavistic?
You've substituted "Croatian" with "Chakavian" or, even worse, with "Serbo-Croatian"? Again, what are you doing?
Have you read any sources that I've posted here? Or you ignore and push your story further? Doing everything in every possible way, just to avoid the word Croat.
Croat language and Illyrian language were sinonyms.
Čakavian is the dialect of Croatian language.
Are you trying to turn the Slavistics upside down? Giove, you're thinking things up. Stop it. Izmišljaš stvari.
"Italianess". If it was so Italian, why was the book (I've posted the link already) translated "from Italian language into the language of Dubrovnik (not Ragusa)? And that note was written in Croatian. Kubura 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian language

Dubrovnikan Franciscan Joakim Stulić in his work "Lexicon latino-italico-illyricum", printed in 1801 in Buda, gives this explanation of the term "illyrice": "Slovinski, harvatski, hrovatski, horvatski". Nowhere any "Serbo-", just Croatian.
The "Lexicon latinum" of the Jesuit Andrija Jambrešić printed in 1742 has the annex: ''Index Illyrico sive croatico — latinus".
The Archbishop of Split Stipan Cosmi declares new orders [9] for its parishes in 1688 in Latin and in Croatian, in the was that he has translated the term "illyricus" with the term "hrvatski" (idiomo Illyrico - harvaskoga izgovora; clero Illyrico - klera harvaskoga). See the first page [10]. The link is from HAZU.
The Franciscan Lovro Sitović Ljubušak in his work"Pisma od pakla : navlastito od paklenoga oggna, tamnosti, i viçnosti, koju iz svetoga Pisma staroga i novaga zakona, takoger iz sveti otacza i nauçiteglia / izvede i harvatski jezik pivagne otacz F. Lovro Gliubusckoga reda S.O. Francesck, darxave Bosne Argentine ... u pet poglavj razdigliena." [11] (printed in Venice in 1727) has said that is wrote it in Harvatski jezik, and in the introduction in Latin he calls that language illiricum idioma The first page [12]; the link is from HAZU.Kubura 06:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Croathood of Dubrovnik and translations

Now, to some links. Here [13] is a link to a library of Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. This link shows a picture of first pages of a book named "Zarcalo dvhovno od pocetka i sfarhe xivota coviecanskoga : razdieglieno, i razreyeno u petnaes razgovora, a u stoo, i pedeset dubbia, alliti sumgna poglavitieh. Vcignenieh meyu mesctrom, i gnegoviem vcenijkom. / Istomaceno iz yezikka italianskoga u dubrovacki po D. Mauru Orbinu Dubrovcaninu Opattu od S. Marie od Backe, od Reda Sfetoga Benedikta. ". Printed in Venice, in 1621. These [14] and [15] are pages from the edition from 1703. Here are the catalogue search results [16], [17].
The important part is where it states "istomaceno iz jezika italijanskoga u dubrovacki" (translated from the Italian language into Dubrovnik's language), translated by the Dubrovnikan (not "Ragusan") D.Mauro Orbin.
Dubrovnik's language, a Slavic one. If Dubrovnik (not "Ragusa") was Italian-speaking, why it states in an old book that it was translated from Italian into Dubrovnik's language? Kubura 09:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. The book of Ivan (Dživo) Bučić-Vučić [18]. 1st two pages. Title says: "Mandaliena pokorniza gospodina Giua Uvcichia Bunichia vlastelina dvbrouachoga.". Printed in Venice 1705. Catalogue search result [19].
"...of mr Dživo Vučić Bunić, nobel of Dubrovnik." Kubura 09:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. The book of a Dubrovnik's nobel Nikola Bunić [20]. 1st two pages. Catalogue search result [21].
Title says:"Grad Dvbrovnich vlastelom v trexgniv. / Piesan gospodina Nicca Giva Bvnichia vlastelina dubrouachoga. " Printed in Ancona 1667. Kubura 09:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Gučetić family...
The book [22](1st page) titled "Rosario s'druxbom prislavnog imena Iesusa Spassiteglia nascega. Suprotiva kriviem kletvami proklinaniu i psovkami protiva imenu Boxiemu. / Sloxeno po nedostoinomu slusi boxiemu, poctovanomu pripoviedaozu Ozzu Fra Arkangelu Guceticchiu Dubrovcianinu od Reda Fratara Predikatura". Catalogue search result [23].
Written by franciscan Arkangel Gučetić Dubrovčanin (not "Ragusino"). Printed in 1597 in Rome. Kubura 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a book in Italian. Link with a review (though, in Croat, by academic Tonko Maroević) is here. Link is from online edition of magazine "Vijenac" of Matica hrvatska. Book is:
Ljiljana Avirović, La traduzione poetica in Croazia: a) Il caso dell'Aminta di Torquato Tasso i b) Petrarca e il petrarchismo — aspetti della traduzione del sonetto, Cleup, Padova, 1999
A cite from the review:
"Gotovo svi protagonisti hrvatskoga pjesništva 16. stoljeća istaknuli su se i svojim verzijama inozemnih klasika: Marulić prevodi Dantea i Petrarku, Katona i Kempenca, sv. Bernarda i sv. Bonaventuru, Hektorović i Lucić daju vlastita tumačenja Ovidijevih pjesama, Menčetić i Ranjina više nego variraju na Petrarkine motive, dok Dominko Zlatarić objavljuje čitave dramske tekstove Tassa i Sofokla, želeći Elektru posljednjega navedenog — prema vlastitim riječima — »učiniti Hrvaćkom«."
The translation is:
"Almost all protagonist of Croat poetry of 16th c. have proven themselves with their versions of foreign classics: Marulić translates Dante and Petrarca, Katon and Kempenc, st. Bernard and st. Bonaventura, Hektorović and Lucić are giving their own comments of Ovidius poems, Menčetić i Ranjina more then make variations on Petrarca's motives, while Dominko Zlatarić publishes whole drama texts of Tasso and Sofocles, wanting to make the Elektra of Sofocles, as he said himself, "a Croat woman" (»učiniti Hrvaćkom«)." Kubura 10:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, a link from HAZU. catalogue search result. Elektra tragedia. Glivbmir, pripovies pastirska i Glivbav i smart Pirama i Tisbe iz vechie tugieh iesika u Harvackij isloxene. K tomusu pristavgliene niekolike piesni u smart od razlizieh / po Dominkv Slatarichiv. - V' Bnezieh : Po Aldv, 1597.Kubura 09:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

About some of my sources:
"Vijenac" are Matica hrvatska's newspapers for literature, art and science (Novine Matice hrvatske za književnost, umjetnost i znanost.).
"Matica hrvatska" is, as it declares in the article 2 of its statute "independent, non-profit, non-governmental society, founded 1842 as society for promotion of Croat culture, and that has, over the years, with his work and continuity, became a national institution". Name in Latin is Matrix Croatica. Kubura 10:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Gundulić family.
The book of Ivan Gundulić. The title says "Suse sina rasmetnoga gospodina Giva Frana Gundulichia vlastelina dubrovackoga. - V Bnecieh : po Francisccv Broiollv". Edition is supposed to be from 1650 (title page says M.DC.---). Title page [24]. Printed in Venice. Catalogue search result [25].
Fourth edition from 1703. Title says "Suse sina rasmetnoga gospodina Giva Frana Gundulichia vlastelina dubrouackoga.". Printed in Venice. Title page [26]. Catalogue search result [27]. Kubura 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Držić family.
The book of Marin Držić. Catalogue search result [28].
Title is "Tirena / comedia Marina Darxichia". Third edition from 1630. Printed in Venice. Kubura 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Ranjina family.
The book of Dinko Ranjina. Title says "Piesni raslike Dinka Ragnine, vlastelina dubrovackoga : u koih on kaxe sve sctose sgodimu stvoriti kros gliubav, stoiech u gradu latinskom, od Zangle". Catalogue search result [29]. Printed in Florence in 1563. Kubura 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A link from HAZU. Regarding Gradić family.
The book of Bazilije Gradić. Title says ˇˇLibarze od dievstva i dievickoga bitya v komse tomace sua kolika poglauita miesta staroga i nouoga sakona, koia od dieustua gouore i ono scto sueti naucitegli u mnosieh librieh pisciu ; Libarze velle duhovno i bogogliubno od molitve i contemplanya, sniekiem napomenam duhouniem, oniem ki xele duhouno xiuieti, uelle potrebno i korisno / [dum Basilio Gradich].". Printed in Venice in 1567.
Catalogue search result [30]. Title page [31]. Kubura 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A link to the library of Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Search result [32].
Book of the author Jakov Mikalja.
Title is Blago jezika slovinskoga illi Slovnik : u komu izgorarajuse rjeci slovinske latinski i diacki = Thesaurus linguae Illyricae sive Dictionarium Illyricum : in quo verba Illyrica Italice et Latine redduntur / labore p. Jacobi Micalia ; Grammatika talianska u kratko ili Kratak nauk za naucitti latinski jezik / koga slovinski upisa otac Jacov Mikaglja ... Impresum: Laureti : apud Paulum et Io. Baptistam Seraphinum , 1649 . Kubura 12:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In that grammar/dictionary, under the entry "Hrvat, Hervat" says "Hrvat, Hervat = Illyricus, Croata". Kubura 08:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Work of Bernardin Pavlović, franciscan from Dubrovnik Republic.
A link from HAZU. Search result [33]. Title page [34].
Priprauglegnie za dostoino rechi suetu missu i posli iste Boggu zahuaglegne / i zuagieno iz missala rimskoga i skupgleno, iz tomaçeno iz mnoghi ostaly devoti kniga i u' haruaski jezik pomgliuo i virno privedeno po Ozcu Fra Bernardinu Paulovichiu iz Dubrounika Reda Svetoga O. Franceska ... - U Mleczi : Po Stipanu Monti, 1747. . Printed in Venice in 1747. Kubura 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Work of Rajmund Džamanjić, Dominican from Dubrovnik republic.
A link from HAZU library. Search result [35]. Title page [36].
Nauk za piisati dobro latinskiema slovima rieci yezika slovinskoga koyiemse Dubrovcani, i sva Dalmatia kakko vlasctitiem svoyiem yezikom sluzcij. / Po M. P. Ozu F. Raymundu Giamagniku Dubrovcaninu od Reda S. Dominica. - In Venetia : Appresso Marco Ginammi, 1639.
The work from 1639 speaks about Dubrovcani, not Ragusini. It says that "How to write good in Latin letters the words from Croatian ("slovinski" is one of synonyms of Croatian, see the section above, e.g., note that "linguae Illyricae sive Croatice" by Cosmi, and "linguae Illyricae.../...slovinski" by Mikalja)," in which Dubrovnik, and whole Dalmatia, use as their own proper language". With double confirmation. "Vlastitim"=own. "svojim"="own proper" ("svoj" is a reflexive possesive pronoun). Kubura 07:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why is there an English version of the name and no Croatian version? Is there any specific reason for this? It certainly has more validity than the English variation.

Also the current coat of arms was not the arms of Dubrovnik Republic. That was Austro-Hungarian arms assigned to Dubrovnik after it was annexed by Austro-Hungary and incorporated into Habsburg Monarchy. The real coat of arms was the one that is today official arms of the city -> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.197.42 (talk • contribs) , 00:09, 11 February 2007

References

Interesting for the "neutrality".
Authors from all over the world, but no Croat author. Interesting. Kubura 13:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Evading the name of Croats

Some users here persistently try to avoid Croat name in this article.
Not "Croatian", but some "amorphous Slavs", or "Croats and Serbs" or even "Serbs"(?!) only.
Obviously, someone wants to lessen the Croathood of Dubrovnik as much as possible. The policy of Italian imperialists.
Despite a bunch of history facts.
I don't know what admins are doing.
I don't know what to do anymore.
I don't want to go into editwars. Kubura 10:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a bit. But - the only mentions of "serb" in the article are where specific references to the Kingdom of Serbia or the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes are made. The references to "Slavs" in the early portion of the history I've left alone, because there's no evidence presented that the Slavs of the region had differentiated into Croats and Serbs and Bosniaks and Slovenes. Later mentions I've changed to "Croats", as such differentiation had occurred. Αργυριου (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

People born after the end of the Republic of Ragusa

I commented out the section listing people who were born after 1808; Ragusino removed the comment-marks. This list of people does not belong in this article; it belongs in the article on Dubrovnik. The history of the Republic of Ragusa has a definitive end, in 1808. Anything which happened afterwards is part of some other history; in this case, the history of Dubrovnik. Αργυριου (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's ridiculous to have people like Vlaho Bukovac and Frano Supilo since they were born soe time ater the republic was abolished, and also they weren't even born in Dubrovnik/Ragusa. Tar-Elenion 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We should remove the section "Born in 1800's (After the fall of the Republic) " in the article.
It is out of context; this article deals with times of Dubrovnik Republic. Kubura 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

I think some trivia should be perhaps added. Not many people actually know this but Republic of Ragusa was the first one in the world who started the practice of quarantine and was also the first country to officially recognize the United States of America when they issued their declaration of independence from Great Britain. Also it had some colonies in India (Goa I think), which later passed to Portuguese. Tar-Elenion 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Including a "trivia" section is frowned upon, though I can't find the explicit guideline for that. Recognition of the U.S. used to be in the article, but was removed. Such a statement requires a reliable source, and none has yet been provided. If that claim (and the claim about Goa) can be sourced, they ought to be worked in to the general history section of the article, not called out separately. Ditto quarantine - that could be included in a section on Ragusa's trade practices. Αργυριου (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unimportant Croat latinist?

Juraj Šižgorić unimportant? Georgius Sisgoreus from 15. century? Kubura 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently I've read about his importance for the thesaurus of Croatian language (because he's one source for the Croatian terms for the ball (like the one for - football!). Kubura 06:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Croats' dialects in old Dubrovnik Republic

About dialects. Dubrovnikans wrote in štokavian; still, there're are historical documents from those times that point to stronger influence/presence of čakavian dialect. Kubura 08:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article in magazine "Vijenac" of Matica hrvatska: Dubrovnik i hrvatska tradicija, nr. 148, 1999. Author is Josip Lisac, Croatian linguist. Lisac deals with Croats' dialects (since 2004, assisting with Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts). Kubura 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article in magazine "Vijenac" of Matica hrvatska: Dubrovnik i hrvatska tradicija (2), nr. 149, 1999. Second part of Lisac's text. Kubura 09:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article "Jezik i književnost u Dubrovniku u 16. i 17. stoljeću (kontinuitet i promjene)" of Davor Dukić (author is from Croatistics department of Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb). Translation of the title is "Language and literature in Dubrovnik in 16th and 17th century (continuity and changes). Kubura 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some helpful literature

Here's a link. Žarko Muljačić, "Iz dubrovačke prošlosti". Newspaper article and the book . Kubura 11:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The nobility under the french occupation

The Ragusan nobility were disunited in their ideas and political behavior. Article 44 of the 1811 Decree abolished the centuries-old institution of fideicommissum in inheritance law, by which the French enabled younger noblemen to participate in that part of the family inheritance, which the formerlaw had deprived them of. The annulment of fideicommissum struck at the Antonnio Degl’Ivellio. According to a 1813 inventory of the Dubrovnik district, 451 land proprietors were registered, including ecclesiastical institutions and the commune. Although there is no evidence of the size of the estates, the nobles, undoubtedly, were in posses- sion of most of the land. Eleven members of the Sorgo family, 8 of Gozze, 6 of Ghetaldi, 6 of Pozza, 4 of Zamagna, and 3 members of the Saraca family were among the greatest landowners. Ragusan citizens belonging to the confraternities St. Anthony and St. Lazarus owned considerable land outside the City. Ragusa/Dubrovnik under French Ruleties dreaded any conflict between the rebels and the Austrians, who were expected to arrive at any moment. Thus, due to their incapacity to act together,the Ragusans missed the last chance of liberating the City themselves. Regardless of the events taking place in the City, Todor Milutinovic and Montrichard settled the French surrender of the City under honorable terms.Their aim being to avoid greater conflicts, the Austrians agreed to the French conditions. General Milutinovic promised that the victorious army would not marchinto the City before the last Frenchman was evacuated from the City by ship.On 27 January, the French capitulation was signed in Gruz (Gravosa) and ratified thesame day.It was then that Caboga openly sided with the Austrians, dis-missing the rebel army in Konavle. Meanwhile, Natali and his men were still waiting outside the Ploce Gates.After almost eight years of occupation, the French troops marched out of Ragusa/Dubrovnik on 27 and 28 January 1814. On the afternoon of 28 January 1814,the Austrian and English troops made their way into the City through the PileGates, denying admission to the Dubrovnik rebels. Intoxicated by success,and with Caboga’s support, MilutinoviÊ ignored the Gruz (Gravosa) agreement he hadmade with the nobility in Gruz. The events which followed can be best epito-mized in the so-called flag episode. The Flag of St. Blaise was posted along-side of the Austrian and British colors, but only for two days, because on 30 January, General Milutinovic ordered Mayor Giorgi to lower it. Overwhelmed by afeeling of deep patriotic pride, Giorgi, the last rector of the Republic and aloyal Francophile, refused to do so—“jer da ga je pripeo puk” (”for the masseshad posted it”). The oncoming events proved that Austria took every possible chance of invading the entire coast of the eastern Adriatic, from Venice to Cattaro. The allies did everything in their power to eliminate the Dubrovnik issue at the Vienna Congress of 1815. The Ragusan representative, Miho Bona, was denied participation in the Congress, while MilutinoviÊ, prior tothe final agreement of the allies, assumed complete control of the City. Inhis book Pad Dubrovnika (The Fall of Ragusa/Dubrovnik; 1908), Lujo Vojnovic makes every effort to justify the popular actions and prove the solidarity of all social groups in achieving their common goal to restore the Republic. The records, however, seem to indicate a different situation. There was in fact lit-tle understanding between the nobility, the bourgeoisie, and the peasantry, and slim chances of these groups of having any common basis for further activities. The three groups had different reasons to be dissatisfied with the French government, and the moment when they rejoiced together over their victory was not strong enough to unite all the segments of Dubrovnik society in a struggle to restore the Republic. After Dubrovnik suffered a political breakdown, was brought to the verge of economic ruin, and was foresakenby the international community, the City and its territories were handed over to the Habsburg Monarchy in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.88.142 (talk • contribs) , 00:43, 6 March 2007

Relation between Nobility

Is peculiar that even survived when the classes were divided by internal disputes. When Marmont arrived at Dubrovnik in 1808, it was whereupon the nobility was divided in two blocks, the “Salamanquinos” and the “Sorboneses”. These names alluded to to certain controversy arisen from the wars between Charles V of Spain and Franz I of France, happened hardly two hundred fifty years back. It was that in the 1667 earthquake a great part of the noble class was annihilated, being necessary to give back his force to him with the inclusion of certain plebians. To these the salamanquinos, those in favor of Spanish absolutism, did not treat them like equal; but the inclined sorboneses, added to the frenchs, and to a certain liberalism, accepted them without reserves. Another factor that could take part in this conduct is that the sorboneses had been very decreased by the earthquake and they did not want to lose cash. In any case, both sides had he himself status and they seated together in the Council, but they did not maintain relations social and not even they were greeted by the street; an inconvenient marriage between members of both groups was of so serious consequences as if it occurred between members of different classes. This social split was also reflected in the inferior layers: “The plebians, as well, were divided in the brotherhoods of San Antony and San Lazaro, who was so unfriendly in their relations as salamnaquinos and sorboneses”. He was in the essence of the Republic, that always had to be defended of neighboring empires --“first Hungary, soon Venice, later Turkey”-- and that was structured for a reduced number of people, around the 33 original noble families of century XV.

It should be Francis I of France.

Salamanquinos and Sorboneses seems Spanish for people who studied at the university of Salamanca ("salmantinos" in modern Spanish) or Sorbonne. How did these Spanish words name Ragusan parties?

--84.20.17.84 16:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

1783

In 1783 the Ragusan Government did not answer the proposition put forward by their diplomatic representative in Paris, Frano Favi, that they establish diplomatic relations with the USA, although the Americans agreed to allow Dubrovnik ships free passage in their ports.

Dalmatian Romanic and its dialects

Vegliot was the dialect of romanic Dalmatian language from the island of Krk.
Ragusean was the dialect of romanic Dalmatian language from the city of Dubrovnik.
There were also some others dialects, these were most known. There was big unintelligibility among those dialects.
From Krk to Dubrovnik there's approximately 350 kilometres of distance. Kubura 12:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

reverting

Giovanni Giove, please don't drop completely irrelevant changes when you revert on POV grounds. --Joy [shallot] 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that user Giovanni Giove should be blocked because of constant vandalism of Croatia-related pages. PANONIAN 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes... so tell me where I am wrong.... if you can. Meanwhile don't revert again my sourced edits just because you don't like them.--Giovanni Giove 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You deleting Slavic name of this Slavic state for example. That is very wrong. PANONIAN 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This 'slavic state' has Italian as official language, so that his official name was ' Repubblica di Ragusa. The problem has been several time discussed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

PANONIAN, you know what they say - even a broken clock is right twice a day. This state was was a Italian - South Slav state and that duality continued all the way to relatively recent times. I am highly suspicion of the name "Dubrovačka republika" as official, but I'll look it up.--Hadžija 00:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In the past official languages of the countries were mostly in artificial use and were not spoken by majority of inhabitants (that could be seen even today in many African states). Italian was official language of this republic mainly because of trading relations with foreign countries, but the main language spoken by its population was Slavic (only few persons from the upper levels of the society spoke Italian as native language). I do not object that infobox contain Latin or Italian name, but it also should contain Slavic name, which was name used by majority of its inhabitants. Therefore, I propose following order of names in the infobox: English - Latin - Italian - Slavic. PANONIAN 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The version I saw had only Slavic (don't quote me, I only gave it a glance). I agree with your proposal, I don't see how anyone could object to that.--Hadžija 06:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I mainly reverted edits of user Giovanni Giove because he deleted Slavic name, but I did not saw his entire edit (and I apologize for that of course). PANONIAN 06:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, happens to me sometimes.--Hadžija 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Croatized

Yes, Vlaho Bukovac croatized his birthname and ...birthsurname. Croat national renaissance movement caught him also. Who painted the picture "Croatian national renaissance"? Kubura 09:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So source it, it's not a problem.--Hadžija 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's his work on Commons (the curtain in Croatian National Theatre) in Zagreb [39].
Here's a link to the site of Croatian Heritage Foundation (Hrvatska matica iseljenika), to the Monthly revue of that organization, [40].
Of course he croatized his name and surname, he didn't chinesified it, nor laotized it. Kubura 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you dispute "croatized" at all? "Vlaho" is Croat name, name that exists only among the Croats. Kubura 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The name of the country

Here's the link from HAZU.
It confirms the name of the country in Croatian, as well as that the name of language is Croatian.
"Pokripglenie umiruchi, za dobro i sveto pochi umilosti Boxioi sovoga svita / iztomaçeno, i skupgleno pria po Don Luczi Terzichiu. Koie da boglie, i upraunie izgovara u haruaski iezik; popravi i pristampa po ozcu P. Fra Bernardinu Paulovichiu iz Dubrovaçke Darssave ... Dedicato a sua eccellenza Simon Contarini .... - U Mleczi : Po Bartalu Occhj, 1747."[41] and the scan of the first page [42].
The translation is "...in order to better be spoken in Croatian, fixed and reprinted by father fra Bernardin Pavlović from the country of Dubrovnik...".
Few interesting lines from that page are "Jod istoga nadostagliuni mnogi i rasliçiti Blagosovi, i Druge Stuari Svete, i Kriposne za korit Naroda Harvasckoga Kakose moxe viditi nassuarsi isti knigat".
Here's the second edition. [43] and the scan of an internal page [44]. Kubura 12:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity paragraph

About the "ethnicity" paragraph.
Why isn't such a paragraph in articles about other historical states?
Someone inserted it here with the purpose of removing any possible connection with Croathood of Republic of Dubrovnik.
Now, when it's obvious that the links to historical documents proove the Croathood, then appears the paragraph with following lines:
"These discussions are mainly meaningless". Such line in an article? is this encyclopedic??.
"The attribution of a definite ethnicity is impossible". Really? Few African slaves also lived in Paris, but that didn't made attribution of Paris to Frenchood impossible.
"after the Middle Age the Republic had always a mixed population, Latin and Slavic". And in tribe of Yanomami in Amazonia lived one English explorer. So the village of Yanomami had mixed population, English and Yanomami. Kubura 06:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely the extent of Italian presence and influence in Ragusa in 1500 is rather more extensive than the English influence and presence on your Yanomami tribe. The awful analogies hurt my brain. john k 07:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

John, what do you know about Dubrovnik and its history at all? You came here out of nowhere, had no contributions so far, and now you preach us.
Second, do you "play dumb" or what? Do you know the meaning of above written sentences?
Sentence "...a mixed population..." gives the idea that the Dubrovacska darxava had amount of Romanic speaking population almost equal as Croat one, which is wrong. Croats made absolute majority.
Third, again I see the avoiding/a try to nullify (in that paragraph) any reference that the old Republic had Croat population (some amorphous "Slavs"). Despite explicit speaking (in the historical sources) about Croats and Croatian language in the old Republic as well about its population.
Do you read the sources I've put in the text above? Kubura 12:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt any of these people, esp. the Italians know anything about the history of Croats in Dalmatia from their edits. A Croatian scholar would be laughing in his pants at "shtokavian" language. My advice to people who do not know the history of Croatia is to leave it alone, read up on it, or have good faith in other people's edits. Do you people honestly think that Croats suddenly showed up in Dalmatia/Dubrovnik only a hundred years ago? I can trace my family's Dalmatian roots back several centuries. --Jesuislafete 18:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussing editors on talkpages

Please refrain from using article talkpages to discuss specific complaints about other editors. I've reverted the addition. WP:ANI or a user WP:RFC is the appropriate place for this.--Isotope23 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed sections

Toponyms, language, ethnicity, surnames, evading the mentioning of Croats and Croatian language. Kubura 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Italian template

I think, Ragusa was an Italian-speaking area, some of its most important families came frm Italy etc. So it reasonable to add it to Italian Projects. It doesn't mean that Ragusa was part of Italy!!!! --Attilios 08:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Then there should be an other template.
Not the one related to Italy, but to Italian language. Kubura 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name in English

Here is a proof that the name Dubrovnik Republic is used in modern English.
Here's Case NO. IT-02-54-T from ICTY, second amended indictment against Slobodan Milošević.
Though they made a blooper in the text (old republic ceased to exist almost two centuries ago, area is part of Croatia) - they should use the term "Dubrovnik and surrounding area".
In fact, the territory of old Dubrovnik Republic was one of the primary targets of the Montenegrin military conquest campaign and in one of annexation plans/Croatian dismembering: it was planned by greaterserbianist and anticroat circles to "restore" the old republic in Greater Serbia (though, under the name and form "new" Yugoslavia).
Still, it shows which term modern English uses for that republic.
Or you find Carla del Ponte as Croatian POV-user? Kubura 09:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a blooper, the Serbs wanted to establish a "new" Republic of Dubrovnik that would be part of Yugoslavia, just like the Republic of Serbian Krajina. This new Republic of Dubrovnik as proclaimed by the Serbian besiegers has of course nothing to do with the old Republic of Ragusa. Maarten 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is only too obvious that your example has nothing to do with the name of the historic republic. People from Dubrovnik and Croats can be proud of the heritage of Ragusa / Dubrovnik - a city with two beautiful historic names, but nationalism makes blind. --DaQuirin 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Maarten 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DaQuirin, about the heritage. Why aren't you proud with Slavic names of the toponyms in Germany? Why don't you write about Rujana, Vezera, Špreva, Laba, Dražđane, Pomorje, Branibor? Why don't you deal with Slavic origin of the name Berlin (not the "Bär story")? Or, why don't you tell Frenchmen those stories in the cases of Mulhouse, Strasbourg, Alsace (Mühlhausen, Straßburg, Elzaß) and "their beautiful two historic names, but nationalism makes blind"? Kubura 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Maarten, DaQuirin, have you read all the parts of my message? I'll mark it. Second, I've used the word "blooper", because the text of the accusation isn't formed well. Carla had to use expressions like "rebelled areas" (or "so-called RSK", "so-called SAO...") , "occupied areas" etc.. But for the Dubrovnik's surroundings she had to use "Dubrovnik and surrounding area" or similar - in short, Carla had to find better expressions, that are correct in legal and political sense. Sincerely, Kubura 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are a hopeless case, it seems. Berlin (like Leipzig, Dresden or Rostock) is indeed a name of Slavic origin and it has not been changed, only pronounced a German way. I have no problems with the English, Italians ("Monaco di Baviera"), Poles etc. using their names for German cities and regions. The Austrians still use "Agram", don't they? But seriously, the historic name of Dubrovnik until the First World War was Ragusa. Where is your problem? The English wikipedia uses English names for historic states, that's it. --DaQuirin 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DaQuirin, you're missing the point.
First, I don't make any objections when Italians on pages in their language use Italian nameforms, neither to Germans, when they on pages in their language use German nameforms. That means, it.wiki and de.wiki, not on en.wiki.
Second, you don't know Croatian history at all, neither the history of Austria-Hungary, so please, don't mess, if you're not informed or you have superficial knowledge in this matter.
Croatian language became official language in Austrian administrative unit "Kingdom of Dalmatia" on 21 July of 1883 (because of influence of Croat unionist party, that won the elections for the third time in a row, thanks to new voting system, that gave voteright also to lower classes, that were majority of population, Croats).
Why don't you provoke Greeks with using "Selanik" instead of "Salonica", because it was its historical name (it was part of Turkey then, till Balkan Wars)? In English name is Salonika? So is Dubrovnik the name of this Croatian city in English, DaQuirin. Kubura 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No one disputes that the city's name is Dubrovnik, see that article (I just reverted someone who said it was Dubrovnik/Ragusa actually). This article is not about a city, but about a state that ceased to be. An entirely different case. Maarten 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You pretend to know a lot about Croatian History. So, this article needs in fact a lot of researched additional info. But your only interest - reading your edits - concerning the historical Republic of Ragusa is to change the name of it - two hundred years after it has ended its existence. Old Ragusans did not have a language problem, it seems, but this will not fit into your narrow-minded worldview. Regards, --DaQuirin 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

DaQuirin, I would add additional info, gladly. Unfortunately, we have to deal with misinterpretations, historical data distortions, channelized presentations of events and persons, bad intentions in editing, edit wars. You can't furnish your own house, when you have to defend it from those who claim that your house is theirs (or someone elses). Sad but truth. Kubura 06:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A very recent archeological investigation in Župa Dubrovačka (a few kilometers to the south of the city) found a grave with an inscription written in Glagolitic alphabet from 10th century. It is the oldest glagolitic text ever found southern of Neretva river. It's not published yet but it will be soon. The archeologists in Dubrovnik were more than asleep in the second half of 20th cenrury, now a new wave of archeologists came and here are the results. It's supposed to be just first of such discoveries and according to the historical facts there should be an "ocean" of the same kind. Both names Ragusa and Dubrovnik doesn't have anything to do with Italians or Italian language. Original Ragusians were Romanized Illyrians, later they were mixed with Croats. Ragusa comes from Ragusian language, not Italian. Both names were in usage during the Medieval, so what is the problem to call it the Dubrovnik Republic. Italian appropriation of the name is ridiculous. The same goes for their appropriating of other toponims. Zenanarh 14:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As you said, the name of Ragusa is not to be appropriated by anyone. It was the official name of the city-state used for centuries and used in historical research since then. The name Dubrovnik was there as well, but as an inofficial name. If there is a serious concern to deal with the historical Ragusa itself, one should leave the issue here. As far as I see, for non-Croats and non-Italians the name discussion is very disappointing and useless. It is a nationalistic thing, shedding bad light on the splendid city of Dubrovnik. --DaQuirin 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally I agree with you, but you must know some things: initial population of early-Medieval Ragusa was a mix of Illyrians and Croats. Just yesterday I was talking to the guy who is more than familiar with this agenda and he told me this story:

Present day old city is placed over a little island and levee joining it to the land coast. In fact it was tight and shallow marine or sea canal between the island and the land coast - later a levee was made upon it - present day Stradun - well known main street in Dubrovnik which pass along through the center of the old city. The island was populated by Romanized Illyrians (Romans in the sources but I don't want to use this form because it's immediately appropriated by Italians without understanding) and the land side was populated by Croats (Sclavenes - not Slavs).

So 2 languages were spoken in the city through all Medieval: Dalmatian (Ragusian dialect) and Croatian (scientists argue about the dialect, but it seems it was Ikavian before Stokavian arrival). These 2 ethnicities (Illyrian and Croatian) were mixing together and by the time the question of language was the question of social position (not ethnos!): Dalmatian used by citizens with properties and honors and Croatian used by all the rest. No Latins and no Italians at all! Lately when Venetians occupied Dalmatia Venetian language was official one and Dalmatian language gradually disappeared, since rich citizens were forced to use Venetian (Italian). Otherwise they could lost their positions and properties.

Why am I writing this? Because of the term word "nationalist" used by Italian editors as a mechanism for disputation of anything edited by Croats in Wiki, concerning the territory of Dalmatia.

We all know that Nepal is occupied by China. Now imagine this: Nepal becomes independent in 22nd century again; so we are now in 23rd century and we are editing Wikipedia; a few Chinese constantly claim that Nepal is Chinese, it has always been, the official language was always Chinese, population were Chinese, toponims were Chinese, etc…; editors from Nepal are fighting with it and claim the opposite; they have sources but the problem is that Chinese have it too – written in Chinese language in the territory of Nepal by a writer even whose name was translated to Chinese format…; and every edit made by Nepal editors is called nationalistic by Chinese users. Would you mark them of being nationalists too?

(my apologize to anyone offended by this example)Zenanarh 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARGUMENT IS UNNECESSARY AS THE NAME "RAGUSA" IS USED IN THE DALMATIAN LANGUAGE AS WELL AS ITALIAN AND LATIN. IT IS, THEREFORE, NOT ITALIAN AND IS NOT INCORRECT. IT IS USED EVEN TODAY IN DUBROVNIK TO REFER TO THE CITY ("RAGUZA"). THERE IS NO NEED TO CAHNGE THE NAME, ESPECIALLY WHEN USED IN A HISTORIC CONTEXT. DIREKTOR 20:35, 17 July 2007

Here's another material, from United Nations Security Council [45]. Final report of the UN Comission of experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), the Annex XI.A: "The Battle of Dubrovnik and the law of armed conflict".
"The settlement of Dubrovnik was first mentioned in written records by an anonymous cosmographer of Ravenna in 667. Known in Latin as Ragusium, it was long known by its Italian name, Ragusa, before its Croatian name Dubrovnik (from Dubravka, "forest of oaks") acquired general acceptance."
Further in the text it's being used solely "Dubrovnik" or "republic of Dubrovnik".
To make it easy for you, start with the page 8 (chapter II. Cultural-historical perspective of Dubrovnik, A. Background).
This should be enough. Kubura 09:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you say a lot, but say nothing. Simple logic: Dalmatian was official in historic Dubrovnik, it's name should be written in Dalmatian. Our Dalmatian urban tradition demands it. DIREKTOR 11:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, as administrative language, I haven't seen any official documents in Dalmatoromanic language in Republic of Dubrovnik.
Have you read any books? Yes, there're books in Croatian.
Second, DIREKTOR, you're missing the point. I'm speaking about the title of the article, but you interfere with other topic. Put your comments in the sections where they belong.
Don't behave childishly, and don't disrupt the flow of the discussion. Kubura 06:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will try to make you understand once more, read this from WP:NAME:

In the absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used. When mentioned in a historical context, if there is not a common English name for the city in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name, with the current local name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the city is mentioned. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for details.

The historical name was Ragusa. Both in English, Dalmatian and Italian, Slavic was not official and was rarely used (by writers) until the 17th century. I DID "READ BOOKS", apparently more than you... I am trying to tell you, you will never get the name changed, I would not mind, but it is impossible. DIREKTOR 10:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

References to Italian

There is no need to make all these frequent references for italian versions of certain names. The Republic had nothing to do with Italy and was never officialy part of the Venetian Republic. (Except for a very short time.) It never had an Italian minority so what is all this? Should we post german names for the islands as well? DIREKTOR

Italian in Ragusa

Lexicon: 1) Italian was not an official language of Ragusa, Dalmatian was.
2) The Republic was under Venetian control for a time that is true, but it was independent before that, and prior to that, was part of the Byzantine Empire.
I will not revert anything as yet, in anticipation of your response/explanation. DIREKTOR 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the article about Dalmatian language says: "In the 16th century, Ragusan (Dalmatian) fell out of use and became extinct." So, in the period from 1492 on until 1807: Italian or (extinct?) Dalmatian was the official language in Ragusa? --DaQuirin 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article also states: "The available sources include hardly 260 Ragusan words." What is your reference for the claim that Dalmatian was official language until 1807? --DaQuirin 21:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is with the understanding of what Italian actually means in this context. From a Ragusan perspective Italian was applied to all Italic languages, this including the Dalmatian and Venetian. So when we speak about Italian being the official language of the republic we are not speaking of modern standard Italian that has developed in the 19th century but we are speaking of local romance dialects and languages, namely Ragusan dialect of Dalmatian language and Venetian language under the influence of Toscan, Umbrian etc. --No.13 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot to mention an interesting fact. Although Slavic (Croatian) was in fact forbbiden to be used in official communication until 15th-16th century all spoke it. There are noted humurous situations where the senators (who forbade the use of Croatian) debated in Croatian in the senate and then published their decisions in Italian (Dalmatian Ragusan or Venetian) and Latin. I find that very funny actually. --No.13 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have 2 original scientific researches published by University of Science and Arts in Zadar, concerning the language spoken in Zadar and in its surrounding. It's very interesting because Venetian duke of Dalmatia (16th century) who was settled in Zadar (Zadar was the political centre of Dalmatia and there was the largest Venetian influence) is citated there. He wrote in his reports to Venice something like this: Nobody here speaks Italian language and nobody understands it, except a few noblemen. They're all speaking Slavic language... It's not by my hand this moment so I'll post it a little bit later. Zenanarh 07:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is well known that Latin was maintained for a VERY long period. Italian however, was not "official"". I am sure of that. The country spoke: Latin (administrative), Croatian (the masses), and Dalmatian (the higher classes, the Gospari), Italian was well known, that is certain, but out of necessity and mostly by the merchants, it is too much to say it was "official". You're right, the language was extinct, but so is Latin. It was not used in normal conversation, but in the debates in the Senate and in the proclamations. However, it was getting more and more replaced in common conversation, not by Italian, since they REALLY didn't like Venice (unlike Zadar), but by Croatian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIREKTOR (talk • contribs) 08:50, 20 July 2007

Wrong, Direktor. No citizen spoke Serb language nor "Croato-Serb" langugage. Don't spread your wishie-wishes here. Kubura 11:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote CROATIAN/CROATO-Serbian, Kubura. But fine, I'll fix that, besides, everyone knows what I mean... DIREKTOR 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC) P.S., "wishie-wishes"?? :D

There was no Croato-Serbian, only Croatian language. Read those text above.
Wishie-wishes. You wrote on your page that you want the "restoration of "Croato-Serbian language"". Make your fake world somewhere else. We don't need to distort the historical data because of your wishie-wishies.
DIREKTOR, you're pestering. That's type of trolling. Kubura 12:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I told you I removed that!, it's you who's pestering! I am not creating any fantasy world. Also, anyone that is not a completely indoctrinated freak can see that Croat and Serbian are incredibly alike, despite the fact that there was a war, despite the fact that Serbs attacked us, despite all those facts, this is still very obvious, exept for those who's nationalist pride (and perhaps religion) prevents them from objectively looking at facts. It will take more than one political party and 15 years, to change this millenia old simmilarity. Distort historical data!? My friend, you don't seem to know that in those days there was no Croatian (or Serbian) language, that it was not known as "Croatian" in Dubrovnik, that it was just called "Slavic", that it had very little in common with the language spoken in, let's say, Zagreb or Belgrade. Please, do not accuse me of distorting history you are not even familiar with. I assure you, there are still A LOT of people in Split whose nationality does not destroy their rational thought. DIREKTOR 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Old Ragusans like Joakim Stulli would disagree with you. As a contemporary expert on the subject he made a clear distinction writing that the 'Slovin', 'Illyric' and 'Croatian' are all the same thing. --No.13 06:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, look: there was no standardised Croatian language during the time of the Ragusan Republic. the local dialect of Dalmatian was standardised. DIREKTOR 10:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. None of the languages at that time had anything similar to standardization save perhaps Latin language. --No.13 11:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Direktor, in the time of Republic of Dubrovnik, it existed standardised Croatian. Start with Bartol Kašić. Look at the list of Croatian grammars and dictionaries. Kubura 09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this is in argument!, Dalmatian was the language spoken by the gospari and a part of the public for MOST of the time, not perhaps as much near the end of the Republic but during MOST of it's existence it was the "official" language. Spoken in the Senate. It is the primary language of the Republic. DIREKTOR 12:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The common men spoke Croatian shtokavian, it was also spoken by the nobility as well. The only thing written and spoken in Latin and Italian (Venetian, Dalmatia, etc) were official announcements, documents, agreements and so on. This however has little with the fact Croatian was spoken. --No.13 12:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The common men spoke shtokavian, yes, but the gospari spoke Dalmatian for most of the republic's existance. They knew both BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN THE SENATE. What's all this about Latin and Italian? I'm talking about Dalmatian. read up on this...

No I am not wrong. Croatian was so widely spoken in Dubrovnik by 15th century both by nobles and common people that the Senate in order to protect the Latin/Romanic legacy banned all discussion in languages others than the Latin or Italian (Ragusan dialect of Dalmatian) in the Ragusan senate. Even so there were cases where Croatian was spoken in the senate and that was the reason for parody at that time. --No.13 13:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Direktor, read the sources we've gave above, some of them also speak about the widespread (and even majority use) use of Croatian. Direktore, which Croatian writer from Dubrovnik spoke about "ljudi nahvao" and "ljudi nazbilj". Are these words in Croatian or in Dalmatoromanic? Kubura 09:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that. However it does not change the fact that the Latin/Romanic legacy was considered primary, as shown by the efforts of the ruling council to preserve it. DIREKTOR 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so much primary as an attempt to preserve the link with the ancient foundations of the city-state. Anyway this is not in dispute. I agree with you that the Dalmatian (or even more specifcally Ragusan) should be pointed out as the official language. --No.13 14:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatian and Croatian language were mixing very early after the arrival of Slavic speakers. Especially out of the cities - the islands, inland... all those regions where the speakers of both languages were mixed. And it was everywhere out of the cities. So chakavian dialect of Croatian language originated - together with ikavian and kaikavian the oldest Slavic language in the western Balkans. That's why chakavian borrowed so many words, terms and toponims from Dalmatian. Of course Slavic speakers were predominant majority so Dalmatian idiom was quickly dissapearing. Dalmatian speakers in the cities survived somewhat longer. Cities were cultural, political and trading centres, domestic patricians were Dalmatian speakers, Croats were rapidly populating the cities but also they didn't imperil city traditions and rules. Sources from 10th to 15th century show that Croats were taking Romanized names. It's clear that in earlier periods many citizens were using both languages, depending on occassions. The population of the cities was differenced in a few classes: noblemen, citizens, habitants (more or less similar in all Dalmatian cities). No doubt that Croatian language was the most heard as well as Dalmatian was used in the noble society, no matter of what initial ethnicity was the speaker. Latin language was used for the documents, writings etc... not because of some imaginary Latins. It was one of 3 "civilised" languages: Hebrew, Greek and Latin, used in the liturgy and literacy in all "ex-Roman Empire Europe" and much wider in fact. BTW it's very important not to forget that Croatian was used in the churches and Glagolitic alphabetics, not Latin, almost everywhere in Dalmatia.

Dalmatian language (Dalmatski) is Roman, neo-Latin speaking, used in Dalmatian cities before Venetian arrival. That idiom was born in Medieval at direct continuum of spoken Latin in Romanized Dalmatia. It originated spontaneously, as Italian in Italy or French in France. Dante Alighieri didn’t mention this language in his writing “De vulgari eloquentia”, but many travelogues writers were reporting about it, so Venetian chronicler Giustiniani (16th) named it “schiavo ma diverso dall’atro” (Slavic but different than that other) and more precise: “un idioma proprio, che somiglia al calmone”. Dalmatian language was never used as official language in the notes and writings, except sometimes in Dubrovnik. Latin language was the official one. With arrival of Venetian and then Italian (Toscana) languages in Dalmatia, this Dalmatian language was disappearing by the time. It’s presumed that it vanished the most earlier in Zadar – the centre of Venetian government of Dalmatia, where Venetian influence was the most strongest. It was the most longest preserved in island of Krk. Mateo Giulio Bartolli (from Istra) wrote 2 toms of “Das Dalmatische”. Bartolli noted this language as “neo-Latin” or “Roman” - not Italian! – Dalmatian in fact! Also he noted that Italians as well as the other neo-Latins didn’t understand this language… [46]

Official language in the present and in the early-Medieval are different conceptions. Latin was used only by writers, notars and similiar as an administrative language format, while Dalmatian and Croatian were spoken but literary too. Now, what does it mean official language in Medieval Dubrovnik? Administrative, literary or spoken? It's obvious that it was noble to speak Dalmatian and practical to speak Croatian. Zenanarh 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a strange question. The official language - if this term makes any sense - is the language used in official (or administrative) documents of a state (or used on coins etc). The mostly spoken language (or the one used in literature) may widely differ from that. All this goes without saying. I have a question myself: Please can you give an example when Dalmatian ('official language', as the article now claims, was used in Ragusan Republic documents (from 16th century to 1808)? A language that seems to have been 'fallen out of use' in 16th century and became extinct, if the article about Ragusan Dalmatian offers correct information? --DaQuirin 15:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am certain Zenanarh will give you a more satisfactory answer. The Dalmatian language was kept alive by the Gospars (nobility) and was the language used in the Senate. It was extinct later on (like Latin, for example) but it was still the official language. DIREKTOR 01:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My translation was a little bit shortened. Source says: Dalmatian language was never used as official language in the notes and writings, except sometimes in Dubrovnik as an administrative language for notar and cadastre documents. It says "sometimes" not always and it doesn't precise in which periods, I found in the net that testaments were written in Ragusan but link with reference is dead or replaced. I'm sure that references can be found but it would need some time.
One more thing, the source says that this language dissapeared in 18th century, but on the other hand I know a guy who made his magistery work about Dalmatian (Ragusan) and he can speak it! He also said that he knew many phrases in Ragusan of a common speech when he was a little boy since his parents were speaking it at home. Actually they used many phrases of Ragusan combined with Croatian. And that familly is from Zadar, where it's said it vanished the most earliest! For an example: when they wanted to say "leave me alone" or "for God sake" or "this lunch smells good" they used Ragusan; but when they wanted to say something more complicated they used Croatian.
It really sounds like simplified and distorted Latin, nothing similiar to Italian. And it has accentation on the first syllable. It's very interesting to hear it because you can hear how it influenced Croatian language spoken in these cities. Croatian spoken in Dubrovnik has accentation on the first syllable too (and long second syllable) and it is a characteristic of present Dubrovnik dialect of Croatian. The present common speech (Croatian) in Zadar also has accentation on the first syllable (not so accented as in Dubrovnik, but short and sharp second syllable), but it has sharpness of Ragusan. Ragusan sounds very sharp (as I percieved it), it can "cut" your ears! Present dialect spoken in Split has accent on the first syllable too but it is long, while the second is short. Obviously this accentation on the first syllable was the characteristic of that language and it influenced all Croatian dialects in Dalmatian cities. BTW Italian never have accentation on the first syllable, always second or third. Zenanarh 13:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical names in Italian

I've reintroduced the histrical name according to Wikpiedia's rules for historical names. I remember that 1) Before 1918 and later all the Dalmatian localities were written in Italian in ALL the English (such as French, German, and Spanish) books and Atlas. 2)Italian was the official language of the Republic. Futhemore: 3) Italian remained official language of Ragusa during the Austrian rule. 4)In all the Austro Huungaric Atlas the the names are wrotten in Italian. Etc.
I've not introduced a POV, but just a Wikipedia rule: all the unexplained reverts will be immediatly reported.
SOURCES
Search on Google Books (books printed before 1918):

"Republic of Ragusa": 510[47]
"Republic of Dubrovnik": 12 (mostly with double name Ragusa/Dubrovnik)[48]

Use of Italian historical names in antique maps of Dalmatia:

Austrian Map 1852[49]
German Map 1752 [50]
French Map 1752[51]
German Map 1770 [52]
French Map 1834 [53]
German Map 1572 [54]
French&German 1598 (with Zara and Sebenico)[55]
Dutch map 1649 [56]
German Map (1859) [57]

(Please, find similar maps using slavic names) --Giovanni Giove 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Italian was NEVER the "official" language of the Republic.

False

2) It is irrelevant in what language the Austrians, the French, the Spanish or even the Estonians preferred to call these cities (on their maps) as they were not part of their respective states at the time of the Republic. 3) Italian was not the official language in Ragusa at ANY time WHATSOEVER, that's the thing you have to source if it's true (non-Italian sources, please).
P.S. This is the history of the Republic of Ragusa, you are the one that needs to find RAGUSAN maps using Italian names, and you know it. You will not win the argument in this way. DIREKTOR 14:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Italian was official language of the Republic. It was official language under Austria. If you claim slavic or Dalnatic were official, post sources.

2) Find a Ragusan map using Slavic name, find an official Ragusan document wrotten in Slavic.

Giovanni Giove 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your maps are irrelevant Giove, they represent a completely unimportant point of view. The "official" (there was no official language in those days) language of the republic was Dalmatian (even after it became extinct) NEVER Italian. Your maps say nothing and are a waste of time. You must find proof that Italian was the official language of the Republic! Very comical notion, since noone hated each-other like the Ragusans and Venetians. Every single edit you make to change the names from their present state will IMMEDIATLY be undone, IF YOU DO NOT FIND IRREFUTABLE PROOF FIRST. With buckets of respect, DIREKTOR 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PROVIDE SOURCES about the Dalmatic as official language. The source about Italian was present but was deleted by you. Tell why Ragusa left no documents written in Dalmatian, but in Italian. Tell why all Ragusean scientific, economic, and legislative works were wrotten in Italian (never in Slavic, never in Dalmatic).Giovanni Giove 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh man... Look you, it is well known that only Dalmatian was spoken in the senate. Ragusa DID LEAVE documents and works of art written in both Dalmatian and (particularly) Croatian (read this: Ivan Gundulić). If YOU want to change something YOU ARE THE ONE THAT HAS TO FIND SOURCES, capisci? DIREKTOR 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Giovanni Gondola" wrote his own Illyric pomes:) ... that is known. And many others wrote in Italian (just read the artcle). But I don't talk of poems. Of course I mean official documents. Laws, scientific works, and so on.. If all this it it is so "well known" why you don't post sources? Come on, an OFFICIAL document wrotten in Dalmatic or in Croat (not "pomes"!). A source that says "in 1472 Dalamatic became the language of Ragusa".....Giovanni Giove 19:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES, YOU FIND THE SOURCES. Documents undeniably confirming that the official language of the republic was Italian during the course of its history, please. Before you post them, I assure you none of your changes will stick. I am waiting. DIREKTOR 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile let's control the "Dalmatic", because actually, YOU did the changes. The source about Italian it easy: every fucking recent History book about Ragusa (not Croatian).... I wait the source.Giovanni Giove 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is not Zadar this is Ragusa. You have to find SOMETHING (a document) confirming that the official language in Ragusa was Italian, if you once again try to impose your beliefs here I will do everything to stop it. We are talking about THE LOCAL official language! Not the international name for the geographic features of the Republic 100 years ago. There is a difference. "Meanwhile" do not do anything without sources, if you do, you will start another edit war. DIREKTOR 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio Gozzi Ragusa in Difesa Adriatica n° 11 - 1972. I wait for you. Meanwhile stop with further edits.Giovanni Giove 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

An Italian source? Like I always say, find an UNBIASED (non-Italian, non-Croatian) source, find a ragusan document confirming their official language was Italian, and post a link, FFS. No, caro amico, I wait for you... I will stop with further edits. DIREKTOR 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It is quite clear that you edit without proper sources. It will no be hard to revert the POV imposed with a group edit war, into a neutral and sourced version. Just question of time.Giovanni Giove 20:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Official language and ethnicity of the Republic

This is a dispute about the possible ethnicity of the Republic of Ragusa (Italian and Slavic (Croat and/or Serb and or/Serbocroatian), or only Croat); about its languages, about the languages in which the localities and personalities shall be reported, etc..09:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Dalmatian language was never the 'official language' of the Republic, as claimed in the article (without providing sources). Giovanni Giove 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The official language adopted by the Senate of the Republic in 1472 was Italian. Giovanni Giove 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The geographical names in the Republic, before WWI and later, were internationally known in the Italian form, so in Italian (official language of this former state) they shall be reported (according to the Wikipedia's rules).Giovanni Giove 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Republic were born as a Latin/Italic state, and has later acquired a Slavic population, becaming a mixed state. For these reasons it can not be presented as a 'Croatian state'.
The Slavic dialect of Ragusa was not the Croat language (that was standardized after the end of the Republic, in the 1840's), but the Shtokavian dialect. This last is a Serbocroatian dialect and not just a Croat dialect.
The Venitian dialect was spoken in Ragusa: it was the dialect of its Italian component.Giovanni Giove 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatian language, as proven by sources, was actually the only language allowed in the Senate of the Republic (after having replaced Latin) throughout its history, and is considered official because of this. DIREKTOR 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The official language adopted by the Senate of the Republic in 1472 was not Italian, but Dalmatian. There are absolutely no sources to prove the Italian claim. DIREKTOR 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The geographical names in the Republic, were in the 19th century and until WW1 (the addition of the Austrian Dubrovnik or Ragusa to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) known internationally in the Italian form, but since this is, in fact, irrelevant and the official language was not Italian, the Italian names will only be included in brackets. DIREKTOR 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Republic was born as a Latin (Dalmatian) state, and has soon after acquired a Slavic population, becaming a mixed state. For these reasons it can not be presented as a solely Croatian state, but it certainly cannot be presented as an "Italian state" (much less so), since Italy, unlike the Slavs (Croats), had nothing to do with its roots. DIREKTOR 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The very origins of the Croatian language (the standardisation is, in fact, well known merely to have been finalized by the 19th century) are to be found in the Republic of Ragusa (or Dubrovnik) in the works of authors such as Ivan Gundulić and Marin Držić. DIREKTOR 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Interestingly told, Giove. When you speak about Italians, you say Italian. But when comes to Croats, than you put more general term Slavic. Even worse, you put the noun Croat in quotation marks, like something "alledged"? Besides all arguments given above, you just start new requests, postponing the determined answers. Kubura 13:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Have sources been found to support any of the claims of Italian or Croat dominance? nadav (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, there are many sources confirming that the Ragusan dialect of the Dalmatian language was considered official (it was the only language allowed to be spoken in the senate), even as it was becoming extinct everywhere else (in the Republic) and was being replaced by the Ragusan dialect of the Croatian language. Noone is disputing that towards the end of the Republic Italian was also often known (especially by the merchants), but it was never considered the official language, being by far outnumbered by Croatian, among other reasons. There are absolutely no sources confirming Italian was the official language of the Republic of Ragusa It is important to remember that the Venetian and Ragusan Republics were arch-enemies (especially in trade with the Ottoman Empire), in fact the Venetians were the reason for those famous and beutiful walls and seaward fortresses that surrounded the city (see Dubrovnik).

Also to say that Serbian was ever spoken in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) is an increadibly uneducated claim (ridiculous even to the Serbs), without any backing whatsoever. What I do not understand is why does a person who does not understand these things make such claims... DIREKTOR 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Not quite actually. The 19th century age of Nationalism had a deep impact in Dubrovnik - with the resurgence of Serb nationalism. Karl von Czoernig made 2 detailed ethnic maps regarding the Austrian Empire in the 1840s and 1850s, and in both cases he recorded the Ragusians as Serbs. Some (or perhaps even most; 19th century) Dubrovnikers have considered themselves Serbs, for example count Orsatto di Pozza (naturalized Medo Pucić), arguable the most prominent resident of Dubrovnik in the 19th century - for whom it could be said that he was a (very fierce) Serbian nationalist. There are loads of other examples - if you need, check 'em. Milan Rešetar for instance (another "Serb Catholic"), who wrote that the Serbian language was spoken in Dubrovnik. The 19th century is full of such things - for example in 1890 local elections were held in Austria-Hungary - and the Serb Party won the municipal election in Dubrovnik, after which it raised its version of the tricolor. In this case religion didn't have much to do (it kicked in later) and much more history. This was, in then's time, actually even broad to well-known Croatians, for example Croatian historian Natko Nodilo said "In Dubrovnik, even if not from the very first start, and from a long time ago Serbian was spoken; spoken, by the civilians, the nobility, at home and in public life." This is the source of the Serbian nationalistic/revisionist claim, which eventually resulted in the dreadful 1991/1992 Siege of Dubrovnik. It's actually not a secret; I can't remember know, but there's a modern Croatian historian (from Dubrovnik) who dedicated a part of his life to the research of Dubrovnik's 19th century (and to an extent slightly later and slightly before) "Serbdom" and wrote about it in full definition. He has an article here on Wikipedia, so I'll try to look for him (he was in the Liberal Party I believe). --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha, found him - it's Ivo Banac. --PaxEquilibrium 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to enter this discussion so I will only translate what is writen on Italian wiki about language in Dubrovnik so that there will be more data for this discussion. Translation of text which speak about Dubrovnik language is:

"Dalmatian language is dominant until XI century. During next hundreds of years in city there is process of Slavicisation so that in XIV century language spoken in Dubrovnik is Croatian. Teacher during period 1434 - 1440 is speaking how in courts is spoken dalmatian language but judges have spoken with him on italian. In first years of XVI century Dalmatian has become forgoten language and population is speaking Croatian (štokavski with parts of čakavski), latin and italian (Venetia version).... Dubrovnik writers are writing books on Croatian and Italian language"

I do not know if translation from Italian wiki help this discussion or not, but it is her because many users on english wiki write data which has not accepted on his home country wiki language. Rjecina 23:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Serbian (or Montenegrin) culture had much impact on Dubrovnik, but it will suffice to say that most historians do characterise the city's Slavic origins as Croat. The fact is, religion has such an enormeous impact on what we percieve as Serbian or Croatian (can you imagine a member of the Muslim or now Bosniak nationality as having Orthodox faith and still calling himself a Muslim by nationality?) that a Catholic city like Dubrovnik is characterised as Croat even (I dare say) by most Serbs, that's what I meant. This is all beside the point, however, PaxEquilibrum, let us concentrate on the debate in question. DIREKTOR 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to address the issue about the Slavic language of Dubrovnik. Giovanni speaks that we do not know wheter the language was Croatian or some other. He claims it was not the Croatian language because Croatian langauge was not standardized. He is wrong. We have dictionaries and gramamrs since 1595. by Faust Vrančić, 1604. grammar published in Rome by Bartol Kašić. Later Giacomo Micaglia also published his Latin-Italian-Illyric dictionary in 1649. Almost one hundred and fifty years later in 1801. Dubrovnik native Joakim Stulli, a lexicographer and linguists also published a dictionary. Those last three mentioned speak of "Illyric language" but they all equal "Illyric" with Croatian. Micaglia for example writes: "Hervat;Croata;Illyricus" and "Illyria;Croazia;Croatia". Stulli for example writes:"illyrice": "Slovinski, harvatski, hrovatski, horvatski" (English: "Illyric": "Slavonic, Croatian, Croat"). Vrančić speaks of "Dalmatian language" but already in reprinted second edition in Prague in early 17th century "Dalmatian" is replaced by "Croatian". Crotian literature is also the dominant in Dalmatia and Dubrovnik was in fact the main center for Croatian Baroque and Renaissance literature. There are also large number of Croatian Latinists in Dalmtia and other parts in Croatia: Aelius Lampridius Cervinus (from Dubrovnik), Franciscus Patricius (from Cres), Jannus Pannonius (from Slavonia)... My point is Croatian language was just as much standardized as was any other highly developed language of that time like English, French, Italian, Venetian and so forth.

As for the issue with Serbian language we need to understand the circumstances in middle 19th century. Serbia gained independance from Ottoman Empire and was young ambitious state with large imperialistic apetite. It influenced every way of life of Austro-Hungarian South Slavs who looked up to it. Serbia so gained a strategic advantage and became a leader in the struggle of South Slavs in Austro-Hungarian monarchy. During that time and later when Yugoslavia was formed a theory arose that the Shtokavian dialect in general is Serbian language, Chakavian dialect Croatian langauge and Kajkavian dialect Slovenian language. Since Dubrovnik's Slavic Croatian language belongs to Shtokavian dialect of the Central South Slavic diasystem. This theory was even generally aceppted at that time among linguists and even by prominent figures in Croatian national movement like Ljudevit Gaj or later in distinguished historian Natko Nodilo. But if we look into history we will see that we have absolutly no mention of Serbian language or people of Dubrovnik referring to their language as Serbian. We do have references and mention of Croatian language. The people of Dubrovnik also showed their allegiance to "Croathood" in 1893. at the Unveiling of the Gundulić monument. There is no doubt that the Slavic language of Dubrovnik was Croatian or at least Proto-Croatian. Raguseo 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no point getting overly excited. Let's calm down and proceed as follows. I suggest each side bring forth direct quotes from sources that support their positions. Make a separate section for each side. Talking in generalities or basing comments merely on what we think we know is just not helpful. WP:V states that any statement in the encyclopedia that is not backed up by reliable sources can be deleted. So there's no point arguing without quoting the sources. nadav (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not excited, I merely wrote in large script to avoid him ignoring my calls for sources anymore. That is all he basically did. He also made an outrageous edit and then posted this RfC in the hope that he might persuade people (preferrably Admins) that anyone who subsequently edits his version is a vandal or something. He did this before, check out the Zadar article. Its simply one of his tactics, like sockpuppeteering (on the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents he naively tried to report me under another IP, and this is just an example.). If noone minds, I'm gonna place my request below, once again to avoid him ignoring the request. DIREKTOR 07:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to apoligize for what you have written. I warn you the your accusation were properly reported and some *neutral* adimns will properlly mange them.--Giovanni Giove 10:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ALL RIGHT, I CALL ON GIOVANNI GIOVE TO SHOW ME HIS (UNBIASED, i.e. NON-ITALIAN, NON-EX-YUGOSLAV; PREFERRABLY ENGLISH) REFERENCE CLEARLY STATING THAT THE ITALIAN LANGUAGE WAS OFFICIAL IN THE REPUBLIC OF RAGUSA. If he does not, I think our sources will have proven this RfC of his as ridiculous. DIREKTOR 01:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have deleted a source (yes, an Italian source). You provide no source when you changed the official language from Italian to Dalmatian. I ask you a furter time to show them. Finally Dalmatian left no written documents (quite unusual for an official language), on the other side all the Ragusean document (Maps, scientific works, private letters, laws) were wrotten in Italian. The use of written Stokavian dialect was restricted to poems.--Giovanni Giove 10:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete any sources. Above you will find the sources confirming the Slavic version. You need to have some kind of source for your (outrageous) claims. I ask you again, do you or do you not have a source for the changes you made? To avoid any pointless discussion, a yes or no will suffice, if you please. DIREKTOR 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

For what it's worth, I found a few tangentially related passages in Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"A great flourishing of art and literature, in the 15th–17th century, earned it the title of 'the South Slav Athens.' For the first time in the history of the South Slavs, the language of the people was introduced into literature." --"Dubrovnik"

"In the 16th and 17th centuries, Ragusa and other Dalmatian cities under the rule of Venice became the centre of the Croat Renaissance, which, in addition to works of art and science, produced an extensive and powerful literature that had a lasting influence on the development of the Croatian literary language." --Croatia

"Most of the other evidence for Dalmatian derives from documents from Zara (modern Zadar) and Ragusa (modern Dubrovnik) dating to the 13th–16th centuries. It is possible that, apart from isolated pockets, the language was then replaced by Croatian and, to a lesser extent, by Venetian (a dialect of Italian). It is certain, even from scanty evidence, that Dalmatian was a language in its own right, noticeably different from other Romance languages." --Romance languages

"Ragusan Dalmatian probably disappeared in the 17th century" --Dalmatian language. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9000725

nadav (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the last straw, Giovanni Giove, do you have anything to support your claims? Anything AT ALL (not from radical right Italian sites)? This is the Encyclopedia Britannica we are talking about. If you choose to ignore once more legitamate demands for sources, I think this farce can finally end. I'll do my best to bring this to the attention of the ARBCOM. DIREKTOR 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical place names

Giovanni may be right that the Italian place names were prevalent in English during the time of the Republic, no? If this is true, then the guideline does say to use whatever name is more common in modern English historical treatments. Frequently, the historical names are used. nadav (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not during the time of the Republic. The sources he quotes are from the second half of the 19th century. Even if he is right in what he says (really doubtful), I believe an acception may be made here, because of total historical innacuracy. Note that "Ragusa" is not only Latin and Dalmatian, but was at first used by Croats as well (it has nothing to do with Italian). DIREKTOR 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm there's no sense that toponyms were Italian, while speakers were Croatian and Ragusan. Zenanarh 21:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if for some reason the Italian names are the most commonly used today in historical discussions in English about a certain period, then the rule is to use those prevalent names. The reasoning is that Wikipedia uses whatever name the (English-speaking) reader would be more accustomed to hearing in that context. nadav (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's sensible, but I simply doubt that these toponyms mean anything to English readers, especially in the articles like this one which is general talking about Ragusan Republic. The exception could be some specific accident which occurred in a specific place and related to a specific source. When there's description of Republic territory with Italian toponyms it's not very helpful for a general reader, since these toponyms are not in usage. Zenanarh 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We do not mean to exclude the Italian names completely, Giove wants them as the only names, his edits are in accordance with this. We can always add them in brackets to ensure everyone understands, and to ensure that users become familiar with official English names (the same as Slavic). DIREKTOR 22:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You lye as usual. There were always the present name in brackts. BTW yoy know that this RfC is already expired duet to your uncivil attidute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 13:23, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I do not "lye". As for the "uncivil attitude", it is ridiculous slander! As far as I'm concerned, your RfC is just as ridiculous as you have not a SINGLE SOURCE to confirm your claims. DIREKTOR 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Typical

Typical. When Chetniks unite with Italian iredentists they make a great anti-Croat team. Please change the name back to what it was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UstashkiDom (talk • contribs) 19:28, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Oh no. I mean no insult, but please do take two steps back. I tried to tell you that isults and expressions of radical views help noone except you, to vent your frustration. Discuss normally and with real arguments, your radical edits thus far may only serve to label us all as fascists or something. And that is exactly what we absolutely do not need. Do you understand? Cool down, seriously, man. DIREKTOR 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Recognition of United States

I am disturbed that the falsehood that Ragusa was the first country to recognize the US has become so common. In truth, Ragusa was one of the last states to do so, as it feared provoking the British. I added a couple links that describe Ragusa's early relations with the Us. nadav (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubted the accuracy of these claimes myself for quite a while. Thanks for cearing that up. Do you know that there is even a myth circleing for decades around here that the White House was built with (the pretty good) stone from Brach island? You should try talking a believer from around here (Dalmatia) out of believing it! :D DIREKTOR 21:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That one, I didn't hear about :) But the "first to recognize the US" myth I heard a number of times when I was in Dubrovnik, but, oddly enough, not once when I was here in the US. nadav (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nadav. I have some material about that. There was a whole "game", how old Dubrovnikans did that, without making British angry. In fact, I should add that to the article. Still, the article is too large, maybe we'll need to make another article (Diplomacy of Republic of Dubrovnik).Kubura 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jews

Shouldn't there be some mention of Jews? --84.20.17.84 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot to say. Kubura 14:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Lausa

Ragusa derives its name from Lausa (from the Greek xau, "precipice");

It seems that somebody has taken text (not making the reference) from this Britannica scan:

The name Ragusa is of uncertain origin. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in the 10th century, connects its early form, Lausa, with Xau, a "precipice."

That page has many scanning mistakes so probably that X was a lambda and a was alpha. Somebody should check the original Greek spelling and correct, making the proper references. --84.20.17.84 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Establishment (i.e. important years)

I made some changes to the Former Country Infobox and someone should make sure it now contains correct (and appropriate) information. The reason for me tempering with it was the association of the date of the Treaty of Zadar (June 27) with the year of establishment (1032), which I deemed incorrect. This sets up my follow-up questions: 1) what exactly occurred in 1032 to consider this year the start of the Republic, and 2) shouldn't that be covered in the article body? Damir 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)