Talk:Cerva family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ragusa, part of Dalmatia's realm, Italian culture[edit]

A good insight into Ragusa's history can be found in

Andrew Paton. Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic. Or, Contributions to the Modern History of Hungary and Transylvania, Dalmatia and Croatia, Servia and Bulgaria. Volume 1.
Elibron Classics, 2002, 456 pages.
ISBN 9781402159923 paperback ISBN 9781402126079 hardcover

Moreover, I do see inside this book (page 234, for example) only Italian names (Cerva, Gondola, etc). It is too apparent that there was no any Croatia which could ever include Ragusa into its territory or cultural and ethnic realm. Ragusa was strictly under medieval Italy cultural umbrella for centuries.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

wow! what's happening?[edit]

Look at the difference between House of Cerva and this epurated version House of Crijević!! I created the new page House of Cerva, according with reliable sources, with the international aristocratic convention and with the Almanach de Gotha. Someone has cancelled many lines of the original article in order to slavicize it. I'm attonished. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki link[edit]

I reverted the edit of an IP user who removed a link to the Italian page regarding this house. Instead of edit warring, I think that it would be more constructive to discuss why it does not belong in the article, according to you. ^________^ Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree of course. However I do not think it will be a problem after the AfD on House of Cerva. Get this :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that surprises me. And make me concur with you, regarding the name of this article... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would you suggest we proceed? A WP:SD over there (based on criteria A7) occurs to me? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, CSD: A7 is for people whose importance is not stated in the article, not whose notability is disputed. It might fit in the A10 category, but in my opinion A10 is not really the thing, because I think the page should be kept as a redirect. If you do not agree, you can use the PROD tag or go directly to WP:AfD. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do agree the article could remain as a redirect... how would you suggest we accomplish that? Simply redirecting the page would merely get that edit reverted by Theirrulez. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd see what he does: should he keep reverting it, he could be reported to WP:ANI or the page could be protected. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to tell you Salvio that you should stick to the articles which are inside of your area of knowledge and interest. It's very bad thing to try to have last word where you obviously do not have relevant knowledge. I posted a few reasons explaining why this article is wrong inside its content - which was deleted subsequently and I called someone's puppet.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I try to keep out of these disputes; I reverted an edit of yours, because you had removed an interwiki link. I still do not understand why this article should not link to it:Cerva (famiglia), unless you object to the fact that this article has the Croatian version of the name of the house in it. In that case, you should not move the article, but try and change consensus.
Failure to do so, might be construed as vandalism. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am telling you again - leave this subject to the historians. The worst kind of vandalism is to deny expertises of the experts by those whose the only concern are the rules interpreted the way it suits them. Please, read and understand the Fifth Wikipedia Pillar.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing anything to the article(s), now. I'm just telling you why you might be blocked if you persist with this attitude — and your edit warring —. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for House of Crijević article deletion[edit]

I see a tendency to keep this article content filled by nationalistic agenda which resulted in excluding works of European historians (Italian, English, Hungarian). I would like to point at serious warning about validity of the Croatian sources coming from

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

Page 248

Sources on Medieval Croatia

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

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

End of quoted text.

I've redirected this article to the House of Cerva article which relies upon European historians works devoid of any nationalistic agenda and which includes the Croatian ideas about history of Dalmatia and Ragusa.--71.163.232.225 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. --Theirrulez (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you both do... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was article histories merged at House of Cerva for technical & practical reasons:

Notice however that I have taken this action without even considering the issue of what title would be most appropiate for this article. Now that the technical details have been solved, I encourage you to re-start the discussion, focusing on the title & without being distracted by the existence of duplicate entries, improper cut-&-paste moves or licensing violations.

As far as content go, to simplify comparisons between both versions of the article, I have made this diff. with House of Crijević on the left side & House of Cerva on the right side. - Best, Ev (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House of Crijević → House of Cerva — Its a duplicate of House of Cerva, originally created on en.wiki. As per reasons also showed [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Cerva here] Theirrulez (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Comment I think my position should be obvious: Support per nomination. --Theirrulez (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, naturally. enWiki is not itWiki, the move is being proposed under some false notion that the two should have identical titles. This also seems to be a mere retaliatory gesture - an AfD was on one of Theirrulez's articles. Not to be taken seriously. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry sir, but now I feel compelled to clearly deny you. I must point out that you have copied the exact same brand new page I created (House of Cerva) to write the article House of Crijević: page history shows the truth, and shows exactly how was threaten the page. You are the one who proposes House of Cerva for deletion, and your position it's well known here. Nothing about this renomination can be defined retaliatory, and it's strongly supported by sources cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Cerva.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Crijević is the more commonly used name. The redirect should obviously be from Cerva to Crijević. I'll also point out that it is inappropriate to be having this discussion while the related AfD is open. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Comment A good explanation for why it's necessary to delete this "replica" article could be found here.--Theirrulez (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Repairs to the article[edit]

Leaving aside the question of the article title, there are several crucial points to clarify:

  • WP:NCGN. User English city names. The context of this article is contemporary.
  • Do not italianize names of people and places. That is highly offensive, extreme POV.
  • This family was not only part of the nobility of the Republic of Ragusa, but also of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

I do not at all doubt User:Theirrulez will promptly start edit-warring to restore the itWiki Italian language version of the text. He seems to feel there should be as much Italian in the article as possible (apart from all this there's "St Domenico", inserted Italian phrases and sentences, etc., etc.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, given the controversial nature of this article, to avoid poisoning the well, I kindly invite you to stick to WP:AGF. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize and will do so, Salvio. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the question of the article title (which, I must stress, was not considered in the merely technical closing of the move request discussion above), Direktor is right about the need to address these points clearly, thus avoiding sterile reversions.
  • It's not a matter of using Croatian or Italian, but of following English usage & providing information to our readership.
  • For the names of people and places, follow common English usage, regardless of whether the names commonly used in English are of Croatian, Italian, French, Greek or Chinese origin. For Wikipedia's purposes, the bias lies in using names different from those commonly used in English-language publications, not in using Croatian, Italian, French, Greek or Chinese names.
  • City names: the basic criterion is to follow common English usage. In accordance to the naming conventions for geographic names (specifically, the 3rd general guideline), the city names used in this article should be consistent with the titles of the entries on each city. – However, readers need to understand that the names Dubrovnik & Ragusa (both necessarily used in an article related to the Republic of Ragusa) refer to the same place. I edited the lead section to read "[[Dubrovnik]] (Ragusa), in the Dalmatian coast of modern Croatia". In the same manner, I used the same format in the first mentions of Kotor (Cattaro) & Ston (Stagno), when referring to periods for which modern English-language literature regularly uses the Italian names.
  • People names: If the person has an entry, use the same name as the title of his entry, for consistency. However, in the case of the list of "Notable people", if English-language publications commonly use more than one name for a person, and those names differ as much as the Croatian Juraj from the Italian Giorgio, probably mentioning both versions (e.g. "Juraj Crijević or Giorgio Cerva" or vice versa, followed by birth and death years) would be the best solution, because it would facilitate identification & be more informative to our readership.
Best, Ev (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is now stable Ev, and will not be modified, but expanded:
now editors can add new informations instead of disputing about romance or slavic version of a name. Thanks sir, from me and from everyone. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"My version" is only a proposal. Don't hesitate to modify it if you think you can present the information to our anglophone readership in a better way (without bias and reflecting the name usages of English-language publications). - Best, Ev (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Culiao. Could you please clarify what exactly you mean by "same situation" ? Ev (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that we have some 300,000 unsourced articles (cf. Category:Articles lacking sources & Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles). As long as their topics are notable, the only thing to do is wait for someone willing to look for sources, check the content of the entries and add the sources used in the process... or fix it yourself. :-) Ev (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"User:Culiao" is User:Ragusino [1] [2]. A sock - ignore/revert on sight, please. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address for a moment the admittedly rather petty, but very strange and perhaps telling issue that arouse earlier on this talkpage: that of the listing of WikiProjects. Up to this point I've had to restore the alphabetical (as well as chronological) order of country WikiProjects three times [3] [4] [5], in spite of having clearly explained myself in the edit summaries. User:Theirrulez seems to think the (newly added) WikiProject Italy should be at the "top", supposedly since the Republic of Italy is so much more important? I don't know? I wouldn't want to throw around accusations of ethnic bias, but frankly I'm puzzled as to the reason for such acts and I think I'm entitled to some sort of clarification from User:Theirrulez? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Direktor, we are so often around on wiki, and we meet so often (I spent more time with you than with my family) than we can even become good mates.. so I'd rather to think a nick to friendly refer to you like "Direktie" or "Diddy" or something like that.. and you can instead call me "Theirry" or "Ruly"...
joking apart, I just make a mistake due to distraction on this page (while it was mergin), in good faith, and I apologize if your felt offended cause of my silly carelesness. I hope for you it's not a national matter, it will never be for me, absolutely. Sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three times, Their. Forgive me if it peaked my interest. (How's "Their"? The usual "nick" I'm called by is "DIR") --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DIR? I'll call you Dir, ok.. because you know DIREKTOR... with uppercases... sounds a little bit megalomaniacal =) I opted for Dir definitely!--Theirrulez (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC) to demonstrate my god faith: [6][reply]

The word is "megalomaniacal" (the adjective form of "megalomaniac", that is). Also your tense is off: it should go "I opt for Dir definitely!" If you need help with the spelling of insults & clever snide comments on my mental health, do not hesitate to ask. :) I'll let this one slide, but for the future, keep in mind that as a medicinar I take health very seriously. You would not make comments like that had you visited real delusional schizophreniacs. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone see around Mr.Sense??? His last name is "Of Humour"... he's missing actually.. =) --Theirrulez (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he's insane as well? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're going too far with these nonsense edits. "nationality=Ragusan"? A "Ragusan nation" is completely unheard-of nonsense. Add to this that the family existed as a nobility loong after the fall of the Ragusan Republic, and what do you get? A fictitious nationality invented by Wikipedia User:Theirrulez to be used as an euphemism for "Italian". "Italian" in all but name. I won't go further into the absurdity of the edit, but the whole idea is appalling. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC) ..[reply]

I'm sorry and afraid of your harsh anti-Italian feeling.
You can see: I stop to hold your desruptive rollbacking (you don't revert only socks, you revert me often) in which is evident your goal. It's impossible to edit and to develop an article with this atmosphere you created.
If in your opinion "Ragusan" means "Italian" you have a strange idea of the real History and Geography of Europe. You claim that Venetian language is not Italian (of courde), Republic of Venice it's not Italy, Dalmatian language is not Italian or Croatian (of course) and that the King of Naples is not Italy, don't you? But you want also to call the Republic of Ragusa "Republic of Dubrovnik": so i'll be right if I will use the name "Istanbul Empire" to refer to the Bizantine Empire? You are full of absurd contradictions, Sir, and I'm really upset about how you're imposing them to Wikipedia users and, above all Wikipedia readers.
Good work, --Theirrulez (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Ragusan" certainly does not mean "Italian", but we're not talking about the adjective "Ragusan", but about the "Ragusan nationality" you've just invented to justify the italianization of Croatian history articles on enWiki (they're not Croats, they're "Ragusans"!). Nice wordplay, though. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war, but edit-talk[edit]

You should know better than me my friend, Ragusan means Ragusan (same as Venetian means Venetian), neither Croatian, nor Italian.
I cited from User:AjaxSmack in the talk:Fausto Veranzio: «This is a tough one but, putting aside nationalist arguments that really don't have much applicability to figures from the prenational era (...) he never set foot in the nation-states of Croatia or Italy because neither existed at the time. You folks can argue which nation and history he "belongs" to all you want but it's all anachronistic original research.» so please, do not use never more italianization, cause is a not sourced word, and could seems a little manipulatory, if used in this context.
I invite you, after also Salvio already did it, to propose prior here, in the talk page, every change or add you want to do to the article in order to find a consensus or to discuss about sources. Regards, - Theirrulez (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cerva_family&oldid=1206600468"