User talk:Director: Difference between revisions

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Director! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Without any surprise even on this - fairly minor - writer there was the usual and sad discussions about the name. As you were directly involved in the discussion can I understand why the article is named with the Croatian version of the name when in this case it is IMHO quite evident that the Italian (or the Latin name) should be used? For you personal reference consider in Italy on the names of the street it is written "Elio Lampridio Cerva, umanista dalmata XV secolo". Wouldn't be more correct to name the article to the name used for this person when in life and report him as Dalmatian? Also it is surprising to name with a Croatian version a writer that wrote exclusively in Latin and Italian and rejected Slavik? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Silvio, the issue regarding the names of various Dubrovnik nobles is an incredibly complex one. How do you approach the issue of a state where the nobility spoke two languages, but 99% of the populace just one? Even when you consider something "quite evident", others might regard the opposite as "quite evident" as well. Suffices to say that Wikipedia does in no way "honour the wishes" of individuals as regards to the title of their articles. And, while I am certain that in Italy the Italian name is naturally preferred, that also carries little significance for this matter.

I assure you that the current title is well grounded in policy. Notice, just for example, that Ilija Crijević yields in excess of 1,800 hits among scholarly publications, whereas Elio Lampridio Cerva yields about 560. The approximate 3:1 ratio remains even when we limit the search to English-language publications. Of course, there are other reasons behind the title, such as previous WP:CONSENSUSES regarding the naming of Dubrovnik notables (for another example).

Thank you for bringing your concerns regarding this issue to my attention. In my opinion, all these sort of issues can easily be solved amicably through WP:AGF :) -- Director (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would not be of any relevance that in Italy he was considered Italian, but indeed this is not the case. In Italy he is considered Dalmatian. For the same reason it is not of any relevance that in Croatia is considered Croatian.
At the end of the day it is always the same discussion. Most of the Croatian historiography insists that Italian/Dalmatian ethnicity at the end of Middle Age was marginal. The reality is that it was quite marginal in terms of population, but not in terms of contribution to culture and arts. And not because those people were a better race, just because the most of the nobility preferred to consider themselves as Roman descendent, Dalmatian or Venetian. This issue is very frequent elsewhere. In the XIX century the nobility of Gent (Flamish part of Belgium) considered themselves as French, because the Flamish were the poors. This is perhaps irratating for modern Flamish historiography but does not change the fact that that the area of culture and art of the Gent nobility belongs to Francophony.
Medutin Vrsta Direktor, I am not discussing the Ragusa in the XV century was fairly out of the sphere of influence of Venice (and BTW nothing close in any sense to modern Italy existed at that time). And I do not discuss that the most of the population did not speak Italian/Dalmatian/Latin (albeit your quoted number of 99% it's an exaggeration). I discuss merely that EL Cerva is described here as Croatian (to the point that the main name used for the article is the Croatian one), when even he described himself as out of the sphere of the Slavik culture. Even if we do not give a damn to what Cerva thought he was (and perhaps this is quite legitimate), there is still the issue about the sourcing of your claim. PS Don't worry, I am not going to start with you the same dispute I had with Zenanarh. If you think that you are right because this guy born in what today is Croatia or because he was a representative of the non-Slavik nobility that was oppressing the poor Slavik people there is nothing that could drive the discussion forward because we would move the issue from History to Politics. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references have been provided in the links, Sig. Silvio. Please note that "Ilija Crijevic" is decidedly the WP:COMMONNAME - in addition to other issues, that would apply even if the former were not the case - upon which I shall now elaborate. The first thing you must understand when discussing medieval Dalmatians, is that they are dual: there are both Slavic Dalmatians, and Romance Dalmatians. Neither are "Croats" or "Italians". Those are notions from the mid-19th century that are difficult to apply to the time period we're discussing. The Slavic Dalmatians were in a very significant majority, and they spoke (and still speak) their own distinct dialect of a language that is problematic to name, and that today is most commonly known as Serbo-Croatian. Hence the name Ilija Crijevic is not really "Croatian" as such, it would be more accurate, in that context, to call it "Slavic Dalmatian". The consensus is to use "Slavic Dalmatian" names as the article titles, since Dubrovnik is in modern Croatia, and because its people in general were Slavic Dalmatians.

P.s I am a little confused with regard to what you mean by "Vrsta Direktor" :). "Medutin" is "međutim" ("however"), that I understand, but "vrsta" means "species" or "type". -- Director (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Director, I am well aware of this argument. I do not need to be any more convinced that the claim of "Croat" and "Italian" are absolutely inappropriate when speaking of people living at that time. I think I have shared enough this argument in all the different talks (please check my last change in Luciano Laurana talk page). But honestly, under which condition can you consider someone Slavik when he even refused to write in that language?
Concerning the use of the name you know more than me that the use of Slavik to name all people from Dalmatia did not start before the beginning of the 18th century. Elio Lampridio Cerva was not known as "Ilija Crijevic" at the time. To support your claim you should quote sources reporting him as "Ilija Crijevic" at that time.
P.S. On my dictionary (M. Deanovic), Vrsta is the translation of "Kind" or "Dear". --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know what you shared with others (forgive me, but your discourse with Zenanarh is quite long and detailed). To answer your question, I do not consider that person to be particularly "Slavic" in some way, but that is not the point at all.
• @"the use of Slavic to name all people from Dalmatia did not start before the beginning of the 18th century." I am not aware of that, and I am not prepared to take your word for it. The very structure of your sentence implies that these names were somehow "forced" on these people from the outside (by evil Slavic propagandists perhaps?). Have you considered the possibility that those names, being Slavic, were the names the majority of Dubrovnik's people would have used (at any time in its history)?
• "Cerva was not known as 'Ilija Crijevic' at the time. To support your claim you should quote sources reporting him as "Ilija Crijevic" at that time." I disagree. We know this is the Slavic version of his name, I submit that the WP:BURDEN of evidence is on you if you postulate that this name was not used at some period or other. However, I must stress yet again: it does not matter what this person was called during his lifetime.

P.S. Haha :), I see the mistake: you looked-up "kind" in English. In English "kind", used as a noun, is a synonym of "species" or "type". Whereas when one uses it as an adjective, it means "of a sympathetic or helpful nature" or "nice" (though not "dear", really). The word you're looking for, "dear" or "caro", would translate as "dragi" in Serbo-Croatian. Also, Serbo-Croatian is an inflected language, meaning that you must bring the noun "Direktor" into vocative case: "Direktore". So its "međutim dragi Direktore" :). Serbo-Croatian, I'm told, is a very difficult language - not at all like Italian

Interestingly, I had a friend named "Drago", which is derived from "dragi" ("dear") and is somewhat less common. I simply could not convince my cousin from Italy that his name had nothing to do with dragons :D. -- Director (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, you play with (my) words here. The language used by the majority of the people in Dubrovnik at the time is almost irrilevant, what counts is the ethnicity of the person. However, I am not convinced that at the time Slavik was spoken in the terms you describe. This is just another feature of Croatian historiography. On the old customs building of Dubrovnik it is still written "DOGANA" and the main street of the city in named "STRADUN". To complete the job of Romance eradication perhaps Croatia should once for all remove all this residual evidence. Let's do this job, this avoid to people like me to born in the future.
In the XV century Dubrovnik was out of the sphere of influence of Venice (fact) but many literate people were still influenced by Romance languages (fact). It looks that the fact that EL Cerva considered himself as strongly external to the Slavik world is totally irrelevant to you. Perhaps we could give right to someone dead to be what he wanted to be when he was in life.

And let's be very clear, I do not believe in "evil Slavic propagandists". I believe that at some point Croatia took fully knowledge of themselves and arrange the history in the most suitable way. Yes, the burden is on me and I am not sure that I am going to take it. This is a fairly minor writer, if I can find something easily I might submi some evidence. In this Dalmatia project even when you submit strong evidence such the result of a census or the opinion of the Britannica there is no way to change things, so I do not see how this article could change because I submit the evidence from a minor scholar (I could not find anything of major for such little known writer).
PS I speak Russian, Serbo-Croatian really cannot scare me. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not "playing with your words", and I would appreciate it if you kept such WP:NPA accusations to yourself. I assure you that, even though you might be personally inclined against this fact, the majority of the population in Dalmatia - were Slavs. Who spoke Slavic. This is a very basic fact that was never really contested by anyone. It is nothing short of racist to imply that these people did not have their own culture and language prior to the 18th century or whenever, but instead somehow "applied it retroactively".
• We could squabble about what is "important" in perpetuum, I have already explained that previous consensuses and, most importantly, WP:COMMONNAME support the current title. Would you kindly cease ignoring this point?

Silvio, I am not Zenanarh and I will not stand here discussing the same thing over and over again. I will say again: this title is mandated by Wikipedia policy - as it is the English language name of that person (as defined by policy). Please take your very offensive ideas concerning Slavic propagandists and how they "eradicate Romance" somewhere else. You must first finally amend the fact that you have no conception whatsoever regarding the complexity and duality of Dalmatian culture, which, uniquely on this planet, embraces both Slavic and Romance influences.

Unless you can provide a reason, a real reason, why Wikipedia policy does not apply to the issue at hand, this discussion is over for my part. -- Director (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, let's focus on the facts but please avoid any allegation of racism and nationalism with me. Please believe that genuinely it is not the case.
Direktor, I did not write that the most of the people in Dalmatia were not Slaviks (infact I said the opposite, please check the discussion we are having at the very beginning). Also I did not write that those people had no culture before the the 18th century (or whenever), I clealy meant in the 18th century Croats started to have the full knowledge of the modern concept of nationality. And there is nothing racist in this affirmation, indeed the very same thing applies for the Italians or the Germans.
Let's come to the reason, the real reason. This writer used to write in Latin and clearly stated that he belonged to the Romance area of culture (I can quote what he wrote, but I guess you know it already).
Ivan, the fair thing would be to move the title of this article to the Latin version of the name (indeed the original one) and direct both the Italian and the Croatian version of the name to the Latin one. As things are right now, it is even not possible to make a search from his Italian version of the name. Do you consider this fair?
If this proposal does not seem sound to you, yes we stop the discussion here. Our positions would be then too fare to get to any compromise.

P.S. Concerning the conception I have of Dalmatian culture, yes it is different from the one of Croatian historiography. But please consider that it is legitimate to have some doubts about the fairness of Croatian historiography. An example? It might even be that Marco Polo did not born in Venice. But from there to consider his life belonging to Croatian history there is quite a distance. On facts like that is built-up what I could call "legitimate doubts".

--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian historiography, since the recent Yugoslav wars, is just terrible. This is because Croatia is only a very recently independent state, and nationalist sentiment is quite strong even in the highest academic circles. What puzzles me is why exactly are you pointing this out to me? I had not even mentioned Croatian historiography.

@"This writer used to write in Latin and clearly stated that he belonged to the Romance area of culture" that is just not a real reason. You're saying that because this person wrote in Latin his name should be in the Romance form. That's a non sequitur. If I declared myself to be "Romance" and started writing only in Latin, would that change who I am? In short these are your own personal perceptions. Are you at all familiar with Wikipedia policy? -- Director (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, I am not pointing you because I consider you responsible of anything. It is just a side note to make you understand why I have perhaps some doubts when Croatian references are used to justify facts. Another example? It is not my fault if in some academic circles in Croatia there are historians supporting their thesis using chromosomic comparative analysis. Unfortunately, such facts happen and it is unavoidable that they contribute to creates a general climate of doubt about the fairness of modern Croatian historiography.

OK let's remain on the matter.
Of course the real reason it's not because he wrote in Latin. Please pay me some respect even if I am only a person of average culture. The most of the people used to write in Latin untill the the 16th century. Newton wrote in Latin but this did not make him Romance. Latin was used as a language of convenience because the language of literates.
But here the facts are different. EL Cerva clearly stated that he belonged to the Romance culture and refused in quite straight terms Slavik language and culture. And was educated in Rome. These are facts, but one could still claim that he was Slavik because his family was Slavik. Are you really sure of this? Again here we do not speak of claimed nationality, but of the name to use. And again it is not fair that it is not possible to make the search on en:wiki typing "Elio Lampridio Cerva".
You write in English but you are Croat. But if tomorrow you will start exclusively to write in English (and of course if your books sell a lot) and affirm that you refuse Croatian culture, in two centuries you will be considered an English writer. Ok, you might be considered also Croatian because you have perhaps a Croatian passport, but at the time of EL Cerva that stuff did not exist.

PS I have made a modification on the main article. Give a look and if you want to keep the previous version please justify with a valid source (or if you really feel the actual source is valid just undo my edit, don't be worry I will not insist).

Hi. When you recently edited Ivo Tijardović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I think we had a misunderstanding. I explained it better this time. Sry for the misunderstanding. regards Seader (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see now my error in reasoning. Thank you for your patience. Left explaination on the talk page of the article. regards Seader (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that important to push Serbo-croatian in all those articles. You must have talk page agreement for all of those, you see that your edits are reverted. Give us the reasons for that, i dont see those. And i am speaking for article Serbia, primarily. :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short, "Serbian" is not a language as such, its a "form of the Serbo-Croatian language". The reader should be informed that the actual language is Serbo-Croatian, and that Serbian is only one standard of said language. -- Director (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is your POV, at the end. Second, as official language of Serbia is Serbian, and not Serbo-Croatian, you have to gain agreement for your proposal on talk page first. Serbian may or may not belong to the group of languages, but that is irrelevant for your need to gain consensus for introduction of such data in the article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is always necessary, but it supposed to be based on sources. That is not my "POV", its what the sources say. If we agree that "Serbian" is a standard of the Serbo-Croatian language, then this should be made perfectly clear on an article about Serbia. -- Director (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but do you realise that YOU started with this? Why do you call me Silvio? Don't do to the others what you do not want they do to you. Kind regards. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My user name is Silvio1973, not Silvio. I called you with your name (alleged) because you started. However, I will refer to you as Direktor. No problem. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will not happen again, but please do not call me with my first name. I dislike you to take such proximity. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio1973 (talk • contribs)

Hi. When you recently edited Yugoslav Partisans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the continuing debate, is it true that all laws of BiH were repealed by the Dayton accords? — kwami (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard anything of the sort. I'm not from Bosnia and Herzegovina so in all honesty I'm not 100% certain, but that sounds like nonsense to me. And Dayton was in 1995. Why would a source from 2006 (and a source from 2010) quote a law from 1993 if it was only valid for little more than one year? In short, if it isn't sourced I wouldn't take that claim seriously. -- Director (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

Stop editing without consensus. BoDu (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha good one. "Turn the argument around", is that it? Cut the nonsense, you're the one edit-warring without consensus. Yesterday you've introduced opposed changes on a half-dozen articles, and now you're edit-warring to have your way against three other users. This is going up on ANI. -- Director (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, it is not against the rules to remove the material that was added without consensus. BoDu (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this carefully: that is nonsense. It does not matter for our considerations whether the information was added by consensus or without it, what matters is that your NEW EDIT is opposed. Opposed. What matters is that the stuff is that you're edit-warring against three people, on six articles. -- Director (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not against the rules to remove the material that was added without consensus. BoDu (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every single POV-pusher invents some cockamamie "logic" for his edit-wars.. Can you show me a policy that says "its ok to remove material that was added without consensus"??? Which, incidentally, is the vast majority of content on Wikipedia.

Look: when you see something, and you think it should be removed, and it wasn't "added by consensus" (which is 99.9% of content on Wikipedia), then you remove it. Once. If its not sourced. And if you're reverted, you discuss your proposal for removal on the talkpage and build consensus. This is not my "opinion" it says so very nicely on WP:BRD. Do I need to copy-paste it again? -- Director (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on my talk page. BoDu (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like that "I think this is actually the correct CoA" [1]? You think? Without any source?[2]--Bracodbk (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dalmatia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]