Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico

This is a borderline case. English language, peer-reviewed, high-quality references are needed to substantiate claims in the article. Also the style of the article needs to be improved. There are blatant POV remarks (for example, how does one explain which version of the name is "more correct"). Also the name of the article that did not correspond to the Wikipedia standard has been changed to its previous version. Noneedforthis 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

I beg to provide a valide source, to proove that the name "Juraj Dalmatinac" was used during Orsini-Dalmatinac time. I will insert a reference about the croatization of dalmatian people of the past. --Giovanni Giove 18:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to point out that I don't consider Dalmatia an "italian land", it's Croatia. But in the past there was an Italian presence (in the language, in the culture, in the ethnicity) that is not possible to neglect. --Giovanni Giove 08:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Juraj Dalmatinac" is the Croatian translation of "Georgius Dalmaticus", which was the name he used for himself, together with the patronym "Mathei". He never used the last name Orsini; it was his grandson who started using this last name when he received a noble title from V. Orsini, governor of Dalmatia, in 1540 -- 65 years after Juraj's death. You are right in pointing out that the name "Juraj Dalmatinac" wasn't recorded in its Croatian form in the artist's own time, but the name "Giorgio Orsini" wasn't used in his time either. "Giorgio Delmata" would be more correct.M K 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Giorgio Orsini - Juraj Dalmatinac → Juraj Dalmatinac – The person has only one name, not both simultaneously. Different language versions of the name should all be listed in the introduction of the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Proper names policy.

Comment (as nom): the suggested name is the original name of the article. Its current dual name has been assigned to it on August 26 2006. See history of the article for more details [1] RedZebra 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator. RedZebra 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Dijxtra 11:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support M K 13:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Against: dalmatinac is only a tranlation of Dalmaticus, that was just a nickname. Orsini is reported at the time.--Giovanni Giove 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Might be, but having two names in article title is just not acceptable. --Dijxtra 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although I would support a move to Giorgio Orsini. Kafziel 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose until further information is provided attesting to the primary language/region of activity. The article mentions Ancona and Republic of Venice. It's ludicrous to use Google hits (below) in cases of obscure historical figures where there are so few overall online references (small N). The vaunted "Google Test" would have us move flatulence to fart and sexual intercourse to fuck (I'm against the double barrelled name but let's get it right) -  AjaxSmack  06:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See my reply to you here: [2]. --Dijxtra 08:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Google test, for all its shortcomings, can be a very useful tool if used judiciously. Although personally I don't need Google to make up my mind when faced with "sexual intercourse" vs "f..." dillema I will use the above example in an attempt to prove my point. The first 50 results for "sexual intercourse" seem all to refer to the actual sexual intercourse or subjects related to it whereas the first 50 results for "f...." seem to be mostly a reflection of the inability of some people to express their anger and frustration in a more creative way. Even if you ignore every rational argument for the "sexual intercourse" as the preferred name of the article on this encyclopaedia, Google will, as I interpret these results, support it. Back to our conundrum. As for google results in English for "Juraj Dalmatinac", in the first 200 results, there seem to be only two pages that don't refer directly to the artist himself but rather, it would seem, to a ship/tanker/vessel/whatever with the same name and a primary school in Croatia of the same name. As for Giorgio Orsini, there are actually only 53 results. The rest of the total of 133 results have been identified by Google as duplicate versions of the pages contained within the first 53 results. Based on these 53 results the following can be stated: Giorgio Orsini is not only the artist in question, but also an Italian cinematographer who was active in more than 20 films (roughly a quarter of 53 results refer to him), a reportedly "an experienced glider" from 1960s, a character from a play by Michel J. Duthin, a brand or a producer of pipes called Giorgio Orsini etc. In short, as far as I can tell there seems to be a clear preference for "Juraj Dalmatinac" as the name of the article. As for the content of the article itself, a casual glimpse into the history will reveal the user to be credited with most contributions to this obscure article. For some reason I would not rely entirely on the information contained in it. RedZebra 09:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, i.e. restore to whatever original name the article had, then rerun the RM if necessary. The double name in the title is totally inacceptable; make it one way or another, then investigate which one is more common. Duja 09:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Duja. Olessi 04:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Results of the Google test: "Juraj Dalmatinac" -wikipedia: 13700, "Giorgio Orsini" -wikipedia: 1130. That's in "any language". If we set language to English, we get: "Juraj Dalmatinac" -wikipedia: 501, "Giorgio Orsini" -wikipedia: 137. --Dijxtra 17:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

"Giorgio Orsini was originally from Venice"

I removed this part as Juraj was from Dalmatia, not Venice. Every credible source says that he was from Dalmatia, not from Venice. --Dijxtra 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The man was born in Zadar(or Zara) thus he was from Dalmatia.--Factanista 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Born in Zara (today Zadar) from a family with origins in Venice.--Giovanni Giove 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Born in Zadar nevertheless. As for his family origins in Venice it is unfounded.--Factanista 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To get a bit more information about Giorgio Orsini

For those who can read Croatian:

http://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20040724/temedana01.asp

So, one day, I am sure - even Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo will be Croatians ...

I don't see how ranting of pro-fascist Italian parliament member has nothing to do with this article nor with this discussion.--Factanista 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

For now I'm sure that Menia is claimed to be a poor idiot by the most of Italians that know him....--Giovanni Giove 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This has no sense whatsoever....--Factanista 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense....... I've discovered that you are called Finellach, and you are well know as a troll (thank Google!) --Giovanni Giove 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You've "discovered"? LOL! I said it myself that I am Finellach...what is there to "discover?!? And it is you who is trolling...here and on various newsgroups. Continue vandalizing articles here and you will soon find out that this is not a newsgroup or Google. --Factanista 22:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed: you told! I beg you to tell the NG where I'm trolling, I don't write so much in Engish NGs--Giovanni Giove 23:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It can be seen...most of the things you write have no sense.--Factanista 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Before reverting read this

You changed "originally called" to "also nicknamed". He signed him self on his work with "Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus". Therefore, it isn't his nickname, but that was the way he called himself. If you have a source where he calls himself Orsini, feel free to submit it.

You are quoting a source which says that Dalmatinac was originally from Venice and that he moved to Dalmatia. That is a pure lie since it is an established fact that he was born in Dalmatia (even you agree to that), then educated in Venice (since there was not proper place to be educated in Dalmatia), and then returned to Dalmatia. Since your source claims that he was born in Venice, it is obviously not reliable source, so it is to be disregarded.

Then again, if Zadar had Romance population, and if Juraj Dalmatinac's original name was Georgio Orsini... then, why would he use "Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus"? If there were no Slavic people around, why would he call himself like that? Why didn't he call himself Orsini? I'll tell you why: because Orsini wasn't his name. --Dijxtra 20:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is well know that in former times, Latin was the international language. It was a custom to sign with a Latinized name or nickname. Kopernikus signed his books with the name "Nicolaus Coperincus", that does not mean it was his real name: he was acutally named Mikołaj Kopernik.

Matter of Kopernik's name is a complicated one. He might have been names Kopernik, but could be named Koppernigk. Please read the article. But the thing is that he signed "Nicolaus Copernicus", and his surname might be "Kopernik" or "Koppernigk". Juraj signed "Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus" because his surname was "Orsini"? You see logic there?

The soruce that say "lies" is wrotten by an expert of the Balacan area. I wrote that the family was originary from Venice, but he was born in Zara. Zara (as it was called in that time) did not had a Slavic pouolation in Orsini time.

Excuse me? No Slavic population? Andrija Budčić and Grubiš Šlafčić who participated in building of the cathedral were Italians? So, Slavs lived all around the city, but in the city there were no Slavs? Are you serious?

Official language was Italian (or Venitian), I can't see a reason for a slavic name in that time.

Oh, you don't? Then, why did Dalmatinac sign as "Mathaei"? Out of fun? Do you sign as "Giove" because your surname is "Mirković"? Or you sign "Giove" because your surname is "Giove"?

Until 1945 the city kept his romance/italian majority. I beg you to provide some sources for your claims of integral "croaticity".

I didn't claim he was a Croat. My version of the article doesn't say that, please read it carefully. It says that he was called "Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus". Who mentioned Croats? I didn't. Please do not falsely accuse me.

I've changed the article into a NPOV version, that left the question of nationality undeterimined, presenting both the points of wiew.

I will now revert to the version which doesn't even mention nationalities. Your version says "He was originary from Venice". My version doesn't say where he was from. So I am reverting to the version which doesn't mention his origin.

I don't care if you prefer to impose your nationalistic claims.

What nationalistic claims? You are the one which says he was Venetian. I never said that he was a Croat. So, who is nationalist here?

Finnaly it seems that "Orsini" is common in German and English literature. Of course I've restored the my neutral version. Feel free to change it, but without to impose nationalist claims.--Giovanni Giove 22:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)--Giovanni Giove 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have explained above, my version has no mention to either "Venetian" or "Croatian". Your does. So I will now revert to version without nationalist implications. --Dijxtra 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Giorgio Orsini is Juraj Dalmatinac only in Croatia and nowhere else. Educate yourself, please!

Finally, in Dalmatia, the native country of architects as important as Giorgio Orsini da Sebenico and Luciano Laurana ... from

Architecture in Italy, 1400-1500 (The Yale University Press Pelican History of Art) by Ludwig H. Heydenreich, p. 101

It is very nationalistic and moreover meaningless to translate the artist's (Latinized) signature of the famous Italian architect Giorgio Orsini claiming that he was a Croatian architect. That way you people could only ridicule yourself.

Name according to Britannica

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Sebenico

Yes, we all know that in 1911 Britannica called him Orsini. That doesn't change the fact that he didn't call himself Orsini. And, that is what we are discussing. Also, note that Britannica doesn't say he was from Venice, but that he studied in Venice. --Dijxtra 22:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Post facts (I'd like to read the source of the above theory).

Of course, I'll get you the sources. But, then you have to find sources that he called himself Orsini. OK?

There, now you have sources. --Dijxtra 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For sure, he did'n call himself Dalmatinac, too. .....So?!?

My version of the article doesn't say he called himself Dalmatinac. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Neither Orsini, nor Dalmatinac... but a Latin nickname as "original" name. Every artist in that time had a latin signature!!!!!!!!!!!--Giovanni Giove 09:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. My version of the article uses his Latin signature. --Dijxtra 10:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop edit war

Dijxtira, you are doing an edit war! In this way you just destroy your reputation of user. I've tried to write a more neutral version. It can be improoved, but you insist to impose a non neutral and surpassed version. You know that Dalmatinac is not the 'real' name, but you impose it as first name, claiming that Orsini is just an italian version. I've posted some links where is possible to see that "Orsini" is used by Anglo-saxon, Spanish (and also Germans). Also Britannica uses Orsini... on the other side it seems that Dalmatinac is not used so much outside Croatia. It is possible to improve some particulars of the article... I'm not perfect.... some sources may be verified better. But there is something that you can not change: Dalmatinac is not "more correct" than Orsini... so you are not allowed to substain the present version. I've already answered to the most of your question. You can talk about them again. But in any case DON'T REVERT AGAIN. Change the single lines after a discussion. DON'T TRY TO IMPOSE THAT ORSINI IS .... "the name used in Italy". You know is false. --Giovanni Giove 20:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you answer to my questions in "Before reverting read this" paragraph? That's all I ask of you. You are reverting without discussion, and I am reverting after discussing. The difference is big. --Dijxtra 07:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered above, and some other questions are surpassed, beacause I've deleted some debated sentences. I've already to tell me if you still have some doubts.

Main problem with this man (Dijxtra) and his supporters is that they use forgeries and pseudo-history coming form Croatia like:

Juraj Matejev Dalmatinac (called Giorgio Orsini in Italy)

Juraj Matejev Dalmatinac is Croatian form of his name which entered widespread usage after his death. His son took surname Orsini after death of his father, so Juraj Dalmatinac is known as Giorgio Orsini in Italy.

Firstly, no one in the world, except Croats uses this fake name given to the famous Italian architect Giorgio Orsini. There is no single document of that time nor later, till maybe the second half of 19th century, where you could read something like 'Juraj Dalmatinac'. The forgery given above suggests that their 'Dalmatinac' got the Orsini surname after his son 'took surname ...'. Even reading the turist guides - printed in the English - you can clearly see that Giorgio Orsini is not their 'Dalmatinac' nor anybody knows anything about it. See

Frommer's Italy 2007 (Frommer's Complete) by Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince p. 354: At the center of the port stands the Loggia dei Merchanti, constructed in the 15th century Gothic style. This was the merchants' exchange, the work of Dalmatian, giorgio Orsini, and the best monument to Ancona's heyday as a great maritime city.

Michelin THE GREEN GUIDE Italy, 6e (THE GREEN GUIDE) by Michelin Staff and Michelin Travel Publications 2000 p.87: Loggia di Mercanti - this 15C hall for merchants' meetings has a Venetian Gothic facade which was the work of another Dalmatian, Giorgio Orsini.

Dalmatia here is acceptable only as a historical notion and with no connection to any Croatia - which even (Croatia) did not exist at all - that time. So, we have to fight these people whose goal is not the truth - rather a primitive political agenda. I removed some nonsense from your revision of this article and also, I want you supporting me in giving the right title to this article - Giorgio Orsini. We could respect their 'Juraj Dalmatinac' just as a note to the reader informing him who calls Orsini - 'Dalmatinac' and why.

--GiorgioOrsini 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The core problem

The main problem is that Dijxtra is imposing Dalmatinac as the normally accepted name, and claims that Orsini is only the Italian version. He has posted no sources for this claim. The international use of the name Orsini has been demonstrated in the past (Britannica) and in the presente (Internet links, and travel books): has been shown that Orsini is still used by French, Spanish and Anglosaxons. Dijxtra does not show the same for the slavic version (maybe it has been recently improoved). My 'irridentisc'(Wanderer by serious!!) version of the article puts both the names on the same level; furthermore I've added a controversial point, showing both the POV. Dijxtra claims that both the names went in use after the death; if true (I'll write about this) there is no reason to consider Dalmatinac more correct and accepted. If true the main name should be 'Dalmaticus'. The name Orsini is rather old, Dijxtra himseld says.... on the other side Dijxtra does not tell when the name Dalmatinac has been mentioned for the first time. It seems that Dijxtra is breaking the rules of Wikipedia, imposing and unsupported POV for nationalistic purporses. Because the article is discussed, I'm going to add the NPOV tag.--Giovanni Giove 08:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets see on which things we agree:

1. He signed as Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus
2. He never signed Juraj Dalmatinac
3. He never signed Georgio Orsini
4. Your links show that international community called him Orsini in past
5. Google test shows that international community calls him Dalmatinac now

Do we agree on all of this?

What we don't agree is:

1. I say that only his son took the surname Orsini, you say that he used surname Orsini
2. I say that from his signature "Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus" it is obvious that he was named Juraj : Dalmatinac, you say that he was named Orsini

Did I sumarise the conflict right?

If I did, then the next step is to provide references. I provided references for the fact that his son took the surname Orsini. I'm still looking for a reliable source that claims his name was Juraj Matejev. What you now have to do is submit a reliable source that claims that Dalmatinac used surname Orsini. --Dijxtra 11:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Google, international community and other lies

I was triggered by these claims coming from the man signed as Dijxtra

: OK, lets see on which things we agree:

1. He signed as Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus
2. He never signed Juraj Dalmatinac
3. He never signed Georgio Orsini
4. Your links show that international community called him Orsini in past
5. Google test shows that international community calls him Dalmatinac now

: Do we agree on all of this?

As per google search engine applied to the

- "Giorgio Orsini" string I got 1580 pages of which there were 225 different ones (At the end of the list of different pages google seacch engine says: In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 225 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.)

- "Giorgio Orsini" "Juraj Dalmatinac" string gave 140 pages of which there were 61 different

- "Juraj Dalmatinac" string gave 14500 pages of which there were only 542 different

- "Juraj Dalmatinac" narrowed to the pages in Croatian - 1090 of which there were only 342 different

- "Juraj Dalmatinac" narrowed to the pages in English -520 of which there were 265 different

Over 90% of the "Juraj Dalmatinac" pages are tourist/holiday/resort destination ads mainly of the Croatian towns, tourist agencies (foreign or Croatian) selling these destinations. --

So, for this man - the international community is just another name for the Croatian tourism industry.

You say "tourist agencies (foreign or Croatian)", and then you say "Croatian tourism industry". Wouldn't that mean "international tourism industry"?

Please, stop distorting the truth!!! Did not I quote the modern tourist guides (Frommer's Italy 2007, Michelin THE GREEN GUIDE Italy, 6e (THE GREEN GUIDE) by Michelin Staff and Michelin Travel Publications 2000 )using the correct name Giorgio Orsini??? Whatever is related to Italy (books about Italian history, culture, art) uses the correct name Giorgio Orsini--GiorgioOrsini 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the famous architect real name - I found this source:

A Holiday in Umbria: With an Account of Urbino and the Cortegiano of Castiglione by Sir Thomas Graham Jackson - 1917 - Page 36

Ancona possesses a group of buildings by an acrhitect with whose name and world I became familiar on the other side of the Adriatic. Giorgio Orsini, of a Zaratine family that claimed descent from the noble Roman house, was the architect of the eastern part, and the upper part of the rest of the Duomo of Sebenico

Yes, we do agree that Giorgio Orsini is used in older sources, please read carefully. --Dijxtra 11:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. They claimed to descend from Orsini family: so they perfectly knew theyr own name 'Orsini'. That source contraddicts your source.--Giovanni Giove 12:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Giove, do not waste your time on this guy. It makes no sense to talk to him. He keeps ranting the same nonsense over and over. I found an older book :

Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria: with Cettigne in Montenegro and the island of Grado by Thomas Graham Jackson - 1887. On the page 416 there is the complete text of the contract with Giorgio Orsini for his services as architect of the cathedral of Sebenico, A.D. 1441. in Latin where Orsini was mentioned only as Magister Georgius - but signed as Giorgio Orsini!!!--GiorgioOrsini 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Giove's answer

: OK, lets see on which things we agree:

1. He signed as Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus

Yes. But Dalmaticus is not his real name, it's a nickname.

1. he never signed Juraj Dalmatinac

I agree

1. Your links show that international community called him Orsini in past

No, my links show the present and the past. There are also some recent travel books that shows the 'Orsini' is still used in French and Uk.

Well, don't you agree that travel books are not the best source to solve a heated naming controversy? I think that some present art-history books would be a better source...

1. Google test shows that international community calls him Dalmatinac now

No. Google is not a scientific source. According to Google the proper English term for "vagina" is "pussy". The problem is always the same.... Italy does not pay attention to the Dalmatia related questions (despite some periodic and paranoid rumors about a non existent 'irridentism', there are in Croatia.). On the other side the interest about Dalmatia history is large in Croatia; that affects the 'Google test'. A proper source should be a scientific art history book, not Google.

Well, the Wikipedia naming guidelines say that we should use the most common name. And Google shows the most common name, doesn't it?

1. He never signed Georgio Orsini

In this case we don't know the real name of this 'Dalmaticus'.

Yes, it seems like that.

Venitian Republic had an accurate bureaucracy. Because 'Dalmaticus' had officials works, there must be a document showing his real name.

Do you have an idea where we could find this documents?

So your source does not seem credibile....

Oh, my...

I ought to point out that, according to single recent sources, I could believe that Venitian Marco Polo, is a Croatian named Marko Pilich (see next point).--Giovanni Giove 12:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is not fair, you are saying that all of Croatian sources are crazy chauvinist sources? Yes, there are nutcases which claim that half of world are Croats in fact, but that is no reason to say that all Croatian sources are not credible. I cited some quite conservative and neutral Croatian authors. I can find a source saying that Dalmaticus' name was Juraj Dalmatinac right away, but I don't use that sources because I know those are just nationalistic sources. The ones that I used are quite neutral because they do not claim that he was named "Juraj Dalmatinac", they just claim that he signed Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus and that his son took the name Orsini. It is just not fair from you comparing this sources to some crazy Croatian sources. --Dijxtra 15:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Croatian sources

A problem of Croatian sources, is the growth of pseudo historic teoryes, which show that all present Croatia, was already Croatia in 8th cent., with just some foreign "invasions" that never affected the strong&proud Croatian identity... The presence of different ethnicities in historic times is neglected... is some foreigners lived in Croatia, they are presented as Croatians who was forced to think they were foreigners... but in real they were Croatians (even without to know). An example of this POV is the 'fantastic' definition of 'Croatian writers in Italian Language' (it is not a joke!), for all the literary men of Dalmatia, who used Italian as primary language. It is claimed that Orthodox Dalmatians were 'Croatian of Orthodox religion': they were convinced to be Serbian by Serbia propaganda... all the non Croatian names are translated, and presented as 'real names' even if they were use for the first time, only 40 years ago. An evident ethnic Italian as Giovanni Luppis, is always painted as the Croatian inventor Ivan Vukic-Lupis. And so on.....--Giovanni Giove 13:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As I already stated, this is not good faith. I could say that all of Italian sources are pure bullshit just because Roberto Menia claims some ridiculous things. And, that's what you are saying. "It is claimed that Orthodox Dalmatians were 'Croatian of Orthodox religion'" - are you saying that each and every Croatian source claims that? You are just trying to disregard all of Croatian sources because there are few lunatics in Croatia. I could do that with Italian sources too, but I like to edit in good faith. Now, do you intend to cooperate with me so we can find reliable sources and make a NPOV article or are you going to ignore the Croatian sources completely? --Dijxtra 15:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Menia speaks for his own, and in official contests nobody cares about his ideas. Mirko Pilic' theory was several times reported by the former President of the Croatian Republic, and it is presented in many other official contests such us the touristic adversitments of Korcula. Menia's bullshit is not theached in the school. What about Croatia? In 1969 the historian of literature Andre Jutrovic proclaimed that the writers that in the past wrote in Italian had to be inserted in the national Croatian literature. Today the term "Croatian writer in Italian language" is a rule in Croatian books. After that year an amount of Italian writers of Dalmatia, with a translated name, has entered (translated) into Croatian literature.

How many Croatian books have you read? I finished my schooling in Croatia and I have never heard of "Croatian writer in Italian language". In which Croatian school did you go, man?

I've posted you the source. I've some other sources. --Giovanni Giove 14:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to find a single name of Dalmatian personalities, presented with a non Croatian name; no suprising if it is claimed that Italian langues was brought into Dalmatia "becuase of invasion"; maybe in the last time of the 'foreign' invasion of the Republic of Venice (so why it was official language in Ragusa and and it was spoken in Fiume?). Far to any sense of riducolus, Croatian official autorities celebrate the "Days of Frane Petric" in Cres, to celebrate the "father" of Croatian phylosphy. Of course nobody says that, of this 'Croatian' Philosofer, who signed ad Francesco Patrizi, it is not known a single line wrote in Croatian..... Oh.. is is becuase he was "intelligent", and he has choosed a more known language for his books. They forget to say that international language was Latin; thay forget to say that the name 'Frane Petric' appearad the 1st time only in 1980!!!!!! (by V. Filipovic and Zvane Crnja). First it has been called, Frane Patricije-Petric, Franjo Petric, Franje Patricijo, Franjo Petric-Franciscus Patricius, Franjo Petris, Franciskus Patricijus. Before 1920 only Francesco Patrizi: in all the world. Maybe it was because of the Italian Irredentistic propaganda!!!

Why it is hard to find a Croatian site where 'Ivan Lupis' is presented with his real name 'Giovanni Luppis'?

http://www.torpedo150rijeka.org/povijest.asp?lang=hr I found it in 30 seconds.

I discoverd this source a long time ago. It's just a single one, 'cause it's a scientific source is correct. The greater part of Croatian sources ssy 'Ivan Vuckic Lupis'. Even English Wiki, before my correctiond.--Giovanni Giove 14:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why the main church of a former ethnic Italian town as ROvinj/Rovigno, built by a Venitian archiech is presented as a 'masterpiece of Croatian art'?

Why 'Francesco Biondi, that in XVI cent. was one of the father of Italian romance, has recently became Ivan Franjo Biondi-Biundovic, presented as Croatian writer?

I could go on for a long time!!! You will never find the same behaviour in Italy! Menia is an excpetion, not the rule! We have closed the door to Fascism a long time ago!

Of course, and so are all of the neo-facists which demand Dalmatia to be a part of Italy. They all are exceptions.

Where are those neo-fascist? How much are they? Have you a number We are not reponsble of the popolarity of our Menias beetwen the Croatian Menias.

Don't you realize there is problem of nationalism in Croatia!?!?

Yes, of course, every person in Croatia is automatically a nationalist, and every person born in Italy is an exception.

Don't you realize that Croatia constanly refuse the idea of any non Croatian presence in its own territory?

Of course, a whole country gathers every 2 days and burns Italian flags.

I never said that. I just say there is a problem of nationalim. I've learend this from a Croatian newspaper, not from a stupid Menia. I will talk about this.

Don't you realize that the things are not as they were presented to you at school?!

But let's come to us. According to your theory the name 'Orsini' was assumed later by the son, I've found some tracks (more than one) where this theory is painted as nationalistic bullshit.....the usual nationalistic bullshit "Marko Pilic's style', I'd say. Nothing of surprising! I will look for more precise sources. Meanwhile stop the engines. Take care!... and don't get those line as a personal attack. Bye.--Giovanni Giove 10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to take it as a personal attack? You are saying that whole of Croatia is full of bulshit, and you call neo-fascists in Italy an exception. Of course. I do not think that it is possible to have a reasonable argument with you. If you wish to discuss anything with me, you will have to apologise for labelling a whole country because of actions of some of its individuals.

Dixy, don't put in my mouth concept that are against my basic trusts. I never said that whole Croatia is full of bullshit. I said there are some problems. Tell me point by point where I am wrong and I will apologise. Don't forget the sources. Meanwhile I will intoduce you my first source: it's Croatian newspaper (even if wrotten in Italian). It's an article appeard on the Rijeka's newspaper 'La Voce del Popolo', signed by Krstjan Knez, the title is intresting Dalmatia: a falsfied history xoomer.alice.it/histria/storiaecultura/testiedocumenti/articoligiornali/dalmazia.htm. I've repeated, just some of the concept I've find in the article (Oh! but it's a newspaper of the Italian minority!... it's not possible to trust in it!...Isn't it?). I'm afraid you have to ask your apoligies to a Croatian newspaper! But first, find a source to see where it's wrong. If it's not enough here is a similare one xoomer.alice.it/histria/storiaecultura/testiedocumenti/articoligiornali/artadriatico.htm. Do u need any translation?

--Dijxtra 13:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

I see that the name is a problem for some. Why not just name the article by his given latin name he himself used and then link it with 'Juraj Dalmatinac' and 'Giorgo Orisini' to redirect? Opinions? --Factanista 15:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a fair thing to do to me. Duja► 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to that in few more days if I don't find any reliable sources confirming his real name. For now, please give me 3-4 more days of status quo so I could see if I can find sources that clearly state that the Juraj Matejev was his real name... But, in any case, the article must state that Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus is a Latin form of Juraj Matejev Dalmatinac, that cannot be removed from the article. I will agree on the compromise Latin name of the article, but it must be clear that it was a Latin form of his Slavic name (since the name was used in Latin text). --Dijxtra 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that we got into this situation because User:Giovanni Giove fails to act in good faith. He moved this article twice without establishing the consensus, so this article had to go through WP:RQM just so we could move it back to it's original name. He also blames whole of Croatian nation for nationalism and refuses to acknowledge any Croatian source while claiming Italy to be fascism-free. I think that if Wikipedia is to achieve neutral point of view, it should not take actions because people like this want it. --Dijxtra 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dixy, be carefully to put in mouth word I've never said. My task it's to find a NPOV. This is not possible if you go on to claim that 'Dalamtinac' is the correct name, without to present a valid source. You said he was never use by Dalmaticus! ABout the move without conesun, I was a newbbie: that the only reason. I repeat: be carful with your word. Greetings.--Giovanni Giove 14:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What did I say wrong? Which statements did I put into your mouth?Oh, you replied above. Sorry, I didn't see the above accusations so I thought you are just speaking in general terms. And, where in article did I state that his real name is Juraj Dalmatinac? I do not have reliable source for that (just as you don't have for Orsini) and therefore I didn't put it into the article. Tell me, where did I put any unreferenced claims into the article, and where did I put statements into your mouth? --Dijxtra 14:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read your reply above. You still refuse to accept Croatian sources and refuse to admit that fascists exist in Italy. I just do not see the point of trying to reach an agreement with you. I will try to find some more sources to add to this article next week. I hope you will not remove those. But, discussion is over, until you stop calling Croatian sources a fabrication. --Dijxtra 15:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, shall we stop to argue with this man? All he demonstrated here is stubborness and ignorance. I am going to alarm more Italians - editors of the English Wikipedia in order to find a way to put things into correct order: the architect real name - Giorgio Orsini, his artist name - Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus, forgery coming from Croatia (second half od 19th century) - Juraj Dalmatinac--GiorgioOrsini 14:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Shall you immediately stop this sock-puppeting, personal attacks and threats of votecasting? There are other ways to put things into correct order. Duja► 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the kind of research this debate calls for is, quite honestly, beyond the scope of being settled across the internet, especially as unreliable as it can be, as it would require obtaining numerous historical documents, likely across both countries, and careful analysis by experts to be able to come to anything near a satisfactory conclusion. I vote for linking the two names and using his Latin name as the article's title while acknowledging the ambiguity about his name/ethnic origins exists. This can be done without imposing a POV. Sicilianmandolin 17:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - still remains the fact the architect real name - Giorgio Orsini, his artist name - Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus, forgery coming from Croatia (second half od 19th century) - Juraj Dalmatinac. Prove me wrong!--GiorgioOrsini 19:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to discreetly point out that there is no ambiguity since there are no relevant sources claiming that his real name was Orsini. Yes, lots of secondary sources call him Orsini because his son took the surname, but no primary sources are available that name him like that. If there is Italian form of his Latin name, I'd be more than happy for it to be listed in the article, just next to Croatian form of his Latin name. But, let us distinguish Croatian/Italian form of his Latin name (which I find acceptable) and a totally unconnected name which he didn't use (which I find unacceptable). BTW, I'd like to point out that I'll, of course, comply with a consensus of uninvolved (that is non-Italian and non-Croatian) editors. But calling for Italian editors to engage in this dispute is just not constructive and will result in a complete chaos. --Dijxtra 19:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ranting the same nonsense again and again??? For those who can read Italian - here it will be seen the 'validity' of the Croatian 'sources':

Avete mai letto in un libro croato di storia dell'arte dei capo­lavori di Giorgio Orsini, scultore ed architetto nato a Zara all'ini­zio del XV secolo e morto a Sebenico nel 1473? No, quest'uo­mo non esiste in quei libri, per­ché il suo nome è stato croatizzato: Juraj Dalmatinac. La medesi­ma sorte è toccata a uno dei mag­giori pittori del cinquecento, An­drea Meldola, trasformato in An­drija Medulic. A Sebenico ed a Zara vi sono via intitolate a per­sonaggi dal cognome Divinic che, talvolta, si presenta nella va­riante Difhik. Chi sono costoro? Franjo Divnic-Difnik nasconde Francesco Difnico, ovvero Difnicus nella versione latina. Fu uno storico delle vicende della Dal­mazia del suo tempo, amico e pa­rente dello storico di Trau, Gio­vanni Lucio. La medesima sorte è toccata a Giorgio Difinico, croatizzato in Juraj Divnic-Dif­nik, nato a Sebenico nel 1450 e spentosi a Zara nel 1530, dopo essere stato Vescovo di Nona. E' stato trasformato in croato, col nome di Petar Divnic-Difiiik an­che il poeta Pietro Difhico nato a Sebenico nel 1525, comandante per quindici anni dei reparti cri­stiani in guerra contro i Turchi.

All from [3] --GiorgioOrsini 20:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And again I have to state that if some Croatian sources are wrong, that doesn't mean that all of Croatian sources are wrong (believe me, I know, I study logic). For instance, Andre Meldola is a pure Italian, I agree. Andrija Medulić is a complete nonsence. But, the fact that some Croats claim that everybody is a Croat, that doesn't mean that everybody is Italian, does it? --Dijxtra 20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop the engine Dixy. I NEVER said that EVERY Croat go around to sperad bullshit. I never said that EVERY Croatian source is bullshit. I just said that bullshit theories are common today in Croatia.; and this is very different. You live there, and you can see the level of nationalism you have there. Pilic, Petric, Vukic, Medulic, Biundic... who is the next? When you announce that this guy is, pheraps, Croatian and not Italian, don't be surprise if one began to thik "another one"..."again the same story".--Giovanni Giove 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied to User:GiorgioOrsini, I was blaming him for diosregarding Croatian sources (he said: "here it will be seen the 'validity' of the Croatian 'sources'", which I see as attack on validity of all Croatian sources). And then you say "When you announce that this guy is, pheraps, Croatian and not Italian, don't be surprise if one began to thik "another one"..."again the same story"." which I read as "if Croatian source says something, don't believe it because they say lies". I don't see any other way of reading this comment. --Dijxtra 23:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No! What you should read is "if a Croatian source says that this guy, who for centuries has been considered Italian in all the World, is Croatian; I have to control if it is the truth or it is another theory Marko Pilic's style". The resons fot this control are wrotten here (sorry it's in Italian)[4]by a certain Giacomo Scotti.... not exactly an irredentisc source (let's say so), if you know him.--Giovanni Giove 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Giorgio Orsini, references and networking

Hello Giovanni,

My first attempt to make some networking gave me this response: From [5]

Hallo Giorgio,

unfortunately I know very little about him, and not under that name, but as Giorgio da Sebenico. By the way, near my house in Rome there is a Via Giorgio da Sebenico, and this road lies in the quarter named Villaggio Giuliano, where many refugees from Istria and Dalmatia live since sixty years. The roads there are entitled to famous italians from this territories. In order to get references about him, you can find them under the Volume VIII of the Series edited by the Società dalmata di Storia Patria. That book is dedicated to him. Regards, Alex2006 12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nice thing to learn this! Inside this publication http://www.sddsp.it/pubblicazioni.htm

there are three articles:

V. Fasolo: Giorgio Orsini, il dalmata

M. Cace: Sulla casata di Giorgio Orsini

A. Dudan: La gloriosa Triade: Luciano e Francesco Laurana da Zara e Giovanni il Dalmata da Traù

It would be nice to get somehow the photocopies of these three articles i.e. we have find people who have access to this publication. We have definitely to continue with networking and getting more people (knowledgeable about this famous Italian architect) involved in this editorial work. Debating with Dijxtra and the likes is just a waste of time.--GiorgioOrsini 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody will say they are Italian sources, and Orsini is just the Italian name. It shall be pointed out that Dalmatinac was never used in international literature.--Giovanni Giove 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

As a disinterested party who has initiated the survey that led to the reinstatement of the original name of the article, I've felt it a duty to keep it on my watchlist and glance at it from time to time. The article is where it used to be: in a sorry state, dull and smacking of bias. It is of little encyclopedic value. It lacks proper citations for a number of claims. The references are poor, and the article reads like a propaganda pamphlet. It is clear, even to those who have no interest in dwelling on this subject, that it falls behind the neutrality standards of Wikipedia (the introduction, the Name controversy paragraph). These issues need to be addressed before the tag is removed. --RedZebra 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the tag as no improvement whatsoever has been achieved in relation to the objections raised above. If for any reason this isn't self-evident, please check WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:V.--RedZebra 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not on you to see improvements. It's on you to point out where are the POV sentences. All the article is referencied, if you see something wrong, try to discuss about it. I suggest to read the talk page first. --Giovanni Giove 18:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I support Giovanni in his honest intentions to have this article here - however under the right title Giorgio Orsini. If something is not right, deficient, or for one or other reason shall be changed - it shall be clearly named and elaborated. As to the Name controversy - I suggest removing this paragraph due to the fact that there is no controversy at all. All we have is to point at names which this architect used or was known under - during his life. Definitively, it is not 'Juraj Dalmatinac'. To completely understand problem of Dalmazia and the Croatian and the Italian aspiration to that region - read The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918 by A, J. P. Taylor, Harper Torchbooks, 1965.

I'd like to contribute much to this article - provided that its correct name is put back (Giorgio Orsini). As it can be seen from my previous discussion, I've mentioned several books and web links about Giorgio Orsini. The 'Juraj Dalmatinac' name is definitively a forgery that shall not be mentioned in the biography of this Italian Renaissance architect due to the fact that it has no biographical data validity.--GiorgioOrsini 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've no intention of getting involved in a content dispute with either of you because this is hardly an article I wish to dedicate more time to. Though it's in breach of so many of Wikipedia guidelines I would have been perfectly content with a POV tag irrespective of the content. The efforts of Giovanni Giove, however, have once again made it clear that this approach is a futile one. I will therefore clearly mark every single POV sentence and label every section with an appropriate tag. Well done. --RedZebra 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

May you tell me which kind of 'efforts' have I done? What is clear for you? I've just done some correction on some rough historic errors. Please list the rules I'd break according to you. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 18:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to enter in an argument with you. Here is the list of the things that need to be improved:

• Giorgio Orsini (- no reference as to why this name is listed first.
• usually called Giorgio da Sebenico - why is he usually called Giorgio da Sebenico.
• Sebenico - why is the Italian name used (and to avoid repetition, this refers to all the names mentioned in the article)?
• He was educated in Venice - normally this wouldn't call for a reference, but here it happens to be relevant.
• His opus represents the golden age of Dalmatian medieval art. - according to who?
• surprisingly realistic for the period. - again, why? Whose claim is this?
• About the name there is a nationalistic dispute. - this needs to be supported with a reference. Otherwise this is original research.
• the architect is alternatively presented as the Italian 'Giorgio Orsini', or the Croat 'Juraj Dalmantinac'. - a reference needed. Again original research.
• The Italian name 'Giorgio Orsini' was always in use even in international works. - weasel words again. This cannot be referrenced and needs to be rephrased.
• according to a recent theory published in Croatia - another weasel term (a recent theory) - if so what did they claim before? Reference needed.
• That not the case of 'Giorgio da Sebenico', that was in use during the life of the man. - obviously a reference needed. This is original research.
• The slavic name - weasel terms.
• Reference provided: La letteratura italiana in Dalmazia: una storia falsificata. - Am I right in translating this as: "Italian literature in Dalmatia: a falsified story." - Does this publication meet Wikipedia guidelines? The title is quite telling. Irrespective of this, the solution to this should be: According to the book by XY...
• The Latin nickname 'Georgius Dalmaticus' is present on relief by the north apse of Cathedral of St.Jacob he signed: "hoc opus cuvarum fecit magister Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus" - if this is true, how can there be any debate as to the name of the artist?--RedZebra 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like RedZebra is trying to give us orders - even without reading the discussion above or finding {fact}s ie. learning about the subject he tried to discuss.

• Giorgio Orsini (- no reference as to why this name is listed first. - there are many references confirming that 'Juraj Dalmatinac' is just a forgery.
• About the name there is a nationalistic dispute. - this needs to be supported with a reference. Otherwise this is original research. - Already supported - again, read the discussion
• The Latin nickname 'Georgius Dalmaticus' is present on relief by the north apse of Cathedral of St.Jacob he signed: "hoc opus cuvarum fecit magister Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus" - if this is true, how can there be any debate as to the name of the artist? - try to understand the difference between his artist's name and the real name.

As a disinterested party who has initiated the survey that led to the reinstatement of the original name of the article, - Far from true. You are very interested in - which resulted in replacing the architect's real name (Giorgio Orsini) by the fake ('Juraj Dalmatinac')

All the rest is of far less importance and, the first thing is to give to this article the correct title - 'Giorgio Orsini'. Respecting a man, his work and life, means - at the first place - to respect ie. to use his real name.

--GiorgioOrsini 01:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course.--Giovanni Giove 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Which discussion? The article is full of weasel words whereby you try to dismiss the arguments of Croatian sources. "There are many references confirming that 'Juraj Dalmatinac' is just a forgery". Well, which one? The one titled "La letteratura italiana in Dalmazia: una storia falsificata."? For the start, that name can't be "just a forgery" because it apparently wasn't his given name, but a (translation of) artist name akin to e.g. El Greco. The only reference to "nationalistic dispute" I see is this very talk page, and it certainly isn't a reliable source. And, you keep on ad hominem attacking the people who pinpoint that the article sucks ("is trying to give us orders", "far from true, you're very interested in"). Duja► 08:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'nationalistic disupte' is evident and is present in nearly all the Dalmatian personalities, that today are always presented as Croatian, with Croaticized names (such as Ivan Lupis-Vukic, Frane Petric, Ivan Lucic, etc.) It is not important if it is not know even a single line wrotten in Croatian by this people, and the Croatian names are just later traslations.... they were born in the present day Croatia, and this is enough to make them Croats.--Giovanni Giove 14:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The "nationalistic dispute" is "evident and present" only in the Wikipedia articles and talk pages and partisan literature, and we avoid self-references anyway. Frankly, I don't know or care about all those persons: some of them likely are of Croatian origin, yet others are of mixed ancestry, for some we even can't know for certain. Even those of Croatian origin used (mostly) Latin in their works, as it was the language of prestige. The ethnic identity in Venetian republic was fairly irrelevant at those times. But I'm amused with the amount of energy you're spending to "cleaning up Croatian nationalism" by countering it with Italian nationalism, and graffiting the "nationalistic dispute" all over the articles see e.g this beauty, and beautiful words like "The slavic name 'Juraj Dalmatinac' was introduced after the death of Orsini", "" when there is in fact none in the real world. If Croats claim a person to be a Croat in a relevant source, record the fact and go on. Duja► 14:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Duja has already provided us with useful insight into the matter so I'll be brief. Changes whereby some POV statements have been backed by the same written source about the "falsified litterature etc." have done little to bring the article closer to meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. The shortcomings which I've listed above continue to exist so there's no need to repeat myself. I will however ask the user responsible for the above cited diff to check his contributions against the guidelines such as WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V and, especially, NPOV. There's plenty of information there that's well worth assimilating. --RedZebra 20:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)