Talk:Giorgio da Sebenico

Croatian 'sources'

I've removed

Croatian sources such as Yugoslav Lexicographical Institute and author Cvito Fisković claim that "Orsini" was never used by the artist and it was adopted by his son, after the death of his father.[6][7][14].

based on reading the archived discussion and finding this information from a really credible source

Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, with Cettigne in Montenegro and the Island of Grado: With Cettigne in Montenegro and the Island of Grado By Thomas Graham Jackson Clarendon press, Oxford 1887 page 389

His family descent from the Orsini family was formally recognized in 1540 in the person of his grandson Giacomo, an advocate.

--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

During his life he was never recorded as "Orsini". He was Georgius Dalmaticus in the documents. In Dalmatia personal names and surnames were usually translated to the Latin language in the documents (Georgius Dalmaticus), while spoken in Croatian in common usage (Juraj Dalmatianac). Orsini was used by his descendents! Never by himself! Zenanarh (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A book of 1887 is unlikely to contain the last word on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Graham Jacksons' accomplishments notwithstanding, Johnbod is right. – Besides, the claim is clearly attributed & referenced; each reader can decide by himself what to think of it. :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• • The Jackson's book clearly references a document found in the state archives of the Venetian Republic. Croatian 'sources' are just figment of wishes to write history the way it suits them.--MagnumCrimen (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • It's the only primary sources we have [1]: It states his native name was Giorgio Orsini, called by the people that time Giorgio il Dalmata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theirrulez (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 May 2010

References

When using sources and "sources", please follow Wikipedia guidelines strictly. There is a lot of bad and nationalistic writings coming from Croatia trying to persuade the world that those who were Italians (Polo, Orsini, Laurana, etc) were Croats. The "proving" manner is always the same - change a man's (Italian) name into some Croatian name.--Luciano di Martino (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, you just outright removed JLZ references en masse as "unreliable", and added two Italian books dated 1917. What can I say - that's classic point-of-view pushing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made an effort and integrated the new content. There actually wasn't a whole lot of it, and I won't discard it as "unreliable" :P --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• JLZ 'references' are un-scholastic, based on figments of someone's imagination and projection of nationalistic attitude. Claim that 'there is only signature' and that he never used his name (Girogio Orsini) is a nonsense. His signature on the home purchase contract is "Giorgio Orsini".--Luciano di Martino (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article suffers from editors with both Italian and Croatian nationalist POVs. Removing en masse discussion of the issue does not help your case. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Provide references for the said claim! Also try reading WP:NPOV. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• You already got reference and the text quoted as "Michelle Simeonich, a nobleman of Sebenico, sold to Giorgio Orsini for two hundred golden ducats of just and good weight". In order to get the microfilmed copy of the home purchase contract, contact Venetian republic archive at [2]. Your 'integration' of the previously added text does not prove what you wanted to prove: Orsini was not Orsini. Two references are proving the opposite. As to the reading, my advice to you is to read and learn more about civilty and academic attitude and ethics.--Luciano di Martino (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The source quoted in the article says that a bear was carved onto the house, an emblem of the Orsinis. However, there are two obvious issues with that - the article House of Orsini fails to mention any such emblem (at least I don't see a bear on the coat of arms pictured there) and the reference uses editorializing style so it doesn't seem any less fishy than e.g. the JLZ claims.

The claim is a baseless disqualification of a reference. Calling upon a Wikipedia's article is another bad step; Wikipedia is disqualified by scholars and academics, and, therefore, not recognized as a valid academic and scholar source. Here is another, online available, source about Orsini nobility heraldics: "The old bell tower is decorated with a Roman funerary relief, while the church has a couple of bears holding a rose: the rose is an element of the Orsini's coat of arms, while the bear (orso in Italian) is a traditional reference to the Orsini." [3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.19.40 (talk • contribs) 17 November 2011‎

The policy about sourcing is pretty clear - you should cite sources that are verifiable. Providing contact information for a library and linking some apparently personal website doesn't have much more weight than making statements on talk. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So, once again, to be able to claim your point of view is so superior to all others that others do not even deserve to be mentioned (other than by way of ridicule), you need to provide more tangible proof that that is possible, otherwise it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. In fact, I googled the listed reference and came up with these snippets, where the second entry says that his grandson "was formally recognized as a bonafide Orsini", implying that his predecessors weren't recognized as such. I'd first read those entire two pages before even attempting to cast judgement as bluntly as you have. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no nonsense here... Juraj and Giorgio mean the same thing: "George". The former is the Slavic version, the latter Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.7.129 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a propaganda tool

Juraj Dalmatinac is a nonsense invented by Croatian 'historians'. Europe does not know anything about Juraj, only about Giorgio.

Please, make Wikipedia free of nonsense and enyclopaedic by filtering out the nonsenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.229.6 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• So Messer Antonio gave place to Messer Giorgio Orsini of Zara. He came of the noble and ancient house of the Orsini — the little bears — of Rome, but his branch of this noble family had come down in the world and had earned its living with hand and brain;
  
  from Dalmatia by Oona Howard Butlin Ball, Faber & Faber limited, 1932 page 107

Editorial, factual accuracy - Early life section

This paragraph

• His name and origin has been the source of some controversy. On the relief by the north apse of Cathedral of St.James the artist signed in Latin: "hoc opus cuvarum fecit magister Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus",[5][6] and on a contract from 1441 he signed: "Georgius lapicida quondam Mathei de Jadra Civis Sibenicenis" (trans. "Georgius sculptor son of Matheus from Zadar citizen of Šibenik").[6] Those are only known signatures of the artist, however, in Sebenico there are remnants (the doorway) of the Orsini's home which he bought in June 1445 from M. Simeonich, a local nobleman. On the lintel of this old doorway is carved a bear, the heraldic emblem of the noble house of Orsini - carved by Giorgio's own hand.[7] That is why he is also referred to as Giorgio Orsini, particularly in Italian sources.[8][9][10] There are also references to him as Giorgio Dalmatico,[8] or as George the Dalmatian.[11] He is sometimes listed among Croatian sculptors in English-language sources.[11] In Croatia, he is known under the Croatian name Juraj Dalmatinac (lit. "George the Dalmatian"). Two elementary schools in Croatia bear that name: one in Pag,[12] and one in Šibenik.[13] This name is stated to be a recent translation of Georgius Dalmaticus by some Italian sources.[1][14][15] This is reportedly part of a trend of Croatization of old Venetian names.[16][17] Croatian sources such as the Yugoslav Lexicographical Institute and author Cvito Fisković claim that "Orsini" was never used by the artist and it was adopted by his son, after the death of his father.[5][6][18]

suffers from an editorial approach offering arbitrary conclusion based on very narrow selection of (Croatian) sources. These sources are not referencing any valid and existing documents or records dated back to the times of Orsini's life and work. In particular:

• His name and origin has been the source of some controversy. -> personal, editorial opinion not found in English language references
• Those are only known signatures of the artist ... -> false statement; a reference is available, quoting a home sale contract where Giorgio Orsini was named as the home buyer.
• That is why he is also referred to as Giorgio Orsini, particularly in Italian sources. [8][9][10] -> editorial opinion defeated by, at least, 100 English language references using exclusively his correct names (Giorgio Orsini). Reference [8] is not Italian source, it's English book translated into Italian.
• Two elementary schools in Croatia bear that name: one in Pag,[12] and one in Šibenik.[13] -> this sentence is completely out of the context; all section is of biographical type and about Orsini's early life
• This name is stated to be a recent translation of Georgius Dalmaticus by some Italian sources.[1][14][15] This is reportedly part of a trend of Croatization of old Venetian names.[16][17] -> both sentences are an editorial opinion about references
• Croatian sources such as the Yugoslav Lexicographical Institute and author Cvito Fisković claim that "Orsini" was never used by the artist and it was adopted by his son, after the death of his father.[5][6][18] -> apparent nonsense defeated by the existence of the home sale contract available in a microfilm record in the Venetian state archives.

Proposed improvements

• Fix the year of his death (1473 -> 1475)
• Add his real name into the lead paragraph. There is enough and firm evidence what his, given at birth names, were. References (Giorgio da Sebenico[1][2][3]) used to "prove" that his real name was "da Sebenico" are claiming just the opposite: Orsini ([1][2], the third one is a defunct link)
• Remove completely the above mentioned paragraph
• Add separate paragraph "Juraj Dalmatinac" where shall be explained origins and use of this name and the Croatian attitude toward this Italian medieval sculptor and architect.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If this is User:Luciano di Martino, please log in. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Comment on content only, please.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• To 71.191.19.40: Do not waste your time trying to improve this article. The article is "fixed" the way that reader shall believe that Orsini was not Orsini, therefore Juraj Dalmatinac, therefore a Croat. A primitive nationalistic propaganda which I see on many places in Wikipedia: their terrorist Zvonko Busic (who killed a policeman and wounded three others) is emigrant and freedom fighter, Starcevic, who was a provincial politician and rabid racist - democrat, writer, etc, etc. Wikipedia is no more than a disordered blog.--Eleven Nine (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really, but the article has been plagued by (frankly) obsessive Italian nutters and obsessive Croatian nutters, none of whom are actually in the slightest bit interested in Georgio or his work except as a nationalist trophy. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, and this user is no exception - they just continue the same trend. I forced myself to read through the latest diatribe and fixed one of the glaring problems they mentioned, but the bulk of the complaint has no less glaring problems of their own, such as the obvious sockpuppetry, silly insistence that there is in fact no controversy whatsoever (when there's obviously several sources using "Giorgio da Sebenico", IOW there's no consensus that the Italian-language title is "Giorgio Orsini"), and constant refering only to their "source" which they completely fail to quantify according to established standards. In any case, all of us continuing to complain about whatever nationalism is really orthogonal to the article - how to edit articles is very well known, the policies on verifiability and referencing are pretty clear, we all know what to do. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• To Johnbod: Please comment on content, not on users! Giorgio Orsini was a medieval Italian and a representative of Italian Renaissance. Street language as "nationalist trophy" is not welcome here along with the rest of your comment.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed the latest edits and found that even the revision of the last move in 2007 used the same first three references to support a common name of Giorgio da Sebenico, and everyone (including myself) seemed to ignore the fact that the EB1911 articles use the surname Orsini. I think that went under the radar in my case because a book search proved otherwise, but I'll have to find some more concrete links. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but there it is - Talk:Giorgio_da_Sebenico/Archive_1#Simple_tests_2. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I put sources found there into inline references. It looks a bit spammy in the lead, but hopefully there'll be less controversy about the source for the current article title. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Renaming the article was against consensus. Therefore all your support to use his nick instead his given at birth names is pointless. Please, follow Wikipedia rules strictly. I reverted your changes finding them against consensus.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has not been renamed. Vast numbers of articles do not use the name (usually in Latin) recorded on birth certificates, and that is no argument. You do not have consensus at all. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If scores of relevant English-speaking art historians use it, it's not just a "nick", it's a common name. For example, the same reason why Michelangelo is at that title and not at Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Expanding and tiding up

I have corrected some grammar (at least I think, may be a mother tongue can verify), expanded the secion "Work", removed some useless information (no reason in this article to explain Dubrovnik, named at that time Ragusa part of the Republic of Ragusa, bla bla bla) and reorganised some text. If permitted I will continue to make proposals to expand the information concerning his work. Also I think the section concerning the name it's too long and useless (indeed it looks a street fight) and should require some tiding-up. Definitely I would like not to be involved, in this article, in any issue concerning opposed nationalim or similar items. All other comments are welcome. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! The name section I think needs to be full, as there has been so much argument over it. Stuff removed is likely to come back at some time anyway. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We now reduced the name controversy to a single editorial paragraph with a bunch of references; the rest is mainly factoids, and the lead section is clean. Let's see if this compromise holds for a while. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpupeeteering and POV

It is visible from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Giorgio_da_Sebenico/Archive_1#Requested_Move_to_Giorgio_da_Sebenico that attempt to rename this article was defeated. Later, one user renamed the article not trying to achieve consensus see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giorgio_da_Sebenico&diff=158657189&oldid=150572553.

Then there is apparent sockpuppeteering: (Johnbod) is blindly supporting the Croatian POV pushers without serious involvement in the discussion.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought you meant more recently than 4 years ago! There have been two successful renames. I do not support the POV pushers on either side, and unlike all the nationalist obsessives on both sides I have tried to expand the material on his actual career & works, in which they are not interested at all, as at other Adriatic hot-spots. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2007 rename was done according to the move request elaborated in the same archive you linked. Can you please stop with this pointless argument now? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I must confess that I do not fully understand the tecnicity of the multiple changes made to the article during the last 3 hours. On the other hand I think IMHO that 13 references to source the origin of the name it's somehow excessive. And it is really aesthetically strange (not to say awful). Is it possible to remove only some of them and keep only the most notable. At the end of the day this page is about art... --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded! Btw, I've just looked at the Italian article, called Giorgio di Matteo, which starts: "Giorgio di Matteo o Giorgio di Sebenico o anche Giorgio Orsini". Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Why this page was moved to "Giorgio da Sebenico" and not to "Giorgio di Matteo"? --Grifter72 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, things are already complicated enough to get consensus around "Giorgio Orsini" and "Girogio Da Sebenico". Also "Giorgio di Matteo" is a less frequent name given to this artist in the different sources. Indeed IMHO the article on it:wiki should be redirected to one of the two other names. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.it/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22giorgio+di+matteo%22&btnG= ;) --Grifter72 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we change to this at all; the survey of English sources at the last renaming discussion - linked to by the 71 ISP just above, makes it clear enough that the present name is correct as the title in the English WP. What it:wiki does is their business, but I find it interesting that even they only give Orsini as 3rd choice. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Johnbod, you are talking nonsense. Your reverts and comments are strictly in the line of Croatian "historians" and their followers, which is nothing else than puppeteering. The name is changed illegally, four years or now, nonsensically and infantile. There is no dilemma what was Orsini's name nor any need to use his nick here. There are more than hundred English language references where historians are not questioning his real name. Actually, I do not know any serious historian who ever questioned his real name. Playing with his name this way is childish. Ignorance, irresponsibility, frivolous approach, use of rules and guidances not to improve, rather to damage articles leads academics, universities and colleges to disqualify Wikipedia as a valid academic source.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Earlier POV and inaccuracies maintained

Earlier line of POV and inaccuracies is maintained. There is a stubborn attempt to question Orsini's names based on baseless statement of an anonymous Croatian author.

Moreover the first reference used "Architecture in Italy, 1400-1500 by Ludwig H. Heydenreich, Yale University Press; Second Revised edition, 1996" to replace Orsini's name by his nick name shows just opposite: on page 101 is visible that Heydenreich knew Orsini's names - Giorgio Orsini da Sebenico, Yet another proof of arbitrary approach to references. --71.191.19.40 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's quote what User:Ew actually said in the 2007 move debate:

• Architecture in Italy, 1400-1500 by Ludwig H. Heydenreich, Yale University Press; Second Revised edition, 1996, ISBN 0-300-06467-5, p.74, 80, 101, 183 (index) & 184 (index):

  ...by Giorgio da Sebenico, whose hand...

  ...with Giorgio da Sebenico...

  ...as important as Giorgio Orsini da Sebenico and...

  Giorgio da Sebenico...

  Orsini, Giorgio, see Giorgio da Sebenico.

- Now go and read WP:COMMONNAME. Is this you again Giovanni? Long time, no see! Johnbod (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My patience with this anonymous user is exhausted. I think the re-adding of tags is borderline acceptable. If unproductive edits escalate, they should be treated with an enforcement of WP:ARBMAC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• So, what's the point? You have to understand that nonsensic play with names of the world-renown artist has nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME. Rules are here meaningful ONLY if leading to the article quality. The quality is not in supporting nonsenses coming from an utterly annonymous author, not quoted by anyone in English language references, nor having ever validated his "discovery". The Fifth Wikipedia Pillar requires not to blindly follow rules and certainly not to frivolously interpret them to justify nonsense. Johnbod, thanks for confirming my statement: Ludwig H. Heydenreich is aware of the Orsini's family name. Heydenreich is not claiming that Orsini is not Orsini.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No one says he is, and that name is well-covered and referenced in the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There are not evidences but only suppositions about he was an Orsinis. Also in Italy "Giorgio Orsini" is less used than "Giorgio da Sebenico", "Giorgio di Matteo" or "Giorgio Dalmata". Here you can see that the surname "Orsini" was adopted by his son in 1512: http://books.google.it/books?id=n14xAQAAIAAJ&q=giorgio+da+sebenico+%22famiglia+orsini%22&dq=giorgio+da+sebenico+%22famiglia+orsini%22&hl=it&sa=X&ei=Q57tTvbXOoqbOsmNnZUI&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ --Grifter72 (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• False statement. There is a home sales contract where Giorgio Orsini was named as buyer. There are real estate property documents showing that Giorgio Orsini owned homes in Venice, which he left to the Venetian Republic after his death.--71.191.19.40 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide sources about this? It was published? --Grifter72 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

June 1455, Calle San Gregorio. What is the name in that contract? http://www.archive.org/stream/inobilieilclerod00miag#page/26/mode/2up/search/acquisto --Grifter72 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ser Zorzi di Mathio taiapier" in Venetian language (http://www.hart.hr/uploads/documents/1291.pdf page 85) (http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giorgio-da-ragusa_(Dizionario-Biografico)/) --Grifter72 (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Stubborn POV and inaccuracies, editorials

The whole paragraph is completely un-encyclopaedic and against Wikipedia guidelines

References to the artist are most common under the name Giorgio da Sebenico,[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and as Giorgio Orsini,[5][11][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] particularly in Italian sources.[20][21][22] There are also references to him as Giorgio Dalmatico,[20] or as George the Dalmatian.[23] He is sometimes listed among Croatian sculptors in English-language sources.[23] In Croatia, he is known under the Croatian name Juraj Matejev Dalmatinac (lit. "George of Matthias Dalmatian"). [24][12][25][26] This is reportedly part of a trend of Croatization of old Venetian names.[27][28] Croatian sources such as the Yugoslav Lexicographical Institute and author Cvito Fisković claim that "Orsini" was never used by the artist and it was adopted by his son, after the death of his father.[2][3][29]

a) Orsini's names given at his birth are Giorgio Orsini, nick names da Sebenico, Dalmata, di Mateo.
b) "References to the artist are most common under the name Giorgio da Sebenico,..." is opinion not based on the facts which was already defeated when trying to rename this article.
c) "Cvito Fisković claim that "Orsini" was never used by the artist and it was adopted by his son, after the death of his father.: is a nonsense for not based on any records or documents dated back to the times of Orsini's life and work.
d) "This is reportedly part of a trend of Croatization of old Venetian names." - flagrantly POV. "Juraj Dalmatinac" is a name invented in the second half of 19 century. Giorgio Orsini nor his contemporaries never used these nonsensic names.
e)More than twenty references are used pointlessly as a "proof" of "His name and origin has been the source of some controversy.". Which of these, excluding Croatian sources ever questioned his real name?

To improve

a) Put back his real name as the article title for being illegaly changed and against Wikipedia policy.
b) 'Giorgio Orsini' is prevalent in the English language references. Attempt to prove "da Sebenico' as the prevalent one already failed which is visible here. Later, one user (possibly the same user who wanted to change name or his puppet) renamed the article not trying to achieve consensus see it here.
c) List separately nick names without extensive and pointless list of references
d) Drop the whole paragraph quoted above as POV and inaccurate--71.191.19.40 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Zzzzzz! You are welcome to open a new WP:Move Request, & see how well it does. I suugest reading WP:COMMONNAME and WP:VERIFIABILITY carefully first. In fairness I should note that this feeling against the use of "nicknames" does seem to be a minority Italian thing. Some years ago an Italian professor tried to get the National Gallery in London to re-label its Raphaels, Tintorettos, Veroneses, Michelangelos, Titians etc etc, without success of course. Italian museums are more likely to use the "actual" name, followed by the "nickname, but this is much less common in the anglosphere. But in the Italian Wikipedia all of that list except Raphael use the nick-name as the article title, and, as we've seen, they don't use Orsini either.Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Your WP:Move Request attempt already failed for being against WP:COMMONNAME. Evidence is already given and visible. Your sock or you illegaly changed the name. Did you read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:VERIFIABILITY and understand it?--71.191.19.40 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It was a 4:5 no consensus, with several POV Croatian and Italian editors involved opposing it. The idea that User:Pmanderson is my sock-puppet will strike many experienced editors as richly comic. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• The most authoritative source on variants of artist names, the Union List of Artist Names (ULAN) ® from the Getty Institute, has not been mentioned recently:

They have:

Giorgio da Sebenico (Dalmatian architect and sculptor, ca. 1400-1473)
Names:
Giorgio da Sebenico (preferred,V,display)
Georgius Matthei Dalmaticus (V)
Giorgio di Matteo (V)
Giorgio Orsini (V)
Orsini, Giorgio (V)
Giorgio Dalmatico (V)
Juraj Matejev Dalmatinac (V)
Juraj Dalmatic (V)
Sabenico, Giorgio Da (V)
Giorgio Da Sabenico (V)
Georgius lapicida quondam Mathei de Jadra (V)
Dalmatinac, Juraj (V)
Dalmata, Giorgio (V)
Giorgio Dalmata (V)
Juraj Mateev Dalmatinac (V)
Giorgio di Matteo da Zara (V)
Zorzi di Mathio (V) 

As usual, we should not mention all these in the article, only the few most common. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Art thieves --Grifter72 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Another proposal on the name

I am not sure that my modification will create some consensus. However it is in harmony with the sources of the article. However when I see the huge discussion about the name I doubt it will resist. Still I believe the section about the name is too large compared to rest of the article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

right --Grifter72 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Ladies and Gents, could you please consider that you cannot export the concept of Name+Surname to in the 15th century? Except nobility sometime people had even not a surname. Now the idea is to report the most common names. I think the three + the Croatian transcription should be considered as a maximum (and possibly we should restrict to two + Croatian transcription). This was the reason of my contribution. However, no surprised it did not resist. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• 1 Giorgio da Sebenico (preferred in English)
• 2 Zorzi di Mathio (Venetian - probably his real name)
• 3 Giorgio di Matteo (translated in Italian)
• 4 Juraj Matejev Dalmatinac (translated in Croatian)

--Grifter72 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the claim that "Giorgio da Sebenico" is preferred in English. A Google search is not a definitive measure for this but consider this:

Giorgio da Sebenico search yields 4,610+841=5,451 results

Juraj Dalmatinac search yields 32,800+3,620=36,420 results

Giorgio Orsini yields 3,050+927=3,977 results

Giorgio di Matteo yields 3,950+180=4,130 results

All the searches were limited to the exact phrase found in English language documents, limited to the USA (the first figure) and the UK (the second figure.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As Silvio said name-surname concept cannot be readily exported to the 15th century, and it appears that WP:COMMONNAME, as far as English language sources are concerned, is Juraj Dalmatinac.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly! That's a Croatian google search, and there's a cruise ship & God knows what else, just in the first page of Juraj Dalmatinac. Note how the first page of Giorgio da Sebenico actually contains reference sources on the artist, in strong contrast.Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "Croatian Google search" - the search was limited to English language and US/UK based sites. Granted, some US servers will host Croatian and Italian sites, but that cannot be helped here. If you refer to google.hr/google.com difference, google.com yields 33,000 results for Juraj Dalmatinac in case of the US and 3,630 on the UK servers. Even if we are to disqualify a half of the results for one reason or another, the name would still be three times as commonly used.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Most of the first hits are in fact in Croatian. Anyway, quality, not quantity, is what's important. See what the policy says on google searches. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. I suppose The New York Times [4] is also irrelevant. Would you be so kind then to point me to what kind of sources would be acceptable? Maybe we should then change the article title to Georgius Mathei Dalmaticus - after all UNESCO uses that name.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for the google policy tip - it made an interesting reading. As pointed there I checked out Google Scholar and found that Giorgio da Sebenico returns 107 articles, Juraj Dalmatinac returns 181, and Georgius Mathei Dalmaticus returns 10. Inevitably there'll be some Croatian published and Italian published articles adding to either variant frequency, but I'd say there overall about even contributions from the two nations.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A few facts:

1. Only a few details are known about him: he was born in surrounding of Zadar in 1410, he was a village kid.

2. Zadar was not settled by the Venetians or Italians, except a few administrators and employees. of the Venetian Republic (from 1408), in Zadar surrounding there were no Italians or Venetians at all.

3. Notary developed in the cities of wider Mediterranean region, significiantly from the 12th century in Latin language, almost everywhere. Zadar notary started also in the 12th century in Latin language. All names of the citizens and other people in Zadar notar papers were translated to Latin.

4. In Zadar notar papers and documents he was noted as Georgius Dalmaticus and Georgius quondam Mathei de Jader. These are original forms of his name at the place of his birth. Bearing in mind where and when he was born, these forms were translation to Latin. There is no doubt that his original name was Croatian, but we don't know exact graphic form of it. However Latin forms are showing that it was Juraj or Jure and his father was Matej or Mate. Later "translation" to Croatian - "Juraj Dalmatinac" and "Juraj Matejev" or "Juraj Matin" are logical suppositions of original name - Latin graphic forms are direct references.

5. About surnames. Maybe name-surname concept appeared in Europe in the 15th century in general. But in Croatian tradition, this concept had appeared earlier, from 12/13th century! the Croats had this concept earlier than the most of the Europeans. These first Croatian surnames were formed mostly in 2 ways: according to proffesion of the person; according to father's name. In this case we have second possibility. Example: if 'pater familias' (head of a house) was Matej and his son was Juraj then Juraj was Juraj Matejev (in Latin documents it would be: Georgius Mathei); if family would become more numerous in the next generations but, homogenous and coupled with the same house, there would be sufix -ić added as a sign of a "tribe" so son of Juraj would have surname Matejević. This is just example of how early Croatian surnames were formed in the beginning. From the 12/13th century.

6. Georgius went to Venice to learn his occupation better, by means of stylization. In Venice, documents and notar papers were written in Venetian language - all names were translated to Venetian. Therefore all Venetian forms of his name are not original and were used only in Venice and Italy.

7. In summary: this article should be renamed into original form of his name, it would be Croatian, but since we don't know real Croatian form, known graphic Latin form should be used: Georgius Mathei or Georgius Dalmaticus. All other names should be mentioned in the article with explanation that these other forms were translations to other languages. My propisition is writing section only about his name in the beginning of the article. It is disaster how the article looks like on this matter at the moment. Zenanarh (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"There is no doubt that his original name was Croatian, but we don't know exact graphic form of it.".

Zenanarh, this is a good one. Thank you. I am impressed that you know so many things about this artist, when even the date of death is so uncertain (uncertain to the point that even the year is not sure...).

Also this fact that Croatian had the concept of name-surnames before the rest of Europe tis also quite funny. Indeed, it looks that you are quite a funny guy. The concept of Surname existed already at Roman time, but it was not before the beginning of 16th century that first countries (such as France) started the concept of "Etat Civil" and enforced it for each person. In the rest of Europe it appeared during the 17th and 18th centuries. However I have no doubt that with you getting in the matter, will get to consensus about the matter in a matter of hours. From my side, I prefer to contribute on this article solely with art facts. It looks that this discussion on the name is already busy enough and I am unsure that the article is really benefiting from it.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am impressed that you know so many things about this artist - I didn't say a lot about this artist at all. I wrote: Only a few details are known about him...

Also this fact that Croatian had the concept of name-surnames before the rest of Europe tis also quite funny. Indeed, it looks that you are quite a funny guy. - It has nothing to do with fun or me, it is one simple fact related to Croatian language, it is very well known fact to those who deal with linguistics, or to those who deal with Croatistics - it is not known to you. Not my fault. Zenanarh (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW I didn't write before the rest of Europe, I wrote earlier than the most of the Europeans. Please concentrate yourself and don't manipulate my words.

A few details for you. Modern concept of name-surname appeared first in the most economically and culturally developed Medieval states, in northern Italy and southern France, according to different authors in 8th, 9th or 11th century. Surnames were first used by higher city classes - noblemen (nobiles) and the richest families. Later it was used by the rest of population too.

in the 11th century Croats were using adjectives which meant affililation to direct ancestor, like Tomidrugo fi lio Naiezde (1080), while Croatian surnames came in the 12th century, but not everywhere in the same time. However Croatian surnames appeared that early in Dalmatia, in other regions settled by the Croats later. First Croatian surnames were formed as nicknames by meaning, according to some characteristic of person like Zlurad, Varikaša, Nozdronja, Bogobojša,... (all from Zadar in 12th and 13th century) and their descendants were keeping it. Massive use of surnames in Europe was related to Trident Council (1545-1563).

So, form Georgius Mathei was nothing but affililation (direct ancestor). Also important, Croatian surnames formd by affilation are the most numerous in the northern Dalmatia, even today. They've been saved in such form. There are plenty of it like: Marin (ancestor: Mara), Mikin (anc: Mika), Dorkin (anc: Dorka), Pajkin (anc: Pajko), Grgurev (anc: Grgur), Blaslov (anc: Blasul), Dundov (anc: Dundo) etc. Georgius Mathei - surname Mathei belongs to this group. Zenanarh (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And this group is the oldest and the most numerous, one of the oldest surnames of this group (with -ić added as a sign of "tribe" or wider family) was Dragota Vlčinić in "Povaljska listina" (Šimunović, 1982: 284–285). In this case Vlčinić is patronimic/affilation formed from name Vlčina (archaic name which will be modern Vučina).Zenanarh (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, you are writing without provide sources.--Grifter72 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I'm sorry but providing sources for every word will take too much time and I wanted only to explain some things to help this little community here. About first surnames in Europe - Duden: "Familiennamen", Mannheim – Leipzig – Wien – Zürich, 2000; about Croatian surnames: P. Šimunović, "Hrvatska prezimena", Zagreb: Golden marketing-Tehnička knjiga, 2006 and "Razvitak imenske formule u Hrvata", Onomastica Jugoslavica, 9, Zagreb, 1982, 283–293. If you want me to source anything else I wrote, please specify what you're pointing to. Zenanarh (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Zenanarh, this "little community here" really needs your help and explanations. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sure you need it definitely. Why are you mad? You have no reason. :) Zenanarh (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, you talk a lot. Too much indeed, and often without reason. You can see higher in this talk that I had already said that only people from noble and rich people. The issue with surnames before the enforcing of "Etat Civil" is that only part of the people had vital records recorded officially. And first vital records started in Europe only at the beginning of 16th century. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I talk too much? LOL

What you have written is generalization and has nothing to do with the matter. Zenanarh (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Isolating the disputed section

In an attempt to isolate the disputed facts I have created a section "Life" and a section "Controversy about the name". Perhaps we should try to move in the first section all the undisputed information and try to reduce - as much as possible - the second one. There is also need of a reference about his life. May be someone can help. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why are you creating section "Controversy about the name"? There is no controversy about the name. He signed himself Georgius Dalmaticus and Georgius quondam Mathei de Jader. His own signatures. Is it controversial? No. Italian forms of his name appeared in Italy and Italian records. Is it controversial? No. Croatian "translation" is related to his own signature, because of the way how names were graphically written in Dalmatia. Is it controversial? No. So what the hell is controversial about his name? Only controversy comes from this talk page and innability of the wikipedians to edit this article in objective and balanced way. This is encyclopedia and this article should inform people about Georgius and not about selective wikipedian POVs! This is 2nd article you want to turn into battlefield during last week, Silvio! His work is important and not your own POV or your position in this talk page! Is it problem to only mention forms of his name without any kind of POV? And concentrate on what is important?

This section is full of POVs. Example: This is reportedly part of a trend of Croatization of old Venetian names.[27][28]

This is complete nonsense and not true. References 27 and 28 are articles in the newspapers?!?! Newspapers?!?! And that's how this lie is referrenced? All this section must be erased. It's enough to mention forms of his name in the lead in brackets and avoid any pretentious claims and statements. Zenanarh (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, you are crossing the line. I start to believe that people aggressive like you should be avoided as much as possible. Unfortunately there is a controversy on the name if in the last week the article and its discussion suffered so many changes. I made a proposal to isolate the contested sections from the sections that are not contested in order to facilitate the improvement of the article. If you dislike it, you can undo it. I also thing the article is full of POV's (from both parties) but perhaps we need people with a calmer attitude to solve it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, Grifter has removed pieces, but all this section is still disaster, in my thinking. Controvresy about name and origin is artificially produced, it's not scientific level, it's amateur level from newspapers, blogs, nationalistic forums etc.

According to his own signatures, we know what was his origin. Georgius Mathaei Dalmaticus – Dalmaticus! He was Dalmatian. Georgius lapicida quondam Mathei de Jadra Civis Sibenicenis – quondam Mathei de Jadra! In the article 'quondam' is translated as "son of" – it is free translation and it is not valid. Latin 'quondam' means "that once was; former" – it was sign of affiliation and one of typical translations of Croatian affiliation-sufixes in surnames such as –ov, -ev, -in, as well as –ović, -ević and –inić, to Latin in Dalmatia. So Georgius quondam Mathei de Jadra is exactly name, surname and original city of the family. So there’s also chance that Mathei was not his father, Mathei could have been his grandfather or any direct male ancestor. Since quondam Mathei points to surname in Dalmatia, obviously Croatian one.

There’s another important detail in his signature - Civis Sibenicenis – civis is a member of the Medieval city class cives. City classes were nobiles (noblemen), cives (citizens) and habitatores (the lowest class – immigrants, workers, paisants,...) in Europe from the 12th century and later on. According to his signature, he was a member of cives in Šibenik.

ref. 1 is

Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, with Cettigne in Montenegro and the Island of Grado by Sir Thomas Graham Jackson, published in 1887 by Clarendon press, Page 389:

Giorgio seems to have been born at Zara. His father, Matteo, was a scion of the ancient and princely Roman house of Orsini; but the branch to which he belonged had sunk in the world, and been reduced to support itself by manual arts inconsistent with the idea of nobility as then understood, and the family name had been allowed to fall into disuse [...] His family descent from the Orsini was formally recognized in 1540 in the person of his grandson Giacomo, an advocate [...] that Giorgio was not a native of Sebenico is proved by the description of him in several 'Atti' of 1441-1450; e.g. Magister Giorgius lapicida quondam Matthaei di Jadra, habitator Venetiarum ad praesens existens Sibenic

Take a look at the last sentence. Magister Giorgius lapicida quondam Matthaei di Jadra, habitator Venetiarum ad praesens existens Sibenic. Here we can see that he was habitator in Venice! Member of the lowest city class – habitatores (immigrants or economical immigrants – workers, paisants,...).

So according to his own signatures and documents produced during his life, we know that he was Dalmatian, his family was from Zadar or Zadar region, he was an immigrant in Venice.

Italian forms of name came from Italian documents during his life and work in Italy, however he was never Orsini, during his life. Orsini was adopted by his son in Venice. But here in the article there is strange statement which is obviousaly edited to dispute it:

...however, in Sebenico there are remnants (the doorway) of the Orsini's home which he bought in June 1445 from M. Simeonich, a local nobleman. On the lintel of this old doorway is carved a bear, the heraldic emblem of the noble house of Orsini - carved by Giorgio's own hand.[6]

ref. 6 - Lee Hornor Moqué, Mrs. Alice (1914). Delightful Dalmatia. Funk & Wagnalls company. p. 109.

But alas, only the doorway now remains of the house which "Michelle Simeonich, a nobleman of Sebenico, sold to Giorgio Orsini for two hundred golden ducats of just and good weight", in the month of June and the year 1455. On the lintel of this old doorway is carved a bear, the heraldic emblem of the great house of Orsini - carved, no doubt, by George's own hand, over this door through which he must have passed so often.

If there is any controversy – this is the one. For a few reasons. Only noblemen (nobiles) were allowed to have a coat of arms. It was sign of their class. There was no way that habitator or civis had it or used it.. If Georgius was civis in Šibenik then it was impossible that he had coat of arms. If Georgius was habitator in Venice then he was not nobleman in Venice, so this coat of arms in Šibenik cannot be related to his possible noble status in Venice. Tere were no noblemen by name Orsini in Zadar.

I’ve researched a little bit and noticed that this is the only source in the net for sentence in subject. There are no other sources. Who was the author - Mrs. Alice Lee Hornor Moqué? She wrote “carved, no doubt, by George's own hand, over this door through which he must have passed so often”. Is she archaeologist, expert for historical architecture? There are no data about her. Who is she? What are her scientific titles? What are her references? This coat of arms and name Giorgio Orsini obviously cannot be related to our Georgius. He was not nobleman! This sentence is directly disputted by Georgius’ signature and documents produced during his life. This coat of arms and name Orsini was probably carved later by someone else and not during his life. There is not even one scientific source to claim what Mrs Alice Lee Hornor Moqué did! Her monography Delightful Dalmatia is not a scientific work, it’s fully available here [5]

Her statements are not referenced in the book. In all book there is not even one reference at all. It is just travel itinerary of an amateur. Therefore this statement cannot be taken for serious and especially not to dispute conclusion of a scientist. And this source cannot be used as reference.

So my suggestion is to remove any non-existant controversy from the article. This section must be removed. We can mention all forms of his name in the lead, with explanations, his own signatures, forms in Italian literature with note that Orsini appeared as anachronology since this surname was adopted only by his son later and not during his life, forms in Croatian literature with note that it is supposition of his original name, based on graphic forms in his signatures in Latin. These are simple facts with quality sources without any controversy. We shouldn’t encourage future edit wars with such controversial section. Zenanarh (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I can change it but I don't want to start edit war, so I'd like to hear other opinions first. Zenanarh (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Giorgio Orsini is Orsini. Please, stop propagating nonsense!

Here are three English language references

↑ Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, with Cettigne in Montenegro and the island of Grado, Volume 1 by Sir Thomas Graham Jackson; Clarendon press, 1887.

Page 406

In June 1455, Michele Simeonich, a noble of Sebenico, sold to Grigorio Orsini for 200 golden ducats 'of good and just weight' a house in the contrada of S. Gregorio, of which the position and boundaries are accurately defined in the act of the notary Manfredo Petrogna ¹ To this spot we were guided by Monsignor Fosco, the bishop and historian of Sebenico, and there sure enough we saw a door-

Footnote
¹ Vid. Annuario Dalmatico 1884, Article by Dr. Galvani

Page 407

way, on the lintel of which is carved, by the hand no doubt of Grigorio himself, the bear that symbolized his ancestral house of Orsini, while on each jamb, amid pendent bouquets of flowers, hang the mallet and chisels of his sculptor's art (vid. Fig. 25)

↑ A holiday in Umbria: with an account of Urbino and the Cortegiano of Castiglione by Sir Thomas Graham Jackson, J. Murray, 1917, page 38

Giorgio Orsini died in 1475, and, so far as I can ascertain, at Sebenico, where he had a house on the doorway of which he carved the bear, the badge of his family, and the mallet and chisels and other implements of his craft².
...
²Illustrated in my Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, vol. i. p. 406.

↑ Delightful Dalmatia by Alice Lee Hornor Moqué; Funk & Wagnalls company, 1914, page 109

But alas, only the doorway now remains of the house which "Michelle Simeonich, a nobleman of Sebenico, sold to Giorgio Orsini for two hundred golden ducats of just and good weight", in the month of June and the year 1455. On the lintel of this old doorway is carved a bear, the heraldic emblem of the great house of Orsini - carved, no doubt, by George's own hand, over this door through which he must have passed so often.

Then from the Italian side:

↑ Per trecentosettantasette anni: la gloria di Venezia nelle testimonianze artistiche della Dalmazia by Giuseppe Maria Pilo, Edizioni della Laguna, 2000, page 37

Giorgio di Matteo Dalmata - com'egli si firma - è probabilmente nativo di Zara e certamente veneziano di formazione ancorché molto noto come Giorgio da Sebenico per avervi a lungo operato e avervi creato con la cattedrale di San Giacomo il suo capolavoro, o come Giorgio Orsini, cognome usato dal figlio Paolo dal 1512, ufficialmente dal 1516, e confermato al nipote Giacomo nel 1540 dal governatore veneziano della Dalmazia Valerio Orsini quando lo dichiara, anche con i progenitori "ex nostra stirpe Ursina".

↑ Atti e memorie della Società dalmata di storia patria, Volume 6 Società dalmata di storia patria, La Società, 1969 page 164

Ci siamo dilungati un po' a parlare del figlio Paolo per dimostrare che con era poi quella figura "insignificante" come vorrebbe il Fiskovic.

Bottom line

1) It is quite clear that Giorgio used his family name along with the heraldic emblem of his family
2) Italian author Giuseppe Maria Pilo, as a serious historian, tracks the use of Giorgio's family name by his descendants: by his son Paolo and by his grandson Giacomo. This is just in line of the proof that Giorgio belonged to the noble Italian Orsini family, which was formally recognized by a court decision in the year of 1540.
3) So, Fiskovic wrote a nonsense, which was refuted in the second Italian reference--71.163.236.199 (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Two English language "sources" are joke.

A holiday in Umbria: with an account of Urbino and the Cortegiano of Castiglione, Sir Thomas Graham Jackson, J. Murray, [6]

Subject: Castiglione, Baldassarre, > conte, > 1478-1529. Umbria (Italy) > Description and travel.

Thanks God you didn't use Dead Kennedys, Holiday in Cambodia - [7]

Delightful Dalmatia, Mrs. Alice Lee Hornor Moqué; Funk & Wagnalls company, 1914

Another travel itinerary. Very nice. This one is available online, take a look what style of writing it is. Like Mrs Alice in Wonderland.

Italian author Giuseppe Maria Pilo, as a serious historian, tracks the use of Giorgio's family name by his descendants: by his son Paolo and by his grandson Giacomo. This is just in line of the proof that Giorgio belonged to the noble Italian Orsini family, which was formally recognized by a court decision in the year of 1540.

- this is exactly what Fisković disputed and not opposite. From what you have written it is obvious that Giuseppe Maria Pilo didn’t write anything new on the matter, it is just repetition of already heard, his references are probably the older Italian authors. He repeated it without any criticism. And it seems he didn’t respect scientific methodology. Anachronology is the enemy of history science and its methodology. No-criticism and anachronology - very nice.

Do you know and understand what modern scientific methodology of history science is? You are giving us travel itineraries as sources? This is not a blog, buddy, do you understand it? If one doesn’t respect methodology, it is not science. It is not enough that one author says opposite, it must be proved, and here you are showing us a case where proof was build anachronologically. And all known facts are ignored, like his signatures, documents, place of birth, Croatian to Latin graphic form of name in Dalmatia, his nickname Dalmaticus, the sculptor’s titles civis in Šibenik and habitator in Venice... It is not serious. And nothing new, concerning postion of Fisković. It was exactly what Fisković disputed. Even better, it’s all disputed by the sculptor himself and by the documents produced during his life. Please if you are not able to contribute constructively, leave us. This is not nationalistic forum. Zenanarh (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

About wiki policy on the use of sources read Wikipedia:Verifiability and other related pages. Zenanarh (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, I also agree that this is not a nationalistic forum. But how should we qualify the fact that you speak of Croatian for facts happening on the 15th century? This is like speaking of Italian when referring to Cristoforo Colombo or Leonardo da Vinci. Indeed Croatian and Italian identities did not exist at the time. Extending the concept of nation (expecially for young countries such Italy and Croatia) to the Middle Age is a pure no-sense. If only we could agree on this, 99.9% of the issues of this article (and many others) would not exist. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Generalization again. What are you talking about? Regional identity, ethnicity, nation or language? No doubt, you cannot speak about nationalities in the 15th century. But who did mention nationality at all? Also you cannot equate these ethnonyms. When someone says "Italian in the 15th century" I think of a settler of Italian peninsula in that age, one who speaks some dialect of Italian language, as his/her own mother language. But when someone says "Croat in the 15th" I think of ethnicity, since that ethnicity existed all the time with the same name as well as political unit was there with that name. But modern Croat (nationality) is not the same as historical Croat (ethnicity).

However this is off topic, since "Croatian to Latin" meant Croatian language to Latin language and not one to another nation, ethnicity or regioanl identity. There is no other name for Croatian language than Croatian language. In 15th century, in northern Dalmatia, Croatian was spoken. Dalmatian language was already extinct by means of its main structure, but it never died completely since many issogloses were saved in Croatian, two different groups (during 7th and 8th century) became one and the same, by all means of culture. In the 15th century they spoke Croatian. Zadar was completely Croaticized in the 13th century and Šibenik was established by the Croats in the 12th century. Zenanarh (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

3 words more here. Georgius quondam Mathei de Jadra I've already explained 'quondam'. Now 'Mathei'. Naturally Georgius' name was spelled in Croatian, but written in Latin. Latin name Matthaeus or English Matthew is Croatian name Matej, and the only way to write it in Latin was Mathei. Matej and Mathei are completely identically pronounced, so Mathei is Croatian name 100%, get it? Only blind cannot see it. You probably don't see it because you don't know that Matej is real name in Croatian. That's why quondam Mathei = Matejev. Zenanarh (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Zenanarh:
Here is an excerpt from The early medieval Balkans: a critical survey from the sixth to the late twelfth century by John Van Antwerp Fine; University of Michigan Press, May 15, 1991, 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 an undergraduate studying Balkan History I thought I knew quite a bit about Croatia; but as I study more about Croatia, one by one the "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.

So, that comes from someone who is university professor and historian; no doubt at what level is the "modern scientific methodology of history science" in Croatia.
In the same line, authors who are not historians (Alice Lee Hornor Moqué, Sir Thomas Graham Jackson) are referring to documents dated back to the times of Orsini's work and life but "historian" Fiskovic contemplates that Paolo, Giorgio's son "adopted"(!!) his family name. Giuseppe Maria Pilo is quite clear: he simply records the use of Giorgio's family name by his descendants. Who else is more authoritative to tell us what their family names were if not Giorgio (his home sales contract that named him as the home buyer) and his son and grandson?? There is no the slightest hint that Pilo ever doubted that Giorgio and his descendants weren't members of the noble House of Orsini. Sir Thomas Graham Jackson works are referenced by historians and by Encyclopedia Britannica. Croatian "historian" Fiskovic is referenced only once for talking nonsense.

It's very funny that you are trying to show Croatian history as something ridiculous, and you are using Fine. Because Fine is ridiculous. Fine married Serb wife, you probably know what role was played by the Serbs during last century in the western Balkans. His references about Croatia and Croats were coming from his bed. Nobody takes Fine for serious. His book is written in the worst manner comparable only to Serbian mythomaniacs. It is not serious historiography. The other scientists almost never cite Fine. He's zero. I'm glad if you are using him to prove me something. That makes you a clown. Now I'm sure you don't know what are you talking about. So much about nationalistic bias... and Fine... LOL

For the rest of your comment, check WP:OR Zenanarh (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• • So, this is your response to your question "Do you know and understand what modern scientific methodology of history science is?"? Then, Einstein was married to a Serbian woman leads to this conclusion: "He's zero."?? "That makes you a clown."??--71.163.236.199 (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Silvio1973:
When historians are referring to the medieval Italy, the references are out of the context of any idea of nation. It's all about a predefined and well-known historic, cultural, and civilization realm and about the people who lived there--71.163.236.199 (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What a mess, you are completely out of time. ip, do not delete my sentences! --Grifter72 (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@71.163.236.199 You are repeating yourself, sounds like a broken record, you are using ridiculuous sources, you have probably very poor knowledge about history in general and absolutely no knowledge about history of Dalmatia, you don't understand what science is, you don't understand what wikipedia is, discussion with you looks like continual turning in circles, your motivation is politics and nationalism and people like you are not welcome. Your way of discussion looks like supporting a football club, maybe you can try it in some forum. In short, you said nothing new and I see nothing to reply to. I'm asking again, if it's all you can do - please leave us. Go. Zenanarh (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Einstein was married to Croatian woman. But it didn't make him great scientist. His work did. What Fine wrote in his book was full of extreme nationalistic ideas of Serbian extremists, already very well known to us - and that's what makes him irrelevant. His work. Bye. Zenanarh (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• • "Einstein was married to Croatian woman"?? :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))--71.163.236.199 (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgery

Reference, as given

F. A. Galvani, Il re d'armi di Sebenico con illustrazioni storiche, Venice, Dr. v. P. Naratovich, 1884, page 160, n. 2.

does not support claim saying Orsini never used his family name nor that his son "adopted" their family name. This forgery was entered on the Italian article version and, accordingly, removed.

The concluding statement of the Italian historian G. M. Pilo is clear: ... dal governatore veneziano della Dalmazia Valerio Orsini quando lo dichiara, anche con i progenitori "ex nostra stirpe Ursina".

--71.163.236.199 (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have the Galvani book? It is not clear to understand what he wrote. I used Treccani: "Il cognome Orsini, comunemente assegnato a G. nel passato, in realtà fu adottato dal figlio Paolo molto tempo dopo la morte del padre (Galvani, p. 162)." http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giorgio-da-ragusa_(Dizionario-Biografico)/ --Grifter72 (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• So what? You uncritically took over somebody's else forgery?? In Annuario Dalmatico 1884, Dr. Galvani provided information about the home sale contract where Giorgio Orsini was named as the home buyer. What Dr. Galvani said there (Il re d'armi di Sebenico con illustrazioni storiche) can be understood only as "started using" which is far from Fiskovic's nonsensic claim. Rejection of Fiskovic is given in Atti e memorie della Società dalmata di storia patria, Volume 6 Società dalmata di storia patria, La Società, 1969 page 164--71.163.236.199 (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the Galvani book? --Grifter72 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes, I did. Did you?--71.163.236.199 (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Juraj Dalmatinac

I've added (copied) this subtitle from the Simple English. Previous text contains false claim (Orsini never used his family name) falsely referencing Dr. Galvani.--Eleven Nine (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian or Dalmatian?

I do not see many references marking him as a Dalmatian. But, I see many talking about him as of a sculptor and an architect of the Italian Renaissance.--Eleven Nine (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=Giorgio+da+Sebenico&role=&nation=&prev_page=1&subjectid=500003656

For Getty, "Italian" is only the third option. --Grifter72 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A guy that was probably born in Dalmatia (Zara/Zadar) and lived especially in Dalmatia (Georgio sclavone de Sibinico) is clearly a Dalmatian: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GCC42I7nzjMJ:hrcak.srce.hr/file/97562+giorgio+da+sibinico+salme&hl=it&gl=it&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShOF4Msip6vT1M4BGL4QcLDArG3hiKHqQ5v-Bxp9py6FT_x6kyvY1ZXY5Y143H7lCAOJk_rKeWRzeYPX5JdVKNBhUUzv1Bz9QQpVk7SDqMXcl8N5bmp4JqaoXO4Bi3OvyXU2iZm&sig=AHIEtbSwzS6AP8Sb9CFpQFq3DBjTKenIrA&pli=1

--Grifter72 (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• For many many others, clearly he was an Italian. Dalmatia that time was no more than Venetian province. You've got references supported by documents confirming his noble House of Orsini lineage.--71.178.106.120 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Venetian Republic was multiethnical. --Grifter72 (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Grifter72 I agree. Indeed I do not understand why there is so broad resistance(both from Italian and Croatian users) to consider him and Luciano Laurana as Dalmatian. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

long-term abuse

I've filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Luciano di Martino. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions & Page Protection

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Balkans. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Giorgio da Sebenico, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

I am including the warning above to all current participants, the continued edit war on this page is disruptive, as is a lot of discussion on this talk page. Given the recent edit war going back to Christmas and then reigniting a few days ago I have protected the page for 7 days so that the participants here can discuss the proposed changes. Changes should be supported by reliable sources and editors should be working together to achieve consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Aparently you are on the side of your friend Joy [shallot] which way you are shielding forgeries and inaccuracies exposed and visible in this article. This way both of you are ruining credibility of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge. You did not warn others, you warned only those your friend named.--71.178.106.120 (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)