Talk:Gundulić family

Mir Harven's comment

Gino Gondola

What this page is about ? I see usual Greater Serbian stuff with regard to some Serbian themes mentioned in Gundulić's "Osman" (as I recall, one chapter-10th or 11th). This is, in the ordinary repertory of Serbian cultural possessiveness, a try to "prove" that Gundulić was a "Serb". One could argue better that he was a "Pole", since "Osman" is about Turks and Poles. Or Ivan Mažuranić a Montenegrin, according to the theme of his epic poem. Usual rubbish. Mir Harven 11:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My mother family, comes directly of Gondola family, (Ghetaldi-Gondola), and were NOT Serv!! and Croats!!, the origin is in Lucca Italy, and the Ghetaldi family was in Trento Italy (Tirol), and since XVII century, most marriages weres with the austrian nobility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragusino (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 April 2006

why u translate italians names in croatian names??? The Ghetaldi-Gondola family never feeled itself like a slavic family and they were the leaders of the proitalian faction in Ragusa, so it' an injury against their memory change their names and famili name in croatian.Respect them please|

Grammar

While the factual information that the unnamed IP address folks have been giving seems top notch, the grammar has been a bit lacking. I'm watching this page, because I think it's great to have this information coming in -- even from users in Austria or Italy or Serbia, whose English may not be as strong as their native tongue -- and I'm willing to continue to re-organize and repair grammar issues on this topic. But please don't revert my grammar corrections. I'm certain that sentence structures like "in 1634 he becoming a senator", "Catterina married with Matheo Ghetaldi", "date of born unknown", and "He fight in Franco-Prussian War" are gramattically incorrect. Travisl 20:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Piera Gondola

Who died in WWI?

Anna Johanna Maria (March 6, 1865–February 17, 1902), was born in Cattaro, and died in Graz. He married Francesco (Fery) Fedrigoni Edler v. Etschthal (c. 1858–August 8, 1914), who died in Savlaka, Servia in World War I. They had a son, Giulius, and a daughter, Adele.

Giulius Fedrigoni Edler v. Etschthal, (May 5, 1893–November 17, 1917), died in the same war as his father ...

So is Anna a male or female? Frencesco: male or female? Which one died in the war in Savlaka, and which one in Graz? Travisl 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anna was a female and Francesco was a male. please i need obtain info about Maria Ghetaldi-Gondola (Maria Gondola), date and place of death. Ragusino

Is this a hoax?

File:Tribunale circulare ragusa.jpg

Nota Tribunale Circulare

Google suggests it might be. The figures all appear questionable and User:Ragusino appears to have created other suspect articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ephrosinia Lukarevic. ---CH 08:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone using IP 200.30.245.208 (talk · contribs) (aka the metropolis-inter.com anon geolocated near Santiago, Chile) deleted the above query. Be aware, metropolis-inter.com anon, that deleting talk page comments by other users is considered vandalism. ---CH 18:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

According to a posting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ephrosinia_Lukarevic, it looks like there may be some falsehoods in here, as well as significant facts:

• Delete Ephrosinia Lukarevic as a copyright violation and fiction, but keep Trojan Gundulić, House of Gondola, and House of Ghetaldi and move them to userspace awaiting better references. As already pointed out Trojan Gundulić is clearly real, and there is enough both in House of Gondola and House of Ghetaldi that appear real that there is a good reason not to just summarily delete them just because little can be found through Google. Ivan Gundulić, mentioned in one of the articles, is certainly a real and very notable poet. A Joseph Sigismund Reichsgraf von Gondola, "auch: Gundulic", apparently a Benedictine author, has an entry in WBIS Online, as do a number of people named Gondola with given names such as Francesco and Sigismondo, who appear to be members of the family of this article. These Italian/Croatian noble families ought to be verifiable in Austro-Hungarian printed sources or other references covering Central European nobility, as well as possibly Italian biographical reference works. There is no reason to assume that they are "unverifiable" until these works have actually been checked. We clearly have a problem in this case with systemic bias in both the most easily available, googlable sources and in some of the databases I have access to, but there are enough indications that these are real historical people of some importance in their own time and place. Let the author work on them a bit more in his userspace and present good printed sources that readers can check. u p p l a n d 12:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, there's no indication at all that User:Ragusino intentionally introduced falsehoods. Rather, in the case of Ephrosinia_Lukarevic , he may have lifted text from the Dictionary_of_the_Khazars, but neglected to note that Ephrosinia was a fictional character. Her article obviously needed a lot of work to bring up to standard. It doesn't appear that he's used the same source material on this page.

That said, I know nothing more about the House of Gondola than what I've read here. My contributions to this article are no more than spelling, grammar, and sylistic changes. Travisl 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

All the text about House of Gondola is true, check Almanac of Gotha, Freiherhause, 1864, 1941, http://home.foni.net/~adelsforschung/ggtbg.htm - Archive in Dubrovnik, Siechmacher book, Archive in Merano, Graz and Venice.

Please Traslate!!

Frano barun Gondola, sredio je sve formalnosti i još se samo čekala ona kako bi preuzela njegove stvari i kako bi, s pratnjom, bila ispraćena do Gradske luke gdje je čekao brod. Isti onaj s kojim su doputovali... Pamtila je čudan osjećaj užasa, tuge i žalosti zbog iznenadnog gubitka oca, prekoravajući neobuzdanu svoju mladost koja je, mislila je, iznevjerila njegovo povjerenje koje joj je iskazivao. Vjerujući da je upravo njezin nedolazak u dogovoreno vrijeme za zajedničku večeru bio uzrokom njegove smrti. Bez obzira što su je uvjeravali da je umro od srčane kapi. I da se sve do iznenadnog odlaska u sobu dugo zabavljao s izvjesnom gospođom ne krijući svoju naklonost i zainteresiranost za njezine ponuđene draži. Uvjeravala je sebe da su to tek glasine kojima ne treba pridavati poseban značaj. Tek ju je papirić pronađen u džepu njegove košulje s ispisanim imenom Esperanta Gondola, upućivao i na takvu mogućnost, ali u nju naprosto nije vjerovala. Prolazile su godine tišine i osame. Njezina znanstvena karijera nije bila upitna, ali sreća nikako da zakuca na njena vrata. Ljubav je ostala negdje drugdje. Daleko na jugu gdje vjetrovi mirišu na sol i ribe i neke nepoznate eterične biljke

File:Testamentum Gondola.jpg

Sigismondo Gondola

Contradictory dates

Note that the dates in this sentence contradict each other. When fixed, the date format should also be made consistent with the rest of the article (I don't know whether 1.3.1943 is January 3 or March 1, although I suspect March 1).

Between 11.9.1942 and 1.3.1943, (Obstlt) he was commander of regiment in the French Seenotbereichskommando, the city of Cherbourg (Normandía) and the Seenotbereichskommando XIII at Berre/20 km NW of Marseille between (Dec 42 - 19 Aug 44?). Giulius had married Adele Toth de Becsö.

Travisl 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Translate to english

Malvine Ghetaldi-Gondola

Nekoji storoji dubrovacki pisci iz polovine XIX v. a prije toga u XVIII v. historicar Nijemac Kristijan Eugel tvrdili su, pogrjesno, ne znamo na osnovu cega, da je najposijedni Gundulic bio veoma zasluzni crkveni dostojanstvenik biskup Josip Frano Gundulic (Góndola)? Bio je sin Frana Siskova Gundulica i majke ne- Dubrovkinje ( cije nam je porodicno prezime nepoznato). Rogjen u Becu 1711 g. bio je do svoje smrti 5.III.1774 g. zupnik u Probstdorfu (Blizu Beca); nakon sto je bio posvecen za biskupa, imenovan je bio od Sv.Stolice apostolskim vikarom per septemtriomem i naslovnim biskupom od Tempe; k tome je bio i director i profesor becke bogoslovne fakultati.--- Bio je jedan od posijednjih muskih potomaka porodice Gundulica i bas po ocu praunik slavnog nam pjesnika “Osmanide”.

Un ovaj crkveni dostojanstvenik Josip Frano Gundulic nije bio najposijednji Gundulic- to je bio Sisko Dominio Gundulic, onom biskupu prvobratuced. Otac najposljednjeg Gundulica Sisko matej Gundulic, ozenjen Ursulom Frana Getaldica, imao je 4 sina, od kojih: najstarijega Siska Domenika, prije pomenutoga, te jos Frana, Frana i Incacija, Dziva Frana, i dvije kcerli: Katu, udatu, o kojoj ce ovdje biti govora, i Ursula, neudatu. Sisko Dominik Gundulic rodio se u Duvrovniku 6 februara g. 1712, ozenio se Franom Bunicevom 20 januara g. 1754. Pjesniku Osmanide bio je po ocu praunuk (Na temelju Matica zupnog ureda gra Dubrovnika iz XVII i XVIII v.). Ovdje pomenuta Kata, kci Siska Mateja i Ursule Getaldic 20 novembra 1740 god. Sisko Dominik Gundulic nije u svome braku imao potomaka, dok je sestra mu udata Getaldic imala sinove: Frana Augustina, rogjenog 30.XII.1743 g., o kome ce ovdje biti dalje govora, te Siska Dominika, i kceri: Mariju, Ursulu i Mariju Ursulu. Siska Dominika Gundulica dopala je i njega viseputa koja od mnogih sluzaba plemickih u republici, a vrsio je i mnoge druge poslove, sto ih njegov zavicaj davase svojim plemicima. Od carskog Beca dobi on velike pocasti i naslove: carskog komornika (cambelana( carskog dvornika. On se je ovim pocasnim naslovima uvelike ponosio te je uz svoje ime , i uz pocasni naslov grofa (comes) svetog rimskog carstva, uvijek vise manje potpuno ih isticao. Tako kad je koji put prisistvovao u svojstvu krsnoga kuma crkvenom obredu pri krstenju kojeg plemickog djeteta, pa kad je god. 1785 postavio nad onim grobom u kapeli Gundulica u sakristiji Male Brace novi nadgrobni natpis.

Ivan GundulićEvo nas i sa odgovorom na vazno pitanje, tko je bio sahranjen u obiteljoskok grobnici Gundulica u kapeli Trojice (Sv.Trojstva). O tome srecom imamo jesnih biljezaka u pomenutim katalozima registrima ukopa u dubrovakhoj franjevackoj Crkvi. Tu su u prvom od tih kataloga registara zabiljezeni ovi clanovi porodice Gundulica: 1) XII Marinko Gundulic, Isusovac, sahranjen 1.XII.1647 g. In Sacrestia co li suoi parenti. Bio je glasoviti osnovala isisovackog kolegija u Dubrovniku; 2) Dzivo Marina Gundulic, sahranjen 14.VIII g. 1650, in sacrestia. To je bio glasoviti kronista; sin Marina Gundulic i Vice Tudisevic; 3) Marina Gundulic sin Dziva Marinova Gundulic, sahranjen 23. V g. 1659, in sacrestia nel suo sepolcro; 4) Dzivo Marina Gundulic, sahranjen 14.VIII g. 1661, in sacrestia; 5) Don Nikola Dziva Gundulic, sahranjen 15.II g. 1665, in sacrestia nel sepolcro di Gondola; 6) Dom Sebastijan Gundulic, sahranjen 8.II g. 1666 nel sua Capella; 7) Marin, sin Dziva Marinova Gundulic, sahranjen 11.V. g. 1666 in sacristia; 8)Dom Sebastijan Gundulic, sahranjen 29.V.g. 1684, nella Sacrestia Grande nella capella si Sig.ri Gondula; O njemu je zabiljezemo ovdje i to, da je bio ubijen od hajduka kod sela Osonika; 9) Orsat Nicolina Gundulic, sahranjen 21.IV g. 1687, in sacrestia nella Capella di Gondola; 10) Pavo Nokolina Gundulic, sahranjen 14.III g. 1688 nella capella di Gondola in Sacrestia. Nacon skoro 100 godina iza ovog ukopa u onoj cakristiji one god. 1688, sacuvana nam je u drugoj i trecoj biljeska. Ta glasi, da je dana 22 februara g. 1785 preminula te ukopana sutradan Frana rogj. Bunic, supruga najposljednjega Gundulica, Siska Domenika Siskova Gundulica. Ta biljesca glasi u Il knjizi kataloga registara: 22 Fre. O Morj la Sig.ra Madama Francisca Moglie dellÈccelenza Sigismondo Góndola, ed il gior.o seg.te fu sepulta con u solemne funerale nella pro.a capella Della SS. Ma trinita nella proa.a sep.a--- 1785. U Ill onih knjiga bilsjeska glasé ovoko: Febbreio ---- 22 moej Fran(ces)ca Madama dellÈcc.mo Sigismondo Góndola, ed il gior.o seg(uen)te fu sepulta nella Capella della SS.ma trinitá nella proa.a sep.ra---1785. Je li bulo u onoj grobnici ukopano jos drugih osoba iz one grane porodice Gundulica? Sigurno je da ih je bilo, a to su sigurno bili i oni Gundulici, koje smo prije spomenuli, iz XVI Rijeka, a za koje nijesu nam sacuvani katalozi registri ukopanih ( koji su sacuvani od XVII v.) U ovaj grob Gundulica ukopana su i malena.

Marija Ghetaldi-Gondola

....Nabrzo zatim dubrovacke vladike dodu, da se prikazu; caru ih predstavi grofica Giorgi, zena Mihova; carici predstavi vladike grofica Marija Ghetaldi-Gondola, sestra Dziva Natali. Vladari su bili vrlo ljubazni s vlastelom, a kako s njima, tako i sa svakim bez razlike. ( pag 76, Dubrovacke Slike i Prilike, Josip Bersa)

Marginalizacija poræene struje - primjer Ivana GunduliÊa JednoznaËno tumaËenje sukoba vlastele pomoÊu Zlatarova “pro” i “protu” - osmanskog modela u analizi kasnijeg tijeka stalepkog raskola iziskuje bitne modifikacije. U tom je pogledu znakovit sluËaj casate kojoj je pripadao pjesnik Ivan Gundulic (1589-1638). Naime, otac i stric pjesnikov, Frano Ivanov i Toma Ivanov Gondola, svrstali su se tijekom su.enja urot-Anali Dubrovnik 39 (2001) 320 nicima na stranu “Ëuvara Republike” kojoj je na Ëelu bio Marko Bassegli. Na drugu, zavjereniËku tj. “protuosmansku” stranu, koju je vodio Vladislav Menze, stao je njihov ro.ak Jero Franov Gondola (tablica 1).25 U Velikoj je zavjeri, dakle, doplo do rascjepa roda Gondola. Genealogije pjesnikovih nasljednika u vrijeme i nakon agregacije “nove” vlastele potvr.uju pripadnost njegove casate sorbonepkoj grupaciji dubrovaËke vlastele. Sa svojom æenom, Nikom Siska Petrova Sorgo (+1644), Gundulic je imao tri sina. Najstariji, Frano (1630-1700), carski marpal i komornik na dvoru Leopolda Habsburpkog, odstupio je od naËela endogamije oæenivpi se 1674. strankinjom, groficom Oktavijom Margaritom Strozzi, te u Dubrovniku nije imao potomstva. Najmla.i, Mato (1636-1684), s bratom je nekoliko godina proveo u vojnoj sluæbi ppanjolskih Habsburgovaca. Nakon povratka u Grad, Mato se ozenio gra.ankom ali nije imao potomaka.26 Srednji Gundulicev sin Sisko(1633-1682) tako.er se 1668. po drugi put oæenio gra.ankom iz ugledne antuninske obitelji, Katom Jerovom Nale, pto je nepobitan dokaz njegove pripadnosti sorbonezima. 27 Za æivota Ivana Gundulica i njegovih sinova, tijekom biolopke krize i nedovrpenog procesa “krvnog” zatvaranja vlasteoskih skupina, njihova je casata jop uvijek zauzimala relativno znaËajno mjesto u politiËkom æivotu. Naime, i Mato i Sisko Gondola birani su za kneæeve Republike, a sluËaj je htio da su obojica i umrla na toj funkciji. No, sa Siskovim nasljednicima, pjesnikom Ivanom (1678-1721) i Siskom (1682-1758) situacija se potpuno izmijenila.28 Kao sorbonezi, oni su na politiËkom planu drastiËno osjetili 25 Jero Franov Gondola bio je jedan od skrbnika koje je Frano Gondola 1592. ovlastio da upravljaju imovinom trogodipnjeg pjesnika. –uro Körbler zamijenio ga je s Jerom Ivanovim Gondolom, drugim pjesnikovim “dundom” kojemu su posveÊene Suze sina razmetnoga. Usp. Djela Giva Frana Gundulica. (ur. –uro Körbler), Stari pisci hrvatski, knjiga 9, Zagreb: JAZU, 1919: III. 26 O vojnoj sluæbi Frana i Mata Gondole vidi: Mirko DeanoviÊ, ˜Frano Dæiva GunduliÊa i njegov put u Moskvu.« Starine 41 (1948): 7-59. Zbog nedostatka matiËnih knjiga podaci o æenidbi Mata Gondole nisu nam poznati. Da je i Mato, poput ©ipka, bio oæenjem gra.ankom, doznajemo iz jednog od Franovih pisama. (M. Deanovic, ˜Frano Dæiva Gundulica«: 12). 27 Obitelj Nale (Naljepkovic) nikada nije primljena me.u dubrovaËku vlastelu, kako pogrepno navodi –uro Körbler (Djela Giva Frana GunduliÊa: XI). Poput brata Frana, koji se oæenio strankinjom, Mato i Sisko Gondola iskoristili su kratkoroËno vaæeÊe odredbe o liberalizaciji æenidbe kojima su ublaæeni strogi endogamijski zakoni. 28 SlijedeÊi uspostavljenu unutarstalepku endogamiju, pjesnikovi su unuci Ivan i Sisko Gondola, naravno, ozenili sorbonezice Lukreciju Bona i Oru Ghetaldi. I njihova se sestra Nika udala 1697. za sorboneza Petra Franova Sorga, a upravo je njezin unuk bio poznati dopunitelj Gunduliceva Osmana Petar Ignjat Sorgo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragusino (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This articles need to be moved

I saw it had been moved several time by the same user. Now it need to be moved again, according to the Almanac de Gotha and to the international heraldic register, which stated this article in english should have different title.--Theirrulez (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Theirrulez, regardless of whether you are a sock or not, you need to understand what it is you are doing. This is not itWiki. Here we look at English language, not Italian language usage or some source you happen to choose, and "Gundulić" is the English name for this family. That's one thing. The second thing you must understand is that what you suggesting is highly offensive nationalist/irredentist POV which had already gotten a large number of users banned from enWiki. The same users you are likely now in contact with, I might add, judging from some of your posts.

The third point I must make is that, even if you are not an actual WP:SOCK, you are currently acting as a WP:MEATPUPPET for a clique of banned users. That is an actual real breach of Wiki policy, not an honest good-faith mistake you "chose" to consider a "personal attack". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You are keeping on public accusing me to be a sock or a meat puppet. I will notice as adviced before--Theirrulez (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Be certain that you have indeed engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETRY [1] [2] [3] [4], i.e. in "the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus". Feel free to "notice as adviced before." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Country

If Austria-Hungary was established in 1867, how is possible that is the name of a country in which lived family finished in 1800?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.156.61 (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's ok. --93.136.156.61 (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Call to historians who know Dalmatian history

For the 19th century, it would seem that upper class Dalmatians' names and first language were (in) some sort of Romance language. The note in the Gallery section labeled in Croatian is, in fact, written in Italian! Can someone who has the time and knowledge please make this article historically accurate? All articles about Dalmatia are, at this point, Croation nationalist talking points. There can be no doubt that Dalmatia is fully Croatian in governance & culture in 2011. Are some Croations, like the ones conducting a scorched earth campaign over Dalmatia, so insecure that they need to rewrite the facts of history? Tapered (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

--Dalmatians all had italian names, because a) dalmatia was under venice from 1409. untill its fall in 1797. b) dubrovnik was independendt but like the rest of the dalmatia it was under influence of italy and most of nobility studied in italian university's. croatian language was standardise only in the 19th century and it was at that time that the names and surnames of the croatians from the earlier periods were transcribed to their "croatian" form. it is not a 20th century thing. Adriatic_HR (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have references, documentation? Tapered (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Duh! This article has no English language sources. As such, it deserves near-blanking. I'll consider this and probably add a 'lacks credible sources' attachment to it. Cheers. Tapered (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks the name of this noble family (and the related descendency) have been abusively croatised. Absolutely unacceptable. Also because all the sources (including the sources used in the present article!) use the orginal version of the name (the Italian) even for the Coat of Arms. This has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the family. Noble families in Dubrovnik were characterised by a strong duality in terms of culture (Slavik and Romance). The issue here is that it should be used the version of the name prevalent in the sources and definitely the one used by the Herladry. Also some sources require attention, because might not comply with WP. I have started with some obvious modifications, all comments are welcome.--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense [5][6]. This is the English-language Wikipedia, please refrain from "abusive italianizing" of Croatian noble families, to paraphrase your post. That's what's "Absolutely unacceptable". -- Director (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I will request very soon a 3rd opinion, because it looks that you are completely missing the point. The issue is not if those families were Croatian or Italian. The issue is the way they are called. You cannot pretend to use the Croatian version of the name for a noble family whose name in the Coat of Arms is in all sources in Italian.

You cannot sustain your argument just with a Google research. This article is about a noble family. How can you sustain your argument is everything about Heraldry (namely the Coat of Arms) is Italian. Also how can you sustain your argument looking to the origin of this family. Again, this is not an issue of nationality as you want to depict. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Direktor again. You should calm down and realise that even the document reported in the article for the official entry as Count for a member of this House reports the Italian version of the name. Do you realise in this article the very same sources sustain the opposite of what you pretend being true? --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm. You're the one throwing around terms like "absolutely unacceptable" and "abusive croatization". You're also the one missing the point entirely. "Official" names do not concern us, and the issue is NOT what this family was called. The issue is what this family is called. In English-language sources.

I've provided links just above re the most common terminology in English-language sources, all else is immaterial. Terminology is not determined only through the sources actually used in the article, but on the basis of researching all English-language sources in general. "Gundulić" is the English-language name of this Croatian noble family [7]. -- Director (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You have provided nothing else that a research trough Google Books. And by the way the number of sources are actually limited and the ratio between the two researchs if also not that large. And you should perhaps be more concerned of the materiality of the sources used in this article. Indeed none is in English, so I do not see how you can claim the article uses sources proving the English used version of the name is what you pretend it is. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I also know how to use Google books. And could find the following [8]. Direktor, research is work not just a google research. And again, I need to insist that the issue is not of nationality. You look literally obsessed with thing "Croatian thing". I am not discussed if they are or not Croatian. I am discussing about the name. The issue is that you see things in a monolitic way. You should finally realise that the way the name sounds sometime has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm having trouble understanding you.

• @"You have provided nothing else that a rearch trough Google Books." - You mean "search"? Yes, that's called a Google Books Test, and its the method usually used to determine common English-language usage.
• @"And by the way the number of sources are actually limited" - No they are not.
• @"the ratio between the two researchs if also not that large." - At least 2:1, more than sufficient.
• @"And you should perhaps be more concerned of the materiality of the sources used in this article." - What do you mean by "materiality"? I repeat that English-language usage terminology is not determined only by the sources actually used in the article.
• @"Indeed none is in English, so I do not see how you can claim the article uses sources proving the English used version of the name is what you pretend it is." - Again, for the purposes of this discussion, you can forget about the sources used in the article. If none of them are in English, that's all the more reason not to use them as indicative of English-language usage.
• @"I am not discussed if they are or not Croatian." - Neither do I. You're right, that's not the question here, so why are you focusing on it?

I don't mean to be rude, but please pay a bit more attention to grammar. P.s. please be very careful to keep the discussion civil ("You look literally obsessed with thing Croatian thing."). -- Director (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

@Direktor, if as you claim there are plenty of sources put in them in the article. As it is now it is not supported by a single decent source in English. This is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio1973 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to do that, and I won't do it on your demand. English-language terminology is not determined only by the sources actually used in the article. Ok? The alternative is absolutely ridiculous: would you have users engage in a contest on "who can add the most sources", esp. when there are literally thousands?

And I'm not "claiming" anything, the sources have been provided. Begging your pardon, but you appear to be unfamiliar with how these sort of issues are resolved on this project.

You will be reported in case of further disruptive edit-warring, adding your offensive personal remarks about my "obsessions" into the bargain. Your new, highly controversial edits have been reverted, now please discuss. There is no chance whatsoever you will have your way through clicking the "undo" button. -- Director (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I have all the right to report that an article has no sources supporting it if this is the case. And indeed as the article is today, there are no sufficient (indeed at all) English sources supporting it. With the all due respect, have you looked into the article, instead of just restricting the discussion to a sterile nationalism? --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So, would you really be satisfied if I just added some sources from this bunch? Or would this continue afterward? -- Director (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, what I want is to know the truth not to be right. Even if the quest for the truth could be achieved with a Google research, this would not be case. The same research with Gondola instead of Gundulic [9] achieves 901 results vs. 1240 of yours. The difference is too small and a research for quality results necessary. However, the question is different. We discussing for long time about Dalmatia and all parties concluded that for a geographical claim you need a geography book. Well for a claim of Heraldry you need a book on Heraldry (or related topics) and in English because this is en:wiki. In this article this is missing. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And i beg your pardon, but have you checked that your research trough Google books at number 10 warns : "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online."? This raises an issue of WP:CIRCULAR. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Google tests take WP:CIRCULAR into account (that's what the "-Wiki" and "-LCC" are for), but I'll expand that and use "-Wikipedia". Here is a more refined search that also compensates for the "ć" character.

• "Gundulić" OR "Gundulich" OR "Gundulic" Dubrovnik -Wikipedia -LCC renders 3,680 English-language hits
• "Gondola" Ragusa -Wikipedia -LCC renders 1820 English-language hits

This is being generous, too: this is the highest score I could get for "Gondola". In English-language sources "Gundulić" is the term most commonly used. Now you, Silvio, being Italian, may not like it that the Italian name isn't more common - but that's how it is. A 2:1 ratio isn't incredibly impressive - but that's why the name "Gondola" is in bold right in the lead, rather than being disregarded completely.

Now I'm going to add a few references for the name "Gundulić" into the article (since that's how you apparently define "Truth^TM"). Then I'm going to remove your highly inappropriate tag for something that has about 3,500 sources. -- Director (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, you are too expeditive.

• 1) The ratio 2:1 is not only "not impressive", it's indeed not true. Researching with "Gondola Ragusa -Wiki -LCC" I found 2,130 references ; with "Gundulic Dubrovnik -Wiki -LCC" I found 3550. The ratio would be then 1.66. I cannot reproduce your research with 3,680 sources found (can you tell us exactly how you get there), but even if it was the case 3680/2130 = 1.72, less than 2.
• 2) Trough your Google research with "Gundulic Dubrovnik -Wiki -LCC" the first source found is described as: "Books Llc, Source: Wikipedia - ‎2010 - 268 pages - Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online.". These are your sources?
• 3) You cannot pretend to put a picture with a Coat of Arm that is not in accordance with a source. In the sources reported in the article, the Coat of Arms always report the Italian version of the name.
• 4) Aside the issue of the name, there is the general issue of the content of the article. The most of the article has a reference issue, because its content it's not supported by any English source.
• 5) You should give a look to who were the main editors (or better editor) contributing to this article in the past. This should ring a bell about the possibility that the whole article tries to push a POV.
• 6) This family has origins from Tuscany and Trento. All documents describing civil records of this family report the Italian name (indeed some of them are written in Italian).
• 7) Wikipedia does not work like a democracy. We have to look to quality and not quantity (expecially when the quantity ratios are close). It might even be that there are more English sources reporting "Gundulic" instead of "Gondola", but this could be because Croatian scholars tend to write in English more than the Italian ones. This does not mean that the English Academical World on this subject has the same orientation.
• 8) If these arguments are not enough for you, I will request a third opinion. There is definitely enough of room to have everything in the two languages (at least), but clearly you want to have Italian cleared out of the article. No way, there are too many sources supporting it. I am not going to leave the legitimate facts of this noble family falling in the oblivion with more than 2,100 sources supporting it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to enter in this. I've not enough time... only one thing. Ghetaldi is not the Italian declination of the original surname, but it's its modern romance dalmatian form. The original one was in latin and was "Ghetaldus". Here a reference: http://books.google.it/books?id=f-cUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA21&dq=gozze+ghetaldi+%22Italian+sound%22&lr=&cd=2#v=onepage&q=gozze%20ghetaldi%20%22Italian%20sound%22&f=false

In Italy there are not Ghetaldis: http://www.gens.info/italia/it/turismo-viaggi-e-tradizioni-italia?cognome=ghetaldi&x=0&y=0#.UI5Dq29mLlc

The "Gundulić" surname is a XIX century creation, "institutionalized" during Hrvatski narodni preporod. Already there was a discussion about "de Bona" family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Bona

I like the romance form, but I understand that that families are key for Croatian history and only marginal for Italian one.

In my opionion, best title page should be "House of Gondola-Gundulić". --Grifter72 (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

@Grifter72, I appreciate your sense of compromise and could indeed accept a solution of this kind. Indeed accepting this compromise would be already generous because we would accept that the artificial has equal dignity than the original.However, the issue is not about Croatian and Italian, because those families were not Italian (the origins were Italians, but certainly not after 7 or 8 century spent in Ragusa). However, whatever solution cannot we agree, we cannot get into OR, so we cannot create a new name (such the composed one you suggest, unless not used by some scholars). Also concerning the Coat of Arms I do not want to look inflexible but do not expect to name it with the Croatian name, when images and sources use the Italian one. Because this would be clearly OR. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time here, Silvio. By your definition we should rename Republic of Ragusa to "Republic of Dubrovnik" because the most common name in English-language usage "does not impress" someone. At some point it really will become less of a bother to simply report this then to try and reason with you and your irrational perception of The Truth^TM. "Gondola" is a prominent variant of this family name, and it is therefore in the lead, in bold. "Gundulić" is a far more common variant in English-language sources, and therefore is the one we're using primarily. There is nothing more to discuss here, there is only never-ending nationalist bickering. -- Director (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)