Talk:Fausto Veranzio/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Fake sources

These two sources Made in Hungary: Hungarian contributions to universal culture and do not mention Fausto Veranzio but Faustus Verancsics (Hungarian name version). So, Theirrulez & co please do not re-insert them [1]!!-- (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fake? What do you mean? It's a good source. I add it to give a source supporting also the Hungarian (or Hungarized Latin if you prefer) transcription (Faustus Verancsics) of his name. Where's the problem? --Theirrulez (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. I would repeat that the more "scientific" way is to rename the article with the latin name. The count of Google is not a practise proper to an Encyclopedia (personally I would be ashamed to say that Wikipedia uses this rule). Please see this article Nicolaus_Copernicus and see how this author should be managed. I know that we are speaking about a minor scientist who is not Copernicus, but I will say you that the English culture would like to use latin. --Ilario (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be just a compromise, Ilario. We cannot create naming convention on Wikipedia just to avoid making somebody unhappy. We had to point what's the name used in English language. You see, Nicolaus Copernicus, even if is a Latin name, is above all the name adopted for him in English.
Well we know that Faustus Verantius (a Latin form) it's not used in English, so we had to understand what was the most common English name, examining the more large number we can of reliable English sources to determine it. And you see, we reached almost easily the goal. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree and I agree that we must justify the most correct use of the name in English using valid and scientific sources and not Google. In the other hand it is very difficult to match the nationality of this person in the current countries because someone says that he's Croatian, some other that he is Venetian and some other that he's Hungarian. The use of the latin name seems to me the more neutral solution for a disputed denomination of the article. The use of Faust Vrančić or Fausto Veranzio or Faustus Verancsics is a position of Wikipedia about his nationality. We know that Wikipedia cannot be a primary source and cannot take a position about a disputed problem (in few word if we use the Croatian name we must justify with well defined sources that his nationality is Croatian). For this reason if there are not clear sources about the correct version of the name in English, it would be better to take an undefined position and choose the latin name like happened for Copernicus. In consideration of his ecclesiastic state (Latin is the official language of Catholic church) and of different and scientific books written in Latin by him, it seems to me an acceptable compromise. Wikipedia keeps his neutrality and the disputes about the nationality can be done in the article's body. --Ilario (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not agreeing with you again Ilario, you are moved by noble principle of neutrality I know. There's no nationality in pre-national era. If we use a most common English name which sounds Italian it doesn't mean we can say he's Italian. He wasn't Italian, he wasn't Croatian, Hungarian or whatever. He was, per sources Venetian with a not very sure Bosniak ancestry. This is what appear in the article, and I think it's very neutral.
English sources say his English name is Fausto Veranzio, so we'll probably use this name. English sources say he was Italian, Croatian sources say he was Croatian, some other sources, more properly stated he was Venetian, and all sources tell he was born in the old Sebenico, corresponding to the modern Sibenik, a Dalmatian town that time (and for centuries) in the Republic of Venice. So we should write, preserving wikipedia neutrality, he was from the Republic of Venice, (neither Croatian, nor Italian) born in Sebenico, exactly as we did. Theirrulez (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is fake because it does not support italianized name version (Fausto Veranzio) It writes:

and sources 2 and 3 speak about Faustus Verancsics. Therefore they are suppossed to be moved to proper place!!

Wrong. It seems tht you have a different perception what is English speaking world. You seem to be big fan of Cato the Elder.Because you try to use his methods in convincing people.Repeating ,repeating and repeating... and no mather how many time you reapeat it it will not work.Beacuase it is not true.Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:22, 2 June 2010

Hi Mr IP from Split. I invite you not to modify other users' comment. I also invite you to take a look to Talk:Faust_Vrančić/List of sources for trying to understand what sources say. We don't have to convince each others while evidence can help us. Theirrulez (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Some remarks from the sideline

First a suggestion, regarding how the sources are listed on the /List of sources page. Why not just move the sources in dispute to a separate section for sources that use the Hungarian spelling? Then you can talk about what that means.

Ilario, hi. You mention above that you'd be sorry if Wikipedia uses Google hit counts to determine article titles - I have good news: We don't. The relevant policy says that we use the name that's most commonly used in reliable, English language sources. Those are the same sources that we try to use to write the article. Wikipedians often try to determine this using Google, in a variety of ways, and it has varying degrees of success.

In this case, I'd say that Google numbers are close to useless, because the subject is just obscure enough to the English-speaking world that there's not a firmly preferred English spelling for his name - quite unlike Nicolaus Copernicus, whom every English-speaking high-school student learns about in science class. Our Mr. F.V. is not written about in English nearly as much.

It's precisely because of this semi-obscurity that I suggested compiling a list of articles, so we can really take a look at the literature and see. It would be good to see how much English literature is out there using the Hungarian spelling of his name, don't you think? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC) If only we could find some sources that use a German version of his name, then we'd have all of the quinque linguarum in the running!

What is at stake in this edit?

[2] I've seen the top paragraph flip-flop in precisely this way 20 times. I've only just now noticed that the page is protected, apparently in part because of this dispute. Can someone please explain what is at stake?

I'm just talking about the first paragraph in the article. The same reference, to "The Hungarian Quarterly" keeps jumping from the beginning of the lead paragraph to the end and back again. Why is this contentious? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an edit warring between who doesn't want to bold the name Fausto Veranzio and who does. When I did it, I move some footnote-references next to the name to which they refer, so "The Hungarian Quarterly" slide down after the name Fausto Veranzio and after other sources. Then, after first reverting, people start editwarring not careing of right sources poistion. --Theirrulez (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It takes two to edit-war. Why not leave it in whatever state, and discuss it here? Document why it should be one way and not the other. If you can do that, then I'll make the edit, and if it's documented and supported by consensus, it will stick. The trick is to never revert back, but to come straight to the talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course. May I have some time to give some points to discuss? --Theirrulez (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course. It will be nice to get the article unprotected, so people can edit again. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I don't care about children crying. So GTB let me work it out: do you remember four point stated above on which there should be a reasonable consensus? If you agree are still valid. Talking with Ucucha he suggested to duplicate Travels into Dalmatia in the references list (using {{cite book}}) and to add the same footnote each family member using Harvard citation ("Op.Cit.") and indicating each time different page numbers.
Can you add in references or in footnote this source? It shows, in several resolutions available, quite 40 designes (among 49 total plates) of Machinae Novae with the original captions and a modern explanation of each machine illustrated. --Theirrulez (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The page was protected due to User:Theirrulez edit-warring over his insertion of the name from the proposed move. I'm pretty sure WP:MoS says we should use the name from the title, and not two names simultaneously? Isn't that about right? And if I recall correctly, this "experimental" behavior was instigated by User:GTBacchus, who also promptly dismissed any objections to such edit-warring during RM discussion... Farcical. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR, I formally invite you to offer your apologies to GTBacchus. You should note your above insults to GTBacchus may be reported. - Theirrulez (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not need his apology. I would like for you to stop commenting on his behavior. Don't threaten to report people, just refocus the discussion on edits. I don't matter; I don't exist. The encyclopedia matters, so please, be single-minded in talking about edits, and not editors. Can you do me that favor, Theirrulez? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah,the problem is not how many people vote for certain option. The problem is what they offer as evidence. And ten supporters just offer their opinions ("I have heard that") + inserting invalid sources' that do not support Italian name version in leading paragraph which all seem to ignore.here78.2.188.74 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There are not "votes" on Wikipedia. If sources are "invalid", then please move them to a more appropriate section. The list of sources is for everyone to edit and make better. Even more than that, if you know of more sources using the Croatian name, then please add them to the list, so we can all see them. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
That's just it - the fake list is not "evidence" in any way. Simply because it does not even come close to covering anywhere near the hundreds of English sources on this person, not to mention that nobody ever agreed this would be the means by which we were to determine anything. This "redux" is an attempt to circumvent previous consensus concerning this move. I get the feeling these users will just keep posting requested moves until they have their way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I just think there's an unhappy editor (with a bunch of SPA and IP) who is commenting on the borderline of personal attack, harassing and stalking every user who posted a supporting comment and canvassing or votestacking to reach his nationalistic goal. - Theirrulez (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I will be very happy if DIREKTOR is right, and if someone makes that clear by doing the very easy work of demonstrating the existence of more specific sources. DIREKTOR will thank that person, I'm sure. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that Theirrulez is more interested in combatting DIREKTOR than contributing to a discussion. In this section alone we have all manner of full frontal assaults on the man, rather than the ball. Meh AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi AlasadairGreen, are you still harassing me? Do you remember this pearl by you, or this one by Direktor, or again this another one? Here is a RM so stick to the topic and please be serious about who is interested in combatting who. --Theirrulez (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move redux

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

The result of the move request was: when overlooking !votes that refer only to the hearing of one name over the other, consensus seems clearly in support of the move to Fausto Veranzio, with all points considered. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Faust VrančićFausto Veranzio — The above move request got a bit too big to make sense of, and spilled over onto the rest of the talk page, a new subpage, and the article itself. As discussed at User talk:Arbitrarily0, I'm opening a fresh request to reflect the outcome of all the above discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note the following
This is a discussion of how this article should be titled, based on a consensus-backed understanding of our naming policies. To help inform the discussion, we have a subpage:/List of sources. Anyone with knowledge of additional sources may add them to the list at any time.

Please keep in mind that the contents of Wikipedia, including article titles, are determined by consulting reliable sources regarding each subject. That means that the title of the article will not be determined by any kind of vote, nor will it be determined based on who takes which position, or what they may have said or done previously. Therefore, please focus your arguments on content policy, and on improving the encyclopedia. GTBacchus(talk) 01:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The most evident thing, about sources reliability, pertinency and neutrality, is that every single scholar hits of Faust Vrančić is from Slavic authors and strictly belongs to Croatian historiography school (plus a very large number of Crotia Travelguide), while all scholar hits of Fausto Veranzio are from English authors, mainly academic sources, most of them about non history-related or non history-influenced matters, witnessing his predominat use in scholar and scientific English.
For further details see
  • Support as nominator - Based on the sources I've seen, it appears that F.V. is written about as "Fausto Veranzio" in a significant majority of reliable, publised English-language sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per GTBacchus, Gun Powder Man & Salvio giuliano. Fausto Veranzio is the more appropriate name for the article. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as explained in other points of this page. --Ilario (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Basing this move on the list of sources compiled primarily by one side of the debate is biased, and nothing short of fraudulent. Available sources about this person number in the hundreds and thousands [3][4], not in the dozens. The list in question quantifies not the representation in sources, but the amount of effort users of one side were willing to invest into repetitive labor (without the agreement of the other side). Selective representation of sources via this non-agreed upon list is the method used by one side of this debate, and covert e-mail CANVASSING seems to be another, taking into consideration the coordinated response by all supporting users. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The best way to correct any bias in the list would be to add sources to it, until it is more reflective of the literature. Right now, this seems to be the best picture we've got. We can only work with research that's actually been done. (By the way, are those links what you intended to post? They show results in the 300-400 range for each of the two spellings.) -GTBacchus(talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • (When I click on the links they show results of about 700 hits for each.) I'm sorry, but it seems pretty obvious that the method itself is flawed in its conception. As I said, it quantifies not the representation in sources, but the amount of effort users of one side were willing to invest into repetitive labor (much in the same way as article-editing). The list is "important-looking", but essentially meaningless in terms of WP:COMMONNAME. As for alternative methods, I can't think of one - but then I'm not proposing the move. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
        Well, I'll admit this: The encyclopedia is eventually written by those who bother to do research. There's nothing we can do about that. If there is a wealth of sources using the Croatian name, then either someone will bring them forward, or else they will be ignored. None of us can help that, except by doing actual research. While you may call it "repetitive" labor, DIREKTOR, it's how encyclopedias are written.

        If you would invest one fifth the amount of time and energy into actual research that you quite willingly invest in arguments on this page, then you will have done more research than anyone else here. So far, you've chosen not to contribute in that manner, but rather to argue, with thousands and thousands of words. Don't be surprised when people who have done actual research aren't impressed. One fifth. Think about that. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

        You can call the copy-pasting "research" if you like but it does not change one fact: unless the list actually includes at least some six hundred sources (per the minimum Google Books hits) - its just a monument to one really fun way to spend time on Wiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
        Your claims are dubious. You say there are 600 sources using the Croatian name. Then, spending far less time and energy that you have, you can back up that claim by producing, say, 20 of them. Right now, I don't believe the Google numbers, on either side. I believe in the existence of sources that I can actually see. Since the Croatian ones are more numerous, producing 20 of them should be far easier and more productive than arguing with me, or with Theirrulez.

        What are you trying to do, and is it likely to work? If your goal is have this page named "Faust Vrančić", the only reasonable way to make that happen is to pony up, and list some sources. Failing that, the evidence all points the other way. All it takes is a tiny bit of work, and we'll all believe you. Until you show us, we won't. Evidence wins; get some. One fifth. Do you really prefer to do something harder than research? That's what you're doing now. Why not take the easy route? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

        Look, let me be perfectly clear: I do not take your orders. You are the nominator of this move and you've decided to start ordering people around to "play by your rules or else!"? I'm frankly struggling to believe my own eyes reading this. "Pony-up"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you don't get to come here, propose your RM, write up a fake, non-representative list and start decreeing that if people don't do as you say and expand this list of yours, then they're wrong and you're right. Appalling. Are there more than 250 sources for "Veranzio"? Because I can find you a place where you can search this high-tech database and find at least 250 English sources on Vrančić... [5] The list is: 1) non-consensus, 2) utterly meaningless in the context of hundreds of sources on this issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Comment, since I edit mostly sports biographies, I do respect allways the original naming of the person, by that meaning that I respect the language version of the name that was in administrative use in the time of the persons birth. By that, as I understand, and unfortunatelly for you direktor, most of these names were originally in Italian. That gives me personally another reason to vote the way I did in this move request, besides the mentioned. FkpCascais (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Firstly, the original (historical) name has no bearing on the issue, which you should know if you intend to work on biographies a lot. Secondly, even were it relevant, the original historical name of this person was certainly not in Italian, but Latin. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Manipulatory, Direktor, because wrong, of course. Was Venetian: "Fausto Veranzio". And you can easily get from Abbe Albert Fortis, Travels Into Dalmatia, 1758, original text (in English), first (and only) primary source about the entire Veranzio family. The Venetian language, very similar to the Italian, was the language spoken by millions of people in the entire Republic of Venice and a sort of "Lingua franca"' for the entire Adriatic. - Theirrulez (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Fkp, let me stop you right there: the "original" or "historical" name is not relevant in naming articles. Lets not waste energy on it... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support — having read the whole sorry saga above, I formed the opinion that 1) there is only one main opponent to this move; 2) that opponent failed to contribute to the evidence collection set up by the umpire; 3) then blamed the umpire. The arguments by Theirrulez very early in this discussion (#An analitic approach) are convincing; I haven't seen anything comparable from the opponent(s) of the proposed move. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • 1) Since when do we differentiate between the "main" and "insignificant" participants or disregard users on the basis of some personal estimate of their "main-ness"? Am I the only one opposing the move? :P 2) The "evidence collection set up by the umpire" was, by the man's on admission, an "experiment" and had no bearing on the notability of this person's name. 3) Yes I did blame the "umpire" for trying to effectively force participants to edit the article and falsely claiming this is significant for the move process. I do not kiss-up to people in hopes they'll do what I want them to do - I openly say what's on my mind. I feel honest straightforward criticism can only benefit both Bacchus and Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is an experiment. Get used to it. I never admitted that the source-finding exercise "had not bearing on the notability of the person's name", as your above sentence could be taken to mean (there are two readings). Quite to the contrary, our policy is that names of articles are based on reliable sources, and I've seen a lot more reliable sources using the Italian name. If, as you claim, the Croatian name is more common, then you have to prove that, because nobody believes it right now except for you. How will you convince us? By far the easiest way is by simply taking a few minutes to find 20 or 30 sources, whose existence you allude to. Since they're so numerous, you will find them very easily. Then we will all believe you. Right now, you haven't presented evidence for your claim, and the other side has. Google numbers are not evidence, but actual sources are. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is an experiment"? Well this is news to me. Oddly enough WP:EXPERIMENT redirects to the What Wikipedia is not policy. Here I thought we had these "policies" and that going around them isn't encouraged. You may not admit that that which you misleading label a "source finding exercise" had a no bearing on notability - but the obvious fact is it doesn't.
    Its the darnedest thing, this RM. The nominator comes along, writes his few dozen sources, and orders people to "pony up" and do what he says or the name of the article will be changed. One question, User:GTBacchus: who from the other side of the debate ever agreed to this list of Googled sources was to be the method of determining notability? Or did you, as mentioned previously, decree this yourself? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per GTBacchus, Gun Powder Man & Salvio giuliano.-- (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Both are neologisms, but the Italian translation is older and more common in English speaking countries.--Grifter72 (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The name Faust Vrančić is the most common in English . And canvassing will not change that.Neither censorship by some users can change that!!-- (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    Can you please provide evidence of your claim in the form of actual sources? If the Croatian name is indeed more common, I would like for that to be made clear. At present time, it appears that the Italian name occurs in many more sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    The evidences are already provided.Google tests etc. If you have no wish to see them- your problem!-- (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    I have a strong wish to see them, but I've done the Google tests, and I've looked deeper. Several of us spent some time locating and identifying specific sources, and the results can be seen on the /List of sources page. If there are specific sources that should be on that list and are not, then I hope very much that someone will add them.

    We know that "Google tests", i.e., simply looking at the number of hits, is a terrible and inaccurate measure of usage. As for whether I have the wish to see sources, I bothered to obtain articles about Vrančić via inter-library loan from libraries in Europe, and I've used one of those sources to add content to the article. What have you done? Where is your specific evidence? We all know that Google tests are rubbish, so pony up and provide specific sources if you want anyone to believe you.

    If, as you claim, the Croatian spelling is more common, then it should be very, very easy to locate 20 or 30 of them. Do you refrain from doing so our of laziness, apathy, or some other reason? The bar has been raised. Are you up to it? If you're right, the work is very easy to do. Why not do it? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

    User:GTBacchus, you seem to constantly insist on one thing: that people play by your rules. I suggest that you reach consensus on any more of your new methods of sources gathering. As for your list, I don't think I counted over 250 sources for "Veranzio" there? Are there more than 250 sources for "Veranzio"? Because I can find you a place where you can search this high-techy database and find at least 250 English sources on Vrančić... [6] The list is: 1) non-consensus, 2) utterly meaningless in the context of hundreds of sources on this issue. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    Ok. You have two options, no orders. Do what you like, and see what happens. Or, do what I suggest, and see what happens. Your choice. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    You know what that sounds like? It sounds like "edit the article or I'll move it", except its now "edit this list of mine that I fancy or my buddies will move the article". More subtle, more indirect, but pretty much the same thing. It sounds like you're all but threatening and manipulating people into "playing by your rules", as it were.
    How can I make this clearer: the list is fake, unilateral, and non-representative. Since its misrepresenting sources, one might even call it deceptive and fraudulent. Why in the words must I copy-paste text there? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm done with this conversation. If you have complaints about me, I truly hope and wish that you will take them to the appropriate venues. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    @DIREKTOR, after your incessant stalking, your canvassing, votestacking and trolling, if I was you I would take a look to Administratotr's noticeboard: Fausto Veranzio move.
  • Strong support. In my 30 some-odd years, I have heard of Fausto Veranzio, but never heard it as Faust Vrančić. Now, my "hearing" means nothing, but as per GTBacchus, etc this is more common. Please, do not turn this into some form of nationalistic argument: there will still be a redirect, and his name as Faust Vrančić will still feature prominently in the article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree completely. Your "hearing" means nothing... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Not again. Never heard for Fausto Veranzio.--Ex13 (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. This "redux" is little more than an attempt to circumvent the previous lack of consensus on this move. The list that User:GTBacchus bases request on is 1) his own non-consensus personal pet project that has been rejected by the other side on the grounds that it is pointless to copy-paste hundreds of sources, and 2) a completely arbitrarily collected bunch of sources compiled by ONE side of this debate that has absolutely nothing to do with representing the common name in English sources.
    Anyone with half an IQ point can easily surmise that if the publications describing this person number in the hundreds and thousands, copy-pasting a few select ones is utterly irrelevant - even if it wasn't the non-consensus personal project of a few users from just one side of the debate. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, why don't you be less stalking, more respectful, and a bit less unhappy if you can? - Theirrulez (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Since there has not been any new evidence introduced recently, I'll repeat my previous comment: This is a tough one but, putting aside nationalist arguments that really don't have much applicability to figures from the prenational era, "Fausto Veranzio" seems to be used more often in relevant quality English-language sources. Opposition to a move seems to rely mostly on mixed search engine tallies that can rely on more dubious sources.AjaxSmack 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the english name is more common. Duh- just look it up on google scholar or google books- it's not a matter of being just slightly more... it's like 90% or more in the serbocroatian name rather than the latin/italian name. (LAz17 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)).
    Can you please provide evidence of your claim on the /List of sources page? If you're correct, then the page shouldn't move, but all the evidence we have so far points the other way. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    Why in the world should anyone do so? What difference would three or four or even twenty sources make - there's hundreds of them. Hundreds. You may think what you like, I refuse to participate in pointless charades on principle. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment-Support. This new "Requested move redux" was from the begining made to be moved to a new name. A user (GTBacchus, please don't take it personally) who thinks that a new name is more appropriate, is also deciding about an outcome of a move proposal. So I guess this "Support" means nothing. I didn't want to take a part in this new move proposal at all, but since my name is mentioned here, here it is...Kebeta (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Slowly canvassing is taking place. --Theirrulez (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Theirrulez, can you explain who canvassed me for support? Kebeta (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I prefer explanation here, so I copy-pasted your edit from my talk page to this talk page. You still didn't explain anything. Last time I voted "oppose", and now I voted "support". DIREKTOR voted "Strong oppose". How did he canvassed me for support, when I voted support? And another question, why did you invite user AjaxSmack (see here), and you did not invite me? It seams to me that you are attacking user DIREKTOR, for something that you did?!? Kebeta (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we please stick to the topic at hand: whether the page should be moved — support or oppose. No new arguments have been forthcoming, despite all the verbiage above. I count 2 opponents: DIREKTOR,, and 10 supports: BTBacchus, Gun Powder Ma, Salvio giuliano, Sir Floyd, Ilario, FkpCascais, Michael Bednarek,, Grifter72, Bwilkins. The last votes were posted on 11 June. How much longer is needed? I think it's time to act on those votes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's too early for counting; the customary seven day will elapse on 16 June 2010. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, best sneak this past everybody as quickly as possible. :) If I'm not mistaken, its a five day minimum, and the discussion is not "over", in spite of any "proclamations" to the contrary. I see no conceivable reason whatsoever to ignore votes of users already involved in this discussion. Its 3 opposed, 10 support. And I imagine once everyone gets wind of this new "quick-vote", the ratio might change rapidly. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
At least some more it seems. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per GTBacchus and Salvio, per sources and per WP:UE. And even because Fausto Veranzio is the original name. -Giuseppe Phoenix (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Never heard of Fausto Veranzio. -- (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I have seen some people count votes and whatnot. This is completely irrelevant. They could get 100 people saying "oh I don't like it how it is", or "I want to put a finger into the eyes of croatins"... Well, it just so happens that this is not a vote. One first needs to understand this, [[m:Polling is evil. (LAz17 (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)).


Note these messages:

Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's second time he did canvassing and votestacking. It need to be reported. - Theirrulez (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Theirrulez, are you sure you should be saying anything here? You condemning "canvassing" in any way seems a little inappropriate, don't you think?
All those folks voted on the previous discussion, and since it looks pretty obvious this "redux" was posted in order to sneak the vote past the opposing side, it is perfectly appropriate to notify other participants in this discussion. Note: the messages were completely non-partisan, and addressed only those users who had already joined the consensus-building process. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It's votestacking my friend, if you send invitation to only partizan users (opposing vote) is votestacking or fraudulent canvassing. Theirrulez (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
is it? Don't hesitate to report me at once. I'm sure I'll probably be indeffed for notifying users engaged in this discussion. As for "partisan", I got the impression virtually everybody from the other side of the debate already voted. In fact, they all voted virtually simultaneously, almost like some strange mysterious electronic postal service might've been used to notify every "suitable" user to push this through past consensus. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You have an impression, but assuming good faith you should be able to fade away your doubts. What you did, instead, is evidence, and is very deprecable. - Theirrulez (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Theirrulez, you would do well to never, ever use the phrase "bad faith" on this project. Please refrain. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC) ---- Done, Theirrulez (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Friendly notices becomes Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking the moment when users are only selectively notified. In this case, Wikipedia:Canvassing#Responding to disruptive canvassing applies. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you think so. Have you read my post? All supporting users had already voted, and in a suspiciously simultaneous manner I might add. Interestingly enough, virtually the only users oblivious to the new RM were the ones opposed to it - so I notified them in order to ensure a full consensus is reached and that this blitzkrieg RM does not go completely unnoticed by all users who had already voted against it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Not true. All supporting users had already voted? Why you didn't advice Retaggio, AjaxSmack, Harlock81, Sarah desan, Giuseppe Phoenix, and others? No excuses when there's evidence. --Theirrulez (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I was going to comment on here, but my personal life has taken me away from Wikipedia for a few days. That being said, will these votes even count for anything? I see nothing wrong with the page now, both languages are shown, please stop arguing (though I know that last part will be in vain.) --Jesuislafete (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the votes count now. Apparently our previous discussion was useless and its all this redux based on an utterly meaningless list compiled by the two users that proposed these RMs... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

March 2011

The parent section was referenced in the latest edit war so I figured I should mention that I for one don't see much consensus at Talk:Fausto Veranzio/List of sources, but I don't actually mind the move. It's a well-known pattern that existed in those times - the people with "odd" Slavic names had their names morphed into the lingua franca of where they went, and that's a historical fact. However, I dislike the edit war pattern as such, as well as various efforts to misinterpret this WP:RM as Wikipedia:Consensus or as nothing relevant... One of the most egregious things I noticed was the above discussion being used as a blanket permission to say silly things like "Dalmatian vernacular in particular Chakavian dialect" => "Dalmatian language". The two are simply not the same, look it up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The "list of sources" is silly. Plain and simple. And should not have been used as evidence of COMMONNAME under any circumstances. The one responsible for this nonsense title is the admin User:GTBacchus, who essentially came here and decided to play god with the little warring "newbies". The move "redux" is a second move proposal. The first move proposal is in the archives and turned out no consensus. During the first move, the admin actually attempted, believe it or not, to solve the move through some silly "race": the side that expands the article most with sources that use their preferred name - wins. I told him outright that is blatantly against policy and that I detest being treated in this way, while the Italian side of the debate "played along" with the nonsense. The admin even admitted he was "experimenting". Of course, the move was rejected on those grounds.
Not to bear a grudge, User:GTBacchus after a while posted a "move redux". Now, about the "redux":
  • It was based on User:GTBacchus' and User:Theirrulez's little "list of sources". The list that, of course, is NO way to determine common usage since it displays only a tiny fraction of the sources, but it was also compiled only by one side of the debate, my having refused to participate in another useless and ridiculous "experiment" that has no bearing on WP:COMMONNAME.
  • However, not only did in the redux all move-supporting users vote for the move almost immediately for some "mysterious" reason, but I was attacked for notifying other users from the previous move discussion.
This whole affair is ridiculous, and the title should be returned to its original version - Faust Vrančić. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


I have read this huuuge drama filled page, and while I don't necessarily agree with the change of the article's name, there is really no need to call the town he was born in Sebenico. By that logic we should replace Venice with Venezia. (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But cited sources use Sebenico, which was contemporary, unlike Šibenik, which only appeared in modern times. Venice, not Venezia, was also used in English contemporarily with Veranzio/Vrančić and appears in English sources, — AjaxSmack 04:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
It's true that Šibenik had been under Venetian rule for ca. 139 years at the time of Vrančić's birth. Yet, its original name was Slavic, ever since it was founded over four centuries prior to that. This whole idea of sticking to the imposed Venetian name even in reasonably trivial context reminds of Italian irredentism in Dalmatia and that's why Croatian people complain. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Fausto Veranzio

Hi. The result of the requested move was Fausto Veranzio, the Venetian name. That means we follow the conventional view that he was a Venetian from the Venetian Republic. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I removed what I thought was one near duplicate sentence and then saw another beneath it - almost identical except one sentence has Venetian names and the other Croatian. Can there be some consensus on this that means the article doesn't remain prey to nationalist reverting. Is this "conventional view" a WP policy somewhere?Fainites barleyscribs 23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Even more than policy, it is logic. The community decision to go for the Italian name implies that VF's identity as a Venetian from the Venetian Republic has been accepted as opposed to the Croatian reading. Calling him by an Italian name, but insisting that he was foremost a Croatian from Croatia would be absurd, wouldn't it? So it has to be Fausto Veranzio, a Venetian from the Republic of Venice. This was also quite explicitly discussed in the renaming discussion above. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not actually logical. If you think that the above decision implies that, then we need to have a new decision-making process that clarifies this issue. I would certainly take issue with an interpretation that presents him as uniformly Venetian, when it's abundantly clear from his work that he had roots in the then-Kingdoms of Croatia and Hungary that he himself honored in no uncertain terms. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And, it looks like I need to repeat what I said above. You cannot equate a reference to "Dalmatian vernacular - Chakavian dialect" with "Dalmatian language". Read the linked articles and it should become obvious why not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am referring to the lead which ran "FV was from Croatia (then Republic of Venice)". If you want qualifications such as these to be included feel free to notify all voters and set up a new discussion, but in the light of the past discussion it is clear that community consensus was to stick with the Venetian interpretation, not the Dalmatian (not to mention the Croatian which is again different from the Dalmatian). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I may be treading on nationalist feelings here but I don't see a problem with saying someone is from the Venetian Rebublic and giving the generic venetian version of the name for the article and then describing him as a Croatian and giving the Croatian names for his family/home town etc. Doesn't seem remotely illogical to me. Happens all the time. That's why I was asking if there was some policy on this.Fainites barleyscribs 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You have examples of this? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't specifically talking about wikipedia. Rory O'Connor is called Rory O'Connorif that's what he was called at the time. Not Ruari Ó Conchobhair. That's why I asked if there was a policy. If there was it would solve everyone's problems.Fainitesbarleyscribs 09:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Various details

According to M. D. Grmek, Verantius, Faustus (also known as Fausto Vrančić or Veranzio)

  • he died on January 20, 1617.
  • He had joined the Barnabites in Rome (not in Venice), got seriously ill and intended to return to his native Šibenik, but did not make it any further than Venice.
  • His Dictionarium was published in 1595, but the Machinae Novae only in 1615 or 1616.

--AHert (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Veranzio and his parachute - did he jump?

We are asked to believe that this man, former secretary to Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, former diplomat, bishop, polymath, inventor and finally member of a brotherhood, at the age of 65 and sick to death was crazy enough to climb all the 50 m (160 ft) to the Campanile's loggia and then jump down? For comparison: Louis-Sébastien Lenormand was 26, when he jumped in 1783, and André-Jacques Garnerin was 28 at the time of his jump in 1797. Even if Veranzio was not sick and still going strong, I could not imagine him jumping. And I haven't yet discussed the details: was the parachute large enough to slow down a man's fall? How did the jumper get the appliance from the loggia into the air and himself under it without making the frame to tilt or collapse? If a modern parachute requires a hole in the center to stabilize the air flow, how could Veranzio's parachute be kept in an even position? In my view, his jump is just an early urban legend. --AHert (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavic or romance name for the family?

I made a very quick research on Google Book and does not look that Draganic-Vrančić is more used than Draganic-Veranzio in English sources. Indeed I did not find a lot of sources for any of the two variants. I could not find any reference asserting this family was Croatian.Silvio1973 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be Vrančić...even in his Dictionary he calls himself Vrančić, not Veranzio, and refers to "our Slavic language". --Bojovnik (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I wrote I did not find any English source. Obviously Italian sources use the romance variant, and Croatians use the Slavic.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


We have an apparent contradiction in the text, discussing whether Wilkins, in Mathematical Magick, did or did not document Veranzio's testing of a parachute, here:

"Fausto Veranzio is widely believed to have performed an actual parachute jumping experiment[16] and, therefore, to be the first man to build and test a parachute: according to the story passed on, Veranzio, in 1617, at over sixty-five years of age, implemented his design and tested the parachute by jumping from St Mark's Campanile in Venice.[17][page needed] This event was documented some 30 years later in a book Mathematical Magick or, the Wonders that may be Performed by Mechanical Geometry (London, 1648) written by John Wilkins, the secretary of the Royal Society in London.
"However, in his Mathematical Magick, John Wilkins wrote about flying and about his persuasion that flying would become possible.[18] Persons jumping from high towers and methods for slowing down their fall were not his concern. His treatise does not even mention the name of Fausto Veranzio, nor does it document any jump by parachute or any event at all in 1617.[18] No evidence has ever been found that anybody ever tested Veranzio's parachute.[citation needed]"Fconaway (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course it's a legend. A parachute like the one conceived by Fausto Veranzio would have never worked. 18:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Silvio1973 (talk)
It worked. There are texts and images in which he was using his parachute which is predecessor of modern parachutes. -- (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)