Talk:Dubrovnik/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citizens

The aristocracy was of Latin extraction. The population itself was mostly of Latin origin until the 17th century, when the Slavic migrations from the surrounding countries increased.

This should receive a direct reference. It is hard to believe that after centuries of intense contact with surrounding Slavic masses that Dubrovnikans remained of "Latin descent", even if they themselves believed to be so and spoke Dalmatian Hxseek (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There was also a strong immigration stream of Vlachs, and I feel sorry to note, Vlach sheppards were not of Slavic descent, but rather Illyro-romans. Many books and articles are reliable sources.--Deguef (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Language by 14th century was Serbian?

According to recent edits and sources here and at Serbian language#Serbian literature, by the beginning of the 14th century, the mother tongue of the majority of the population of Ragusa/Dubrovnik was Serbian. I don't know if this is true, since this article only mentioned Croatian until today. But the two articles should agree on this. If the claims here are reverted, that needs to be fixed at Serbian language as well. And if they aren't reverted, then yay! a Serb/Croat issue that doesn't result in an edit war. I'm basically retired, so I leave it to the editors here to take care of it. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Languages of Dubrovnik

For nearly a millennium Latin was the official language of Ragusa. In the 15th century, after the demographics of the city began to change due to increased Slavic immigration from the Balkans, the Latin and Italian character of the city began to be threatened. As a result, in 1472 the Slavic language was banned in Ragusa in favour of Italian. The Italian language remained the official language of Ragusa until the end of the republic in 1807.

T. G. Jackson, Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, 1887

".........The Italian spoken in Dalmatia before that time was not the Venetian dialect; in some parts it had a distinct form of its own, in others it resembled the form into which Latin had passed in the south of Italy or Umbria, and it was only after 1420 that it began to assimilate itself to the Italian of Lombardy and Venetia. At Ragusa it never became Venetian at all, and to this day resembles rather the Tuscan dialect than any other, while the patois of the common people is a curious medley of Italian and Illyric, with traces of rustic Latin, Vlach or Rouman...." T. G. Jackson, Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, 1887

".....At the present day, at Cattaro or Spalato, along the Dalmatian coast-land on each side of Ragusa, you hear the Venetian dialect; at Ragusa the language is pure Tuscan=italian. St. Blasius, and not the lion of St. Mark, adorns the mediaeval walls and gates of Ragusa...." Sir Arthur Evans, Through Bosnia and the Herzegovina on Foot During the Insurrection, 1877

".....“Ragusa is built in the Italian style, and assimilates with the Italian towns, both in the customs and language of its inhabitants.......” Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, Volume 23, 1845

".........It is to the Latins of Dalmatia that we must look for evidences of culture and intellectual progress, and not to the Slavs. ... Ragusa, the Dalmatian Athens, has sometimes been held up as an example of Slavonic culture, but this is only partially the case, for the history of Ragusa is uniformly that of a Latin rather than a Slavonic city. The public acts were recorded either in Latin or Italian, never in Illyric, except in case of correspondence with a Slavonic power...." T. G. Jackson, Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria, 1887...."

Lead too short?

What significant events from the body are not mentioned in the lead and why should they be mentioned? Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There are too many problems with the lead. The section doesn't adequately summarize key points from the body and doesn't mention many significant events (WP:MOSLEAD). I think we should add some information about the early history and the oldest settlement or other archeological findings, then the Byzantine protectorate period, Siege of Ragusa, Venice's sovereignty period, and the Treaty of Zadar. Extremely significant events are omitted, such as Napoleon's invasion, siege, the abolishing of the Republic of Ragusa and annexation. Furthermore, the incorporation into the Austrian Empire and Yugoslavia should be mentioned. After the sentence about tourism, I would also add that the city is a popular filming location, and especially known for the Game of Thrones. There is also the WP:CITEKILL issue, but references can surely be removed from the lead. --WEBDuB (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

First if you want to have a civil discussion you need to stop edit-warring. Please stop edit-warring. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WEBDuB I read somewhere in your post that it bothers you the most at the top of the article of Dubrovnik about the article Siege of Dubrovnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Dubrovnik . Do you want it to no longer write about the suffering of that city and to cover it up and erase history because you don’t like it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.87.219 (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really surprised by the overreacting and accusations. It’s not ok to label other editors (WP:AVOIDABUSE), and previous messages look like WP:PASSIVE at best. Assuming good faith is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. I think we really need to work together in a synergistic manner to improve the articles. I don't want to remove anything, but to complete and get better the important section. This city really has many important events in its thousand-year history, and I'm sure that you will all agree that the lead doesn't correctly and proportionately summarize key points from the body. There was no such thing as an edit war, the template was returned because it was unexplained removed even after the problem was clarified at the talk page. I've never had any doubt that we could have a civil discussion.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Then please stop edit-warring. You have started an edit-war, which shows a clear bad faith on your part so please don't do that again. Info about GoT and SW can be added to the lead. The lead already mentions the Republic of Ragusa, the article is not that long and this is the article about the city of Dubrovnik and not about the Republic of Ragusa. So what, you want to add that after R of Ragusa Dubrovnik was first part of Illyrian Provinces then Austria, then Yugoslavia and then SR Croatia? That is completely unnecessary. Again this is not an article about the Republic of Ragusa. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you're doing this. This is not an example of good cooperation at all. I will not resent and get into argument, I'm here to work and contribute according to the rules. Most importantly, the current version violates WP:MOSLEAD and WP:UNDUE. The lead section doesn't represent an adequate summary of the body. For example, we should look at the Zagreb and Split articles. The Republic of Ragusa period is an integral part of the city's history. Why is it included in the article to such extent? The lead should only summarize what the article says, and not let us choose arbitrarily.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There is my proposal, according to the WP:MOSLEAD:

The history of the city probably dates back to the 7th century, when the town known as Ragusa was founded by refugees from Epidaurum (Ragusa Vecchia). It was under the protection of the Byzantine Empire and later under the sovereignty of Republic of Venice. Between the 14th and 19th, Dubrovnik ruled itself as a free state. The prosperity of the city was historically based on maritime trade; as the capital of the maritime Republic of Ragusa, it achieved a high level of development, particularly during the 15th and 16th centuries, as it became notable for its wealth and skilled diplomacy. At the same time, Dubrovnik became a cradle of Croatian literature.

During the Napoleonic Wars, Dubrovnik was occupied by the French Empire forces, and then the Republic of Ragusa was abolished and incorporated into the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy and later into Illyrian Provinces. The city was besieged by the Sixth Coalition during the Adriatic campaign. During most of the 19th and 20th centuries, Dubrovnik was a part of the Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia. In 1991, after the break-up of Yugoslavia, Dubrovnik was besieged by Serbian and Montenegrin soldiers of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) for seven months and suffered significant damage from shelling. After repair and restoration works in the 1990s and early 2000s, Dubrovnik re-emerged as one of the top tourist destinations in the Mediterranean, as well as a popular filming location, especially known for the HBO television series Game of Thrones.

--WEBDuB (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Great start and a vast improvement over the current version; I don't have anything to add at the moment. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a "great start" but an end. Also one or two sentences can be removed, but let's leave it like it is now, as I said before, any further additions are unnecesary. --Tuvixer (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What is this? Removing a comment from an IP idiot just because, what, aca srbin was really WEBDuB past username? --Tuvixer (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Fake Celtic etymology

The article has contained this for a while now:

There is also dubron, a Celtic name for water (Gaulish dubron, Irish dobar, Welsh dŵr, dwfr, Cornish dofer), akin to the toponyms Douvres, Dover, and Tauber, which can also explain the name.

I can't find a source that actually says this, so I'm removing it as WP:OR that conflicts with sources that specifically discuss the etymology of the word. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Croatia and modern Dubrovnik

I've altered the first sentence, and the first paragraph accordingly, to reflect the nation status of Croatia at the top of the article. It seemed odd to simply describe Croatia geographically as a 'semi-enclave' there. I also note the lack of references to modern Dubrovnik. See Bruges for example. I might come back and insert some detail in due course. Emmentalist (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)