Jump to content

Talk:Gundulić family/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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 [1][2]. 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 [3]. -- 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 [4]. 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 [5] 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.
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 "TruthTM"). 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 TruthTM. "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)

Direktor, you want to push me to be blocked. Clearly you refuse any discussion and consider yourself in the right to make OR to the point to create a Coat of Arms that do not exist. It looks there is no other option but reaquesting a third opinion. This is very sad, expecially from an administrator. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous nonsense dispute in quite a while. What "OR"? There are at least 3,500 thousand sources that use "Gundulic", probably more.
And what coat of arms? Who cares about who made the coat of arms? I can make a 10-times better .SVG Gundulic coa that does not have "ITA" in the title, what would you say then? Are blue and white stripes with a red bar somehow inherently "Italian"?
And yes, I will request sanctions for this disruptive POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


@Silvio1973: Please dont be confused by amount of data that mentions Gondola name instead Gundulić name. Main reason for that is research available data that mostly comes from italian sources. I hope that rest of data which will be used by historians, will be from croatian sources and then amount of italianized names of croatian nobles/family names will get in real numbers. That number should be around 10 : 1 and higher in croatian favour comparing it to some studies (non related topics) made by croatian historians. Reason why that data from croatian sources is not in studies of many historians is in accessability of data, which coorelates with existance of SFRJ and that most of data from that time period is not in state arhives (its in monasteries and church arhives). --Domjanovich (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Silvio1973 is not confused at all, and simply prefers the version in his native language. To that end he is aggressively edit-warring to remove from the article sources indicating the common usage of the name "Gundulić" [6], and is introducing an absurd double name formulation ("Gundulić/Gondola") contrary to all MoS guidelines [7]. He calls it the "original name" and does not understand that, even if that were the case, its not relevant. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny Google research

Direktor, you have qualified of ridiculous my modifications. Well, you have just put on the article a google research with a result of over 15,000 English-language publications with "Gundulic -Wikipedia". In the 15,000 publications we have an Australian vessel, a source in Cyrillic, a jazz festival organised in Gundulic square by MTV, a story about a Public Health Report on a steamship in 1902, another vessel on Lloyd's register of shipping and God knows what else. Ah Ah Ah Ah, thank you. You gave me a true moment of fun. However I have done the same exercise with "Gondola -Wikipedia" and found the ridiculous result of 1,280,000 publications. Of course this does not demonstrate anything. These two "researchs" are real rubbish, but at least I am not trying to demonstrate you that this is science. If you want to put in the article in a Google research, put something serious and you will get around 3,000 results with Gundulic and around 2,000with Gondola.--Silvio1973 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

3rd opinion requested

As announced above, I have formally requested a 3rd opinion on this matter. This is somehow regrettable because I believe there was ground to find an agreement but unfortunately this has proven to be impossible. I have never been blocked and I want to keep a clean personal record, so I prefere to ask for the mediation of a third person and avoid an edit war. I don't know what there is of disruptive in requesting a third opinion. The organic matter of the dispute is very simple. User Direktor consider the use of the Croatian name of the noble House of Gondola/Gundulic in Ragusa/Dubrovnik should be preferred because the most common variant in English sources. I have contested this argument on the following grounds:

1) Google research with "Gondola Ragusa -Wiki -LCC" gives 2130 references, "Gundulic Dubrovnik -Wiki -LCC" gives 3550. The ratio is 1.66 therefore it is not possible to speak of prevalent variant. It is necessary to look about the quality of the sources.
2) The Google research with "Gundulic Dubrovnik -Wiki -LCC" give as first a source 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.". An issue of WP:CIRCULAR applies on some of the 3550 sources.
3) There is an issue of WP:OR about the alleged "Slavik version" of the Coat of Arms of this House. All existing sources (including the ones cited in the article!) shows the Coat of Arms of this family named "Gondola", but in the article it has been drawn a Coat of Arms named "Gundulic". I have requested, without getting satisfaction, to see a source supporting the article in the current state. Instead my modification has been reverted.
6) This House 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). The name has been croatised in the XIX century and many sources supporting the Croatian version of the name are Croatian, hence a potential issue of conflict exists.
7) The article today cites briefly the original Italian name of this House. For the rest of the article only the Slavik versions are presented. This is in contrast with the sources currently used in the article (many of them are in Italian) and raises a classic issue of WP:UNDUE.
8) If really there are so many sources supporting the Slavik variant of the name for this House, why they are not cited in the article? As it is today, the most of the sources report the Italian version of the name. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah.. that's all either plain untrue, or irrelevant. Wow. It looks like I'm really going to respond to all that in detail..
  • "1)" and "2)" - Not true.
  • A proper, detailed Google test has Gundulic OR Gundulich -Wikipedia -LCC rendering in the neighborhood of 19,000 relevant, English-language sources, practically all referring to this noble family or its members.
  • Whereas Gondola Ragusa -Wikipedia -LCC renders about 2,100. And that's the most generous result I could get in researching the term "Gondola" as referring to this Ragusan noble family (as opposed to a gondola).
In fact, no matter how you turn it [8] - "Gundulić" is always distinctly more common in sources.
  • "3)" - Irrelevant (and just plain strange). The coat of arms User:Silvio1973 seems to be referring to, File:Coa fam ITA gondola.jpg, is an unsourced own work by an Italian Commons user. I assume the file is probably accurate in depicting the coat of arms of this family, but what kind of bearing that image has on the subject of this family's most common name in English-language sources - I could not even begin to fathom.. perhaps Silvio1973 is confused by the letters "ITA" the user at Commons included in the title. I myself honestly couldn't say.
  • "6)" - Irrelevant. What the ancient origins of this family were - is completely irrelevant for this discussion. The issue is the most common terminology in English-language sources. The British Royal family is German in origin, for example. According to this user, we should be talking about Prince Wilhelm von Saxe-Coburg und Gotha.
  • "7)" - Not true. WP:UNDUE has absolutely nothing to do with anything here. In fact, policy explicitly recommends the consistent usage of one name throughout the article. I'm struggling to understand what the "logic" of this point is supposed to be, but it appears that according to Silvio, we should perhaps use "Gondola" in 36.3% of the article? And Gundulić in 73.7%? Would that be fair? :)
  • "8)" - Irrelevant. As has been pointed out repeatedly to Silvio, we do not determine the most common name only by the sources that are actually quoted in the article. In fact, the very idea is absurd: according to Silvio, we should right now be in a source-adding competition. The one with most time on his hands - wins :). But, nevertheless - fine. Sources have been added to the article.
This just looks like nationalist POV-pushing to me. Silvio just really really likes the name "Gondola", and isn't content with it being displayed as a prominent alternative name in the lead ("Gondola"). Most likely no amount of sources and argumentation will be sufficient to shift his position, and this will probably end in annoyed admins handing-out sanctions. -- Director (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's leave to the mediator the task to decide if my claim is really that irrelevant. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
That irrelevant - and more :). And also untrue, much of it. Silvio, one can never be certain, but its very likely noone is about to arrive. That happens very often.
Certainly no "mediator" is going to arrive. That's not what WP:3O is for. -- Director (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • General notice. Please note that Silvio1973 (talk · contribs) has thus far simply "rejected" all search engine testing ("solving this matter trough a Google research is of nil interest for me" [9]), and has instead embarked on a campaign to pointlessly clog the article with excessive sources for the surname ("Gondola") which has consistently in every research effort turned out distinctly less prominent than the current title. The user is apparently of the belief that, by adding as many unnecessary sources as he can for his italianized version of the name (from the thousands available), he might somehow mislead any would-be participants or 3O volunteers by creating the impression that "Gondola" is more common in English-language sources. I surmise this from the (barely-legible) note the user inserted into the "date=" parameter of the {{POV}} template he added into the article. -- Director (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Again Direktor, I am no longer open to take any provocation. But I do not want to be blocked, so I will not react to yours. I have kindly requested a 3rd opinion ans since yesterday I have stopped reverting any of your modification. You can do whatever you want of this article and of my edits. You can even delete all of them.
I have posted exactly as many sources as you on the article (7 I think). That's all, I will not put any more sources.
I believe that a Google research is not the way to solve this specific matter, because a Google research conducted correctly does not show a susbstancial difference in the number of sources between the Italian and the Croatian version of the name. I believe we have to go trough the sources and have an open discussion on the content of them. Honestly I prefere to spend my time going secondary sources in order to get more knowledgeable on this topic rather than leaving this task to Google. This does not mean that I "reject" all search engine testing, but only that in this specific instance this is not appropriate. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You are engaged in excessive over-referencing. I added five references for the one name, which was already excessive, and then you added an additional nine. This is against guideline recommendations. We should both leave at most three of the highest-quality references (in ref links "1" and "2"). On this project, in-line references are not used to show prevalence of one term or another with sources in general.
Also, if you're going to use the Harvard SFN format, please use it properly. -- Director (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Noble family (link).
Not a noble family. (link)

Silvio1973, the link you've introduced into the article presents sources that have nothing to do with this noble family. They talk about actual gondolas. The sources quoted in the preceding link are all referring to this noble family or its members. Your insertion of the claim into the article that the sources from the first link, the ones talking about gondolas, are "relevant to the usage of the name 'Gondola'" is actually nothing short of spiteful, malicious WP:VANDALISM of a Wikipedia article.

I repeat: the sources from the link are relevant to the usage of the name "Gundulić". The ones you inserted are not relevant to this article and this noble family. They're talking about gondolas. Kindly remove them. -- Director (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, you're ignoring this. Tomorrow, if the gondola nonsense is still in the article, this is all going up on a noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
It is nice to wake-up and found that my counterpart has started to accuse me of being a malicius vandal. Perhaps, accusing the counterpart is the way commonly used to solve conflicts in your part of the world. Well, I am unfamiliar with such approach. I hope a mediator will make his/her way to this discussion, because I start to feel genuinely intimidated.
Dear Direktor, has I have already well precised above this "+Google research" I have put in the article it's not intended to be of support to any claim. Indeed, I have added to the article with purpose this research, because this seemed the only way to make you understanding that you are proceeding incorrectly, in the respect of the form and the matter.
1) Form: the article itself it's not the place to report the results of a Google research to support a claim. Such things have their room in the Talk page.
2) Matter: you insist saying that the over 15,000 publications found trough your google research are relevant to sustain that Gundulic is used in English sources when speaking of this noble House. Let's go then trough the first 80 results of your research (the number corrsponds to the position of the alleged source as listed in your link).
2: Source in Croatian
11: Gundulic is a vessel chartered in 1981
All from 19 to 34: Sources in Croatian
35: Source in Serbo-Croat cyrillic
All from 36 to 75: Sources in Croatian
77: Source in Croatian
Indeed, only a limite number of sources on the first 80 are in English, the others are Croatian. And I have no doubt that in Croatian the form Gundulic is prelavent. However, going more trough the list I have found a Jazz Festival, a Health Medical Report, another vessel and God Knows what else.
Making the research in a proper way we reduce the results to around 3500 for Gundulic and around 2100 for Gondola, but some sources for Gundulic are Wikipedia mirrors.
CONCLUSION: Please fell free to remove my "Google research" as long at the same time you remove yours. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes some of the 19,000 hits are probably wrong. Even the most careful research has false hits. What can I do? - I entered the English language filter. There will be Italian-language hits in your searches as well. This is why the claim in the article isn't 19,000 hits, which is the actual raw figure - but 15,000, a more reasonable approximation (even according to the supposed number of false hits you list up there). And yes, we most certainly can add Google Books links to the article. You saying we "can't" - is just you talking.
The bottom line is the link I added is helpful, relevant, and provides readers with a huge number of sources on the Gundulić family and its members. Your addition is just a bunch of links on gondolas. It is the most obvious and textbook WP:VANDALISM of an article, which is being used to try and blackmail other users to remove helpful and relevant data ("remove your addition or I will WP:EDIT-WAR and won't let you remove this WP:VANDALISATION"). Its really just incredible stuff. Deliberate introduction of completely irrelevant data - I assure you it is WP:VANDALISM.
I personally thought you were far more reasonable than this, Silvio. Gondolas?? Please, please don't make me bother admins with this stupid affair. Please remove the nonsense link you've added. It is completely incomparable to the previous link in terms of relevance. This is really my last appeal. I'm starting to look stupid here, actually begging you to remove complete nonsense from the article. -- Director (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, I must believe that you also think that here we are not selling tomatoes. You tell me : OK 19,000 it's probably wrong, I adjust for 15,000 because I know there is no perfect Google research. This way of proceeding is wrong. Do you realise that? We need to go trough the sources and to their quality. I have very serious sources and I am adding them to the article. Let's discuss serious sources vs. serious sources instead of leaving to Google the task to decide how are things. I am removing both google researchs (yours and mine) from the article. They have no room there. I hope I have managed to make the discussion return to normality. And again, let's discuss of individual serious secondary sources. At the end of the day this is the way Wikipedia should work. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then how about I remove the number from the ref? -- Director (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'll play along with you turning this into some kind of "source-adding contest". I restored the link to the remaining sources, but without any "tomato seller" numbers. Please bear in mind, I don't know how you folks do it at itWiki, but on this project we do not determine the most common term in scholarly sources solely by the sources actually in the article at any one time. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact is classic WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You're not about to change the WP:COMMONNAME by clogging the article with more sources (from the thousands available) than the other guy :).

I myself am under no circumstances prepared to allow you to impose some new "criteria" of your own whereby you might disregard thousands upon thousands of sources. -- Director (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, you cannot link to 19,000 of souces claiming they are English, when 80% are not. Please give a look inside your Google research. I have reported you above that most of the sources are not English. What do you want more? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The "80%" figure is an incredible, demonstrably absurd exaggeration.
  • With the search in question, the English-language filter is used. The filter is not perfect and does include some few Croatian-language sources among the vast majority English-language publications. That's not my fault, and I can't do anything to further refine the search in that respect. Your searches have few Italian-language hits as well.
  • That is why the text you removed [10] does not make the claim that these are all English-language sources.
The link, as information relevant to the article, must be included. -- Director (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, take a sample. I don't know, the first 200 sources and see how many are not English. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
That is not necessary. Its obvious to anyone that the vast majority are in English (the English filter is on!). And the text you removed does not claim that all sources in the link are English-language sources.
I am curious as to whether you'll simply ignore this post altogether? Or will you just respond without acknowledging it? -- Director (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, I am not going to discuss anymore. I asked for a third opinion and now I will wait patiently for it. If you even do not take the pain to check the sources that allegedly support your claim, I don't see why I should convince you to do so. Do of this article what you want, perhaps a third opinion will clarify things.--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ragusino's gallery and masses of illegible text

Galleries of random images such as that one are strongly discouraged by WP:IG. I removed it, while including some of the images into the article.

There are currently in the article huge masses of unsourced, badly-spelled, and near-illegible text by the banned User:Ragusino. They should probably be deleted wholesale. The trouble is - this gibberish constitutes most of the article. We would be practically blanking the thing. -- Director (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue (the article looks today an unsourced soap-opera) and I hope we will jointly work on it when we will have solved this issue about the names. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say it will probably be very difficult for us to cooperate in future, Silvio. Your extremely aggressive nationalist edit-warring and POV-pushing on this article, where you have repeatedly entered controversial changes without talkpage consensus and against opposition is highly inappropriate behavior. Had this been a less-obscure article, I estimate you would already have been blocked. -- Director (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, you qualify my edits of disruptive and POV-pushing but have you realised that during the last 24 hours you have been posting a Google Research for English sources that you claim being relevant and indeed it's not. And I tell you exactly what is wrong. Do you not even take the effort to check into what you post. On the first 70 sources of your Google Research: two are not relevant (a vessel) and 50 are in foreign language (mainly Croatian) and more precisely sources: 2-10-19-20 and all from 23 to 69. It make 52 on 70 = 74%. Is this serious? Have a cup of tea and think about it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Do not attempt to patronize me, please. You just throw out figures without any regard to whether they're correct or not. These numbers of yours are ridiculously, demonstrably false. The publications you consider to be "Croatian" are Gundulic's literary works who'se title is in the original form. And even if they were to be disregarded, its still a minute proportion. The English-language filter is on, Silvio. These are, by and large, English-language publications. -- Director (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, go in the books and see in which languages they are written. I have provided you the exact number of the contested sources. Get into these and convince yourself. Direktor, you are missing the point. If you want really to be right you need to go trough the sources (if you have the time and the will to do it) and not leaving to Google this job. Research is work. And again and for the last time: I do not contest the double identity of this House, I contest that so little of their Italian specificity is left in this article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Get this please: I do not need to justify to you my addition of relevant links to this article. The link includes thousands of sources on this subject and is relevant to the usage of the term "Gundulić" and thsi article in general. There is no basis whatsoever for your removal. Yes, it includes some false hits - all Google searches do. Every single one, including yours. What you need to understand, is that that your reasons for removing it are completely irrelevant. Its basically spite and malicious deletion of sources. -- Director (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Gundulić/Gondola"

The "Gundulić/Gondola" formulation you added to the infobox is, to use your words, absolutely unacceptable. The "Gundulić/Gondola Family" does not exist. Only one name can be used. This family's most common name in English-language usage is "Gundulić". Whereas the alternative name has a place in the lead per MoS, and also has a special category in the infobox. There is simply no way this "Gundulić/Gondola" POV nonsense can remain in the article.

There is no "fair representation" of names. On this project, we use the most common name throughout, and list alternative names - as alternative names. There always has to be a primary name which is used predominantly. Not an equal share or some other nonsense you feel would be "fair" because you're Italian and you like the Italian name. This is general Wikipedia practice, and its done for the purposes of clarity and avoiding confusion. Not a single article uses two names equally, or even near-equally, for its subject matter.

The bottom line is that there is no "Gundulić/Gondola Family". I hope you realize I am being the gentleman here and refraining from following your example. Anyone can WP:EDIT-WAR just as much as you can. If I get the impression you're just fine with me wasting efforts on the talkpage while your POV nonsense is up on top in the article, I shall resort to more aggressive means. Do not ignore talkpage posts and discuss productively. -- Director (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I do not like the Italian name because I am Italian. But I do not like your attitude of Croatian possessivity. You cannot claim something is Croatian because a Google research sustain it, without even going trough the sources. I did not know a lot about this topic but I am progressively learning going trough the sources and I realised the use of the Italian version of the name is frequent in many reputable sources (that I am progressively listing) such as foreign English or American Universities. Solving this matter trough a Google research is of nil interest for me and for the Wikipedia community, expecially when the Google research for English sources contains mainly Croatian sources (as yours and everyone mediating in this dispute will confirm this) or English sources from Croatian authors. And if there will be no mediation I will leave to you the possibility to be the unique dominator of this article. This is very sad, indeed but sic stantibus rebus.--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Please remove the cockamamie "Gundulić/Gondola" format. It is unheard-of, and its not how we treat alternative names on this project. -- Director (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Slivio? Are you there? I will not be drawn into any more of your edit-wars, and this matter will be up on WP:ANI. Will you please show me you can be reasoned with and remove the formulation you entered? Will you restore the the MOS-appropriate infobox headings you altered without consensus? -- Director (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

Hereafter the first 7 lines of the article. If this is English I am Queen Victoria of England. Indeed going trough the text gave me some real fun. It's like listening someone drunk. I wanted to correct some of the text, the issue is that I really don't understand what the editor wanted to say...

Originally from Lucca, the family arrived in Dubrovnik around 930, with the King Pavlimir, in the Gelcich`s book Die Zara-Zeitung (Smotra Dalmatinska). The name "Gundulić" is derived from the Italian word Gondola, which in turn came from Greece - it was of xovbu (vase à boire), as said, or xouvrexac; (barque). As an important contribution to the Gundulić biography but this may not be official pedigree here passed over. Completed he was ex tabella Veterinary antiques from conservata towards the end of the 17th century. In 20 April 1693 by the Secretary of the Ragusan Republic, Michael Allegrettus, on behalf of the Rectors and the Great Council (Consilium Maius) confirmed solemnly. When the first Gundulić; Silvanus was called, then Prior cognominato Petrus, continuing a Priore (Rector) Conte Savigno. The first annual provision of a name with the number 1024. In 1162 Luccaro is mentioned, and for the XII century; Signore fondatore Giovanni di Jacomo out in huge branches on both sides. spreads from the trunk (only male members significant), whereas the XVII century: the element of the villages of the province of Brescia and Ceto Morignone. (Knight. Geogr statist-Lexikon, Leipzig, 1895.) --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's Ragusino's nonsense. As far as I am concerned, feel free to delete illegible gibberish on sight. -- Director (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Domjanovich

Dear Domjanovich, I own you an answer. I will try to as brief as possible. And will take the opportunity to explain exactly my arguments.

1) A Google research is useful to show only the global prevalence of one variant of the name. In that sense the version Gundulic is more relevant, still I have been unable to reproduce Direktor's result. When I went trough the claimed over 15,000 results found by Direktor I realised that many references were in Croatian. Perhaps the filter was not active, I don't know. The only thing I could do was to take a sample of found references and demonstrate they were not English. This was unheard.

Indeed I have searched in Google books with "Gundulic Ragusa Dubrovnik - Wikipedia -LCC" and the filter on English on and found 1810 references [11]. With the same filter I have researched "Gondola Ragusa Dubrovnik - Wikipedia -LCC" and found 1100 references [12]. The ratio is 1.6, not impressive in favour of "Gundulic". Such a proximity in terms of relevance would suggest the we need to look for the quality of the sources, but indeed this is really necessary for another reason that I am going to illustrate.

2) The use of the Romance of Croatian variant when dealing with individuals should be determined on individual basis based on secondary sources analysis (in terms of quality first and marginally in terms of quantity is really the quality is the same). I would never refer to the Croatian poet Ivan Gundulić as "Giovanni Gondola" (this would be historically incorrect, an inacceptable POV to use Direktor's wording). For the same reason I believe that "Frano Getaldić-Gundulić" should be called Francesco Ghetaldi-Gondola (or Frano Ghetaldi-Gondola). The reason is that the duality (Croatian and Italian) of the Gondola and Ghetaldi-Gondola families was very strong and each individual contributed differently to the two cultures (Romance and Croatian). This reflects in the abundance of the respective sources supporting one version of the name instead of the other and can be easily checked treating each individual separetely. It will require a lot of work (and a lot of separate discussions), but it's the correct way to do it. Otherwise we decide on the name to be used for someone living in the XIX century on the basis of what is decided for his ancestor living in the XVI.

On the other hand when referring to the Houses the romance form should be preferred. A deeper (but brief) analysis of the sources shows that when dealing with the Houses the most common used form used in English sources is the romance. As Grifter72 wrote above, the same discussion was made in 2010 around the House of Bona [[13]] and the conclusions were exactly what I am suggesting to do here. With the House of Gondola we are exactly in the same situation.

Please note that even Ivo Perić (Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti), in his books used the romance variant of the name when referring to Francesco Gondola:

I hope this clarifies. In the meantime, the only thing I can do is waiting for a competent third party. Unfortunately, so far I have been unable to make my arguments heard.--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have two Getaldić-Gundulić coats of arms one below the other in this article? Is it because one is Italian and has "Ghetaldi-Gondola" on it? -- Director (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, because the first one is a drawing from a Croatian contributer. The second one is the scan of a secondary source and (surprise, surprise) it uses the Romance variant of the name as everywhere when we refer to the family. You cannot pretend that a drawing from an user has priority of being published that the scan of a secondary sources. This would be OR. Of course you can delete this evidence, untill a third competent party will not realise what you have done to the article.--Silvio1973 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


@Silvio1973, first of all I like effort you put in explaining just one thing in this article. But all Directors and all yours or anybody else Google searches dont put things in right place and make confusion over the right way to deal whith problem, a problem you constructed/made it (dont get me wrong on this) on wrong conclusions from visible data that google/e-books/italian made sources give in such way that Director see one thing and you see other. There is a mountain of data related to this House name that is not visible on any web search and probably wont be visible on web for long time. This is not first time that something like this due to absens of all data on given theme, wikipedia Users get wrong conclusion and try to push POV that is not correct. Sorry, but in this case you are the one that is wrong, not Director. I think it is not your fault, you have just been mind cluched by data available to you. I would like that every data you want gets in article and as time passes by that data gets changed because of available info so that you could see you were wrong and same would make your heart/mind calm. But, I belive that is not going to be possibile. --Domjanovich (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

@Silvio, you need to acquaint yourself, and acknowledge(!), how this project is written. To put it roughly, it is written according to modern-day, English-language sources. The terminology these sources predominantly use is the terminology of Wikipedia. Now, WP:SETs are most certainly not perfect, but they're probably among the best tools we have to solve these sort of disputes regarding what the sources predominantly use and do not use.
Most importantly, we simply can not equally use two or three different-language names for the same thing in an article. Alternative names should definitely be included, but they should not be used interchangeably (and haphazardly) with the main term. Especially if that is merely to satisfy a sense of national pride (as, if you'll please pardon me, appears to be the case here). -- Director (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Villa Ghetaldi-Gondola in Dubrovnik

Since I have been on Wikipedia this is the most incredible dispute I have been involved. The evidence of what I claim are strong but I face the solely fierce opposition of one user, because so far almost no-one else has been involved in the discussion.

Another example: Villa Ghetaldi-Gondola in Dubrovnik is claimed being Getaldic-Gundulic by Direktor. Well this source at page 47 : [14] call this historical protected building as "Ghetaldi-Gondola". This document is an official urban plan of the City of Dubrovnik. To test more this fact I have searched on Google "Ljetnikovac Ghetaldi – Gondola" (Mansion Ghetaldi-Gondola) and found 1,980 references [15], of course with most of them being Croatian. I made the same researcg with "Ljetnikovac Ghetaldic – Gundulic" and found only 1 reference [16].

Again, searching on Google with "House Ghetaldi-Gondola" I have found 5,690 references [17]. As I am claiming from almost a week, everytime we refer to the House of the Gondola and Ghetaldi-Gondola (their family, their Coat of Arms, their residencies, their noble titles) the owerwhelming majority of sources use the Romance variant of the name (even the Croatian sources). I can only wait more for my arguments to be heard.

In the meantime I have modified the caption of the image with the actual name of the monument but I believe Direktor will revert the modification even if it is sourced.--Silvio1973 (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You are simply refusing to acknowledge how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not use multiple different-language names for the same thing in article text. We use the most common one. I'm reasonably certain that if more people were actually here, they would be telling you this too, rather than agreeing with you (against policy and guidelines) that the "official" or "original" name should be used in half the article or whatever it is you are actually advocating.
As you say, you may be absolutely certain I will continue to revert your sporadic introductions of different versions of the same name throughout the article. All versions of the name are sourced, but the one that is "more sourced" is the one that we should use consistently in the article.
And if that is indeed the Getaldić House (as your new caption says), rather than Gundulić, then it is not related to the subject of this article. -- Director (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
You have just removed the image of Villa Gondola. You ignore or remove all the evidence that is against your arguments. In this article you are having exactly the same regrettable attitude you had with House of Bona and that time in the end it was found you were wrong. But you insist in extending the use of the name Gundulic to everything because this is the most frequent name trough a Google research. But this prevalence is due to Ivan Gundulić ans cannot be extended to all othe members of the families and to the families themself. However, I will not modify the article because now I feel intimidated and I am too scared to be blocked. I will just continue to accept passively your attitude, because I believe the time for a fair decision will come.
By the way the House pictured in the article is denominated House Ghetaldi-Gondola in Gruz as clearly said here [18] at page 47. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not "remove all the evidence that is against my arguments". I removed that image because you apparently applied a wrong caption to it: you called it the "Ghetaldi House" (see for yourself), which would mean it was wrongly featured here (by Ragusino) on the House of Gundulić article. I replaced the G-G coat of arms because its a poorer-quality, black-and-white duplicate of an image just above it.
But I said all this already in my edit summary and on the talkpage. Please try to improve your English communications skills, as you apparently often do not read posts and edit summaries, and/or simply ignore that which you find more difficult to translate. This is by no means the only such case.
I have the exact same "attitude" in all issues of this sort. That is called consistency. I was not "wrong" on that article, I simply let it go. Mostly because the article probably isn't notable enough for Wiki anyway. But we will not discuss me in general here, please.
The relevance of this family, and its inclusion on Wikipedia is probably mostly based on Ivan Gundulić. There is absolutely no basis for excluding him from research. -- Director (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, take care of your communications skills instead of mine. You let it go on that article because insisting with your modifications you would have been probably blocked. Yes, you are "consistent" : you believe to be right all the time, even when you are not. However, the inclusion on Wikipedia of this family is certainly mostly based on Ivan Gundulić but this cannot impinge on the validity and prevalence of the sources supporting facts that are distincts from Ivan Gundulić. Each fact has to be supported by related, relevant sources. In this precise instance you insist in changing the name of two Noble Families, of thier residencies, the names used for the Coat of Arms, the names used for the entire descendency across 300 years and used to award their nobles titles, because there is a prevalence of sources calling for Ivan Gundulic and not for "Francesco Gondola". Again, I can only hope a competent third party will judge your "consistency". --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Every fact needs to be supported by sources, certainly. That does not mean, however, that we change the names every time we use a different source. This is a very small article, but can you imagine the confusion that might cause on larger articles? Nazi Germany is maybe a good example: many sources cited there refer to the state as the "Third Reich" or "German Reich" or "Greater German Reich", or even "Hitler's Germany". Yet we only use "Nazi Germany" in the article, because it has consistently been shown to be the more common (and not much more common either, mind you).
A third party has arrived, but you have begun to ignore the user just as you generally ignore me (now that you do not like what he has to say). You say I refuse to consider the possibility that I am wrong? What about you? Setting aside this farcical affair, you still have not changed your position on the Dalmatia article either, you simply withdrew. -- Director (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia works with rules. There is a 3O request pending on this article. The article is currently under dispute (and by the way I will briefly and neutrally write around what). If user Domjanovich wants to be the mediator of this dispute, he/she is welcome. As you know, there is a usual procedure to conduct a 3O and I would welcome him to conduct such mediation. About Dalmatia there is nothing to change. The article for me is today fairly balanced (albeit, a lot of sourcing is still missing). It could be better, but the main object of remaining discussion is today between you and another user. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This is also something I told you already: there are no "mediators" with WP:3O. WP:3O is a user arriving and giving his (third) opinion.
So again, that's something I told you before. And, once more, you are not responding to my above post, but going on about something completely different you want to say. This is disruptive behavior, Silvio. Please discuss by taking into account what other users are saying. Please acknowledge and respond to my point above: the fact that we do not use many different names for the same thing on Wikipedia articles. -- Director (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we need to use always the same name for the same thing. But not for all the things. You are extending the relevance of Ivan Gundulic to facts that are unrelated to him. You seem to ignore that those families (Bona, Gondola, Ghetaldi, Cerva) and many of their members referred to themselves with the Romance form of the name. This for a number of reasons indipendent from me and that you know very well. Bring proof (i.e. English secondary sources) that the relevance of Gundulic applies when we refer exclusively to the House and the discussion will be closed.
PS And by the way, Grifter72 has the same opinion of me. But I do not consider that posting an advice is a mediation following a 3O request (even if this could be convenient for me). --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am ignoring the fact that many family members referred to themselves with the Romance form of the name. I am ignoring that because its irrelevant. For you to decide what this family should be called based on that fact is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wikipedia articles are written according to published sources.
Again, please acknowledge that's OR. -- Director (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is about the House of Gondola, if the most of the English sources refer to this family using the Romance variant of the name, you cannot ignore this.--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course not. They don't, however. And if you are here to improve this project, rather than for some other purpose, you also should ignore what I'm ignoring. (I repeat there is no justification whatsoever to exclude Ivan Gundulić from any research on the notability of his family name, or to somehow "separate" him from the rest of the noble family.) -- Director (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, the notability of Ivan Gundulić cannot have an unlimited influence on the notability of the name used for all other facts related to this family, including members that lived many centuries later. I have demonstrated to you and can demonstrate with additional sources that when dealing with the House itself the use of the Romance form of the name is equally (if nor more) relevant. And it is definitily more relevant when dealing with other members of the family. But you have disregarded such arguments and those sources. It doesn't looks things are going to improve with only us involved in the discussion. In the meantime, unfortunately the article remains on dispute. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Who said anything about "unlimited influence"? Don't exaggerate (that's called a straw man argument). The research concerns the family in general, and that means all its members, more prominent and less prominent. And as I said, it is doubtful whether this family meets WP:NOTE requirements without Ivan Gundulic.
Long story short: I can not agree, under any circumstances, to your picking and choosing those family members you like in order to have the name in Italian somehow turn out more prominent (although even so I doubt you would succeed). I refuse outright to play this game.
P.s. I'll tell you this right now: POV tags are supposed to be removed after a while if there's no discussion. The purpose of tagging is not to make you feel better if you can't have your way. "Feel-good tags" are discouraged. -- Director (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, you have been playing this "POV song" for already a week. I have been trough your Talk page and trough the disputes that involved you in other articles concerning Dalmatia. Well, it looks that POV and Socks are the most used words when you refer to users having a different opinion.
I want to explain clearly what are the problems here. In this dispute we are 1:1 and you are an administrator so I won't have chance to see things changiong, unless a third competenty party does not get involved in the discussion. I noticed that my very same argument (the result of the Google research should not be cited in the text of the article) have been applied by Administrator Anomie. I also noticed that you did not revert his edit, even if you had the day before reverted my edit calling for the same modification. It looks indeed that you are intransingent and consistent only with user with limited power of influence on the Wikipedia community. However, hereafter are the issues I have with you on this article.
1)You are insisting that the name of this House should be Gundulic because this is the more frequent name trough a Google Book research. This equates to say that one reference from an unknown scholar has the same weight of a reference from a respected international University. To this we need to add that trough Google often the same source is duplicated many times. Additionally here we have the issue that the relevance from Ivan Gundulic mess-up the relevance for all the related matter (such as the House of Gundulic/Gondola).
2)Even if (please mind, even if) a Google research was the way to solve such disputes, there is still an issue of acceptability of the sources. I have demonstrate you that taking a sample of the first 80 sources from your Google Research, the overwhelming majority of them were not English. You did not reply to me in the respect of this matter, even if I precised you in detail the contested sources from the sample.
3)I could not reproduce trough Google Books the same result you claimed to have found. I found a number of reference of an order of magnitude 5 time smaller (eg. less than 3,000 instead more than 15,000). I have the doubt some filters were not activated (this would explain the issue described at comma 2).
4)Trough the Google research I make under "Gundulic" and "Gondola" I found some prevalency for the first. This prevalence is mainly for Ivan Gundulic not the House of Gundulic/Gundola. Now, I am not saying that Gondola is the preminent name. I am saying that the decision should be taken analysing the 3 or 4 best and more reputable sources concerning the House of Gundulic/Gondola. It looks you refuse this approach. This is very inappropriate, expecially in view of what I said at commas 1, 2 and 3.
However, when I have the time I will clean-up the article, because today it is just an awfull amount of incomprehensible text. Strangely for an administrator, this does not really mind you so much. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I will go through the article and delete anything I can't read or make out what its trying to say. -- Director (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I fixed what I could, and deleted a whole bunch of illegible nonsense. As you probably noticed, there had also been a HUGE amount of irrelevant listing of descendants and "who married who and had what kids" type of nonsense. The entire Getaldić-Gundulić family (and likely all its members) are entirely and indubitably below WP:NOTE requirements for any extensive mention on this project. The "lineage of Ivan Gundulic" section is useless, barely legible listing of his descendants - that's not for Wikipedia. Needless to say: if you feel I deleted anything I should not have, please feel free to restore it. -- Director (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
20 lines for an article of this kind is more than enough. I will edit tomorrow the section "Further reading" and actually I will reduce it. I consider out of the scope of Wikipedia to give mo many details on further reading for a topic that would be more only of interest for a specialist on Heraldry. On top of that there is an issue of WP:V on those sources. Concerning the other matters, I will return to you in a few days. I prefere to wait things to settle and calm down. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Grief

This is quite a dispute. What's needed is some sort of credible English language history of the Ragusan Republic to determine the appellation of this family during that period. Silvio, you argue a lot, when you ought to be doing research, perhaps seeking academic experts to point you in the right direction. Enough 'sturm und drang' (to commemorate the Austro-Hungarian suzerainity. The Director's takedown of the photo gallery is blatant POV, bad faith editing. I tend to guess on the "Gondola" side of the dispute, but big deal...what's needed is an academically authoritative work in English. Good luck.Tapered (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Happily the dispute box is still in place. Even more happily, the Republic of Ragusa article is a great example of correct Wikipedia construction and editing. Best of all, neither of the disputants here is a major contributor to the Republic article. Tapered (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Images

I think the front cover of the "Tears of Prodigal Son" has no room here. On the other hand I believe in the Ivan Gundulic article the image should be sized to a bigger dimension. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gundulić_family/Archive_1&oldid=1227309512"