Talk:Jakov Mikalja/Archive 1

Archive 1

About Illyric language

About Illyric language. See this link. http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/4689/grabovac.htm, about fra Filip Grabovac, the author of Cvit razgovora naroda i jezika iliričkoga aliti arvackoga (...Illyric or Croat).
Or this title, from the the library of Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Search result [1].
A dictionary by Andrija Jambrešić and Franjo Sušnik.
Title is : Lexicon Latinum interpretatione Illyrica, Germanica et Hungarica locuples : in usum potissimum studiosae juventutis / digestum ab Andrea Jambressich, Societatis Jesu sacerdote, Croata Zagoriensi Impresum: Zagrabi[ae] : Typis Academicis Societatis Jesu, [per A. W. Wesseli] , 1742 . Kubura 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the library of Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Search result [2].
Book of the author Jakov Mikalja.
Title is Blago jezika slovinskoga illi Slovnik : u komu izgorarajuse rjeci slovinske latinski i diacki = Thesaurus linguae Illyricae sive Dictionarium Illyricum : in quo verba Illyrica Italice et Latine redduntur / labore p. Jacobi Micalia ; Grammatika talianska u kratko ili Kratak nauk za naucitti latinski jezik / koga slovinski upisa otac Jacov Mikaglja ... Impresum: Laureti : apud Paulum et Io. Baptistam Seraphinum , 1649 . Kubura 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

From the Talk:Serbo-Croatian language:
virtually all literature written in shtokavian vernacular prior to Serbian language reformer Vuk Karadžić, ie. cca. 430 years of literary texts, belong to the Croatian linguistic and literary heritage. First major vernacular shtokavian text is "First Croatian prayer book", kept in Vatican library- date cca. 1380-1400. Then follow major authors covering Renaissance, Baroque, Classicist and Sentimental literaure: Držić, Menčetić, Gundulić, Bunić, Palmotić, Zlatarić (Dubrovnik), Kavanjin (Split, Dalmatia), Kanavelović (Korčula, Dalmatia), Divković, Posilović (Bosnia), Kačić(Dalmatia), Relković, Ivanošić, Došen (Slavonia)..
The majority of these texts are titled as works on "Illyrian" or "Slovinian"/"Slavonic" language, but they explicitly equate Illyrian with Croatian- dor instance, first major shtokavian-based dictionary, Mikalja's/Micaglia's "Thesaurus linguae illyricae", Loreto 1649. "Hrvat, Hervat = Illyricus, Croata".
Further info on older Croatian lexicography can be found at http://www.hlz.hr/eng/povijest.html Kubura 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not possible to understand what you want to show with the above quotations.--Giovanni Giove 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're playing dumb, Giovanni Giove. Like you've never had this discussion with me. We already did have this discussion on Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik. You know very well what I'm talking about. If you're not that literate to comprehend the text (and you don't remember what you've wrote on the article... missing the point, article is about Mikalja, and you write your tractate about language), than don't mess with Wikipedia. As we see, you want to present Illyrian language as so-called "Serbocroatian" or some "Illyrian, that has nothing with Croatian". To nullify or to decrease the "amount of Croatian" in it as much as possible. Sorry, Giove, you have to live with the fact that here, Illyrian language=Croatian language. Your're informed about this for who-knows-how-many-time, so don't play dumb anymore. Kubura 08:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article should be named Jakov Mikalja.
Also, I supposed which questions might arose, so I've intercepted them. Kubura 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And, again, "Serbocroatian"?
What Serbs are you talking about?
What are you doing, Giove? Playing dumb?
Ignoring and deleting my data I've posted here???
That's vandalism!
POV-ising with inserting adjective "Serbo-" where isn't any there and deleting any lines that link to Croatian language [3] and deleting (???) the sourcenames in original Croatian [4] (you've deleted the lines Blago jezika slovinskoga illi slovnik u komu izgovarajuse rjeci slovinske Latinski i Diacki). Kubura 14:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If its hard for you to click on the link that speak about Mikalja, here're the scans from the page [5].
On the first scan [6] you have following text, a page from Croat-Italian-Latin dictionary:
hrrivat. Hervat; Croata; Illyricus, i. Croata; ae.
hrrivaçia. Hervarska zemglja; Croatia; Illyris, dis. Illyricum, ci. Croatia, ae.
On the second scan [7], there's the front page. Kubura 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Here're few links from HAZU library.
These are Christian books of meditations and Sunday schools (katehetika).
First one is by Rayaumont, translated by Emerik Pavić. "Ogledalo temelja, vire, i zakona katolicsanskoga to jest Sveto Pismo, iliti Jezgra sviu dogagjajah Staroga, i Novoga zakona : s-tolmacsenjem svetih otaca pomissana za rassirenje boxjeg poznanstva, i razglasenje moguchstva, i dobrote privicsnjega pripovigjena, i istolmacsena / najpri u francuzki jezik po gospodinu Rayaumontu prioru od Sombrevala sloxena, a zatim nimacski primistita ; a sada u nass slavni uljudni i krasnii illyricski jezik prinessena po Ocu Fra Emeriku Pavichu, sstiocu poglavitomu svete bogoslovice u gradu Budimu, Reda S. O. Franceska, Provincie S. Ivana Capistrana. - U Budimu : Sstampano po Francesku Leopoldu Landereru, 1759.". Here're the first two pages [8].
It says "The mirror of the foundations, faith and law of Catholicism... in French language by Rayaumont...then translated in German, and now in our civilized and beautiful illyric language by fra Emerik Pavić". Printed in Buda (now merged in Budapest) in 1759.
Second one, a book translated by the same author. "Jezgra rimskoga pravovirnoga nauka kerstjanskoga, za mladex jasnoga i glasovitoga grada Becskoga godine 1767 u nimacski jezik na svitlost dana; sada pak za spasonosno napridovanje ... u slovinski, iliti illyrcski, jali dalmatinski jezik prinessena i s-tieskom opchena ucsinjena / [preveo Emericus Pavich]. - U Budimu : sa slovi Leopolda Franceska Landerera, 1769.". Printed in Buda, in 1769. First two pages [9].
It says "The core of Roman Catholic doctrine, for youth.... written in German, now translated in Slovinic or Illyric or Dalmatian language".
As I've said previously, Croatian language is in older sources, "Croatian, Illyric, Slovinic", but also under local names, like "Dalmatian, Slavonic...".Kubura 08:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikalja/Micaglia is not just Croat, or just Italian

@Giovanni: Please stop reverting everything. Be constructive.
Do not just change Croatian to Illyrian or Serbocroatian etc. First mentioning of Serbocroatian is in 18th century. Equality between name "Illyrian language" and "Croatian" is documented and well known, so it is not unsubstantiated. He is known by name "Mikalja" not only in Croatia, so don't refer to his name like it is only in Croatia.
@Kubura: He is definitely Italian, and Croat too. So please leave adjective "Italian" where it is.
--Plantago 11:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Micaglia himself declared to be Italian. End of discussion. All other claims are totally sourced: most of all Illyric does not coincide with Croatian. Best regards--Giovanni Giove 11:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First - I wrote "Italian...of Croatian origin", and that is what he said too. Is there a problem with that? Napoleon was Frenchman, but Corsican too. Stalin was Great Russian, but Georgian by origin. You are Italian, but proud of your Venetian origin. Venetians are/were not Italian by ethnicity, but are Italians by nationality. So, he is Italian by nationality, and declared that he had non-Italian origin.

Micaglia is not of Croat origin, but of 'South Slavic': you cant claim is just 'Croat'. YOU have to tell why, according to you , is "Croat".

Actually, no. He didn't say he is of South Slavic origin. He said he is "Slovin"/Illyrian by language. He was not Czech, Russian, Bulgarian or Slovenian speaking. Then, we have to ask ourselves what was he in that case? He was a) Italian by nationality b) Catholic Christian c) speaking "Slovinski". Can we ask them to say would he call himself a Croat? No, not directly. But scholars, both from Italy and Croatia, with some exemptions like Milan Resetar, who gives "Serbocroatian" origin, regard him today as a Croat, based on the information from his history and works, and Wikipedia always gives emphasis on majority opinion. Links confirming this claim are stated in References and External links sections. --Plantago 08:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Second, your statement "most of all Illyric does not coincide with Croatian" is not completely clear. What does it mean? Is it in connection to the new section you just added to the article, claiming that Illyrian is not Croatian because Croatian was standardized in 19th century? When was Italian or German standardized? Does it mean that language has to be standardized to exist!? What are your references for such claims. I will put "original research" mark on that section, because you didn't cite any source. Please read articles about your language, German, English, Croatian, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, whatever, and then try to write relevant addition to article. Just to mention, this article is not your property, so you can just delete work of anyone but you, including referenced literature. Maybe expert opinion would be good answer? --Plantago 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian was studied and standardized in XIV etc. German shortly later, Croat in XIX cent. Before XIX cent. nobody ever talked about a 'Croatian' language outside historical Croatia (such us in Dalmatia, Ragusa or whatever). There are no linguistic distinction between the 3 serbocroatian dialects (if you like it....). If the 'serbocroatian' word is now unpopular in Croatia for political reasons, find an equivalent word. But don't claim for what is not yours (or belongs just in part). The dictionary is based on 'Bosnian' language; so, why it is not a 'Bosnian Dictionary)?... can you claim that Bosnia is or was part of 'Croatia'? Best regards--Giovanni Giove 11:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So back to the point - this is NOT article about any language, but the guy called Giacomo Micaglio AND Jakov Mikalja, who was Jesuit and lexicographer. All other is in the wrong place (how old is his name, what is illyrian, what is Bosnian etc.).
His name, whether created in 13th or 20th century should be mentioned without any restrictions, if he is known in some parts of the world (at least Slavic-language speaking countries - from Russia to Croatia) by that name. It may be violation of NPOV of Slavic historiographers and linguists, but it is not on us to judge is it right or not, as it is against Wikipedia policy. It is not on us to judge is Illyrian different from Croatian, is it also Serbian or what, because relevant (please, relevant here means linguistic) sources (Italian also!) explicitly mention Illyric of that time as equivalent to Croatian, or if you want me to say this way - language which is spoken between people on Eastern coast of Adriatic see, covering not only Dalmatia and Republic of Ragusa, but also southern parts of Bosnia, which are oriented to Adriatic (actually, medieval Bosnian kingdom and Ottoman province of Bosnia ruled big parts of Dalmatia for a long time). The aim of his work was the help in counter-reform struggle in Dalmatia and other places, to get people back to proper Catholic faith, as it is already written in the article. People who he was trying to get back to the "mother church" were definitely NOT Muslim (whose self-identification was Turks or Poturica, nowadays Bosniaks) or Orthodox Christians (identified as Serbs), but former Catholic Christians who became Protestants, which were and are identified as Croats. Remember that the main difference between people of that time was religion, especially in Balkans (unfortunately, also today).
And finally - Giovanni's remark about standardization of Croatian, I have to disappoint him - language standardization has nothing with language existence. People in Italy spoke something, first Vulgar Latin and then Italian even before Divine comedy, as synthesis between Southern Italian and Tuscan Italian was written. Even though, Croatian was not standardized in XIX century (1850), only the current standard was than accepted and joint agenda agreed with Serbs, and only from that time noun Serbo-Croatian exists. Before that, there were various standards, much older (ironically, one of them based on prints in Venice in 1595 and Rome in 1604). Please read Croatian language#History. If he has some new information to discuss, I am inviting him to join that article's discussion and leave poor Giacomo/Jacob/Jakov rest in peace.--Plantago 06:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You agree with me in the basic point. The difference between the different former-Jugo people is not based on the language, so that it's a nonsense to attribute the therm 'Croat' to Micaglia's work: Serbs and Croats share the same dialects. It's a nonsense to called this dialects 'Croats', just because they were collected by Catholic (BTW Italian). ....or do you want to say he talked just with catholics?... or that Muslim and orthodox had different dialects? So... please!

You asked me about the standardization of Italian I just answered,: it was the 1st European language to be standardized (see. De vulgari eloquentia).

Finally, if you trust in me or not, I'm not a nationalist, and I don't hate Croatia. But I'm not responsible of the many hoaxes present in the official Croatian history (I'm no happy to tell you this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 June 2007

Giovanni Giove? You've written above "Serbs and Croats share the same dialects". In short: Croats are the only speakers of Chakavian (subdialects with Ikavian, Ekavian and Jekavian speech) and Kajkavian (subdialects with Ekavian and Ikavian speech) dialect. Shtokavian dialect also has more "subdialects", that can be referred exclusively to one nation. Slavonian Shtokavian (mostly Ikavian speech) is spoken exclusively by the Croats. East Bosnian Shtokavian (mostly Jekavian speech) is spoken among Croats, Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and as minor, among Serbs (on the mountain Ozren). Kosovo-Resava Shtokavian (Ekavian speech) is spoken exclusively by the Serbs. Zeta-Sanjak Shtokavian (Ijekavian speech) is spoken mostly by Montenegrins, Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Serbs. Bosnian-West Herzegovina-Dalmatian Shtokavian (Ikavian speech) is spoken exclusively by Croats. Dubrovnik Shtokavian (Ijekavian speech) was in past an individual, today is more similar with East Herzegovina Shtokavian (but still has its "specialties"). East Herzegovina Shtokavian (Ijekavian) is spoken by the Serbs, Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks), Montenegrins and Croats. Vojvodina-Šumadija Shtokavian (Ekavian speech) is spoken exclusively by the Serbs. Torlakian dialect doesn't belong to this group. In fact, this is a ...interdialect, transitional from Serb language to Bulgarian and Macedonian language. Exclusively spoken by Serbs. There's a small enclave of Croats in Romania that speaks with this dialect, but that doesn't change the picture, that's the dialect of Serb language. So, you see, it's not the case that "Croats and Serbs share the same dialects." Kubura 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I suggest that you open article about Illyric language, and we will chat about this there. In the meantime, unsourced and misunderstood identification of dialects and languages and "Controversies" section will be deleted. For hoax about this issue, way this guy wrote his name etc. please see Italian encyclopaedia. --Plantago 08:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ital. books are OK about history, just like German, French (or whatever) books. Croatian books will reach the same level in few years; it's enough to give to the democracy the proper time to push out all the Nationalistic debrishes of the Communist and Post-communist regimes. Don't delet again the paragraph; it is in topic, and it is normal to add when a wrong concept is normally regarded as true (and this is, without discussion, the present case).--Giovanni Giove 09:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove, it's sad and awful to see such statements written ("the books"). You're underestimating, undervalueating and belittleing the scientific and cultural work of small peoples. Maybe Croats aren't numerous nation, we aren't rich, but that doesn't mean that we live in stone age. If you think that "proper" scientific approach is one where you give up your cultural heritage to anyone who wants to usurpate it, you're wrong. Why haven't you asked yourself what evil has been done by Italian fascists in Croatia and Slovenia, while Italian "books" and politicians romanticize Mussolini's rule? Kubura 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I asked you to look at Italian encyclopedia and use it as the source for this article, if you think that Croatian sources are biased. Second, your paragraph is poorly written, with unsourced statements, original research (you state your own undocumented claims and opinions) and it doesn't belong here, so that is why I deleted it, not because it is about Illyrian-Croatian-Serbocroatian language dispute. Why can't you write something here on talk page, and work on it together with others, until we have consensus? Are you on some kind of crusade? If you don't want me or anybody else to delete it, than move it here and let's discuss from word to word. Additionally, I found international sources for other Mikalja's name spellings, so please don't delete it. Cheers,--Plantago 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionaly, I am very disappointed how rude you are. I had added few links, and made few changes, and you simply reverted it all, instead adding your paragraph. Either you don't know how to properly work but only revert, or it was intentionally?--Plantago 09:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Plantago, I know about the problem.
I've seen a link where it states that Jakov was born in Peschici, on peninsula of Gargano.
In fact, the link from Italian domain, Reportonline, [10], speaks about Latino-Croat dictionary (Una storia secolare culminata nel vocabolario Latino-Croato Che i gesuiti usarono per portare la Controriforma in Croazia).
I've also seen the line "Egli si definitiva salvo di lingua, italiano di nazionalità ed originario, appunto, di Peschici".
I respect that. I don't deny that. Unless someone made a "hairdressing" of data.
Regarding the history of Croatian language, on the talk page of Republic of Dubrovnik, I wrote a bunch of text with a bunch of links to the library of HAZU, Croatian academy of sciences and arts. Some of those links contain scanned pages of the works that deal with Croatian, Illyrian, use of Croatian language in previous centuries (not just in 20th century, as one user said). But, Giovanni Giove ignored that. In fact, he said: [11]. "Kubura's comments are false, Kubura was NEVER able to prove that Giovanni Giove's edits are wrong". Yeah, wright, starting with the language. Kubura 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a break, poor Kubura. You wrote nothing in Ragusa talk page. Nobody deny that Illyrics texts were wrotten in Ragusa. It's you that deny that also Italian texts were wrotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 11:21, 31 May 2007

Where have I denied that? Or you're playing dumb again?
If you remember, I've written on the talk page of Republic of Dubrovnik: "...They (higher social classes) spoke and used Italian language, only to differ them from the serfs and other lower social classes. That is the case that existed all over Europe. ...". on 11 August 2006, 08:35.
On 13 February 2007, 12:38, I've written:"Third, Ragusean Dalmatian language is not the same as Italian language, neither belongs to the same subgroup of Romanic languages".
I just disagree with someone's overestimations of use of Italian language, as well as of presence of Italians. Do you know the information that women rarely spoke Italian?
In contemporary Croatia the Esperanto texts are also written, exclusively by highly educated people, but that doesn't make Croatia as Esperanto country. Kubura 20:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Hrvatski leksikon" (edition from 1995) speaks about Mikalja as a "descendant of Croat refugees from Dalmatia, that went into refuge (into Italy) because of Ottoman advance".Kubura 20:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On the page from Matica hrvatska (link added, text by Vladimir Horvat), the author speaks about the Croat origins of Jakov Mikalja (and explains them). Kubura 21:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

This is an article about an Italian guy called Giacamo Micaglia. The Croatian transaltion of his name is just a translation, and it was never used by the guy. His only name is Giacomo Micaglia. He can't be classified of Croat origin. Mikalija is anyway inserted (as a translation)--Giovanni Giove 13:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See the link above, given on 5 Apr 2007. 56 days (almost 2 months) before your message. Link to the library of Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Search result [12]. The author of the dictionary, Jakov Mikalja, wrote that. "Kratak nauk za naucitti latinski jezik / koga slovinski upisa otac Jacov Mikaglja".Kubura 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About his name

From the link [13]. "GRAMMATIKA TALIANSKA U KRATH(!)O ILLI KRATAK NAUK ZA NAUCITTI LATINSKI JEZIK. Koga slovinski upisa Otaç Jacov Mikaglja Drusgbe Isusove. Loreto, 1649. ..."
After the preface, there's an intro to grammar Grammatika talianska u kratho illi kratak nauk za naucitti latinski jezik. Koga slovinski upisa Otaç Jacov Mikaglja Drusgbe Isusove". (Italian Grammar in short lines or short way to learn Latin. In Slovinic written by father Jacov Mikaglja Drusgbe Isusove).
There's a picture of that page in "Hrvatski leksikon", by the article that speaks about Jakov Mikalja. Kubura 21:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want the scan of that page, I'll do it, but I'll have to ask the authors of the lexikon, because of copyright issues. Although, I don't know if that would have any sense... you're persistently ignoring all pages with scans (that I've posted you on the talk page of Republic of Dubrovnik) that are from catalogue of library of Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts.Kubura

Controversy

So, let's do some work with last Giovanni Giove amandment. Here is "Controversy" section:
Micaglia's Dictionary is often presented as a Croatian dictionary [3][4]. - By whom, and who is opposed to that, if it is "often presented"?.
The dictionary, anyway, is better described by the word Serbocroatian, because the present days ethnic groups of former Yugoslavia share the same dialects and because Micaglia collected words of different South Slavic dialects , outside the present day Croatia (mainly in Bosnia). - How he could collect words only outside present day Croatia, if he was in Dubrovnik/Ragusa, and not in Bosnia at all? Bosnian dialect is not Bosnian language, but Shtokavian dialect, spoken by many of Bosnian citizens. Who qualified you to "better describe it as Serbocroatian"? Language then is not as language now. Original research..
Futhermore the therm Illyric formerly described all the slavic dialects spoken in the Balkans, without regard of religions, and location; all these dialects were still vernacular and not already developed into a Croatian (or Serbian) national language. - Source for the claim? Do you have linguist reference of some kind for this? Original research.
That why the word Illyric shall be reffered to all the former Yugoslavian dialects; it can consequently be properly described by the therm Serbocroatian (or "Central South Slavic diasystem"). - I see what you mean. Definitely you cannot do that, even was it truth, and it didn't, because Mikalja didn't include eastern dialects and only a little of northern dialects anyhow. It appears to me that you have an idealistic approach: They all speak the common language, so let's say he belongs to everybody, forget that nationalistic quarrels. Well, that can be truth or not, but you have to prove that Illyric is equal to Serbocroatian (or "Central South Slavic diasystem"). Mikalja belongs to Croatian culture (and Italian, of course), not Serbian or Bosniak, and because of that is regarded as one of the first Croatian lexicographers. Languages develop. Do you think that Vuk Karadzic is regarded by anyone in Croatia or Serbia as lexicograph and reformer of Serbocroatian?. Unsupported claims.
After the breakdown of Jugoslavia, the therm Serborcratian has anyway became unpopular in Croatia. - Official language in Croatia was always called Croatian OR Serbian. So it was unpopular always:-) This has nothing with Mikalja. There are older works, even before Yugoslavia, and also during Yugoslavia, mentioning him as one of foundations of Croatian written literature
A similar problem regard Micaglia himself, often presented as the Croatian linguist Jakov Mikalja. Thus Micaglia himself declared to be Italian, and Mikalja is a recent translation of the Italian name. - Well, this is the claim I see from you all the time. Where is the proof? I mentioned other two official ways of writing his name, together with sources. Pronountiation is the same as Croatian name, just ortography is different. He never said he is Italian by ethnicity, but of Italian nationality - it means he is citizen of one of Italian countries (Kingdom of Naples, Italy didn't exist at that time as one country)--Plantago 13:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's more. It's important what Mikalja had in mind when he said "Illyric".
In that very samedictionary, he explicitly declared "Illyricus" as Croat. See [14] and [15] and front page [16]. I'm posting this argument for the SECOND TIME. What do you want more?
"present days ethnic groups of former Yugoslavia share the same dialects. Wrong. Read my contribution above (with the bold letters), that deal with dialects of Croats and Serbs.
Then this section "After the breakdown of Jugoslavia, the therm Serborcratian has anyway became unpopular in Croatia. - Official language in Croatia was always called Croatian OR Serbian. So it was unpopular always:-) This has nothing with Mikalja.".
Serbocroatian was never popular term in Croatia. Even during Yugoslavia. It was considered as serious provocation in Croatia (as well as among the Croats in BiH), if someone told you "Speak Serbocroatian!" or even worse version "Speak Serbian so the whole world can understand you!". Second, official language in Croatia hasn't always been called "Croatian or Serbian". Wrong. The name "Croat or Serb" was official solely in the period from 1970-1990. Any political move towards changing that made serious problem to the one who wanted that. Yugounitarist communists penalized such persons. See the talkpage Talk:Differences_between_standard_Serbian,_Croatian_and_Bosnian#About_.22unwanted_tendencies.22_and_language_policy.
About Mikalja's ethnicity, read the article about him by Jesuit writer prof. Vladimir Horvat (he teaches on Faculty of Philosophy of Societas Jes`u in Zagreb, www.ffdi.hr) - there he explained why we should consider Mikalja as Croat; you can download it from the internet. Here's the link [17]. Giove, there you have the link.

Well, you cannot assume that Giove understands that article. It is nice reference, but in Croatian. Cheers, --Plantago 05:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That scientific work wasn't written in "some book at Nowhereland, so nobody can read it or criticize it". That work was present in symposium held in Ancona (as I said above). Kubura 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my good, I wasn't here for some time and what happened?!Furthermore the therm Illyric formerly described to the all the Serbocroatian and Slovenian dialects - Giove, this reference is from Illyrian movement, some centuries AFTER J.M.! Or you want to say that Slovenian is also a dialect, and it is part of S-C, because it was still vernacular at that time. Well, than add please Bulgarian too, because it was also called Illyrian sometimes. It seems that "vernacular" is your ultimate argument. Well, I have news: Dante's construct is also "vernacular" by your criteria, because it was not officially standardized until mid-1800, just like Croatian. Please learn Italian language history first.

All these dialects were still vernacular during Micalglia's time, and not already developed into a Croatian or Serbian standard language. This definition was still in use the mid of 19th century. It is interesting that in this time, the Dalmatian and the Bosnian dialects were not classified as Croatian, but as 'Servian' dialects. In fact the therm 'Croatian dialect' was referred only to the the small Kingdom of Croatia, around Zagreb - what is this? Which definition? There is no definition given. What was not classified, by whom? You gave some reference to nothing - just some links to links. So now you also mention that there IS Serbian language, and Croatian too, as separate!? Do they exist or not? I'll delete this rubbish boldly.

Did you change any article about Tzar Dusan's law, from Servian to Serbo-Croatian? No? Why? Please do it and stop playing here. --Plantago 13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Works about Jakov Mikalja

Vladimir Horvat wrote about him.
He explained Mikalja's Croat origin in a symposium held in Ancona, when speaking about Croat Jesuits lexicographers of 17th century.
The work is:
Vladimir Horvat: I lessicografi gesuiti del Seicento tra le due sponde: Bartol Kašić - Cassius - Cassio (Pag, 1575-1650, Roma), e Jakov Mikalja - Mica(g)lia (Peschici, 1601-1654, Loreto). Homo adriaticus - identitt`a culturale e autocoscienza attraverso i secoli, Atti del convegno internazionale di studio organizzato dalla Accademia Marchigiana di Scienze e Lettere ed Arti, Ancona, 9-12 novembre 1993. Edizioni Diabasis, Reggio Emilia, 1998, str. 105.-116.
He also had an article, there's also a link on the internet; though, the text is in Croatian. This reference is from that article.
Still, I hope this'll help. Kubura 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't.--Giovanni Giove 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Italian books aren't good anymore? Or Ancona isn't "enough Italian"? Or the ferry that regularly links Ancona with Croatia, spoiled Ancona's validity? Kubura 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Vladimir Horvat is a Jesuit, ph.D., a professor on Philosophic faculty of Societas Gesú in Zagreb.
He wrote an article in magazine "Obnovljeni život" of Philosophic faculty [18], (Jakov Mikalja, isusovac-leksikograf 400. obljetnica rođenja (1601-1654) i 350. obljetnica tiskanja (1651) prvog hrvatskog rječnika Blago jezika slovinskoga). Kubura 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here're some other links. Some are in Croatian, but some texts contain parts in Latin or Italian, that should be helpful.
http://www.matica.hr/Kolo/kolo0301.nsf/AllWebDocs/lex ("Kolo" magazine of Matica hrvatska, Matrix croatica).
http://arhiv.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20010924/kultura.htm
http://www.matis.hr/zbornici/2002/text/du_322.htm The magazine of Croat matrix of diaspora (Matica iseljenika; I'm not so good in Latin).
http://www.hrvatskiplus.org/Default.aspx?art=34&sec=21 The site of Zagreb school of Slavistics. See how they name Jakov Mikalja. Kubura 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Serbian fascists (1945. i 1995. respectively). Wanna replay, eh ? Mir Harven 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God!.... . Harvy again fooling about irridentism :-) (it's funny that was never able to post a line fo enforce this idea
BUAAAHHHH.... the Grater Serbian Lunacy!!!!:-)))) Baby!... Mikalja was *invented* in XX century as *transation* of the Italian name. That if you like or not. Now I go ... I've to roast a Croatian child. YUMMMIII!--Giovanni Giove 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that it was "invented in the XX century"? Some credible sources would be nice. Also, your earlier comment on invalidity of croatian sources based on their "inherent" bias is very disturbing. So sources are valid as long as they're not croatian? That's a very chauvinistic attitude... --Dr.Gonzo 16:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you present some original documents of the time enforcing Mikalja? .... there are just an impressive amount of present day documents with Mikalija. It is know that is a Croatian habit to translate names,so.... In Croatia Giovanni Lupis is Ivan Lupis, Francesco Patrizi is Frane Petric, Giovanni Lucio is Ivan Lucic. etc etc. etc. ALL THIS NAMES ARE HOAXS. As a matter of fact.

You started deleting all Croatian references so the burden of proof is on you. I can provide at least 10 Croatian encyclopedias as proof but you would say that's just propaganda, right? So, let's hear your proof then. Btw, I absolutely don't approve what you're doing with deleting comments questioning your NPOV and I hope you realize the more you try to make them go away the more you're hurting your credibility. --Dr.Gonzo 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Provide! We will know that in present day Croatia, Micaglia is called 'Mikalja'. Provide a source to show that Micalja was used during his life (in any case it should be a nickname). Meanwhile a will provide you a *trustable* source about the deliberated falsfication that Croats do against the Italian persnolities of Dalmatia, among them the translation of all the name of the past in modern Croatian. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 07:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've told you, on the second page of his dictionary, it uses name in Croatian, written in the ortography from those times.
Do you read the references I've mentioned at all?!?
Please, answer me.
Don't say: "that's vandalism", "I'll report you to admins", "that's falsificiation", "that's not a trustable source". That's not an answer.
Especially the racist remarks like "deliberate falsification that Croats do against Italian personalities of Dalmatia". Kubura 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to play according to the rules, than the data in this article should be changed into the version I've given.
I gave my arguments/sources, you haven't, neither you've proven them wrong. Kubura 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, Giove, will you give your counterarguments? I warn you for the second time here. Kubura 19:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop to play Kubura. Now the article is totally referencied. Your personal opinions about the therm 'serbocroatian' are meaningless here.--Giovanni Giove 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You play dumb, Giove. Previously, 2 months and 15 days before, I gave you this link on Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik on 5 April 2007. [19]. A link to the library of Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Title is Blago jezika slovinskoga illi Slovnik : u komu izgorarajuse rjeci slovinske latinski i diacki = Thesaurus linguae Illyricae sive Dictionarium Illyricum : in quo verba Illyrica Italice et Latine redduntur / labore p. Jacobi Micalia ; Grammatika talianska u kratko ili Kratak nauk za naucitti latinski jezik / koga slovinski upisa otac Jacov Mikaglja ... Impresum: Laureti : apud Paulum et Io. Baptistam Seraphinum , 1649 . You don't read what I post, do you? Kubura 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Giove, I'm going to talk with you on your talk page also.
Stop using words like "your personal opinion".
Don't undervaluate other users' contributions, just because they oppose your contributions. Especially if opposers contributions are argumented.
My contributions aren't my opinions, I've referenced them.
You are avoiding procedures and playing dumb. Read well the sources I've posted. Don't lie (by calling such contributions as "personal opinions". Such ignorance is forbidden behaviour.
You've said: "Your personal opinions are meaningless here.". Beside your blatant lies, now you're even more belittleing opposers' contributions. Kubura 12:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute is over

All the above kbytes of words are surpassed, as a matter of facts, Wilkinson's lines are quite clear in describing the therm 'Illyric'. I suppose the dispute is over. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, who is Wilkinson? And, when did he live? What does it have to do with Mikalja? If you have trouble with Croatian, Illyrian, Serbian, Serbocroatian, South-Slavic diasystem, Slovenian, Carynthian or any other language of interest, so use pages of these languages. Be so kind and stop vandalizing this page, otherwise I will go to report it, and I mean it.--Plantago 13:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, searck Wikipedia,is very useful! You wished a source to show the exact meaning that HAD the therm 'Illyric', now you have it, so don't ignore it. I've trouble with nothing, I never vandalized anuthing, report me as you like. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not question from ignorance but from knowledge. Mr. Wilkinson is famous traveller, but he is ignorant in linguistic matters. He calls ALL Slavic (or Slavonian by him) languages "dialects", however big or separate they are. And, if his dialect is de facto language, than we have the following: Illyrian group of languages is subdivided in Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian language. He is citing Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (pg.30), because he knows nothing. Karadžić at that time was on stand that Shtokavian is Serbian, and Chakavian and Kajkavian are Croatian, but he withdraw that attitude later (see discussion on his page). Additionally, he is citing Safaryk, whose attitude was close to the Karadžić's and that is: "There are three south Slavic languages. Serbian is equal to Shtokavian, all Stokavians are Serbs, regardless of history and/or religion (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim). Kaykavian and Chakavian are Croats. Carinthian is modern Slovenian."

This theory and political attitude is in the roots of modern Serbian extreme nationalism and expansionism and was abandoned eventually by Karadžić himself.

Mr. Wilkinson had complete mess in his head, and he is not in corelation with your opinion, because on pg. 27 he explicitly states the following:

(Slavonian)...consists of various dialects, the principal of which are Bohemian, Polish, Lusatian or Wend, Russian, Bulgarian, Illyrian, Croatian and Carinthian

So, was he right here, or in the other classification? You didn't prove anything. And, you are continuing to twist my sentences, abusing them for your goals. Rediculous twist from '"His work is integral part of development and standardization of Croatian modern language"' to '"Micglia (sic, don't you know to write it properly?) work was, of course, fundamental in the process of development and standardization of Croatian modern language, such us other Serbocroatian languages."' is NOT the compromise. I will revert this last edits, because they are in bad faith.

Still, I'm begging you to stop doing this to article. Start "Illyric (South Slavic) language" page, and let's build it.--Plantago 21:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What you have done, it's to point out the liguistic correctness of the theory. You totally miss the point, that is the exact translation of the therm Illyric. This therm (with no discussion) can not be resticted to the 'Croatian' language (by the way, still non existent in Micaglia's time).Wilkison's book shows clearrly that the therm Illyric was given to all the Serbcroatian lagnuages, (Croatian, Serbian or as you want to call them). Do not performe anymore massive reverts, deleting 'unconfortable' sources. THIS is vandalism. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight Giove - there are no "serbocroatian" languages. This is a construct of the 20th century and Yugoslav unitarism. Croatian and Serbian have had completely separated historical development. At no point before the end of 19th century were they even considered as more than loosely related. So stop using terms Illyrian and Serbocroatian like they're interchangeable. They're not. The term Illyrian, was ALWAYS used to describe the language spoken in the Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia until the 19th century. Serbs NEVER accepted the term, so it DID exclusively relate to Croatian language. "Bosnian" language was never called Bosnian before the 1990s. Stop discussing matters you clearly know nothing about, and stop aggressively fighting every good faith edit to this article! --Dr.Gonzo 23:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The concept that there are no serbocroatian language it's a internal politic problem of Croatia, where history are rewrotten according the the political needs, because acctualy there ARE Serbocroatian dialects and languages. Before the 18th century the therm Illyric was given to all the South Slavs,in all Europe: the concept of Serbian and Croatian 'Nations' was not already developed. --Giovanni Giove 11:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me remind You what is Wikipedia - it is encyclopedia, which states generally accepted statements (theories, hypothesis), even wrong judgments if they are predominant, from today's point of view. So, there we are: Illyrian in Mikalja's era (1600's), Illyrian in Karadžić/Illyrian movement/Wilkinson era (1800's), Illyrian from point of view (2000's). There is, of course, Illyrian from Giove's point of view, but it is out of time... Minority statements CAN be mentioned, usually in Controversy section, IF they are documented AND accepted by relevant minority (of books, scientific works, generally acceptable sources - no extremist view). So far, there are two of you, and you are not relevant sources - you and Wilkinson.

My problem with you is WHAT are you really trying to proof?

• That standard Croatian and Serbian are today genetically one language?
  • Of course they are. It is well known fact. So are Hindi and Urdu.
• That ALL dialects are the same?
  • No.
• That, when Mikalja said Illyrian, he meant "language of Serbs and Croats".
  • I don't know, do you know? We only know that in his own book word Illyric is given as "Croatian, Slavonic (Slovinski)", and he is first hand source.
• Did he influence only Croatian (vernacular and standard), or Serbian (Bosnian, Montenegrin...) also?
  • What we know is that the FIRST Serbian dictionary appeared in 1880 (published by Yugoslav academy of science in Zagreb, Croatia), in the time Croats and Serbs were trying to build one language (thru compromises), but Croatian language developed thru centuries (under different names - Slavonian (Slovinski or Slovenski) (by Mikalja, Habdelić), Dalmatian (by (Faust Vrančić: Dictionarium quinque nobilissimarum Europae linguarum—Latinae, Italicae, Germanicae, Dalmatiae et Ungaricae, Venice 1595), Illyrian (by Bartul Kašić: Institutionum linguae illyricae, libri duo, Rome 1604, and others), Croatian (even implicitly in 1600's (Mikalja), but definitely in 1741.) etc.), starting with even earlier works ("Baška tablet" inscribed in stone on island Krk from 11th century, "Istrian land survey" from 1275 and "The Vinodol Codex" from 1288. (in Chakavian), Vatican Croatian Prayer Book (ca. 1400) (in Shtokavian))
• That his legacy belongs to all Southslavic nations speaking today one of Serbocroatian languages?
  • No, because he didn't influence any of Serbian or Bosniak linguists, lexicographers etc.
• That Croats have no right to call his work belonging to only Croatian heritage, because there was no standardized language with that name in his time?
  • If so, you have no right to say that works in Venetian belong to Italian heritage, because they were in Venetian, not Italian. Standardization is not something given by god, or by act (cf. Dante's Italian).
• That his language is definitely not Croatian, because most words are from Bosnia, and Bosnia is not Croatia?
  • Well, Istra is not Italy, but Italians are living there, South Tirol is not Austria or Germany, but Germans are living there. Bosnia and Herzegovina is not Croatia, but Croats lived and still live there (today proportionally less than in that time, around 20%). Heritage of this parts of nation belongs to the nation as a whole.
• That Croats as nation didn't exist in 1600's, so we have no right to say that it is Croatian heritage, but heritage of the Slavic peoples of that time?
  • Of course there were Croats, but not in modern sense of nation, more like tribe. In Italy it was the same.

When you read all of this, you can see that it has almost nothing to do with Mikalja. So again, what are you trying to proof? I will "vandalize" article as long as I don't get answers on my questions, one by one. BR,--Plantago 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning about behaviour

What are we talking about?
Mikalja calls his dictionary:
"Blago jezika slovinskoga iliti slovnik/ Thesavrus lingvae illyricae sive dictionarium illyricum",
with line
"Hrvat, Hervat = Illyricus, Croata"..
What do we want more here?
See link [20] with scanned page [21].
Don't play dumb, Giove. I'm posting this for the second time!
You're ignoring the first hand source!
You're becoming blatant, Giove. You're behaviour has crossed all limits. Kubura 13:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove, you've again made self-willing changes, without discussing it with other users [22].
You've continued to POV-ize, and you've also removed the tags that showed current condition of the article "disputed", "POV" and "original research".
Despite numerous explanations regarding the language, you've continued ot push your story and original research [23] and after the corrections explained on the talkpage, you've persistently ignored that and restored your POV version, after I've explicitly warned you for the SECOND time. You've done after that these changes/engaged in editwarring [24] and [25] and [26] and [27] and [28], [29], [30], [31].
Now you're warned for the THIRD time. Kubura 08:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'proof' above is simply a nonsense. The above use of a particular and a generic term does not prove anything. Also, you are obliged to be civil and not to 'support' your text by your anger.--Giorgio Orsini 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what Orsini has written here:

The 'proof' above is simply a nonsense. - Why? Because you think so? Do you ever intend to use arguments?

The above use of a particular and a generic term does not prove anything. - As usual, Orsini deliberately writes so that nobody can understand what he means.

Also, you are obliged to be civil and not to 'support' your text by your anger. - To finish it up, a touch of hypocrisy, as usual. Yes, I'm guilty of assuming that this user has been acting in bad faith for the past weeks. If I ignored it any further, I would be making a fool of myself. --Zmaj 13:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The map

"Map of Serbocroatian dialects". First, the translation is wrong. If you see, on that map, you'll se "Karta dijalekata hrvatskog ili srpskog jezika" ("Map of dialects of Croatian or Serbian language").
Second, some of authors of that book are signers of "Novi Sad agreement", that infuriated Croatian linguistic and academic community, because that "agreement" was an ordinary language submission (official language merging policy at the expense of Croatian).
Third, consider political circumstances from those times. Any scientifical work, or even worse, Croatian political iniciative on insisting of separate development of Croatian and Serbian language (as those languages had) brought severe political problems, police persecutions, imprisonments (under accusation of "destroying" the "unity of Croats and Serbs", "achievements of revolutions", "counterrevolutionary activity"....). See more on articles that deal with that. I've posted a bunch of material on the talkpage and articlepages. Kubura 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, would you, please! The EU is quite clear - former Yugoslavia's republic (Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina) must comply to a single linguistic standard i.e. to the same language. Balkanization of this language is not acceptable in the world. Your 'articles' are just pieces of the current political propaganda in Croatia.--Giorgio Orsini 13:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Even if the "EU" had any such authority do you really think it would go through without any kind of reaction from Croatia. I live here, and I never heard such nonsense. You are just a little troll aren't you? --Dr.Gonzo 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Orsini. Two users lost patience with you in a time span of four minutes. Instead of wasting time on his malicious edits, I believe it's time we warned someone about this guy. What do you think, Dr.Gonzo? --Zmaj 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should start a RfC, since we're clearly not getting anywhere. Until then, I believe everyone should refrain from making any more edits to the article (although I doubt me saying so will stop anyone). Enough with the edit wars, this is becoming ridiculous! And yes, I believe Giove is acting in bad faith, but that's not for me to decide. --Dr.Gonzo 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already warned one of the admins. I find it strange that after Giovanni Giove gets blocked for his edit warring vandalism and 3RR that another user comes along having exactly the same arguments, exactly the same attitude and making exactly the same reverts. Chances for that are one in a billion. Hopefully someone will do something about this. --No.13 14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources in Italian

http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/lezioni/f_lv3.htm - a certain user mentioned this link as reference, because in it says "era opera del gesuita Giacomo Micaglia, nativo di Peschici (nel promontorio del Gargano), il quale si definiva slavo di lingua, italiano di nazionalità e originario, appunto, di Peschici (Coluccia 1992, 703)".
But, at the same time, on that very same page, says:
1) In passato, dall’area molto più ampia di quella odierna su cui erano sparsi gli insediamenti croati, vennero iniziative importanti.
2) Uscì in epoca controriformistica, nel 1649-51, il primo dizionario latino-italiano-croato pervenuto, che doveva servire ai Gesuiti attivi nella Croazia: era opera del gesuita Giacomo Micaglia, nativo di Peschici (nel promontorio del Gargano), il quale si definiva...
3) Ora, nel dialetto moderno di Peschici sono stati individuati croatismi che autorizzano a giudicare quel centro una colonia slava poi sommersa (Rohlfs 1958).
4) Dunque l’insediamento croato in Italia dava la nascita a un religioso pronto a utilizzare la propria conoscenza della lingua per collaborare a un’iniziativa che dalla colonia tornava alla madrepatria.
5) A queste fitte relazioni quattrocentesche risalgono gli insediamenti albanesi nell’Italia meridionale: la relazione del 1654-59 citata di sopra allude appunto alla fuga dalla dominazione turca (che è anche alla base delle colonie croate).
According to these lines on that link, I've made some changes in the article. Kubura 06:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Kubura, a little bit of translation please, I can understand (or believe to understand) somehow, but what about others? I know you can do it! BR, --Plantago 13:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As a first hand, boldened texts speaks about "Croat settlements" and "Croatian colonies" in Italy , "Latin-Italian-Croat dictionary" by Mikalja, "Croatisms in modern dialect of Peschici" (birthplace of Mikalja). Full translation to follow. Kubura 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain all this above, Giove. That's Italian source. Kubura 08:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't explain it, do you?
You have time to spread your irredentist propaganda on the article page, but you don't answer on the questions when you're asked to do so, when we are trying to solve the disputes.
You won't get away with this. Kubura 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against site

Site [32] used partial information.
They've wrote about the matter only superficially. They haven't dug any deeper.
Croatian language had some standardizations much earlier.
See the article Croatian-language_grammar_books, or if you're lazy to click, here's a list:
Bartol Kašić 1604., Rajmund Džamanjić 1639., Jakov Mikalja 1649., Juraj Križanić 1665., Ardelio della Bella 1728., Blaž Tadijanović 1761., Matija Antun Relković 1767., Marijan Lanosović 1778., Josip Jurin 1793., Josip Voltić 1803., Francesco Maria Appendini 1808., Šime Starčević 1812. ...
These were the Croatian grammars made before the grammar of Vuk Karadžić. Kubura 08:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of the vernacules, not of a standardized language....--Giovanni Giove 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Nor Venetian dialect from the past haven't been standardized present modern Italian! Zenanarh 10:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you don't really understand what Vernacular language means. Vernacular language can be equally standardized. Also while you are at it no language was actually standardized until 19th and 20th century. It was the time of post-1848 that official standards started to emerge. Among them standard Italian and standard Croatian. --No.13 11:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't - he is programmer, there is no VERNACULAR programming language :-) --Plantago 13:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Giove, you're playing dumb.
You AGAIN IGNORE all the explanations we gave you here on 20:54, 10 June 2007.
You've put some mistranslated map from a site that used an politically compromised (policy of violent language merging) map, that you misinterprete.
You don't read what we say to you. No Croat, no Montenegrin, no Bos. Muslim (self-designated as "Bosniaks"), no Serb'll claim those dialects (I've described you) previously for themselves.
This sentence of yours "Thus for political reasons, Croatian regard their own language as separate language, it is for this reason that Micaglia's Dictionary is regarded as a Croatian dictionary, by the Croatian (or Croatia-related) sources[33][34]. Thus, even in the present days, ethnic groups of former Yugoslavia share the same dialects (not to be confused with the standard languages)".
Giove, Croats, Montenegrins, Bos. Muslims and Serbs more differ in their dialects, than in official languages/standard languages. Your "vernacular" stories don't work. You don't know anything about this matter at all. Don't write your original research here. Kubura 06:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My changes

I've asked few times opponent Giove to give his explanations, which he didn't give in reasonable time. So I changed the disputed lines about Mikalja.
His non-topic and original research sections were removed. If he wants to, he can discuss his personal point of view discuss on the talk page of the article about Croatian language or History of Croatian language.
I've deleted the lines with links at the beginning of the article (bookshop-references). They only showed Jakov's name written with the old ortography. Kubura 13:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Name in Croatian"

Who is trying to be silly? The forms "Jacopo Mikalia, Jacov Mikaglja" are from older ortography of Croatian language written in Latin letters (and someone puts those versions in front of todays ortography?).
The form Jakov Mikalja is in use in contemporary grammar of Croat language, so this form should be in the first place.
Note: all three forms are read the same way in Croatian. Kubura 07:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's my post from above, from 5 Apr.
A link to the library of Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Search result [35].
Book of the author Jakov Mikalja.
Title is Blago jezika slovinskoga illi Slovnik : u komu izgorarajuse rjeci slovinske latinski i diacki = Thesaurus linguae Illyricae sive Dictionarium Illyricum : in quo verba Illyrica Italice et Latine redduntur / labore p. Jacobi Micalia ; Grammatika talianska u kratko ili Kratak nauk za naucitti latinski jezik / koga slovinski upisa otac Jacov Mikaglja ... Impresum: Laureti : apud Paulum et Io. Baptistam Seraphinum , 1649 .
"Jacov Mikaglja" is the form from the older Croat ortography. However, we don't write our surnames (the same ones are today and then) with "-ich, -ic, -xoevich, -zsics", but with "-ić, -žojević, -žić".
This works for Latin letters; this is imortant to note, because at the time, we, Croats, also used Croat letters (Croat version of Cyrillic), Glagolica, and islamized Croats used Arabic alphabet. Kubura 08:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My changes from 06. Nov 2007

19 days have passed since Giovanni Giove violated the decisions from the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Proposed_decision). See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Remedies and section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia#Enforcement
- Since then, other users have abstained from editing. Giovanni Giove abused that for his editslaughter.
- Because of repeated ignorant behaviour of user Giovanni Giove (described in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence), I've restored the version before Giove's violation of RFARB decisions. Kubura 10:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From mine side, report about that was given on admins' noticeboard, on 24 Oct [36], on 30 Oct [37], on 2 Nov [38]. Kubura 10:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I did several edits, all sourced. You have done a massive reverts without providing reasons. I've tried to make the article more neutral. It seems you are concerned to present as "Croatian" a man born in Italy, self declaring Italian, and who spent the greater part of his life in Italy, and who never visited Croatia. Provide reasons for your reverts: you posted just insult and personal attacks. If you do not answer I will restore the source edits, as soon as possible. Meanwhile I will add the NPOV tag.--Giovanni Giove 10:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He did not. He was born in Kingdom of Naples and lived in Papal state, Ragusan Republic and Habsburg Monarchy as well. There was no Italy nor Croatia as country yet, as well as no Italian or Croatian standard language yet. There was no Serbo-Croatian language at that time, because it didn't exist even as the concept, until 1843. There was Illyrian language, which was the second name for various South Slavic languages - even Slovenian and Bulgarian (check the sources!), depending of the ethnicity of the speaker, as Italian was common name for various languages/dialects on Apenine peninsula (even Venetian - is it Italian!?). Eventually one become (official) language in Italy, the one constructed in 19th century (check Italian language, together with unification of Italy, and on Balkans there are 6 different official/standard Slavic languages (Slovenian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian), all descendants of initial standardized Old Church Slavonic (also called Old Slavic) language, mixed with different vernaculars. This development path is very similar to nowadays Russian, Ukrainian and Belarus languages, and Swedish/Danish/Norwegian/Islandian languages. There is no reflex or reference on Mikalja's work in Serbian linguistic culture. You are repeating yourself in circles all the time, trying to persuade even yourself. You are stacked in 19/20th century, in Serbo-Croatian era. I'm asking you again, after 6 months, what is your point, what are you trying to prove? Also, your phrases "total sourced edits" and "massive reverts" are really annoying. Don't you have anything more important to do than to change this article all the time?--Plantago (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war and sourcing

I invite you to list some of the debeted points in this chapter, avoiding personal attacks. That would be more constructive of massive reverts and insults. The version you are edit warring is TOTALLY SOURCED. You have the right to dicusse what you do not agree, but NOT to restore an old version, full of surpassed claims. --Giovanni Giove 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna go into details about your sources, since I'm not very knowledgeable in the matter, but your previous edits were so utterly POV you were blocked 9 times by impartial Admins. What makes you think anyone will believe you if you say the whole article "is sourced?" DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Giove, have you seen the text above? Have you ever read the messages the others posted?
How many times did you wrote the message on the talkpage, and how many times the others involved?
Have you ever compared the content of your messages with the others' messages contents?
How many times did your message ended/had its only content (not just here) "it's sourced", "you're a vandal", "stop vandalising", "you'll be reported to admins", "your claims are surpassed", "end of discussion", "punto"...?
Giove, we don't have to write twice or more times the things we wrote above (and similar related articles). Kubura (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put in the article the comments of other users. I've written that the Dictionary is claimed to be "Croat", by the Croats, and that the claim is reported even abroad. Thus the claim is political and it is neither scientific nor historic. Micaglia is Italian and there is no discussion about it, nevertheless his origins were correctly reported as "South Slavic"; the concept of "Croat nation" with the meaning of "South Slavic" and "Catholic" was born just in the 1840s.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for sure, that's why Mikalja wrote "Hrvat/Illyrian/Croato" in 1649, meaning "South Italic" and "Muslim"! :-) "Thus the claim is political and it is neither scientific nor historic" - who are you to decide? C'mon, show us ONE relevant source (i.e. academic or encyclopedic, not www.archipelago...) claiming "it is NOT Croat(ian), but Serbo-Croatian, Old Slavonian" or anything similar. Word "claim" had and has very specific meaning, and I don't like that. For instance, Italian extremists have "claim" on Dalmatia and Istria. You see the point? So, NPOV could be: point of view, or "regarded". But, anyhow, your POV is not documented, so please document that "all others think it is not Croatian", BR, Plantago (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Micaglia said that DALMATIAN and SLAVONIC and SERBIAN and BOSNIAN and CROATIAN etc, were Illyrian, and not JUST Croat. Provide me you sources, for the Dalmatians and Ragusans, calling themself "Croatians" prior the 1800. I was unable to find them. I've provided proper sources for the "Serbocroatian language" (that funny language that in Croatia cease to exist). I know that this funny story about the evil Italian claiming Dalmatia is a popular Croatian paranoia. Trust in it if you like, and start to plan the next ethnic cleaning (ops!..."expulsion of evil 'foreign' invaders") for the glory of the great Croatian nation. Regards

I don't have to provide that proof. This is NOT article about Dalmatians, Ragusans or any other group of people. This article is restricted to guy named Jakov Mikalja. This guy wrote in his dictionary that Illyrian equals Croatian. He didn't said anything about anything else. Maybe he was also Croatian extremist, "claiming" that all southern Slavs are actually Croats? Possible, I don't know. In the time he lived, all options were open, like in Italy, where at that time lived different groups of people with their own languages and states, calling them all (Vulgar) Latin (not Italian yet!), but actually they were different. Eventually they become one nation, differently from Balkans. And, a propos, I see you are inclining towards generalization - all Croats in general are bad wolves. Who said I'm the one? P.S. Cleansing, not cleaning... but you will learn English, eventually. Plantago (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The language of the Dictionary

As I have few minutes, I would like to comment this pearl in Giovanni's work, sentence by sentence. This section has no other meaning but to prove the point that Croatian and Croats didn't exist at all until 1990. So let's go:

• "The Illyrian Language studied by Micaglia was vernacular, unstandardized and split in different dialects and sub-dialects." - Of course, studies usually study vernacular... and after that this studied vernacular is standardized this way! He emphasized two most important dialects.

• "Today the mainstream of linguistics consider those dialects as part of Serbo-Croatian, a genetically single language[7][8][9][10][11]." - What happened with 4 centuries in between? And who said they are not genetically single language? This is not the same as if we say "this is the same language". Standard languages of these peoples are mutually intelligible, but they are still different standard languages (cf. Norwegian Bokmal - Danish - Swedish - Icelandic - Faroese).

• "Thus, after the breakdown of Yugoslavia, Serbocroatian has split in separated (Ausbausprache) standard languages: Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin[12][13] (Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian internationally recognized). Their dialects, anyway, overlap and do not follow the ethnic divisions[14]." - First they converged, from Gaj - Vuk agreement, but never became one standard language. In fact, there were always 2 1/2 equal standards (Croatian, Serbian, sort of Bosnian), save in the army, where official standard was clearly Serbian, not "Serbo-Croatian" (even if called so), and that could say anybody who was there...

• "Even the Dictionary is today often presented as a "Croatian" dictionary, even if the therm "Serbocroatian" is still a better descriptor." - why is that therm (term) better descriptor? Does GG give explanation for that? Let's see:

• "In fact Micaglia collected words of different South Slavic dialects, outside the old Kingdom of Croatia (and mainly in Bosnia), centuries before the standardization of the South Slavic languages; for these reasons, the word Illyran should be referred to all the so called "Central South Slavic diasystem" (or Serbocroatian dialects) and not just to the (still non existing) Croatian language." - Ahhh... Citation? No? So, original research, combined with extreme POV ("...SHOULD BE REFERRED..."). And yes, language does not exist, because GG said so. I'm sure that GG has good intentions - he is against land borders, so he wants all people to be, hm... Serbo-Croatian, if not Italian.

• "However, from the cultural point of view, Micaglia's work was influenced by earlier work of Faust Vrančić (Fausto Veranzio) and it influenced the circle of Catholic lexicographers (among them Kasic (Bartolomeo Cassio) and Divkovic) in Dalmatia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina." - This was initially my sentence, perfectly remastered by Mr GG. Italian names added and Croats become "catholic".

• "Micaglia himself, of course, put equal sign between Illyrian and Croat[15], Slavonic and others." - Of course. Of course what? Slavonic/Slavic is just another vernacular name for Croatian.

Messing with vernacular/dialect/standard is also very interesting. As Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian linguistically was standardized Neo-Shtokavian Iyekavian, it couldn't and it didn't include Shtokavian Ikavian, and especially not Chakavian Ikavian, so all this story with "better described as..." is out of scope. By political definition it included all dialects, but than we are again on political ground!

I would like voting for deleting of the whole section. Reason - this is case of disrupting Wikipedia to prove the point. Plantago (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicely told, Plantago.
Giove is definitely croatophobic. He cannot stand the adjective "Croat"; he feels the urge to remove it (under any, however stupid, excuse), replacing it with some amorphous "South Slavic", or with "Illyric" ("illirico" may exist in wiki on Old Italian - though, "croato" was also known adjective; but in contemporary Italian, solely the adjective "croato" is used), or dissoluting the share of Croatian by adding "Serbo-", creating Frankesteinic phrase (politically based from its very beginnings), "Serbo-Croatian" (name created by politicians).
Also, as you've noticed, Giove has "discovered" a new word to avoid the adjective "Croatian" and noun "Croat". Now he has started using adjective "Catholic".
Poor Giove, lost in time and space, doesn't know, or doesn't want to know, that old Republic of Venice used bilingual proclamations on its possessions in Croatian Littoral (I think that was also done in its possessions in Greek and Albanian Littoral). "Lingua illirica" was translated as "jezik harvacki/ilirski/slovinski" (Croatian/Illyrian/Slovinic).
Radiotelevisione Italiana, RAI, calls Mikalja's dictionary as Latin-Croat-Italian, but, that's doesn't matter at all to Giove. He finds himself bigger scientific and scholar authority than cultural section of RAI.
So, he thinks that Wikipedia is a place to spread his POVs and his original work ("...even the term serbocroatian is a better descriptor...") and creates a whole section, to defend his witchdoctorship pseudosciencework. Definitely, Giove has ignored and still ignores Wikipedian rule no original research.
However, Giove misinterpretes the links/sources. Here [39], Giove blatantly lies. In fact, on this reference [40] (that Giove ignored and never looked at), says:
hrrivat. Hervat: Croata'; Illyricus, i. Croata: æ
hrrivaçia. Hervarska zemglja: Croatia; Illyris, dis. Illyricum; ci. Croatia, æ
For those who don't know, the source site (of that image) is www.ihjj.hr is The Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics (more in English http://www.ihjj.hr/index_en.html).
Changes like this one ("still non existing Croatian language"), [41] is bad intension, anti-Croat chauvinism and blatant lie..
Giove could see materials and links I've posted half a year ago (or more) on the Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik, sections:
- "title" [42],
- "Slavic language" [43],
- "For those who doubt about Croathood of Dubrovnik" [44],
- "Illyrian language" [45],
- "Croathood of Dubrovnik and translations" [46]
- "Croats' dialects in old Dubrovnik Republic" [47],
- "The name of the country" [48]
and probably on few more place repeated, there was a bunch of links to scanned pages of original documents. These scans are on the site of the Croatian National and University Library. Giove obviously ignores that source.
About standardization of Croatian language. Standardizations tries did existed, there were multiple solutions in use. Picture gets more complex, knowing that Croatian was, at that time, written in various sources in with four alphabets (Latin, Glagolitic, Croatian redaction of Cyrillic and Arabic) and depending of the foreign ruler (some ortographic solutions varied). Before Mikalja, currently are known two grammars (Bartol Kašić's Institutionem linguae illyricae libri duo from 1604 and Rajmund Džamanjić's Nauk za dobro pisati latinskijem slovima riječi jezika slovinskoga from 1639).
Regarding Giove's obsession with Italianizing of Croatian names/or presenting them in Italian form... Has he ever heard that in Hungarian sources, Faust Vrančić was mentioned as Verancsics? Old Hungarian sources haven't changed its Croat surname. Does that mean that medieval kingdom of Hungary was ruled by Croatian Communist POV-izers (with Tito on the top)? Kubura (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This Giove's edit here is badintentional. In this unexplained revert from 14 Nov 2007, 23:05, Giove did this [49]. Beside all above mentioned violations, here he has shown filtering of information.
The original line:
Mikalja's greatest work is Thesaurus of Croatian Language and Croatian Dictionary (where Croatian words are translated in Italian and Latin...
Giove replaces with this one:
Micaglia's greatest work is Thesaurus of Illyrian Language and Illyrian Dictionary (where Illyrian words are translated in Italian and Latin .
Original title of the work is :
"Blago jezika slovinskoga ili Slovnik u Komu izgovarajuse rjeci slovinske Latinski, i Diacki.".
At first, you don't see "Croatian" or "Italian" in the original. But, what are these "slovinski" and "dijacki"?
But, in the subtitle, text is like this:
"Thesaurus linguae Illyricae sive Dictionarium Illyricum. In quo verba Illyrica Italice, et Latine redduntur."
There, appears "Illyric" as translation for "slovinski", "Italian" as translation for "latinski", and "Latin" as translation for "dijacki" (!!).
Now, we need - where's Croatian? There we go to that scanned page. [50]. Translation of Illyricus is "Croata, Hrvat" etc. (that means, the form Croatia was confirmed in Italian, right there).
But what Giove did? He translated the "Latinski and Dijacki" to "Italian and Latin", but he was intentionally hiding, intentionally filtering the adjective "Croatian"!. Kubura (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the term "Serbo-Croatian" was used in dictionary name for the first time in 1867 by Pero Budmani (a linguist that belonged to hardline of anti-Croat politicians, that declared himself as Serb, and that swored that he'll go along the line of "Serbhood and Yugoslavhood"), 216 years after Mikalja's dictionary. Kubura (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent POV

User:Theirrulez:

• Please do not remove valid information. This is not an article on Peschici, but on a Croatian person from Peschici. It is perfectly fine if someone wants to add the Croatian name for the town. Do not remove it.
• Also, this person was not a "Croatian Italian", but an ethnic Croat from what is now Italy. "Croatian Italian" suggests he was an Italian from Croatia. "Italian Croatian" would mean he was a Croatian person from the country of Italy, except that Italy did not exist at the time. The person was quite simply and most accurately, a Molise Croat.
• Finally, italianizing defaultsort entries is textbook nationalist WP:VAN, and will get you reported. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agre to contribute from an IP, I prefer users who choose to act using an account. Anyways, Italy was a nation splitted into different states since the early middle age, when the same language, in different dialects "il Volgare" began to be used in Tuscany and Latium, but also in Southern or Northern Italy, and the rest of the peninsula.

So gentlemen do not reduce you discussion an this low level, I know you can have a more interesting and civil dialogue ok? --Theirrulez (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not cancel any contribution to this talk, please. We have to honour the importance of the historical matter. @All Users: Respect, and dialogue please!--Theirrulez (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Theirulez, I think I will certainly be "disrespecting" posts by User:Luigi 28. Feel free to report me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Molise and Apulia are miles away

Molise Croats doesn't concern to Peschici: Peschici is in Apulia, not in Molise, and there's no Croatian settlment in Apulia, since XI century, even if there were reminiscences of language in the local dialect, witnessing the presence of Croatian.--Theirrulez (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I know where Peschici is

I know where Peschici is. Geography is completely beside the point. This is a Croatian person born in Peschici, so if there is a Croatian name for that town, its perfectly fine to list it as related information. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to dispute about Micaglia nationality, my friend, i simply want to underline that when a town or a place it's not bilingual it's not correct and completely unuseful to cite a toponym in another language different from the english one or the original local language. For example, you believe it could be correct to cite in the article London the name in Italian: Londra, or in French: Londres. It is correct just in particular cases like of bilinguism Bolzano/Bozen, or Fiume/Rijeka. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you're not disputing his nationality. My post is not about his nationality. My post merely states that you have no basis on which to remove the foreign language name. Nobody is suggesting the town is bilingual, but since the article is on a Croatian person the Croatian language name for his home town is related information. See you around. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Giacomo Micaglia has only 350 English language hits on Google. Sixteen times less than "Jakov Mikalja". Its a foreign language name. Adding Italian language sources only shows Italian language usage, and does not really help you. Kindly stop "bolding" Italian words all over enWiki - just because they're Italian.
• I wonder, if the Dante Alighieri article does not have a link to the Italy portal, why is it being pushed here in an article about a Croatian person?

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for your information

Do you temember this?

# It's not a matter of using Croatian or Italian, but of following English usage & providing information to our readership.

1. For the names of people and places, follow common English usage, regardless of whether the names commonly used in English are of Croatian, Italian, French, Greek or Chinese origin. For Wikipedia's purposes, the bias lies in using names different from those commonly used in English-language publications, not in using Croatian, Italian, French, Greek or Chinese names.
2. City names: the basic criterion is to follow common English usage. In accordance to the naming conventions for geographic names (specifically, the 3rd general guideline), the city names used in this article should be consistent with the titles of the entries on each city. – However, readers need to understand that the names Dubrovnik & Ragusa (both necessarily used in an article related to the Republic of Ragusa) refer to the same place. I edited the lead section to read "Dubrovnik (Ragusa), in the Dalmatian coast of modern Croatia". In the same manner, I used the same format in the first mentions of Kotor (Cattaro) & Ston (Stagno), when referring to periods for which modern English-language literature regularly uses the Italian names.
   — citation from a commet of Ev (talk)

It is clear that croatian authors individued his name as Giacomo Micaglia and him as Italian [51] and the same do Hungarian authors [52] and above all English sources [53] (also from Cambridge University [54]).

I assure you that even if Croatian past and modern writers or historians use to slavicized every romance nouns, (due to historical resons and also for using a croatian reader-friendly spelling) the english form, cannot leave out the original Italian name not only because "Micaglia" is mostly often used in English and internation academic sources, but also because Micaglia is the original name: he's globally recognized as Italian, and "Micaglia" is without doubt determined as his original surname (actually his family name still survives in Peschici and Apulia).

The slavicized form Mikalja is diffused only (but strongly) in the Croatian, Bosnian, Slovenian and Serbian Literature, but for example the original name Micaglia still remained as preferred (or anyways used) in Romania (where Micaglia lived for years) or Hungary.

In romance literature, since xviii century to today "Giacomo Micaglia" was cited with his original Italian name, and you can imagine that at the same time it happened in english sources. ::Even trough literary exchange that took place in the world of ecclesiastical academies among religious orders, which were the main custodians (and transmitters) of the works of the jesuit Micaglia.

For other information, just ask and I'll help you.--Theirrulez (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

-

To be brief: provide evidence of English usage prior to going against WP:MOSBOLD. This nationalist, sock-supported "italianization campaign" on Croatian history articles won't fly I assure you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dir, are you able to read above and to read the notes I added too????

Be serious, mate, and do not accuse me to support any campign of any nationalism please, because it's a very nasty thinghs to do. Maybe you feel free to offend and intimidate me just because we are becaming friends? --Theirrulez (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, your entire post has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Of course, it still manages to offend. "Mikalja" is a typical Slavic (Croatian) surname (referring to "Mika" or "Mikalj" = Michael). Micaglia is its italianized form.Not vice versa.

Provide evidence of English usage. There is no need to share your thoughts and opinions on whatever you think is used in various languages - this is enWiki. and please stop edit-warring. Do you know how to check English usage? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

NIHIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI

Dir don't ask me if I know how to check English usage and to provide evidence of English usage of name and words.. because I did it, you know better than me.

But I don't believe you want really I give evidence of that (I'm ready to do it really) simply because, and when instead you never gave evidence of it in your edits.

You know how balanced and sources-supported my edits are. If you want I begin to scan pages of The Britannica: maybe they will survive few hours before being cancelled, but could be enough to make you very sorry. And I don't want to make you upset, because we are just became friends.

So, please be less aggressive, accept my contribution even if sometimes you not completely agree, but be critic, read my sources, don't argue any more on little changes, don't repat to me everytime wikirules not related to or subject to interpretation, and first of all respect my work.

Because it's hard, very hard an long lasting work. It's hard to be a good editor. It's hard to find sources accessible to anyone. It's more hard to order informations in my head, and try to create knowledge from them. It's most hard to understand how to transfer this knowledge to others fitting everybody expectations.

Well, I choose to be an editor, at least a decent editor. Someone spend his time to hunt puppets like in a funfair, or to pursue and denounce others' mistakes: it's not for me.

Take a step back, read my edit, , don't argue any more scared by edit that seem not matching with your positions, leave me a bit of space, and you will not regret. Articles about your beloved (and mine) Dalmatia, now suffering and underdeveloped, will benefit, you'll see.

You told you are a medical and medicine student learned latin usually, so you should know the meaning of rhe section title. Nothing is impossible if you want.

Have a good night Doc. --Theirrulez (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not an M.D. (yet) - alas, you will not find many M.Ds who've got the time to edit Wiki :). And yes I know quite a bit of Latin, if I do say so myself, though I do not agree with the above proverb myself.

This person did not consider himself an ethnic Italian, or at least, no such indication exists. The link supporting that outlandish claim is 1) unpublished, 2) Italian (not necessarily neutral in such national conflicts), and 3) and does not cite any source for a historic fact of such significance (when, where did he say/write something like that? Is it written down somewhere?)

Italianization once again, Theirrulez? Previously you stated that you do not dispute that this person was an ethnic Croat, now he's an "Italian"? And yet you still claim to be "neutral in such national matters"? If your sentiment to that effect was genuine, than your perception of "neutrality" with regard to these issues is simply not realistic. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Since someone saw fit to add "citation needed" to my post, I'll add that "Mikalja" is genitive form of "Mikalj" (Michael), and basically means "son of Mikalj", or (translated from Croatian) "son of Michael" or "Michaels" if you like :). Interestingly enough, his father's name was indeed "Mikalj". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Micaglia" family name etymology

Mate, what's the matter?

Micaglia is the Garganic dialect form of Micaele (Michael) by far the most common surname in all its variant (Micheletti, Michela, Micali, Micagli, Micaglia, Mastromichele, Mastromicaglia) in the Gargano peninsula. And it had not any relations with any slavic form: it's due to the Sanctuary of Monte Sant'Angelo Michele and it has its old historical roots in the strong cult of the Archangel Michael widespread between Garganic people since his first appearition in the 7th century. Micaglia family still survives in Apulia you know?

Wake up doc.

Take your reflections. --Theirrulez (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor. And you do realize that "take your reflections" means absolutely nothing in English, right?

What can I say, "Mikalja" is clearly in Croatian form.

Just don't edit war User:Theirrulez. Rather I recommend you finally get some sources worth inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. If you add one more absurd citation needed tag to my posts like the one above it'll stop being funny. The refs are in the article - you just cannot read Croatian, can you now? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the perfect example to what good wipedians shouldn't do. I'm really upset. Hundreds of hours trying to have a dialogue and one user, always the same, revert every other users' efforts to push is positions. DIREKTOR, you wrote somethin in contrast with reliable sources cited in the article. Why? Is it acceptable? Is it acceptable that you continue to act like that? Please, don't impose you POV always in every article you contribute... It's at least unfair.. --Theirrulez (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are upset, User:Theirrulez, but you should not be frustrated simply because opposes you and elaborates on the issues clearly on the talkpage. The source is 1) unpublished, 2) Italian (not necessarily neutral in such national conflicts), and 3) and does not cite any source for a historic fact of such significance (when, where did he say/write something like that? Is it written down somewhere?)

Clearly its a fished out one-liner, contradicted by actual published sources. It has no credibility whatsoever. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough

What you wrote here above is exactly the syntesys of what you behave and act in this project.

Maybe you don't read other wikipedians edits, or maybe you're just joking, I don't know and I don't care.

1. Sources unpublished?

You mean this one, in which is clearly explained that Micaglia was italian and he stated to be (not Neapoletan, but really Italian) and that he can speak Croatian? Just for information the source is a webpublished version by RAI (the Italian National TV Network, like the BBC in UK) of an important work originally pubblished in 10 volumes with the title "Storia della Lingua Italiana" (History of Italian Language) and the author is just Ph.D Prof Francesco Bruni, Professor at Ca' Foscari University of Venice for the courses: History of Italian Language, History of Italian Literature, Italian Philology and Literature and History. He wrote some hundreds of publications and he's one of the few honourably member of the Accademia della Crusca. Have I to continue? Part of is curriculum is on line at Ca'Foscari website.

For Wikipedia definition this is a secondary source.

2. Italian, not neutral

Easy to translate. And the next ones? what about these? (Note that the Croatian Academy of America uses the name Giacomo Micaglia? And defines him Italian.. Why?? I don't know.. He should be a Croat, His name should be Jacov? How it's possible?)

• Croatian Academy of America,Journal of Croatian studies, p. 286 Volumes 36-37, 1997 (in Croatian) (in English)
• Ivo Banac, Hrvatsko jezično pitanje Vol. 6, P. 43, of Mladost, 1991, ISBN 9788676490035 (in Croatian)
• Edward L. Keenan, Josef Dobrovský and the origins of the Igor' tale Harvard University Press ISBN 9780916458966

3. does not cite any source? contradicted by actual published sources?

What's sources are contaditory, maybe you should give some lessons to Prof Francesco Bruni, he seems to be not a good student for you.. and not so actual. Then maybe Harvard publications aren't reliable source for you.. or for your purpose.

I have to admit your last edit was very impressive. Hope to se you around sir, --Theirrulez (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Nota Bene: Don't impose any changement to the article if u have not discussed it here and if you don't provide reliable sources.--Theirrulez (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT

This revert, especially considering it was preceded by this edit dangerously borders on WP:POINT... You should always discuss before making potentially controversial changes (and I fear this one is). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Astonishing. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(Its "astonishing", Theirrulez.) 19,000 hits vs 1,630 hits? "Vrančić" is 12 times more common if my math still serves me. I do not think its "controversial" at all. Someone renamed that article without any discussion or proper argumentation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The original discussion was here. And, since there has been an ongoing, almost chronic discussion about whether the names of the various famous Ragusans (or Dubrovniker — uhm, I fear it's not correct... ^______^), should ne in romance or in Croatian don't you think that, perhaps, thinking that it wouldn't be controversial was a bit of an optimistic idea?

(And, by the way, please do not emphasize your interlocutor's mistakes, when you're arguing with him; it's a tad inconsiderate an approach). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Let him emphasize as usual. I don't know why he used so often argumenta ad personam to support his thesis.

Contra principia negantem non disputandum est, but I tried, tried, tried to discuss.. quasi ad nauseam (see above).--Theirrulez (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Cancelling reliable sources without any discussion

Sirs, can someone kindly provide me a reasonable ground for which User:DIREKTOR and User:Kebeta auomatically cancel reliable sources like:

• Croatian Academy of America, Journal of Croatian studies, p. 286 Volumes 36-37, 1997 (in Croatian) (in English)
• 3. RAI International Online - Prof. F. Bruni, Lingue diverse dall’italiano in Italia (in Italian)
  

from the article, without any discussion HERE in the related talk page? Thanks, --Theirrulez (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what i mean. =O --Theirrulez (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Theirrulez! I can not speak in Direktor's name, but I didn't "auomatically cancel reliable sources". 1.) My revert included all of other things that you changed which I explained in my edit summary. 2.) One of the things was the name of Faust Vrančić, which you substituted with Fausto Veranzio, although you know that isn't a current article name on English wikipedia, since you have made a move proposal for it. 3.) Furthermore, the citation of your source didn't support the sentence that you had written in the article. 4.)You have deleted semi-protected tag, and so on, and so on,....Kebeta (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Theirrulez insists on claiming this person is "Italian", and sourcing that with a single sentence from an unpublished webpage text. The text is completely unverifable, cites no sources, no professional historians, no documents, no research. This is probably not the fault of the text itself, since it was obviously not meant as a serious reference. The "fault" is rather in the person desperately fishing for nonsense sentences on the web and pushing them as "reliable sources" on an encyclopedia.

Not only that, but that link of User:Theirrulez's is also contradicted by actual published newspaper sources, i.e. Slobodna Dalmacija Some still consider him Italian. The source is obviously far from perfect, and sports many of the same flaws as the one quoted by Theirrulez - but at least it is and entire published article talking about his ethnicity. It is at least as good or better than the cherry-picked web link that sports a single one-liner Theirrulez managed to fish-out.

Interesting how it was simply ignored by User:Theirrulez, who simply wrote down "he's Italian!". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your sources reflect exactly what you are trying to do: make Giacomo Micaglia a Croat.

Mikalij, genitive or vocative form? Mikalija is not a vocative form, is just a croatization of the family name Micaglia (I respect it and I consider it usual due to his importance of Croatian language historical development): Micaglia is a family still survived in Italy, still survived in Peschici.

What could change for you to make wikipedia attesting he's not Italian???

You are trying to do something not good, for Croatian History, for first (have I to remind you what absurd you did on the Franco Sacchetti article?). And please don't provide never more this kind of source. It's not serious. It's not respectful for the matter. --Theirrulez (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank:

• I do not care about some misunderstanding at Franco Sacchetti, merely mentioning the person's Croatian name in brackets is not something that haunts me at night.
• I do not care what sources you personally consider "respectful". The source is a published article from a respected Croatian newspaper house (Slobodna Dalmacija), and it certainly has more credibility than a single sentence from some fished-out (unpublished) web link.
• You insist on voicing your thoughts & opinions on the origin of the surname "Mikalja". It has perfectly logical Croatian roots ("Mikalj + a" = "Mikalja", meaning "Mikalj's" or "Michaels" if you like). The fact that there are still people named after the italianized form of the surname "Mikalja" does not really mean anything (even if we assume you are actually telling the truth this time).

And finally, I do not think anyone can "make Croats into Croats". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What you think It was perfectly clear since long time.

And it has ben now widely understood by many users.--Theirrulez (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What is that, if I may ask? That I am indeed tired of users continuously going around Wiki and translating Croatia history articles from English into Italian? Correct. As I said time and time again, if you are shocked that people from a region populated by Slavs since the 8th century AD were - Slavs, then I must say you have strange preconceptions about geography and history. Particularly it would seem, about that "Italian cultural umbrella" you mentioned. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Never used the xpression "Italian cultural umbrella", don't try. I said that what you think was perfectly clear since long time.

So after that my participation to a dialogue with this so one-side historical point of view finish here. I just told, contra principia negantem non disputandum est, so I can't go on.--Theirrulez (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry DIREKTOR, but the Dalmatian coast is not only croatian, when you talking about history, you only believe about one slav croatian, you are wrong, the Dalmatian coast were always a mix culture and population, the Croatian historic region only was Zagreb (Junius Palmotta or Palmotic :)) only wrote this in Bisernica about the Croats "the passage list the lands where the slavic Knights at the Hungarian Court were drawn", the new modern conception about the Croatian culture not have more than 100 years, is not bad, but the coast always have this latin culture (language, costume, food). All europe is in that way, Italy is a regional country, Spain and Germany the same. Which`s problem about the diversity?.. not this monocultural point of view about the life. regards --Kanalesi (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@Theirrulez. "Contra principia negantem non est disputandum"? You're kidding? You brought the conversation here [55]. What is with these sort of comments? You constantly talk about me then when I respond you accuse me of ad hominem arguments? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

@Direk. You know what I mean. And about me: etiamsi tibi pareat, ego numquam ad hominem neminem refero.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

1. No, I don't know "what you mean". 2. Yes you did, numerous times. 3. My recommendation to you is read WP:NPA. Read it very, very carefully. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, what you mean for very very carefully? Please clearify last phrase cause it seems like your intention is to intimidate me. I suppose you don't.. but it sounds very badly. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Being called a "child" is a very clear insult. I am not, in fact, a "child". Please apologize. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

eheh, just a refuso, easy to find and to understand.. sorry I meant pareat. --Theirrulez (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean, "just a refuse"? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it a What-do-you-mean game? :) A refuso is a misprint: parveat instead of pareat (=it seems) or paruit (it seemed). --Theirrulez (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Refuse" means garbage, Theirrulez. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That one was a refuso (a misprint) too.--Theirrulez (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jakov Mikalja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071218092302/http://www.vjesnik.hr:80/html/1998/11/03/Kultura.htm to http://www.vjesnik.hr/html/1998/11/03/Kultura.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jakov Mikalja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822153741/http://www.matica.hr/Kolo/kolo0301.nsf/AllWebDocs/lex to http://www.matica.hr/Kolo/kolo0301.nsf/AllWebDocs/lex

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jakov Mikalja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vjesnik.hr/html/1998/11/03/Kultura.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927104608/http://www.reportonline.it/article322.html to http://www.reportonline.it/article322.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jakov Mikalja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516004900/http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/lezioni/f_lv3.htm to http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/lezioni/f_lv3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516004900/http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/lezioni/f_lv3.htm to http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/lingua/bruni/lezioni/f_lv3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120005439/http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-mikalja.html to http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-mikalja.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610164430/http://www.ihjj.hr/images/povijest/mikalja-8a3.gif to http://www.ihjj.hr/images/povijest/mikalja-8a3.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120005439/http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-mikalja.html to http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-mikalja.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628024208/http://www.ihjj.hr/o-hr-mikalja%20.htm to http://www.ihjj.hr/o-hr-mikalja%20.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624054130/http://www.ihjj.hr/projekti-6.html to http://www.ihjj.hr/projekti-6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530184440/http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-rjecnici.html to http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-rjecnici.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611194927/http://www.matis.hr/zbornici/2002/text/du_322.htm to http://www.matis.hr/zbornici/2002/text/du_322.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jakov Mikalja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929110554/http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it/xtf/view?docId=bibit000202%2Fbibit000202.xml&chunk.id=d3466e148&query= to http://www.bibliotecaitaliana.it/xtf/view?docId=bibit000202%2Fbibit000202.xml&chunk.id=d3466e148&query=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)