Talk:Ivan Gundulić

Croatian poet

@OyMosby:@Jesuislafete:@SerVasi:@Mhare:@Tzowu:@Santasa99:@Jingiby:@Sheldonium:@Surtsicna:@Shokatz:@Ivan Štambuk:@Director: We would be honored if you would join us, in this discussion. Please do share your opinion on this matter and what do you think should be done. The main question is: Should the article lead state that Ivan Gundulić was a Croatian poet or not? There are other questions that should/can be discussed but this is the main one. The problem, as it seems, is the inclusion that Ivan Gundulić was a Croatian poet in the lead of this article. The source confirming that is Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-Gundulic, an independent and third party source.

User Sadko is against this inclusion and has removed it from the lead. User Sadko states the following: restoring that Ivan Gundulić was a Croatian poet is a "bold edit that must have broader consensus". I think that what user Sadko is doing, and that is removing content sourced by Encyclopedia Britannica, is a bold move and that anyone who does something like that should make a strong case defending his actions. I would say that the problem partly starts with the Ethnicity section, but I would like to hear what others have to say. I must also add that user Sadko insist on a discussion but only when the lead of the article contains that Ivan Gundulić was a Croatian poet, but when it is removed, somehow, it seems to me, that the need for a discussion ends, at least one the side of user Sadko. I might be wrong, but that is the impression that I got.

Thanks to all that are going to participate and I hope that we can resolve this dispute. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

First off, this is not how a discussion should be started! Pinging just several users is not good, for obvious reasons, and this case borders with canvassing. Try to notify WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Croatia, WikiProject Literature and other related projects, and only then we can have a discussion. I could do it for you, but I am not the one to start this discussion. I will also tell you that there have been several discussion on this matter and that there is a good possibility of going in circles. The source is confirming nothing (because we are talking about the lead), as Wiki policies are saying another thing. I am not inssisting on anything, just going by the book, regardless of my personal feelings. If I was acctually biased I would call him Serbian poet, which is not per Wiki guidelines and policies. Your impressions are not arguments and everything written upon some impressions can not be taken seriously. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have pinged all the users that have participated in the discussion above. Your argument is done in bad faith. Once again, you are basically saying: "I am right and you are wrong". This is not how a discussion should proceed. Please, if you assert something then please provide some evidence. And please no more bad faith. The one that has started this discussion and the reason why there is a discussion are you. You have removed sourced content from the lead, then insisted that it should stay removed even though other users have reverted you, and you insisted that there needs to be a discussion. Again, please, no more bad faith. Thanks. And I would like to see what other users have to say. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again, that is not how serious discussions should be started. It is your right to ignore that fact but other editors can therefore act accordingly as well. Pinging several (potentially, based on previous comments) partisan users is not per Wikipedia:Canvassing. Pointing fingers ("YOU, YOU ARE, YOU HAVE DONE, YOU ARE THE REASON") and writing several sentences about other fellow editor's intentions or motivations based on personal impressions in the very intro post is not per Wikipedia:Civility. We already have some rants by one IP, which just shows that this canvassing is sort of working, and no doubt that it will have further bad effect. [1] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, no substance, just steam. I asked you to present some evidence, you provided none. Is there more to say on the matter. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You talk about canvassing but the only one notifying editors that were not already part of the discussion is you. You as usual provide zero arguments and rely on attacking other editors that try to have a healthy discussion. Im just waiting for you to start calling everybody nazis again. SerVasi (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Smears and self character assassinations aside, I have quoted several Wiki rules and gave several examples as well. Older editions of Encyclopedia Britannica call him a Servian poet (and many other sources, old and new). All of those sources can be found in TP archives and other editors have done it already. I see no point in counting Gundulić's blood cells like this, as he was Ragusan. Wikipedia:I just don't like it and want to call him as I was incorrectly tutored throughout state education system is not a good start. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m not that well read on Ivan Gandulić so I can’t say for certain. There is a good chance he is Croatian but there are also sources pointing to Serbian lineage. So hard to say completely. Again from my limited quick look. But what I am certain of is I’m not interested in being part of a Croat vs Serb playground-like smear fest. We are all adults here (I assume) so seeing insults like “Serbian chauvinist” or “you state education lied to you” or “nazi” on this talk page are beneath civil discussions and just name calling. Just because we may not all agree and have our biases doesn’t mean we have to hate each other. OyMosby (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No one could tell if he considered himself to be a Croat, but he certainly was/is prominent poet of "Croatian baroque"! Something like this ("prominent poet of Croatian baroque", which is informative and correct) was included into lede before, who removed it and why is beyond reason - it's tiresome to discuss on these things and in emotionally charged environment with irrational thinking taking the front stage, where editors see their role here as some sort of patriotic duty, a moral imperative and obligation to, as some said, the "ancestors", or others, to the "future generations", and so forth.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ragusan literature is not a part of Croatian baroque (or any other for that matter). When somebody states this they usually get a bunch of labels and insults in return. Nonetheless, Ragusan literature is - Ragusan literature (that is 100% rational and makes logical sense). Their heritage is today celebrated in 2-3 countries, and there can be no exclusivity, which is not per NPOV to begin with. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User Sadko, we live in the 21st century, Dubrovnik is a city in Croatia. Like Florence is part of Italy. I can't understand how you don't see this. Do you think that it is state propaganda, stating that Dubrovnik is a Croatian city? It seems that when you were telling others about "state education system" you were saying more about yourself, unfortunately. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That is a logical mistake because Republic of Ragusa was not a Croat republic, but had its own identity (which would be the closest to Yugoslav, if we look at it from modern perspective). Subotica is a city in Serbia but not all of Subotica's lovely Art nouveau building were built by Serbs and those works of art represent shared heritage. Stop commenting on other users as you have no idea where I started or finished my education. This is not notorious Croatian Wikipedia, where that kind of things are tolerated. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am permanently blocked on Croatian Wikipedia so please don't insult me. I hope that was not your intention. What I did was that I tried to give you a "hand of peace" and tried to show you that, in a way, you are doing practically the some thing what "they" do/are doing. Not intentionally, I guess/hope. Basically I put a mirror in front of you and if that insulted you then I am sorry and please forgive me. So you say that comparing Dubrovnik to Florence is a logical mistake? How is it a logical mistake, please explain. Now you make a logical mistake, you say that if some artwork was not made by a Serb then it can't be part of Serbian art. Someones ethnicity is not a condition nor an obstacle for someone to participate and contribute his work and labor to any nation or its heritage. If you are trying to compare Subotica to Dubrovnik then please you need to explain more. Maybe buildings are not a good analogy though. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sadko you realize you first insulted and made assumptions about another user’s faulty learning experience from the Croatian education system right? Seems like a smear on multiple levels. Of Croatia education system and assumptions about the user. Claiming one belong on nationalist Croatian or Serbian Wikipedias seems ridiculous as well. OyMosby (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

::: And mind you the Serbian Wikipedia with a number of articles based on revisionism seems absolutely plagued with similar nationalistic issues as Croatian Wikipedia. And I could say some of your edits and behavior seem more aligned with the attitudes there. As do some Croatian centric editors here with edit warring. But you don’t seem very neutral in your edits at times and I think you are aware. We all have viewpoints but should let that influence the reading public. I say this all to you and the other (probably Croatian) editor who keeps edit waring and PoV pushing. English Wiki is supposed to be the balanced version, not the Serbian/Croatian nationalism version of history. Both those respective wikis annoy me greatly with their alt-history. And those who try to correct them are outnumbered by pov pushers. MaloPoMalo (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: PortalTwo. --WEBDuB (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Being celebrated by different countries is absolutely irrelevant. Shapespeare is celebrated by everyone. Go claim him with your fringe theories. SerVasi (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn’t very productive conversation. Personal attacks won’t lead anywhere. OyMosby (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should state that he is a Croatian poet as most sources do so. In the previous discussions I provided some sources to back that, and gave the examples of Nikola Tesla (not defined as an Austrian Empire scientist) or Dante Alighieri (not defined as a Republic of Florence poet) as similar cases. The ethnicity section should also be reduced or removed completely and incorporated into other sections like legacy, as it containts a lot of unreliable sources. Tzowu (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it should not, and this was discussed and debated over and over for ~10 years. You can find ~30 sources on this very page calling him Serbs or Serbian. Nikola Tesla can not be given as an example as the current version of the lead was ruled out after months and months of debate. Alighieri had a sense of Italian identity, while Ragusans did not have Croatian identity, but rather Ragusan or Slavic, while early sources (and a number of notable Ragusans, such as Frančesko Micalović) call their language Serbian. That is a fact and the rest is wishsful thinking. Calling old Ragusans Yugoslav (in ethnic sense) would be the most honest and objective viewpoint. This is another fine example - Alexander von Humboldt - Prussian. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Well the 10 years of debates obviously didn't settle the issue when, if you look through the history of the page, there was never a stable version of the article. And I've yet to see those 30 sources. The other ones are right here, under the "Comments". And no, komunikacija.org.rs, vreme.com, ssr.org.rs and similar are not reliable sources for this matter. Tzowu (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, why are you so concentrated on removing ethnicities in lead of Croatia-related articles, while it is OK to be in the first sentence that Nikola Tesla is Serbian-American? Clear double standards. First remove all ethnicities regarding Serbs, or Croats that you managed to Serbianize, and then we will take care of Croats.--Sheldonium (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please be civil and start behaving like an adult (I will be free to suppose that you are one): pointing fingers, calling out names, claiming that there is an ongoing plot, making wild claims etc. It is not helping. Go to the TP of the article (Archive) and you will see that 10+ editors supported and voted for the current version - which is to stay. I was not active in that debate. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is, as always, completely irrelevant. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you are a child, because you are constantly demonstrating childlish behaviour such as making victim out of yourself. Instead of Gundulić's Himna Slobodi, for which you so eagerly want not to be a Croat, I politely suggest you to put some verse from real Serbian poets, you have plenty of them: Ceca, Karleuša, Seka Aleksić... I will be civil, and politely ask you to remove yourself from Croatia-related articles because you are constantly playing victim and use no arguments in discussions. Thank you. (and I expect you will once again victimize yourself, to be clear, I have nothing agint you nor Serbs, but obvious double standards and hypocrisy is unacceptable.)--Sheldonium (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any voting for any version of the article, and I still don't see the 30 sources from your claims. Tzowu (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it is time to report the said user to finally remove him from these kind of articles as he is clearly not fit to edit them. This person deserves to be topic-banned from all Balkan-related articles. It is hilarious what he has done here. Shokatz (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sadko.

This postcard - a first-day-of-issue Yugoslavian cover, with a Yugoslav first-day-of-issue stamp pre-Croatian independence lists Gundulic (and his entire family) as the "largest Croatian literary family" (on the left, printed vertically). Since FDCs were approved by the state of Yugoslavia at the time, which encompassed Serbia and Croatia, it is fair to consider this a neutral source from both Croatian and Serbian points of view.

https://www.aukcije.hr/prodaja/Filatelija/hrvatska/prigodne-omotnice-mk-zigovi/1107/oglas/HRVATSKAF-D-DUBROVNIK1989-D%C5%BDIVO-FRANOV-GUNDULI%C4%86-PJESNIK-KNJI%C5%BDEVNIK/4559974/#gallery 130.76.24.20 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should the description in the lead be changed?

The consensus is that the text in the lead describing Gundulić should not be changed from "most prominent Baroque poet" to "most prominent Croatian Baroque poet".

Several proposals were introduced later in the RfC. There is no consensus on those proposals owing to insufficient participation so there is no prejudice against discussing them in a new RfC.

Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the text in the lead describing Gundulić be changed from "most prominent Baroque poet" to "most prominent Croatian Baroque poet"? Tzowu (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. I think a RfC is the best way to try to end this discussion. Per my comments previously on the talk page, I think that this version is supported by a majority of sources. Tzowu (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• No This RfC is completely pointless as it bluntly ignores basic MOS:ETHNICITY. It's an attempt to push one's preferred version. From my experience, in RfCs such as this one, it is quite common for users from local Wikipedias (hr.wiki or any other) to come out of the blue in order to vote yes (without earlier activity on the page) per Wikipedia:Nationalist editing. It will not bring anything good to the article. Not to mention that the man in question was Ragusan patriot and high official of Republic of Ragusa. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think there is too much conflicting sourcing to state him as just “Croatian Baroque Poet” unless the sourcing is overwhelming in support. I agree with Sadko that the lead should not be changed for now however ethnicity can be mentioned as long as it is not in the first sentence. Again need a lot of sourcing to justify it. OyMosby (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

His ethnicity was Ragusan/Slavic. That is already mentioned. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems there is a laundry list of sources stating him as Croat. I see 10 listed which I was not aware. However due to controversy, it may be best to leave his ethnicity out of the intro. OyMosby (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And there is a list of sources presenting him as a Serb, it's in the archive, or stating that he is of Serb origin. I agree, neither should be in the lead; Gundulić held Ragusan identity and tens of sources are confirming it and calling him Ragusan (I have posted a bunch of them in earlier versions of the page). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I added the sources, there's more than 10 and not a single Croatian source. Take a look at the page history, there are probably a hundred reverts of multiple users done by Sadko to the point of page protection, and the talk page got us nowhere. So I see no other option than a RfC. Tzowu (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. My proposal is not to name him a "Croat poet" or a "Croatian poet", though the majority of sources also support that. My proposal doesn't include his ethnicity. "Croatian Baroque poet" is linked to the Croatian literature#Baroque literature article. Sources: Tzowu (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A number of sources call Gundulić Ragusan - which is a basic fact, while everything else is misleading and ignoring NPOV. His cousins have also been described as Ragusans In which national literature is he celebrated and considered a part of is covered properly, in lead and article body both. This is not RfC, but an open invitation to break MOS:Lead and NPOV, with giving 1 side's view the primary place, which is a certain path to destroy Wikipedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

Sources
References

• This edit has broken the RfC listing entry, because the statement is no longer brief. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• No it should not be Croatian Baroque (questionable term without article, as we can see) as it is very clearly stated later that he is "from the Republic of Ragusa, (now in Croatia)", So, we do not need and further political claims based on the fact that more then 300 years later Republic of Ragusa is part of modern day Croatia. Also, less is more in this case, as that is the only proper way to follow WP:NPOV regarding political questions on Balkan subjects. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a section on the Croatian literature called Baroque literature and that is where the link goes. That is similar to the way Dante is labeled as an Italian poet with a link to the Italian poetry article. Obviously, naming the modern-day country of his birthplace is not that important here, though I would remove Republic or Ragusa as well from the lead. Tzowu (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

And related to this topic, users Sadko and OyMosby have recently also removed the "Croatian" label from a number of other articles under the same pretext as on this one,[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] following a "deal" on their talk page. [9]Tzowu (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the first source which Sadko listed under his sources, Yale University - Slavic Literature (the title is wrong, the actual title is "Croatia: Themes, Authors, Books - LITERATURE", is in fact supporting my proposal. Here's what's written there:

"Gundulić, born in Dubrovnik, is the most celebrated Croatian Baroque."

So that would be source number 20 from my side, further confirming what the majority of sources have to say. Tzowu (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not a pretext, and the way you formulated seems like an open invitation to "fix their wrongdoings". We do not copy the sources directly like you suggest, and most certeainly not for the lead. Please cooperate with other editors. We did not have a deal, but a debate, as we are mostly not on the same page, but both of us DO care about basic Wiki rules and guidlines. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering the fact that at least since October [10] you have been trying to remove the "Croatian" label from dozens and dozens of pre-late 20th century articles (not just related to Dubrovnik), with the same rationale as on this one, and apparently you have no plan on stopping that no matter what, it is important to draw an attention to that so others can see the context of your edits. Just as with your behavior on this article that led to several page protections in a very short period of time. And looking at the page and talk page history of this article, It is clear what you are trying to do.

You already added WP:FRINGE theories from a number of fringe Serbian websites on Gundulić being part of Serbian literature such as www.komunikacija.org.rs [11], www.srpskilegat.rs, or an interview from the Vreme magazine. [12] (this sentence is indicative: "with the presence of Serbian language within the Republic of Ragusa since its foundation")

So we should just ignore the majority of sources that refer to him as a part of Croatian literature, and in the process leave some Serbian blogs and political magazines to "prove" how he is actually a part of Serbian literature. What were you saying about WP:NATIONALIST editing again? Tzowu (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Even earlier than October, what seems to be the problem with that? I have removed it from a bunch of other unrelated articles as well, there is no cherrypicking here. I will continue to do so, as I have recently done on Sava Petrović (botanist) or agreed upon removal of the same style of lead with fellow editor on Momčilo Tapavica. I could bring more examples. There is no ongoing plot here, as you would like to imply, please. Show good faith and respect basic guidlines, please. Vreme is one of the best magazines in the Balkans probably, and most of other portals are just fine, there are no blogs used. I accept your critique that even better sources are needed, and I shall try my best to comply in near future. None of it is fringe, Pavle Popović has been teaching Ragusan literature as an integral part of Serbian literature almost a century ago. Once again, please, stop pointing fingers at fellow editors and cooperate. Nobody is proving that he is a part of any literature, we are editing an encyclopedia, and if a person's work is celebrated in 2 or 3 literatures, that must be respected, per WP:NPOV. As for the quoted sentence take a look at Frančesko Micalović and google out examples of early poetry from Ragusa, you would be surprised with the result. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Twenty sources in English language, from authors or encyclopaedias that are not related to this area, say that Gundulić and his work are a part of Croatian literature or explicitly say that he is a Croatian poet. I could probably find a lot more, but this is enough for now. That is what the majority of reliable sources have to say here.

On the other hand, there are less sources, more personal views, original research regarding what was Gundulić's true affiliation, and a selective and inconsistent invoking of Wikipedias guidelines. In your case Sadko, they are almost exclusively attempted on Croatian articles in other cases, with a random reasoning depending on what suits best. Also, there are zero English language, peer-reviewed sources that point to his alleged belonging to Serbian literature. Zero, none. That is a fringe theory that is given an undue weight in the "Ethnicity" section of the article. An overwhelming number of reliable sources say otherwise, no matter what an interview in a political magazine or a late 19th/early 20th century historian say. Tzowu (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment If Marco Polo is Italian merchant then and Ivan Gundulić is Croatian poet. Mikola22 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this mean that you support the proposal? If yes, you should write 'support' before your comment. N.Hoxha (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We can easily avoid the potentional issues mentioned by Mikola22. I'm fine with any of these proposals, or similar ones:

Proposal #1...Ivan Gundulić, was the most prominent Croatian Baroque poet.

Proposal #2...Ivan Gundulić, was the most prominent poet of the Croatian Baroque period.

Proposal #3...Ivan Gundulić, was a Baroque poet, who ranks among the most important figures of the Croatian literature.

I don't know if I need to add them in the lead? These are in line with the example of Petrarch given on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Examples. There is a reference to Italian Renaissance, and no reference to the Republic of Florence.:

Francesco Petrarca (Italian: [franˈtʃesko peˈtrarka]; July 20, 1304 – July 19, 1374), commonly anglicized as Petrarch (/ˈpiːtrɑːrk, ˈpɛ-/), was a scholar and poet of Renaissance Italy, who was one of the earliest humanists. Tzowu (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1. As per what was said by tzowu. This is sourced and has been the stable version of the lede for almost 15 years before it got removed without any sort of discussion on the talk page. N.Hoxha (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1 "We need to take wikipedia examples and apply it everywhere equally". There is no other way. Mikola22 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment You have started this RfC with 2 options, and now, in the same pagragraph we have some sort of sub-RfC? Those three options are pretty much all the same - therefore - it is a fake RfC and more of a trick, made in order to push one's POV. That is a case of abuse of RfC, which is not something to be taken lightly. And yes, there has been a lot of discussion on the talk page, for many years. I get the idea where this formulation came from (or was taken from), and it's not from Mikola. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No to the original proposal. The construction "Croatian Baroque poet" is actually semantically ambiguous. It could mean a poet that writes in a "Croatian Baroque" style, or it could mean a "Baroque poet" who is Croatian. But since there is no specific Croatian Baroque style that differs significantly from other Baroque in anything but language, it has to be the second interpretation. This leaves us with the problem of interpretation of the label "Croatian". In the 17th century it cannot be nationality. Neither can it be ethnicity if Gundulić described himself as a Slav, and ethnicity should not be in the lede anyway.

I also agree with Sadko that the new "proposals" are confusing the whole matter. Proposal 1 is the same as the main question of the RfC. Proposal 2 is exactly the same, apart from the "small" matter that the term "Croatian Baroque period" is rather dubious. A better formulation would be "Ivan Gundulić was the most prominent Croatian poet of the Baroque period", but that is unacceptable per WP:ETHNICITY. Proposal 3 introduces a completely new and unsourced thesis, which is not compatible with the current discussion at all. Please withdraw the confusing extra proposals and let the RfC run its course. If you want to raise another RfC, so be it, but changing the RfC question while it is running is the worst possible solution. --T*U (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comments. 1) Clearly a 'one size fits all logic' regarding historic identity/modern state would lead to nonsense sometimes, Julius Caeser was not an Italian ruler/General, Robert Burns was not a British poet etc, therefore while there may be sound reasons why Dante is best described as Italian, one cannot automatically transfer that logic to all situations, and if describing Dante as Italian led to ambiguity or confusion, or was disputed, it would be better to describe him as Florentine. … 2) Reminder that this is English WP and exists primarily as a source of information for English speakers, who tend to be woefully ignorant of anything East of the Alps, one aspect of this is they will not know whether 'Croatian', in this context refers to his nationality, his ethnicity or the language/culture in which he wrote (or even the current name of 'his land') - personally I think the Tesla description is wrong, though it is part of a common Ethnicity-Nationality use in the USA (Barack Obama is not described as an African-American politician, he is described as an American politician, who is African-American) … 3) I know that we "follow the sources" here, but where that leads to an unclear or ambiguous outcome, we ahould not follow them slavishly - I believe that is the case here and therefore we should Not use Croation Baroque in WPVOICE. The present text is much more informative as regards his 'nationality' and any text about the language he wrote in, cultural movement he was part of, or his ethnicity are better covered away from the opening sentence. Pincrete (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I know that these proposals are not significantly different from the original RfC question, and that proposal #1 is the same as it. I was addressing some issues raised here and gave examples how it can in my view be written in a similar manner, yet be both in line with MOS (such as the example of Petrarch on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Examples) and with reliable sources. So the bottom line of the RfC question is still the same. Tzowu (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• No to the original proposal. It should be “Baroque poet from the Republic of Ragusa” or “Ragusan Baroque poet”, as is the case with most other prominent people from Ragusa. It is important to be consistent, especially in the case of people with a disputed background and ethnicity (like Ivo Andrić and Meša Selimović).--WEBDuB (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• No or Proposal 3. He is part of Croatian literature, sure, and I guess he also thought Slavs were all one ethnic group. Alas, when we are describing a poet, "Croatian poet" might be interpreted "who wrote in Croatian", which makes matters complicated as the Shtokavian dialect includes the standard forms of four different language standards in the Balkans, including both Croatian and Serbian. When we speak of English literature, that also includes literature from Canada, the US, Australia as well as that written in English from non-Anglophone countries (...and, literature written in Scots). His writings are thus interpretable to any of those peoples, including also Bosnians and Montenegrins, and it is not absurd to say he influenced also Bosnian or Serbian writers, while it appears supported by sources to say he has a special place specifically in Croatian literature. Either "Ragusan" or "Proposal 3" are therefore the options that seem most NPOV to me. --Calthinus (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Regarding specifically "Marco Polo", this is a complicated argument as a substantial number of adherents of Padanian nationalism might find this rather offensive... And also, Venetism is powerful enough to elect the regional governor of Marco Polo's home region, and proposes Venetians as a separate people from Italians... --Calthinus (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus:I do not understand what you're trying to say? This is wikipedia and rules apply equally. What I or some other editor on wikipedia have to do with "Padanian nationalism", "separate people from Italians"? Wikipedia is not a set of beautiful wishes. Bunjevci are considered as ethnic Croatians but on wikipedia they are South Slavic ethnic group.[13] Does this mean that someone is separating us ie proposes Bunjevci as a separate people from Croatians? That's why I say "We need to take wikipedia examples and apply it everywhere equally" otherwise we enter anarchy. I don't know how much you understand the situation, Marco Polo (/ˈmɑːrkoʊ ˈpoʊloʊ/ (About this soundlisten), Venetian: [ˈmaɾko ˈpolo], Italian: [ˈmarko ˈpɔːlo], 1254 – January 8–9, 1324)[1] was an Italian merchant... do you understand now? There is no other than having the same principle. It has to be first basis in your decision, or let's change Marco Polo article together. We are all here to work together for the benefit of wikipedia, the rules must be the same and we must implement them equally in the articles. Mikola22 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that this, rather than an argument about Gundulic, this actually may be a (good) argument that Marco Polo's ethnicity needs to be removed from the lead of his page... this is not even some fringe view, it is inherent to a political project that is capable of winning elections in the region. Although, as you point out, there are some that consider Bunjevci separate from Croatians, they have long identified as Croats, speak the same language, have a similar culture et cetera. On the other hand Venetians have a separate history, a separate language, and a rather powerful separatist movement. Which illustrates some of the complications inherent with placing contemporary ethnicities and nationalities into the lead sections of historical figures. --Calthinus (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• No on the original proposal, per WP:MOSETHNICITY and TU-Nor's reasoning. Ignore the three "proposals", as they are not part of the original RfC question. Khirurg (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia rules

What wikipedia rules say about that? If we respect sources then he is Croatian Baroque Poet. If we respect time in which he lives then I dont know what should be right. Maybe wikipedia rules have answer for that? I'm here to follow the rules. For Nikola Tesla I exposed 20 sources that he is Croatian-American but it is not respected.@N.Hoxha: If Marco Polo was an Italian merchant then Ivan Gundulić is Croatian Baroque Poet, and that's why I support proposal. We need to take wikipedia examples and apply it everywhere equally. Mikola22 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

And those two (Tesla and Marco Polo) are GA articles. MOS:CONTEXTBIO was somehow missed. Also, what will we do with all these sources describing Gundulić as a Croatian Baroque poet? I didn't even know that there were so many of them, I was surprised when I did a rather quick Google Books search. Is a mere mention in the bottom of the article that some describe him that way a fair representation of the reliable sources? And btw, I have no problem with a consistent use of that guideline. Tzowu (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You gave an example (Francesco Petrarca), here is Marco Polo article etc. This must be our examples and for this article. We have to look at examples from wikipedia and apply it in all articles equally, everything else is anarchy. Editors who think differently that is, they don't like your suggestions, especially the first one actually support anarchy. How could I be for any other suggestion when Francesco Petrarca and Marco Polo are Italians and Italy does not exist in their time. We must not enter into anarchy, if we enter into anarchy then we must change Francesco Petrarca, Marco Polo Italian fact. Those editors who are against your proposal will certainly not speak like that in Francesco Petrarca and Marco Polo etc case, if they wanted to change something they would changed it long time ago. Croatia is a small country and of course we're not equal, but I think that wikipedia articles must show as right direction no matter what. Mikola22 (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Interviews, press releases as sources

These are the kind of sources found in the "ethnicity" section:

• "dr Milorad Vukanović: Niko nema pravo da svojata Dubrovnik!" - an interview in the "Alliance of Serbs in the Region" website
• "Mirko Vuksanović: Gundulić i Držić pripadaju i srpskoj baštini" - a press release by a member of SANU from a news portal
• "Ljubomir Stojanovic - Stare Srpske Povelje i Pisma, knjiga I, Beograd - Sremski Karlovci, 1929" - a book from 1929, with no page numbers
• "Vreme - Intervju – Zlata Bojović, istoričarka književnosti: Među Lavom i Drokunom" - an interview in a news magazine
• "Политика: Историчар књижевности Злата Бојовић: У Дубровачкој републици штампарије су биле ћириличне, а свој језик су називали и српским" - an interview in a political magazine
• Vukovic, Sanja (2018-03-29). "DUBROVNIK – ČIJI JE?". - a commentary on "srpskilegat" website

How are any of these RS? Tezwoo (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

They are not RS. These are mostly political pamphlets. We had such sources on Andrija Zmajević artice [14] and there were thrown out of the article.Mikola22 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I beg to differ. That is a generalisation. Rephrasing is in order. Forcing undue weight and labeling Vuk's work as "pseudo" is laughable and ironic, as his work was used by Croatian linguists of the time (accents, standard, what have you). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again, no matter how right you may think that you are (speaking in genral), this sort of edit-warring is not doing the article of anybody justice. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

What is wrong with using a interview to as respected paper as source to present a scholar's view? It is not the best option, but it's not that bad either. Are you really attempting to tell me that Vreme and Politika have no reputation? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Vuk's works are pseudoscientific, he had no formal education and by defifition was nationalistic folk linguist. There is nothing ironic about Croats using standards from areas populated by Croats (Dubrovnik, Slavonia, Lika, Hercegovina) which never were part of Serbia, nor populated by majority of Serbs (Orthodox populations to be more precise). Vuks'd ictionary is full of words from older Croatian dictionaries, words collected in Croatia, swear words (original Serb vocabulary) and loanwords from Turkish, Greek, German, Hungarian, Italian, that is the base of modern Serbian language. To add most of scientist used racist theories that were considered facts at that time, and now are completely pseudoscientific.--Vineword (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko do you have some quality sources (books, articles)? You can't prove everything with internet portals and claims that the Croats are stealing something from us, no one has the right to claim Dubrovnik etc.Mikola22 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The entire "Ethnicity" section should be removed from the article. It was since the article's creation a target for very often WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, unreliable, or uncited content, and I don't see that changing anytime soon if that is not done. Tezwoo (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing the „Ethnicity“ section. However, I ask myself how is it possible that people with a history of disruptive behavior towards a nation get the ability to even discuss and edit such articles. Nonetheless, following the Wikipedia rules the Nationality should be clear displayed as Croatian considering that numerous serious sources such as the Britannica Encyclopedia display him as a Croat. Furthermore, remembering the pictures of Dubrovnik‘s destroyed old town, while being bombarded by Serbian-Montegrin forces in the 1990ties, should make clear that any other label other than Croatian is not only false but disrespectful to the citizens of Dubrovnik and Croatia overall. Mentioning that Serbian academics claim him 25 years after should clearly indicate the cruelty and lack of character of those people. MarburgAnDerDrau (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

He was born Ghetaldi Gondola

In his family grave the surname used is Ghetaldi Gondola, not Gundulic. He was an italian dalmatian as most of the Ragusean intellectual elite and aristocracy. He was not born Gundulic, he was born Ghetaldi Gondola. Magnagr (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Source:my friend BeNiTo SerVasi (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Guys enough! Why can’t we have both?? I am tired of the attempts to Italianizr or Croatize figures relevant to both cultures. Italian premiers regard Croatia as the mist Italianesq country therefore closest in communality. Use this as an opportunity to show that friendship. Not to see it as a identity theft of one or another. You both seem to have very negative or cynical views on this. Mangar I iften see you automatically claim the Croats are Croatizing figures even though many of these figures are of Slavic or Italo-Slavic background when the Croatian nationality was coming into play. None of us are purely one genetic background. Identity is a created thing. There are Croats of Magyar ancestry and Hugarians of Croat ancestry for example. See “Skorosh” Hunagrian like Croatian surname in Croatia or “Horvat” Croat based Hungarian Surname in Hungary. SerVasi, please stop with the edit waring and erasing of Gandolic’s Ragusan/Dubrovnicki Italian/Croatian names. Ragusia was heavily Italian influenced and built as well. That joint culture should be a celebrated pount not a negative one. /end rant. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"Talk:Ivan Gunduli?" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Talk:Ivan Gunduli? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:Ivan Gunduli? until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)