Wikipedia

Talk:Dubrovnik/Archive 1

< Talk:Dubrovnik
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Foreignshore in topic Semi-protection?
Archive 1Archive 2

Dubrovnik Republic

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the language in dubrovnik was ilyrian and the written languáge was latin.ragusa is iliryan.... my name is arben i am a ilyrian from dardania--kosova-dubrovnik is an ancient ilyrian city of dalmacia and since the 11th centery it is slavic.Tell the truth about the dubrovnik do not go around the history....arben from sweden albanian from kosova or ilyrian from dardania. This kind of a discussion is now also at Talk:Republic of Ragusa.

The mention of "Dubrovnik Republic" strikes me as anachronistic. Would it be better "Ragusa Republic" or Reppublica di Ragusa (sp?)? -- Error

No, it was actually Dubrovnik Republic because apparently by that time the Slavic population had basically overwhelmed the Romanic one even within the city. --Shallot 02:45, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
But wasn't Italian the official language until quite recently? -- Error 03:21, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Uh, no? Dubrovnik has not been under Venetian authority since 1358.
In fact some of the most renown Croatian writers of the middle ages were from Dubrovnik, like Ivan Gundulić, Marin Držić, Julije Palmotić... of course, most of them knew Italian and/or Latin, but that was not their mother tongue. --Shallot 15:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but my impression was that Ragusa was independent until Napoleon, and the language of the city and especiall of the ruling class was Italian (some dialect?), no matter what ethnic origin their families had. On the other hand, http://www.croatia.hr/travelguide/index.php?menu=188& has Mentioned for the first time in documents of Bosnian ban Kulin in 1189, the town was completely croatised by the 14th century. In that century, the municipality of Dubrovnik (Communitas Ragusina) became the Republic of Dubrovnik (Republica Ragusina), -- Error
Yes, I believe that is what I said. The Slavs (without even getting into the whole "holy war" of whether they were Croat, Serb or whatever) had lived in the hinterland since the 7th century, and by the 14th/15th/16th century, they gradually moved within the city walls and merged with the Roman population already there. They weren't your "standard" barbarians that looted and pillaged everything -- they coexisted with the Romanic people and peacefully made their way into the civilization, which also meant that they didn't object to the use of Italian and/or Latin. If I were them, I would have kept Ragusa markings on all that merchant marine and diplomatic missions for the simple reason that it was well known and probably more understandable to potential customers and allies. That, however, doesn't mean the city wasn't called Dubrovnik. --Shallot 10:41, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that you may think that terms Ragusa and Dubrovnik aren't synonymous -- but they are. --Shallot 10:43, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I thought that Dubrovnik wasn't official -- Error 02:27, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Since these pages are in english, i think it would be better to put both names, both Italian and Croatian ones; Republic of Dubrovnik / Republic of Ragusa.

Official language of the Republic was Latin and Italian. Though population spoke Croatian language (Slavic). Since I was born and live in Dubrovnik, it was a shock to see Serbian language on this page. This is an attempt of Serbian radical nationalist to "claim" this town as Serbian. But actually this was never true. If we assume modern nations developed in 19th century in this part of the world, I can't understand how this town could ever be considered as Serbian. If you read ANY litteral work from THAT time (Middle Ages) of the finest Dubrovnik/Ragusan poets and writers, you would have seen they spoke purely Croatian language.

Lot of proofmaterial for Croathood of Dubrovnik is on the Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik. Kubura 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one thing can help to solve mystery about language in Dubrovnik. Mother of one of the most pronminent citizens of The City - Ivan Gundulić left her last will handwritten in Croatian language, which she considered her language. And do not forget that she was fluent in Venetian dialect of italian language- we are forgetting that italian language was divided at that time. --Billy the lid 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It would be nice to have a section on the roles of languages in Dubrovnik along history: Latin, Dalmatian, Serbocroat, Venetian, Judaeo-Spanish, Turkish,... -- Error 02:27, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) In the Royal Geographic Society 10, January 1916, Sir Arthur Evans one of the highest authorities on the geography and it's peoples of the Balkan Peninsula had lived for a long time in Ragusa and travelled in almost every part of the peninsula, and written upon it. In his work he clearly states about Ragusa(Dubrovnik)"The home language has always been Serb". and the mother tongue "from the early middle ages been exclusively a very pure form of Serb". http://www.istrianet.org/search-index.htm I beleive this should be included in the languages article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.107.96 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

St. Blasius

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

About this debate, I must refresh memory of everyone reading that Dubrovnik had a slavic Croat tribe population that was melt together with population from Epidaurum- Greek, Ilir and Byzanthine mixture. Dubrovnik also traded and had strong diplomatic conection with Constantinopulus and was unther his protection for some time. Also after fall of Constantinopulus it is belived that some people escaped to Dubrovnik (Ragusa Republic).

After all of this influece of Byzanth it is plain stupid to say that the serbs influenced the name st. Blasius who is patron of the city from the fundation of the city in 7th century when serbs still wasn't even in these areas, and bececome christians for centuries later!

They shown their influence on culture when they destroyed the city!

My grandfather name was is Vlaho, and I am proud to be Croat from Dubrovnik


First of all Shallot, your knowledge of Catholic Martyrology is quite poor, the patron saint of Ragusa was St. Blasius, he wasn't even a Slav, let alone a Croat.

However, the translation from Blasius into Vlaho is purely Serbian. As an avid contributor to the them of a Croatian language should also remember that the official Zagreb transliteration dictates that all Greek beta's be read as B whereas the Serbs follow the Greek pronounciations. Thus we have Byzantium (Serb: Vizantija whereas in the official Croat it is Bizant(ija)), barbarian (Serb: varvari, Croat: barbari), St. Barbara (Serb: Sv. Varvara, Croat: Sv. Barbara), Basil (Serb: Vasilije. Thus, Sv. Vlaho is Serbian. Besides, doesn't the Croat Catholic Church refer to St. Blasius as Sv. Blažo? So what is the deal now, are you sticking to Croat or Serbian? Don't imply that someone is forcing you to use the Serb transliteration! So what seems to be problem? Well, I was ready to settle on Serbo-Croat but as long as we are splitting hairs let us then split them accordingly, Serbian it is.

Regards

Igor 1:02 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is still hilarious that you would insist on this being Serbian when it's so consistently used in Dubrovnik, which is a city whose dialect is more or less the definition of how to speak Croatian. Yeah, I suppose you'd go on and tell me how anything Croatian is just a figment of our collective imagination, it's all actually Serbian. If all this wasn't so very funny, it would be so very sad. --Shallot 11:05, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Dubrovnik's local dialect is the Eastern Herzegovinian which is spoken by some 3 million Orthodox Serbs. In Croatia and Bosnia themselves, as a rule of thumb, it can be used as a criterium in order to distinguish the Orthodox from the Muslims and Catholics who speak other dialects or languages altoghether (chakavian, kajkavian). The precarious position of Dubrovnik and its surrounding was caused by the Ragusan Republic which was by law a Roman Catholic state, one could not become a citizen of Ragusa without being of Catholic faith and the Ragusans Catholicized former Orthodox-populated regions in their surroundings (Konavli, Peljesac, Ston) after they had purchased them from the Serbian Nemanjic dynasty.
If the Dubrovnik dialect is "more or less the definition of how to speak Croatian" why is it that the Croat Catholic Church translates St. Blasius as St Blažo and not St. Vlaho as is the case in Dubrovnik?
sincerely
Igor 1:31, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This is another case of blatant pan-Serbism that Croats and Bosniaks are really sick of. The ability of extremist Serbs to take near everything Croats happen to share with them and call it Serbian, and only Serbian, is astounding.
Well you, Mir Harven are other Croats who wrote that whole piece about the distinction between Serbian and Croatian, Milan Rešetar, a leading Ragusologist (Dubrovnik historian and linguist) once said about Dubrovnik that it is both Serbian and Croatian because those two are one people really but that Dubrovnik can only be Serbian should one really split the two. You claim that Croatian has nothing to do with Serbian, vehemently correct any mix of the two, so do not be a hypocrite and ask for a compromise (Serbo-Croatian) in this case. -- User:Igor 22:31, 2 Feb 2003 (UTC)
Nice that our "friend" had mentioned this Rešetar's claim. Here we go: 1. Milan Resetar was a Croatian philologist of old, neogrammarian school. He studied in Vienna and Berlin, and early in his youth accepted pan-Serbian "linguistic" ideology of Vuk Karadzic. So, he declared himself, in his 20s and 30s, to be "Serb Catholic". Fine. Later, he changed his identification to "Yugoslav". These facts only testify about Resetar's problems with national identity-and not about anything else. 2. Resetar was later, after his retirement from Zagreb University (where he edited some Dubrovnik writers like Drzic for Academy's edition "Old Croatian writers"), a resident in Florence- in Mussolini's Italy. 3. following the defeat of Yugoslavia in 1941 and creation of pro-Nazi and Fascist puppet NDH (Independent state of Croatia), this former "Serb Catholic" panicked about his pension. But, thanks to the intervention of his pupil, Croatian linguist and theatrologist Franjo Fancev, Resetar (Serb-Catholic, Yugoslav) was granted the continuation of pension which he received until his death (he died shortly after the Fancev's intervention). More- he had agreed to be elected among first 10 members of newly created-transformed Croatian Academy of Sciences in 1941. 4. Resetar's famous (famous because Serbian propagandists frequently quote it) claim about the nature of language-dialect spoken in historical Dubrovnik is reflection of his Serbian loyalties and confusions from his youth he never got rid of. It's not a reflection of an "old scholar" about the state of the matter after years of study, but an emotional throwback of an old man still confused about his identity. His ethno-philological dogma and confusion led him frequently to scientifically wrong conclusions- one of the most (in)famous being Resetar's desperate struggle to prove that Chakavian and Ikavian traits, which abound in the Renaissance literature in Dubrovnik, were never actually spoken. At first glance- this might look like an unnecessary trifling. But not for dogmatics like Resetar who accepted the Serbian ethnic atribution of Shtokavian dialect (a discarded dogma of early Slavic studies)- and Chakavian traits, which are indisputably ethnically Croatian, should not be here, in works of Dubrovnik writers. And they are, despite Resetar's troubles with that fact. Only- this also doesnt mean much since Shtokavian dialect is not ethnically atributed (just like Platteutsch or Hindustani), and Resetar wasted his time to disprove Croathood of the Renaissance Dubrovnik by focusing on Chakavian dialect- which is not something decisive as Resetar had imagined it to be. 5. later linguists, better versed in historical linguistics and equipped with broader modern apparatus (structural linguistics, newer materials galore, not burdened with Resetar's Serbian philological addictions,..) have stated things very differently: from Croatian linguists like Katicic and Brozovic to Dutch Van den Berk or German Auburger. As far as historical linguistics is concerned, Resetar's casual remarks (and much more, for that matter) are history.Mir Harven 12:04, 2

Feb 2004 (UTC)

RASETAR'S REMARKS ARE NOT HISTORY. SHALLOWMINDED PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WHO TALK NONSENSE AND DIVIDE ONE BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE-SERBOCROATIAN TO 2 OR MORE, YOU ARE HISTORY!


I got bored of this game ages ago. Try looking up "distinction" in a dictionary, stop imagining that you saw me say something that I did not, stop twisting everything and incorporating it as some sort of universal truth into your political agenda, ... the list goes on and on. --Shallot 23:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And throw in a few mischievous lies like the above (that vast majority of self-professed Croats in Dubrovnik say crkva svetog Vlaha all right, see for example [1] [2] [3]...) and a "sincerely" to put sugar on the top, you've got a very cute little propaganda piece. Your tutors would probably be very proud. --Shallot 15:33, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I second Shallot's comments, I am reverting this back to Croatia. This kind of history fabrication based on loose facts is an example of an all-inclusive attempt of cultural assimilation where it is enough for any of the data or links to even loosely point to an entity to automatically become somehow a comprising part of that entity. Igor, you have not provided any reasonable references and, furthermore, modern encyclopedias, language and culture studies counter your hear-say "evidence." This change of yours I would have considered as a quite amuzing and humorous display of nationalism, if it did not look motivated by the rhetoric propagaded by rabid Serbian nationalists, now being on trials for genocide in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. --yakov

I see a linguistic dabbling here. Sveti Vlaho is not etymologically derived in the usual way Croatian differs from Serbian in examples like Bizant/Vizantija; Betlehem/Vitlejem; Barbara/Varvara,...St. Blasius has an equivalent in Serbian "Blažo", and in Croatian "Blaž", which can be seen (especially the former example) in numerous Montenegrin/Serbian names (Blažo Jovanović etc.).

My dear friend Mir Harven seems as confused as ever, there is no Serbian name such as Blažo that's why he can not name more than one example. Blazo in this case is a nickname for Blagota. Blagota 'Blažo' Jovanović was the full name. -- User:Igor 22:31, 2 Feb 2003 (UTC)

Vlaho is a Dubrovnik regionalism,

I agree, Serbian language thus. -- User:Igor 22:31, 2 Feb 2003 (UTC)
This folksy etymology is not confirmed anywhere else. The origin of the name "Sv. Vlaho" is explained in works of etymologists like Petar Skok or Petar Šimunović. Originally a saint from 2-3. cent. in "Greek" East, the saint's name is in Greek "'Agios Vlasios". Since during the formative period of Dubrovnik culture (10.-11. cent.) Byzantine influence was strong in and around Dubrovnik, St.Blasius's (Vlasios's) name prevailed in "Greek form", especially because it coalesced with popular Slavic pre-Christian god Volos or Veles. This is virtually the only instance that Greek rather than Latin form prevailed in word-formation- but it has nothing to do with Serbian language structure. Nowhere in the Orthodox cultural circle Blasius (or Vlasios) is referred to as "Vlaho", and especially in predominantly Orthodox neighboring countries like Montenegro or Western Serbia. As for Dubrovnik, all names that show that Greek influence waned quickly, and this can be seen in the fact that Benedict did not become Venedikt, Barbara -Varvara etc. The difference between Croatian and Serbian languages in word-formation re originally Greek names or concepts is that Croatian followed Latin, and Serbian Greek forms (August vs. Avgust, Benedikt vs Venedikt, ..). Dubrovnik's form "Vlaho" is the example of Greek influence that lasted more than century and is not reflected in other names. Hence, this is not an example of linguistic trait characteristic of a language (because it would have prevailed in other onomastic features-as it did in Serbian language), but the single signifier of Byzantine cultural influence that was soon replaced by a mixture of Latin-Roman and Slavic.Mir Harven 12:04, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

and for the more etymology one can consult Petar Šimunović or Petar Skok onomastic and etymological dictionaries. This "Vlaho folksy etymology" is just ignorance. Mir Harven 09:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This Blasius=Vlaho cos B=V is a joke? Something else is in the matter here. No need for some special science. There are 2 term words in unofficial Croatian speaking of Kvarner, Dalmatia and Dubrovnik area (almost all Croatian seaside) which have these meanings: Bodul = islander; Vlah (Kvarner, southern Dalmatia), Vlaho(Dubrovnik) or Vlaj (Vlajo) (northern and central Dalmatia) = inhabitant of the hills on the continental coastal side. These term words are very old and probably in usage for a long time epecially among coastal cities population. The point is that Helenisation and much more Romanisation of Illyrian tribes in the eastern Adriatic coast (5th b.c. - 7th centuries) were the processes mainly concentrated in the coastal cities which have made these cities become cultural centres of the area and citizens feel much more "civilised" than the fishermen Boduls or peysants Vlahs (Vlajs). It's very important that these Vlahs (Vlajs) have nothing to do with ethnic Vlachs! From citizen point of view Vlahs were all the people living "behind the hill". Why is that? Simply because of the fact that ethnic Vlachs are known in Dalmatia, as early as Illyrian ages, as traders who were travelling by trade caravans from eastern Balkans to Dalmatian cities and back. Since their look, knowledgement, cultural level was inferior to the one of Romanized Illyrian citizens "Vlach" became a name with sarcastic and ironical tone. In the same time Illyrian non-city population was not even romanized, settled in the hills, they looked pretty same to "prepotent" romanized citizens as ethnic Vlachs did. By the time all of them who were coming to cities to sell agriculture products and who were coming from "behind the hill" got the name Vlah or Vlaj. Bodul and Vlah (Vlaj) are still in massive usage and still have some sarcastic tone when spoken.
Back to Blasius-Vlasius joke. St. Blasius was born in Armenia and came to Dubrovnik from "behind the hill". That was quite enough for Dubrovnik citizens to give him a "proper" name - Vlaho. Once given this name he couldn't lose it to the end of his life...
There should be article "1000 miracles of Serbian imagination and related propaganda" linked to any Croatian article!!!83.131.153.141 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking about following scenario:

when Nikola Jakorukić (allias Neil Armstrong) stepped on the Moon he said: This is small step for Serbian, and big for big Serbia. But the history Quoted him wrong--Billy the lid 08:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Siege end

Mir Harven, to the best of my recollection, the breaking of the siege of Dubrovnik happened after most of Bosnian Posavina was surrendered. I've got friends who served on the southern front at the time and they told me that the 1st Guards Brigade arrived after the news that Bosanski Brod fell. Is that not true? --Shallot 00:10, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ugh ? You're serious ? This is an "argument" ?Mir Harven 12:04, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Argument? I'm not talking about this strictly in a manner of some sort of territory trade, but of some pretty simple war waging -- delivering supplies and reinforcements to troups in a flatland that is Bosanska Posavina under shelling from Motajica and probably other hills (whose simple virtue of being elevated ground I assume made it a very desirable position to have artillery on) was rather hard and probably declared a battle that couldn't be won, and troops were reassigned to Dubrovnik which was in a similarly bad situation but due to the fact it was a World Heritage site and the accompanying media attention probably was a much smarter place to apply particular pressure to. --Shallot 22:35, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
And that must be proof enough for a conspiracy theorist such as yourself :) -- Igor 23:51, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's very funny. I guess it's not reasonable to expect you to try actually thinking with your head, you never seem to stray from the party line... --Shallot 22:35, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Population figure for Austrian period

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The total (as listed in the article) comes out to 416 000 Ragusans! This should be fixed. Its way too high of a number especially comparing it to today's numbers. Also good job guys on listing the purity of every Croatian town on wiki. Great job on enhancing your ethnic purity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmx (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

From the article and the maps on Croatia, it looks like Dubrovnik and vicinity is disjoint from the main part of Croatia due to the sea access of Bosnia and Herzegovina just north of it. Could anyone add something to the article about link/communication with the rest of Croatia? Is the Dubrovnik area basically cut off, or is there a lot of traffic between the two? Is there guaranteed passage across the Bosnia/Herzegovina territory; do people have to show passports and cross checkpoints; or is transit mainly accomplished by sea; etc. --Delirium 06:41, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

This would be suitable on the page of the Dubrovnik-Neretva county. I'll write something up over there. --Shallot 11:40, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You indeed have to cross Bosnia and Herzegovina around Neum if you want to travel to the rest of Croatia from Dubrovnik, and there are passport controls. Croatia is however planning to build a bridge to the Peljesac peninsula (the Peljesac bridge) that bypasses Bosnian territory. Maarten 00:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no passport controls for Croatian citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.99.137 (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

casualties

The referenced http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexpert/ANX/XI-A.htm#VII.C clearly states and restates that their casualty data is approximated and incomplete due to lack of information with respect to their nature. The HR Red Cross information comes from their work in the field so it's certainly no less accurate. --Joy [shallot] 15:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

strip of land

The strip of wetland, built in 1667 after an earthquake destroyed most of the city, was later reclaimed as a landfill, unifying the city around the newly made plaza

Freestylefrappe, are you sure that this happened only after the earthquake? I was under the impression that it was done long before that. --Joy [shallot] 11:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dubrava

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression dubrava meant glade, referring to a specific part of the penninsula. --Ian 01:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dubrava comes from the term woods of Dub (Oak) Cuercus ilex L. to be exact! Very important tree in Slavic and Iliryc mythology! ----Vladimirko 09:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"great damage"

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How extensive was the damage to the old city during the war? When I was there five years ago I saw a map that enumerated every shell and bullet that hit the city, and while the damage was widespread, it was mainly to the rooftops; very few buildings were actually destroyed or damaged beyond repair. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Five years ago a lot of the damage would already have been repaired; also, it could very well be argued that, for a World Heritage Site, a single building or monument damaged beyond repair constitutes "great damage." Also, even when repair is possible, a 17th-century structure hit in 1991 and restored in 2000 is in artistic, archaeological, historical and cultural terms obviously not the same 17th-century structure it was before the damage and restoration. ~TobyOx~

It really wasn't 'great damage' by any stretch. There were some destroyed buildings, and widespread roof damage, but compared to damage to cities like Mostar or Sarajevo, it was light. Trollderella 17:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I recently went to Dubrovnik and took a photo of the map displayed in the old city, near the eastern entrance (from Revelin). See below.

I don't believe there's any point in making a one-word assessment of this kind of a damage, or comparing it to even worse damage. People who thought it was even a remotely good idea to go ahead and dump hundreds of grenades on this monumental old city are idiots, and criminals. Those like User:Igor who deem this kind of a behaviour something that's barely worth explaining are merely idiots, I guess. --Joy [shallot] 15:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 

category:destroyed cities

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would it be permissible to add category:destroyed cities to the article page? Others in the category currently include London, Tokyo, San Francisco, Chicago which also have been rebuilt. --Ancheta Wis 02:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Decimal point (dot or comma?)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Something I noticed that is a little inconsistant with this article is that in some places it has a comma for the decimal point and some places a dot and even in some places a space. Since this in the English version of the encyclopedia (and US, UK, Canada etc. use the dot) I was thinking it should be a dot. But Croatia uses the comma. --MarsRover 03:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Ottavio Missoni was born in Zadar not Dubrovnik! Itallian was not spoken in the Dubrovnik republic. User:emoutofthevee

America

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When did Dubrovnik recognise American independance?

Republic of Dubrovnik was second state in the world which recognised America. Do not forget, that regarding their ecconomical power in trade, their recognition had value of one Japan or Germany today. --Billy the lid 09:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Panoramic view

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The panoramic view appears to be broken, but I don't want to delete it until I'm sure it's not just me (and if anybody can repair it, that would be better, of course). Digitig 10:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Names of attractions

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have some images, but I don't know exatly what is on the photo. Can help me anybody who well know Dubrovnik?

1. What is the name of the cathedral:  ? I find this as Velika Gospa cathedral, but what is the international name? At http://wikitravel.org/en/Dubrovnik I found several name to attractions. May it can be the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, but may at an other page write about a connection with Saint Blaise.


Real name is the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, but regionally is calld also Velika Gospa cathedral. That is answer on both questions above. --Billy the lid 09:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


2.   This shows the Sponza Palace? The description writes Rector's Palace. Sponza=rector? Or is that an other building? After my search I think yes, this pictures show the Sponza, the other the Rector's where there are the warmemorial.

This photo shows the Sponza Palace in the distance, face-on, and the Rector's Palace along the right hand side.--Chochotte 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


3. I found the name of my photos subject: Franciscan Monastery. But at an other pages descript this site as Dominican Monastery! At http://wikitravel.org/en/Dubrovnik there are writing as this is to several monastery, what is the truth?

--Beyond silence 03:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubrovnik named after Dobrons??

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Has anybody heard the term dubrava (oak forest)? Kubura (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubrava (Križevci, Koprivnica, Šibenik), Dubrova, Dubrovac, Dubrovići, Dobovac, Dubrovica, Dubrovnik,... There are exactly 30 towns and villages with similar name in Croatia and according to hjp.srce.hr dictionary it means: a) forest, coppice b) oak forest.

koja glupost, dubroni kao pleme se nigdi ni ne spominje, ni klaić ni šišić....nitko....a i google sve što izbaci je prepisivačina s ove stranice lol....

kao da se zaboravilo šta je dub, dubrava, dubravka....pa i jebeni gundulić je napisal dubravku ne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.38.57 (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubrons statement is gone. It was left without a proper source for 4 months and apparently no one holds that viewpoint. I replaced it with "generic Slavic term for an oak forest," as it correctly describes "dubrava." Admiral Norton (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

History section

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

seems very long...maybe it should have its own article. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Authentic Ragusa of the XIX Century

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As long ago as 1941, in Zagreb, ten years after the author's death, were published in volume under the title of "Images and situations Ragusa" (the original Croatian "Dubrovačko slike the prilike") memories and notes Dalmatian left the city and its characters more typical between 1800 and 1880 by poet, writer and archaeologist Josip Bersa (1962-1932). Born in Zara, the Bersa in Ragusa spent his childhood and youth in the second half of the XIX century, then back in his hometown where would thirty-five spent the last years of his life. Josip/Guiseppe Bersa was a man perfectly bilingual and wrote his works (poems, short stories and essays of various kinds) in the Italian, Croatian and Venetian/zarantino dialect. With the pseudonym of Lorenzo Travasini, in 1902 he published the collection of "Sonetti di Zara." The book of his memories of Dubrovnik and he collected anecdotes from the history of Ragusa of the nineteenth century was published instead by patriotic Croatian Matica. In memories of Bers meet the characters more typical of the surviving nobility Dubrovnik, but also doctors, prominent intellectuals and politicians. They, as well as Croatian now predominant in street conversations, there are still written and spoken Italian. Reading the Bersa, we come in a sort Orthodox church in early nineteenth century palazzo on the Antonio Sorgo, sold for thirty-two thousand ducats. In that same period instead seemed "empty and abandoned the house in Via Montenegro". A few years later was transformed into a banal hotel palace for the Saba Giorgi, the mayor of Dubrovnik Napoleonic period ", while" were sold or leased to Caio and Sempron villas of Pozza, of Zamagna, of Ghetaldi of Ragnina, and other patricians. " We still Count Giovanni de Natali, Sisko Gondola, DZone Remains, Andro Pauli, the priest Dum (Don) Ivo Lupi, Menzi Clement, Ivo Gozzi, Gianluca Zuzzeri, filofrancese, and Raffaele-Rafo Gozzi, Orsatti Bonda, dzīve Bosdari, Nicholas Pozza , And James Carlo Natali, Orsatti Ragnina, Michele Giorgi, Thomas Basegli old families and other Dubrovnik twentieth century that will croatizzati. Luca Stulli, Antonio Cres, Benigno Albertini (Bishop), Raffaele Radeglia, and others write verses in Italian and Latin. Li met in the palace of Biagio-Vlaho Gozzi turned into theater in 1824 (after a fire in 1817 which had destroyed the old Theater dell'Arsenale), in pharmacies and shaving salons that were then the "living rooms of conversation" in the city, in the patrician villas of the houses whose living rooms still open in the afternoon "coffee hour".

The 'rooms for visits'

Each house patrician Dubrovnik worthy of respect had a special room for visits. " That Count Giorgi was among the most famous and popular. When his daughter, last scion of the family, married an Italian baron, moving to Italy, the palace Giorgi ended in the hands of a Viennese hotelier who transformed the house into a hotel, said, with kitchen and personnel, to accommodate commercial agents Viennese of way, the valuable antique furniture were removed from the walls were removed damasks, the brocade, the thirst .... Among the "rooms for visits" remained intact for almost the entire nineteenth century the hall of the palace Natali. A large skylight silver, also known as "Florence", with twelve oil lights, hung from the ceiling at the center of the hall, whose walls were covered with red damask. In a corner marked a big sofa with golden decorations, everything was scattered around in many comfortable armchairs. As the house is kept of letters Roger Boscovich scientist, letters and manuscripts of Giovanni Natali, an oil portrait of the poet Domenico Ragnina ruble and a gold donated by Catherine of Russia and Francesco Saverio Ragnina, sent to Petersburg as ambassador extraordinary . The exhibition remained open until lived Countess Maria de Natali.

poet in Italian and Latin

Referring to the early XIX century of Ragusa literary, Bersa wrote in his memoirs: "It would be long Dubrovnik include all those years in which they wrote their literary texts only in Latin and Italian, rarely remembering their mother Croatian. There were many, (...) lived in an atmosphere of ideals ... Their meetings were the most beautiful moments of their lives dedicated to each other their poetic texts. But the real poets, among them, were rare. Were capable of verseggiatori and men of high culture. In their meetings he talked almost exclusively in Italian. " "For Dubrovnik captured the Italian was that the language of culture and the most noble to discuss any subject of science and, generally, most noble kind. The Dubrovnik, in which family without exception spoke in Croatian, Italian served when left amazed even the real Italians for the perfection of language. " In the preface to a book by Thomas Cres life and works of Ditiaco Piro, published in 1826, Urban lampreys wrote that "Ragusa wrote brilliantly and accurately in Italian who had no mercy for a woman Lombardy, Tuscany or Rome, but Illyrian a nanny "and that is Croatian. Dear Thomas knew recite by heart the Divine Comedy by Dante, was a fruitful verseggiatore in Italian and Latin.

The ... last Dubrovnik

Ragusa died when a few well-known personage, patrician, writer, priest, or any other owner who was, people used to say. "He died last Dubrovnik." As a "last Dubrovnik" there were many nell'Ottocento: the illustrious doctor Luka Stulli exalted in a sonnet of Rafo Androvich, Nicholas Degrees, writer, the glottologia Budmani Pero, the philologist Luca Zore, the parish priest Don Ivan Stojanović (1900 ). The latter, the son of a doctor, "had learned from the Italian Italian grandmother - Bersa wrote - the first books I read were the comedies of Goldoni and the lives of saints." He attended the seminar along with Zara future priests Italians and Croats, including Zanoni, to be bishop of Sebenico, Forlani future bishop of Cattaro and author of "Theory of beauty" in Italian. In the meetings of the parish priest Stojanović with his many friends Dubrovnik happened often Baron Vlaho-Biagio Ghetaldi which took an intimate diary in distici Latin and Latin Epigram sent to a German Ida von Duringsfeld, there were still Luca Sorgo, Latin and epigrammatic " one of the last patricians that hot fire of freedom ", a senior Nicolò Pozza that discussing topics literary, philosophical and theological, and the marquis-Jozo Joseph Bona. Even the most proud supporters at the awakening of national and cultural Croatian, is dedicated to Italian literature, translating into Croatian works that went for more. Adjunct popular literature, oral, the Franciscan Father Pacific Radeljević translated in full 's "Orlando Furioso" by Ariosto. Jozo/Guiseppe de Bona and Ivan Stojanović meet every morning at nine per share sonnets in Latin and Croatian together and read Tacitus. Together then, they were a burden, in the "Coffee Anna" to drink a "white wire", the name secret for grappa, followed by a "poculum frigidulae", a glass of cool water that in Latin.

The halls of patrician houses

Among the cenacles of poets, writers, philosophers, nobles and other characters Dubrovnik's, Bers recalls the halls of the houses and patrician Bona Zamagni. Here, in winter, at least twice gave sumptuous receptions with dances. The "soirées" most sumptuous and vivid were those that were held in Casa Bona, whose youngest scion, de Luca Bona, had become official. Austria. Here, therefore, more guests were not more poets and other writers, but officers, mostly "Italians of Lombardy and Venice, Austrian or other official that Italy had learned the Italian language, so could penetrate - Bersa wrote- Dubrovnik in good company, which was held in high esteem the knowledge of Italian. Among those officers, in that time was different Zamboni, the most popular commander in City resident. " Target does not provide the name Zamboni, states that before the Austrian, had served faithfully Napoleon, losing to Russia two fingers of his right hand. Past service's Austro-Hungarian Empire, was sent to Ragusa, where taken wife, and died here. For a long time, Dubrovnik, after his death, judged the Austrian masters "such as taking Zamboni, whose bones rest in the church of Our Lady of Mercy. Guests of the casa de Bona, in addition to the relatives of the family - all of noble family Natali, Pozza, sorghum - were also other Austrian masters of Ragusa, the consuls of the various states and, of course, the few survivors, now joined on many years away, Council of the Republic of Ragusa, including Carlo Natali. To participate in the "soirées" Dubrovnik is the noblewomen were transported in stylish sedan that went from house to house among Avemaria and nine in the evening. Just disappeared in the seventies of the nineteenth century.

Pero Budmani, an emblematic Dubrovnik

One of the frequent visitors of Dubrovnik cenacles and great Bersa friend was Pero Budmani, who deserve much more than a few lines here to dedicate. Bersa remembers as a component of the quartet music, along with brothers of Zara, liven up the evening classes of "property" of Ragusa nineteenth. But Budmani was much more: a polyglot and a great philologist. He was Italian and Croatian with the same faith, loved Italy and Croatia with equal passion: a symbolic Dubrovnik. In the city of San Biagio, which was born in 1835, finished the Gymnasium, then in Vienna studying medicine and law. But there was neither a doctor nor a lawyer. From university student published in Italian a "Grammar of the Serbo-Croatian language" and then - for several years in Vienna - lived in Castel-Ferretti in Ancona where the family has had a farm, taking part in the Irredentism Movement for unity of Italy and its liberation from the alien. Of those ideals became interpreter at the young Dubrovnik when, in the years between 1868 and 1882, taught in the Gymnasium of the hometown. In 1883 he reached Zagreb for twenty-four years where he directed the "Riječnik" (Dictionary) of the former Yugoslav arts and sciences. In 1907 he returned to Italy to Castel-Ferretti and lived there until 1913 years when he returned to Ragusa. But already the following year, seriously ill and embittered for the persecution suffered by that Austrian police (considered him a dangerous subversive), Pero Budmani fled from the hometown, reached Ancona and died on December 27 1914.

The turkish ... Italian

Returning to cenacles Dubrovnik. In the city of San Biagio's love for music had always been cultivated. In the best case there were concerts ever, and to animate the brothers were especially Bers with their parent. One of them, Vladimiro, become a prolific composer. Among the homes that housed musical evenings there was the console of Turkey Danish-Efendi who had a splendid villa in burdensome. In addition to the dances and concerts, had a passion for cooking (prepared an excellent risotto alla Milanese) and to buy the old furniture that abound in the palaces of patricians fallen, so they sold them to "turkish" for little money. The turkish ", instead, send them to Italy, where they sold at high price. According to the Bersa description, Danish-Efendi was plump, and you read in your face "all the characteristics of a Turkish"; instead that this ... "was an Italian thoroughbred, a native of Florence." Even his wife, with a great breast, was "Turkish" original surroundings of Naples! The arrival of new times in the second half century, made sure that the houses and villas no longer be the only places where it met representatives of high society and the bourgeoisie, poets, philosophers, literary typically, artists. Meeting places became even cafes, lounges shaving, pharmacies. But here there was no place for women.

Can you please be more concise: what is this longish text suppose to "prove" or insinuate, or has anything to do with article improvement? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Abductions

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Information regarding alleged attempted abductions has been repeatedly targeted for deletion on the basis that it is "nonsense". I am open to a debate over whether or not this topic is appropriate for inclusion in this article, but the allegation that the information as presented is nonsense is purely ludicrous and biased and does not provide a legitimate basis for deletion. Such activity should cease and desist.

Regarding this information's appropriateness, it is included in a section extolling the virtues of tourism to Dubrovnik, including descriptions of the clean calm water for swimming. This is not balanced information nor is it uniquely relevant to Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik also has places where swimmers can be crushed against rocks. Many coastal cities have areas where it is good to swim or dangerous to swim. Contrasting this information with factual evidence of potential dangers unique to Dubrovnik is arguably far more legtimate. If facts regarding alleged abductions is not appropriate to this article, neither are reports extolling the good swimming, etc. Again, this raises a clear question of bias on the part of those deleting information about the alleged abductions. An alternative is to delete the tourism commercial along with those facts some wish to suppress and focus instead on just those landmarks unique to Dubrovnik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.193.92 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Speculations of some Australian tabloids based on the discredited testimony of some drunken tourist is not a Wikipedia material. Unverifiable speculations, single-sourced with a heavy anti-Croat bias. If and when these alleged abductions 1) prove relevant (only time will tell) 2) prove true, we can discuss it. This is not a news portal, but encyclopaedic article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The reports are contained in many newspapers and are based upon first-hand accounts of witnesses and interviews with police spokespersons. Unless Ivan wishes to question the credibility of the police or dismiss all accounts as part of a mass hallucination then his position is untenable. The dismissal of the testimony as that of drunken tourists is merely a reflection of Ivan Stambuk's bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.193.92 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Ivan's allegation of an anti-Croat bias are baseless and offensive and further demonstrate the bias and irrationality of his position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.193.92 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am open to a contrary position but one based upon reason as opposed to biased vitriol and slander: Is this material appropriate as a balance to the questionable "tourist commercial", or should both parts be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.193.92 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Croatian tabloid media (like index.hr) have OTOH ridiculed the testimonies of these tourists, showing how they gradually changed reports on these alleged attempts of "abductions" from "they approached towards me" to "the tried to squeeze me in the trunk". So which one of these cheap tabloids should we trust? None, we don't care, because they're not verifiable and relevant for an encyclopeadic article. Stop vandalising the article or you'll get blocked. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop and think, both of you!!!'. Articles can not be written based on hear-say evidence, only on proven facts, and in this abduction war of yours I can not see any proven evidence. --78.3.122.78 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, this is not the crime section of a local newspaper, it's an encyclopedic article. See WP:NOT. Admiral Norton (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, I don't know what papers in Croatia are saying, but you might note that that's not what I have been referencing. Again, you fail to provide any valid argument, and so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.193.92 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the other two arguments more convincing, so I will go for the compromise solution. As for you, Ivan, your hatred towards foreignors is rather apparent and disturbing. Get help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.193.92 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The only "hatred" I have is for some obnoxious IP addresses that vandalise and insert tabloid gibberish into encyclopaedic articles. Read WP:V, WP:NPOV (note that we cannot accept some drunkard's testimony as "facts", which is the exact word you've been using, without it being the consensus i.e. a matter of fact for the rest of the world) and WP:NOT. You shouldn't trust TV shows too much, it's just mostly brainwashing propaganda to distract attention from the real problems. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, Ivan, there you go projecting your shortcomings on others. You only go and prove my point again: you are not only committing slander against people, assuming whatever nonsense you hear about them in your mass media is true, but fail to note that 99% of what I wrote is based upon facts agreed upon by the police. The other 1% refers to demonstrable factual errors by the police including their initial denials of any reports, and misstatements about who made sketches when. So try to get your facts straight the next time you run off at the mouth. But, hey, who am I to contradict your favourite tabloids and your own personal petty racist attitudes and your questionable desire to maintain this page as propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.193.92 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dubrovnik/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==November 2012==

Assessment as a part of 2012 WP:CRO drive, performed on 1 November 2012:

  • B1 - criterion not met: The article has significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. There are substantial parts of prose without any references. It is absolutely necessary that each paragraph contains at least one reference to a WP:RS, hence the criterion is not met. Even though {{cite web}} and similar appropriate referencing templates are not required I'd recommend applying the templates if GA or better quality is aimed at. At present the article employs a mix of the citation templates and bare-url references - which is not an obstacle for B-class in itself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B2 - criterion not met: Several major aspects of the topic are not covered comprehensively (or at all). The gaps include: geography (except climate), cityscape/architecture, administration, economy, culture, sports, media, and public services. Sections covering education and name of the city could be expanded a bit, the former with more details, especially on history of schools in the city, and the latter with details on toponymy, if those are available. The heritage section puzzles quite a bit, it would probably best be broken up into history, culture, economy (tourism) as appropriate. The history section is quite exhaustive so it would probably benefit from trimming down a bit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • B3 - criterion met.
  • B4 - criterion met. Not good enough for GA or better, but acceptable for B-class articles.
  • B5 - criterion met. A couple of remarks: There's no limit on number of images, but the article currently contains too many of those in proportion to the prose. The article is meant to be an encyclopedia entry, not a brochure, therefore a selection of the finest images available and those having the greatest EV should be made. In that way, the article would appear more streamlined and really important images would be given greater prominence. Also, alignment of the images should be varied (left/right).
  • B6 - criterion met.
Obviously, a lot of work went into the article, but further efforts are needed to make it comply with B-class criteria. Reassessing as C-class for now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 14:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Better picture

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have a potentially better picture to head this article than the current one. It is of higher quality thus shows more detail of the town. This is the picture in question: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dubrovnik_042.jpg

If no response is given within a few days, I will replace the pictures myself. --Michaelphillipr (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

former name

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't it say that the city was known as Ragusa prior to the 20th century?--24.207.192.52 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You've stuck your hand right into the wasp nest there... The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Dubrovnik name was in use even before 12th century in common speech. Ragusa was used by noble people, because Latin was used in politics. People of Dubrovnik where bilingual. They spoke both croat ( in everyday speech ) and Latin ( in politics ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.185.180 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Current disagreement/edit war

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

There appears to be an edit war going on at the moment about the People from Dubrovnik section

I do not really have an opinion of what the names 'should be'

Perhaps we should delete the whole section if it is causing so much trouble?

Many other articles have removed the notable people sections for this reason

Perhaps the section should be made into a separate article?

I have made a copy of the whole section here, and suggest we discuss problems here in order to achieve a solution to the current situation. -- Marek.69 talk 18:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

People from Dubrovnik

Italian IP is replacing Croatian names with Italian ones. I haven't been involved with this article before but it seems like a long-term problem. In any case, the list contains red links and is completely unreferenced and as such unacceptable per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Moreover, most city articles do not have lists of notable inhabitants and I don't think this section adds anything to the article. This section should be removed and maybe copied to a standalone list article resembling List of people from Dublin or List of people from Boston. Timbouctou (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The solution could be put croatian and italian names together. Mostly of them are dalmatians (romance nation), or italian.So that is not rigt that the ultranationalis of Croatia want to destiy the dalmatian and italian heritage and memory of Dalmatia, were the croatian was only one of the three groups, and the high society was mostly of italian/venetian culture, and for nothing slavic. For example Francesco Ghetaldi-Gondola was the chief of the italian faction in Ragusa, and now it's became a croatian that's fool! Ruggero Giuseppe Boskovich hated croatians, he was racist, sorry and now he is croatian. Niko Pucic, had birth name Nicola Pozza, when he entered to the croatian party he wanted that people call him Niko PUCIC, anyway hi family's name was Pozza also if he didn't like it. Flora Zuzzeri was a poetess in italian language, and now she is a croatian poetes that is unaceptable! Wickipedia mustn't allow to the croatian ultranationalist to use it for their false propaganda. Dalmatia was a multicultural region with many dalmatians and italians, not only croatians!. It's also ridicul say that dalmatian people that are not slavics are croatians.They lived under the Ragusa republic so they couldn't be Croatian, but Ragusian or Dalmatian no croatians of course, especialy when they were of dalmatian or italian family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltio123 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the policy on article titles already requires us to use most commonly used names for people, I don't see why they shouldn't be listed with the names as they are in their respective article titles. But I might be wrong. Still, all the more reason to move the whole thing somewhere else so you and other editors can engage in fruitful and wholesome debates on Ragusan history without others impeding your philanthropic endeavours. Timbouctou (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but they are not the most comonly used names, they are the most used names in Croatia, and in internet they are listed with croatians names only because the croatian cancel inmuediatly the true names when somebody list them with iatlian,dalmatian or any other name that is not croatian.It's so also with hungarian names or germans sometimes.The name of that process is croatization, and w.p wouldn't have to suport tha Propaganga but to help the truth and knowledge only. Also with Marco Polo, now, they are trying to transform his name in Marko Polo, the Croatian explorer. Cause he spent a few days in a jail in one isle in present croatian territory.The isle of Curzola (Kurcola in Croatian).

I think the debate on Marco Polo is pointless, but those who think he's Croatian base their claim on the idea that he was born on Korčula. Anyhow, I moved the section to List of people from Dubrovnik because it was inappropriate here. Timbouctou (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that's the best idea. There were way too many people on the list, it is better for the list to have its own page. Discussion over names can thus be transfered to that Discussion page if needed. --Jesuislafete (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That list of people of Dubrovnik is full of errors. Alot of people there labeled as serbs, italians, turk are croats or half-croats. Some of this people on the list never lived in Dubrovnik. Montenegro town of Herceg Novi did not have its own hospital. So in the last century ( during Yugoslavia ) alot of people from that town where born in Dubrovnik hospital, because that hospital where closest to them. Herceg Novi is located very near Croatian border. But these people has nothing to do with Dubrovnik in general.

Also alot of people in old times had both croatian and Latin version of their name. That is because croatian was used in common speach, but latin was used in politics. But these peole where of slavic origin, croats, not Italians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.185.180 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Pictures mess up the layout

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

- maybe a gallery would be better? --Janke | Talk 12:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dubrovnik. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dubrovnik. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Climate data

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Recently, the climate data has been edited back to the old version using only 30 years of extremes rather than the full period of reference for the extremes. The standard is to use the full period of reference if possible since it is more representative of the temperatures that the city can reach during (both hot and cold). Using only 30 years is not longer enough. Not including them if the sources for it is available is bad statistical practice (in my opinion). However, I would to know why using a 30 year period (shorter one) is better than using a longer period of reference. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Official climatology uses a 30-years periods as reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.185.180 (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/normals/

http://www.met.ie/climate-ireland/30year-averages.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.185.180 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • I know that the 30 year climatology is a useful reference period based on what WMO says but this is applicable for avg high, avg low, mean temperature, precipitation/snow/rainfall, humidity and sunshine data. What you are not understanding is that the extremes are different. If we use a 30 year period for extremes, that means every 10 years, the extremes would have to be changed if they are not in that time period. By doing this, it would ignore the highest and lowest temperature ever recorded in the city if the date occurred outside of the period (eg. the highest temperature was 38.4 which was recorded in 2012 so if I used the 1971-2000 data/your verison, I am leaving out this crucial info just because it is not in that time frame). It would make the article less accurate. Also, several records have been broken since 2000 such as the December record high which occurred in 2014 so it is not accurate to leave it out. This is why many locations in Canada, USA, France use the longest period of extremes rather than extremes within the 30 year period while still using the 30 year reference period for everything else. I think you should look at Template:Weather Box and scroll down to the records field. Ssbbplayer (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said 1000 times. 1971-2000 is latest official Thirty Years climatological period for Dubrovnik. Exstremes out of the limits of that 30 year period are irrelevant when we talk about that specific period. 60 years old extremes are irrelevant for the modern day climate of Dubrovnik. I'am sure during the Ice age extremes where also much lover. But we will not add these extremes?! Same is with extremes older than official Thirty Years climatological period. As for 2000+ extremes, we will get data for 1981-2010 period soon. And chartz 1971-2000 will be replaced with 1981-2010. While adding 60 years old extremes you are ignoring extremes that happen in current official Thirty Years climatological period for Dubrovnik, which are alot more relevant for the modern day Dubrovnik. Also on wiki 99% of the cities and towns do not even have extremes in climate chartz or they do not use all time extremes. They are using only current 30 years old climatological period. As can be seen in this examples...

Muricia ( Spain ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murcia

Malaga ( Spain ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1laga

Lisbon ( Portugal ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon

Paris ( France ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris

Rome ( Italy ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome

Athens ( Greece ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens

So why Dubrovnik has to be exception?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.185.121 (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not an exception, you're making it an exception. It may be irrelevant to you but to other readers, it is relevant interested in the highest and lowest temperature ever recorded. Extremes don't tell the average conditions of the climate. For Paris, the extremes actually go back to the 1800's. The same is for Lisbon because it includes record temperatures back to 1941 (read the source). The same is for the Spanish locations with extremes (the extremes are unsourced and the link is dead so use Madrid or Barcelona as an example). You're incorrect in stating that the extremes are from the 30 year periods. Why do you want to omit extremes after 2000 or before, it is already hard to get extremes and readers already complain for the lack of climate data unless they want to see inaccurate and outdated data. The claim that 99% of the cities and towns do not even have extremes in climate charts or they do not use all time extremes is wrong; look at locations in USA, Canada and Australia; they use the full period of reference. As for the lack of extremes, that's because the national meteorological service does not provide climate data for it, even though they have it in their archives. Ice age extremes don't exist; most weather stations only date back to 1800's so you're wrong in that aspect. For the idea that you will change the data once the 1981-2010 data is out, when they're going to update it? In 10 years? What if they never released it? No one wants to use outdated records. When you stated that using 60 years of records ignores the 30 year reference period; the statement is contradictory. It includes from the year 1961–2014 so it would include extremes from 1971–2000 if the most extreme value occurs within that time period, not excluding it. That's why the highest temperature in October is in the 1971-2000 period since it occurred in 1987. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, using the record highs and lows since the particular station was in operation is in accordance with the World Meteorological Organization guidelines. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Article temporarily protected

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've reverted to the last version before all this started (06:18, 10 March 2016‎ ) and protected the page for an hour. You are both over 3RR and I don't want to block anyone. This appears to be a content dispute and must be resolved here. Please, do not edit that part of the article until you have consensus, okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

To the IP: Please discuss things above and sort it out. I have now semi-protected the article for a week because you were still just trying to change the article without consensus here at talk. You may be right. Others may take your side. I do not know and I will stay out of it. Please observe the WP:BRD cycle. Thank you kindly for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

CNNGo Reference

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently states that "According to CNNGo, Dubrovnik is among the 10 best preserved medieval walled cities in the world" and refs http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/escape/10-best-medieval-walled-cities-130886/. The CNNGo listicle makes no claim about the best preserved cities. Instead it lists "10 of the best medieval walled cities," implying that these could be the thirteenth- or fortieth-best preserved walled cities. If someone want to make a claim about "best" or "most important," I think they need more proof than a CNNGo listicle, even if that listicle did claim to be definitive. And just to be clear the CNNGo listicle in question does not make that claim. I'm going to remove the sentence. 74.98.232.214 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Dubrovnik. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

New "Illustrious citizens" section

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

User:Mathglot recently added a section about the "Illustrious citizens" of Dubrovnik.

How were these nine citizens selected? Is there a source that lists them as the city's most notable citizens? What's wrong with the existing article, List of people from Dubrovnik? ~barakokula31 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Barakokula31: Thanks for your comment. They were selected because with one exception, they were already listed in the Dubrovnik article in other Wikipedias, in a section with a list like that. The edit summary for this edit gives the specific link and the attribution for the content. (In the case of the exception, I was trying to de-orphan someone.) As to your question about "what's wrong" with the List of people from Dubrovnik article, the answer is, nothing. Maybe that is a better place for those names but I was not even aware of the existence of that article. (I now see that there is a link from "See also", but it's the only link here to it, and I didn't notice it before.)
A lot of times, when there is a fork with a lot of detail about a subset of the topic in another article, like that "list" article, the main article will have a brief section about the topic, which might be a list, or might just be running text, with a {{Main}} article link template at the top of the section, linking to the more detailed one.
Turin does it with an empty section plus a link, but I'm not sure that adheres to standards. Bologna and Venice both have long people sections as well as a {{main}} link, but in those cases the link goes to a Category and not to a "List of..." article, which doesn't seem the right way to do it, either. Padua has a long list with no Category or "List of..." article linked.
I would prefer moving/merging the list just added here into the "list of" article, and then recreating a short, new "Illustrious" or "Notable" section here with a brief list or running text mention of some of the most notable citizens, with a {{Main}} link (or {{further}}, or {{details}} template link) to the other article. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I looked at some FAs to see what the norm for lists of notable citizens is:
So all formats are acceptable, it seems. I personally don't see the point in having an empty section with only a link. I actually removed an instance of it from a different article recently, thinking it was unintentional.
My main concern with having a list in this article is, how would it be decided who to include? Unless a source has listed them as the city's most notable citizens, I feel like this would qualify as WP:OR. ~barakokula31 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, we should find some credible resource which lists their most illustrious citizens. Inevitably such things are a judgment call, so if we find more than one such list they may differ, but as long as we base it on reliable sources and not our own judgement, I think we avoid OR issues. Maybe we could look at several such lists, and see if there's a consensus for a core of the most notable. At first blush, I found these sites: online-croatia, justdubrovnik, dubrovnik-online. Do they seem reasonable to you, or can you find some more? Maybe we can boil them down to a decent "most notable" list.
In addition, I wonder if it's worth contacting Italian WP to see how they came up with it? I can put together a few sentences in Italian if I have to, and report back. Mathglot (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
None of the three sources look particularly reliable. I notice that the websites are used in the article already, they should probably be replaced, but I'll let someone else handle that...
It seems that the article used to have a section about notable citizens, but it was removed in 2011; see #Current disagreement/edit war above. I hope you don't take this personally, but I think it's probably for the best. However, if you still want to, you are of course free to contact the people at it.wiki. ~barakokula31 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No Over development?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Any reason why it isn't a mess like so many other places - just looking at the picture, if that were any number of beautiful places those houses would have been in-filled and would look like barnacles on a rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.162.170 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)‎

In Dalmatia?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is Dubrovnik not located in the region of Dalmatia? An unregistered editor made this edit in the lead paragraph. Would be helpful to discuss before I revert. Foreignshore (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubrovnik is not on the coast of Mediterranean sea!

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dubrovnik is not on the coast of Mediterranean sea! Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.204.10 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubrovnik is in Indian Occean? FkpCascais (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The article has said that it is on the Adriatic since 2014. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Naah, it must be somewhere else, I bet it was the chemtails that made us believe it was in the Mediterranean... FkpCascais (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Tourists are destroying the Old Town

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a bit about this problem to the lead, but we should have a full section about it. 

  In Dubrovnik, Croatia, cruise ship passengers only spend an average of 24 euros per day compared to an average of 160 euros per day spent by other visitors. The city is suffering more than most from the onslaught of the tourists. Since its picturesque Old Town became the backdrop for the fantasy saga "Game of Thrones," the number of visitors has risen dramatically. Each year, 800,000 people arrive on cruise ships alone. .................    Dubrovnik has 42,000 inhabitants -- and most of them prefer to stay home when the cruise ships arrive. But because not only the residents, but also the medieval city structures themselves, are suffering, the number of visitors is to be reduced to 8,000 people per day. Otherwise, UNESCO has threatened to strip the city of its status as a World Heritage site. http://www.spiegel.de/international/paradise-lost-tourists-are-destroying-the-places-they-love-a-1223502-2.html

  In recent years, the crowds have grown so bad that Dubrovnik in July has become synonymous with “over-tourism,” a plight shared by many of the world’s most beautiful places. ... Soon after winning election in June 2017, Mr. Frankovic took steps to reduce the number of daily cruise passengers sent to the old city to 4,000 a day by next summer — half the 8,000 recommended by Unesco and a steep drop from the more than 10,000 who might show up on an average day this July. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/world/europe/dubrovnik-croatia-game-of-thrones.html

  “Has Tourism Killed Dubrovnik?” was the headline that caught not just my attention but the attention of most the city this week. ... Has tourism really killed Dubrovnik? No. Has it been badly wounded and in need of treatment and care.  https://www.thedubrovniktimes.com/lifestyle/opinion/item/5128-dubrovnik-s-tourism-dilemma-you-reap-what-you-sow

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proto - Albanian

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why proto-Albanian *Ragusa (modern rrush [grape]) is not mentioned in the etymology section? Orel (page 79) clearly states that proto-Albanian stages of the name clearly reflects the Illyrian name. In the article there are mentioned all sorts of theories also you state the Illyrian word is "unknown" seems pretty known to me. So you also mention Greek "grape" as a possible source but you don't even mention the possibility of Albanian "grape"

If no one will give me a valid reason, other than nationalistic Slav hysteria, not to add the Albanian etymology (which is vastly more reasonable than a lot of those names there) I will go on and add it by citing the source added here which is beyond more than valid.

https://www.galabri.com/foto/pdf/orel1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.126.93 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am a reader reporting a problem This webpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site#See_also This section of web page: External links[edit] This link leads to a junk webpage: • Travel guide to UNESCO Sites

AMM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.72.35 (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does this article need semi-protection? It seems like many of the articles on the Balkans attract vandalism. Foreignshore (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dubrovnik/Archive_1&oldid=1257742915"