Talk:Bona family

WP:SD

This article on this Dubrovnik noble house has been deleted via a WP:AfD deletion discussion, and was recently recreated by User:Mljet, a sock of the banned User:Ragusino. The article previously had the titles House of Bona, House of Bona/Bunić, House of Bunić/Bona, and House of de Bona (I am unsure about the last one). The name of the noble house has been disputed in the past and te article renamed often so the AfD discussion is somewhat hard to find. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

No AfDs, just two G8s and an A7 all by me. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no AfDs, my mistake (I was a newbie back then :). This article has, however, been recreated by a banned user (User:Ragusino). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian form

I don't really agree that "Bona" is the "Italian" form of the name. It is of Italian origin (some say German, other say French) but in my opinion, it's the "Ragusan" form which has appeared in local "Ragusan" documents since the 10th century. To this day, descendants of the family in Dubrovnik still use the Bona name (which appears in all official Croatian documentation)Debona.michel (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, but the problem is that there is no "Ragusan language". What you're referring to, most likely, is the Dubrovnik dialect of the extinct romance Dalmatian language. I fixed the text to "Romance". This way we cover both Italian, Venetian, and Dalmatian. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a village in France called "Bona"... I think it's a good idea not to specify Slavic or Romance, but just list both names side by side. Debona.michel (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for the info on the Bona family. From the info in the family tree, it would appear that a Sergius de Bisti (apparently from Vieste in the Gargano) married a Bona woman in Kotor who had no children around the year 1200 (according to Irmgard Mahnken's research (Dubrovnik archives) -- and the family tree that appears in her book). He then took her name as the Bona family was already prominent. The oldest mention of Bona appears in a Ragusan document (10th century), which allowed monks to settle on Lokrum island. Also, according to old hand-written family documents, one of my Ragusan/Dubrovnik ancestors wrote (in Italian) that the Bona family originated in Alemania (Germany) and settled in Salerno, Italy. From there, they came to Dalmatia. Debona.michel (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was "Romance" removed? I think there's no dispute about that being the "Romance" form? Its unrealistic to pretend the Slavic and Romance cultures melded so significantly in old Dubrovnik as to be indistingushable.

P.S. Luigi, you're pushing it - you're still banned. Last time we left you alone to edit in spite of your ban you started edit-wars on a number of articles and harrassed people (i.e. me :). Kindly switch back to itWiki, or wherever. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Luigi, I'm not going to debate with you. You're one of the most disruptive accounts on enWiki, a veritable menace, so it does not really matter anymore if you got blocked properly or not (every single banned account claims he was banned "by mistake"). You've piled on enough policy breaches thus far to warrant a dozen community bans (I emphasize the latter is your own fault).

Is this article going to be a hot-bed of edit warring again? Whoever this IP is (Ragusino? I really don't care anymore...) he may consider this a final warning pending a request for an IP block/semi-protection of this page. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

House of Bona (Bunic)

Hi Director! I think Debona.michel might have a point:

• Age, Marriage, and Politics in Fifteenth Century Ragusa by David Rheubottom
• Our Kingdom Come The Counter-Reformation, the Republic of Dubrovnik by Zdenko Zlatar
• Dubrovnik Annals, No.6 Srpanj 2002.

Zdenko Zlatar is a Reader in Slavic History at The University of Sydney. Address: Department of History, The University of Sydney, Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia.

• Dubrovnik Under French Rule (1810-1814) by Stjepan Cosic/ hrcak.srce.hr/file/12648.

"Court of First Instance in Dubrovnik, over which Niko Pozza presided.In Dubrovnik, Ston, and Cavtat, Ivan Bona, Frano Liepopilli, and Nikola Facenda operated as justices of the peace" page 113

• Quattrocento Adriatico: Fifteenth-Century Art of the Adriatic by Charles Dempsey "The papers collected in this book provide many new observations about the artistic interrelationship between Italy and the cities of the Dalmatian coast during the fifteenth century. Contributors: Josko Belamari (Regional Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, Split), Francesco Caglioti (University of Pisa), Adrea De Marchi (Soprintendenza delle Belle Arti di Pisa), Janez Hofler (University of Ljubljana), Stanko Kokole (The Johns Hopkins University), Reinhold Mueller (University of Venice), Kruno Prijatelj (Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences), Anne Markham Schulz (Brown University), Samo Stefanac (University of Ljubljana), Johannes Roll (The Humboldt University)."
• Helias and Blasius De Radoano: Ragusa Merchants in the Second Half of the 14th Century by Barisa Krekic.

" In February of 1378 Blasius and ser Lucas de Bona had appointed two Venetians and a Ragusan" page 408

Note: The book consider Dubrovnik's international role, on the one hand as a maritime state and in relation to Venice, and on the other in terms of its participation in the interaction of Latin and Slav cultures in Renaissance Dalmatia.

• Journal of Croatian Studies Volume 20 by Croatian Academy of America.
• From Dubrovnik (Ragusa) Florence : Observations on the Recruiting of Domestic Servants in the 15 Century by Paola Pinelli/hrcak.srce.hr/file/50677

"for slave trade companies continued to be founded, like the one established in 1445 between Marino di Bona of Ragusa and Benedetto Magrino for the trade of 12-15 male and female slaves." page 63

Croatia Business:

• De Bona Consulting: Director: Mercy Bona Pavelic - DE BONA CONSULTING

E-mail: bona@de-bona.com, gsm: + 385 91 6374883, Zrinsko Frankopanska 5, Dubrovnik, Croatia fax: +385 20 311816 Pantovcak 8, Zagreb, Croatia, fax: +385 1 4821347 DeBona.com

Sir Floyd (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know he's right, that's why I agreed with him. The name is used by modern, non-Romance people (Slavs), however "de Bona" is still a surname in Romance form, regardless of usage. Its simply a correct description and I can see no NPOV reason for removing it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional:

• Pregled Hrvatske Znanstvene Baštine by Vladimir Bazala- this Croatian reference states "Bona". Concerning: Notables Members-Serafin (?)
• The Factions within the Ragusan Patriciate (17-18 Century) by S. Cosic & N. Vekaric. Table 1. Factions in the Great Conspiracy of 1610/12 by senatorship. (See page 23.)

Stjepan Cosic & Nenad Vekarie: Members of the Croatian Academy of Sciences & Arts in Dubrovnik.

Croatia Business:

• National Security and the Future-Croatia: Ragusa Intelligence & Security (RIS) Croatia National Security and the Future. Editorial Office, Rudera Boskoviceva 20, 10000Zagreb, Croatia:

A Model for the 21st Century-Stevan Dedijer Dubrovnik: " The Ragusan Archives document , "Speculum Maioris Consilii Rectores", showed 4397 rectors elected between September 1440 to June l806; 2764, (63 %) were from eleven "old patrician" families: Gozze, Bona, Caboga, Cerva, Ghetaldi, Giorgi, Gradi, Pozza, Saraca, Sorgo, and Zamanya. An 1802 list of Ragusa's governing bodies showed 3 that 6 of the 8 Minor Council, and 15 of 20 Grand Council members were from the same 11 families."

Sir Floyd (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Family Member Statement:

As a Croatian member of the de Bona family, I would like to remind everybody of the following:

The Bona name already appears in a document dated from the 10th century - this document can be seen in Dubrovnik.

All Croatian identity documents show de BONA (even during Yugoslavia)

All family records show the name BONA, never Bunic

Tombstones show Bona, never Bunic

Bunic predominantly appears in books written by "Yugoslav" authors or those using "Yugoslav" sources.

Paintings in the Dubrovnik Museum show the name "de Bona" on all the paintings - description tags usually say Bunic and now also Bona in most cases (since Croatia's independence -- under Yugoslavia, nearly exclusively Bunic).

In Dubrovnik the family is known as Bona, not Bunic.

The aristocracy wanted to distiguish themselves from the rest of the population and did not Slavicize their names (exdcept two families of Slavic origin)...in some cases some people who wrote in Croatian or a form of it also used a Slavic version of the name...Additional proof needed for the Bona name. So far none seen.

In MHO, this page should be known as House of Bona (aka Bunic) and all the names in the Slavic version should appear in parentheses next to the Bona name. As far as I know, there are no historical records with these Slavic names. All family records, always show the name Bona even when the rest of the text is written in Croatian.

A small clique is controlling all the info that goes into the Croatian pages. This is a fact. They are very determined that only info they accept can enter in Wikipedia. Otherwise, they do everything to make sure it's deleted -- often with no explanation --. If they don't like a user they will do everything to ban him.

In MHO, Bunic is only used to say it's "Croatian" versus "Italian"... I don't recognize myself in the Bunic name. It doesn't mean anything to me...but Croatian people, who don't know anything about the family, are telling everybody it's the name...with no proof to back it up.

You make up your mind what the name of the House is... Debona.michel (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Debona.michel. Based on the above information and family member statement, the articles current title is inappropriate. We have here a consensus, so I propose that the article be renamed to: House of De Bona/Bunić.

Additional: Could other Ip-contributions (Luigi-151.21.249.234 & 84.221.67.86 and others), please do not be disruptive (do something else for a while). It will only destroy this small amount of progress that has been made. Thank you Sir Floyd (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Restarting the edit-wars

I was very happy User:Debona.michel, Luigi, and I could finally come to terms on the subject this article and avoid its deletion. However, I hope this has not opened the doors to another wave of disruptive edit-warring on these obscure articles. So far the source of discontent has been the IP of the banned User:Ragusino (WP:OUTING, threats, personal attacks, block evasion, edit-warring, sockpuppeteering, etc.). The article will likely be semi-protected and that will be the end of his involvement. This brings me back to my point: WP:MEATPUPPETEERING and restoration of his Italian nationalist edits on the part of logged users will restart the edit-wars without a shadow of a doubt. AfDs and WP:CANVASSING will surely follow. Please, please don't open the doors to all this again. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ragusino, with all due respect, you are as transparent as ever. A two-year-old can see through your nonsense socks and IPs. Go away.

It was a mistake to once again attempt to arrive at an understanding with User:PIO/Luigi 28. An incredibly stupid mistake on my part, considering I should know better from my experience thus far. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not expect the nonsense "Italianization POV" would be resurrected so long after the issue seemed to have been settled. I am frankly apalled at how even the slightest departure from strict adherence to Wiki policy results in attempts to "Italianize" Dalmatian articles. This experience has dispelled all illusions I held about a renewal of a working relationship between some of the users here. I had hoped we might concentrate on content, not controversy (thus starting work on an infobox). Obviously I was wrong.

The vast majority of the "house articles" created by the banned vandal account User:Ragusino, obviously lack relevance (this was frequently noted by a number of users). This article in particular stands out as a source of continued conflict to boot, and was created by User:Ragusino well after he had been inefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing my edits, here, DIREKTOR. This action qualify your level of user. Why don't you report me, instead? Are you afraid to discover that I'm geographically unrelated from PIO, Luigi and Ragusino? don't worry: more and more people is understanding who are you and your real target here. Just, I'm surprise because you was not already banned.--84.221.67.86 (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider for WP:AFD?

This article caused trouble in the past due to ethnic edit-warring. There was a big fight over use of Italian vs. Croatian names. The past creators of this article were telling a story about the importance of the family that really had no proper sources. At one time (if I recall) it was illustrated with a bunch of photographs of tombstones, probably to verify that only the Italian name was used, or only the Croatian name. It is hard to imagine anything less suitable for Wikipedia than that type of controversy. Even now, the references which are cited are being used to prove that someone named Bona was *mentioned* in some other document at a certain period.

House of Bourbon gets its own article, due to the vast number of members with their own Wikipedia articles, and the large amount of reliable sources. I believe House of Bunić can't meet that standard, and should not have an article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Best for "Articles for deletion". Better than promoting a lie. There is no House of Bunic, it's just a slavic translation of the proper name. It's been House of De Bona for centuries (if you know your history) plus we got "The real McCoy". Yes I know we can't reference the editor, but it did give a very interesting insight into the matter.

Also it could be said it's the Slavic (Croatian) vs. Italanic (Dalmatia).

Note: The Ragusan Archives document:

"Speculum Maioris Consilii Rectores", showed 4397 rectors elected between September 1440 to June l806; 2764, (63 %) were from eleven "old patrician" families: Gozze, Bona, Caboga, Cerva, Ghetaldi, Giorgi, Gradi, Pozza, Saraca, Sorgo, and Zamanya. An 1802 list of Ragusa's governing bodies showed 3 that 6 of the 8 Minor Council, and 15 of 20 Grand Council members were from the same 11 families."

• The word rector ("ruler," from the Latin regere and rector meaning "teacher" in Latin) has a number of different meanings; they indicate an academic, religious or political administrator.
• The term patrician (Latin: patricius, Greek: πατρίκιος) originally referred to a group of elite citizens in ancient Rome, including both their natural and adopted members. In the late Roman Empire, the class was broadened to include high council officials, and after the fall of the Western Empire it remained a high honorary title in the Byzantine Empire. Medieval patrician classes were once again formally defined groups of elite burgher families in many medieval Italian republics, such as Venice and Genoa, and subsequently "patrician" became a vaguer term used for aristocrats and elite bourgeoisie in many countries.

I'm ok with deletion. Sir Floyd (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Several articles cause troubles due to ethnic edit warring (just have a look to Republic of Ragusa), but nobody think to delete them. So, I don't get why we should delete this one. We have just to wonder if it deserves the enciclopedy.. IMHO yes: we deal with the second largest family of the Republic of Ragusa, with several notable members. I could agree that, at the moment, the article does not meet the standards: again there are thousands of voices in the same situation: nobody think to delete them. A good idea might be to investigate about the "trouble-makers" (of all the sides!): there is a strong smeel of meatpuppetry here ... these my 2 cents.--84.221.67.86 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Source: "Francesco Maria Appendini" turns out to be a very good source.

"Ragusa Patrizia Famiglia/Patrician Famaly DE BONA. page 81.Francesco Maria Appendini history of Dubrovnik and her Republic of Ragusa, a history little known in general, and yet full of important information. He describes in separate chapters its form of government, its church, always attached to the Latin communion, its laws, customs, and manners, its relations with Venice and with the Slavonian principalities of Bosnia and Croatia. The " Notizie Istorico-critiche sulla Antichita, Storia, e Letteratura de' Ragusei," in two vols. 4to., and also dedicated to the senate of the Republic of Ragusa. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So that's two:

• The Ragusan Archives document: "Speculum Maioris Consilii Rectores"
• Francesco Maria Appendini

Sir Floyd (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would add that the surname is also used today [1] and it's seems strange that the last members of this family use the surname of "Bona" or "De Bona" but here it's used the Croatian translation. --Ilario (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Already moved, consensus was for moving. Ucucha 02:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

---

House of Bunić → House of Bona — This move request was added today, not on January 27 [2], as the nominator's signature suggests. I am signing here to get the article to go to the correct heading on WP:RM: Ucucha 01:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I've simply restored a previous requeste, deleted (with no reason), by another user (see here). I miss to change the date.--84.220.68.214 (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading the several sources introduced by Sir Floyd, I think it's the time to restore the article into its original title. Bona appears to be the most used English therm, for this family. User Direktor has moved the page into the present title, without discussion and without to provide a single source. Furthermore, it appears that he simply translated all the names from an (apparent) Italian form, into a "slavic" form: of course he is the author of the translations (no sources are - again- provided).-84.221.67.86 (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ucucha. Just a friendly inquiry about the resent moves on the above mention. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page because it appeared in the backlog at the Wikipedia:Requested moves page; from the text of this page, it appeared as if it had been up for more than three weeks without consensus. However, I then discovered that the move had only been open for a few hours, as the IP user had signed as if the comment was added on 27 January, and accordingly undid the move. Ucucha 01:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Sir Floyd (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article should be moved (renamed). It is inappropriately titled and it's current title does not reflect:

• Sources
• Living Bona family members.

Ucucha, I thought the request was removed as it disappeared from the article. Was it inappropriately removed? Sir Floyd (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

From the history of this page, it appears there's been quite some confusion going on. The best thing now is to just wait for this move request to expire; if there is consensus, someone will move this page back to "House of Bona" in seven days (or perhaps later). Ucucha 12:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there any English-language sources for the current title? There appear to be some for "(de) Bona" in the article. — AjaxSmack 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some "forced" translation of families of Dubrovnik. This family, in particular, should keep the original neolatin name for some reasons:

• origins from Italy where the name still remains (most of all in Veneto and Venetia) (Use this web site [3] and search "De Bona" or Bona) and it should be saved to recreate the family tree of some noble families of Italy ([4])
• The name still survive in Dubrovnik for the original branch of the family [5] [6]
• The name survive also in some emigrants from Dubrovnik (for a Marino de Bona emigrant in Peru, )
• The English historian have always used "Bona" or "De Bona" [7]
• Some members of the family are indicated without any confusion with the neolatin family name, at least until the end of Ragusa's republic (i.e. Miho Giorgi Bona [8])

Other links or reasons could be added with more available time.

We should have in mind that in Ragusa there were three languages used until the end of this republic. Any translation of all families names of Dubrovnik could have a negative impact in the respect of history. I understand the point of view used until now but it sems to me exaggerated. --Ilario (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I really don't understand why it's Bunic. At the Republic of Ragusas last meeting it was Bona. Even a large proportion of Croatian/Yugoslav sources states Bona. The image on the articles page is not signed in Slavic. Put simply the Patrician family of De Bona (in the old Republic & todays Dubrovnik) calls itself De Bona and their are plenty of sources to back it up. Romance form of surnames are quite common in that part of Croatia. In a sense they reflect the regions history. Also it could be said that this is a historical article. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "De Bona" is the historical family name, but Ivan Bunić Vučić has not to change. He was a Croatian poet.--Grifter72 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion some regions of Croatia and Slovenia have had an history more complicated than that which is described in the current articles. The republic of Ragusa was a multicultural and a cosmopolitan town, I think that men of letters which were able to write works of art in three languages are already an extraordinary case of study. The discovery of the "european" roots of these towns, it's already a cultural patrimony. The historical name helps people to understand that some families have judged in the past that Dubrovnik was an important town to increase their commercial traffics to the point that they elected this town like their country of adoption. --Ilario (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Grifter72, their should be minimal changes made to the page. Ilario you made some good points too but lets keep it simple for this article. I'll make some edits and then we can discuss the issues here. Sir Floyd (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where's Your problem?? De Bona was a Croatian family and de Bona is a Croatian name. There are thousand of Croatian names which don't end on ic! My last name is Tudor and I'm Croatian.

Vatroslav Tudor

Dear Vatroslav, you're right, no need to have a surname ending ic, to make it more Slavic Croatian or another, many people do not want to understand that the Latin culture in Dalmatia was also important in this area and it is still more Croatian or less. --200.112.31.64 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just baffling to me how some Serbs like the one who calls himself "Direktor" can spend hours on the net on the difference between the ending -a and -ic ?! He has nothing else to do? Where I come from there are surnames like "Vidas, Spanjol, Dominis, Spalatin, Zudenigo" and many others not ending on -ic and we all consider us as proud Croatians and not Italians. Italians and Serbs would like to have Croatia's coast because of it's beauty and they come up with all kinds of crazed theories. As for today's de Bona family, I wonder if they care about what they could do for Croatia and what they could do to give Croatia back some of it's splendor it enjoyed as shown during the days of the Ragusian Republic. Instead they seem to wonder only about their own personal splendor like so many Croatians these days. It's a pity. And it's more important than the silly difference between -a and -ic.

Vatroslav Tudor--195.141.41.207 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest the Bona family do for Croatia? Your statement seems to be a gross generalization (re Serbs, Italians and the Bona family). The whole point is that most Croatians think that ALL of these families no longer exist and in the mean time their last names have been changed to suit various people. So, yes, it's important to spend a lot of time saying that our name today is still Bona rather than Bunic. As far as I know, at least one Croatian Bona family member has already proposed her services to the city of Dubrovnik (given her experience in various fields) but no one seems to be interested. See this article (this is just an extract -- she gives more details in the published version): http://www.dulist.hr/content/view/7898/68/ Debona.michel (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(forum style post deleted here, we shouldn't be discussing Croatia or living people here) Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this page is not a forum. Please restrict your comments to ones aimed at improving the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)