Talk:Luciano Laurana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Luciano Laurana is Italian

Luciano Laurana is generally referred to as one of the main figures in Italian architecture of the fifteenth century.

Sources:

• Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
• LAURANA, Luciano. Treccani, il portale del sapere, 2011.
• Chilvers, Ian. The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists. Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 45.

Croatian ?! Who writes these entries ? This is Anti-History. --Davide41 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are deleting sources that you don't like from the article itself, and then showing here sources on talk page that you prefer. Nice work...real academic work. --Kebeta (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Leading Historians agree Luciano Laurana was primarily Italian.

Luciano Laurana "Croatian" = Tertiary sources in the Croatian language. POV --Davide41 (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

britannica say "...one of the main figures in 15th-century Italian architecture.", not Italian architect. Anyway, I added both categoryes. --Kebeta (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a propaganda tool

I see, over and over, 'Croatians' Vranjanin, Dalmatinac, Klovic. What is the matter with our neighbours on the east coast of Adriatic? Is lying and inventing stories a fun over there? If so, use your own Wikipedia for such purposes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.229.6 (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No sense

Saying that someone is Croatian and/or Italian is a true no-sense for someone living in the 15th century. Indeed he was Venitian and more precisely Dalmatian. I do not want to discuss here if Dalmatian means Croatian. But at least we should restrict this discussion out of articles that should mainly discuss of art. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

He was not Venetian. He was a Croat. Now I can see what are you doing in en.wiki. Zenanarh (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case provide an English source saying so. There are English sources saying he was Italian. Indeed my proposal was to find a compromise and remove the current no-sense that says Italian and Croat for someone living in the 15th century. Again you are ready to put gasoline on fire. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your idea that there was no Croatian ethnicity in the 15th century is extreme nationalism and chauvinism. BTW his surname Laurana was short form of De la Vrana and Vrana was small city by the lake of Vrana, settled only by Croats much earlier than 15th century.

This is just another problem of the same kind with literature, since Italian literature is not objective, it usurps any prominent person from Croatia in the past. If you defend such extremism you are an extremist and from now on I will treat you as the one. Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Then can you add a source (in english of course) stating that he is of Croatian ethnicity? If you cannot pretend to state this on en:wiki with Croatian sources. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And english sources, means english not as the one riported in the article that is a tertiary source reporting as source Croatia Net. I mean good sources such as a major encyclopedia, a monography, a biography, art books and so on.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Any encycopedia is tertiary source as well as wikipedia is. Also, English sources are translations, borrowings and rewritings of Croatian and Italian secondary sources. And almost all Italian sources are saying that he was Italian, almost all Croatian sources are saying that he was Croat. Italy is bigger nation than Croatia, Italian sources are more numerous and thus better presented in English language, but it is criteria of quantity and not quality.

Vrana (town) was small town by lake of Vrana near Biograd na Moru one of Croatian royal centers, 25 kms SE from Zadar. In Croatian, Vrana means - crow. Settlers of Vrana were Vranjani, singular Vranjanin. Under Venetian administration Vrana became La Vrana and earlier surname de Vrana was transformed into de la Vrana and Dellaurana, then Laurana in Italy. It was translation of Vranjanin. There were no Italians in Vrana in the 15th century as well as there were no Italians ever in Vrana. Small number of Venetians in service to Republic in the northern Dalmatia was settled exclusively in Zadar and not elsewhere. Laurana was Italianized form of his surname during his stay in Italy and one he became popular with. Italian authors make use of it and proclaim his Italan ethnicity, which is not true, he was a Croat undoubtly, by surname, by place of birth. Finally his nickname Schiavone, used by him personally, is direct evidence of his Croatian origin and identity. His father was Martin which is traditional and modern Croatian personal name. Look what the article says: His projects were accompanied with notes in the Croatian glagolitic script, as witnessed by the famous Bernardo Baldi. Do you know what is Glagolithic script? It was script used only by the Croats and Moravians. 99% of all Glagolitic inscriptions ever found belong to Croatian literar history. Italian literature claims his Italian ethnicity without any evidence, his surname, place of birth, name of his father, his own nickname Schiavone etc. are direct counter-arguments. He considerably influenced the development of Renaissance architecture in Italy but not as the Italian. He expressed his ethnicity as Croatian. Until you can provide anything better then empty claim, we cannot take his rapid transformation into Italian over the night for serious. Zenanarh (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Source needed

I do not discuss that Luciano Laurana is or not Croatian. But for this claim we need acceptable sources. His Italian ethnciity is supported by very serious sources such as the Encyclopædia Britannihica and Oxford Dictionary of Art. I would expect something equally serious to claim the Croatian origin. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, you have just vandalised the page. I have returned it as it was before. I do not understand your behaviour. You have removed the reference to Laurana as Italian, even if this is legitimated by serious sources. What are you trying to demonstrate? I have no option but reporting this to an administrator. Again, here no-one discuss if Laurana is Croatian or not. We are only requesting to introduce a serious source. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at my reply above. In fact calling him Italian is vandalisation. It is one more non-critic manipulation coming from Italian literature. Zenanarh (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is your opinion. There are reputable sources (Oxford Dictionary of Art and Encyclopaedia Britannica) saying he is Italian. The day your opinion will replace the current facts in such sources we will change the article. For the time being perhaps you should respect such sources even if you consider yourself more knowledgeable than the Encyclopaedia Britannica. What are you doing is edit warring and I will report you for that. If you will insist this will be reported as vandalism. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Brittanica is tertiary source as well as wikipedia is. Tertiary sources are not relevant because they are based on secondary sources. Secondary sources are the only relevant - scientific works. Once again I must repeat: please become familiar with WP:Sources. Please, report me. However, your contribution is really interesting. You have very strong will when it comes to Italianization of prominent Croats from Dalmatia who stayed in Italy for some period because of their artistic work. There are a several cases of that kind and you are concentrated especially in these. Congratulations. Zenanarh (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, I am filling a report to report your Edit Warring. This is my last warning, after you will explain this to an administrator. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion resolution

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Leave article the way it is. Whenaxis talk contribs 02:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Here we will try to resolve the dispute that has gone unaccomplished through a failed mediation then a third opinion then an attempt to mitigate this problem with a notice board for edit warring. For now it seems as of though the disputes have calmed down but like I warned you earlier, continued edit warring will lead to blocks and if continued uncivility and lack of ability to resolve disputes, I will have no choice but to file an arbitration proceeding with lasting sanctions. I have moved the discussion to my own namespace area to save space and time of the two disputed pages: Zadar and Luciano. Are there any other discussions that you two are arguing about because we should resolve everything now once and for all. Whenaxis about talk contribs 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. First let me express my fear – I doubt that moving discussion to this page will be helpful. Isn’t it better that it stays where it belongs - Zadar talk page? That way it would be a kind of reference for future disputes of the same kind. This way it stays isolated here and not available on first sight to interested parties now or in the future. On the other side there are already 4 archives of such struggle in Zadar talk and it doesn't help too much - Silvio ignores it. So I'm not absolutely sure what to think. During ’08 and ’09 Zadar article and few others about Dalmatia were already under heavy attacks of a few Italian nationalists, who were all banned indefinitely, after long and exhausting debates and mediations, however it didn’t stop them, they continued to produce series of sock puppets, things calmed down during ’10 and the most of ’11. When Silvio appeared first I thought he was just one more attempt of User:Giovanni Giove to make a mess again - edit warring, repeating always same 3 words in discussion, uncapability to get into real debate with arguments, reverting the opponent’s well referenced contribution with comment "provide source", same choice of articles – exclusively those which are usually "proccessed" by the Italian Irredentists, but I can't be sure and I don't want suspect Silvio for nothing, especially if he's not Giove. Zenanarh (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Users can see on the discussion page that the dispute has moved to this page. Whenaxis about talk contribs 13:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening Statements

Involved Parties

Zenanarh
Silvio1973

Whenaxis (third party dispute resolver)

Statement by Zenanarh

Before getting into the organic matter of our conflict, I want to explain my position in discussion. I’ve already said, now I repeat: I don’t believe in such building of an article about history of a city in an encyclopedia based on conflict over detail such as interpretation of some selective historical document, wiki article format doesn’t allow us such accommodation. I cannot support Silvio’s version -> WP:OR. It is simply not allowed here. We should be encyclopedians and not original researchers. Silvio wrote: This is not an encyclopedia![1]. Silvio, this is encyclopedia online, it is dynamic, it is edited by the volunteers, but still, it is encyclopedia. We are directed to use typical encyclopedic methodology, that’s what wiki polices are. We should be the reporters with responsibility of the reporters and not the scientists who are writing their dissertation based on some kind of consensus. That also means that we must take historical methodology into consideration when we write about history and when we are balancing sources to determine their relation. Encyclopedia informs about chess stalemate position if there is chess stalemate position, but if one source is disputed by the other successfully with no adequate counter-reply, then... we cannot cite every scientist who have contributed to the matter in all generations. This is not a symposium.

Therefore:

• We must edit section about all what was history of the city during 19th century and not only about a few censi taken out of context or put into context by a sentence construction produced from our conflict and final consensus in the talk - it would be selective and non-informative insight into 19th century history of the city.

• Our subject should be inbuilt into text as organic part of it and presented / referenced by quality secondary sources – scientific works. If there is conflict between sources we should weigh it here and not in the article paragraph – it must inform about history and not about our conflict.

• Our communication. I’m sorry Silvio if I called you some bad names, like ignorant, if it is bad at all concerning your real knowledge on the subject, nothing personally, but for the rest - you are not open as you are trying to present yourself lately. I didn’t accuse you of irredentism directly, I wrote: ...But irredentistic side of a story is simply unacceptable because it is not objective and is based on selective data and manipulation with data... and ...Finally, you say you are not an irredentist, I would like to believe you, but you insist on using typical distorted irredentistic arguments!? Don't you think it would be much more fair if you first get better informed?... and ...it's much more important to explain processes and occasions, as well as complex political situation in the city, than to produce a political pamphlet which is your obvious intention (I would like to believe it's not, but you haven't shown anything else).

So please stop with crying. From the beginning, I’m inviting you to get better informed about subject (2 topics at the end of Archive 3, especially the last one [2]) and about wiki policies you are in direct conflict with, I can link a several of my attempts for both, but you keep on ignoring my calls and your level is still the same – your own conclusion about a few documents. For any kind of consensus you must change your approach, by means of our communication and your frankness and by means of level of our debate.

• As for my allusions on Italian Irredentism, info to Whenaxis as neutral party, I didn’t use it to discriminate Silvio, my intention was to bring Silvio to his senses. That movement is still alive in Italy to some degree in some minor political circles, which is then reflected in a part of Italian literature, but disproportionately wider. This problem emerged in the 19th century when Italian Irredentist Movement culminated which largely influenced approach of the 19th century Italian historians who were mostly using publications of some Autonomic Party members in Damatia concerning Dalmatia. The Autonomists represented minor part of population (2-5%) of the Italians, pro-Italian Croats and Croats whose political goal was autonomy of the province, they were also privileged with administrative positions and Italian language as official language in administration and education. As all politicians in the world, they manipulated, to save their privileged position, their opponents The People’s Party represented 95-98% of province population and fought for majority in the Senate (!), for Croatian as the official language as well as education in Croatian, which they finally succeeded in the 2nd half of the 19th century and for final political union of the Croatian lands shared by the Austrian and Hungarian authorities to be controlled more easily in that moment. Unfortunately, modern Italian authors usually base their works on older generations of the Italian authors, so some imbalanced data is coming through from the older Italian literature to more modern one. The most of Italians are not well informed about it, Italian presence in Dalmatia fulfills the minor part of their overall historiography, so it is possible that someone believes, but doesn’t really know. Irredentistic claims on Dalmatia, based on selective data (one typical is non-critical presentation of Austrian censi 1880-1910, no matter if Silvio is councious about it or not) are direct nationalistic attack on Croatian nationality by all means of chauvinism and even fascism in some cases and this is why it is very sensible question for the Croats. Wikipedia cannot support such extreme views nor serve as propaganda tool. That was my idea and not to offense Silvio. I tried to warn him, not accuse him. There is no real political conflict between Italy and Croatia in reality, just marginal argues between individuals, due to imbalance between sources in 2 languages and we don’t have to encourage it. I don’t believe that our consensus can be balance between statement with chauvinistic elements (exclusiveness given to one document without criticism and wishy wish interpretation) from one and reply in set of statements of the scientists from the other (imposed exclusiveness given to one document is not lost).

Silvio, I’m not trying to patronize you this way, I’m trying to help you get better informed about background of our conflict which is far more than we can resolve. But I believe we can resolve what position of encyclopedia can be. This is about my position in debate in general. Tommorrow I'll concentrate on sources and arguments dealing directly with our subject. Silvio, no hard feelings! Regards Zenanarh (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Silvio1973

Whenaxis, first of all thank you for your help. There are currently no other issues other than the ones you have mentioned. There is a long discussion going on [Giorgio da Sebenico] involving many parties, including Zenanarh and myself, but I have taken the personal decision to move out of it because the discussion has moved out of the border of normality. Let's move on the matter of the articles Zadar and Luciano Laureana. I will try to be more focused on the precise issues.

Zadar
The current version of the article report the sentence:

After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians, both of whom founded their respective political parties. There are different sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period.

My request is to extend (briefly) the text including some additional information. The new wished text is:

After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians, both of whom founded their respective political parties. There are different sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period. Namely, the 1910 official austro-hungarian census affirms that Italians were the majority within the city walls, but represented only 28% of Zadar county.

The two sources that I can provide in support are:

• Full 1900 census available at page 82 of the following link:

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHSS&CISOPTR=32528&REC=16&CISOSHOW=32386

• The book of Guerrino Perselli, I censimenti della popolazione dell‘Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune città della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936 - Unione Italiana Fiume-Università Popolare di Trieste - Trieste-Rovigno 1993. In this book at pages 451-454 you can find data from 1869 till 1936 about Zadar's population.

I can provide the scan of the book to show my source is genuine. Also this book is a secondary source and this should satisfy Zenanarh. The argument that the source is Italian seems ineffective because the current article uses plenty of Croatian sources. Please note that I am writing that the Italian community was fare from being the majority in all Zadar's county. How could be qualified of "irredentistic" such a modification? And of course Zenanarh is free and welcome to propose an alternative to this proposal.

Luciano Laurana
At the beginning the article was claiming that this architect was, according to sources, Croatian or Italian. The claim that he is Italian is supported by two very reputable NON ITALIAN sources (amongst many others):

• Chilvers, Ian. The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists. Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 45.
• Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.

The claim that he is Croatian is supported by two CROATIAN sources:

• Lucijan Vranjanin (Luciano Laurana), Ivana Prijatelj Pavičić, Croatica Hrvatski udio u svijetskoj baštini, Neven Budak, Zagreb, 2007, ISBN: 953-12-0351-2, pages 182-187
• Arhitekt Lucijan Vranjanin Luciano Laurana, Andrija Mutnjaković, Zagreb, 2003, ISBN 953-6271-51-6, page 363

Of course, the Croatian claim has created some disagreement and tension. In effect, in view of the level of tension existing on Dalmatia related articles, it is of the most paramount importance that the neutrality of the sources is out of discussion. Indeed in such situation, Italian and Croatian sources are not the best for this objective; international/english sources should be preferred. I have requested Zenanarh to justify the Croatian origin of Luciano Laurana with a non Croatian source. Zenanarh's answer has been to delete completely the Italian origin reference (despite the seriousness of the sources in support). My request is to return the previous version but I kindly urge Zenanarh to provide a source in support of his/her claim.

As a side note I need to report that Zenanarh's affirmation: Irredentistic claims on Dalmatia, based on selective data (one typical is non-critical presentation of Austrian censi 1880-1910, no matter if Silvio is conscious about it or not) are direct nationalistic attack on Croatian nationality by all means of chauvinism and even fascism in some cases and this is why it is very sensible question for the Croats. shows very well what is the attitude of some Croatian contributors. I can only regret this attitude but I need to precise that many users have already retired from Wikipedia because are unfamiliar with this approach. Also I kindly ask Zenanarh to remain on the matter of the discussion and to have a more polite wording when speaking of myself. I am not a member of his/her family, neither one of his/her friends. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Zenanarh

<-- Please cite any violations of Wikipedia policies in this section -->
Proof of Silvio1973's original research and how it is interpreted as original research rather than a reliable secondary source

Silvio’s proposal:

After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians, both of whom founded their respective political parties. There are different sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period. Namely, the 1910 official Austro-Hungarian census affirms that Italians were the majority within the city walls, but represented only 28% of Zadar county.

Just a few sentences but too many problems. And my problem is how to present complex situation in Dalmatia and its capital Zadar in short to both of you, Whenaxis as neutral mediator and Silvio as involved party of poor knowledge on the matter.

Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians.

Situation in Dalmatia and Zadar was not really division between the Italians and the Croats. It was much more complex. It was much more like social segregation based on use of 2 languages, Croatian and Italian but not on 2 ethnicities.

It all started in period of Venetian authority in Dalmatia (1409-1797). In 1409 Dalmatia with no Italian (or Venetian) settlers became a part of Venetian Republic (traditional enemy of the Dalmatians) since Ladislaus of Naples unable to run big kingdom (Hungaro-Croatian Kingdom) had sold his rights on Dalmatia to Venice. Some small number of Venetians moved from Venice to Zadar as the employees of the Republic administration. From the beginning their goal was social separation; Venetian dialect of Italian language became administrative language and was supposed to be the language of the elite. First what they did was taking 40 hostages from all Zadar noble families to prevent revolt of Zadar people, the most of them died in Venetian prisons. However, Italianization didn’t take a place in the city and the rest of province, it was not settled by the Italians, it was economically exploited to serve Venice - rising economical giant in the Adriatic. Also from the 16th century a large inland part of province was occupied by the Turks and there was war ongoing in the backyard of the cities. It was simply not desirable destination to move to. By time only noblemen in Zadar and other cities adopted Italian language to save their privileges and properties. Venetian trade unionist Giovanni Battista Giustiniani traveled across Dalmatia in 1553, from one to another city sending reports to the Great Council of Venice. He noted that noone spoke and understood Venetian language except Venetian administrators and a few Venetian merchants in Zadar, while all domestic population spoke Croatian language exclusively, except the noblemen (all the natives) who were able to speak it and who dressed in Venetian fashion. In the same century Zadar was the main center of Croatian Literary Reinessance. However the only printing office in the city was property of the Venetian family and printing in Croatian language was not allowed; interestingly it was why first novel in Croatian language - "Planine" by Zadar novelist P. Preradović was not printed at home in Zadar, but in Venice, where noone cared about language in a book. How many Venetians were in Zadar?

There were Venetian population censi from 1500 and later, among the other things carried through to determine the number of the local males capable for mobilization into fleet and army (thanks to their many centuries long sea-faring and ship-building tradition, the Croats made huge number of the sailors in the Venetian fleets and almost all army in wars against the Turks). According to 1527 census, 90% of 8051 Zadar people were Croats. During the 1st half of the 17th century, there was enormous depopulation of the city and surrounding due to war against Turks and plague. Venetian authorities tried to repopulate the city and prevent constant decrease of the city population, by stopping exodus of domestic Croatian population from the city and its close surrounding hit by the war, by bringing back those of them who escaped to the islands and by bringing new settlers from Italy into the city. In 1608 list, 75% of 5784 Zadar people was Croatian, the rest were the immigrants from Italy, Albania and Greece. But the city population didn’t increase to the end of the century; 1695 census (2804 citizens) shows decrease by the 52% in relation to 1608 (5803 citizens), due to 2 Venetian - Turkish wars, Candian and Morean, demographic movements were largely influenced (suffering in the war, hunger, emigration, high mortality of the males especially). At the beginning of the 18th century the Turks were driven off, wars stopped but all region was heavily devastated and general economical scene was disastrous. Thanks to somewhat more peaceful political situation, the number of the citizens increased to the end of the century (by 57%), mostly due to native immigration from the islands, but also from the inland, the other Dalmatian cities and Italy.

/V. Graovac, "Populacijski razvoj Zadra", Odjel za geografiju, Sveučilište u Zadru, UDK: 314.8(497.5 Zadar), pages 53-59 ("Population development of Zadar", Department of Geography, University of Zadar)/

Concerning the people of the Italian ancestry in the city, the most of them came during the 17th and the 18th century, also in the 17th century first Italian nobleman joined Zadar nobility, but the most of these Italian immigrants also left Zadar and Dalmatia by the fall of the Venetian Republic (1797). However, some number stayed, they enjoyed all privileges, administrative positions, they made cultural and political elite in the city, but finally, this elite was not made of the Italians by ancestry only, a number of the ethnic Croats was a part of them too and Italian language in public communication was their symbol of differentiation to the rest of citizenship (BTW, 2 years before the fall of the Republic, the Venetian authorities closed down the University of Zadar established in 1358 - real Italianization never took a place in the city during their rule and it was constantly repopulated from its surrounding so they tried to obstruct education in Croatian language). This is extremely important to understand real composition of ethnicities in the next century (the 19th) in relation to use of languages. This is also reason why exactly language became main issue of the political fight in the 19th century in Dalmatian Senate. 2 sides in political conflict were the Autonomists and Populists. Not the Italians and the Croats! Many Autonomists were not the Italians at all, they were Croats, Serbs, "Italo-Slavs", in fact the most of them were pro-Italian natives, which was clearly seen in their Slavic names and surnames. That’s why we have to speak about Italians/pro-Italians when we speak about the Autonomists. Differentiation Croats / Italians is superficiality impossible to relate to any kind of reality in Dalmatia in the 19th century, concerning spoken language.

Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians...

The city was certainly not divided between the Croats and the Italians. This is huge stupidity. It was divided by social segregation which was reflected in use of language, administrative elite (no matter of real individual ethnicity) forced use of Italian language to distinguish themselves from the rest and to save their privileged positions, the masses wanted to establish Croatian language as the native and traditionally spoken in all province for centuries. More simplified: in the beginning of the 19th century the Italian speaker was a member of elite, well educated the owner of the properties and carrier of cultural and political life in the city, Croatian speaker was a member of masses (95-98% of population of province), low educated and oppressed politically and economically.

...both of whom founded their respective political parties

If differentiation by language had nothing to do with differentiation Croats / Italians, then also foundation of "their" respective parties had nothing to do with that kind of ethnic differentiation.

From the fall of Venetian Republic (1797) to 1918 Zadar played important role in province of Dalmatia as its capital. Main target of Austrian politics in Dalmatia was to isolate it from its background. Therefore Italian language was established as the official and immigration of the Italians was stimulated / incited. In spite of rural exodus and economical immigration of the domestic population from the surrounding and immigration of numerous Austrian and Italian administrators and merchants, population in the city stagnated due to low natural population increase. Habsburg Monarchy organized first population census in 1857. When Austro-Hungarian Monarchy lost provinces of Lombardia and Venetia, large number of administrators from these provinces, mainly Italians, were sent to Istria and Dalmatia, in the 2nd half of the 19th century, especially to Zadar as the main center of province Dalmatia. Ethnic and social structure of the city was significantly influenced by this immigration in the next decencies. Although the Croats made majority of the city population, Italian language predominated gradually. According to censi from 1880 to 1910 , around 95% of Dalmatian population expressed themselves as Croatian speakers and only 2-3% as the Italian speakers, which was result of national awakening in Croatian lands. However, Zadar was bastion of the Autonomic Party and Pro-Italianism, with significant Italian element, so around 15% of population in Zadar municipality expressed as Italian speakers. On basis of percent of those who expressed Italian language as their mother language, Diklić (1994) has stated that more than a half of all Dalmatian Italians lived in Zadar in 1910, but it was more likely that a part of Zadar Croatian population chose Italian language as their own, which was attested with fact that 50% of Zadar population was from its close surrounding by ancestry, 30% from the rest of Dalmatia and only 15-20% from Italy at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century.

/V. Graovac, "Populacijski razvoj Zadra", Odjel za geografiju, Sveučilište u Zadru, UDK: 314.8(497.5 Zadar, pages 59-62) ("Population development of Zadar", Department of Geography, University of Zadar)/

As you can see, censi 1880-1910 shown what language dominated in the city in that period (as reflection of social and not ethnic segregation) and not who made majority by ethnical or national key.

Namely, the 1910 official Austro-Hungarian census affirms that Italians were the majority within the city walls, but represented only 28% of Zadar county.

Silvio’s proposal offers his own conclusion directly opposite to this scientific analysis. It is not Croatian vs Italian source, forget about that kind of division, it is Silvio about Zadar vs University of Zadar about Zadar! Or some poor unsaid source vs quality analysis published by the University of Zadar. Also, because of phrase within the city walls I can see that Silvio has no idea what this city looked like and what was city area in the 19th century or how rich and poor quarters were distributed in the city area in that century. It had nothing to do with inside or outside the city walls.

<< Sorry about possible grammatical errors, I’m not native English speaker. I’m not finished with this section yet. Next 2 days I’m going to present another source of the same publisher (University of Zadar) to explain political situation in relation to ethnical composition in the city and province in the 19th century. It is impossible to speak about nationalities or ethnicities without understanding the politics in this case. And it is extremely important here. I know this is long exposition, but there is no other way, all of us must know what are we talking about to find the best solution. Whenaxis said: we should resolve everything now once and for all. – and I like this call, but it doesn’t leave me free space to drop any important fact, no matter how much time it takes. Please don’t reply to this section before I finish it. Thanks in advance. >>

To be continued... Zenanarh (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Šime Peričić, "O broju Talijana/Talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. stoljeća", Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, 2002, Zadar, UDK 949.75:329.7”19”Dalmacija ("About number of Italians/pro-Italians in Dalmatia in the XIXth century", Croatian Academy of Science and Arts, Department for history science, Zadar)

pages 327-351:

Questions of language and number of the Italians and pro-Italians occupied political scene of Dalmatia in the 19th century, these were subjects of constant argue between 2 politically opposed sides – Autonomist and Populist all times to WWI. From then especially the Italians have been insisting on this question, to prove justification of occupation of the Croatian coast promised to fascist Italy by Treaty of London (1918). Many Italian authors were writing about it, mostly Giotto Danielli (1917, 1918, 1919), but also R. Benini (1918), Attilio Tamaro (1915, 1919) and many others. All of them claimed that Dalmatia was "country, which during 2.000 years was exclusively and only Italian in all its civilization expressions". Italian irredentism was/is based on idea that the Italians (modern settlers of the Italian peninsula and members of modern Italian nationality) had/have rights on the European lands once composed into the Roman Empire (1st-5th century). Italian Irredentism was introduction and basis for Italian Fascism in the 20th century. It was fascism before fascism.

Austrian government ordered (1815) provincial administrations to use "the language commonly used in the provincial land courts", which meant Croatian language in Dalmatia but Italian administration in Zadar settled there after Venetian and short French rule, made a forgery, they changed words "language commonly used" with "idioma italiano" (Italian language) in the document and deceived the central government which on the other side didn’t care too much, it actually satisfied their politics of weakening and sharing Croats with Hungary. That way, after the most of the Venetian "crew" had gone, Italian minority which came mostly during first Austrian and following French government (1795-1815) held the most influent positions in administration, courts, schools, church and the economics of all province and their goal was to keep status quo as longer as possible.

At the end of the 18th and in the beginning of the 19th century, after fall of the Republic of Venice, some Italian politicians classified Dalmatia into interest sphere of their political wishes and imaginations, like imaginary so-called Republic of Auzonia (1918). These Italian imperial aspirations encouraged the Autonomists in Dalmatia. But Nikola Tommaseo (spiritus movens of the Autonomist Party) first stood against such aspirations and Italian imperial pretensions and stated that the most of Dalmatian settlers were not Italian speakers (1839), those who spoke Italian in Dalmatia "must be hanged up" (1840) metaphorically, but later under influence of political fight in the Dalmatian Senate he changed his position and opposed unification of Dalmatia (under Austria) to the rest of Croatia (under Hungary) and agitated for use of Italian language in Dalmatia (1861). However, at the end of his career after Croatian language had become equal to Italian officially, he once again changed position and started to prove that there were no Italians in Dalmatia and that Dalmatia was not a land of Italian culture.
The 18th - 19th century in Europe was period of national awakenings in all Europe, so in Croatian lands too. Dalmatian Italians/pro-Italians developed their activities more strongly during mature phase of Croatian national revival (from the 60’s of the 19th), scared of awaken majority. They represented a need of further domination of the Italian language in the provincial public life as a method to protect their own political, cultural, economical and other interests. Although the most of the Autonomists were formed of the Italianized Croats and Serbs, they insisted on their Italianship, because of small Italian immigration from previous centuries which had usurped almost all key positions in province oppressing huge majority of population. Their idea was to hide all traces of Slavic population. There were also some objective Autonomists like Giuseppe Mazzini who stated (1871) that "Slavic element was predominant" along the Dalmatian coast and that the Italians in Dalmatia were only a "small Italian colony" there, or Špiro Petrović, first president of the Dalmatian Senate who said that "from the Dinarian Alps to the most far islands, people were the Slavs by ancestry". The Populists represented masses and demanded right for majority to decide about their destiny instead of despotism of the minority.
The number of the Italians and pro-Italians was the most important point in argues and it is interesting to see what numbers were claimed, reported, noted.

• Frane Carrara didn’t consider himself a Croat, but "Italo-Dalmatian" (1843): 16.000 Italians in Dalmatia in 1843, who had come mostly from Venice and 340.000 people who spoke Slavic language.
• According to poll in 1846 only 15.305 people (3,72%) were Italians by nationality in Dalmatia.
• According to a few Populists in 1846, Italianism in Dalmatia was supported only by "administrators strangers" hated by everyone and small number of the citizens who were mostly Italian immigrants. By 1848 claims for unification of Dalmatia with the rest of Croatia appeared.
• According to Czoernig’s Austrian censi, based on ethnic features (1857), there were 14.645 Italians in Dalmatia in 1851 and 13.702 in 1857, which was around 5% of all population. The others found 45.000, 20.000 and 15.172 in 1857 by the same census. All agreed that there was no any Italian colony in Dalmatia up to that moment, since they had been naturalized by "Slavs". Criteria was spoken language in common life. In Zadar county they were present by 4,8%, while in Zadar city 24,8% according to official statistics.
• Populists used these numbers to find 10.000, 15.000 or 20.000 Italians / pro-Italians and 400.000 Croats and Serbs in Dalmatia.
• There were some unofficial Austrian statistics made to support Italian minority in Dalmatia by the Austrian government scared of Croatian separatist tensions and used to dispute statements of the Populists, like 55.020 Italians in 1865 (12,5%) and 57.000 in 1868. Criteria was Italians plus those who were meeting Italian language in professional life on any level of understanding. In these statistics, obviously irrelevant ones, there were no Croats at all.
• Autonomist Bajamonti stated that there were 40.000 Italians in Dalmatia and Populist Jakov Grubišić replied (1860) with less than 3.000 Italians in Dalmatia and less than 800 real Italians among them, while Miho Klaić replied that there were 26.000 Italians in Dalmatia according to official statistics.
• Populists (1860) mentioned 400.000 Croats and Serbs in Dalmatia and only 15.000 Italians who forced use of Italian language. They treated Italians in Dalmatia only as those whose direct ancestors had come from Italy.
• Some populists exaggerated and found only 10.000 Italians; not more than 7.000 Italians; barely 800 "real Italians" in Dalmatia.
• Fra Konstantin Antun Matas (1860) in his publication stated that Italians in Dalmatia were not the real one, but Italianized Croats and Serbs, while real Italians were mainly administrators driven from Lombardia. He noted that only 15.000 people use Italian language in Dalmatia, all settled in several cities.
• Vinko Milić replying on some Tommaseo’s writings in Zadar and Rijeka (1861) mentioned 20.000 Italians and 380.000 Serbo-Croats.
• Mihovil Pavlinović in the the Senate on the day of its establishment (1861) accused provincial government for "setting" limited election queue which enabled 15.000 Italians and Italo-Dalmatians to have 23 and 21 representatives in the Senate, while 410.000 Croats and Serbs got only 20 representatives. But soon elections of Populists were annulled by commission and Autonomists secured 2/3 in the Senate. Populists accused provincial government for deception.

In 1870, autonomist majority proclaimed Italian language as the only one in use in Senate. That caused Populist fight for use of Croatian language in the Senate, they based their claims on valid Austrian law from 1867 and finally succeeded in 1883, although they had won Senate earlier, in 1870.

• Different evaluations noted 20.000, 40.000 and 48.000 Italians in Dalmatia in 1869.
• Autonomist supporter Luigi Maschek (1870) noted more than 40.000 Italians in Dalmatia, mostly those from Venice (– later Tamaro (1919): 44.880 Italians in Dalmatia in 1869).
• According to a few Italian geographers who never visited Dalmatia (mid of 70’s) there was 89% Serbo-Croats and Morlachs who spoke Serbo-Croatian, 10,5% Italians and Slavs who spoke Italian in Dalmatia. Another one (’77) found 60.000 Italians in Dalmatia.
• Unofficial census in 1875 noted only 15.672 Italians in Dalmatia.
• Autonomist Lujo Serragli in the Dalmatian Senate (’84) mentioned 45.000 Italians in Dalmatia.
• In some moment Dalmatian Serbs distinguished from the Populists and collaborated with the Autonomists, Bajamonti in the Senate (‘86) mentioned 70-80.000 Italians in Dalmatia (- it became start numbers for Italian authors Dainelli and Tamaro by occupation of Zadar (1919)).
• French traveler Paul Bauron (’88) noted half of population of the Latin race in Dalmatia but was criticized in Zadar newspaper Narodni list by P. K. Bačić (’89): in Dalmatia not even 10.000 Italians by ancestry.
• In the same year German anthropologist and linguist August Leskien in Narodni list (1889) used name “half-Italians” for the Italians and pro-Italians and accused them for not sharing development with population of province of Slavic language and called them to drop off Italianism in Dalmatia which was opposite to the spirit of justice and humanity desired by the rest of civilized world.
• Autonomists cited professor Ascolli from Udine, Italy (1895): 60.000 Italians in Dalmatia.
• Autonomist representative Giacomo (Jakov) Giljanović announced in Senate (1896): around 11% Italians in Dalmatia in 1860, less than 6% in 1890, something more than 3% in 1890, concerning ethnic Italians and those who were Italianized, without Italian season workers – regnicoli (#). He admitted official numbers at the end.
• Autonomist representative Josip Smodlaka in the Senate advised his colleagues (1902): to leave position of hatred and contemn towards domestic population, since there was no basis for Italianship in Dalmatia with not even one Italian peasant.
• However directly after WWI and Italian occupation of Zadar Italian historians Tamaro and Danieli claimed that there were 85.000 Italians in Dalmatia directly before WWI. They reached this number by adding imaginary natural increase to their irrelevant evaluation of cca 45.000 Italians in 1865.

(#) Regnicoli were the Italian season workers and citizens of Kingdom of Italy, who often came without families or came with families and settled for some period. Rural and working population in both Italy and Dalmatia/Croatia searched for better lives in either American continents or elsewhere. But since Italian workers were privileged in Dalmatia by administration of that Austrian province, some Italians found an easier way to find a job across the sea in Dalmatia. Economical Consular report from Zadar (1870): 295 Italians by nationality in all Zadar county, more than 170 of them regnicoli. In 1875 and 1903 there were conflicts between domestic workers and regnicoli in Šibenik and Solin because of privileges given to the strangers. There was sometimes up to 400 regnicoli in Split and up to 500 regnicoli in Dubrovnik. Last statistics in 1910 noted 2.425 regnicoli - citizens of Kingdom of Italy who lived freely with domestic population. Similar number was given by Italian Consule in Zadar, 2.500 regnicoli in Dalmatia, a half of them contributed to population of Zadar settled by 14.000 people in 1910. They were subjects to the Kingdom of Italy by origin from Veneto, Romagne and Marchi. They were mostly possessors, small industrials, fishermen, merchants, cafe-owners, and various tradesmen. According to report of Antonio d’Alia, consule of Italian Kingdom in Zadar (1914) around 3.000 regnicoli were living in Dalmatia, which means that dynamics of their immigration in the past was not as high as has been claimed sometimes, since they were mostly coming and leaving and their total number in all periods was 15.000, but 7.900 of them were members of the Autonomist Party in Dalmatia thus highly influencing political life in Dalmatia, province of another monarchy.

The autonomists usually exaggerated and even multiplied numbers in their appearances in the Dalmatian Senate, from 10% or cca 26.000 to more, 40.000, 60.000 etc, all unrelated to any evidence, but those became reference numbers to Italian writers (WWI) who pumped it up to 80.000. On the other side populists exaggerated and lowered it, from 2,5% or 10.000 down, 7.000, 3.000, 800 and even "2-3". Some number of reports, polls, statistics and evaluations can be taken into consideration, ranging from 15.000 – 20.000 Italians in Dalmatia (3-5%) during the 19th century.

• According to official population censi in Monarchy, number of the Italians in Dalmatia was:
  

1865 – 55.020 (12,5%)
1869 – 44.660 (10,8%)
1880 – 27.305 (5,8%), 11,7% of them settled in the islands and 0,78% settled inland
1890 – 16.000 (3,1%)
1900 – 15.279 (2,6%)
1910 – 18.028 (2,8%)
Numbers in censi show constant decrease of Italians in Dalmatia, who were almost all settled in the cities, especially in Zadar:
1880 – 6.676
1890 – 7.423 (7.840, 7.773)
1900 – 9.018
1910 – 9.318
These numbers has shown irrelevant in censi 1865 and 1860, while only those more precise from 1880 and later can be treated as more objective. There was no any Italian exodus in that period. These percentages were not related to the Italians only, but also to the pro-Italians. They declared differently, like "Dalmatians", "Italo-Dalmatians" and "Italo-Slavs" in common life, their names were completely Slavic, partially transcripted to Italian or completely transcripted/translated into Italian, they were all bilinguals. But there were only “Italians” in censi and they declared that way in support to ruling Italian minority, led by their interests, confusing national affiliation with those who spoke the Italian language. Italian language meant their appurtenance to aristocracy. Many autonomists / pro-Italians hid behind the concept of the Dalmatians and similar names thinking this an easier strategy to make the region Italian. In the same time, Croat and Serb were different nationalities but treated as Serbo-Croats in Austrian censi, showing what position of Vienna toward Slavic nations was. In spite of irrelevance of the first few censi a gradual decrease of the number of Italians / pro-Italians appeared especially after 1882. Namely, some of the Croats and Serbs who had declared themselves otherwise returned to their root identities while the real Italians moved to Istria, Trieste, the Slovenian coast or found sanctuary in Zadar, the last bastion of the pro-Italian faction in Dalmatia.

This migrations had direct influence on Zadar population, where use of Italian language intensified during last 3 decencies of the 19th century. While Split and Šibenik were industrial centers in Damatia, Zadar was administrative center with many strangers in transfer and sometimes over 1.600 Italians were in the city in a moment in that period. But within numbers in Zadar censi, also pro-Italians were hidden, the citizens of Austro-Hungarian Monarcy, bilingual (Croatian/Italian) people who were not related to Italy in any way except use of language in public as a symbol of the class.

This makes spoken language an important moment in the province and Zadar.

• According to Tamaro (1919) there were 25% citizens of Italian ancestry in Dalmatia in 1813 and 1814 who were using Italian in communication and a few years later 70.000 of them. These unproved numbers were already directly disputed by the monarchy government advisor Joseph Folsch (1827) who had stated that Italian language had been used only in cities Zadar, Split and Šibenik in 1827 mostly by the highest class and partially by lower classes, not precising how many of their citizens, but since these cities had been populated by around 20.000 people all together and only some had been speakers of Italian, Tamaro’s evaluations appeared multiplied and irrelevant.
• Populist Stipan Ivčević in Narodni list (1851) wrote around 20.000 Italo-Dalmatians in Dalmatia who were using Italian language and all others used Croatian.
• Autonomist Lovro Monti (1861) of Italian ancestry - in the most case there were all together 50.000 of those who spoke distorted Italian language and those who were able to understand it. But after Populist success in the Senate (1870) same author said (1874) that beside 45.000 strangers in Dalmatia there were only 10.000 citizens who spoke Italian exclusively. He also stated that some number of the Dalmatians declared as the "Italians" which they were not since there was no Italian ethnicity in Dalmatia
• According to advisor Francesco Vergeri from Bellun (Italy), neutral observer in Dalmatia (1869) - 9/10 of administrators were members of Autonomist Party, while 19/20 of Dalmatian citizens were Slavic /Croatian speakers.
• Regent Fluck (1876) noted 20.000 Italian speakers who were not able to rule with 400.000 Savic speakers with force.
• Autonomists (1890) accused Slavic/Croatian majority for obstructing their use of Italian language. Dalmatian pro-Italians tried to save domination of the minority by all means, but unsuccessfully so they started to Italianize their Croatian names declaring as the Italians. Since Italian population in the cities wasn’t repopulated from rural city surroundings, it constantly decreased in Damatia. 7. 840 Italians in Zadar by 1890 census were the citizens of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Italians and Italianized Croats and Serbs, in the most part they belonged to feudal-citizen-administrative elite, formed of those who had been in the city from earlier and those who had moved to Zadar after 1882, retreating from the rest of Dalmatia.
• Autonomists accused Austrian government for making forgery with numbers in censi - according to Italian authors Dainelli and Tamaro; according to Danielli (1919) there was 46% Italian, 41% Slavic, 11% German and only 1,5 % other ethnicities in territory promised to Italy by Treaty of London (Italia iredenta); according to Tamaro (1915) there were 150.000 Italian speakers in Dalmatia.

Speaking language was directly related to educational system.

• In 1843 Croats who made huge majority of population in Dalmatia had not even one school in their language.
• Medo Pucić (1848) demanded removing forced use of Italian language from the schools and offices.
• In 1850 there were 127 elementary schools, only 18 exclusively Italian and only 12 exclusively Croatian
• In 1860 there were 146 students in Zadar Gymnasium in Italian language, but only 10 students were the Italians.
• Kosta Vojnović stated (1861) that 19/20 Slavs had not even one higher school or court with Croatian language.
• In 1862 there were 153 Dalmatian elementary schools, 125 bilingual, 23 Croatian and 9 Italian by language.
• During the 70’s there were cca 20 Croats and Serbs and 8 Italians in Zadar Gymnsium.
• In 1865 there were 192 Dalmatian elementary schools, 99 bilingual, 87 Croatian and 29 Italian by language.
• Italian – Austrian war (1866) and especially defeat of the Italians near island of Vis where Croatian navy was fighting in Austrian fleet, meant better affirmation of the Populists and easier entrance of Croatian language into the schools.
• In 1874/1875 there were 8.809 students in141 Croatian elementary school and 776 students in 13 Italian elementary schools in Dalmatia.
• In 1879/1880 in elementary schools of all Zadar and its county there were 3.429 students, 1.865 "Slavs", 528 Italians and 38 Germans.
• In 1884/1885 there were 329 elementary schools in Dalmatia, only 3 with Italian language (1 in Zadar, 2 in Split).
• At the end of the 19th century there was only 1 Italian elementary school in Dalmatia, in Zadar.
• In 1897 "Croatian Gymnasium" was established in Zadar.
• In 1910 there were 435 elementary schools in Dalmatia, only that 1 Italian in Zadar.
• In 1912/1913 there were 5 Classical Gymnasiums in Dalmatia with 1.245 students, 94,3% Croats and Serbs, 4,2% Italians and 1,5% the others.
• In 1919/1920 there were 1.533 Croats and Serbs and cca 1.000 Italians in Zadar schools.
• Secret referendum in a part of Dalmatia occupied by Italians (1919) – 97% of population from that entire region voted for unification with the State SHS (State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) as well as 77% of Zadar citizens.

I hope it becomes clearer what real population of Zadar was, in relation to a declaration of publicly used language as a symbol of status.

My proposal for the article section:

From the fall of Venetian Republic (1797) to 1918 Zadar remained a capital of Dalmatia in Habsburg Monarchy, Austro-Hungarian Monarchy from 1867, but during short period (1806 – 1814) it was under French control as a seat of the Dalmatian land government. In this period French authorities abolished privileges of Zadar noblemen; they kept their properties and continued to contribute in cultural and political life of the city, but as the ordinary citizens. Main target of Austrian politics in Dalmatia was to isolate it from its background. Therefore Italian language was established as the official and immigration of the Italians was stimulated and incited. In spite of rural exodus and economical immigration of the domestic population from the surrounding and immigration of numerous Austrian and Italian administrators and merchants, population in Zadar stagnated due to low natural population increase. During 1st half of the century city started to spread from the old center, some citizens left from the center to new suburb of Stanovi to the north.

There was constant increase of population during the 2nd half of the 19th century, over 100% to the end of the century, due to economical growth and immigration; the city continued to spread to Voštarnica and Arbanasi quarters, the bridge in the city port was build. Except being the city of administration, agriculture, industry of liqueurs and trade were developed, many brotherhoods were established similar to the Central European trade guilds. The southern city walls were thrown down, new coast build and Zadar became open port. Also cultural development was recorded; there was a large number of print-offices, new libraries, archives, theatres, etc. At the end of the 19th century there was stronger industrial development, with 27 small or big factories in the city before the WWI.

Questions of language and number of the Italians and pro-Italians occupied political scene of Dalmatia in the 19th century, in argues between 2 politically opposed sides – Autonomist and Populist Parties. Italian minority which came mostly during first Austrian and following French government (1795-1815) held the most influent positions in administration, courts, schools, church and the economics of all province and their goal was to keep status quo as longer as possible. From the middle of the century, Zadar played important role in fight of the Populist Party for annexation of Dalmatia to the rest of Croatia and use of Croatian language, representing huge majority of Dalmatian population. Italians and pro-Italians organized in Autonomist Party developed their activities more strongly during mature phase of Croatian national revival. They represented a need of further domination of the Italian language in the provincial public life as a method to protect their own political, cultural, economical and other interests. Ethnic and social structure of the city was significantly influenced by immigration of Italian administrators from Lombardia and and Venetia as well as Italian and pro-Italian immigration from the rest of Dalmatia in the next decencies. Although the Croats made majority of the city population, Italian language predominated gradually in public life of the city. But Croatian language became predominant in education and in 1910 only one of 435 Dalmatian elementary schools was in Italian language, placed in Zadar. Zenanarh (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Zadar

Place information on Silvio1973's proposed sources for Zadar

I don’t have problem with Silvio’s proposed sources as long as they are in support to objective view. I don’t think his view was objective and probably source is also inadequate.

Luciano Laurana

Place information on Silvio1973's proposed sources for Luciano Laurana

Once again I don’t have problem with Silvio’s proposed sources as long as they are in support to objective view. These two are not.

• Chilvers, Ian. The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists. Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 45.
• Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.

I don’t think these sources are bad in general, I only think they are not objective on this matter. But both of these sources are tertiary sources, dictionary and encyclopedia, question is what is reliability of particular references. Many Italian authors define Luciano Laurana as Italian sculptor without any evidence or explanation and they are probably hidden behind references on the matter in these tertiary sources. Italian literature treats him that way just because he spent a part of his life in Italy.

Some important facts. Zadar and Venice were in war for some 300 years. In last episode Zadar fleet heavily defeated Venetian fleet in Zadar channel, which resulted in Piece of Zadar (1358), Venice renounced all rights and pretensions towards Dalmatia. Next 50 years were the most flourishing period in history of the city. Then Dalmatia was sold to Venice in 1409 and Venetian persecutions of Zadar citizens and nobility started and not massive Venetian settling of Damatia. Laurana was born in Vrana, 20 km SE from Zadar, in 1410. A few words about Vrana.

Town Vrana, by the Lake of Vrana (Cro: Vrana, Eng: crow), a few km near Biograd na moru - Medieval Croatian royal center, had important position in Croatian history. In early Medivial it was possession of the Croatian kings, recorded in Latin documents as Aurana , Laurana Arauzona. Settlement developed around fort "Castrum Aureanae" mentioned already in the 9th century. In 11th century there was Benedictine monastery which Croatian king Dmitar Zvonimir sold to Roman Pope (1076). However it remained important spiritual and political center of the Croats and played umportant role in politics like direct participation in crowning of the Croatian kings and selection of Croatian bans. "Ban" was political title parallel to the prince and king, chosen among Croatian noblemen and one related to the far past of proto-Croats saved together with a name "Croat". Kings and bans of Croatia automatically became priors of Vrana.

- Grga Novak i Vjekoslav Maštrović, "Povijest Vrane - političko, kulturno i privredno značenje vrane kroz stoljeća", Institut JAZU Zadar, 1971., Zadar ("History of Vrana - political, cultural and economical importance of Vrana during the centuries", Institute of Yugoslav Academy of Science and Arts, Zadar)

Our sculptor was born there just a year after Venetian had entered in Zadar. There were no any Venetians in Vrana in any moment from 1409 to the 16th century when it was occupied by the Turks. Or earlier. He was named after a settlement. Croatian and Dalmatian notary was in Latin language and names were transcripted to Latin, former Vrana or Urana became La Vrana and La Urana in new Venetian administration in Zadar and his surname became De la Vrana or Dellaurana. Laurana was not the only Croat one recorded with that surname, like De Urana. There are others in archives too. All of them were Croats from Vrana During his stay in Italy he became Laurana, but also used nickname Schiavon, which meant directly "Slav" and was related to Dalmatian Croats. It was usual that emigrants from Dalmatia got nicknames in Italy related to region, Croatia or Dalmatia. Nickname Schiavon was very frequently used. It was sign of his ethnicity added to name, usual practice in subscriptions of habitatores – the lowest city class (immigrant in this case) during their sojourn in a foreign land in Medieval and Renaissance. He was a son of Martin and Martin is typical Slavic form of name. He was not Italian. That is obvious.

More appropriate sources must be used If there is any in English language, I am glad. If not I’m offering those 2 Croatian sources. Zenanarh (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973

Zenanarh, I must confess that rarely in my academical life I have been so much offended as during this long discussion. I don’t know how this discussion is going to finish but I genuinely believe that you had absolutely no right in treating me in such a way because I always treated you with respect.
I removed my initial answer following your remarks. They are however recorded in the talk page and you can make any use of them, if you want to do so.

Proof that the sources are reliable secondary sources and how they are interpreted that way rather than original research
It's unclear why Croatian source should be preferred to the others (including some extremely reputable English ones). Zenanarh, makes constant allegation that Italian sources manipulate the history and Croatian don't. Zadar’s article on en:wiki has currently 35 external references, 23 of them are Croatian sources! Perhaps the question of the neutrality of the entire article should be raised.

Croatian historiography on Dalmatia is very different from the others (the most comprehensive being the English, German and Italian), because the first one refuses to admit that Italian speaking people populated this part of the world since the Middle Age.
Anyone interested in the matter could perhaps report to the very comprehensive North-American book “The Italians of Dalmatia” edited in 2009 by the University of Toronto.[3] I will not be tempted to enter into unnecessary discussion (this mediation is not a forum on Dalmatian history). The excessive length of Zenanarh’s statements is a solid demonstration that his/her “sources” are in reality only original research. Zenanarh tries to convince the reader that he/she is right, indeed the sources should convince the reader of that.

I have proposed some changes to those articles and I do not need to defend them with long discussions. My sources will do that job for me. And I will sustain my arguments as much as possible with English sources to avoid any claim of non-neutrality (and all my sources are verifiable on line).

ZADAR
I propose to add to the existing text the sentence (and in order to reach consensus I do not insist to report the exact figures and of course I will accept any rephrasing from any English mother tongue user): The archives of the official austro-hungarian censi conducted at the end of 19th century shows that Italian was the language spoken by the majority of the people in the city, but only by a third of the population in the entire county.
I have requested mediation to check the acceptability of the information (and only about the pure information, not the interpretation of it) contained in the official censi. Similar information are reported in hundreds of articles in en:wiki and despite your long talk it remains unclear why this source should not be admitted in Zadar's article as long of course it is not used to get to any subsequent conclusion. However, in order to avoid any discussion about this information being primary source, I have also reported hereafter three secondary sources supporting my position.

• Full 1900 census available at page 82 of the following link: [4]

• Page 189 of “The Italians of Dalmatia” - Univerity of Toronto Press Incorporated -2009: [5]

• The book of Guerrino Perselli, I censimenti della popolazione dell‘Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune città della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936 - Università Popolare di Trieste - 1993. In this book at pages 451 you can find data from 1869 till 1936 about Zadar's population. I can provide, upon your request, scan of this book and of its cover page.
  

• For anyone wanting an easier reading, even the information contained in this travel book (English) could be interesting. Page 318 of “The hidden Europe” by Francis Tapon: [6].

LUCIANO LAURANA
Initally Luciano Laureana was reported in the article as both Italian and Croatian (the statement is already awkward in itself). I requested Zenanarh to justify the Croatian origin of Luciano Laurana with an English verifiable source. Zenanarh's answer to the request was to entirely delete the Italian origin reference (despite the seriousness of the sources in support). The Italian origin of Luciano Laurana is supported by many reputable sources, all of them are not Italian and can be easily verified, the three most relevant being:

• Chilvers, Ian – The concise Oxford dictionary of Art, page 45: The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists.

• Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.

• T.J. Jackson – The Renaissance of Roman Architecture, page 12: [7]

Currently the Croatian origin of this artist is supported only by Croatian sources. In view of the difference of quality, reputation and quantity of sources in support, I kindly request to exclude the reference to the Croatian origin of the artist, if some reputable international sources are not in support of the claim.
Yours sincerely
--Silvio1973 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Whenaxis

We shall wait for Zenanarh to provide full evidence for his/her case. Meanwhile, Silvio1973, I highly recommend that you find evidence to prove your sources during this waiting period. We will start voting soon after all the evidence is provided. Whenaxis about talk contribs 14:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, I think you should create 2 additional sections at the bottom of "Findings of fact": one where Silvio can reply directly to my section (with replacement of his already written partial reply there) and I can answer and one where I can reply to him and he can answer. This way (and Silvio has already started although I'm not finished) we will have chaos with disconnected replies in our "main" sections, it will be hard to follow discussion. I'm still working on the second source, it's full of data, I'm trying to present it as shortened as I can, I hope I will finish it tommorow, in worst case day after tommorrow. Silvio I'm asking once again, don't reply before I'm finished. Cheers. Zenanarh (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Let's leave Whenaxis' template as it is. I have removed my initial answer. I will answer when you will finish, but please keep it as short as you can.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And when you answer, where am I going to reply? Zenanarh (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This section above "Findings of fact" is to provide your full evidence to prove your point. Then, Silvio1973 is to provide full evidence for his case. There will be no replying to finding of fact statements because that will lead to unnecessary lengthy discussions. So instead I ask for you to provide as much evidence as you need to prove your point. Then I will evaluate both claims and provide a resolution where all three of us needs to vote on. Whenaxis about talk contribs 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. But I don't trust Silvio. His comment, now removed, was manipulation of what I wrote. Please, don't trust his citations, check it. Also, my impression is that Silvio doesn't know a lot. I cannot see future and I cannot know what wrong way will his comments go. In such cases you will probably need to think about possibility of replies. Zenanarh (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

Zenanarh, I have been very patient during this discussion and I will continue to be patient. Nevertheless I have a dignity, as any decent people, and it has come the time to protect it. The comment you wrote hereafter at point 8 litterally comes out of the blue. I am supporting a position with sources (and on top of that 6 of the 7 sources are not Italian) and without any reason you make reference to extremistic ideologies and to the Mein Kampf.
Do you realise how insulting is what you wrote? As I respect you, I have no other option but believing that you really don't. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at the mirror first. Do you realise how insulting to the Croats is all your contribution in Croatia wiki articles by now [8]? Do you realise how insulting is to say many things you have in the talk pages, I don't want to link it all and pour oil to the fire... If you change yourself you will certainly find different atmosphere waiting for you. Zenanarh (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Zenanarh, the only user that is insulting another user here is you.
You can be offensive and disruptive as much as you want but you will never manage to make me loosing my patience. I was very tempted to open a new section on the Administrators' noticeboard about your behavior and perhaps I will do it when this dispute is over. From my perspective we are just two users with different opinions, we are supporting our opinions with different sources and a mediation is ongoing. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Voting

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I regret the discussion was not conducted under the required atmosphere. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

...thanks to you in the most part. You have declared as the Italian living in Romania, how come you have never tried to edit anything related to Italy or Romania? I am Croat and I usually edit history articles about my homeland, especially about Dalmatia, that is area of my interests because that is where my knowledge is the best. From your first edit in en.wiki [9] to the last one [10], except a few, all your contribution was concentrated on Croatia related articles, in very negative tone, your "User contributions" looks like dossier of your offensive approach towards Croatian history and culture. You were called to assume good faith [11], you were caught in manipulation with sources by the others too [12] etc, even before two of us have stepped into any coflict. And I have noticed that you are constaly refusing to step into any disccusion any deeper than your prejudice about Croatia, Dalmatia and Croats, your prejudice which, BTW, have all elements of nationalistic bias, one typical for Italian irredentists. I have tried to warn you, but you have defined my attempts as offensions. Zenanarh (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

Before answering to this question I have gone again trough all the discussion. With the all due respect, Zenanarh's discussion is mostly at the periphery of the dispute and the proportion of the discussion itself is in my humble opinion not reasonable. I thought the discussion was about the pertinency and acceptability of my contributions. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Your contribution was forcing one document (data from the primary source) and your POV about it. My discussion was all about it. About acceptability of that selective source and your own selective explanation (OR) of that source. Instead of one document I have offered you all documents and even detailed analysis, as much as it was possible due to limited wiki format space, all based on scientific works published by University of Zadar. Zenanarh (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Article sourcing

3) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

Primary sources should be used only to report quantitative facts, as long the editor does not elaborate any conclusion for the reader. Thisis my intention. To report the facts contained in the censi. --Silvio1973 (talk)

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. - Silvio, your intention was to edit your own interpretation of data from the primary source. It is opposite to: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Zenanarh (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from articles to templates to project space.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I fully agree. I asked for a third opinion too lately. I should have requested the third opinion before the discussion escalatede. Lesson learnt for the next time. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to know what building consensus means to you. If you think it is asking for a third opinion even before you become familiar with a problem... From the very first moment when we started to discuss in Talk:Zadar I was informing you about previous discussion on the same matter which ended in consensus between me and one another Italian wikipedian 2 years ago and I was directing you to Talk:Zadar/Archive 3, where I had already presented, among the others, 2 sources I have used here. So this discussion is nothing new. I have informed you about that consesus many times [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], obviously you didn't even try to read it or understand it. That's not how consesus should be built in wikipedia, and third opinions and mediations are only last possibilities if consesus can not be not reached and not possibilities when you didn't even try to come into any consensus. Zenanarh (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Conduct and decorum

5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

Fair criticism and personal attacks

6) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia, as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I have been suspected of being an already banned user. And qualified of extremist and ignorant. It required a big effort to remain controlled. The only thing I want now is this dispute to end, whatever the conclusion will be. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly how you are manipulating. You have not been suspected of being an already banned user, at least not by me. When some user is suspected it is reported to wiki administration. I haven't reported anything. I wrote this at the top of page [20] ending with but I can't be sure and I don't want suspect Silvio for nothing. In the same manner, I haven't accused for irredentism directly:

But irredentistic side of a story is simply unacceptable because it is not objective and is based on selective data and manipulation with data...

...Finally, you say you are not an irredentist, I would like to believe you, but you insist on using typical distorted irredentistic arguments!? Don't you think it would be much more fair if you first get better informed?...

...it's much more important to explain processes and occasions, as well as complex political situation in the city, than to produce a political pamphlet which is your obvious intention (I would like to believe it's not, but you haven't shown anything else)

As I've already said I've warned you about ideology which goals and methods are unacceptable. Zenanarh (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

7) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

At some point I moved away from the edit war. Still, I have a share of responsability because I should have moved out of it earlier and requested directly a third opinion. - Silvio 1973

In fact what you should have had to do was to read the Archive 3, this [21], so we can build discussion on that position or from that position, since a lot was already said and resolved. That's why I was edit warring with you, In wikipedia throlls and spamers are usually reverted by the other users, your continual refusing of getting into the matter as well as extremely negative approach to Croatian history, culture and people seen in your contributions [22] were signs to me that you are probably a throll or someone who is not coming in good faith. Zenanarh (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Topics covering multiple perspectives

8) While many articles deal solely with scientific content or with philosophical/religious content, many public policy topics, including Zadar and Luciano Laurana, involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article. Care must be taken with weighting and appropriate use of sources, such as avoiding undue prominence in the lead section or elsewhere.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

I agree completely with point 8). But also, I would like to add that claims of extremistic ideologies cannot be a part of multiple perspectives. You can inform people that Mein Kampf treated the Jews as the animals, but you cannot edit Jews as they are the animals and use Mein Kampf as reference. Zenanarh (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeated discussion

9) Subsequent attempts at discussion of a topic previously settled by community discussion are often initiated by those who are not initially involved. Thus, covering topics already discussed through consensus building discussion.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

We are here because my attempts of reaching any consesus with Silvio have failed. He refused to a) see what was discussed earlier; b) understand how our discussion is related to the older one; c) understand what is our discussion now. Zenanarh (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Locus of disagreement

10) Whether or not to include Italian sources versus Croatian sources.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Unfortunately Croatian and Italian historiography on Dalmatia are very different. For this reason (and expecially on the English Wikipedia) I am of the opinion that in the contested areas English and American sources (or perhpas German) should be preferred. Please note the currenlty the 2/3 of the sources cites in the article Zadar are Croatian. Is this neutral? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have voted for both. Why? Because of scientific method used in history science. When there are 2 diferent sources in conflict about the same thing and if position is unresolved, both sources and both positions must be taken into consideration and reported, so a neutral reader can be informed about controversy. However if one source is beaten by the other by set of arguments, then it is reasonable to use that source and not the "beaten" one. Objective scientists who respect their science usually mention all other theories, then they build their own theories with arguments and that's how irrelevant theories are disputted. But that is how it works in original researches of the scientists. Encyclopedia is not original research, it must inform. So it is unreasonable that encyclopedia informs about "beaten" theory. It must inform about the matter and not about scientific conflicts about that matter.

Unfortunately we have position here that sources claiming opposite are coming from 2 different nations. It makes all things more complicated, because it all becomes covered by a shadow of possible nationalism.

It is obvious in our case, that Italian claims about Italianship of Dalmatia were coming from the Italian Irredentists and Fascists in the past and that same claims are sometimes coming from some modern Italians at present. Where do they get their information (usually selective data) is not something I want to discuss, but from what I've noticed by now, Dainelli, Tamaro etc were the Italian authors who supported Italian irredentism and fascism in the beginning of the 20th century and they are still references to many more modern Italian writers. That means that there is still unobjective and even extremistic approach in a large part o Italian historiography concerning Dalmatia. I believe there is also objective literature in Italian language. I am not Italian and it is unavaialble to me.

On the other side, I'm relying on prominent Croatian authors and scientific material published by University in Zadar. The best place to research history of Zadar is Zadar. Because very rich Zadar historical archive is here, in Zadar, available to those who want to research it. That is why I believe this is the best quality literature about Zadar.

Also we have situation that sources I have used heavily defeat claims of the Italian authors, probably since almost all were based on selective data, without needed criticism (as a part of scientific method)). So in my eyes it is just quality source against poor source and not Croatian source against Italian.

That's why I have voted for both. My vote is "pro" to include Italian sources versus Croatian sources - if situation is unresolved in the scientific circles. My vote is "con" if Croatian source beats the Italian or opposite. If some Italians don't accept a fact that some of their statements are irrelevant and beaten by the Croatian scientists, by arguments, it is not our problem here, it is their problem because they are not able to accept modern science. We don't have to encourage them.

And what is worst of all, some Italian claims here, emerged from extremestic nationalistic movements in Italy in past (and present), irredentism and fascism, and were not thrown away by time. It is especially something we should not encourage. Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against English sources, or German sources, as long as they are references for somthing real. Here we have situation that 131.000.000 Italians can produce more sources by quantity, than 8.000.000 Croats, so Italian literature is better presented to the other languages. Quantity is not quality and cannot be used as criteria. Only quality must be used. That's why I'm using quality scientific researches. Real science has no ethnic name and language. Giving priority to quantity and not to quality, or to balance between languages in sources and not to arguments is forgery by meaning of scientific method.Zenanarh (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

11) Whether or not teritary sources (i.e. encyclopedia and dictionary) are as reliable as secondary sources.

Support:

1. Whenaxis about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Zenanarh (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comments:

They can be equally reliable, as long very reputable. IMHO the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Oxford dictionary (along with many others) satisfy this requirementet. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's certain that tertiary sources (i.e. encyclopedia and dictionary) can be reliable. In the most cases it's much easier to look at another tertiary source than to read 20 secondary sources to find something that is already found by someone else, and many things in wikipedia are referenced by the other teritary sources. But it doesn't mean that other tertiary sources are perfect and completely reliable in every detail. Tertiary sources are also referenced and reliabilty of statements and definitions depend on reliabilty of used references. It is not impossible that use of wrong reference can produce innacurracy in tertiary source. Britannica is quality but not perfect, I have found many innacuracies and superficialties there, especially concerning things related to non-speaking English world, a few years ago there was even statement of en.wiki becoming better by quality than Britannica, especially because of way how wiki is edited, it can change and develop every day. Therefore wiki is more actual than Britannica, in many things. Sometimes tertiary sources must be used with caution. This is exactly such case. Tertiary source provides info which is already scientifically disputted. That's why I'm giving priority to adequate secondary source in this case. We are trying to contribute to quality of wikipedia, aren't we? Zenanarh (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

Proactive steps that should be taken from now on, and whenever entering into a discussion with another editor you should:

1. Consider the other editor's point of view.
2. Do not disruptively edit through edit warring and reversions.
3. Do not use personal attacks to get your point across.
4. Rely on Wikipedia policies to determine a resolution.

Motions or request by involved parties

PLEASE MAKE YOUR REQUESTS SHORT; LESS THAN 500 WORDS
What would you like to see happen on Zadar?

Zenanarh

I cannot socialize with an agenda warrior. In every moment I was ready for discussion with arguments, hundreds of lines I wrote to Silvio and here in just 2 weeks are showing what my attitude is. However it needs 2 (or more) for building consensus. I don't understand a person who forces his own POV and speaks about consensus, but refusing to even try to reach it in the same time. I'm not sure what to expect from this mediation, but I'm sure something must be done so the article can be edited by quality. Until now there wasn't any contribution in that direction from the other side. And his comment below shows that nothing has changed. So what can I expect? Turning in circles next 6 months because of his POV interpretations? Like, he's changed his position a few inches, and that is all folks! This is embarassing. It is apsurd that we had this long discussion and mediation about shall we involve an extremist view or not! However I hope things can change. Otherwise I wouldn't spent my time here. Zenanarh (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973

My proposal is adding in the section "19th and 20th century" the sentence: The archives of the official Austro-Hungarian censi conducted at the end of 19th century shows that Italian was the language spoken by the majority of the people in the city, but only by a third of the population in the entire county.
In order to reach consensus I do not insist to report the exact figures from the censi. Of course I am ready yo accept any rephrasing from an English mother tongue user.

What would you like to see happen on Luciano Laurana?

Zenanarh

In wikipedia there was all bunch of irredentist agenda attackers, who were more or less wiped off, Croatian wiki community was more numerous earlier, it was easier to detect them. They are not "all Italians", or "all Italian wikipedians", just some poor bunch of people who have nothing better to do in their lives. And there are 10 to 20 articles related to Dalmatia under such attacks, almost continually. Lucijan Vranjanin / Luciano Laurana Schiavon is just one person encroached by the Italians. Georgius Dalmaticus (Dalmatian), Francius Petricius (Schiavone),... And Lucijan / Luciano case is typical. He stayed some period in Italy where he specialized architecture and contributed to Italian Renaissance (many Croats and Dalmatians were going to Italian art schools as well as many other Europeans did). He worked in Dalmatia too. But he was a Croat as his nickname "Sciavon" in Italy said, one from Medieval "name-surname-ethnicity" signature formula, Luciano Laurana Schiavon in Italy. So although he had Croatian surname and was born in Croatian town and self-declared as the Croat, Italian literature defines him as the Italian. They have problem in accepting that a Croat was one of the greatest architects from period of Italian Renaissance. They have the same problem with any eminent Croat and Dalmatian coming from Dalmatia. What to say? What to expect? I expect to see evidence of his Italian ethnicity. Only in that case we can step into any discussion concerning reaching consensus. It is not question of Croatian source, Italian source or Martian one. It is question of reliability. There is no any evidence of his Italian ethnicity, there are direct evidences of his Croatian ethnicity. If there is no evidence, just "naked definitions" like "Italian sculptor" in Italian literature, then it is false and that literature is not reliable. Zenanarh (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973

As discussed, I can cite at least 3 international sources (all of them not Italian and verifiable on line) in support of the Italian origins of Laurana.
In view of the difference of quality, reputation and quantity of the supporting sources, my request is to re-establish the reference of Laurana being Italian and to remove the Croatian claim (currently the Croatian origin of this artist is supported only by 2 Croatian sources). The Croatian origin of the artist should be removed from the lead part of the article, until some equally reputable international sources will not be provided in support of the claim.
In order to achieve consensus and to respect the work of the authors of the sources mentioned by Zenanarh, I am fine if at the end of the Biography section (therefore not in the lead section of the article) it will be reported that some Croatian sources consider Luciano Laurana of Croatian origins.

Suggestions by Whenaxis

Luciano Laurana

In the lead section, the article states as follows:

Luciano Laurana (Lutiano Dellaurana, Croatian: Lucijan Vranjanin)[1] (c. 1420 – 1479) was a Croatian [2][3] architect and engineer from the historic Vrana settlement near the town of Zadar in Dalmatia, Croatia.[4] After education by his father Martin in Vrana settlement, he worked mostly in Italy during the late 15th century.

The article states that he is Croatian because he was born in Croatia. Then, it states that he worked most of his life in Italy. So, there is no need to change his nationality to Italian. For example, a Canadian who immigrates to the United States is called a Canadian because he was born and is representing, per say, Canada in the United States.

Whenaxis, if you have arrived to the conclusion that he should be ocnsidered Croatian because today Vrana in is Croatia why have you asked us to provide soruces in support of our claims. I have provided 3 international sources (not Italian) affirming that is Italian and Zenanarh two Croatian souces. Does it mean that we should consider wrong what is written in the non Croatian sources?

Again please consider that before the edit war started the articles was stating he was Italian and Croatian. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Zadar

In the questioned section of the article, the article states as follows:

After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians, both of whom founded their respective political parties. There are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period.

The article states there are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to who formed the majority in Zadar. I don't see the need to discuss further about one particular census as I don't find it particuarly more important than any other census conducted during that time period.

Closing Statement by Whenaxis

Article State: Leave the articles as they are right now.
Zenanarh: I know that you are becoming increasingly irriated with problems throughout Wikipedia namespace, in particular, when there is questioning with Croatian articles. However, I must remind you that personal attacks are not welcome by the community and are punishable by blocks nor do personal attacks allow you to "win" discussions. Instead next time, I ask that you use the 4 steps mentioned above when dealing with persistent editors.
Silvio1973: I know that you are a fairly new editor to Wikipedia and we appreciate your efforts to bring your contributions to Wikipedia. However, I ask that you remember to look at Wikipedia's policies before suggesting ideas as they may not meet the criteria, as this happened for this dispute.
Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 23:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing Statement by Zenanarh

Whenaxis, I actually did use 4 steps: 1) Consider the other editor's point of view. - it's enough to see how much energy I've lost in discussion with Silvio before your coming; 2) Do not disruptively edit through edit warring and reversions. - In my eyes I wasn't edit warring at all, I was reverting an extremist view, something which is normal in wikipedia, question is only whether more wider community can recognize it as an extremist view, this particular problem is obiously not known so well to wider community; 3) Do not use personal attacks to get your point across. - I have never meant to get my point across with personal attacks, but is it really personal attack to warn someone about his/her extremist position? OK maybe I've lost nerves here and there but it was nothing serious, I was actually calling Silvio to reconsider his position and arguments. 4) Rely on Wikipedia policies to determine a resolution. - that was exactly what I was doing. You can see it in all my posts. If there is something I've missed, please inform me. At the end, thank you for your contribution, I hope we will not meet this way too often in the future. All the best.

Silvio, what to say... You are still confusing things: Still I need to remind you that by the time Luciana Laurana born, Vrana was not in Croatia but under the Republic of Venice - weren't you the one who stated that there were no nationalities in Renaissance? Nationality is concept of modern nations and modern sovereign national states. Lucijan was a Croat by ethnicitiy and not nationality. Ethnicity has/had nothing to do with borders. People who were born within the borders of Republic of Venice were not the Venetians, they were what they were by ethnicity; the Venetians were only people in city of Venice, those whose roots were Venetian - from that city. but this decision will not give stability to the article because stating on ethnicity on the basis of current borders it's quite arguable - ethnicity has nothing to do with past or current political borders. It is strange that you are confusing these things. Really strange. Zenanarh (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio, concerning your last idea my initial proposal was to declare Luciano Laurana as [Dalmatae] - do you know who Dalmatae were? They were Illyrian people (speaking some unknown Illyrian language) who dissapeared as Dalmatae during 1st and 2nd century. During Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Dalmatians were the settlers of ex-Roman province of Dalmatia and the speakers of Dalmatian language (Vulgar Latin -> Romance phase), from the 8th and 9th century they started to mix with the Slavs (that's why Croatian language is by far the most "Latinized" Slavic language), Croatian Kingdom was "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" - here "Croatiae" and "Dalmatiae" were not related to the Croats and Dalmatians - it was related to basic principalities of the Croats - Croatia and Dalmatia (name Croatia replaced name Liburnia - first Croatian state before rising into a kingdom was Principality of Liburnia and Dalmatia). Since Dalmatian language was already extinct and was not spoken anymore in Zadar region where Georgius was born, Dalmaticus was not related to that language. It was related to Dalmatia as a region or his ethnic appurtenance to that region. These Dalmatians were Croatian speakers. But I agree that he must be defined as the Dalmatian (not Dalmatae!) since that was how he declared himself in signatures. Zenanarh (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I meant Dalmatian and this was my proposal, by the way. But when I did it you said it was "chauvinist". Why?--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I have started to answer on Laurana and ended with Georgius Dalmaticus. What a mess. No. Laurana self-declared as the Croat - Schiavon. Not Dalmatian. Georgius Dalmaticus - Dalmatian; Luciano Laurana Schiavon - Croat.

"Chauvinst" - give me exact links and I will answer exactly why. Zenanarh (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to. You mean this [23]? - Your idea that there was no Croatian ethnicity in the 15th century is extreme nationalism and chauvinism. - it is obvious that I didn't call you a chauvinist directly. I have warned you about what your idea was, by definition. It doesn't mean that you are a chauvinst, because there is always possibility that you are not concious of consequence and meaning of your statements. I also said: If you defend such extremism you are an extremist - warning again and not direct insult. People will recognize you here according to your behavior and your statements. We don't know how old are you, what's your hair color, what car are you driving and what's your favorite football club, nobody cares about it. Here, you are what you write, that's your identity. If you manipulate with the other's statements and meaning of it, then you will be recognized as a manipulator.Zenanarh (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning your statement: Still you did not reply to the request of third opinion. My request was to state about the acceptability of the census as primary source directed to Whenaxis, I simply cannot resist - is it possible that after all you haven't read any of wiki policies? Zenanarh (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That a user fairly new to Wikipedia like me could make a mistake in understanding policies is possible, that an experienced user (as you pretend to be) could relate to the others the way you do this is regrettable. You do not respect the others, how can you expect respect from the others? And I will not answer to your next answer because you always need to have the last word. I leave this to you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I wouldn't have spent so much time and text on you if I didn't respect you. Last word to me? :) OK. It would be much better if we can meet alive and drink a few bottles of red wine in a little bit different and more friendly atmosphere. Zenanarh (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing Statement by Silvio1973

Whenaxis, I do not discuss about the decision of the mediator. Rules are rules. But I need some clarifications.
What surprises me is the ground of your decision concerning Luciano Laurana. I would have been fine (although not happy) if you had been convinced after all our discussion that he was of Croatian ethnicity. But stating that he should be classified as Croatian because today Vrana is part of Croatia is somehow confusing. Based on your approach Ataturk should be considered Greek because he born in Thessaloniki or Garibaldi should be considered French because was born in Nice. A decision based on your ground will not give stability to the article because stating on ethnicity on the basis of current borders it's quite arguable. Also, if the your decision is to leave the articles as they were before the edit war, then you should leave this version [24], i.e. the version before the edit war started. For the sake of clarity I need to remember that my initial proposal was to declare Luciano Laurana as Dalmatian in order to avoid discussion and to be in harmony with the main Wikipedia in the other languages (such as the Spanish and the German).

Concerning Zadar I acknowledge your decision. Still you did not reply to the request of third opinion. My request was to state about the acceptability of the census as primary source. And we did not receive a clear statement concerning this.

To conclude, I have reported Zenanarh's behaviour on the Administrator's Board. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum by Whenaxis

It greatly surprised me that Zenanarh opened up in a friendly manner. I guess people can change. That made my day and made me smile. As per Silvio's comments, I still remain to my point that I don't think that the census is an intrigual or important part of the article as per WP:UNDUE. Silvio, I really appreciate your contributions and your good faith edits but it doesn't really conform with Wikipedia standards. All the best, Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Are the users convinced by this mediation?

Should these sources be included, after lengthy discussion between the parties?
In principle this article was reporting Luciano Laurana as both Italian and Croatian. After some modifications, the last version of the article was reporting Laurana as exclusively Croatian. As it was impossible to reach a consensus on the matter I resquested a third opinion. The decision of the mediator (user Whenaxis) was to confirm the exclusive Croatian origin of the artist, despite the numerous sources in support of the Italian origin. As I requested the third opinion, I have to accept the virdict and subsequently cannot make any modification concerning this topic. Still I think it's worth to compare hereafter the sources reporting Luciano Laurana as Italian to the ones reporting him as Croatian. This might give to the community of the respective weights of the sources supporting the two sides. It's interesting to note that all the sources used in the dispute and reporting him as Italian are English but the two sources reporting him as Croatian are both Croatian (and written in Croatian!). And on top of the that the first were all available on line and the second not.
Luciano Laurana - Italian

• Chilvers, Ian – The concise Oxford dictionary of Art, page 45: The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists.
• Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
• T.J. Jackson – The Renaissance of Roman Architecture, page 12: [25]
• Luciano Laurana on the Getty [26]

Luciano Laurana - Croatian

• Lucijan Vranjanin (Luciano Laurana), Ivana Prijatelj Pavičić, Croatica Hrvatski udio u svijetskoj baštini, Neven Budak, Zagreb, 2007, ISBN: 953-12-0351-2, pages 182-187
• Arhitekt Lucijan Vranjanin Luciano Laurana, Andrija Mutnjaković, Zagreb, 2003, ISBN 953-6271-51-6, page 363

Indeed, if really we consider this mediation a good decision Wikipedia will enter in the fourth dimension. In this dimension the following things happen:
1. On the English wikipedia sources in Croatian language are preferred to sources in English. And by the way I would like to know how could the mediator check the content of the sources unless he does not speak Croatian (and owns the books).
2. The 2 Croatian sources in Croatian language are preferred to the 4 sources in English. Consequence: Laurana's Croatian origin is admitted and on top of that the 4 sources in English are considered as so inacceptable that the Italian origin is completely removed.
3. English Wikipedia is know (to the best of my knowledge) the only non Croatian source reporting Luciano Laurana as exclusively Croatian.
This is a very interesting decision indeed. I am waiting for your comments. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. So now you are trying to redirect discussion from important to marginal: do you really think that distribution of sources by language is more important than information given by any particular source? And you want to present yourself as objective wikipedian? Instead of contrubuting to quality in wikipedia you are insisting on your own bias and nationalistic conflicts.Zenanarh (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside perspective: I got a random notice that brought this discussion to my attention. Spent about 30 minutes looking at the sources. It seems to me the sources do not really agree on her nationality (if that's the right word), so can't you state that as fact. "Sources disagree yada-yada.... She was born in Zadar (presently located in Croatia) during the decline of the Roman Empire". Anyway, whatever. But I think there's probably room for compromise here. Quinn ^CLOUDY 20:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Only passing by and didn't spend a minute on sources, I know about all sources. Just a question: why should modern Italian forgeries be equalised to historical facts? How can compromise be reached between fact and forgery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.87.181 (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgery... fairly strong language. Someone might perhaps consider historically incorrect to claim that Italian ethnicity existed already at the beginning of the 15th century. But it can be claimed the same about the alleged Croatian ethnicity of those artists born in the former Venetian possessions in Dalmatia. It is quite "curious" why during 14-18th centuries there was such proximity is terms of art and culture between Venice and the Coastal regions of Dalmatia. Indeed if Luciano and Francesco Laurana, Giorgio da Sebenico, Andrea Meldolla and many others were Croatian/Croat it would be a mistery why the same kind od art (late gothic/renaissance) cannot be find elsewhere in modern Croatia. 83.131.87.181, Renaissance it's not Croatian stuff. Perhaps the fact is they were not Croatians or Italians, they were simplistically Dalmatians. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Silvio? Italian? Obviously you know nothing about Croatia. Old Croats were settled in Dalmatia. Vranjanin was coming from Croatian nucleus-territory, northern Dalmatia. Croatian name spread from the seaside to the inland, it was adopted by the Slavs in the north not earlier than in the 16th century. It is quite "curious" why such ignorant like dares to comment anything about Dalmatia. 78.3.58.123 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

78.3.58.123 let's say things are as you say. Can I understand why each stone was carved on coastal Dalmatia by those guys as in Venice. It is somehow interesting that comparative analysis of style shows similarity (if not identity) between art in Coastal Dalmatia and Venice but not between Coastal Dalmatia and Zagreb. If the late gothic and the Renaissance was a product of Croatian art why there is no vestige of it fare from the Coast? However I do not speak with people that use your kind of language. Do it with your friends or your family, not with him. As long you do not rectify your language I will even not answer to your provocations. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - [from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] The best path forward in these situations is to find a handful of very reliable sources (top quality encyclopedias, art history books, etc) authored by scholars, and capture verbatim what they about the issue. Looking at the sources at the top of this RfC: the Getty museum is not a good source; but Encyclopedia Britannica is. Yet the EB article [27] does not say "he was italian" or "he was croatian", but rather "Luciano Laurana, (born c. 1420, Zadar, Dalmatia [now in Croatia]—died 1479, Pesaro, Papal States [Italy]), principal designer of the Palazzo Ducale at Urbino and one of the main figures in 15th-century Italian architecture...". I don't see any source (yet) that says "LL is Italian". If various sources have conflicting statements (e.g. "... is Italian" and "... is Croatian") then both should be included in this article. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed before the mediation both origins were listed (with corresponding relevant sources), now there is only the reference to the Croatian (funny result for a mediation) one. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Silivio: Could you please provide some quotes from scholarly sources that describe LL as Italian, or of Italian ancestry, etc? (not merely that LL lived or worked in Italy). --Noleander (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Excluding the Getty (I understand for some reason you do not consider this source acceptable) this artist is quoted Italian in the following sources:

• Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
• LAURANA, Luciano. Treccani, il portale del sapere, 2011.
• Chilvers, Ian. The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists. Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 45.

Now, my intention is to seek consensus and compromise, no matter at which cost of time and effort. Many scholars consider this architect as Dalmatian (the national identity of Croatia and Italy did not exist in the XV century, despite the POV of some nationalists). Indeed I am in favour of using the very same formula used in en:wiki for Francesco Laurana (a relative of Luciano Laurana) : "Dalmatian-born sculptor. He is considered as both Croatian and Italian", and for each claimed nationality report the relevant sources. And leave to the user of Wikipedia to build-up their opinion. This is the way Wikipedia should work and not being a vector to push nationalist POV's. PS Reporting him as Dalmatian will make en:wiki being alligned on de:wiki and fr:wiki. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Silvio: I asked for quotes from sources, but I don't see any in your reply. Could you please provide quotes from some scholarly sources? The quotes should include phrases like "is Italian" or "is of Italian ancestry" or "considered to be Italian", etc. Without quotes from reliable sources, this article cannot say that LL is considered to be Italian. --Noleander (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, you know better than me that it is not possible to provide such information in the way you request. There is no serious source that would ever affirm him being Italian or Croatian, because the identity of those nationalities did not exist at that time (despite what some nationalists of both sides think). Again I a insist that if an origin should be quoted than this should be Dalmatian. But what I see today in this article it that he is reported as Croatian, because there are two Croatian sources in support. And this is not serious. Also because the sources are written in Croatian so I do not see how non-Croat contributors could verify them. If you check in the history of the article you will see that all this dispute started because I removed the reference to Luciano Laurana being Italian and Croatian and changed to Dalmatian. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If the sources do not say "he is Italian", then the article cannot say it, period. I have no opinion about Croatian vs Dalmatian, but if the sources say one or the other, then the article should follow the sources. --Noleander (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What? The article starts saying that he was Croatian. Then in the end it says he was Italian. Both references should be removed. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm following Silvio's jokes during last 3 months, it's always fun to read his nonsenses, all I can say is LOL LOL and LOL! Silvio how old are you? There were no Croats because there were no nationalities? Do you also mean there were no Romans, Celts, Illyrians, Langobards or Anglo-Saxonians because there were no nationalites? ROTFL. Laurana is Latin transcription of Croatian settlement and Croatian surname. Medieval Croats in Dalmatia were using Latin language in the documents, not Croatian! 78.3.115.199 (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is exactly the same. There is no source other than Croatia saying that Luciano Laurana is Croatian. On the basis of what this claim is justified? As long a verifiable English source is not provided there is no reason to prefer Croatian sources to Italian. And also users on en:wiki are supposed to be capable to verify sources. And if they are in Croatian this is not possible (without even speaking of the conflict of interest of using a Croatian source to support a Croatian claim on a contested article such as this). Please check WP:NOENG, WP:NONENG, WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:NPOV. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Insufficient sourcing

Once again. The claim about Luciano Laurana being Croatian has to be sustained with a source. This source has to be verifiable, accessible and neutral according to WP:NOENG, WP:NONENG, WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:NPOV. The sources currently quoted do not satisfy this requirement.
As a side note, claiming the nationality of someone from Dalmatia born at the beginning of the 15th century its in itself problematic and this is the reason there is no serious English/International source affirming it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)