Talk:Schiavone

Names

Should the article state "Croatian people" see the differences here?

Is it possible to report in this page the name of the people with the name they are on the main articles on en:wiki? I am not saying those names cannot change but first the main articles should change of name before the corresponding link changes in this article. Of course this is just a logical approach, does not mean it is the right one. I am waiting for your comments.

Of course I am not saying that the names that are currently on the relevant articles are correct. I am just saying that the discussion about the main name to use for the article has to be made before changing the reference in the articles related (such as this). --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You have first changed text and then you are waiting for comments about what you have erased. It's not how the wikipedians should behave. Zenanarh (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Italians almost never used name "Croats" for the Croats in history. They called them Schiavoni.

Scuola Dalmata, Scuola degli Schiavoni, Scuola dei SS. Giorgio e Trifone in Venice were forms of name of Croatian brotherhood of St. George and Tripun in Venice, it was the main institution of the Croatian immigrants from Dalmatia (Zadar, Šibenik, Split, Trogir). Schiavon did develop from early Medieval Latin name for the Slavs - Sclaveni, but during Venetian rule in Dalmatia it became name for the Croats. Examples: Catastico della Scuola di SS. Giorgio e Trifone della Nation Dalmata or Libri conti e spese della Scuola di San Zorzi et San Trifon della Nation Dalmata or Capitolar della Veneranda Scuola di San Giorgio e Trifone della Nation Dalmata - documents from the archives of "Scuola degli Schiavoni" in Venice - it is obvious who were the Slavs hidden behind name Schiavoni. Not any Slavs. Dalmatians - Croats. Zenanarh (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In short, Schiavon was Italian xenonym for a Croat, during the Medieval and Renaissance. It's not secret. Zenanarh (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your fight is hilarious and anachronistic. However "Schiavone" doesn't means "Slav" or literally "Big Slav", but "From Schiavonia". The term is geographic not ethnic, and is referred to all the balcanic area (the old Yugoslavia), not only to Croatia. Schiavone was also used for romance people from Dalmatia like Andrea Meldolla for example. --Grifter72 (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Or better - not completely as you say. This exonym (xenonym) developed from older Latin Sclaveni (- this one was general name of Slavs, related to those Slavs who had come to the Western Balkans in the 6th and 7th century), but "Schiavonia" was not all eastern Europe in the age of Venetian Republic, but only territory along the eastern Adriatic coast. That's why Croats had their "Scuola degli Schiavone" in Venice. 99% od "Slavs" who were meeting in this catholic institution were the Croats from northern and central Dalmatia. However it's also important to say that Medieval and Renaissance Croats used different names as their own. Sometimes "Croats" but sometimes "Slovini". Their language also had more synonyms, like harvatski (Croatian), ilirski (Illyric), dalmatinski (Dalmatian - not to confuse with Romance Dalmatian) or slovinski ("Slavic") - but this language is called only "Croatian" in modern times. Slovini can be directly translated as "Slavs" on the first sight, but it's not correct. "Slovini" was formed in Croatian language phonetics (Ikavian Croatian), while ie. Serbs were "Slavjani". "Slovin" and "Slavjan" was not the same. Schiavon = Slovin. It's not anachronistic. We are just dealing with synonyms here.

Andrea Meldolla was the Italian by ancestry, but his family was naturalised in Dalmatia, that's why he got nickname Schiavon - living in Dalmatia he became Croatian speaker. Article says: A number of Croatian or Croatia-born artists who worked in Italy were nicknamed Schiavone by their origin.

I don't think it's wrong. It's maybe the most correct, in just a few words.

There is no any controversy about meaning of Schiavon. This is just ridiculous attempt of Silvio1973 to produce it. Zenanarh (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This man was called also Jawhar al-Ṣaqlabī, (arab: جوهر الصقلبي‎, italian: Jawhar lo Schiavone). Pure Croatian?--Presbite (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Not pure Croatian. Probably just one of so-called "Mooro-Croats".

From: [1]:

...Arabic sources also mention Slavic settlements in Arabic-ruled Sicily. One of them called Sclafani is mentioned in 939. Another one is Harat as-Saqaliba (Slavic Quarter), a Slavic-inhabited district of Palermo located close to the city's port, in the capital of the emirs of Sicily. The origin of these Slavs is disputed; according to conflicting claims they go back all the way to 535 AD when the Byzantine General Belisarius presumably left a Slavic garrison in the city, or to the 10th century when the Fatimids conquered Sicily and likewise left a Slavic garrison there. The Italian historian Amari probably came with the most plausible explanation for their origin; he points out that Abu'l Fida'y, an Arabic historian and geographer from the 1300's, states that in 928/9 off the coast of Maghreb and Sicily there appeared a Slavic piratical fleet of 30 ships which, together with the Arabs, pillaged Calabria, Corsica, and Sardinia. After some time these very Slavic pirates decided to permanently settle in a quarter of Palermo which was named after them. These were most certainly South Slavic pirates from the Adriatic littoral who were quite active sea rovers during the period in question. We cannot be certain as to how many Slavs settled there, but judging from that Constantine Porfirogenetus (Porphirogenetus) estimated that a large ship (sagena) of the Southern (Balkan) Croats contained about 40 men, and using this number as a general reference, when multiplied by 30 ships should give us about 1 200 men. These Sicilian Slavs are mentioned by Ibn Hauqal, an Arabic geographer and traveler from the second half of the 10th century, as well as by Yaqut, who also mentions a different quarter of Palermo whose name was "The Quarter of the Slavic Mosque". It must also be added that the total number of Slavs who settled in Palermo was probably larger than the one calculated above since we should also add the Slavs from the "The Quarter of the Slavic Mosque" and also possible later arrivals to both quarters. Eventually, the Sicilian Slavs become completely assimilated; the name Harat as-Saqaliba disappears with time and in the Latin-written documents of the 12-13th century...

Slavic settlement / subquarter (Harat as-Saqalibah) next to Palermo with many immigrants from Dalmatia in period od Arabic Sicilian emirate (Palermo as the capital) was mentioned also by other Medieval Arabic chroniclers from 10th to 12th century, like Istakhri (in "Masālik ul-Mamālik", 951), Ibn-Hauqal (Abūl-Qāsim Alī al-Nāsībī, in "Ṣūrat al-’Arḍ", 943.- 969.) and Yaqut al-Hamawi (1179.-1229). According to Polish historian M. Warczakowski (Slavs of Muslim Spain, 2004), around 1.200 of the Adriatic Slavs, namely Chakavian speakers (Croats), went to Sicily from Medieval Croatia, by Croatian fleet mentioned in Arabic sources. (btw, there was decrease in number of ships of Medieval Croatia, recorded by the Byzantine historical sources in that period, so there was 80 sagena ships in cca 925 and 30 in 970 – decrease which occurred partially due to this Croatian fleet that left the Adriatic as recorded in the Arabic sources). The most of these Croatian settlers of Sicily became Islamized there by the Moors, the rulers of Sicily and established a several Croatian settlements around Palermo, like the most important Sclafani and Seralcaldi (earlier Moor names: Saqlabi and Harat as-Saqalibi). These Croatian immigrants were called Saqalibi by the Moors, then after fall of Emirate of Sicily (13th century) they became known with name Sciavuni. A part of them didn't stay in Sicily, a large part proceeded to Spain.

Literature:

N. Andrassy: Slaveni u Španiji prije hiljadu godina. Narodna starina 7, no. 16, 1927.

T. Lewicki: Osadnictwo Slowianskie i niewolnicy Slowianscy w krajach Musulmanskich. Przegled historiczny XLIII, 1952

T. Lewicki: Zrodla Arabskie do dziejow Slowianscziczny, vol. I - II. Polska Akademia Nauk, Wroclaw-Krakow, 1956-1969

M. Warczakowski: Slavs of Muslim Spain, 2004

N. Ibrahimi: Islam's first contacts with Balkan Nations. Prizren 2007

M. Rac & al.: Povijesna geneza maurskih Hrvata na zapadnom Sredozemlju. Zbornik: Rani Hrvati (u tisku), ITG - Zagreb 2011

M. Amari: La migrazione degli Slavi nell’Italia meridionale e in Sicilia alla fine del Medioevo, 1300, Palermo

There were also other Islamized Croats (Croats were strong in the sea during Arabic rule in part of Mediterranean), like dinasty of Ameri - admirals of the Moorian fleets in the Mediterranean. But all of that is still not well researched. Zenanarh (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

mmmm: the "incredible" Michal Warczakowski's site: "pro-Semitic", "a Troll", who "don't really has any friends", and "descended from King Odin of Ossetia" (!!!): nice source, mr Zenanarh! Are all your sources of the same level, maybe?--Presbite (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

mmmm, no I've used Michal Warczakowski's site just because it's on English. It was not his research. Sources are Croatian (M. Rac & al.: Povijesna geneza maurskih Hrvata na zapadnom Sredozemlju. Zbornik: Rani Hrvati (u tisku), ITG - Zagreb 2011) and Italian (M. Amari: La migrazione degli Slavi nell’Italia meridionale e in Sicilia alla fine del Medioevo, 1300, Palermo). Zenanarh (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Was it not his research? Sure? The Amari's book starts from the XVth Century, "only" five hundred years after Jawhar al-Ṣaqlabī. Anyway, "Slav settlement" don't means "Mooro-Croat", as you stated above. Any other source (scientific, of course)?--Presbite (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue is not well researched. But it seems that Amari was first to relate Medieval Sicilian Slavs to expedition to Siciliy of 30 Croatian ships in the 10th century mentioned by Arabic sources. It doesn't matter what period is book about, since every scientist usually writes an introduction. I guess Amari stated this in some kind of introduction, since it had definitelly happened well before the 15th century. In fact in the 15th century there were no more any Slavs in Sicily. They were naturalised by the Italians.

I wrote: so-called "Mooro-Croat" - that's how some publicicts in Croatia are trying to call Islamized Medieval Croats in the Mediterranean. But I repeat, this issue is not well researched, so I think it's not important for this matter. You have asked me about Jawhar al-Ṣaqlabī, (arab: جوهر الصقلبي‎, italian: Jawhar lo Schiavone) and I have answered what he could had been. Bearing in mind that reaearch of this issue has just started, I guess it's better not to discuss about it, until it becomes more clear.Zenanarh (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A little question: perhaps M.Rac is Mladen Rac, botanic, expert in algology?--Presbite (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt "our" M. Rac is botanic. ;) Zenanarh (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In that years (XV century) Sicily was part of Aragon. --Grifter72 (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Zenanarh. So: your sources about the "Mooro-Croat" are:

• A certain descended from King Odin of Ossetia.
• An unknow "M. Rac".
• Michele Amari (1806-1889), but you don't read his book.

Another little question: what are your sources about Andrija Medulić's name? We know that his family (perhaps the same parents) came from Meldola, in Emilia-Romagna, and for this reason is called "Meldolla". When was a child, he went to Venice, and Venetians began to call him "Schiavone", because he came from Dalmatia. In 1547 he signed his painting Ratto di Elena "Andrea Meldolla inventor". Who was the first "Croatian" in his family? When his name was written for the first time in the Croatian form? Scientific sources as usual, please. Thank you.--Presbite (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have explained what is my position about the Medieval Sicilian Slavs. Amari related them to the Medieval Croats (In the Slavic speaking world the Croats were recognized as the ony maritime Slavs). Croatian toponyms were recorded in Greece, Chrete and probably Sicily, all related to Crotian immigrants from the similar period. But question od Sicilian Slavs is not researched well so I don't think that we have anything to discuss.

Medulić / Meldola was Italian, by ancestry. But his family probably became naturalised in Dalmatia, otherwise they wouldn't be able to communicate with the rest of population. Just small number of Venetian Republic employees and merchants were the real Italian speakers in Dalmatia. As long as I know Sakcinski was first who translated his name and surname into Croatian form, in the 19th century. Some problem?

But it's interesting how you want to use rarity to dispute common practise, not taking into consideration that your rarities confirm common practise - Schiavon was name for Dalmatian Slav in Italy. Otherwise neither Meldola would have such nickname. Zenanarh (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At that time modern Italian and Croatian languages were not yet developed. It is reported that in XIII century still there were some autoctonous romance clusters in Zadar area. In XVI century, according to Giustinian, people from Zadar (also women) were able to speak "lingua franca". For him they were romanized at the same level of Piran for example, more than people from Split and Ragusa. You have to consider that the process of "re-romanization" of Zadar begun at the end of the middle age. Cities of renascence and middle age were not etnic homogeneous as now. I agree with you about the slavic ancestry of the magiority of the population, but Dalmatia is particular because there were a strong Diglossia between language of people (Slavic dialects before and Croatian language after), and official languages (Latin, Venetian and Italian in order). To this you have to add autoctonous romance people in part slavicized and migration from northern Italy (Boscovich/Bettera, Faggioni, Meldolla, ecc.). --Grifter72 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At that time Croatian language was what is Chakavian dialect of Croatian today. Chakavian Croatian was developed on basis of 2 languages: Proto-Slavic and Dalmatian Romance in period 8th-10th century and was spoken in Dalmatia and Lika (modern central Croatia). While other dialects were changing by time, Chakavian saved its original form in a large degree so today it's considered that Cha Cro is the oldest existing Slavic speech in Europe and often used by the linguists to research Proto-Slavic forms and isoglosses. Today it is spoken in the islands mostly. It's sure that Croatian langue in Medieval was not modern standardized Croatian, but Chakavian was called Croatian or by its synonyms as defined by the Croatian Renaissance writers.

Concerning Slavization of Zadar area. It was the most Slavized area from the beginning. Zadar was first Dalmatian Byzantine commune ruled by the ethnic Croats (10th century), whose political centers from the dutchy and kingdom period were all in range of 10 to 50 km around Zadar. To the end of the 9th century more than 70% of toponyms in Zadar archipelago were Slavic/Croatian. The rest were Dalmatian Romance. Medieval Croatian etnicity developed on basis of Slavic immigrants from the 7th century and autoctonous Romance population. So Medieval Croats were not only Slavic immigrants by ancestry, it was admixture of immigrants and natives in Dalmatia, it's hard to say who made majority in the beginning of that ethnogenetic proccess (8th-10th century), since the Avaro-Slavs (the end of the 6th century and 2nd half of the 7th century as the army of the Avars) and Croats (around 630 as the Byzantine allies against the Avaro-Slavs) had come as the warrior groups and took political primate in the area, thus Slavicizing the natives. So Old-Croatian Culture (from the 9th century in Dalmatia) developed in direct continuity to the local Late Antique cultural features. The only Pre-Slavic cultural feature of O-C Culture was Slavic language.

In XVI century, according to Giustinian, people from Zadar (also women) were able to speak "lingua franca". For him they were romanized at the same level of Piran for example, more than people from Split and Ragusa. - this is weird. Giustinian who? 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. Now, if "lingua franca" you've mentioned meant Dalmatian Romance, it is logical. I'm native Chakavian speaker and my mother language Cha Cro is full of Dalmatian Romancisms. We have never dropped it, in many issogloses, while use of full Dalmatian Romance phrases was still common practice during the 1st half of the 20th century. Only today it is rarity (full phrases). So there was no any kind of re-Romancization of Zadar as you have noted. During Medieval Zadar people were Croatian speakers and parallely they were probably all able to speak Dalmatian Romance in all periods. Because both languages were basic part of their culture, bearing in mind what was nature of ethnogenesis. And Croatian dukes and kings never wrote documents in Slavic language. All documents of Croatian Medieval state were written in official Latin. Official name of Croatian Kingdom was in Latin exclusively in all papers: "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae". Zadar was surely not more Romancized than Dubrovnik and Split. Impossible. Last record of Dalmatian Romance in Zadar was one private letter in the 14th century. In the same time Dalmatian was official in Dubrovnik and used in all documents there in that century. So, in simple words: Zadar (Iadera) was Croatian bastion within political union of the Dalmatian city-communes under Byzant rule, while Rab (Arba) was bastion of the Romance Dalmatian speakers all the time to the 16th century, without Croatian settlers (they occupied all the island but not city of Rab before the 16th century).

BTW, you wrote Boscovich - Italian? He was not Italian. He self-declared as the Dalmatian in a letter to his friend who called him Italian and who mentioned Italian culture un Dalmatia. Boschovich replied that he was not Italian and that there was only Dalmatian culture in Dalmatia, not Italian. I saw it just 2 days ago on TV in a documentary about him, these letters were mentioned. Zenanarh (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

About the surname, you have to consider that "schiavone" and "schiavon" are not the same. "Schiavon" is almost correct as "dalmatian". Is a Venetian surname present in Veneto region and especially in Turin and Milan (where migrated after WW2 people from Istria, Veneto and Dalmatia): http://gens.labo.net/it/cognomi/genera.html?cognome=SCHIAVON&t=cognomi-prov

"Schiavone" is especially present in southern Italy, used also for Albanians or generally for strangers people: http://gens.labo.net/it/cognomi/genera.html?cognome=SCHIAVONE&t=cognomi-prov --Grifter72 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Schiavon and Schiavone was all the same, just different forms, nothing else. Do you know how many Slavic toponyms exist in Albania even today? It was fairly well settled by the Slavs in those times. Albanian demographic expansion occurred later.Zenanarh (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Zenanarh. I'm simply checking your sources: not so high level: Amari (your only source) was a gentleman... but 150 years ago! Anyway: you're right: the first who used - but maybe we can use the verb "invented" - the Croatian form "Andrija Medulić" was Ivan Kukuliević (Julio Klovio (SIC!), hèrvatski slikar, in Danica Horvatska, Slavonska i Dalmatinska, XIII, 1847, p. 1). The "first form", because IK used as name "Andria Medulić", without "j". IK put this "Andria Medulić" among other "ilirski slikari", like "Pavao de Ragusis", "Bernjo Porečanin" (known in all the world, even in Croatia, as Bernardo Parentino), "Gèrgur Schiavone", "Blaž i Nikola Dèržić", "Bonifac Natalić" (SIC!), "Jakov Pisbolica", "Martin Rota" and - last but not least - "Julio Klovio". So, the Croatian storiography "found" a certain "Andria Medulić" (from Šibenik, according to IK!) only three centuries afther his death. In the last century, some guys modified other names: "Bonifac Natalić" was beautiful, 'cause IK inverted name and surname: from "Natale Bonifacio" to "Bonifac Natalić", but today in your Country this engraver is sometimes called also "Božo Bonifačić". Tomorrow... maybe Andrija Medulić, who during his life signed himself as "Andrea Meldolla", could be "Andrija Dalmatinac". Maybe his name will stop to change, with the definitive form "Živila Hrvatska". Who knows...--Presbite (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess the definitive form will be "Viva Italia" in Italy ;)

Presbite, you are funny. I've told you 3 times that problem of the Sicilian Slavs has not been well researched. Who knows, maybe I'm dumb and you are deaf. Also, if I start with Italian forms of Slavic names, it will be all book of 300 pages here. You are losing your energy for nothing. Zenanarh (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Zenanarh, I never said "Boscovich was Italian". He was Dalmatian but his mother family was from Lombardy and he lived in his life especially in Lombardy. In our time he would be a "Croat-Italian" or a "Naturalized Italian". Here his famous declaration: "Nous observons ici en premier lieu que notre Auteur est Dalmate et de Raguse, non Italien: et c'est pur cela que M. Mazucheli, dans un ouvrage récent sur les Auteurs Italiens, n'es fait aucun mention. Cependant vu le long sejour qu'il fait en Italie depuis sa premiere jeunesse, on peut en qualche sorte le dire Italien". You can translate it from French with google. Lingua franca is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Lingua_Franca (something like a Northern Italian koiné). About Giovanni Battista Giustiniani, probably you didn't read primary sources but some "Partisan" book. --Grifter72 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No buddy, I don' read partisan books. I'm not Direktor. ;)

I don't trust en.wikipedia articles. Zenanarh (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor. The RfC bot sent me here and I find a complete mess. This RfC started off in a promising fashion, with someone actually pointing to a specific diff. That diff seems to be mainly about what names are to be displayed for various people. My comment on the diff is: Show the name where the person's bio is on en.wikipedia, without a piped link; if that name is the wrong name, take it up on the talk page of the wrongly named bio article; if an alternative version of the name is relevant to this article, put it in parentheses after the wikilink; don't wikilink Croatia three times in two paragraphs. The reason I call this a mess is that the subsequent discussion under the RfC seems to have nothing to do with the diff that began it. If the dispute has blossomed into other aspects of the subject, I request that each of the two sides (or more sides if need be) set forth its preferred version of the text, along with an explanation of the reasons for preferring it. This RfC from several years ago is an example of a good way to do it: Talk:Tucson, Arizona/Archive 3#December 16-23, 2004 vote. JamesMLane t c 08:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Names 2

Some editor insist in using in this article the Croatian version of the names. Well, if he/whe wants to do so should first change the name used in the relevant article in en:wiki and after change it here. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Toponyms

Writing that Istria and Dalmatia where Croatian land in the XIV century it's a non-sense. I have removed the reference. Istria and Dalmatia were exactly what they were, neither Croatia or Italy because both did not exist at the time.--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be a stretch to say that for Istria, but Dalmatia is certainly describable as a Croatian land in the 14th century - unless you want to define Dalmatia at the time as only the Venetian possessions, the cities. Roman Dalmatia was exceedingly more liberally defined, so I don't think that such a strict definition is logical, at least not without a reference to credible historians saying so. Perhaps at the height of the Ottoman-(Venetian+Croatian) wars, in the 17th century, when the combined possessions of the latter two were literally the Venetian cities and barely anything in the hinterland, but not three centuries earlier. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And, it's not entirely fair to state that Croatia as a country did not exist at all in the 14th century - the Croatian kingdom had risen and fallen right there in northern Dalmatia, in the very back yard of the later Venetian stronghold of Zara. Yes, in the 14th century it was reduced and it largely shifted to the north, but it was there, particularly in some of these controversial places - for example Vrana came under Venetian rule in 1409, and then fell to the Turks in 1537, was restored to Venice in 1699, and then ultimately La Serenissima fell as a whole in 1797. So it spent 226 years under Venice and 162 under the Ottoman Empire. And now, 215 years later still, the Croatian toponym has survived there - over 1300 years after its first appearance. It was certainly malleable, but it seems it was ultimately enduring. The Dalmatian toponym bests it by another ~1300 years, but they're at least comparable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Always the same problem. The most of Dalmatia was ethnically and culturally Croatian because Venetian control in that area had been always limited to the Adriatic Coast, and even not all of it. The issue is that the reference to the Schiavoni is limited to people from the Venetian coastal possessions not from the hinterland. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, can you please prove that claim, and secondly, what can possibly make you think that there were no actual Slavs in the Venetian cities? It's supposed to be a well known fact that the already existing natural migration of the Christian Slavic population from the hinterland to the coast actually accelerated rapidly during the Ottoman expansion. It seems like a self-defeating argument - the Italians in Italy used the Slavic ethnonym to refer to the non-Slavic population of Dalmatian cities? Why would they have done that? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Joy, of course there were plenty of Slavs in the Venetian cities. The Republic of Venice was a multicultural entity. And definitely the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans pushed a lot of Slavs from the hinterland to the coast. And so what? I do not contest those people were Slavs, I contest they were Croatian/Croat in the meaning that some contributors push in some articles. Concerning the use of the word Schiavone, this was used to refer to the geographic origin (from Dalmatia and Istria) and not to an ethnical group. Indeed, this concept should be stressed more in the article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of the ethnonym "Croat" in the Late Middle Ages is clear - it refers to a Slavic people called the Croats. There is no uncertainty about the existence of Croats in places like Grižane, Vrana and Vinišće before the Turkish conquest. When people from those places are called Slavs, there's very little to no inherent doubt about them being Croats, because there were simply no other significant Slavic ethnicities at the time in those places. I suppose you can argue about the demonym "Croatian" being anachronistic at some exact time given that the Kingdom of Croatia was pushed back from the territory by the Turks, but that's a nuance that merely requires careful phrasing. The main point stands - these Slavs were by and large Croats, so there's no reason not to link to that specific article rather than only the generic article about the Slavs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The only converse example I could quickly find was Andrea Schiavone, whose article says his father was actually Italian - unreferenced inline, though. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Joy, there is no ucertainty about the existence of Croats in Dalmatia. It's their actual contribution to the peculiar culture from the Dalmatian coast that intrigues me. Indeed, two things are really surprising:

• 1. The use of double standards. Giulio Clovio spent the most of his life in Italy but some contributors insist in considering him Croatian because of (allegedly) declared Croatian origins. On the other hand Croatian contributors insist in considering someone like Elio Lampidrio Cerva (Ilija Crijević) as Croatian (to the point that the Slavik version of the name in preferred in en:wiki) even if he clearly and stated his absolute refuse to the Croatian language and culture.

The Slavic version is "preferred" simply because nobody moved it back since 2008. I'm guessing nobody moved it because nobody really cares - the article seems to be a talking point of what are now mainly banned or indefinitely-blocked users, as apparently its entire history is one edit war over another. It's really not an indicative example of anything other than the fact that some people have an axe to grind, and way too much free time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• 2. It is true that Croats were present everywhere in Dalmatia and actually almost the totality of the population was Croat in the hinterland. But, then can I understand then why only in the areas under (even if for short periods) Venetian influence there was such a production of art and culture? If really - as the modern Croatian historiography pretends - artists like Andrea Meldolla, Giorgio Orsini, Giulio Clovio, Luciano and Francesco Laurana were Croats why there is no trace of similar art and culture elsewhere in Dalmatia other than in the areas under Venetian domain?

Don't take me wrong, but too it looks that when it comes to the history of Dalmatia modern Croatian historiography interpretates facts on the basis of the borders of modern Croatia. But this is just a mixture of politics and nationalism, not history (an example of this is the claim of Marco Polo being Croatian). --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you have interpreted that correctly - the actual Croatian historiography, sans the omnipresent extremists, doesn't actually detract from the value that La Serenissima provided to the Croats - in fact it's actually pretty much universally credited with providing the bulk of the political and military power that was necessary for the Christians to survive at all (let alone make art etc) in the eastern Adriatic at a time when the Ottomans pretty much took control of everything. The Dubrovnik Republic was basically the sole exception to that rule. You have to look past the typical nationalist talking points to analyze history, regardless of nation... Just recently I was looking for information (in Croatian) on the Ottoman-Venetian wars in Dalmatia and actually found a work that sheds a positive light on the contribution that the Ottoman Empire made to the process of urbanization of smaller towns in the hinterland. The other works on the topic were also pretty much biased toward Venice, not against it. I can't imagine finding a wildly different conclusion regarding art and culture. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Joy, I genuinely appreciate your moderation and sense of the compromise. This has proven being very useful in a number of occasion, the last one being on Giulio Clovio. However, the issue that I report cannot be restricted just to a bunch of extremists. It's a much more general issue. Should I remember that the claim of Marco Polo being Croatian was sustained by the former President of Croatia? I know that I look pedantic, but as Voltaire liked to say: "Le diable se cache dans les details". When you write "... the value that La Serenissima provided to the Croats.." you indirectly write that Italian (or preferably Romance) presence on the Dalmatian Coast was not indigenous and that Italians of Dalmatia were not an ethnic minority (I write minority, read well) historically present in Dalmatia but rather invaders replacing existing population. This would be historically incorrect. However, I hope that contributions on similar items will continue to be productive and that we will get to a general consensus on these articles. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, any president is primarily a politician, not a historian. Do you think I should take anything Umberto Bossi says about Italian history for granted? Didn't think so :)

Secondly, I literally meant the Republic in that sentence - not its population, which obviously included the indigenous Romance-speaking population. It was ruled from Venice, not Zadar, but its set of political goals and methods of implementation wasn't necessarily detrimental to the population they ruled over overseas, whether they were Romance or Slavonic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

some sources for the Croatian view

See Talk:Luciano Laurana#Croatian or Italian. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502113752/http://www.cognomiitaliani.org/cognomi/cognomi0017car.htm to http://www.cognomiitaliani.org/cognomi/cognomi0017car.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

List of people named Schiavone

Wikipedia standard practice is to limit listing people to people who already have a Wikipedia article about them. As of 10 June 2019 the list has many names which do not meet this criteria, i.e., redlinked rather than blue. David notMD (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)