Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
{{rfc|bio|rfcid=577A86F}} |
{{rfc|bio|rfcid=577A86F}} |
||
Should the text in the lead describing Gundulić be changed from "most prominent [[Baroque]] poet" to "most prominent [[Croatian literature#Baroque literature|Croatian Baroque]] poet"? |
Should the text in the lead describing Gundulić be changed from "most prominent [[Baroque]] poet" to "most prominent [[Croatian literature#Baroque literature|Croatian Baroque]] poet"? |
||
Sources:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-Gundulic|title=Ivan Gundulić | Croatian author|website=Encyclopedia Britannica}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Greene |first1=Roland |last2=Cushman |first2=Stephen |title=The Princeton Handbook of World Poetries |date=2016 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=9781400880638 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dC7FCgAAQBAJ |page=136 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eKNK1YwHcQ4C|year=1995|publisher=Merriam-Webster|isbn =0877790426|page=501}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The Encyclopedia Americana|url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=hr&id=afo0AAAAMAAJ|year=2000|publisher=Grolier|volume=13|isbn=0717201333|page=615}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Cross currents: A Yearbook of Central European culture|url=https://books.google.hr/books?id=cVYNAQAAMAAJ|year=1984|publisher=Dept. of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan|volume=3|page=163}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Çiçek, Kemal|first=Kuran, Ercüment |year=2000|title=The Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation|edition=4 |publisher=University of Michigan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IRRXAAAAYAAJ}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{cite book |last=Halecki |first=Oscar |authorlink=Oscar Halecki |year=1991 |title=Jadwiga of Anjou and the Rise of East Central Europe |publisher=Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences of America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KPkNAQAAMAAJ |isbn=0-88033-206-9 |page=336}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Richard C. Frucht|title=Eastern Europe: An Intruduction to the People, Lands, and Culture|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PYgrAQAAMAAJ|year=2005|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=9781576078006|page=464}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Collier's Encyclopedia: With Bibliography and Index|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=s-wMrlnez4EC|year=1950|publisher=Collier|volume=20|page=440}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Études balkaniques|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FhhpAAAAMAAJ&|year=2000|publisher=Édition de lA̕cadémie bulgare des sciences|page=28}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Censorship: A World Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gDqsCQAAQBAJ|year=2001|author=Derek Jones|publisher=[[Routledge]]|isbn=1136798633|page=1315}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The Fashion Chronicles: The style stories of history’s best dressed|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WCdVDwAAQBAJ|year=2018|author=Amber Butchart|author-link=Amber Butchart|publisher=Hachette UK|isbn=9781784725631|page=99}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Piotr Stefan Wandycz |authorlink=Piotr S. Wandycz |title=The Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E8H08OiOouoC |accessdate=8 January 2013 |year=2001 |publisher=Taylor & Francis Group |isbn=978-0-415-25490-8 |page=86 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|first=Benjamin|last=Curtis|title=A Traveller's History of Croatia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LEQqAQAAMAAJ|page=108|year=2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Historical Abstracts: Modern history abstracts, 1775-1914|url=https://books.google.hr/books?id=BkJsAAAAIAAJ|year=1984|publisher=American Bibliographical Center|volume=30|page=336}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Authors of the Medieval and Renaissance Eras: 1100 to 1660|url=https://books.google.hr/books?id=tWedAAAAQBAJ|year=2014|publisher=Britannica Educational Publishing|volume=3|page=300|ISBN=978-1-6153-0998-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Buelow|first=George J.|title=A history of baroque music|year=2004|publisher=Indiana University Press|isbn=0-253-34365-8|page=416|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aw1TTtpp4FwC}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Important Cultural Institutions in Yugoslavia|year=1980|publisher=Federal Administration for International Scientific, Educational, Cultural and Technical Cooperation|page=28|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dVQcAAAAMAAJ}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia|last=|first=|editor-last=|editor-first=|encyclopedia=The Columbia Encyclopedia|title=Gundulić, Ivan|url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/reference/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/gundulic-ivan|access-date=16 April 2020|edition=6th|publisher=}}</ref> [[User:Tzowu|Tzowu]] ([[User talk:Tzowu|talk]]) 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot | Sources}} |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
*'''Yes'''. I think a RfC is the best way to try to end this discussion. Per my comments previously on the talk page, I think that this version is supported by a majority of sources. [[User:Tzowu|Tzowu]] ([[User talk:Tzowu|talk]]) 23:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Yes'''. I think a RfC is the best way to try to end this discussion. Per my comments previously on the talk page, I think that this version is supported by a majority of sources. [[User:Tzowu|Tzowu]] ([[User talk:Tzowu|talk]]) 23:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{unindent}}This RfC is completely pointless as it bluntly ignores basic [[MOS:ETHNICITY]]. It's an attempt to push one's preferred version. From my experience, in RfCs such as this one, it is quite common for users from local Wikipedias (hr.wiki or any other) to come out of the blue in order to vote ''yes'' (without earlier activity on the page) per [[Wikipedia:Nationalist editing]]. It will not bring anything good to the article. Not to mention that the man in question was Ragusan patriot and high official of [[Republic of Ragusa]]. '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #000000;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC) |
{{unindent}}This RfC is completely pointless as it bluntly ignores basic [[MOS:ETHNICITY]]. It's an attempt to push one's preferred version. From my experience, in RfCs such as this one, it is quite common for users from local Wikipedias (hr.wiki or any other) to come out of the blue in order to vote ''yes'' (without earlier activity on the page) per [[Wikipedia:Nationalist editing]]. It will not bring anything good to the article. Not to mention that the man in question was Ragusan patriot and high official of [[Republic of Ragusa]]. '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #000000;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
Line 56: | Line 63: | ||
::: It seems there is a laundry list of sources stating him as Croat. I see 10 listed which I was not aware. However due to controversy, it may be best to leave his ethnicity out of the intro. [[User:OyMosby|OyMosby]] ([[User talk:OyMosby|talk]]) 03:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC) |
::: It seems there is a laundry list of sources stating him as Croat. I see 10 listed which I was not aware. However due to controversy, it may be best to leave his ethnicity out of the intro. [[User:OyMosby|OyMosby]] ([[User talk:OyMosby|talk]]) 03:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::: And there is a list of sources presenting him as a Serb, it's in the archive, or stating that he is of Serb origin. I agree, neither should be in the lead; Gundulić held Ragusan identity and tens of sources are confirming it and calling him Ragusan (I have posted a bunch of them in earlier versions of the page). '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #000000;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC) |
:::: And there is a list of sources presenting him as a Serb, it's in the archive, or stating that he is of Serb origin. I agree, neither should be in the lead; Gundulić held Ragusan identity and tens of sources are confirming it and calling him Ragusan (I have posted a bunch of them in earlier versions of the page). '''[[User:Sadko|<span style="color:#EE8833;">Sadkσ</span>]]''' [[User talk:Sadko|<span style="color: #000000;">(talk is cheap)</span>]] 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::: I added the sources, there's more than 10 and not a single Croatian source. Take a look at the page history, there are probably a hundred reverts of multiple users done by Sadko to the point of page protection, and the talk page got us nowhere. So I see no other option than a RfC. [[User:Tzowu|Tzowu]] ([[User talk:Tzowu|talk]]) 15:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:07, 16 April 2020
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Croatian poet
@OyMosby:@Jesuislafete:@SerVasi:@Mhare:@Tzowu:@Santasa99:@Jingiby:@Sheldonium:@Surtsicna:@Shokatz:@Ivan Štambuk:@Director: We would be honored if you would join us, in this discussion. Please do share your opinion on this matter and what do you think should be done. The main question is: Should the article lead state that Ivan Gundulić was a Croatian poet or not? There are other questions that should/can be discussed but this is the main one. The problem, as it seems, is the inclusion that Ivan Gundulić was a Croatian poet in the lead of this article. The source confirming that is Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ivan-Gundulic, an independent and third party source.
User Sadko is against this inclusion and has removed it from the lead. User Sadko states the following: restoring that Ivan Gundulić was a Croatian poet is a "bold edit that must have broader consensus". I think that what user Sadko is doing, and that is removing content sourced by Encyclopedia Britannica, is a bold move and that anyone who does something like that should make a strong case defending his actions. I would say that the problem partly starts with the Ethnicity section, but I would like to hear what others have to say. I must also add that user Sadko insist on a discussion but only when the lead of the article contains that Ivan Gundulić was a Croatian poet, but when it is removed, somehow, it seems to me, that the need for a discussion ends, at least one the side of user Sadko. I might be wrong, but that is the impression that I got.
Thanks to all that are going to participate and I hope that we can resolve this dispute. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- First off, this is not how a discussion should be started! Pinging just several users is not good, for obvious reasons, and this case borders with canvassing. Try to notify WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Croatia, WikiProject Literature and other related projects, and only then we can have a discussion. I could do it for you, but I am not the one to start this discussion. I will also tell you that there have been several discussion on this matter and that there is a good possibility of going in circles. The source is confirming nothing (because we are talking about the lead), as Wiki policies are saying another thing. I am not inssisting on anything, just going by the book, regardless of my personal feelings. If I was acctually biased I would call him Serbian poet, which is not per Wiki guidelines and policies. Your impressions are not arguments and everything written upon some impressions can not be taken seriously. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have pinged all the users that have participated in the discussion above. Your argument is done in bad faith. Once again, you are basically saying: "I am right and you are wrong". This is not how a discussion should proceed. Please, if you assert something then please provide some evidence. And please no more bad faith. The one that has started this discussion and the reason why there is a discussion are you. You have removed sourced content from the lead, then insisted that it should stay removed even though other users have reverted you, and you insisted that there needs to be a discussion. Again, please, no more bad faith. Thanks. And I would like to see what other users have to say. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Once again, that is not how serious discussions should be started. It is your right to ignore that fact but other editors can therefore act accordingly as well. Pinging several (potentially, based on previous comments) partisan users is not per Wikipedia:Canvassing. Pointing fingers ("YOU, YOU ARE, YOU HAVE DONE, YOU ARE THE REASON") and writing several sentences about other fellow editor's intentions or motivations based on personal impressions in the very intro post is not per Wikipedia:Civility. We already have some rants by one IP, which just shows that this canvassing is sort of working, and no doubt that it will have further bad effect. [1] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have pinged all the users that have participated in the discussion above. Your argument is done in bad faith. Once again, you are basically saying: "I am right and you are wrong". This is not how a discussion should proceed. Please, if you assert something then please provide some evidence. And please no more bad faith. The one that has started this discussion and the reason why there is a discussion are you. You have removed sourced content from the lead, then insisted that it should stay removed even though other users have reverted you, and you insisted that there needs to be a discussion. Again, please, no more bad faith. Thanks. And I would like to see what other users have to say. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You talk about canvassing but the only one notifying editors that were not already part of the discussion is you. You as usual provide zero arguments and rely on attacking other editors that try to have a healthy discussion. Im just waiting for you to start calling everybody nazis again. SerVasi (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Smears and self character assassinations aside, I have quoted several Wiki rules and gave several examples as well. Older editions of Encyclopedia Britannica call him a Servian poet (and many other sources, old and new). All of those sources can be found in TP archives and other editors have done it already. I see no point in counting Gundulić's blood cells like this, as he was Ragusan. Wikipedia:I just don't like it and want to call him as I was incorrectly tutored throughout state education system is not a good start. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I’m not that well read on Ivan Gandulić so I can’t say for certain. There is a good chance he is Croatian but there are also sources pointing to Serbian lineage. So hard to say completely. Again from my limited quick look. But what I am certain of is I’m not interested in being part of a Croat vs Serb playground-like smear fest. We are all adults here (I assume) so seeing insults like “Serbian chauvinist” or “you state education lied to you” or “nazi” on this talk page are beneath civil discussions and just name calling. Just because we may not all agree and have our biases doesn’t mean we have to hate each other. OyMosby (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
No one could tell if he considered himself to be a Croat, but he certainly was/is prominent poet of "Croatian baroque"! Something like this ("prominent poet of Croatian baroque", which is informative and correct) was included into lede before, who removed it and why is beyond reason - it's tiresome to discuss on these things and in emotionally charged environment with irrational thinking taking the front stage, where editors see their role here as some sort of patriotic duty, a moral imperative and obligation to, as some said, the "ancestors", or others, to the "future generations", and so forth.--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Ragusan literature is not a part of Croatian baroque (or any other for that matter). When somebody states this they usually get a bunch of labels and insults in return. Nonetheless, Ragusan literature is - Ragusan literature (that is 100% rational and makes logical sense). Their heritage is today celebrated in 2-3 countries, and there can be no exclusivity, which is not per NPOV to begin with. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- User Sadko, we live in the 21st century, Dubrovnik is a city in Croatia. Like Florence is part of Italy. I can't understand how you don't see this. Do you think that it is state propaganda, stating that Dubrovnik is a Croatian city? It seems that when you were telling others about "state education system" you were saying more about yourself, unfortunately. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- That is a logical mistake because Republic of Ragusa was not a Croat republic, but had its own identity (which would be the closest to Yugoslav, if we look at it from modern perspective). Subotica is a city in Serbia but not all of Subotica's lovely Art nouveau building were built by Serbs and those works of art represent shared heritage. Stop commenting on other users as you have no idea where I started or finished my education. This is not notorious Croatian Wikipedia, where that kind of things are tolerated. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am permanently blocked on Croatian Wikipedia so please don't insult me. I hope that was not your intention. What I did was that I tried to give you a "hand of peace" and tried to show you that, in a way, you are doing practically the some thing what "they" do/are doing. Not intentionally, I guess/hope. Basically I put a mirror in front of you and if that insulted you then I am sorry and please forgive me. So you say that comparing Dubrovnik to Florence is a logical mistake? How is it a logical mistake, please explain. Now you make a logical mistake, you say that if some artwork was not made by a Serb then it can't be part of Serbian art. Someones ethnicity is not a condition nor an obstacle for someone to participate and contribute his work and labor to any nation or its heritage. If you are trying to compare Subotica to Dubrovnik then please you need to explain more. Maybe buildings are not a good analogy though. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Sadko you realize you first insulted and made assumptions about another user’s faulty learning experience from the Croatian education system right? Seems like a smear on multiple levels. Of Croatia education system and assumptions about the user. Claiming one belong on nationalist Croatian or Serbian Wikipedias seems ridiculous as well. OyMosby (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- And mind you the Serbian Wikipedia with a number of articles based on revisionism seems absolutely plagued with similar nationalistic issues as Croatian Wikipedia. And I could say some of your edits and behavior seem more aligned with the attitudes there. As do some Croatian centric editors here with edit warring. But you don’t seem very neutral in your edits at times and I think you are aware. We all have viewpoints but should let that influence the reading public. I say this all to you and the other (probably Croatian) editor who keeps edit waring and PoV pushing. English Wiki is supposed to be the balanced version, not the Serbian/Croatian nationalism version of history. Both those respective wikis annoy me greatly with their alt-history. And those who try to correct them are outnumbered by pov pushers. MaloPoMalo (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- That is a logical mistake because Republic of Ragusa was not a Croat republic, but had its own identity (which would be the closest to Yugoslav, if we look at it from modern perspective). Subotica is a city in Serbia but not all of Subotica's lovely Art nouveau building were built by Serbs and those works of art represent shared heritage. Stop commenting on other users as you have no idea where I started or finished my education. This is not notorious Croatian Wikipedia, where that kind of things are tolerated. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Being celebrated by different countries is absolutely irrelevant. Shapespeare is celebrated by everyone. Go claim him with your fringe theories. SerVasi (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- This isn’t very productive conversation. Personal attacks won’t lead anywhere. OyMosby (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the lead should state that he is a Croatian poet as most sources do so. In the previous discussions I provided some sources to back that, and gave the examples of Nikola Tesla (not defined as an Austrian Empire scientist) or Dante Alighieri (not defined as a Republic of Florence poet) as similar cases. The ethnicity section should also be reduced or removed completely and incorporated into other sections like legacy, as it containts a lot of unreliable sources. Tzowu (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it should not, and this was discussed and debated over and over for ~10 years. You can find ~30 sources on this very page calling him Serbs or Serbian. Nikola Tesla can not be given as an example as the current version of the lead was ruled out after months and months of debate. Alighieri had a sense of Italian identity, while Ragusans did not have Croatian identity, but rather Ragusan or Slavic, while early sources (and a number of notable Ragusans, such as Frančesko Micalović) call their language Serbian. That is a fact and the rest is wishsful thinking. Calling old Ragusans Yugoslav (in ethnic sense) would be the most honest and objective viewpoint. This is another fine example - Alexander von Humboldt - Prussian. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well the 10 years of debates obviously didn't settle the issue when, if you look through the history of the page, there was never a stable version of the article. And I've yet to see those 30 sources. The other ones are right here, under the "Comments". And no, komunikacija.org.rs, vreme.com, ssr.org.rs and similar are not reliable sources for this matter. Tzowu (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sadko, why are you so concentrated on removing ethnicities in lead of Croatia-related articles, while it is OK to be in the first sentence that Nikola Tesla is Serbian-American? Clear double standards. First remove all ethnicities regarding Serbs, or Croats that you managed to Serbianize, and then we will take care of Croats.--Sheldonium (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please be civil and start behaving like an adult (I will be free to suppose that you are one): pointing fingers, calling out names, claiming that there is an ongoing plot, making wild claims etc. It is not helping. Go to the TP of the article (Archive) and you will see that 10+ editors supported and voted for the current version - which is to stay. I was not active in that debate. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is, as always, completely irrelevant. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- It seems that you are a child, because you are constantly demonstrating childlish behaviour such as making victim out of yourself. Instead of Gundulić's Himna Slobodi, for which you so eagerly want not to be a Croat, I politely suggest you to put some verse from real Serbian poets, you have plenty of them: Ceca, Karleuša, Seka Aleksić... I will be civil, and politely ask you to remove yourself from Croatia-related articles because you are constantly playing victim and use no arguments in discussions. Thank you. (and I expect you will once again victimize yourself, to be clear, I have nothing agint you nor Serbs, but obvious double standards and hypocrisy is unacceptable.)--Sheldonium (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see any voting for any version of the article, and I still don't see the 30 sources from your claims. Tzowu (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please be civil and start behaving like an adult (I will be free to suppose that you are one): pointing fingers, calling out names, claiming that there is an ongoing plot, making wild claims etc. It is not helping. Go to the TP of the article (Archive) and you will see that 10+ editors supported and voted for the current version - which is to stay. I was not active in that debate. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is, as always, completely irrelevant. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Should the description in the lead be changed?
Should the text in the lead describing Gundulić be changed from "most prominent Baroque poet" to "most prominent Croatian Baroque poet"?
Sources:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Tzowu (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
References
|
- Yes. I think a RfC is the best way to try to end this discussion. Per my comments previously on the talk page, I think that this version is supported by a majority of sources. Tzowu (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This RfC is completely pointless as it bluntly ignores basic MOS:ETHNICITY. It's an attempt to push one's preferred version. From my experience, in RfCs such as this one, it is quite common for users from local Wikipedias (hr.wiki or any other) to come out of the blue in order to vote yes (without earlier activity on the page) per Wikipedia:Nationalist editing. It will not bring anything good to the article. Not to mention that the man in question was Ragusan patriot and high official of Republic of Ragusa. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think there is too much conflicting sourcing to state him as just “Croatian Baroque Poet” unless the sourcing is overwhelming in support. I agree with Sadko that the lead should not be changed for now however ethnicity can be mentioned as long as it is not in the first sentence. Again need a lot of sourcing to justify it. OyMosby (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- His ethnicity was Ragusan/Slavic. That is already mentioned. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- It seems there is a laundry list of sources stating him as Croat. I see 10 listed which I was not aware. However due to controversy, it may be best to leave his ethnicity out of the intro. OyMosby (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- And there is a list of sources presenting him as a Serb, it's in the archive, or stating that he is of Serb origin. I agree, neither should be in the lead; Gundulić held Ragusan identity and tens of sources are confirming it and calling him Ragusan (I have posted a bunch of them in earlier versions of the page). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I added the sources, there's more than 10 and not a single Croatian source. Take a look at the page history, there are probably a hundred reverts of multiple users done by Sadko to the point of page protection, and the talk page got us nowhere. So I see no other option than a RfC. Tzowu (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- It seems there is a laundry list of sources stating him as Croat. I see 10 listed which I was not aware. However due to controversy, it may be best to leave his ethnicity out of the intro. OyMosby (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- His ethnicity was Ragusan/Slavic. That is already mentioned. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)