This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Giulio Clovio / POV / Original research
- Scholars from all over the world agree that Giulio Clovio was an Italian.
The 99,9% of the Sources ? " He was an Italian. "
Sources:
- The Oxford Dictionary of Art.
- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists.
- Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
- Treccani, Il Portale Del Sapere.
- Old Master Paintings and Drawings Di Roy Bolton.
- Catholic Encyclopedia
Etc. --Davide41 (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Davide, professor of history in Rome, who apparently does not know history. It is very sad when someone who claims that part of Croatian Kingdom, Lika, was part of Venice, also claims that he was university professor. I don't think that any university professor would go to wikipedia to make nationalistic rants - very dishonoring for such a nation that gave intelectuals like Procacci in these last few decades. Unfortunately for you, I know too much of croatian history to be tricked like that, and that also means knowing relevant literature.
But, let us return to the topic subject. I don't know if it was you who wrote that Croatia was part of Venice, but it is very amusing non the less - I don't even want to discuss such an statement. When you say that authors from all over the world say that Klović was an Italian, I must point out few statements: 1.) Authors from all over the world don't say Klović was an Italian, as pointed in the sources you deleted. Beginning from his contemporary Vasari, through the newest authors like John Bradley and Maria Visani, as you can see here:
2.) Your sources are encyclopaedias - you don't have a single book that deals with this author only, with his life and works!
3.) Why did you even delete sources without consulting with users of wikipedia?
4.) Place of birth of Julije Klović is Kingdom of Croatia, he was nicknamed "Croata" and "Macedon" and worked in Kingdom of Hungary, as well as in Italy.
5.) Wikipedia doesn't allow POV articles, and does not support original research - first you should publish your book professor, then we can discuss your works. Since I cannot rename the article, I leave that to someone else.Philosopher12 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Sources:
[...] One master remains to be mentioned, Giulio Clovio,145 who is regarded as the greatest of Italian miniature-painters, though all he did was to adapt to his purpose the style of one of the great Roman painters, Giulio Romano. [...]
- Old Master Paintings and Drawings. Di Roy Bolton. P. 248.
- Painting popularly explained: including fresco, oil, tempera, mosaic, encaustic, water-colour, miniature, missal, painting on pottery, porcelain, enamel, glass, &c., with historical sketches of the progress of the art. P. 102.
- The Oxford Dictionary of Art.
- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists.
- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.
- "Giulio Clovio." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
- "Clovio, Giorgio Giulio." Treccani, il portale del sapere.
- Catholic Encyclopedia.
" Original research "
- Scholars from all over the world agree that Giulio Clovio was an Italian. The myth of Clovio has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. Giulio Clovio Croatian ? Then Leopold Ružička is Italian. --Davide41 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, without any proof you are ranting on and on. I'll repeat myself: 1.) Authors from all over the world don't say Klović was an Italian, as pointed in the sources you deleted. Beginning from his contemporary Vasari, through the newest authors like John Bradley and Maria Visani
2.) Your sources are encyclopaedias - you don't have a single book that deals with this author only, with his life and works!
5.) Wikipedia doesn't allow POV articles, and does not support original research.
To conclude: I have clear proofs that schoolars from all over the world say Klović was Croatian. And I didn't even mention croatian authors like Igor Žic, Slobodan Prosperov Novak, tons of croatian encyclopaedias etc. Encyclopaedias or dictionaries are NOT reliable sources, as stated numerous times. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
POV. Source: Scholars from all over the world. --Davide41 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, so you are a vandal that will be banned in a no time. I don't have to say anything else. It's sad I've spent time on you. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- All primary sources. You can't edit this page. I must call the moderators --Davide41 (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Stop editing the page without consulting with other users of wikipedia.Philosopher12 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the place for interpret or discuss the primary sources --Davide41 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't you understand? You are using tertiary sources and you don't have a single secondary source. You just have encyclopaedias, info from internet and dictionaries that don't back up your theory. Your sources just marginally mention Klović, therefore they are not reliable as whole books that analyse his life and work. Philosopher12 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Not a reliable source ? " Last of the absurd hypotheses and comical fantasies is still circulating ".
Primary sources
- No consensus is needed for edits that follow guidelines.
- This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate
- Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily Italian
- Write an alternate history book, but please stop to harass that article with such meaningless theories.
- This episode deserved extended coverage not only for the sake of destroying a fiction, but also to duly recognize the seriousness of Croatian historiography. --Davide41 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Juraj Klović Called himself "Croata". He called himself "Croata" (GEORGIVS JVLIVS CLOVIVS CROATA), he was born in Kingdom of Croatia around 1498: Ivan Kukuljević Sakcinski: Jure Glović prozvan Julijo Klovio hrvatski sitnoslikar
Croatia in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance: a cultural survey, p 670: "Croatia gave two big renaissance illuminators of european significance, but both of them, unfortunately, worked abroad. One of them was Feliks Petančić,... while other was...Julije Klović"
His contemporary: "Vita di don Giulio Clovio miniatore": Giorgio Vasari; con una introduzione, note e bibliografia di Antonietta Maria Bessone Aureli. Vasari said:
"Nacque egli nell'anno 1498 a Grizane in Croazia, villagio presso l'Adriatico al sud di Fiume, in un distretto allora appartenente ai Frangiapane. Il suo nome nella lingua nativa fu Iurai Glovischsich, cioe Giorgio Clovio, come ei italianamente lo transformo; suo padre fu macedone e sua madre illirica. Della sua infanzia non vi sono notizie; e probabile ch'ei vivesse in patria presso i parenti, e studiasse disegno in qualche convento di quei luoghi. Si puo pur credere che date le continue guerre l'ammiraglio Grimani passasse piu volte per la Croazia, e che in uno di questi suoi viaggi conoscesse il giovane Clovio e lo conducese con se a Venezia."
THIS IS A PRIMARY SOURCE, not your encyclopaedias: his contemporary Vasari said he was born in Croatia, and his native name was "Juraj Glovišić". He called himself "Croata". How could he possibly be italian? I have pictured the book also.
Also, don't insult croatian historiography - I have primary and secondary sources (Vasari, Bradley), you have tertiary sources like encyclopaedias.Philosopher12 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No ? For the Croatian historians also Marco Polo was Croatian ( ! ). Are not reliable sources. Tertiary sources. --Davide41 (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- The historian's mission is essentially that of making the past come to life, of resuscitating the fact which has been forgotten in time; but to construct studies, which are only scientific in appearance, based on second-hand third-hand hypotheses, leads not to history but rather to a more or less gratuitous fiction. --Davide41 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter of Croatian descent. --Davide41 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
He was Croatian illuminist that worked in Hungary and Italy, and maybe Zagreb.
Historian's mission is not to "resurrect the past", that is the statement of Ranke's romantic historiography in 19th century. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- The claim for a Croat Clovio emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians.
- Repeat: Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily Italian. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Is that how university professors behave: argue on wikipedia, make statements without proof and contrary to primary and secondary sources, and insult others with words like "dilettants"? Philosopher12 (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Respect. Thirty five years of teaching. --Davide41 (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok "professor", i don't know history, you do. Now, could you show me a map where Grisane in Lika is part of the Republic of Venice? Could you show me books dealing with Klović ONLY, his life and works, that state he is an italian illuminist. I'm also happy with his contemporaries.Philosopher12 (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- "professor" I'm offended.
- This is an encyclopedia is not your playground; the information must be accurate
- Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No, please, do you want us to resolve our problem? Then let me repeat myself: SHOW ME YOUR SOURCES! Now, could you show me a map where Grisane in Lika is part of the Republic of Venice? Could you show me books dealing with Klović ONLY, his life and works, that state he is an italian illuminist. I'm also happy with his contemporaries. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Useless chatter.
" It is not possible to follow him in all of his lucubrations. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics. "
- Repeat: Giulio Clovio was an Italian painter of Croatian descent.
- All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian.
A sterile debate. Leading Historians agree Giulio Clovio was primarily. This must be reported --Davide41 (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
edit warring
Looks to me like both editors here are guilty of edit warring and have both violated the WP:3RR rule here at Wikipedia. You can both receive a ban for that btw. As an outsider (neither Croatian nor Italian) it seems to me that the facts are that Giulio Clovio was born in Grižane, Croatia. According to one source I found on Google Books he moved to Italy when he was 18. He is referred to as an "Italian painter" in many older sources and it is common to find this in the literature.
For a modern reference to Clovio being referred to as Croatian: "Ante Split also notes that a contemporary, Bernardo Guidoni, called him “Giulio Clovio from Croatia” (a Crovatia) and his gravestone labeled him also as being from Croatia, Julio Clovis de Croatia." from John Van Antwerp Fine, When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, University of Michigan Press, 2006 [4]. My suggestion would be to rewrite the lede to include such information. He was a Croatian born painter, who moved to Italy and spent most of his professional career in Italy. Because of where he did his work he is often referred to as an Italian painter.
Re his name: I would suggest keeping the name as Giulio Clovio. A quick search of say Google scholar on Giulio Clovio results in a little more than 900 hits, while a search on (Juraj) Julije Klović gives about 100 or so. So retaining the Italian version makes more sense. The other spelling (Juraj Julije Klović) should be mentioned. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
- All Clovio scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Italian.
- All the encyclopedias of the world
" This is the only encyclopedia that writes that Clovio was a croatian. "
The voice is POV. Absolutely. --Davide41 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I am sorry for editing :( I would add he spent time in Italy and Hungary, since his most important works were in Budapest also. So "as an illuminator and painter who was born in Croatia, but who was active in Italy and Hungary." if you all agree. Philosopher12 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- "active in Italy and Hungary" sounds fine to me :-). Is there a source for that though? I'm not questioning you, but I think that a reliable source would be good given the discussions up to this point. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I'll post it here later today so we can discuss it. Philosopher12 (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)