Razgovor:Vice Bune

Čini mi se da isti autor širi razne neprovjerene i nedokazane teorije, bez navođenja izvora. --Suradnik13 11:00, 28. prosinac 2007. (CET)

Upravo sam pročitao tekst sa simple:wiki:

Vice Bune, the imaginary life

There's a serious problem here. Vice Bune was apparently removed from English WP some time ago, because it was agreed that the claims made could not be verified as true. Since then, the author of this page, a Croatian academic (with speciality in coastal eco systems), has launched this theory of Vice Bune on a number of other WP projects (Latin WP, Wikiphilipinas etc), cross referencing each to the other to give the impression of accuracy. When pressed for references, some of the citations he gives are to his father's work on the same theory. See http://www.dalmatiahus.com/Hrvatat/CROATS02.html and http://www.odyssei.com/travel-tips/9141.html and http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/iranian_origin_croats.pdf --MitchPapas 12:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. So - it should be deleted or changed.--Nickm57 21:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I notice it has already been changed on Latin WP to Pseudo-history. I'm not sure what the original author's motivation is, but it does not seem to be in the spirit of the WP project to do this. It appears to be his own original research (and/or his father M.Yoshamya's) and the author is using the WP project to popularise it. The discussion at Latin WP[1] is very relevant. Also note you have questioned his related theory at [2], (where he again cites his father's monograph as a source?). Anyway, I think this article is not appropriate on Simple English WP. --Nickm57 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vice Bune. What we know and what we don't

I’m just writing this here, rather than further gumming up the pages for deletion page, and to "let off steam".

• What we know about Vice Bune.

Vice Bunes was a real merchant and diplomat from Dubrovnik. Born in 1559, he apparently served the Spanish Crown, probably travelled to Goa and may also have served as Spanish Viceroy in Mexico. The most reliable online account of his life can be found in an article by Anica Kisic, Director of the Maritime Museum at Dubrovnik in Croatia. I have been only able to get the gist of some of the article so far -it’s in Croatian, and can be found at [[3]]. So far I have learned that it does not confirm the claims in our WP article about Vice Bune visiting the Philippines and Pacific etc.

• What’s unlikely about Vice Bune.

I have studied and taught exploration of the Pacific and Australasia for over 30 years. The fact I have never heard or read of this man is secondary to the fact that what’s claimed for Vice Bune here is very unlikely, in the context of C16th European activity in Asia-Pacific. It is very likely there were voyages of this time for which documents are now scanty. However, existing discovery rights in the C16th century were carefully and jealously observed between Spain and Portugual, under the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) and Treaty of Zaragossa (1529). Its highly unlikely that Dalmatian ships would be able or allowed to continuously travel unobserved and unrecorded through both nations’s “zones”, and without the same level of support (ship refitting, resupplying etc) that the Portuguese and Spanish needed. Ships did not anonymously refit at Goa, then the Philippines, and then head on into the Pacific for 17 years successful trading, as this article suggests. Do contemporary histories eg João de Barros mention Vice Bune? No. Did he leave a single map for the ever hungry European cartographers? No.

• What didn’t happen.

A Dalmatian trading post on Velakula Island (Vella Lavella according to the author) in the Solomon Islands in the 1580s +? No. The Spanish had a great desire to return to the Solomon Islands after the discovery by Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira in 1567. Later voyages by Mendaña, (1595) and Pedro Fernandes de Queirós (1605) intended to return to establish settlements there. Accounts of all these voyages exist and some can be read online. There is no mention of a Dalmatian presence in any part of the Pacific in any of these accounts. The Spanish were clearly the first Europeans the islanders had even seen. And the reality is these extraordinary Spanish voyages from South America stretched the ingenuity and supplies of the crews to the absolute limit. And once in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands, there was no relief and no respite. Fresh food wasn’t available from the subsistence based islander economies , and as the Spanish complained, there was no gold or spices to be found as they hoped – so in their eyes, nothing to trade for. Relations with the islanders quickly broke down, usually over food. The islanders were clearly not endlessly interested in bartering their limited stocks of food for European trade goods.

One wonders how a Dalmatian trading post on malaria-prone Vella Lavella would have survived. And what did they trade? When the rest of the world wanted spices and gold, what could such a trading post provide? The best equipped Spanish voyage of 1595 lasted 6 weeks on the island of Nendo. Malaria and violence killed a third of the expedition. Why didn’t this happen to the Dalmatians?

Several universities in Australasia have been very active in working in the Solomons and Valuatu on pre C20th history and you can read about their projects on-line. Have they turned up any Dalmatian artefacts? No. Solomon Islands language dictionaries exist. Do these support the idea of Dalmatian contact? No. Is there any tradition of contact with Croatia/Dalmatian explorers? No.

• What it’s really all about.

The author of this page I suspect, but can’t prove, is the same person who wrote articles on English WP, Latin WP, Croatian WP, and PilipinasWP English. They all say the same thing, and in many cases the user name is the same. I think the heart of it can be found at [[4]] The idea of this page is because some Asia Pacific names sound a bit similar to Croatian words, therefore a Dalmatian must have discovered them. A similar argument to one put by numerous other revisionist historians – such as Gavin Menzies. Nickm57 13:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian infamy on V. Bune etc.

(from Vicipaedia Latina) -To A.Dalby, I.Amor et al.- erasors & persecutors on V. Bune (& on G. Menzies ...etc.):

• 1. You evidently ignore what means a true 'theory' (it is result of wiki-antielitism): this on Bune's sailing may be only named a thesis or hypothesis .

• 2. You can find even more abundant details on such Dalmatian overseas naming, elaborated in dozen comparable articles of other independent wikis, e.g. in Russian Wikislavia (wikislavia.volgota.com), in Croatian Wikislavia (hr.volgota.com) - and the most detailed and exhaustive in the new Adriatic-Chakavian wiki-encyclopaedia being accessible on the net shortly after New year 2008.

• 3. V. Bune is evident and clear to other independent scientists out of westernized Wikipedia; but you are true 'wikipedists' and also Westerners, and so ideologically cannot accept at all that an 'obscure Dalmatian Slav' may be prior to the glorious and powerful Western colonialists: this is the essential problem, for you rigidly believe that only victors must write history and create public opinion.

• 4. For the same dogmat reasons, some other independent and objective wikis e.g. giant Chinese Baidu-Baike, also big Russian Wikislavia, Pan-European Metapedia, and Wikipilipinas, all ones abandoned out of such Wikipedia - and now together they have yet nearly 3,000,000 articles (including abundantly & iteratively V. Bune)!

• 5. For future public insights on your revisionist 'history', these dishonest manipulations with V. Bune accross Wikipedias, all are copied and reproduced in above non-wikipedist 4 eastern encyclopedias for next readers! --Former user:GeoLatina, December 30, 2007

hr Wikipedija

Priznam da nemam predznanja o Vici (tj. da je sve moje znanje o njemu prikupljeno danas). Wikipedija na hrvatskom jeziku NIJE ista kao Wikipedija na engleskom jeziku, naime poradi podizanja kvalitete članaka na Wikipediji (i gomile ljudi koji su pisali maštarije na en Wikipediji), tamo su uveli pravilo/politiku da sve što nije općepoznato svakome (npr. da drvo pluta), mora biti dobro debelo potkrijepljeno izvorima. Ako čovjek provede malo više vremena na en wiki, shvati da je to jedino što su i mogli napraviti.

Na hr Wikipediji nismo baš toliko paranoični ;-), ali to ne znači da svatko može pisati što se sjeti, Wikipedija je enciklopedija. Stoga molim, ono što je nesumnjivo slobodno tako i napišite, a ono što neki osporavaju napišite da je osporavano. Navedite svoje izvore, i to je cijela priča/mudrost. Ako su neki izvori izgubljeni (spominju se u drugim dokumentima, ali izvornika više nema, to treba biti navedeno).

Postoji cijela povijesna znanost koja govori kako valja proučavati povijest, nije nužno završiti fakultet da bi se napisao članak na Wikipediji, ali neki principi vrijede univerzalno. Lijep pozdrav! SpeedyGonsales 13:56, 29. prosinac 2007. (CET)

Ja sam paranoičan, pogotov kad vidim citiranje s nekakvih kvazi wikipedijinih stranica na kojima jasno piše "This does not cite its references or sources.

You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.This article has been tagged since June 2006." ili kad vidim link na nepostojeći članak na finskoj wikipediji?? Još k tome kad vidim članak o pseudohistoriji na latinskoj wiki http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistoria_Vincentii_Bunei :) To su istraživanja dr. Lovrića alias Mitjeel Yoshamya, koja nisu potvrđena i kao takva nemaju što tražiti na hrvatskoj wikipediji --Suradnik13 11:12, 2. siječanj 2008. (CET)

Ima izvora još iz 1952. idite na Google Books. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (razgovor) 21:04, 28. listopada 2009. (CET)

Točnost

[5] I ovaj članak sadrži Yoshamine/Lovrićeve/Metapedijske falsfikate. Drugi suradnici su prošlo desetljeće prijavili probleme!--Croxyz (razgovor) 21:34, 24. ožujka 2020. (CET)