Talk:Dalmatia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Arbitrary break

To repeat the above question - are there any sources available that support inclusion of Krk, Cres and Rab here? (contemporary and reliable sources - that is)--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

For that matter - are there any contemporary and reliable sources available that support inclusion of Bay of Kotor here? How come there are no Montenegrin sources on the subject?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tomobe03, there are very probably Montenegrin sources but here we need International (preferably in English) sources. Concerning Kotor in Dalmatia:

• A map from Stanford's, the European leader in Maps [1]
• The following citation: [2]
• This book of architecture, consider Dubrovnik and Kotor, part of Southern Dalmatia: [3]

I can provide more if needed, but I need more time. However I guess the whole thing will take time to be fully settled.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

[moving post from above] A source that states "Zadar County is a part of Dalmatia" need not specifically emphasize that the "entirety" of Zadar County is a part of Dalmatia. Nor does it need to separately list every village and town in the County. "Zadar County" means Zadar County - not a part of Zadar County. To suggest the source "means" something other than it states is WP:OR. If a source states "Zadar County is in Dalmatia", and one represents Zadar County as being in Dalmatia - that is not WP:SYNTH. These are all very basic fundamentals of Wikipedia policy, sourcing in general, and indeed - logic itself. The fact that the "We Hate Director" Club is starting to gather is a different matter entirely.

@Direktor, there is nothing such as a "We Hate Director" Club. Downsize your self-consideration, ;-). Perhaps the fact that you consider yourself always so adamantly right push other editors to contest your arguments. Consider this a privilege. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh not you, Silvio :) - Nemambrata for example. The good fellow that admittedly "tracked me down" here to remove the map that was created, if you recall, in response to your providing sources for Kotor being a part of Dalmatia. -- Director (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, the issue I have is not your map. Your map could be an acceptable compromise if we really decide to put a map in the infobox. Is it really a good idea to put a map? Don't you think that there are too many sources conflicting one each other? It looks the only borders that see all (most?) sources in agreement are the Eastern borders of Croatia/Dalmatia. Clearly Dalmatia is mainly a Croatian thing, but how much of Croatia is in Dalmatia and how much of Dalmatia is not Croatian looks quite unclear (apparently and incredibly there are sources affirming that Fiume, Cherso and Veglia are in Dalmatia...). --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Zadar County is described as a part of Dalmatia is thoroughly sourced, and no amount of endless discussion will change that. That fact alone sources the map. I'll be back in a few hours, folks; though I honestly don't know what there is to talk about. -- Director (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Krk/Cres/Rab or Kotor questions. Is there anything on those?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an arbitrary break, not a separate subject. Am I wrong?

Kotor is "maybe Dalmatia" since some sources include it, and some explicitly state it isn't Dalmatia (just like Zadar County, though it definitely has a weaker case). Krk and Cres are definitely not Dalmatia, unless I'm missing something big. Rab I'm not sure about, probably not. I'm reasonably certain it wasn't a part of the Kingdom of Dalmatia, but was instead part of the Austrian Littoral. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The sad truth to the situation on the ground is that Dalmatia is a vaguely defined term at this time, as shown in this source which describes the choronym as a derivative of expression of regional affiliation of residents of the southernmost parts of Croatia as toponym Dalmatia has been generally out of use for past hundred years. There's this other source which provides information that the last time Dalmatia was an administrative region (dismissing Split-Dalmatia Co) was 1945-1952 and at the time it did not extend outside present-day Croatia (it was an administrative division of the People's Republic of Croatia). The same source gives a brief overview of perception of what exactly the choronym Dalamtia covers (all contemporary or near-contemporary) - ranging from those already discussed here to those downright silly, including parts of Albania and Rijeka - illustrating that the concept is not clearly understood both here and in publications elsewhere. The last bit goes hand-in-hand with the map Silvio referenced just now: It depicts Ulcinj as a part of Dalmatia, but as Silvio might have missed, the same apparently mis-informed publisher placed Istria and Trieste in Dalmatia. I doubt one can find a source claiming "Bay of Kotor is not in Dalmatia", but I found this one saying "Potpuni popisi stanovništva Dalmacije, pa tako i Boke kotorske (koja je u vrijeme austrijske uprave bila u sastavu Dalmacije)...", which translates as: "Complete censuses of Dalmatia's population, as well as Bay of Kotor (which was at the time of Austrian administration a part of Dalmatia)..." (emphasis added). Granted there are books such as that one on architecture placing Kotor in Dalmatia, but there are others like this and this one] that place Dalmatia exclusively within Croatia. Furthermore complicating matters is the fact that a part (arguably small) of shores of the Bay of Kotor is in Croatia, thus any claims that Dalmatia stretches to the Bay of Kotor, such as here solve nothing.

This article clearly need address even the most ludicrous contemporary claims what is meant by Dalmatia - but in a specific section rather than in the lead, infobox and the physical geography section that should provide information on what considered to be Dalmatia by majority of users of the term, population in the region or maybe even a significant minority use of the term, but nothing more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomboe - please read the whole discussion. There were some sources that explicitly stated Kotor is no longer in Dalmatia. Its a sources conflict, one that I hope we had resolved with leaving Kotor in light blue as "maybe Dalmatia".

@"This article clearly need address even the most ludicrous contemporary claims what is meant by Dalmatia" - yes, precisely. As I said, this is not an official, clearly-defined region and no WP:RS statement or point of view should be discounted as "wrong". There already is a separate section where the various definitions can be discussed [4]. I see no reason whatsoever why we cannot depict these various definitions in a map. To my knowledge, there are only two debatable areas: Kotor, and Zadar County as such.

P.S. This publisher isn't saying Istria is in Dalmatia, its a collection of maps that include both Istria and Dalmatia. Stanfords don't get "misinformed" -- Director (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Stanfords map - well, the cover of the map says Dalmatia in pretty big letters, while Istria and Dalmatia are noted on the website only - maybe someone pointed out the mistake. Regarding the article map - I disagree. I fear Bay of Kotor is hard to mark on the map - how far from the coast should one mark out? Look at one of the sources I provided with myriad of interpretations of Dalmatia, or at the other Stanford map with Ulcinj on it. Precisely because of those issues, I would rather have a map depicting the area which is not "maybe Dalmatia". Perhaps a RfC would be in order on that matter as it confronts what is preferred by individual editors more than anything else.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, what d'you mean "how far"? We use the borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia as the guideline as to what the "Kotor Bay Area" means exactly. That's what I did in the .SVG map. The borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia (established in the early 18th century) are basically how we define Dalmatia today, plus-minus (+Zadar County; -Kotor Bay).

I also don't understand what you mean by "you disagree". I can't imagine any conceivable, policy-based reason not to depict article content in images. I.e. the various definitions of Dalmatia in a map. Its not some kind of complicated mess: only two areas are debatable that we've seen so far. I could mark them out in different colours and we can explain in detail the debate surrounding them. Either way I need to especially distinguish Kotor Bay.. we wouldn't want to give the impression its part of Croatia.

This is what I've been saying all along. All views must be represented, or else the map is biased. Any area that is at all mentioned in WP:RS sources should be depicted so the reader knows what the devil the text is talking about. I live in Croatia and even I never heard of the town of Srb, and Gracac is vaguely familiar but I still could not place it exactly (what can I say, I'm a snob :)). -- Director (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And by way, please try to refer only to sources in English or should I be tempted to bring in support Italian sources? I appreciate almost all Dalmatia (if not all of it) is in Croatia but this is en:wiki. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Boundaries of Kingdom of Dalmatia cannot possibly be used to reference extent of present-day Dalmatia. If that would be so, Rab would be considered Dalmatia. Austrian borders were not drawn there where they were because that was extent of Dalmatia but for other reasons.

@Silvio: Would you point us to relevant wiki policy barring use of Croatian sources for regional geography of Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@"Boundaries of Kingdom of Dalmatia cannot possibly be used to reference extent of present-day Dalmatia." Actually yes, yes they can. If you read the discussion you'll find sources say they can. And are.

Also: a) Rab wasn't in the Kingdom of Dalmatia; and b) The Austrians did not draw those borders, they are the Venetian borders from they early 1700s. The traditional borders of Dalmatia. -- Director (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tomobe03, please do not put the words in my mouth. Croatian sources are not per se problematic. But condiser the following:

• All other contributors need to be able to understand the content of the users. If you really insist to cite a Croatian source you need to provide an independent translation.
• The use of a Croatian source might drive to an issue of partiality, because the half of the issue in this article is about the Transnationality or not of Dalmatia. Now if you look to the size of the discussion, you realise that everything is already problematic issue to add more meat on the fire.
• This is en:wiki. I agree that for a small and obscure place, the quality of local sources cannot be challanged by international sources. But here we speak of Dalmatia, and we must be able to find international sources.
• Translation of a local non-English source in English made by the direct contributor can drive to an issue of WP:OR, expecially if the two languages are so distant as English and Croatian (I speak Russian so I know how much space for interpretation exists when tranlating a Slavik language in French or Italian or worse in English).--Silvio1973 (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Rab was indeed in the Kingdom of Dalmatia and that is supported directly here. I disagree on using borders of the kingdom to reference borders of present-day region, for two main reasons: 1. Kingdom of Dalmatia was an administrative unit of Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary and not much more. It was defined in early 19th cent, as the area was previously a part of the Illyrian Kingdom (Austrian crown land). Claim that the particular use of toponym Dalmatia is by sufficient to determine modern-day borders of Dalmatia taken at face value means that

• Rab can also be considered to be Dalmatia contrary to mainstream sources
• Zemun, or at least Petrovaradin, may be considered to be a part of Slavonia

2. Kingdom of Dalmatia was not the last administrative unit called Dalmatia. Besides present-day Split-Dalmatia Co (arguably not called exactly Dalmatia) there was an administrative division of PR Croatia called Dalmatia between 1945 and 1952 (source provided above). If the administrative divisions are used as a reference

• Wouldn't it be more reasonable to use the most recent incarnation of Dalmatia as an administrative unit with clearly defined territory?
• Why would a preference be given to the Kingdom of Dalmatia over 1945-1952 Dalmatia or any other administratively defined boundaries of Dalmatia through history - be them Venetian or Roman or Italian?

The last bit suggests WP:OR to me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomboe's map that includes north-eastern Zadar County as possibly a part of Dalmatia (along with a whole bunch of unsourced stuff).

I must have said this twenty times by now. That which we call "the borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia" are the borders of the Venetian Republic after the Great Turkish War, established in cca. 1699. If you read the discussion, you will find sources that explicitly state the modern perception on the extent of Dalmatia follows those borders (what else? certainly not the 6-year communist thing nobody even knows about).

Indeed. I find it strange that, on the one hand 1) you support those borders by opposing the inclusion of north-eastern Zadar County beyond those same borders (of the Kingdom of Dalmatia), whereas on the other hand 2) you say you "disagree on using borders of the kingdom to reference borders of present-day region". Which is it?

Furthermore, I enclose to the right a map of your own devising which includes the north-eastern Zadar County as "maybe Dalmatia". You actually did the same thing I did, which you now oppose. You also made statements that generally support the inclusion of north-eastern Zadar County, before you changed your position. I find all that very confusing and strange. -- Director (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, it is difficult for me to understand what is the actual perception of things in Croatia these days hence in this respect I can hardly dispute about the inclusion or not of the north-east of Zadar County. I also appreciate the efforts made from your side to find a solution suitable for everyone (and however the size of the discussion explain by itself that it's going to be difficult to find a solution to everyone's taste) but I must confess that I am uncomfortable including in Dalmatia a region:

• That never was under Venetian influence;
• Not marked today by any past Dalmatian feature (culture, architecture, language);
• Without an history of mixed ethnicity;
• Without any strong link with the sea (such as maritime economy and trade).

Modern perception is important, but does it justify the inclusion you suggest? In that sense other places in Herzegovina close to the Croatian border should be equally (if not more) eligible to be considered Dalmatian. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Its not like I "evaluated" the characteristics of the area and "decided" that it should be in Dalmatia. Its not up to me to do that, and I don't do it. Its simply that Dalmatia in nowadays sometimes (if not "often") described in sources as being equivalent to the four southernmost Croatian counties (as we've seen). Zadar County included. That being the state of affairs in the sources, all that was done was this area was mentioned as being "sometimes described as part of Dalmatia". Since the region isn't strictly defined in any way, that seemed to me perfectly logical (in terms of following sources), sensible, and moderate: "some say Zadar County as such is part of Dalmatia, lets have that part up there lightly marked out as well". The alternative is to ignore one of the definitions of the region found in sources. I really can't believe all this hoopla was started over something like that, but such things happen on Wiki :). -- Director (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bay of Kotor

I ask here for sources that say that Bay of Kotor is part of Dalmatia in 21 century. Yes it was part of old Kingdom of Dalmatia, but this kingdom do not exist today. map that show kingdom of Dalmatia should be in history part of this page not in infobox. Without source that say that bay of Kotor is part of dalmatia today disputed map should not be in infobox. Nemambrata (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: you arrived here, admittedly following another user's contribs with malicious intent, and then started WP:EDIT-WARRING without even bothering to read the discussion or the article (there are sources to that effect in both). Now, since you can't be bothered to read the discussion you're joining - you post a new section restarting from scratch the same discussion that's been taking place here for weeks. I must agree with you on one thing, however: the Kingdom of Dalmatia does not exist anymore (kudos).

WP:ARBMAC, Joy - for future reference. -- Director (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Duly warned, and for good measure I also warned Silvio, who has not produced any additional uncontested sources since 17 August, but did revert on the matter twice since. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Mmm... I have reverted Nemambrata because the user changed the content of the article without any real involvement in the discussion. I genuinely do not think this is an acceptable approach. And please, what is this thing of the 17th August? --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning sources I have provided 3 uncontested citations on the 2nd October 14:16, Bejnar provided another one on the 14th August 7:22. I provided also two citations from Encyclopaedia Treccani and Great Soviet Encyclopaedia (they were for some reasons contested). Howevr please find now two additional sources. This should be enough:

• http://heindorffhus.motivsamler.dk/worldheritage/frame-MontenegroKotor.htm (citation about at two thirds of the text)
• http://ijz.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.177/prod.34 (citation about at the half of the text)

--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I honestly didn't notice your third reference added on 2 October 14:16. I've already contested the first two. In addition, when I click on that link, I don't see the claim in the text. Can you cite from it please?

I've contested Bejnar's reference above.

Regarding the two new ones, they're both cursory mentions in non-geographic sources, which isn't convincing. The philately web site supports the notion directly and in the present day. The museum journal supports the notion in a somewhat less direct manner, because it's discussing museum history at the same time. You have removed any doubt that the notion is WP:FRINGE, but it's still flimsy as far as WP:UNDUE is concerned. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Joy, this thing is going too far. You cannot refuse systematically all the sources that are not of your test. The Enciclopedia Italiana is considered as one of the greatest in the world and definitily compliant to WP:V. The Great Russian Encyclopedia is also compliant to WP:V and even if this source has an anti-american bias, this does not impinge on a geographical matter such as Dalmatia. The Map from Stanfords is also an acceptable source and I not see what is wrong with the last two links I have posted. They are certainly not as strong as a book of geography but they concur in putting the Bay of Kotor in Dalmatia. Additioanlly there is the travel guides cited by Bejnar.

In a nutshell: we have two major encyclopedias and a vast number of other sources. Do we really need more? --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting kind of lost here.. is there a published, scholarly source that lists Kotor as part of Dalmatia, or makes a statement to that effect? Preferably non-Italian and non-Croatian, but if there are no others.. -- Director (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are several, but since the majority of scholars who do research in the Adriatic are either Italian, Albanian, Croatian etc., you have to pick do you want a reliable source that is not from the area such as the Rough Guides published by Penquin which are generally considered reliable, or do you want a scholarly source such as Zuffia, Marco A. L. and Carlino, Piero (2004). "The observations on the biometry and the reproductive biology of the Leopard snake, Zamenis situlus, in Italy". Italian Journal of Zoology. 71. doi:10.1080/11250000409356619.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) which is Italian but good and neutral? --Bejnar (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here is one that is scholarly, geographic, the authors are not from the area and is a recent publication: Charlier, R.H.; Finkl, C.W. and Thys, A.C. (2011). "From Trieste To Kotor" (pdf). Journal of Coastal Research. 64: 809–812.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Um.. that source is actually explicitly against you.. (p.3)

"Montenegro is the terminal of the North Albanian Alps. It is bounded on the northwest by Dalmatia (cf. Croatia) and the Adriatic Sea. Its coasline is approximately 48km long and includes the splendid Gulf of Kotor.."

Unless the authors contradict themselves later on..? in which case the source is self-contradictory. I'm for keeping Kotor in the map, but can you provide at least one decent scholarly, non-Italian publication that describes Kotor as being in Dalmatia? If we're going to keep that claim in the lead, imo it ought to have pretty clear support in at lest one convincing source (as opposed to a dubious cursory reference in some biology paper). Mind you, its explicitly contradicted by four or five sources at this point Croatian and non-Croatian alike. -- Director (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Direktor. There is enough evidence to put Kotor on the map. Or if you prefere there is enough evidence not to exclude it from the map. After, it's an issue of wording in the text to avoid an issue of WP:UNDUE. If we keep insisting to have this bloody map on the Infobox, we must make in the end a choice: do we keep it or not? Well, not keeping it in view of the number of sources (we have already cited 6 or 7) would be arguable, to say the less. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"I'm for keeping Kotor in the map".. -- Director (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The comment was for Joy, apologies for the confusion. By the way I must confess that I start to feel a kind of intimidated. I reverted Nemambrata only because his/her behaviour is closer to trolling rather than to contribution and I have received a quite formal warning. By the way I will ocntinue to look trough other sources, but scholars other than Italian or Croatian it's going to be difficult. Can we extend the research to German and French sources? --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For matters of geography, on contentious matters, you really need sources that are really relevant to geography. Imagine if the encyclopedia sourced an old catechism on a matter related to geology. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are to write that Dalmatia is in Montenegro (Kotor), because of some foreign sources that I haven't seen yet, it would also be unencyclopedic not to write that both Croatian and Montenegrin sources agree that Dalmatia is in Croatia only, as do foreign sources which were presented in the talk page. Philosopher12 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Its certainly very flimsy. Not for the lead.. though I'd keep it on the map since it was in the Kingdom. -- Director (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Krk and Cres in Dalmatia??

There are things that literally surprise me. We have been fiercily discussing for over two weeks about the "borders" of Dalmatia. Now no-one really consider an issue that Veglia and Cherso are still included in Dalmatia (and there is no source supporting it, and I doubt any significant would exist). I am up to remove these two islands from the list. The CN have been sitting for two months. Whoever added them to Dalmatia had enough of time to find a source. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please use English-language terms, Silvio. This isn't itWiki. Other users may not understand what you mean by "Veglia" and "Cherso". Otherwise we might as well converse using German (Vegl & Kersch) or Ancient Greek or Latin names. Also: what "list" are you talking about, if I may ask? Krk and Cres are certainly not part of Dalmatia, and that is an obvious error. -- Director (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The list of islands of Dalmatia reported in this article! If we agree that this is an obvious error, let's remove them (I did not use the actual name because I would have forgote a "k" or an "r" somewhere...). Indeed I am removing them from the list now. PS Is it fine when discussing of Istria to use Italian toponyms? Or this would be a problem? Silvio1973 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Istria: no its not. The official names of some (but not most) Istrian towns have been bilingual in the format "[Croatian]-[Italian]", for the past decade or so - but that's not the English-language name. While this might not be the case every time, Croatian names are usually far more common in English usage than Italian names, and thus are the English-language names for use on Wikipedia. I hope I've been clear with the explanation. For Dalmatia and the islands its even more clear-cut. Its also a good idea to keep in mind that, even in Istria County, Italian-speakers form a very small minority (about 7%).

Sure, those two islands are not Dalmatian that's an obvious error. No need for all the drama :) - you could have just removed them without any talkpage discussion. -- Director (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

For a while I am not going to touch anything without asking the kind permission first in the Talk page (I received two weeks ago an informal warning because I reverted the edit of the vandal and sock Nemambrata...). PS I Know very well where Italian toponyms can be used without any doubt but please do not insist in writing that Italian-speakers are a very small minority in Istria. We both know why they are today a very small minority. There is no reason to insist on this subject too much. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Silvio, my ancestors are from Vicensa. I do not "insist" on that fact, nor do I particularly enjoy reporting it - its imply something to keep in mind (how do I know what you are or are not aware of?). As regards not getting blocked, I advise again to simply follow WP:BRD. Be bold (e.g. remove the erroneous island entries), but if you are reverted - then discuss. -- Director (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You know that I am aware. We discussed of that many times before. It is very nice that you use for Vicenza the Venetian toponym. --Silvio1973 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Islands

Counting all the islets I believe Dalmatia has indeed hundreds of islands, not simply over 200. But Mr. Direktor, it's not the number that matters. Herefater the reason of my correction: 1) The number of the largest islands to cite does not depend on the total number of islands. Otherwise for coherence in articles like Greece (1,200 to 6,000 islands) and Norway (around 50,000) respectively 50 and 500 islands per article should be cited. 2) I removed Lastovo and Ugliano because there are bigger islands than those and are not listed (for example Solta, check to be convinced). 3) The islands are not listed in order of size, neither geographical order (e.g. North-South) or any other logic. The current list is now logical, it's in order of size from the bigger to the smaller. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC) --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bar primatial city of Dalmatia?

Is there a reference for the claim that Roman Catholic archbishop of Bar is primas of Dalmatia, or that he has been? Bar is even not in Dalmatia according to any definition I know. On the page of the archdiocese it is written that he is primas of Serbia. Dalmatian ecclesiastical province includes Diocese of Kotor in Montenegro, not Bar. Moreplovac (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Map of Dalmatia

I know this issue has been already raised but I am not comfortable with the map of Dalmatia. We use an administrative map to describle a region that has not administrative status. But the strangest thing is that in the article it is written that Dalmatia's width is about 50 km in the north and only a few km in the south. This is correct because Dalmatia corresponds greatly to the former border of the Republic of Venice + Republic of Ragusa + other territories. But in the map we have in the north over ~150 km width. How can we deal with this inconsistency? --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Firstly the ethnicity section is supposed to relate the current state of affairs, but fine, some historical perspective is justified. More importantly, though, the fetivi/boduli/vlaji "categories" cut across ethnic lines and are not exclusively Croatian, i.e. Dalmatian Italians were (and many are) fetivi and boduli, and do not stand outside these qualifications. Finally the whole paragraph needs explicit sourcing for the wording used. -- Director (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Zadar

Zadar was evacuated by the RSI well before the Partisans even got there, because the Americans bombed the bejesus out of it - and its nowhere near Istria! Unless we have a source that actually says this is somehow part of the "Istrian exodus", Wikipedia can not claim such a thing. -- Director (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This comment is about this edit which was based on the article about Istrian exodus defined as exodus of Italians not only from Istria but also from Dalmatia. I know that wikipedia can not be source for other wikipedia articles, but since this was uncontested assertion, I did use it as basis for my edit here. After my edit, the assertion about exodus of Italians from Zadar was contested (diff). The article about Dalmatian Italians also emphasize that "a further emigration, referred to as the Istrian exodus, of nearly all the remaining Italians in Dalmatia". Taking all this in consideration I think it is obvious that Istrian exodus covers exodus of Italians both from Istria and Dalmatia, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Most of the Italians lived in Istria, so it's natural it is referred as the "Istrian exodus", even if it included people from the whole Illyrian coast. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Direktor, two things : 1) The movement of population known as Istrian Exodus includes also the population inhabiting Zara. 2) Part of population left just after the bombing but almost a third of it left Zara after the arrival of the Yugoslavs. So it is technically incorrect to say the population was evacuated (and BTW you wrote it in a way that let understanding people left for choice). For these reasons I have rolled back to my previius edit. Now, if you believe my modification needs sourcing please tag the edit and I will provide sources in support. Actually I thought you were an expert of the Istrian Exodus. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Silvio1973, please respect WP:NPA and comment on content, not on contributor.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please understand that I was not commenting on the editor but just on his consistency. I am genuinely surprised of Director's decision to delete my edit, the reasons being: 1) He has thousands of edits on the Istrian Exodus, 2) He actually wrote / amended the sentence in Istrian Exodus stating the departure of Italians from Zadar is part of the Istrian Exodus, 3) It is easy to source (and I wait Director to tag my edit to add the sourcing). Silvio1973 (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"I thought you were an expert of the Istrian Exodus" is a comment about an editor. If you want to complain about DIREKTOR's behavior, please use appropriate page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I already wrote that I agree. Said that, I would appreciate that next time Director tags the edits that he might consider unsourced rather than removing them. Again, I will provide sources if he really pretends that the departure of Italians from Zadar is not considered in the secondary sources as part of the Istrian Exodus. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No. You did not write that you agree. You wrote "I was not commenting on the editor but just on his consistency." Instead to apologize you continued with your attacks talking about DIREKTOR "pretending" something. I will repeat "If you want to complain about DIREKTOR's behavior, please use appropriate page".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Attacks, what a strong wording. Comment, perhaps. However, I have nothing to complain about the editor but I want to see my edits challanged not removed. It is not a valid method to remove material just because allegedly it is unsourced. One should first kindly request to source it and only after remove it. Also because in this istance we speak of facts that can be easily sourced. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks says: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Your comment was about the contributor. Whether he is an expert and speculation about him pretending something. Please stop with your attempts to justify your attacks on DIREKTOR. Not only because they are futile, but because you are slowly generating huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion. You should try to make sure to focus on the content of comments instead of the person making them. The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear AD, if Director thinks my edit needs sourcing I will provide sources and we'll discuss if they are sufficient and appropriate. Removing edits without discussion is also hostile, does not create the right conditions for the discussion and this futile discussion stems from that. Pease note that Director has edited the article reporting unsourced facts. Well, I AGF and have indeed tagged the edit but not removed anything. Because the fact I don't know something does not mean it is false.

I hope we have sufficiently explained ourselves. I think you got a point, so do I. If you want the last word on this please be my guest, but after can we discuss about the article? Silvio1973 (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Taking in consideration that your straw man fallacy and continued complaints about DIREKTOR's conduct, I don't think you got a point. This futile discussion stems from your violation of WP:NPA and your misuse of this article's talkpage to complain about DIREKTOR's conduct. I will repeat: "If you want to complain about DIREKTOR's behavior, please use appropriate page". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh... what I am I supposed to say here?? Kindly provide a source for the claim that the Istrian exodus refers to Zadar and/or Dalmatia in general, or don't push a contested, unsourced claim against opposition. What is there to talk about? Your edits, Silvio, go directly against our basic policies (WP:VERIFIABILITY). I would not take your word for it, even if you had not been shown to have conducted yourself dishonestly in the past in the interests of some pro-Italian POV or other.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has absolutely nothing to do with this, you clearly did not even read it. I do not doubt your ability to go on "debating" a point disruptively without any kind of support or viable argument, but I will not indulge you in endless talk if you do not provide sources.

@Antid, I understand why you reverted, but please try and research the matter more thoroughly.. the Istrian exodus article is a horrible, horrible mess and is the last place anyone should ever turn for information on any of these events.

@victor falk, if the thing were called the "Illyrian Coast exodus", I would not have requested sources in the first place (though I would have wondered at the strange, dated term the event was named with). One would expect that the "Istrian exodus" refers to an "exodus" from "Istria", including at most its immediate surroundings (such as Rijeka). -- Director (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes DIREKTOR. The more I read articles on this topic the more I realize they are real mess and should not be used as source. On the other hand, I Googled Istrian exodus and Dalmatia and found several works that mention exodus of Italians from Dalmatia as part of one big exodus together with their exodus from Istria. But taking in consideration this topic is not the subject of my particular interest, I might be wrong here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ladies, Gents, there is nothing to argue before the sources are not presented. If the issues are the sources, By tomorrow evening I will add sources and we will discuss about that. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, I never wrote that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here so I do not understand why you got so excited.

Said that, please do not argue on which name would be the most appropriate for the Istrian Exodus. This project works on sources not on opinions. And there are many sources in English considering the change in the ethnic structure of Zadar as part of the Istrian Exodus. Hereafter some of them.

[[5]]

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]]

[[9]]

[[10]]

Well, thank you Silvio restoring. I guess I'm lucky there actually are sources for your change, or else goodness knows how long this would have taken.

That comment was intended for Antidiskriminator.

There is no current debate regarding the most appropriate title for the events. -- Director (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Direktor, you're welcome. I would have provided the sources immediately if you had asked for clarifications instead of removing my edit. Please note that I could provide 4 sources to support my edit, but you have still not provided anything to support yours. Writing the city was merely evacuated misrepresents the facts. Also the whole population was not evacuated because the exodus from Zara had place in 2, better 3 stages. Without sources your edit is not going to fly, because again I have sources stating different facts. PS Please note I am AGF because I have not removed anyone of your edits. Please try to do the same. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Silvio, you have conducted yourself with continuous dishonesty in the past (as is easily demonstrable), and I'm afraid I've as yet seen no reason to think you have started editing in good faith (as I had indeed once believed).

I probably should not have even mentioned Zadar at all in my draft, as that goes into too much detail and veers into historical demographics, as opposed to a description of the current culture and ethnicity of the region. In fact, your previous mentioning historical Italian populations in that section - should simply have been reverted. Beyond mentioning an Italian influence on the current culture of the coastal groups, there is no call for going into history there, especially considering its complexity and controversial nature. -- Director (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, I see that you are really keen to speak about Zadar. I think it would be instead more appropriate to link to the article Zadar. But if you really want to discuss of the departure of Italians from Zadar we need to be more detailed because not all the population left in 1943-1944. A last one, the romance identity of Dalmatia had nothing to do with Italy itself. It was embedded in centuries of influence of the Venetian Republic. But for some reasons there is opposition in Croatia in admitting that the actual "frontiers" of Dalmatia are defined by the influence made in 400 years by Venice Silvio1973 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You are repeating my own point as if to counter it.. and so it begins. As I have clearly stated (and you have customarily failed to read/understand), I do not, in fact, want to discuss Zadar. I have already stated that this is not the place to discuss such details. Nor Italians in general. I will repeat that the section was not meant to deal with historical populations from hundreds of years ago, but present-day ethnic and cultural configuration. You added a reference to Italians against opposition, and I tried to somehow integrate it into the narrative.

Parts of Dalmatia in the Venetian Republic until 1669 are known as "acquisto vecchio". In the Cretan War Venice gained further territories in Dalmatia, known as the "acquisto nuovo". Finally, the current borders were established in the Morean War with the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699). The territories gained there were known as "acquisto novissimo". This is all taught (with the aforementioned Italian terms) in every Croatian elementary school. And I explained all this to you two years ago, when you did not appear to know any of it (search 'Archive 2'). -- Director (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, instead of providing appraisals about other users' conduct please mind more about yours as it looks that frequently people complain about it. Also feel free to edit the article as you think the most appropriate but please provide sources exactly as you expect the others to do so. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Since it is clearly impossible to briefly elaborate on this subject without Silvio1973 arriving to write odes to the tragic departure of Italians (who's fascist authorities invaded their neighbors, occupied the region, and herded people to concentration camps, with the frequently-stated intent to Italianize and cleanse the Slavic barbarians, never extraditing their war criminals), I am again scrapping detailed references to historical demographics in a section not intended to elaborate on the issue. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, I decline to make any comment on your confrontational attitude. However here we do not discuss of the responsability of the Fascism (they are well known to the Italians and in any case extremely clear to me). No, my intention was more to stress that the cultural borders of Dalmatia are linked to the area of influence of the romance culture in the area. What this has to do with the disastrous foreign politics of Italy during the Fascism ? Silvio1973 (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment regarding Yugoslavs supposedly "not accepting" that the borders of Dalmatia in modern perception were "established by Venice". You again failed to read my response in that regard, which is disruptive and annoying, whereas your comment as such was pointless, offensive, and inaccurate (uninformed). You are under serious misconception if you believe your behavior is perfectly fine. For my part, I will continue to point out every time you do not read my posts, for the record. It is very annoying when you find that you are writing posts for nothing! Please read.

Borders of Dalmatia

It is not accurate to say that the "borders of Romance cultural influence" are equivalent to those of Dalmatia. Practically all of continental Dalmatia was part of the Republic (or any Romance state) for only about 100 years altogether (1699-1796), or a 130 years (1669-1796) at most, if part of the "acquisto nuovo". Only the "acquisto vecchio" areas can be said to have been influenced by Venetian/Italian culture for a longer period. Those are the islands, the coastal cities, and here and there a thin strip of coastline with this or that town.

The "acquisto vecchio" is an area that is distinct in many ways from the "acquisto nuovo/novissimo". In addition to the Romance Dalmatians and Italians that used to live in the vecchio (and nowhere else) - the Slavs that eventually intermingled with them are of a different "sort", they are the old coastal Croats that spoke Chakavian. Chakavian is very different from Shtokavian of the nuovo and novissimo, practically unintelligible (the modern Croatian and Serbian languages both use Shtokavian, and are practically the same). The Shtokavian Slavs in the "acquisto nuovo/novissimo" (the "Vlaji") arrived mostly on the heels of the Ottoman conquest. Antidiskriminator might be able to tell you that some Serbian factions claim they are "really" Catholic Serbs, though you are quite likely to get punched in the face if you make such a claim in front of one of them :).

Of course, today, only some island towns here and there might have an "acquisto vecchi-an", Chakavian majority. Though noone actually speaks Chakavian today except some old people. -- Director (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Director, as usual I will remain calm and polite but trust me it is sometime not easy with you (am I the only one experiencing this difficulty?).

Dalmatia properly said is really the acquisto vecchio and of course the Republic of Ragusa (as you write: the islands, the coastal cities and a strip of coastline). And it hardly get deeper than 50 km in the hinterland (there was no romance influence after that limit). Indeed, even during the brief period of the acquisto nuovo there was hardly any significant influence in the hinterland, because during that period Venice was too busy with other issues to enact any control on a territory that was anyway too large for the means of the Republic in those years.

You speak of "Continental Dalmatia". And this thing is in your map over 150 km wide. And this map is edited not in a book of geography or history (we speak of an historical region after all) but using a definition used by the Croatian National Office of Statistics. Beside the potential issue of OR, I hope you see the obvious limits of using such a source to justify the limits of an historical region. What happens if tomorrow the Office of Statistics change their mind and aggregate the regions differently. This would change retrospectively the history of Croatia? PS Have you ever been in Gračac? Do you genuinely think that town is in Dalmatia? :)) --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall you apologizing for the WP:ICANTHEARYOU; or for misquoting sources. That's what creates the annoyance to begin with.

I see. You're trying to claim "Dalmatia" is only the acquisto vecchio? And are claiming that the extent of the region is defined culturally? Well, unfortunately, nobody in the world shares your definition.

I told you this about fifty separate times. 'Archive 2' is full of my posts explaining this to you. I will say again, for the fifty-first and absolute last time, that those boundaries did NOT originate from the "Croatian National Office of Statistics". Those are the borders of "Dalmatia" as established in 1699 with the Treaty of Karlowitz. That is the region designated by the word "Dalmatia" ever since. It was never, and is not now, defined culturally - but geographically, without any regard whatsoever to culture.

If you are claiming that the borders of "true" Dalmatia are those of the acquisto vecchio, well, I know what you mean by that, but the region is simply not defined like that. It'd be almost like saying "true Italy" is only south of the Po Valley - well yeah, in a sense it is. And Croatia proper is about that big, and Serbia proper is about yay big, etc. But to say, that the acquisto nuovo e novissimo aren't Dalmatia, its just silly. That would be the real OR. And if we were to "define the region culturally", we might as well delete this, since that distinction is just about gone. Its sad, but true.

And as regards OR I remind you that the map is indeed sourced. Gracac (or Graciaz :D) has been described as being part of Dalmatia, because "Dalmatia" in modern times is being rounded off to the four southernmost Croatian counties. That was sourced, remember? Its unfortunate, but that's what things are like. I'm here to report what is real, not to employ wwishful thinking. I too find the idea that Gracac is "Dalmatian" kind of comical :), but then I would also say the same of Imotski for example (no offense to anyone). Yet Imotski has been referred to as a part of Dalmatia for the past 300 years. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, you have a rare ability of putting the words in others' people mouths. I implore you to read too. Just to be sure we both listen the others we might answer to list the questions and answer individually to each point bullet point.

1) What I am saying is that the areas corresponding to the acquisto vecchio is Dalmatia in all modern sources. This does not mean that only the acquisto vecchio is Dalmatia in all modern sources.

2) You cannot state in the article: The hinterland, the Dalmatian Zagora, ranges from fifty kilometres in width in the north to just a few kilometre in the south and after post a map where the range is over 150 km.

2) About Italy there are political (and recognised) boundaries so I take your comment as a (silly, to use your words) joke. If you believe that Turin or Milan are not true Italy I guess you should give a look to the history of Italy.

3) We are in 2014 not in 1699 and you need a recent source if you want to claim that the modern understanding of the historical region of Dalmatia are still those set in 1699.

4) However... I can find sources stating that Dalmatia corresponds to the acquisto vecchio and I am not the only person thinking that on this planet. You claim it is a larger region but where are your sources (I cannot see anyone in the article)? The Office of Statistics is not a source for this purpose.

5) There are plenty of English sources stating that the northern cost of Montenegro is in Dalmatia. Indeed it is wrong to write that some sources consider Kotor bay in Dalmatia. All modern English maps do. [[11]], [[12]]. I have rephrased the article accordingly.

6) I am not the only person thinking that Dalmatia does not get any deeper than 50 km in the hinterland (at the latitude of Zadar, ie the limit is Knin). Not convinced? [[13]]. Indeed also this map put Kotor Bay in Dalmatia.

7) All this problem stems from the map. I know you like maps, but if you want to post a map you need a source with a map. An English, recent, reputable source with a map.

8) I have posted a POV banner on this article. Please do not consider this an hostile act (if you think so please revert my edit, I will not insist). What I would like is to have more people discussing this matter. Again if you find sources supporting your views I have no problem, but we cannot have a map not corresponding to the definition given in the article. I hope at least on this point we agree. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not put words into your mouth, rather you express yourself inadequately in English. Any misunderstandings can only stem from that.

2) I recommend you try and translate that sentence a bit better. The width of the hinterland is indeed about 50 kilometers at its widest (with Gracac about 75 kilometers at most). It is not 150 km, anywhere, nor does the map show that. I will not respond to your further inquiries on this matter, until you make an effort to understand what is stated in the sentence.

3) You need a source, not I. I will not repeat the same discussion from before simply because you ignore other people's s posts. Not only are there sources for you in 'Archive 2', but also a WP:CONSENSUS on this map. Here is a sampling

"..the modern perception of Dalmatia is mainly based on territorial extent of the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia [the borders of which are basically the same as the 1699 borders], with the exception of Rab island, which is geographically related to the Kvarner area and functionally to Primorje-Gorski kotar area, and with the exception of Boka kotorska, which was annexed to another state (Montenegro) after the First World War. Simultaneously, the southern part of Lika and upper Pounje, which were not a part of the so-called Austrian Dalmatia, became a part of Zadar County. From the present-day administrative and territorial point of view, Dalmatia comprises four Croatian littoral counties with seats in Zadar, Šibenik, Split and Dubrovnik."

— Lena Mirošević, Josip Faričić; Perception of Dalmatia in Selected Foreign Lexicographic Publications, p.124; Department of Geography, University of Zadar; Geoadria, Vol.16, 2011.

4) I would bet my life that these sources of yours (whatever they are) merely describe the coastline, and that you have inferred from that that they claim Dalmatia is only the coastline, which is WP:OR. Probably publications not even discussing the boundaries of Dalmatia, but merely referring to it offhandedly. That is what that's going to be. But even if you had sources that explicitly state Dalmatia is only the acquisto vecchio, we would still have to include the acquisto nuovo e novissimo in the map - because Dalmatia is not a formal entity, and other sources indicate the nuovo e novissimo are indeed viewed as part of Dalmatia (as you can see in 'Archive 2', and in part here as well). If you want them in a different colour, however, you will need a source that clearly and explicitly states they are not Dalmatia.

5) Sure, I don't dispute that. We have Kotor in the map.

6) You are confused regarding the kilometers thing.. and I don't see anything in the source that's relevant?

7) No, I don't.

8) I have removed it because the map is there by consensus, and has been for years.

-- Director (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, I am contesting only because the sources are not there. Otherwise I could not contest. Concerning my English,it is what it is. And actually only you have a problem with it.

2) From Zadar to the the border of north-eastern Zadar County with Bosnia there are around 110 km as the crow flies. Check it.

3) If you had solid and abundant English sources this discussion would not exist. Please see point 6. I have a source (with a map) where Dalmatia does not encopass the north-eastern Zadar County.

4) I see your point and would agree in principle. The thing is that of course they do describe the coastline, because Dalmatia it's the coastline, the islands and some hinterland (the 50 km). Yes you can claim that the burden is on me but in reality it is on the both of us. Remember that you support your claim only with one ource (the one you refer in your answer at point 3), but I have a source saying something different (see at point 6). Indeed the difficulty you have in finding additional sources is an indication that yours is - at least partially - OR.

5) If you do not dispute, why do we have a different color for Kotor Bay? There are a lot of sources (I mean English sources,of course) stating that Kotor Bay is in the Dalmatia. Yes I know there is a lot of politics with Montenegro about that, but this is not my problem.

6) In this source [[14]] the so called "north-eastern Zadar County" is not in Dalmatia. Because my two problems with this article are the "restricted status" of Kotor bay and the inclusion of the "north-eastern Zadar County".

7) Director, do you think that in such an assertive way? Perhaps a RfC or a 3O could be a good idea if you don't mind.

8) May be there was consensus a few years ago. May be amongst users from the same country. I remember we discussed of that 2 years ago... Joy and I in the end gave up by exhaustion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Kilometres. There are 80 kilometers from Zadar itself to the north-eastern corner of Zadar County. All in all about half of your number.

However, "width" here presumably means distance between the border and the shore, on a line perpendicular to the layout of the shoreline. At the north-eastern corner of Zadar County, this line intersects with the Novigrad Sea, with a distance of almost exactly 50 km. Taking the Novigrad Sea into account, and taking Gracac as part of Dalmatia, the longest line perpendicular to the shore is 76 kilometres. Without Gracac, its about 46 km.

Sources. That is a perfectly good source, a scholarly publication in the field dealing specifically with our topic (the perceived borders of Dalmatia in modern times). It is far better than a travel guide. I don't need a map, because the source is quite clear (I have a map of the Kingdom of Dalmatia!).

Further, your posts are so convoluted I don't even know what you claim your travel guide proves? Does the travel guide say the acquisto nuovo and novissimo are not in Dalmatia? Or only that Gracac isn't? If its only Gracac, then we already know that sources disagree on that - and that's why we have Gracac in a different colour.

Look Silvio, Gracac is neither included, nor is Kotor Bay excluded. They are both "borderline". I know what you want. You want Gracac removed from the map, and Kotor painted in the same colour as the rest. However, as we have seen from the sources (cited here and in 'Archive 2'!) - Gracac is sometimes viewed as a part of Dalmatia, whereas Kotor Bay is often forgotten nowadays in that designation. Because "Dalmatia" is an informal designation, the map tries to cater to all perceptions and colours the borderline regions differently.

And that's it. As long as there are sources (preferably scholarly sources) saying "this isn't part of Dalmatia", that part will be coloured a different colour to accommodate that view. You can't erase the sources that say "Gracac is part of it" and "Kotor isn't". They are at least as equally valid as that travel guide (and are really much, much better). -- Director (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot ignore the sources, because... there is just one source. And let's say it's much, much better than map edited by Stanfords (I actually disagree but let's say so). It is not a geography book edited by the National Geographic. It is still one single source giving an approximate definition of Dalmatia. And you used that source to draw a precise map of Dalmatia, historical region of Croatia. If really things were firm as you pretend they are, sources stating what you think should abund. But they don't. Instead there are sources saying the opposite. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This is just too much.. at one time you talk about the acquisto nuovo and novissimo, then about nonsensical "150 km" figures, then you revert back to beating the old horse of wanting Gracac removed... And every word is written only with a mind to pushing some convoluted Italian nationalist POV you're not even managing to express clearly. I'm sorry, redacted myself back there, but I am having a very hard time AGF-ing given our previous exchange, where you repeatedly altered and/or ignored what the sources say in order to fit a point of view.

Again! The source is quite clear that Dalmatia is generally perceived to extend to the borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia, which are very precise and not "approximate" at all. It further makes a very exact and non-"approximate" explanation that the Bay of Kotor is usually excluded today. And that the four southern counties are in modern-day circumstances usually taken as "Dalmatia" (which includes Gracac).

• Because the Bay of Kotor is omitted from "Dalmatia" by some sources, but included by some, we have it in green - but its not excluded. (There are in fact many sources that state the Bay is not viewed today as being part of Dalmatia, see 'Archive 2')
• Because Gracac is today viewed as part of Dalmatia "from the present-day administrative point of view", it is included in the map - but its purple.

Its not about "which source is better" since the map currently represents all sources, and the various points of view they elaborate. And we're not going to ignore the Zadar Geography Faculty source, and exclude Gracac. But if we had to ignore something, we'd ignore your source since the Zadar university source deals specifically with the topic and elaborates in detail. (I do not acknowledge there is some controversy over the issue of Gracac, such as might bring local sources into question. Further, as "Dalmatia" is very much an issue of popular perception, local sources may actually be superior in this instance.)

And that's all there is to say. I am not removing Gracac nor especially changing Kotor to blue. Stop beating this dead horse already! -- Director (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the map depicts YOUR understanding of the sources. Indeed of one source. We won't get out if this without morr people involved. Never a consensus was reached dear Director. You pushed the others away by exhaustion. As soon I have time I will post a RfC. From my perspective there are not enough sources to have a map detailed like that. Let's see what the others think. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

At that point you will then be reported for disrupting this talkpage (per WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:HORSE). You are the only one who objects to this map, and your objections are mostly unintelligible; those that are not - are absurd. There isn't only "one source", I told you several times to re-read 'Archive 2', which is a comment you repeatedly ignored.

• Several sources indicate that Kotor is no longer a part of Dalmatia, you will find them in 'Archive 2'. Hence it is in green.
• Several sources indicate Dalmatia today comprises the four counties. Hence Gracac is purple.
• Not a single source has been provided to cast doubt on whether the hinterland (i.e. the Dalmatian Zagora, the "acquisto nuovo/novissimo") is a part of Dalmatia.

Like the Zadar Geography Faculty states quite accurately "from the present-day administrative point of view", Dalmatia comprises the four counties. Here's another source to that effect: Turnock, David; The Human Geography of East Central Europe, p.318; Routledge, 2003 ("..the administrative division of Dalmatia into four counties")

And another: Patrick Heenan, Monique Lamontagne; The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook, p.168; Taylor & Francis, 1999 (.."there has been opposition from the Dalmatia Action Party to the high level of centralization in Zagreb. And to the division of Dalmatia into four counties.")

Etc. the four southern counties are indeed being identified with "Dalmatia" in preset day perception. This definition does not correspond with the old "Kingdom of Dalmatia definition" in that it excludes Kotor, Rab, and half the island of Pag, but adds Gracac. The map displays both the "Kingdom definition", and the "Four Counties definition". There is nothing to dispute over. All elements of the map have in some wway been described as "Dalmatia". We will not exclude the "Four Counties" in favor of the "Kingdom" simply because you demand it incessantly, over and over again - since both are sourced. Now give it a rest please! -- Director (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• I removed your fourth source because it was falsely quoted [15] (this is the sixth or seventh source that you have been caught deliberately misquoting in order to stack refs).
• And I removed the Stanfords map "source" because it in no way actually states that Kotor is perceived as part of Dalmatia. It is quite a laughable reference, since it is based on you deciding that the mapmakers there actually claim anything with regard to the modern-day definition of Dalmatia, from how they entitled a map ("Dalmatian Coast South: Dubrovnik - Kotor - Ulcinj").
• The Treccani source is also borderline-OR (since it doesn't actually say Kotor is in Dalmatia, it doesn't even mention Kotor), but at least its respectable.
• Bousfield and his "Rough Guide to Croatia" etc. are non-scholarly and borderline-unreliable. You ought to be happy if they're taken seriously at all.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica can be added to the slew of other scholarly sources (posted by Philosopher in 'Archive 2') that state Kotor is no longer a part of Dalmatia since 1922. It states that Dalmatia extends "to the narrows of Kotor", which is at the Prevlaka.

As regards Gracac, there is nothing to discuss. It is acknowledged that its not a part of Dalmatia according to many sources, but because some sources include it, going by the "four counties" definition, the map must show where it is. -- Director (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Which fourth source is falsely quoted? I do not remeber to have added that source at all. Also, please before removing sources and text discuss first. Don't do to the others what you do not want they do to you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

1) I do not see why you always upset when the others disagree with your views. Also I do not see why you keep repeting the same things. I understood you very well, but I disagree. But what I do not understand is when you write "Every word is written only with a mind to pushing some convoluted Italian nationalist POV you're not even managing to express clearly". Where is the nationalist POV? Are you sure you are not projecting yourself here?

2) The sources concerning the boundaries of Dalmatia (as other users already told you, give a look in the archives) are very conflicting the one with the others. We speak here of geography (human geooraphy to be precise) and you provided sources that are everything but not books of geography. You extracted sentences from context that relate to everything, but not geography. And you use those sentences to reference a map.

3) Director, there is nothing better than a source with a map to reference a map. I provided sources with maps where Dalmatia is without Cracac and with Kotor Bay. The "funny thing" is that the only map I could find with Gracac in Dalmatia is the one you edited in Wikipedia. For God's sake if what you say is write why I cannot find a damned map like the one you pictured? And if you are right why all the map of Northern Dalmatia I could find are without Gracac? And why the most of the maps of Southern Dalmatia are with the Bay of Kotor?

• Dalmatia without Gracac [[16]] (this source also says that Kotor Bay is in Dalmatia), [[17]].
• Dalmatian Coast with Kotor Bay [[18]], [[19]]. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Source number "9" in this version is falsely quoted.

2) What matters is that the sources are scholarly. And that they actually say what you claim they say. I am willing to grant that Treccani supports you, even though it doesn't even mention Kotor, but that's about the only source you really have. The Rough Guides are not scholarly sources. The Stanfords map is OR, and is out of the question really (its just a map title, it doesn't mean anything). The fourth ref is misquoted.

3) Not at all. This is a complete misconception on your part, and I don't know where you get it from. The best sources, for maps as for anything else - are scholarly publications. Regardless of whether they have maps in them.

The Stanfords maps refer to the "Dalmatian Coast" rather than Dalmatia, a term that can sometimes extend to the entire eastern Adriatic coastline - note that the maps include Rijeka and the Croatian Littoral as well. But even if they did not, you can not take a map title and infer that Stanfords makes any claims regarding the extent of Dalmatia. That's OR.

-- Director (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The source in question was genuine. I do not know what happened. Hereafter again the original citation [[20]] and the extract from the source: Toward the end of 1944 it was liberated from the occupiers by the People’s Liberation Army of Yugoslavia. In 1945, Dalmatia became part of Croatia. The southern part of Dalmatia has been part of Montenegro since 1945..Silvio1973 (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"Warning! The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased." -- Director (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I take this comment from you as a joke. Plenty of sources on FYR are from the Socialist period. They are all ideologically biased. And so what? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, what I am trying to tell you is that different scholars define Dalmatia with different boundaries. And it is logical because it is an historical region and history is not an exact science. Also picturing a map of an historical region using today's administrative regions has an obvious limit: you are retrospectively applying to the post a current administrative division. Of course, you could say that the two can corresponds. If only you could reference a map in the sources you cited. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No no, I am not saying the source is "ideologically biased", nor that all sources from the Communist era are necessarily biased - I'm referring to the fact that its outdated. It's 35 years old, and here we are talking about modern-day perceptions. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Really? :) -- Director (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I thought you had changed political inclination. Everything is in order... :) Director, 35 years is old but not that old. And I would not be suprised to find out that in the current version of the thatencyclopedia the definition was still the same. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

35 years is very, very old. 41 years would be even older! Goodness.. ;)

Seriously though, we are not talking about history here, we need to stick to modern-day sources.

It is perfectly legitimate to superimpose a historical entity on modern-day borders. Its done all the time. And here it has a clear purpose in illustrating the modern-day(!) extent of Dalmatia according to the perception defined by the borders of the Kingdom. -- Director (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And for that you create a map that cannot be found in any other source. Clearly we need more people involved here. Director, I left you doing a little bit what you wanted in the article but please be reasonable. You cannot put in such prominence the opinion of these two illustri sconosciuti: Lena Mirošević and Josip Faričić. I have reformatted and reduced the quote. Change it if you want but put some common sense in the level of prominence you want to give to the source. It's not all.. There was already an issue of sourcing with one map and now you post three... honestly. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The boundaries of the Kingdom of Dalmatia are well known and precisely defined, as are those of the Croatian counties! If you think either map is inaccurate, show me where the error is! Otherwise: do not remove a perfectly good map. The thing that bothers you is that the region's extent is superimposed on a map of modern-day Croatia, which is perfectly justified - yet annoys you.

For the final time: you do not necessarily need a map to source a map! If I want to have a map that superimposes the Kingdom of Dalmatia on a modern-day Croatian map, I don't need a map exactly like that in order for it to be sourced

Look here Silvio, there's no reason not to quote our best source outright. And it is our best source, no contest, because its #1 scholarly, peer-reviewed; #2 geographic (Zadar University, Department of Geography); and #3 deals specifically with the subject at hand. No other source yet put forward is as good as that one. In a sense, its our only source, as its really the only one that actually discusses the perceived modern-day extent of this region.

It also does NOT claim Dalmatia is an "administrative region", but defines its borders from an administrative point of view. But you don't like that part, so you delete it. Which, as I recall - is your modus operandi: selective representation of sources.

I am quite done talking to you, as your conduct is disruptive and infuriating. I'd almost forgotten that discussing with Silvio1973 is like continuously listening to someone scratch a blackboard. -- Director (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, it is astronomically difficult to have a joint discussion with you. Always the same pattern: endless discussion and in the end you edit your way. Entering three maps where it was already difficult to get consensus for one is simplistically not reasonable (or perhaps your intention is to be provocative). We need more people here. You have already started lecturing and slightly insulting me and honestly I think I do not have to take it. Perhaps with more people involved you will moderate yourself. I enter a form for a RfC. Let's hope someone will participate. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The only difference between me and others with regard to yourself is that no one else has engaged in long and serious disputes with you. Your arguments make no sense! You constantly make unintelligible points and switch subjects. Your position is rarely expressed clearly. You don't read what's being told. You push an Italian POV relentlessly and with no regard to sources, which you routinely misrepresent, misquote, delete, or cherry-pick only parts of what they state.

A map in itself is not controversial, whether you have one, "three", or fifty! If you don't see a problem or error in the maps - don't delete them. The text continuously refers to the Kingdom of Dalmatia as defining modern Dalmatia in great part - it is necessary to show the extent of the Kingdom in a modern-day map.

The source from the two Zadar geographers is the only source we have that explicitly discusses the extent of Dalmatia in modern day perception. We don't have to quote it exactly, but we certainly can not delete/ignore part of the excerpt because you don't like it.

In this discussion alone you have ignored or misunderstood posts by other users at least a half-dozen times, and have posted an incorrect reference. -- Director (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference was believed to be correct. And indeed I gave afterwards the right reference. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dalmatia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==November 2012== Assessment as a part of 2012 WP:CRO drive, performed on 22 November 2012: B1 (referencing) - criterion not met: The article has significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. There are substantial parts of prose without any references. It is absolutely necessary that each paragraph contains at least one reference to a WP:RS, hence the criterion is not met. Even though {{cite web}} and similar appropriate referencing templates are not required I'd recommend applying the templates if GA or better quality is aimed at. At present the article employs a mix of the citation templates and bare-url/text references - which is not an obstacle for B-class in itself. Some infobox elements are entirely unsupported by the article prose, which is a violation of WP:V. B2 (comprehensiveness and accuracy) - criterion not met: Several major aspects of the topic are not covered comprehensively (or at all). Geography (which should include details on physical (general info, topography and hydrography) and political geography, and demographics) has a scant coverage at present, while economy and culture are virtually untouched topics here. B3 (article structure) - criterion met in sense that there are appropriate sections of the prose. Still, there are parts of the prose which are apparently misplaced. All geography related information should be in "geography" section (in appropriate subsections if need be), including the present "definitions" section. Information on "names in other languages" should be in the "etymology" section. Also the aticle currently contains a list of currencies used in various periods in areas called Dalmatia at one point or another, which is trivia and should not be in the article per WP:TRIVIA. B4 (reasonably well-written prose) - criterion largely met. Not good enough for GA or better though. B5 (supporting materials) - criterion met - There is a gallery in the article which should not be there per WP:IG. The B-class criterion is met though since the B-class criteria do not check against WP:IG, but any further development of the article would be hampered by this. B6 (appropriately understandable presentation) - criterion met - however there are several structures used in the prose which require clarification. A lot of work went into this article, but it still falls short of the B-class considerably. Consequently downgraded to C-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)