Talk:Dalmatia/Archive 1

Demographic map
Regarding demographic map - remove it. Its out of context if not presented alongside the one from the Yugo-era census. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmx (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic spelling
Denny, you're partially correct, the Cyrillic form could have been used during Yugoslavia, but then one could add it to all place names in the old country, which might be encyclopedic but also boring and pointless. I guess it can stay here, though, it doesn't take up much space. --Shallot 14:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Shallot! Actually, I would leave it out, honestly speaking. But in order to prevent an Edit War about such a unimportant issue, I tried to offer this as a compromise. And by the way, check Vienna: there it gives numerous writings and names in much more languages than needed... so, let's rather keep a language too much in, than have a discussion about such a thing. --denny vrande&#269;i&#263; 14:37, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * The topic of different names for a place came up on another page I edited already but there it was fixed nicely by having List of European cities with alternative names. I don't think there's a page for alternative names of regions, unfortunately... --Shallot 18:21, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me also that I saw a similar issue on the page of Matthias Corvinus, where the name of this king was listed in all the different languages of his subjects. However, the alternative names were listed at the bottom rather than at the top of the article. --Shallot 18:28, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * This would be a fine idea - either an own page, or moving it to the end. But I would suggest to do that only if we get a language or two more... But if you think it would really be better now already, feel free to do so. --denny vrande&#269;i&#263; 13:34, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you're aware but Dalmacija was populated by Serbs for centuries.


 * BTW I am very well aware of that, but that doesn't imply that the Serbian Cyrillic spelling is pertinent to the lead section. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   20:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * When Venetian Republic far under Napoleons France, Serbs were 50-60% of the Dubrovnik polulation (1806.). During the rule of Austria many turmed into Catolicism and declare them selfs today as Croats.


 * Could you provide a reference to census records? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   20:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What about all the Croats living in Serbia and Monte negro..mmmm not many call themselves Croats today........Dalmatia has always been Serb free...they have always been a minority and very small minority...what Serbs tell you back in Serbia is rubbish....Dalmatia once ruled all of X Yugo, check that out ....Croatia once ruled all of Serbia, check that out.......all just name ...the ppl were always what they are now.......dont be one eyed....There are more Croats in Serbia then Serbs in Croatia....Croats settled Balkan first remember ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.75.195 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Still during the Storm operation 1995. many Serb families had to flee from Dubrovnik, and became war imigrants Milan Tešovi&#263; 15:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, the Operation Storm had very little to do with Dubrovnik - the area around Dubrovnik was a battlefield between 1991 and October 1992, when the Yugoslav People's Army &co. retreated from that entire area (minus Prevlaka). Any Serbs that fled Dubrovnik must have done that much before. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   20:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does Dalmatia as a geographical unit differ from the administrative?
Ever since the great powers left the Balkans (not completely, they still controll political events very much!), boundaries became more or less a hot topic starting from the Berlin congress in 1878. Dalmatia as one of the most distinctive geographical units of the western Balkans is an easy definable region as natural boundaries are marked by climatological, biogeographical, geomorphological, cultural and historical (venetian rule, never been part of the ottoman empire) pecularities. If we try to define geographical boundaries precisely a problem occurs as transition zones can be disputed. One such unit is the Bay of Kotor as it is a well defined unit in its own (only geomorphological?) but doesn't differ in other categories (climatological, cultural context, biogeography). If we use political boundaries as the only definable units, the Bay of Kotor would as part of Montenegro be not a part of Dalmatia. One might assume that Dalmatia ceded immidiately at the border post between Dubrovnik and Herceg Novi. This border can exist more or less in the views of people living on one side or the other of the border but should not be of consideration if we talk as of Dalmatia as a region in a wider context.

As much as the Aegaeian archipel is part of Turkey and Greece, Dalmatia comprises the whole of the eastern Adriatic coast between Istria and the Bay of Kotor. As a historic can be formulated that Dalmatia has always been part of european civilization and never of the ottoman empire, a transitional role of the Bay of Kotor is well visible. The towns of Risan and Herceg Novi succumbed to the Ottoman empire at the same historical period as Kotor and Perast were part of Venice. In this way the Bay of Kotor reflects a historical transitional zone between west and east.

Talking of geographical units the search for the highest mountain of Dalmatia is another topic. From a biogeographical view it can't be disputed that Orjen (1894 m) belongs to the Dalmatian coastal mountain unit which starts with Velebit and forms a boundary between the coast and the hinterland (for instance see Lujo Adamovic, 1929 - Die Pflanzenwelt der Adialänder, Jena; ANTONIĆ, O., LOVRIĆ, A.Z. 1996: Numerical analysis of vegetation complexes and community diversity of major coastal Dinaric mountains.- In: Journal of Vegetation Science 7, 73-80, Uppsala). Therefore Orjen should be designated as the highest mountain of the geographical unit of Dalmatia. Orjen 23:17, 4 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's possible to ignore national borders from the issue of defining the border of the region. Kotor and the rest of Boka certainly were part of Dalmatia in older times, and this is described in the article, but it is long past. If you open this issue, then we also have to discuss where the border is in the north, how much inland it goes (is Zagora really Dalmacija?), is Neum Dalmatian or Herzegovinian, whether the people of Dubrovnik identify better with Dubrovčani or with Dalmatinci, or even what happened to the Croats and/or Catholics in Boka after the Montenegrins took over. And God knows what else.
 * All in all, it's just not possible or necessary to equate "Dalmacija" with "eastern Adriatic coast" or "Dinaric littoral". If you want to prop up Orjen, do it elsewhere :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   9 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to ignore national borders they have their value. Dalmatia is first of all a croatian province. As Dalmatia signifies also a landscape in a historical context the questions still seems valid to define it also from this context. Whether the Orjen prop up has its grounds in this context today is not readily answered. Historically it was described the highest point in Dalmatia you mentioned that before (see Account of ASCHERSON, P. 1868: Der Berg Orjen an der Bocche di Cattaro.- In: Zeit. Ges. Erdk., 3, 319-336, Berlin) but maybe also differing views existed. Interesingly the mountain hut on Orjen sedlo was property of the Dubrovnik alpine club and Orjen was a popular destination for mountaineers from Dubrovnik, which by the way can be seen from the mountain top. Orjen 21:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be most appreciated if this current Montenegrin Dalmatia was elaborated here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent split
Are those seven new pages really needed? I think that the contents of Dalmatia before Old Ages, Dalmatia in Old Ages, Dalmatia in early Middle Ages, Dalmatia in mid Middle Ages, Dalmatia in late Middle Ages and in New Era, Dalmatia after 1797, Dalmatia after WWI can stay in History of Dalmatia. Also, I strongly suggest to re-add a short summary in the history section of this page with the standard note:
 * ''See Main article: History of Dalmatia

GhePeU 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the split went too far. I'm merging histories into the History of Dalmatia article now, and will help write the summary. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

sclereophyllus
What does the word "sclereophyllus" mean? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   22:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

history overview
Kubura, it's an overview of thirteen short paragraphs, which summarizes over two thousand years - I think we shouldn't try to subsection it because that will dilute the idea that there's a main article. If anything, it could be shortened further. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

advertisment?
www.dalmatianet.com Jandrinov 03:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Croats-Serbs
According to Brockhous' encyclopedia; the Croats inhabitted the North and Serbs the South of Dalmatia, roughly seperated by Cetina river; with slight variations (e. g. Serbs around Split, in Norther Dalmatia and Red Croats in Pagania and Zahumlje) This encyclopedia contains much a about Greater Serbia and cannot be judged as pro-Serbian at all: Brockhous encyclopedia --HolyRomanEmperor 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The page recquires payment... so I saw no picture. How did they go to those "variations"? Probably when their artist drew the map, some drops fell on the map sketch. Still, that article begins with "... (serbokroatisch ...)..", which tells a lot about their attitude and sence for reality. Kubura 09:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no picture. I took the Brockhaus' encyclopedia myself; so either find it or pay it. :) The encyclopedia is strictly anti-Serb, because it mentions numerious crimes in Bosnia and on Kosovo, but non or Serbs; and barely mentions what happenned with Yugoslavia in World War II. As for the serbokroatisch; well, as you can see; the smart part of the globe doesn't recognize what some primitive ninnies did to a language. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We have to see that. A candidate for "crap of the year". As I see, this encyclopedia has a big lack of facts. Don't waste your money. You should've bought ćevape instead. Second, what/which language? Serbocroatian? You can surgically merge cow and pig and call it a "cowpig". Is that a normal living being? :) Kubura 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The language is called Serbocroatian and it is, and will always be one language, no matter what some brainless creatures call it for political reasons..As for your "cowpig", it seems to be a more normal creature than YOU and all of yourlike nationalists who spread evil and hate between Serbs and Croats..:)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.118.62 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I went to the Goethe Institute. I didn't spend any money. That is one of the best encyclopedias on Earth, and the best German (compari it to the best French - LaRousse), so be more careful about what you say. It talks only of facts: Croats north of Cetina; Serbs south of Cetina. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Propaganda in full swing,,shame shameEvergreen Montenegro1 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no picture. I took the Brockhaus' encyclopedia myself; so either find it or pay it. :) The encyclopedia is strictly         anti-Serb, because it mentions numerious crimes in Bosnia and on Kosovo, but non or Serbs; So, I guess the whole world is anti-German beeing that everybody mentions German crimes during the ww2 ??? I really do not understand that kind of black humor. --Anto 15:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatia
A region in todays Croatia, but Dalmatia has always been a region on the Adriatic even before the arrival of Croats. The Dalmatain land once coverd all of the former Yugoslavia before the arrival of Croats. Where did they go???Well Ancient Dalmatian people never went away. Although some say ancient Dalmatians and Illyrian people in general have some link to todays Albanians the claim is regarded as dubius. Simple fact is. Ancient Dalmatians mixed with the Croats who arrived on the Adriatic in the the 6-7th Century So todays Croatian Dalmatians share a blood line with ancient Dalmatians. a study in the 1980s has shown this. Also Dalmatians of today have a small blood link with Italian-Roman and Ancient Greek due to occupation. In general the old Illyrian Dalmatians have a link with the new Croatian Dalmatians. The study also proved that Serbs were only a small minority in Dalmatia as were Gypsy, Jews and Hungarians. Many Dalmatian Croats who moved abroad in huge numbers, likewise went to Serbia so much so that 1/3 of Serbs in Serbia are Croat by blood. Evergreen Montenegro1 04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Einchardt
What problem you see in following sentences: "According to the Frankish historian Einhardt in his Royal Frankish Annals, Serbs controlled the greater part of Dalmatia in 822. The first mentioning of Croats in Dalmatia is 30 years later. " They are correct. I could not see real reason for rv wars here against that sentence.In article abour Croatia Gonzo even told me to write about Einchardt just here.--Medule 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Medule, according to sources studied by historian Klaić, Serbs came later on todays area. According to his sources, they had originally settled in Thessaly, but there were somebody's complaints, so Byzantian emperor gave them lands norther, "on areas on east from Croats". So there was no "30 years later". Kubura 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Look I see that sometimes you think N.Klaic is not correct. Here you use Klaic as argument. First mentioning of Croats in original doc. is later than 850. Serbs had been mentioned in Einchardt annals around 820. Porfirogenet is document written 250 years after events.--Clavell 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Clavell, there are two Klaićs, Vjekoslav and Nada Klaić. I've cited Vjekoslav Klaić (and criticized Nada). Kubura 16:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For those who "push in" Einhardt as source, have they seen what he had written? He mentioned no Serbs. Kubura 08:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Einchardt is mentioning Serbs. It is claer. It is in many even Croatian textbooks.--Medule 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Which textbooks? By the way, have you saw the original form of the text? That subject was elaborated before and why Einchardt's "Serbs" aren't properly defined. Kubura 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FACT
'''when you say Serbs occupied Dalmatia...they might have ruled it..but not lived in it....Croat King Tom ruled Serbia too but Croats didnt live all over Serbia, just ruled........ I think thats where the problem is....rule is one thing...to live is another.....Under Venice rule Dalmatia was always Croatian settled and people were called Venetians including Marco Polo who was Croat........I think if Serbia ruled, logic would say the people could say they belong to Serbia and could even call themsleves Serb, hence the whole problem of who is what........its silly .....we all know that Croats settled Dalmatia and what is Croatia and Bosnia -Hercegovina today...look at the map and history books...even parts of Monte negro were settled by Croats eg Boka Kotorska region was at one time Croatian settled, look at history books...........Serbs came to Balkans much later and dont rule out the possibility that Serbs are Croats from another region...some people will show this could well be true.....'''--I THINK ITS POSSIBLE CROATS AND SERBS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE, BOTH TOOK ON A SLAVIC TONGUE AND A NEW RELIGION...BOTH SHARE THE SAME LAST NAMES...THE NOTION THAT SERBS ARE CROATS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE BUT NOT TO POPULAR AMONG SERBS, NOT SURPRISED. EVIDENCE DOES SHOW THE CROATS WERE KNOWN IN EUROPE AND IN IRAN...WHILE THE SERBS NOT...THEY HAVE ???? ALL OVER THEM...ITS POSSIBLE THEY TOOK UP ANOTHER NAME SERB AS CROATS WERE ALREADY ON THE ADRIATIC, TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM TRIBE TO TRIBE............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.75.195 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally someone to say something smart! I totally agree with you! Besides the last names, Serbs and Croats share the same language, mentality and also first names, most of which are with Christian origin.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.118.62 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, we only used sources. Sources say that they lived in the greater part of Dalmatia, so what? Croat King Tom ruled over Serbia? When? Dalmatia wasn't always Croatian settled It was mostly Italian and its Slavic people was a unique Dalmatian Slavic (especially unique in the enclaves, like the Republic of Dubrovnik). Just because many of them were assimilated by the waves of Croats and Serbs doesn't mean that they were so. Dalmatian population's Serbo-Croatian only from recently (say, assimilated in the 17th-19th centuries).


 * We don't all know that Croats settled Dalmatia and what is Croatia and Bosnia -Hercegovina. Could you provide sources? Montenegro a croatian land? That's very funny, but could be true if you said why? Also, most Montenegrins would disagree with you in the past 1,000 years. I did look at history books and maps, and they don't point to a thing that you said, I'm afraid, chump. :) Serbs came to the Balkans only a little later, so insignificantly that we could say that they arrived just about the same time.


 * And the Iranni theory is fresh in sources on Serbian origin, even more than on Croatian origin.


 * This info that this annon said is really weird. If true, I'm gonna have to see sources... --HolyRomanEmperor 13:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * @ "EVIDENCE DOES SHOW THE CROATS WERE KNOWN IN EUROPE AND IN IRAN."
 * User 203.111.75.195,
 * The Sorbs in what is today Germany share common ancestors with the Serbs, but not the religion.
 * BTW, stop shouting, don't be too anxious.
 * On other thematics. . . not sure why is Boka Kotorska mentioned various times in the article.
 * Fact is also that considerable percent of people of Italian descent lived in Dalmatia before World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.94.215 (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Name in Cyrillic
There is no particular reason to retain the name in Serbian Cyrillic: the number of Serbian speakers according to the lastest census is less than 1%; historical connections to the medieval Serbian state are minor and date back to the Middle Ages. By the same standards, we should include dozens of names in various languages which wouldn't be very practical. --Elephantus 22:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The population of Dalmatian Zagora (Ravni Kotari, Kninska Krajina and Gorski Kotari) has been Serbian for the past hundreds of years up to the most recent mass removal of 1995. The same can be said for Boka Kotorska, a part of Dalmatia as well. Calling historical connections minor is a bit rough. The Kingdom of Duklja controlled Dalmatia from the Ionian coastline to the Knin Frontier at one period (the Cyrillic enwriting of Knin's Capitol dates from that period). Geographically, Dalmatia reaches modern day Albania, so it's bad that we should make this article Croatian-POV (that makes it look like a territory of Croatia only).


 * I can't understand how could historical connections with the Serbian state controlling lower Dalmatia for half a millenium be minor, they're certainly greater than the Croatian influence, by the way. :)


 * Additionally and lastly, the Bay of Kotor is a Serbian-populated region and is in a Serbian-speaking state: Montenegro. So, it's simply and drasticly ridiculous to keep the Italian version of the name, since no where the Italians form a majority, now is the Italian language spoken in Dalmatia, or is Dalmatia a part of an Italian state. However, a part is populated by (mostly) Serbs, the Serbian language is spoken there (and is official) and it's part of a Serbian state. So how can you make statements like those? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1) As I said, the most recent census puts the number of speakers of Serbian in Dalmatia at less than 1%, with most Serbs speaking Croatian. 2) Boka Kotorska is today hardly considered to be a part of Dalmatia, either by the people of Boka or the people living in Dalmatia, just as e.g. the Serbian city of Zemun is not considered part of Slavonia any more, although it was until 1918. The historical connections are also a weak argument here, because by the same standard the name of Belgrade would have to be given in Ottoman Turkish (it was a Turkish fortress until 1867). --Elephantus 13:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I were you, I'd opt for one variant or the other in all articles. But because this is the English wikipedia, we leave preference for Roman letters no matter what the subject. Very few outsiders can read Cyrillic. (The Latin alphabet is much more prominent in the world than the Cyrillic alphabet.) --VKokielov 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, in any case, pick one for each article. It looks very silly otherwise.  We can do it on the Balkan Wikipedias, because each reader understands what it means; here, it's bewildering.  --VKokielov 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the main misunderstanding is that Elephantus understood my conotations ware mostly historical. Well, the Italian version of the name's historical too, and measuring which worths more where is simply impossible. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit War
Requesting page protection because of the edit war on Requests for page protection. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dalmatia outside Croatia
The name Dalmatia at various times extended to various territories. Today, this is no longer so - the name is limited to Croatia. --Elephantus 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is English wikipedia, not Croatian. The languages of all concerned nations are relevant (in historical and geographical context). Dalmatia is part of not only Croatia, but Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite the ethnic cleansing, it is not certainly not a Croatian province. It is a fact, and removing content is vandalism. Maayaa 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elephantus that today name is limited only to Croatia. People in Boka do not consider that they live in Dalmatia, but only in Boka and Montenegro. Dalmatia had different borders in history (The Roman province of Dalmatia was in fact much larger than of your view about what is a size of Dalmatia). Regarding the names, I think that if both, Serbian and Italian, name for the region are written, then it is not POV. POV would be only one of these two names posted, but if we have more alternate names, it is not POV. It would be also good that besides Croatian, we have not only Serbian and Italian name, but also German, French, Turkish and Hungarian, since Dalmatia belonged to all these states in history, and all these names are important. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The article itself says that part of Dalmatia is in Montenegro. And the part between Split and Dubrovnik always has belonged to BH. This part is clearly Dalmatian coast. Not even previous versions claimed that Dalmatia is part of Croatia. Maayaa 23:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot say that something "always" belonged to something, because it is certainly not correct. Also, if the article itself says that part of Dalmatia is in Montenegro, that does not mean that this is correct. It is only one more example of Greater Croatian aspirations and that should be changed. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All right
I will improve this article a little regarding this historical/geographical issue, but only after this revert war stop. The historical Dalmatia (as it was in the Habsburg Monarchy) did included Boka Kotorska, but after Boka was included in Montenegro, the name Dalmatia no longer describe Boka, but only western part of the historical Dalmatia which is now in Croatia. Therefor, Boka should be mentioned here only in the historical content, but not in geographical. There is clear difference between geographical and historical regions. If somebody have opposite arguments, please discuss them here before new reverts, ok? PANONIAN  (talk)  11:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Balkanic business
LOL, there is a even worse revert war here than that about Kosovo article. Would you people try to use talk page to solve disputes? Now here are two important questions:
 * 1.Why Serbian and Italian names (and other) cannot be here?
 * 2.Why map of the ancient Roman province of Dalmatia cannot be here?

Can somebody answer these questions? PANONIAN  (talk)  23:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, for an NPOV presentation of alternative names, I propose that we include much more alternative names: Dalmatie (French), Dalmatien (German), Dalmazia (Italian), Далмација (Serbian Cyrillic), Dalmaçya (Turkish). All important historical names are here. More names - more NPOV article. PANONIAN  (talk)  23:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your answers:
 * 1. Elephantus already answered it above. I won't repeat his arguments. Read the talk page before posting.
 * 2. The map is included in the article under "History". Read the article before posting.
 * --Zmaj 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I saw what Elephantus wrote now, and here is my answer: The purpose of posting these alternative names on Wikipedia is to show to its readers what are other names used for the subject. Its purpose is not to reflect linguistic, demographical and historical relations. Also, I am aware that such alternative names here are often used with bad faith to reflect irredentist claims. I fully understand why usage of Serbian and Italian name for Dalmatia could be connected with irredentism, so, therefor I made a compromise solution where Serbian and Italian name are mentioned only among several other names, thus all these names now reflect only alternative names of the region and nothing else. I hope that this compromise would be acceptable for everybody. Regarding the map, yes, I saw that map is included into "History of Dalmatia", but there is no reason not to include it here too. Since article is already in the category named "Ancient Roman provinces", we should include map of that province. PANONIAN  (talk)  14:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Zmaj, I am sorry, seems that we did not understand each other. You said that map is already included in the article, right? Well, I know that, but seems that you did not saw that some users removed that map during recent revert war. So, the question was for them, to discuss their reasons for such removal. PANONIAN  (talk)  14:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean Petrinja? LOL. Don't tell me you take that professional reverter seriously. As for the names, I appreciate your understanding and rejection of irredentist bad faith. The listing of all the important historical names seems like a good solution to me. I propose, however, not to place them in the first paragraph, but at the beginning of the first chapter, which is appropriately called "Definitions". --Zmaj 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not know who Petrinja is, I did not chechked his other edits. I just was asked by one other user to help about the language dispute in Dalmatia article. I have nothing against that you move alternative names to the first chapter. PANONIAN  (talk)  22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If naming is a problem...
...then mention all historical versions of Dalmatia's name, like seen on the Skadar article. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's precisely what we did. See the first paragraph in the "Definitions" chapter. We have reached an agreement on that issue (see above). --Zmaj 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No - see the aesthetic little table to the right. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dalmatia not exactly Croatia
Dalmatia has such a distinctive culture and civilisation that it seem misleading to lump it with Croatia (though of course, it is a legitimate section of Croatia). Dalmatia is so Mediterranean, more Ionian Greek and Italian; it has ancient links, while inland Croatia is typically Slav and with a heritage that also goes back to the Mongolian invasions. If Montenegro can break away from Serbia, then one can assume that Dalmatia should have the choice to distance itself from Croatia. Politis 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dood, you really have no clue about what your talking about. Dalmatia has been part of Croatia for quite some time... And i dont mean few years. It *IS* Croatia. and it does not belong to BiH or montenegro. This is not my subjective opinion. Montenegro and serbia are not good example in this context. Montenegro and Serbia are 2 countries, and Dalmatia is just a part of Croatia... if you don't belive me... go there and check it out :) --rdavl 09:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You may be right, I do not dispute that. To my knowledge, there is no historical evidence identifying Dalmatia as Croatia before the 20th century. Croatians are Slavs who are relative late comers to the region - namely to Croatia proper, with the Serbs; Dalmatians are Mediterranean people with Greek, Roman, Italian and indigenous strands and, yes, with a Slavic element. Also, Dalmatia is a region streching from Montenegro to the Italian border. If this article remains as such it should be title Dalmatia (province of Croatia). In which case we need an article on Dalmatia (region). Politis 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"...There is no historical evidence identifying Dalmatia as Croatia before 20th century..."? Where do you live? Have you ever took a piece a paper in your hand and have you ever read a book? Or you were sheepkeeping for whole your life and doing nothing else? And first person you've met is a Serb-orthodox monk on Hilandar? Croats and Croatia are first time mentioned on the area of Dalmatia (while Bulgaria ruled all over the Balkans). Medieval Croat Kingdom had its capitol cities there (mostly coastal cities). Croat kings were crowned there (coastal cities mostly). The graveyard of Croat royal family was there. Ancient Croats assimilated local residents, Illyrians, in early Middle Ages (BTW, how come that you've forgotten to mention the Illyrians? They lived on the Balkans and NW from Balkans, much before the Greeks and Romans) "...If Montenegro can breakaway from Serbia...than...Dalmatia...should have choice to distance from Croatia..."? Greaterserbian wishie-wish. Another greaterserbianist which can't stand the fact that Montenegro left them. Which serb or italian expansionist has filled your head, Politis? These are their stories. Dalmatian, Istrian, all regionalist crap, everything but not Croats. All unfullfilled wishes of serb and italian expansionist from 19th century and the Age of national awakenings. Expansionist who never could live with the fact that a region of dismembered 19th century-Croatia never turned its back to its origins. Croat region that never wanted to be part of their overexpanded kingdoms. Kubura 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, but it is best to leave out personalised comments as well as jumping to conclusions about greater Serbia (no thanks! Serbia is big enough as it is) and greater Italy. I will try and look into it. But what happened to the Serbian minority? Politis 15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Organized evacuation. I've put the sources that speak about it on few articles. Conclusions about greater Serbia and Italy... All these stories "...distancing Dalmatia from Croatia" and "Dalmatia is not Croatia" are the stories that Serb and Italian expansionist were spreading. We recognise all these stories at the beginning. If you still don't get me, then I recommend you to find some material about the Age of national awakenings/Age of nationalism/Risorgimento/National renaissance in 19th century Europe, that speak about Dalmatia, and what games were there. If you want me to explain you in detail, OK, I'll do it, but it'll take me some time. Its not a problem for me to translate, but it is a problem to shorten the abundance of text. Kubura 09:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've forgot to comment this "...Dalmatians are Mediterranean people with Greek, Roman, Italian and indigenous strands and, yes, with a Slavic element...". Yeah, right, Croats from Dalmatia are known for its same height as "Romans", "Italians", "Greeks" etc.. Kubura 07:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What you say is a total crap. There's always been a movement for Dalmatia as a authonomous region, whose interests today represents SDA ( Party of Dalmatian Action ). Like it or not, there's a huge animosity between Dalmatians and 'Purgers'(Northern Croatians), and although hidden, most of Dalmatians have their wish for a separate region from Croatia. This can be realized as soon as Croatia joins EU in a few years, when there will be less pressure towards expressing the real national and regional feelings of the majority of Dalmatians and Istrians, and hopefully Krajinians as well. Many Dalmatians today also feel as much being Yugoslavs, as they feel being Croats. Here's the link to the latest documentary (2007) on Dalmatians in New Zealand, who openly speak that they are Yugoslavs and Croats: Just for you (whose comment is above) and those like you. Warning: this documentary might be killing you, but what's the fact is the fact and truth. Enjoy:)) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWgt56YLm-E Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.127.107 (talk • contribs) 07:59 13 May 2007
 * Lies^^^^^. The problem is that Serbs think everything is theirs and everyone is a Serb.  A bunch of Serbs singing in Split one time only proves that Croatian are tolerant people.  As for Dalmatian independent movements, it is pretty weak.  Nearly every Dalmatian is a Croat first.  There are independence movements in places like Texas, Savoy and VOJVODINA!  They are for the most part, just benign organizations with no real movement behind them.  The truth of the matter is, Croatia is a diverse country with many sub-cultures.  They are not homogenous like Serbia (for the most part), but this is a strength and is no different than countries like Germany or Itlay.207.236.177.82 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The so called movement for autonomous Dalmatian region was a maringal movement with membership that you could count on fingers of one hand. The same "movement" today no longer exists because it had absolutly no support from anyone in Dalmatia. People not only made fun of it but didn't care and considered those few people loonies. Most of Dalmatians are Croats, patriots and nationalists even and Dalmatia is now traditional stronghold of righ-wing parties such as HDZ or HSP. Saying they have hidden desire for being separate from Croatia is insanely hilarious. You also mention Istrias, the fact they mostly vote for regional party doesn't mean they feel less Croats. Over 3/4 Istrians declare as Croats. I don't know who are these phantom "krajinians", such thing doesn't exist. Also note that in your documentary Dalmatian is equaled with Croatia, that the people in the documentary have Croatian flag by their name, that they are members of Croatian cultural society, that they speak of Croatia as their second homeland and that they consider themselves Croats which is stated several times by the very people interviewed. In short cut the crap. --No.13 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the movement for authonomous Dalmatia is not dead, but only REPRESSED, by today's HDZ goverment. Its membership is growing and it will continue with its work as soon as hdz is gone and they can openly say their ideas. Second, about Histrians, it's just your insane wish to make them equal 'Croatians' to those from some other regions, who openly showed their agression towards everything connected to Yugoslavia. The Histrians, for your big dissapointment, didn't want out of Yugoslavia, they wanted to stay together. That's why they voted for their regional party and not for the faschisoid HDZ, and that's why they want their authonomy now. As for Krajinians, you know very well who is Krajinian, and what the criminal actions of August '95 HDZ did to those people, who is populating 1/3 of Croatia. It's the only case in newer history when A WHOLE GOVERNMENT of Tudjman been accused by the HAG's Tribunal Justice Court for their crimes over Krajinians, HA, HA, THE WHOLE HDZ GOVERMNET-on the list of the criminals against humanity! That's a PRESEDAN in the newer history! Also, that's an accusation by EU, and thanks God, they know very good what they're doing. That's the truth and those facts talk how sick you are, all of you who support hdz ideas and nationalism, of separatism, aggression, Goebel's propaganda of a 'separate language' and similar rubbish, etc. trying to spread that propaganda even on wikipedia as well. Having no arguments, you can say anything now, but it will be just as offensive ALSO to EU and its institutions of Justice. And at the end,it's nice to see croatian flags around the NZ Croats, but bear in mind that those Croats are not with malign brains like yours. They would say that they are Croats and Yugoslavs or South Slavs in the same time, not minding being called what they really are, which every normal Croat would do. Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Child, don't hide behind an anonimousity. Being anonimous IP and sending such messages make you no different from a street shouter. Those who support "authonomy" of Dalmatia aren't Croats; they are mostly Serbs, and some other non-Croat elements. If some of them happened to be Croat, these mostly come from yugounitarist circles. Don't spread your POV neither your political wishes. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not a noticeboard, neither a forum. You live in a fake world, and isolated from reality, so read Croatian census data. Read how many of population in southern Croatia has declared themselves as Croats, a real nationality, and how many as "Dalmatians" or "Yugoslavs", "Clingons", "Liliputians", "Slakans", "... Also, read which parties regularly win in southern Croatia? Has anybody told you that? Croat hardliners, child. Croat hardliners win there. Every time, on every election. Live with that. No "Yugoslavs", no "Dalmatians". Your support of hateridge between southern and northern Croats is untolerable. It doesn't exist at all. Those who supported it are Greaterserbianists, who tried to organize "autonomists" in Croatia (as fifth column), in order to weaken Croatia, but somehow, those never found any ground. Even in such desperate situation, all population stood by Croathood. Remember that. Southern Croats never betrayed Croathood, neither at the price of their lives. Live with that. Do you know the old Croat fishermen's song from Split (from Šperun)? "Marjane, Marjane"? You know, "Ča barjak ne viješ, naš barjak hrvatski ...". Do you know how the HNK "Hajduk"'s logo looks like? You know, the oldest football club in southern Croatia, and the most popular among all Croats wideworld? You know, the club formed in 1911? When no independent Croatia existed? Whose coat-of-arms is on that logo? Do you know the full name of football club "Hajduk" (the squad from Split)? Kubura 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you wrote as an answer to my comment is again, a total crap. You can't say that someone is living in a 'fake' world if you recognize the facts of the truth. And the truth is that Dalmatians are different from 'Purgers', and there was and will always be tensions between them. Just go in any dalmatian city and you'll see all the grafiti offending the northern Croatians or Purgers. Also Dalmatians feel mentally much closer (even though from the latest political happenings they're not allowed to say this publicly) to their stokavian brothers-Serbs and Bosniaks, than to their 'unnatural' and politically created 'brothers'-the kajkavian Purgers. That is a fact that every little kid in Dalmatia knows about. And yes, many Dalmatians maybe feel like southern Croats, but remember that there are 2 kinds of Croats:-first one are Dalmatians, pro-yugolslavian oriented and big yugo-supporters during SFRYugoslavia, language wise-STOKAVIAN and willing to live together with all other regions and peoples of former Yugoslavia who speak also STOKAVIAN (and those are Serbs, Bosnians and Montenegrians), and the other kind of Croats are: the northern Croats, who are more for independant living, language wise either kajkavian, stokavian (dirty nationalists), or cakavian, and who think only about Croatia. Also I don't deny anything croatian with the soccer team 'Hajduk', it's formed by the southern Croats, but do you know WHO THE HAJDUKS WERE? If you don't, the answer is-'Hajduks' are national heroes in Croatian and SERBIAN historical poetry, who fought against the Turks. And at the end as a curiosity-The 'Hajduks' never divided themselves to 'Croats' or 'Serbs' because Croats and Serbs were the same thing in their time. They fought for freedom of all south Slavic people under Turks, having in mind ideas of unity and brotherhood. Even today The Molisean Slavs in Italy, who escaped from Turks in 14 century from Dalmatia, they don't divide themselves into Croats or Serbs, because the 2 'nationalities' were unknown to them when they fled Dalmatia. They're simlpy 'Slavs' or 'south Slvas' (Yugoslavs), a term which is most suitable for them and for all other people in southern Dalmatia. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.124.155 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 11 June 2007
 * The difference is that much in the fact they live in different parts (regions) of Croatia. Also any Dalmatian Croat who reads this would laugh his ass off, they feel closer to Serbs and Bosniaks?! Thats a huge LOL! --No.13 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a huge, but a huge truth. Go in Split and you'll hear serbian folk songs in every pub. Most od young Dalmatians sing the new bosnian and serbian turbofolk songs, and nobody cares about 'popevkas':))! Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, This is the truth and it will always be. Sorry if it's killing you, but you must recognze the facts. Cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Child, you don't know what are you talking about. You came here just to spread your propaganda and "wishie-wishes". Haterige towards "purgers"? We know very well who incites that haterige, I've told you that. Yeah, wright, that hate between Croat towns is sooooo big that citizens of Split don't travel in Zagreb and citizens of Zagreb don't travel to Southern Croatia... bollocks. Trains, buses, private cars, planes, choppers regularly travel on that relation, at least 10 times a day (planes about 4 time, private cars... numerous). And suuuuure, that hate is sooooooo big that players from Split, Šibenik, Zadar, Imotski, Dubrovnik don't go to play in Zagreb because they hate it... grew up, child. You have no idea. Or maybe players from Zagreb don't go to play in Split, because they hate it, or because they fear they won't be accepted nice? Wake up. Child, have you seen the "welcome party" for Niko Kranjčar, the proper "purger"? Do you know where from came the best players that played in sports teams from Split? From Zagreb, child (if you don't know: Bernard Vukas in football squad "Hajduk", Damir Šolman in basketball team "Split" - he's still the best team scorer ever!). Or how the waterpolo legend Dubravko Šimenc came to play in Split in order to inforce "Jadran" to win European Champions' Cup for Croatia? Maybe they weren't accepted nice? "Mentally much closer to Serbs, Bosniaks..." dream your delusive dreams somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a wall for graffiti. Here is a content of the flyer, made by NOO Splita (do you know what NOO is? - antifascist resistance organisation's committee), and given to citizens of Split in April 1942 (text given in original Croatian: "Rodoljubi! Hrvatski Split je 15. IV opet ispoljio svoju mržnju prema fašističkim okupatorima. Fašisti opet spremaju 21. IV paradu sa pojačanim terorom. Neka ih opet dočekaju prazne ulice... Ne vješajte zastave. Đaci! Nemojte ići taj dan u školu. Radnici, namještenici! Ma koliko vas silili da idete u njihove povorke, ne prisustvujte, kao ni njihovim zborovima po radionama... Govorimo i pišimo samo hrvatski . Ne saobraćajte sa fašističkim vlastima." (Source: "Kronologija Splita 1941.-1945.", IHRPD, Split, 1979.). Live with that. "Hajduks...They fought for freedom of all south Slavic people under Turks, having in mind ideas of unity and brotherhood. ...", yeah, and fought against globalisation, protested against G8 and GMO, yelled "boo" to G.Bush, requested the release of Nelson Mandela, debt write-off to S.America, sang for the hospital in Ethiopia... You're evading the important. Hajduks were also in Montenegrin, Albanians, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Greek etc epic poetry, although somewhere in other names. But that doesn't change a thing - Souther Croats declared themselves as Croats, founded their football squad ("Hajduk") and sided with Croatian unionists, party of Croatian reunion. If you don't know the history, the area of Ravni Kotari was first mentioned under the name of "Hrvate"; in the Ottoman times, the Ottoman-ruled southern Croatia was called "Hrvati" (sanjak-bey was called "hrvatski", "of Croatia".). And yes, the village of Hrvace, numerous small bays (uvale) in Southern Croatia is called Hrvatska, Harvoska, Hervatin... About the national feeling of Molise Croats:, and. Enjoy looking their football shirts. Find something smarter to do, don't disturb us on wiki. You're spreading POV-propaganda, hidden behing unanimous IP's, treating wiki like an forum or noticeboard. Kubura 19:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, when you asked for it-you’ll have it! As I have a feeling that this argument can go on and on, I would suggest, let’s first make some things clear:- First, I don’t hate Croats neither I am supporting Serbs. I am writing my comments at wikipedia form a neutral point of view, as I have lived in those regions of former Yugoslavia sometimes in the past. Politically I am for close relations between all south Slavic peoples, and any kind of unity between them. Second, I can’t stand someone to write LIES (or POV) in such a popular encyclopedia, like wikipedia, and that’s exactly what YOU and your ‘band’ of Croatian nationalists are trying to do through all the topics on Croatia, ex Yugoslavia, etc., either in Serbo-Croatian, either in English. But, be sure in one thing: people reading these topics are not shallow and uneducated. They know very well what is Croatia, what is Serbia, what’s Stokavica, what’s Cakavica, etc. So, spreading your lies on the pages of wikipedia won’t help you ‘sell’ your ‘ideas’. Third, let’s go to the root of our argument, not just between me and you, but between me and all your ‘colleagues’, including those who ban people to express themselves free on the Croatian pages of wikipedia. The root of the problem is that YOU deny everything that is in common between Serbs and Croats, trying to put weight on their ‘differences’, to separate the 2 brotherly nations and to ignore the uniting attributes between them. You spread LIES about the same language of Serbs and Croats, which everywhere in the world, except in your country, is called SerboCroat, or lately: Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. Everyone serious in the world knows that Serbian and Croatian are only 2 dialects of the SAME language. No lies from you can change the truth! I won’t go into details and explanations again, since I’ve done it a lot throughout wikipedia, commenting to your ‘articles’. Then, your articles on Croatia are ignoring the elementary truth about Croats being Slavs!!!-That’s PATHETIC! That’s the same lie that the Ustasha-scientists were spreading during their alliance with Hitler!-Yes, The Croats are Indoeuropeans, but First they are SLAVS! Also in the pages edited by you, you’re constantly ignoring or attacking the period of Yugoslavia, Tito, Partisans, etc. exactly attacking all the relevant factors that helped today’s Croatia to be in it’s today’s borders, liberated it from the fascists, and granted Croatian people peaceful and happy life for a long time. That’s INSANE and UNACCEPTABLE at all! As I said, you are ones from those Croats, who are nationalists and who hate every association of Yugoslavia. That’s ok; you have the right to be nationalists, but please don’t spread lies on Wikipedia and have some respect to Tito, who gave Croatia the Adriatic coast. If it wasn't for Tito, Yugoslavia and Partizans, a big part of Dalmatia would have still been a part of Italy! If you can’t face the true facts, don’t spread hate! As for your latest comment on the Dalmatian sportists who go and play in Zagreb, yes, some of them go, but in the time of Yugoslavia MANY SPORTISTS, ARTISTS, INTELLECTUALS and others from Dalmatia were going to work and live in BEOGRAD, and they are still living in Belgrade. The people in northern Croatia, I will repeat, don’t have very much in common with Dalmatians, except for the CATHOLIC RELIGION. That’s the fact. Dalmatians speak Shtokavian Dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language, just like the Serbs, Bosnians and Montenegrians, who are NOT CATHOLICS, therefore they’re not CROATS. The Northern Croats, even though speaking kajkavian or cakavian dialect of SerboCroatian language (a man from Split can hardly understand a man from Zagorje, because they speak 2 different dialects, which have very little in common), they are CATHOLICS, which means, they are CROATS. Unfortunately,in the south Slavic world the RELIGION is what determines the nation, unlike everywhere else, where that factor is the LANGUAGE! That’s a fact and true that a man from Split can understand much better a man from Serbia (Belgrade), than a man from Croatian Zagorje. And about the ‘unity’ of the north and south of Croatia that you’re talking, it has to be that way now, since the nationalists are still in the government and they force it. It is not a secret that Dalmatians feel same towards Belgradians, as they feel towards Zagrebians. If they don’t like ‘the ekavica’ (dialect spoken in Belgrade), they also don’t like ‘kajkavian dialect’ (spoken in Zagorje, near Zagreb). Not to mention the daily newspapers from Split, which write regularly about incidents between stokavian speaking people of Split and kajkavian speaking soldiers, serving their mandatory army service in Split… As for the Molise Croats, it’s interesting how much energy you put to make them ‘feel like Croats’. That’s not a case with Karashovanian Croats in Romania; You (the nationalists) don’t even have an article on them, which is 'understandable' considering the fact that KARASHOVIAN CROATS SPAEK A DIALECT THAT IS ALSO SPOKEN IN SOUTHERN SERBIA-THE TORLAKIAN! That’s pathetic ignoring them too! And at the end, yes, maybe Molisean Croats and Hajduk soccer players have the ‘sahovnicas’ on their dresses, but don’t forget that in the time of Yugoslavia Hajduk players were proud to have the Yugoslavian emblem and the red star on their dresses, being also proud to sing the Yugoslavian anthem ‘Hej Slavs”, when they were winning… Maybe you wouldn't like all this, but that's the truth. And in case I don't reply to some of your future 'answers' to the truth, that doesn't mean that I can't deal with you. It can only mean that my vacation time has come and I'll be back on wikipedia as soon as I can.. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.124.155 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 June 2007

Your previous message proves you know nothing about Croats. Krešimir Ćosić wasn't a Catholic, but a Mormone, but he was still a Croat. The oldest Serb in Croatia wasn't Orthodox, but Baptis, and he was still a Serb. Ekavian is a speech native to Zagreb, as well as to major part of Kajkavian dialect speakers. It's also native speech of Chakavian dialect in Istra. Ekavian is, in fact, second by numerosity, Croatian speech, after ikavian. "incidents between stokavian speaking people of Split and kajkavian speaking soldiers" - what are you talking about? Šahovnica or "chessboard" without the star was forbidden. Insisting on the return of that amblem regularly bring you imprisonment, police torture, loss of job, as well as the same or similar problems to your family or friends. Even in 1988 people were beaten to death by the police (kidneys stopped to function) because of that. In Split. Croatian players were not in the mercy of the national team coaches (when the coaches were Serbs or Montenegrins): the best case were players from Dinamo (who heavily suffered because of its chessboard in the amblem; BTW, do you know how many southern Croats were funs of Dinamo?), Zagreb, Rijeka and even Hajduk. Have you forgot how Vedran Rožić was kicked out of all combinations (not to mention attacks in newspapers)? Vladimir Nazor, famous Croatian poet, who joined to Tito's partisans, wore the star on his cap and wrote odes to Tito and his soldiers, but he always cared about Croathood and Croatian language. Oh, yes, Nazor was from island of Brač. Southern Croat. Some people went to work in Belgrade? So? Some Croats went to work in Egypt (when Suez canal was built) and remained there. So? Does that make Egyptians closer to southern Croats, then the northern Croats? Read historical sources and historical books. They speak about jazik arvacki, poglavici darxhave haruacke (speaking about Split!). Požderi se od muke, živi s time, ili još bolje, crkni od muke što ti nije tako kako ti želiš u svomen lažnom svitu. Enjoy in this, from. Book from 1699. ''Naredbe od zbora darxave splitske / dane na svitlo od prisuit. i prip. gna gna Stipana Cosmi arkibiskvpa splitskoga inako Solinskoga, poglauice Dalmatie i sue harvuatske zemglie .''Kubura 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ne, ja necu crknuti od muke, vec ces to biti TI I SVI KAO TI, jer se bezuspjesno trudite da sakrijete istinu, a ta istina ce vas ubiti! Ja cu biti dobro jer dobro poznajem istinu, ne ignoriram je i ne sijem mrznju kao vi. What I wrote above is totally true. I don't open any propaganda links form those who spread lies on wikipedia, those are irrelevant links. And what you wrote about comparing the Croats who go to work to 'Egypt' it is a whole PIECE OF JUNK! You CANNOT compare DALMATIANS who went to a SAME SPEAKING AREA, like it is BEOGRAD or ZAGREB to those of them who went to any foreign counrty with a FOREIGN LANGUAGE, including your 'Egypt':)). THAT'S A NONSENSE! You know very well all the facts about the same language of Serbs and Croats, but are trying to hide it, luckily-totally unsuccessfully. You can say whatever you want to this, but everybody knows that's true. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE STOKAVIAN DIALECT, WHICH IS SPOKEN BY 80% OF THE CROATS, ALSO ALL THE SERBS AND ALL THE BOSNIANS IS ONE AND SAME LANGUAGE-SERBOCROATIAN, AND IT HAS 3 SUBDIALECTS-IJEKAVIAN, EKAVIAN AND IKAVIAN. THAT'S THE TRUTH AND WHATEVER DIFFERENT YOU'RE SAYING IS JUST A PIECE OF CRAP, THE WORST LIES AT ALL, AND IT SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN ON WIKIPEDIA. WHY DON'T YOU FACE THE TRUTH AND SAY IT INSTEAD OF IGNORING IT AND MAKING SOME FALSE TRUTH OF A 'SEPARATE CROATIAN LANGUAGE', IN WHICH THE 3 DIALECTS ARE MORE DISTINCT THAN 3 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES- HA, HA? OR, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO FACE THE TRUTH, JUST DON'T IGNORE IT AND DON'T SPREAD LIES AT WIKIPEDIA! I can also put thousands of links to articles which tell the truth about this language. Or, if you want to know more, just type: Serbocroatian language on GOOGLE, and you'll see how many THOUSANDS of TRUE articles you can find! CHEERS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 August 2007

Croatian dialects in Dalmatia are Chakavian and Ikavian, Stokavian in the south. Add Kaikavian and you get all dialects found in Croatian language. This long-text-no-name-user knows nothing about Croatian language. Zenanarh 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure I know much more about the 'South Slavic Diasystem', or Serbocroatian language than you and many like you. I just don't have much time to be a registered member and participate actively in wikipedia. Read my explanation about the Croatoserbian or Serbocroatian language above and stick to it. Don't trust any new invented 'language theories' from NDH/HDZ's cabinet. They're all fake and will dissapear with the dissapearance of HDZ-Government and its UNSUCCESSUL 'RENAISSANCE', very soon and FOREVER. And if you are like those few lie-spreaders on wikipedia,-whatever bad you say to this my comment-it will refer only to you. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 August 2007

Kajgod. Mi sme Hervati prävi, kaj nam bedaki moreju. Vsi dolaze, vsi odlaze, a Hervati ostajeju. Ča ću ti jo, sinko. Ali mi smo Harvuoti, iz harvuoske zijemje. Požer se. Yeah, wright, our Croat ancestors went in marketplaces in Delnice, Split, Omiš, Krašić, Karlovac, Bjelovar, Sisak and Dubrovnik with dictionaries (where Cro. dialects meet), because they couldn't understand each other? LOL. You're trolling on this and on other pages, child. Go find a person of opposite sex. Kubura 08:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha, it's only in your dreams. FOR YOU BIG DISSAPOINTMENT-NOT ONE DALMATIAN CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE! Your Kajkavian is a FOREIGN LANGUAGE for All Dalmatians. That confirms also one of your recent 'talks' on your disscusion page with a normal and honest Croat from Split (Direktor), who openly told you that he understands Serbs much easier than people from Northern Croatia. A ti si jedan zlobni starac na izdahu, koji pise lazi i propagira nesto sto je neprirodno i sto nitko ne priznaje. That's the truth and it will kill you. Oh, and one more thing, I started receiving a lot of messages from Dalmatians from Dalmatia and all around the world, who congratulate me for opening the truth to wikipedia. They all agree that DALMATIA, SERBIA, BOSNIA, SLAVONIA and MONTENEGRO is ONE SAME THING-STOKAVIAN LANDS, and they all hope they will be united one day when the WEST BALKANS' countries join EU! Ha, ha, are you still alive? Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 August 2007


 * You are a sick person, find yourself a good doctor. This rubish of yours has the same meaning as this: an Englishman from Southampton and an Englishman from Birmingham don't understand each other. You are receiving the messages? How? By a piece of wire connected to your head. Poor baby, take some pill and get some sleep, so these screaming letters could stay in your little flat head and put that wire in your mouth so you won't be alone in your dreams... Zenanarh 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, I am ok and you are sick in your brain. You and 'kubura' are well known as crazy fanatics to many administrators on wikipedia, that's true. I am a normal person who fights for the truth on wikipedia. You are a poor powerless retard, who not having any arguments to defend his 'theories' - tries to offend everyone around him. If there was anything else into your head except shit, it would have EXPLODED long ago! :)) Those comparisons you wrote are bullshit! If your shitty head can understand this, I am telling you for the last time''': Don't dream your sick dream of ignoring the same language and origin of all Stokavians, which means: all Dalmatians, Serbs, Slavonians, Monenegrins, Bosnians and Hezegovians! The are all the same, despite your failed efforts to make some 'amalgam'-nation including kajkavians, stokavians and cakavians together, because of being catholics. It is maybe temporary 'doable' with HDZ, but it won't last for long. As for all my Dalmatian friends from some forums, who have sent me their messages of support, they all can see what kind of morons I am dealing with on wikipedia, and laugh outloud on all your BULLSHIT. Ha, ha you poor cro-nationalists, you'd better accept the truth before the truth that you deny kills you all and forever! And at the end, I'll repeat that everything bad all of you have said or you'll say to all my comments on wikipedia to offend me - will reach only you and will reflect only your poor civilization manners. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2007


 * This anonymous user has made 50 edits to Wikipedia, all of them on the talk pages. It seems the user has mistaken Wikipedia for a forum. Until he/she decides to make a useful contribution to Wikipedia, I don't think it's a good idea to enter into discussions with him/her, especially concerning sensitive matters. --Zmaj 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I must admit I am sometimes very passionate when arguing about the things I know very well or that are commonly known facts. Yet,-many times it's the only way to 'communicate' with those who ignore purposely these facts. Still, in purpose to prevent wikipedia's discussion page turning into a forum, I will register soon and will continue my fight for the truth, this time as a registered member. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 August 2007, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 August 2007

Serbian troll from Canada
A certain guy(Serb living in Canada) using the addresses 24.86.110.10 ,24.86.127.209 and similar ones is proveoking on couple articles related to Croatia.

At some articles he pretends to be "Dalmatian" and on some other articles "Slovene". See this contributions, rhetorics and so on:

 --Anto (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlo's comments on the article
Hi everyone, my name is Carlo Alberto. My family come from Zara. My family is italian and in particular dalmatian (it means that my correlatives speaks a dialect called "dalmata" close to the dialect of Venice). I don't want to change the page because I don't want to create an "edit war", so I'll write here what I think. The page seems incredibly unilateral and doesn't spend a word about the italian culture in Dalmatia. And there are written a lot of things that (in my opinion) are false or meaningless. Seems to be written by a nationalistic party of Croatia.

1) Sometimes the words "croats" and "illyrians" are used as they mean the same (maybe to subline that Croatia have always been Croatia, also before this name was born). It is Absurd. Actual Croatians dessend from a Slavic tribe. The modern population more close to Illyrians is Albanian. Saing that Croatians are Illyrians is almost the same that saing modern North-American people are the dessendents of Amerindian people. Conquire a place does not mean to have also conquired oll the history of that place.

2) Population of Dalmatia at the time of the Slavic migration was a latin population which then involved into an Italian population. When the Slavs arrived latin people arretrated and close themselves inside the walls of the cities of the coast. The population of those cities (Zara, Traù, Spalato, Ragusa) remained an Italian population since the contemporary age (as well as the population of Histria). Who is not blind can see this in every thing of this cities, the buildings are tipical italian and venicians, and so the toponimos. Oll the litterary production of those cities is written in Latin or in Italian.

3) Many times in the page is written about a state called Hungarian-Croat Reign. It has never existed. Simply the reign of Hungaria conquired Croatia (as well as Slovakia, Rutenia, Transilvania but is not called a Hungarian-Slovakian-Rutenian-Transilvanian-Croat Reign)

4) Is the described the Venician periode as a domination, as well as for the hungarian or the Asburgic periode. The inhabitants of the cities were citizen of the repubblic as well as the inhabitants of Venice or Verona; and almost all the important families of Venice were dalmatian families and so the Doges.

5) Is written about the "repubblic of Dubrovnik". Also this state has never existed. The neme of the state is written about is "repubblica di Ragusa"; and the city of Ragusa had been called Dubrovnik first in 1918.

6) Is written that the city of Zara had benn assigned to Italy after the Great War. It is false. It was assigned to Jugoslavia. A successive plebiscite determinated the destiny of the city. With 98% of the votes for Italy.

7) There is no word about the actual Italian minority in Dalmatia (that is also rocognised by the governament of Croatia) and about the italian exodus (350.000 people).

Now Dalmatia is ovviously part of Crotia as well as Zagabria, and the most of its actual population is genuine croats; but it has not been always like now and there is no reason to build a false past for a region with a so rich history.

Congratulation to the whole staff for their clever work at English Wikipedia and goodbye. (Sorry for my English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.225.35 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We could argue about this for ages and none of us would change its opinion.
 * If you visit Dalmatia and ask people living there what nationaliti they are, 99,99% of them will say Croats.
 * If you ask them weather they are Dalmatians, they would say they are, but they don't consider that to be their nationality.
 * BTW I am from Split,Dalmatia,Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.22.207 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's cut the big story. Croats are Slavic people. Also, there's also Illyrian element in Croats. But, what I want to say, the name "Illyrian" was also used for Croats, as well as for Croat language. "Cvit jezik naroda iliričkog aliti arvackoga", just for example. Or, Croatian risorgimento (hrvatski narodni preporod) was called "Illyrian renaissance" (Ilirski preporod). About Republic of Dubrovnik: read the talk page, there're links to the scans of the Dubrovnikan 16. and 17. century books with names and texts in Croatian. About the "Italian" population. Italians in Split, Zadar, Trogir, Dubrovnik were always a small minority. Nepo Kuzmanić wrote about the locals and their origins. Especially he dealt with those "Dalmatians". All the Italians in those cities weren't original, they migrated from Italy to those cities. It's all recorded in matrix books. The "Italians" from Zadar were settled there from northern Italy (and other parts also, my source claims this); permanent settling of Italian population came with French rule, if I remember well). I'll post you the links. No word about Italian minority? Yes, there's also no word about more numerous Slovenian, Albanian and Macedonian minorities. Kingdom of Croatia and Hungary did existed. Other areas were concquered, but Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Hungary were joined in a personal union, union under a person of king (at the time, Hungarian royal house). With the extinction of ruling royal's line, Croatia independently chose Habsburgs for their kings, without asking the Hungary for the opinion. Do you know what Pacta conventa is?  Kubura 11:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Croats and Illyrians
We know about ancient Illyrians. But, later, designation "Illyrian" began to be used as a designation for "Croats" (because the Croats lived on the territory of the Illyricum). From Talk:Serbo-Croatian language: ''First major vernacular shtokavian text is "First Croatian prayer book", kept in Vatican library- date cca. 1380-1400. Then follow major authors covering Renaissance, Baroque, Classicist and Sentimental literaure: Držić, Menčetić, Gundulić, Bunić, Palmotić, Zlatarić (Dubrovnik), Kavanjin (Split, Dalmatia), Kanavelović (Korčula, Dalmatia), Divković, Posilović (Bosnia), Kačić(Dalmatia), Relković, Ivanošić, Došen (Slavonia)..The majority of these texts are titled as works on "Illyrian" or "Slovinian"/"Slavonic" language, but they explicitly equate Illyrian with Croatian - dor instance, first major shtokavian-based dictionary, Mikalja's/Micaglia's "Thesaurus linguae illyricae", Loreto 1649. "Hrvat, Hervat = Illyricus, Croata". Further info on older Croatian lexicography can be found at ''. Kubura 07:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatians overseas
These are 2 links of Dalmatian Clubs in USA and New Zealand that show that Dalmatian people have an equal consciesness as being a part of Croats and in the same time-as being Yugoslavs (South Slavs). The name of their club in San Pedro is called 'Dalmatian-American Club', NOT Croatian. It used to be proudly called 'Yugoslavian Club' for a long time, until the wars in 1990's. A similar story has the Dalmatian club in Auckland, NZ, which was called 'Yugoslavian' for around 60 years and later 'Dalmatian' until 1996, when under the well known 'circumstances' it changed its name to 'Croatian'. Still, according to the web site, about 40% od NZ Dalmatians still feel rather like South Slav than Croats (See the data on population). These 2 links show the true picture about Dalmatians and their true nature, which, in spite of all angry cro-nationalists,-remains free of any hateful propaganda. http://www.dalmatianamerican.com/ http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/Dalmatians/1/en Pozdrav, Cheers! 24.86.110.10 07:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing unusual. At present you have many people in Dalmatia whose first self-identification is Dalmatia. It doesn't change the fact that they are Croats. Zenanarh 11:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh, take a look better at IP. This might be that banned troll Bormalagurski... or one of his companions. He can't live with the fact that Croats are the only autochtonous nation in Dalmatia, as well as absolute majority. He thinks that "Yugoslavian club" changed its name into "Croatian" because HDZ is ruling party in Auckland or in New Zealand. Former Yugoslavia was suspicious towards Croatian associations that wore the name "Croatia" or had adjective "Croatian". Very few of those weren't etiquetted as "enemy emigration", "nationalist emigration". And having family members being active participants in "enemy nationalist emigration" clubs meant a loooot of problems for the family at home in Communist-ruled countries. For a Croat, if someone had family member abroad, member of "Yugoslav club" or "Dalmatian club", there was no problem at all. Regarding those that are "hard-resistant" to admit themselves, what their family did hundred years ago in the motherland (that declared as Croats, even giving Croat hardliner politicians and clergy)... These are so uninformed and they've remained in such isolation from reality and living in fake world, that these NZ "Dalmatians, free of angry nationalism" and "Dalmatians, free of hateful propaganda" did such stupidity, that they've ...ten years ago ...  congratulated  Arkan (Serb war criminal) on his wedding (that was on the radio-station), although he was boasting with killing of Croatians, not to mention his inciting on killing of Croats. To make things worse, the persons (and family members) from their motherland, from their own kraj (area, where their ancestors came from) were bleeding on the battlefield (some of them were killed in action) fighting against Arkan's co-combatants. Kubura 09:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha, sorry, but you're still in your imaginary world. Dalmatians have always been different from the northern Croats, that is what they now know and feel. Dalmatians are and feel mentally closer to all other stokavian-speaking people, than to any kajkavian from the north, you like it or not. Certailnly that's why they congratulated Arkan and nowadays most of them listen to Ceca-the turbo folk singer, Arkan's wife. They are not isolated, but they are the real Dalmatians, not damaged by any nationalistic propaganda. They might be a little lazy, but you cannot call them stupid. Cheers.24.86.110.10 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only total idiot can write something like this. You know nothing about Croatia and Dalmatia. Makni se odavde, spremi se u svoju pseću kućicu i gledaj svoja ciganska posla! 78.2.130.10 (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * wtf are you talking about! Arkan!?, Ceca!? omg... There is some truth to his point, though, however mislead his views are. Dalmatians are linguistically and culturally closer to Bosnia and central Balkans than northern Croatia, with which they are associated primarily by religion. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

lingua franca?
In these centuries, the Venetian language became the lingua franca of all the Adriatic Balkans, assimilating the Dalmatian language. It's false. Venetians didn't colonize Dalmatia. Their interests were taxes and trade. Venetians and Venetian language was concentrated in a few bigger cities-harbors. Administrators and merchants. Also Venetian was used in all Venetian documents. In the same time there were documents written in Latin, Greek and Croatian. In liturgy Venetian or Italian was never used. All missals were written in Latin and Glagolithic alphabet from 9th century to the end of the Venetian Republic. Venetian Dalmatia was not really a lot of Dalmatia territorially. Zenanarh 16:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Italianization
Many people claimed here there was no italianizaton of the names of the incoming foreigners during the Middle Ages. So there is a statements here:  and on some other discussions. That is totally not true! If we just take a look at the Italian wikipedia we can see that many historical personalities were named by Italian name, no mather that they had no any connection to Italy neither to Italian language(s). And they themselves  never used italian version of the names. So we can see:
 * Albanian king Gjergj Kastrioti Skënderbeu is named Giorgio Castriota Scanderbeg

Also outside wikipedia :    


 * Friedrich II, king of Prussia is named Federico II di Prussia

Also outside wikipedia :     


 * Richard I of England (Richard Lionheart) is called Riccardo I d'Inghilterra

 
 * Friedrich Wilhelm I, king of Prussia is Federico Guglielmo I di Prussia

[]
 * George I, king of Great Britain is named   Giorgio I di Gran Bretagna


 * Fernão de Magalhães ( Ferdinand Magellan) is named Ferdinando Magellano

    
 * Louis XIV, king of France is named Luigi XIV

   
 * Napoleon is called Napoleone

And so on!

--Anto 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Myths and reality
In order to make some things clear I need to write something:

1.Dalmatia was the name for the Roman province. Before that it was Illyric. So indigineous population were not Romance language speakers but speakers of illyrian languages.Only Ilyric language which survived till now is Albanian. So, claim that Dalmatia is Romance by its  origin makes no sense at all. Slavic Speakers are indigeneous as the Italophones.

2.When West Roman Empire was distroyed it became first Gothics than Avar province and possession. Slavic Population (Croats) came later and they assimilated the local population which was in fact Romanized Illyric population.

3.Venetian republic arrived to Dalmatia later. Aproximately at the time of establishing Croatian duchies. And that arrival was not friendly but tipycally colonizing: robbing on the coast and using the resources for their own purposes.

4.Byzantium empire reconquered part of the territory during Justinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I), but after his death they were holding just some islands. That was the Dalmatia of that time until 15th century. In the 10th century byzantium emperor has given the Dalmatian cities to King Tomislav for administration.

5. Croatian (Slavophone) population always was majority during the middle ages. Italophones have been small minority in the coastal cities. Inner Dalmatia (Dalmatinska Zagora) was never populated by Italophones in any significant percentage.

6. About so called authonomist movements in Dalmatia: they were nothing  but the pro-italian supporters. They were hiding that by insisting on Dalmatian indentity trying to impose Italian under Dalmatian.When they were “disclosed” they have lost the power very soon. The most know example is Antonio Bajamonti, mayor of Split.

7.Some people claim that parts of Dalmatia were more time to Venice than to (independent )Croatia. So according to them they belong more to Italy than to Croatia. If that is true then south part of Italy (Sicily, Calabria, Apuglia...) should belong to Greece because they were greek much before they were conquered by Romans. Greek influence was kept until the fall of Byzanthium empire. Also northern parts of italy belonged much more to German empire than to any kind of Italian state.    

--Anto 19:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Geography section needed
Conspicuously missing is a geography section? Can others help on this? Dromadar (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment needed on neutrality tag for classical antiquity section
Someone needs to comment on the basis for the tag on that section. Perhaps the person who placed the tag can step forward. If not the tag is subject to removal. Dromadar (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems this tag is there for a long time? I didn't put a tag, however I've found some disputabale and incorrect statements there. The geography and the name are too generalized and simplified.


 * Dalmatia as geogeaphical name was in usage probably from the 2nd half of 2nd century BC and definitely from 1st half of 1st century for the area in the eastern Adriatic coast between Krka and Neretva rivers. It was the region settled by Dalmatae and some other settlers of different names, but of the same ethnicity. (S.Čače, Ime Dalmacije u 2. i 1. st. prije Krista. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, godište 40 za 2001. Zadar, 2003, pages 29,45.)


 * During the century and half long wars with Romans the name of Delmatae, main carriers of resistance to Romans, spreaded into larger area which was then called Roman province Dalmatia. Ditiones, Maezaei and Daesitiates were socially and culturally parental to Delmatae and Maezaei and Daesitiates were fighting together with them in the last war against Romans.(M.Zaninović, Ilirsko pleme Delmati, pages 58, 83-84)


 * During Roman and later Gothic ruling in Dalmatia, plural format of the name Dalmatia developed.


 * ...during general reorganization of Roman Empire in 297 CE, existing organization in Dalmatia was changed since the southern part of Narona district was cut off and became province Praevalis, so Narona district was a region from Budva to the river Cetina until the end of Roman administration. (D. Mandić, Crvena Hrvatska, pages 68-83)


 * According to Mandić Dalmatian provinces were Liburnia, Dalmatia and Praevalis. According to J. Medini plural format "provincia Dalmatiarum" was used for 2 historical and geographical regions: Dalmatia and Liburnia, but he also noted that Liburnia sometimes in Antique and early-Medieval had status of administrative-territorial unit (J.Medini, Provincia Liburnia. Diadora, vol. 9, Zadar, 1980, page 433).


 * It was surely reflection of earlier differentiations from which the format Dalmatiarum developed, initiating in 2nd century CE, defined in 3rd century in the age of the emperor Diocletian, after what this differentiation existed to the end of Antique, but also in Medieval (M. Zaninović, Od Helena do Hrvata. Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 1996, page 381)Zenanarh (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The historian Theodore Mommsen wrote (in his The Provinces of the Roman Empire) that all Dalmatia was fully romanized and Latin-speaking by the fourth century. - this is one of the statements from the article disputable for surely. It's much more correct to say that official language was Latin for all ethnics in the province. However funeral inscriptions has shown that the natives were using their special letters for voices which didn't exist in Latin language. Carl Patsch discovered 3 funeral monuments from 4th century CE (Lisičići near Konjic, Herzegovina) and stated: Latin alphabet didn't fully satisfy some native voices... in the regions where ...Illyrians and Celts survived. There is a foreign (no-Latin) letter in 2 no-Romance names found on these inscriptions for voice, most probably consonant J. Also there was another unknown letter in these inscriptions,... just once written as normal Latin "f". According to /Carl (Karlo) Patsch, Zbirka rimskih i grčkih starina u B.-H. Zemaljskom muzeju/.


 * Also there are evidences that special letters existed in Istria too during 4th century according to Hraban Maur (776-856) and his writing De inventione lignarium ab Hebrea usque ed Teodiscam, ex notis antiquis. These unknown (no-Latin) letters were found in St. Jeronim's (Hieronymus presbyter) writings, who was of natione Scythica (Scythian ethnicity). Zenanarh (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In Stipčević's "Iliri" book at the page 73 it's written: St. Jeronim, who was Illyrian by ancestry, confirmed that Illyrians were speaking their own languages all along until the age of Late Empire, according to a reference Gentilis barbarusque sermo, Hieronymus, Comm. in Isaiam VII, 19.


 * A. Stipčević, Iliri, Školska knjiga Zagreb, 1974, page 70: Even the most superficial analysis of the archeological material from that age reveals that process of Romanization was not present everywhere equally. While urban centres, both coastal and inland, were almost totally Romanized so Latin language was spoken and written there and life was the same as in other bigger cities in the Roman Empire, situation out of these cities was completely different. Although Illyrians were subject to strong process of aculturisation (which brought some forms of Roman civilisation also into the most out-of-way regions - for example funeral and other inscriptions were always written in Latin language, no matter who wrote it), they continued to speak their native language, to respect their own gods, to bury their dead in the same traditional ancient way, to cultivate the soil equally as it was done by their ancestors for centuries, to wear their traditional clothes, to give their children their own domestic names, to respect their traditional laws and regulations and to respect their own social-political tribal organization, which was only in some necessities adapted to Roman administration and political structure.


 * So obviously Dalmatia was NOT fully romanized and Latin-speaking by the fourth century. This can also be proved by archeological investigation of the graves in Salona (1st century CE and later), where it's found that even the richest citizens who were supposed to be Latin speakers didn't lose their Illyrian (Delmatae) traditions (Roman clothes but Dalmatian/Illyrian cults, gods and other archeological material). Zenanarh (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the article section it's written that Justinian I added all Dalmatia to the Byzantine Empire. which is not correct, especially if under this name - Dalmatia - another subprovince is hidden too - Liburnia - as one of the "provincia Dalmatorium". Liburnia stayed in Gothic hands, same as a coastal part of Dalmatia in the north west, between Nin an Karin. This Gothic Liburnia or "Liburnia Tarsaticensis" has vanished in the early Medieval and was replaced in the same territory by first Medieval Croatian state.


 * Procopius in 6th century always separated Dalmatia from Liburnia (where Skradin was placed), adding that Liburnia was behind Dalmatia. Anonymus Ravennas in Cosmographia (written 667-670) quoted Liburnia Tarsatica (Liuburnia Tarsaticensis) or Liburnia (Liburniam) with cities: Elona (Nin), Dan(?), Coriton (Karin), Argerunto (near mouth of river Zrmanja), Bigi (old Vegium), Ospela (Ortopula), Puplisca (Lopisca in the south of Senj?), Senia (Senj), Turres (between Senj and Trsat), Raparia (near Trsat), Tharsaticum (Trsat), Lauriana (Lovran) and Albona (Labin).  Zenanarh (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful responses. Can't you take some of the great analysis from above and just improve the section? Dromadar (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms needed
We really need to implement the Coat of Arms of Dalmatia. After all, it is by far the most popular symbol of the region. DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, The coat of Arms of DALMATIA is an essential thing in any article about Dalmatia. Pozdrav, cheers.24.86.110.10 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungaro-Croatian reign did exist
In order to response some historiographerss who deny existence of Kingdom of Croatia I quoted some veryfieable sources

The time history of the world, 5th edition, ISBN:953-6510-62-6 pages 138,142,143, 145,147, 150-151, 186.Name Croatia is displayed on the maps.

The World Book Encyclopedia volume 4, 1994 ISBN:0-7166-0094-3 Pages 1148b-1148c " In 1102, Kalman, the king of Hungary, also became king of Croatia, thus creating a political union between Croatia and Hungary that lasted for more than 800 years. Despite this Union, the Croats always kept their own parliament, called the Sabor  "

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition , vol.3

"Croatia became a kingdom in the 10th century, and in the 1091 Ladislaus I (Laslo I) of Hungary assumed control; the ensuing union with Hungary lasted for 8th centuries. During the union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own assemble, the Sabor,  and was legally an independent kingdom."

[sub]Digital edition of Britannica 2007 Ultimate reference suite[/sub]

"Croatia retained its independence under native kings until 1102, when the crown passed into the hands of the Hungarian dynasty. The precise terms of this relationship later became a matter of dispute; nonetheless, even under dynastic union with Hungary, institutions of separate Croatian statehood were maintained through the Sabor (an assembly of Croatian nobles) and the ban (viceroy). In addition, the Croatian nobles retained their lands and titles. "

Collier's Encyclopedia, 1995,  vol.7, Library of Congress catalog number 94-70743 ''Dynastic struggles amoung the leading Croatian families facilitated the task of foreign powers  and finally king Kalman of the Arpad dinasty  of Hungary  seized Dalmatia from Venice and brought Croatia under his control. Seeking to prevent a popular uprising against their own authority, the tribal chiefs of župans of Little Croatia( the territory between Dalmatia and Slavonia) negotiated an agreement with Kalman in 1102, which  authorized a personal union between the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia  under the rule of the king of Hungary, and which excluded the Croatian nobility  from taxation and guaranted inviolability of their properties''

'''The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.'''

http://www.bartleby.com/65/cr/Croatia.html

''A part of the Roman province of Pannonia, Croatia was settled in the 7th cent. by Croats, who accepted Christianity in the 9th cent. A kingdom from the 10th cent., Croatia conquered surrounding districts, including Dalmatia, which was chronically contested with Venice. Croatia’s power reached its peak in the 11th cent., but internecine strife facilitated its conquest in 1091 by King Ladislaus I of Hungary.

''In 1102 a pact between his successor and the Croatian tribal chiefs established a personal union of Croatia and Hungary under the Hungarian monarch. Although Croatia remained linked with Hungary for eight centuries, the Croats were sometimes able to choose their rulers independently of Budapest. In personal union with Hungary, Croatia retained its own diet and was governed by a ban, or viceroy.''

So, gentleman I do not where have you picked those "historiographers" who deny the existent of Kingdom of  Croatia. Are they experts like Arrigo Petacco ???

Or you just fabricated your own quotes???

--Anto (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatia in Bosnia and Montenegro
I'd like to open a discussion on whether or not Dalmatia is part of Montenegro and Bosnia. Neum and Kotor were definetly parts of Dalmatia before, but the definition of the region's boundaries varied significantly, with the whole of Bosnia being part of it at one time, for example. The question is, I guess, is Dalmatia a region of Bosnia & Herzegovina and Montenegro? Can I hear everyone's thoughts on this? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well ,as much as I know ... people from Neum do not consider themselves as Dalmatians!! They consider themselves as "Hercegovnians" (Hercegovci). I think that neither people from Boka Kotorska do not declare themselves as Dalmatians. Just as "Bokelji".


 * So ,the term Dalmatian is today limited only to Croatia.
 * --Anto (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I though as much, but would this be accepted if we brought it forth in the article? Dalmatia, in my personal opinion, appears to end at the Croatian border after 1991, but is there any official info to that effect? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Boka and Kotor were cut off Dalmatia in 1920 and added to Montenegro, the same was with Neum in 1945 (or 1943?), both administratively. Term "Croatian Dalmatia" edited by an anon user in the article is useless, since Dalmatia and Cro Dalmatia are the same territories. BTW original Dalmatia was even much smaller - from Krka to Cetina - that's how many Dalmatians from central Dalmatia perceive it, unofficially as "proper Dalmatia", even in modern times. Per tradition Zadar county (with island of Pag) should be Liburnia, but this name is out of usage for a long time. As always Dalmatia is defined by official documents, not by some unchangable geography. Zenanarh (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can you provide sources so that we may officially establish this on Wiki? It would simplify matters much. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, official geography doesn't reffer to Dalmatia, concerning Neum, Boka Kotorska and Bay of Kotor. Modern Dalmatia is not separate political sub-unit, it's just a region in Croatia. What's relevance of connecting it to an area which was political unit of 19th century (?), that area (in political meaning) was changing through history depending on the rulers and political occasions. In that case Mostar could be related to Dalmatia because of the Roman province Dalmatia, as well as Kaštela could be out of it (although placed in the heart of it) since it was not the part of Byzantine Dalmatia!? So there is only double criteria: geographically and officially - the same as territory covered by 4 Croatian counties: Zadar, Šibenik, Split and Dubrovnik (from Pag to Dubrovnik); geographically and unofficially - recognised as Dalmatia by the Dalmatians (from Pag to Dubrovnik, but without some southern Lika regions included in Zadar county and including Neum because of tradition). BTW only Split county has adjective Dalmatian in its official name - which is the closest territory to the original Dalmatia from 2nd century BC if a half of Šibenik county is added. I'm not sure. Depends if we can find some official geography source which defines what is Dalmatia today. Zenanarh (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

that would be nice... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Today, I believe, the term Dalmatian (if it does not refer to the Dalmatian -breed of dog ) refers only to Croat from Dalmatia. if some (wo)man comes to ex. Belgrade, Sarajevo, Maribor and says that is   Dalmatian - the local people will think only that- Croat from Dalmatia. because national minorites from Dalmatia do not care so much about Dalmatian identity. --Anto (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Neum?
Ok, Neum is not a part of Dalmatia. When the borders of modern Dalmatia were established in the Venetian-ottoman wars, Neum was outside of it. Bosnia does not have a tiny chunk of Dalmatia. In fact, the main reason Bosnia was granted Neum is the fact that that town is not a part of Dalmatia. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Anto is right. In 1990 there were debates at Croatian Sabor how to use it in administration: Dalmacija or Južna Hrvatska (Southern Croatia). While Boka and Kotor were administratively cut off from Dalmatia in 1920 and added to Montenegro. There is only one Dalmatia. Not Dalmatia and Croatian Dalmatia. Zenanarh (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Južna Hrvatska"! I did not know that, man that would be horrible. So we agree that Neum is not Dalmatia? I can understand that Boka is Dalmatia, even though that is highly debatable. I thought of a way that might give us an idea about Kotor: I searched the internet about a reference to Dalmatia in Yugoslav sources that might include a map of Dalmatia or say that Kotor is Dalmatian. I did not have any luck with random searching, can anyone lend a hand? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No use of it DIREKTOR. Don't waste your time. During Yugoslav years it was almost "forbiden" to relate Kotor and Boka to Dalmatia because of possible allusions to Croatia instead of Montenegro. I guess we agree about Neum. Zenanarh (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm, I'm seriously thinking of challenging this idea that Kotor is Dalmatia... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

History section fix
The "History" section needs to be simplified. All info it contains should be contained in the History of Dalmatia article, and a short draft for this article needs to be compiled out of the combined info from the History of Dalmatia. I also suggest a reorganization of images: there are too many and they're too big. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
I don't understand why it has been included the infobox??

Dalmatia is no t administrative unit.It has no official capital city and so on. It has just historical meaning with disputable boarders. --Aradic-es (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, its not an administrative unit, but there are no specific policy rules that were broken here, I think. Infoboxes are used simply to better organize basic data about an article, this is precisely why this one has been added. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Split is considered by most Croatian people as center of Dalmatia. But, it has never been legally! And of of course, Zadrans will oppose this "coronation" of Split as capital. LOL --Aradic-es (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, ok, we'll remove that, I simply filled out a category in the infobox. FFS, Zadar has 72,000 and Split 408,000 people, I just thought noone would complain I guess :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah so I'm late to oppose it... What a pity. But I can still oppose these numbers of DIREKTOR if nothing else :)
 * Aha... I've found something to oppose: there are 4 county centres and administrative units in Dalmatia, not mentioned in the info box :))) Zenanarh (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Pula is the biggest city in Istria county. But, Pazin is the capital. :D Anyway, even today is the rivalrly between Zadar and Split about the city with the biggest "dalmaticity" LOL --Aradic-es (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No Aradic you're wrong, there is no such rivalty for a long time now. You should see the final matches between Zadar and Split basketball clubs recently. Dalmatian songs and refrains were sung unanimously by the both supporter groups in the same time. In some moments Zadar supporters were supporting Split players and opposite. And it was nice to see Zadar in blue jerseys and Split in yellow, it was a huge Dalmatian flag (blue-yellow) at the battleground. If there would be such rivalty it would be reflected on behaviour of the sport supporters in the 1st place, which is not the case here. It's nothing like Split-Zagreb rivalty. And Zadrans are sad about destiny of Split's riva same as Splićans are. Zenanarh (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No,it seems that we misunderstood each other. :D What I wanted to say: Split is considered as center/capital of Dalmatia outside of Dalmatia. Most of dalmatian people would agreed with that, too. I believe that only Zadrans would oppose to that.If you make survey amoung poeple in Croatia "Is the capital of Dalmatia Split?" Most of people would say "YES". Only in Zadar would say "No, it not Split!. Here, Zadar is the center of Dalmatia. Of course there is no any hateridge beetween Zadrans and Splitians. Just friendly rivalry.That and basketball matches are the only things where Zadrans and Splitians are sort of competitors  :D LOL Outside of that there is nothing. --Aradic-es (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aahmm... right. No, it's not Split! Here, Zadar is the center of Dalmatia. Zenanarh (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But you're wrong! There are many things for copetition there! :D Light some fire? Zenanarh (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there are lot of fields for competing. But, nothing to cause hostlity against each other. :D Neither a close.Aradic-es (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Template
I've removed the infobox, because that's infobox for a country, not for a region. Dalmatia is just a region. Tuscany has infobox "Region of Italy", Asturia has infobox "autonomous community". Yorkshire has none. Hrvatsko zagorje has none. Lesser Poland also has no infobox. None of them had inbobox "country". Kubura (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox (2)
Now I think its pretty well known that I am not some kind of Dalmatian "autonomist" or "separatist". I agree that the infobox is primarily intended for countries. However, I don't see that as "offensive", and it is in no way prohibited by Wiki policy or guidelines. It seems to me a little "fanatical" to think that using the same type of infobox (clearly stating that the place is a region) that is usually used for countries is somehow "anti-Croatian" and "pro-autonomist".

I can't agree to the removal of all that information, and I can't agree the article shouldn't have an infobox. If someone is that annoyed by this technicality I urge him/her to put together a custom template or something and transfer all the valid information there. I'm not opposed to the current version, and I don't think I ought to be the one to do it. I also challenge anyone to point out where exactly does the text in the infobox imply that Dalmatia is a country. It clearly and straightforwardly states in the topmost part that Dalmatia is a "region of Croatia and Montenegro". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All infobox implies that Dalmatia is a country or at least autonomical province or something like that, while it's only a geographical region. Infobox has a flag (which is historical one so non existing in the present moment!), a historical coat of arms (a part of modern Croatian coat of arms) - not modern one, there's data on population from 2001 census, obviously someone compiled results of 4 Croatian counties, and if Dalmatia geographically spreads to the Montenegrin coast does it include that population too? If not why is there info about 2001 census. It gives unuseful info about currency: Kuna, since Kuna is Croatian currency, not "Dalmatian" or "also used by Dalmatians". Shall we create infobox for Lika region too and say that Licans use Kuna too? Or we can make infobox for Kvarner or maybe even Liburnia (another historical region of Croatia) with similar useless data overlapping the north of Dalmatia and the most of Kvarner? See Normandy, there's no infobox, it's only geographical in modern ages. This infobox is ridiculous and misleading. Zenanarh (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you point out exactly where in Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines is it discouraged to use infoboxes on geographical regions? I do not see how you can describe an infobox stating that "Dalmatia is a region" as "misleading" in such a way that it supposedly suggests that Dalmatia is not a region. Also, if infoboxes are "too misleading" for regions why do we have the Region Infobox Template? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DIR, modern region of Dalmatia doesn't have a flag, currency, exactly defined territory, population defined by any census in its territory, etc. Despite of region infobox template, there is no relevant encyclopedic data to be included in such infobox here. And what is editted here is OR in a large part. Zenanarh (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then we should post an AfD immediately? This is not an official site, even if the coat of arms of Dalmatia is defined by no government, that does not mean it does not exist and is not a matter of public knowledge. I'll ask again: which policy are you quoting concerning the infobox? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody said that it does not exist, why do you relate infobox to existance of it? I don't think that infobox itself is useless, it's useless because it includes useless data. Flag and coat of arms are historical ones (but it can be presented with related image text, out of infobox too), and main historical moments listed there are relevant. But nothing else. Area, population by censi etc. are unknown or beter to say undefined. Normandy exists too, but there's no infobox. Zenanarh (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are here to organize all types of information from the text, Zen. They are not only for "official" information, inclusion in the infobox does not make info "official". If you don't think the infobox is accurate, feel free to remove inaccurate information: but don't remove all of it. Don't remove the entire infobox when there is no reason, whatsoever, to do so. Would you feel better about this if this were not a "country" infobox? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are here to provide quick overview on some general info. It doesn' matter if this info is "official" or not, I agree, but it must be accurate and relevant. I don't think that infobox is problematic just because it's infobox. Problem with this infobox is that there is some data "prefabricated" or "undefined" but also "impossible to check", just to enable existance of an infobox. Dalmatian flag presented there is historical one, it doesn't exist anymore. Dalmatian coat of arms is historical one, it's used now as a part of Croatian coat of arms, so real coat of arms used in Dalmatia is actually Croatian, since Dalmatia is region in Croatia. Nobody uses Dalmatian anymore. But an avarage reader can get impression that these symbols (flag, coa) are something official or in common usage in Dalmatia. Dalmatia is actually non-defined geographical region in Croatia, although widely used as such, you will never find 2 definitions of its area. If you ask 10 different Dalmatians, you will get 10 different answers. So it's impossible to measure its area. It's impossible to define population if you don't know area. 2001 Croatian census has no info on area called Dalmatia. If Boka and Kotor are in Dalmatia why its population is not included? What's use of compiling different population data from different countries in 21st century to get supposed population settled in an area which used to be a province 200, 500 or 2.000 yrs ago (never in the same borders! it was always changing!). So you seem to have decided what Dalmatia is?!
 * If all this incorrect info is removed, then there is no need for an infobox here. It seems it's here only because "with infobox the article looks better". Zenanarh (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"It doesn' matter if this info is "official" or not, I agree, but it must be accurate and relevant." Exactly. You just agreed above that the flag and coat of arms are accurate and warrant incursion in the article. If you feel some of the information in the infobox is inaccurate and irrelevant, please edit-away. I do not see, however, how that makes the infobox itself "inaccurate". The CoA and Flag are most certainly the insignia of the region of Dalmatia. If the Balkans (another region) had a flag, why should that be excluded from an infobox? You should know that a "region" is rarely "official", often spans a number of countries, and may well have symbols that must not be omitted. In Croatia the regionalist idea supports the creation of an "official" Dalmatia, but in general regions are very rarely officially decreed. I agree, however, that the impression may be gained that Dalmatia is an "official region". We should include notes in the infobox clearly pointing out that it is not. I also agree that Dalmatia is not clearly defined, and that also should be taken into account. You have some very legitimate concerns here, Zen, but that just means we should modify the article, not remove the infobox for no good reason just because that's easier. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

History
Given that Dalmatia reaches down to Albania, mention should also be made of Pagania, Hum, Dukjla during the early period. Hxseek (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox (Montenegro)
As far as I can tell from the latest discussions (a few sections up, from 2008), there is no actual reference for saying that today's Dalmatia includes Boka or Neum, so I'm going to remove those claims from the article as unsourced. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Language
Is there a special reason that the region is given in Afrikaans where other names are displayed? If I don't get a response here the next time I check this section, I will remove it because Afrikaans is extremely remote. User:Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dalmatia is connected with the Albanian dele/delme and means "sheep"
Can anybody writhe that pleace, is the first part in page 749, source http://books.google.de/books?id=WJbd0m6YaFkC&dq=A+history+of+ancient+Greek,+from+begining+to+late+antiquity&source=gbs_navlinks_s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.20.66 (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Region of Dalmatia
Currently there is a discussion about forming the region of Dalmatia. Proposed capital is Split. However, Dubrovnik objects to that-they want be a separate region.Unlike them Zadar has an ambition to itself capital of entire Dalmatia. There shoud have been written a bit about that.Here are some references:

      

--Kennechten (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Currency in Dalmatia
Kuna and Euro are listed as currencies in Dalmatia. I suggest erasing the euro as a currency in Dalmatia because it (still) isn't one. Mikizd (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm removing it because it is not an official currency, and everything is advertised in Kunas, not Euros. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly Dalmatia is a historical region antedating the Euro or the Kuna. --Bejnar (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dalmatia is not in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Montenegro
Dalmatia is region in Croatia. All historians today agree that term "Dalmatia" was spreading with the conquest of Republic of Venice. Dubrovnik was only arguably part of Dalmatia in early modern age. People from Dubrovnik had their own identity. So, if bay of Kotor (which was in possesion of Republic of Dubrovnik) is in Montenegro, that doesn't mean Dalmatia is today in Montenegro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.174.163 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The people of Split have their own identity, that doesn't make them not part of Dalmatia. A number of cities along the eastern Adriatic coast were independent of the hinterlands at various times over the past 500 years, that doesn't take them out of Dalmatia. There is no particular reason to suspect that the current political borders reflect the exact historical range of the term Dalmatia. It is, without a doubt, true that the majority of Dalmatia currently lies within the borders of Croatia. And thus a summary statement like that in the Encyclopedia Britannica (See FN1 in this article) that places Dalmatia in Croatia is substantially true. However, that does not address the issue raised by IP editor 94.253.174.163 above, namely: "What is the southernmost point in Dalmatia?" Kotor, formerly Cattaro, is often given as that point. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica said that the Austrian crownland of Dalmatia diminished to less than 1 m. at Cattaro. (vol. 7, p. 772), and maps show Dalmatia extending several miles south of Kotor, for example: Balkan States 1899. Since the Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, it would be better for this important (at least to IP editor 94.253.174.163) question be answered by an appropriate scholarly work (secondary source). And, for the text to be corrected from Dalmatia lies in Croatia. to Dalmatia lies primarily within Croatia. Lastly, I should point out to 94.253.174.163 that the boundaries of the Republic of Ragusa (referred to above as the Republic of Dubrovnik) were not stable over time, and while the Bay of Kotor may have been part of that republic, it does not show up that way on most maps, for example: in Shepard's map of 1560 it belongs to Venice. I will search out an appropriate secondary source and make the change, unless there is reasoned objection. --Bejnar (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have checked carefully. In the German, Spanish and Italian versions of wikipedia the article about Dalmatia is about the transnational geographic region and therefore reported primarily in Croatia but not exclusively there. Also the bay of Kotor is described in en:wiki as Dalmatia. On top of that for an obvious reason of territorial continuity we cannot exclude Neum as part of Dalmatia.


 * If the idea of this article is to to describe the administrative region of Croatia, in that case the article has to be rewritten (namely all the sections about the history removed, because they are not exclusive of Croatia) and a new one about the whole Dalmatia should be created. Common sense would be to just correct the present article describing the different parts of moder Dalmatia across the three nations (Croatia, BH and Montenegro).


 * As it is today, it's really a mess-up. It is described as a geographic region of Croatia, which is a confusing definition because geographic regions are not administrative regions. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please simply see the section below instead. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did, but I disagree. The article presents the thing with confusion and differently from the other Wikipedias. And my comment above does not find an asnwer below.--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't think it looks like Croatian irredentism to say Bay of Kotor is a part of a Croatian region? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it does unless a contemporary Montenegrin source says "Boka Kotorska is a part of Dalmatia within Montenegro". If such a source does not exist, then the claim that the Bay of Kotor is now a part of Dalmatia is a piece of OR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides, sources like this and this place Dalmatia within Croatia. without a peep on anything outside of it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)