Talk:Dalmatia/Archive 5

Clarification of some things stated in the article
I don't want to change the article but some things stated there are weird. For instance Dalmatia doesn't have a flag. I think that that flag was used during Austro-Hungarian for Kingdom of Dalmatia, but I don't think it's appropriate to state that as a flag of Dalmatia as a historical region of Croatia. I don't think that flag can be found anywhere in Dalmatia. The coat of arms is ok, since it's stated on the state coat of army, but the flag can be really found today and it's not right to identify Kingdom of Dalmatia with a historical region of Dalmatia. Dalmatia was a Croatian region long before the Kingdom of Dalmatia, and the coat of arms is the symbol that was always associated with it, while that flag was only present during Kingdom of Dalmatia. The second thing is stated in the lead. It's stated that Dalmatia is one of four historical regions of Croatia but there are more. For instance Medimurje would be the biggest one that is left out. Croatia proper is really just central Croatia. I would like some clarifications before I go and change the article that some people have been editing for a long time. Thank you. 89.164.177.185 (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "fact" that Dalmatia is a historical region is barely supported in the article. Indeed the "current borders" of this "historical region" (!?) are drawn using the geographical definition used by the Croatian bureau of statistics (??). Quite a paradox, when you think that there is no proper region in the administrative structure of Croatia. However, you can check in the archives, there was an endless discussion about this involving 4 or 5 editor (including myself). Silvio1973 (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Dalmatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531124016/http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/49268/gorilo-u-nekoliko-dalmatinskih-zupanija to http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/49268/gorilo-u-nekoliko-dalmatinskih-zupanija
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521055145/http://ec.europa.eu/news/environment/110728_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/news/environment/110728_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of "Dalmatia"
If you have a source, provide it. If you don't, don't replace sourced content.  ~barakokula31  (talk)  12:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Barakokula31 my source is almost all historians of antiquity. Stop the Albanization of historical facts. Albanian as a language is very new late medieval invention. You will not find any old Albanian texts, because the language did not exist. What existed were many local languages and dialects which were artificially fused into Albanian language. Similar to Italian language which was created by Dante.


 * Can you name at least one of those historians? Which book or article, preferably with a page or even a quote?  ~barakokula31  (talk)  13:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Barakokula31 https://www.revolvy.com/topic/Dalmatia&item_type=topic

https://books.google.rs/books?id=UxSnm-mUp40C&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=delmat+illyrian+word&source=bl&ots=BmMumQ6F7K&sig=nA2-iHR5hEZjuiybfDUADKA183Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin0PSayavTAhWMXRoKHZQIDuIQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=delmat%20illyrian%20word&f=false

https://www.britannica.com/place/Dalmatia
 * Did you consider that a "Rough guide to Croatia" might not actually be a good source on etymology? The revolvy article is copied from Wikipedia and isn't a source at all. Wikipedia can't cite itself, even through the 'back door' of a mirror site. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Quote EB: "the name Dalmatia probably comes from the name of an Illyrian tribe, the Delmata, an Indo-European people who overran the northwestern part of the Balkan Peninsula beginning about 1000 bce", which is what it says in our article. This seems to be what you are disputing, unless I misunderstand. Kleuske (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I have checked several other sources; they all say that Dalmatia comes from Delmatae, the name of an Illyrian tribe. None of them, however, mention the origin of the tribe's name. If I'm getting this right, you're disputing the claim that Delmatae is related to the Albanian word for "sheep"?
 * I'd also suggest taking a look at Citing sources and Copyrights (because you seem to have copied text directly from the book, without any attribution whatsoever). Thank you.  ~barakokula31  (talk)  14:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * has been blocked for one week due to edit warring. I will be taking this discussion to their talk page.  ~barakokula31  (talk)  15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Kotor bay
same as region of Dubrovnik were never part of geografical Dalmatia. They were part of austrian crown land (kingdom) of Dalmatia after desolution of Republic of Dubrovnik and Republic of Venice, when that regions became part of Habsburg Monarchy in early 19. century. Even today Dubrovnik f.e, have its own heraldic on the symbols of Croatia as flag etc...Between Dalmatia and Dubrovnik is Herzegowina, golf of Neum-Klek, and between Dubrovnik and Boka is Herzegovina again, place called Sutorina, which both were part of Ottoman empire till 1878 and austrian ocupation of Bosnia-Herzegowina. Dubrovnik was independent state for centuries, and Boka was part of so called "Venetian Albania", not Dalmatia.In this text its obviously mixed Historical region or land of Dalmatia, with austrian politiac unit till 1918. known as "Kingdom of Dalmatia", also Boka did not became part of state of Montenegro after WW1, it became same as whole former province of Dalmatia part of newmaded state of Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenes. Boka became part of yugoslav federal unit of Montenegro after WW 2, together with Sutorina and Spič area, and Dalmatia and Dubrovnik became parts of yugoslav federal unit of Croatia also after WW2.--Rethymno (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems you "remember" or have knowledge only about last few centuries. Dubrovnik was part od Dalmatia, not only a part. During Medievial ages Dalmatia consisted of 2 parts: Dalmatia Inferior led by Zadar (it was also capital of all Dalmatia) and Dalmatia Superior led by Dubrovnik. In fact Dubrovnik was Dalmatian city which lasted much longer than later indepedence. Read some book mate.85.114.52.106 (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, please, give to us direction for "Illirian language dictionary" !!! Comeone, this is redeciolus. Also to not forget stupidity that in 1922 only Boka (so called "Kotor bay" ?!?)became part of Zeta Banovina in Kingdom of SHS, NO, also whole Dubrovnik area was part of that Banovina ! see article: [],even "banovina's" as administrative units of Kingdom of Yugoslavia egzist from 1929...After all what i see in this article, what to say, and not start to cry ?!?Not even smallest conection with historicaly prooved facts,this is a kind of pamflet not of serious article.--Rethymno (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not thrue. Off course that on the map of Croatia Montenegro stand as neighburing country. But southern area of state called Boka kotorska or Kotor bay is colored by blue color ! So revert your changes or i will do that.--Rethymno (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the caption reads "The extent of the Kingdom of Dalmatia on a map of modern-day Croatia", so it's obvious that the blue refers to the territory of the Kingdom, which is indeed ~95% located in modern-day Croatia, and the rest overlaps something else. I mean, whatever, but our readers are not blind, and the captions do not have to reflect every tiny detail. No such user (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

But there is some truth here. Our article mixes up what is the region of Dalmatia with what were the borders of the Austrian Dalmatia. I used to visit often Dubrovnik and Cavtat when young and locals allways refered to Dalmatia as to the region futher North, never as part of it. By we need to see how eliable sources define Dalmatia (region) and add that to the article, and having those definitions, make a map. FkpCascais (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Translate this page to Dalmatian language
Hello, I wanted to translate this page to Dalmatian language, but wikipedia don't use dalmatian lagnage to translate on it. Do you have any idea how to do that? Thanks in advance. MaritaDalmatina (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Marita


 * There are several pages on the incubated Dalmatian Wikipedia, which seem to deal with Dalmatia: Wp/dlm/Dalmacija, Wp/dlm/Dalmaćia, Wp/dlm/Dalmazia. You should be able to edit them (don't forget, you have use prefixes in the Incubator). Also, probably, these pages should be merged, if they all deal with the same topic, as I suspect.


 * Incubator does not use extensions to help out with the translation itself. - Xbspiro (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)



Dear Xbspiro.

Thanks for your comment, but that's not what I'm asking fore. Wikipedia does not recognise ISO code for dalmatian language, and dalmatian linguashere, so is it possuble to translate and publish with no dalmatian ISO code and dalmatian linguasphere?

Thanks in advance.


 * Oh, I see. Not on Wikimedia, but you can use Incubator Plus to start a project in Dalmatian. - Xbspiro (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

DAI
User:Thhhommmasss (edit), "History" section needs work (will check it in upcoming days/weeks), but the edited information isn't neutral and true, however reliably sourced, as it has been widely disputed in science. Wikipedia isn't based on primary historical sources which often have erroneous information hence relies on secondary sources who made an analysis, comparison, criticism and else of them. Major and other viewpoints are explained in sections of linked articles contradicting the edited information/viewpoint by Fine (whose works aren't without much criticism), and widely discussed by editors in many talk pages reaching a consensus (including recently Talk:Višeslav of Serbia). Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources you cite with respect to DAI are all Croatian historians. I am sure there are Serb historians who conversely cite only the portions dealing with Serbs in Dalmatia. Fact is there were until the 14th century multiple Serb states in southern Dalmatia, including a state of the Njemanic's with its main city in Ston on Peljesac, plus the 14th-century Duchy of St. Sava, mentioned by Jozo Tomasevich among others. Those are facts, and they do not make these parts Serbian states today, same as many posted maps of 11-century Croatia that include half of Bosnia, do not make Bosnia Croatian, nor do huge maps of Venetian holdings make Dalmatia Italian Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The sources you cite with respect to DAI are all Croatian historians" proves you didn't check the sources at all, as I am citing international and Serbian historians as well. Your bold edit can be considered now as disruptive. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I stated what is cited for DAI. On Google Scholar John Fine's book "Early Medieval Balkans" is cited 467 times, the 2 Croatian sources referring to the DAI are cited 4 and Zero times, respectively, so it is clear what is or isn't reliably sourced. So you are making your judgements over Google Scholer what are Reliable Sources, Your bold deletion of a widely cited, clearly reliable source, in preference to minor, marginal sources is clearly disruptive.Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot state something ignoring WP:WEIGHT which you clearly don't understand hence making disruptive edits. That's not how WEIGHT and reliability are established on Wikipedia neither it's relevant considering the issue. A source can be regarded as reliable/unreliable but specific information/viewpoint cited in the source can be still unreliable/reliable and minor/significant/major viewpoint for citation on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What is per WP the weight of a Zero-cited source, apparently self-published on zero-peer-reviewed Academia.edu, which you left, compared to a widely-cited book by a professor of history at a major world university, whom you deleted? If by weight you mean many zero-cited sources, then there are no doubt many Serbian sources who also lend "weight" to their claims. Next to this zero-cited source is a citation of Ivan Muzic, whom Croatian Wikipedia describes as a lawyer and "a passionate polemicist from the point of view of Croatian nationalism and Catholicism".The cited article, which is a review of Muzic's book (The Origins of the Croats: The Autochthonousness of Croatian ethnogenesis on the soil of the Roman province of Dalmatia), states that Muzic himself describes his "methodology" as: "Works that do not fit my criteria, regardless of their authority, I did not mention" and the reviewer states this is a purely subjective work, i.e. an opinion piece. Wow, sure sounds scientific and NPOV to me! By all means, let's then add here lots of citations of "passionate polemicists from the point of view of Serbian nationalism and Orthodoxy", who ignore authoritative works that do not fit their "criteria", for some real WP:WEIGHT. Anyway, I do not see that either of these 2 cited sources meet even the minimum WP criteria for RS, and should be deleted Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not continuing this ridiculous and nonsensical discussion. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)