Jump to content

Talk:Dalmatia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

definition (Bay of Kotor)

  • Ignoring the very small proportion of Dalmatia that is in Montenegro will not make it go away. This article is not about a Croatian province (county). This article is about the historical region. Normally historical regions don't have currency boxes, because the currencies change over time. My recommendation is to have no currency box in this article. But if editors believe that currency is important, then such a currency discussion should reflect the changes over the history of the area, which means that such a discussion belongs in a different article, namely History of Dalmatia. Is there objection to deleting the currency entry in the infobox? If so, please state your reasons. --Bejnar (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is about the primary meaning of the term "Dalmatia", and that is not just the historical region. The Bay of Kotor region was historically part of Dalmatia, but to say so today is anachronistic - when it was removed from the Kingdom of Dalmatia almost a hundred years ago, people gradually stopped considering it part of Dalmatia. Today, such a notion could easily be considered irredentist, so please avoid it unless you can back it up with actual sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of pre-1805 maps that show Dalmatia's full extent. What were you looking for? There is a separate article about Dalmatia County. I do think the point is, as is cogently stated in the definition section,: Dalmatia signified not only a geographical unit, but was an entity based on common culture and settlement types, a common narrow eastern Adriatic coastal belt, Mediterranean climate, sclerophyllous vegetation of the Illyrian province, Adriatic carbonate platform, and karst geomorphology. --Bejnar (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The pre-1805 geographic information is historical. It's not current - on modern-day maps, Dalmatia does not extend beyond Prevlaka. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Joy on this one - eastern Syrmia was a part of Slavonia, but it would be entirely useless to discuss eastern Syrmia in article on geographic region of Slavonia beyond a mention in a history section. The same applies here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, historical Dalmatia's boundaries have been much larger than present day. --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The article, IMO, is about a geographic region of Croatia - which has its history. For other uses there are Kingdom of Dalmatia and Dalmatia (Roman province) articles.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Shouldn't the states and territories formed in 10 category be removed?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's confusing here, it should be at the Roman province article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

definition

  • Can we agree that this article is not about a region of any particular country, i.e. modern Croatia, but is instead about the region on the east side of the Adriatic that is historically known as Dalmatia? As the footnote says: Dalmatia is not designated as an official region, it is a geographic region only ... historic boundaries of Dalmatia varied over centuries. I would point out that there are separate articles about the administrative divisions of Croatia. If we can agree, then connections to Croatia can appear in the article without a problem. --Bejnar (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Croatia actually consists of three main historical geographic regions: Dalmatia, Croatia proper (which is basically "Central Croatia" + "Mountainous Croatia"), and Slavonia. Plus there's also Istria. This isn't an administrative division of Croatia, its one of its historic geographic regions. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Direktor, you are getting to the point. Dalmatia as administrative region of Croatia does not exist. Describing it as a "Geographic Region of Croatia" it looks more a way to push the POV that all Dalmatia is Croatian than anything else. Even assuming good faith of the editors it remains the issue that Dalmatia as a geographic region is transnational across Croatia (more than 90% of the territory), Montenegro and at lesser extent BH. Whatever are the historic boundaries taken in the definition of Dalmatia the split across the above cited 3 nations is always valid (in same periods this could have included even . Indeed in de:wiki, en:wiki and it:wiki this region is described as transnational across the 3 nations and more precisely 4 regions in Croatia, 1 in BH and 1 in Montengro. I do not see a reason not to present the facts the same. If some editors continue insisting that the current article is just about the Croatian part of Dalmatia, I will edit a new article about Dalmatia and this common sense will force in the end to merge the two articles.

I believe we can find a way to consensus that will be more appropriate and certainly faster. For the time being I consider the neutrality of the article under discussion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the problem exists mostly, or entirely with the infobox. If the infobox were eliminated, I think the confusion might be as well. Can we get some kind of consensus? Comment continued under "Infobox problem" below. --Bejnar (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
the POV that all Dalmatia is Croatian than anything else

But it actually is; Dalmatia is today defined by the borders of Croatia. Nobody except perhaps some wacko irredentists thinks Ljubuški, Neum or Herceg Novi are Dalmatia today. If you want to claim otherwise, please present some reliable sources. Not from two hundred years ago, but from today. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, defining Dalmatia as a cultural region and then using borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia to do so entails double standards. There is no "Montenegrin Dalmatia" and no "Bosnia-Herzegovinian Dalmatia" as no sources support that. AFAICT all modern sources define dalmatia as a region entirely within Croatia, Gračac municipality sometimes being included and sometimes not, all of the Pag Island sometimes being included and sometimes not (following present county lines). I tagged the article with {{refimprove}} as it is largely unreferenced and much of its content hinges on this false assumption (=OR) that the region of Dalmatia extends beyond Croatian borders.
It is fine to discuss history of Dalmatia in here no matter what the borders were in the past as events in the 19th century Bay of Kotor may have impacted the entire Dalmatia - but to insist that if Bay of Kotor was once a part of Dalmatia it is still a part of Dalmatia (and offer zero sources on that extraordinary claim) reeks of irredentism and double standards. Bay of Kotor is no more part of Dalmatia as Zemun is a part of Slavonia (the latter was a part of the Kingdom of Slavonia, remember).--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
After a further look, insistence on Kingdom of Dalmatia borders in present-day context seems prevalent. This led to use of term "historic and cultural region" which is doubtful as the geographic region also contains territory once a part of Dubrovnik Republic which has a significantly different history and somewhat different culture from the rest of Dalmatia. IMO culture and history should be dealt with in this article, yes, but there is no point in pretending that the Kingdom of Dalmatia exists at some cultural and historical level, including present-day Bay of Kotor, when it does not.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I think the problem (see above under "Dalmatia is not in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Montenegro") exists mostly, or entirely with the infobox. If the infobox were eliminated, I think the confusion might be as well. Can we get some kind of consensus? I don't see anyone since IP editor 94.253.174.163 last December taking a non-geographical region stance. Is it just the infobox? The infobox is for settlements, not transnational geographical regions. --Bejnar (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any confusion whatsoever engendered by the infobox. Dalmatia isn't technically a "geographic region", but rather a historical/cultural region of Croatia - that's the only inaccuracy that I can see.
Regarding Dalmatia being a Croatian region. We are certain that, at the very least, the vast majority of Dalmatia is a part of the Republic of Croatia. If one wishes to postulate that Dalmatia is at present(!) also a part of some other country - one would need a source for that. If a reliable source is found to such an effect, I would consent to amending the infobox accordingly, but I would remove it.
Will this do as a source? The first line in the Dalmatia section of the Rough Guide to Croatia says: Stretching from Zadar in the north to the Bay of Kotor (now part of Montenegro) in the south, Dalmatia possesses one of Europe's most dramatic shorelines, as the stark, grey wall of the coastal mountains sweeps down towards a lush seaboard ribbon dotted with palm trees and olive plantations. See here. --Bejnar (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
When asked for a specific reliable source, you linked a seemingly random web site whose name is "roughguides.com". *facepalm* Please read WP:IRS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That was a convenient place to read the page from the Rough Guide for Croatia. The Rough Guides are a travel book series that are generally considered reliable. You will find them pretty widely cited in the Wikipedia. If you would like the full citation, I'd have to find the volume at the library, unless that is one of the pages that GoogleBooks shows. --Bejnar (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The full citation is Bousfield, Jonathan (2010). The Rough Guide to Croatia. Penguin. p. 263. ISBN 978-1-84836-936-8. --Bejnar (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
A travel guide can be a useful reliable source for general information, but not for resolving these kinds of debates. Besides, the page is fraught with "rough". Not only could they be referring to the Bay of Kotor simply as the border (IOW the limit; Dalmatia stretches to the bay, but does not necessarily include it), but the actual northern border is actually well to the north of Zadar, and their list then excludes Dubrovnik from Dalmatia, with the southernmost point they describe there being Korčula. You can't really expect anyone to take this kind of a hazy source as authoritative. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
But regardless, to me this seems like nitpicking, and the only thing I see is a very useful, educational infobox in the article. Throughout its history, Dalmatia has continuously been reducing in size. Even if we consider that Kotor Bay and Neum are still, as they were centuries ago, a part of Dalmatia, this would still be "a Croatian region" to all intents and purposes. Those two areas are incredibly tiny and virtually insignificant (particularly Neum).
If we define the borders of Dalmatia after the borders of the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia, then the Neum area is not a part of Dalmatia, and the only area that is in question is Kotor Bay. If someone can find a source that describes Kotor Bay as part of Dalmatia in the present-day context(!), I would consent to including Montenegro as also possessing a (tiny) part of Dalmatia. Again, however, that looks like nitpicking: Dalmatia is about as "Croatian" as it gets (for good or for ill). The accuracy of describing it as a "Croatian region" is by no means in question or even reasonably debatable. The Kotor Bay area, even though a part of Montenegro since 1945, itself has a significant Croatian minority. -- Director (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that Director is missing the point, mostly clearly in the statement Dalmatia isn't technically a "geographic region", but rather a historical/cultural region of Croatia. The seafaring culture of Dalmatia is quite distinct from that of Zagreb or that of eastern Croatia. Even the inland Dalmatian culture is distinct. The reason for having an article is because the area has certain features in common, and is referred to preferentially in sources because of that commonality, rather than being referred to as Croatia. There is no question that the majority of Dalmatian lands are currently within the political borders of the Republic of Croatia, but this is not a political article. While this is not the article History of Dalmatia there is a strong historical flavour to it because of continuing cultural practices. Geographic studies are not just landform studies, they include culture, cultural history, economics and trade. I am not sure what definition Director puts on the term "geographic". Maybe it should be clearer in the lede (lead) why Dalmatia is special enough for a separate article. Aside from the problems with the infobox, the section "Administrative division" needs retitling something like "Current political divisions" or something and placed as a subsection of "20th century" or "21st century". As far as expansion goes, culture is often hard to write about factually, but there are source materials such as Dalmatia: history, culture, art heritage (2006) by Antun Travirka, Robert Ehrich's 62 page, 1970, On the Yugoslavian Adriatic drainage as a culture area through time, the various travel guides such as the Dubrovnik & Southern Dalmatia chapter from Lonely Planet's Croatia, and pree WWI books in German. There are even academic studies like John Fine's 2010 When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods (Notice in passing the cultural separation in his title.) Historical studies abound such as Giuseppe Maria Pilo's 2005 The fruitful impact: the Venetian heritage in the art of Dalmatia. --Bejnar (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No Direktor, as Bejnar points out the issue exists. Please note that there are plenty of similar situation, such as Tyrol, Bukovina, Moldavia and many others. About Dalmatian Geographic region the situation is similar, indeed even easier. Please not that writing that Neum is tiny is correct, but insignificant it is not. San Marino is tiny but not for that in Italy it is considered as part of Italy. Similarly, Neum is what it is and has to be included in the current article. Otherwise you are assuming that the Dalmatian geographic has a discontinuity or worse that Neum is in Croatia. About Kotor there is no contest. Many sources includes Kotor in Dalmatia hence it has to be reported in this article. Unless you cannot demonstrate with a non-Croatian source that Dalmatia finishes in Prevlaka. The possibilities are two: 1) The current article is only about the Croatian part of Dalmatia. In that case you have to edit the article accordingly and however I will write from scrap another article for the entire Dalmatia. In the end common sense will drive to merge the articles. 2) We find a consensus modifying the present article. Please be assertive about which solution you want to explore. Also your final comment about the significant Croatian minory in Kotor Bay suggests that there is the reasonable risk that the article Dalmatia as it is today presents things pushing a serious POV (the historical claim of ownership on the Bay of Kotor). Indeed, the current article bay of Kotor has been disputed and as not gone yet to stability due to nationalism claims of Croatian nationalists (please see in the Talk page) insisting that the Bay of Kotor is part of Croatia homeland.

I think now there is enough elements now to consider the neutrality of the article under question. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, neutrality is one issue. To the extent that and where Croatia takes precedence over Dalmatia, the article is not focused appropriately on Dalmatia and I would call such distortion a lack of neutrality. But equally important is that the infobox currently in use is inappropriate, as well as distorting. This article is not about a settlement. --Bejnar (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
@Bejnar. I'm "missing the point"? "Seafaring culture"? I'm a Dalmatian, Bejnar, and I don't mean I walk on four legs. Hopefully you'll not presume to teach me what my own culture is or how it is distinct from others. You have a serious case of confusing the region of Croatia (or "Croatia proper") with the country of Croatia. Dalmatia is not part of the region of Croatia, obviously, but it is within the country of Croatia. Its absolute nonsense to suggest this means it is inaccurate to refer to it as a "Croatian region". The "Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia" bit you quote is a reference to the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia, the Croatian name for their lands during the Austro-Hungarian period.
As to the last point, there was a reason for the name during the Austro-Hungarian period. As to your first, unfortunately or not, we are not allowed to use personal knowledge in lieu of citation to sources. Nor should we edit articles that are too close to our personal lives where our non-Wikipedia interests may affect our ability to distinguish neutrality and related problems. Wikipedia makes a Plain and simple conflict of interest guide available for editors, as well as the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Bejnar (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The only area of Dalmatia that might arguably not be a part of Croatia is a tiny strip along the Bay of Kotor in Montenegro. Since that is a challenged claim lets have a reliable published source that says so. Then we can say something about the Bay of Kotor as well. Otherwise - no.
Look above, I provided the citation to a current source where you requested it. --Bejnar (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll not even respond to the nonsense about "Croatian nationalism". The damn region is in Croatia, probably 100%, possibly 99% with 1% in Montenegro. It makes little or no difference. Its not an Italian region, Silvio. Its Croatian, possibly also Montenegrin in small part. The current infobox is perfectly appropriate for the subject, and describing this historical/cultural region as a "Croatian region" is completely accurate and not misleading in the slightest. The rest is POV-pushing of the other nationalist sort. -- Director (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Question: When you say The rest is POV-pushing of the other nationalist sort. What is the referent for "the rest"? I didn't catch the meaning there. --Bejnar (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
@Direktor, no-one is discussing that the most of Dalmatia lies in Croatia but not 100% of it. The article as it is today suggests a concept (all Dalmatia as geographic region is Croatian) that is arguable (to say the less) and certainly different from the other wikipedias. I do not understand why it should be considered nationalist who simply disagree with the Croatian view on this matter. It could be the other way round.
And please stop attacking me. I never said it's an Italian region so please adapt your wording.
If this article is not about politics, it is about culture, ethnicity, history, environment and whatever else. In that sense Dalmatia definitely includes Kotor and for a necessity of territorial continuity also Neum (for small that this part of BH might be). --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, what exactly is it you're proposing? -- Director (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For Istria a similar problem was solved creating two pages:

--Grifter72 (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In case of Istria that's completely fine. I think there are sufficient sources claiming that Dalmatia, as defined in present-day, is completely located in Croatia (see Dalmatia is not in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Montenegro section above for sources). Unlike Istria, Dalmatia is not organized in a single county, but if need be there's "Southern Croatian Littoral" used as a synonym for Dalmatia, albeit rarely (source 1 source 2). But once again, I see no need for such a move per above sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Grifter72. That makes sense, because we have to have an article about the county and the region. Here we already have articles on the four Dalmatian counties, and Dalmatia itself doesn't correspond with any single administrative area. I think a further split here would be quite inappropriate (particularly since we already have one, if you'll pardon the pun :)).
But I don't see the "problem" in the first place. What is the problem, exactly? Find a published, scholarly source (not some self-published website!) that says the Bay of Kotor and/or Neum are part of Dalmatia in the modern context - and we'll include them. That claim is challenged and needs to be sourced, if it cannot be sourced then there isn't much to discuss. Its as simple as that. -- Director (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no preview of the book and the title says it deals with Croatia. Can you provide a link to the full text?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Strange, probably you have restrictions in Croatia for this book. Honestly, it is used the term "Dalmatian Coast" and not "Dalmatia". --Grifter72 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This source claims that "Southern Dalmatia" extends between Neum and Sutorina, within borders of Croatia. The article does not explicitly say if Neum or Sutorina are parts of the "Southern Dalmatia" but use of term Sutorina implies that the Bay of Kotor is not considered a part of the "Southern Dalmatia" - Sutorina is located next to the southernmost part of the Croatian border to Montenegro.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The full citation is Bousfield, Jonathan (2010). The Rough Guide to Croatia. Penguin. p. 263. ISBN 978-1-84836-936-8. I hope that that text is readable for you. --Bejnar (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Issue 1. Is the infobox appropriate. I suggest that it is not because a.) Dalmatia is not a settlement, and b.) it gives disproportionate weight to political assignments. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Issue 2. What is the scope of Dalmatia? Is anyone unhappy with it running down to the Bay of Kotor? If so why does this make you unhappy? And don't say because there are no current reliable citations, those have been provided. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, its appropriate. a) Dalmatia isn't a settlement, true, but that hardly matters if the contents are accurate. If you can find a more appropriate template - feel free to bring it forward, but please do not expect a reduction in the emphasis on this being a "Croatian region". b) There I disagree completely. This is a Croatian region in every sense of the word, and using the phrase "region of Croatia" once in relation to Dalmatia is in no way over-emphasis.
  • Please bring forward a source for Bay of Kotor and/or Neum being a part of Dalmatia, otherwise such claims will eventually be stricken from the article as unsourced. When I say "source", I do not mean a random self-published website. I doubt you will find any source for Neum, but I'm fully open to the possibility that Kotor Bay is still considered by some sources to be a part of Dalmatia. And that is perhaps the best way to cover it ("sources like X,Y, and Z still consider Kotor Bay...").
  • Naturally. Feel free to add whatever you like :).
  • There is no discussion on political boundaries. Dalmatia is not a "political" region and does not itself have "political" boundaries (whatever you mean by that exactly). That does not mean it isn't within the political borders of Croatia, however.
-- Director (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
1. We all agree that Dalmatia is not a political entity. If it is not a political entity don't you find a kind of strange that the southern limit of this Geographic entity is set currently exactly at the political border betweeen Croatia and Montenegro? I would understand this if the political border was the Sea or a major lake or a massive mountain (whatever creates different regions and therefore different histories, environments, ethnicities and whatever else), but it's not the case.
2. Today de:wiki, es:wiki and it:wiki reports Dalmatia as transnational on three nations. It is somehow strange that en:wiki does not.
3. The necessity to include Naum is the territorial continuity. Please do not forget we speak of a geographic region.
4. As it is today the infobox gives an undue weight. At least this has to be adapted. Dalmatia in primarily Croatian, almost Croatia but not exclusively in Croatia.
5. An additional sources stating that Croatia is transnational : http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/dalmazia/

--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

1. No, because in Yugoslavia Dalamtia was always identified as the "region in Croatia". Montenegro (and the Yugoslav authorities in general) would not wish to emphasize that Kotor Bay might be part of Dalmatia as that would be perceived as granting credence to the old Croatian claim on that area, it would be very close to fostering border disputes among the republics. Its logical, but the bottom line is it doesn't matter what we find "strange" - source please.
2. No, they're copying the old (ancient) version of this article. Most Wikis copy enWiki, and either way - Wikipedia is not a source.
3. Um... what? "Territorial continuity"? "Necessity"? There is no such "necessity". An area either is or is not a part of this region, regardless of whether the region remains contiguous. And anyway, what about the islands? :) Neum was actually sold to the Bosnian Ottoman bigwigs centuries ago by Dubrovnik (to protect itself from Venice).
4. No, it does not. The phrase "region of Croatia" for a region in Croatia is not undue weight, not by a long shot.
5. Can you get a reliable, non-self-published secondary source or not? Preferrably in English so that people other than you and I might read it, and so that it might be kinda less involved in the "Dalmazia isn't Croatian" thing the Esuli've got going over there.
-- Director (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Not considering the Treccani a reliable source is definitely wrong. And again, the strategic use that Dubrovnik made of Neum does not make of it out of Dalmatia. You cannot create an enclave of non Dalmatia in the middle of Dalmatia because it is not Croatian. Otherwise you can exactly doing the opposite of what you day, because if Dalmatia is not a political region you cannot move areas that are just in the middle of it because they are not Croatian.

However, you can look at page 463 of this book in English. It clearly includes Kotor in Dalmatia. http://books.google.fr/books?id=FKYgAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA445&lpg=PA445&dq=dalmatia+atlas+of+human+geography&source=bl&ots=iio8iuZDA_&sig=Fn2n4N4WqvtuJdfpTazzmwta62 E&hl=fr#v=snippet&q=Dalmatia&f=false I agree that this source is old (but the Britannica of 1911 is not that old) but please realise that it's not because during Yugoslavia in order to solve ethnic conflicts (we have seen after in the 90's with how much success) it was decided that Kotor was not Dalmatia to avoid the syllogism (Dalmatia is Croatian + Kotor is Dalmatian = Kotor is Croatian) that it can be accepted that such position is now dominant on the rest of the literature.

PS Honestly, I do not understand why you keep insisting about this thing of Dalmatia and Italy. We are not discussing of Istrian Exodus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio1973 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care about anything other than a reliable source, Slivio. You can't seriously be posting here sources from a hundred-and-seventy years ago when the Kingdom of Dalmatia was in existence? Can you find a secondary publication, preferably non-Italian, that describes Kotor Bay as a part of Dalmatia in a modern-day context.
Oblasts of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
Here's a source from the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, that basically says that the reforms of 1922 established the southern border of the old Dubrovnik Republic as the southern border of Dalmatia [1]

"Podjelom Kraljevine SHS na oblasti 1922. godine, čitava je Boka kotorska od Sutorine do Spiča dodijeljena Zetskoj oblasti, tako da je granicu Dalmacije, tj. Dubrovačke oblasti predstavljala južna granica bivše Dubrovačke Republike..."

"With the subdivision of the Kingdom of SHS [i.e. the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes] into oblasts in 1922, the whole of the Bay of Kotor from Sutorina to Spič was granted to the Zeta Oblast ["Zeta" is an older name for Montenegro], so that the border of Dalmatia was formed by the southern border of the former Republic of Dubrovnik.

-- Director (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to work but there is a croatocentric vision of history. I've seen, a lot of historical regions are presented in the same way. For example my Lombardy is considered as an administrative region of Italy, but in the past it was something different. So, Dalmatia article is more a "Croatian Dalmatia" article because facts are represented in our time. Go ahead --Grifter72 (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, its just "Dalmatia", not "Croatian Dalmatia". Nowadays "Dalmatia" is completely Croatian (which was certainly not the case 200 years ago), but it isn't some other "Croatian Dalmatia" - its the same thing.
Strictly speaking, the whole thing is quite blurry in a cultural sense. In that sense "Dalmatia" is 1) the islands, and 2) a very, very thin, broken line along the coast where Croats who can be called "Slavic Dalmatians" still live in some kind of a majority (though the "line" is also pretty much gone by this point). The larger coastal cities are not really culturally "Dalmatian" anymore, and have not been for some decades. I mean some do have their remnants of "Slavic Dalmatians" (particularly Dubrovnik and Split to a lesser degree), but they're an ever-decreasing minority there. The folks from the hinterland pretty much overran/assimilated the old Dalmatians. Of course now the term "Dalmatians" is also slowly seeing itself redefined accordingly. People from Zagreb, for example, cannot differentiate for the life of them between a "Vlaj" (a term meaning "fellow from the hinterland") and a "Dalmatian", in my personal experience anyway :). -- Director (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, can you explain us under which grounds the limits of a geographic region changes in the time? They might certainly change in 5 millions years due to plates' subduction but not in 200 years. In 200 years only political borders do change. And you know better than me that only 70 years ago Kotor was included in the "Governorship of Dalmatia" so I don't see your argument that it's a mix-up of politics of geography or better a political claim dresses-up as a geography fact.
You ask for sources. There is nothing reliable as source when we speak of geography other than maps. Well maps sold by Stanford's (the most reliable editor and merchant of maps in Europe) clearly put Kotor in Southern Dalmatia: http://www.stanfords.co.uk/Home/Product-Detail/Dalmatian-Coast-South-Dubrovnik---Kotor---Ulcinj_9783850261401.htm
However it looks that even in Yugoslavia there was not an identity of views. Novak in Prošlost Dalmacije affirms that Southern Dalmatia has been part of Montenegro since 1945. Please refer to this link for the translation in English: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Dalmatia
This last two sources sum-up to the others already cited and to the fact that in other languages Dalmatia is described as including the Bay of Kotor.
Additionally, I need an answer about Neum. You have to give to us a good reason (and the size of this territory it's not a reason) why it should be excluded from Dalmatia. Can you please answer to this question? Is there a geographic change when we pass the border? Indeed if was not for the signs one would even not notice that's BH, almost everyone in Neum is Croat. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, regarding the Bay of Kotor. Lets have it up on the map in lighter blue as "variously defined as part of Dalmatia". As for the article, lets cover the issue in a standard way i.e "Sources X,Y, and Z describe Kotor Bay as remaining a part of Dalmatia..". That's about as much of a concession I'm hypothetically prepared to make given the precarious nature of the sources and given that there's more than one scholarly source that directly contradicts you. However, I'm not prepared to agree to amending in any way the infobox's statement of "region of Croatia". I've created a special .SVG map for this, hopefully we'll be able to put an end to the matter.
Regarding Neum.. Silvio, of course everyone in Neum is a Croat. That's because its in Herzegovina, which has a very large Croatian population. What, did you expect people there to be "Bosnians"? Silvio, Bosnia and Herzegovina has three constituent nations, Croats being one of them. You can go a hundred kilometers inland from Neum and still find a majority Croatian population.
@"You have to give to us a good reason (and the size of this territory it's not a reason) why it should be excluded from Dalmatia." - Nope. That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam. You're the one that needs sources for Neum being a part of Dalmatia. And since I know it is not, and has not been for centuries [2][3], I'd like an explicit source this time. -- Director (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you realise that you exclude Neum from Dalmatia for a political matter and not geographic? --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Always with the philosophy.. source? -- Director (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my earlier response, Silvio, I did not mean to be gruff. Dalmatia isn't strictly speaking a "geographic" region as such, that is to say, one defined through terrain or climate - it is a historical region. In reality there's no objective way to define the borders of Dalmatia, other than historical tradition. Culture is certainly not it: there's no "cultural" difference whatsoever today between the Zagora (the "Hinterland") and Herzegovina across the old Venetian border of the "Acquisto novissimo". Culturally, as I said, Dalmatia is basically just the islands nowadays (with a remnant in the coastal cities). Ethnicity isn't it as well - Croats everywhere, on both sides of the old Venetian border, and for dozens of miles on end. And, in the end, it isn't terrain or climate either.
It is only historical tradition that defines Dalmatia, and the border of the "Acquisto novissimo" (+Ragusa) is where it ends. There's some question whether historical tradition can consider Kotor Bay as part of Dalmatia, since in 1922 the borders were changed (and that's also part of the historical tradition), but that's hopefully been settled(?) now. Neum just isn't a part of Dalmatia. It was a part of the Republic of Dubrovnik between 1399 and 1699, when it was sold to the Ottoman Empire and became a part of Herzegovina. For over 300 years it was not part of any entity known as "Dalmatia", and for 300 years it was part of Herzegovina; and before 1399 it was a part of the Bosnian Kingdom (here's a 1784 Venetian map of Dalmatia [4]). Unless you can find a source that explicitly states otherwise, no claim about Neum should be made in the article.
The border of Croatia still to this day follows the old Venetian border (pretty much thanks to the communists, ironically, who re-established it in 1945 after it was gone for some decades)... If ethnicity were the determinant, then Croatia's border with Bosnia and Herzegovina would roughly be something like this [5] (plus Istria, of course ;)).My point is that the "political" borders of Croatia you're talking about are the historic Venetian borders of Dalmatia from centuries ago. Anyway, I'm obliged now to withdraw and go on a wikibreak. Regards -- Director (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, the issue is mainly of coherence. If Dalmatia is defined as a geographic region, than you have to assume the constraints of geography, one of this being the continuity. In reality Dalmatia today is not defined by a geographic criterion, but solely as the results of its history. And the history of Dalmatia is linked to Venice and Ragusa, or if you prefere it's linked to the very specific duality of the Romance and Slavic culture (with purpose I avoid to write Italian and Croatian) that can be seen in the culture, architecture and arts.
Indeed, We could spend years debating if Kotor is Dalmatian or not, but I think we all agree that that very peculiar duality never penetrated more than 30 or 40 kms in the hinterland. Indeed Dalmatia it's the Islands, the Coast and a very thin strip of Land. For this reason I find absolutely inappropriate to put on a map the precise borders of Dalmatia. The use of a political map for a region that is geographic and/or historic can drive to conclusions that can be argued easily. And honestly, I cannot find anything more brutal than setting with a sharp border the unique specificity of the Dalmatian culture.
However, if we believe to your map (that is by the way the same that can be found on other Croatian sources) I should conclude that Udbina and Korenica are Dalmatian but Neum and Kotor are not. This is arguable (to say the less).
The solution found in it:wiki it's in this sense much more elegant (please give a look to get convinced) and the use of a dashed line solve the issue. My proposal is to remove the map from the infobox (unless we cannot find a more appropriate one) and try to get a description of the this region much more attached to the history and its specificity other than to current political borders. We will then find consensus on the text of the article, this is easier. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference to TheFreeDictionary.com says "from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased.", and "Novak, G. Prošlost Dalmacije,[vols.] 1–2. Zagreb, 1944." This tells us that Grga Novak wrote about old borders of Dalmatia back in 1944, which was one year after the demise of the Governorate of Dalmatia, and 68 years ago from today. This is pretty much obsolete these days. On the other hand, Stanfords map seems current and could be used as a reference, if we have a practice of referencing them from Wikipedia - do we? Special:WhatLinksHere/Stanfords and a search for Stanfords+-stanford+site:en.wikipedia.org is not particularly reassuring. Can you bring this up at WP:RSN? Overall, the breadth and depth of the references provided so far to support this thesis seems at odds with WP:UNDUE at least. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for this late reply but I was on holiday. The fact that the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" might be ideologically biased does not mean that it is biased on this specific item. However I see your point. It is clear that the amount of sources claiming Dalmatia as exclusively lying in Croatia is by far larger than the others. We have to take account of this fact, otherwise we are at odds with WP:UNDUE. On the other side there is significant doubt about the inclusion of place likes Udbina and Korenica in Damatia and the exclusion of Neum and Kotor. We can dress it up the issue as much as we want but a fact resists: Dalmatia it's defined by its history and marginally by its geography. Definitely not by today's state borders.

Please appreciate that is quite funny that in the current infobox makes the border of this historical/geographic region correspond exactly with the border of modern Croatia. This equates to affirm that Croatia's borders correpond to the historic limits of the penetration of the Romance culture (Venice and Dubrovnik) in the Balkans. Quite an embarassing affirmation compared to the opinion of modern Croatian historiography affirming that Venice presence in Dalmatia was just marginal (demographically, geographically and culturally).

To conclude I have two problems with the article as it is today.

1) Places like Udbina and Korenica should not be included in Dalmatia more than places like Neum and Kotor.
2) Even if agreed to admit that the region is completely in Croatia, I have a fundamental problem in keeping in the infobox the border of this historical/geographical region corresponding to the state borders of Croatia. Either the infobox disappear or we use a compromise solution (please see on the Italian version of the article about the solution chosen, which is very elegant I believe).

--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I actually fully concur, I didn't notice the new map - it is wrong in that part. The problem is that small part of Zadar County near Gračac and Srb. (Not Korenica and Udbina; you misread.) Nobody, in Croatia or elsewhere, actually thinks those places are Dalmatia. The Zadar County is generally described as a Dalmatian county, but this simply doesn't mean that all parts of the said county are Dalmatia.
Also, I don't really appreciate your repeated wrong assertions about Croatian historiography. Croatian historians, including those who write history books for use in schools, are perfectly honest about the fact that it was the Republic of Venice's pushback against the Ottomans that created the inland border of Dalmatia. Literally. (I remember that from school a few decades back). Indeed, I actually referenced something exactly like that recently, you can verify that at Morean War#Battles in Dalmatia, where I had found a 2002 work from none other than Ante Nazor, a well-known historian who appears to be right-wing-leaning. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Just have time for a quick post. I'll fix the Zadar County bit when I return; I don't like the itWiki map. Nothing "personal", I just think its messy, confusing, and reffering to history rather than contemporary Dalmatia; which is kind of in-line with the perspective of Dalmatia no longer "really" existing (since its in Croatia). Again, not implying bias or POV-pushing, just sayin' I can detect an inherent, unintended slant in using that map.
Furthermore, since current Croatian borders were actually drawn in accordance with the borders of Dalmatia (i.e. Kingdom of Dalmatia) I think it makes perfect sense to equate the two... - since they're the same. They're the historic "acquisto novissimo" borders, drawn by Venice (the communists wanted to de-emphasize ethnicity, and therefore used the historic borders again). The only difference is Kotor. Note, for example, the bulge around the town of Imotski, which was actually defined by how far the Venetian cannon reached from the local fortress (needless to say, Croats are the majority population for miles inland on both sides of the border there as well).
Don't expect a quick reply, best regards -- Director (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, it looks there is consensus on the Northern limit of Dalmatia. The discussion will have to continue, I guess, about the Southern limit. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Re recent edits & the northern border.

  • @Joy. The map does not have a "glaring factual error". I hope we can discuss the matter appropriately when I'm able to participate more fully, but if Zadar County is described as a Dalmatian county (which is admitted), then it is no error to have parts of its territory listed as "variously described as part of Dalmatia", even if they do not fit the 1918 northern border. That's why we have that intermediate category in the first place. Even though historical Dalmatian borders did not extend to include the northern light-blue zone, we must remember that this article is about the present-day region.
Yes, yes it does have a glaring factual error - I've never seen a reliable source that actually says Gračac is part of Dalmatia in any context, historical or modern. Unless someone can demonstrate one, it's just a plain violation of WP:SYNTH - a statement wrongly derived from sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Joy, if the "Zadar County is generally described as a Dalmatian county" (your words), then its not SYNTH to include it as "variously described as part of Dalmatia". Where's the dispute? -- Director (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You quoted a clause that was immediately followed by a "but" clause, and then omitted that latter clause. *facepalm* And to think that this is from a person who has ranted at me about inline threading being all destructive in the discussion format. This what you just did is textbook destructive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"facepalm"?? Right back at ya. Here is your entire (self-contradictory) sentence: "The Zadar County is generally described as a Dalmatian county, but this simply doesn't mean that all parts of the said county are Dalmatia." Actually - yes, yes it does. Unless a specific exception is made. If the Zadar County is "generally described as a Dalmatian county", then it is no mistake to have its territory mentioned as "variously described as part of Dalmatia", even if its outside the traditional 1918 borders.
Furthermore, as you have more than clearly repeated the "but clause" in the preceding post, I cannot even begin to conceive how anyone can construe my omission of said clause as "destructive" - when you basically say it just above. The omission is only natural given the sentence structure, and I find your chastisement in that regard uncalled for and aggressive without provocation. In fact I detect that same general attitude pervading through all our recent discussions. -- Director (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's probably because you're making everything like one big Usenet flamewar - if it stops making sense to debate syntax, we'll switch to semantics, and vice versa - whatever prolongs the discussion and makes you seem like you've won by having the last word. I'm done in this thread, this is pointless, if someone else has endless free time to accommodate your rambling, please feel free to take over. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If these absurd preconceptions and hostile opinions render you unable to assume good faith then I recommend you do not join in the first place. There is a limit to the amount of continuous abuse I'm willing to take. Flaming on your part isn't exactly making it less of a "Usenet flamewar", is it? -- Director (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Re southern border.

  • @Silvio. I detect the implication that the issue re the southern border (i.e. Neum) is as yet not resolved. My own position there is simply that we need an explicit source on Neum (which by all appearances is a part of Herzegovina). There is no requirement at all that a region need be territorially contiguous.

Re the non-consensus IP edits.

  • I myself can't see any harm in including the unused historic flag alongside the unused historic coa. Also the IP does not appear to grasp what a "historical region" is, and seems to find it necessary to add a note indicating that Dalmatia is, in fact, on the planet Earth ("geographic region"). "Geographic region" implies that the region is defined by its geography, which is hardly the case. Again this is all my error from years past coming back to bite me in the.. khm. That's another example of how errors comound upon one-another on Wiki (this time originating with a younger User:Director). Dalmatia is a region, but it isn't a "geographic" region as I originally included here and Tomboe copied elsewhere. Its a historical region, defined through common history and traditional perception.

-- Director (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, there is a clear geographic component in Dalmatia, firstly as part of the regionalization of Croatia, and secondly in the topography - the Adriatic Sea in the southwest and the mountains of Velebit, Dinara, and Kamešnica in the northeast each form a pretty coherent and clear geographic border. The northwestern and the eastern border aren't so, they are indeed primarily historical and political. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Its a region - of course there is a geographic component, but its an error to classify it as a "geographic region". -- Director (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, do you realise that you streching the whole discussion to exhaustion? Dalmatia is an historical region. Now geographical limits can corrispond to historical limits and it is the case of the Western borders (Adriatic Sea, of course) and of the mountains in the NE. On the East side things are not that clear, therefore the history of the region prevail on today's administrative borders in order to define the limits of this historical region. Now the area that you insist to include have nothing to do with Dalmatia. The history of Dalmatia has been marked by the duality of the Romance/Slavik culture (indeed it's that duality that define what Dalmatia was). The areas you insist to include have always been purely Slavik. Npw, certainly Kotor/Cattaro has been part of that history. And about Neum I can only insist about the necessity of territorial continuity. It is a non-sense to write that today's admninistrative borders of Croatia cut exactly what Dalmatia was. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I appear intransigent, but I assure you I think I have a good argument.
  • @"It is a non-sense to write that today's admninistrative borders of Croatia cut exactly what Dalmatia was." - No, it is not. Seeing as how this is today a Croatian region. The article is about modern Dalmatia, the borders of which are defined through modern-day perception, which in turn is defined through 1) historical tradition and 2) the current situation. As Joy will tell you, the Zadar County is considered a Dalmatian county. Thus, its areas outside of the traditional borders have been "variously described as part of Dalmatia". This is precisely why we have the intermediate category: the area is not "strictly" Dalmatia, but it has been described as such. What is the problem??
  • @"The history of Dalmatia has been marked by the duality of the Romance/Slavik culture". - I'll try to explain this yet again: culture has absolutely nothing to do with Dalmatian borders. Its pretty much all the same for miles upon miles on both sides of the border, and has been for centuries. As I said previously, roughly speaking the Slavic/Romance culture exists basically only on some of the islands and perhaps in some parts of Split and Dubrovnik, and it never did stretch to the entirety of Dalmatia - the hinterland was always entirely Slavic.
  • @"And about Neum I can only insist about the necessity of territorial continuity". - I never heard of the requirement that a region need be territorially contiguous. What about the islands? Are they not part of Dalmatia, not being contiguous? Neum is part of the region of Herzegovina, I've not seen it described anywhere as part of Dalmatia.
  • @"Now geographical limits can corrispond to historical limits and it is the case of the Western borders (Adriatic Sea, of course) and of the mountains in the NE. On the East side things are not that clear, therefore the history of the region prevail on today's administrative borders in order to define the limits of this historical region." - Yes I agree, and the darker blue borders correspond with said historical borders. But we also must make a note that the Zadar County is perceived as a Dalmatian county.
-- Director (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, intransingency is not per se an issue. It is when one does not listen. Perhaps I do not explain myself well enough. I try a last time, then we will have to request a third opinion or vote about this.
In the beginning this article Dalmatia was considered a geographic and historical region. After some discussions there was some consensus to remove the geographic feature of the region. Well, now the region is considered as purely historical. And indeed it is the case, because after almost 200 years of various ethnical cleansing today there is not anymore any specific notable distinction between the culture ans the language of the people here and the rest of the country. The idea is not to state if this is good or bad (you know very well my opinion), this is just a fact.
Just to make a comparison, Transylvania is not an administrative region of Romania. Not at all, but it's an historical region with a very specific (and actual) marked Hungarian ethnicity, culture and language. And such specificity changes suddenly, litterally in a matter of metres. You are in Predeal, cross the col and as soon you get in Brasov you see the difference (language, ethnicity, architecture, culture). In such a situation it is appropriate to put a border, and a map. Because today's departments of Romania corresponding to former Transylvania have kept a lot of their culture mainly because since the end of WWI, the Hungarian ethnicity has not been persecuted as other ethnicities elsewhere in Europe.
Another good example is South Tyrol. The Austrian ethnicity in this region has been preserved and the administrative borders correspond exactly to historical borders.
It is not the case of Dalmatia. And I expain the problem I have with your edit. If something is historical, than we have to look to history. And if the history has nothing to do with that part of land, well that part of land is not in the game. Or we get to the paradox that Kotor/Cattaro is excluded, but areas that historically where not Dalmatian are considered like that today (from an historical perspective!) because are today administratively connected to areas that were historically Dalmatian.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


I in turn have the impression I'm not being clear enough. I don't like writing massive Zenanarh-style essays, but I seem to be inadequately detailed in describing my position.

Re culture. Until about the early 18th century, what we now know as the hinterland of Dalmatia was part of the Ottoman Empire, where a Turkish-influenced Slavic culture predominated (and that is still somewhat noticeable in the Croatian accent there). From roughly the early 18th century on, Venice held what we now call the Dalmatian hinterland (the Zagora). In the less than hundred years or so that Venice did hold these areas, it exerted marginal or no cultural influence there (probably because its a backwater nobody cared about). The population there had been entirely Slavic for about 800-900 years, and the only notable cultural influence there was Turkish (as Turkey held that area for some 300 years or so).

My point is that when Venice took the Dalmatian hinterland from the Ottoman Empire, it expanded the political borders of Dalmatia well beyond the cultural boundary - and never really exerted a notable cultural influence there. The cities and the coastal strip were thoroughly Romance/Slavic in culture - not so the hinterland. From the early 18th century onward, the political (later traditional) borders of Dalmatia do not correspond with the culture of the inhabitants. And since then, the Romance influence in the cities and coastline has even further decreased until today it doesn't really exist except where I've outlined. A distinct Dalmatian culture is not something to go by in defining Dalmatia - and never really was for over 300 years.

So the hinterland was never "Romance/Slavic", but the coastline and the cities were. That is no longer really the case as I've said before. Now only some of the islands and some people living in the larger cities retain a distinct Dalmatian culture. However, to say that some kind of "ethnic cleansing" took place is an incredible, monumental error. The movement of the folks from the (old Ottoman) hinterland towards the shoreline and the cities has simply drowned the Dalmatian culture there in superior numbers (mostly in the latter half of the 20th century, when the coast was industrialized). Italy's choice to become an enemy of Austria-Hungary, and then again its defeat in World War II, further diminished Romance influence in the cities as well and caused most ethnic Italians to move to Italy. Again, that is not "ethnic cleansing" by any means, and to suggest something like that is nothing short of hate-mongering (whether that be your intent or no).

Re Zadar County. Here the matter's much simpler. This region is defined solely through historical tradition. For about 21 years now, the Zadar County has been considered a "Dalmatian county". As such, that perception (all the more significant for being current), is also part of the historical tradition and popular perception of the extent of Dalmatia. That said, I do fully recognize the old Venetian borders as having far more credibility and foundation in historical tradition - that's whay they're in dark blue, and the bit to the north outside them is "variously described as a part of Dalmatia", in light blue. Modern history is a part of history as well. To put it in brief - that area is indeed "variously described as a part of Dalmatia" and should not be neglected from the map. -- Director (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I agree with a lot of your last edit in this talk age (but I still believe that some ethnic cleansing had place in Dalmatia although of course nothing of comparable to what happened in the Balkans in the last 100 years, but I do not believe that we can apply a logic of Ubi major minor cessat), but this does not change the issue. You are applying to Dalmatia the same approach that it's used for Transylvania, South Tyrol or Euskara, but in Dalmatia there are not such conditions.
This is the knot of the discussion. The edit as it is today, qualifies that Dalmatia as an historical region has borders corresponding to today Croatian administrative (and actually State) borders. This implies directly that historic and current borders are the same. This is monumental, because we get again to the very same credo of modern Croatian historiography, i.e. Croatia has been what is today since the oldest time of history (and perhaps pre-history). And on this, Direktor, I guess many people have different views. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Ethnic cleansing"? Its not an easy question. Ethnicity and politics get blurred in the issue of the departure of ethnic Italians from Dalmatia. Were the ethnic Italians unwelcome because they were Italians, or because they were part of an enemy nation (WWI)? And after WWII, were they unwelcome because they were Italians, or because they were associated with fascism and a relatively brutal enemy occupation (as many truly were)? I don't know.. for me its hard to imagine any kind of major hostility towards Dalmatian Italians in a situation where Italy is a friend and ally, rather than a bitter enemy making territorial demands and constantly pushing for annexation of the (majority Slavic!) region.
I see you mention state borders again. I must have said this several times so please acknowledge: Croatian state borders (in the south) were drawn according to the historic Dalmatian borders (that is to say 18th-century Venetian borders). The borders of Dalmatia are not drawn according to the borders of Croatia - but vice versa. That is why they are the same. Ok? The only area where the borders do not correspond perfectly is in the north (the border of Zadar County), and in the extreme south (Kotor not being in Croatia). There we have used a lighter shade to identify the "grey areas", leaving room for error.
Re the northern border. We agree that the region is defined through historical tradition? Well the last 20 years (such as they were) are also part of that historical tradition. Dalmatia is a historical region, but that does not mean it no longer exists. It is very much "alive" in the public perception, and the current state of affairs and recent history also modify said perception. -- Director (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, there is no reason to repeat again your arguments. They are clear enough but we need to agree to disagree. Notably I cannot agree that 20 years of recent perception (and I do not want make any comment about the quality of history in Croatia since the independence of the country) can decide about the historical borders of the entire region. This region has 2,000 years of history not 20.

PS Can I understand why if today's borders of Croatia correspond to former Venetian Dalmatian borders (your words), why Kotor/Cattaro is out of the game and just put as "grey area"? Your arguments look nice but the conclusions seem not being fully consequent. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a lapse in communication here, and repetition certainly appears necessary. I believe I stated clearly, more than once, that Kotor is an exception to the otherwise perfect correspondence between the Venetian border of Dalmatia and the modern Croatian borders (a brief glance at any historical map will confirm that). The area of the Kotor Bay has been administratively separated from Dalmatia since 1922 (almost a full century), and that is a relevant fact that has "lightened the colour" of Kotor. These sort of things matter: Dalmatia, and the perception thereof, are not frozen in time since the 19th century.
To the north there is no state border, that also must be noted. There, the only border of note is the internal border between the Zadar and Lika-Senj counties, and that (internal) border does not correspond entirely with the traditional Dalmatian border. Thus, those areas of the Zadar County that are not part of the historical extent of Dalmatia have been included (on account of that county being considered a Dalmatian county), but only in light blue.
I believe this is a matter of perspective. To me, a Dalmatian living in Dalmatia (of the Slavic/Romance variant :)), current perceptions defined by recent history are indeed relevant. To you they may seem less relevant, while the "more Italian" distant history of Dalmatia may bear more weight. But I honestly tried to accommodate all views by introducing an intermediate category for areas where there is disagreement. -- Director (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Direktor, there is nothing such as an "Italian" history of Dalmatia. The Italian Dalmatia it's an invention created in Italy in the beginning of the XX century to push Italy to enter in war. Dalmatia was not Istria. Dalmatia has been since Middle Age mainly populated by Slavic people (except in some places, such as Zara) even in areas fully under Venetian control. The particularity of the Italian presence in Dalmatia was not in the numbers, but in the influence that this minority had in the life and the culture of this region.
However, my point is that recent perception (albeit significant) cannot have bigger weight than the history of this region untill 1922. Again we speak of an historic region and considering the Kotor/Cattaro has a grey area it's wiping out at least 500 years of its history as Dalmatian territory. Worse, it makes Wikipedia the tool to amplify the perception of the last 20 years at the full expense of the previous long and glorious history of this territory. For this reason I reiterate my request to consider Kotor/Cattaro as fully part of Dalmatia. I genuinely think there is room to get to consensus. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Begging your pardon, I meant "more Romance".
Re Kotor/Cattaro. I consider that issue settled(?), and I mentioned it only pro forma. We have contradictions there (you've seen sources that state it is not part of modern Dalmatia) and it is only appropriate to represent it in accordance with that. I can only repeat that this article is about modern Dalmatia, and that it is to be expected that modern perceptions are more prominently influenced by more "recent" events (though I'd hardly call a century "recent"). It not up to us to judge what the perception should be, merely to represent the situation as it is. -- Director (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


@"still not a shred of evidence that anyone ever calls Gračac and Srb parts of Dalmatia". - Not specifically, no, but they are a part of Zadar County. A Dalmatian county, by your own statement. If the "Zadar County is generally considered a Dalmatian County" (which I think noone here opposes) then one needs additional sources that state a specific segment of said county isn't a part of Dalmatia. Most importantly, the map does not claim they are "Dalmatia", but they fall in the category of "Maybe Dalmatia", which is imo perfectly reasonable given that they're in a Dalmatian county.

Also - you've replaced the map with an outline. 1) Its not really a "map". Its incomparably of lesser quality 2) Its missing Kotor, and we have sources that say its part of Dalmatia. So it has a pretty glaring factual error. 3) Your claim that the map you've removed has a "glaring factual error" is disputed. By you, by your own statement.

Joy, you've expressed some pretty deep-rooted resentment towards myself. One can't help but conclude you perpetuate this nonsense squabble, at least in part, due to your personal opinions of myself. Furthermore, I'm not an admin, but I'm reasonably certain edit-warring without discussion is strongly discouraged. -- Director (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion? Are you serious? Do you really think that you can veto things simply by generating more pointless bytes on Talk? Until I see a simple reference to a reliable source that supports your WP:OR map, I'm treating your reversions as vandalism and rolling them back. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am serious. Discussion. Its how conflicts are resolved. I do not "veto" anything, and I would like to know if you believe you can push your own POV into the article without "generating a byte on Talk"?
Do I take it then you're now going back on your previous position and proclaiming error on your part? You yourself stated "Zadar County is generally described as a Dalmatian county". I do not care about the remainder of your sentence, all I'm interested in is do you, or do you not, challenge the fact that Zadar County is generally considered a Dalmatian county? And kindly be straightforward in your reply.
If we agree that "Zadar County is generally considered a Dalmatian county" (which has been my impression), then the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that some parts of that county that's "generally considered a part of Dalmatia" are not a part of Dalmatia. Now, I realize that's virtually impossible to source - so I added the damn thing in light blue. -- Director (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss. I will restore the map eventually should you not reply. At that point I will report further edit-warring (what else am I to do?), along with your unprovoked insults and personal attacks. I've done nothing to warrant such hostility. -- Director (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after waiting a while for a response, I restored the .SVG map. I don't mean to appear provocative or aggressive, but at this point I believe I have a valid position and I do not appreciate being insulted and then ignored.

"Any challenged material must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Do we dispute that Zadar County is generally considered a part of Dalmatia [6]? Is that statement challenged? If not, if we're all agreed that Zadar County is "generally considered Dalmatia", then we need a good reason (source) to entirely exclude that segment from the "sometimes described as Dalmatia" category (its in light blue). The WP:BURDEN, in that case, is not with me. -- Director (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

About Boka kotorska: Frane Iveković: "THE ORGANISATION OF ADMINISTRATION IN BOKA KOTORSKA IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE FRENCH ADMINISTRATION IN 1807 AND THE END OF THE SECOND AUSTRIAN ADMINISTRATION IN 1918" [7] It is clearly stated: "According to the territorial division of 30 November 1811, the Dubrovnik county consisted of two districts: Dubrovnik and Kotor. Austria formed one county consisting of the former counties of Dubrovnik and Dalmatia – the Kingdom of Dalmatia, with the seat in Zadar." Therefore, Kotor as a part of Dubrovnik county entered Kingdom of Dalmatia. "Following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Boka kotorska entered the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, while in 1923, it was SECEDED FROM DALMATIA and became a part of the district of Zeta." (Found in summary in English language on the end of the article) Institute for Historical Sciences of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zadar, No.53 December 2011.
About region of Dalmatia: Lena Mirošević, Josip Farišić: "PERCEPTION OF DALMATIA IN SELECTED FOREIGN LEXICOGRAPHIC PUBLICATIONS" [8] page 124: "Accordingly, modern perception of Dalmatia is mainly based on territorial extent of the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia, with the exception of Rab Island, which is geographically related to Kvarner area and functionally to Primorje-Gorski kotar area, and with the exception of Boka kotorska, which was annexed to another state (Montenegro) after the First World War. Simultaneously, the southern part of Lika and upper Pounje, which were not a part of the socalled Austrian Dalmatia, became a part of the Zadar County. From present-day administrative and territorial point of view, Dalmatia comprises four Croatian littoral counties with seats in Zadar, Šibenik, Split and Dubrovnik..." Geoadria, Vol.16 No.1 June 2011.

Therefore, Boka kotorska is not Dalmatia, and in present day present-day administrative and territorial point of view, Dalmatia comprises four Croatian littoral counties with seats in Zadar, Šibenik, Split and Dubrovnik. I would highly recommend reading the whole Mirošević/Farišić article, they even mentioned definition of Dalmatia in English and German Wikipedia and lexicographic publicatians which often mix historical Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia with contemporary Dalmatia. Philosopher12 (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly do have sources that say Boka is no longer Dalmatia. We also have sources (see above) that say it is. Thus, we have it on the map under "sometimes described as Dalmatia". And yes, Zadar County entire can also be considered a part of Dalmatia.
Again fellas: apparently we have conflicting views regarding two areas being a part of Dalmatia. That is just why I created a map that has a "maybe Dalmatia" category. I was kind of hoping that's where the arguments about the map will stop.. -- Director (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The lenght of this talk suggests that we won't get to a conclusion without a Third Opinion (which I do not dare to think how much time would take to be settled).
@ Direktor, I am amazed by your arguments. If I had not had the occasion to discuss with you before, I would say that you are quite a funny guy. Let's start from the top. You correctly state that limits of Dalmatia are the result of its history. Based on this argument you exclude Neum from Dalmatia because this part of the littoral was not under the Venetian/Romance influence. But after you INCLUDE all Zadar County because today this County has in its administrative borders areas that historically are not part of Dalmatia. And you justify this stating that this "modern perception". In other words the so-called "modern perception" become prevalent that the actual weight of - at least - 1,000 years of history? And based on the same logic you exclude Kotor/Cattaro because since 1920 this area is part of another district (and later another country) and does not matter of what happened before. If we really consider Dalmatia an historical region, we look to history.
However this map is not a good idea at all. Unless we do not put a map stating the borders of Dalmatia across the time and this would be quite complicate.
@ Joy. I appreciate your interest in this article, but your last modification makes things even messier. Now the Map in the Infobox it's about a Historical region of Croatia (!?) including the Bay of Kotor that for some reasons it's not shown on the map... I do not understand the resistance to include the Bay of Kotor on the map (or better remove this map) and say in the text that Dalmatia is an historic region, mainly of today's Croatia. Direktor's version of the Infobox despite being arguable was at least coherent with the rest of the text. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I'm not opposed to picturing the Bay of Kotor, with a different shade. But if the choice is between a map without that contentious addition, and a map with that contention addition plus a completely unsourced addition, the choice of the first map must be adamantly clear per WP:V. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Then, is it possible to get to consensus picturing the bay of Kotor on the map and excluding the Eastern part of Zadar County? Of course the text in the infobox and in the rest of the article should be rephrased accordingly but I guess this is less than an issue. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, could you post here those sources claiming that Bay of Kotor is Dalmatia today? I can't seem to orient myself in this talk page, it's too confusing. I did some further research concerning Boka Kotorska. What I found out is:

1.) Croatian sources point out that Dalmatia is only a part of Croatia. Along with scientific articles I posted ([9] and [10]), I checked "Opća enciklopedija Jugoslavenskog leksikografskog zavoda" (which refers to Dalmatia in context of "Croatian lands" only), and "Hrvatska enciklopedija" which explicitely defines Dalmatia as a region of Croatia.

2.) Serbian sources (which I find authoritative for Montenegro since they were the same state up to 2006.) also state that Dalmatia is part of Croatia. I checked Српски породична енциклопедија/Srpska porodična enciklopedija, sv. 7, 2006., which states: "Историјска покрајина на источној обали Јадранског мора, у саставу Хрватске/Istorijska pokrajina na istočnoj obali Jadranskog mora, u sastavu Hrvatske..." and "После Другог светског рата ушла је у састав Хрватске, у склопу Федеративне Народне Републике Хрватске/Posle Drugog svetskog rata ušla je u sastav Hrvatske, u sklopu Federativne Narodne Republike Hrvatske..." I searched for other sources to see if Montenegro has a region named "Dalmatia" and I found this: [11], [12] and similar pages which prove that Montenegro doesn't have a region called Dalmatia, only "Crnogorsko primorje" or "Primorska regija Crne Gore".

3.) Kotor wasn't part of Dalmatia under Venice. Boka Kotorska was called "Venetian Albania" (Mletačka Albanija) in the period from 15th - 18th century and is wrong to define "Venetian Albania" as "Southern Dalmatia" as it is in Venetian Albania article. (It's as absurd as saying that Italy is in Germany or that Umbria is in Tuscany) "Provveditore Generale" was for Dalmatia AND Venetian Albania. See Croatian State Archives page [13] and Miloš Milošević: "Boka kotorska za vrijeme mletačke vladavine..."

In conclusion, I don't see why is someone pushing wrong definition of Dalmatia. Both Croatian and Serbian/Montenegrin sources agree that Dalmatia is a region of Croatia and there are NO discord whatsoever between two sides. If some foreign sources offer wrong definition they should be ignored and advantage should be given to domestic sources. Clear confusion is given in Encyclopedia Britannica which defines Dalmatia as a region of Croatia, naming Kotor as if it was a part of Croatia. [14] Should we give advantage to such foreign sources when we have clear uncontroversial definitions on both interested sides? That would seem absurd to me. Philosopher12 (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

@Philisopher12. I do not know if you realise what you wrote or perhaps you should read twice your edits before publishing them. What does mean uncontroversial definitions on both interested sides?. Should we understand that some parties are eligible to more discussion in this talk page? Or that the discussion should only be restricted to such sides? Or worse, that for this article regional sources are preferred to English international sources because the controversy it's just a Croatian/Serbian issue and sources from other countries produce a kind of ingerence?
You have started contributing on WP only recently so for your benefit I will refresh you how things work here. This is en:wiki. English sources (including the Britannica) are relevant, and if of quality definitely more relevant than local sources. And yes, we can consider giving advantage to a foreign sources if we speak of the Britannica or of an English recognised secondary source.
If this sounds absurd to you, you should keep in mind that WP is an Encyclopedia and not a space to arbitrate any controversy about territorial, geographical or historical issues. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh my dear pal, but I have cited all sources, not only local. Britannica explicitely mentions that Dalmatia is in Croatia only and lists Kotor with other Croatian towns. Montenegro isn't even mentioned. In the Kotor article, it mentions that the town is on the "Adriatic coast of Montenegro" and now Dalmatia isn't mentioned. That tells a lot about Kotor in Dalmatia. I have listed Serbian/Montenegrin and Croatian sources to prove that both countries consider Dalmatia to be in Croatia.
I have citations from Britannica, Enciklopedija jugoslavenskog leksikografskog zavoda, Hrvatska Enciklopedija, Srpska porodična enciklopedija, various scientific sources ([15] and [16]) along with English source already cited in the article [17],
I haven't seen your neutral and trusted sources. Are "Rough Guide to Croatia" [18], book from 1834., something called Treccani [19] (which is actually Italian wikipedia article with Italian wikipedia picture of "Dalmatia") and another guide called "Kompas Croatia: Dalmatian Coast" (which in article affirms that Dalmatia is in Croatia) [20] all you have proving that Dalmatia is in Montenegro? Philosopher12 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Clearly there is a underlying issue of nationalism in your edits. Is this the right place for it? We are not discussing if Dalmatia is or not in Montenegro. We are discussing and comparing sources to decide at which extent Kotor can be considered today as part of Dalmatia. In order not to get into WP:OR we need to stick to sources neutral, reliable and if possible in English. However, you write "something called Treccani". Well, this is the main Encyclopaedia of that obscure and very young country called Italy.
Sources stating that Kotor is in Dalmatia are multiple. A simple research on Google Books shows easily that many books about this subject include Kotor in Dalmatia : [21], [22], [23], [24]. On the other hand I could not put the eye on any English neutral source affirming the hinterland of Zadar County (called hereafter as Lika, indeed litterally just a part of this Croatian region) are part of Dalmatia. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your first source is a reprint from 1910. when Kotor was part of the Kingdom of Dalmatia (and when South Tirol was Austria, when India was British colony, when Strassbourg and Konigsberg were Germany etc.). The other three sources don't mention Kotor as Dalmatia, they merely mention it in Index (along with Constantinople and other towns) or in text related to the history of Dalmatia (not contemporary Dalmatia). You are misusing the sources. The whole argument is pointless since majority of English sources (Britannica, 90% of travel guides [25], contemporary newspapers like The New York Times [26], The Guardian [27]), both Croatian and Serbian/Montenegrin sources refer to Dalmatia as Croatian region only, while Kotor being in Montenegro, part of Crnogorsko primorje. I have a source which explicitly mentions that Kotor was seceded from Dalmatia in 1923. However, the only person I see pushing the argument with Kotor is you, sometimes citing centuries old literature and pushing dubious sources or taking advantage of sources that contradict themselves. Philosopher12 (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


(copy content-related stuff from WP:AE)
The link Philosopher12 posted nicely proved my point that the relevant administrative addition was of a territory in Lika, not Dalmatia. This addition is borderline irrelevant to the notion of defining Dalmatia as a whole; the source literally limits it to a "present-day administrative and territorial point of view". Using that single sentence from a single source to support the claim that these territories, universally known to be Lika, including in that same source, are now parts of Dalmatia to be displayed in the infobox at the top of the article, is a classic WP:SYNTH violation. Even if we take this single source at face value, it's a classic WP:UNDUE violation.
It's exceedingly hard to take at face value a source that discusses English Wikipedia articles regarding the same matter, while failing to take any notice of whether the claims in the articles are sourced or not, and failing to link to a specific article revision that they were describing. To back-reference such an article from Wikipedia would be egregiously sloppy to the point of being hilarious.
(end copy) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. I must emphasize yet again that no one is claiming that the area "is Dalmatia" - merely that it "can be described as Dalmatia". That much imo can and has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am currently on a very brief break and will be back in a day or two. -- Director (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
There's no doubt? Did you even read what is written above? It's a part of Dalmatia in one source in one specific context. Your description of "can be described as Dalmatia" is utterly unencyclopedic. If we used that, we'd put Mitt Romney's picture at the top of the "moron" article just because Linus Torvalds once publicly called him that. Should we do that? Most definitely not. This whole line of reasoning is a ridiculous straw man. I see you are now sticking to the flawed argument simply out of spite. That's a wonderful display of dišpet, but it's completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
From what I have seen in this talk page it is now clear that Kotor might be considered as part of Dalmatia, but not Lika. @Direktor, wouldn't you find genuinely inappropriate to consider both Kotor and Lika eligible at the same extent to be part of Dalmatia? Well I know that the first region is not in Croatia and the second yes, but this is not a reason. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

@I'm sorry you feel that way, Joy, but ethnic stereotyping is where I draw the line. Please discontinue your personal attacks, I have posted a warning on your talk pro forma.

The contention is that it would be WP:UNDUE to base on one source the claim that the small chunk of territory to the north "is Dalmatia". There are two problems with that contention:

  • Firstly, its a straw man. The map does not include the territory as "Dalmatia", but under "variously defined as Dalmatia". Lets get that straight once and for all, and lets please not return to it over and over again. As such it would not be "WP:UNDUE" to include the region even if there were only "one source" in this obscure and poorly-covered subject. But there isn't just "one source".
  • Secondly, it isn't just "one source". The reason why that territory is at all being discussed as possibly a part of Dalmatia - is the fact that its a part of Zadar County. Zadar County is Dalmatia. No question at all about that. Here is a link to a Google test rendering 200,000 hits for "'Zadar County' Dalmatia". And, more importantly (so we don't cherry-pick): here are two published sources that state the County is in "northern Dalmatia" [28][29]. As such, those are sources that support the inclusion of every bit of that County as Dalmatia - they make no exceptions. And I think everyone in Croatia (Joy and myself included), knows full well that Zadar County is considered a part of (northern) Dalmatia.

This is in addition to the source above that specifically discusses the modern perception of Dalmatia (and is as such the best source we have), and states quite explicitly "From the present-day administrative and territorial point of view, Dalmatia comprises four Croatian littoral counties with seats in Zadar, Šibenik, Split and Dubrovnik...". The "present-day administrative and territorial point of view" is precisely what this article on modern-day Dalmatia is about - here we define it through modern day perception. If anything that addendum increases the value of the source, rather than decreasing it.

There is simply no way we can possibly shrug this off as "WP:UNDUE". There isn't even a contradicting source that states the area isn't a part of Dalmatia, which would present some kind of "mainstream" view that disagrees with the "wild theory". And especially, as I have said, since the claim is that the area is merely "variously described as part of Dalmatia". To refute the claim that the area is "sometimes defined as part of Dalmatia" (supported by several sources) - one would need to show that no sources whatsoever define the area as a part of Dalmatia. That is most definitely not the case.

@Silvio1973. Kotor also has only a source or two to its name. And, in contrast with the chunk of Zadar County, it has sources which explicitly state it isn't a part of Dalmatia anymore. I cannot imagine how we could possibly keep Kotor, but remove the northern bit. If the latter goes, Kotor definitely has to go too. I think, however, that this would not be encyclopedic and in the interest of the reader. Dalmatia is not a strictly defined, official region (that's basically why we're having this debate in the first place), and differences in sources and perceptions should imo be presented. That is why we can have these areas up as "sometimes described as Dalmatia". -- Director (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

@Direktor. This is my last edit on the question, because at some point it is important to put an end to things. You start your argument describing Dalmatia as historical region but you interpretate today's border on the administrative borders (and for this reason you include - even if variously described as Dalmatia - all Zadar county). On the other hand Kotor is excluded because administratively was separated from Dalmatia in the '20 even if historically was part of Dalmatia. Well, this is strange for me but at some point it is important to accept that some things cannot change. Perhaps someone else in the future will raise the question. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not shifting my argument, Silvio. There was never any question, that I'm aware, that this article is about the modern-day region of Dalmatia. It is defined through modern day-perception, which, in turn, is defined through common history and tradition (as opposed to anything else). And I said all this before: the past 21 years are also a part of this history, as are the past 90 years (without Kotor). These are not merely my opinions: we've seen the sources say just the same in the specific cases of Kotor and northern Zadar County. -- Director (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This stems from use of anachronistic sources. There's no point in resorting to 19th century sources to define what territory is thought of as Dalmatia (or any other region for that matter) - those can only be used to determine and source what was considered to be encompassed by Dalmatia in that specific period and at no other time whatsoever. Border of Dalmatia used to be in Istria - but that was a Roman province and claiming that Pula for instance may sometimes be described as a city in Dalmatia is misleading at the very best. Such a claim would be valid and true only if put in context - and that context is not present-day.
Think of it this way, reliable, respectable and very scholarly 19th century sources could be used to assert in Wrocław or Kaliningrad articles that areas those cities are situated in are sometimes described as parts of Germany. Worse yet, make a map of Germany reflecting those statements and use it to illustrate Germany article. I'm not quite sure that such edits would not be described as vandalism if performed on those pages.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again, all I can say is WP:SYNTH, WP:SYNTH, WP:SYNTH. If there's a preponderance of evidence that Gračac and Srb are known to be parts of Lika (I trust there's no point in proving the sky is blue in that regard), and zero evidence that they are known to be parts of Dalmatia, then the county delineation is an exception and not the norm. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
But there isn't "zero evidence", and there's no "WP:SYNTH". You call them "Gračac and Srb", and I call them Zadar County. Sources that state Zadar County is Dalmatia - without making exceptions - most unquestionably do support the position that Gračac and Srb (being part of said County) "can be considered a part of Dalmatia". In fact, it would be WP:OR to suppose otherwise. -- Director (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And, once again, you're doing a WP:SYNTH violation. The sources say the Zadar County is Dalmatia. By and large, that is indeed true. But if these sources don't discuss the finer details of county boundaries, let alone enumerate the municipalities in the context of defining Dalmatia or similar, we can't just magically assume that they are aware of this discrepancy and use them to claim something that they aren't claiming. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
And once again, that is not WP:SYNTH, not even close. On the contrary, what you're doing is WP:OR: "the sources don't discuss the finer details of county boundaries"? So you decided to make assumptions for them ("oh the source can't mean this as well")?
The sources do, in fact, discuss the boundaries in perfectly sufficient detail. When someone says "Zadar County" there's no question at all as to what territory that includes. It is only when you declare that the sources mean something else than what they say, that we have a problem. Granted, those areas are also considered Lika, but are, nevertheless, "variously described as part of Dalmatia". -- Director (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
If the sources claim that Zadar Co is in Dalmatia and other sources claiming Gračac is not (i.e. in Lika), then the article should reflect it and say that Zadar Co is considered a part of Dalmatia except that area of Gračac (or whichever locality is concerned) is considered to be a part of Lika. Neither of the two sets of sources may be dismissed if they are WP:RS - otherwise that's cherry picking.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
(Actually there is even a possible question as to what territory the county of Zadar includes, because the borders of the county changed at least once recently, when in 1997 the Kotar of Knin was removed from it.)
Once again, you're deriving a secondary meaning from the actual meaning shown in those sources. There's no actual source saying e.g. "Gračac is a town in northern Dalmatia", so this is basically conjecture. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
@Tomboe. Precisely, hence the light blue for areas where sources might conflict.
@Joy. No. I'm following sources verbatim by indicating Zadar County as part of Dalmatia. If someone says "Zadar County is in Dalmatia", then that someone need not especially indicate every single backwater town and village in said County as being part of Dalmatia. Unless a source makes an exception (and there are no such sources that we've seen) - then it refers to the entire Zadar County. -- Director (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Are there any conflicting sources about Gračac being a part of Dalmatia? If there are - that's alright. If no, it would not be fair to say (or imply through the map) that the contrary is true. It is, on the other hand, quite acceptable for simplicity's sake, to determine population/area size/GDP etc. based on county lines, especially since some of those (say, GDP) is hard to define otherwise and consequent GDP per capita (and then of course population and pop density) would all be results of changing scope of application of the choronym. It would apparently be fair to say that Dalmatia does not include parts of Zadar Co, but when discussing demographics, economic indicators etc or area size it would IMO be permissible to indicate that the figures apply to these four counties as a whole. In each case it would be necessary to clearly say that the figures represent approximation based on extent of the four counties (precisely because of Gračac and similar issues).
If the "Zadar Co is in Dalmatia" claim is taken at face value, that implies that Plitvice Lakes were a part of Dalmatia in 1993 and were removed from it later on. Also note issue of the northernmost part of the Pag Island which is not a part of Zadar Co (Lika-Senj Co instead) but is considered by published reliable sources and local population to be a part of Dalmatia. - In effect, while it is worthwhile and necessary to note that Zadar Co is normally associated with Dalmatia, boundaries of area covered by choronym Dalmatia do not correspond to Zadar Co boundaries, but for practical purposes (statistics) it is fair to approximate extent of Dalmatia to the four counties.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The bottom line is I am in no case prepared to ignore sources or "interpret" them in any way. If some sources say Zadar County is in Dalmatia, then that's what we should depict. Unless a source explicitly makes an exception (and there are no such sources that we've seen) - then it refers to the entire Zadar County. All else is original research and conjecture. The current map imo accurately depicts the state of the sources and allows for any discrepancies. -- Director (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's one (look at page 7) which says - "Iz istog razloga područje istraživanja nismo odredili po granicama dvije sjevernodalmatinske županije, jer sjevernoistočni dio Zadarske županije uključuje i dio Like oko Lovinca i Gračaca." (translation: "For the same reason the area of research was not determined along boundaries of the two northern Dalmatian counties, because the northeast part of the Zadar County also includes a part of Lika around Lovinac and Gračac.") - This turned up after a quick look, I trust there's bound to be many more.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
There's this other source as well (page 15) published by the Zadar County itself directly supporting the claim that a part of Zadar Co belongs to Lika: "Zadarska županija se zvala Zadarsko-kninska. Ukidanjem te upravne jedinice znatno su izmijenjene županijske granice. Zadarska županija je vraćena u prirodni obuhvat Zadarske regije, s tim da joj je pridodan i dio Južne Like (općina Gračac)." (translated: Zadar County was called Zadar-Knin County. Abolition of that administrative unit considerably altered county boundaries. The Zadar County was restored to natural scope of Zadar region, however a part of the Southern Lika was appended to it (Gračac municipality).) I suppose this should be sufficient to conclude matter?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ugh.. not again. When did anyone ever dispute that the area is also described as part of Lika? It is because some sources do not take this into account and simply call the whole area "Dalmatia" that the area is in light blue. It is "variously described as part of Dalmatia", by some sources as outlined above, not simply "Dalmatia". -- Director (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I see. Less than couple of hours ago you asked for a source "none of which were seen by you" that makes an exception regarding concurrency of Zadar Co lines and extent of Dalmatia and I provided you two - one published by the same county mind you. Apparently you're prepared brush aside those sources... Would you like to have a source saying verbatim "Gračac is not in Dalmatia" or perhaps "Lika is not Dalmatia"? There are sources claiming that Krk is in Dalmatia, or those that claim that Rijeka is in Dalmatia and even those that claim that nothing except the islands and the immediate coastal area is not Dalmatia, but that the area stretches from Rijeka to Durres. Would you like those as well and would you consider them reliable, usable or not? Those are all contemporary, not anachronistic, mind you - so any such definition, no matter how misinformed deserves a place in the article, in a hypothetical "Alternative definitions" section - but not in the lead or the infobox.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I certainly hope you do see. The comment you're quoting was in brackets, it was a side note, a marginal complaint on my part. Thank you for bringing actual sources for those areas being a part of Lika, as we didn't see any, but that was never challenged - as was made clear numerous times. Mind you, I'm not requesting anything. At this point, I can't imagine what source one might bring forward that could possibly make the ones quoted above "disappear".
If there are additional sources on the extent of Dalmatia, please do bring them forward. I'd be more than happy to see about creating a more detailed map that will accommodate for the various definitions of (modern-day) Dalmatia you bring forward.
I will make a note, however, that your initial comments here appeared to be in support of my position. Presumably until you realized that was the case by my agreeing with you ;). "Neither of the two sets of sources may be dismissed if they are WP:RS - otherwise that's cherry picking." Now you're asking me to cherry-pick, and dismiss the sources that simply state the entirety of ZC is (in) Dalmatia. -- Director (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, then if you want to nitpick. One may interpret "Zadar Co is in Dalmatia." as saying that the entire county is in Dalmatia or that is is for all intents and purposes - bulk of the territory, especially bulk of it population and economy, in Dalmatia. If there were no sources published by the county itself saying Gračac is Lika, I would opt for the former, but not in this situation: Please provide a source saying verbatim "the entire Zadar County is in Dalmatia and nowhere else" - and post it here like I did for the two sources above saying otherwise. If that is a matter of fact that should not be difficult. If you manage that then we'll truly have some sources claiming that Gračac is in Dalmatia by virtue of being within the Zadar Co, and others saying otherwise. Both views could probably be reasonably represented then. Could you do that, please?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
No, one might not interpret "Zadar Co is in Dalmatia" as anything other than "Zadar Co is in Dalmatia". To support that statement, I do not need any sources whatsoever other than the ones that are provided.
Dalmatia is not a strictly-defined region. It has grey areas where sources are in disagreement. This is one such area. -- Director (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't expect you would, after all you rarely do provide those. Could you please point out which sources in the article are saying that Zadar Co is in Dalmatia (I trust they are there).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC) I gave those a look and there are currently none - so please take a moment and appreciate that it is a substantial problem if editors operate on their hunch, gut feeling, sayso and "universal knowledge". This is exactly opposite of WP:V.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets not make this about me or you, or about "who provides sources when asked", shall we Tomboe? If you can't be bothered to actually read the discussion you've joined I see no reason for me to make any extra effort. There's about two or three sources up there.. and here's a few more [30] (just read off the top): "The vast majority of Dalmatia is in Croatia, and is organized into four counties: Sibenik Knin County, with the seat in Sibenik; Split-Dalmatia County, with the seat in Split; Zadar County, with the seat in Zadar..." Hopefully you're not seriously challenging the fact that Zadar County is in Dalmatia?
Oh, and here's a bit from the official website of the Zadar County [31], from the "about the County" section: "[Zadar County] is sharply separated from Lika and Gorski kotar by the lofty massif of Velebit" ("[Zadarska županija] od Like i kontinentalnog dijela Hrvatske je oštro odvojena visokim masivom Velebita") -- Director (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
If one finds personal likeness in my remarks, I should not be to blame, right. Back to the matter at hand: The first source says that Dalmatia is organized into four counties, granted. But compare what could be said about Istria - it is organized in two counties - actually there's not much in the Primorje-Gorski Kotar Co of it, but still - and it certainly does not mean that all of the PGK Co is Istria. Draw your conclusion regarding the statement pertaining to Dalmatia.
Yes! You cracked it! Velebit really separates Lika from whatever's on the seaward slope (Dalmatia in areas near Maslenica). Please look at the map and tell me is Velebit located all along Zadar Co border or is your statement made to amount to a bit more than it's really worth? Nice try though.
At any rate none of the sources says that the entire four counties or the entire Zadar Co correspond to what's normally referred to Dalmatia - unlike the ones provided for the "Zadar Co includes a part of Lika". The above amounts to "Dalmatia is organized in four counties of CRO: Dubrovnik/Split/Šibenik/Zadar, with all their territory (except Gračac municipality of Zadar Co) usually considered a part of Dalmatia." Anything else?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
For the fifteenth time: a source that states "Zadar County is a part of Dalmatia" need not specifically emphasize that the "entirety" of Zadar County is a part of Dalmatia. Nor does it need to separately list every backwater village and town in the County. "Zadar County" means Zadar County - not a part of Zadar County, to make such a claim (which is essentially what you're doing) is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, if not outright misrepresentation of sources. I reject utterly such demands, and find them WP:TENDENTIOUS.
At this point there isn't much more to discuss. I cannot conceive of anything that might be brought forward that will make all the sources quoted above somehow "disappear", thus invalidating the current map's representation of the area in question as "described as part of Dalmatia".
P.S. Please review WP:CIVIL with regard to your offensive, mocking manner. Further personal attacks will be reported. -- Director (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you are seriously making it exceedingly hard for everyone else not to consider you to be simply trolling at this point. You seem to be pretending not to understand the concept of derived information in the context of WP:SYNTH, which is defined as:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

This argument fits nicely:

If one reliable source says "Zadar County is Dalmatia", and another reliable source says "Gračac and Srb are part of Zadar County", do not join "Zadar County is Dalmatia" and "Gračac and Srb are part of Zadar County" to imply a conclusion "Gračac and Srb are Dalmatia" that is not mentioned by either of the sources.

And why is the implied conclusion wrong? Because there are basically no sources that state this implied conclusion, and there is a preponderance of sources that state the opposite of the implied conclusion. I don't know how much clearer this argument can be. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • If a source states "Zadar County is in Dalmatia", and one represents Zadar County as being in Dalmatia - that is not WP:SYNTH. k? Is there something unclear there?
  • To claim that a source that says "Zadar County is in Dalmatia" actually means something else (like "part of Zadar County is in Dalmatia") based on some other source - is WP:OR. That is WP:SYNTH.
I don't even care what these towns are called, you can probably stop even mentioning them. We're discussing Zadar County, not "Gračac and Srb". From now on it seems it'll just be easier to copy-paste:
A source that states "Zadar County is a part of Dalmatia" need not specifically emphasize that the "entirety" of Zadar County is a part of Dalmatia. Nor does it need to separately list every backwater village and town in the County. "Zadar County" means Zadar County - not a part of Zadar County, to make such a claim (which is essentially what you're doing) is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, if not outright misrepresentation and disregarding of sources. -- Director (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This has become really embarrassing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If you say so, Joy. Is there anything I can do to allay your embarrassment? (since I know you're not talking about me and wouldn't be attempting to throw insults around yet again) -- Director (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You could. Please find a source saying "The entire Zadar Co is in Dalmatia". If that is so for a fact, it shouldn't be too hard.
If I get you a contemporary, published source saying that Dalmatia consists of coast and islands, but nothing in hinterland (i.e. Knin/Sinj etc) spanning from Rijeka to Durres, would you include that in the map?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Since the first request above is likely just to get one more response to the effect that it is not needed, I'll do it for you: One such source is here - it directly demonstrates that for practical purposes the entire Zadar Co is regarded as Dalmatia (and this context must be provided in the article),
Actually, that source is plain old unreliable, assuming you're referring to the map on page 152, because they've abused a county map to refer to regions - they list the entire Virovitica county in "Northern Croatia", and the entire Karlovac, Lika and Sisak counties as "Lika, Kordun, Banovina". That's just randomly sloppy. It's a paper about another topic that doesn't concern itself particularly with regional geography, so it doesn't really matter that it's not pertinent to our discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This (or other similar sources) have little to do with regional geography, apart from possible grouping of counties in convenient statistical units. In this case a "statistical region" of Dalmatia was contrived for the purposes of discussion of a high degree of corruption in that particular region. Another may possibly exist to facilitate discussion of GDP per capita in Dalmatia (Croatian Bureau of Statistics provides GDP figures by county, so conceivably there could be such a grouping there - I'm not saying there is one - to discuss GDP per capita for instance in Dalmatia). Any such uses support definition of Dalmatia as 100% concurrent with the four counties for statistical purposes only. As far as physical geography is concerned, the Zadar Co source clearly saying that Gračac municipality is Lika, and the Mirošević/Vukosav article linked below clearly demonstrate that in terms of physical geography the northern boundary of Dalmatia do not correspond 100% with the norhtern boundary of Zadar Co. I see no problem in providing both information, but without giving WP:UNDUE weight to either.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
just as the above Zadar Co source directly demonstates that Gračac municipality of the same county is Lika rather than Dalmatia (and this fact must also be presented in the aforementioned context). The map in List of regions of Croatia article is based exactly on that. Why is is so hard to present readily available sources is beyond me.
Since the northern part of the island of Pag is not in Zadar Co, that does not make it a part part of Dalmatia per same argument. It is also demonstratable that majority of local population in the north of the island have an opinion that their municipality regionally belongs to Dalmatia. The source for that is here. Therefore it's not that hard to directly support a "gray" area in the north of the island either.
Is there any such published, reliable (and contemporary) source supporting inclusion of Rab, Cres and Krk in the region? If not those should be removed from the prose and the map.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I now moved disputed map from infobox. Tomobe03 and Joy gave good explanation why that map is wrong and it should not go back there with no sources. Nemambrata (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case the text is also wrong. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I tried to resist to not participate but what has been written is really too much.
In this talk page has been written that the limits of Dalmatia (and indeed the South-Eastern borders of Croatia) are the consequence of the historic influence of Venetian and Ragusan Republics. Now I see that we are on the hedge of including a place like Gračac (never under any Venetian influence, absolutely of pure Slavik culture and heritage, and indeed still in the 60's populated by 80% of Serbs - Got nothing against the Serbs but I have a difficulty admitting that a place historically of Serbian ethnicity and pure Slavic heritage can be considered part of Dalmatia) because for some reason today now the entire Zadar County is considered in Croatia as part of Dalmatia. Still for some administrative reasons Kotor is moved out of Dalmatia (and please you CANNOT tell me that Gračac is more Dalmatian than Kotor) even if multiple sources are in support.
Cherry on the cake: Veglia and Cherso become now parts of Dalmatia. Since when? Can I see a decent source supporting this? --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
@Silvio. I was wondering when the Serbian/Montenegrin side would finally "track me to this page" [32] and remove Kotor. It was long overdue this three-sided conflict became four-sided :). Could I trouble you to please once more list the sources that include Kotor as part of Dalmatia (for Nemambrata's benefit), while I modify the map so as to more clearly emphasize the fact that Kotor is in Montenegro. It occurred to me that, when viewed from afar, the map currently suggests that Kotor is in Croatia along with the rest of Dalmatia. -- Director (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
@Silvio. May I inquire what are Veglia and Cherso?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Krk and Cres, of course. -- Director (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I see DIREKTOR is still reverting [33], and Silvio is supporting him [34]. Can we say WP:ARBMAC violation? I'm going to go edit the picture and remove Gračac and Srb from there, which will hopefully remove at least Silvio's need to revert because it keeps the Bay of Kotor... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure Joy, its an "ARBMAC violation".. What is it now? four reverts in three weeks? Plus the guy admittedly WP:WIKIHOUNDS me around Wikipedia. And I can see no difference between User:Nemambrata "supporting" you and Silvio "supporting" me, if that's how you wanna call it.
How about you try concluding an argument like other people, through patient and detailed discussion - rather than trying to have your opponents blocked. If you, perhaps, cannot discuss without losing your temper and writing PA accusations every other post - maybe you should actually leave like you stated you would. If not: buckle in. I've seen no reason to give in to your demands. My position is based on facts and policy, and is supported by sources.
Now you openly state you just intend to have your way by WP:EDIT-WARRING. "I'll revert DIREKTOR, and then Silvio won't support him, and then if he reverts I'll try and have him blocked again - discussion over, I can go watch TV." Wikipedia does not work that way. We do not use threats, insults and edit-warring to ignore sources. -- Director (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, you have been told you are wrong on the matter of Gračac and Srb by 1) myself 2) Silvio 3) Tomobe 4) Nemambrata. Nobody came forward in support of your argument on that point neither here nor at the WP:AE discussion. You have responded with endless diatribes and seemingly endless amount of accusations of personal attacks. You've made your point, you've disrupted Wikipedia to prove it, you failed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I will consider further baseless accusations of behavioral policy violation on your part as a continuation of your pattern of WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS, and will (finally) present them as such on the appropriate noticeboard. If you believe I am being "disruptive", write another report or something - but spare me, please.
Actually, Philosopher, an univolved user, came in support, and presented quite explicit sources to that effect. More sources were later presented as well. Wikipedia does not permit to have sources ignored. In addition: you, Tomboe, and I - have quite a "colorful" history (you just hate my guts, don't you? :)). Its also interesting to note Tomboe's posts were initially supportive of my position, until I said "precisely" and gave that fact away. And Nemambrata just hounds me all over Wikipedia... Frankly I question the neutrality of said users with regard to any position I myself might support. -- Director (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Where did Philosopher12 maintain that Gračac and Srb are Dalmatia? One link he posted has such a tidbit, but he discussed the unrelated matter of Boka.
I noticed now that you colored the areas differently. Well, that's a way to compromise (that you could have applied weeks ago :p), except that it's still a violation of WP:UNDUE. Why does the infobox reader care that this part of Zadar County isn't Dalmatia? The notion of this part of the county can be left out of the map and left for a footnote next to the population count based on counties - "The population count includes the 5,033 people from the Gračac municipality". Or even better, simply subtract that number and say in the footnote that the population doesn't include the part of Zadar County that isn't in Dalmatia. D'oh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Please stop beating a dead horse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dalmatia/Archive_2&oldid=1136308922"