Jump to content

Talk:Dalmatia/Archive 5

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

Clarification of some things stated in the article

I don't want to change the article but some things stated there are weird. For instance Dalmatia doesn't have a flag. I think that that flag was used during Austro-Hungarian for Kingdom of Dalmatia, but I don't think it's appropriate to state that as a flag of Dalmatia as a historical region of Croatia. I don't think that flag can be found anywhere in Dalmatia. The coat of arms is ok, since it's stated on the state coat of army, but the flag can be really found today and it's not right to identify Kingdom of Dalmatia with a historical region of Dalmatia. Dalmatia was a Croatian region long before the Kingdom of Dalmatia, and the coat of arms is the symbol that was always associated with it, while that flag was only present during Kingdom of Dalmatia. The second thing is stated in the lead. It's stated that Dalmatia is one of four historical regions of Croatia but there are more. For instance Medimurje would be the biggest one that is left out. Croatia proper is really just central Croatia. I would like some clarifications before I go and change the article that some people have been editing for a long time. Thank you. 89.164.177.185 (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The "fact" that Dalmatia is a historical region is barely supported in the article. Indeed the "current borders" of this "historical region" (!?) are drawn using the geographical definition used by the Croatian bureau of statistics (??). Quite a paradox, when you think that there is no proper region in the administrative structure of Croatia. However, you can check in the archives, there was an endless discussion about this involving 4 or 5 editor (including myself). Silvio1973 (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dalmatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Etymology of "Dalmatia"

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.britannica.com/place/Dalmatia

Did you consider that a "Rough guide to Croatia" might not actually be a good source on etymology? The revolvy article is copied from Wikipedia and isn't a source at all. Wikipedia can't cite itself, even through the 'back door' of a mirror site. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Quote EB: "the name Dalmatia probably comes from the name of an Illyrian tribe, the Delmata, an Indo-European people who overran the northwestern part of the Balkan Peninsula beginning about 1000 bce", which is what it says in our article. This seems to be what you are disputing, unless I misunderstand. Kleuske (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wisdom of the Ancients: Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I have checked several other sources; they all say that Dalmatia comes from Delmatae, the name of an Illyrian tribe. None of them, however, mention the origin of the tribe's name. If I'm getting this right, you're disputing the claim that Delmatae is related to the Albanian word for "sheep"?
I'd also suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Copyrights (because you seem to have copied text directly from the book, without any attribution whatsoever). Thank you. ~barakokula31 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Wisdom of the Ancients (talk · contribs) has been blocked for one week due to edit warring. I will be taking this discussion to their talk page. ~barakokula31 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Kotor bay

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

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

Also, please, give to us direction for "Illirian language dictionary" !!! Comeone, this is redeciolus. Also to not forget stupidity that in 1922 only Boka (so called "Kotor bay" ?!?)became part of Zeta Banovina in Kingdom of SHS, NO , also whole Dubrovnik area was part of that Banovina ! see article: [[1]],even "banovina's" as administrative units of Kingdom of Yugoslavia egzist from 1929...After all what i see in this article, what to say, and not start to cry ?!?Not even smallest conection with historicaly prooved facts,this is a kind of pamflet not of serious article.--Rethymno (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not thrue. Off course that on the map of Croatia Montenegro stand as neighburing country. But southern area of state called Boka kotorska or Kotor bay is colored by blue color ! So revert your changes or i will do that.--Rethymno (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rethymno: the caption reads "The extent of the Kingdom of Dalmatia on a map of modern-day Croatia", so it's obvious that the blue refers to the territory of the Kingdom, which is indeed ~95% located in modern-day Croatia, and the rest overlaps something else. I mean, whatever, but our readers are not blind, and the captions do not have to reflect every tiny detail. No such user (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Translate this page to Dalmatian language

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

@MaritaDalmatina:There are several pages on the incubated Dalmatian Wikipedia, which seem to deal with Dalmatia: Wp/dlm/Dalmacija, Wp/dlm/Dalmaćia, Wp/dlm/Dalmazia. You should be able to edit them (don't forget, you have use prefixes in the Incubator). Also, probably, these pages should be merged, if they all deal with the same topic, as I suspect.
Incubator does not use extensions to help out with the translation itself. - Xbspiro (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Xbspiro:

Dear Xbspiro.

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

Thanks in advance.

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

DAI

User:Thhhommmasss (edit), "History" section needs work (will check it in upcoming days/weeks), but the edited information isn't neutral and true, however reliably sourced, as it has been widely disputed in science. Wikipedia isn't based on primary historical sources which often have erroneous information hence relies on secondary sources who made an analysis, comparison, criticism and else of them. Major and other viewpoints are explained in sections of linked articles contradicting the edited information/viewpoint by Fine (whose works aren't without much criticism), and widely discussed by editors in many talk pages reaching a consensus (including recently Talk:Višeslav of Serbia#RfC on DAI and NPOV). Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources you cite with respect to DAI are all Croatian historians. I am sure there are Serb historians who conversely cite only the portions dealing with Serbs in Dalmatia. Fact is there were until the 14th century multiple Serb states in southern Dalmatia, including a state of the Njemanic's with its main city in Ston on Peljesac, plus the 14th-century Duchy of St. Sava, mentioned by Jozo Tomasevich among others. Those are facts, and they do not make these parts Serbian states today, same as many posted maps of 11-century Croatia that include half of Bosnia, do not make Bosnia Croatian, nor do huge maps of Venetian holdings make Dalmatia Italian Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"The sources you cite with respect to DAI are all Croatian historians" proves you didn't check the sources at all, as I am citing international and Serbian historians as well. Your bold edit can be considered now as disruptive. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I stated what is cited for DAI. On Google Scholar John Fine's book "Early Medieval Balkans" is cited 467 times, the 2 Croatian sources referring to the DAI are cited 4 and Zero times, respectively, so it is clear what is or isn't reliably sourced. So you are making your judgements over Google Scholer what are Reliable Sources, Your bold deletion of a widely cited, clearly reliable source, in preference to minor, marginal sources is clearly disruptive.Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
You cannot state something ignoring WP:WEIGHT which you clearly don't understand hence making disruptive edits. That's not how WEIGHT and reliability are established on Wikipedia neither it's relevant considering the issue. A source can be regarded as reliable/unreliable but specific information/viewpoint cited in the source can be still unreliable/reliable and minor/significant/major viewpoint for citation on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
What is per WP the weight of a Zero-cited source, apparently self-published on zero-peer-reviewed Academia.edu, which you left, compared to a widely-cited book by a professor of history at a major world university, whom you deleted? If by weight you mean many zero-cited sources, then there are no doubt many Serbian sources who also lend "weight" to their claims. Next to this zero-cited source is a citation of Ivan Muzic, whom Croatian Wikipedia describes as a lawyer and "a passionate polemicist from the point of view of Croatian nationalism and Catholicism".The cited article, which is a review of Muzic's book (The Origins of the Croats: The Autochthonousness of Croatian ethnogenesis on the soil of the Roman province of Dalmatia), states that Muzic himself describes his "methodology" as: "Works that do not fit my criteria, regardless of their authority, I did not mention" and the reviewer states this is a purely subjective work, i.e. an opinion piece. Wow, sure sounds scientific and NPOV to me! By all means, let's then add here lots of citations of "passionate polemicists from the point of view of Serbian nationalism and Orthodoxy", who ignore authoritative works that do not fit their "criteria", for some real WP:WEIGHT. Anyway, I do not see that either of these 2 cited sources meet even the minimum WP criteria for RS, and should be deleted Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not continuing this ridiculous and nonsensical discussion. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

lead section region discussion

I've recently reverted a new user's change that removed the notion of Dalmatia being in Croatia from the top of the article (which would be glaring NPOV/UNDUE issue), while at the same it is a bit overcrowded there, esp. in combination with the hatnote. Suggestions welcome how to phrase it in a more concise manner. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

6th century slavs

In an edit, editor OyMosby mentioned that "the article" indicated that the Sclaveni (South Slavs) who entered the area in the 6th century were "mostly Croats". I would be happy to review that specific article if OyMosby would provide the citation. In reading Van Antwerp Fine Jr., John (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08149-3. pages 50–57 it appears that the Croats were not originally Slavs, but had an Iranian origin (p. 57), and that they didn't enter Dalmatia until the 7th century after defeating the incumbent Avars, citing Constantine. See also the sentence in this article "According to the work De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in Roman province of Dalmatia in the first half of the 7th century," citing Katičić (1989) and Birin (2015), two articles in Croatian. On this basis having Croats included in the Slavic invasion of the 6th century seems to be an over generalization. Like I said, I look forward to reviewing the article mentioned by OyMosby.  --Bejnar (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There exist different interpretations of the DAI in literature. DAI itself anachronistically projects events, and sometimes is contradicting own accounts often because of political reasons. Croats were represented as new arrivals from faraway lands and liberators of Roman land from the Avar rule although that's highly unlikely and most probably merely revolted against the Avars after already arrived. Fine sometimes isn't most accurate/factual and when cited alone should be attributed, and the Iranian origin/identity of the Croats isn't something usually considered in the historiography anymore. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
My main point was that three cited sources have the Croats arriving later than the 6th century Slavs. And the arrivals are distinct. But what does Miki Filigranski mean by "the Iranian origin/identity of the Croats isn't something usually considered in the historiography anymore." -- is it ignored? or is there published research suggesting that it isn't so? I note that recent historiography regarding the Ustashe concept of "Croatian" accepted the eventual genetic merging of the Croats with the Slavs as reported by Fine. Regarding recent research, see footnote 71 in Bartulin (2008) where it says: "Although there is an on-going academic debate on the origins of the proto-Croats, the name 'Croat' itself is most probably of Iranian origin. See Radoslav Katičić, 'On the Origins of the Croats' in Ivan Supičić Croatia in the Early Middle Ages: a cultural survey (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 1999), pp. 149–167." See also, Bilogrivić, Goran (2018) "Carolingian weapons and the problem of Croat migration and ethnogenesis." in Migration, Integration and Connectivity on the Southeastern Frontier of the Carolingian Empire Brill, pp. 86–99; and Goss, Vladimir P. (2013) "Culture v. Nature: on Slavic and non-Slavic Origin of the Croats." Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3.40, pp. 243–253. Regardless of the possible Iranian origin of the Croats, they do not seem to be part of the Slavic invasion of the 6th century. --Bejnar (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Again, depends on the perspective and critical analysis of DAI in the sources. If there's no critical analysis and sources stick with the DAI narrative then often provide only such viewpoint. It is related to the Grafenauer's thesis that there happened two migrations of the South Slavs, that the described events in DAI are unrelated. It is impossible to differentiate Croats from the other Slavs. There exist many sources which argue that the Croats arrived with the late 6th century Slavs - however the arrival of the late 6th century Slavs is a whole other issue itself as the sources sometime do not differentiate between seasonal plundering, warring, arrival and settlement of the Slavs/Croats. The arrival and settlement in narrow Dalmatia can be surely argued only since the 7th century. As for the Iranian origin/identity, previously in the historiography was popular an idea that the Croats didn't arrive as Slavs yet as an Iranian-Slavic elite in the 7th century. Today, such concept is mainly used for explaining the etymology of the Croatian ethnonym and related to the supposed Proto-Croats history somewhere in Ukrainian homeland (and often only explained as a Iranian loanword into Proto-Slavic rather than claiming an existence of some Iranian tribe of Croats). Goss wasn't an expert on genetics to be considered a reliable source as well the source is greatly outdated/wrong by now.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Currently, the best historiographical & archaeological source about the topic, or at least an overview about it, is Krešimir Filipec (2020), "Praishodište i/ili situacija. Slaveni i Hrvati – do zauzimanja nove domovine" (Origin and/or situation. Slavs and Croats – until the conquest of a new homeland), Zagreb: Centar za ranosrednjovjekovna istraživanja Zagreb-Lobor: Odsjek za arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta, Katedra za opću srednjevjekovnu i nacionalnu arheologiju: Arheološki zavod Filozofskog fakulteta. ISBN 978-953-57369-1-2.
I will check the current sources and provide better ones, but the issue and details in question are out of scope for this article. There already exist other articles which are dealing with them. It is enough saying that the South Slavs arrived in the late 6th-early 7th century.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Da. But don't include the Croats in that statement. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
If Miki has sources that state otherwise…. Why not? Or did you mean for them to be sure not to mention Croats as part of the Southern Slavs migrating then? OyMosby (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
There's no scientific consensus and they are details which aren't really important to the article's scope so find unnecessary stressing to much about it in this article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
It appears their gripe wasn’t with the scope but lack of sources stating 6th century arrival. Hence my question to them. OyMosby (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
You mentioned that There exist many sources which argue that the Croats arrived with the late 6th century Slavs
So what are the sources that state that Croats arrived in the late 6th and 7th century as you mentioned? And it seems in scope given region location.
As I stated in my previous diff, the article body has sourced material about DAI stating Croat presence in early 7th century. Overlapping the late 6th early 7th century arrival of Sclaven. As the other user stresses. I’m lost as to why only one can be mentioned and not both.
Given that Italian is mentioned for the form of Romance people present, surely Croats can be mentioned as well. Otherwise if scope is an issue, just stick to Romance and Slavic peoples in the paragraph. OyMosby (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources by Filipec, Budak, Dvornik, Sedov, Majorov, Voitovych, Heather... even Yugoslavian historiography.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the list. That seems like a fairly significant amount of sources. Seems safe to say they arrived from modern day Poland-Western Ukraine in the late 6th century then? This appears to be the main theory on articles that discuss the topic. Therefore mentioning “Croats in the statement” which Bejnar requested not to, would seem warranted and in scope. As migration and types of populations is what that paragraph in the intro is about. Adding these sources to the sentence would be a good idea sparing this sort of discussion in the future. OyMosby (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I was referring to the article body where a cited sentence states
De Administrando Imperio written by the 10th-century Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Croats had arrived in Roman province of Dalmatia in the first half of the 7th century,
You referenced this in your comment. The sources for this being in Croatian is irrelevant as they are referring to a non-Croatian source. So I don’t get the point of mentioning that.
I agree in my undo I was not careful in reading. I assumed the arrival of Croats in the early 7th century and arrival of Sclaveni in the late 6th and early 7th century overlapped and coincided. However it implied them being in the same
group which appears to not be what the source implies. Also did not mean to imply Sclaveni were mostly Croats, that would be ridiculous. Hence why I reverted my revert.
I do not see the reason from mentioning Ustashe and their theories as they are the last group I would seek facts from. How mentioning them helps this conversation I haven’t a clue.
As for claims of Croats being Iranian in origin. I had thought Croat and Serbs arrived to the Balkans as Slavic people already. Where they not? I was under the impressythat their names may be of non-Slavic origin only.
Before December of 2023, the intro stated arrival of the Croats in the 6th century. Instead of changing the 6 to a 7, you removed Croats and replaced it with Sclaveni. Though it should have been changed to late 6th and early 7th for them regardless. I am not sure the reason given you agree with the 7th century arrival of Croats in the area per source. Then a month or so later, Miki included “mostly Croats”. So perhaps a sentence stating Croats arriving early 7th century after the Sclaveni sentence would make sense. As it is well within scope of the article. And appears sourced.
I will take a look at the sources you provided as well as the sources @Miki Filigranski claims stating Croats arriving as early as 6th with the Sclaveni. I replied to them requesting what the source were. I will do some digging as well as I recall reading elsewhere the 6th century claim in other articles. They may need to be corrected to the 7th century as well.
I think if any further changes are needed, we should discuss here first. So as to keep the intro stable. I know you mentioned on my page you will be traveling for a week or two so I will await further discussion with you until then. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
To not be mistaken, "mostly Croats" was related and an addition to the "South Slavs" as the Croats are those who settled most of modern Dalmatia and are most numerous and representative South Slavic ethnic group in Dalmatia, while South Slavs is a very broad term including from Slovenes to the Macedonians. It wasn't related to the topic of early medieval migration.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I see. Though why is it not within scope of the topic? Given they migrated around the same time and given where Dalmatia is mostly located in present day. I’m not really understanding that. It was part of the intro for some time. And seems as relevant as any migration to the area. For example for the mention of Romance populations, it was further detailed to be Italian rather than generalized Romance people. Was the “Dalmatian Italian” identity formed before the 6th century? As well as the more modern Venetian and Italian languages? Is that also within scope? OyMosby (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dalmatia/Archive_5&oldid=1256343278"