Talk:Dalmatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Europe (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Dalmatia is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has an assessment summary page.

Borders of Dalmatia[edit]

It is not accurate to say that the "borders of Romance cultural influence" are equivalent to those of Dalmatia. Practically all of continental Dalmatia was part of the Republic (or any Romance state) for only about 100 years altogether (1699-1796), or a 130 years (1669-1796) at most, if part of the "acquisto nuovo". Only the "acquisto vecchio" areas can be said to have been influenced by Venetian/Italian culture for a longer period. Those are the islands, the coastal cities, and here and there a thin strip of coastline with this or that town.
The "acquisto vecchio" is an area that is distinct in many ways from the "acquisto nuovo/novissimo". In addition to the Romance Dalmatians and Italians that used to live in the vecchio (and nowhere else) - the Slavs that eventually intermingled with them are of a different "sort", they are the old coastal Croats that spoke Chakavian. Chakavian is very different from Shtokavian of the nuovo and novissimo, practically unintelligible (the modern Croatian and Serbian languages both use Shtokavian, and are practically the same). The Shtokavian Slavs in the "acquisto nuovo/novissimo" (the "Vlaji") arrived mostly on the heels of the Ottoman conquest. Antidiskriminator might be able to tell you that some Serbian factions claim they are "really" Catholic Serbs, though you are quite likely to get punched in the face if you make such a claim in front of one of them :).
Of course, today, only some island towns here and there might have an "acquisto vecchi-an", Chakavian majority. Though noone actually speaks Chakavian today except some old people. -- Director (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Director, as usual I will remain calm and polite but trust me it is sometime not easy with you (am I the only one experiencing this difficulty?).
Dalmatia properly said is really the acquisto vecchio and of course the Republic of Ragusa (as you write: the islands, the coastal cities and a strip of coastline). And it hardly get deeper than 50 km in the hinterland (there was no romance influence after that limit). Indeed, even during the brief period of the acquisto nuovo there was hardly any significant influence in the hinterland, because during that period Venice was too busy with other issues to enact any control on a territory that was anyway too large for the means of the Republic in those years.
You speak of "Continental Dalmatia". And this thing is in your map over 150 km wide. And this map is edited not in a book of geography or history (we speak of an historical region after all) but using a definition used by the Croatian National Office of Statistics. Beside the potential issue of OR, I hope you see the obvious limits of using such a source to justify the limits of an historical region. What happens if tomorrow the Office of Statistics change their mind and aggregate the regions differently. This would change retrospectively the history of Croatia? PS Have you ever been in Gračac? Do you genuinely think that town is in Dalmatia? :)) --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall you apologizing for the WP:ICANTHEARYOU; or for misquoting sources. That's what creates the annoyance to begin with.
I see. You're trying to claim "Dalmatia" is only the acquisto vecchio? And are claiming that the extent of the region is defined culturally? Well, unfortunately, nobody in the world shares your definition.
I told you this about fifty separate times. 'Archive 2' is full of my posts explaining this to you. I will say again, for the fifty-first and absolute last time, that those boundaries did NOT originate from the "Croatian National Office of Statistics". Those are the borders of "Dalmatia" as established in 1699 with the Treaty of Karlowitz. That is the region designated by the word "Dalmatia" ever since. It was never, and is not now, defined culturally - but geographically, without any regard whatsoever to culture.
If you are claiming that the borders of "true" Dalmatia are those of the acquisto vecchio, well, I know what you mean by that, but the region is simply not defined like that. It'd be almost like saying "true Italy" is only south of the Po Valley - well yeah, in a sense it is. And Croatia proper is about that big, and Serbia proper is about yay big, etc. But to say, that the acquisto nuovo e novissimo aren't Dalmatia, its just silly. That would be the real OR. And if we were to "define the region culturally", we might as well delete this, since that distinction is just about gone. Its sad, but true.
And as regards OR I remind you that the map is indeed sourced[citation needed]. Gracac (or Graciaz :D) has been described as being part of Dalmatia, because "Dalmatia" in modern times is being rounded off to the four southernmost Croatian counties. That was sourced, remember? Its unfortunate, but that's what things are like. I'm here to report what is real, not to employ wwishful thinking. I too find the idea that Gracac is "Dalmatian" kind of comical :), but then I would also say the same of Imotski for example (no offense to anyone). Yet Imotski has been referred to as a part of Dalmatia for the past 300 years. -- Director (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Director, you have a rare ability of putting the words in others' people mouths. I implore you to read too. Just to be sure we both listen the others we might answer to list the questions and answer individually to each point bullet point.
1) What I am saying is that the areas corresponding to the acquisto vecchio is Dalmatia in all modern sources. This does not mean that only the acquisto vecchio is Dalmatia in all modern sources.
2) You cannot state in the article: The hinterland, the Dalmatian Zagora, ranges from fifty kilometres in width in the north to just a few kilometre in the south and after post a map where the range is over 150 km.
2) About Italy there are political (and recognised) boundaries so I take your comment as a (silly, to use your words) joke. If you believe that Turin or Milan are not true Italy I guess you should give a look to the history of Italy.
3) We are in 2014 not in 1699 and you need a recent source if you want to claim that the modern understanding of the historical region of Dalmatia are still those set in 1699.
4) However... I can find sources stating that Dalmatia corresponds to the acquisto vecchio and I am not the only person thinking that on this planet. You claim it is a larger region but where are your sources (I cannot see anyone in the article)? The Office of Statistics is not a source for this purpose.
5) There are plenty of English sources stating that the northern cost of Montenegro is in Dalmatia. Indeed it is wrong to write that some sources consider Kotor bay in Dalmatia. All modern English maps do. [[1]], [[2]]. I have rephrased the article accordingly.
6) I am not the only person thinking that Dalmatia does not get any deeper than 50 km in the hinterland (at the latitude of Zadar, ie the limit is Knin). Not convinced? [[3]]. Indeed also this map put Kotor Bay in Dalmatia.
7) All this problem stems from the map. I know you like maps, but if you want to post a map you need a source with a map. An English, recent, reputable source with a map.
8) I have posted a POV banner on this article. Please do not consider this an hostile act (if you think so please revert my edit, I will not insist). What I would like is to have more people discussing this matter. Again if you find sources supporting your views I have no problem, but we cannot have a map not corresponding to the definition given in the article. I hope at least on this point we agree. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not put words into your mouth, rather you express yourself inadequately in English. Any misunderstandings can only stem from that.
2) I recommend you try and translate that sentence a bit better. The width of the hinterland is indeed about 50 kilometers at its widest (with Gracac about 75 kilometers at most). It is not 150 km, anywhere, nor does the map show that. I will not respond to your further inquiries on this matter, until you make an effort to understand what is stated in the sentence.
3) You need a source, not I. I will not repeat the same discussion from before simply because you ignore other people's s posts. Not only are there sources for you in 'Archive 2', but also a WP:CONSENSUS on this map. Here is a sampling

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

—Lena Mirošević, Josip Faričić; Perception of Dalmatia in Selected Foreign Lexicographic Publications, p.124; Department of Geography, University of Zadar; Geoadria, Vol.16, 2011.
4) I would bet my life that these sources of yours (whatever they are) merely describe the coastline, and that you have inferred from that that they claim Dalmatia is only the coastline, which is WP:OR. Probably publications not even discussing the boundaries of Dalmatia, but merely referring to it offhandedly. That is what that's going to be. But even if you had sources that explicitly state Dalmatia is only the acquisto vecchio, we would still have to include the acquisto nuovo e novissimo in the map - because Dalmatia is not a formal entity, and other sources indicate the nuovo e novissimo are indeed viewed as part of Dalmatia (as you can see in 'Archive 2', and in part here as well). If you want them in a different colour, however, you will need a source that clearly and explicitly states they are not Dalmatia.
5) Sure, I don't dispute that. We have Kotor in the map.
6) You are confused regarding the kilometers thing.. and I don't see anything in the source that's relevant?
7) No, I don't.
8) I have removed it because the map is there by consensus, and has been for years.
-- Director (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Director, I am contesting only because the sources are not there. Otherwise I could not contest. Concerning my English,it is what it is. And actually only you have a problem with it.
2) From Zadar to the the border of north-eastern Zadar County with Bosnia there are around 110 km as the crow flies. Check it.
3) If you had solid and abundant English sources this discussion would not exist. Please see point 6. I have a source (with a map) where Dalmatia does not encopass the north-eastern Zadar County.
4) I see your point and would agree in principle. The thing is that of course they do describe the coastline, because Dalmatia it's the coastline, the islands and some hinterland (the 50 km). Yes you can claim that the burden is on me but in reality it is on the both of us. Remember that you support your claim only with one ource (the one you refer in your answer at point 3), but I have a source saying something different (see at point 6). Indeed the difficulty you have in finding additional sources is an indication that yours is - at least partially - OR.
5) If you do not dispute, why do we have a different color for Kotor Bay? There are a lot of sources (I mean English sources,of course) stating that Kotor Bay is in the Dalmatia. Yes I know there is a lot of politics with Montenegro about that, but this is not my problem.
6) In this source [[4]] the so called "north-eastern Zadar County" is not in Dalmatia. Because my two problems with this article are the "restricted status" of Kotor bay and the inclusion of the "north-eastern Zadar County".
7) Director, do you think that in such an assertive way? Perhaps a RfC or a 3O could be a good idea if you don't mind.
8) May be there was consensus a few years ago. May be amongst users from the same country. I remember we discussed of that 2 years ago... Joy and I in the end gave up by exhaustion. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kilometres. There are 80 kilometers from Zadar itself to the north-eastern corner of Zadar County. All in all about half of your number.
However, "width" here presumably means distance between the border and the shore, on a line perpendicular to the layout of the shoreline. At the north-eastern corner of Zadar County, this line intersects with the Novigrad Sea, with a distance of almost exactly 50 km. Taking the Novigrad Sea into account, and taking Gracac as part of Dalmatia, the longest line perpendicular to the shore is 76 kilometres. Without Gracac, its about 46 km.
Sources. That is a perfectly good source, a scholarly publication in the field dealing specifically with our topic (the perceived borders of Dalmatia in modern times). It is far better than a travel guide. I don't need a map, because the source is quite clear (I have a map of the Kingdom of Dalmatia!).
Further, your posts are so convoluted I don't even know what you claim your travel guide proves? Does the travel guide say the acquisto nuovo and novissimo are not in Dalmatia? Or only that Gracac isn't? If its only Gracac, then we already know that sources disagree on that - and that's why we have Gracac in a different colour.
Look Silvio, Gracac is neither included, nor is Kotor Bay excluded. They are both "borderline". I know what you want. You want Gracac removed from the map, and Kotor painted in the same colour as the rest. However, as we have seen from the sources (cited here and in 'Archive 2'!) - Gracac is sometimes viewed as a part of Dalmatia, whereas Kotor Bay is often forgotten nowadays in that designation. Because "Dalmatia" is an informal designation, the map tries to cater to all perceptions and colours the borderline regions differently.
And that's it. As long as there are sources (preferably scholarly sources) saying "this isn't part of Dalmatia", that part will be coloured a different colour to accommodate that view. You can't erase the sources that say "Gracac is part of it" and "Kotor isn't". They are at least as equally valid as that travel guide (and are really much, much better). -- Director (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

This is just too much.. at one time you talk about the acquisto nuovo and novissimo, then about nonsensical "150 km" figures, then you revert back to beating the old horse of wanting Gracac removed... And every word is written only with a mind to pushing some convoluted Italian nationalist POV you're not even managing to express clearly. I'm sorry, redacted myself back there, but I am having a very hard time AGF-ing given our previous exchange, where you repeatedly altered and/or ignored what the sources say in order to fit a point of view.
Again! The source is quite clear that Dalmatia is generally perceived to extend to the borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia, which are very precise and not "approximate" at all. It further makes a very exact and non-"approximate" explanation that the Bay of Kotor is usually excluded today. And that the four southern counties are in modern-day circumstances usually taken as "Dalmatia" (which includes Gracac).
  • Because the Bay of Kotor is omitted from "Dalmatia" by some sources, but included by some, we have it in green - but its not excluded. (There are in fact many sources that state the Bay is not viewed today as being part of Dalmatia, see 'Archive 2')
  • Because Gracac is today viewed as part of Dalmatia "from the present-day administrative point of view", it is included in the map - but its purple.
Its not about "which source is better" since the map currently represents all sources, and the various points of view they elaborate. And we're not going to ignore the Zadar Geography Faculty source, and exclude Gracac. But if we had to ignore something, we'd ignore your source since the Zadar university source deals specifically with the topic and elaborates in detail. (I do not acknowledge there is some controversy over the issue of Gracac, such as might bring local sources into question. Further, as "Dalmatia" is very much an issue of popular perception, local sources may actually be superior in this instance.)
And that's all there is to say. I am not removing Gracac nor especially changing Kotor to blue. Stop beating this dead horse already! -- Director (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, the map depicts YOUR understanding of the sources. Indeed of one source. We won't get out if this without morr people involved. Never a consensus was reached dear Director. You pushed the others away by exhaustion. As soon I have time I will post a RfC. From my perspective there are not enough sources to have a map detailed like that. Let's see what the others think. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
At that point you will then be reported for disrupting this talkpage (per WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:HORSE). You are the only one who objects to this map, and your objections are mostly unintelligible; those that are not - are absurd. There isn't only "one source", I told you several times to re-read 'Archive 2', which is a comment you repeatedly ignored.
  • Several sources indicate that Kotor is no longer a part of Dalmatia, you will find them in 'Archive 2'. Hence it is in green.
  • Several sources indicate Dalmatia today comprises the four counties. Hence Gracac is purple.
  • Not a single source has been provided to cast doubt on whether the hinterland (i.e. the Dalmatian Zagora, the "acquisto nuovo/novissimo") is a part of Dalmatia.
Like the Zadar Geography Faculty states quite accurately "from the present-day administrative point of view", Dalmatia comprises the four counties. Here's another source to that effect: Turnock, David; The Human Geography of East Central Europe, p.318; Routledge, 2003 ("..the administrative division of Dalmatia into four counties")
And another: Patrick Heenan, Monique Lamontagne; The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook, p.168; Taylor & Francis, 1999 (.."there has been opposition from the Dalmatia Action Party to the high level of centralization in Zagreb. And to the division of Dalmatia into four counties.")
Etc. the four southern counties are indeed being identified with "Dalmatia" in preset day perception. This definition does not correspond with the old "Kingdom of Dalmatia definition" in that it excludes Kotor, Rab, and half the island of Pag, but adds Gracac. The map displays both the "Kingdom definition", and the "Four Counties definition". There is nothing to dispute over. All elements of the map have in some wway been described as "Dalmatia". We will not exclude the "Four Counties" in favor of the "Kingdom" simply because you demand it incessantly, over and over again - since both are sourced. Now give it a rest please! -- Director (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I removed your fourth source because it was falsely quoted [5] (this is the sixth or seventh source that you have been caught deliberately misquoting in order to stack refs).
  • And I removed the Stanfords map "source" because it in no way actually states that Kotor is perceived as part of Dalmatia. It is quite a laughable reference, since it is based on you deciding that the mapmakers there actually claim anything with regard to the modern-day definition of Dalmatia, from how they entitled a map ("Dalmatian Coast South: Dubrovnik - Kotor - Ulcinj").
  • The Treccani source is also borderline-OR (since it doesn't actually say Kotor is in Dalmatia, it doesn't even mention Kotor), but at least its respectable.
  • Bousfield and his "Rough Guide to Croatia" etc. are non-scholarly and borderline-unreliable. You ought to be happy if they're taken seriously at all.

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

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

Which fourth source is falsely quoted? I do not remeber to have added that source at all. Also, please before removing sources and text discuss first. Don't do to the others what you do not want they do to you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
1) I do not see why you always upset when the others disagree with your views. Also I do not see why you keep repeting the same things. I understood you very well, but I disagree. But what I do not understand is when you write "Every word is written only with a mind to pushing some convoluted Italian nationalist POV you're not even managing to express clearly". Where is the nationalist POV? Are you sure you are not projecting yourself here?
2) The sources concerning the boundaries of Dalmatia (as other users already told you, give a look in the archives) are very conflicting the one with the others. We speak here of geography (human geooraphy to be precise) and you provided sources that are everything but not books of geography. You extracted sentences from context that relate to everything, but not geography. And you use those sentences to reference a map.
3) Director, there is nothing better than a source with a map to reference a map. I provided sources with maps where Dalmatia is without Cracac and with Kotor Bay. The "funny thing" is that the only map I could find with Gracac in Dalmatia is the one you edited in Wikipedia. For God's sake if what you say is write why I cannot find a damned map like the one you pictured? And if you are right why all the map of Northern Dalmatia I could find are without Gracac? And why the most of the maps of Southern Dalmatia are with the Bay of Kotor?
  • Dalmatia without Gracac [[6]] (this source also says that Kotor Bay is in Dalmatia), [[7]].
  • Dalmatian Coast with Kotor Bay [[8]], [[9]]. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The source in question was genuine. I do not know what happened. Hereafter again the original citation [[10]] and the extract from the source: Toward the end of 1944 it was liberated from the occupiers by the People’s Liberation Army of Yugoslavia. In 1945, Dalmatia became part of Croatia. The southern part of Dalmatia has been part of Montenegro since 1945..Silvio1973 (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"Warning! The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased." -- Director (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I take this comment from you as a joke. Plenty of sources on FYR are from the Socialist period. They are all ideologically biased. And so what? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Director, what I am trying to tell you is that different scholars define Dalmatia with different boundaries. And it is logical because it is an historical region and history is not an exact science. Also picturing a map of an historical region using today's administrative regions has an obvious limit: you are retrospectively applying to the post a current administrative division. Of course, you could say that the two can corresponds. If only you could reference a map in the sources you cited. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
No no, I am not saying the source is "ideologically biased", nor that all sources from the Communist era are necessarily biased - I'm referring to the fact that its outdated. It's 35 years old, and here we are talking about modern-day perceptions. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia? Really? :) -- Director (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I thought you had changed political inclination. Everything is in order... :) Director, 35 years is old but not that old. And I would not be suprised to find out that in the current version of the thatencyclopedia the definition was still the same. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
35 years is very, very old. 41 years would be even older! Goodness.. ;)
Seriously though, we are not talking about history here, we need to stick to modern-day sources.
It is perfectly legitimate to superimpose a historical entity on modern-day borders. Its done all the time. And here it has a clear purpose in illustrating the modern-day(!) extent of Dalmatia according to the perception defined by the borders of the Kingdom. -- Director (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
And for that you create a map that cannot be found in any other source. Clearly we need more people involved here. Director, I left you doing a little bit what you wanted in the article but please be reasonable. You cannot put in such prominence the opinion of these two illustri sconosciuti: Lena Mirošević and Josip Faričić. I have reformatted and reduced the quote. Change it if you want but put some common sense in the level of prominence you want to give to the source. It's not all.. There was already an issue of sourcing with one map and now you post three... honestly. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The boundaries of the Kingdom of Dalmatia are well known and precisely defined, as are those of the Croatian counties! If you think either map is inaccurate, show me where the error is! Otherwise: do not remove a perfectly good map. The thing that bothers you is that the region's extent is superimposed on a map of modern-day Croatia, which is perfectly justified - yet annoys you.
For the final time: you do not necessarily need a map to source a map! If I want to have a map that superimposes the Kingdom of Dalmatia on a modern-day Croatian map, I don't need a map exactly like that in order for it to be sourced
Look here Silvio, there's no reason not to quote our best source outright. And it is our best source, no contest, because its #1 scholarly, peer-reviewed; #2 geographic (Zadar University, Department of Geography); and #3 deals specifically with the subject at hand. No other source yet put forward is as good as that one. In a sense, its our only source, as its really the only one that actually discusses the perceived modern-day extent of this region.
It also does NOT claim Dalmatia is an "administrative region", but defines its borders from an administrative point of view. But you don't like that part, so you delete it. Which, as I recall - is your modus operandi: selective representation of sources.
I am quite done talking to you, as your conduct is disruptive and infuriating. I'd almost forgotten that discussing with Silvio1973 is like continuously listening to someone scratch a blackboard. -- Director (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The only difference between me and others with regard to yourself is that no one else has engaged in long and serious disputes with you. Your arguments make no sense! You constantly make unintelligible points and switch subjects. Your position is rarely expressed clearly. You don't read what's being told. You push an Italian POV relentlessly and with no regard to sources, which you routinely misrepresent, misquote, delete, or cherry-pick only parts of what they state.
A map in itself is not controversial, whether you have one, "three", or fifty! If you don't see a problem or error in the maps - don't delete them. The text continuously refers to the Kingdom of Dalmatia as defining modern Dalmatia in great part - it is necessary to show the extent of the Kingdom in a modern-day map.
The source from the two Zadar geographers is the only source we have that explicitly discusses the extent of Dalmatia in modern day perception. We don't have to quote it exactly, but we certainly can not delete/ignore part of the excerpt because you don't like it.
In this discussion alone you have ignored or misunderstood posts by other users at least a half-dozen times, and have posted an incorrect reference. -- Director (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The reference was believed to be correct. And indeed I gave afterwards the right reference. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Boundaries of the historical region of Dalmatia[edit]

Closing this because it hasn't been opened properly. RFCs need a proper question, and here there is none. It also hasn't really attracted any outside input, but instead has served as a forum for a continued debate between the same group of editors. Please start a new RFC, and I request that the editors already involved limit themselves to a couple of paragraphs each, rather than fill another section with walls of text that outsiders can't understand (or be bothered to read). Refer to previous sections, but please don't repeat the same stuff over and over. Number 57 12:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is an ongoing discussion on Dalmatia. Dalmatia is an historical region of the Balkans (mainly of Croatia), without any administrative or regional recognition but with historically relevant. Disagreement exist on the sources that should be used for the article and particularly to edit a map of today's Dalmatia. 3 archives have been filled with the participation of a few editors but consensus has not been found. Some users left the discussion, probably by exhaustion. The last posts have been mainly between two users: User:Silvio1973 and User:Director.

The most contested matter is the actual posting of the map. Probably without posting a map 90% of the issues would be solved automatically. Indeed this solution was proposed in the past (and it's currently supported by Silvio1973) but ignored by some users, particularly by Director, who for some reason is extremely keen to post a map. Furthermore, despite the difficulties already existing to find consensus on one single map, Director ended posting three different maps of Dalmatia. The necessity of such overdetail was questioned by Silvio1973, but in vain.

Dalmatia is an historical region, and not surprisingly different sources report for this region different boundaries. This situation is common in the Balkans whenever there are no natural borders (such the sea or rivers). However User Director particularly insists in using the administrative borders of 4 Croatian counties to aggregate Dalmatia as historical region. This superposition of administrative and historical borders has been questioned recently by Silvio1973 and in the past by User:Joy, User:Bejnar and at a minor extent by other users.

Seen the difficulty to have a civil and joint discussion with Director, the decision of posting an RfC has been taken by User:Silvio1973. One side note: Director insists in writing that Silvio1973 is pushing an Italian nationalist POV. This is a very odd allegation, because the contested matter (current borders of historical Dalmatia) has nothing to do with the recent or past history of Italy. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not even certain what the devil Silvio wants here. Presumably he resents that Dalmatia is a part of Croatia and dislikes maps that show its location within Croatia. But the current infobox map was introduced to replace this one, which was there since time immemorial. The current map, added two years ago, is an improvement on it in many ways; not least because its vector, and in that its more detailed with regard to small areas that are only sometimes regarded as being part of the region. Still, Silvio will not relent, as the new map also uses a map of Croatia, wherein all of Dalmatia is located (except the small Bay of Kotor area, which is a "borderline area" that many sources like Britannica, state is not a part of the region). Moreover, Dalmatia is sourced as a historical region "of Croatia".
The uncertain areas are covered in detail, both in the text and in the map. The argument to delete the map is untenable and beyond absurd (like most Silvio's arguments). Here he creates a dispute - and then proposes to "solve the problem" by deleting the content. That would be inappropriate even if his undoubted ultimate motivation were not to "hide" the fact that Dalmatia is a part of Croatia. Participants should ignore condescending and offensive comments regarding what "situations" are "common in the Balkans".
I do not "insist" that the four southern Croatian counties are Dalmatia. That is not even a perception I personally share, and that's not how the text was written. What I do "insist" upon, is that we do not ignore the sources that claim such an extent. Silvio's (absurd) argument is, quite directly, that we should entirely ignore these sources. The only justification I've gotten for this (plainly untenable) position, is that the scholarly sources aren't "geographic". Not only is that unimportant, but one of them actually is geographic; but then that source is rejected because its "only one". The really absurd thing is that Silvio is, however, perfectly fine with quoting completely unscholarly sources such as travel guides (when it suits him, of course).
Like I said, I don't even know what Silvio1973 wants and what exactly he's proposing. One minute its one thing, the next post something different. He barely reads your posts, he's always vague, always ignores sources he dislikes, misquoting others, making random claims and demands.. I find it terrible trying to discuss with him, and would be more than happy to pass on the chore to the next unfortunate soul. -- Director (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I dislike Dalmatia is in Croatia? :)) Director, take a break. Go for a walk... Silvio1973 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Please, use reasoned argumentation only. --Bejnar (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Put plainly, this article is about the historical region of Dalmatia. As such, modern administrative boundaries should be ignored, except for saying that they are inapplicable to the historical definition. --Bejnar (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Bejnar, this is exactly my argument. Not surprisingly I could not convince Director. Instead he accused me to push a nationalist POV (for god's sake which one?), to beat a dead horse, to write in poor and barely understandable English, to be disruptive, to post offensive comments on the Balkans (where is this one?)... Perhaps with more people in the discussion he will realise that he is trying to conciliate two different things, administrative and historical boundaries and with insufficient sourcing. And not happy enough in posting one disputed map, in the end Director posted two more... Silvio1973 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Dalmatia (Kotor).svg is mostly fine. The indication of the Gračac municipality is tangentially relevant and it could be of a lighter hue to make that clearer, because by and large it's not considered to be part of Dalmatia. I'm really not interested in reading all these walls of text that led to this latest RfC... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yah, its fine. Silvio won't give it a rest, though. I made it purple because Croatia proper is red on its map. I guess I could make it lighter purple..
I don't contend that Gracac municipality is by and large viewed as part of Croatia; I don't see it as such either. Its only there because some sources define Dalmatia, "from an administrative point of view", as being equivalent to the four counties, and I want them to be able to see on a map what the difference is. In the text this latter view is outlined as one bullet point, and the emphasis is (rightly) placed on the "Kingdom of Dalmatia definition". No dice for Silvio, though. The map still uses Croatia, you see. That's the real problem here.
@Bejnar. "Please, use reasoned argumentation only." I did. And I do. But its not easy by any means, when you're not even sure what the other guy wants and/or is trying to say exactly. And then ignores the reasoned arguments after you manage to divine that.
@"..this article is about the historical region of Dalmatia. As such, modern administrative boundaries should be ignored." As you can see in the references provided, some sources define the region through the modern day administrative boundaries (Silvio wants to flat out ignore them, as I said). I.e. even though its not an administrative region as such and on the whole, modern administrative (county) boundaries are used by some sources to define it.
Secondly, a "historical region" isn't something that only existed in history. Its a modern-day region that exists today (Dalmatia exists today), and as such modern-day maps are the ones that are appropriate in order to depict its location. Its called a "historical region" because its defined through its common history. That is to say: this is a modern-day historical region of Croatia, in Croatia, and as such its modern-day location should be outlined in Croatia.
P.s. Here's another source: [11] "Dalmatia is divided into four counties whose capital cities (...) are popular tourist destinations..". Here I am looking for sources for a point of view I disagree with, just to show it exists. "I disagree with what they say, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it!" :) Because Dalmatia is not formally defined by any authority, all points of view, if sourced, are valid. -- Director (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Bejnar:, @Joy:. I understand, at your place I would not bother going trough such a boring discussion. In a nutshell: if I had the choice I would remove the map because the sources are too conflicting. However, once accepted the idea that we need a map, I agree that File:Dalmatia (Kotor).svg is mostly fine. And with the Gračac municipality removed is really fine. Why I do not like Gračac municipality in Dalmatia? Because Dalmatia is an historical region and the only arguments Director use to justify Gračac in Dalmatia are of administrative nature (because Gračac municipality is part of Zadar county and Zadar is in Dalamatia). If tomorrow the counties are organised differently what happens? The historical region of Dalmatia changes?
Why have we arrived to a RfC? Because things degenerated when Director added two more maps (absolutely useless) and after the discussion became astronomically difficult (and impolite).
However, my proposal is simple: we should return to one single map and with civility discuss of that one (if we really need to put a map).--Silvio1973 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"My proposal is simple: first acquiesce to my demand and delete these two maps (for no stated reason other than they're there), then we can move on to my next vague demand." Silvio, you have no tenable argument. We can not ignore sources and delete content for no reason other than you demanding it.
There are currently four scholarly sources brought forward referring to the four counties. I do not think that definition should be brought into prominence, that much hasn't been established, but I'll be damned if I'll agree to ignoring that perspective exists because you keep demanding it over and over and over again.
I am perfectly aware of your ability to rationalize away any and all sources that you disagree with, but unless you somehow discredit every single one of these sources, presenting their position on the map will still be justified. That's not really realistic, and hence not only do you not have an argument, its virtually impossible for you to hypothetically have one, given the situation in the sources. -- Director (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Director:, do not project yourself. We are discussing here and I merely explained what I find wrong in your edits. The issues are not the sources, it's the logic you are using. The others will decide if agree or not with my arguments. What is your problem? If you are so convinced that you are right, wait a few days. If consensus is reached around your position you will have the article with the three maps and with all the other edits, exactly the way you want it. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing but vague gibberish, all the time. You have no argument. You have not stated any relevant reason why the two maps should be deleted (other than "2+1=3"), and you have no reasoning to justify disregarding any of the sources, nor could you possibly concoct any argument for that. Hence this RfC is a massive waste of time. An attempt for you to somehow push through changes without any argument, based only on vague talk. Go away, please. Drop the stick and for once learn to accept what is sourced, and follow the sources. Instead you talk about how the sources can be ignored because "my logic" is "wrong" or whatever. Please...
The idea that this article should go without the map is absurd, as sources define the region's extent, your demands are so silly ("delete all maps!") they can only be motivated by your (previously-expressed) goal of having Dalmatia displayed as outside Croatia. That's the song you were singing two years ago, and here you are again, with concealed intentions to that same aim.
This is serious goddamn disruption! Here I am dealing with utter nonsense and pointless drivel, when I could be expanding the article. Editors on this article should not have to deal with your POV-pushing every time they introduce changes here. Where each edit is screened for whether it fits with your personal views. -- Director (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Disclosure: I've been invited via my talkpage to pitch in here. While I have no intention of reading through the mass of text here, I surmised from a quick scan that borders of the "region" of Dalmatia are disputed, and that a possible solution is to remove the map. Also, I apologise for posting another large block of text, but I feel that an invitation warrants it.

Granted, Dalmatia is a historical region, but it is also a geographic term. The latter is fairly obvious from the mere fact that the term appears on modern geographic maps - albeit with no borders defined on such maps.

In my opinion, having an article on a region, historical and/or geographic, without a map is plain wrong, such article would be deficient in terms of coverage and a casual reader would not benefit from not having a map. That being said, the issue at hand appears to be: "Where does one draw its borders?"

Areas called "France" varied over the years, yet there is a fairly simple map at the top of its article - why not here? The area indicated in the map of "Dalmatia" at the top of the article should indicate areas currently considered by various sources to constitute geographic, current term of Dalmatia. Forex, for the statistical purposes, say when writing on how many tourists spent their vacation in Dalmatia, or how many hospital beds or how many inhabitants or whatnot are there in Dalmatia, the statistical bureau normally combines information for Zadar, Šibenik, Split and Dubrovik counties - making that one of possible definitons of Dalmatia at the present. There may be another, say without Gračac but with Bay of Kotor (I'm not sure about the latter myself regarding current use) - but do note that "current use" is the key here. There are ample sources defining Rab and Kotor as part of Dalmatia in 1914, but those are irrelevant for the current use, unless supported by present-day sources. To illustrate that further, the Treaty of Karlowitz defined borders of "Dalmatia", but those exclude Dubrovnik - however, if present-day sources identify Dubrovnik as a part of Dalmatia, the situation from 1699 is fairly irrelevant for the current use.

IMO there's no problem if present-day sources define Dalmatia variously, as long as those are not fringe views. The "current use" map should indicate what area is defined as Dalmatia by all the present-day sources, and which areas are sometimes (or for particular purposes, say statistics) defined as Dalmatia using a different shade. If the Bay of Kotor, or Neum strip for that matter, are also always or sometimes defined as Dalmatia, those could be identified by a third and fourth shades to emphasise that they are shomehow different from the bulk of the region (i.e. in another country).

I believe the article itself can and should carry a different map indicating development of the geographic term if necessary, depict the maximum extent of this or that incarnation of the region or superimpose it on the map of the Roman province if necessary - but the "lead" map should equal "current" map. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can gather from his vague posts and "manifestos", Silvio1973 wants to #1 remove the maps, and #2 ignore all sources that refer to Dalmatia as comprising the four counties (gleaming his exact position is quite a feat in and of itself). The region may be defined variously, but it is clearly defined in the sources, and there is no justification for deleting all maps. Its just absurd. In fact its so absurd I suspect ulterior motives. Silvio was complaining about this before, if you recall: he resented that Dalmatia was being displayed on a map of Croatia, and concocted various arguments to have the map removed. I am convinced this is why he's calling for the removal of the map now as well.
This chimes with the demand to have the sources for the "four counties definition" ignored. As that is the latest definition, one based on Croatia's internal borders and with little regard to traditional Venetian borders. I personally do not agree with this definition, being a "traditional" person, if you will, but I won't censor it for that reason. Yet Silvio1973 demands to have it removed altogether. In spite of being sourced; with no justification; over and over again. And over and over, and over again. With these vague, pointless posts. -- Director (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Tomobe03:, let's be clear (and concise). I would prefer not to have a map because the sources are very conflicting (the region is historical and history is not an exact science). But I do not oppose to have a map, because Dalmatia is not an abstract, obscure thing. It's a real region, with a specific culture and in a country with more decentralized power (such as Germany) it would probably exist also administratively. But for God's sake, one map not three. A compromise could be to report the bulk of Dalmatia in dark color and the other areas with different colors (shading according to the relevance of the sources). Concerning Gracac I need to insist. We have sources stating that Pag is Dalmatia, that Kotor is Dalmatia and we have even sources stating that Dalmatia encompasses Neum and Rab. But writing that Gracac is in Dalmatia is problematic because has been proposed (so far) using arguments of administrative nature applied to a matter of human geography. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Gračac - there are sources saying Zadar County is in Dalmatia ([12], [13]) insisting on removing Gračac from Dalmatia despite such sources would be WP:OR. No amount of insistence obviates reliable sources. Of course there are at least two different definitions of the region and the matter should be teated as already specified above. Regarding number of maps - the "lead" map should be "current use" map as described above, i.e. there should be one map in the lead, but as far as the number of maps elsewhere in the article- could you point out a policy determining number of maps per article. Have as many as you need. I trust the map of 4 Dalmatian counties can be integrated with the lead map as it is one of current definitions of the area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your point Tomobo03 and actually agree. Is is true: you should have as many maps as you need. For what: well, to illustrate properly what it is written in the article. Well, in this case three maps is too much and give WP:UNDUE weight to the less sourced "dalmatian" territory: the Gračac municipality. I do not see (genuinely!) where is the Italian POV nationalism in this affirmation.
It is clear which part is the bulk of Dalmatia. I suggest to list individually for each other region (Rab, Pag, Kotor, Gračac, Neum...) the relevant sources. On the basis of the sources we will decide which regions include and on the map should we could each of those region with shade of color of intensity proportional to the intensity of sourcing. Neum is particularly sourced as being part of Dalmatia, but I would not bet my life that it is not more sourced being part of Dalmatia than Gračac municipality. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hah. Silvio never gives up! :) Right.. lets list.. Silvio, you can write whatever "lists" you feel like, and your "source posting contests" are especially a wonderful innovation in Wikipedia functioning. You're not removing Gracac (which has maybe five or six sources, not two - thanks to your demands), nor are you fading it out to the point it can't be discerned. Since this affair is really getting pathetic, I'm truly done here. Someone else can play in the contest, divine the "reliability factor" for each of maybe 23 sources, multiply them with the number of sources presented, then calculate the appropriate percentage of colour saturation for the relevant region.. all with careful guidance and comments by Silvio1973 :D
Go away please, Silvio. -- Director (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
So that you can have the article written your way? Dear Director, you are continuing to edit the article your way even if there is a RfC going on. Please stop editing your way and look for a compromise. So far, all users have expressed - of course at different level - that one comprehensive map would be enough. But you want three and on top of that you are giving undue weight to some sources at detriment of the article itself. But what surprises me the most is that you are so confrontational. There is no need for that. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I for one never said that "one map would be enough". I said at least one map is necessary, and that there may be as many maps as needed (and justified). The "one map would be enough" holds true for the map depicting "current use" of the term "Dalmatia" as defined by relevant sources (even if that means varying extent of the geographic region). If a particular map is redundant (its info provided in another map) or does not contribute to a casual reader's understanding of the topic - it should not be in the article - otherwise it's worth considering and possibly including in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
OTOH, combining these two is improper synthesis - both of those sources use the term "Dalmatian" generally or use it casually - they don't attempt to provide an authoritative definition of the term "Dalmatia" as such, and neither of them mention Gračac explicitly, so they're largely impertinent to this particular aspect of this discussion. We already went through this a while back... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Tomobe03, thank you for the clarification, but in this case the bottom line is the same (why 3 maps?). As Joy pointd the last 2 are largely impertinent. What I cannot get is why there is so much resistance to collect all the sources and decide which region should be put on the lede map. Yes, Joy we went trough this a while ago, but in the end Director did things his way anyway (and qualified me of disruptive because I posted this RfC to "disrupt" his POV).
You were the only one objecting to the map in its current form, as you appear to be right now also. Answer me this Silvio1973, and do try to be as straightforward and as non-vague as you can possibly manage: no matter what sources you or the rest of us "gather", how could you possibly justify disregarding the sources already "gathered"?
I've asked you this several times. As part of your pattern of disruptive behavior, you ignored the question repeatedly. And I observe that repetition is the primary characteristic of any discussion you are part of. It will be fascinating to see what your post will be this time.. -- Director (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the others agree in having 3 maps and Gracac in the lede there is nothing to discuss, because there is consensus. But this is not what they wrote so far. Director, one map is enough. The others two are not particularly functional to give any informations to the reader. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Care to answer the question? -- Director (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
No? See, this is why your behavior disrupts discussion. And this isn't some trivial question I'm "demanding" you answer, this a request for you to lay out the most basic reasoning behind this whole mess you've created. I.e. on what grounds do you demand we do what you demand we do? Whatever.
The two maps I added are not essential, but I realized that the text often refers to the "extent of the Kingdom of Dalmatia" as defining the modern day region, so I thought a casual reader would find a map of the "extent of the Kingdom of Dalmatia", overlayed on a modern-day map, useful. I'm not going to remove it unless you at least give a valid reason, as the map is clearly "functional" with regard to the text. -- Director (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Director, I understand now why you have 57,000 edits... This is your technique. Writing a lot so to dissuade the other editors to participate. In the end the others leave by exhaustion.
About this article: one map is enough. Indeed I think we should concentrate on the lede map (how can you imagine to get consensus putting two additional maps, if already we had a big issue with one?). If really your concern is the Kingdom of Dalmatia, this can be superimposed on the lede map or better further down in the article (as suggested by Tomobe03).
Last one. It is not my fault if the other users did not support your modification. Again, if in this RfC you get consensus around your proposal, there is clearly no problem. You can have the article written your way. In the meantime it would help to reach consensus if you tried to be briefer in section "Modern extent" and gave less undue weight to some sources. Until now I have not proposed any modification to your edits because there is a RfC in progress, not because I agree.
It is interesting what is the definition of Dalmatia in the other Wikipedias.
German: in the lede there is a map of Dalmatia in Croatia (without Gracac). Dalmatia is described in the article as transnational across Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro.
Italian: in the lede there is a map with a dashed border (without Gracac). Dalmatia is described in the article as transnational across Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro.
French: there is no map at all. Dalmatia in the article is described as transnational across Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro.
Spanish: in the lede there is the map made by Director. But Dalmatia is described in the article as transnational across Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro.
And I know why the English version is the only one with Gracac and without Neum... because Director writes only on the English Wikipedia. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yet again I come back to my assertion that you are not able to edit this project, or discuss here, and not only because of the language barrier. It is unbelievable how you manage to talk and talk, on and on, with posts that are half-nonsense, half vague 'demand', without ever making any concrete, relevant argument. Each one of your posts necessitates a detailed response in order to unravel the several layers of nonsense, and each such post is entirely ignored by yourself, as you write another vague word salad (that still somehow manages to be offensive).
  • "One map is enough"? Well I say it isn't. I have explained why, and I think that's obvious. We have a section on modern extent, there's no reason not to accompany the text with appropriate images rather than leave the section empty. You have posted no reason why the maps should be removed other than the ridiculous argument that amounts to "I disagree with that one map, so how can you add two other maps?". Post an objection that relates to the new maps, or stop inanely demanding that they be taken down.
  • You do not get to "declare" undue weight. I could not possibly care less whether you believe undue weight has been granted or not. In fact, if you believe there's undue weight, I take that as an argument for the opposite point of view. When you did "shorten" the text, you deleted that part which has thus far actually had the most sources presented for it. Clearly, you have no idea what "undue weight" means.
  • @"Until now I have not proposed any modification to your edits because there is a RfC in progress, not because I agree." Then what the hell is the point of this RfC??! You just said "I am not proposing to modify your edits, because this RfC I posted to modify your edits is ongoing". Wow.
  • "It is not my fault if the other users did not support your modification." What in the name of all things sane are you talking about? Are you referring to yourself as "the other users"??
The other Wikis are for the most part simply sporting an ancient translation from the English Wiki, which had a lot of mistakes that we cleared up years ago. The English Wikipedia has a far better and more detailed definition than any of them. And of course - they're not a source. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want to remove Gracac, then put forward some kind of argument, or else please shut up.
  • If you want to delete the maps, then put forward some kind of argument, or else please stop talking.
  • If you want to delete chunks of text, then put forward some kind of argument, or else discontinue posting here.

That's all there is to say. You can talk about "undue weight" until you're blue in the face, it isn't worth a wooden nickle. You must demonstrate that undue weight has been placed, with sources, not with vague manifestos. "I don't like something about this map" is not an argument to remove some other map. And there hasn't even been an attempt to justify removing Gracac. You have as yet not posted a single argument that would not be dismissed by a kindergartner as completely silly and unfounded - yet you keep repeating these demands like you have some kind of justification for what you want. -- Director (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Director, I have been clear enough already (please see the previous posts) and provided arguments about Gracac and the number of maps. Similarly did other users (@Joy:, @Bejnar:, I am sorry to bother you but your feedback would be useful to avoid this issue is perceived as personal by Director). I do not want to flood this talk page with the same arguments all and all over again. Once solved this two issues we will discuss about the text. In the meantime ignoring the RfC and continuing to edit the article does not help. PS Please mind being more polite when you deal with me, I am not one of your friend. Reserve wordings like "shut up" to someone else, I don't allow you to speak like that to me. Thank you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
You have been nothing but vague and evasive, and you still ignore other user's points, you still do not even try to justify your demand. Yes.. ignoring you as much as possible is indeed the best course. Civility gets the better of me sometimes and I feel obliged to respond as completely as I can, regardless of how inane the comments. In spite of your offensive conduct and disruptive behavior, I am going to ask you again, for the last time: how do you justify your demand to remove Gracac from the infobox? Keeping in mind the sources that have been presented.
If you do not provide a reasoning for your demands even now, you can be sure I will not waste another iota of good will, nor another syllable of text, trying to take you and your absurd demands seriously. -- Director (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Director, you do not have only problems just with me, but with almost everyone who tries to disagree with you. However, to give you satisfaction I repeat myself a last time. After that I guess this RfC will have to be moved to the DRN in the hope to have more participants to the discussion.
1) I am not by principle against the inclusion of Gracac, but sources applying/implying modern administrative boundaries should be ignored because they are inapplicable to the historical definition. Said differently, Gracac municipality has its room in the article only if can be sourced as historically part of Dalmatia. However, Gracac would be (to use Joy's words) only tangentially relevant to Dalmatia and if consensus was reached to have it in the article, it should be adequately pictured on the lede map.
2) The interest to have the other two maps is minimal. The only result of having the two additional maps (whether this is voluntary or not) is to push a correspondence between historical and administrative boundaries, which does not exists because there are no regions in Croatia but only counties. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to write a reply now. Please, please try to read it in its entirety, understand it completely, and respond appropriately. Please!
1) Ok get this: Dalmatia exists right now, in the present. Its called a "historical" region, not because it only exists in history - but because it is defined through common history. It is a modern-day historical region. Do you understand?
Moreover, this project is written after secondary sources. If a group of sources say "Dalmatia is the four counties", we can not ignore that view. That is to say, even if you were correct in saying they are "inapplicable to the historical definition" - we would then have to change that "definition", rather than ignore sources (but you're not correct, as I explained just above, since Dalmatia is not a region that exists only in history). Do you understand that part?
2) Here too you are approaching the matter through the same misconception. Dalmatia is not a region that existed only in the past. It is a region that exists today. If some sources define the region through historical borders, that's fine. If other sources define it through modern-day administrative borders, that's fine too - because the region exists in modern times as well. The reason for the two maps is to illustrate what is meant by "extent of the Kingdom of Dalmatia" and "four southernmost counties", not to "push" any "correspondences". Indeed, there's nothing to "push".
You approach this article from the wrong perspective. You imagine that "Dalmatia" is something historical, in the sense that it no longer exists (presumably because your countrymen left). It exists right now. As such, it can be (and is) defined through traditional, pre-WWI borders, as much as with modern-day, administrative boundaries. Since today, people still do say "I live in Dalmatia". -- Director (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not discuss what you write here in the talk page, but what you do in the article. You describe in the lede map Gracac has sometime sourced as Dalmatia (and put with a different colour) and after in the third map you list the four southernmost counties of Croatia. Of course you do not write that the four southernmost counties of Croatia are Dalmatia, but still you put the map there. And why you post a map with administrative boundaries there?
And the second map can easily be superposed to the first. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I am moving this to the DRN. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You did not respond to my argument. For the fiftieth time. And what you did write ("I do not discuss what you write here in the talk page, but what you do in the article") is ridiculous. In spite of my explicit request, you did not read or understand my post, nor reply to the points I make in it, but instead dismissed it with the aforementioned ridiculous comment. -- Director (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I did answer Director and so did the others (one map is enough and Gracac is only tangentially in Dalmatia) What do you want more? I have requested to an administrator to close this RfC. And if consensus won't be find we will have to call for more comments publicizing the issue on the DRN. And for the 51th time, deal with me with civility and try (if you have been teached to do so) to remain polite. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You have, as usual, completely exhausted my good will with your disruptive conduct. You have NOT replied. I asked you to justify removing Gracac. You said its because Dalmatia is a "historical region". I responded that this region exists today and as such can be legitimately defined with modern-day administrative boundaries, as the sources do. That you misunderstand the term "historical region". Your position only makes a tiny bit of sense if we assume Dalmatia no longer exists, which is absurd - and even in such a case we would not be able to ignore the sources in question, and what they say. You have not replied to any of those points! The post is inane babble that doesn't amount to a damn thing!
I don't mind you pushing your opinion, even beyond the point of reason, as long as you read, and reply to, other user's points. But not only does your position make no sense - you also repeatedly, time and again, write posts that ignore both the sources and the posts of other users. As I said, each one of your comments is a convoluted mess that neither explains your argument nor replies to anything that is written here. I really hope this is all because of the language barrier you struggle with (trouble reading English), because otherwise you are one of the most deliberately disruptive users on the project. -- Director (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And here it is, for you, my summary from your DRN thread:

"Dalmatia" as a whole is indeed not an administrative unit, but some sources (presented in the article and talkpage) today define "Dalmatia" through administrative units (i.e. the four southernmost counties of Croatia). The smaller, differently-coloured areas on the infobox map are areas "sometimes considered part of Dalmatia", according to this or that group of sources. Silvio1973 simply disagrees with one definition (four counties), and will not allow that it is sourced. He demands that the map in the infobox not show areas included by that definition, and that the map depicting the four counties be removed. No viable explanation has thus far been given, in spite of numerous requests and inquiries, as to how he justifies his position in light of the sources.

The best I have heard thus far, is that Dalmatia is a "historical region" and therefore can not use modern-day administrative boundaries. But a "historical region" is not one that exists only in the past, but simply one defined through common history. Dalmatia very much exists today as such (which is not disputed, or disputable), and it is therefore perfectly justified for scholarly sources to define it through modern-day administrative boundaries (as they do). Further, even if that were not the case, we would still have to represent the view of these sources in the article.

I would be TERRIBLY OBLIGED, if you could READ and REPLY to the POINTS made in that comment. Without irrelevant declarations, or any pointless sentences of any sort. -- Director (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Director, I have kindly requested to an administrator to close this RfC. You will flood him with your arguments. Mine do not take more than five lines. In the meantime please remain polite, if you are able to do so. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I realize that a perfectly normal post such as above may appear to you as a "flood" that you need to sit down and translate to Italian for about 30 minutes, but I assure you, I will "flood" no one. Your convoluted posts do require complicated responses due to their sheer convolution, but my argument does in fact consist of zero "lines", as your own doesn't exist. -- Director (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, my English is how it is. But it is not so bad as you claim. I am sorry to see that you so often treat your fellow users with so much anger and hate. I noticed that just during the last month you were needlessly hostile and rude with @Smeat75:, @Jehochman:, @USchick:, @Atlantictire:, @MarkBernstein:, @FkpCascais:, @Galassi: and with many others. Who knows, perhaps for them it was fine to be the target of your rudeness. However, now it's my turn to be the target of your anger. Apparently you have the right to treat badly your fellow editors in full immunity.
I like to edit on Wikipedia but not to the point to become the collector of others' anger and hate. So as long an administrator does not come here I prefer to take a break. Also because I do not want to take the risk to react to your provocations.
The most surprising thing is that none of the three other users who participated to this RfC agreed with you (actually two of the three disagreed) but still you think you are right. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Silvio1973: file a report at AN/I. They're familiar with these antics, and will eventually do what is necessary. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
They certainly are, Silvio has been reported for this sort of disruption before. Oh wait, you mean against me? And, how did you happen to appear here, Mark? You did not get sanctioned the last time for your personal attacks and slanderous allegations, you're trying to add malicious hounding to the repertoire? Oh no, I see, you were pinged to the talkpage by Silvio, trying to gather here everyone who harbors a grudge against me as the best means for pushing his POV. Wow. And wow again.
@Silvio, I asked you to justify removing Gracac. You said its because Dalmatia is a "historical region". I responded that this region exists today and as such can be legitimately defined with modern-day administrative boundaries, as the sources do. That you misunderstand the term "historical region" in this context. Your position only makes a tiny bit of sense if we assume Dalmatia no longer exists, which is absurd - and even in such a case we would not be able to ignore the sources in question, and what they say. You have not replied to any of those points! Instead, you're pinging people to the talkpage selected on grounds that you believe them to hold a personal grudge against me. -- Director (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How about simply changing from "historical region of Croatia" to "historical region in Croatia" ? FkpCascais (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not the issue, Fkp. The Italian fellow pinged you because he wants to remove the purple bit from the infobox map. In spite of all these sources. How does he justify that demand? He doesn't. You can see me up there begging him to justify his position :). No, he just pings you and anyone else he thinks will support him on grounds of holding a grudge against me (and Mark here most certainly has no problem with playing along). As I said, unbelievable disruptive behavior. You probably didn't read the whole mess above, but I recommend you give it a try, I guarantee an entertaining experience (if for no other reason than to see me slowly being driven insane).
You may wonder why I don't just ignore him. Well now I do, henceforward. -- Director (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion "of Croatia" is correct. I don't like the form "historical region" because that region was in the past Italian, Austrian, Venetian, Roman, Byzantine, etc. So, the sentence should be "Dalmatia (Croatian: Dalmacija, [dǎlmaːt͡sija]; see names in other languages) is a region of Croatia[3]" as reported for example in Britannica website: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/150229/Dalmatia --Grifter72 (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind either formulation. But that's not what Silvio's demanding here. This is all about that little purple area on the infobox map... Ugh. -- Director (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@Grifter72:, of course Dalmatia is in Croatia (may be some small bits are not, but 99% is definitely in Croatia). And the "little purple area on the infobox map" is not the issue neither. No, the actual issue is that Director pushed 3 maps when one would have been enough. If the article returns to one map (as it was before) and all the asserts implying equivalence between the administrative borders of the 4 Southernmost counties of Croatia and Dalmatia are removed, the RfC is closed. Joy, Bajnar, Tomobe03 and I already told to Director why 3 maps are too much. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


I'm posting the following for the benefit of anyone trying to get my take on this dispute, and not willing to go through the above mess.
To remove the "asserts" Silvio talks about, we would have to ignore the sources they are written by. Silvio1973's only justification for this are vague, badly-written comments regarding how the region is "historical" and therefore "can not" be defined "administratively" - in spite of the sources doing just that. To him its inconceivable that the ever-changing perception of an (unofficial) region can alter with regard to administrative borders, in spite of it being unofficial. However, this is exactly the case with Dalmatia, in a part of the available sources. All that we have in the article is a mention of those sources and that view (which ironically I do not personally share), accompanied with the appropriate visual representation. Of the two additional maps below the infobox, one represents the traditional view, the other represents the extent of the four southernmost counties, equated with "Dalmatia" in a number of sources. They are there to accompany the text which often refers to these territorial extents. Silvio1973 demands that the entire view (regarding the four counties as equivalent to Dalmatia) be expunged from the article.

Though, to be sure, Silvio1973's position is always very difficult to pin down, as he keeps changing it and posting deceptive comments with regard to his previous positions. The remainder of this post will outline that problem.
Tell me if you can figure out what it is he wants from his own first post in this RfC... There he seems to be arguing for the removal of the infobox map ("Probably without posting a map 90% of the issues would be solved automatically"). Now he says its fine. He claims he has no problem with its depiction of Gracac Municipality, yet here he is, arguing for the removal of said municipality (the "purple bit"), and the entire infobox map, if possible ("if I had the choice I would remove the map because the sources are too conflicting. I agree that File:Dalmatia (Kotor).svg is mostly fine and with the Gračac Municipality removed is really fine"). Here he states he wants the two maps below the infobox removed - because of Gracac Municipality ("three maps is too much and give WP:UNDUE weight to the less sourced "dalmatian" territory: the Gračac Municipality"). For the record, that which Silvio claims is "UNDUE", is actually supported by the majority of presented sources, and is, if anything, unduly sidelined in the current version.

Further, Silvio1973 started this dispute well before those maps were posted, or any additional content regarding the counties added into the article. At that time he demanded that Dalmatia extends to the acquisto vecchio ("I can find sources stating that Dalmatia corresponds to the acquisto vecchio and I am not the only person thinking that on this planet"). The "acquisto vecchio" is a part of Dalmatia corresponding to the dark purple area on this map. No sources were posted, and he went on about some "150km" nonsense I still can't decipher.

I know from experience dealing with the user that he employs a "tactic" of pressing demands piecemeal. If and when he gets the two maps and the sources removed, which he now claims is the purpose of this RfC, he will no doubt move on to the rest of his demands, dissimulating all the way. In fact, he says so outright: "let's return to one single map and let's discuss of that one"). I mean who the hell knows what his position is, or what particular demands he's seen fit to clue us in on at the moment. In a month he will no doubt be back for another round (as was the case previously) in order to push another POV change and perhaps wipe out another six or seven sources.. -- Director (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I already wrote: the issue is not per se Gracac in Dalmatia. The issue are the 3 maps Director posted and the undue prominence he gave to the administrative borders of the 4 southernmost counties of Croatia in the context of the historical borders of Dalmatia. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
What sources do you have to support your claim of undue prominence? <Asks Director as if he's going to get an answer> -- Director (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Undue weight is not a matter of sources, it is a matter of policy. --Bejnar (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course, not a matter of sources. Except the part that explicitly mentions sources, twice.. in the first sentence ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"). I can't imagine why you think "matters of sources" and "matters of policy" are somehow mutually exclusive.
This article merely mentions the definition by counties as one of the possibilities, not as an absolute, and in fact states "Dalmatia is therefore generally perceived to extend approximately to the borders of the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia". The quoted source says so too. I'd like to see that avalanche of sources Silvio1973 is hiding under his hat, that would make it "undue weight" to even mention the counties as just one of the definitions found in sources. Which he has just now unambiguously stated is his position and the point of this RfC ("..all the asserts implying equivalence between the administrative borders of the 4 Southernmost counties and Dalmatia are removed"). Though he may now say that is not his position (changing his demands and his overall position to the immediate needs of the reply he is writing, is part of his modus operandi, as I think I have demonstrated). And for the record, this is not in fact a claim of WP:UNDUE, it is more specifically a claim of WP:FRINGE, if you're arguing for the (quote) "removal" of a point of view.
The request for sources to support a claim of UNDUE, and this entire line of discussion, will most certainly not be addressed in any relevant way by Silvio1973, who will instead brush it aside and ignore the crux of the matter. Probably to try and ping more users he hopes dislike me personally. -- Director (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

He manages to post seemingly-contradicting statements - even when they're one after the other. Note: in the second-to-last post above he says "If the article returns to one map [and the 'asserts' are removed] the RfC is closed". Now he says "the issue are the three maps", i.e. all of them. Is he proposing to leave the infobox map alone? Or does he want to modify or delete it? If so, which of the two is it?, because at different times he argued for both. If he wants to modify it, then what does he want to modify?, because he just said "the purple area on the infobox map isn't the issue". Either way, you tell me! Anyone. Because I have been reading the word salads for a week now and I have no idea. The man barely seems to know English and/or has no concept of how to articulate his position, let alone argue for it in some relevant way. -- Director (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


Just to drive home my point re the WP:ICANTHEARYOU, I'm going to repeat my request for the fifteenth time: can I please get some sources for the claim of WP:FRINGE? -- Director (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of RfC[edit]

I have read the entire comment thread two times now and it is still not obvious to me what the initiator of the RfC wants nor what the problem is. Silvio1973, could you explain here, in clear and concise language, what you think needs to be done about the article and what is wrong with it? 93.141.103.101 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You have apparently just asked the impossible. Most of my posts consist of requests for clarification of his demands, and the laying out of some kind of coherent argument. In spite of all that I too have no idea what Silvio1973 wants, as he keeps changing his demands from post to post. This is most likely because he hopes to have his way by other means (pinging users with personal grudges, posting ANI threads about civility, etc). If he does get pinned down, his argument would probably be swiftly launched out of the park (e.g. "there is undue weight!", "then lets see your sources"). Best keep it a vague sort of "air of opposition".. -- Director (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Dear Director, you answer immediately to the posts. To all the posts. Clearly I cannot compete. I have a family, kids, a full-time job... (and I am not willing to neglect them because I have to answer immediately to your provocations). Silvio1973 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I would have hoped to answer to an administrator. However dear IP user, it is a pleasure to explain you what is the problem. And I will try to be clear and concise (the most an explanation is concise the biggest the chance are that it is correct).

Firstly, I need to stress immediately that qualifying Dalmatia of historical region would require high level of sourcing, which so far I have not seen. I have seen a lot of OR in this respect, but a precise citation not. However this is not the issue that has driven to this RfC.
Very lengthy discussions had place during the last year to agree - according to the most relevant sources what are the boundaries of modern Dalmatia. The discussions involved 5 or 6 editors and did not materialise any consensus (users gave up, probably tired by exhaustion). In the end User:Director exhausted all the opponents with very lengthy posts and pushed his view of the matter, which is problematic for the following reasons.
  1. Director gives undue weight to a few sources claiming that Gracac municipality is part of Dalmatia. It is indeed worth mentioning that very likely hundreds of sources report Dalmatia as non encompassing Gracac municipality. In this sense and issue of [WP:CHERRYPICKING]]) was immediately raised by User:Joy, but this issue remain unsolved because Director pushed fiercely his view. However, a kind of informal consensus was reached agreeing to write in the infobox of the article that Gracac is "variously defined as part of Dalmatia". Except Director, the other people contributing to the discussion did not like this solution but Director was very intransigent so things were left as we wanted. A few months later Director started developing in the article with extreme details the sources affirming that Gracac is part of Dalmatia, so giving them WP:UNDUE weight in the article. Again, the non-compliance of Director's edits to WP guidelines was negatively commented again by Joy and User:Bajnar.
  2. In the section "Current Extent of Dalmatia" Director posted two more maps, not functional to illustrate the content of the article (this issue was negatively commented - although mildly - by User:Tomobe03). The first of those two maps described the borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia so had nothing to do in that section. The second of those two maps illustrate the borders of the 4 southernmost counties of Dalmatia. Also this map has no function there because administrative borders have no relevance in this case (in Croatia there are no regions, the biggest administrative body is the County), but creates a link between the administrative borders of those counties and the boundaries of Dalmatia and hence gives to the reader the idea that Gracac is part of Dalmatia with "full title". Bajnar clearly stated the this map was nothing else than a way to create an undue link between administrative borders and the boundaries of Dalmatia but Director ignored the comment and continued to edit the article his way. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • To Summarize RFC 1. Is Gracac Municipality part of Dalmatia? 2. Should that information be in the infobox? 3. Are the current maps properly illustrative of Dalmatia? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @Silvio1973, I already explained you that you should not misuse articles' talkpages to complain about conduct of other editors. Using RfC to do the same is even more wrong. Please use more appropriate pages and noticeboards.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Capitalismojo, yours is a good summary. But in spite of the apparent simplicity of the questions, the issue is far from being simple. Perhaps we should firstly question ourselves if Dalmatia is really an "historical region" or something else. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You've still somehow managed not to say what EDITS you are proposing. You keep talking about "undue weight", but you don't seem to know what that means. WP:UNDUE means too much weight is given to one point of view, not that the point of view needs to be "removed" from the article - which is what you just said you're after ("and all the asserts implying equivalence between the administrative borders of the 4 Southernmost counties and Dalmatia are removed"). I wouldn't be surprised if you'd already changed your position (yet again), but if you're still after "removal", then you should know that's a claim of WP:FRINGE, not UNDUE. So which is it? Removal (FRINGE), or de-emphasis (UNDUE)?
In either case, since you have presented no evidence whatsoever of either FRINGE or UNDUE, and since the four counties view (which includes Gracac) is currently sourced more than any other - I am eagerly awaiting the buckets of sources you are no doubt hiding under your hat.
@"two more maps, not functional to illustrate the content of the article. The first of those two maps described the borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia so had nothing to do in that section" - "Not functional"? That claim is demonstrably nonsensical. The adjacent text mentions the Kingdom of Dalmatia four times, and the four counties (which are depicted in the second map) are mentioned twice. I see no coherent argument to remove either, and leave a part of article without accompanying images. The section devoted to the extent of Dalmatia - naturally requires maps to depict various views on the extent of Dalmatia. Silvio1973 just wants them removed since he always assumes bad faith for every single little thing I do, and naturally views the maps as part of some "plot" of mine to push some view I don't even personally agree with. -- Director (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Director, if you are so correct please call for 1, 10, 100 admins and get things cleared your way. But please STOP OFFENDING ME. You are pushing me to leave the project. If you do not like my posts file a RfC or an ANI but stop insulting, please. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't care at all if you leave the project, and stop changing the subject. Can you, after all this time, and in a special "Clarification of the RfC" section - clarify what exactly you want: removal (FRINGE), or de-emphasis (UNDUE)? Because you are contradicting yourself in every post. -- Director (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think is pretty clear that Dalmatia is a historic region as understood here and in the lede of this article. I am appalled at the rambling form of this supposed RfC. I suggest that it be closed and that another editor propose a clear RfC that editors can actually respond to. This one as (sort of) proposed by OP is unworkable. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I myself wrote the lede as you see it there. Dalmatia clearly does not exist as an administrative entity, but the perception of its extent, as described by sources, sometimes follows administrative boundaries, when viewing the region "from an administrative point of view". All that the text does - is merely mention these sources and that perspective on Dalmatia's extent. As for Silvio1973, I still don't even know what precisely he wants, let alone what arguments he may have for said "wants". As I think is quite obvious at this point, the user deliberately avoids expressing his position clearly. -- Director (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


User:Number 57, thank you for closing this RfC because it was going nowhere. It was useless as much as the 3 (soon 4) archives filled before (in which I little participated). This article cared to a small number of editors, and in the end only to Director and myself. Others editors expressed their doubts about the correctness of Director's edits but in vain. Director can do of this article what he wants, because I will not be that crazy to waste my time to participate to the development of it. It would be useless. The experience showed me that he would revert any edit that he dislikes.

Director, congratulations! You are a few steps from creating the first administrative region of Croatia (although virtual). And you had even not to become President to do it. :)) Silvio1973 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Only in your mind, Silvio1973. I can not be held accountable for the POV plots and conspiracies you perceive everywhere. Nor can article text be altered solely on grounds of you not fully understanding what it says. It seems obvious you do not quite realize that the quoted passage from the scholarly paper only equates Dalmatia to the four counties "from the present-day administrative and territorial point of view!", whereas in general it states the region corresponds to the Kingdom of Dalmatia's borders (the Italian borders you favor so much for some inconceivable reason).
Stating that a region corresponds to some administrative borders, in no way suggests that the region itself is an administrative unit. You can pretend otherwise, if you like, but that's your problem. As I said, I can't be accountable for what goes on in your head. -- Director (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)