Talk:Dalmatia

Dalmatia is not in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Montenegro

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

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

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

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

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

Please simply see the section below instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

definition (Bay of Kotor)

• Ignoring the very small proportion of Dalmatia that is in Montenegro will not make it go away. This article is not about a Croatian province (county). This article is about the historical region. Normally historical regions don't have currency boxes, because the currencies change over time. My recommendation is to have no currency box in this article. But if editors believe that currency is important, then such a currency discussion should reflect the changes over the history of the area, which means that such a discussion belongs in a different article, namely History of Dalmatia. Is there objection to deleting the currency entry in the infobox? If so, please state your reasons. --Bejnar (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the primary meaning of the term "Dalmatia", and that is not just the historical region. The Bay of Kotor region was historically part of Dalmatia, but to say so today is anachronistic - when it was removed from the Kingdom of Dalmatia almost a hundred years ago, people gradually stopped considering it part of Dalmatia. Today, such a notion could easily be considered irredentist, so please avoid it unless you can back it up with actual sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of pre-1805 maps that show Dalmatia's full extent. What were you looking for? There is a separate article about Dalmatia County. I do think the point is, as is cogently stated in the definition section,: Dalmatia signified not only a geographical unit, but was an entity based on common culture and settlement types, a common narrow eastern Adriatic coastal belt, Mediterranean climate, sclerophyllous vegetation of the Illyrian province, Adriatic carbonate platform, and karst geomorphology. --Bejnar (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The pre-1805 geographic information is historical. It's not current - on modern-day maps, Dalmatia does not extend beyond Prevlaka. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Joy on this one - eastern Syrmia was a part of Slavonia, but it would be entirely useless to discuss eastern Syrmia in article on geographic region of Slavonia beyond a mention in a history section. The same applies here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, historical Dalmatia's boundaries have been much larger than present day. --Jesuislafete (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The article, IMO, is about a geographic region of Croatia - which has its history. For other uses there are Kingdom of Dalmatia and Dalmatia (Roman province) articles.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

definition

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

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

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

the POV that all Dalmatia is Croatian than anything else

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

IMO, defining Dalmatia as a cultural region and then using borders of the Kingdom of Dalmatia to do so entails double standards. There is no "Montenegrin Dalmatia" and no "Bosnia-Herzegovinian Dalmatia" as no sources support that. AFAICT all modern sources define dalmatia as a region entirely within Croatia, Gračac municipality sometimes being included and sometimes not, all of the Pag Island sometimes being included and sometimes not (following present county lines). I tagged the article with {{refimprove}} as it is largely unreferenced and much of its content hinges on this false assumption (=OR) that the region of Dalmatia extends beyond Croatian borders.

It is fine to discuss history of Dalmatia in here no matter what the borders were in the past as events in the 19th century Bay of Kotor may have impacted the entire Dalmatia - but to insist that if Bay of Kotor was once a part of Dalmatia it is still a part of Dalmatia (and offer zero sources on that extraordinary claim) reeks of irredentism and double standards. Bay of Kotor is no more part of Dalmatia as Zemun is a part of Slavonia (the latter was a part of the Kingdom of Slavonia, remember).--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

After a further look, insistence on Kingdom of Dalmatia borders in present-day context seems prevalent. This led to use of term "historic and cultural region" which is doubtful as the geographic region also contains territory once a part of Dubrovnik Republic which has a significantly different history and somewhat different culture from the rest of Dalmatia. IMO culture and history should be dealt with in this article, yes, but there is no point in pretending that the Kingdom of Dalmatia exists at some cultural and historical level, including present-day Bay of Kotor, when it does not.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox problem

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

I do not see any confusion whatsoever engendered by the infobox. Dalmatia isn't technically a "geographic region", but rather a historical/cultural region of Croatia - that's the only inaccuracy that I can see.

Regarding Dalmatia being a Croatian region. We are certain that, at the very least, the vast majority of Dalmatia is a part of the Republic of Croatia. If one wishes to postulate that Dalmatia is at present(!) also a part of some other country - one would need a source for that. If a reliable source is found to such an effect, I would consent to amending the infobox accordingly, but I would remove it.

Will this do as a source? The first line in the Dalmatia section of the Rough Guide to Croatia says: Stretching from Zadar in the north to the Bay of Kotor (now part of Montenegro) in the south, Dalmatia possesses one of Europe's most dramatic shorelines, as the stark, grey wall of the coastal mountains sweeps down towards a lush seaboard ribbon dotted with palm trees and olive plantations. See here. --Bejnar (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When asked for a specific reliable source, you linked a seemingly random web site whose name is "roughguides.com". *facepalm* Please read WP:IRS. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That was a convenient place to read the page from the Rough Guide for Croatia. The Rough Guides are a travel book series that are generally considered reliable. You will find them pretty widely cited in the Wikipedia. If you would like the full citation, I'd have to find the volume at the library, unless that is one of the pages that GoogleBooks shows. --Bejnar (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The full citation is Bousfield, Jonathan (2010). The Rough Guide to Croatia. Penguin. p. 263. ISBN 978-1-84836-936-8. --Bejnar (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A travel guide can be a useful reliable source for general information, but not for resolving these kinds of debates. Besides, the page is fraught with "rough". Not only could they be referring to the Bay of Kotor simply as the border (IOW the limit; Dalmatia stretches to the bay, but does not necessarily include it), but the actual northern border is actually well to the north of Zadar, and their list then excludes Dubrovnik from Dalmatia, with the southernmost point they describe there being Korčula. You can't really expect anyone to take this kind of a hazy source as authoritative. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

But regardless, to me this seems like nitpicking, and the only thing I see is a very useful, educational infobox in the article. Throughout its history, Dalmatia has continuously been reducing in size. Even if we consider that Kotor Bay and Neum are still, as they were centuries ago, a part of Dalmatia, this would still be "a Croatian region" to all intents and purposes. Those two areas are incredibly tiny and virtually insignificant (particularly Neum).

If we define the borders of Dalmatia after the borders of the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia, then the Neum area is not a part of Dalmatia, and the only area that is in question is Kotor Bay. If someone can find a source that describes Kotor Bay as part of Dalmatia in the present-day context(!), I would consent to including Montenegro as also possessing a (tiny) part of Dalmatia. Again, however, that looks like nitpicking: Dalmatia is about as "Croatian" as it gets (for good or for ill). The accuracy of describing it as a "Croatian region" is by no means in question or even reasonably debatable. The Kotor Bay area, even though a part of Montenegro since 1945, itself has a significant Croatian minority. -- Director (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that Director is missing the point, mostly clearly in the statement Dalmatia isn't technically a "geographic region", but rather a historical/cultural region of Croatia. The seafaring culture of Dalmatia is quite distinct from that of Zagreb or that of eastern Croatia. Even the inland Dalmatian culture is distinct. The reason for having an article is because the area has certain features in common, and is referred to preferentially in sources because of that commonality, rather than being referred to as Croatia. There is no question that the majority of Dalmatian lands are currently within the political borders of the Republic of Croatia, but this is not a political article. While this is not the article History of Dalmatia there is a strong historical flavour to it because of continuing cultural practices. Geographic studies are not just landform studies, they include culture, cultural history, economics and trade. I am not sure what definition Director puts on the term "geographic". Maybe it should be clearer in the lede (lead) why Dalmatia is special enough for a separate article. Aside from the problems with the infobox, the section "Administrative division" needs retitling something like "Current political divisions" or something and placed as a subsection of "20th century" or "21st century". As far as expansion goes, culture is often hard to write about factually, but there are source materials such as Dalmatia: history, culture, art heritage (2006) by Antun Travirka, Robert Ehrich's 62 page, 1970, On the Yugoslavian Adriatic drainage as a culture area through time, the various travel guides such as the Dubrovnik & Southern Dalmatia chapter from Lonely Planet's Croatia, and pree WWI books in German. There are even academic studies like John Fine's 2010 When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods (Notice in passing the cultural separation in his title.) Historical studies abound such as Giuseppe Maria Pilo's 2005 The fruitful impact: the Venetian heritage in the art of Dalmatia. --Bejnar (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Well, neutrality is one issue. To the extent that and where Croatia takes precedence over Dalmatia, the article is not focused appropriately on Dalmatia and I would call such distortion a lack of neutrality. But equally important is that the infobox currently in use is inappropriate, as well as distorting. This article is not about a settlement. --Bejnar (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Bejnar. I'm "missing the point"? "Seafaring culture"? I'm a Dalmatian, Bejnar, and I don't mean I walk on four legs. Hopefully you'll not presume to teach me what my own culture is or how it is distinct from others. You have a serious case of confusing the region of Croatia (or "Croatia proper") with the country of Croatia. Dalmatia is not part of the region of Croatia, obviously, but it is within the country of Croatia. Its absolute nonsense to suggest this means it is inaccurate to refer to it as a "Croatian region". The "Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia" bit you quote is a reference to the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia, the Croatian name for their lands during the Austro-Hungarian period.

As to the last point, there was a reason for the name during the Austro-Hungarian period. As to your first, unfortunately or not, we are not allowed to use personal knowledge in lieu of citation to sources. Nor should we edit articles that are too close to our personal lives where our non-Wikipedia interests may affect our ability to distinguish neutrality and related problems. Wikipedia makes a Plain and simple conflict of interest guide available for editors, as well as the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Bejnar (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The only area of Dalmatia that might arguably not be a part of Croatia is a tiny strip along the Bay of Kotor in Montenegro. Since that is a challenged claim lets have a reliable published source that says so. Then we can say something about the Bay of Kotor as well. Otherwise - no.

Look above, I provided the citation to a current source where you requested it. --Bejnar (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll not even respond to the nonsense about "Croatian nationalism". The damn region is in Croatia, probably 100%, possibly 99% with 1% in Montenegro. It makes little or no difference. Its not an Italian region, Silvio. Its Croatian, possibly also Montenegrin in small part. The current infobox is perfectly appropriate for the subject, and describing this historical/cultural region as a "Croatian region" is completely accurate and not misleading in the slightest. The rest is POV-pushing of the other nationalist sort. -- Director (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: When you say The rest is POV-pushing of the other nationalist sort. What is the referent for "the rest"? I didn't catch the meaning there. --Bejnar (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Direktor, no-one is discussing that the most of Dalmatia lies in Croatia but not 100% of it. The article as it is today suggests a concept (all Dalmatia as geographic region is Croatian) that is arguable (to say the less) and certainly different from the other wikipedias. I do not understand why it should be considered nationalist who simply disagree with the Croatian view on this matter. It could be the other way round.

And please stop attacking me. I never said it's an Italian region so please adapt your wording.

If this article is not about politics, it is about culture, ethnicity, history, environment and whatever else. In that sense Dalmatia definitely includes Kotor and for a necessity of territorial continuity also Neum (for small that this part of BH might be). --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what exactly is it you're proposing? -- Director (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For Istria a similar problem was solved creating two pages:

• Istria
• Istria County

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

In case of Istria that's completely fine. I think there are sufficient sources claiming that Dalmatia, as defined in present-day, is completely located in Croatia (see Dalmatia is not in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Montenegro section above for sources). Unlike Istria, Dalmatia is not organized in a single county, but if need be there's "Southern Croatian Littoral" used as a synonym for Dalmatia, albeit rarely (source 1 source 2). But once again, I see no need for such a move per above sources.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Grifter72. That makes sense, because we have to have an article about the county and the region. Here we already have articles on the four Dalmatian counties, and Dalmatia itself doesn't correspond with any single administrative area. I think a further split here would be quite inappropriate (particularly since we already have one, if you'll pardon the pun :)).

But I don't see the "problem" in the first place. What is the problem, exactly? Find a published, scholarly source (not some self-published website!) that says the Bay of Kotor and/or Neum are part of Dalmatia in the modern context - and we'll include them. That claim is challenged and needs to be sourced, if it cannot be sourced then there isn't much to discuss. Its as simple as that. -- Director (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• http://books.google.it/books?id=OoLt4OfyJKIC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Neum+dalmatia&source=bl&ots=dR2ix9_lBH&sig=d0wnfNGY6MISMOWWkahQjP76xzY&hl=it&sa=X&ei=bVoqUMvJNormtQaT9oHwBA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=Neum%20dalmatia&f=false --Grifter72 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no preview of the book and the title says it deals with Croatia. Can you provide a link to the full text?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange, probably you have restrictions in Croatia for this book. Honestly, it is used the term "Dalmatian Coast" and not "Dalmatia". --Grifter72 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This source claims that "Southern Dalmatia" extends between Neum and Sutorina, within borders of Croatia. The article does not explicitly say if Neum or Sutorina are parts of the "Southern Dalmatia" but use of term Sutorina implies that the Bay of Kotor is not considered a part of the "Southern Dalmatia" - Sutorina is located next to the southernmost part of the Croatian border to Montenegro.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The full citation is Bousfield, Jonathan (2010). The Rough Guide to Croatia. Penguin. p. 263. ISBN 978-1-84836-936-8. I hope that that text is readable for you. --Bejnar (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Issue 1. Is the infobox appropriate. I suggest that it is not because a.) Dalmatia is not a settlement, and b.) it gives disproportionate weight to political assignments. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Issue 2. What is the scope of Dalmatia? Is anyone unhappy with it running down to the Bay of Kotor? If so why does this make you unhappy? And don't say because there are no current reliable citations, those have been provided. --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Issue 3. Should cultural text be added to the article? --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Issue 4. Should discussion of political boundaries be moved to articles on specific counties (or other political subdivisions)? --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, its appropriate. a) Dalmatia isn't a settlement, true, but that hardly matters if the contents are accurate. If you can find a more appropriate template - feel free to bring it forward, but please do not expect a reduction in the emphasis on this being a "Croatian region". b) There I disagree completely. This is a Croatian region in every sense of the word, and using the phrase "region of Croatia" once in relation to Dalmatia is in no way over-emphasis.
• Please bring forward a source for Bay of Kotor and/or Neum being a part of Dalmatia, otherwise such claims will eventually be stricken from the article as unsourced. When I say "source", I do not mean a random self-published website. I doubt you will find any source for Neum, but I'm fully open to the possibility that Kotor Bay is still considered by some sources to be a part of Dalmatia. And that is perhaps the best way to cover it ("sources like X,Y, and Z still consider Kotor Bay...").
• Naturally. Feel free to add whatever you like :).
• There is no discussion on political boundaries. Dalmatia is not a "political" region and does not itself have "political" boundaries (whatever you mean by that exactly). That does not mean it isn't within the political borders of Croatia, however.

-- Director (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

1. We all agree that Dalmatia is not a political entity. If it is not a political entity don't you find a kind of strange that the southern limit of this Geographic entity is set currently exactly at the political border betweeen Croatia and Montenegro? I would understand this if the political border was the Sea or a major lake or a massive mountain (whatever creates different regions and therefore different histories, environments, ethnicities and whatever else), but it's not the case.

2. Today de:wiki, es:wiki and it:wiki reports Dalmatia as transnational on three nations. It is somehow strange that en:wiki does not.

3. The necessity to include Naum is the territorial continuity. Please do not forget we speak of a geographic region.

4. As it is today the infobox gives an undue weight. At least this has to be adapted. Dalmatia in primarily Croatian, almost Croatia but not exclusively in Croatia.

5. An additional sources stating that Croatia is transnational : http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/dalmazia/

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

1. No, because in Yugoslavia Dalamtia was always identified as the "region in Croatia". Montenegro (and the Yugoslav authorities in general) would not wish to emphasize that Kotor Bay might be part of Dalmatia as that would be perceived as granting credence to the old Croatian claim on that area, it would be very close to fostering border disputes among the republics. Its logical, but the bottom line is it doesn't matter what we find "strange" - source please.

2. No, they're copying the old (ancient) version of this article. Most Wikis copy enWiki, and either way - Wikipedia is not a source.

3. Um... what? "Territorial continuity"? "Necessity"? There is no such "necessity". An area either is or is not a part of this region, regardless of whether the region remains contiguous. And anyway, what about the islands? :) Neum was actually sold to the Bosnian Ottoman bigwigs centuries ago by Dubrovnik (to protect itself from Venice).

4. No, it does not. The phrase "region of Croatia" for a region in Croatia is not undue weight, not by a long shot.

5. Can you get a reliable, non-self-published secondary source or not? Preferrably in English so that people other than you and I might read it, and so that it might be kinda less involved in the "Dalmazia isn't Croatian" thing the Esuli've got going over there.

-- Director (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not considering the Treccani a reliable source is definitely wrong. And again, the strategic use that Dubrovnik made of Neum does not make of it out of Dalmatia. You cannot create an enclave of non Dalmatia in the middle of Dalmatia because it is not Croatian. Otherwise you can exactly doing the opposite of what you day, because if Dalmatia is not a political region you cannot move areas that are just in the middle of it because they are not Croatian.

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

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

I really don't care about anything other than a reliable source, Slivio. You can't seriously be posting here sources from a hundred-and-seventy years ago when the Kingdom of Dalmatia was in existence? Can you find a secondary publication, preferably non-Italian, that describes Kotor Bay as a part of Dalmatia in a modern-day context.

Oblasts of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes

Here's a source from the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, that basically says that the reforms of 1922 established the southern border of the old Dubrovnik Republic as the southern border of Dalmatia [1]

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

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

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

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

Nope, its just "Dalmatia", not "Croatian Dalmatia". Nowadays "Dalmatia" is completely Croatian (which was certainly not the case 200 years ago), but it isn't some other "Croatian Dalmatia" - its the same thing.

Strictly speaking, the whole thing is quite blurry in a cultural sense. In that sense "Dalmatia" is 1) the islands, and 2) a very, very thin, broken line along the coast where Croats who can be called "Slavic Dalmatians" still live in some kind of a majority (though the "line" is also pretty much gone by this point). The larger coastal cities are not really culturally "Dalmatian" anymore, and have not been for some decades. I mean some do have their remnants of "Slavic Dalmatians" (particularly Dubrovnik and Split to a lesser degree), but they're an ever-decreasing minority there. The folks from the hinterland pretty much overran/assimilated the old Dalmatians. Of course now the term "Dalmatians" is also slowly seeing itself redefined accordingly. People from Zagreb, for example, cannot differentiate for the life of them between a "Vlaj" (a term meaning "fellow from the hinterland") and a "Dalmatian", in my personal experience anyway :). -- Director (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, can you explain us under which grounds the limits of a geographic region changes in the time? They might certainly change in 5 millions years due to plates' subduction but not in 200 years. In 200 years only political borders do change. And you know better than me that only 70 years ago Kotor was included in the "Governorship of Dalmatia" so I don't see your argument that it's a mix-up of politics of geography or better a political claim dresses-up as a geography fact.

You ask for sources. There is nothing reliable as source when we speak of geography other than maps. Well maps sold by Stanford's (the most reliable editor and merchant of maps in Europe) clearly put Kotor in Southern Dalmatia: http://www.stanfords.co.uk/Home/Product-Detail/Dalmatian-Coast-South-Dubrovnik---Kotor---Ulcinj_9783850261401.htm

However it looks that even in Yugoslavia there was not an identity of views. Novak in Prošlost Dalmacije affirms that Southern Dalmatia has been part of Montenegro since 1945. Please refer to this link for the translation in English: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Dalmatia

This last two sources sum-up to the others already cited and to the fact that in other languages Dalmatia is described as including the Bay of Kotor.

Additionally, I need an answer about Neum. You have to give to us a good reason (and the size of this territory it's not a reason) why it should be excluded from Dalmatia. Can you please answer to this question? Is there a geographic change when we pass the border? Indeed if was not for the signs one would even not notice that's BH, almost everyone in Neum is Croat. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, regarding the Bay of Kotor. Lets have it up on the map in lighter blue as "variously defined as part of Dalmatia". As for the article, lets cover the issue in a standard way i.e "Sources X,Y, and Z describe Kotor Bay as remaining a part of Dalmatia..". That's about as much of a concession I'm hypothetically prepared to make given the precarious nature of the sources and given that there's more than one scholarly source that directly contradicts you. However, I'm not prepared to agree to amending in any way the infobox's statement of "region of Croatia". I've created a special .SVG map for this, hopefully we'll be able to put an end to the matter.

Regarding Neum.. Silvio, of course everyone in Neum is a Croat. That's because its in Herzegovina, which has a very large Croatian population. What, did you expect people there to be "Bosnians"? Silvio, Bosnia and Herzegovina has three constituent nations, Croats being one of them. You can go a hundred kilometers inland from Neum and still find a majority Croatian population.

@"You have to give to us a good reason (and the size of this territory it's not a reason) why it should be excluded from Dalmatia." - Nope. That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam. You're the one that needs sources for Neum being a part of Dalmatia. And since I know it is not, and has not been for centuries [2][3], I'd like an explicit source this time. -- Director (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you realise that you exclude Neum from Dalmatia for a political matter and not geographic? --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Always with the philosophy.. source? -- Director (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my earlier response, Silvio, I did not mean to be gruff. Dalmatia isn't strictly speaking a "geographic" region as such, that is to say, one defined through terrain or climate - it is a historical region. In reality there's no objective way to define the borders of Dalmatia, other than historical tradition. Culture is certainly not it: there's no "cultural" difference whatsoever today between the Zagora (the "Hinterland") and Herzegovina across the old Venetian border of the "Acquisto novissimo". Culturally, as I said, Dalmatia is basically just the islands nowadays (with a remnant in the coastal cities). Ethnicity isn't it as well - Croats everywhere, on both sides of the old Venetian border, and for dozens of miles on end. And, in the end, it isn't terrain or climate either.

It is only historical tradition that defines Dalmatia, and the border of the "Acquisto novissimo" (+Ragusa) is where it ends. There's some question whether historical tradition can consider Kotor Bay as part of Dalmatia, since in 1922 the borders were changed (and that's also part of the historical tradition), but that's hopefully been settled(?) now. Neum just isn't a part of Dalmatia. It was a part of the Republic of Dubrovnik between 1399 and 1699, when it was sold to the Ottoman Empire and became a part of Herzegovina. For over 300 years it was not part of any entity known as "Dalmatia", and for 300 years it was part of Herzegovina; and before 1399 it was a part of the Bosnian Kingdom (here's a 1784 Venetian map of Dalmatia [4]). Unless you can find a source that explicitly states otherwise, no claim about Neum should be made in the article.

The border of Croatia still to this day follows the old Venetian border (pretty much thanks to the communists, ironically, who re-established it in 1945 after it was gone for some decades)... If ethnicity were the determinant, then Croatia's border with Bosnia and Herzegovina would roughly be something like this [5] (plus Istria, of course ;)).My point is that the "political" borders of Croatia you're talking about are the historic Venetian borders of Dalmatia from centuries ago. Anyway, I'm obliged now to withdraw and go on a wikibreak. Regards -- Director (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, the issue is mainly of coherence. If Dalmatia is defined as a geographic region, than you have to assume the constraints of geography, one of this being the continuity. In reality Dalmatia today is not defined by a geographic criterion, but solely as the results of its history. And the history of Dalmatia is linked to Venice and Ragusa, or if you prefere it's linked to the very specific duality of the Romance and Slavic culture (with purpose I avoid to write Italian and Croatian) that can be seen in the culture, architecture and arts.

Indeed, We could spend years debating if Kotor is Dalmatian or not, but I think we all agree that that very peculiar duality never penetrated more than 30 or 40 kms in the hinterland. Indeed Dalmatia it's the Islands, the Coast and a very thin strip of Land. For this reason I find absolutely inappropriate to put on a map the precise borders of Dalmatia. The use of a political map for a region that is geographic and/or historic can drive to conclusions that can be argued easily. And honestly, I cannot find anything more brutal than setting with a sharp border the unique specificity of the Dalmatian culture.

However, if we believe to your map (that is by the way the same that can be found on other Croatian sources) I should conclude that Udbina and Korenica are Dalmatian but Neum and Kotor are not. This is arguable (to say the less).

The solution found in it:wiki it's in this sense much more elegant (please give a look to get convinced) and the use of a dashed line solve the issue. My proposal is to remove the map from the infobox (unless we cannot find a more appropriate one) and try to get a description of the this region much more attached to the history and its specificity other than to current political borders. We will then find consensus on the text of the article, this is easier. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1) Places like Udbina and Korenica should not be included in Dalmatia more than places like Neum and Kotor.

2) Even if agreed to admit that the region is completely in Croatia, I have a fundamental problem in keeping in the infobox the border of this historical/geographical region corresponding to the state borders of Croatia. Either the infobox disappear or we use a compromise solution (please see on the Italian version of the article about the solution chosen, which is very elegant I believe).

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

Oh, I actually fully concur, I didn't notice the new map - it is wrong in that part. The problem is that small part of Zadar County near Gračac and Srb. (Not Korenica and Udbina; you misread.) Nobody, in Croatia or elsewhere, actually thinks those places are Dalmatia. The Zadar County is generally described as a Dalmatian county, but this simply doesn't mean that all parts of the said county are Dalmatia.

Also, I don't really appreciate your repeated wrong assertions about Croatian historiography. Croatian historians, including those who write history books for use in schools, are perfectly honest about the fact that it was the Republic of Venice's pushback against the Ottomans that created the inland border of Dalmatia. Literally. (I remember that from school a few decades back). Indeed, I actually referenced something exactly like that recently, you can verify that at Morean War#Battles in Dalmatia, where I had found a 2002 work from none other than Ante Nazor, a well-known historian who appears to be right-wing-leaning. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just have time for a quick post. I'll fix the Zadar County bit when I return; I don't like the itWiki map. Nothing "personal", I just think its messy, confusing, and reffering to history rather than contemporary Dalmatia; which is kind of in-line with the perspective of Dalmatia no longer "really" existing (since its in Croatia). Again, not implying bias or POV-pushing, just sayin' I can detect an inherent, unintended slant in using that map.

Furthermore, since current Croatian borders were actually drawn in accordance with the borders of Dalmatia (i.e. Kingdom of Dalmatia) I think it makes perfect sense to equate the two... - since they're the same. They're the historic "acquisto novissimo" borders, drawn by Venice (the communists wanted to de-emphasize ethnicity, and therefore used the historic borders again). The only difference is Kotor. Note, for example, the bulge around the town of Imotski, which was actually defined by how far the Venetian cannon reached from the local fortress (needless to say, Croats are the majority population for miles inland on both sides of the border there as well).

Don't expect a quick reply, best regards -- Director (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, it looks there is consensus on the Northern limit of Dalmatia. The discussion will have to continue, I guess, about the Southern limit. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Re recent edits & the northern border.

• @Joy. The map does not have a "glaring factual error". I hope we can discuss the matter appropriately when I'm able to participate more fully, but if Zadar County is described as a Dalmatian county (which is admitted), then it is no error to have parts of its territory listed as "variously described as part of Dalmatia", even if they do not fit the 1918 northern border. That's why we have that intermediate category in the first place. Even though historical Dalmatian borders did not extend to include the northern light-blue zone, we must remember that this article is about the present-day region.

Yes, yes it does have a glaring factual error - I've never seen a reliable source that actually says Gračac is part of Dalmatia in any context, historical or modern. Unless someone can demonstrate one, it's just a plain violation of WP:SYNTH - a statement wrongly derived from sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Joy, if the "Zadar County is generally described as a Dalmatian county" (your words), then its not SYNTH to include it as "variously described as part of Dalmatia". Where's the dispute? -- Director (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You quoted a clause that was immediately followed by a "but" clause, and then omitted that latter clause. *facepalm* And to think that this is from a person who has ranted at me about inline threading being all destructive in the discussion format. This what you just did is textbook destructive. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Re southern border.

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

Re the non-consensus IP edits.

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

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

I disagree, there is a clear geographic component in Dalmatia, firstly as part of the regionalization of Croatia, and secondly in the topography - the Adriatic Sea in the southwest and the mountains of Velebit, Dinara, and Kamešnica in the northeast each form a pretty coherent and clear geographic border. The northwestern and the eastern border aren't so, they are indeed primarily historical and political. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a region - of course there is a geographic component, but its an error to classify it as a "geographic region". -- Director (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)