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.

Names in other languages[edit]

What is the encyclopedic basis for including the section entitled "Names in other languages"? It seems to be pretty useless list cruft. --Bejnar (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC) This is not a new issue, and I believe that List of names of European cities in different languages was generated as a result. For example at present Vienna has a concise lead with an appropriate Vienna#Name section, with a see also to Other names of Vienna. --Bejnar (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It violates WP:WINAD badly. And it's about as useful as those 10-cm clothing tags where "100% polyester" is written in 40 languages. No such user (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it should be changed/removed. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dalmatia part of Croatia[edit]

@Director, you source a reference to support that Dalmatia is one of the four region of Croatia. But the reference says that Croatia is made of four historical regions and one of those is Dalmatia not that Dalmatia is a region of Croatia. You see the difference between the two statements (e.g. one of the region of Greece is Macedonia, but Macedonia is not exclusively a region of Greece) . Can you source more appropriately? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"the reference says that Croatia is made of four historical regions and one of those is Dalmatia not that Dalmatia is a region of Croatia" Do you know how silly that sounds? "Croatia is made of four historical regions and one of those is Dalmatia" directly indicates to any literate person that "Dalmatia is a region of Croatia". We're not actually supposed to copy sources verbatim on this project, Silvio, that can be copyright infringement.
The source does indeed state that Dalmatia is a region of Croatia. If you hold that its also a region of Montenegro (as Macedonia would be with the RoM) - source that. And no OR please: yes, the Kotor Bay is sometimes regarded as part of Dalmatia, but you need to source the statement that "Dalmatia" as such is a region of Montenegro. I can source the fact that Macedonia is a part of other countries. Can you source Dalmatia as a "region" of Montenegro? I looked. And I can't find anything. -- Director (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Director, do you suggest I am not literate? We had already this discussion. The sources stating that Dalmatia extends in Montenegro are in the article and more could be sourced [[1]]. However, the point in the lead should be a summary of the article. As it is now it is not. What's the idea of saying something in the lead which is different from what stated afterwards in the article? To ensure consistency a mention about the Bay of Kotor should be in the lead. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am suggesting you may not understand English all that well. That source is ridiculous, find a proper scholarly citation. -- Director (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
My English is excellent, Director. Keep your appraisal for yourself. Indeed, you should descend from your throne. I wander if in the real life you behave the same way as in Wikipedia. Learn to treat the others as you would like to be treated, dear Director. However, can we expect to have a lead consistent with the article. Or this is an option? Silvio1973 (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
French, German and Italian Wikipedias report that Dalmatia is in Croatia and in Montenegro. The English does not. One might have the doubt that it is because you treat this article as your personal land. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
"Keep your appraisals to yourself"... "I wonder"... "if you behave in the real life" should come first in that sentence... "on Wikipedia"... "..a lead that's consistent".. Pardon me, but that's the impression one gets. This is hardly the first time you started an entire thread just because you misunderstood what had been stated in a source or on the talkpage (recently on the JBT article).
The source directly supports the statement that Dalmatia is a region of Croatia. The link you provided is just silly; kindly bring forward a proper scholarly citation. -- Director (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Director: You are beating a dead horse. There is a part of Croatia that is called Dalmatia, no problem there. The historical region called Dalmatia is not the same as that part of today's Croatia that is called Dalmatia. Don't you get the difference? --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bejnar, I guess Director understands the difference but for some reason he considers the difference unrelevant. Director, can you explain us why? Silvio1973 (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


@Bejnar: please mark this well: "historical region" does not indicate a region that existed solely in history. A "historical region" is a region that exists today, in the present(!), because of common history. This article is not about some bygone entity or a region that was previously perceived as existing. It is about a current region that is defined through ties of common history. "Dalmatia" at one time or another encompassed most of former Yugoslavia, but it exists today to an extent defined by common perception (as expressed in scholarly sources).

And the modern extent is what we define in our lead: "Dalmatia is a region of Croatia", as the lead states - is most certainly both sourced in the article, and generally indisputable as a very basic fact [2][3].

Silvio1973 is pushing to define the modern-day(!) extent of this region as encompassing the Bay of Kotor. This is at best disputed, and at most is (as I said) - WP:FRINGE. Its covered in the extent section. We've been over this before, and I will not, as you say, be beating a dead horse. Silvio1973's "source" is, as per usual - completely ridiculous: a description of some map for sale somewhere. It doesn't exist. And what he needs, in order to introduce changes to the lead sentence - is a source that states "Dalmatia is a region of Montenegro" (or something to that effect). I can't find one.

He spends his days roving about these articles looking to pick fights. This can now be seen as a pattern of WP:DISRUPTION, presenting itself over the course of several weeks. -- Director (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pick a fight? Director, I am trying to understand why only in the English version of Wikipedia Dalmatia is solely part of Croatia. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Because its the best version. -- Director (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes the historical region exists today but it is not defined just by today. It is defined and informed by today, yesterday and years past. This article is about the "whole ball of wax", not only the last five minutes. --Bejnar (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Any historical region is indeed defined "just by today". By modern-day perception of its extent. History only has relevance in that regard - insofar as it informs said definition (as expressed in sources, naturally).
The modern-day region and its modern-day extent is what we're referring to in our lead sentence. That's the primary topic of this article. The historical extent varied from most of former Yugoslavia, to just a tiny strip of coast and the islands. -- Director (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No, That is what you would be referring to if this were an article on the province of Dalmatia as currently constituted. That is not this article. --Bejnar (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're even talking about. There is no "province of Dalmatia" that's "currently constituted". There is only an informal region that exists today in the perception of the general public. Its modern extent is defined by said perception. I don't know what more to tell ya. -- Director (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


@Bejnar, Director got a point. It exists a modern perception of Dalmatia as a region (a confirmation is that there is a sense of regional identity amongst people). My concern is that Director presents this geographical/historical region almost as administrative. Furthermore, the exclusion of Kotor Bay is supported mainly by Croatian sources (although available in English). This explains why (opposely to French, German and Italian wikis) the article describes Dalmatia as exclusively confined to Croatia. Silvio1973 (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
A "Croatian source" like the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Don't be ridiculous.. Croatian scholars and Croats in general don't really give a damn about this, your conspiracy theory is silly. For them its a done issue, concluded ages ago, not something to push a nationalist perspective on. This sort of nitpicky POV is exclusively the domain of (pro-)exile right-wing weirdos in Italy, who like to wax nostalgic about the times when their great grandfathers used to lord over the majority of "Slav barbarians".
And referring to Dalmatia as a "region of Croatia" is a different issue than whether or not Kotor is still a part of the region. The Kotor Bay is a very tiny area, and even if we were to agree its part of Dalmatia, sources would still justify our reference to it as a "region of Croatia" in a general sense (such as that in the lead sentence). -- Director (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Read my previous post. I am not concerned that Dalmatia is a region of Croatia. This is a fact. But why all major wikipedias, except the English, extend Dalmatia at least to Kotor Bay? PS There is no conspiracy here, it is just the (legitimate) Croatian view of things. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It is somehow sad that you believe that I belong to a circle of right-wing extremists. This is actually very false, you can't imagine how much. Also I do not feel any sense of superiority over Slavic people. But now you have built-up this idea and it looks you are too convinced to change your mindset. Yes, in the past I commented about the recent tragic history of former Yugoslavia, but this does not make of me a fascist (mind well that at least in Italy fascist people are too ignorant to know anything about the history of Venice and Dalmatia). But it looks you see fascist conspiracies everywhere. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You can probably stop mentioning other Wikis, they're not a source, and should be disregarded entirely. Please remember that already for future reference: talking about what other wikis do is not an argument - its irrelevant. Besides, this is the site they copy, not vice versa.
You're talking about two different things:
  • "Kotor as Dalmatia". This is a legitimate point of view and it has been given treatment in our article in accordance with its prevalence in sources. The map indicates Kotor, and the Extent section lists it as an area sometimes regarded as Dalmatia, and sometimes not (e.g. - by Britannica). Mind you, that is generous considering there is only ONE worthwhile source for it - Treccani (a "legitimate Italian view of things"?). The 'Rough Guide' is unscholarly, extremely poor quality (bordering on unreliable), and the map link is of course a joke to be disregarded entirely. I even deleted that map of the four counties that annoyed you, and left only the Kingdom of Dalmatia map...
  • "Region of Croatia". This is not something we can discuss. Its both WP:BLUE and well sourced, and there's no reason to change it. I can pile on more sources if it'll make you feel better (see the links I posted earlier "integral region of Croatia", etc..) - but either way this is a non-issue. If you have any sources about this that you're hiding under your hat, present them now..
-- Director (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course what it's written in the other Wikipedias is not a reference, but you cannot claim they copied from the English version, because all of them say Dalmatia is in Croatia and (a little bit in) Montenegro. However, please find hereafter some references locating the Bay of Kotor in Southern Dalmatia. In view of these elements it would not be WP:FRINGE to make mention in the lead that Kotor's Bay is in Southern Dalmatia. Note: starting tomorrow I am extremely busy for a few days so my replies might take longer.

Silvio1973 (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If it were in fact FRINGE, it would not be in the article at all. I know its not FRINGE. Does it warrant mention in the lead - in addition to being explained in the Extent section and depicted in the map? I don't think so. The region's extent is a rather complicated question, its not just Kotor but other areas as well, we would have to mention them as well. In no case, however, can we justify the statement "Kotor's Bay is in Southern Dalmatia" as if it were a matter of fact, and not an issue sources conflict over.
As regards the links.. the second one is not scholarly, its another travel guide. The third one (like Britannica) states Dalmatia extends to the Gulf of Kotor, its in fact a source against you. The fourth one as well. You posted one source that supports you, one that's not a scholarly source, and two that explicitly oppose you. -- Director (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, extends to the Bay of Kotor does not mean "borders the Bay of Kotor". Indeed, the wording of Britannica is different. Yes sources conflict but as you say it is not fringe. In view of that a mention in the lead (with appropriate wording) would be justified. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"extends from Cetina to Kotor Bay", unless there's a reason to think otherwise, indicates it ends at Kotor (as per Britannica). I agree its not FRINGE. In fact (as I said numerous times) my personal perception is that Kotor Bay is a part of "Dalmatia". Sources, however. -- Director (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mmm... Cetina river is in Dalmatia, isn't it? From Cetina to Kotor Bay, means therefore that Kotor Bay is also in Dalmatia. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. The Cèttina is a part of Dalmatia, but the (fourth) source uses it to define "southern Dalmatia": "along the southern Dalmatian Littoral, from Cetina to the Bay of Kotor". If I were to be generous I could say its ambiguous at best.. but it really isn't. Moreover its not even talking about the extent of Dalmatia, but the extent of the Shtokavian idiom of the Croatian language (which is virtually everywhere now, even on the islands). It doesn't explicitly define Dalmatia in any way.
For the third source one only needs to look at the context: it talks about the "Croatian coastline". The intent is clearly to mark the Bay out as the southern boundary of the "Dalmatian coast"..
Once again: I actually looked myself and tried to find sources for Kotor. I couldn't find any..
Goodness.. are you in South Africa now, Silvio? :) -- Director (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am in South Africa. Listen, I am not surprised that it's ambiguous. The opposite would be surprising. Dalmatia is a historical region so unless there is a natural barrier (such as the sea on the west), transitional regions exist. Indeed there are transitional regions, in the north, east AND south. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
My condolences.
They're not really "transitional regions", and no, its not surprising. This region exists only in people's perceptions. And while those vary, that doesn't make the non-overlapping areas "transitional" in some way, as the case may be in regions defined through climate, or geography, or common culture. Culture in Dalmatia is divided between the islands and the coastline on the one hand, and the entire hinterland which merges almost seamlessly into Herzegovina... -- Director (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Another source putting Kotor in Dalmatia or better considering it as part of the Dalmatian Coast: [[8]].
PS I agree that travel guides are not the most scholar secondary sources, still are sources. And for some reasons most of them consider Kotor as being part of the Dalmatian Coast. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Its National Geographic so at least its better than the "Rough Guide" you posted. But scholarly or not, its yet another reference that not only doesn't support you, but actually contradicts you. Amazing. (The source states Dalmatia extends "between the Gulf of Kvarner to the Bay of Kotor". "Between" makes it pretty clear that Kvarner and the Bay are outside of Dalmatia - and indeed, the Gulf of Kvarner is well outside Dalmatia by any definition.)
And no, I would not agree with your arbitrary assertion that "most travel guides" list Kotor as Dalmatia. Anyway, I think you've torpedoed your own position quite effectively by this point, and I don't think there's much more to be said. As I mentioned, even what we have now is probably WP:UNDUE. -- Director (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
To the Bay of Kotor does NOT MEAN that the Bay of Kotor is excluded. This is your interpretation. The source says between the Gulf of Kvarner to the Bay of Kotor, not between the Gulf of Kvarner and the Bay of Kotor. It would be interesting to ask to a mother tongue what is his/her understanding. However, I also agree that in view of the balance between sources it would be undue to consider the Bay of Kotor in Dalmatia at "full title". On the other hand not mentioning it in the lead it's undue in the other sense because in this discussion (and in its archives) at least 3 sources (excluding Treccani and "Rough Guide") have been cited stating that the Bay of Kotor is in Dalmatia. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Feel free to ask any tongues you may run across. Stating that Dalmatia extends "between the Gulf of Kvarner to the Bay of Kotor" indicates neither of the two are part of the region - this should especially be clear from the fact that the Kvarner definitely isn't a part of Dalmatia. Is the Kvarner now in Dalmatia also?
At the very most, if I were to be generous to the point of disregarding common sense, it might be said the statement is ambiguous and unclear on the issue (and thus equally useless to you). But again - its not. Its against you.
In summary: even if I were to disregard the fact that you have posted several sources that contradict your own position, as yet there are only two scholarly sources that I have seen (one of them Italian-published) that definitively list Kotor as part of Dalmatia. And if we were to apply the same standards of sourcing that you want to use, we would be posting here a pile of Croatian-published books and travel guides excluding Kotor.
Most importantly: I don't know what you're even hoping to achieve here in terms of the article text. Even if ALL the sources you posted here actually supported (as opposed to contradicted) you - there is no way I myself would agree to changes to the lead discussing Kotor: the debated regions are discussed in the below section, they don't need treatment in the lead, and mentioning just one for no reason is illogical and biased. Its just not acceptable. Its even more unacceptable to propose we actually state in the lead as a matter of fact that "Kotor is Dalmatia": with sources such as Britannica and others opposing that view, and with the region being completely unofficial, that would be the definition of undue weight. Its just biased beyond words and completely disregards basic policies of the project.
Call in a 3O if you like, otherwise I'm done here. -- Director (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's put an end to it. At least for now. I'm also done. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll be perfectly frank. As far as I can tell, with your additions, there are now about six or seven sources against Kotor.. so at this point I just can't imagine the kind of truckload of sources you'd need to justify modifying the lead in accordance with what you want. To my own satisfaction at least.
And if I may pontificate on the subject for a while, I'll reiterate that I myself (being rather familiar with history) do personally perceive the place as a part of Dalmatia... but I think that what we have now is the absolute best we can "do for Kotor" given what actual scholarly sources have to say. Pretty few people, even in Dalmatia, are even familiar with the fact that the Bay area was once a part of the region. Being cut off from the rest of Dalmatia (and frankly, very much overrun with Montenegrins) it has just drifted away out of common perception. Far from being devoid of 'Italian Dalmatians', its pretty much devoid even of Slavic Dalmatians (whose ancestors did after all inhabit the region for over a 1,000 years..). The remnants of the latter were especially affected by the most recent war, as they were mostly Catholics (and therefore identified as Croat), on the wrong side of the front lines.
Its far more gone than you may realize. -- Director (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)