Talk:Dalmatia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

See also: Talk:History of Dalmatia

Contents

[edit] Cyrillic spelling

Denny, you're partially correct, the Cyrillic form could have been used during Yugoslavia, but then one could add it to all place names in the old country, which might be encyclopedic but also boring and pointless. I guess it can stay here, though, it doesn't take up much space. --Shallot 14:13, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Shallot! Actually, I would leave it out, honestly speaking. But in order to prevent an Edit War about such a unimportant issue, I tried to offer this as a compromise. And by the way, check Vienna: there it gives numerous writings and names in much more languages than needed... so, let's rather keep a language too much in, than have a discussion about such a thing. --denny vrandečić 14:37, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
The topic of different names for a place came up on another page I edited already but there it was fixed nicely by having List of European cities with alternative names. I don't think there's a page for alternative names of regions, unfortunately... --Shallot 18:21, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It occurs to me also that I saw a similar issue on the page of Matthias Corvinus, where the name of this king was listed in all the different languages of his subjects. However, the alternative names were listed at the bottom rather than at the top of the article. --Shallot 18:28, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This would be a fine idea - either an own page, or moving it to the end. But I would suggest to do that only if we get a language or two more... But if you think it would really be better now already, feel free to do so. --denny vrandečić 13:34, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if you're aware but Dalmacija was populated by Serbs for centuries.
BTW I am very well aware of that, but that doesn't imply that the Serbian Cyrillic spelling is pertinent to the lead section. --Joy [shallot] 20:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When Venetian Republic far under Napoleons France, Serbs were 50-60% of the Dubrovnik polulation (1806.). During the rule of Austria many turmed into Catolicism and declare them selfs today as Croats.
Could you provide a reference to census records? --Joy [shallot] 20:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What about all the Croats living in Serbia and Monte negro..mmmm not many call themselves Croats today........Dalmatia has always been Serb free...they have always been a minority and very small minority...what Serbs tell you back in Serbia is rubbish....Dalmatia once ruled all of X Yugo, check that out ....Croatia once ruled all of Serbia, check that out.......all just name ...the ppl were always what they are now.......dont be one eyed....There are more Croats in Serbia then Serbs in Croatia....Croats settled Balkan first remember ..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.111.75.195 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC).
Still during the Storm operation 1995. many Serb families had to flee from Dubrovnik, and became war imigrants Milan Tešović 15:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Uh, the Operation Storm had very little to do with Dubrovnik - the area around Dubrovnik was a battlefield between 1991 and October 1992, when the Yugoslav People's Army &co. retreated from that entire area (minus Prevlaka). Any Serbs that fled Dubrovnik must have done that much before. --Joy [shallot] 20:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does Dalmatia as a geographical unit differ from the administrative?

Ever since the great powers left the Balkans (not completely, they still controll political events very much!), boundaries became more or less a hot topic starting from the Berlin congress in 1878. Dalmatia as one of the most distinctive geographical units of the western Balkans is an easy definable region as natural boundaries are marked by climatological, biogeographical, geomorphological, cultural and historical (venetian rule, never been part of the ottoman empire) pecularities. If we try to define geographical boundaries precisely a problem occurs as transition zones can be disputed. One such unit is the Bay of Kotor as it is a well defined unit in its own (only geomorphological?) but doesn't differ in other categories (climatological, cultural context, biogeography). If we use political boundaries as the only definable units, the Bay of Kotor would as part of Montenegro be not a part of Dalmatia. One might assume that Dalmatia ceded immidiately at the border post between Dubrovnik and Herceg Novi. This border can exist more or less in the views of people living on one side or the other of the border but should not be of consideration if we talk as of Dalmatia as a region in a wider context.

As much as the Aegaeian archipel is part of Turkey and Greece, Dalmatia comprises the whole of the eastern Adriatic coast between Istria and the Bay of Kotor. As a historic can be formulated that Dalmatia has always been part of european civilization and never of the ottoman empire, a transitional role of the Bay of Kotor is well visible. The towns of Risan and Herceg Novi succumbed to the Ottoman empire at the same historical period as Kotor and Perast were part of Venice. In this way the Bay of Kotor reflects a historical transitional zone between west and east.

Talking of geographical units the search for the highest mountain of Dalmatia is another topic. From a biogeographical view it can't be disputed that Orjen (1894 m) belongs to the Dalmatian coastal mountain unit which starts with Velebit and forms a boundary between the coast and the hinterland (for instance see Lujo Adamovic, 1929 - Die Pflanzenwelt der Adialänder, Jena; ANTONIĆ, O., LOVRIĆ, A.Z. 1996: Numerical analysis of vegetation complexes and community diversity of major coastal Dinaric mountains.- In: Journal of Vegetation Science 7, 73-80, Uppsala). Therefore Orjen should be designated as the highest mountain of the geographical unit of Dalmatia. Orjen 23:17, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's possible to ignore national borders from the issue of defining the border of the region. Kotor and the rest of Boka certainly were part of Dalmatia in older times, and this is described in the article, but it is long past. If you open this issue, then we also have to discuss where the border is in the north, how much inland it goes (is Zagora really Dalmacija?), is Neum Dalmatian or Herzegovinian, whether the people of Dubrovnik identify better with Dubrovčani or with Dalmatinci, or even what happened to the Croats and/or Catholics in Boka after the Montenegrins took over. And God knows what else.
All in all, it's just not possible or necessary to equate "Dalmacija" with "eastern Adriatic coast" or "Dinaric littoral". If you want to prop up Orjen, do it elsewhere :) --Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)
I didn't want to ignore national borders they have their value. Dalmatia is first of all a croatian province. As Dalmatia signifies also a landscape in a historical context the questions still seems valid to define it also from this context. Whether the Orjen prop up has its grounds in this context today is not readily answered. Historically it was described the highest point in Dalmatia you mentioned that before (see Account of ASCHERSON, P. 1868: Der Berg Orjen an der Bocche di Cattaro.- In: Zeit. Ges. Erdk., 3, 319-336, Berlin) but maybe also differing views existed. Interesingly the mountain hut on Orjen sedlo was property of the Dubrovnik alpine club and Orjen was a popular destination for mountaineers from Dubrovnik, which by the way can be seen from the mountain top. Orjen 21:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be most appreciated if this current Montenegrin Dalmatia was elaborated here. --Joy [shallot] 01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent split

Are those seven new pages really needed? I think that the contents of Dalmatia before Old Ages, Dalmatia in Old Ages, Dalmatia in early Middle Ages, Dalmatia in mid Middle Ages, Dalmatia in late Middle Ages and in New Era, Dalmatia after 1797, Dalmatia after WWI can stay in History of Dalmatia. Also, I strongly suggest to re-add a short summary in the history section of this page with the standard note:

See Main article: History of Dalmatia

GhePeU 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the split went too far. I'm merging histories into the History of Dalmatia article now, and will help write the summary. --Joy [shallot] 11:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sclereophyllus

What does the word "sclereophyllus" mean? --Joy [shallot] 22:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] history overview

Kubura, it's an overview of thirteen short paragraphs, which summarizes over two thousand years - I think we shouldn't try to subsection it because that will dilute the idea that there's a main article. If anything, it could be shortened further. --Joy [shallot] 18:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] advertisment?

www.dalmatianet.com Jandrinov 03:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Croats-Serbs

According to Brockhous' encyclopedia; the Croats inhabitted the North and Serbs the South of Dalmatia, roughly seperated by Cetina river; with slight variations (e. g. Serbs around Split, in Norther Dalmatia and Red Croats in Pagania and Zahumlje) This encyclopedia contains much a about Greater Serbia and cannot be judged as pro-Serbian at all: Brockhous encyclopedia --HolyRomanEmperor 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The page recquires payment... so I saw no picture. How did they go to those "variations"? Probably when their artist drew the map, some drops fell on the map sketch. Still, that article begins with "... (serbokroatisch ...)..", which tells a lot about their attitude and sence for reality. Kubura 09:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no picture. I took the Brockhaus' encyclopedia myself; so either find it or pay it. :) The encyclopedia is strictly anti-Serb, because it mentions numerious crimes in Bosnia and on Kosovo, but non or Serbs; and barely mentions what happenned with Yugoslavia in World War II. As for the serbokroatisch; well, as you can see; the smart part of the globe doesn't recognize what some primitive ninnies did to a language. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We have to see that. A candidate for "crap of the year". As I see, this encyclopedia has a big lack of facts. Don't waste your money. You should've bought ćevape instead. Second, what/which language? Serbocroatian? You can surgically merge cow and pig and call it a "cowpig". Is that a normal living being? :) Kubura 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The language is called Serbocroatian and it is, and will always be one language, no matter what some brainless creatures call it for political reasons..As for your "cowpig", it seems to be a more normal creature than all of nationalists who spread evil and hate between Serbs and Croats..:)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.118.62 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC).

I went to the Goethe Institute. I didn't spend any money. That is one of the best encyclopedias on Earth, and the best German (compari it to the best French - LaRousse), so be more careful about what you say. It talks only of facts: Croats north of Cetina; Serbs south of Cetina. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda in full swing,,shame shameEvergreen Montenegro1 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmatia

A region in todays Croatia, but Dalmatia has always been a region on the Adriatic even before the arrival of Croats. The Dalmatain land once coverd all of the former Yugoslavia before the arrival of Croats. Where did they go???Well Ancient Dalmatian people never went away. Although some say ancient Dalmatians and Illyrian people in general have some link to todays Albanians the claim is regarded as dubius. Simple fact is. Ancient Dalmatians mixed with the Croats who arrived on the Adriatic in the the 6-7th Century So todays Croatian Dalmatians share a blood line with ancient Dalmatians. a study in the 1980s has shown this. Also Dalmatians of today have a small blood link with Italian-Roman and Ancient Greek due to occupation. In general the old Illyrian Dalmatians have a link with the new Croatian Dalmatians. The study also proved that Serbs were only a small minority in Dalmatia as were Gypsy, Jews and Hungarians. Many Dalmatian Croats who moved abroad in huge numbers, likewise went to Serbia so much so that 1/3 of Serbs in Serbia are Croat by blood. Evergreen Montenegro1 04:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einchardt

What problem you see in following sentences:
"According to the Frankish historian Einhardt in his Royal Frankish Annals, Serbs controlled the greater part of Dalmatia in 822. The first mentioning of Croats in Dalmatia is 30 years later. "
They are correct. I could not see real reason for rv wars here against that sentence.In article abour Croatia Gonzo even told me to write about Einchardt just here.--Medule 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Medule, according to sources studied by historian Klaić, Serbs came later on todays area. According to his sources, they had originally settled in Thessaly, but there were somebody's complaints, so Byzantian emperor gave them lands norther, "on areas on east from Croats". So there was no "30 years later". Kubura 13:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Look I see that sometimes you think N.Klaic is not correct. Here you use Klaic as argument.
First mentioning of Croats in original doc. is later than 850. Serbs had been mentioned in Einchardt annals around 820. Porfirogenet is document written 250 years after events.--Clavell 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Clavell, there are two Klaićs, Vjekoslav and Nada Klaić. I've cited Vjekoslav Klaić (and criticized Nada). Kubura 16:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
For those who "push in" Einhardt as source, have they seen what he had written? He mentioned no Serbs. Kubura 08:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Einchardt is mentioning Serbs. It is claer. It is in many even Croatian textbooks.--Medule 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Which textbooks? By the way, have you saw the original form of the text? That subject was elaborated before and why Einchardt's "Serbs" aren't properly defined. Kubura 14:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FACT

when you say Serbs occupied Dalmatia...they might have ruled it..but not lived in it....Croat King Tom ruled Serbia too but Croats didnt live all over Serbia, just ruled........ I think thats where the problem is....rule is one thing...to live is another.....Under Venice rule Dalmatia was always Croatian settled and people were called Venetians including Marco Polo who was Croat........I think if Serbia ruled, logic would say the people could say they belong to Serbia and could even call themsleves Serb, hence the whole problem of who is what........its silly .....we all know that Croats settled Dalmatia and what is Croatia and Bosnia -Hercegovina today...look at the map and history books...even parts of Monte negro were settled by Croats eg Boka Kotorska region was at one time Croatian settled, look at history books...........Serbs came to Balkans much later and dont rule out the possibility that Serbs are Croats from another region...some people will show this could well be true.....'----------I THINK ITS POSSIBLE CROATS AND SERBS ARE THE SAME PEOPLE, BOTH TOOK ON A SLAVIC TONGUE AND A NEW RELIGION...BOTH SHARE THE SAME LAST NAMES...THE NOTION THAT SERBS ARE CROATS HAS BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE BUT NOT TO POPULAR AMONG SERBS, NOT SURPRISED. EVIDENCE DOES SHOW THE CROATS WERE KNOWN IN EUROPE AND IN IRAN...WHILE THE SERBS NOT...THEY HAVE ???? ALL OVER THEM...ITS POSSIBLE THEY TOOK UP ANOTHER NAME SERB AS CROATS WERE ALREADY ON THE ADRIATIC, TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM TRIBE TO TRIBE............. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.111.75.195 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC).

Finally someone to say something smart! I totally agree with you! Besides the last names, Serbs and Croats share the same language, mentality and also first names, most of which are with Christian origin.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.118.62 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
OK, we only used sources. Sources say that they lived in the greater part of Dalmatia, so what? Croat King Tom ruled over Serbia? When? Dalmatia wasn't always Croatian settled It was mostly Italian and its Slavic people was a unique Dalmatian Slavic (especially unique in the enclaves, like the Republic of Dubrovnik). Just because many of them were assimilated by the waves of Croats and Serbs doesn't mean that they were so. Dalmatian population's Serbo-Croatian only from recently (say, assimilated in the 17th-19th centuries).
We don't all know that Croats settled Dalmatia and what is Croatia and Bosnia -Hercegovina. Could you provide sources? Montenegro a croatian land? That's very funny, but could be true if you said why? Also, most Montenegrins would disagree with you in the past 1,000 years. I did look at history books and maps, and they don't point to a thing that you said, I'm afraid, chump. :) Serbs came to the Balkans only a little later, so insignificantly that we could say that they arrived just about the same time.
And the Iranni theory is fresh in sources on Serbian origin, even more than on Croatian origin.
This info that this annon said is really weird. If true, I'm gonna have to see sources... --HolyRomanEmperor 13:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name in Cyrillic

There is no particular reason to retain the name in Serbian Cyrillic: the number of Serbian speakers according to the lastest census is less than 1%; historical connections to the medieval Serbian state are minor and date back to the Middle Ages. By the same standards, we should include dozens of names in various languages which wouldn't be very practical. --Elephantus 22:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The population of Dalmatian Zagora (Ravni Kotari, Kninska Krajina and Gorski Kotari) has been Serbian for the past hundreds of years up to the most recent mass removal of 1995. The same can be said for Boka Kotorska, a part of Dalmatia as well. Calling historical connections minor is a bit rough. The Kingdom of Duklja controlled Dalmatia from the Ionian coastline to the Knin Frontier at one period (the Cyrillic enwriting of Knin's Capitol dates from that period). Geographically, Dalmatia reaches modern day Albania, so it's bad that we should make this article Croatian-POV (that makes it look like a territory of Croatia only).
I can't understand how could historical connections with the Serbian state controlling lower Dalmatia for half a millenium be minor, they're certainly greater than the Croatian influence, by the way. :)
Additionally and lastly, the Bay of Kotor is a Serbian-populated region and is in a Serbian-speaking state: Montenegro. So, it's simply and drasticly ridiculous to keep the Italian version of the name, since no where the Italians form a majority, now is the Italian language spoken in Dalmatia, or is Dalmatia a part of an Italian state. However, a part is populated by (mostly) Serbs, the Serbian language is spoken there (and is official) and it's part of a Serbian state. So how can you make statements like those? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

1) As I said, the most recent census puts the number of speakers of Serbian in Dalmatia at less than 1%, with most Serbs speaking Croatian. 2) Boka Kotorska is today hardly considered to be a part of Dalmatia, either by the people of Boka or the people living in Dalmatia, just as e.g. the Serbian city of Zemun is not considered part of Slavonia any more, although it was until 1918. The historical connections are also a weak argument here, because by the same standard the name of Belgrade would have to be given in Ottoman Turkish (it was a Turkish fortress until 1867). --Elephantus 13:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I were you, I'd opt for one variant or the other in all articles. But because this is the English wikipedia, we leave preference for Roman letters no matter what the subject. Very few outsiders can read Cyrillic. (The Latin alphabet is much more prominent in the world than the Cyrillic alphabet.) --VKokielov 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, pick one for each article. It looks very silly otherwise. We can do it on the Balkan Wikipedias, because each reader understands what it means; here, it's bewildering. --VKokielov 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that the main misunderstanding is that Elephantus understood my conotations ware mostly historical. Well, the Italian version of the name's historical too, and measuring which worths more where is simply impossible. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

Requesting page protection because of the edit war on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmatia outside Croatia

The name Dalmatia at various times extended to various territories. Today, this is no longer so - the name is limited to Croatia. --Elephantus 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia, not Croatian. The languages of all concerned nations are relevant (in historical and geographical context). Dalmatia is part of not only Croatia, but Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite the ethnic cleansing, it is not certainly not a Croatian province. It is a fact, and removing content is vandalism. Maayaa 22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Elephantus that today name is limited only to Croatia. People in Boka do not consider that they live in Dalmatia, but only in Boka and Montenegro. Dalmatia had different borders in history (The Roman province of Dalmatia was in fact much larger than of your view about what is a size of Dalmatia). Regarding the names, I think that if both, Serbian and Italian, name for the region are written, then it is not POV. POV would be only one of these two names posted, but if we have more alternate names, it is not POV. It would be also good that besides Croatian, we have not only Serbian and Italian name, but also German, French, Turkish and Hungarian, since Dalmatia belonged to all these states in history, and all these names are important. PANONIAN (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The article itself says that part of Dalmatia is in Montenegro. And the part between Split and Dubrovnik always has belonged to BH. This part is clearly Dalmatian coast. Not even previous versions claimed that Dalmatia is part of Croatia. Maayaa 23:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You cannot say that something "always" belonged to something, because it is certainly not correct. Also, if the article itself says that part of Dalmatia is in Montenegro, that does not mean that this is correct. It is only one more example of Greater Croatian aspirations and that should be changed. PANONIAN (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All right

I will improve this article a little regarding this historical/geographical issue, but only after this revert war stop. The historical Dalmatia (as it was in the Habsburg Monarchy) did included Boka Kotorska, but after Boka was included in Montenegro, the name Dalmatia no longer describe Boka, but only western part of the historical Dalmatia which is now in Croatia. Therefor, Boka should be mentioned here only in the historical content, but not in geographical. There is clear difference between geographical and historical regions. If somebody have opposite arguments, please discuss them here before new reverts, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balkanic business

LOL, there is a even worse revert war here than that about Kosovo article. Would you people try to use talk page to solve disputes? Now here are two important questions:

  • 1.Why Serbian and Italian names (and other) cannot be here?
  • 2.Why map of the ancient Roman province of Dalmatia cannot be here?

Can somebody answer these questions? PANONIAN (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, for an NPOV presentation of alternative names, I propose that we include much more alternative names: Dalmatie (French), Dalmatien (German), Dalmazia (Italian), Далмација (Serbian Cyrillic), Dalmaçya (Turkish). All important historical names are here. More names - more NPOV article. PANONIAN (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your answers:
1. Elephantus already answered it above. I won't repeat his arguments. Read the talk page before posting.
2. The map is included in the article under "History". Read the article before posting.
--Zmaj 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I saw what Elephantus wrote now, and here is my answer: The purpose of posting these alternative names on Wikipedia is to show to its readers what are other names used for the subject. Its purpose is not to reflect linguistic, demographical and historical relations. Also, I am aware that such alternative names here are often used with bad faith to reflect irredentist claims. I fully understand why usage of Serbian and Italian name for Dalmatia could be connected with irredentism, so, therefor I made a compromise solution where Serbian and Italian name are mentioned only among several other names, thus all these names now reflect only alternative names of the region and nothing else. I hope that this compromise would be acceptable for everybody. Regarding the map, yes, I saw that map is included into "History of Dalmatia", but there is no reason not to include it here too. Since article is already in the category named "Ancient Roman provinces", we should include map of that province. PANONIAN (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Zmaj, I am sorry, seems that we did not understand each other. You said that map is already included in the article, right? Well, I know that, but seems that you did not saw that some users removed that map during recent revert war. So, the question was for them, to discuss their reasons for such removal. PANONIAN (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean Petrinja? LOL. Don't tell me you take that professional reverter seriously. As for the names, I appreciate your understanding and rejection of irredentist bad faith. The listing of all the important historical names seems like a good solution to me. I propose, however, not to place them in the first paragraph, but at the beginning of the first chapter, which is appropriately called "Definitions". --Zmaj 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do not know who Petrinja is, I did not chechked his other edits. I just was asked by one other user to help about the language dispute in Dalmatia article. I have nothing against that you move alternative names to the first chapter. PANONIAN (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If naming is a problem...

...then mention all historical versions of Dalmatia's name, like seen on the Skadar article. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's precisely what we did. See the first paragraph in the "Definitions" chapter. We have reached an agreement on that issue (see above). --Zmaj 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No - see the aesthetic little table to the right. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmatia not exactly Croatia

Dalmatia has such a distinctive culture and civilisation that it seem misleading to lump it with Croatia (though of course, it is a legitimate section of Croatia). Dalmatia is so Mediterranean, more Ionian Greek and Italian; it has ancient links, while inland Croatia is typically Slav and with a heritage that also goes back to the Mongolian invasions. If Montenegro can break away from Serbia, then one can assume that Dalmatia should have the choice to distance itself from Croatia. Politis 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dood, you really have no clue about what your talking about. Dalmatia has been part of Croatia for quite some time... And i dont mean few years. It *IS* Croatia. and it does not belong to BiH or montenegro. This is not my subjective opinion. Montenegro and serbia are not good example in this context. Montenegro and Serbia are 2 countries, and Dalmatia is just a part of Croatia... if you don't belive me... go there and check it out :) --rdavl 09:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You may be right, I do not dispute that. To my knowledge, there is no historical evidence identifying Dalmatia as Croatia before the 20th century. Croatians are Slavs who are relative late comers to the region - namely to Croatia proper, with the Serbs; Dalmatians are Mediterranean people with Greek, Roman, Italian and indigenous strands and, yes, with a Slavic element. Also, Dalmatia is a region streching from Montenegro to the Italian border. If this article remains as such it should be title Dalmatia (province of Croatia). In which case we need an article on Dalmatia (region). Politis 13:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"...There is no historical evidence identifying Dalmatia as Croatia before 20th century..."? Where do you live? Have you ever took a piece a paper in your hand and have you ever read a book? Or you were sheepkeeping for whole your life and doing nothing else? And first person you've met is a Serb-orthodox monk on Hilandar?
Croats and Croatia are first time mentioned on the area of Dalmatia (while Bulgaria ruled all over the Balkans). Medieval Croat Kingdom had its capitol cities there (mostly coastal cities). Croat kings were crowned there (coastal cities mostly). The graveyard of Croat royal family was there.
Ancient Croats assimilated local residents, Illyrians, in early Middle Ages (BTW, how come that you've forgotten to mention the Illyrians? They lived on the Balkans and NW from Balkans, much before the Greeks and Romans)
"...If Montenegro can breakaway from Serbia...than...Dalmatia...should have choice to distance from Croatia..."? Greaterserbian wishie-wish. Another greaterserbianist which can't stand the fact that Montenegro left them. Which serb or italian expansionist has filled your head, Politis? These are their stories. Dalmatian, Istrian, all regionalist crap, everything but not Croats.
All unfullfilled wishes of serb and italian expansionist from 19th century and the Age of national awakenings. Expansionist who never could live with the fact that a region of dismembered 19th century-Croatia never turned its back to its origins. Croat region that never wanted to be part of their overexpanded kingdoms. Kubura 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but it is best to leave out personalised comments as well as jumping to conclusions about greater Serbia (no thanks! Serbia is big enough as it is) and greater Italy. I will try and look into it. But what happened to the Serbian minority? Politis 15:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Organized evacuation. I've put the sources that speak about it on few articles.
Conclusions about greater Serbia and Italy...
All these stories "...distancing Dalmatia from Croatia" and "Dalmatia is not Croatia" are the stories that Serb and Italian expansionist were spreading. We recognise all these stories at the beginning.
If you still don't get me, then I recommend you to find some material about the Age of national awakenings/Age of nationalism/Risorgimento/National renaissance in 19th century Europe, that speak about Dalmatia, and what games were there.
If you want me to explain you in detail, OK, I'll do it, but it'll take me some time. Its not a problem for me to translate, but it is a problem to shorten the abundance of text. Kubura 09:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carlo's comments on the article

Hi everyone, my name is Carlo Alberto.
My family come from Zara. My family is italian and in particular dalmatian (it means that my correlatives speaks a dialect called "dalmata" close to the dialect of Venice).
I don't want to change the page because I don't want to create an "edit war", so I'll write here what I think.
The page seems incredibly unilateral and doesn't spend a word about the italian culture in Dalmatia.
And there are written a lot of things that (in my opinion) are false or meaningless.
Seems to be written by a nationalistic party of Croatia.

1) Sometimes the words "croats" and "illyrians" are used as they mean the same (maybe to subline that Croatia have always been Croatia, also before this name was born). It is Absurd. Actual Croatians dessend from a Slavic tribe. The modern population more close to Illyrians is Albanian. Saing that Croatians are Illyrians is almost the same that saing modern North-American people are the dessendents of Amerindian people.
Conquire a place does not mean to have also conquired oll the history of that place.

2) Population of Dalmatia at the time of the Slavic migration was a latin population which then involved into an Italian population. When the Slavs arrived latin people arretrated and close themselves inside the walls of the cities of the coast.
The population of those cities (Zara, Traù, Spalato, Ragusa) remained an Italian population since the contemporary age (as well as the population of Histria).
Who is not blind can see this in every thing of this cities, the buildings are tipical italian and venicians, and so the toponimos.
Oll the litterary production of those cities is written in Latin or in Italian.

3) Many times in the page is written about a state called Hungarian-Croat Reign. It has never existed.
Simply the reign of Hungaria conquired Croatia (as well as Slovakia, Rutenia, Transilvania but is not called a Hungarian-Slovakian-Rutenian-Transilvanian-Croat Reign)

4) Is the described the Venician periode as a domination, as well as for the hungarian or the Asburgic periode.
The inhabitants of the cities were citizen of the repubblic as well as the inhabitants of Venice or Verona; and almost all the important families of Venice were dalmatian families and so the Doges.

5) Is written about the "repubblic of Dubrovnik". Also this state has never existed.
The neme of the state is written about is "repubblica di Ragusa"; and the city of Ragusa had been called Dubrovnik first in 1918.

6) Is written that the city of Zara had benn assigned to Italy after the Great War.
It is false. It was assigned to Jugoslavia. A successive plebiscite determinated the destiny of the city. With 98% of the votes for Italy.

7) There is no word about the actual Italian minority in Dalmatia (that is also rocognised by the governament of Croatia) and about the italian exodus (350.000 people).

Now Dalmatia is ovviously part of Crotia as well as Zagabria, and the most of its actual population is genuine croats; but it has not been always like now and there is no reason to build a false past for a region with a so rich history.

Congratulation to the whole staff for their clever work at English Wikipedia and goodbye.
(Sorry for my English) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.6.225.35 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC).

We could argue about this for ages and none of us would change its opinion.
If you visit Dalmatia and ask people living there what nationaliti they are, 99,99% of them will say Croats.
If you ask them weather they are Dalmatians, they would say they are, but they don't consider that to be their nationality.
BTW I am from Split,Dalmatia,Croatia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.164.22.207 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/l/Talk%7EDalmatia_5ac8.html"