Jump to content

Talk:Dalmatia/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RfC: Boundaries of the historical region of Dalmatia

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

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

{{{1}}}
{{{2}}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Gračac - there are sources saying Zadar County is in Dalmatia ([2], [3]) insisting on removing Gračac from Dalmatia despite such sources would be WP:OR. No amount of insistence obviates reliable sources. Of course there are at least two different definitions of the region and the matter should be teated as already specified above. Regarding number of maps - the "lead" map should be "current use" map as described above, i.e. there should be one map in the lead, but as far as the number of maps elsewhere in the article- could you point out a policy determining number of maps per article. Have as many as you need. I trust the map of 4 Dalmatian counties can be integrated with the lead map as it is one of current definitions of the area.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Clarification of RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't care at all if you leave the project, and stop changing the subject. Can you, after all this time, and in a special "Clarification of the RfC" section - clarify what exactly you want: removal (FRINGE), or de-emphasis (UNDUE)? Because you are contradicting yourself in every post. -- Director (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I think is pretty clear that Dalmatia is a historic region as understood here and in the lede of this article. I am appalled at the rambling form of this supposed RfC. I suggest that it be closed and that another editor propose a clear RfC that editors can actually respond to. This one as (sort of) proposed by OP is unworkable. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I myself wrote the lede as you see it there. Dalmatia clearly does not exist as an administrative entity, but the perception of its extent, as described by sources, sometimes follows administrative boundaries, when viewing the region "from an administrative point of view". All that the text does - is merely mention these sources and that perspective on Dalmatia's extent. As for Silvio1973, I still don't even know what precisely he wants, let alone what arguments he may have for said "wants". As I think is quite obvious at this point, the user deliberately avoids expressing his position clearly. -- Director (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parting shots / more wasted Talk Page space

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

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

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

Help Needed Archiving The Above Massive Debate (which was shut by an Admin for being improper)^^

Need help archiving this extremely long debate^^, which was shut down by an Admin who noted that is was improperly opened in the first place.

The huge size of this Blue Box is obstructing the use of this Talk Page. Thanks in advance! 107.218.9.122 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is supposed to be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III; I can't quite tell why the bot stopped doing so after the June edit. Possibly the "algo=old(30d)" parameter means not just that only threads at least 30 days old get archived, but also that the bot only checks once every 30 days, but I rather doubt that. Anyway, I've manually moved that RfC to Talk:Dalmatia/Archive 4. I hope now the bot will resume regular operations. Huon (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dalmation Dog Breed

Back to relevant topics. A section on the Dalmation dog breed would be a legitimate addition to the article. Any such section should be brief with a link to the longer article on the same subject. 107.218.9.122 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A section on the Dalmation dog breed would be overkill, and constitute WP:UNDUE. At best a cross-reference belongs in "See also". --Bejnar (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Names in other languages

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

@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 [[4]]. 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 [5][6].

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: [[11]].
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dalmatia/Archive_4&oldid=1136647937"