Talk:Dalmatia

There's been some edit warring in this article and at Dalmatian Italians, the latest ones between @LukeWiller and @Visaches 37. Two "sources" are given for the 1803 Italian-speaking population:

1. Seton-Watson (1967). Italy from Liberalism to Fascism. Page 107.
2. Bartoli (1919). Le parlate italiane della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia. Page 16.

Seton-Watson, page 107 is about Tunis, and text search returns nothing for 1803, 33 percent etc. I was able to find several different copies of Bartoli's paper under the given title: this copy has pages numbered 194–204, this copy has pages numbered 7–23, and this copy too. I can't seem to find where Bartoli discusses any population numbers. Per WP:VERIFY and all other relevant policies, I am once again asking LukeWiller to source this material properly. Only then can the material be discussed further. Ponor (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

LukeWiller has not replied yet... Until then, you might be interested to see the number of Italians in Dalmatia in 1851 (14,645 or ~3,7%) as reported by the Milanese newspaper "Il Crepuscolo" (page 215)

https://books.google.hr/books?id=VrZLnYHwAE4C&pg=PA1&source=gb_mobile_entity&hl=hr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&gl=HR&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The same number for the year 1851 are also provided by the Dalmatian Italian from Šibenik, Niccolo Tomasseo, in the work "Geografia storica moderna universale" from 1857 (page 1063-1064)

https://books.google.hr/books/about/Geografia_storica_moderna_universale.html?id=6xJHChzwU38C&printsec=frontcover&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_entity&hl=hr&gl=HR&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This number closely matches the number of Francesco Carrara (16,000 Dalmatian Italians) from 1846... It is clear that we cannot talk about 60,770 (~20%) Italians in Dalmatia in 1845. Numbers for 1803 and 1809 are even more ridiculous. Visaches 37 (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Any news on this? This incorrect data will still stand? Visaches 37 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The user who was edit warring over the disputed data in this and the other article(s) have been invited to this discussion at least twice (my ping above, and a personal invitation). They don't seem to believe that they are obliged to discuss anything (though a normal WP:CONSENSUS cycle would be edit-revert-discuss). What's worse, they don't seem to believe in our verifiability policies, calling the requests for sources 'my interpretations of the policies'. Such behavior raises all sorts of red flags. There's an ongoing discussion about something similar at Administrator's noticeboard.

@Visaches 37, edit the articles as you see fit. Stay as close to the sources as possible and remove any unsourced, poorly sourced, and inappropriately sourced material.

We cannot continue with this gross violation of our most important content policies. Ponor (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Visaches 37, I think we have a lot more of this, take a look. I thought you removed it from this very article, but somehow it's still there.

I'm also inviting @Tomobe03 because the same statements have just been added (copied) to

Allied occupation of the eastern Adriatic here. Ponor (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I had removed incorrect statements from several articles. I didn't notice that LukeWiller copied it wherever he could... Now I've removed it from other articles as well. Visaches 37 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! For future reference, these were your March 22 fixes for the same disputed, deceitfully sourced material in about 10 more articles Ponor (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Enrico Millo circa 1915 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Why is there nothing about the history of religion in the area, or religious demographics? ~2025-33988-46 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I feel obliged to write here due to user @DalidaEditor repeatedly adding in the article’s infobox that Dalmatia is a ‘Historical region of Croatia’. This is simply not correct. Dalmatia only became part of Croatia in 1918/1945; historically it was part of the Republic of Venice (1000-1358 / 1409 - 1797) and of the Austrian Empire / Austria-Hungary (1815 - 1918). By that logic we can just as well write that Dalmatia was a ‘historical region of Venice’ or ‘of Austria’. And then, the southernmost part of Dalmatia isn’t even in Croatia, but in Montenegro. Hence why the infobox should just state that it is a ‘historical region’. Ivano2638 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Your editing approach is careless for anything in the article, other than quickly imposing your opinion in the lead section:

• your edit distrupted the infobox itself, leaving the reference broken
• Historical region of “Venice” or “Austria”? If you are referring to Republic of Venice, Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary (three defunct historical countries), according to you the wording would be “Dalmatia is a historical region of historical countries”.
• The whole history (affliations of all nations towards this region) is explained in the article, while the infobox is used to summarize the article. This infobox formulated in the same way as Slavonia - both Dalmatia and Slavonia are terms used for perceptive historical regions of contemporary Croatia.
• your argument “And Venetian was spoken in Dalmatia, not Tuscan (Italian)” has nothing to do with picking out which name forms will be included in the infobox and the lead. You are reintroducing the term “Dalmassia” that I removed cca a month ago, while:

Dalmatia – in Latin language, widely used in state documents of the Republic of Venice (treaties, titles, senatorial, notarial and diplomatic registers). It has continuity from antiquity to modern age and is supra-European – entered English language.

Dalmazia – both Venetian and Italian language, widely used in Venetian texts in the vernacular, becomes common from the 15th century onwards

Dalmassia - local Venetian spelling ie. graphic form, sporadically attested without legal value

Your discussion approach is frivolous and disputant, rather than simply bringing up relevant historical sources:

• The long and complicated history of this region, i.e. the evolution of meaning of the name Dalmatia which changed over the years, cannot be summed up in a few sentences and quickly as you are are trying to – in talk page and edit sumamries
• You distorted historical facts in this talk page comment “Dalmatia only became part of Croatia in 1918/1945”. Dalmatia was part of Croatian Kingdom up to 11th century, but in different form than what the term Dalmatia represents today, and exactly that evolution is the great layering of this topic and its beauty, all of which needs to be carefully addressed. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 17:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree here more so with the user @Ivano2638. The user @DalidaEditor uses an argument that Dalmatia cannot be a 'historical region of historical states' (such as Venice or Austria-Hungary), while somehow simultaneously assuming that it can be a historical region of Croatia, a modern state which exists since 1991, and which as a political entity only started to include (parts of) Dalmatia since 1918 (or more firmly 1945). The "up to the 11th century" argument is weak as that was a thousand years ago and lasted for a comparatively brief time (relative to the duration of Venetian rule in Dalmatia, for instance). Therefore claiming that Dalmatia is "a historical region of Croatia" as a subtitle of the infobox is a weak and baseless argument, as it begs the question – of what Croatia? The medieval kingdom that existed briefly until 1102? That argument falls at Dalida's own logic that Dalmatia 'cannot be a historical region of historical states'. Or the modern state of Croatia, the one which exists since 1991? How can Dalmatia be a 'historical region' of a state which has existed for 35 years? And what purpose does mentioning Slavonia serve for your argument? At least Slavonia was part of the same historical state (Kingdom of Hungary) as Croatia, unlike Dalmatia. Therefore I completely disagree that the infobox should state 'Historical region of Croatia'. Instead, it should indeed just state 'Historical region'.

I won't argue the inclusion or exclusion of the Venetian spelling in the infobox. Venetian was historically spoken in Dalmatia (not Italian!), but official documents from the days of the Venetian Republic mainly used the Latin name 'Dalmatia', while 19th- and 20th-century documents used the Italian 'Dalmazia'. I'm not opposed to both the Venetian and Italian spellings being included, as each is relevant in their own way. But let's leave it at that for now.

And finally, the user @DalidaEditor has repeatedly removed the denonym 'Dalmatian' from the infobox, completely ignoring the term's historical and present usage and significance. ~2026-63330-4 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a blatant spam reply with 0 encyclopedic aproach. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 18:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of my points because you clearly have no sensible argument against them. Instead you accuse me of 'blatant spam' which is in fact what you are doing. ~2026-63330-4 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey people. Edit warring won't get us far, so please everyone calm down. You can't condense the whole history of Dalmatia (and Venice) in a tiny infobox, and most people will only care about what's now anyway. The last edit Special:Diff/1335529173/1335541301 seems plausible to me. It is not an officially recognized region (now), so it's a historical region, and it's *in* Croatia (now). It's population is also Croatian, and I believe it's been Croatian since long time ago. Happy editing, Ponor (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. So why does the current edit still say ‘Historical region of Croatia’ in the infobox? Can an administrator please change that to reflect reality? It would be best to just say ‘Historical region’, or ‘Historical region in Croatia’ (though the latter fails to reflect the Montenegrin part).

Cheers! ~2026-80226-2 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I propose to edit the infobox subtitle from ‘Historical region of Croatia’ back to ‘Historical region’ or ‘Historical region in Croatia’. These are more accurate, and this has been discussed in the talk page. ~2026-12791-42 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done, edit requests are for uncontroversial changes; given the dispute above, this is certainly controversial. Consider WP:DRN or an WP:RFC if consensus can't be reached through normal discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)