Talk:Dalmatian Italians

For those who don't know what is "WikiProject Italy" I copy here an excerpt from the related tag: "...This WikiProject has been formed to foster the improvement of Wikipedia’s coverage of Italy—both the modern nation state and the rich and bewildering variety of historical states and cultures which have inhabited its territory. We intend to work in a spirit of cooperation with the many Wikipedians who have contributed to articles on “Italian” subjects..."

Please, do not erase, because the article is related even to the historical state of the Kingdom of Italy and its culture (and most living Dalmatian Italians, who were born in Dalmatia and are closely related to the few hundreds of them still living in Zara and Croatia, reside actually in Italy mainly in the "Quartiere Dalmato" of Rome).

As a member of the Italian WikiProject team, I invite to cooperate to the article with constructive additions (like "the Italianization of Croats- and possibly other groups- during the last century", proposed by Mariokempes).Regards. --Brunodam 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Italians whose family originates from Dalmatia (in today's Republic of Croatia)"?
What is this?
Again an attempt to avoid the adjective "Croatian"?
Who's hiding behind this nickname?
What are the differences between Italians in S Croatia and with Italian in other parts of Croatia?
That Italians from S Croatia originate from Croats from S Croatia that italianized, while Italians from e.g. W Croatia originate from Croats from N Croatia that italianized?
Do I need to present the report (it will take a while to find a reference) that was presented to Mussolini, when he ordered a research to find "original Dalmatian Italians"? When they discovered that "longest present local Italian family" are only few centuries there, and that they are originally Bosnian Croats?
"Dalmatia (in today's Republic of Croatia)"?
Of course, it's in Croatia. Where else it could be? In Sri Lanka or in Uganda? Dalmatia is part of Croatia since early Middle Ages (litany ends here). Kubura 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kubura you are right, Kubura you are right, Kubura you are right, Kubura you are right, Kubura you are right,.......--Giovanni Giove 11:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed parts

1) This article is for speedy deletion.
Reasons: shall we make articles for Italians that live in any region in the world: Yorkshire Italians, Bavarian Italians, Gascogne Italians, Andalusia Italians, Skane Italians...?
2) this is blatant way of evading the the countryname. Point is, Giovanni Giove has proven himself as person who tries to avoid mentioning of words "Croat, Croatia, Croatian" at any price and in any possible way.
If we want to make an article of members of certain nationality in other country, then we title the article as Italians in France, Italians in Lybia, Italians in Greece, Italians in Croatia, Italians in Germany, Italians in England... (or in adjectival form, if you like it that way).
3) Under the section "see also", Giovanni Giove inserted the internal link to article "Zara". Zadar is official name of the city today; "Zara" was official during the rule of fascist Italy ("Zara" is name in Italian). Wikipedia is not a place for revisionism. The problems is accented with that, that he mentioned only that city, not other Dalmatian cities (there're bigger cities). Point is, that the city of Zadar was given to Italy after WWI (as part of secret London agreement; this agreement gave territorial "awards" to Italy for betrayal of its allies). Giove is blatantly avoiding the official name (today in Croatia, as well as it was official in Yugoslavia, and as well as it was official in Austria-Hungary, after European national renaissance wave, since 1882.). Mentioning of Italian version in non-Italian sources is considered in Croatia as Italian irredentism, expansionism and revisionism. That is as same as inserting a link on article that deals with Polish territory like "Posen" instead of Poznan, or "Straßburg" instead of Strasbourg on article that deals with French territory.
4) Similar thing is with link to Republic of Dubrovnik (as he stated, "Ragusa"). What does that republic has more with Italians, than those in Tyrol?
5) He gave, as external links, an Italian revisionist and irredentist site (www.dalmazia.it).
Wikipedia can't tolerate such behaviour. Kubura 07:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kubura, you are so thender :-)--Giovanni Giove 08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Giove, you haven't explained.
You cannot remove the tag "disputed" by just deleting it. Kubura 13:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Italian POV

Dalmatian Italians are one of the historical ethnic groups of Dalmatia - this is uncorrect. This statement means that Italians originated in Dalmatia, which is not true. There should be written that they were "historical ethnic minority in Dalmatia, formed by or developed from Italian immigrants". Change it please. Zenanarh 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As hundreds of time discussed, that would be your own POV.--Giovanni Giove 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not mine. You don't have not even one serious proof for that statement. It's original research. Zenanarh 12:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariokempes (talk • contribs)

It's seems that is exactly the opposite, as discussed in the deletion page. I wait with indifference you next insults, they are the proper signs of your level.--Giovanni Giove 17:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice joke. Your discussion on the deletion page was on some high level? Especially yours Giove! Zenanarh 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For now you show your "level" with your personal attacks, against Wikirules.--Giovanni Giove 15:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Italianization

To be fair, this article will also benefit from mention of what I perceive as an Italianization of Croats- and possibly other groups- during the last century. Mariokempes 17:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So??? Is no one going to touch this? I could add some material I have come across in history books, but I would rather that an "expert" contribute to this aspect. Mariokempes 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Done [1]--Victor falk 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. From what I gather, there was significant Italianization in the latter 19th C- often with Austrian encouragement to balance the German population in littoral Austria (which sided with the Italians) with the Slavic populations. This process might also help clarify why so many Dalmatian Italians have slavic surnames (or not, just a comment!!). Mariokempes 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like an reasonable explanation. But "littoral Austria" would be Istria, wouldn't it? If you have the sources, I think that could be included in that article.--Victor falk 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

they were clever, the austrians, italianing the croats in istria and croatising the italians in dalmatia...--Victor falk 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanized Illyrians

Look, first of all I want everyone to remain calm and discuss this civilized-like.
Will someone explain to me what Illyrians have to do with Italy? These people had their own seperate culture (ethnicity) as well as genetic background, and were assimilated prior to the emergence of Venice as a powerful influence in the region (around the beginning of the 12th century, after 600 years of intermingling). They didn't even consider themselves Italian, not by a long shot. (Their topographic names persisted, of course, but that's besides the point.)

Also will you stop with the "Slav invasion" stuff? Read up a little, FFS! It's not that simple in real history, just because the Slavs now populate the region does not mean they were the ones to destroy Roman Dalmatia. The people who destroyed and pillaged Dalmatia (and Salona) were the Avars who forced Slavs into a subjugated position (much like the Huns did with the Ostrogoths, later north Italians) and used them as auxilliary infantry. The Slavs peacefuly settled the ravaged region, this is why they took root while the Avars were annihilated (doesn't this make sense to you?). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Slavs from modern point of view are the speakers of Slavic languages. In 7th century Sklavens were many different groups of warriors led by Avars. Name "Slav" comes from "Sklaven". Slavs didn't destroy Dalmatia at all. Neither Sklavens did it!

This article at this moment is already shameful falsification and appropriation of somebody else's history, culture and people. Statements noted here are the same as fascistic Italian claims from 20th century. This will not work. Zenanarh 10:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's calm down Zen, we can all work together to make this article as professional and neutral as possible. I will request a name-change in the meantime. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know how to explain this to you, but Dalmatian simply IS NOT Venetian. A point of view is ridiculed in the text. Romans are not Italians, they thus simply do not fall under the definition Dalmatian Italians. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically Victor, there are more than a few incorrect facts being mentioned there.

• For instance: Venice did actually conquer the independent Dalmatian city-states (Iadera (Zara/Zadar), Spalatum (Spalato/Split) and later Ragusa for a while). This notion, while actually being true is riddiculed in the text.
  
• Next, Dalmatian language is simply not considered a dialect of Italian (as is mentioned in the text), but is actually considered an independent (albeit extinct) Romance language (like French, for example).
  
• Finally and most importantly, (Latin) Dalmatians are not Italians, to put it simply. In other words, Romans from the province of Dalmatia (Illyrians) are no more Italian than Romans from the province of Achaea (Greeks), or Britannia and Gallia Narbonensis (Transalpina) (Celts). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising those points, direktor. Taking them one by one:

• The Illyrians could have been Lao language-speaking Bantus that migrated to Illyria from the Kola peninsula, it would all be exactly the same. They were just the people living there when the Roman conquered it.

• Invasions is contentious. I changed that to migrations.

• Isn't impose its influence a not-so-subtle euphemism for "grab as much land as you can"?

• Italian, Venetian and Dalmatian, are they separate languages, dialects, or sub-dialects of each other? "A language is a dialect with a flag and an army".

I've made the following edits: [2]--Victor falk 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem.

• I will try to make my point as clear as possible, but bare with me. The Romans (outside the peninsula) are simply not considered Italian. We must remember that by the time of the demise of the Empire, everyone (with the possible exception of the Greeks and very few others) within it spoke Latin and had very much the same uniformed Roman culture. Everyone within it was considered a Roman Citizen of the Empire. However, in modern historiography, these people, while undobtably Romans, are not considered Italians.

Example: by the end of the 4th century, the people of Gallia Narbonensis were not French, were not Gaelic (for the most part), they were Roman and were not considered Italian. This exactly applies to the Illyrians. They were Roman and had later developed their own Romance culture with the Slavs: the Dalmatian (Romance) culture (although it later became extinct because of its size). Much like the Romanized Gauls developed their own French Romance culture with the Franks (and others like Burgundians).

• Ok.

• At first, the Venetian Republic began to use its trade influence (gold) to annex the Dalmatian coast (absolutely essential for the state). Later, when the time was right and the Republic's power increased, various forms of military power were used (see Fourth Crusade). In the end, this brought forth the continuous 400-year period of full Venetian rule.

• I will be brief: the Dalmatian language is an extinct independent Romance language. (Example: Spanish, Portugese, Romanian, Dalmatian, French, Italian...) Its simply much smaller than the others on the "list", that does not make it a dialect.

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move' Duja► 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

First of all I want it clear that there are no alterior motivs for this request other than improving Wikipedia and the accuracy of the article names. I assure everyone that I am doing my best to avoid a biased perspective on this matter and am not concerned at all with the intentions of the maker of this article, Giovanni Giove (as was previously suggested)

Here is the reason for this request:

An article in this matter can be about three things:

1) A historic event (cultural impact, presence, etc...), wich exists, but such an article should be named accordingly and without sugesting anything else, to make Wiki as useful as possible.
2) A national minority. (there is none)
3) An ethnic group. (there is none)
The existance of an entire seperate enthnicity (and culture) is simply not there (take a look at the Istro-Romanians, for example). The numbers do not matter, but cultural distinctiveness does. As things stand, Dalamtian Italians are neither a seperate ethnic group nor a national minority (there are 30,000 Italians in Croatia, but they live in Istria and [[Rijeka).
The current Italians that originate from Dalmatia, should be considered within the context of the historic Italian presence in that region, as the reprecussion of a very real historic situation we should describe in this article.
The article in its current form deals for the greatest part with history anyway, since there is simply little or no material wich adresses the present. Wiki articles should have the best possible name. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• No consensus from Brunodam. Because of the same reasons I have explained in the discussion on the rejected deletion. BTW, the article has only one section dedicated to "History", like many other articles in Wikipedia.Regards. --Brunodam 18:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the move. First, this is a naming convention for an ethnic group that lives outside of their country (I never saw an article about "Historical presence of X in Y"). Second, there are still, if very few, Italians who live in Dalmatia. Third, per article, the phrase is used to refer to Italians from Dalmatia, even if they no longer live there. Nikola 09:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is not entirely historical — the first section includes info on current ethnic organisations. Furthermore, historical peoples (e.g. Cumans) that no longer exist are still usually referred to simply by the name. — AjaxSmack 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Wether or not there still are Italians in Dalmatia, articles about minorities are named simply after them, as noted above; see, for instance, Volga Germans.--Victor falk 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Victor (BTW I am not the "maker" of this article. Giovanni Giove 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This article should be part of "Italians in Croatia" article. What makes the Italian from Primorje, Kvarner, Kvarnerić so different from those in Dalmatia? Romanic population had same pattern of origin: Romanized Illyrians lived on all islands. Also, there was a migration from Italy on those areas in Croatia. Kubura 09:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-war

• There's a blank after wwii. What happened then? Were they a recognised minority by the Yugoslavian government? What was its attitude towards them? How many were left after it (say in the 50s)? Were contacts allowed between families? Travel? Emigration? Have they been the pretext for diplomatic frictions between the Italian government and the Yugoslav/Croatian ones? Anybody knows anything? --Victor falk 10:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're placing your finger in the full bloodied cut of the massacres during world war two.Better to leave a blank.The Croats have exterminated the Italians in Dalmatia and now they want to exterminate even their memory, like does the nationalist Kubura. The Croats destroy even the cementeries and the church registers of the Italian deaths and births, and then send a scholar to check the data about; then the expert find only data of the Croats and so the trick is done: no Italians in Dalmatia! Finally comes a croat nationalist like Kubura saying that the archives in Dalmatia are only showing croatian names. GOOD TRICK! But shameful and stupid in the end because the real scholars and the international communities UNDERSTAND soon or later the trick.THe same trick is used even with the birthplace of Marco Polo. What a shame! An exiled Dalmatian italian

I know. I just hope I'll heal and not infect.--Victor falk 01:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources request for several problematic claims

Now I do not want this interpreted as a hostile move, but there are many claims people do not have any way to look up because of obscure and unverifiable sources. I'm not saying they are necessarily untrue, but I request some tangible verification of the following claims, I think you'll accept they are pretty strong:

• "...(30% of the Dalmatian population during the last century of the Republic of Venice was Venetian speaking)..."

How do you know this? Please verify.

• "According to two census data of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that substituted in Dalmatia the Republic of Venice after the Napoleonic wars, the Dalmatian Italians were 12,5% in 1865 and were already reduced to 3,1% in 1890. These censi results were anyway referred to all Dalmatia (with the Slavic inland), whilst the Italians were present only in the coastal cities and in the islands. For example, in the Habsburg empire census of 1910 the city of Zadar (Zara) had an Italian population of 9,318 (or 69,3% out of the total of 13,438 inhabitants)."

Where are the censi? Can we verify their existence, and the accuracy of the representation of the info here in any way?

• "Between 1848 and 1918, the Austro-Hungarians favoured the Slav communities in Dalmatia, mainly out of fear of Italian irredentism."

This needs examples and verification. Otherwise this is conjecture, and many may say the Austrians were equally hostile to the Croats, who wanted to join with the Croatians (Croatian mainland) in the Hungarian part of Austro-Hungary.

I think the more correct way to view this is "the Habsburg government played different populations of the Empire against each other to maintain its rule"

Agreed. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• "...The 1816 Austro-Hungarian census registered 66,000 Italian speaking people between the 301,000 inhabitants of Dalmatia, or 22% of the total Dalmatian population."

Once again, where is the Austro-Hungarian census data?

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All of this is sourced (except the Austrian policy, and also unless you mean you want the sources' sources:), but to non-easily accessible (and potentially biased) sources. I think the general idea currently presented in the article, that it diminished from a significant minority to almost disappear is correct. The solution in my opinion is finding sources with another bias. That means, to begin with, yugoslavian and croatian ones.--Victor falk 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the info is supposedy sourced, but while I'd be willing to accept that elsewhere in the article, the singled-out pieces of practically unverifiable info are of such "magnitude", so to speak, that I feel there simply must be some way to check the authenticity of the claims.
I have good reason for this. It would not be the first time I encounter language censi and other simmilar "tricks" used freely to personally approximate the nationality of whole cities and regions in these matters, while existing nationality censi are disregarded because they are unavailable to the "other side". DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC) I'm prepared to wait a while, but these censi (if true), should be relatively easy to find. Anyway, how can one be sure the content of the book(s) is presented accurately? This is an important matter... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard about the Burgenland Croats or Banat Swabians? So what should be wrong with the Austrian census? For the 1857 census for example see here: Dalmatia: Slavs 369.310, Italians 45.000, etc. etc. --DaQuirin 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(Of course I heard of them) I'm not saying the censi are necessarily wrong. All I'm saying is that they make some pretty strong claims wich need to be verified.

Example: "...(30% of the Dalmatian population during the last century of the Republic of Venice [the late 1700s] was Venetian speaking)..."

How can this possibly be verified? I mean, I could just as well write whatever I like and name some obscure book as a source. Elsewhere in the article I'd be willing to go along but these censi are presented as 100% certain, fullproof info. I'd just like to see exactly why (without travelling to Italy and buying the book in the antique shop). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you are not interested in real historical sources. The "obscure book" is the Statistisches Handbüchlein für die österreichische Monarchie, edited by the k.k. Direktion der administrativen Statistik. Frankly speaking, it doesn't go more official. What are we discussing about? --DaQuirin 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(How many times will I have to say that I'm concerned solely with the accuracy about the presented info, and NOT "SOMETHING ELSE"!)
So you have official info, can it be verified (that's the key word)? Can I please have a look at these censi? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The people are all dead now... So what do you mean with "verified"? But I have maybe a solution for you, there is a special conference on 31 October, 2007 in Pula, Croatia, remembering a "milestone in the history of demographic statistics", that is the Austrian census of 1857 in Istria and neighbouring regions. The program is available in Croatian: see here and here. --DaQuirin 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean a simple link to the census numbers somewhere on the web will satisfy. While I accept the 1857 census, the one expressing a 30% Italian presence in Venetian Dalmatia is the one I'd like to see most of all. It was apparently conducted prior to those areas even falling under Austrian rule (and prior to any censi actually being held in the aera, for that matter).
I am really surprised to find such denouncement of the legitimacy of my request. Is everyone aware that anyone can just write any numbers that he finds appropriate and name an unverifiable source. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the 30 percent data can be found even from the french census of Auguste De Marmont (governor-general of the napoleonic Illyrian provinces). But why show exactly the data to the croatians who will always find something to complain about? It is a loss of time, believe me. Croats deny even that they have made disappear entire italian cementeries. An exiled from Cherso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.105 (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, this kind of talking is not civil, and lack of civility beggars distrust. Think about that.--Victor falk 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Direktor, what is special with that census that it makes you suspicious of it? If it was 4% in 1890, 15% in 1865, and 20% in 1816, what so incredible about a third in 1797, the last year of half a millenia of Venetian rule? --Victor falk 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Cherso, the Yugoslav 9th Corps didn't comprise of Croats for the most part, I was also not aware that General Marmont conducted any censi of the Illyrian provinces.
It's not that I'm extremely suspicious of that census (though it is the most doubtful), its a matter of principle: such censi, presented as full-proof should be verifiable. What puzzles me is why everyone appears to be so ready to take them for granted, I could falsify a simmilar contradicting census within 10 minutes and source it equally.
I assure you, I would be equally neutral if the census was on the Croatian population. I have often encountered demographic issues such as this (for example, in the Mostar and Jajce articles), and I always held that censi, because of their importance should be official as well as easily verifiable. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits and reorganisation by Brunodam

Brunodam, first of all, why did you revert all my hard work on writing the organisation names in accordance with Wiki policy? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, political parties and organsiations (such as Unione Italiana, a minority party) are written in English form on the English Wikipedia (examples: Communist Party of Russia, National Socialist German Workers Party, Social Democratic Party of Croatia, etc...). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My last contribution for a while

I have suffered 3 days ago a car accident and as a consequence I am now partially crippled. For ten months I 'll have to do a painful rehabilitation to be able to use again my arms and hands. Because I cannot write and/or type on my computer, my wife is typing this last message.

I want to calm down (or at least try) what is going on about the historical section of the article. That is why I have reverted to my last edit before all the successive corrections and countercorrections. I have added a main historical article, as DIREKTOR indicated. I agree even that the Croatian names should be placed before the Italian names of the dalmatian cities. I agree even that the Dalmatian language is an extinct language that is different from the venetian dialect spoken by the Dalmatian Italians in the last two centuries.

But I want to remember that in Wikipedia a name between " " is a proper name and can remain so (with a translation between parenthesis, if needed or wanted): so "Comunita Italiana di Zara" maintains the italian word Zara, and the same rule applies to"Libero Comune di Zara in esilio" (Free City of Zadar in exile).

Finally I want to remember DIREKTOR that -like all scholars do- he must find the books in a library (or whatever): if he goes to the Library of Trieste, he will find the book of Bartoli with all the data he wants or needs about the 30 %. Of course, he can find information in the internet (like in the 1853 census data from DaQuirin): may be an austrian wikipedian can help him? Anyway, the statistical decrease is clear to all of us: 1797 30%, 1816 22%, 1853 12.5% and so on......what is the problem here? This is a huge but normal percentage decrease, without ups and downs. And is fully documented by serious scholars and institutions (like the Austrian Census).

Last but not least, it has been a pleasure to interact with all of you in wikipedia. For many months I will stay away from editing. Regards. --Brunodam 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am truly sorry about your injury, Brunodam... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is the time for real important things in life. We wish you well and hope to see you back soon! Wikipedia should be more about mutual understanding and compromise. Must be strange for Non-Europeans to see all this bickering here on the history pages (there are of course, German and many other nations' wikipedians involved too). Let's see. Happy is the man with a wife like yours! --DaQuirin 15:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your accident. I hope you get well.--Victor falk 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Brunodam I wish you bunjee jumping after 6 months. BTW statistical decrease presented by you is just result of selected evaluations not of the same relevance. I will present academic source with all existing evaluations, censi, claims of opposing sides and statements. Zenanarh 08:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sad to hear of your injury. Here's to a quick recovery! Mariokempes 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

History section organisation and wording

Lets make this subsection a little more organised. I didn't remove anything, I just rewrote some of the sentences to improve the quality, organisation as well as neutrality of the subsection. If one wishes to revert, one should first compare carefully.
Here's a short list of more important edits:

• Dalmatia was subject to constant emmigration (in three periods, on a mass scale) for economic reasons between 1880 and 1950. We must remember that this is one of the poorest regions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The repeated outbreaks of the peronospora (a desiese that afflicts grapevines) decimated the Dalmatian economy and population during several (long) periods. On the other hand the devealoping industrial regions of northern Italy were in need of manpower, and there was no cultural barrier. In short, I added economic reasons as the possible cause for emmigration.

• It is biased to say Slavic (Croatian) nationalism is the only source of conflict in the emmigration period. Italian nationalism was famous for its fervour (see Italia irredenta), and was the first to arise, was it not? It was certainly present in Dalmatia.

-- DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical context expansion

Please discuss before removing info. I worked hard for two days now to fix numerous errors, typos and sentence miscunstructions, as well as to write the sorely needed expansion of the historical context. I made numerous copy-edits as well as consistency improvements.
If you think the text is biased in some way, say so, and name it so we can see what can be done. I'd like to assure everyone that my only motivation was the improvement of the article and that I didn't remove a single scrap of data. All of the (doubtful) censi are there, organised by the time period they refer to. Please look carefully before editing, and discuss. (Bear in mind that Istria and the area of Fiume are not Dalmatia, and were not considered as such since the 8th century A.D..) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WARNING

The croatian DIREKTOR is sabotaging the article!! First he wanted to DELETE it, but was defeated, then to MOVE/RENAME it and was again defeated, now he is PROVOKING we Italians to start an edit war with his continuous changes of the article. His final objective: a BLOCK of the article!!He first has erased in the article the reference to the word EXILED calling ridiculously EMMIGRANTs (Do he knows the difference? All of us, Dalmatian Italians exiled, sadly know what it means!!!), then cancel the reference to the website of the Lussinpiccolo exiles, and now he is making an article FULL OF RECENT HISTORY OF DALMATIA. He places maps of Yugoslavia that have nothing to do with the article (who cares about the borders of Slovenia and Macedonia in this article??) and places maps (Sheperd 1910) criticized by experts because there it is no reference to Zara and his italian majority (70% in austrian census of 1910). Evidently he wants the reaction of we Italians with EDIT WARS similar to the one he, with his croat friends Kubura, Zenanarth, ecc.ecc.., has created with articles Zara, Dalmatia, Marco Polo, Foibe, Istrian exodus ecc.. ecc.. WARNING: he wants a final BLOCK of the article by some admin!!. What a shame! An exiled Dalmatian italian from Cherso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.103 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

INCREADIBLE!! I am a Dalmatian Italian by ancestry! One of my great grandfathers, Matteo Rumora, was even a prominent member of the Autonomisti in Spalato (I added info about that faction too!, it was completely forgotten), and AS I HAVE FREQUENTLY stated my one and only objective is to improve the article!! I added the best available maps of the era's I wrote about (I had no idea Shepherd was controversial in any way, I added it because it reffered to the ethnic situation), I only tried to rename it so the article would concentrate on history! I DO NOT want a block of the article! I have principles far above any conflicts I may have entered into in the past, and while I can see that Italian editors may see me as a threat, I am editing completely in good faith. I REMOVED ABSOLUTELY NO INFO (even the censi), but only expanded the historic context just enough for people (who don't know much about Dalmatia) know what the article is bloody TALKING ABOUT!! DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the great grandson of Matteo Rumora? Then why you write this[3] against we Italians:<Since when is Italy the source of historical knowledge? It's documents are mostly incomplete and often biased in comparison to American and UK ones.BTW, AFTER WW2 YUGISLAVIA COULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY PASTED ITALY, IT HAD THE 5th STRONGEST ARMY IN EUROPE. THE ITALIAN ARMY COULDN'T TAKE 200 METERS OF GREEK TERRITORY. IT WAS THE WORLDS MOST COMICAL ARMY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, FAR MORE FAMOUS FOR IT'S RETREATS THAN DEFENCE. :D :D BELIEVE ME, YOU WOULD HAVE A BORDER ON THE RIVER PAD (PO) IF YOU HADN'T COWARDLY BACKED DOWN OVER TRST (TRIESTE). This is military fact. DIREKTOR>. We Italians shoud have backed to the Po river because of Tito Army? I believe you have been brainwashed by the ridiculous & full of lies Tito propaganda since you were an elementary student. And after those 'unbelievable' remarks we italians must believe, now, that you want to write in the article Dalmatian italians editing completely in good faith. Astonishing! You don't want a block of the article? let's see: I am adding the website of the Lussinpiccolo exiles. We exiled are Dalmatian italians too! A Dalmatian italian from Cherso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.95 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

YES I AM THE GREAT GRANDSON OF Matteo Rumora!!!, I have his bloody coat-of-arms in my living room!

You're TAKING THAT OUT OF CONTEXT! While it is clear to everyone as an exaggeration, it was stated as a response to the flagrant military boasting of radicals, who exaggerated beyond common sense the fascist military strength. Anyway it was a half joke, intended as a rsponse to one single IP radical that needed to cool down with his fascist rhetoric. And NO, Italy should definetly not "back down to the river Po". While I LOVE Italy and Italian culture (I lived in Milan for three and a half months and I have visited my cousins in Venezia, Trieste, and Napoli, actually Pozzuoli), I really don't like fascism and a uniformed Italy, that caused your exile in the first place and turned Dalmatian Croats against their Italian neighbors.

But that's all personal stuff, lets get back to the article. I am NOT trying to start an edit-war, are you? Anyway, can you verify the figure of 4,000 Dalmatian Italians living outside Dalmatia? And do you have anything to confirm that "thousands" of Dalmatian Italians are organised in Italy? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a while for some kind of verification, but not forever. 80.80.56.39 01:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Zadar coat of arms

I have so many objections on this article that I don't know where to begin...
DIREKTOR you have edited the coat of arms of Zadar in the article "Dalmatian Italians"!? Do you know who is on that coat of arms and what is the symbolical historical meaning of that person for Zadar citizens? That is St. Krševan riding on the horse, a martyr and main saint-patron of Zadar.
St. Krševan (Latin: Krisogon, Dalmatian: Grisogono) an Aquileian martyr from 4th century distinguished himself in age of banishment of Christians by the emperor Diocletian. According to legend he was connected to another martyr St. Stošija (Anastasia) also a Zadar saint patron (Stošija was popular Croatian name in 9th and 10th century in Zadar)
Historically it's impossible to establish year when his body was replaced from Grad near Aquilea and brought to Zadar, by legend it happened in 649. First historical note about the church St. Krševan was given in the testament of the city mayor - prior Andrija in 918 (Andrija was a Croat, as well as the most other priors found already in the earliest documents from 9th and 10th centuries). There's no doubt that admiring of that saint in Zadar was older than that year.
First abbot of renovated Benedictine monastery St. Krševan was a Zadar citizen abbot Madije (the end of 10th century). Prominent Zadar family Madi (maybe the most famous historical Zadar family at all) was in parentage to the Croatian royal house Trpimirović (Croatian queen Jelena was from Madi family). Zadar citizens gave him a title "monachum nostrum" in the documents - "our monach".
The cult of St. Krševan meant strong dynamics, enrichment and a kind of spiritual bloom of religious, cultural, social and political life of Medieval Zadar (Zadar before Venetian occupation). Two Benedictine monasteries in Zadar St. Krševan and St. Marija (St. Mary) were actually in historical meaning the bastions of Zadar Croathood through all its history and places where old tradition of the liturgy written in Croatian language and Croatian Glagolithic alphabet was the longest saved in the area.
Numerous gifts, vows to St. Krševan revealed the names of Zadar bishops, archbishops, priors and knights, Croatian Kings and Bans, traders and fishermen. A lot of Croatian names among them. St. Krševan monastery documentation archives proved, the best of all, connection of Zadar to Croatian inland and early Medieval joint of Romance and Croatian population in Zadar.
St. Krševan was actually a symbol of Zadar citizens for indenpendence and freedom of their city. When foreigners Venetians, Frenchmen, Austrians were ruling the city the monastery St. Krševan was in political opposition living through outer and inner chrisis which ended with its abolition and closing in 1807 under French government, so that was how a few years after that Italian administration (under Austrians) lost their biggest "silent enemy".
So, in short, putting that coat of arms in the article "Dalmatian Italians" is total absurd that makes me laugh and I'm sure it makes laughing anyone who knows something about Zadar history. Absurd as a lot of irrelevant statements written in this article. And what is the best of all, Venetians didn't change that symbol of Dalmatian resistance to them when they occupied Zadar in 15th century - is there any better proof how Dalmatia was Venetianized - nearly zero! Especially in ethnical meaning! Only administration and economy! Actually economy was their only motive and they never got far away from that point. For those who doesn't know Venetian administrators were using the translators for communication with native population - Dalmatians (read: Croats). 30% of Italians in Dalmatia in the end of 18th century is one of the most stupid claims that I have ever heard or read about Dalmatia. The presence of Venetians in Dalmatia is undisputable especially after 15th century, but nature of their presence was a lot different than it's presented here. However I'll discuss it in another section. Zenanarh 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

San Grisogono was born near Aquileia, the biggest roman city in northeastern Italy, then buried in nearby Grado (100 kms from Venice). So, he was an Italian. Don't forget that Romans were the first to create the province "Italia" in their Empire under Augustus, so can be called Italians all their citizens living under the Alpine arch from the river Varus (near Nice) to the river Arsa (near Pola). So, San Grisogono was a perfect symbol of Italianism in the coat of arms of Zara. And the coat of arms of Zara is the best symbol of the Dalmatian Italians, since Zara was their "Capital" for centuries. I believe that you, Zenanarth, are too much Croat nationalist. What has to do the closing of a monastery during Napoleon times with the Latins of Zara? It is your POV that the Italians were "silent enemies" of that monastery. As far as I know the French closed many other monasteries in Europe, but that was because of the ideals of the French Revolution against the Catholic Church. Nationalism, as we know now, was not present in those years in Europe.--Cherso 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the saint is irrelevant. He was important as symbol of freedom and indenpendence for Zadar citizens and in the age when this symbol appeared in the city there were no "Italian Dalmatians" at all. When first Italians came to Zadar in 15th century (after a few centuries of continual war between Zadar and Venice!) they were the last ones to be connected to the symbol of the city. BTW this ethno-term needs some kind of definition. the Italians were "silent enemies" of that monastery - I wrote something else: that monastery was a silent enemy and political opposition to all foreigners who were ruling the city. It's just a well known history of that monastery in Zadar, nothing else.Zenanarh 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity irrelevant? No way!! All of us know that what is in a coat of arms is well studied and chosen in every detail. The choice of an Italian saint is FUNDAMENTAL, Zenanarh. In the year 1000 Zara was already under Venice control, so the Venetians (Italians) came to Zara many centuries before the 15th century. I have added a map of this "Italian reality" in the article.--Cherso 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian saint is a Christian saint and nothing else. This saint died in 4th century, his body was brought to Jadera(Zadar) in 7th, a monastery given his name was renovated by Croats in 10th century. Earlier Dalmatia was not organized as strong military province like the others in the Byzantine Empire, more likely as a group of the communes-vasals with the main provincial administration placed in Jadera(Zadar). Byzantine Emperor was in troubles at the end of 10th, Venetian Doge Pietro Marseolo II grabbed his chance and arrived by his fleet to Dalmatia, offering his help and services to the Byzantine Emperor concerning administration of the Dalmatian cities. Venetian administrators in Jadera in Byzantine Dalmatia lasted 2 years (998-1.000) including some small troubles with Narantines, after which Orseolo went back to Venice self declaring himself as "Dux Dalmatianorum". This title was not recorded by not even one original document from Dalmatia or Byzant... Up to 15th century Italian names were found in Jadera only as merchants and passengers. Names in original documents were mostly Croatian 10th-12th and especially in 13th and 14th century. There was certain immigration of a few Venetian families to Jadera in 1234-37, after Venetian-Crusaders demolition of the city (1202). For Zadar population the most decisive year was 1243, when Venice conquered rebelling Zadar and they all escaped, after that Venetian government invited Venetians to inhabit Zadar offering the houses and properties of escaped Zadar citizens. So indeed a few Venetian families came to the city. But since they couldn't defend themselves from attacks of escaped citizens neither to defend the city Venetian government allowed the return of refugees in 1247. So Zadar population was again its Croatian element in large majority. [4] The trace of these Venetians in the documents disappeared already in 13th century, so they were Slavized or went back to Venice. First Italian nobleman in Zadar city council and Zadar noble society was Arimondo in 16th century... Zenanarh 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You, Zenanarth, write in a "bizantine" style! Too many paragraphs repeating the same and "confusing" the reader, but no clear answer to the precise matter. San Grisostomo was an Italian Saint and that is why he indicates a clear connection to "italianism" in the coat of Zara. Your POV about the croat history of Zara can easily be answered with many Italian POV from many Italian books. --Cherso 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is hard core POV: San Grisostomo was an Italian Saint and that is why he indicates a clear connection to "italianism" in the coat of Zara - using that logic would make all Christians=Jews, since Jesus Christ was a Jew - no comment... Present source that San Grisostomo in 4th century was an Italian, although it really doesn't have any relevance for this discussion. From the earliest days his name in Zadar was Krševan not Grisostomo, the church and monastery were named St. Krševan! Is this "confusing" the reader? Croatian history of Zadar was written based on original documents in Zadar and Dalmatia (maybe you don't know but Dalmatian cities, especially Zadar and Dubrovnik have rich historical documentary archives saved), why relying on Italian writers since as it seems (according to contributions of Italian users here) a half of Italian historiography was heavily biased and based on... Italian poetry or what? Very sad... There is no my POV about the croat history of Zara. What we have here is an offense of Italian expansionism and shameless revisionism of Dalmatian history. Concerning Orseolo's trip to Dalmatia take a look at Brittanica... His title "Dux Dalmatianorum" is historically proved to be nothing but his act of self-declaration so science doesn't take it for serious, no need at all to discuss about it. And you are calling someone else a nationalist? Zenanarh 09:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You write and write and write, but it is always the same bizantine way of writing: at the end you are repeating the same things over and over, like a typical croat nationalist of the Tito era! I understand now Giovanni Giove and his complaints!! Anyway, you write that "Dalmatian cities, especially Zadar and Dubrovnik have rich historical documentary archives saved", but why ONLY the ones written by Croats? What happened with the Venetians' ones? The answer is simple: THEY WERE DESTROYED BY SLAV NATIONALISTS SINCE THE XIX CENTURY!. The Croats have exterminated the Italians in Dalmatia and now they want to exterminate even their memory. The Croats destroy even the cementeries and the church registers of the Italian deaths and births, and then send a scholar to check the data about; then the expert find only data of the Croats and so the trick is done: no Italians in Dalmatia! Finally comes a croat nationalist like you or Kubura saying that the archives in Dalmatia are only showing croatian names. GOOD TRICK! But shameful and stupid in the end because the real scholars and the international communities UNDERSTAND soon or later the trick.The same trick is used even with the birthplace of Marco Polo or with the monastery of San Grisostomo or whatever. What a shame! San Grisostomo was Italian and represent the deep connection of Zara to Italy in the coat of arm -even if this reality doesn't like to the Tito followers- and you cannot cancel this fact with your bizantine "games of words" and your nationalistic POV.--Cherso 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

bizantine way of writing?!? LOL have you ever tried to write a crimi novel? So you can easily use your vocabulary and imagination... Giovanni aren't you banned? Zenanarh 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you are dreaming too much. Wake up: Tito is dead! We are in 2007 and the nationalism is dead, even in the Balkans. We cannot keep saying in our contemporary Europe what you write in a bizantine way about San Grisostomo and the Zara coat of arms. I am sure Giovanni Giove will agree with this in a few days more.--Cherso 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Dalmatian Italians

Would someone please post some kind of source for all these people? Some of them are definetly Italians, but Josip Lalić (Giuseppe Lalich) and Tonino Picula, for example, consider themselves Croatian. 80.80.56.39 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(btw, this was me DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

Adriana Grubelić - Italian??? Just because she is a director of Italian choral of Zadar? I can be a Frenchman and a director of Japanese choral, it still doesn't mean that I'm Japanese, does it? It means that I'm an artist. This section needs references... Zenanarh 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is ordinary propagandist crap, written in order to avoid the use of adjective Croatian, and instead of creating article Italians in Croatia, we have this propagandism here.

Why doesn't the author writes something about the term "digić"?

Also, why doesn't the author of this text write about the Croats that Italianized their surnames, and renegaded from their Croat origins, and now, in order to prove them "greater Italians than Italians themselves", these renegades behave as Italian extremists, expansionists, revisionists? Yes, these are propagating regionalism at the expense of Croat national feeling in Croatia, spread anti-Croat propaganda in Italy, as well as regionalist isolationism and inter-regional hateridge in Croatia, or even worse, spread pseudoscientific works in order to extract millions of persons from Croat national corps.

It's hard for someone to behave as a "great Italian", when you have a surname on "-ich" or similar Croat origin surname, or a memory that his/hers ancestors had such surnames. That's why some users here on en.wiki behave that way. It's hard to admit to themselves what they really are. Kubura 11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Kubura, you should moderate yourself with your offenses. You are not the only one with knowledge, while those who don't agree with your POV are all ignorants. Many Italians have surnames from other languages, as you know. Oberdan, Cavour, and many others have roots outside Italy and the same happens with France, Germany, England, etc..--Cherso 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly tried to make an unbiased article here. I wrote an article with completely unemotional sentences and wording, with simple statements of fact wich I tried to make as neutral as possible, I even swallowed all those unverifiable censi these guys posted. Carefully choosing proper neutral wording and FIXING THESE CONSTANT SPELLING&GRAMMAR ERRORS was not at all easy
I edited in good faith, only to have my work deleted (sorry, "shortened") and my sentences POV-ized to no end. You guys are really only here to vent your frustration that Dalmatia isn't in Italy, that the Venetian Republic no longer exists, and that Venice (wich has half the population of Split, btw) is slowly but inevitably sinking into its own sewers. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do not use a further time grammar as a pretest to revert works you don't like.
• This is not the history of Dalmatia and/or Croatia, so do not insert unnecessary claims.Giovanni Giove 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• How can I know wether I like it or not WHEN I CAN'T READ IT!!?
• Ok, so there was a need to remove some peaces of text, interesting how you removed only those you didn't like!

"Do not use a further time grammar as a pretest to revert works you dont like."

What does that even mean?, and what in god's green goodness is a "pretest"!!?

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Dalmatian Italians (outrageous list)

For the record the letter "ć" is the Croatian way of spelling the sound "ch". The majority of Croatian (and South Slavic) names end with that letter (mostly in this form: "...ić").
Please immediately present sources for the claims that the following people are SELF DECLARED Dalmatian Italians (where they work does not matter at all):

Renzo de' Vidovich (Vidović is an old Croatian name).

Eugenio Dalmas (AKA Eugen Dalmas).

Adriana Grubelić (Grubelić, need I say more?)

Giuseppe Lallich (AKA Josip Lalić)

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Sardinia the roman "us" is cut today in "u", so Marius is said Mariu and italicus is said italicu, but in other areas of the former roman empire the cut has been different. For example in the original dalmatian language and in the "istrioto" of southern Istria the latin "cus" is cut in "c", so italicus is said italic. Of course there are other POV about, but in the science of ethimology nothing is 100% sure.Vidovich:Many Italians have foreign surnames (like the actual French president, for example). Grubelic: She has declared to be Dalmatian Italian with Croat nationality. Lallich:How? He died in the fifties. May be you met a younger relative or an omonime.--Cherso 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(It turns out I met the man's relative :) All your examples are of no consequence. I don't want to enter meaningless discussions with you. Why? because we are not talking about people in general, but about specific persons.
Please post sources that confirm the above persons have DECLARED THEMSELVES OF ITALIAN NATIONALITY (Italians living in Dalmatia). There is nothing to discuss here, you should have been expected to post sources for all of them, but these are the most outrageous. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, Dalmas is the head of the Italian community in Split (if I am not mistaken) so we can actually accept him as Italian but Josip Lalić and Adriana Grubelić most definately are not Italians. Renzo de' Vidovich can also be accepted as Italian also, he is living in Italy and is even Italian nationalist (again if I am not mistaken). His surname might suggest his Croatian origins but thats all, the man considers himself Italian and I don't have nothing against that. Many Croats moved to Italy or to America with Dalmatian Italians because of fear of communists and assimilated. Thats a historical fact. --Raguseo 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Raguseo, do you understand that someone in Croatia with a croat surname can be Italian Dalmatian and consider himself to be Croat? My nepiew lives in Cherso, has a "croat" surname ending in "c", belongs to the local dalmatian italian association of Lussino and so considers himself A DALMATIAN ITALIAN, but has a Croat passport and identifies himself as a Croatian. He usually calls himself a Croatian with dalmatian italians ethnicity'. --Cherso (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources, Cherso/Giovanni. DO YOU HAVE SOURCES!!!!? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not. We've waited three full days for any kind of response, these names will be removed pending verification. (The Lalić "ref" does not state wether or not he considers himself Italian.) 78.3.127.248 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop erasing the evidences about Lallich exile.--Cherso (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, The "evidence" does not prove he considers himself an Italian, just read it FFS!. This is just an article about him in an Italian paper, what does it prove?! If he's not a Dalmatian Italian he does not belong on the list, therefore the source is unnecessary.
The man's name is typically Slavic, FFS! there are dozens of Lallich (Lalić) surnames in Split (Spalato). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the list is composed mostly of people with little encyclopedic merit or actual international fame, not to mention it is overly contentious (really, who cares??), I have removed it. The few notable and "famous" individuals are still mentioned in the text. Problem solved!!! Mariokempes (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

May be for you it is contentious, but not for me and others (like Giove, Brunodam, ecc..). I respect your opinion, please respect other's opinions and let the readers decide if they are important or not. For me personally nearly 1/10 of the wikipedia biography stubs should be erased (mainly about rock music bands), but I respect all of them and don't erase anyone. Cheers. --Cherso (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind, but I'll bet you anything you like that'll be reverted before long... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course you don't mind. You want everything erased about we dalmatian italians in exile, do you?--Cherso (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger?

I recently came upon another article named Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia (what a ridiculously long title). What exactly is the reason for two separate articles about the same thing? Shouldn't these two articles be merged? --Raguseo 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh noooo....not again.... Another Croat wants AGAIN a merger! Raguseo, go to the former discussions above about "cancellation" and "move" to see why was done this new article. The title was created by Direktor because the article must deal ONLY with the cultural & historical sections. And needs improvements in painting, sculpture, music,ecc..ecc..--Cherso 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Typical roodness. Please carefully read Wikipedia rules in order to realise the difference between moving and merging articles. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What means roodness? It is clear to all of us that again and again and again there it is the same tentative of SABOTAGE with the article.--Cherso 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you tone a bit "Cherso" or should I just call you Giovanni? I do not want THIS article to be moved or cancelled, I am only asking what exactly is the reason that we have two articles about the same thing? Would you be kind (for a change) and tell me why? --Raguseo 23:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ANOTHER CROATIAN ATTACK

Here we are again with the same stuff. The Croatian nationalists (Kubura, Zenanarh, Direktor, Raguseo and others) now create another problem: they are not able to understand that the Dalmatian Italians are NOT necessarily Italians. Unbelievable. Now they cannot understand that a foreign surname in a big western country (like Italy, France, England, ecc..ecc..) not necessarily means a foreigner to that country. May be with small counties like Croatia this can happen, but when we remember Disraeli as british prime minister or Hugo in France or Skorzeny in Germany or Oberdan in Italy, we all realize that there is nothing strange if the croat Grubelic is a dalmatian Italian. But they want anyway that those dalmatian italian be declared italian by themselves. Unbelievable. This is typical Balkan mentality, the same mentality that creates ethnic wars even in our days! Anyway this is another matter that every admin can easily explain: the article is about Dalmatian Italians and not Italians in Dalmatia! But the nationalist Croats want another unbelievable problem. So now, as I wrote before, want another problem even with "merger", after they DEFEAT in "Cancel" and "move". They will never stop, because nationalism is illogical. WARNING: they want a final BLOCK of the article by some admin!!.--Cherso 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is that you have an article about ethno-term "Dalmatian Italians" connected to anything back to the stone ages in Dalmatia if it's possible. Speakers of Dalmatian language in Dalmatia were not Italians, Croats were not Italians, Dalmatian Italians were 19th century descendents of Italians who came to Dalmatia mostly from 16th to 18th century. Zenanarh 19:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What has to do your comment on the stone age with the simple fact that "the article is about Dalmatian Italians and not Italians in Dalmatia"? You, Zenanarth, write in a "bizantine" style! In plain english: the article is about the dalmatian italians of the last two centuries, when the age of nationalism developed in Europe, and is about the actual associations of the dalmatian italians (Croatian or Italian or Australian or whatever).--Cherso 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I must laugh. If someone is not an Italian what the hell is his or hers name doing on the page listing Italians?!!? Anyway you wrote a lot and in the end saying nothing. You need to post sources which will confirm these people as Italians, until you do they have no place on this page. As for the merger I propposed it because we have two almost identical articles talking about the same thing. I wonder what is the reason for that? Wouldn't it be better if it was all in one article? In the end I also must ask: Is that you Giovanni? --Raguseo 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cherso/ Giovanni on this one. A Croatian surname might signify Croatian roots (at least in most cases?), but that is not the point. There are many Italians in Italy and abroad with Croatian surnames. I personally know dozens, and they all hold Italian citizenship, carry Italian passports, and self-identify as Italian. To eliminate Italian Dalmatians from the list based on surname only is without merit. Having said that, however, this is an unecessary list and should probably be tigtened up to three or four individuals of note.Mariokempes 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you actually understand what exactly is the problem here. I don't have nothing against people with Croatian surnames identifiying as Italians and people with Italian surnames identifying as Croats. I have something against listing people who are not Italians as Italians (I would do the same if you would list Italians as Croats). That is main problem here. Grubelić and Lalić are not Italians, they are Croats. Also if Cherso is Giovanni that would a breach of his block, he is currently blocked for a week. --Raguseo 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If those listed do not self-identify as Italians you are correct. On this I cannot comment. Your comments above suggest they were removed solely on the basis of their last name- and this would be incorrect. Having said that, I still think the list is too forced and should be edited with people of note. No comment on Cherso/Giovanni... but the timing is quite the coincidence. Mariokempes 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I made no comments about these people's surnames. I also only removed people who are not Italians regardless of what their last names are. --Raguseo 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right and I apologize. It was actually Direktor that made the suggestions. Cheers, Mariokempes 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to understand Giovanni Giove with his complaints against this nationalistic group of Croats. The article is about the Dalmatian Italians and they can be Croats or Italians or whatever, like the French Parisiennes can be French or Polish or whatever and the Bavarian Germans can be Germans or Portuguese or whatever. It is very simple: the actual president of France has a Slav surname but is French, like Villani and Grubelic are Croats but are even Dalmatian Italians (the second with a croat surname while the first with an italian surname). You nationalistic Croats always try to create problems in everything:the article is about Dalmatian Italians and not Italians in Dalmatia!. And the Dalmatian Italians can have a Croat passport (like Grubelic and Villani) or an Italian passport, like me (born in Cherso and now exiled away from my beloved Dalmatia).--Cherso 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind and explain us the difference between the so called Dalmatian Italians and Italians in Dalmatia? And also how can Croats or any other ethnic people be Italians if they are already Croats or something else. That just doesn't make sense. Your examples also doesn't have any sense. A non-German person can never be German because this person already has an established identity, a non-German identity. Your example would apply only if you would speak about regional identity and then you could say: Dalmatians, Parisians, Bavarians. When you are put an ethnic designation before these regional identities you are making a mistake. Besides by that example you gave all Dalmatians would then actually be Croatian. --Raguseo 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For the last time: The article "Dalmatian Italians" is about an ethnic group of contemporary Croatia. They are the equivalent in Croatia of the Ligurian Italians in Italy or of the German Italians in Italian South Tyrol/Alto Adige. Many South-Tyrolians have Italian surnames and are considered part of the german-speaking community of the Italian South Tyrol. The former boss of the SVP (South Tyrolen Volkspartey) has an Italian surname.--Cherso 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Dalmatia part of Italy? No it is not. You act as if it is. Both Liguria and South Tyrol are part of Italy and if you haven't noticed Dalmatia is a not. Now wheter you call it Dalmatian Italians or Italians in Dalmatia you are talking about a small minority group in another country. Most Dalmatians (above 90%) are Croats so it is Croats who are synonomous with Dalmatia not Italians. --Raguseo 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What the heck has to do the fact that Dalmatia is part of Italy or not with the article? The Croat POV is pure nonsense. My name is Ferdinand Buxo and I am a member of the Catalonian community in southern France. I consider myself French but even an ethnic "Catalonian French" and nobody forces me to deny to be a Catalonian french because my family name is French. F.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.23.98 (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Cherso/Giovanni: "...Dalmatian Italians are NOT necessarily Italians."

Good one, Giovanni. What you fail to realise is that they do have to consider themselves Italian to be part of the Dalmatian Italian minority. According to you we are all really Italians, we just don't know it (yet). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to with it. The example given in previous message was that people in Liguria and South Tyrol are Italians regardless of their ethnicity. That is true since we can apply citizenship criteria and call all citizens who live there Italian citizens or shorter Italians, even if ethnically they are not Italians. Dalmatia on the other hand is not in Italy, it is in Croatia so if we apply this method to Dalmatia people there can only be Croatian. When you talk about Dalmatian Italians you are in fact talking about Italians in Dalmatia. Get it? --Raguseo 14:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ferdinand Buxo: you are totally right. My nepiew lives in Cherso, has a "croat" surname ending in "c", belongs to the local dalmatian italian association of Lussino and so considers himself A DALMATIAN ITALIAN, but has a Croat passport and identifies himself as a Croatian. He usually calls himself a 'Croatian with Dalmatian Italian ethnicity'. Why the same group of Croats (Kubura, Zenanarh, ecc..ecc..) keep creating problems about everything Dalmatian Italian in Wikipedia? The only explication is that they want to erase even the MEMORY of we Dalmatian Italians after having cleansed our ethnic minority in coastal Dalmatia.--Cherso (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, look: to be a "Dalmatian Italian", the guy has to be part of the Italian minority in Dalmatia. If the guy stated he is officially a Croat, then he is officially a Croat, that's all. FFS, are you SO irrational that you can't see that someone needs to be part of a minority to be part of a minority! When I say "consider himself", I mean what does he write down in his documents: Italian, or Croatian (or Montenegrin). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, he is a Croat but belongs to the Dalmatian Italian Ethnic group, like the German Alsatians are French but belong to the German Alsatian ethnic group and the South Tyroleans are Italians (like their former boss Magnagus, who has an Italian surname) but belong to the German Italian ethnic group. The problem with you Croat is that you still have not reached the cultural political maturity (of western Europe) to understand this simple reality, because of your Balkan mentality with the hate and wars related.--Cherso (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You should know the difference between Croatian and Croat.
Croatian is any citizen of Croatia, and it can be of any nationality.
Croat is a person of Croat nationality, no matter where he lives.
Problem with your attitude is - "Dalmatian Italian". There's no reason for such article; some other intentions are hidden behind this name. You may fool foreigners, but here we know very well for your game. This article should be part of article "Italians in Croatia". Simply, there's no need for this, these are nothing special. Like Croats in Lombardy, or Croats in Furlany. These all belong to article "Croats in Italy".
I don't know why do you think that western Europe is culturally and politically above central and eastern Europe.
As I know, western Europe produced fascism, nazism, racist theories, hooliganism, AIDS, colonialism... It enslaved small peoples in whole world, destroyed indigenous cultures, killed or forcefully deported natives, it kept the slave trade till 19th century.
Biggest warmongers were our neighbours from West, as well as Ottoman invaders from East. These brought the bloodiest wars here.
Balkans gave ancient Greek culture, whose flourishing was ended by occupators from west.
Small Balkanic nations had developed their own letter systems since early Middle Ages.
Small nation of Croats and their Croat language had a bunch of grammars and dictionaries till the Age of National Awakenings (19th c.); it had its own laws and statutes in its mother tongue (Poljički štatut in Poljica, Vinodolski zakonik in Vinodol, Istarski razvod in Istria), wrote by Croats themselves.
The literature in Croat language was flourishing in the times of renaissance, so you're not dealing with a bunch of illiterate savages. Kubura (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

The name of the article

Dalmatian Italians? It means Italians from Dalmatia or what? People in Dalmatia self-proclaimed Italo-Dalmati (and not Dalmato-Italiani) in 19th century were members of the small Italian speaking minority in Dalmatia, however the ruling minority! Italo-Dalmati (Italo-Dalmatians!) can be separated in 3 different groups: Italian immigrants to Dalmatia from the age of Venetian Republic, Italian immigrants to Dalmatia in the beginning of 19th century and native Croats who were using Italian language (administrative language) in their common lifes because of their proffessions and education (until 1850's any other language was forbiden in the schools). According to numbers given by censi the last mentioned group was actually the largest in number and definitely not related to any kind of Italian ethnicity. This article is biased even beginning with its name. Zenanarh (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I, of course, agree with this. The name is completely inappropriate. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The "3 group summary" Zenanarh presents is plausible and perhaps true in my eyes (limited vision, of course). Nonetheless... they are ALL Dalmatian Italians. There is nothing incorrect about the title of this article. In addition, they don't necessarily need to reside in Dalmatia to be DIs- some of the other editors are proof of that. Mariokempes (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Aha now I get it. So I'm Dalmatian Englishman in that case since I live in Dalmatia and I'm editing eng. wiki? Interesting... I didn't know my homeland is such magical place. Ethnic groups are disappearing over the night and transforming to another just like that. Zenanarh (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:) LoL, I really doubt Dalmatian Italians even exist as a seperate ethnicity, they are a thing od the past. I decend from an old Italian Dalmatian family, but sadly we and others are no different in any cultural aspect from Dalmatian Croats. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your perspective on this is very limited and the "Dalmatian Englishman" analogy is testimony of this. I'm not about to start another pointless thread of discussion here, and I really have no interest in this article other than trying to keep it balanced. To be honest, I don't think it gets much traffic other than you three or four zealots. I'm gone... good bye. Mariokempes (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This and similar articles are from the beginning written in totally biased manner. Actually I'm also trying to keep it balanced. Unfortunately you're not ready for objective discussion. As long as you relate Roman Empire (a half of Europe!) to Italy like it was Italian Empire or Dalmatia to Italy on Italia irredenta and Fascist Italianization basis and ideas from the first half of 20th century, there will always be three or four of us zealots and your reactions will be like previous one. Why don't you try with pushing such ideas in Wiki towards your western neighbours - France? That way you could see how many zealots are editing Wiki in France... Zenanarh (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it goes again ZenanarTh with his byzantinism:Italo-Dalmati, Italo Dalmatians, Italians from Dalmatia, Dalmatian Italians, ecc..ecc.. Even MarioKempes is gone! Another one who wanted a balanced article is gone...Now ZenanarTh and his friends Kubura,Direktor,ecc...got what they want: to have free hands to do whatever they want with the articles about Dalmatia, like this one on Dalmatian Italians. I will monitor all your posts with Croatian POV and refer to the wikipedian authorities and serious admins, be sure of that my "dear" Croatian friends....--Cherso (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian names of Croatian cities

Isn't it vandalism actually? Dalmatian related articles are full of this Italian approachment/appropriation... I can understand if it's used in historical context when cities had Italian administrative names in history sections. But using it almost everywhere like it's something normal in the articles, pictures, photos,... Wash machine! Zenanarh (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't know: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). Zenanarh (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dux Dalmatianorum

On the Ascension Day in 998, Pietro Orseolo assumed the title of "Dux Dalmatianorum" (Duke of the Dalmatians), associating it with his son Giovanni Orseolo. It was an act of self-proclamation, Dalmatia stayed Byzantine province. Zenanarh (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another who wanted a "balanced" article is gone

Even MarioKempes -who wanted a balanced article- is gone, as he writes above:<Your perspective on this is very limited and the "Dalmatian Englishman" analogy is testimony of this. I'm not about to start another pointless thread of discussion here, and I really have no interest in this article other than trying to keep it balanced. To be honest, I don't think it gets much traffic other than you three or four zealots. I'm gone... good bye. Mariokempes (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)> The group of Croatian nationalists (Kubura, ZenanarTh, ecc...) got what they want - mainly after the lynching/ban of Giovanni Giove by admins too much friendly to them - and now they aim to have free hands to do whatever they want with the articles about Dalmatia, like this one on Dalmatian Italians. I will monitor every Croatian nationalistic post of these zealots for future referral and complaint to the top wiki authorities. Be sure of that, "dear" fanatic Croats.--Cherso (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cherso, what you call "balance" is a perpetual edit-war between people who actually live in Dalmatia and highly biased Italian emmigrants ("exiles"). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cherso, what's with the sudden fondness for Mariokempes anyway? Not long ago, namely on 9 November, scroll up a bit to have a look, he was saying things like "I agree with Cherso/Giovanni on this one" and "No comment on Cherso/Giovanni... but the timing is quite the coincidence", comments which usually send you straight to the caps lock button on your keyboard for a bit more yelling. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Following your debate: "Dalmatian Italians"

I was following your (emotional) debate. I found a new Croatian research article written, by Mirko Đinđić, from the Croatian Political Science Review (03/2007). Its (translated) title is "Identity 'Conflict' of Dalmatian Italians", for a summary see here. At least, it seems that the term "Dalmatian Italians" is properly used. --DaQuirin (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DaQuirin, take a look better [5].
English translation is misleading here.
In Croatian original, it says identitetski lomovi dalmatinskih Talijana.
The adjective "Dalmatian" is written with small letters (dalmatinskih), while "Italians" is written with capital letters.
In Croatian, it's a grammar rule to write the names of nations, peoples, tribes, inhabitants of a island, region, planet, peninsula, city, village.... with capital letters. Like Kinez, Rom, Komanč, Marsovac, Sicilijanac...= Chinese, Roma, Comanche, Martian, Sicilian....
If there's a part of certain nation, living in some area, and it's not so "special", than the adjective is written with small letters: lombardijski Hrvati (Lombardian Croats), bosanski Hrvati (Bosnian Croats), jorkširski Indijci (Yorhshire Indians), bavarski Turci (Bavarian Turks), saski Kurdi (Saxonian Kurds) etc.. As you see, here Croatian and English differ.
But, if that community has something more special, than it's being written with capital letters: Moravski Hrvati (Moravian Croats), Gradišćanski Hrvati (Burgenland Croats), Moliški Hrvati (Molise Croats), Lužički Srbi (Lusatian Sorbs).
"Dalmatian Italians" belong to the same group as Bavarian Turks, Saxonian Kurds, Thuringian Poles, Cantuarian Pakistanis, Lancastrian Afghanis, Lombardian Croats, etc.
Lombardian Croats are nothing special, nor Dalmatian Italians nor Cantuarian Pakistanis nor Bavarian Turks. They all belong to articles Croats in Italy, Italians in Croatia, Pakistanis in England, Turks in Germany, respectively. If we overlook that, than we must read (again) WP:NOT.
DaQuirin, maybe you're not familiar with Italian irredentism and their dirty games with evading of mentioning of Dalmatia in Croatian context and denying of existence of Croatian culture and Croats in Dalmatia (and generally on Eastern Adriatic). Kubura (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comment. But the summary of the mentioned article makes it clear that your comparisons (Lombardian Croats and the like) are misleading. Are you seriously offering a better translation than the Croatian Political Science Review – well... I really don't see your point in this. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Wiki project Italy

Cherso and IP user signing himself Tom. Thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, it seems that you are unaware that there has been a discussion of this matter over at Talk:Italian_cultural_and_historic_presence_in_Dalmatia. The consensus and logic of the matter seem pretty clear.
What is also pretty clear Tom is the level of your previous 'contributions' to this encyclopedia [6] [7]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom is using an american public library I.P., that is used by many persons.....and the discussion about the Wiki Project Italy is very clear: the Dalmatian Italians ARE involved in the Italian wikiproject because many of them (like myself) were born when Zara and some Dalmatian islands (like my Cherso) were part of the Kingdom of Italy. Or you Croats want to deny - with your usual Tito-style lies - even that from 1918 to 1947 Zara was officially part of Italy?--Cherso (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Name of the Article

The article has been moved, probably because of some linguistic misunderstanding (and without discussion). So the plural form is Italian Maltese, but certainly not Italian Dalmatian. Could somebody move the article to the original name? --DaQuirin (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC) 23:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A vandal, User:Crystalclearchanges, messed up the name of the article Dalmatian Italians, with a redirect now blocking the revert. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I TOO am disgusted by this excessive croatian nationalism

Now I understand why Zenanarh was accused in the arbitration about Dalmatia. And I will NO MORE PARTICIPATE in Dalmatian articles, because I believe Wikipedia is a project open to all the opinions, not only the ones of the Croatian nationalists. Indeed, I totally agree with Mariokempes and Cherso. Here it is a copy of their last posts:

• <<Even MarioKempes -who wanted a balanced article- is gone, as he writes above:<Your perspective on this is very limited and the "Dalmatian Englishman" analogy is testimony of this. I'm not about to start another pointless thread of discussion here, and I really have no interest in this article other than trying to keep it balanced. To be honest, I don't think it gets much traffic other than you three or four zealots. I'm gone... good bye. Mariokempes (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)> The group of Croatian nationalists (Kubura, ZenanarTh, ecc...) got what they want - mainly after the lynching/ban of Giovanni Giove by admins too much friendly to them - and now they aim to have free hands to do whatever they want with the articles about Dalmatia, like this one on Dalmatian Italians....--Cherso (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)>>

One final question to a possible administrator reading my last post on Dalmatia topics: why only GiovanniGiove has been banned? The harassment done by Zenanarh (and others like Kubura) to whoever disagrees with croatian nationalistic points of view is totally similar -or even worse- to what has done GiovanniGiove. Even user:Dewrad has experienced this harassment. --Pannonicus (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice misinterpretation... it was not me accused. BTW your contributions are totally the same as Giovanni Giove's ones. And he is banned. Zenanarh (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Pannonicus, Giove was banned (by uninvolved Admins) because he violated his Wikipedia edit revert restriction, not because of his... diligence on certain articles. What's all this about then? I cannot believe this article is STILL a battleground. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"What's all this about then?" Whether this article should have a big Italian flag across the top of its talk page. There's more of the same going on elsewhere, too. You see, you can leave for a couple of months, and come back, but nothing changes... ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It does look pointless dosen't it, Mariokempes is right, Wikipedia can't deal with these guys... This entire article is about a minority that could fit in a couple of school buses!, all for the purpose of giving the irredentists a place to write about how god damn wrong it is that there aren't any more Italians in Dalmatia! I wrote more than half of this article because the Italian historic influence in Dalmatia was noteworthy, but it keeps getting rewritten (in bad quality) with irredentist and ultra-nationalist additions. This place is NOT (or at least should not be) a vent for your political frustrations. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's Pannonicus? Who was his supporter? See his talkpage. Banned user:Crystalclearchanges. Also, which unregistered user wrote this [8] on Dewrad's talkpage? "these Croats are insane.". Kubura (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's more. The tag "Wikiproject Italy" was added on 26 February 2008 in 19:30, by unregistered user 209.215.160.101, [9] who wrote this insulting content (what does "...gg" in comment stands for? Giovanni Giove?). He also started to etiquette me on Italian Wikipedia, that very same day, 21:52, 26 feb 2008 and 22:06, 26 feb 2008.
- 26 Feb 2008, 19:31, a minute later after tagging, he inserted the tag
- after being reverted by AlasdairGreen27 on 27 Feb in 09:48...
- another unregistered user 4.231.207.47 appeared and reverted on 27 Feb in 19:48 (as "Mary")
- Zenanarh reverted on 28 Feb 06:54
- now, user:Pannonicus appear, and tags it again on 1 March 2008
- finally, Pannonicus has disguised himself, another Giovanni Giove's defender [10], on 3 March 2008, 16:12
Do we deal with Giove again? Now, see whome we're dealing with. Kubura (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mary" is user:Marygiove, sockpuppet of Giovanni Giove. See report and discussion on ANI archive. Kubura (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I believe Kubura (and others) sees sockpuppets of Giovanni Giove everywhere: this looks like a kind of paranoia! (LOL, LOL, LOL)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dalmatian Italians → Italian minority in Dalmatia — In the hope that this article can finally cease to be a battleground, I believe we should make it as neutral and encyclopedic-sounding as possible. One of the most important issues facing anyone there is the title, as it can be interpreted as a form of cultural pretention towards Dalmatia. In short, this article is about a national minority (as everyone accepts), we should simply name it as such in order to avoid confusion and further neutralize tensions. —--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Comment A similar move request was last proposed less than six months ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequested_moves&diff=162643260&oldid=162636219). JPG-GR (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A move was proposed earlier, but to a completely different name. That proposal was to change the entire purpose of the article. Due to the small size of this minority, the suggestion then was to effectively repurpose the article, emphasizing greatly on the much more significant historic presence. This move suggests merely a more neutral wording to the title, without any change as to the purpose or emphasis of the article. The first renaming is certainly not identical to this one. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Due to reasons mentioned above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. But be aware that there is an irridentist campaign underway on Wiki to project Italian influence and authority beyond its frontiers onto the various territories that they still covet. This article is just a part of the strategy. The other articles so far include Corfiot Italians, Maltese Italians, Corsican Italians and Nizzardo Italians. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets not forget the beautifully titled article Istrian Exodus, of which the very name suggests the Italian population has been forcefully(!) removed from their (Italian) lands. It is an incredible exaggeration to say the least. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is an irredentist campaign under way, true, but that should not lead us to give up the correct article name. As I mentioned earlier, research journals even in Croatia (like the Croatian Political Science Review) use the term "Dalmatian Italians". Article names are here Banat Swabians, Burgenland Croats (not Croatian minority in the Burgenland, to name just a few. There are other problems with the article than with its name (eg. the problem of historic continuity of the minority, ethnic shift = Croatians who became culturally Italianized or partially later (re?)croatized). Please leave the article name intact and don't fall into just another nationalist fallacy. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do, DaQuirin, is to make the article name as neutral as possible. After all, its you guys that insisted on this article's purpose being the national minority. I do not understand how the proposed name is incorrect in any way? It is about the Italian national minority in Dalmatia and its history, isn't it? You're right about mentioning the other articles, though, you should know that I would support their renaming to a similar form. Because of the turbulent "past" of this article we should make its name as official and unambiguous as possible (how one can call that "nationalistic" is beyond my understanding). The journal uses the current term because it is shorter simpler to use in a sentence, not because they do not consider "Dalmatian Italians" to be an "Italian national minority in Dalmatia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

DaQuirin, you haven't read my explanation at all? "Nationalist fallacy"? DaQuirin, you don't know what you're talking about. Articles about nationalities are made and named according to country, not according to the region. For Banat, I don't know. For Burgenland Croats, they are too specifical case. I may live with my family in Burgenland for 50 years, but I couldn't be Burgenland Croat (I'd be just another Croat in Austria). Kubura (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there it is a "nationalist fallacy" against these Dalmatian Italians, who are "a specifical case" like the Burgerland Croats. Just read the above discussions between Italians and Croats and the simple fact that this is another additional request to move and change it. --BurtReed (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. There is one very important fact about term "Dalmatian Italians". In origin this term was Italo-Dalmati reffering the mostly to the Dalmatians who were using Italian language in the public life. It was not reffering to the small number of the Italians who came to the eastern Adriatic coast in the first half of 19th century because of their industrial business, trade or season work. This term was developed in 18th and 19th century and was just politically motivated attempt to create some new ethnical identity. Before that there were just Venetians, Italians, Croats or simply Slavs. After that there were just Italians and Croats. The most of these Italo-Dalmatians simply dissapeared in the 2nd half of 19th century, since the most of them restored their original Croatian names, following political defeat of the "Autonomist party" ideas. The main problem of this article and this name is Italian irredentism which is using advantage of its historical occurance to produce fake history of Dalmatia and it's very easy to notice it in this article. Like the beginning of their history in Illyrian ages. LOL Thanks God it's not the Stone Ages, it's already quite enough stupid this way. Shameful robbery of attributes of an older ethnic group - Romance speakers (original Dalmatian language) in the early Medieval - not connected to any kind of Italian identity at all. This article can be objective with its temporar title only if describing political movements in a few Dalmatian cities in 19th century and "Italo-Dalmati" can be related only to the members or the leaders of the "Autonomist party" who were the loudest users of this name. The real true is that there was never such etnicity in Dalmatia, with attributes of a distinguished etnic group. People under this neme were Italians or Croats by ethnicity. It is also clearly shown by the Austrian censi, where the real ethnicities were hidden under 2 "definitions" - Italians (reffering to the speakers of Italian language in public life, since Italian language was imposed as administrative one, so this is not an attribute which defines ethnicity) and Slavs (reffering to all others who didn't speak it at all, since they were living out of the cities). The point is that these "Italians" must be separated in 2 groups: the minor part of the real Italians who were sitting in the administrative chairs and the major part of the Croats who were adapting to the political situation. And all together they made just around 15% of overall Dalmatian population in the 1st half of 19th century. If we keep this title, we are just giving opportunity to Italian irredentists for spreading their POV, unfortunatelly they are not ready to write objectively. In our modern times this name exists only in their heads, the descendents of the Italians in Dalmatia are Italian minority, not Dalmatian Italians, Italo-Dalmatians or whatever. Zenanarh (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support to renaming to "Italians in Croatia" proposed by User:Kubura. Zenanarh (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat: 1) Dalmatia is not only in Croatia, there are more Italians living in Montenegrin Dalmatia. 2) There are a LOT more Croatian Italians living outside Dalmatia. I don't see how this article can be named into "A portion of the Italians in Croatia and Montenegro". Let's settle for this version of the name as a temporary compromise. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. That 'd be a huge mistake. This should be the part of the article Italians in Croatia. Otherwise, we've fallen into the same trap: the name/adjective "Croatia" is evaded, and that was the interests of Italian iredentists. Kubura (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support to renaming, but Oppose to the proposed new title (Italian minority in Dalmatia). That 'd be a huge mistake. This should be the part of the article Italians in Croatia. Otherwise, we've fallen into the same trap: the name/adjective "Croatia" is evaded, and that was the interest of Italian iredentists. See Zenanarh's remarks about abuses above. Kubura (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kubura, this article is not about the Italian minority in Croatia, it is about the Italian minority in Dalmatia as a region, wich also includes Boka Kotorska (Montenegro). In fact, according to the current information in the article, there are more Italians in Montenegrin (500) than Croatian Dalmatia (300). We cannot rename the article into what you suggested, because that is not its subject. In short, Dalmatia is not an entirely Croatian region, I hope you'll change your vote. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Than we should split and merget the content into two articles: "Italians in Croatia" and "Italians in Montenegro". Kubura (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about all Italians in Croatia, but only about the 200-300 that live in Dalmatia (mostly Split and Zadar). For now I suggest we simply change the name into a more encyclopedic version, precisely BECAUSE of your argument: because Dalmatia is not a country (yet;) and the current article is pretentious towards Croatian and Montenegrin territory. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. as per WP:COMMON and the fact that the move is driven purely by Balkan Nationalism rather than actual merits of the move to Wikipedia. This is the standard way in which ethnic groups are sorted, for random example Indo Italian, British Indian, Indian-Germans. It doesn't mean Indians are trying to "take those countries", as some anti-Italians are suggesting in this case, its just how things like that are organised on Wikipedia. - Gennarous (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/spam: There is actually no overarching standard for naming of these ethnic group articles; a large number do not follow the "Fooian Barian" pattern because reliable sources do not use that kind of name. I've documented a variety of naming patterns at the proposed guideline page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigrant ethnic groups) (said guideline itself may need a rename). Appreciate any comments at the talk page there. Cheers, cab (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Balkan nationalism"? This article was started by Italian nationalists, namely a user blocked for his POV edits. It has been a continual struggle to keep it relatively neutral ever since.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, have a look at Rab concentration camp. You'll get a fairly clear idea about where Gennarous stands on these matters. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Simply amazing, aded the article to my watchlist. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the same reasons of DaQuirin, because Research journals even in Croatia (like the Croatian Political Science Review) use the term "Dalmatian Italians". Article names are here Burgenland Croats (not "Croatian minority in the Burgenland", to name just a few. This is an excerpt [11] from the article "Identitetski “lomovi” dalmatinskih Talijana" (Identity "conflict" of Dalmatian Italians) of Mirko Đinđić: ".......The article investigates the historical discourse of the pivotal political and ideological “turning points” defining the national identity of Dalmatian Italians. Each period is represented by some political figures from the ranks of Dalmatian Italians such as Bajamonti, Duplancich and others......." Clearly the term DALMATIAN ITALIANS is used by the scholar community: why change or move it? --BurtReed (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, buddy you actually don't understand what it says. "Identitetski “lomovi” dalmatinskih Talijana" - better translation is "Identity breakdowns of..." Lom (Cro) = fracture, rupture but also disorder, confusion. Also it says "dalmatinski Talijani" - since the first letter of dalmatinski is small it is an adjective by Croatian grammatics, so it has the same meaning as "Italians in Dalmatia". What you propose would be Dalmatinski Talijani and not dalmatinski Talijani!!! Actually such term doesn't exist in the serious scholar community at all. That's the point. For more precise information about this "ethnonym"(???) see my comment in "Discussion" section below. Zenanarh (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well Buddy, "Identity conflict of Dalmatian Italians" is EXACTLY what is written in that post on the Mirko Đinđić's article: blame the guys of the "Croatian Political Science Review" for it, not me. Dalmatian Italians is a name like Banat Swabians, Burgenland Croats, Baltic Germans and many others in wikipedia: I totally OPPOSE the rename that want to be done. Please leave the article name intact and don't fall into just another nationalist fallacy, as DaQuirin wrote.--BurtReed (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, it can be "conflict" it's all the same, what do you think it means if not problem hidden within that name? We are trying to rename the article into something objective and that is "Italians" since there was such ethnicity in Dalmatia. Ethnicity by the name "Dalmatian Italians" simply didn't exist. Get it? On your user page it's written: I don't know if there will be a fourth world war, but I know that will be fought with stones only....Let's stop the crazy nationalism of the twentieth century! Are you actually concious of the fact that you are this moment engaged in restoring of the nationalistic claims of a political group in Dalmatia from 19th century? A group which claims were thrown away already until the end of 19th century and temporarily restored during fascistic occupation of Dalmatia? Now you try to defend resurection of that quite extreme nationalistic ghost? Or you want to stop only nationalism of 20th century and awake that from 19th? Are you serious? Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. I agree with DaQuirin to leave the article name intact and don't fall into just another nationalist fallacy. And I agree with Gennarous that the move is driven purely by Balkan Nationalism rather than actual merits of the move to Wikipedia. The name Dalmatian Italians is identical to other minority names - with the geographical name before the ethnic name - like:
• Banat Swabians, Burgenland Croats, Baltic Germans
• Baltic Russians, Shanghai Russians, Harbin Russians
• Bessarabia Germans, Crimea Germans, etc.
• British Indian, Indian-Germans, etc.

Read my section above 'I too am disgusted by this excessive croatian nationalism'.--Pannonicus (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

It's not up to us to decide on the "true identity" of this (more or less) historic group. And please don't use purely political arguments for a move. We are in need for relevant references instead of a one-sided (?) POV. I came up some time ago with the article from Mirko Đinđić, in the "Croatian Political Science Review" (03/2007), Identity 'Conflict' of Dalmatian Italians, see the summary here. So far, this is only a useless chat here. --DaQuirin (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mate, all these articles are a useless chat. My grandmother's fanny gets more traffic than these crappy irridentist articles and she's been dead for 30 years. So it's all a pile of bollocks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(LOL!:D how true) DaQuirin, are you saying we need to prove this article is about the Italian minority in Dalmatia? Because it is only so due to the demands of the "Italian side" of the discussions herein. "Dalmatian Italians" and "Italian minority in Dalmatia" are synonyms, different only in wording. This difference, however, is important as the proposed title is obviously more neutral and official, as well as less pretentious. I really don't see the problem with the rename, its not that big of a deal. Furthermore, I'll repeat that if "Dalmatian Italians" is a more frequent phrase, it is only because it is shorter and easier to use in a sentence, not because the authors do not believe that they are talking about the Italian minority in Dalmatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm g'na start an article called "Italian efforts to use Wikipedia to show how they control most of the Mediterranean, Adriatic and North Africa". Bloody hell. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

lol!1 :D Come on man, they're not nearly all like that. Most Italians on Wiki are (of course) level-headed, modern thinking people. I think only some of rather indoctrinated "esuli" are going beyond rationality here (trouble is they're damn diligent!). I think the article should be named "Irredentist efforts to use Wikipedia to show how they control most of the Mediterranean, Adriatic and North Africa", I'll have you know I intend to request a move immediately should you try to create such a preposterously entitled NATIONALISTIC article. ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight, I don't see how we can rename this article by using state names (even though that would be best, probably). There are serious obstacles:

• Dalmatia is a region/province that includes Boka Kotorska, Montenegro. In fact, there are more Italians living there (500), than in Croatian Dalmatia (300).
• There are approximately 100 times more Italians in Croatia's Istria and Rijeka (30,000) than in Croatian Dalmatia (300).

Therefore, the article can't be renamed into "Croatian Italians" or "Italians in Croatia and Montenegro". I've suggested, therefore, that we alleviate the rather pretentious wording of the name by "officializing" it into "Italian minority in Dalmatia", if nothing else then at least as a temporary step. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

---

OK, we must clear some things first. Temporary title of this article is "Dalmatian Italians" and we all agree it doesn't stand. It's written in abusive way as Italian Irredentistic propaganda and renaming is just first step. So I have question:

• Who is this article talking about?

In my opinion 3 answers are possible:

• • Italian minority in the region called Dalmatia in Croatia, in this case we are actually discussing about "Italians in Croatia". Italians per ethnicity! There is some logic here since a large part of the article describes also Italians in Kvarner and Istria, in Croatia, not only in Dalmatia. Then Italians in Montenegro are out.
  • Italian minority in the province called Dalmatia in Austrian Monarchy in 19th century, this is what user:DIREKTOR noted as "Italians in Croatia and Montenegro". Italians per ethnicity! In this case Kvarner and Istria are out and the article content overlaps political borders of Croatia and Montenegro. This is not really by wiki policy.
  • Pro-Italians of multiple ethnicities, so not Italian minority in Croatia or Montenegro, but rather the members of the political movement in the Austrian province called Dalmatia in 19th century. Not Italians per ethnicity! So I'll repeat: term "Dalmatian Italians" is abuse of the original term "Italo-Dalmati". On this basis irredentists build their claims, producing non-existant ethnicity and... just read the article. It's important not to forget that there were also "Slavo-Dalmati" in the same time. In this case we are talking about political movements in Dalmatia and different streams involved. Both streams were separatistic towards Austrian Monarchy and concentrated on Dalmatia as a region. Both streams came from the same political party - "Autonomist Party": Italo-Dalmati led by Biamonti - a mayor of Split, Slavo Dalmati led by administrator Lapenna. Both streams were sometimes (not always) insisting on "Dalmatianhood" as basis for introducing new etnicity - Dalmatian one, although there were never such attributes needed to define new ethnos, except living in the region called Dalmatia. Both streams were for autonomy of Dalmatia. Difference between them was that "Italo-Dalmati" wanted Dalmatia annexed to Italy. Of course there was also the 3rd political option the "People's Party" introducing the Croathood of Dalmatians, annexation to Croatia and they actually won the Dalmatian Assembly in the 2nd half of 19th century, representing the huge majority of population in Dalmatia. As you can see Italian irredentists abuse the name of just one small stream of the "Autonomists". There was pamphlet by Italo-Dalmat Biamonti in 1864: "Immidiately Slavs, never Croats!" Or quote by Slavo-Dalmat Demattei, a mayor of Kotor, written in the autonomist newspaper Il Dalmata in 1868: "We are all Dalmatians. Here in Kotor some say we are Serbs, the others we are Croats or Italians. In Dalmatia we are all Dalmatians."

As you can see there are 3 possible resolutions. In first 2 cases it's about Italians per ethnicity, the article should be split into 2 new articles, renamed and cleaned up of all propaganda. In 3rd case it's about pro-Italian political stream in 19th century, not an ethnic group, the article should be renamed and cleaned up of all propaganda, ethnicity related rubbish and placed into proper political environment of 19th century Dalmatia.

I'd like to hear your opinions. Zenanarh (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you guys really want to change the name into one with state names, then this is the only way: two articles need to be Created called "Italians in Croatia" and "Italians in Montenegro". The article would need to be rewritten and a lot of things would have to be added, but we would end up with two real high-quality minority articles. The Dalmatian Italians article can be incorporated mostly into the "Italians in Croatia" article, with portions of it copy-pasted into the "Italians in Montenegro" article (obviously we would have to write some more stuff for Montenegro).
Now this is a lot of work, would someone be interested in handling the Montenegrin article by himself? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

LoL, no responses... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Hey guys, do you understand that there are persons who oppose the rename? Why do you write "Temporary title of this article is "Dalmatian Italians" and we all agree it doesn't stand"? I don't agree, even DaQuirin and others don't agree! This is not democratic, guys. This is wikipedia, or isn't it? --BurtReed (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

All I wanted was a small change to a more official name, but I guess even that's impossible. When a controversial article is created it isn't likely to change at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What else?

After the tentative to rename, and the tentative to move, and the tentative to cancel....what else? This is unbelievable.... Now even a simple tag about Wikiproject Italy is rejected. What else??? Listen: Dalmatian Italians is an article that deals EVEN with people born in Dalmatia when some areas were officially italian (Zara, Cherso, Lussino, Lagosta, etc..) and who still live in Italy (even if they are only a few hundreds now). They should be respected in a civilized way. And should be respected a simple tag related to them and their country in the English Wikipedia. Remember: even some Dalmatian Italians are italian citizens in 2008, so they are related to a Wikiproject Italy (like everything related to italian citizens in the world). Why all these problems don't happen with other ethnic minority articles, like Baltic Germans, Baltic Russians, Shanghai Russians, Harbin Russians, Bessarabia Germans, Crimea Germans,etc..? Sincerely I am astonished by what is going on here.This looks like an illogical "war"--Brunodam (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This matter is settled, there was no consensus to move, even among the Dalmatian users. The Wikiproject Italy tag should definetly be added, this is how minority articles are written. Once again, Brunodam, I ask you not to do what you and I both said we would never do: restart the edit wars. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your understanding. Regards.--Brunodam (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)