Talk:Dalmatia

DAI

User:Thhhommmasss (edit), "History" section needs work (will check it in upcoming days/weeks), but the edited information isn't neutral and true, however reliably sourced, as it has been widely disputed in science. Wikipedia isn't based on primary historical sources which often have erroneous information hence relies on secondary sources who made an analysis, comparison, criticism and else of them. Major and other viewpoints are explained in sections of linked articles contradicting the edited information/viewpoint by Fine (whose works aren't without much criticism), and widely discussed by editors in many talk pages reaching a consensus (including recently Talk:Višeslav of Serbia#RfC on DAI and NPOV). Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources you cite with respect to DAI are all Croatian historians. I am sure there are Serb historians who conversely cite only the portions dealing with Serbs in Dalmatia. Fact is there were until the 14th century multiple Serb states in southern Dalmatia, including a state of the Njemanic's with its main city in Ston on Peljesac, plus the 14th-century Duchy of St. Sava, mentioned by Jozo Tomasevich among others. Those are facts, and they do not make these parts Serbian states today, same as many posted maps of 11-century Croatia that include half of Bosnia, do not make Bosnia Croatian, nor do huge maps of Venetian holdings make Dalmatia Italian Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"The sources you cite with respect to DAI are all Croatian historians" proves you didn't check the sources at all, as I am citing international and Serbian historians as well. Your bold edit can be considered now as disruptive. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I stated what is cited for DAI. On Google Scholar John Fine's book "Early Medieval Balkans" is cited 467 times, the 2 Croatian sources referring to the DAI are cited 4 and Zero times, respectively, so it is clear what is or isn't reliably sourced. So you are making your judgements over Google Scholer what are Reliable Sources, Your bold deletion of a widely cited, clearly reliable source, in preference to minor, marginal sources is clearly disruptive.Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You cannot state something ignoring WP:WEIGHT which you clearly don't understand hence making disruptive edits. That's not how WEIGHT and reliability are established on Wikipedia neither it's relevant considering the issue. A source can be regarded as reliable/unreliable but specific information/viewpoint cited in the source can be still unreliable/reliable and minor/significant/major viewpoint for citation on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

What is per WP the weight of a Zero-cited source, apparently self-published on zero-peer-reviewed Academia.edu, which you left, compared to a widely-cited book by a professor of history at a major world university, whom you deleted? If by weight you mean many zero-cited sources, then there are no doubt many Serbian sources who also lend "weight" to their claims. Next to this zero-cited source is a citation of Ivan Muzic, whom Croatian Wikipedia describes as a lawyer and "a passionate polemicist from the point of view of Croatian nationalism and Catholicism".The cited article, which is a review of Muzic's book (The Origins of the Croats: The Autochthonousness of Croatian ethnogenesis on the soil of the Roman province of Dalmatia), states that Muzic himself describes his "methodology" as: "Works that do not fit my criteria, regardless of their authority, I did not mention" and the reviewer states this is a purely subjective work, i.e. an opinion piece. Wow, sure sounds scientific and NPOV to me! By all means, let's then add here lots of citations of "passionate polemicists from the point of view of Serbian nationalism and Orthodoxy", who ignore authoritative works that do not fit their "criteria", for some real WP:WEIGHT. Anyway, I do not see that either of these 2 cited sources meet even the minimum WP criteria for RS, and should be deleted Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not continuing this ridiculous and nonsensical discussion. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

lead section region discussion

I've recently reverted a new user's change that removed the notion of Dalmatia being in Croatia from the top of the article (which would be glaring NPOV/UNDUE issue), while at the same it is a bit overcrowded there, esp. in combination with the hatnote. Suggestions welcome how to phrase it in a more concise manner. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)