Talk:Venetian Albania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence[edit]

Evidences about the Albania veneta

There are plenty of evidences about the "Albania veneta": please, read the Bibliography and the References.

From the academic point of view there are data and documents clearly related to the venetian speaking populations in the coastal Montenegro during the last centuries. Dalmata

Dalmata, thank you for your support. If you, or others, want detailed data on the Albania veneta, I gladly will write about. But we will have to read all these data and evidences without the interference of the "nationalistic" points of view. And unfortunately that is something "very very very" difficult to achieve with some wikipedians.....I have had some sad experience about this huge problem in wikipedia.
Ok. Can you write in detail those data and evidences, that support the voice "Venetian albania-montenegro"? I can add something by myself in future. Dalmata

Problems with the article[edit]

Let's begin from the top. First of all, the title of this article is incorrect. "albania" and "montenegro" should be spelled with capital letters. Second of all, I'm afraid this subject fails one of the most important criteria for articles: WP:N. For a good example: see the Google search results, yielding absolutely no result. This means that this article should be deleted. A solution however, can be found in renaming it, but I cannot possibly imagine which name would be correct for it. Perhaps the author can?

Venetian albania-montenegro is the coastal area of Montenegro that was called Albania veneta from 1420 to 1797.

As I see from the article, the coast of Montenegro only encompasses a part of this historical entity. But what is more important, I don't think that this subject deserves an independent article - but the data could be integrated into other articles that deal with this subject (History of Venice, Bay of Kotor, Montenegrin Littoral), but most certainly not an independent article - for as it seems, it was a territorial possession of a foreign (non-domestic) power and it used that name for the area in question - it wasn't ever used by anyone else. And what's more important, I don't see any convincing evidence at all that the Most Serene Republic actually used that term at all in the first place (the google search, revealing nothing at all, is mostly showing this).

The first image just shows historical parts of Montenegro that were possessed by Venice and than Fascist Italy (and they are incorrect, Old Montenegro, the Catoon Nachy, was too with Venice, albeit as a vassal). What is the point of that map (especially to this actually controversial subject of this article)? Is it there to present Italian historical claims for parts of modern Montenegrin land?

The map to the below shows absolutely no "Venetian albania-montenegro".

The last image is the map of the Independent State of Croatia, and has nothing to do with the actual subject of this article (even less than all the other). And the other parts do not deal at all with "Venetian albania-montenegro" - but the Bay of Kotor.

The main part of the texts is dealing with a wholesome history of this entity (and not just for the part during its existence, like it should - in 1420-1797, if that's correct), but the history of the area - concentrating with Montenegro. Thus, it violates another one of most important Wikipedia's policies - WP:NOR. Especially the quite strange following bit: Under the Habsburg domination, the "Albania veneta" was called even "Austrian albania". I myself, a historian that knows quite a lot (or I think I do, at least) was immensely shocked when I saw this - almost as much as I was when I saw the title of this article (I bear no recognition of either of the two). What is the source for this, if I may know? Google here as well shows absolutely not a single search result of it.

The remainder of the article also (WP:OR) deals with the history of the Gulf of Kotor, including making speculating conclusions such as all blatantly assuming all Roman Catholic Christians automatically as Italians (if I remember, some Croatian Wikipedians did the same - but even they had sources from Croatian historiography for it).

And the very last two paragraphs simply make no sense. Of what relevance to this subject 21.53% montenegrin citizens that declared their native language "Montenegrin" in the 2003 population census could possibly have?

I remember when I cropped Red Croatia to a normal article - it also rotated itself on denying that Montenegrins and Serbs ever existed, and that they all come from Croats - rather than Red Croatia itself. I'm afraid a similar problem is present with this article too. It deals more around the history of the Bay of Kotor filled with unrelated or strange (unsourced I mean) facts, rather than "Venetian albania-veneta" in the first place. I'm afraid I don't see a way to fix this one and save it from deletion though... --PaxEquilibrium 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I just read the 3 pdf sources, and not a single one of them makes reference to this subject. Then I went for the books, to the only two books used as references - I've checked out with my friend, there is no such thing as this article deals in Norwich's history of Venice.

So unless more sources than Martin's history of Venice are supplied (so far I'm having second thoughts on whether it speaks about a "Venetian albania-montenegro" at all), I will nominate this article for deletion. Is there a reason why I shouldn't? --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt this "Venetian Albania-Montenegro" even existed because the Venetian colony in the Bay of Kotor was called Bay of Kotor (literal translation from the actual colony name), not Venetian Albania-Montenegro or whatever it was, assuming this is correct.
However, in worldstatesmen.org, I looked at the index and found this under section A: Albania Veneta: see Boka Kotorska under Montenegro. And when I go here: http://worldstatesmen.org/Montenegro.html#Kotor , it states this: 1687: Venetian possessions in present-day Montenegro (Gulf of Boka Kotorska and coastal Montenegro) organized into one administrative unit: Albania Veneta, subordinated to Dalmatia.
If you google "Albania veneta", there is about 86,000 results, a few I saw did involve Montenegro (Boka Kotorska) to be part of Albania veneta. So, if whatever is found about Boka Kotorska being part of "Albania veneta", rather than "Venetian albania-montenegro", than we should otherwise move the page to the correct name. --CrnaGora 22:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources:

Also see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venetian_albania-montenegro&action=edit&section=2 this}: To this day nobody knows with certainty the identity of this pseudo-Tsar (though it is certain he was not Russian). Contemporary reports say that a nameless vagabond appeared in the region of Cattaro (Kotor) - then a part of "Venetian Albania" - in 1766, or perhaps earlier, and settled in Mahine, a coastal community of Montenegrins subject to Venice... It is thus that I propose the compromise to the bottom. --PaxEquilibrium 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data and Evidences on the Albania veneta[edit]

Dear Dalmata, I see that we are back to the usual nationalistic fights that damage wikipedia. I am astonished reading that Paxequilibrium want to "cancel" all the voice. May be he doesn't understand that wikipedia is NOT a nationalistic forum, but it is based and ruled on objective and impartial opinions. That is the reason why I require the intervention of an IMPARTIAL administrator, an administrator who should NOT be born in the Adriatic area (not Croat, Serb, Montenegrin, Italian, etc.. ) or with "family and/or work" roots there.

Now let me start to explain this: 1)Nobody can deny the existence of the "Albania veneta", as CrnaGora states :..."If you google "Albania veneta", there is about 86,000 results, a few I saw did involve Montenegro (Boka Kotorska) to be part of Albania veneta". But this is only one research (anyway, I doubt he checked all the 86000...) What about the ACADEMIC research in JSTOR or in the american "Library of Congress", to name only two? I believe the scholars should be trusted MORE than google, don't you? 2)I originally wanted to name the voice "Albania veneta", but in the english wikipedia I preferred to use the related english words. But "Venetian albania" sound related to Albania only, so I decided to relate the voice to Montenegro and to Albania togheter. Anyway, to show that I am not closed to nationalistic points of view, I agree with CrnaGora to "move the page to the correct name", as he wrote. I even ask IN A FRIENDLY WAY the opinion of Paxequilibrium about the possibility of renaming the voice as "Albania veneta", instead of "Venetian albania-montenegro". 3)This is an historical voice and has nothing to do with nationalistic claims. Wikipedia is based on contribution about ANY historical subject, yes or no? I am afraid that Paxequilibrium shows his nationalistic mentality when writes:..."Is it there to present Italian historical claims for parts of modern Montenegrin land?..." This phrase is unbelievable! It reminds me the propaganda of Tito in the forties and fifties. Allow me to remember all of you that we are in a century where it is being created the European Union and the nationalistic points of view are being forgotten more and more. I am only interested (a) to write about the presence of Venice in coastal Montenegro and (b) to create a voice about the recent history of these areas, with references to the romance language used there (and still used by 500 italians). 4)The voice is based on the italian wikipedia voice "Albania veneta". This means that some data and informations in my "Venetian albania-montenegro" are translated from the italian voice, where they have been checked and approved by administrators of the italian wikipedia. Why cancel my voice if the italian voice is judged worth of wikipedia? Allow me to repeat that this "cancellation proposal" is against the impartiality of wikipedia (and reminds me the infamous "communist Yugoslavia" 's censure). 5) Tomorrow I am going to write detailed data & references to support my voice. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY DATA & REFERENCE AGAINST THE VOICE. There are some books (bibliography) that deny the "Albania veneta"? There are academic sources against what I wrote? Brunodam

There is no nationalism here. Just the notion 22% Montenegrins speaking the Montenegrin language. What on earth does it have to do with the Venetian Albanian territory? There is no nationalism here, but the problem is that 90% of the article either doesn't makes sense (no relevance) or simply does not refer to this article's subject at all.
I didn't check all 86,000 (only some of them), but they are all irrelevant, because not a single of them mentions "Venetian albania-montenegro". No one denies that Venetian possessions in Albania existed - but everyone denies that a "Venetian albania-montenegro" never ever existed. There are no sources that support Venetian albania-montenegro - and thus producing such a name is original research.
To conclude, Wikipedians are not merited upon their place of birth or ethnic origin - but based upon their personal virtues. You're accusing others for nationalism and applying this rude generalization?
I am only interested (a) to write about the presence of Venice in coastal Montenegro. Well then do. No one is stopping you. AFAIK, I am encouraging you. But do not do this.
Thus, I propose(d) moving to "Venetian Albania" and cutting out all the irrelevant info (which is sadly, most of the content). --PaxEquilibrium 13:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what's a voice? --PaxEquilibrium 13:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not blame me for misunderstanding you for having "territorial claims" but bumping the occupation of Fascist Italy in an article about Venetian possessions simply beamed to that course. --PaxEquilibrium 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Venetian albania-montenegro?[edit]

As the author of the German article de:Venezianisches Albanien I've just seen that some one has copied our little bibliography into this article. So you have now a good list of literature, but the article is still nonsense. I want to try explaining my point of view, but my English is not really good, please excuse me there for.

1. The English title is completely wrong. It has never existed a territory, which was called Venetian albania-montenegro.
2. The defenition what Venetian Albania is, should make clear, that it was an historical province of the Venetian Republic, which has existed from the 15th century to the 18th century. So it is completely useless to write about the history, population et cetera of this area in the time before an after these centuries under this title. You should also explain, why this region, today in Montenegro get the name Albania Veneta as we tried in the German version. 3. Quite 50% of the text do not tell anything about the Venetian time in the Montenegrin coast area.

Decius--217.234.158.172 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decius, in the point 2 on my former post ("Data & evidences on...") you can find the explanation about the english title. I should have called it Albania veneta, like the italian and german voices. But I have wanted to "enlarge" the subject and so I have included even the history of the romance populations in the coastal montenegro. Do you have a good idea for the title? Allow me to repeat that I want to solve the problem "in a friendly way", as I have written to Paxequilibrium. Furthermore, I have stated in point 4 of my former post that "....The voice is based on the italian wikipedia voice "Albania veneta"....", because I understand minimally the german language of your "Venezianisches Albanien" (from which I have only copied the useful bibliography). Your version looks to me interesting: do you know how can I translate it in english (or in italian/spanish)? Thank you. Brunodam --Brunodam 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

Thank you CrnaGora.

I advice the article to be changed to "Venetian Albania".

I think it's obvious that the Venetians called one of their possessions in accordance to the local country - Albania - of which the present day Montenegrin coast was a constitutive part, rather than of the Venetians' Dalmatia to the west (Dalmatia ended at the western border of the Republic of Ragusa).

This way it seems as if the author is trying to present some... (I don't know how to say this without making it seem bad faith) pretensions for Montenegro. I mean all the images and most of the text concentrates on Montenegro - and not on "Albania Veneta".

I propose the reader to concentrate solely on the history in this entity's existence, for there is absolutely no need to expand it to what was before and after - just as for any past historical entity or former country we do not use the data that goes beyond its existence. As the most important argument for this, I draw that the Venetian possessions in Albania today do not exist.

I also advice this to be re-incorporated in the History of Albania omnibus.

Also, see WP:OR. No new research should be presented on Wikipedia. --PaxEquilibrium 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to rename the voice "Venetian Albania", in a similar way to what there it is in the italian and german wikipedia. The history of the "venetian speaking populations" of the Venetian Albania is totally related to the voice, in my opinion. I think there should be even a section related to the "venetian architecture" in coastal Montenegro. I believe the "venetian heritage" in the adriatic Montenegro of our days can be seen in many ways, from architecture to the recent creation of the "Comitato Cattaro" of the Dante Alighieri association -for the italian language- in Kotor (phone:

0031-82-334-224; Fax:0031-82-334-224; internet website:www.dante.alighieri.kotor;Email:dante-kotor@cg.yu ). Dalmata

What on earth is a "Voice"? Article? Subject? --PaxEquilibrium 14:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paxequilibrium, call it article or voice , whatever you want , but stop vandalizing! History is impartial, don't forget. Mussolini created the Province of Cattaro because of the venetian "Albania veneta". Read the english historian Dennis Smith about. So, there it is an historical relationship. Dalmata
I'm not vandalizing. To understand what is vandalism, please refer to WP:VAND. Could you please cite me what Dennis Smith says about it? Word by word, please? --

PaxEquilibrium 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read his famous book on Fascism. Brunodam
No, I will not. You have to quote it. And please sign yourself with the four tildas (~). --PaxEquilibrium 17:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. Paxequilibrium, you are a bit lazy. Don't you know that all scholars MUST research by themselves the data and references (when indicated with precise pages). They are not university students who need help here and there: and wikipedia is not a university, so find by yourself. Cherso

Italians?[edit]

500 Italians in the Bay of Kotor? How can that be correct?

Ask the Comitato Cattaro and the Comunita' nazionale italiana del Montenegro. They have phone, fax and address. Brunodam
I think you misunderstood how things go in Wikipedia - you do not put something and ask us to search for sources - you supplement them yourself, especially in controversial cases like this one. More importantly - there are not much over one hundred Italians in all of Montenegro. How could possibly there be five times more in the Bay of Kotor (which is [only] a part of Montenegro). Where's the logic? --PaxEquilibrium 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For instance there are around 125 Italians in whole of Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 14:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check up the references given, Paxequilibrium. Only in Italy there are hundreds of Montenegrins immigrated recently who have applied for the Italian citizenship, because they have/had Italian parents who were registered as Italians during the Governatorato di Dalmazia in 1941-1943. Cherso.

Vandalism[edit]

I request the intervention of an IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATOR to stop the vandalism done by Paxequilibrium and others. The italian wikipedia's "Albania veneta" is accepted without problems by wikipedia. And my voice is translated initially from there. --Brunodam 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to calm down, and discuss your controversial changes with other editors before accusing them of vandalism, nationalism, etc. Please remain civil in the discussions and consider others' opinions, espacially in cases like this where hardly anyone agrees with you. If you insist on administrator's intervention, you can report anything at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and they'll consider it. Please be aware that your behaviour has already violated some Wikipedia policies, including WP:3RR, and that, if you want to continue editing, you have to take those policies into consideration. I am not reverting your version yet, although its POV is blatant, because of the three-revert rule, but I'm warning you that arrogance and stubborness can't bring anything good to Wikipedia. So, please stop. Sideshow Bob 16:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I have invited a third party neutral administrator that is not ethnically from former Yugoslavia.
I have warned you already. Please see WP:VAND. We (S-B and I) have not been conducting vandalism. A bunch of excuse-my-french crap are tolerated on other Wikipedias (like the "Croatian national right" on Serbian Wiki, "Boccans" on Croatian Wiki, etcetera), and as much esteemed as Italian Wiki is, it's expectable that it has some controversial articles too.
And please do not use "voice".
For now, at least keep the tags until mediation aid arrives. OK? --PaxEquilibrium 17:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted the headquarters of Wikimedia/Wikpedia in Florida. I am the one who is writing something on the article:all the problems are being created by the continuous cancellations of Paxequilibrium and others. By the way: until now NOTHING has been written by these nationalists in the article. They only "tag and cancel" in perfect "communist Tito-style". Initially Paxequilibrium even wrote that "I don't think that this subject deserves an independent article", but now he accepts that the article can exist as in the italian and german wikipedias......He even wrote that I was "blatantly assuming all Roman Catholic Christians automatically as Italians", while I never wrote about the catholicism in my article. And he, with Sideshow Bob, deny all the data from books that I have referred in the "voice". Here it is a list:
  • Will Durant in his book The Renaissance (..The dominions of Venice in the Adriatic sea are even related to the relationship of this italian city with the romance speaking populations in Dalmatia..)
  • Matteo Bartoli in his book Le parlate italiane della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia.(...These villages looked to Venice even for protection and around them the Venetians started to create their dominions in Dalmatia...)
  • Luigi Paulucci in his book "Le Bocche di Cattaro nel 1810" (..the population of the Albania veneta, during the centuries of the Republic of Venice, was mainly venetian speaking (aproximately 66%) in the urban areas (Cattaro, Perasto, Budua, ecc..) around the "Bocche di Cattaro" (Bay of Kotor).But in the inland areas more than half of the population was serbocroatian speaking, after the first years of the eighteenth century....)
  • Diego De Castro in his book Dalmazia, popolazione e composizione etnica. Cenno storico sul rapporto etnico tra Italiani e Slavi nella Dalmazia. (...in the austrian census of 1910, the italians were reduced to only 13.6% in Cattaro..)
  • The linguist Matteo Bartoli in "Le parlate italiane della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia". (...The "disappearance" of the italian speaking populations in Dalmatia was nearly complete after WWII. The linguist Matteo Bartoli calculated that the italians were 33% of the Dalmatian population during the napoleonic wars, while actually there are only 300 italians in the croatian dalmatia and 500 italians in coastal Montenegro....)
  • Scaglioni Marzio in "La presenza italiana in Dalmazia 1866-1943" (...During the nineteenth century, according to the historian Scaglioni Marzio, the wars of independence of Italy from the Austro-Hungarian empire created a situation of harrassment against the italian (or venetian speaking) communities in the austrian southern dalmatia. The result was that in 1880 there were in Cattaro, according to the austrian census, only 930 ethnic italians (or only 32% of a total population of 2910 people)....)

Finally, I want to repeat "..I DON'T SEE ANY DATA & REFERENCE AGAINST THE VOICE. There are some books (bibliography) that deny the "Albania veneta"? There are academic sources against what I wrote? Brunodam.."

I am afraid I am in the middle of the usual balkan nationalistic wars that damage wikipedia. That is why I request the intervention of an impartial admministrator (and I hope he is not going to be a "friend" of Paxequilibrium). Anyway, whatever he decides will be good to me: the wikipedia headquarters (Jimbo and others) have been notified. --Brunodam 19:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have I seen any data & reference for a Venetian albania-montenegro.
The problem is that you add data that makes no sense at all. For example, no one denies that 21%+ Montenegrins declare their native language as Montenegrin language - and that it's sourced - but of what possible relevance could it have to Venetian possessions in the western Balkans? I could create an article known as Montenegrin albania-serbia and write that the Albanian presidential election, 2007 will likely fail and that it will initiate new parliamentary elections in Albania, and I could write that about 95% of the population of the Republic of Albania thinks that Kosovo is an independent country - and put sources for those, but they won't have any relevance at all.
Please stop using voice, it has no such meaning in English language.
Also please stop with blatant nationalist accusations. I for one thing am just applying Wikipedia's policy here. --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you write is unbelievable. All those evidences and you deny everything. You remember me the old Tito supporters with their lies.Cherso

Page rename[edit]

I propose that this page be renamed to Albania Veneta as Venetian Albania is a neologism, is misleading and will likely lead to more misunderstanding. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it as in English history books it is not normally translated to "Venetian Albania". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian city names, Italian authors with considerable biase[edit]

First of all you cannot claim that the cities were primarily Serbocroat and then write their name in Italian. I know you are used to talking about them this way, but this IS the English Wikipedia. You cannot write names in Italian, you must put them in brackets.
Second. I know you referenced the section on the history of the Romance-speakers almost entirely. Your effort is commendable, however, some of the things you wrote about are highly controversial and therefore need an unbiased source, that must NOT be Yugoslav or Italian. I can find you many historians around here that say the completely opposite things. I hope you agree with me on this... but somehow I doubt it. DIREKTOR 09:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Gustav, some of the stuff mentioned there is pretty radical. You really hve to find an UNBIASED source BEFORE you even post such isulting material. Not only is it insulting it is revanchist, irredentist and basically says Slavs should just move out of Kotor because it should historically be in Italy. This kind of material needs independent, unbiased, preferrably English, sources. As for the names, the most important thing is for people to know what town we are talking about and then if they like they can read right next to it the name of the town in those days (even though Italian names are used when those towns weren't called that anymore even in historic terms). These are the names of the cities now, I know they sound better to you in Italian, but those towns don't exist (in English) anymore, Cattaro does not exist, Kotor does. If this offends you, please note that this is the way enyclopedic material is written and that I'm not motivated by nationalism in any way. Regards DIREKTOR 21:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not motivated by nationalism in any way"...what a lie, Direktor! You are a master of lies, like in "Zadar", "History of Dalmatia", "Istrian exodus", etc... Shame on you, fanatic croat!

Pay no attention to this man. He is admittedly a fascist and has been banned, but keeps rotating his IP.

This article is about the historical entity Albania Veneta, the Venetian possession- therefore the Venetian placenames should come first with the modern names in brackets. And as for the claim that it indicates that Slavs should be cleansed from the area because it is really part of Italy, the edits make no such claim in fact they claim that Italian speakers moved or were driven away from the area. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, RADICAL. The Italians were DRIVEN out of there!? Ethnic Italians were only there in small numbers, they were italianized Catholic south Slavs. This is an accusation of ethnic cleansing against an entire state. Where is that referenced? Unbiased references please. The Italian names may be returned if you want, as far as I'm concerned, you made your point. Be careful about the rest though. This is very hot stuff, debated fiercely on many articles. As you may have judged by the outburst up there... Rest assured I am no nationalist and am digusted by the very idea. (The fanatic Croat thing is even more laughable, I support the reunification of Yugoslavia, hardly a fanatic Croatian political choice.) DIREKTOR 01:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Project[edit]

Please take some time to read our guidelines on reliable sources. There is no way you can consider the Joshua Project in any way a reliable, scholarly source to be used as a reference for any information in this, or any other article (with the possible exception of an article on the project itself).--Isotope23 talk 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I have used the data of the evangelical organization "Joshua Project" only to show that there are 1200 italians in Montenegro, and not a few dozen. And this christian organization is "super partes": it is not ethnically manipulated by italians or serbs. Even the 500 indicated by the forumer Brunodam who initially wrote the article are a mistake. But the section about the disappearance of the venetian speaking population of the Albania veneta in the last two centuries has plenty of evidences (see the bibliography): 1)Will Durant in his book The Renaissance (..The dominions of Venice in the Adriatic sea are even related to the relationship of this italian city with the romance speaking populations in Dalmatia..) 2)Matteo Bartoli in his book Le parlate italiane della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia.(...These villages looked to Venice even for protection and around them the Venetians started to create their dominions in Dalmatia...) 3)Luigi Paulucci in his book "Le Bocche di Cattaro nel 1810" (..the population of the Albania veneta, during the centuries of the Republic of Venice, was mainly venetian speaking (aproximately 66%) in the urban areas (Cattaro, Perasto, Budua, ecc..) around the "Bocche di Cattaro" (Bay of Kotor).But in the inland areas more than half of the population was serbocroatian speaking, after the first years of the eighteenth century....) 4)Diego De Castro in his book Dalmazia, popolazione e composizione etnica. Cenno storico sul rapporto etnico tra Italiani e Slavi nella Dalmazia. (...in the austrian census of 1910, the italians were reduced to only 13.6% in Cattaro..) 5)The linguist Matteo Bartoli in "Le parlate italiane della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia". (...The "disappearance" of the italian speaking populations in Dalmatia was nearly complete after WWII. The linguist Matteo Bartoli calculated that the italians were 33% of the Dalmatian population during the napoleonic wars, while actually there are only 300 italians in the croatian dalmatia and 500 italians in coastal Montenegro....) 6)Scaglioni Marzio in "La presenza italiana in Dalmazia 1866-1943" (...During the nineteenth century, according to the historian Scaglioni Marzio, the wars of independence of Italy from the Austro-Hungarian empire created a situation of harrassment against the italian (or venetian speaking) communities in the austrian southern dalmatia. The result was that in 1880 there were in Cattaro, according to the austrian census, only 930 ethnic italians (or only 32% of a total population of 2910 people)....). Finally, I have read many other voices about ethnical issues in the Balkans and they have a very limited bibliography....not like the one (very extensive) we have here. I agree that most are italians, but Will Durant is french and there are even writings from Romanians about this disappearance. Le.

  • The Joshua Project is an evangelical organization; not a census bureau. They take their data from other sources without actually citing the specific sources they are getting this data from. There is simply no way this can be considered a reliable source on population. I strongly suggest you find a reliable source for this.--Isotope23 talk 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the data from Joshua Project very reliable, even if they are based on religious information. All the religious articles in Wikipedia are based on data from religious organizations: why we rely on them and don't cancel all? Cherso

Sources biased on a national basis[edit]

All right, let's get this straight: if you find an unbiased source for anything, you may post it with no resistance from me. However, if you think I'm gonna back down on your use of ureliable (i.e. biased) Italian sources to formulate an entire SECTION based on strong POV, you're in for a shock. Get this, THIS IS (apparently...) A HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLE based on national (i.e. ethnic) differences, therefore:

1) Make an effort to find sources that do not have national biase (from both sides), if you want a post to go uncontested.

2) Try to find level-headed non-involved sources (don't go quoting Mein Kampf or something).

3) No I do NOT need specific sources that specifically say that particular text wich you posted is biased on a national basis (that much is obvious anyway), you need to find normal sources before even posting controversial stuff.

I will do my best to prevent unreliable historians of the conflicting national groups from finding their way into the article. With regard to my Italian friends, DIREKTOR 00:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There are many reliable sources, read them without fanatism in the article. Bring you a reliable source that goes against what I have written!

I suggest we move this discussion to your talkpage as it concerns other articles as well. DIREKTOR 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace offering[edit]

Brunodam, as two intelligent individuals I believe the two of us just might find a peaceful way out of this. Before I go any further I want to know wether you are willing to commit to resolving this via intelligent discussion? I await your response. We are both upset, that much is clear, can we not try to back away for a second? DIREKTOR 02:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But stop reverting Albania Veneta. If you have a reliable source against what I have written, write it on the article and I will accept.--Brunodam 02:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I will stop reverting (for the time being). But note that you are approaching this from an incorrect perspective. I do not have to find sources denying your statements, you have to find (unbiased) sources confirming them. I'm sure you know that is the way things usually work. DIREKTOR 02:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but wikipedia is written on reliable sources. Find impartial and serious sources that say that there were no venetian speaking populations in Albania Veneta (and the percentage against their existence) and write it on the article, that is the way wikipedia works. Because this is related to Albania Veneta, and I don't want to "enter" in other articles like Zadar or Istrian exodus, I wish to write everything in the discussion page of Albania Veneta. --Brunodam 02:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I don't believe Italy has actually political rights on Istria and Dalmatia. The nationalism phase is history now for most Italians. Not even the most fanatic italian fascists want to recreate an "Italian Empire" in Ethiopia. I personally want only to study and "put light" on wikipedia about the history of Dalmatia related to the neolatin populations that have lived there (and still live there in small communities). And Albania Veneta is the historical southern section of Dalmatia. I am sure you have grown in an embattled country (Croatia) that has influenced your thinking at the point that you see everything from a nationalistic point of view (and so you "fear" aggression from Italy like has happened from Serbia). No, Direktor, we Italians (I should say the majority of us) look to the European Union and hope to bypass the nationalism that has blooded our Europe. I sincerely hope that Croatia (like all the areas of former Yugoslavia) will soon enter in the European Union.--Brunodam 02:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's that patronizing tone again... The horrible destruction in Yugoslavia only made one thing clear to me: the utter STUPIDITY of nationalism in all it's forms, since it and only it is to blame for the bloody annihilation of a prosperous state kept together by Tito. Though your asuumption is not incorrect concerning many (mostly rural) Croats. Also it would be very stupid to fear aggression from Italy, not only for the reasons you mentioned but for many other geopolitical reasons as well. You have apparently created a picture of my personality according to a stereotype. I will not take offence, though, since you are partially right in stereotyping Croats thusly. But back to the matter at hand. Let me rephrase my question: Who do you believe has more historic (not ethnic!) right to Dalmatia and Istria, Croatia (i.e. Yugoslavia) or Italy? DIREKTOR 03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, Direktor, we cannot go on and on with these questions or we are going to write a book on the argument, don't you believe? Let's write about Albania Veneta. I have a lot of work and cannot dedicate too much to this talkpage: I hope to read tomorrow that you have found reliable sources to defend your opinions in Albania Veneta.

By the way, from the historical point of view I believe both Italy and Croatia have historical rights to Dalmatia, but Istria is another "stuff". I personally believe this can be a discussion like the one done in the middleages about "the sex the angels"....Anyway, I have visited Dalmatia three times (but never Montenegro) and I have always received a positive impression from the people there. The Croats look to me as the most "Latin" of the Slavs (a bit like the French are the most German of the Neolatins or the English are the most Latin of the Germans), especially the half of them living on the Adriatic. The Croats of Dalmatia are catholics, use the roman alphabet, dress and eat like southern western european people, even have a look (many of them are dark haired) and a behavior warm, similar to northern Italians. What makes these Croats different from the neolatin people? Only the language. I have seen in Spalato (your Split) a football match of the Split team against the Zagreb team, in which the local fans were screaming that they were different from "continental" Croats (and wanted to "separate").

Sincerely, I like very much Croatia, mainly the Dalmatian one. And, last but not least, I believe your intelligence is capable of understanding that Tito and Mussolini and Stalin and Hitler are history with all the "blood" related to them. We Italians believe that without Mussolini Istria would still be Italian, but do you realize that without Tito the guerrilla war during WWII in Yugoslavia would have been like in Greece (with a few dozen of thousands deaths only)? Well, I realize that I am writing too much: I hope tomorrow to read your reliable sources. Regards.--Brunodam 03:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's true, the Dalmatians are the only Slavs in the world to have been influenced by Mediterranean culture. We are proud of this uniqueness and regard our culture as a "mixture" of the Slavic and Italian. You understand why I contest claims that our culture and legacy is solely Italian. It is not purely Italian, and it is not purely Slavic, it is Dalmatian. Lately (in the last 35 years or so) the ancient cities of the coastline are being unfortunately overwhelmed by migrants from the rural Dalmatian hinterland much faster than they can assimilate them. This is making the culture of the cities (Spalato being the best example) less and less Latin (or Mediterranean if you will). The old Split families, such as my own, are powerless to stop this inevitable process and must watch in disgust the rapid ruralisation of the city. In a couple of decades, I'm afraid the Italian element in our culture will become a part of history.

As for the huge Yugoslav WW2 mess, believe me, it is vastly more complicated than that. The Partisans are the good guys as far as any Catholic (Croat) is concerned because without them the Orthodox Serbs would dominate the post war Yugoslavia, just as they did in the pre war version, and would continue to opress non-Serbs (the Western, Catholic peoples of Yugoslavia). Also, the people were basically forced into rebellion by the increadibly brutal occupation methods employed by the Axis, there was no choice... ,I'm not gonna go into it anymore, like I said it is INCREDIBLY complicated. (To illustate here's a list of the armed forces involved: the Ustashe, the Domobrani, the Germans (including the SS), the Italians (with the CCNN, later the RSI), the Chetniks, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Partisans (including several Italian brigades after 1943), the Nedichevci, the Bela Garda, the Bosnian Muslim SS units, the local German SS units etc... amazing, isn't it!?)

Hmmm, what makes Dalmatians different from the neolatin people?, well it is not only the language (Dalmatia BTW, has a separate dialect of Croatian that uses very many Venetian words), but also our ethnic composition. Despite the complexity of the Dalmatian culture the ethnicity of the locals (mine may be a possible exeption) is predominantly Slavic and old Illyrian after all, as was discovered conclusively by DNA haplogroup research.
On a lighter note, the Split football club you mentioned, HNK Hajduk, plays against UC Sampdoria today, I think. The stadium over here has been totally sold out for days...

As for Albania Veneta, let's just agree we will accept without further confrontation the ruling of the impartial Admin concerning the validity of the sources. DIREKTOR 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Direktor. Finally I have found some time from my work to answer your last post. As for Albania Veneta, I too agree to "accept without further confrontation the ruling of the impartial Admin concerning the validity of the sources".

I am glad to find that our opinions are similar on adriatic Croatia. And about DNA:we cannot rely 100% on these data (there are many scholars who criticize the DNA haplogroup research).

Modern Dalmatian culture , as you correctly write, are a "mixture" of Slav and Italian cultures. And the Italian influence is seen even in the venetian architecture of the buildings in the islands and coastal cities of Dalmatia. The case of downtown Cattaro/Kotor (protected by the UNESCO) is one of the best examples.

Finally, Bartoli, the linguist who interviewed the last "original" Dalmatian (and wrote the famous book on the extinction of the neolatin Dalmatian language, that has started the movement to revitalize the languages nearly extinct, like the Celtic in Ireland and Scotland) wrote that there were more than 50000 neolatin Dalmatians around the year 1000, when the Venetian language started to assimilate and substitute this language of the romanized Illyrians. I write this in order to pinpoint the unbiased "international level" of Bartoli, who is one of the italian sources in the "Albania Veneta" article I have referred to. Regards.--Brunodam 00:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The culture of Dalmatia during it's history may be shortly rendered thusly, I would appreciate your oppinion concerning this simplyfied depiction (if you can find the time to read carefully).

1) Before the arrival of the Slavs and during the Roman Empire: Culture: purely Roman, or Latin, if you will (note that there is a strong distinction between "Roman" and "Italian", the two are certainly not considered synonyms). Ethnicity (numerically speaking): predominantly the ancient (Romainsed) Illyrian peoples.
2) Early middle ages, before the permanent establishment of Venetian sovereignty: Culture: Latin (Dalmatian)/Slavic (important: the first one is considered primary: 1./2.). Ethnicity: Slavic/Latin (Dalmatian)
3) Period of permanent Venetian rule: Culture: Italian (Venetian)/Slavic. Ethnicity: Slavic/Italian (Venetian) (numerically, of course)
4) Period of Austrian rule: Culture: Slavic/Italian, Italian/Slavic (an even "mixture", so to speak). Ethnicity: Slavic/Italian.
5) 1918 - 1945: Culture: Slavic/Italian. Ethnicity: Slavic/Italian.
6) Modern times: Culture: Slavic/Italian (decreasing, I'm afraid). Ethnicity: predominantly Slavic.

(Note that things like Culture: Slavic/Italian, by no means represent cultural superiority. Political correctness aside, I think we all know the Italian culture is much more complex and intricate than that of the south Slavs, though after WW2 this difference was decreased drastically.) DIREKTOR 01:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., Let's leave the sources to the Admins. Just because Bartoli supports the (obvious) existance of the Dalmatian language, does not mean he is impartial in the "Italian vs. Slav" conflict...



As said before, Direktor, it seems to me that the discussions to define Dalmatia as Italian or Croat are similar to the Bizantine discussions to know if an angel is male or female....We can go on and on, filling entire books. And unfortunately for me I have too much work. I am an Italian living in Florida during the last years and since I have been here my entire life has been upset by the tremendous level of work of the Americans: believe me, they are crazy workaolics, at least those where I work! .....I dream now the quiet mediterranean life....
Anyway, for the last time (and as a show of appreciation to you) I am going to answer your questions:
1)I agree with you. I want only to pinpoint that we Italians (I mean: the majority of us) consider the Romans to be our direct ancestors. To put in a simple way: Romans are our direct "grandfathers", of whom we are proud. Of course, no one of us consider London Italian because was founded by Romans as Londinium. But we believe that we in Italy have a continuity (cultural, ethnic, etc.) from Roman times to the Italian Renaissance and to our Republic of Italy. This is extremely important in order to understand the "unification" process of Italy in the nineteenth century: unfortunately Yugoslavia did not have these kind of roots (or the equivalent of a Roman empire and an Italian Renaissance) in 1918. And you know the final result (with other reasons and causes, of course).

[You are forgeting your germanic heritage, it would seem (Lombards, Ostrogoths, etc...)]

Of course, and we have to include even the Greeks, the Arabs, etc...but don't forget that we are making only a small "resume".
2)I agree, but I want to precise the following. For "ethnicity", we have to remember that after the Avar destruction of Roman Dalmatia (and the forced removal of the most "educated" population of Salona (the capital) and surrounding cities toward Sirmium and the area where now there is Beograd) the area was depopulated. But a minority of romanized Illyrians took refuge in the islands/coasts (where generated successively the neolatin Dalmatians, cited by Bartoli) and in the mountains as sheperds (later called "Vlasi" or Morlachs/Maurovalachs). Then arrived the Slavs, who were a minority in the islands and in the small dalmatian cities of the coast, but were the majority in the interior of Dalmatia. So, until the arrival of the Venetians around the year 1000 there were two ethnic areas in Dalmatia: one with a majority of neolatin Dalmatians in the islands and the coast and another (bigger in size in the interior) with a majority of Slavs (and with inside a minority of "Vlasi" in the "Romanska" and other mountains). We have to remember that Roman Dalmatia was bigger that Venetian Dalmatia. <>

[Of course (it was something like Yugoslavia), but Salona(?), the people of Salona removed to nereby Spalatum (Split) not to Sirmium (Srijem). A minority removed to the islands and coast and the majority in the interior was assimilated by the Slavs they did not go anywhere.]

Direktor, I have collected many data (in italian & english) on the romance languages in the Balkans in my weblog on the Vlachs (brunodam.blog.kataweb.it/). There you can find precise information about the forced removal of Dalmatians toward the Sirmium area and their escape toward nearby southern Carpatian mountains and even Salonique.
3)I agree, but with the same precisation: Initially, the islands and the cities in the coast were ethnically with a majority of neolatin people (the diminishing dalmatians and the growing venetians). But there was an area in the coast around Segna/Senj were the Slavs were already the majority. Of course, when the Turks (in the XV century) started to push cristian Slavs to get refuge inside Venetian Dalmatia (and Albania Veneta), the majority started to tilt toward the Slavs. Bartoli (and others, like the french governor of Dalmatia) wrote that during the french revolution only 33% of the population in Dalmatia was venetian speaking (mostly in some cities, where they were still the majority, like Zara/Zadar, Trau/Trogir and Cattaro/Kotor).
4)I agree, but until 1860 (and the italian wars of independence that tilted the Austrian government against everything italian in their Empire) the culture was italian/slavic.
5)I agree, with the exception of Zara/Zadar and the italian islands of northern Dalmatia.
6)I agree
I even want to remember that the Avar removal of the "elite" from Salona decapitated Roman Dalmatia and probably is the reason of why we have a neolatin Romania and not a neolatin Dalmatia in our times. The "elite" escaped from captivity toward the nearby Carpatian mountains, according to bizantine historians, and slowly created the Valachian principality in the area around Bucarest. Something similar happened with the "elite" in Roman Britain, who escaped toward the french peninsula of Bretania, and probably that is why we don't have a neolatin Britannia in Cornwall in our times.

[The Salonians removed mostly to Spalatum (Split). Wait, WHAT!!? Romanians have absolutely NOTHING to do with Dalmatia!, they are decendants of the incredibly strongly Romanised Dacians. They are NOT ancient Dalmatians, by no means.]

Direktor, I am referring to the "elite". It is the elite of a population the one capable to create a "State": that is the reason why the sheperds called Morlachs were not able to create a political entity and have disappeared. The same has happened in Albania/Greece with the Aromanian (Vlach) sheperds. Of course, this (the influence of the removed Dalmatians in the elite that created Romania) is a personal opinion of some historians and it is "very very very" debated.
Finally, I want to write that I like the croatian "passion" for art: it is something that unite our two countries (and makes Dalmatian Croatia a bit "Latin", don't you believe?). Of course, my citation of Bartoli was to pinpoint his "international level", accepted by most scholars in the world without falling in nationalistic points of view.
Well, I have written enough....I have to go back to work with these workaolic Americans. Regards.--Brunodam 06:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


D, all right, all right, no more questions... DIREKTOR 12:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I liked the Split team in the soccer match last night, but they were unlucky. Ciao. (By the way, do you know that the italian word "ciao" is a reduction of "(s)cia(v)o" tuo (or "slav your") in Venetian?, meaning "I am friendly at your needs")--Brunodam 16:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goddam losers! (Hajduk), had the crowd gotten to them they would have been lynched! They just can't win anything anymore (they used to be the best team in Yugoslavia)! They weren't unlucky, they were inaccurate! DIREKTOR 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Direktor, do you remember there was an agreement between us? Do you remember what you wrote in your "Peace offering"? I don't want to go back to the times of the arbitration on Dalmatia. Regards.--Brunodam (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but Wiki policy[edit]

First of all please believe me: I intended no offense or "aggression" of any sort by these edits. Note: we must use English names. I know Italian names sound better, not only to Italians but to everyone, I dare say, however they are not in accordance with Wiki policy.

According to Wikipedia Policy Italian names here may be used only when these territories were a part of Italy or an Italian state (i.e. Venetian Republic). These are:

  • 1420 - 1797. This would not refer to the town of Perast after the fall of the Venetian Republic. (No matter the current tactical situation on the ground)
  • 1919 - 1943/1945. For the territories and cities in Italy during that period (i.e. Zara, Istria, etc...).

Please remeber that, even though you're probably used to using these names, they are simply incorrect. As are various Italian language names for organizations (Communita Nazionale Italiana), these are translated. I hope we agree that Italian names cannot be used for modern-day Rijeka, any more than "Rim" can be used for the city of Rome, or "Mletci" for Venice. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's a typical sentence: "...centered around the Bocche di Cattaro (Bay of Kotor) and included the small cities of Cattaro (Kotor), Risano (Risan), Perasto (Perast), Teodo (Tivat), Castelnuovo (Herceg Novi), Budua (Budva) and Spizza (Sutomore)."
    • This is about geography, why are the names that should be used exclusively (i.e. the English names) used only in brackets as "side information"? You must understand how this appears, it looks very arrogant as the Italian editor assumes that the names in his language are more important than those in the language of the encyclopedia.

P.S. I won't revert, I refuse to get into another edit war. I'll call in an admin to confirm my statements if necessary. I respect history as a science but one must understand that these are overwhelmingly Slavic lands in modern times, I cannot go further with any arguments without the facts first being accepted by the person I'm talking to. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Another matter, what's with all the emotional Venetian-nostalgic phrases and sentences. I mean, I know what the "Serenissima" is, but I'll bet you my watch by a barn dance 9 in 10 people that read this encyclopedia do not. Cold hard facts only, no odes to the heroic city or admiration for anything, must be included, especially if its controversial. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, I have moved it back as Albania Veneta is the term used in scholarly publications. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am willing to compromise, but I must insist that we agree on the usage of English geographical names. Brunodam, can I hear your opinion? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Direktor, I appreciate your refusal to go down to an edit war. I still remember the days of "arbitration on Dalmatia" and sincerely I don't want to go back to those fights (I remember Giovanni Giove's sad "situation"). I have been out of every discussion on Dalmatia since last year, even for personal reasons. And I will not partecipate anymore in any Dalmatian fight, even because I must concentrate in my job: May is the beginning of the exams in the Florida universities and I will be "flooded" by work. But I want to give you my requested opinion:

1) Albania Veneta is an historical article. Since 1797 that political entity does not exist anymore and all the article is done in an historical point of view. Not in a geographical (or contemporary) point of view, do you understand? So, all the names are related to those centuries names, before Napoleon times. Indeed, Wikipedia rules in "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)" are that ...When mentioned in a historical context, the current local official name can be additionally accompanied by the appropriate historical name in parentheses, where reasonable. This applies both to articles' contents and titles. And this rule applies for every article, even geographical (or ethnic like "Dalmatian Italians").
2) For me it is OK to write every name of the article as stated above by the wiki rule: with two names together (and the second in parenthesis). But why this simple rule is not used in all the other dalmatian articles, from "Dalmatian Italians" to "Istrian exodus", to "Zadar", etc.. ,etc.. , when there it is a section (of the respective article) with historical context? Anyway, I repeat that I want to stay out of all the "nationalist battles" on Dalmatia and Croatia....
3) In an historical example of "Wikipedia:Naming conventions" we can read that in an historical article on WWII it is more correct to write Battle of Stalingrad than Battle of Volgograd (the actual geopolitical city name). Here it is the example: Volgograd or Stalingrad? Volgograd is the single widely accepted English name in modern context but Stalingrad is a widely accepted English name for certain historical contexts. Therefore during the Second World War there was a Battle of Stalingrad, not a Battle of Volgograd, and when referring to the city during the Stalinist era, the term Stalingrad is more correct than Volgograd. So, dear Direktor, why "Perasto" is wrong when referring to the last venetian stand against the French?
4) I invite you to read the examples (in the same "Naming conventions") of Danzig and Costantinopole about how Wikipedia allows the use of those terms in various historical contexts before 1945 and 1453 respectively. And this rule of "historical context" applies even for the article on Zara, my friend, before 1947 (when Zara became officially Zadar).
5) In the section "Widely accepted name" of the same "Naming Conventions" you can read the advise to Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name. And in the Encyclopedia Britannica there it is the name Albania Veneta with all the Venetian/Italian names of those centuries (Cattaro, Bocche di Cattaro, Perasto, Spizza, etc....).
6) Finally I invite you to read the article Free City of Danzig in order to see how Wikipedia deals with the names in an historical article of a city now called Gdansk.


Well, Direktor, allow me to tell you that I appreciate your intelligence in dealing with these "problems". I am sure you will understand the historical perspective (without any "arrogance") of the Albania Veneta article. As an Italian I admit to be a bit "venetian nostalgic", but I understand that we now must be European citizens and forget the past history with all the wars. The same happened between Genoese and Venetians: they did many wars between themselves for hundreds of years but they fought like brothers under the same flag in the world wars. Italians and Croats will be like Genoese and Venetians in the future, I am totally sure! This is going to be my last post on Wikipedia for some time because of my excessive work, as I have written. Regards. --Brunodam (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about historical continuity[edit]

Reading through this article & knowing very little about the subject, one passage puzzles me. Towards the end of the section "History", Albania Veneta is stated to have been absorbed into Austria-Hungary, then I read "The borders of the former Venetian province of Albania Veneta changed again in 1918", then comes the statement it was part of Italy for a few years, & at last it became part of Yugoslavia. So what country was Albania Veneta part of between 1981 & 1941? If it was part of the inter-war Yugoslavia, why not say so? -- llywrch (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your question is related to "1918 & 1941" and not "1981 & 1941". Anyway, I have added a small sentence (hope you 're satisfied now). The reason is that Albania Veneta's history is centered in the centuries of the Republic of Venice and I only wrote "a few lines" about the following years.Regards.--Brunodam (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it does not fit the nostalgic theme of the article. I'm sorry guys, but this emotional article really needs work. 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)--DIREKTOR (TALK)
I don't see any "nostalgic" reason related (Yugoslavia was named successively in the article): the article has been translated in many other wikipedias as it is (more or less), and those who did the translation did not complain about "nostalgia" and "emotional article".Ciao.--Brunodam (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why I chose to get involved in the English Wikipedia rather than the Croatian or Italian ones: other Wikipedia's simply translate articles from the central one without any real criteria. I have seen this as a million times. The fact that any article has been translated and included into the myriad other Wikis should definetly not serve as some kind of "proof" of its quality or NPOV.
I'm busy with other matters right now, but when I have the time I'll get to work on trying to set up a compromise version in cooperation with other involved editors. Let me be clear that I do not intend this as a "threat" of any sort, and that I do not intend to allow this to degenerate into an edit war. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to go back to the times of "Arbitration of Dalmatia" with your "compromise version". In my opinion many articles (Zadar, Dalmatian Italians, etc...) "really need work" after many POV interventions too, but I don't want to edit them because -like you - "I do not intend to allow this to degenerate into an edit war". Regards.--Brunodam (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

Ok, I'm going to translate some of the geography into English. Here's a detailed list of periods in which various states controlled Dalmatia, periods when Dalmatian cities were in Italian states will be marked with bold/italic script:







  • Kingdom of Yugoslavia (October 29 1918 - January 31 1946)
  • SFR Yugoslavia (January 31 1946 - October 8, 1991)
    • Italian occupied Dalmatia (1941-1943) is not considered a part of Italy in accordance with international law, as Yugoslavia is never considered to have dissolved during WW2 (this does not include Zara, Fiume, and Istria).
    • All of Istria and Dalmatia, including Zadar and Rijeka, within the SFR Yugoslavia (without Muggia and San Dorligo della Valle)



Now, in accordance with Wiki guidelines, we must use the name of the period, but when in doubt "use English name". It is very hard, almost impossible to ascertain the most widely used English name for a short period such as that of the Illyrian provinces. In which case we must use the English name. (see WP:NCGN)
Anyway, like I said, I'm going to translate the bare minimum of names in accordance with Wiki policies. Brunodam, you may revert, but please do so only after careful consideration. In any case you'll have a better idea of what I'm proposing, and users will have the version available for their consideration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder: if the article really is about a province of the Venetian Republic that last existed over 211 years ago, then it should be made clear in the text that it no longer existed after April 18 1797,. Italy did not reinstate the province even during its WW2 occupation of Yugoslavia.
Furthermore, the wording of the History section suggested that the province still existed in 1945, which is absurd. Indeed the whole wording of the text implies that Venetian Albania was "occupied" or something until 1941, when it was "liberated" by the Axis powers and then finally destroyed in 1945/43. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No compromise. Respect the agreements. Brunodam


All right, fine. Have it your way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why we did the Arbitration on Dalmatia?[edit]

Why we did the arbitration on Dalmatia? We are at the same point that we were before the arbitration (but now we have the "destruction" of Giovanni Giove, who is no more balancing the posts of the Croats, of course.....). You want to change to your croatian point of view everything, from the article on Zara, to the ones on many topics about the history of Dalmatia, to this one that is not related to Croatia. I want to remind this initial post to Jimbo about Albania Veneta, because it seems we are back EXACTLY at the same initial position:

Dear Jimbo,

I appreciate very much what you are doing with your Wikipedia. It is a great gift to all of us. But there are some "points" that need to be improved, as you know.

One is the presence of nationalistic groups that in a coordinate way want to impose their points of view without regard of what write serious historians. They usually proceed to ask for help from "friendly to them" administrators and so obtain what they want. In Eastern Europe there are many of these groups (mainly ex-communists) and often are associated with hackers.

What do we have to do with these nationalistic groups? In my case I can pinpoint what is going on with the articles "Albania Veneta", "Zadar", "Istrian exodus", etc., where a group of known nationalistic fanatics (like one nicknamed in the english wikipedia as "Direktor") are erasing and damaging what write others with serious and proven references. They use the typical misinformation with "political pressure" of the Soviets in Eastern Europe.

May be you have a serious and impartial administrator, who can help? Regards.--Brunodam 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I believe NOW that these articles AT LEAST need a lot of work because they are biased on one side only: the croatian.

  • Republic of Ragusa
  • Istrian exodus
  • Julian March
  • Dalmatian italians
  • Foibe massacres
  • History of Dalmatia
  • Dalmatia
  • Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia
  • Rab concentration camp
  • Yugoslav partisans
  • Rijeka
  • Mauro Orbini
  • Zadar
  • Istria

I believe we must go back to the request of an impartial administrator of Jimbo, as I wrote in my above post of 08/05/07. Sincerely.--Brunodam (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So you're threatening now?! I told you, Bruno, that I have NO intention of restarting the edit-war(s). If you took the time to read my post, you would see that I specifically wrote that version to show you what I meant. Why are you all worked up, anyway! It's just one edit --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic province[edit]

Is this article about a historic province or isn't it?! Albania Veneta ceased to exist on April 18 1797, but this is not even mentioned in the text, instead it goes on about this area as if the article was about the history of the Kotor Bay. Venice was destroyed by Napoleon, get over it already! its been over 200 years.
Look, if this article is about the province of the Venetian Republic, then treat it as such. At the very least rewrite areas that talk about it as if it still existed in Austro-Hungary and Yugoslavia: it did not. Even Mussolini did not reinstate it during the WW2 occupation.

P.S. Brunodam, are you really User:Pannonicus? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albania Veneta[edit]

If this article is about the Venetian province of Albania Veneta, why, pray tell, does almost half the text refer to periods after the destruction of the Venetian Republic!? The province was not reinstated during the 2 years of Italian rule in WW2, its existence ended on April 18 1797. This is an emotional article that tries to italianize 150 years of the area's history, and "extend" Italian rule through the entire period of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The "Perasto: an enduring example" section is virtually a ballad(!) about the "brave" Italians from Perast enduring evil Slavic rule! The wording is disgusting considering the context of the recent Montenegrin achievement of independence, it is apparently a Wikipedia attempt to somehow "enforce" the Italian claim on the Montenegrin coastline.
The name itself says it all: "Albania Veneta", Venice ceased to exist as a state on April 18 1797. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perasto section[edit]

The Perasto section is a translation from a "Venetian-nostalgic"/irredentist website that is very far from an actual encyclopedia source. There is some relevant information here, but extracting it from the ton of sentimental goo will be tough. "(the) Captain of Perast, lowered the Venetian war-flag pronouncing the farewell words in front of the people of the city, then buried it under the altar of the main church of Perasto..." etc... This is not encyclopedic wording. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO you are in mistake Venetian Republic <> Italy, Italy is a concept started in the XIX century. For this reason no one is italianizing 150 years because Italy was not presente before 1860 d.C. --Ilario (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh no, we've got a misunderstanding. I'm not saying the people at the time, during those 150 years, thought they were being "Italianized", or that "Italianization" took place in Austrian-controlled Bay of Kotor. No, I'm saying that this particular description of the history of the Bay of Kotor in this article "Italianizes" 150 years of history. In other words, the history of the Venetian Albania is not the history of the Bay of Kotor. The history of Venetian Albania lasted until the start of the 19th century. Henceforth, it is only the history of the Kotor Bay. To write-up a history of Kotor Bay here is "Italianization" of the history of that Montenegrin area. I can't explain any clearer.
This article should be redirected to Kotor Bay's history section... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This like to say that the history of Ancient Roman Empire should be included in the history of Rome. --Ilario (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Its like saying the Roman Republic article should include all the history of its territory after its demise. This is a political entity, a province of a defunct state, not a region. If this article is about a region then it should probably be deleted, since this particular term for the Kotor Bay area is very much completely defunct especially in English. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albania?[edit]

Would someone explain what Albania has to do with this province? The name? Maybe Albany, New York should be WikiProject Albania as well? :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i guess it depends on what we define as 'albania'...the territory that is now albania or how the name might have changed to signify different things..sufflay in illyrisch-albanische forschungen defined late medieval 'albania' (i dont remember his exact criteria he used a bunch) as the 'square' 'antivari-prizren-ochrid-valona' and the area antivari-dulcinium was albanian inhabited..man im really not sure about how those project tags are used87.202.53.82 (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Direktor. Added back Albania, please don't remove: Also don't remove WP Italy. Part of today's Albania as per article were part of Albania Veneta. As far as I am concerned Bosnia should be part of it as well. --Sulmues Let's talk 18:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is part of modern Albania? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Durrës in primis. In addition Dagnum, Drisht, and for many years Shkoder. --Sulmues Let's talk 19:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Drač, Skadar, Danj and Drivast? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting worse[edit]

I was checking at how this article looked 3 years ago and I found that it was probably better!!! Check this version of 2007 with today's version, please. Who made this mess? --Sulmues Let's talk 19:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sulmues should restore the 2007 version.Definitively it is better! Jimmy C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.127.9 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article scope[edit]

  • Please do not add material unrelated to the Venetian Republic province of Venetian Albania, i.e. post-1797.
  • Please do not add unsourced information (particularly if its POV). Reference your sources so that they may be verifiable (WP:V), i.e. that they may be checked.
  • Please do not add unencyclopedic nonsense, i.e. the (comical) Perasto section.

Yes, its true that upon removal of all the nonsense there isn't much content left in the article. The subject itself is not notable enough to warrant its own article, and was essentially created by (now-banned) Italian nationalists trying to emphasize the "Italian history" of Montenegro, right in the period after her independence from Serbia. What little relevant, sourced info there is in the article should be merged into the history section of the Kotor Bay article, or simply deleted per WP:N. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of who created the article, but the subject is definitively notable. There is vast literature on it, and it is rather surprising that you claim there isn't. You should point out why you think that it is no notability in your opinion. I think that Albanian Venetia is a very well defined historical region, and it would suffice to have a look at the sources in order to maintain this opinion. Secondly, it is painful to me to see that you, as a contributor of this article, would rather see it vanish, or merged into the history of the Kotor Bay: as a contributor to this article you should know that the Albania Veneta was way larger in geographical terms than the Kotor Bay, which Albania Veneta included, but was not limited to. Do you truly think that the Kotor Bay was the only area of the Albania Veneta, or is this claim of yours hurried? There is this good map that completely contradicts your claim. Last but not least, it appears that you are the major contributor of this article see number of edits, but you are also the responsible of this very much unexplained edit, that reduced the size of the article. --Napoletanamente (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its really all besides the point. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to expand the article, just make sure the text is well sourced (per WP:V) and that it sticks to the topic (i.e. that it doe not cover post-1797 events). The way this article was written, it was more like a romantic ballad. What we had was a good deal of 20th century history in an article about a province of the Venetian Republic. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Well, sometimes it's better to leave things as they are although they might be redundant, rather than deleting. Or at least bring the deleted paragraphs to a more appropriate article such as "Dalmatian Italians", but that's just me. --Napoletanamente (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if it was properly sourced info. It mostly was not. (unreliable forums, blogs and such, or just no sources at all.) And the Dalmatian Italians article already does include the majority of the sourced, post-1797 info that was removed (if not all). This is without even going into the controversial nature of the very biased and unbalanced depiction of history. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, there's a 600+ page book written about this region during the Late Middle Ages. [1] --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dukagjin[edit]

The Dukagjin page needs some help, is anyone up for the challenge?

Twillisjr (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venetian_Albania&oldid=1195474221"