Talk:Zadar/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Zadar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Census for Zara

Austrian census for the town of ZARA (including the center and the localities: Barcagno, Boccagnazzo, Borgo Erizzo, Casali Maggiori, Ceraria, Cerno Malpaga, Puntamica) :

1869 - 8.014 (no ethnic divison)
1880 - 11.861 (no ethnic divison)
1890 - 11.496 (Italians: 7.423 - Serbocroatians: 2.652)
1900 - 13.016 (Italians: 9.018 - Serbocroatians: 2.551)
1910 - 14.056 (Italians: 9.318 - Serbocroatians: 3.532)

Italian commune:

1921 - 18.623 (Italians: 12.283 - Serbocroatians: 2.538)
1931 - 20.324 (no ethnic divison)
1936 - 25.302 (no ethnic divison)

--Giovanni Giove 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How nice. Are these censi on ethnicity? Do you have an actual unbiased (non-Yugoslav, non-Italian) source for all this, or is this all your own personal approximation? Remember, no Bande Nere websites... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm it seems that source is Giove himself. Zenanarh 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Here, I don't see the source for this. I may also write here that in the city of Zkhda'r (Clingon for Zadar), in 1857 lived 12.000 Clingons and 4.768 Romulovulcans.
2) Has Giove told us here, that during Austria-Hungary (that was "against Italians"), "person with knowledge of Italian" was in censuses misrepresented promptly as "person of Italian ethnicity" (no matter if that person was a Croat or Slovenian), in order to statistically lower the number of Slavic peoples (Croats and Slovenians), suppressing all political influence and political requests from them that would arose, when true numbers once appear?
3) Has Giove told us here, the reason what happened when Habsburg Monarchy settled Italian officials from Lombardy, Venice and Furlany in Zadar? Also, what was the consequence, when all those similar officials from those same provinces, previously settled in other cities in province of Dalmatia, moved to live in Zadar? Kubura 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha, you must be blind; NOBODY talks about "Croats or Slovenes". It is only in your IMAGINATION and nowhere else. Giove and the facts he presented above about Zadar talk about SERBS OR CROATIANS, or as it is originally: SERBOCROATIANS. You cannot change those facts with your senseless ignorance. They are as they are-Slovenians are never mentioned in the Zadar's history, and all your efforts to 'involve' them here will be unsucessful. The history of Zadar belongs to Croatians or Serbs (Srerbocroatians) and Italians, even though I also don't agree that the number if Italians was in that proportion towards the Serbocroats. A reasonable proportion from that time should be probably approximately half:half. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was generalization by Austrian cabinet, the key for keeping Croatia weak was to separate Dalmatia from Pannonia, they were afraid of nationalistic movements in Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Venetian Zara

Once the page protection period is over, maybe we should add the fact that Zara is also the name of the city in Venetian. I mention this because, since its Latin name was Iadera, the regular derivation in Standard (Tuscan-like) Italian should be something like Giadra. However, Italians in general seem to have adopted the Venetian name for the city, hence Zara-Zadar and not Giadra-Zadar.KelilanK 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need if you ask me. Tuscan was Giara, in Venice 2 names were found Zara and Jatara (Venetian hyper-urbanism), both derived from original Jadera. Zara originated in Venice and it was transfered into Italian literacy so it became Italian name too. If it's added as Venetian name, then Iadera (Iader) should be added as Liburnian name since it's not of Latin root, also Jadera (Jadra) should be added as Croatian name together with Zadar, since Croats were using Jadera and Jadra from 10th to 15th century. It just complicates the situation. My intention is to write a section in the article about the name. Zenanarh 14:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of history sections

This part is a catastrophy. This city has very rich history, almost none of it is written here. This text is a remain of edit wars a year ago and the mostly suitable for history of Dalmatia, not Zadar. It's all about why something happened and never what happened.

My intention is to reorganize it and repair it. New sections after Antiquity will be Early Medieval, Medieval and From 15th -18th century. Zenanarh (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Place names and Wikipedia conventions

Hello IP address 200.74.186.210. It seems you are unaware of the content of Wikipedia's policy regarding place names. It is available for you to read at WP:NCGN. I would like you to read this before you attempt to edit the article on Zadar again. In a nutshell, it says that places should be called by their modern English names. It does not matter what a place was once called. Reference can be made to previous names once in the lead section. Thank you for your attention. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert-warring

Ok, first of all lets stop reverting non-controversial improvements, shall we? For example, Ragusino, why did you remove the wikilink fix from "Greek language" to "Ancient Greek language"? Get in there and edit only the controversial parts of your revert, don't just click undo because its easier. ffs, we are here to actually improve the article, aren't we? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to Ragusino and the 200 IP address

Hello Ragusino and the IP editor. Let's take the next few days as an opportunity to talk about the article. Edit warring is not going to solve anything. Please discuss the changes here. Unfortunately, regarding the use of non-English place names, that is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. There is a specific policy about this, which you can read at WP:NCGN. Please read it carefully. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of view of have an universal and public encyclopedia "wikipedia", is introduce facts that occurred during the history, in this case of Zadar, where good or bad, we can not omit historical facts, that I do not like or think is political propagand, of one side or the other, the idea is to integrate the historical dalmatia an a multicultural region, as it was throughout its history, so Dalmatian Italians, Croats, Serbs, can be integrated into a better society, elsewhere in this area Italy pursued sovereignty, good or bad, this was well and want to omit it is not good policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragusino (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 July 2008

OK Ragusino, that's a good start. It's good to have you here at the talk page. So, bearing in mind what you have written above, which is a very general statement, what would you like the article to say that it doesn't say now? Let's discuss it. But please remember that Italian place names are not allowed. Everything else is discussable. Please tell us. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the Republic of Ragusa, all the names are in bilingual names; Croatian and italian, the dalmatian were bilingual, don`t forget the latin roots, (italian is an modern concept). Zara were under italian pursued sovereignty, is a fact!, Austrian pursued sovereignty, is a fact! why not tell all the history?

The Republic of Ragusa is an article entirely about a period when that area was bilingual (or may be considered to have been bilingual). This article is not. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what Direktor says it's wiki policy. BTW Ragusino you reverted a lot more of it than just Italian toponyms. Why? You ask why not tell all the history? after you have deleted a sentence about political struggle between 2 options in 19th century - which coloured all that century in the city more than anything else. Why? You reverted grammatical tweaks. Why? Zenanarh (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino, various countries held sovereignty over many cities during their long history, among others Venice and Milan. We can't have all the names from various periods in use on a city article, it would be incredibly confusing. That's why we simply use the English name with maybe a note describing the name of the city in any particular period. Think about it, should we use "Mailand" for Milan in its 19th century section? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think hopefully we can move on. WP:NCGN is a strict policy, it has to be applied, we have no choice. Ragusino, BTW, I don't believe you have read it yet. Please do so. We can't make or break the rules to suit ourselves for whatever emotional or nationalistic reasons. Can you imagine the dog's breakfast every article would be if all versions of its name in each language were mentioned every time? So there are very good reasons why only one name should be used to describe each place throughout each article. There is clear consensus that this policy has to be applied to this article. So, Ragusino, we have no choice, and we can't have Italian names. Next point please? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But the history of Zara, is not only in the Republic of Croatia, Austrian, Italian, and they had authorities, podestas, mayor, etc, nobility, why forgot that?

Who says we should forget that? Of course the Republic of Croatia period constitutes only a minuscule part of the city's history. Its non-Croatian cultural heritage should definitely be noted (and I believe it is), however, only in an objective manner with as little glorification and nostalgia as possible. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ragusino, Ragusino... According to your comments I can see that you've just jumped here edit warring without even reading the article, and what's more important in this case, without reading this talk page. Have you seen "Place names" and "Name" sections at the beginning of the article? It's there to avoid discussions like this one, concerning the name of the city. Have you seen long discussion about it in this talk page? Mentioned sections are results of that discussion. Do we have to do it all again just because you didn't find 5 minutes to read it? No way.

Next point - history. Once again, have you read the talk page? If you have, then it would be clear to you that there was long edit warring a year ago here because of every second God damn sentence in the history sections. An Italian user heavily damaged complete article by pushing his irredentistic bias, he was not able to communicate and make consensus with anyone and now he's banned forever. All in all it was WWIII here. User:DIREKTOR tried to repair the text by Brittanica pieces, but it was all more general about Dalmatia than really about Zadar. In that moment it was the only thing possible to do because article was constantly assaulted by different anon IP's who were trying to prolong the edit wars. For that reason the article was blocked for editing and frozen in version which is not really good. After it had been unblocked a half year ago I didn't touch it for months just to be sure that situation is peaceful and that all zealots have gone away. A few months ago I've edited the "Name" section according to consensus in the talk page, and then again waited with other actions to be sure that the lunatics are not coming back. A month ago I've started to repair the history sections, starting with Prehistory and Antiquity (edited by me a year ago but never finalised because of the edit wars). I'll edit a few sentences more about the Liburnians, the 1st known settlers of the city. Concerning the Roman architecture it will be a part of new "Architecture" section which will follow history in the article. If you take a look a little bit above from here in the talk page you'll see my comment about Medieval sections. At this moment I'm preparing the text. It's not really easy concerning the amount of accidents, Zadar has one of the richest history stories in all Europe. So much of it could be written here, but then again there's not enough space. It takes some time but it's the only way to do it objectively. Also it's important to do it systematically, step by step, from prehistory to the modern times, without jumping up and down. It's the only way to have a high quality text. I'm really interested to gain quality here, since I'm born in Zadar and I live in Zadar. I love this city more than all of you together, I know its history very well including many details that only the natives can know about. However my intention is to edit it and repair it only by references from the high quality sources.

So I must ask you this: please give me some time, join me if you want, or just follow my edits and if you think that something is wrong, write your comment here in the talk page, so we can discuss it in civil manner and find a better solution. If you want to contribute describe your intention here first before editing. And never war edit. It's the worse thing for the article. Don't jump immidiately to the end of history because it will lead us to chaos, we already have chaos here. If you want to contribute describe your intention here at the talk first. So we can have homogenous text and not violently joined pieces. Don't attack the article with definitions that prove something just because you think it was like that and not the other way, unless it's something important for the history. I will edit slowly, so if you think that something is wrong, don't panic. I don't own Wikipedia or this article so I can only ask you to behave this way and hope that you are rational and intelligent person. Regards. Zenanarh (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But in the meantime the official page is your true!, is not a neutral policy, look in the future Zadar comes free port under italian rules, and the italians try to forgot the slav roots, this is not correct too!, respect all the Zadar/Zara history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.185.3 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

More Source and History

Austrian Empire (1815-1918): the age of nationalism

After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. In 1867 Count Cosimo Begna di Possidaria was elected podesta of Zara.

After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats (People's Party) and the Italians (Autonomist Party), both of whom founded their respective political parties. There are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in this period; in general the era saw Slavs grow more than Italians throughout Dalmatia, fostering a neatly distinct national spirit.

"...Slavs grow more than Italians throughout Dalmatia,..."? People of Slavic ethnicity always formed the vast majority of Dalmatia's population, ever since they arrived, i.e. the 7th century AD, prior to that the area was populated by a majority Roman population ("Romans" are by no means "Italians"). Italians/Venetians never formed a majority of the region's population, not even close. This much is not in dispute, even by Wiki-extremists that haunted these articles before the ban. If I recall correctly, the most that the sockpuppeteer User:Brunodam dared claim was that "a third of the population spoke Italian in the 18th century", even that much is completely unverifiable.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

by a majority Romance population would be correct - meaning Dalmatian Romance (Dalmatian language speakers), ethnogenetically Romanized natives-Illyrians (Liburni, Delmatae, Histri, Ardiaei, Lopsi...), very important element of Croatian ethnogenesis especially in Dalmatia, Kvarner and Istria, Slavized gradually from 7th to 14th century. According to genetic investigations this element make 50-70% of Croatian ethnogenesis in Dalmatia. In Zadar county Slavized earlier than elsewhere - actually first Croatian Medieval state was developed in the inland in the Zadar county in 9th century! Because of their Illyrian ancestry Croatian Chakavian language (which saved a lot of Dalmatian vocabulary) was called Illyric during Medieval! Last Romance Dalmatian population in Zadar recorded in 14th century, just a few families, they vanished a century later under Venetian pressure and influence. Zenanarh (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Benja Posedarski was Croatian noble family developed by marriage of the members of 2 Croatian noble families: Benja from Zadar and Gusić (Posedarski) from Posedarje, a little Croatian town 30 km to the north of Zadar.

From the talk page, see "History of noble families in Zadar" section:

Benja (Begna, Benković) - they also used patronymic Kožičić of name Cosa (Coxa, Koša) – Croatian roots – one of the oldest families from Zadar, their family tree started with Dobre de Benja in 10th century, many members of the family were dealing in economical, political, clerical and cultural life of Zadar. Dobre, Dobrolus and Benko were the most frequent names found among them. Juraj Benja (- 1437.) was the collector and one of the first Croatian humanists, Šimun Kožičić Benja (1460. – 1536.) the bishop of Modruša, Senj, political engagement in Croatia. They got the title “conte” in 1669. Family got split in 19th cent. in a few branches: some of them were gone to Zagreb, others to Austria (conte Begna Benković) and Italy (Begna conti di Castel Bencovich).

Benja Posedarski – a branch of Benja’s (Posedarski originated in Gusić family), Austrian government excepted them as noblemen in 1806., Kuzma (1809. – 1885.) a representative of Dalmatian autonomists. Family left the city in 20th century.

Podesta? What does it mean in English? What kind of title is it? Why do you think this "podesta" title is important for this period? Zenanarh (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Podestà is the title of Mayor of the city, the Ruler of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.186.143 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) , i.f you don`t know about the Podestas, don`t know about the Zadar and the dalmatian city history. Ragusino

No buddy, don't guess what I know or not, it's not the point :) The point is can you express in English language, this is en.wiki. Get it?

A mayor of Zadar was not a ruler neither a lawmaker. The city council was legislative body, while mayor was its public representative or chief executive and ceremonial officer. An emperor or a king is a ruler.

So I'm asking again: why do you think this person with that title was important in that period? Does it mean that we must have up every catapanus, strategos, court president, principal councilor, fiscal advocate, kamerlengo cashier, rector, judge, iudex examinator, diocese general vicar, bishop, deputy,... every f... civil or church administrator from the oldest saved Medieval documents until now or just those whose political position was pro-Italian in 19th and 20th century??? Zenanarh (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Supplementi al saggio bibliografico della Dalmazia e del Montenegro Autor Giuseppe Valentinelli

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.76.240 (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Italy (1920-1945)

In October 31 1918 the population of Zadar rebelled against Austrian rule and raised the Italian flag and on 4 November 1918 the city was occupied by the Italian army. The Treaty of Rapallo (12 November 1920) gave Zadar with other local territory to Italy. The Zara enclave, a total of 104 sq km, included the city of Zadar, the municipalities of Bocanjaċ(Boccagnazzo), Arbanasi (Borgo Erizzo), Črno (Cerno), part of Diklo (Dicolo) (a total of 51 sq. km. of territory and 17,065 inhabitants) and the islands of Lastovo (Làgosta) and Palagruža (Pelagosa) (53 sq km, 1,710 inhabitants). The territory was organized into an Italian province. Zadar remained under Italian sovereignty until 31 October 1944.

File:Zaracity.jpg

City Zara/Zadar

Please sign your comments so we can know who you are! Only uncivil vandals write without signature. It's the least you can do. I will not lose my time with any anonymus. Zenanarh (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I can't resist, so according to you, a picture to the left shows the city of Zara/Zadar in period 1920-45??? Beatiful!!! Fantastic!!! If that was Zadar, how did its citizens look like? Maybe like shit? Do you have that picture too? Zenanarh (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is a valid historical event. The city did rebel against the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and so did Split (and, if I'm not mistaken, many other larger cities). Both Slavs and Italians supported rebelling against Austria-Hungary. Here's the catch, though: "the city raised the Italian flag". How can you confirm this? There must have been many flags in the city, which one was the "official flag" that was "raised"?

The Italian army occupied Zadar, yes, but that says nothing about the ethnic composition. The fact that Zadar was occupied by the Italian army for the short initial period before British and American forces arrived does not say much, neither does the fact that the city was alloted to Italy. This occurred primarily because of the London Pact, and the diplomatic necessity to adhere to it at least to a degree. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NOBLES FAMILIES OF ZADAR/ZARA

If any have info of nobles families of Zadar in the same way of the Republic of Ragusa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.76.240 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where are we going with all this?

Ragusino, IP editors, where are we going with these interminably lengthy posts? We're supposed to be talking about how the article can be made better. Can you make your suggestions kind of bullet point style? I mean, so that we can see what you want? Beacause if we don't make progress here, and you start reverting when the protection is over, you know, the next protect is going to be a very very long one, so, best to list your points here in order for us to see them and get your good suggestions into the article straight away. Any good suggestions we'll accept immediately, by the way, please let me reassure you of that. We're sitting with our fingers on the trigger to type them up. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two guys?

Two guys that own some distillery die during the Second World War (circa 70,000,000 dead) and we have to write sentences about that on an encyclopaedia? Completely and utterly irrelevant... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting point of view. So, my I to cancel all the single names of victims from the articles regarding the Second World War? For your info: the Luxardo family was the most important and rich family of Zara/Zadar: of course, biased irredentistic, nationalistic, fascistic people, like all the Italians from Cavour until today. I'm sorry, but we in Italy are still thinking to the black shirts, night and day: only you real democratic guys are allowed to write here, of course. Sorry for my sources...--151.48.12.214 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Richest family in Zadar"? If they really were the "most important and rich family of Zara/Zadar" their death is worth including. However, I'm not going to take your word for it, get a (reliable) source. (Also, I consider most ex-Yugoslav sources biased as well, stick to neutral non-local sources.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Luxardo's were not from Zadar. A citizen from Genova, Girolamo Luxardo, was sent to Zadar as consular representative of the Kingdom of Sardinia; he moved there with his family in 1817. His wife was interested in making liquers and they started industrial production of the native Rosolj, by name Maraschino. They were just 1 family of a foreign administrator there with industrial business, but nothing close to "the most important family in Zadar". And whose bank account was the heaviest is very hard to tell. One of the owner of Vrana fields or salt production could have been much much heavier. Zenanarh (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He's trying to include them because they're exiles (i.e. from an esuli family), that's clear enough. That's biased writing, PIO. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Tito's consipracy"

I'd like to see some real sources in accordance with WP:V. The random internet web pages you listed are completely against Wikipedia policy and may be disregarded. Concentrate on historians, scholarly sources, and most of all: actual evidence of a "Tito's conspiracy". Furthermore, if you engage in any edit-warring whatsoever, you will be immediately reported. I've had enough of that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You said that in Italy someone speaks about an "Allied conspiracy". It's completely untrue: in Italy some sources speak only about a Tito's conspiracy. I repeat for the third time: show me the Italian source about the "Allied conspiracy"!--151.48.12.214 (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

For your info: I reported four sources: one book and three web-pages, about the alleged "Tito's conspiracy". I don't speak about the "Tito's conspiracy". I don't wrote nothing about it: I corrected your words, that in Italy someone speaks about an "Allied conspiracy".--151.48.12.214 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No I wont, because there was no conspiracy. The city was bombed because it was the main Italian port in the eastern Adriatic, and was "on the way" to more important targets. I corrected your nonsense and wrote it was an alleged "Allied" (Yugoslav/American) conspiracy, because evil old Tito could not have ordered the USAAF to bomb Zadar. You can forget about all that now, as the whole thing is a wild guess by Italian emigrants. Read what I said above about sources.
I don't want to report you, because that's a lot of work, but if you really persist in edit-warring you'll leave me no choice. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. Where is your source about the Italian theory for the "Allied conspiracy"? If you don't have a source, I'll correct the article another time. Please, read the article before my edits: you reverted words wich I haven't wrote! And don't make every tame the same, same, same, same, same, same, same, same, same, same, same, same unsourced and POV battle!--151.48.12.214 (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing: we have a complete article about the Bombing of Zadar in World War II. I simply wrote the very same things here (now: run, run, my little boy: cancel the article)!--151.48.12.214 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's how things work: you have to PROVE something before it is included as fact. I do NOT think there was any conspiracy whatsoever, "Allied", "Tito's" or whatever. If the article (not "voice") Bombing of Zadar in World War II also misses any real scholarly sources, all mention of this nonsensical conspiracy theory will be removed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Your (reliable verifiable scholarly) sources:

1) the website www.dalmatia.it
2) the website www.dalmatia.it (in English, wow!)
3) some article written by an anonymous guy
4) a book written by a person who's: a. NOT a historian (most importantly), and b. probably related to a wartime victim of the Partisans

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're looking for sources instead of whining on it-Wiki... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV problems in article section Recent history

I will list some major problems with this section:

"In 1990, Serbian separatists from Krajina region of Croatia, just inland from Dalmatia, sealed roads and effectively blocked Dalmatia from the rest of Croatia, expelling non-Serbs from the area and killing a several Croatian policemen which resulted with the Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991."

This has several problems. Saying that blocking of Dalmatia etc. "resulted with" etc. is POV. In fact, it is wrong, as in the article Dalmatian riots of May etc. the reason for this event was Borovo selo incident, not local events.

Yes, this would better be Serbian loyalists, as it were Croats who were separatists. Nikola (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, this way of putting it seems like justification/defense of the violence from May 1991. from Croatian POV.

Wrong. Croatia used 1974 Yugoslav constitution for legal secession. Serbian minority in Croatia used weapon and violence for their illegal whatever it was supposed to be. Zenanarh (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Croats also used weapons and violence to secede. According to 1974 constitution, there was a procedure for each nation to follow to get its right of self-determination, and Slovenes, who could follow that path as they did not have problem of another nation being constitutive in Slovenia, choose violence. So even Sloveia did not follow 1974 legal path. Macedonia on the other hand left peacefully, as did Montenegro. Croatian case is not clear cut as Serbs were constitutive nation, as well as Bosnia where there were 3 constitutive nations. Nations had right to self determination, not republics, and so 1974 certainly didnt give the right to secession as Croatia claims; at the wery least, that interpretation is controversial, as legal experts from Belgrade and Podgorica differed from those in Zagreb in the interpretation of 1974 constitution. What is clear however that constitution did not perscribe violence as means and so Zagreb secessionists, by blocking JNA barracks (following Slovenian example), importing weapons, were in breach of the laws. You could say that Krajina Serbs were also in breach of the laws, as was Croatia when they kicked Serbs out of constitution (they had role as constitutive nation). The problem was political and it ended up being resolved by violence, not politics, much less so law. Hence, when discussing such controversial things in article, one should not use one POV and mention one interpretation on the way. There are articles which deal with these matters specifically, and here charged terms (Milosevic controlled JNA, Serb rebels/separatist, Croatian separatists) should be replaced with neutral (JNA, Serb loyalists/forces, Zagreb loyalists/Croatian forces), and not using terminology that is supposing one POV in the controversy (serbian/croatian interpretation of the 1974 constitution/legality/events that happened). One should also stick to bare facts, and present all victims (if any), not just those of one side. I hope it is clear that not only one side had victims there! 78.30.150.253 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Serbs as well were under pressure needs to be mentioned. Nationalistic tensions were felt on all sides, and many delozations took place at the time.

"During the Croatian War of Independence, Krajina rebels with the protection of the serbianized Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) under Slobodan Milošević's control",

Saying that JNA was under Milosevic control is POV, to say the least. In fact, Milosevic had no direct control over JNA. Locally, Dudukovic and Mladic were in charge, and Milosevic did not have direct control of the army in 1991 at all, as evidenced by proofs at ICTY among other things. In any case, this claim is Croatian POV.

And Krajina Serbs were not rebels, as I said above. Nikola (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Attacks in nearby towns and villages occurred, the most brutal being the Škabrnja massacre, where 86 people were killed."

Mentionig Serbian war crimes and not talking about Croatian war crimes in the area is certainly not fair, and not NPOV. Islam Grcki, burnt to ground, is in the Zadar region, and I know it was badly burnt as I have a couple of close friends from that region. Removing Serbian victims with insultive comment (it was war, things happen) while keeping info on Croatian victims is clearly pro Croatian POV.

Also please be civil and do not brand people here as trolls and be civil. Please mind WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. My issues are legitimate, and are shared by a lot of people from Serbia/of Serbian origin, so please deal with the problems here. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti Serb riots... around 30 or 40 young people came to Zadar from Bibinje (town next to Zadar) to revenge death of Franko Lisica, an inhabitant of Bibinje and Croatian policeman, killed 1 day earlier by Serbian paramilitaries. These Bibinje boys in their "revenge exhibition" broke the windows of: Yugoslav related companies (like JAT), shops of Serbia seated federal companies (like "Obuća Beograd") and a few small private shops of Serbian owners. Just broke windows of cca 100 shops, there was not even 1 Serbian person attacked! Even term "riot" is largely exaraggated. Franko Lisica's death came 1 day after death of 12 another Croatian policemen in Borovo naselje. In that moment not even 1 Serb in Croatia was attacked or anything similar. So there is nothing wrong about killing a several Croatian policemen which resulted with the Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991, since these "riots" were directly caused by the mentioned murders, especially of Bibinje guy. Replacing it with this POV ""Several Croatian policemen and local Serbian policemen loyal to Knin died in the clashes. Persecution of Serbs culminated in Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991 when 350 Serbian shops and houses were destroyed"" is completely inappropriate and incorrect for several reasons: no "Serb policemen" were hurt, there were no Serbian policemen in Croatia in meaning of legal police forces, no Serbs were hurt at all anywhere in Croatia then, there were no "clashes", only Serbian paramilitaries who killed Cro policemen from the ambush (these policemen were actually not ready for "clashes"), there were no persecutions of Serbs in May 1991, neither Serbs were forced to leave (who forced them?), Serbs start to leave Dalmatian cities in September when war already began, number of damaged shops was cca 100 and not 350, no Serbian houses were damaged in May, etc... Zenanarh (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Delozations? What delozations? This is pure imagination. Zenanarh (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbs who lived in cities in Croatia, including Zadar, were forced out of their apartments in the period. Nikola (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? This is absolute lie. Nothing similar happened in that period, actually nothing similar happened neither during the war which started a few months later. Loyal Serbs made around 3% of Croatian population but contributed with around 10% to Croatian forces engaged in the war. Serb POV pushers usually present this war as Croats vs Serbs, while it was Serbian separatists vs Republic of Croatia! You are just fishing in the dark. If it's only you can do it would be better that you don't contribute here. Zenanarh (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL you say that Milošević didn't control JNA but in the same time when war was already ongoing fire breaks and negotiations were Tuđman-Milošević, not Tuđman-Babić! Zenanarh (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
No village, settled by Serbian or Croatian population earlier, survived war actions in Ravni Kotari. It was all burnt already in 1991. But masacres made on civilians were done only by the Serbs, Škabrnja was definitely the most horrible one. Zenanarh (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Crimes against Serbs cannot be dismissed like that. Not every village was destroyed, that is simply not true, and Croats did their crimes in different period from that of the JNA shelling and Skrabinja (which was at the beginning of the war). 78.30.150.253 (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To claim that Milošević had no command over JNA generals in 1991 would be just POV-pushing lie. This is what Ante Marković said in 1991:

The line has been clearly established [between the Serbian government, the army and Serb politicians in Bosnia]. I know because I heard Milošević give the order to Karadžić to get in contact with General Uzelac and to order, following the decisions of the meeting of the military hierarchy, that arms should be distributed and that the TO of Krajina and Bosnia be armed and utilised in the realisation of the RAM plan.

It was all oraganized and well-planned from Belgrade. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything in this article, especially material that is controversial or likely to be disputed, must be properly sourced. That means that there should be a good-quality respectable reliable source to back up the statements. Ideally these should be in English. I can only see one reference in the section in question here. Remember that non-sourced material may be challenged and removed. If you want to add something to the article, find a reliable source to back that statement. Otherwise, it's just WP:OR, and may be removed. If these rules are properly followed, we shouldn't have too many problems here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt agree more. On the other hand, well sourced material added in accordance to NPOV policy should not be removed - one cannot remove (properly sourced) info about crimes against Serbs and leave those about crimes against Croats; Claim that Milosevic was completely in charge is POV (Ante Markovic word is not enough as there are other witnesses who dispute the claim; and this article is not proper place to put such controversial claims on the way). 78.30.150.253 (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, "well sourced material added in accordance to NPOV policy should not be removed". The way to get an article that everyone can agree is fair and neutral is to do what I have suggested above. I suspect from the remainder of your post, however, that perhaps your interest here is not to get an article that everyone can agree is fair and neutral. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I took that Marković's quote for illustrative purposes from Tim Judah's book The Serbs (which is the only English book on Yugoslav wars I have). There is entire chapter in it dedicated to how Milošević's seized the power over the country and JNA, rendering Yugoslavian Presidency helpless (he later called them "having no power" and following their decisions as "illegal", IIRC), and quote from Marković is just a moment when his light bulb turned on and he realized "Gee, its over. Yugoslavia of brotherhood and unity is no more". It's funny to see Serbs nowadays relativize Krajina's rebels as "loyalists". Leader of the Borovo Selo uprising himself said that they want to be "integrated into Serbian borders", Milošević himself said that the plan was to "cut of Croatia", and general Kadijević in has book has long, long passages explaining how the Serb minority in Croatian regions was to be convinced to "remain in Yugoslavia", which would provoke conflicts and then the JNA (which was 100% under the control of Serbian leadership) would intervene to "stop inter-ethnical conflicts" ^_^ From today's perspective, it's 100% certain that this "we want to remain in Yugoslavia" demagogy was a carefully planned strategy to carve out Serbian mini-states in Croatia and B&H.

I agree that everything in that section needs heavy referencing, but that is just a minor section of the article on Zadar which should provide perspective on the influence of war on Zadar's economy, population etc. Insisiting on some "POV approach" should be secondary as this is not the place where atrocities committed by Serbs/Croats elsewhere should be discussed, only on how they reflected to Zadar and its outskirts, and events where forces from Zadar where involved. But to me appears that IP address is more intent to whitewash every bad thing Serbs did in the Yugoslav wars, and to trivialize the relationship between the victim and the aggressor. He speaks of "local Serbs", "persecution of Serbs" "blocking of JNA barracks and JNA soldiers" (=Serbian soldiers under the command of Serbian generals), with 0 perspective, which is just pro-Serb POV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but were the barracks not blocked? Wasnt JNA the army of the country in charge, SFRY at that moment - at least until late 1991? Were there not pressures on Serbs, attacks on Serbian property etc? Tensions were felt by the Serbs too, especially in light of what happened in 1941-45; Who is victim there? That you think Croats were the only victims reveals your heavy bias. About half million of Serbs from Croatia, refugees, in their view exposed to ethnic cleansing, are certaily also victims. Zadar and Ravni Kotari were also home of those people, and you cant just whitewash their plight or trivialize the situation as black and white struggle of evil Serb agressors against Croatian angels. That is certainly not the objective, NPOV account of the matters, but POV that Croatia pushes. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your perspective is different from mine, but the point is to get a NPOV article. My perspective is indeed the one of someone from Belgrade (with friends who are from region), and yours is from those from part of SFRY who were attacking JNA barracks and trying to secede from SFRY. It is not just me or you, it is two opposite points of view that are in clash here, as in other articles, so working according to NPOV standards is only way to avoid heavy bias, which is in this version present (and in any version by one side). That I question Markovic or Tim Judah as ultimate source does not mean I am not for NPOV. YOu would be questioning Bora Jovic testemony or that of some other witnesses from Serbia, or authors of different POV (Kadijevic often had different ideas from Milosevic and generals, while under some influence of Milosevic, were certainly in charge of JNA at the time; Krajina Serbs on the other hand were not part of JNA and were influenced on another way, perhaps more directly, but they are not JNA!). But what we could agree is that role of Milosevic for instance IS controversial (since there are two opposing versions and interpretations) and so you cannot just write statement as it were fact. There is no need to push Croatian POV about who controlled the army here in this way. Deleting info about Serb victims is also against NPOV policy; the section should stick to facts and present both sides of the story, not just one (Croatian at the moment). 78.30.150.253 (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how you talk of "JNA" and "SFRY" in the period of late 1991, because by that time it was obvious that 1) JNA was Serb-controlled and Serb-dominated, with massive desertions of non-Serb soldiers 2) Slovenia and Macedonia, and not only Croatia, were seceding, and Milošević had absolutely no problems with that, only with Croatia and B&H where significant population of Serbs was present (in his words "Croatia can declare independence, but it cannot take Croatian Serbs with it"). In other words, this "SFRY" leftover was de facto Greater Serbia. Mentioning "JNA" and "SFRY" would be not only highly misleading, and also very bizarre POV, because these institutions did not function at the time in the same role/way they functioned in Tito's Yugoslavia. No, Krajina Serbs and Bosnian Serbs were "not JNA", but they were heavily armed by it. Concentration camps, massacres and ethnic cleansing was committed jointly by JNA and local police and rebels. Testimonies all confirm this. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The period in question spans from mid 1991 untill end of 1991. Note that first victim in JNA was a Macedonian soldier in Split, that Dudukovic was in charge during shelling in Ravni Kotari, that in Slovenia in June there were Slovenian soldiers in JNA, that until September 1991 JNA was serving as a a buffer between local Serb forces and Croatian militia even by Croatian reports, and that Croats deliberately broke many ceasefires in summer; also that Spegelj and Boljkovac already in 1990 were talking about strategy to attack JNA, and that blocking of barracks and provocations against JNA were modelled after Slovenia. Barracks were blocked for months, and the main reason for shelling was oficially deblocking. Croatia did not even claim independence untill the end of moratorium in October (that was result of Slovenia war), and famously in June Croatia was giving logistic support to JNA that was, under order from Ante Markovic, retaking border posts in Slovenia. So SFRY was in full existance until June, and the dubious situation from summer was dealt with moratorium, which ended in October before situation was resolved. By that time, in summer, there were no Croatian or Slovenian soldiers in JNA, but there were soldiers from Bosnia (not only Serbian, but of Muslim nationality as well), and Montenegro, and even some Macedonian soldiers were still serving. JNA was not de facto Serbian army to the very end, and certainly not under Kadijevic, who was very indecisive in the early autmn, and he resigned; The presidency of SFRY was disfunctional, but Mesic, who was its president to the very end of 1991 was in that role travelling over the world - strugling for Croatian secesionist goals, and not doing his job as president of SFRY. In short, situation was certainly not black and white, SFRY was still the only recognized state untill december 1991, and shortly thereafter UNPA zones were established and JNA retreated, and rump SFRY existed (Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro) for 4 more months untill April/May 1992. Hence, to emphasize only one side of the story (JNA shelling) without mentioning blocing of barracks (also delozations from JNA apartments and all else that was going on) is not unbiased. In Vukovar, Serbia reservists were mobilized to go there, but in Krajina region, JNA soldiers were much more like before the war, except for Slovenes and Croats that either defected or were withdrawn by summer. You could say that JNA was de facto Serbian army from Oct/November 1991 but even that only in Vukovar region, however, all over Bosnia there was still JNA with all the Muslim officials, in Dubrovnik region reservists were from Montenegro, and in regions bordering Bosnia reservists were mostly people from Bosnia, not Serbia, including many Muslim soldiers. SFRY was falling apart, but JNA still existed and certainly legally was the only legitimate army there. 78.30.150.253 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of rubbish... until September 1991 JNA was serving as a a buffer between local Serb forces and Croatian militia - until September JNA was protecting Serb rebels and "stealing" weapon of "Terotorijalna obrana" ("Territorial defence") - which belonged to Croatia. Croats deliberately broke many ceasefires in summer - in summer there was no fire, so there were also no ceasefires to be broken, only Serb separatist "bulk revolution" and dead Croatian policemen muredered from the ambush in spring. Barracks were blocked for months, and the main reason for shelling was oficially deblocking - no, the barracks were blocked for less than a month - from around 20th August to 15th September and shelling was part of the same story which comprised occupation of Croatian cities and villages in the same time. JNA was controlled by Serbs, no doubt about it, soldiers were massively escaping during all that period, some couldn't make it but it doesn't prove wide ethnical composition of it since there was repression. The presidency of SFRY was disfunctional - yes, thanks to Milošević, an attempt to disqualify Slovenian and Croatian legal secession., etc etc... This is not a place for this discussion. There are other articles about this. Move it there... Zenanarh (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Jadi jadi jadi... find sources, not arguments. Then we can move forward. Until then, it's all just piss and farts. It's just like arguing in a bar about football. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)