Talk:Zadar/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Moving forward

Proactive steps that should be taken from now on, and whenever entering into a discussion with another editor you should:

1. Consider the other editor's point of view.
2. Do not disruptively edit through edit warring and reversions.
3. Do not use personal attacks to get your point across.
4. Rely on Wikipedia policies to determine a resolution.

Motions or request by involved parties

PLEASE MAKE YOUR REQUESTS SHORT; LESS THAN 500 WORDS
What would you like to see happen on Zadar?

Zenanarh

I cannot socialize with an agenda warrior. In every moment I was ready for discussion with arguments, hundreds of lines I wrote to Silvio and here in just 2 weeks are showing what my attitude is. However it needs 2 (or more) for building consensus. I don't understand a person who forces his own POV and speaks about consensus, but refusing to even try to reach it in the same time. I'm not sure what to expect from this mediation, but I'm sure something must be done so the article can be edited by quality. Until now there wasn't any contribution in that direction from the other side. And his comment below shows that nothing has changed. So what can I expect? Turning in circles next 6 months because of his POV interpretations? Like, he's changed his position a few inches, and that is all folks! This is embarassing. It is apsurd that we had this long discussion and mediation about shall we involve an extremist view or not! However I hope things can change. Otherwise I wouldn't spent my time here. Zenanarh (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973

My proposal is adding in the section "19th and 20th century" the sentence: The archives of the official Austro-Hungarian censi conducted at the end of 19th century shows that Italian was the language spoken by the majority of the people in the city, but only by a third of the population in the entire county.
In order to reach consensus I do not insist to report the exact figures from the censi. Of course I am ready yo accept any rephrasing from an English mother tongue user.

What would you like to see happen on Luciano Laurana?

Zenanarh

In wikipedia there was all bunch of irredentist agenda attackers, who were more or less wiped off, Croatian wiki community was more numerous earlier, it was easier to detect them. They are not "all Italians", or "all Italian wikipedians", just some poor bunch of people who have nothing better to do in their lives. And there are 10 to 20 articles related to Dalmatia under such attacks, almost continually. Lucijan Vranjanin / Luciano Laurana Schiavon is just one person encroached by the Italians. Georgius Dalmaticus (Dalmatian), Francius Petricius (Schiavone),... And Lucijan / Luciano case is typical. He stayed some period in Italy where he specialized architecture and contributed to Italian Renaissance (many Croats and Dalmatians were going to Italian art schools as well as many other Europeans did). He worked in Dalmatia too. But he was a Croat as his nickname "Sciavon" in Italy said, one from Medieval "name-surname-ethnicity" signature formula, Luciano Laurana Schiavon in Italy. So although he had Croatian surname and was born in Croatian town and self-declared as the Croat, Italian literature defines him as the Italian. They have problem in accepting that a Croat was one of the greatest architects from period of Italian Renaissance. They have the same problem with any eminent Croat and Dalmatian coming from Dalmatia. What to say? What to expect? I expect to see evidence of his Italian ethnicity. Only in that case we can step into any discussion concerning reaching consensus. It is not question of Croatian source, Italian source or Martian one. It is question of reliability. There is no any evidence of his Italian ethnicity, there are direct evidences of his Croatian ethnicity. If there is no evidence, just "naked definitions" like "Italian sculptor" in Italian literature, then it is false and that literature is not reliable. Zenanarh (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973

As discussed, I can cite at least 3 international sources (all of them not Italian and verifiable on line) in support of the Italian origins of Laurana.
In view of the difference of quality, reputation and quantity of the supporting sources, my request is to re-establish the reference of Laurana being Italian and to remove the Croatian claim (currently the Croatian origin of this artist is supported only by 2 Croatian sources). The Croatian origin of the artist should be removed from the lead part of the article, until some equally reputable international sources will not be provided in support of the claim.
In order to achieve consensus and to respect the work of the authors of the sources mentioned by Zenanarh, I am fine if at the end of the Biography section (therefore not in the lead section of the article) it will be reported that some Croatian sources consider Luciano Laurana of Croatian origins.

Suggestions by Whenaxis

Luciano Laurana

In the lead section, the article states as follows:

Luciano Laurana (Lutiano Dellaurana, Croatian: Lucijan Vranjanin)[1] (c. 1420 – 1479) was a Croatian [2][3] architect and engineer from the historic Vrana settlement near the town of Zadar in Dalmatia, Croatia.[4] After education by his father Martin in Vrana settlement, he worked mostly in Italy during the late 15th century.

The article states that he is Croatian because he was born in Croatia. Then, it states that he worked most of his life in Italy. So, there is no need to change his nationality to Italian. For example, a Canadian who immigrates to the United States is called a Canadian because he was born and is representing, per say, Canada in the United States.

Whenaxis, if you have arrived to the conclusion that he should be ocnsidered Croatian because today Vrana in is Croatia why have you asked us to provide soruces in support of our claims. I have provided 3 international sources (not Italian) affirming that is Italian and Zenanarh two Croatian souces. Does it mean that we should consider wrong what is written in the non Croatian sources?

Again please consider that before the edit war started the articles was stating he was Italian and Croatian. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Zadar

In the questioned section of the article, the article states as follows:

After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians, both of whom founded their respective political parties. There are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period.

The article states there are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to who formed the majority in Zadar. I don't see the need to discuss further about one particular census as I don't find it particuarly more important than any other census conducted during that time period.

Closing Statement by Whenaxis

Article State: Leave the articles as they are right now.
Zenanarh: I know that you are becoming increasingly irriated with problems throughout Wikipedia namespace, in particular, when there is questioning with Croatian articles. However, I must remind you that personal attacks are not welcome by the community and are punishable by blocks nor do personal attacks allow you to "win" discussions. Instead next time, I ask that you use the 4 steps mentioned above when dealing with persistent editors.
Silvio1973: I know that you are a fairly new editor to Wikipedia and we appreciate your efforts to bring your contributions to Wikipedia. However, I ask that you remember to look at Wikipedia's policies before suggesting ideas as they may not meet the criteria, as this happened for this dispute.
Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 23:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing Statement by Zenanarh

Whenaxis, I actually did use 4 steps: 1) Consider the other editor's point of view. - it's enough to see how much energy I've lost in discussion with Silvio before your coming; 2) Do not disruptively edit through edit warring and reversions. - In my eyes I wasn't edit warring at all, I was reverting an extremist view, something which is normal in wikipedia, question is only whether more wider community can recognize it as an extremist view, this particular problem is obiously not known so well to wider community; 3) Do not use personal attacks to get your point across. - I have never meant to get my point across with personal attacks, but is it really personal attack to warn someone about his/her extremist position? OK maybe I've lost nerves here and there but it was nothing serious, I was actually calling Silvio to reconsider his position and arguments. 4) Rely on Wikipedia policies to determine a resolution. - that was exactly what I was doing. You can see it in all my posts. If there is something I've missed, please inform me. At the end, thank you for your contribution, I hope we will not meet this way too often in the future. All the best.

Silvio, what to say... You are still confusing things: Still I need to remind you that by the time Luciana Laurana born, Vrana was not in Croatia but under the Republic of Venice - weren't you the one who stated that there were no nationalities in Renaissance? Nationality is concept of modern nations and modern sovereign national states. Lucijan was a Croat by ethnicitiy and not nationality. Ethnicity has/had nothing to do with borders. People who were born within the borders of Republic of Venice were not the Venetians, they were what they were by ethnicity; the Venetians were only people in city of Venice, those whose roots were Venetian - from that city. but this decision will not give stability to the article because stating on ethnicity on the basis of current borders it's quite arguable - ethnicity has nothing to do with past or current political borders. It is strange that you are confusing these things. Really strange. Zenanarh (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio, concerning your last idea my initial proposal was to declare Luciano Laurana as [Dalmatae] - do you know who Dalmatae were? They were Illyrian people (speaking some unknown Illyrian language) who dissapeared as Dalmatae during 1st and 2nd century. During Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Dalmatians were the settlers of ex-Roman province of Dalmatia and the speakers of Dalmatian language (Vulgar Latin -> Romance phase), from the 8th and 9th century they started to mix with the Slavs (that's why Croatian language is by far the most "Latinized" Slavic language), Croatian Kingdom was "Regnum Croatiae et Dalmatiae" - here "Croatiae" and "Dalmatiae" were not related to the Croats and Dalmatians - it was related to basic principalities of the Croats - Croatia and Dalmatia (name Croatia replaced name Liburnia - first Croatian state before rising into a kingdom was Principality of Liburnia and Dalmatia). Since Dalmatian language was already extinct and was not spoken anymore in Zadar region where Georgius was born, Dalmaticus was not related to that language. It was related to Dalmatia as a region or his ethnic appurtenance to that region. These Dalmatians were Croatian speakers. But I agree that he must be defined as the Dalmatian (not Dalmatae!) since that was how he declared himself in signatures. Zenanarh (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I meant Dalmatian and this was my proposal, by the way. But when I did it you said it was "chauvinist". Why?--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I have started to answer on Laurana and ended with Georgius Dalmaticus. What a mess. No. Laurana self-declared as the Croat - Schiavon. Not Dalmatian. Georgius Dalmaticus - Dalmatian; Luciano Laurana Schiavon - Croat.

"Chauvinst" - give me exact links and I will answer exactly why. Zenanarh (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to. You mean this [1]? - Your idea that there was no Croatian ethnicity in the 15th century is extreme nationalism and chauvinism. - it is obvious that I didn't call you a chauvinist directly. I have warned you about what your idea was, by definition. It doesn't mean that you are a chauvinst, because there is always possibility that you are not concious of consequence and meaning of your statements. I also said: If you defend such extremism you are an extremist - warning again and not direct insult. People will recognize you here according to your behavior and your statements. We don't know how old are you, what's your hair color, what car are you driving and what's your favorite football club, nobody cares about it. Here, you are what you write, that's your identity. If you manipulate with the other's statements and meaning of it, then you will be recognized as a manipulator.Zenanarh (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerning your statement: Still you did not reply to the request of third opinion. My request was to state about the acceptability of the census as primary source directed to Whenaxis, I simply cannot resist - is it possible that after all you haven't read any of wiki policies? Zenanarh (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That a user fairly new to Wikipedia like me could make a mistake in understanding policies is possible, that an experienced user (as you pretend to be) could relate to the others the way you do this is regrettable. You do not respect the others, how can you expect respect from the others? And I will not answer to your next answer because you always need to have the last word. I leave this to you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I wouldn't have spent so much time and text on you if I didn't respect you. Last word to me? :) OK. It would be much better if we can meet alive and drink a few bottles of red wine in a little bit different and more friendly atmosphere. Zenanarh (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing Statement by Silvio1973

Whenaxis, I do not discuss about the decision of the mediator. Rules are rules. But I need some clarifications.
What surprises me is the ground of your decision concerning Luciano Laurana. I would have been fine (although not happy) if you had been convinced after all our discussion that he was of Croatian ethnicity. But stating that he should be classified as Croatian because today Vrana is part of Croatia is somehow confusing. Based on your approach Ataturk should be considered Greek because he born in Thessaloniki or Garibaldi should be considered French because was born in Nice. A decision based on your ground will not give stability to the article because stating on ethnicity on the basis of current borders it's quite arguable. Also, if the your decision is to leave the articles as they were before the edit war, then you should leave this version [2], i.e. the version before the edit war started. For the sake of clarity I need to remember that my initial proposal was to declare Luciano Laurana as Dalmatian in order to avoid discussion and to be in harmony with the main Wikipedia in the other languages (such as the Spanish and the German).

Concerning Zadar I acknowledge your decision. Still you did not reply to the request of third opinion. My request was to state about the acceptability of the census as primary source. And we did not receive a clear statement concerning this.

To conclude, I have reported Zenanarh's behaviour on the Administrator's Board. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum by Whenaxis

It greatly surprised me that Zenanarh opened up in a friendly manner. I guess people can change. That made my day and made me smile. As per Silvio's comments, I still remain to my point that I don't think that the census is an intrigual or important part of the article as per WP:UNDUE. Silvio, I really appreciate your contributions and your good faith edits but it doesn't really conform with Wikipedia standards. All the best, Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Zara

It 's quite surprising that the Italian name Zara was canceled. One can easily prove that for centuries the only name by which the city was known in the world was Zara and not Zadar. For a native English speaker, the term Zadar was completely unknown until the end of World War II. You can see any English or American atlas of the time.

If you go back to past centuries you find that all European maps used Zara instead of Zadar. Let’s see for example these maps published in Belgium, Holland. Germany, Austria from XVI to XIX. All of them use the term “Zara”.

Histriae tabula a Pedro Coppo descri. - Zarae, et Sebenici Descri. Artist: Ortelius, Abraham Published: Antwerp Date: 1573

Nova et accurata Tabula Regnorum et Provinciarum Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Sclavoniae, Bosniae, Serviae, Istriae, et Reip. Ragusanae, cum finitimis Regionibus Studio et Impensis Matthaei Seutteri, S. Caes. et reg. Cathol. Majest. Geographi edita Augustae Vindelicor. Artist: Seutter, Matthaeus Published: Augsburg, M. Seutter, Date: 1720

Koenigreich Illyrien - nach der neuesten Begrenzung, und vorzueglichsten Huelfsmitteln verfast. - in Wien bey Tranquillo Mollo. Artist: Mollo, Tranquillo Published: Wien Date: 1816-22

Iadera, Sicum et Aenona vulgo Zara, Sibenico et Nona cum Insulis Adjacentibus in Parte Dalmatiae Boreali Artist: Jan Janssonius Published: Amsterdam Date: 1650

But even more interesting is the following map published not abroad but in Zara

Map of Dalmatia Author: Zavoreo Published: Zara Date:1811

Even a local map doesn’t use the name “Zadar”.

That’s to say that it’s totally unacceptable the cancellation of the Italian name of Zara. Zara was for centuries the only name by which native English speakers and generally all Europeans knew this city. Deny this truth is an offense to European history and civilization. This will be brought to the attention of the administrators of wiki and everyone will assume its responsibility before the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.209.188 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing really new. You can try to make your point prevail but you will only lose your time. Personally I believe that whatever evidence you will bring in support, this will be refused for some reasons. This page is currently very well patrolled by a number of contributors (90 of them from the same country) that do not tolerate any change and patrol very well this page. One fo the objective of this article is to describe events and facts in the specific way to demonstrate that the ethnic structure of the city has been the same for century. If this is false or true this does not matter. This can be proved easily. Two thirds of the sources are from then same country and most of them are even not in Englsh. So I would like to understand how it is possible to check their reliability. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Italian nationalists. I'm patroller no. 78 ;-p 83.131.72.65 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This "Zara" nonsense has gone on long enough. Silvio, this city is called "Zadar", and you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and base all your arguments either or it or on sources. Else they will be ignored and you reverted without fail. -- Director (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, this is not an issue of policies. If you look on the recent history of this page you will see that I have roll-backed and reverted changes to this page made from Italian nationalists. So your comment does not apply to me. My problem is not the name Zadar/Zara, this has been discussed enough. The issue with this page is that absolutely legitimate sources such as the Austro-Hungarian census are not admitted, because they are not in line with Croatian nationalism. Census are used everywhere as source but here are not admitted because they demonstrate the opposite of what please to some nationalists. This is a real problem and as administrator you should be concerned by this. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Croatian nationalism is something frankly embarrassing and completely out of the common European feeling. Reading this article leaves stunned, astonished because of its lack of objectivity. Even the denial of the Italian name of the city is something that has no equivalent in the pages of wikipedia. Let’s examine the articles that refer to cities, regions that changed sovereignty after the World War II. The previous name is always mentioned after the current official name. It’s true for every town, village whose sovereignty was transferred from Germany to Poland (Gdansk, Wroclaw, Opole, Legnica, Glogow, Jelenia Gora, Nysa, Klukzbork, Liberk, Koszalin, Lebork, Elblank, Ostroda, Olsztyn, Lawa, Ketrzyn, etc.etc. ) or from Gemany to Lithuania (Memel) or Russia (Kaliningrad, Tilsit etc.) The same for every village, town passed from Hungary to Ukraine, from Poland to Ukraine, from Poland to Lithuania, You find the Hungarian name for the cities belonging to the kingdom of Hungary and now in Romania, Slovakia. We can go on with other examples from all over Europe but it is useless because....because Croatia is different.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.135.171 (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this issue of the name is quite minor. And however reading trough the article the Italian version of the name is quoted (better than nothing). What concerns me the most is the actual content of the article, namely the information about the number of Zadar's inhabitants using Italian during the XIX century and the actual contribution of Venice to the history of the people.
The thing is that the population of Zadar always showed a strong duality in terms of culture but reading the article there is very little reference to it. For some reasons some editors of this article whish to deny a number of facts about the history of this city. I lived for three years in Transilvania (Romania) and I never met a single ethnic Romanian from Transilvania denying the influence of Austro-Hungarian culture on this region of modern Romania. It was never denied to the Hungarians of Transilvania the right to keep his culture, to learn their language, they were never pushed out of their houses, never lost their properties and still one century later there are vast regions of Romania with 80% of people speaking Hungaria. Exactly as in Italy there is an entire region where the most of the people speak German.
And I have to read in this talk page that the Italian are the nationalists... 'Franchement c'est vraiment n'importe quoi !'
Yes, Croatia is different. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I should report you for those condescending remarks. As a matter of fact, Italian nationalists on this project were in no short supply. We've heard more than enough of these absurd notions of how Dalmatia and Istria are "Italian", in spite of having been populated by a vast majority of Slavs since time immemorial. In fact, most of these people were so extreme and violent that the vast majority were banned by the community, and still engage in sockpuppeteering on a regular basis. This casts an automatic doubt on the IP fellow above.

But this is getting us nowhere. I will not report you for the above, nor will I respond to such absurdities. Consider yourself seriously warned, however. Lets try to lay down some "ground rules", tell me if you agree:

• Focus on specific article changes, not on general discussion (per WP:NOTFORUM).
• Any specific proposal should be based either on a discrepancy with policy, or with sources, or both. All proposals should be checked against relevant Wikipedia policies, and should take into account the current sources in the article - while providing reliable sources in support (per WP:V).
• Keep your responses brief and relevant, please (per WP:TLDR). I notice both you and Zen like to chat quite a bit.
• Under no circumstances should you (or anyone) again comment in such a derisive and offensive manner on the "nature" of any nation or people (per WP:NPA). I am not interested in your opinions about South Slavs, any more than you would like to hear about Italians from me.

This last point is not so much of a request. You will immediately be reported otherwise.-- Director (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, I am not a fascist and not a nationalist. I am just moderately upset because sources like official censi are refused in this page. This is against Wiki policy and the argument that they are primary source is just a pretest (in hundreds of other article they are used and accepted without any problem). This is my REAL problem and if you do not mind I would like to have your opinion as administrator about this matter. PS I agree all all your points but please give consideration to my request above. This is a real concern. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Look lets not beat about the bush. If you agree to the above then please let us all know, in brief, which specific changes you're talking about. And then provide sources that support them (keeping policy in mind). Its easy to voice an opinion, but research is work. -- Director (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Research is work and trust me that collecting all the evidence that I reported above took me quite a lot of work. I have two issues with this article.
1. Reporting the results of the a/u censi conducted around the end of XIX century in Zadar. I still do not understand why - with the due caution required when using primary sources - these sources are not eligible for this article.
And let's be very clear. The information requested during the censi was to report the primary language of use, not the ethnicity. In any case a link between language of use and ethnicty could not be made.
2. This article has a prominence of nearly 2/3 of non English sources. If at some extent it is acceptable to have non-English sources, on the other hand this proportion is here excessive because the most of those sources are Croatian or Yougoslavian and therefore difficult to check for an English speaker; And on top of that there is the potential conflict of interest of using Croatian sources to support claims on such a contested article. Please check WP:NOENG, WP:NONENG, WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. I already said I agree on this point. I would support the introduction of the Austrian census information. However, that is a primary source and requires careful handling per WP:PRIMARY:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation..."

So in short, I myself would support such an entry as long as it is brief (without excessive emphasis), and extremely faithful to the source material (i.e. without WP:OR). One thing though: you're not proposing we introduce the results of every census that was ever taken in Zadar, but only this one. Why?

2. I thought we were going to be specific. What are you proposing?

-- Director (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. If there is room we should not restrict to one census. I propose to add as much as information it's possible, of course provided the modification it's brief (less than 30 words) and does not give the smallest chance of any nationalist interpretation.
2. This is a bigger discussion. Let's start with the first one, then I will highlight the relevant points where IMHO some international sources, if they exist, should apply. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

1. We can go about this two ways. One way is expanding coverage of the historical demographics of Zadar, which would require a lot of work, and would have to include post-1945 censuses as well, you know. If however, you're just trying to emphasize (which is ok) that the city had a sizable Italian population in the past (which is accurate), then we can just add that part of the Austrian censuses. Something along the lines of "XY% of citizens reported they were Italian speakers in [year]". Since I get the impression you're after the latter, lets not overdo it and just introduce the figures.

2. Before you even start be aware that, if you're challenging a scholarly source, you need good reason and a source of your own. I am not at all impressed by the fact that the sources about a (relatively obscure) Croatian city are mostly Croatian. That's pretty much standard for local subjects like this. -- Director (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I will come with q proposal for number 1 later today (and I will make all the efforts to stick the most to the source and be the most "aseptic" is possible). I do not even want to speak of sizeable Italian population, because this would be historically inaccutate. It's enough to stick to the census and write "declaring Italian as first language".
Concerning 2 there is no problem "per se" if the sources are from Croatia/FYR. The issue exists only when there is conflict between those and sources from other countries (i.e. Italian, but not necesserely). In such cases English sources should be preferred. As soon I have time I will make a list of those conflictual parts (4 or 5). --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1. You're right of course. Please post the changes (either here or in the article), so I know what you're talking about?

2. If there is a conflict of sources there is always need to resolve it. However, I don't Italian sources should be placed above Croatian sources in some way, the two are equally suspect. Third party sources, yes. -- Director (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of modification

I propose to add to the existing text the following sentence.
In order to reach consensus and give to this modification the biggest chance to survive I suggest not to report the exact figures. The reader will have the possibility to get more knowledgeable going trough the sources, for those available on the Web.
The archives of the official austro-hungarian censi conducted aroud the end of 19th century show that Italian was the primary language spoken by the majority of the people in the city, but only by a third of the population in the entire county.
Primary and secondary sources supporting this affirmation:

• Full 1900 census available at page 82 of the following link: [3]

• Page 189 of “The Italians of Dalmatia” - Univerity of Toronto Press Incorporated -2009: [4]

• The book of Guerrino Perselli, I censimenti della popolazione dell‘Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune città della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936 - Università Popolare di Trieste - 1993. In this book at pages 451 you can find data from 1869 till 1936 about Zadar's population. I can provide, upon request, scan of this book and of its cover page.
  

I suggest to explore the room for consensus about this first proposal before going trough the other topics. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[Removed non-constructive personal attack] If I understand correctly, the sentence in italic is the proposed addition? Sounds fine to me. -- Director (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence in italic is the proposed addition. Feel free to change it if there is any possibility to make it even more factual. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What objections were raised against this edit, I don't understand..? -- Director (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I genuinely don't know. Ask to the ones that were against or go trough the talk pages if you want (and have the time). I think they were (and still are) against because they considered it was historically incorrect or against wikipedia policies. Possibly some opposition existed because my contributions are considered extremist, nationalist and irredentistic. Perhaps I did not manage to defend my position with sufficient clarity.
However, can we go ahead with this modification? --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you can solve controversy, explaining how "Italians" arrived to be magiority in "central Zadar": there was in XIX century a progressive migration of romance Dalmatians and norther Italians to the city that before always had slavic majority. Probably analize etnic evolution of Zadar in the course of centuries, and not only at the end of XIX, can be a good point.--Grifter72 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

@Non vedo alcun problema, Silvio1973. Go ahead. -- Director (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC) -- Director (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just added the modification, but I doubt that they will resist. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Silvio1973. Nonsense, there are ways of defending against vandalism on Wikipedia.

@Grifter72. Yes indeed. It must be noted that the city was a focal point for Italian migration during the 19th century, and that previously it had a Slavic Dalmatian majority that dated back to the Middle Ages (when there was a mix of Slavic Dalmatians and older Romance Dalmatians).-- Director (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Grifter72. I have modified in the sense of your suggestion. Ideally it would be appropriate to put along with my two recents modification some numbers but I doubt that everyone will appreciate it. What'a your opinion? --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted this modification for a few obvious reasons.

"(mostly Romance Dalmatians and Northern Italians). This somehow altered the ethnic structure that previously had a Slavik Dalmatian majority. Under the pressur of the population increase,"

1. There were no Romance Dalmatians (speakers of Dalmatian) in Dalmatia in the 19th century. Across Dalmatia, they had been assimilated by the Croats much earlier, during Medieval and Renaissance. Peolpe who moved were the Italians and pro-Italians. Pro-Italians were Croats, supporters of the Autonomist Party and not Dalmatian Romance speakers, they were bilinguals Croatian/Italian.

2. Italians who moved from the south of Dalmatia to Zadar at the end of the 19th century were not mostly Northern Italians, they were Italian immigrants from different regions of Italy.

3. This immigration to Zadar did change demographic structure of the city during last 3 decencies of the 19th century but it didn't alter the ethnic structure to such degree. Italians made majority in the city only from 1920 (when Italian army came) and later, due to emigration of the Croats from the city ruled by the fascist Italy.

4. Modification is not written in English. It's written in some hybrid English.

You can do better. And when you do, use source. 93.143.17.40 (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

1. You're right, that's a mistake.

2. I removed mention of northern Italians since there isn't a source backing that up.

3. We're not going to take your word for it. The sources you removed disagree.

4. "Decencies" does not mean "decades".

You are, however, deleting a lot more. Bring sources of your own and do not remove any. Should you continue to vandalize the article and revert war semi-protection will be requested. -- Director (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

3. The sources I removed are in conflict with many other sources shown in mediation: "but only by a third of the population in the entire county" - this is incorrect. Not 1/3! It's incorrect also from other reason too, it doesn't says that Italian was spoken by many Croatian speakers. This way it looks like 30% of county population spoke Italian and 70% Croatian - nonsense. The only objective words to say would be: cca 15% of county population was able to speak Italian too. Since almost all of them were Croats. There were no Italians out of the city.

4. You're right, the other editor made that mistake in this page earlier and caused my mistake too.

It seems you are not objective. Maybe this article should be protected from you? 93.143.17.40 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you Zenanarh? please login. Immigration to Zadar was especially from Northern Italy because happened through Austrian Empire. There are a lot of examples about this. It is also true that some were from Liguria and Piedmont (Francesco Maria Appendini, Luxardos and others), but it's hard to find Dalmatians with origins in Naples or Sicily. About the other point: it's difficult to me consider pro-italians Dalmatians as pure Croats. Yes, they were Croats, but they were also Italians, exactly like Italian speakers in Istria now. --Grifter72 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Unfortunately I'm not Zenanarh. It would be much better if Zenanarh comes here. Don't get me wrong but I think his knowledge about Zadar is higher dimension for 3 of you. I'm just in love with Zadar history, I've been following Zenanarh's discussion with Silvio and mediation. And this modification was stupid even to my amateur level of knowledge. Also pro-Italians were not Italians. They were declaring as Dalmatians, Italo-Slavs and Italo-Dalmatians and not Italians. 93.143.17.40 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, can be better. Undo cannot increase quality level. Ok for "Italo-Dalmatians". Do you have some proposal?--Grifter72 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You have nice ammount of data shown in mediation here. Use it to use proper terminology and to avoid presentation of selective data such as 1/3 county population detail, which is completely false info, I think it's invented by Silvio. 93.143.17.40 (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(removed a personal attack) This is very suspicious. All these new IP "Zadar enthusiasts" are from Zagreb, whereas Zenanarh is quiet. I'd like to have them checked against Zenenarh. With the IP explicitly claiming he's "not Zenanarh" (but he "loves him nevertheless" :)), should he actually turn out to be Zen that would be sockpuppeteering warranting an indeff block.

Last chance before an SPI: is that Zenanarh? -- Director (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, fascinating. The IP(s) disappear. Well if they return I propose an SPI case be filed before they're taken seriously. -- Director (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are fascinating, everybody are zenanar to you. Is Zenanarh thorn in your eye? And I'm 93.143.17.40 from 23 February 2012, writing from Zadar and not from Zagreb. These numbers are changing. I didn't disappear. I'm only not so sick to sleep here every day for hours. 78.3.55.167 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NCGN

I agree with Silvio1973 that the name (Zadar-Zara) is not the main problem of this article but nevertheless it is a problem. Let me be clear: I will not enter the debate between Croatian and Italian points of view about the history and ethnic or linguistic composition of the population. I do not even care that Zara was the Italian and Hungarian official name, although this is not a negligible fact. I want to approach the problem from another perspective: the native English speaker perspective. A very important information is missing from the text: Zara was the only ENGLISH name for centuries. Generations of English speakers knew this town only as Zara and all English sources before World War II report the name Zara. In according with WP:NCGN the title should be followed in the first line by the past widely used English name, which coincides with the Hungarian and Italian name. This is a lack of a basic information for any English reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.1.201.80 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is too much on the plate on this article. I have moved away from this argument because there are things more urgent to solve. All my (few I must confess) English books of history use the name Zara instead of Zadar. Please note that the current interpretation of WP:NCGN policy in this article is fairly correct, albeit one could have the doubt that it represents the use of a technicality to push a POV. Well, it looks one of those situations were form is put above matter.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Silvio, you're going too far with the "Zara" nonsense. Your post should simply have stated: "the current interpretation of WP:NCGN policy in this article is fairly correct". Period. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I am not going anywhere. The name of this city is Zadar. There is no room to discuss at all the name of this article. It looks that some people regret that today this city lies within the border of Croatia, but if this is the case they should regret that Italy started in 1940 a war (and lost it). But this is a different matter. IMHO, in view of the history of this city and the wide use of the name Zara it would have been more appropriate to report the Italian version of the name in the lead part of the article, but the current use of the WP:NCGN is technically (just technically Direktor, please weight my words) correct and clearly there is no room to build-up a different consesus. I know you are quite firm on this point but consider that currently on the main 10 versions of Wikipedia (even in Chinese and Japanese), en:wiki is the only one not reporting the toponym Zara in the lead. Sei assolutamente sicuro di avere davvero ragione?.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because that is not the only historical name of this city, and there is an entire section describing them.-- Director (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course Direktor. Dovresti fare l'avvocato non il dottore.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

haha, tu non sei il primo che ha detto che. (Sorry, my Italian's kinda rusty ;)) -- Director (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Venetian role on Zadar's development

The article currently reports the sentence The Venetians restrained the political and economical autonomy of Zadar when speaking of the city in the period XV-XVIII centuries. This sentence has to be supported with sources. And I would really like to see such sources, if exist. Indeed it is exactly the opposite. Zadar become capital of Venetian Dalmatia and the most of cultural and artistic development that makes today this city known world-wide had place during tthis period. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Whene Venetians came in 1409, they started to destroy the city as they already had done earlier, like in 1202 and 1343. Symbol of Zadar St. Donat is just a half of a monumental building, Venetians destroyed the other half. The most of churches had been built before the Venetians came, Venetians built only new city walls, castle at the north-west of the city where they were hiding from angry citizens and a few storehouses. Zadar had a few flourishing periods in its history: 1st half of the Iron Age, 1st-3rd century under Rome and 13th, 14th century under Croatian-Hungarian kings - in all cases it was when the city was well connected to its background. Venetians cut it off from its background and stopped its developement. Before 1409 Zadar was also a capital of Dalmatia for long 8 centuries. It is obvious what Venetian role was, Dubrovnik stayed out of Venetian Republic and continued to develop, the other Dalmatian cities fell down politically, economically and culturally under Venice. 78.3.55.167 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, what is true is what corresponds to a verifiable source not to an opinion. Croatian historigraphy differs significantly when it comes to describe the role of the Republic of Venice about the development of Zadar. If I semplify in two lines the view of Croatian historiography, for the Republic of Venice Zadar was only a city logistically well placed for military (control over the Southern part of the Adriatic Sea) and commercial (a king of maritime hub) purposes. This view is questionable and I do not want to start a battle of opinions, but I urge to source this opinion with facts (preferentially from English or International source).

Zadar was the capital of the Venetian possessions in Dalmatia for almost 4 centuries. If the intent of some contributors is to reduce the role of Venice to pure occupation and destruction this is a significant fact and must be sourced. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973, your approach to the problem is wise and fair but it allows paradoxical situations. if in English wiki you type “Zara” (the widely used English name) you find a disambiguation page with “Zara, Italian, Venetian, German and Hungarian name of the Adriatic port city of Zadar (and its official name from the 15th to the 20th century), former capital of Dalmatia, today in Croatia” This is probably the very first approach to Zara/Zadar for a native English speaker, except for the tourists who know the present name of the town. There is a consistency problem with the redirection page "Zadar" which doesn't mention tha name "Zara". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.201.235 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For Italians Zara is still used for "Zadar", but for Italian women Zara is especially this: Zara. For English people, Zara, I think, is the fashion group. --Grifter72 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This part of the discussion is not about the name of the city. Please let's keep the discussions separated, the talk pages about this article are already a mess. I will answer to your comments in the relevant part above. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss regarding the name of the city. -- Director (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you can not be apodictic about the problem of the name. In the presence of arguments clearly not irrelevant you should justify it. I invite you to examine systematically En Wiki policy about regions, towns, villages whose sovereignty changed after WW II in Europe. You will always find the present official name followed by tha past one. I can cite hundreds of examples Please justify, if you can, the reason why Zadar is a unique and clamorous exception. I'll be waiting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.203.163 (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Neo-fascist revisionism of Silvio1973 and his Snoopy. 78.3.118.184 (talk) 08:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who is 78.3.118.184. Certainly he/she is not very courageous because is hiding back of an IP address. It is somehow interesting to be qualified of Neo-fascist by such iper-nationalist users. Perhaps with the integration of Croatia in the UE things will improve. I hope, at least. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

EU didn't help Italians to clean their house. It's worse. Fascism only escalated in Italy, we know how student demonstrations in Rome are tretated, first dickhead neo-nazis in black clothes are beating students, police is never there, then after they're finished and run away, police is coming to beat the rest of students. There are no such groups or incidents in Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.44.217 (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The statements of users 78.3.118.184, 78.3.44.217 do not deserve any response. Fabioantonello (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to stop these actions of disturbance? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of modifications (XIX and XX century))

I have modified and moved some sections of text and added some information concerning the period of time between the beginning of WWI and the Treaty of Rapallo. Also included some information and a source about the genesis of the confict between Italian and Croatian communities. I tried to be as brief as possible but the number of events marking this period of history are numerous so it is difficult to be brief and clear at the same time. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes proposed to the article

Direktor, this thing of the name in the lead is fairly minor. It's just a thin layer of paint and any careful reader can read trough getting trough the rest the article. Indeed I am much more interested about the rest of the article, namely:

• This claim that under Venice ruling time, Zadar was a depressed city need to be seriously sourced.
• The name of Giorgio da Sebenico has to be reported as it is now in the relevant article on en:wiki. If someone is really keen to report Juraj Dalmatinac, then should first get consensus around this name in the relevant article.
• Venice did not sent colonists as the article state currently. Venice was a Republic based on trade not on colonialism. The proof is that Venetian Republic was multi-ethnical and extremely tolerant for the standard of the time (an example: inquisition could hardly enter in Venice). Many italians (from the North indeed) moved to Zadar because occasions for making business existed. Speaking of Venetian colonialism it's a non-sense. Never Venice did anything to create a concept of nationality. In this sense it was a very fragile entity and the events after Campo-Formio speak by theselves.
• This article presents the rivality between Croats and Italians as a fact of nationality. This is historically incorrect. It was indeed a class conflict (if I may use this wording). The Italians were in trading, administration, military and the Croats in the handcrafting and agricolture.
• A few words should be added in the section concerning WWII to say that Italian Fascists were helped by local Croatian Ustasi.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Class conflict - what a nonsense. The Italians - trading, administration, military; Croats - handcrafting and agricolture. Are you aware how racistical your views are? So people who were running the city for centuries, defending it against continual Venetian attacks, controlling trade route in the Adriatic, organizing union of Dalmatian cities and political relations of the province suddenly became handcrafters and agriculturists? Just like that? And where the hell were the Croats supposed to be agriculturists in the city? Agriculture in the city? And how are we supposed to interpret rasistical Venetian laws proclaimed immidiatelly after they had entered in the city, so 90% of the city population - all domestic people were not allowed to contribute in the politics, economics and cultural life of the city anymore, all city nobility was persecutted, Venetians captured 40 hostages from every noble family and sent them to Venetian prisons just to break resistence of the noblemen and citizens, so the carriers of political life noblemen became just a group of Harlequins, according to these laws sex between Venetians and Croats was not allowed - pure racism, absolute majority of the city was not allowed to use their language in their cultural developement, since the Venetians weren't succesful in Italianizing the city and they were constantly afraid of any possible cultural rise of the city population, they even decided to close up the oldest university in the SEE - Zadar University (established in the 14th century) because it was run by the Benedictines who had close connections to Croats from the beginning of their presence at this side of Adriatic and so on. Your ideas of some cultural and economical prosperity of Dalmatia under Venice are fairytales for little children. The fall of Dalmatian cities was basic condition for rise of Venice. When Dalmatian cities were strong until 1409, Venice was stagnating. When Venice bought and colonized Dalmatia, these cities stagnated and Venice developed rapidly. Class conflict reflected in use of language was result of Venetian rule in Dalmatia at the beginning of the 19th century! There had been no any kind of class conflict reflected in the etnicities (why do you use word nationality, do you know what nationality means?)before 1409, since there had been no Venetians to start such segregation. Croats and Dalmatians (by language) were one and the same body. First learn history of this city. 78.0.166.164 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, a few things.

• 1. I am tired to death to answer to IP addresses. Is it too much to ask to all these people to log in with a valid account?
• 2. The class conflict does not refer to the 15th century. It is about the history of the city during the XIX century. This is clear going trough the previous discussion. The initial fuel of the rivality between the Italians and the Croatian was a class conflict. I can source this affirmation (and indeed I think I will modify the article in this sense quoting the relevant source). And I still cannot see anything of racist in such affirmation.
• 3. I am kindly asking to quote sources for facts that for many people look evident. Well, if they are so evident it should not be difficult to provide a verificable and internatioal source. Please provide it.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Answering point-by-point. Please be honest in your responses.

• Are there sources listed in support of that claim you're challenging?
• That's a matter of consensus.
• Are there sources listed in support of that claim you're challenging?
• Do you have sources for that claim?
• Haha :), no they weren't "helped by local Ustase". You're obviously not very familiar with WWII in Yugoslavia.

-- Director (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Direktor I try always to be honest. Sometime I might not be because I can make mistakes, but this is a different matter.

• I am not saying this is not true. I am saying that it has to be sourced. There has been a cn standing for this affirmation for about 6 months. At some point either a source is quoted or the sentence is removed.
• Yes, it is a matter of consesus but in the relevant article not in Zadar's article. Please manage to get the consensus of the article Giorgio da Sebenico and then change in accordance in the Zadar page. If this is not logical please tell me.
• The same as 1. It's the sentence Venice sent new colonists that disturbs me. Because introduce a POV that would present Zadar as mere colony of the Republic of Venice and not a part of Venice itself. This has to be sourced.
• Direktor, I have sources but only in Italian. Still I think I should provide them because in this article the 2/3 of sources are from Croatia/FYR so I do not see why Italian sources should not be admitted.
• What you say it is partially true or partially false (according to views). As a general principle is almost impossible when it comes to former Yugoslavia to find a clear line of separation between opposants and allies (the complexity of this part of the world is beyond the description ability of any historian). Not all Italian fascist commanders cooperated with the Ustasi, some of them refused. Indeed Ustasi violence was so extreme and bestial to create a problem even to some Germans and Italian occupation troops (indeed during the occupation of Yugoslavia some people was even requesting to the occupation troops to do something to limit the excess of the Ustase). Still the creation of the NDH would have not been possible without the joint cooperation of the invading (Germany and Italy) and the collaborating parties (the Ustase in this istance). BTW, I am not saying a novelty.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Re the Ustase
  • Italy financed and supported the Ustase in the interbellum (they assassinated the Yugoslav king in Marseilles etc.). Throughout the period and all the way 'till well after they established the NDH, the Ustase were a very small terrorist organization numbered in hundreds. And they were almost exclusively in Italy and Hungary - in Yugoslavia itself, they virtually did not exist.
  • When war with Yugoslavia came in April 1941, the Yugoslav army was quickly defeated by the German Wehrmacht. Italian forces made a relatively insignificant contribution by moving into practically-undefended Dalmatia (which contributed little or nothing either way to the outcome). To my knowledge, there were no Ustase there at the time, and the Italian military had no support from any local Croatian collaborators. Its possible they perhaps brought some tiny token Ustase units with them, I'm not sure, but those weren't locals, they were "imported".
  • About the time Yugoslavia was occupied, the Ustase proclaimed the NDH and were forced by Germany and Italy to sign-over Croat-populated Dalmatia. They lost much of their credibility as Croatian ultranationalists because of that, and naturally never had significant support in those areas they signed-over. Instead, in those areas, Tito's Partisans were by far the most popular group.
  • Since Dalmatia was signed over, the NDH was controlled by Germany and was rather hostile to Italy (and vice versa).

So "helped by local Ustase" just makes no sense. Helped when? When they moved into Dalmatia in April 1941 there were no "local Ustase" there at all, in fact Italian troops received no aid whatsoever from any Croatian locals. Do you mean later? Certainly not. After the annexation of Dalmatia the NDH (virtually by necessity) became diplomatically hostile to Italy, and the latter found a lot more help in the Serbian Chetniks (who went about Dalmatia slaughtering Croats as the "Milizia Volontaria Anti Comunista", MVAC). By these development Dalmatians were pretty much "forced" into siding with the Partisans en masse. They had to resist since they were being forcefully Italianized by the fascists and terrorized by the Chetnik "MVAC", and the Partisans were the only de facto resistance movement (the Chetniks were Italian allies). -- Director (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Direktor, Italian Fascists (the most extreme fraction) was in direct link with the Ustase and we will probably have time in future to discuss about the role that Croatian Ustase had with Italian Fascists in the deportation of numbers of Jews but perhaps not in this talk page. So if you do not mind we might speak about the other issues because they require urgent treatment and that I kindly submit to your cordial attention. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, I first tried answering the Ustase point briefly but that didn't satisfy. Italy was not aided by "local Ustase" - they "cultivated" and "imported" them all by themselves (thanks so much for that, btw ;) [5]). And they turned against them very quickly. To answer the other points

• As far as I'm concerned, feel free to remove anything that isn't sourced.
• You're right. @Zenanarh et alli: that's where you should contest that.
• As far as I'm concerned, feel free to remove anything that isn't sourced.
• Well of course there are Croatian sources - Zadar is a Croatian city. But anything controversial should, in my view, be sourced with non-local, English-language sources. Now that does not mean I'll consent to deleting sources that are already in the article by way of declaring anything we don't like "controversial" (since that could be a massacre).

-- Director (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What a discovery Direktor! Italian fascism was the first extreme right dictature of the XX century to estabilish in Europe. All the others (starting from Hitler) learnt at some extent from them. The thing that is regrettable of the section concerning the WWII of this article is that describe the events that touched the population of Zadar as the (almost) pure responsability of Germany and Italy.
Concerning the other points, I am not going to remove everything that is not sourced because I am not an inquisitor. This is not my objective. The only thing that interest me it's the truth (or at least what is closer to the truth). If there are sources describing the conflicts between Croats and Italians during the XIX century as being - at least partially - a class conflict, it is relevant to report it. If there are sources claiming that this is false, it would be great to know. However I am going to propose some modifications (as usual with the mildest and most neutral tone) and we will discuss afterwards. PS I don't know if they really "cultivated" them, but if it was the case the quality of the result was certainly due to the quality of the pupils rather than of the teacher. Come on man, what was done in Jasenovac was quite a job if you think to the limited means they had. --Silvio1973 (talk) 04:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not about "learning" from the fascists. Italy protected and heavily financed the Ustase, brought them in, and actively installed them as their candidates for rule over (what they thought was) their new protectorate. The Germans wanted Vladko Macek and right-wing elements of the Croatian Peasant Party. Those are facts, but why are you so defensive about this? I'm not accusing you of "importing" the Ustase :)

I did not say "remove everything that isn't sourced", I said remove "anything that isn't sourced", meaning disputed text without backing (as outlined in policy). Nor would removing unsourced material make you the "High Inquisitor" or whatnot.

Right, let's see what you have in mind. -- Director (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, Ustase were trained in Italy in the 30's. This is a fact largely sourced. There is no problem about that. Please have a look to the modifications I have added. Let me know what do you think. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Franz Joseph: "the biggest effort had to be taken to fulfill this objective, namely with an appropriate use of politicians, teachers, magistrate and of the press"

That's a partial quote and that whole business looks fishy to me. I'm sure the Emperor outlined this "objective" before explaining how it is to be "fulfilled". What does he say? What exactly do the sources say was this "objective"?

It looks like some source "interpreted" His Imperial Majesty's statement and then added the sawed-off quote to support the interpretation. More details please? Also, the neo-absolutist period where Germanization took place (in Croatia as well) was only in place 1848–1860. -- Director (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973? -- Director (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The objective was to favour the Croatian element to limit the development of the Italian culture (and avoid any potential irredentism). Also the Croats were considered more loyal to the Crown. However what I reported is the translation of what the Emperor said (or at least what is reported to have been said in the archives). As a translation contains always an element of subjectivity, give me a few time and I will report to you the exact quote of the text (in German, of course). Then you will judge. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not completely agree with you. This is correct after 1860, but before Austrian Empire pushed Italian people in Dalmatia, at that time strongly depopulated. After Italian unification they were scared to lose other territories and take parts of Croats. Also, you didn't consider Roman Church, before for a Dalmatian nation and after, against Cavour and Savoia, for a nation of the Croats:

• http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/simeone-sime-gliubich_(Dizionario-Biografico)/
• http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0ime_Ljubi%C4%87 --Grifter72 (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Grifter72, please read well my modification. Of course if was after 1860, the citation in question was made by the Emperor in 1866. The issue of the Italians in Dalmatia appeared in all its size to the Austrian Crown only after the unification of Italy, or to be more precise after the 3rd war of independency. It was about at that time that the conflict in question become an ethnic conflict. I did on purpose not consider the Roman Church, because we are still in a stage of initial research of consensus. There are number of historians that report the Roman Church in Croatia mainly composed by Croats and used by the Austrian Crown. Again, feel free to add something about that but please consider we have first to get consensus on other standing items.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into these sort of discussions. Can you please provide the quotation from the source (along with the page)? And, if possible, the full quote from the Emperor. I do not think Franz Joseph I was about stupid enough to openly proclaim discrimination against an ethnic group (even if the latter were the case). As I said, the thing sounds a little fishy. P.S. Outside Italy its called the Austro-Prussian War since, well, it was won by the Prussians. -- Director (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There was more complexity. Dalmatians in that years maturated a self-consciousness to be Croats (narodni preporod). A lot of them were perfect bilingual. Šime Ljubić spoke better Italian than Croat language, but felt to be a Croat. This was not artificially created by Austrians.--Grifter72 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Grifter72
1. The Austrians did not create anything. But the Austrians were masters in managing the ethnical conflicts. 2. This is the reason why we speak clearly of people using Italian language and try to avoid as much as possible the ethnic reference. Still at the end of the XIX century there was an ethnic division, albeit this division did not correspond neither to the language used neither to the surnames of the people (people with apparently Slavik names were almost irredentist and others with Romance names felt fully Croat).
@Direktor
I have the original text in German and I will put on the talk page as soon as possible (I need to format it to report all the special symbols). It is very clear and speak by itself. The source is quoted so everyone can check the consistency if wished. Please wait a few hours more.
La pazienza e' la virtu' dei forti --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nessun problema, ma vi prego di usare l'inglese. Using other languages in communication is strongly discouraged on enWiki, and for good reason. I myself have been warned more than once against using Serbo-croato. -- Director (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the problematic paragraph until we have a consensus on the addition. There is no need to do any work on this, Silvio1973, just copy-paste the couple sentences that directly support your paragraph (in German if necessary). And if the emperor is to be quoted, I think it would be good for us to know what he's actually saying. I'm not a fan of one-sentence, out-of-context quotes. -- Director (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@Direktor. There is need to make this work. German without umlauts and s-zet makes the same sense of Romanian without diacritics. However this is the text: "Se. Majestät sprach den bestimmten Befehl aus, dass auf die entschiedenste Art dem Einflüsse des in einigen Kronländern noch vorhandenen italienischen Elementen entgegentreten durch geeinignete Besetzung der Stellen von politischen, Gerichtsbeamten, Lehrern sowie durch den Einfluss der Presse in Südtirol, Dalmatien und dem Küstenlande auf die Germanisierung oder Slawisierung der betreffenden Landesteile je nach Umständen mit aller Energie und ohne alle Rücksicht hingearbeitet werde. Se. Majestät legt es allen Zentralstellen als strenge Plifcht auf, in diesem Sinne planmäßig vorzugehen." The primary source is quoted. The secondary source reporting it it's the book "The Italians of Dalmatia" - University of Toronto Press Incorporated - 2009. In the Italian version of the book the reference is at page 69. --Silvio1973 (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

PS As you can see from my IP address I live at GMT time + 3 hours. This is the reason why sometime I answer only the day after.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In future forget completely about such details. Although since we're not using English-language sources (which is discouraged on en-Wiki, as you know) it would be nice if you translated it.. The point is to move on with the discussion. Please provide:

• the full title of the source publication
• the author, along with credentials (i.e. is this a historian, a scholarly source?)
• the page number

Whom exactly are you quoting up there? The author, or the primary source he's using? Is the author referring to the Emperor as "Majesty"? And again. If you would like to quote the Emperor's statement I do not think it appropriate to just quote half a sentence.

I won't revert you again, but for future reference: please do not under any circumstances start revert-warring. You introduced the change, there were some objections and it was removed. Do not restore opposed new changes without consensus. Have you seen the notice above? -- Director (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer to your question:

• Full name of the book citing the source : "Italiani di Dalmazia" - Luciano Monzali - Le Letter Florence, 2004. The book exists in English : "The Italians of Dalmatia" - Luciano Monzali - University of Toronto Press, 2009. You can check on Google books (but for both versions only the half of the pages are visible). IMHO it's a fairly good book.
• Full name of the Austrian archives : "Die Protokolle des Österreichischen Ministerrates 1848/1867. V Abteilung: Die Ministerien Rainer und Mensdorff. VI Abteilung: Das Ministerium Belcredi, Wien, Österreichischer Bundesverlag für Unterricht, Wissenschaft und Kunst 1971"
• The author of the book is Luciano Monzali, Historian and Associate Professor in the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Bari.
• The page is 69 on the Italian version of the Italian version of the book. It is page 297 of the 2nd volume of the Austrian archives.
• The English translation is : "His Majesty has given strict instructions to oppose decisively to the influence of the Italian elements still existing in some Regions, and aim for the Germanization or Slovenisation - depending on the circumstances - of the areas in question with all the energy and without any regard, by proper assignment of duties to magistrates, politicians, educators and through the influence of the press in South Tyrol, Dalmatia and on the the Austrian Littoral".

I see your point about the revert, but don't you think it would have been perhaps more appropriate to put a cn on the disputed part? Reverting afterards it's never an easy job if in the meantime other changes have been made.
If you are fine we can report the entire passage and put in the notes the full passage in German, though this sounds to me extremely heavy. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. First of all I must say I don't like the fact that we're using an Italian source for a controversial issue. Croatian and Italian authors have diametrically opposite positions on virtually every relevant question. Did we not agree to use non-Italian/Croatian secondary sources on disputed matters? We should try and have a clean start with sources we know at least should be objective.

Secondly, the source cited in the article is the primary source, not the secondary one who's interpretation you're posting in the article. This is a mistake. I think you know this, as I had quoted WP:PRIMARY here before. If you're citing primary sources they need to be used without any interpretation. Quoting a primary source behind an interpretation, even an interpretation from a secondary source, is bad referencing.

Thirdly, I would appreciate it if we clearly differentiated between the secondary source (Italiani di Dalmazia) and the primary source. The two have gotten intertwined.

• What are you quoting above? Is it a quote from the Austrian archive, or the interpretation of said quote by Monzali?
• If its Monzali, what does the archive say? If its the archive what does Monzali say?

This is still rather confusing..

In the future it might be a good idea for us to copy the method used in the Chetnik disputes. See this page. We rely on secondary sources on Wiki. 1) Introduce the source as a scholarly one, 2) copy down what the secondary source states with a page number. Primary sources should, as a rule, not concern us at all. -- Director (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No Direktor, there is nothing of confusing.

• I am quoting the book of Monzali (i.e. the secondary source) and this book is a source available in English and in Italian and it's recognised by a reputable Institution, such a Canadian University that edited the book in English.
• This secondary source does not report Monzali's opinion or interpretation but a fact: the affirmation of the Emperor French Joseph. And this is very relevant. We have a reputable secondary source (in view of the editor of the English version of the book) and its view of the facts it's based on verifiable historics facts (the archives).
• Please also note that I am not reporting the opinion of the last of the irredentists writing on the web but of a recognised researcher.

How do you want to format the modification on the article? I can quote only Monzali in the article, but it is important to write down that at the origin this affirmation come from the mouth of French Joseph. Very important. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes its confusing because you're not being clear. I'm starting to believe you're being deliberately evasive.

• Would you please tell me if the quotation over there is a statement from Monzali himself or from his primary source?? You already told me which book its from, that's not what I am asking.
• I am not concerned with your take on the matter.
• I did not say he's an "irredentist", but its an Italian source. Should I or Zenanarh start quoting "recognized" Croatian sources. We agreed to leave local national authors out of this for objectivity's sake, yet now you're doing the opposite - and you tried to cite him as a German source.

Silvio1973, why the games? Just please clarify what you're citing. -- Director (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, there is no game going on. Let's repeat again.

• That sentence (the German one to be clear) is from the Austrian archives. But I did not found in the archives but in a secondary source.
• I agree that it's an Italian author, but his book it's translated in English and edited in Canada by a very reputable institution (University of Toronto).

If the sentence itself does represent an issue for you because it is a primary source, then I will report the opinion of Monzali about the matter. Still I think it is more valuable to report the citation from Emperor French Joseph rathen than the opinion from an historian.
If we start removing from en:wiki all the sentences of kings, dictators, presidents, emperors (just because primary source) and so we would really make a massacre --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The book you've pushed as a source was published by an Italian organization called the SDDSP, the "Società dalmata di storia patria" [6]. An organization founded in Zadar while it was under the control of Mussolini's Fascist Italy. Instead of listing this source (the source you were using), you posted the German-language primary source directly - apparently to avoid scrutiny. All this amid your protests against the prevalence of Croatian sources in an article about a Croatian city. To be perfectly frank, my faith in your objectivity in these Croatian/Italian issues is seriously shaken.

I won't go into that any further. Suffices to say: no more Croatian or Italian national sources please. That is to say, not in controversial Italian/Croatian disputed points. There is a wealth of English-language sources out there. -- Director (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I share your very same concern. We need to find a balance (if possible and if it exists) between facts and valid sources. If this balance does not exist, clearly the sources cannot be admitted. And in this case it is not the opinion of Monzali that counts, but the citation of French Joseph. The first one could be biased, not the second.
I can give you others sources (German) citing the same reference to this Austrian Crown citation. What Emperor French Joseph is a fact. I can sustain with other German secondary sources. Now ignoring this based on the technicality that is a primary source equates to say that whatever secondary source is preferable to a primary source, even if this can be tracked in secondary sources. This would be an arguable principle.

Still there is need to cut - at least - to cut the existing text. This would not comply to WP:UNDUE. Indeed for that reason I did not want to put the whole citation. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not research facts, Silvio1973, we only use sources, and secondary sources at that. Use of primary sources is limited. Its not our job to gather facts, agree on them, and write our own little paper. We must use reliable(!) secondary sources. There is nothing wrong with scholarly opinion based on facts, but this is a sensitive national issue. In order to weed-out any doubt of inherent bias, and to save ourselves a lot of grief with conflicting sources, we had decided to avoid both Croatian and Italian references. Note that concession is greater on the Croatian "side" in that respect, since this is a Croatian city.

I know that the specific information concerning the Austrian policy is most likely accurate, and I am not disputing the current text, as modified by Bejnar. What I am concerned with is the fact that you pushed an Italian source published by some Dalmatian Italian (esuli) group - and hid that fact. In future, no more Italian/Croatian sources please. I remind you that this is something we've already agreed upon, so if you intend to quote Italian sources in future on controversial points, please say so now. -- Director (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I share your very same concern, but please consider that this article is full of sources dating the last 20 years and I doubt of modern Croatian historiography as well. However forget about Monzali if you have a problem with this source, there are other secondary sources quoting the same citation (in German what is logical because we speak of Austrian history in the end). --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Again. Do we agree not to use Croatian or Italian sources on issues pertaining to controversial aspects of Zadar history? -- Director (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Both Italian and Croatian sources are acceptable as long they are not in conflict. Otherwise consensus has to be built on sources of different origin. IMHO German sources are eligible because we speak here of the history of a German speaking Kingdom.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There need not necessarily be any explicit conflict. Let us just stick to objective, English-language sources in disputed matters. -- Director (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-Croatian and non-Italian objective sources in disputed matters. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Original German

I have recovered the original German of the Franz Joseph quote, as cited in a number of Austrian publications, for example Volk Land und Staat: Landesbewusstsein, Staatsidee und nationale Fragen in der Geschichte Österreichs, page 95, unfortunately available from Google Books in snippet form only.

Kaiser Franz Joseph selbst hatte schon im Ministerrat vom 12. November 1866 den, wie es im Ministerratsprotokoll heißt, „bestimmten Befehl" ausgesprochen, „daß auf die entschiedenste Art dem Einfluß des in einigen Kronländern noch vorhandenen italienischen Elements entgegengetreten und durch geeignete Besetzung der Stellen von politischen Gerichts-Beamten, Lehrern, sowie durch den Einfluß der Presse in Südtirol, Dalmatien, dem Küstenland, auf die Germanisierung oder Slawisierung der betreffenden Landesteile je nach Umständen mit aller Energie und ohne alle Rücksicht hingearbeitet werde." Seine Majestät legt es allen Zentralstellen als strenge Pflicht auf, in diesem Sinn planmäßig vorzugehen.

--Bejnar (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct use of alternative names

The solution of an internal link named “historic names” is not consistent with WP:NCGN. In accordance with it “all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead” In WP:NCGN there’s no mention of “historic names” section, because, as in this case, it can create ambiguity between archaic names and names presently used in other languages​​. The correct solution is “Etymology and other names” Let's see an example of proper use of such a paragraph about Vilnius “The name of the city originated from the Vilnia River.[2] The city has also been known by many derivate spellings in various languages throughout its history. The most notable non-Lithuanian names for the city include: Polish: Wilno, Belarusian: Вiльнюс, Вiльня, German: Wilna, Latvian: Viļņa, Russian: Вильнюс, Yiddish: ווילנע (Vilne). An older Russian name was Вильна / Вильно (Vilna/Vilno),[3][4] although Вильнюс (Vilnius) is now used. The names Wilno, Wilna and Vilna have also been used in older English, German, French and Italian language publications. The name Vilna is still used in Finnish, Portuguese, Spanish, and Hebrew.” This is a correct use because there’s no ambiguity between archaic and present alternative names. 79.25.203.163 (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

IP 79.25.203.163, you should first decide to log on with a proper account. From my perspective it is not acceptable anymore that you participate to this discussions if you do not log on. Personally I have sympathy for some of your arguments, but simplistically I cannot share a long and complex discussion such as this with a mere IP address.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Assuming you're not Zen, you should sign-in and join the discussion fully and with sources. Its entirely up to you, of course, but trust me when I say you will in general be taken much more seriously.

Incidentally, Silvio1973, above I asked if you could please provide some background as to the quote of Emperor Franz Joseph I. Ideally the relevant section of text from the listed source and the full statement of the Emperor would be great. If the latter is not available, then I'd very much like to see some context from the source itself. -- Director (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The source page is now in the citation, and the quote now matches the source. See pages 77–79 in Monzali, Luciano (2009). The Italians of Dalmatia: from Italian unification to World War I (translated by Shanti Evans from the 2007 Italian edition of Italiani di Dalmazia: 1914-1924 published by Società dalmata di storia patria). Toronto Canada: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-9621-0. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bejnar, thank you for your interest in working on this article.What do you exactly mean when you say "This compound sentence lacks a parallel structure." ? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The contributions made ​​by user 78.3.44.217 have some basis. WP:NCGN suggests that in case of more than three different names “all alternative names can be moved to and explainied in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead”. On the contrary for Zadar we have a “Name” section and an internal link “historic names”. Both are not consistent with WP:NCGN. A “Name” section is not consistent with a plurality of alternative names . A “Historic names" section (or link) can create ambiguity between archaic names and names presently used in other languages. In case of toponyms with a plurality of exonyms, endonyms and historic names the correct solution is a “ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES” section with an internal link “SEE OTHER NAMES” following the lead. That is not only my opinion but it is the solution systematically used in English Wikipedia. If you need help about the correct use use of toponyms do not hesitate to contact me for examples. Fabioantonello (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Not counting the various foreign historic names, the evolution of the name went as follows: "Iadera" (Latin) first became "Jadera" in the separate Romance Dalmatian language, then "Jadra" (also in Romance Dalmatian). "Jadra" was pronounced "zadra" in Dalmatian, and hence came the first recorded Slavic Dalmatian name "Zadra", which evolved into "Zadar".

"Zara" is in its origin entirely Venetian, i.e. foreign and not Dalmatian, neither Romance nor Slavic (or even Tuscan Italian, which was "Giara"). It appears actually to have originated from the Slavic term "Zadra", since the Venetians also used an older name which fell out of use ("Jatara"), and that one appears to have originated from Romance Dalmatian ("Jadera"). -- Director (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Crystal night

Why this article is so subjective? There's vanished story about "Crystal night in Zadar" when on the 2nd of May 1991. Croats did horrible ethnic cleansing of 11 000 of Serbs and crashing Serb houses and shops, including cafe "Time out" of basketball player Serb ethnicity Marko Popovic (who today plays for Croat team). http://www.jadovno.com/intervjui-reportaze/articles/zaboravljena-zadarska-kristalna-noc.html 79.175.102.27 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Austrian policy

I am curious why Grifter72 changed "Under the Austrian Empire Zadar was subject to the same policy" to "After Italian unification, under the Austrian Empire Zadar was subject to the same policy" The policy was enacted some years before the completion of Italian unification, as is shown by the quote that Silvio1973 provided from Emperor Franz Joseph. While the explicit policy may have been inspired by growing Italian nationalism, that should be stated and shown by citation, and not by an implied assumption. Congruity in time is not causation ([[David Hume#Causation|Hume). The Austrian policy is only unusual for having been so explicitly stated. Most conquerors throughout history have employed a similar policy, look, for example, at the French policy in the Languedoc, Brittany and Normandy. --Bejnar (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Before Italian unification, Austrian political in Dalmatia was pro italian with the Autonomist Party, because Italian nationalism was considered less dangerous that the Croatian one. Hungarians (pro-Croatians) supported instead union of Dalmatia with Croatia People's_Party_(Kingdom_of_Dalmatia). --Grifter72 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that does not address the issue at all. The Austrians are not political parties. Also, it certainly does not provide a citation. --Bejnar (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I linked Treccani... if you understeand Italian: "Negli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta, nel dibattito legato alle riforme costituzionali dell'Impero asburgico, i Croati, sostenuti dagli Ungheresi, aprirono una vivace polemica chiedendo l'unione della Dalmazia alla Croazia. Costituita nel 1861 la Dieta di Zara, si sarebbero confrontati al suo interno due partiti, l'autonomista e l'annessionista, l'uno sostenitore di una provincia autonoma all'interno della cornice asburgica, l'altro favorevole alla sua unione con la Croazia e la Slavonia in un'unica entità politico-amministrativa. Lo scontro era destinato a concludersi in un primo tempo con la vittoria dei Dalmati italiani, i quali avevano in quel momento il sostegno di Vienna ed erano favoriti dai provvedimenti insiti nella patente del febbraio 1861. Da parte dell'elemento croato era forte la volontà - sia in Dalmazia, sia in Croazia e Slavonia - di intervenire nella realtà politica ottenendo una trasformazione federale della monarchia." --Grifter72 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading the above quotation, and not the source, it was still not the unification of Italy that caused the change in policy. It looks as though it was Croatian pressure that made the change, unless I am misreading: Da parte dell'elemento croato era forte la volontà - sia in Dalmazia, sia in Croazia e Slavonia - di intervenire nella realtà politica ottenendo una trasformazione federale della monarchia. Tale tendenza era diffusa soprattutto negli strati colti della popolazione, cioè preti e insegnanti, e le sempre più numerose sale di lettura esercitavano una forte influenza, in senso nazionale, tra le popolazioni dei centri minori. --Bejnar (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is not directly indicated but Italian unification happened between 1861 and 1870 (Rome). Before Vienna was for the Dalmatian autonomists (this is reported by Treccani); on November 1866 Franz Joseph did is declaration against Italian elements in Dalmatia, Tyrol and Istria.--Grifter72 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fellas, you're in danger of being too Italo-centric in your thinking. The main reason why Austria backed Italians before 1866 (and yes, there was a reason other than charm ;)) was that Slavs were lobbying for union with the Kingdom of Croatia - which was part of the Hungarian crown. Austria did not want to lose its littoral provinces to Hungary. So it was the threat of Hungary that caused Vienna to back Italians (and that disappeared after the Compromise of 1867), whereas it was the threat of Prussia that caused Vienna to back Slavs. -- Director (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes Director, this is one of the causes but remember that Franz Joseph also cited South Tyrol. --Grifter72 (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the cause behind an explicitly "anti-Italian" policy was the Austro-Prussian War and the threat of Bismarck. I am pointing out in addition that the cause behind the pro-Italian policy was the Croatian/Hungarian push for Dalmatia as a historic part of the "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" that was part of the Hungarian crown since its annexation or personal union (depending who you ask) of 1102. -- Director (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• So, based on these comments and the quote from Treccani, it seems that there is agreement that it wasn't just Italian unification driving the policy, thus it is better to leave out Italian unification in that sentence, and leave causation unstated. --Bejnar (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not completely agree. I replaced "Italian unification" with "1866" that gives to everyone a possibility of an interpretation.--Grifter72 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on Grifter72. This still create a link of causation.

• There are not so many relevant things about Italy and the Italians happening those years.
• Also I disagree on the organic matter. It is certainly true the policy of the Austrians become more evident in the second part of the 19th century but it was enforced well before. There is no proof of that and this is the reason why I am not insisting to put it in the text but the sharp decrease of Italian speaking people in Dalmatia in the period 1800 - 1850 are a demonstration of that. Again this is not a source and I do not insist on it, but also I am against putting a link of casuality unless does not sustained by a serious scholar or tertiary source.

However, I have put During the second part of the 19th century to reach consensus.

Also, I do not like the cn because it looks the entire sentence require a source. Do we need sources for things so evident? If the answer is yes I will provide one. And I do not understand why the reference to Franz Joseph has been removed from the text. This is EXTREMELY relevant. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on that point. Why is he personally relevant? -- Director (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The quote is evidence of the policy and as such belongs in a Note, not in the text. Hardly ever is a quote appropriate in an encyclopedia main text. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's relevant because makes evident how clear was the policy of the Austrian Empire. However I see the point about the appropriateness of putting the quote in the main text. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

19th C. conflict between Italians and Croatians

Can I have an explanation about this thing of This compound sentence lacks a parallel structure? Thank you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in question is: Until the beginning of the century it had been of moderate intensity and mainly of a class nature (under Venetian rule the Italians were employed in the most profitable activities, such as trade and administration), but with the development of the modern concept of national identity across Europe, national conflicts start to mark the political life of Zadar. The subject of the first part is it namely conflict between Italian and Croatian communities, the subject of the second part is national conflicts. I suspect that national conflicts is a euphemism for something else, since it does not mean "conflicts between nations". The sentence would have a parallel structure if the second half dealt with what the non-class nature of the altered conflict was, and dealt with the new "level of intensity" if there was one. If not, then intensity doesn't belong in the sentence. Parallel would be: The conflict was of X intensity and based on unequal opportunities in the workplace, but after Y events, the conflict was of Z intensity and based on differing political goals. Maybe shorter sentences would help. However it is rewritten, I hope that someone will have an appropriate citation to substantiate the data. --Bejnar (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will re-write the sentence to give it a parallel structure. National conflicts it is not an euphemism for something else. And I will add an appropriate citation to sustain the content of this sentence.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence has been rewritten. I have also removed from the text the reference to the Panslavism. I cannot justify with a valid source other than the book from Monzali but this book is already quoted twice in this article and cannot be resonably used in support of a third statement. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

First newspaper

Do you all want Il Regio Dalmata - Kraglski Dalmatin to be discussed under "19th Century" or under "Culture"? Right now almost the exact same text is duplicated in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I prefer in "Culture". There were two other newspapers published in Zadar in that years. From 1832 "La Gazzetta di Zara" (in Italian) and from 1844 the "Zora Dalmatinska" (in Croat): http://antunbauer.mdc.hr/index.php/static/bibliografije/V_1

--Grifter72 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok to put under "Culture".

--Silvio1973 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Complete list of newspapers published in Zadar in XIX century:

• Il Regio Dalmata – Kraglski Dalmatin (1806-1810) - In Italian and Croatian.
• Gazzetta di Zara (1833-1846) - In Italian.
• Zora Dalmatinska (1844-1846) - In Croatian.
• La Dalmazia (1845-1847) - In Italian.
• Osservatore Dalmato (1849-1853) - In Italian.
• Glasnik dalmatinski (1849-1866) - In Croatian.
• La voce Dalmatica (1860-1863) - In Italian.
• Il Nazionale (1862-1920) - In Italian from 1862 to 1876, then in Croatian with the name Narodni List (still living in Zadar, from 1946).
• Il Dalmata (1865-1916) - In Italian (still living from 1950, today printed in Italy).
• Hrvatska (1884-1897) - In Croatian.
• Vuk (1885) - In Croatian.
• Iskra (1891-1894) - In Croatian.--Presbite (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Some changes

• Jurai Dalmatinac, Lucijan Vranjanin and Frane Vranjanin names changed to their equivalent romance versions. This is to put the names in accordance with the the names used in the relevant articles in en:wiki. If some editor suppose the slaviks name should be used in the Zadar's articles, he/she is welcome to justify that with appropriate sourcing (but in the relevant articles first).
• I changed the wording, because Giorgio da Sebenico is not a renaissance man but an architect and sculptor.
• Giorgio da Sebenico was probably born in Zadar.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Mayoral Election

Jolicnikola just changed the mayor of Zadar from Zvonimir Vrančić to Božidar Kalmeta. Kalmeta won the recent election, in the first round he garnered 48.43% to Ivo Bilic's 31.98%, and in the second round it was 57% to Bilic's 40.38%. (Božidar Kalmeta - Pročitaj najnovije članke vezane uz ...) But until Kalmeta takes office, I think that it is premature to change the name. If Kalmeta has already taken office, does someone have a citation to a reliable source for that fact? --Bejnar (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comital Title

Damjanić Vrgadski family whose correct and complete surname name is Damiani di Vergada Gliubavaz Frangipani Detrico has never lost the Comital Title in 1860 (tha's an untruth declartion): the Comital Title is still existing as still existing are males members of this family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.19.202.200 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Names

According to Wikipedia naming conventions: "other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages" or "alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead". There's no mention for a "Etymology and historical names" such as used in the page. It is recommended to avoid creating sections with different titles. This may lead to confusion, and this is the case. The section is ambiguously misleading about historical names and relevant foreign language names suggesting that some names have only a historical value. There is also no mention of the German and Hungarian names. Relevant foreign language names are to be mentioned as such at the beginning of the section and not to be mixed with archaic names. If in doubt please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29 62.211.130.244 (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the same Wikipedia naming conventions you are referring to "...The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses...." and "....Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted.....". Therefore, the italian name Zara should not be omitted. Magnagr (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Italian and German name should be in the lead. Expecially the Italian name is particularly recurring in English sources. Unfortunately a restricted number of users fiercely opposed to this modification. If I had not been previously involved in the discussion I would make the modification. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Climate

On 2 August 2014 IP editor 93.143.11.208 changed the climate figures. Are the new figures any more accurate? If there are updated figures at Weatherbase then the citation should be updated from the current 2011 data. --Bejnar (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Again changes in climate table: by 46.234.70.254 on 2016-02-05. Is he a vandal? If not, citations must be updated. Carlotm (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zadar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018122207/http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Andrea_Schiavone.aspx to http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Andrea_Schiavone.aspx#1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is a request for comments that is likely of interest to this article at Talk:Rajka_Baković#Request for comments. --- Otr500 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section has too many paragraphs. Of the eight, six are about the city's history – they could easily be combined into just two or three. MOS:LEAD says there should be four at most; exceptions can happen, but I don't think more than five paragraphs in total is necessary in this case, especially since they're so short.

As for the tourism part: I think a new section should be created, possibly a subsection of #Economy. Also, there probably shouldn't be an external link to the "Best destinations" portal. Wikipedia:External links says that "[external links] should not normally be placed in the body of an article".

Unrelated to the above: the very short #Science section could be merged into #Education. ~barakokula31 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zadar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607122331/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Dalmatia to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Dalmatia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607063722/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Illyria to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Illyria
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302174200/http://eng.banskabystrica.sk/main.php?id_kat_for_menu=2367&firmy_slovenska_flag=0 to http://eng.banskabystrica.sk/main.php?id_kat_for_menu=2367&firmy_slovenska_flag=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Name

During the period of the Venetian Empire and Austro-Hungarian rule the cartographers named this city ZARA. Surely this should be reflected in the article? 2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:D6E:762F:5EF0:54C0 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Good luck trying to change anything in this article without having it immediately reverted. Certain editors seem to have dozens if not hundreds of articles on their watchlists, and take it upon themselves to act as guardians over their version of the "truth." Trying to correct inaccuracies in articles having anything to do with the countries of the former Yugoslavia, but particularly Croatia, is just an exercise in futility, and an example of why a lot of what's written on this site shouldn't be taken seriously. 198.84.212.239 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)