Talk:Battle of Zadar

Fair use rationale for Image:UCK NLA.jpg
Image:UCK NLA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

POV ? lets remove the tag (possibly)
There is no any dispute about POV initiated.

The POV mark was inserted even withoud any other comment. According the previous actions of the IP address 68.60.153.73 I would guess that he was not satisfied with quality or usage of this reference, but he was unable to remove it  or to improve it or indicate what actually should have been wrong according to his view. That is merely my gues, but I do not see any other way to find the objections against objectivity in the article, except taht there will anyone else find the flaw (in the usage of the reference?) and report it here. So I do propose to remove the POV tag by anyone if no objection will appear on the talk page, lets say within month.  R eo  ON   |   + + +  11:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There were two planes shot down, not one in "both of them" situation.
Even this Serbian site verifies it: http://www.avijacijabezgranica.com/jrvudesi.html I'll edit that false statement (that only one plane was shot) on all wikipedia pages mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AurgelmirCro (talk • contribs) 06:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Destroyer Split at Battle of Dalmatia
'One of the ships involved in the blockade was the destroyer Split; the first time in history that a city came under attack from a warship bearing its own name.'. I've checked wikipedia for Split destroyer and fount this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_destroyer_Split stating it was 'Fate: 	scrapped 1986'. How is it now operational in the eighties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.93.254.13 (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the problem is in the lack of precision when talking about ship names. This article is talking about a vessel called VPBR-31 Split, while that one is talking about R-11 Split. This needs to be verified and clarified. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Per:
 * hr:R-11 Split
 * hr:VPBR-31 Split
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Croatian Victory ???
It is true, that Zadar and Sibenik were not captured by the serbs, but Kijevo, Skabrnja, Benkovac, Obrovac, Zemunik, Malesnica, Drnis, Vrlika and the Peruca dam were occupied and captured by the serbs, in and directly before this serbian military operation in 1991. So clear is that, the croats lost a lot of cities, villages and territory, while the serbs did not loose anything in this operation. So it is stupid to say, that this is a croatian victory, because the croats got nothing they only lost!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.252.146 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Independently I came to the same conclusion. The Serbian side failed to achieve their strategic objective, while the Croatian side did, but overall it was not a terrific success for anyone. On the scale of the war, the Croatian successes in this operation were significant, but on the scale of the battle they weren't. The infobox is now updated to say it was a stalemate and what each side achieved. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now the article seems more neutral to me, but there is one thing I would add ... something about the peruca dam ... i think it wouldn´t be bad to add that although the serbs didn`t destroy it, they managed to damage it; so there was no electricity in the surrounding area for the next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.244.144 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is 1993 and onwards, which is two years after this operation anyway, so I've put the details in the Peruća Dam article. I did note here that the failure to bring down the dam still put it out of operation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

article title
The previous title, "Battle of Dalmatia" and "Battle for Dalmatia", seemed overly generic to me, so I went and looked them up a bit:
 * Google Books search for "battle of dalmatia" - 5 hits, of which two are Wikipedia reprints, only one actually lists the phrase in the output, but talks of year 1849
 * Google Books search for "battle for dalmatia" - 10 hits, of which most are Wikipedia reprints, only two actually list the phrase in the output, but one talks of World War II and the other about Venice and Hungary (1400s)
 * Google Scholar search for "battle of dalmatia" - 0 hits
 * Google Scholar search for "battle for dalmatia" - 1 hit which is actually from a books search, and it uses the phrase in context, regarding November and Dubrovnik

Just to make sure, I also checked the Croatian phrase:
 * Google Books search for "bitka za dalmaciju" - 0 hits
 * Google Scholar search for "bitka za dalmaciju" - 0 hits

So I moved the article away from the clearly WP:OR and overly generic title (three or four more battles were waged in Dalmatia in the same war, each of which could have technically determined the fate of the region enough to be called "the" battle of Dalmatia). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, the current title, "Obala-91", is not particularly well known, but at least I confirmed its existence quickly in similar sources. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The codename "Obala-91" (Coast-91) was assigned by the JNA to a plan of an attack on Šibenik in November 1991 (sources: and ). WP:MILMOS recommends use of generic terms such as "Battle of X" with the X being a geographic location name, but it would be a stretch to say that the activities described in the article represent a single battle. There is a dubious mention of Operation Kopaonik but that is thoroughly unverifiable in books, journals or other RS. There is further conflation of the "Operation Coast-91" term in the Battle of Šibenik (1991) article.


 * It may very well be that an attack on Zadar was planned as a supporting axis of an action against Šibenik or vice versa, but the sources seem to indicate that the Coast-91 at the very least falls into November and was (at least primarily) focused on Šibenik. In that respect, the current title of the article is quite wrong.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It was never very much thought out. We could merge the content into the new campaign article? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose that. There is quite a lot of material regarding activities of the Knin Corps in Zadar and Šibenik theatres (as well as some relatively minor activity in Sinj area) that would warrant a proper article. Merging with the campaign would result in an unblanaced article (specifically violating WP:GACR 3b). I would prefer a single article on the war in the northern Dalmatia in 1991, merging the Battle of Šibenik (1991) with this one. The two seem to overlap as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe even as 1991 Yugoslav campaign in the northern Dalmatia if that's not pushing it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides that, there's a possibility to develop one article describing the Battle of Zadar and another dealing with the Battle of Šibenik. Of course, both would encompass ancillary activities in the specific areas (e.g. Maslenica Bridge capture would fit in the prelude of the Zadar article and the capture of Drniš in the Šibenik article's prelude) - maybe that's a better idea (not dissimilar to the Battle of Osijek). Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose the latest proposal to merge the riots article with this one since the riots were not the prelude to the battle, but two distinct events related by location (and loosely period). Causes, types, outcomes etc are vastly different for the two. While it is tempting to stick the riots article someplace, this article is not a good place for that. Of course, there is some information already in this article on the event - was the proposal meant to add more and what would that be?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My key point is that the riots as such are one in a series of inextricably linked events, yet currently the least well referenced one. It essentially arose as a talking point article, and hasn't been salvaged since. Readers looking up the riot would be much better served by reading this article, not because a riot equals a battle, but because the battle article explains the historical context from top to bottom. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I was working on this article, I researched sources on the riots. Much of the present riot article is based (the part that is based on any sources whatsoever) on a sentence or two given as ICTY testimony by a former RSK minister (repeated several times by FRY government). For instance, none of the sources I found (including the ICTY testimony) says a peep on Šibenik as anything else except "a protest", while others clarify that those were held in front of a JNA command of some sort - i.e. saying that those were "anti-Serb" is more than dubious, at least I cannot think of any way those deserve such an attribute. I would prefer rewriting the riot article than deliberating at length on the event in this one - even writing a new one on the Split demonstrations four days later. Those should not be too complex and hard to do - and the historical context can be equally well provided in the riots article. If you like this proposal, I'll set to work on that as soon as the Battle of Šibenik is done (it's underway already). Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)