Talk:GNK Dinamo Zagreb

Miroslav Blazevic
Miroslav Ciro Blazevic identety should be resolved! I have added a couple of times the Bosnian flag next to the Croatian with his name, but has been deleted. Upon taking the duty of the coach of Bosnia and Herzegovina national team, Ciro has referred to Bosnia has his homeland (after all, he was born in Bosnia). Ciro is a Bosnian Croat, and as such should have both flags next to his name, with respect the Croatian being first. Please do not remove the Bosnian flag next time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.152.149 (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Eduardo da Silva
Eduardo da Silva is Croatian player. He is born in Brazil but that is uninportant fact because he play for Croatian national team. Therefore he is not allowed to play for any other nation but for Croatia. And that is important fact ant that is the reason why all players have only one flag near their name. Before he played for Croatian national team, he was Brazilian player because he is born in Brazil so he was Brazilian player by default but after one official game for Croatia, he is Croatian player. See for example Allesandro dos Santos from Urawa Red Diamonds. That is common practice. Jakiša Tomić 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Joy shows me pages of F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid and there are many players with double flags (even with Catalonia). This is inconsistent. Jakiša Tomić 23:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Display both flags but make certain the Croatian one is the first as he plays for Croatia internationaly. That is the convention.

Name
Is the official name once more Dinamo, and if so, when was it restored? 83.70.110.198 08:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Millbanks 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits needing review
Can someone with more knowledge than me about NK Dinamo Zagreb have a look at edits by User:Sirboboss42 on 2 August 2007? That user appears to making doubtful edits on other articles. Thanks.--82.148.54.182 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Former coaches issue
I noticed that it says on Otto Barić's article that he coached Dinamo in the period 1976-1980, but there's no mention od him at that time at Dinamo in Dinamo's article. This should be resolved. Can anyone provide a link to a verified source listing Dinamo's past managers? Timbouctou (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He coached LASK Linz 1974-76, NK Zagreb 1976-79 and then NK Dinamo Vinkovci 1979-80 after that was a Director of Hitrec-Kacian Youth Football School in NK Dinamo Zagreb 1980-81. That is according to Nogometni Leksikon, 2004. 124.189.86.83 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Miroslav Ciro Blazevic identety should be resolved! I have added a couple of times the Bosnian flag next to the Croatian with his name, but has been deleted. Ciro is a Bosnian Croat, and as such should have both flags next to his name, with respect the Croatian being first. Please do not remove the Bosnian flag the next time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.152.149 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Ciro may only have Croatian citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bura1911 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

History
The article on Dinamo is too centred around recent events. So I know I could get on and write something myself, but maybe a little about the past would not go amiss. THe club was founded in 1945 after all. Check out the Hajduk page to see what I mean.

''' Dinamo is the successor of the NK Građanski which was founded on 26 April 1911. The club is celebrating its 100th anniversary next year. This date is also present on the UEFA website as the official date of the club's foundation. Any informaton provided by the HNK Hajduk website or other sources linked with Hajduk is BIASED and INCORRECT!!!'''

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.91.116.226 (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. There is hardly any mention of Dinamo's history prior to 1990. I'll try to make the article more balanced in the coming days and add some content on the club's history, although I expect some resistance from the usual anonymous editors who like to jabber on and on how Građanski and Dinamo are one and the same, how Matekalo and co. joined Partizan in 1946 or how 33 percent of the "population" (even though that statistic cites a poll which doesn't say how large was the pollled group), and all that rather irrelevant crap. Dinamo Zagreb deserves a decent article. Timbouctou (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, too. I've finished the History of NK Dinamo Zagreb (2000–present), I'll try to make something like 1945–1990 section and maybe even a separate article should I have will and time. About the polls, I also think they're irrelevant, because the numbers are over-exaggerated, saying that 1.5 million people support it, when in fact we all know that's not true (the average attendance is the proof). I'm for that sentence to be removed or changed to something like "It is one of the two most popular clubs in Croatia along with Hajduk Split." or something like that. About the Origins section that's often vandalised, I've edited it a bit and I think it looks decent now, though it's hard to make it sound neutral to Građanski because of the heritage recieved from the club. Mrcha (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Youth school
I think its unnecessary and irrelevant to point out Hitrec and Kacian's achievements in the Youth school description. Maybe adding information about youth selections and youth development in the school would be a good idea. Mrcha (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The foundation year - 1911 or 1945??
Is Dinamo officialy regarded as the successor of the Građanski football club or is this just made up by the club officials and some jurnalist under the payroll of Dinamo's chairman? What is the official standpoint of the Repulic of Croatia and their laws? The same question goes for the Croatian Football Association (HNS), the Association of 1.HNL and UEFA. I've noticed someone posted here that UEFA has stated on their official website the year 1911 as the foundation year, yet it seems I cant find the reference on their website (Uefa.com). Also it should be mentioned that UEFA is a big organization that uses national correspondents for stuff such as national leagues/clubs on their website. So for the info about Croatian clubs they have probably hired a Croatian jurnalist or HNS spokeperson, so its not like that is the official standpoint of the whole organization. For example, UEFA.com have on their official website the facts about NK Olimpija Ljubljana ("history of their European cups participations") and they have matches from the 1970s as well as this years Europa League matches (vs Široki Brijeg) listed among statistics of one club. Yet, legally the new NK Olimpija was founded in 2005 and is officialy regarded as a distinct and separate club by the Slovenian Football Association, Association of 1.SNL and the Republic of Slovenia legislature (the club officials doesnt agree offcourse - and looks like that the Slovene correspondent/jurnalist on Uefa.com doesnt either - but that doesnt mean they are legally correct). The same thing as in the case of Wacker Innsbruck from Austria. Both clubs were dissolved due to financial reasons and only weeks/months later the new, separate clubs were formed claiming they are the successors of the old ones.

The fact is that Građanski was dissolved by, then, internationaly recognized, sovereign country and their valid laws and that Dinamo was founded later as a new, separate and distinct club under the laws that applied in 1945 and therefore in my opinion can't claim the honours of Građanski and, for that matter, HAŠK as well since I have read that some other Croatian jurnalists claim that Dinamo is the successor of HAŠK too, which would be ridiculus (claiming you are a successor of two separate clubs). It is also interesting that Dinamo officialy started to connect to Građanski only recently (I believe that the statement that Dinamo is the successor of Građanski was added only recently on their official clubs website) and that, If I remeber correctly, they had a big celebration couple of seasons ago when Dinamo celebrated its 60th birthday.

The debate is open for discusion! I also feel to mention that I am neither a fan of Dinamo or Hajduk or any other Croatian club for that matter.Ratipok (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the official body whose say on the matter would be final is the defunct Football Association of Yugoslavia (FSJ), the association which supervised national competitions in which Građanski and Dinamo participated in from 1923 to 1991. I happen to own Dinamo Zagreb's official almanac issued in 1985 which was written by Fredi Kramer and which was published to mark the club's 40th anniversary. In it Građanski is briefly mentioned, but its trophies and history are treated separate from Dinamo, so as far as we know FSJ never considered the two clubs as one and the same.
 * The idea that the two clubs are the same thing only appeared in the early 1990s, mainly due to political reasons. Several authors (including Kramer and Ozren Podnar) have published books about the club since the 1990s in which they claim that Građanski and Dinamo should be treated as the same entity, attributing trophies won by Građanski to the present-day club. However, their arguments are circumstantial at best (they often talk about how both clubs played in blue shirts and how many Građanski's players switched to Dinamo in 1945) and they often ignore the contribution of HAŠK (another Zagreb club which was disestablished in 1945), whose ground Dinamo took over, and whose players also switched to Dinamo. Tuđman's regime of the early 1990s was aware of this discrepancy though, and tried to reconcile it by renaming the club "HAŠK Građanski" in 1992. This move was seen as blatant nonsense at the time, so the they renamed it again "Croatia Zagreb". However, the idea that Građanski and Zagreb were the same club survived to this day, simply because the FSJ - whose job would be to make the final verdict - ceased to exist, while on the other hand the Croatian Football Federation (HNS) chose to stay silent on the matter to this day. HNS has good reasons not to say anything because it too has its own issues with its own history, as their website clams that the first Croatia international match was played in 1941, representing the Independent State of Croatia. So in a nutshell, not resolving this problem of historic legacy is in the best interests of both Dinamo and HNS as both can clam that they are older than they really are - and it plays perfectly into the hands of biased journalists such as Podnar and Kramer who are often eager to attribute Građanski's trophies to Dinamo so they can call it "the greatest Croatian club in history".
 * Another issue which is worth mentioning is the near bankruptcy in late 1999. A number of generous contracts with expensive players had been signed and a megalomaniac stadium project to expand Maksimir Stadium had been started during the Tuđman era. In December 1999 Tuđman died, and in January 2000 his party lost the elections. Because of this the state stopped bankrolling his vanity project and the club suddenly found itself on the brink of bankruptcy. The club was then renamed but more importantly - it was also re-established as a "citizens' association" (udruga građana), and as part of the re-organisation Miroslav Blažević's ownership share was bought by Zdravko Mamić. This is how Mamić took over the control of the club. But here's the interesting part - several players who played for Croatia in the 1990s, such as Robert Prosinečki, Igor Cvitanović, and others, were released by the club and later went on to sue the club for unpaid wages. In all of these cases Dinamo pleaded that they do not owe them any wages because the club in its current form is a different legal entity than it was in the 1990s due to to the re-organisation in 2000, and the courts ruled in the club's favour every time (interviews with Prosinečki and Cvitanović where they talk about this can be found online). This means that legally not only is the attribution of Građanski's trophies dubious, but the present club also shouldn't be able to claim any trophies and achievements won between 1992 and 1999. However, the body which should be responsible for following up on this court decision and taking away the 1990s trophies and records from Dinamo is the HNS - which, again, never said anything on the matter.
 * So in conclusion the whole thing is a farce legally-wise and the situation is total anarchy in which anyone can claim whatever they want. So not only can Dinamo claim that they are celebrating 100 years of existence in 2011, but you also get bizarre examples like NK HAŠK who claim lineage to the historic HAŠK (in spite the fact that they did not exist at all between 1945 and 1991 and even then had no squad or grounds until at least 1993) or NK Zagreb, who even more bizarrely claim lineage to PNiŠK, the first ever Zagreb club which was briefly active between 1903 and the 1910s. HAŠK's real motivation is that they are hoping that one day Makismir would be returned to them (or that they would at least get paid some damages by the government) and NK Zagreb's only connection to PNiŠK is that their present-day stadium is where PNiŠK's old ground used to be.
 * As far as I'm concerned personally (and I am a Dinamo fan), the club was founded on 9 June 1945, there's even a plaque on the Elektra building near Marshall Tito Square saying so, and the club had celebrated this date as its own birthday for over 40 years. Until a court or the football federation officially rules otherwise this should be taken as its foundation date - although I do think that the article could use a section explaining this whole issue. Regarding your statement that the idea ofa club claiming that it is a successor of two separate clubs is ridiculous, I completely agree - but I also find it strange that NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1911) used to claim Slovenian Regional Championship titles won by NK Ilirija, ASK Primorje and SK Ljubljana. Primorje and Ilirija were city rivals throughout most of their history, just like HAŠK and Građanski, were they not? '' Timbouctou 21:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The case of HŠK Zrinjski Mostar is similar and questinable, at least from a legal point of view. The club is the supposed (and probably selfproclaimed) successor of the old Zrinjski that was dissolved in 1945. In 1992 a new club appeared taking Zrinjski's name and colours and stating they are the same club, who just didnt play for almost 50 years (1945-1992) due to a ban. But N/FSBiH is probably even more wrecked than the HNS.

Some cases in Slovenia are similar. In the late 1990s and early 2000s some clubs were in financial difficulties and instead of paying off their debts they simply re-founded themselves. Only a few top clubs never used this formula (NK Maribor, NK Nafta Lendava and NK Rudar Velenje as far as I know never used it). This was going on up until 2004/05 when I think some new laws were approved by the Slovenian Government and Football Association of Slovenia (NZS). And this is the sole reason why the old NK Olimpija Ljubljana (1911), NK Mura and NK Ljubljana ceased to exist officialy and the new clubs, that emerged couple of months later claiming they are successors of the defunct clubs, were never granted any rights by the NZS and the board of 1.SNL. The NZS is still somewhat quiet about the matter, but then again they arent much involved in domestic club football and they leave it to the Board of 1.SNL to run it. Still, they have on their website the foundation year of all three clubs listed as 2005 (the correct one). The other clubs that used the, above mentioned, formula were left alone as they couldn't be punished for something they did prior to the new laws and rules and.

I think that for clubs such as Dinamo, Zagreb, HAŠK, Zrinjski etc. the situation should at least be mentioned (with references offcourse) and if you need any help with it, just let me know.Ratipok (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Player 21
Player nr. 21 is Fatos Beqiraj, not "Bećiraj" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.128.173 (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He is an ethnic Albanian from Kosovo and a Montenegrin international. In Albanian his last name is spelled "Beqiraj" and in Montenegro he is known as "Bećiraj". The two versions are both in use because in Croatian foreign names are written in their original form while in Serbian (spoken in both Kosovo and Montenegro) they are phonetically transcribed. Because of this in the Croatian media and on his Dinamo shirt he is referred to as "Beqiraj" while his FK Budućnost and Montenegro shirt read "Bećiraj". In line with Wikipedia policies, the "ć" version takes precedent because that's the version used when he appears for his national team, evidenced by his profile on UEFA.com.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 10:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is, in fact, very interesting situation!


 * In this case, if one considers "Croatian" and "Montenegrin" to be two different languages, Bećiraj is the only OK version in "Croatian" since his official surname in his country only official language, "Montenegrin", is Bećiraj and his unofficial written surname is Beqiraj. Even more, since "Montenegrin" is officially written in cyrillic script (also), and since in "Croatian" is a rule to transcribe names from non-latin written languages phonetically, then it is "even more" correct to write his surname as Bećiraj in "Croatian" language.


 * However, if one does not consider "Croatian" and "Montenegrin" to be two separate languages, but two different parts of one pluricentric language unfortunately named "Serbo-Croatian", then the official language of both Croatia and Montenegro is the same - "Serbo-Croatian" - the difference being only in standards. Consequently, in this case, the only correct spelling in Croatia would be Beqiraj.193.198.162.14 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I can´t see what part of Timbouctou´s explanation was unclear. First of all, Montenegrin is still not a fully recognised language and still lackes ISO codes. Second, even the proposed Montenegrin language follows the Serbian way of transcribing foreign names. Third, even when they were all the same language, Serbian and Croatian had differences, being this one, the transcription of foreign names, one of them. Resumingly, in Croatia, the foreign names were allways written in original; while in Serbia and Montenegro the names were allways phonetically transcribed. We could also debate what "original" for a person from Kosovo means, but we are not going to debate that because he is Montenegrin citizen (and Montenegro doesn´t allow double citizenship) representing Montenegrin national team, thus his name is written in the way in Montenegro is, call it Serbian or Montenegrin, for the case is the same. While he can be named differently in Croatia, wp follows the rule of the NT he represents. FkpCascais (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

GNK Dinamo Zagreb
On todays assembly, it was announced that Dinamo changed it's prefix from NK to GNK (Građanski nogometni klub). Furthermore, they insist that they are the successors of Građanski and that in 2011 they celebrate 100th anniversary. Should we change the name of the article from NK Dinamo Zagreb to GNK Dinamo Zagreb? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. I had reverted the edits thinking it was a joke. Can't believe something as idiotic as this could have happened. I'm shocked. Well, I guess we have to move the article and update the lead.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've self-reverted and expanded the lead a bit to explain the name changes. This is a temporary solution, a proper subsection dealing with the naming controversies of the past and present should be written from scratch, I'll find some time to do it these days. But I refuse to agree to merge trophies and manager history from the Građanski Zagreb article, let alone adding Građanski seasons to the List of NK Dinamo Zagreb seasons. This is just plain insane!  Timbouctou ( talk ) 18:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's absurd. It's like they are forcing the idea of 100-year-old club. They celebrated 60 years in 2005, and now they are going to 100. From 2005 Dinamo official page (wayback machine History from 1903-2000): "Today's Dinamo continues the tradition of the famous clubc HAŠK, Građanski, Dinamo and Croatia. The oldest of those, HAŠK, was formed od November 6th 1903 as a students club, and Građanski was formed on 26th of April 1911 as a club for all social circles. After te WW2 when communists came to power, both famous Zagreb club were disbanded overnight, and the municipal club was formed. Like many more communist clubs in Eastern Europe, it was also called DINAMO. This happened on the 9th of June 1945. ... During the 97 years, the club won 26 trophies: 17 championships, 11 national Cups, and in 1967, the Fairs Cup." So is it 1903, 1911 or 1945? Which source is the definitive one: what Dinamo states or what football historians say? Dr. Vicodine (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was discussed earlier and I wrote a long post about it here. In my opinion only the sports governing body has the authority to make the final verdict, and I know for a fact that between 1945 and 1991 the Football Federation of Yugoslavia officially considered Dinamo to have been founded in 1945, and it was the club's official stance during that period. This whole farce began in mid-1991. The problem here is that a) the Croatian Football Federation stays silent on the matter, b) the today's club claims that they have nothing to do with Croatia Zagreb legally-wise - so is it 1903, 1911, 1945 or 2000? and c) the only "historians" who published books about this are Fredi Kramer and Ozren Podnar. Podnar claims that the two clubs are one and the same for some time now and Kramer claimed all three years (1903, 1911, 1945), depending what the regime of the day wanted. But fact of the matter is that there's a plaque standing today on the Elektra building in downtown Zagreb which clearly says that "in this building FD Dinamo Zagreb was founded on 6 June 1945". Not renamed, not re-established, not merged - but founded. Are they going to tear it down now? This is all happening just because Mamić has an inferiority complex and cannot stand the fact that Hajduk celebrated their centennial two months ago. As a rule of thumb we are supposed to follow whatever the football association or the official club history says, but I will work hard to bend the rules on this one.  Timbouctou  ( talk ) 19:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to follow you Timbou, but this is interesting. Dinamo did represented the continuation of Građanski, but officialy it was a new team formed in 1945. I mean, next we´ll have Red Star claiming Jugoslavija´s legacy and so on... They talked about some joined league (Mamic and Lukic), who knows if this was not on the table as well? For exemple, UEFA gives some prices for centenary clubs competing in top leagues, that is why the FFS is pushing BASK this year to focebly win the Second League so it gets promoted. Good old style yugo football "rules, what rules?" FkpCascais (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

@Timbouctou '...I will work hard to bend the rules on this one.' Why would you be allowed to bend wiki rules??-- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  08:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I just happen to be familiar with the rather unique story of a club which managed to exist for over 45 years without anyone connected to it ever realizing that it was actually 34 years older. Or the unique club supporters who desperately fought for the "holy name" of Dinamo in the 1990s, only to realise some 15 years later that the name "Gradjanski" is even holier. Or that the club itself claimed to have been founded in 1945, 1903 or 1911, depending on which version of Fredi Kramer's book you read. Or that there's a bronze plaque standing in downtown Zagreb in direct contradiction to what the club officially says as of 2011.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 13:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should follow them wiki rules.-- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  07:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The only reliable secondary source (e.g. not coming from the club itself) that I know of, the Nogometni leksikon published by the Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute says that Dinamo was founded on 9 June 1945. Let's follow them wiki rules shall we?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 13:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The editor of that leksikon is Fredi Kramer.-- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  06:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

From UEFA web pages
19.12.2002.: Osim lands coaching award "Also at the awards ceremony, Miroslav Meho Brozovic was given a lifetime achievement award. The 82-year-old played for HŠK Gradjanski (now NK Dinamo Zagreb in Croatia), FK Partizan and FK Sarajevo in an illustrious career and coached both Željeznicar and Sarajevo, with whom he won the Yugoslavian title in 1967." 6.10.2006.: Bosnia mourns hero Brozović "Brozović was born in Mostar and began his career with local clubs JŠK and NK Zrinjski, before making his first big move abroad to 1. HŠK Građanski Zagreb. He won two Yugoslav titles with the Croatian club (who would later become NK Dinamo Zagreb) then another after the Second World War with crack Belgrade outfit FK Partizan, with whom he also lifted the Yugoslavian Cup." 1.6.2009.: Season review: Croatia "Number: 43 Dinamo Zagreb now have won six doubles and in total they have 43 major honours dating back to their first championship in 1923 under the name Građanski Zagreb in what was then called the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians." -- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  08:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, what about this? Club facts: Dinamo Zagreb Dr. Vicodine (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange. Should stick with one or the other. They still have only NK there with no G too?-- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  12:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The 2006 quote was by the journalist Fuad Krvavac and the 2009 one by UEFA's correspondent, Elvir Islamović. Their articles do not reflect any official UEFA policy about this, and I wonder why would UEFA be relevant as it generally merely reports whatever the club says. But even so - what about UEFA's 2010-11 Europa League Statistics Handbook (Dinamo's profile is on page 44), which is an official UEFA publication and is more recent than any of the quotes above?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 14:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Its the latest, yes, but from the last year pre-season so Uefa will have to update in coming months if its going to happen. They also call Dinamo's European trophy Inter Cities Fairs Cup in that Handbook, wasn't it renamed to just Fairs cup in 1967? Anyway, where we get the right information then? If the club info is not reliable as biased (Kramer), Leksikon is not too because of editor Kramer who had different years of formation for so many books, ditto some other books that mention Dinamo as successor of Gradjanski (Podnar, Rogic). HNS? They will have to put something in their upcoming book on 100 years of HNS? But that will be only in 2012.-- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  23:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Fairs' Cup but it is referred to as ICFC pretty much everywhere (RSSF calls it that, and even the Leeds United match programme from the away leg final called it that way on the front page). But anyway, the most reliable source out of those you mentioned is the Nogometni leksikon as it is an encyclopedic publication issued by a credible lexicographical institution which talks about pretty much all the clubs which mattered in this country, regardless of the fact that it was edited by Kramer (but not only by him). If the lexicon is good enough to be referenced in articles about HAŠK, Ferraria, Građanski, Kantrida and many others, I don't see why it wouldn't be used for this one as well. And I'm not saying that whatever the club says is unreliable due to bias - it is just that when we take into account sources such as the lexicon, Dinamo's past and present yearbooks, UEFA, FSJ and HNS, we happen to end up with conflicting equally reliable sources, which means that WP:DUE rule should be used - meaning that all viewpoints should be included in the article as long as more weight is given to whatever is generally more accepted. Nobody questions the idea that Građanski was in a way a precursor of Dinamo, but the issue here is that there's a wide range of opinions as to how strong the tie between the two clubs really is. Podnar for example insisted on attributing Građanski's trophies to Dinamo in his booklet - but he never said that NK Dinamo itself was founded in 1911 or that what hapened in 1945 was merely a matter of renaming. There simply is no doubt that what we call Dinamo today was formed in 1945, regardless what someone may think about where the club came from and what it did or did not inherit. I suppose the best thing for now would be to put an entry with both dates in the infobox, in the format "26 April 1911 (as Građanski); 9 June 1945". The history section already talks about how Dinamo inherited the fan base, colours, and a number of players from Građanski, so there's no need for major changes to the body of the article. But I will not agree to a complete merger of Građanski and Dinamo articles, manager histories or trophies, simply because every reliable source you can find always treated them as separate entities, and Wikipedia should reflect that fact.  Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 01:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

re Podnar and his book Dinamo svetinja. He actually says: On page 9.: Osnovan: u travnju 1911. pod nazivom Građanski

Then on pages 31-32.: "A istina glasi: ishodište Dinama leži u Prvom Hrvatskom Građanskom Sportskom Klubu, utemeljenom 26. travnja 1911., koji datum Dinamo uzima kao datum vlastitog utemeljenja. Kad su u proljeće 1945. komunisti preuzeli vlast u Hrvatskoj, krenuli su uvoditi promjene u brojnim institucijama, pa i u sportskim. Pri tom Građanski uopće nisu ugasili, već su ga transformirali prema društvenim i političkim principima koji su u to vrijeme vladali. Uvedeno je organizacijsko ustrojstvo u skladu sa sovjetskim modelom, postavljena je nova uprava, a klubu je nadjenuto ime Dinamo, opet po sovjetskom uzoru. Tako je Građanski od 9. lipnja 1945. nastavio postojati pod novim nazivom i u novom ruhu, po nalogu totalitarnih komunističkih vlasti, željnih brisanja onog dijela nogometne povijesti koji se dogodio u vrijeme prethodnog režima te prikazivanja sebe kao očeva zagrebačkog klupskog nogometa. Moguće je da su tadašnji moćnici željeli prikazati Dinamo kao novu instituciju, no nas ništa ne obvezuje na prihvaćanje i priznavanje odluka bilo koje diktature."

Then on page 34 he says, renamed in Dinamo 1945.: "Preimenovan u Dinamo 1945. zadržao je značajnu ulogu, ostavši članom prve lige sve do raspada SFR Jugoslavije."

I have found in this HNS book ''Hrvatski nogometni savez 80. obljetnica 1912-1992'' on page 60 it also says Dinamo is successor to Građanski. The article is written by Fredi Kramer but still, its published by HNS.

In another book, (from Zagreb Football Association), editors Ico Kerhin and Miroslav Rede, Platinasti jubilej zagrebačkog nogometnog saveza 1919-1994 on page 73: in article headlined Ukidanje prošlosti prikraćivanje budućnosti says that Dinamo is successor to Građanski: "U takvim uvjetima, često nalik borbi s vjetrenjačama, Dinamo, samo po imenu s ruskim i komunističkim predznakom, a stvarno sljednik purgerskog Građanskog, najuspješniji je zagrebački klub u razdoblju izmedju 1945. i 1991. godine."-- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  11:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we will ever come out with an agreement here. Since Dinamo issued a statement that they are 100 years old, everyone will follow that. Today on HNS web page, they have put a card wishing happy 100. birthday to Dinamo. But on the list of trophies obtained by Croatian clubs on their web page, Dinamo and Građanski are listed separately and there is no mention that they are the same club. Also last year, Marković hinted that in 2011 Dinamo will celebrate 100 years along with Hajduk.  In 2008, Zdravko Reić mocks Fredi Kramer about his statements regarding clubs age (Kramer: “Neće trebati dugo čekati i klub će se ponovo zvati Građanski!”, came true in some sense) and says that is a fact that Dinamo was founded with the decree of communist authorities in June 1945. So we will always have opposing sources. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:V (which should also be followed at hr.wiki but isn't) says the following:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question."
 * Do publishers who published Kramer's books have a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy"? From what I saw the man produced a number of books for minor publishing houses or the club itself which boil down to him simply telling the reader what his opinion is. The same goes for Ozren Podnar, whose booklet consists of a small chapter detailing his opinion plus an (unreferenced) list of player stats he took from FSJ yearbooks. The only source with some sort of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we have is the Nogometni leksikon as it was published by the Miroslav Krleža Lexicographical Institute, a publishing house whose reliability is rarely questioned.
 * However, even if these are interpreted as equally reliable conflicting sources, then WP:DUE (which doesn't exist on hr.wiki either) comes into play. And 1945 wins again as all the sources arguing for 1911 originate from a total of three authors who simply woke up in 1990 and began publishing a whole lot of opinion pieces. The fact that Kramer himself was one of the editors of Nogometni leksikon and that his preferred version of history did NOT make its way into the book only goes to show that publishers who actually scrutinize stuff before they print them were not convinced by his arguments. So why should we be? And arguing that LZMK somehow had to stick with the year 1945 in their 2004 book (13-14 years after the breakup of Yugoslavia) would be absurd. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dinamo was founded in 1945 and the club had an official birthday in 2005 when it celebrated 60 years of existance (I am sure that there are publications either in books or newspapers - including the internet - that has reports about the event). The only reason why in the past year the club came up with an idea of Građanski connection is the fact that Hajduk Split celebrated its 100 years of existance (minority complex). Croatian jurnalists are irrelevant as they are clearly on a payroll by Dinamo officials or are biased and are writing what they feel (not everyone though). The club can say whatever they want now, but they cant ignore the fact that until recently every single official paper and the clubs official website stated 1945 as the foundation year. Distortion of history. Ratipok (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@Ratipok Its not about Hajduk at all. Check on Dinamo's hr wiki talk page, I have posted dates, 3 dates in early 1991 when there were organised meetings about getting back the name Građanski. Political pressure did not allow it back then.

Anyway, another book was published by Zagreb Football Association in 1969, editor was Roman Garber, Zlatni jubilej ZNS 1919-1969. It was wtitten in time during communist rule but still some interesting sentences were put in and the word predecessor (predhodnik) was used.

Pages 135 and 137. "Pošto nije dozvoljeno daljnje djelovanje i sportska aktivnost najpopularnijeg zagrebačkog kluba - Građanskog, na inicijativu sportskih radnika Gradskog sindikalnog vijeća službenika Električne centrale i nekoliko službenika Gradske plinare i ZET-a formirano je sportsko društvo zvano Dinamo da bi se što više simbolizirala snaga i energija, a nogometna sekcija, iako još sasvim mlada preuzela je važnu ulogu koju su nekad u našem gradu imali Građanski i Hašk. No, nije sve u imenu. Tradicija je ostala. I to velika i slavna. Pet titula šampiona u predratnoj Jugoslaviji i čitava plejada sjajnih igrača pribavili su našem nogometu svjetsku slavu i pridonijeli da je momčad Građanskog uoči II svjetskog rata bila jedna od najboljih u Evropi. Međutim, fašistička okupacija prekinula je njenu aktivnost, a mladi i tehnički dotjerani igrači Građanskog - Glaser, Brozović, Dubac, Lechner Jazbinšek, Pleše Cimermančić, Wolfl, Lešnik, Antolković i Kokotović nisu imali onu pravu aktivnost već su tek u novoj Jugoslaviji nastavili pravim radom. Većina igrača iz tog predratnog sastava zaigrala je u Dinamu a neki su, redom odlični nogometaši prešli u Partizan.

I Dinamo je, kao njegov prethodnik Građanski uzeo plavu boju dresa, a mnogobrojni navijači Građanskog postali su preko noći navijači Dinama, kluba koji je doduše stvoren u oslobođenoj domovini, ali je u igračkom pogledu značio nastavak izuzetno bogate tradicije zagrebačkog nogometa."

"Kada je vijest da je osnovan Dinamo stigla do Splita u bivšem velikom rivalu Građanskog, Hajduku odlučeno je da se obnovi suradnja sa Zagrepčanima s obzirom da su njihovi međusobni susreti uvijek imali značenje derbija."

@Timbouctou Was it true that when Dinamo first played Hajduk in Split in 1945 friendly it was advertised as Hajduk v Građanski?-- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  09:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure but they I've seen people say it was. So what does that prove? Many people called Mladen Bodalec Croatian version of Bono, and yet nobody is claming that U2 and Prljavo kazalište are the same band. Regarding your statements above, ther are two issues:
 * 1. Every single thing that happened with Dinamo throughout its history was done because of political pressure. That is fine. However, the idea that "everyone wanted to call it Građanski" or that "people were imprisoned for publicly saying the name" or that "players were forcibly taken to Belgrade" or that the decision to disband Građanski was somehow "illegal" or that "we don't need to respect decrees proclaimed by a dictatorship" is pure gossip and speculation and is heavily POV-ish. We have no evidence for any of that and simply saying that the apparent lack of evidence is because people were "not allowed to talk about it for 45 years" is not an argument. It is an alibi. We don't know how voluntary or "just" the disbanding was and we, Wikipedia editors, should not care about it at all. All we should care about is reporting facts as they had happened. Also, bear in mind that renamings in 1991 and 1993 and the idea that the club was founded in 1903 or 1911 also occurred under political pressure. Why would we accept one dictator's ideas and not another's? Sure, the article might include people's opinions, if - and only if - these are attributed to persons, and not stated as facts. Ivo Ivić might think that disbanding Građanski was a criminal act, but Bero Berić might think it was not. The club itself claimed that it had nothing to do with Građanski, then it clamed it "follows its tradition", and finally it says it is the same thing. This should all be in the article. If you want I can pull out quotes by Židak who talked about this a lot recently in his regular column in Jutarnji list and who explicitly mocks Kramer and his ideas. Židak does not negate that Građanski and Dinamo had a lot of things in common but he chooses to celebrate its 66th anniversary this year and in his last article he said that "regardless of the yesterday's celebration the issue of the club's founding date will still remain controversial". Index.hr also published an article yesterday mocking the whole story.
 * 2. Garber, Magdić, Kramer, Podnar and the club's statute have all put forth convincing arguments that Dinamo did not appear out of nowhere and that Građanski had already established a decent footballing tradition in Zagreb well before 1945. However, you will notice that they all used very vague terms in describing the exact relationship. Statements such as "Dinamo follows in the footsteps of Građanski" or "Dinamo continued Građanski's tradition" and the like are fine but they are step away from claiming that the two clubs are one and the same. In fact, if the club's own statute had claimed that "Dinamo is a successor of the tradition of Građanski" since 2000, the club is contradicting itself in 2011 as there would be nothing to "succeed" if Dinamo was the same club all along. Also, notice that Garber had elegantly left out the 1943 NDH championship title and even goes so far to say that the "fascist occupation had ended its activity" which is definitely not true as we all know for a fact that Građanski had played in the NDH championship (which is the very reason why it was disbanded in 1945). So according to Garber not only did Građanski ceased to exist, but it ceased to exist in 1940 (but of course, notice the vague expressions he uses to describe this as he is writing the book in 1969, in communist times). In any case, I'm sure that there are many sources which talk about the similarities between the two clubs, and rightfully so - but using them to claim that they are one and the same is like describing similarities between you and your father and then claiming that his birthday is in fact yours. There are foreign sports writers who described Dinamo's origin as a "joining of HAŠK and Građanski" and that would probably be the best description, one which would not require speculations about dates or attribution of pre-war trophies to Dinamo. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 10:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Its going to be interesting with HNS, they congratulated Dinamo on their 100 years so that will have to lead to updating on their page? Reić, Židak, index.yu and co should stop mocking around and get on the HNS to come out and say whats their official stand on the issue at hand. The thing is they would need to do it for a great number of other clubs too who's claim to establishing years are 'fishy' (Slaven for 1907, Split for 1912, Cibalia for 1919... etc. Not to mention them smaller provincial clubs which would go in 100s if properly checked.).-- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  12:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I doubt that HNS will do anything about it. This whole thing is a one-off farce motivated by Hajduk's anniversary and encouraged by Kramer. It is likely that the whole debate will be forgotten soon, just like the issue had been largely forgotten after 2000 when the year 1945 returned to fashion (which is why Kramer used the year 1945 in Nogometni leksikon in 2004). On the other hand, HNS will celebrate its own 100th anniversary in June 1912 and you can bet your house that Kramer will publish yet another book about it, claiming whatever he feels is right. In any case, if everyone gets updated and 1911 begins to be regarded as the club's foundation date then the infobox will change. But the fact that the club existed for almost half a century claiming otherwise or that it spent the following couple of decades saying something else entirely will never be erased. Same goes for NK HAŠK and other similar examples. There are dozens of books out there printed in the last 60 years which say that Dinamo was founded in 1945. They will not disappear overnight. Our job is to present verifiable facts, remember? And any reader double-checking this article against Dinamo yearbooks or any other publication older than 2011 is unlikely to find a confirmation of what we are saying here. So an explanation about the several re-writings of the club's history will always remain a necessary part of this article, whatever happens. And the fact that hr.wiki article has already merged trophies of both clubs even though HNS has not is a good example of WP:CRYSTAL. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 12:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Timbouctou, if you are from Zagreb and have the time you could take the picture of that plaque on Elektra building in Zagreb, commemorating the foundation of Dinamo (1945) before they change that as well. It could be later reused in this article.Ratipok (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a digital camera myself but I asked a friend who is a professional photographer to take a picture of it. Should send it one of these days. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the picture of the plaque. I'm not too happy with the contrast and visibility of the text but this is probably as good as it gets because the inscription has faded considerably over the last 36 years. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 06:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesnt matter if the script has faded somewhat. The inscription is still clearly visible. Strange, though, that Mamić and the club board didnt tear down the plaque since their 1911 revalation:).Ratipok (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of Establishment
Hi people,

change the date of establishment of 9th June 1945 in 26th April 1911, please!

Thank You!

M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.144.254 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

UEFA changed date of est.
GNK Dinamo Zagreb

Formed: 1911 Nickname: Modri

History

• GNK Dinamo Zagreb were founded in 1911 as 1. HŠK Građanski. They won five league titles before being disbanded by the Yugoslav Communist Party and reformed, in homage to FC Dinamo Moskva, as Dinamo Zagreb in June 1945. -- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  08:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

UEFA link from Dr. Vicodine also changed date of est. from 1945 to 1911. -- Ro voo bo   ob oov oR  08:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was probably the result of them qualifying to the Champions League group stage :) Dr. Vicodine (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was a matter of time I guess. UEFA does not get into details about foundation dates and simply relies on their correspondents to supply that info. Having said that, it still does not erase the fact that as late as the 2010-11 season UEFA's official yearbook listed Dinamo as having been founded in 1945 (data supplied by Zdravko Reić) and our article must explain this discrepancy. Also, I might add that whoever wrote the new profile on UEFA.com heavily relied on Croatian Wikipedia because Građanski is not spelled "1. HŠK Građanski" anywhere else. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * UEFA as an organization did not changed anything, only one of the Croatian correspondents (Elvir Islamović is one of them) did and I am pretty sure that this minor update is not the official standpoint of UEFA organization. How could it be, since until couple of months ago they themselves had 1945 inscribed as foundation year. At the very least a footnote should be implemented next to the foundation date in the infobox, explaining the whole story (the truth basicly). The picture of a plaquet on Elektra building could be used in the article as well. Lp, Ratipok (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actual question about history
Hi everyone. I read last conversations about history and founding year and I can see that reviews of editors are very divided. But I have to notice something. GNK Dinamo is quite big and known football club in European frameworks and from this aspect it is fatuously to have different founding years and origins on this and others Wikipedia pages. Furthermore, there will be a difference between this page and other well-known football pages on Internet who have a trend to accept 1911 year as founding year for GNK Dinamo. Even big football clubs congrats a centenary of Zagreb's club. GNK Dinamo will become more recognizable because of likely playing in Uefa CL or EL in upcoming years. Therefore, it is important to have good image without confusions. I haven't purpose to repeat all historical facts cause they're presented in last posts of editors. So, I suggest that we change infobox, set up 1911 as a founding year and 1945 as a year since Dinamo has got current name. If I will get an approval, I will harmonize origin years. All of you will be welcome to check it and put your opinions. I think that is a right way to improve this theme for our pleasure. Best regards, Billiboom (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We must rely on reliable sources for every fact we state, and articles must conform to WP:V. And up until as recently as 2011 UEFA, Croatian FA, and the club itself claimed that Dinamo's foundation date was 1945. This is also true for the best known part of the club's history in Yugoslavia, between 1945 and 1990. In fact, the only periods in which 1945 was questioned as its foundation date (along with the accompanying idea that it is in fact a successor of Građanski) was in the early 1990s (when club's officials had claimed that it had really been founded in 1903) and again since 2011 until present (when the idea that it was in fact founded in 1911 interestingly coincided with their greatest rivals' centenary). So out of the last 68 years the club itself had claimed to be a direct descendant of Građanski for a total of 2 (two) years. Great many publications have been published in those 60+ years, all describing Dinamo as an entity founded in 1945, and the clubs' current claim is based solely on some very creative interpretations of historic events. As a compromise, we could maybe put in both dates in infobox (as the Croatian wiki has done it) since it is indeed a fact that the club claims this today. But who can guarantee that Zdravko Mamić might decide tomorrow that the club was really founded in 1815 and throws a big party celebrating its two centuries next year? All these discrepancies must be accounted for and explained in an encyclopedic article, which is what we are trying to do here. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 14:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You speak about reliable sources, but who determine that file in which is written 1945 as a founding year is reliable source? On Croatian wiki about GNK Dinamo (temporarily closed for editing) founding year in infobox relies on personal article which is written by Borut Sips from irrelevant tabloid. And this is reliable source that you're talking about?! C'mon, be serious! Furthermore, you talk about publications from past 60+ years, but you have to agree that they are all written under political pressure. Who can decide that only "1945 publications" are correct, and other aren't? Someone could than say that a founding year is 1991 (HAŠK Građanski) or 1993 (Croatia Zagreb) or 2000 (new Dinamo). But, it is surely a truth that Blue club has started his football journey since 1911. Only what happened in 1945 was brutal destroying of everything what was linked to Građanski and levy a new name. And now we should just pass over that like it is never happened? I hope we don't accept that vandal attack on club which occured in 1945. Therefore, changes on this Wiki page should be done.Billiboom (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Political pressure" or not, the fact that the club itself spent 45 years claiming in its own publications signed by Fredi Kramer that it had been founded in 1945 is something we cannot ignore and must be explained per WP:V. That the Croatian and Yugoslav FA agreed with this date for 45 years is also something we cannot ignore. In addition, the fact that as recently as 2011 UEFA reprinted that year in its own yearbook in Dinamo Zagreb's profile is also something that must be explained. If a person reading this article on Wikipedia looked up any book in a library about this topic for fact checking, they would see that 90% of all sports books covering this topic say that Dinamo had been founded in 1945. And there are even memorials and plaques like the this one here which have literally set 1945 as club's foundation date in stone. Granted, the fact that the club decided to change its birthdate in 2011 is something that should be mentioned. But pretending that it had been like that since 1911 would be a blatant distortion. Saying it's all very unfortunate and unjust isn't really an argument - it is an opinion. And we don't deal with opinions. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 18:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're talking all the time about facts that belong to the past. We're now living in 2013 and if some changes are confirmed, we have to respect them. Publications, articles, plaques - all connected with 1945 - ok, no one prejudice this but history of club didn't start with 1945. As you always mention that Yu FA and club managment claimed that founding year is 1945, and it was unquestionably legally, than you have to admit today claim as legally. Related to UEFA official articles, please look at this . In UEFA yearbook 2011 there was different founding year but today is another, and no one discuss anymore about it. If this isn't enough for you, than also look these sites:, , and so on... There are also many websites who confirm this fact and their number present us a sign that founding year 1911 isn't doubtful anymore. (, ,...) And one example for the end. The biggest club in Europe, Real Madrid CF, is founded in 1902 as Madrid Football Club. In 1920 new club management supported by King Alfonso XIII has changed club's name, club's emblem and after a certain time club's stadium.  A very similar situation as well as GNK Dinamo. And today, which is the founding year of Real Madrid? Of course, 1902. The history of club can't be broken and forgotten just like that. Billiboom (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we deal with facts as reported by reliable sources. We have tons of sources published between 1945 and 2011 in Croatia and abroad saying Dinamo Zagreb is an entity established in 1945. On the other hand we have club's own claim, reprinted by UEFA et al, that it had been founded in 1911, which is a recent invention and which began to be disseminated in the last couple of years. In essence the vast majority of sources you can find on shelves of any Croatian library will tell you that the club had been founded in 1945. The fact that somebody decided to change it two years ago does not mean that everyone in the last 50 years was wrong or that literally hundreds of books which reprinted that piece of information have somehow magically disappeared because Zdravko Mamić decided to finally see the light. What you are arguing for here is not reporting history but re-writing it, and that is WP:OR. In addition, even if we agree to disagree, the issue of the club's foundation is controversial and there were many articles published in the media explaining how and why the claim that Dinamo is a direct successor of Građanski is questionable. In fact the only two people advocating for this idea are Ozren Podnar and Fredi Kramer, who are both semi-reliable amateur sports historians. In any case, you need to explain to Wikipedia readers how come almost every single paper book printed between 1945 and 2011 claims one thing while the club today claims otherwise per WP:V. Do you understand that? Do you understand that we cannot rewrite history any time a club changes president or a new political party comes into power? Do ypu understand that a vast body of sources that have been created in over 60 years will not just disappear simply because somebody decided to change interpretations of historic events as recently as 2011? <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 21:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "We have tons of sources...", "vast majority", "vast body of sources", but how is than impossible that I as a Wiki reader can't find one single source on this Wiki page who will confirm your thesis? If we look at notes, references or external links, it is clear that there is none source who explanate about as 1945 as a founding year. And what now, what about your constantly talking that I'm not following WP:V? A same thing is on Croatian Wiki where the main source for advocate an idea of 1945 is an article who definitely doesn't satisfie the criteria of WP:V. Moreover, grotesquely, in external links on Croatian Wiki is put page  which cleary says that founding year is 1911, but in infobox is written year 1945 as a year of foundation?! In addition, related to Fredi Kramer, you call him (and Ozren Podnar) "semi-reliable amateur sports historians" when he advocate an idea of 1911 but on the other hand he is desireable when there are "publications signed by Fredi Kramer that it had been founded in 1945". A little more objectivity is very welcome... Billiboom (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Subject/headline
Dinailoveyou Mom

Subject/headline
Dinailoveyou Mom

UEFA qualification in 1973
As you can see, Dinamo Zagreb played in the Cup Winners' Cup of 1973/74, eventually losing to Milan.

But why? There seems to be no good reason why Dinamo played in the CWC in the first place. To get to the Cup Winners' Cup you've had to either win the national cup or to lose in the final if the winner already qualified for the European Cup (by becoming champions). The Yugoslav national cup tournament changed their season rhythm in 1972. Whilst the league always played in the “sommer system” (from sommer to sommer), the cup played with the sommer system until 1971/72, but changed to the “calender system” in 1973 (from winter to winter). There was no cup tournament in autumn 1972.

The national cup winner 1970/71 (Crvena Zvezda) played in the Cup Winners' Cup 1971/72. The cup winner 1971/72 (Hajduk Split) played in the CWC 1972/73. The cup finalist 1973 (Crvena Zvezda) played in the CWC 1974/75 (as the cup winner Hajduk also became champion). So far, so easy. But the CWC 1973/74 is obviously missing. After the 1971/72 cup (final May 17th 1972) the next edition has been 1973 with the final only in November 28th 1973), so the next cup winner after 1971/72 (CWC 1972/73) has been found too late to let it participate in the CWC of 1973/74. The cup winner of 1973 participated in the CWC 1974/75.

So there's a problem: Dinamo played in the CWC 1973/74 although they did not qualify for it. They did not become cup winners in 1971/72 (that has been Hajduk). That means that Hajduk should have participated in the CWC 1973/74 just as they did in 1972/73—because they were the defending cup winner. Or nobody should've played in the CWC that season. In 1973/74 Hajduk did not play internationally at all, so they could've made it.

Dinamo couldn't have qualified via the national league because they only made it to position 8 the previous season, although only the first three teams qualified for international tournaments (so the next team would have been Partizan, the forth-placed, not Dinamo, the eighth-placed). Also, there was absolutely no other cup tournament in Jugoslavia in 1973 which could've served as a determiner of the CWC participant.

So, does anyone know how Dinamo Zagreb qualified for the CWC 1973/74?31.17.153.189 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dinamo had lost the cup final in May 1972 to Hajduk Split. As Cup winners, Hajduk qualified for the 1972-73 CWC season, and Dinamo qualified as cup runners-up for the season after that (for CWC 1973-74). This was probably decided around the time of the May 1972 final, as the football association knew that the switching the calendar would affect European qualifications and leave a gap year. Since after the May 1972 final the next cup final had been scheduled to take place in November 1973 (leaving an 18 month interval between the two titles), the football association had to delegate someone to enter CWC 1972-73 and 1973-74 beforehand, as preliminary rounds of the 1973-74 CWC were planned to be played in September 1973 (two months before Yugoslavia was supposed to get a new cup winner for the 1973 season). <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 17:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One and a half year later, but: Thank you, you really helped me out with your explanation! (In case my IP has changed, I'm the guy who asked the question.)--31.16.72.92 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2015
93.139.188.249 (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Logo
Why was the logo deleted? Tzowu (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on GNK Dinamo Zagreb. 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/20141218130617/http://www.zgsport.hr/report_1.php?sport_id=31 to http://www.zgsport.hr/report_1.php?sport_id=31
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140331024236/http://prva-hnl.hr:80/blog/prva-hnl-arhiva/dosadasnji-pobjednici-prvenstvokupsuperkup/ to http://prva-hnl.hr/blog/prva-hnl-arhiva/dosadasnji-pobjednici-prvenstvokupsuperkup/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329043729/https://gnkdinamo.hr/hr/klub/osnovni-podaci.html to http://gnkdinamo.hr/hr/klub/osnovni-podaci.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318235818/http://gnkdinamo.hr/novosti/vijesti2013/zdravko-mamic-prestanite-pljuvati-u-tanjur-iz-kojeg-jedete-video.html to http://gnkdinamo.hr/novosti/vijesti2013/zdravko-mamic-prestanite-pljuvati-u-tanjur-iz-kojeg-jedete-video.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329044121/https://gnkdinamo.hr/hr/stadion-maksimir.html to http://gnkdinamo.hr/hr/stadion-maksimir.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318015211/http://www.jutarnji.hr/na-proljece-pocinje-rekonstrukcija-maksimirskog-stadiona/229618/ to http://www.jutarnji.hr/na-proljece-pocinje-rekonstrukcija-maksimirskog-stadiona/229618/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/13153/dinamov-smrtni-strah-od-huligana

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GNK Dinamo Zagreb. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://prva-hnl.hr/blog/prva-hnl-arhiva/dosadasnji-pobjednici-prvenstvokupsuperkup/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301004918/http://povijestdinama.com/index.php/2012-04-17-20-50-04/najboljih-11 to http://povijestdinama.com/index.php/2012-04-17-20-50-04/najboljih-11
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703201238/http://www.gnkdinamo.hr/ to http://www.gnkdinamo.hr/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1945/1911
I know what happened in YU 1945, but wikipedia should not make historical research, it should follow reliable sources. Those mostly have 1911.
 * UEFA http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/news/newsid=878044.html
 * croatian league http://prvahnl.hr/klubovi/dinamo/
 * the club https://www.gnkdinamo.hr/HR/Klub/Povijest

So i think at least both numerals should be included. Except if someone can prove, that vast majority of current reliable sources uses 1945. Linhart (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I want play football
I play good football have 18 years Mohamed khamis 11 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

GNK Dinamo won 32 championships!
Bye.-- Uspjeh je ključ života (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Banovina of Croatia First League - 1940
 * 1941 Croatian First League
 * 1943 Croatian First League

Why Remove Association With The Far-Right Section
All of this below was removed yesterday. Removing it in the wake of the killing that occurred in Athens between BBB & AEK Athens supporters is nefarious. The Association with the far-right section should be put back up and not taken down again by @NP76. The world deserves to read the truth

Association with the far-right
Several incidents have taken place in which members or people identifying themselves as members of the of the Bad Blue Boys have made use of far-right and neo-Nazi symbols.

In 2018, Croatian police raided BBB quarters in Zagreb, where they seized weapons; clubs, pyrotechnics, balaclavas and ammunition. Their quarters were also decorated with graffiti dedicated to Adolf Hitler and Ante Pavelić.

Also in 2018, 14 men "who consider themselves to be part of the Bad Blue Boys" were indicted in Salzburg for "glorifying" the fascist Ustase regime of World War II and giving Nazi salutes.

Videos posted by Italian users to Twitter from September 2022 showed hundreds of men, said to be fans of Dinamo Zagreb in Milan, giving the salute while marching in the street. Detroitcyclist (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * '''Because the club doesn't have any association with the far-right. Assuming that you're from Greece, you have to understand that ultras in Croatia work differently than ultras in Greece. In most cases, the ultras are not directly connected to the club, thus meaning that they're independent organisations. The club doesn't have control over them nor do the ultras represent the club.
 * That being said, if you're such a fighter for human rights and if you think that the club is responsible for independent ultras' actions, you should first edit the Wikipedia articles of Greek clubs, who have a exponentially longer list of violent actions, fights and murders. Right now, you just look like an enormous hypocrite. "The world should know the truth". Best regards Denle1 (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)