Talk:Zadar/Archive 5

February 09
Portions copied from User talk:EdJohnston:


 * ...based on the portions I have read, I feel that the article paints a negative portrayal of Venetians (4th crusade and other inevitable conflicts notwithstanding) and Italians, in places. Yet the portrayal of other political entities and and cultures appears to be more positive. There are blanket statements of Venetian oppression of local peoples, yet not sources and no explanation on how they went about effecting that oppression. I feel there are pieces of history missing and to my understanding (again 4th crusade notwithstanding), the relationship between the Venetians and people of Zadar was generally healthier than what is portrayed, with ethnic tensions growing after Italian unification...
 * ...and there is a passage written in Latin under reference 14 (even though this is the English Wikipedia; if its not translated, it is not useful). In short, an outsider reading this would obtain the binary impression that the Venetians and Italians were the bad guys and the Croatians and Hungarians were the good guys (and that the presence of the Venetians and their architectural influences was negligible); hardly the makings of NPOV. I am guessing that this is possibly an understandable result of push back against all the pro-Italian IP's and their extreme opposing views (which have thankfully been stopped), rather than a deliberate skewing of history. Me personally, I am not concerned with ethnic loyalties... just balance and facts. But I'm strongly opposed to inaccurate negative bias. Don't get me wrong, I feel the work contributed to date has been great (particularly in light of all the vandalism), but I know that Zadar has such rich and wonderful history that I would love to see represented to the fullest. Sincerely Romaioi (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm Real nature of Zadar-Venice relationship during Medieval (from 11th to 15th) were ~300 yrs of war. I don't think that actual version of the article represents it at all. 1202 was just the most known internationally, probably the most tragic accident in the city's history (in last 1.000 yrs), but widely known mainly thanx to the "4th Crusade". 1242 was nothing better, etc... I'm thinking about writing separate article about these wars, since format of Wiki article doesn't give enough space in this one. BTW that's the main problem with Zadar and its history. It's rarely huge. Every period can be covered with separate article. Already during Medieval, Zadar was known as "a city with many names". Nowadays, historians describe it as "a city with incredibly rich history" but also "proud city that survived many tragedies".
 * It's impossible to write the city's history and not to mention what happened there. Venetians played extremely negative role in Zadar story in that period. How to avoid negative portrayal? To say that bad guys from Venice a few times sneaked, a few times sieged, a few times were beaten and a few times turned it into the ruins, while good Venetian guys were always staying at home? Come on... problem comes from a reader's mind - what is expected to read? Let's not relate modern ethnicities (Italian, Croatian) to Medieval (Venetian, Croatian, Dalmatian).
 * I'm sure you miss knowledge of history on this region, a little bit. From 9th century on, after Charlemagne's retreat from region, a sort of match started between Venice and the Dalmatian cities - to control Adriatic meant to be there. Venice had important position in the north of the sea as an "eye" of the Central Europe to the east: Constantinople, Levant - trade! Zadar had the important position at the centre of the eastern Adriatic coast - this coast with the thousands of islands and proper flows and winds was much more suitable for navigation to the Medieval seafarers, than "naked" Italian coast. It's calculated that Liburni from Iadera (Zadar) had all Adriatic in 2 days of cruising, with a station on the island of Issa (Vis) for southern trips (the most southern Corfu). Venice had a problem and resolved it by force, not by flowers. Let's not be emotional about it...
 * You asked me to explain how Zadar's economy was restrained and I have at least ?00 academical pages with details to choose from. :( Wrong way to build the article!
 * ...I see actual article history version as "work in progress". There are many important things to add everywhere to make it more objective. I agree that actual version is poor. But I don't think that an article should be result of a tennis match. This particular article was like a front in last 2 yrs. I'm reparing it slowly, had no enough time recently. I'm glad if you can help... Zenanarh (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Augustus in Antiquity section
I would just like to point out a glaring error. It states in the antiquity section that "while in the first years of the reign of Emperor Augustus (48 BC) it became a colony of Roman citizens". While I do not know the exact date that Roman colony was founded, it would have been impossible for it to have been by the Emperor Augustus in 48BC. Octavian, as Augustus was known before 27 BC, did not appear on the political scene in Rome until the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Then there is the fact that the Empire did not technically start until 27 BC. And in 48BC there were still many other Roman figures that would have had something to say about any single person being the Emperor, due to this still being in the middle of the civil war. In fact Octavian was still fighting a variety of enemies until 31 BC when he finally defeated Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium. Neither was it at a time of any of the Triumvirates, as the First Triumvirate was finished by this point (with two of the three members being dead) and the second did not start until 43 BC. Therefore I hope this misinformation will be removed until actual evidence is found. Hancocjkx (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, story was more complex. Caesar rewarded Zadar people for their support in the Roman civil war by giving them status of a colony. Octavian, however, managed to take real control over the Liburnians. I'll rearrange this section in a month, when I come back to Wikipedia, been absent for a while. Zenanarh (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Serbs of Zadar
After May 1991. Zadar Croats have ethnically cleansed Zadar Serbs. Where is the fact about 11 000 of Zadar Serbs who lived in Zadar before May 1991. making 15% of town's population? Why you hide / delete those facts?

Some of the most famous people of Zadar were/are Serbs like Petar Popovic basketball player and Arijan Komazec basketball player.178.253.196.100 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Demonym
I've added one I thought could be right, after looking I could not find any English one, so I roughly translated the Italian one. It is most likely wrong, but using the demonym as an adjective would improve the article by avoiding all the "of Zadar"-"from Zadar" that make it a bit clumsy to read. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that it was changed to Zadrani, but I've removed it in any case per WP:V. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've also added "This article needs additional citations for verification." to Name section, which is useless. Archaeologist and historian Mate Suić from University of Zadar (Filozofski Fakultet Zadar) was top authority in historiography for Antique period of this city and all region of the Northern Dalmatia. His scientific article "O imenu Zadra" (About name of Zadar) was first published in offical '64 compilation of scientific (history, archaeology) works about Zadar (Zadar Zbornik). Any other source about this topic can be only rewriting or citing this one. Noone has ever produced any other or alternative work on this topic and his article was never disputted. I'm completely sure about this since I'm history student at the same University.
 * Concerning demonym "Zadrani" you can use the same source, which says that demonym "Zadrani" in such graphic form occurred first during the Reinessance in Zadar. It was Croatian, given in plural (people of Zadar). Singular was Zadranin (male) and Zadranka (female). Identical forms are now used in modern Croatian language. If you're more interested, this demonym "Zadrani" developed as a phonetic form of Dalmatian language "Jaderani" (graphical form Jaderani was pronounced Zadrani, graphical J was phonetical Z) from the early Medieval (9th century BC), so practically it never changed until nowadays. The only other form that interferred in the meantime was Venetian "Zaratini" which was invented by the Venetian administration during Venetian rule and later it was used by Italians in the 20th century until WWII. So you can use 'Zadrani' refferenced by the same source used in Name section ('O imenu Zadra' by M.Suić) because it explains about "Zadrani" both: when it first appeared (Zadar's historical archive is extremely rich one) and it is in use now. Your change is formally degradation of the article, for no reason. I'm glad if my comment was helpful. Cheers! M.S. from Zadar. 78.3.52.105 (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. The problem is that it's not clear that the whole section is based on that source, due to a lack of references. If you want to use the source to support the demonym, please do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian official census statistics
Zadar county (then officially called Comune di Zara), neighborough that included places outside the "venetian walls" :
 * 1890: slavs 19096 (67,6%), italians 7672 (27,2%), germans 568, others 180, total 28230
 * 1900: slavs 21753 (66,8%), italians 9234 (28,4%), germans 626, others 181, total 32551
 * 1910: slavs 23651 (64,6%), italians 11552 (31,6%), germans 477, others 227, total 36595

Zadar city (then officially called Citta' di Zara), inside the old town's "venetian walls":
 * 1890: italians 7423 (64,6%), slavs  2652 (23.0%), germans 561, others 164, total 11496
 * 1900: italians 9018 (69,3%), slavs  2551 (19,6%), germans 581, others 150, total 13016
 * 1910: italians 9318 (66,3%), slavs  3532 (25,1%), germans 397, others 191, total 14056

These are the official census statistics about the ethnic composition of Zadar (then officially called "Zara") in the last years of Austrian rule.--77ron (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you source this? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. here: Dalmatia 1848: Slavs 369.310, Italians 45.000, etc. etc. Same source has data for all austro-hungary census. Enjoy yourself researching all the data.--77ron (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User 83.131.69.63 has removed my contribution without any good reason. My contribution is sourced. User 83.131.69.63 can suggest a modification or under reasonable claims demonstrate the source is false or wrong. I hope not to start an edit war with a user that is even not registered on en:wiki. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed weather
The old data used was for Split not Zadar. I have fixed this using data from a book printed out by Zadar county. Emoutofthevee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.94.135 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Andrea Meldolla (Schiavone) / Andrija Medulic
Andrea Meldolla (nicknamed Schiavone) was an Italian painter known in today's Cratia as Medulic and not the opposite (the previous version was claiming that his name was Medulic and we used to sign in Venice with the nickname Schiavone...). No way... this man when borned had the name of Andrea Meldolla. My source is from the Oxford dictionary of art and is coherent with the information contained in Andrea Meldolla's page on en:wiki. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sub-section name change
I have modified the name of the sub-section "Italian presence in Zadar" to "Historical ethnicity of Zadar's population". This is more appropriate and should placate the remarks of some users. Still, to make the section more complete it would be useful to enter some information about the decrease of the Serbian group. The numbers suggest some relevant happened in the last 20 years. Someone can help? --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is another edit war started ?
Apparently user 83.131.73.39 does not welcome my changes and does not consider that discussion is a way to get to the consensus. My changes are proposal and can be discussed. But I cannot - because I took the decision to participate to the writing of this article - being qualified of fascist, ignorant, irredentist, imperalist and so on. If this continue I will have to ask the intervention of an administrator. I cannot discuss with people that does even refuse to log in. I have added information about the historical ethnicity of Zadar's population. We can discuss if my sources are not eligible according to the standards of wikipedia or if are not appropriate. In any case deleting it as opposition is repressed in a dictature is not acceptable. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God! I thought I'll never come here again. Some things have never changed. Silvio, first you edit changes, then you edit war. If you have ideas discuss it here first. 83.131... is right, your changes were already discussed 2 yrs ago. Do you have something new to say? Zenanarh (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes Zenanarh, I want to understand: 1. Why it is not possible to write about the historical ethnic composition of Zadar's population. 2. Is it possible that all opinions adverse to point 1 come almost only (if not only) from Croatian users? I do not see in the talk history any good reason not to report the information of my modification. Again I am ready to discuss of everything, but I am not open to censorship. Indeed I am open to report such information in a way that is convenient to the most. Unless you (or anyone else) cannot demonstrate that is false.

What the Italians did in Zadar during WWII should not make any Italian proud. But this does not give any reason to eradicate what is the history of Zadar. The article does not give any information to the reader making him in the condition to understand that a significant part of the population of the city was ethnically Italian (NOT Italian citizenship, I want to be clear on this) well before 1920. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It's not impossible, but not the way you do it. Population subsection is not a part of history section, and it is inappropriate place to do do it. It belongs to history sections!

You ought to take some time and read talk archives, because this problemacity (Italian population in Zadar in the 19th century) was already discussed. In fact, there should be better history subsection for the 19th century with better explained nationalistic struggle in the city beetween Italians, pro-Italians from one and Croats from the other side. You should also check wiky policy about name of the city in other languages, it's also mentioned a few times in the archives. Zenanarh (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But first, change your aprroach. Do not edit before it's resolved here. Especially since this agenda is nothing new. Would you be so kind to give me a few days, I cannot sleep here for hours, but I can surely help you to become more familiar with problemacity. Zenanarh (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, you have rollbacked all my modifications and all of them where sourced. On top of that you have qualified my modifications of fascist and irredentist. This is non conform to wikilabel and explain by itself our inappropriate is your method. I can only disapprove your method and I hope this approach is not shared by the most of the Croatian contributors of this page.

I have three main concerns and I will politely but firmly insist untill the subjects will be not properly treated. 1. The data from the austro-hungarian census are relevant and should find place somewhere in the article. They show there was significant italian ethnicity in the city well before 1920. 2. Andrea Meldolla was of italian culture and UNESCO and Oxford Dictionary of Arts source this affirmation. What you wrote in the article is not sourced and false. You should source it with a neutral (non Croatian) source. 3. There is nothing wrong in putting into brackets the equivalent in Italian, Hungarian and Dalmatic of Zadar. These three are part of the history of the city. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's start with 2.

You text was:
 * Also noteworthy is the painter Andrija Medulić (c. 1510/1515–1563), who, when in Venice, signed his name as "Andrea Schiavone.

This is not sourced and actually it's incorrect. I have replaced with:
 * Also noteworthy is the painter Andrea Meldolla (c. 1510/1515–1563), nicknamed Andrea Schiavone, known in today's Croatia with the name of Andrija Medulić.

My modification is supported by a neutral source (Encyclopedia Britannica) and if not enough I can source with the Oxford Dictionary of Art or perhpas information from UNESCO. Your previous text was not sourced at all. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Take it easy Silvio. :) Yes, I have rollbacked all your modifications for obvious reasons I'll explain as soon as I get some free time. There is a small problem with a source, I'll explain it too. Just give me a few days. OK? But I haven't qualified your modifications of fascist and irredentist! It was not me. This moment I'm too busy, your three main concerns, just generally: 1. and 3. - I'll explain soon, when I get free time. 2. Medulić/Meldolla: You text was... - no, I didn't edit it. What I've been working in the article was History section before the 15th century. My plan was to finish history sections, which I never did, I wasn't here in en.wiki for some other reasons. So that's not me who you dispute. Actually, you are right, as far as I know Melldola was Italian, coming from the city of Melldola or something like that. I don't think you are wrong in that case. Zenanarh (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. The data from the austro-hungarian census are relevant and should find place somewhere in the article. They show there was significant italian ethnicity in the city well before 1920.


 * - Austro-Hungarian census is primary source (firsthand written evidence of history made at the time of the event by someone who was present), it is original document. We cannot use primary sources and interpret it because it's not on us to do it. Secondary source (written accounts of history based upon the evidence from primary sources) - scientific works - must be used. Check wiki policies about sources and how to use them.


 * - we already had discussion about these censi. It's all recorded in archive 3. Open archive 3 and read from section "Colonization of Italians in Zadar" to the end of archive 3. I hope it will help you to become much better acknowledged with the matter.


 * 3. There is nothing wrong in putting into brackets the equivalent in Italian, Hungarian and Dalmatic of Zadar. These three are part of the history of the city.


 * - there is Name section, in such case names in other languages should not be used in the lead, according to WP:NCGN. Zenanarh (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. For completeness, Andrea Meldolla's family was from Meldola, a city near Forli'.

2. Concerning the name I do not understand why in en:wiki we should not report the equivalent name in Italian, Dalmatic and Hungarian. This is done in de:wiki, it:wiki, es:wiki, ru:wiki... The place where the information is placed matters. A lot. I cannot imagine the rest of the world is doing wrong and only in en:wiki it's done correctly.

3. Concerning the use of that census, Zananarh, IMHO it looks you are missing the point. Of course there is a major difference between ethnicity and language, the all discussion in Archive 3 was directed (I think on purpose) with the wrong approach. I make you an example. I leave in Romania, in the center of Transilvania. Here there are a lot of people speaking Hungarian but they do not consider themselves Hungarian. No, they consider themselves Romanians speaking Hungarian. They have always lived here and they do not want to live elsewhere. And no-one forced them to leave. Even not Ceacescu. I guess the 250,000 people of Italian culture/language that were forced to leave Istria and Dalmatia were in the same situation. The overwhelming majority of them had leaved there per generations (some of them >1000 years) and would have remained but the most of them were forced to leave their homes. Now, for a number of reasons Croatia has managed to achieve an almost pure ethnic composition. Wikipedia is not there to take conclusions for the readers but to give them the most factual information. But no-one can invent history from scrap. The fact that the most of the people were speaking Italian in Zadar well before 1920 it's very relevant, because makes clear why Wilson could not refuse the handover of Zadar to the Kingdom of Italy. His idea was the auto determination of people, and for this reason even if the most of Dalmatia had been promised to Italy before the end of WWI, only Istria and Zadar were given. Because were the only places that could be claimed on principe of autodetermination. And it's exactly for this reason that Tito wanted to move all the people speaking Italian, to exclude any potential future land claim. Reporting in the article what was the main language spoken in Zadar by the end of the XVIII and XIX century is just a fact. No-one in Croatia should be afraid of this. This is part of Croatian history and should be not hidden. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. Have you read WP:NCGN? You have completely missed the point. Noone stops you to report the equivalent name in Italian, Dalmatic and Hungarian, etc. It's usual practise in en.wiki too. But there is all "Name" section there in the beginning of the article! It explains all, from etymology of the name, its developement in time, to historical equivalents in other languages. According to WP:NCGN if there is "Name" section, like the one we have here, equivalents in the lead of the article are unnecessary.


 * 3. You have prejudice based on wrong information. All discussion in Archive 3 was directed to explain real situation. So there was no wrong approach, there was only necessity to enlighten these things and scientific works were used on subject.
 * I guess the 250,000 people of Italian culture/language that were forced to leave Istria and Dalmatia were in the same situation.
 * Once again, wrong information. This number (250,000 people of Italian culture/language) is largely exarragated, when we speak about the Italians. You obviously don't know that huge number of Croats were forced to leave Croatia too, escaping before communist regime. It had nothing to do with ethnnicity. In result, there are more Croats out of Croatia than in Croatia today. It was related to politics. I've lost a few family members too at the end of WWII because they didn't escape. They were simply murdered like they were the animals without any obvious intelligible reason, without any court judgement or similar, just because they were Catholics and the communists considered Catholic church was their enemy. These Italian right-wingers often speak about Foibe killings, you can read about it here too, but they always speak only about the Italians killed in foibe. But many Croats were also killed in foibe massacres, like "enemies of communist regime" or in some cases, simply because their Croatian dialect - chakavian. Chakavian Croatian is the oldest and original Croatian language, developed on basis of initial Croatian ethnogenesis: newcomers from the north (Old Croats, Slavs, Slavic speakers) plus domestic Romance speakers (Dalmatians, Dalmatian language speakers). Damatian language is extinct by now, but there are still around 3,000 Dalmatian Romancisms saved in modern Chakavian Croatian. I am native Chakavian speaker, and I'm using these romancisms every day. However, according to genetics it is obvious that around 40% male Croats have the oldest and original Paleolithic European Y chrommosome genes, In Dalmatia this precentage rises to 70%. So there is large chance that I am one of them, which means that once my ancestors were the Illyrians, they became Romancized in the Roman Empire, then they were Slavized in the early Medieval. You must understand that Dalmatian is not Italian. Dalmatian is Croat.
 * 250,000 is number used by Italian irredentists or Italian right-wing-followers, with no any criticism. They use this prefabricated number and some other prefabricates to claim their political "rights" on Istria and Dalmatia from Mussolini era. Sad but true. In Croatia, there is a lot of scientific material written after the WWII dealing with this problem which is usually completely ignored by the most of the Italians. Unfortunatelly there is just a few objective Italian scientists dealing with this matter. I reccomend Paolo Parovel, L'identita' cancellata, Italian scientist from Trieste. Once, in interview, he mentioned that, in his researches, he found number of around 500.000 personal Croatian and Slovene names and toponyms italianized during the 19th and the 20th century only in Istria! It was partly irredentistic, partly fascistic, test of sistematic acculturisation of Croats in Istria and Dalmatia. They even had manuals how to italianize Croatian name, surname or toponym. In every detail, from letter to letter, from syllable to syllable. Unbeliavable. Are you sure that you want to follow them? Are you sure that you want to have prejudice you have, based on their distortion of data and reality?
 * The overwhelming majority of them had leaved there per generations (some of them >1000 years) and would have remained but the most of them were forced to leave their homes.
 * This is complete nonsense. If you can find Italian family living in Dalmatia for 1000 years continually and still save their Italian identity, you can win Nobel prize buddy. There were no Italian cities or villages in Dalmatia ever. There were no Italian communities in Dalmatia. There were only Italians in transfer, coming because of their proffessions like Latin language notary, trade, politics. And leaving. Something like you've mentioned was possible only in some small city at the western Istrian coast.
 * Now, for a number of reasons Croatia has managed to achieve an almost pure ethnic composition.
 * It's not true. Croatia is like any other country in Europe. We have ethnic minorities as any other country in Europe. Where the hell you've got this weird information?
 * The fact that the most of the people were speaking Italian in Zadar well before 1920 it's bloody relevant, because makes clear why Wilson could not refuse the handover of Zadar to the Kingdom of Italy.
 * "Well before 1920" is simply not the truth. Zadar became Italinized during the 2nd half of the 19th century in some degree, for reasons explained in Archive 3, and never before. But that was far from major part of population and it included bilinguality of the most of them. It became really italianized only after 1920. I don't want to comment political trade of Zadar in 1920, it's easy to manipulate with reasons and motivations when it comes to politics.
 * Because were the only places that could be claimed on principe of autodetermination. And it's exactly for this reason that Tito wanted to move all the people speaking Italian, to exclude any potential future land claim.
 * Autodetermination? What was real autodetermination was shown by results of referendum in Dalmatia and Zadar in 1919 - 77% of Zadar people wanted annexation to Yugoslavia and not to Italy! It's also mentioned in Archive 3. Tito wanted to move all people who were his political opponents, no matter what was their ethnicity.
 * Reporting in the article what was the main language spoken in Zadar by the end of the XVIII and XIX century is just a fact. No-one in Croatia should be afraid of this. This is part of Croatian history and should be not hidden.
 * During Venetian rule of Dalmatia and Zadar (15th-18th) number of Venetians in Zadar was very small. Just some number of administrators, notars, merchants. During the 15th century they were afraid of the citizens who saw them as the occupiers and they were not able to walk in the streets without military patrol. The city was not repopulated from Italy or Venice, but from its countryside. Because of Turkish occupation of the inland of Dalmatia and plague there was demographic stagnation in the city. Venice decided to help the city demographics, so some number of Venetians or other Italians came in the 17th and 18th century, but nothing special by number. There were not even Venetian noblemen in the city! First Italian nobleman registered in Zadar nobility register was in the 16th century, but that guy never lived in the city or spent any time in the city longer than a few moths overall. The real first Italian noblemen were just 2 or 3 families in the 17th and 18th century. all others from the 11th to the 19th century were the natives - non-Italians. The number of all Italo-Dalmatians (Italians living in Dalmatia for some period) were around 15.000 in all Dalmatia at the beginning of the 19th century! It's around 3-4% of overall Dalmatian population. Italian language was simply not the main language in Zadar in the 18th and 19th century, or ever before. Venetian dilaect of Italian was administrative language during Venetian rule, and Italian was official languge during the 19th century, but not massively spoken. Neither from the close. I repeat, how it became gradually more spoken in the 2nd half of the 19th century is explained in Archive 3.
 * If you are inteligent person, you have probably found out by this moment that you are not well informed, in result you are actually suggesting me that I am the Italian, as well as my ancestors??? Zenanarh (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, leave me some time to go trough your long edit. There is a lot of information and I believe a careful reading is necessary to understand your point of view, then I will reply in a more articulated way. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your reply bring us in a much vaster subject. I will try to shortly reply to some of it, then I think we have to concentrate on this article that is about Zadar and not about the whole problem of Istria and Dalmatia.
 * 1. I am fully aware that many Croats and Slovenes escaped from Istria and Dalmatia to avoid Tito's persecutions. Still they did not represent the majority of this flow of refugees. I think that you should consider than in Italy their ethnicity was not reason of persecution. In Italy they were granted the same rights of the native Italians, the use of the language was permitted and they had schools and institutions to preserve their culture. Concerning the number Vladimir Žerjavić (Croat) calculated that 191,421 Italian exiles from today's Croatian territory. Adding the population moved from today's Slovenia we are not fare from the 250,000 I quoted.
 * 2. The affirmation "Dalmatian is Croat" is in itself wrong. I do not consider Dalmatian as Italian. Some irredentists might do, not myself. But it is not Croatian neither. Dalmatian and Croatian cultures lived together sharing many territories, but not all of them. The true early Croatian culture has distinctive differences from the Dalmatian and this is clear in the arts, the language, the economy (the first driven more on commerce) and the culture. In a nutshell, Dalmatian is Dalmatian and is a culture with direct link with the Republic of Venice and not with the Kingdom of Croatia. Now someone could make a direct link between the Republic of Venice and Italy. This is a different matter, I have an opinion and could add sources about it but it is not relevant here.
 * 3. It is somehow worrying that you present the issue as a matter of genetic origins and chromosomes. Ethnicity has something to do with culture not with genetics. I am Italian but my daughter born out of Italy. If she will remain in Romania for the rest of her life she will be 50% Romanian. If she will have children in Romania thay will be 100% Romanian, this is clear. That I like it or not.
 * 4. Perhaps if the Catholic Church had taken bigger distance from the Fascists and Ustasi, at the end of the war the equation Catholic=Ustasi would have not been made by the Partisans.

A side comment. It is largely weird for the most of the Italians the Slavian approach on nationalism. Even during the fascism Italy never experienced any ethnic cleansing comparable to what has happened in Yugoslavia in the XX century (and I am not thinking to what happened to the Italians, but to the Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks). You know, 150 years after the end of the Savoy Kingdom and almost 100 years after the end of WWI there are still significant minorities speaking French and German and Slovene, and this does not bother anyone.

Now I would like to discuss about this article, if you don't mind. Census results in 1890, 1900 and 1910 were for the city of Zadar the following:


 * 1890: italians 7423 (64,6%), slavs  2652 (23.0%), germans 561, others 164, total 11496
 * 1900: italians 9018 (69,3%), slavs  2551 (19,6%), germans 581, others 150, total 13016
 * 1910: italians 9318 (66,3%), slavs  3532 (25,1%), germans 397, others 191, total 14056

This is a relevant information that has to be put somewhere in the article. As it is the article today one understands that before 1920 there where almost no Italians in Zadar. The results of the census cannot be contested. It can be contested what does mean "Italian". Surely does not mean Italian nationality, because Zadar was not part of Italy. It certainly means that people spoke Italian. Does the fact the people speak Italian to give them Italian ethnicity? This is debatable. Certainly language is part of the ethnicity, but does not make 100% of it. For the moment it's enough to enter the information precising the census divided on the basis of the language used in daily life, the discussion about ethnicity will be done after --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You have opened a few questions to be resolved first. For better understanding. I'll reply tomorrow or day after. Zenanarh (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I can see we have problem – your poor knowledge about Zadar, Dalmatia and Croatia. You want to contribute here and edit the article, although you don't know some basic facts. I can explain you some things but I'm not magician.


 * 1.	I am fully aware that many Croats and Slovenes escaped from Istria and Dalmatia to avoid Tito's persecutions. Still they did not represent the majority of this flow of refugees. I think that you should consider than in Italy their ethnicity was not reason of persecution. In Italy they were granted the same rights of the native Italians, the use of the language was permitted and they had schools and institutions to preserve their culture.


 * Are those the same Italians who occupied Istria and Zadar? Italian ethnic cleansing was systematic. Istria suffered a lot of depopulation during all period, thanks to Italian fascists. The same happened in Zadar. Most of Croatian refugees went for the other continents. It was massive exodus. Statistical data only from Dalmatia and Istria to South America: 250.000 immigrants, 80% Croats, 1919-1939. At the same time Italians colonised Istria and Zadar. Zadar was a kind of Italian duty free shop in that period, it was turned into ridiculous joke copy of little Hong Kong for the Italians who want to spend some speed money in a city surrounded by bunkers.
 * Your comment is blind hipocrisy. How can you speak about the Italians as some cultural people who permitted the others to preserve their culture, after what they had been doing in Dalmatia and Istria? In Dalmatia, 4% strangers (Italians) ruled with 96% natives (Croats) in such way that these 96% were not allowed to speak their own language officially and were not allowed to send their children to schools with their own language. Such situation lasted for 50 years and only when major and domestic population somehow won in the Senate it started to change, so soon there were no more Italian schools in Dalmatia at all, since there were no Italians! Read Archive 3 and don't act like you don't understand it!


 * Concerning the number Vladimir Žerjavić (Croat) calculated that 191,421 Italian exiles from today's Croatian territory. Adding the population moved from today's Slovenia we are not fare from the 250,000 I quoted.
 * There were 2 exoduses from Istria and Dalmatia. First was Croatian exodus 1919-1943, because of Italian ethnic cleansing. Check those numbers buddy. Check how many Italians moved to Istria and Dalmatia around 1920 and later during fascistic occupation of Istria and Dalmatia. Second exodus was Italian at the end of the WWII but it included Italian fascists and Italian immigrants from period '20-'41. If you are speaking about numbers and mention only Italian exodus and pure number without any explanation then you are manipulating. Be aware of it.


 * 2.	The affirmation "Dalmatian is Croat" is in itself wrong. I do not consider Dalmatian as Italian. Some irredentists might do, not myself. But it is not Croatian neither.
 * Croats came around 630 to Dalmatia, they were invited by the Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius to stop Avaro-Slavic devastation of Dalmatia. Do you know what was real name of Croatian Kingdom? It was "Regnum Dalmatiae et Croatiae" - Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia – it was union of 2 Croatian duchies: Dalmatia and Croatia (Liburnia). Now, if you’re interested what were these duchies by territory: 'Dalmatia' from the name was modern central and partly northern Dalmatia, 'Croatia' from the name was part of modern northern Dalmatia plus Kvarner and part of inland to the north of northern Dalmatia and Kvarner. In fact, this initial 'Croatia' was territory of Medieval Liburnia. First Croatian state, before establishment of that kingdom was "Duchy of Dalmatia and Liburnia", led by Croatian prince Borna in the 9th century. Old Croats changed 'Liburnia' to 'Croatia' in the 10th century, because the main seats of Croatian rulers were in Liburnia, precisely in the northern Dalmatia, precisely in range of 10 to 50 km around Zadar. First center of Croatian rulers and the most important center of Old-Croatian Culture was Nin – 10 km to the west from Zadar. That’s why Zadar population was predominantly Croatian already in the 10th century and that’s why Dalmatian language disappeared in Zadar first.
 * What was relation between Croatian and Dalmatian speakers in the city is the best explained by V. Jakić – Cestarić, "Etnički odnosi u srednjovjekovnom Zadru prema analizi osobnih imena", Institut JAZU u Zadru, 1972 ("Ethnical relations in Medieval Zadar according to analysis of personal names", Institute of Yugoslav Academy of Science and Arts in Zadar, 1972). The author researched archives, historical sources and genealogies of families in the city. Early Medieval population of Zadar was bilingual Croatian and Dalmatian, but predominantly Croatian: percentage of the citizens with Romance (Dalmatian) names in Zadar: 10th century - 23.1 %, 11th century - 20%, 12th century - 18.3%, 13th century - 12.7%. However even these pecentages are not saying directly what was real distribution of ethnicities in the city, since it became one and the same ethnicity by time – local Zadar ethnicity: names were given in accordance to actual fashion in the city in periods and Romance names of the locally popular saints were used mostly by higher classes. Even the strongest and the mightest patrician family in Zadar – Madi – many of their most prominent members had Croatian names, Croatian queen Jelena was Madi, the Madi's had close connections with the Croatian royal families and politics of Madi was directed towards autonomy and annexation of Byzantine Dalmatia to Croatian Kingdom.
 * So, you obviously don't know a lot about Croatia and Dalmatia and that's where your prejudice comes from. Yes, Dalmatian and Croatian is one and the same since initial Croatian ethnogenesis was based on fusion of 2 groups: Slavic speaking Croats and Romance speaking Dalmatians. They were 2 different etnicities in the 8th century, but one and the same in the 11th century and later on – in Zadar!


 * Dalmatian and Croatian cultures lived together sharing many territories, but not all of them. The true early Croatian culture has distinctive differences from the Dalmatian and this is clear in the arts, the language, the economy (the first driven more on commerce) and the culture.
 * Wrong. Old Croatian culture developed in the 9th century, exactly in Zadar surrounding (Nin!) from where it spread to the north and south, to the rest of Dalmatia and inland. It was based on local Late Antique features with strong Frankish and Byzantine influences. There were no any Slavic cultural features in Old-Croatian Culture for simple reason: Slavs brought just Slavic language, not other Slavic cultural features. They completely accepted local culture of the autochthonous population who they mixed with. In general, same goes for any other Medieval Slavic culture developed at the territory of ex-Roman Empire: they were all based on local Late Antiquity features. Old Croatian Culture was developing in continuity to the local Late Antique features in Liburnia and Dalmatia without any break. So culture in Dalmatia during Medieval WAS Old Croatian Culture and not any other. Symbol of Zadar - church St. Donatus is an artefact of Old Croatian Culture in Zadar.


 * In a nutshell, Dalmatian is Dalmatian and is a culture with direct link with the Republic of Venice and not with the Kingdom of Croatia. Now someone could make a direct link between the Republic of Venice and Italy. This is a different matter, I have an opinion and could add sources about it but it is not relevant here.
 * Now if we take into consideration that there were 2 territories of Dalmatia, one under rule of Croats, another under rule of Byzant, we can say that Dalmatian cities formed Byzantine territory (several cities with their municipal lands) and they were under strong Byzantine influence. Not Venetian! Also, Venice was in continual wars with the Dalmatian cities, especially with Zadar. Bloody wars between Venice and Zadar lasted for 300 years! Venice was the biggest enemy of Zadar ever. Take a look at the coat of arms of Zadar presenting the city during last 1.000 years. Do you know who and what does it present? It is St. Crisogonus, riding a horse and fighting against the Venetians! And you are telling me that Zadar had Venetian Culture?! Are you serious? Venice was destroying this city a few times, what kind of Venetian culture is that? However there were Venetian influences in architecture in period of Venetian Republic, from the 15th to the 18th century, but it goes only for those buildings that were build during Venetian Republic authority. And these are just a few buildings and new city walls. Dalmatia under Venetian Republic was not flourishing province. Dalmatian cities had been much more developed earlier, especially in the 13th anfd 14th century.
 * In the 11th century Venice was still just one of the cities at the Adriatic coast, it was not stronger than Zadar. But inland from Venice there were German rulers hungry for goods from the east, from Constantinopolis. Between Constantinopolis and Venice there was naval route – eastern Adriatic coast ruled by several Dalmatian cities under Byzantine authority and Croatian Kingdom. Zadar was the capital city of the Dalmatian union under Byzant and positioned on the most important position on that route, at the center, with safe port, hidden behind the wall of islands. That's why Venice was attacking Zadar. In moment when Dalmatia was at the maximum of developement it was sold to Venice and it was absolute disaster for Dalmatia. Only Dubrovnik didn't fall to Venice and that's why Dubrovnik developed further unlike the others, although it had not been any stronger than the others before. In its republic age of Dubrovnik, there were also Venetian influences in architecture of Dubrovnik, because it was fashion. Italian builders were coming to Dalmatia as well as Dalmatian and Croatian builders were going to Italy. In that era, Italy was the main center of Europian culture in general and France was influenced too as well as many other countries in Europe. It's not secret. But you can not say that all of them enjoyed Italian culture. They enjoyed their own cultures influnced by Italian, mostly by means of stylization. Today we enjoy many American cultural features, like music, films etc but we are not Americans, nor our cultures are American, ha Silvio?
 * So, there are certain influences of Venetian Culture but not Venetian Culture itself. Culture of ex-Byzantine territory – Dalmatian communes (Osor, Krk, Zadar, Trogir, Split, Dubrovnik) was predominantly based on Byzantine cultural features, the rest of Dalmatia (all territory out of these cities and their agers) was Old Croatian Culture and there were influences from Italy and Venice, but not Italian or Venetian cultures as seating cultures.


 * 3. It is somehow worrying that you present the issue as a matter of genetic origins and chromosomes. Ethnicity has something to do with culture not with genetics. I am Italian but my daughter born out of Italy. If she will remain in Romania for the rest of her life she will be 50% Romanian. If she will have children in Romania thay will be 100% Romanian, this is clear. That I like it or not.
 * No that was not the meaning of it. You missed the point. It was related to early Medieval Croatian ethnogenesis. It shows exactly what you say: ethnicity is something to do with culture and not with genetics. Croatian etnicity developed in symbiosis of 2 populations, natives and newcomers, natives gave culture to newcomers, but necomers assimilated natives by language, so there was continual developement from Late Antiquity to Medieval in Dalmatia with Slavic language in use and Latin as administrative language. Beside Glagolithic inscriptions, many Old Croatian monumets and documents were written in Latin!


 * This is a relevant information that has to be put somewhere in the article. As it is the article today one understands that before 1920 there where almost no Italians in Zadar.
 * In Archive 3 it was explained that these numbers are not relevant. It is true that history subsection for period 19th century must be better explained. However you are trying to write abot Italians in Zadar in Population section which is about the modern city. Italian presence in Zadar can be explained in the article but not in Population section. It belongs to History. But irredentistic side of a story is simply unacceptable because it is not objective and is based on selective data and manipulation with data. Zenanarh (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Weather
The weather info is incorrect. The primary source site doesn't have Zadar listed. I will delete it. Emoutofthevee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.94.135 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Unjustified deletions
Zenanarh, again without any apparent reason you have deleted my modification. And this time I do not understand why, everyone can check (and I hope some administrators will do it) that my modification is correctly phrased and placed in the right contest. I support additional information in order to clarify the languages spoken in Zadar at the end of the XIX century. Still, you find this too much. The issue is that my information is sourced. I would expect a positive contribution and modifications to the text I added, not a mere censure. I could rollback my text and start another edit war, but I cannot and do not want to use such methods. I am ready to read your reasons and to put mine in discussion. If your simply do not want to discuss but just eliminate whatever you don't like I will have to start and edit war to attract the attention of some administrators on this matter. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Silvio, don't make jokes with me. I have no time for craps.
 * You edit section about modern population in the city, with Italians who were here in some historical moment!?
 * You use primary source, which means that it is your original research. Secondary sources must be used and secondary sources show irrelevance of that primary source! It's been explained to you and you were directed to read it in Archive 3. This is not new topic! These things were already resolved amnog Croatian and Italian wikipedians. You just fell from Mars and now you are trying to start this dispute once again. No way.
 * Until this moment you have shown absolute ignorance about the matter. You don't know even the basic facts abot history of Croatia and its regions and people. What makes you think you can contribute here if your knowledge is so narrow?
 * Finally, you say you are not an irredentist, I would like to believe you, but you insist on using typical distorted irredentistic arguments!? Don't you think it would be much more fair if you first get better informed? I know history, archaeology etc. about Dalmatia and Zadar in details, you can not imagine how much into details, but I can not write all book here for you. It's not on me to teach you, I have no time. Zenanarh (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I normally do not speak crap. Perhaps you should rephrase your wording. In my last edit I reported the composition of the population of the city in the XIX century section according to the census 1890 - 1910. This is quite logical and pertinent, and gives elements to better understand the existing sentence "There are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period". Indeed my modification cannot be qualified of "irredentistic POV" because I clearly states that Italian speaking poupulation was NOT the majority of Zadar county. Concerning the second part of your reply I have gone trough the talk and it looks that the matter remained unsolved. Indeed, there was a prevalence of users with your opinion but wiki is not a dictature of the majority and there was no consensus voted about this matter. IMHO my last proposal is fairly balanced. I think it deserves more careful consideration and I hope it will get it from other users. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your approach from the beggining is absolute bias. Your changes are directed to "prove something" and not to describe or explain something. You have idea that ethnic Italians made a majority of population in the city during the 19th century and your edits are a sort of evidence. It is wrong. What must be done is description of the real political situation in the city as reflection of political situation in the province, and its consequences reflected to spoken language or identity. Your changes are not objective, your changes are one way ticket to new conflicts.
 * About your "reading" and "understanding" of Archive 3: it was not any kind of dictature of majority, it was discussion with arguments, it was "scientific source against prejudice".

Zenanarh (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

3rd opinion requested
Zenanarh you have even not read my modification. In my modification I clearly said that the people speaking Italian in Zadar county (I clearly avoided any reference to ethnicity) were NOT the majority. Where is the POV and the irredentism? It seems you live this thing of the Italian irredentism as an obsession. If it is the case you are about 80 years late. Perhaps someone else will go trough this edit and will give an additional opinion. I am open to change everything but I only firmly insist that data from official census should be reported in the article. Perhpas someone can give a look to my contribution made at 22:38, 16 December 2011 and judge about its neutrality. I am not going to rollback again, I have no time for this. The community will judge about it. This is only the 1st stage of the request of a 3rd opinion. I have not posted yet a formal request, because I prefere the previous contributors of this page to give a look to this contribution of mine. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, I have just formally posted a request for 3rd opinion. IMHO the official austro-hungarian 1890-1910 census are an acceptable source to explain the social situation in the city in the XIX century. I remain open to any possible compromise about the way to enter in the article facts from this source and, with the all due respect, I hope the discussion will move to more civilized ground. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem Silvio. But don't act like a saint. These censi certainly don't explain social situation in the city, it's been explained but you have completely ignored it and you act like you don't understand it. Also, you werent't and you aren't open to any possible compromise about... until this moment and what you have shown is your bias exclusively. I'm glad you posted a request for 3rd opinion. Zenanarh (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, I have requested many time to find a compromise on this matter. On the 17 December 2011 16:07 (UTC)I posted a last request to find this compromise and include other people in the discussion. There was no answer from your side. Indeed I think this would still be possible. Please give a look to the my last contribution that was completely refused. There is something good in it. Of course it can be improved but IMHO it's not 100% to refuse. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You haven't requested any compromise on this matter at all. You haven't even tried to learn or understand what was situation in the city in the 19th century, which is clearly seen in your contribution. What you've posted on the 17 December 2011 16:07 (UTC) is nothing to answer to.
 * I saw your last contribution and I can say only 2 things: 1. it is completely wrong, it is non-scientific manipulation with data and it is childish to turn all subsection of the 19th century history of the city into story about a few censi, like there is nothing else to be written about that period in the city - it's much more important to explain processes and occasions, as well as complex political situation in the city, than to produce a political pamphlet which is your obvious intention (I would like to believe it's not, but you haven't shown anything else); 2. it is your WP:OR. Zenanarh (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My request for a 3rd opinion has remained unheard. I guess that during this period of the year most of the people have better to do than caring of wikipedia. I cannot blame them. I am re-inserting my last contribution. Please feel free to make as much modifications as you feel appropriate and do not hesitate to start a fair confrontation based on facts. I deeply hope that we will not start an edit war on it. We can make better than it. The reason of the modification is describing with quantitative numbers what was the situation in Zadar by the end of XIX century. If you believe the data of that census are false or can be contested, please write adding the relevant sources. Also, if you want to write, adding the due sources, that such population speaking Italian was not native but immigrated feel free to do so. As the article it is today, does not describe with any number the quantitive proportions of the people speking Croatian, Italian, German and Hungarian at that time. Also as the article it is it looks that all Italian speaking population in Zadar arrived after 1920 and this is not true. It is also not true that such population was the majority of Zadar county (as some irrendentists want to believe). Very merely they existed and a fair article on the history of the city shoud report it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm probably your request has remained unheard because there is nothing to be heard. I've tried to help you get better acquainted with the matter but it has remained unheard by you. Practically, there is no real dispute here. You are just another broken record repeating always same 3 words.
 * Whatever, I will surely edit these 2 history sections (Venetian rule and 19th century) and finish job which I've started 3 yrs ago, but not this way, struggling with you over stupid detail. I have a lot of literature and scientific papers and I prefer doing it the other way. I will first check papers and then decide what is important and what is not. Then I'll edit. There is not enouh space for every document and explanation of it. It would take 1.000 kms of text. There is no so many space here. Zenanarh (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we understand that you decide what is correct and what is not as unique arbiter of the dispute? Should we also undersrtand that you decide which information have to be censured and what is stupid and what is not? Should I believe that everything written in my books about the history of Coastal Dalmatia is wrong and false? The information I have added can certainly be improved but report facts. I do not want to go in the direction of being blocked but I want an administrator to get interested to the matter so I have no option but keeping rollbacking my modification. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I'm in response of your request for a third opinion. I am currently reviewing this talk page and should come up with a response in the near future. Whenaxis (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion decision
If you have any questions please place them below. Whenaxis (talk)


 * As per WP:NCGN, the lead (starting line) should have applicable languages follow in parentheses.


 * Copy/paste from WP:NCGN:


 * The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period,  should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.
 * The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, eg: Gulf of Finland (Soome laht; Suomenlahti; Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea.
 * Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1).
 * 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. Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. Other relevant language names may appear in alphabetic order of their respective languages — i.e., (Suomenlahti; Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv; Finska viken; Soome laht). Separate languages should be separated by semicolons.
 * 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; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
 * In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names )". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
 * Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".


 * ??? Zenanarh (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, as per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, I would maintain the revision by User:Sylvio1973


 * I'm shocked. History section about 19th century has 19 lines of text, maintaing the revision by User:Sylvio1973 means that 11 lines are only about censi, a half of all paragraph?! In that section many things should be written, political occasions, industrial development, culture etc. 19th century was period of changes in the city, it is not secret that number of Italians increased during the second half of the 19th century, but it must be put in context of time and political changes in province and explained how it happened and why, in the same time censi are not absolutely relevant what is proved by the other documents and should not be shown like this, without any criticism. Also, these censi are primary source, while sentences in introduction of censi is original research of Silvio. A lot of scientific material has been written about it and none of it is used. Now if I add explanation for these censi it will take another 22 additional lines and we will have all this section about a few censi only. That’s not how this history section should look like. Putting these censi in text as Silvio wants is introduction into future edit wars – it is exactly what I want to stop. If you maintain the revision by Silvio you maintain future edit wars. You can not stop it in that case, because these censi shown out of context are usually used by nationalists and their propaganda. It is not scientific and encyclopedic approach!
 * City of Zadar has very rich history and how this section looks like at the moment is not history of the 19th century. By 60% (11 of 19) it is one historical document taken out of context. How can any serious wikipedian maintain such building of text? Especially since secondary sources (scientific works) interpret these documents! We must use interpretation of the scientists and not naked primary sources in our own interpretation. I cannot accept such 3rd opinion because it is superficial and given by someone who didn’t try to dive into the matter, also it is diametrically opposite to wiki policies. It’s hard to me to understand on what basis this 3rd opinion is given. I want explanation!
 * I’ve suggested Silvio to read discussion in Archive 3, Whenaxis have you read it? Zenanarh

(talk) 14:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, you are the first one to admit that all those people speaking Italian where present in Zadar already during the 19th century. Is it not possible to find a civilised and mutually agreed way to report this is the article? --Silvio1973 (talk)


 * Hello. I apologize as the many edits and the lengthy conversation above confused me a little bit. Now that you mention it, it was indeed your edit that I wanted to keep so I edited my final third opinion above. Whenaxis (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, I would invite you to ask for explanations about 3rd opinion request with milder tones, avoiding if possible words such as propaganda and nationalism. Again, my intention is to create consensus over this item.

Whenaxis, my request for 3rd opinion was not about my contribution. This would be quite embarassing, because you have the right not to completely agree or disagree on 11 lines of text. My request is to receive an opinion about the acceptability or not of the official Austro-Hungarian 1890, 1900 and 1910 censi. Based on the answer there would be a (civilised I hope) discussion on the way to report such information in the article. If I understand well your final opinion above, it consists of two parts:
 * Concerning the name discussion, you assess that only the English should be reported in the starting line (namely Zenanarh's). I have no comment on this proposal.
 * Concerning the other modification on Zadar's 19th century history, you assess that current modification is acceptable (namely Silvio1973's). Please for the sake of clarity please confirm or not this understanding.


 * I am ready - provided the acceptability of mentionend census is admitted - to agree with Zenanarh a text that will create general consensus on the article.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, waiting the clarification from Whenaxis I have already a proposal that should solve the issue of excessive length of the insertion. It is hereafter, it takes only additional 2 lines and report the relevant source. You are welcome to make your modifications.

Silvio1973 (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period. However, according to Austro-Hungarian official census statistics, the majority of the people living inside the city walls spoke Italian. The census also shows that outside the city walls the Italian presence was significant, but was fare from being the majority of the entire Zadar county.
 * You didn't read Archive 3 at all? Zenanarh (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I did. Definitely I did. If the issue is to find a secondary source citing the censi this is not an issue. The issue is clarifying - I agree without getting into details - the structure of population in the past. As it is now the article, it just open a debate without giving any answer. This is not an encyclopedia! --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read it, why does your proposal look like you didn't? I won't fight with you in the article just because you can't read English. When you get your clarification, undo your revision. Zenanarh (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, I have not requested a 3rd opinion on my modification. This would be senseless. I required a 3rd opinion on the acceptability of the austro-hungarian censi.

I want to stress that I went to university exactly as very likely you did. There is a significant difference in the way the history of Dalmatia is seen in Croatia and out of Croatia. This is not your fault or mine. Perfect neutrality does not exist, this is the reason why you should perhaps sometime reconsider that your sources are not the only ones. Perhaps we can help in getting things more consensual.

I am right now re-adapting my modification because the argument that you report - i.e. excessive length of my modification compared to the rest of the text - is fair. I leave to the reader to get to a conclusion going trough the sources. IMHO this is a fair approach. But we cannot not give to the reader the opportunity to go trough official numbers about the population structure. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is necessary to have the censi information within the page itself. The cited source that you have provided is suffice enough. Whenaxis (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whenaxis, Silvio didn't cite any source, he has provided same primary source - censi, and he has editted his own conlusion about it - it is WP:OR. At talk page - archive 3, there was debate about population of Zadar in this period, I have used 2 scientific works dealing with this subject directly - "Populacijski razvoj Zadra" ("Zadar Population Development"), Vera Graovac, Department of Geography, University of Zadar, UDK: 314.8(497.5 Zadar)) and "O broju Talijana/Talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. Stoljeća" ("Concerning the number of Italians/pro-Italians in Dalmatia in the XIXth century"), Šime Peričić, Department for history science HAZU in Zadar, UDK 949.75:329.7”19”Dalmacija. I've asked Silvio to take a look there several times. He didn't. Instead of becoming familiar with this subject, he insists on Austrian censi and his own conclusion about it. It is unacceptable and opposite to wiki policies. So there are 2 problems: bias and inadequate source. Zenanarh (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, I requested 3rd opinion, I have rearranged the text and the tones to makes it as much as neutral and acceptable. I have accepted this 3rd opinion but this discussion is hopeless. You cannot accept only what is convenient for you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have rearranged absolutely nothing. You are playing dumb. You are so insolent that you even manipulate with what is said or written just a few lines above. Zenanarh (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At the last edit by Silvio1973 that I saw on December 27, there was cited source to Google Books. . However, Zenanarh reverted Silvio1973's edit. Because of constant reversions between both of you, I believe that certain sanctions should be placed on this article if this is not resolved. Here is my proposal:


 *  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. 


 * Keep the text the same but use the reference so it is cited. Whenaxis (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Whenaxis, firstly please be ensured I appreciate your help in this dispute during X-mas time. In principle I do not see if a source is acceptable why some brief explanations could not be added. Unfortunately, this discussion has gone very torn-out and we need to get to a consensus. I welcome your proposal with a very minor modification (see below), as a first step. However, any further development will require contribution from users others than Zenanarh and myself. I encourage other contributors to bring additional acceptable sources to make the view on this item as much as comprehensive is possible. Who is going to modificate the article? To exclude any further discussion, can you do it directly?


 * My proposal is : :: 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 different sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period. Namely, the 1910 official austro-hungarian census affirms that Italians were the majority within the city walls, but represented only 28% of Zadar county. http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHSS&CISOPTR=32528&REC=16&CISOSHOW=32386 

Said that I need to stress that I start to feel verbally assaulted by the tones used by Zenanarh. If you go trough the discussion you can see how calm and open to the compromise I was. In exchange of this I have been qualified of "insolent", "irrendentistic", "manipulator", "distorted", "childish" and so on. I do not have to take this and if does continue I will have to ask for some help. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot edit or change the page until both you and Zenanarh agree upon an edit that can be placed. Because Wikipedia works on consensus building, I cannot be the sole person to make a decision based on this dispute. I am here to provide an opinion on the matter and try to resolve the dispute. I am open and happy to continue to resolve this dispute, however, if uncivil accusations continue or if this dispute cannot be successfully resolved, I will need to take appropriate actions on your behalf. For now, we have to wait for a response by Zenanarh. Yours truly, Whenaxis (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair explanation. For the time being in order to calm down things I am not going to make any modification. Let's wait for Zenanarh reply. I genuinely believe there is room to find an agreement. In order to make things crystal clear. I can cite two sources about Zadar's population:

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHSS&CISOPTR=32528&REC=16&CISOSHOW=32386
 * Full 1900 census available at page 82 of the following link:
 * 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 - Unione Italiana Fiume-Università Popolare di Trieste - Trieste-Rovigno 1993. In this book at pages 451-454 you can find data from 1869 till 1936 about Zadar's population.

I might be able to provide the scan of thoses pages and you will see that they report exactly the numbers contained in the 1900 census. This should be enough to entrust the figures contained in this book genuine. Also this book is clearly a secondary source, this should satisfy Zenanarh. It is important to stress that these sources clearly state that Italian community was fare from being the majority in all Zadar's county. On the other hand they quantify that it was a significant minority (about 28% of overall population). --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Whenaxis, Zenanarh is currently active on en:wiki but for some reasons does not want to enter again in the discussion, perhaps because the current version of the article is convenient for him. How much time should we reasonably wait before changing the page? I must confess that I am (fortunately) new to this kind of situation. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Silvio, don't be funny. I didn't forget this debate, don't worry, however, I have no so much free time to patrol here constantly. I saw Whenaxis' proposal (28 December 2011 (UTC)) and I can support it in general, but only as temporary solution, since primary source is used as reference for something which is not defined by the same source. What will be edited is still question of our consensus, I will reply fully in 2 days, because it's impossible to do it in 5 minutes, but this is not moment, New Year is coming, until then, I wish you all the best, to both of you or anyone who reads, I've forgotten to wish you happy Xmas, I'm doing it now. Cheers. Zenanarh (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenanarh, I would like to go for a stable solution to this matter even if this will be not be necesserely of my taste.
 * My proposal is : :: 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 different sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period. Namely, the 1910 official austro-hungarian census affirms that Italians were the majority within the city walls, but represented only 28% of Zadar county. http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHSS&CISOPTR=32528&REC=16&CISOSHOW=32386 

It is fair and does not claim that Zadar county was populated by a majority of Italians (instead of what some irredentists think). Happy new year. Concerning the primary and secondary source, the book from Guerrino Perselli is secondary source. I know it is Italian source and English would be better, but there are plenty of Croatian source in the article, hence I think there is also room for Italian sources. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I will be on vacation from January 2 to 6, for that reason, I may not be able to respond as promptly and quickly as I would hope. However, I highly suggest using my solution like Zenanarh said as a temporary solution as at the article's current state there is no cited source within the disputed paragraph. Both of you are welcome to continue to suggest ideas until a decision can be agreed upon. HAPPY NEW YEAR! Best of luck,  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 22:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Very fair Whenaxis. Zenanarh, you can see the solution I propose and the sources added on support. Feel free to make a proposal. I know that in the end we will not fully like the final product of the compromise. Indeed, this is the essence of the compromise. I am sure we will be clever enough to get there. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Involved Parties
Zenanarh Silvio1973

Whenaxis (third party dispute resolver)

Statement by Zenanarh
Before getting into the organic matter of our conflict, I want to explain my position in discussion. I’ve already said, now I repeat: I don’t believe in such building of an article about history of a city in an encyclopedia based on conflict over detail such as interpretation of some selective historical document, wiki article format doesn’t allow us such accommodation. I cannot support Silvio’s version -> WP:OR. It is simply not allowed here. We should be encyclopedians and not original researchers. Silvio wrote: This is not an encyclopedia!. Silvio, this is encyclopedia online, it is dynamic, it is edited by the volunteers, but still, it is encyclopedia. We are directed to use typical encyclopedic methodology, that’s what wiki polices are. We should be the reporters with responsibility of the reporters and not the scientists who are writing their dissertation based on some kind of consensus. That also means that we must take historical methodology into consideration when we write about history and when we are balancing sources to determine their relation. Encyclopedia informs about chess stalemate position if there is chess stalemate position, but if one source is disputed by the other successfully with no adequate counter-reply, then... we cannot cite every scientist who have contributed to the matter in all generations. This is not a symposium. Therefore:


 * We must edit section about all what was history of the city during 19th century and not only about a few censi taken out of context or put into context by a sentence construction produced from our conflict and final consensus in the talk - it would be selective and non-informative insight into 19th century history of the city.


 * Our subject should be inbuilt into text as organic part of it and presented / referenced by quality secondary sources – scientific works. If there is conflict between sources we should weigh it here and not in the article paragraph – it must inform about history and not about our conflict.

So please stop with crying. From the beginning, I’m inviting you to get better informed about subject (2 topics at the end of Archive 3, especially the last one ) and about wiki policies you are in direct conflict with, I can link a several of my attempts for both, but you keep on ignoring my calls and your level is still the same – your own conclusion about a few documents. For any kind of consensus you must change your approach, by means of our communication and your frankness and by means of level of our debate.
 * Our communication. I’m sorry Silvio if I called you some bad names, like ignorant, if it is bad at all concerning your real knowledge on the subject, nothing personally, but for the rest - you are not open as you are trying to present yourself lately. I didn’t accuse you of irredentism directly, I wrote: ...But irredentistic side of a story is simply unacceptable because it is not objective and is based on selective data and manipulation with data... and ...Finally, you say you are not an irredentist, I would like to believe you, but you insist on using typical distorted irredentistic arguments!? Don't you think it would be much more fair if you first get better informed?... and ...it's much more important to explain processes and occasions, as well as complex political situation in the city, than to produce a political pamphlet which is your obvious intention (I would like to believe it's not, but you haven't shown anything else).
 * As for my allusions on Italian Irredentism, info to Whenaxis as neutral party, I didn’t use it to discriminate Silvio, my intention was to bring Silvio to his senses. That movement is still alive in Italy to some degree in some minor political circles, which is then reflected in a part of Italian literature, but disproportionately wider. This problem emerged in the 19th century when Italian Irredentist Movement culminated which largely influenced approach of the 19th century Italian historians who were mostly using publications of some Autonomic Party members in Damatia concerning Dalmatia. The Autonomists represented minor part of population (2-5%) of the Italians, pro-Italian Croats and Croats whose political goal was autonomy of the province, they were also privileged with administrative positions and Italian language as official language in administration and education. As all politicians in the world, they manipulated, to save their privileged position, their opponents The People’s Party represented 95-98% of province population and fought for majority in the Senate (!), for Croatian as the official language as well as education in Croatian, which they finally succeeded in the 2nd half of the 19th century and for final political union of the Croatian lands shared by the Austrian and Hungarian authorities to be controlled more easily in that moment. Unfortunately, modern Italian authors usually base their works on older generations of the Italian authors, so some imbalanced data is coming through from the older Italian literature to more modern one. The most of Italians are not well informed about it, Italian presence in Dalmatia fulfills the minor part of their overall historiography, so it is possible that someone believes, but doesn’t really know. Irredentistic claims on Dalmatia, based on selective data (one typical is non-critical presentation of Austrian censi 1880-1910, no matter if Silvio is councious about it or not) are direct nationalistic attack on Croatian nationality by all means of chauvinism and even fascism in some cases and this is why it is very sensible question for the Croats. Wikipedia cannot support such extreme views nor serve as propaganda tool. That was my idea and not to offense Silvio. I tried to warn him, not accuse him. There is no real political conflict between Italy and Croatia in reality, just marginal argues between individuals, due to imbalance between sources in 2 languages and we don’t have to encourage it. I don’t believe that our consensus can be balance between statement with chauvinistic elements (exclusiveness given to one document without criticism and wishy wish interpretation) from one and reply in set of statements of the scientists from the other (imposed exclusiveness given to one document is not lost).

Silvio, I’m not trying to patronize you this way, I’m trying to help you get better informed about background of our conflict which is far more than we can resolve. But I believe we can resolve what position of encyclopedia can be. This is about my position in debate in general. Tommorrow I'll concentrate on sources and arguments dealing directly with our subject. Silvio, no hard feelings! Regards Zenanarh (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Silvio1973
Whenaxis, first of all thank you for your help. There are currently no other issues other than the ones you have mentioned. There is a long discussion going on [Giorgio da Sebenico] involving many parties, including Zenanarh and myself, but I have taken the personal decision to move out of it because the discussion has moved out of the border of normality. Let's move on the matter of the articles Zadar and Luciano Laureana. I will try to be more focused on the precise issues.

Zadar The current version of the article report the sentence:

''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 different sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period.''

My request is to extend (briefly) the text including some additional information. The new wished text is:

''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 different sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period. Namely, the 1910 official austro-hungarian census affirms that Italians were the majority within the city walls, but represented only 28% of Zadar county.''

The two sources that I can provide in support are: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/FHSS&CISOPTR=32528&REC=16&CISOSHOW=32386
 * Full 1900 census available at page 82 of the following link:
 * 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 - Unione Italiana Fiume-Università Popolare di Trieste - Trieste-Rovigno 1993. In this book at pages 451-454 you can find data from 1869 till 1936 about Zadar's population.

I can provide the scan of the book to show my source is genuine. Also this book is a secondary source and this should satisfy Zenanarh. The argument that the source is Italian seems ineffective because the current article uses plenty of Croatian sources. Please note that I am writing that the Italian community was fare from being the majority in all Zadar's county. How could be qualified of "irredentistic" such a modification? And of course Zenanarh is free and welcome to propose an alternative to this proposal.

Luciano Laurana At the beginning the article was claiming that this architect was, according to sources, Croatian or Italian. The claim that he is Italian is supported by two very reputable NON ITALIAN sources (amongst many others):
 * Chilvers, Ian. The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists. Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 45.
 * Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.

The claim that he is Croatian is supported by two CROATIAN sources:
 * Lucijan Vranjanin (Luciano Laurana), Ivana Prijatelj Pavičić, Croatica Hrvatski udio u svijetskoj baštini, Neven Budak, Zagreb, 2007, ISBN: 953-12-0351-2, pages 182-187
 * Arhitekt Lucijan Vranjanin Luciano Laurana, Andrija Mutnjaković, Zagreb, 2003, ISBN 953-6271-51-6, page 363

Of course, the Croatian claim has created some disagreement and tension. In effect, in view of the level of tension existing on Dalmatia related articles, it is of the most paramount importance that the neutrality of the sources is out of discussion. Indeed in such situation, Italian and Croatian sources are not the best for this objective; international/english sources should be preferred. I have requested Zenanarh to justify the Croatian origin of Luciano Laurana with a non Croatian source. Zenanarh's answer has been to delete completely the Italian origin reference (despite the seriousness of the sources in support). My request is to return the previous version but I kindly urge Zenanarh to provide a source in support of his/her claim.

As a side note I need to report that Zenanarh's affirmation: Irredentistic claims on Dalmatia, based on selective data (one typical is non-critical presentation of Austrian censi 1880-1910, no matter if Silvio is conscious about it or not) are direct nationalistic attack on Croatian nationality by all means of chauvinism and even fascism in some cases and this is why it is very sensible question for the Croats. shows very well what is the attitude of some Croatian contributors. I can only regret this attitude but I need to precise that many users have already retired from Wikipedia because are unfamiliar with this approach. Also I kindly ask Zenanarh to remain on the matter of the discussion and to have a more polite wording when speaking of myself. I am not a member of his/her family, neither one of his/her friends. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion resolution
Leave article the way it is.  Whenaxis  talk contribs 02:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we will try to resolve the dispute that has gone unaccomplished through a failed mediation then a third opinion then an attempt to mitigate this problem with a notice board for edit warring. For now it seems as of though the disputes have calmed down but like I warned you earlier, continued edit warring will lead to blocks and if continued uncivility and lack of ability to resolve disputes, I will have no choice but to file an arbitration proceeding with lasting sanctions. I have moved the discussion to my own namespace area to save space and time of the two disputed pages: Zadar and Luciano. Are there any other discussions that you two are arguing about because we should resolve everything now once and for all.  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello. First let me express my fear – I doubt that moving discussion to this page will be helpful. Isn’t it better that it stays where it belongs - Zadar talk page? That way it would be a kind of reference for future disputes of the same kind. This way it stays isolated here and not available on first sight to interested parties now or in the future. On the other side there are already 4 archives of such struggle in Zadar talk and it doesn't help too much - Silvio ignores it. So I'm not absolutely sure what to think. During ’08 and ’09 Zadar article and few others about Dalmatia were already under heavy attacks of a few Italian nationalists, who were all banned indefinitely, after long and exhausting debates and mediations, however it didn’t stop them, they continued to produce series of sock puppets, things calmed down during ’10 and the most of ’11. When Silvio appeared first I thought he was just one more attempt of User:Giovanni Giove to make a mess again - edit warring, repeating always same 3 words in discussion, uncapability to get into real debate with arguments, reverting the opponent’s well referenced contribution with comment "provide source", same choice of articles – exclusively those which are usually "proccessed" by the Italian Irredentists, but I can't be sure and I don't want suspect Silvio for nothing, especially if he's not Giove. Zenanarh (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Users can see on the discussion page that the dispute has moved to this page.  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 13:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Zenanarh
<-- Please cite any violations of Wikipedia policies in this section --> Proof of Silvio1973's original research and how it is interpreted as original research rather than a reliable secondary source

Silvio’s proposal:


 * 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 different sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in Zadar in this period. Namely, the 1910 official Austro-Hungarian census affirms that Italians were the majority within the city walls, but represented only 28% of Zadar county.

Just a few sentences but too many problems. And my problem is how to present complex situation in Dalmatia and its capital Zadar in short to both of you, Whenaxis as neutral mediator and Silvio as involved party of poor knowledge on the matter.
 * Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians.

Situation in Dalmatia and Zadar was not really division between the Italians and the Croats. It was much more complex. It was much more like social segregation based on use of 2 languages, Croatian and Italian but not on 2 ethnicities.

It all started in period of Venetian authority in Dalmatia (1409-1797). In 1409 Dalmatia with no Italian (or Venetian) settlers became a part of Venetian Republic (traditional enemy of the Dalmatians) since Ladislaus of Naples unable to run big kingdom (Hungaro-Croatian Kingdom) had sold his rights on Dalmatia to Venice. Some small number of Venetians moved from Venice to Zadar as the employees of the Republic administration. From the beginning their goal was social separation; Venetian dialect of Italian language became administrative language and was supposed to be the language of the elite. First what they did was taking 40 hostages from all Zadar noble families to prevent revolt of Zadar people, the most of them died in Venetian prisons. However, Italianization didn’t take a place in the city and the rest of province, it was not settled by the Italians, it was economically exploited to serve Venice - rising economical giant in the Adriatic. Also from the 16th century a large inland part of province was occupied by the Turks and there was war ongoing in the backyard of the cities. It was simply not desirable destination to move to. By time only noblemen in Zadar and other cities adopted Italian language to save their privileges and properties. Venetian trade unionist Giovanni Battista Giustiniani traveled across Dalmatia in 1553, from one to another city sending reports to the Great Council of Venice. He noted that noone spoke and understood Venetian language except Venetian administrators and a few Venetian merchants in Zadar, while all domestic population spoke Croatian language exclusively, except the noblemen (all the natives) who were able to speak it and who dressed in Venetian fashion. In the same century Zadar was the main center of Croatian Literary Reinessance. However the only printing office in the city was property of the Venetian family and printing in Croatian language was not allowed; interestingly it was why first novel in Croatian language - "Planine" by Zadar novelist P. Preradović was not printed at home in Zadar, but in Venice, where noone cared about language in a book. How many Venetians were in Zadar?

There were Venetian population censi from 1500 and later, among the other things carried through to determine the number of the local males capable for mobilization into fleet and army (thanks to their many centuries long sea-faring and ship-building tradition, the Croats made huge number of the sailors in the Venetian fleets and almost all army in wars against the Turks). According to 1527 census, 90% of 8051 Zadar people were Croats. During the 1st half of the 17th century, there was enormous depopulation of the city and surrounding due to war against Turks and plague. Venetian authorities tried to repopulate the city and prevent constant decrease of the city population, by stopping exodus of domestic Croatian population from the city and its close surrounding hit by the war, by bringing back those of them who escaped to the islands and by bringing new settlers from Italy into the city. In 1608 list, 75% of 5784 Zadar people was Croatian, the rest were the immigrants from Italy, Albania and Greece. But the city population didn’t increase to the end of the century; 1695 census (2804 citizens) shows decrease by the 52% in relation to 1608 (5803 citizens), due to 2 Venetian  - Turkish wars, Candian and Morean, demographic movements were largely influenced (suffering in the war, hunger, emigration, high mortality of the males especially). At the beginning of the 18th century the Turks were driven off, wars stopped but all region was heavily devastated and general economical scene was disastrous. Thanks to somewhat more peaceful political situation, the number of the citizens increased to the end of the century (by 57%), mostly due to native immigration from the islands, but also from the inland, the other Dalmatian cities and Italy.
 * /V. Graovac, "Populacijski razvoj Zadra", Odjel za geografiju, Sveučilište u Zadru, UDK: 314.8(497.5 Zadar), pages 53-59 ("Population development of Zadar", Department of Geography, University of Zadar)/

Concerning the people of the Italian ancestry in the city, the most of them came during the 17th and the 18th century, also in the 17th century first Italian nobleman joined Zadar nobility, but the most of these Italian immigrants also left Zadar and Dalmatia by the fall of the Venetian Republic (1797). However, some number stayed, they enjoyed all privileges, administrative positions, they made cultural and political elite in the city, but finally, this elite was not made of the Italians by ancestry only, a number of the ethnic Croats was a part of them too and Italian language in public communication was their symbol of differentiation to the rest of citizenship (BTW, 2 years before the fall of the Republic, the Venetian authorities closed down the University of Zadar established in 1358 - real Italianization never took a place in the city during their rule and it was constantly repopulated from its surrounding so they tried to obstruct education in Croatian language). This is extremely important to understand real composition of ethnicities in the next century (the 19th) in relation to use of languages. This is also reason why exactly language became main issue of the political fight in the 19th century in Dalmatian Senate. 2 sides in political conflict were the Autonomists and Populists. Not the Italians and the Croats! Many Autonomists were not the Italians at all, they were Croats, Serbs, "Italo-Slavs", in fact the most of them were pro-Italian natives, which was clearly seen in their Slavic names and surnames. That’s why we have to speak about Italians/pro-Italians when we speak about the Autonomists. Differentiation Croats / Italians is superficiality impossible to relate to any kind of reality in Dalmatia in the 19th century, concerning spoken language.
 * Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats and the Italians...

The city was certainly not divided between the Croats and the Italians. This is huge stupidity. It was divided by social segregation which was reflected in use of language, administrative elite (no matter of real individual ethnicity) forced use of Italian language to distinguish themselves from the rest and to save their privileged positions, the masses wanted to establish Croatian language as the native and traditionally spoken in all province for centuries. More simplified: in the beginning of the 19th century the Italian speaker was a member of elite, well educated the owner of the properties and carrier of cultural and political life in the city, Croatian speaker was a member of masses (95-98% of population of province), low educated and oppressed politically and economically.


 * ...both of whom founded their respective political parties

If differentiation by language had nothing to do with differentiation Croats / Italians, then also foundation of "their" respective parties had nothing to do with that kind of ethnic differentiation.

From the fall of Venetian Republic (1797) to 1918 Zadar played important role in province of Dalmatia as its capital. Main target of Austrian politics in Dalmatia was to isolate it from its background. Therefore Italian language was established as the official and immigration of the Italians was stimulated / incited. In spite of rural exodus and economical immigration of the domestic population from the surrounding and immigration of numerous Austrian and Italian administrators and merchants, population in the city stagnated due to low natural population increase. Habsburg Monarchy organized first population census in 1857. When Austro-Hungarian Monarchy lost provinces of Lombardia and Venetia, large number of administrators from these provinces, mainly Italians, were sent to Istria and Dalmatia, in the 2nd half of the 19th century, especially to Zadar as the main center of province Dalmatia. Ethnic and social structure of the city was significantly influenced by this immigration in the next decencies. Although the Croats made majority of the city population, Italian language predominated gradually. According to censi from 1880 to 1910, around 95% of Dalmatian population expressed themselves as Croatian speakers and only 2-3% as the Italian speakers, which was result of national awakening in Croatian lands. However, Zadar was bastion of the Autonomic Party and Pro-Italianism, with significant Italian element, so around 15% of population in Zadar municipality expressed as Italian speakers. On basis of percent of those who expressed Italian language as their mother language, Diklić (1994) has stated that more than a half of all Dalmatian Italians lived in Zadar in 1910, but it was more likely that a part of Zadar Croatian population chose Italian language as their own, which was attested with fact that 50% of Zadar population was from its close surrounding by ancestry, 30% from the rest of Dalmatia and only 15-20% from Italy at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century.
 * /V. Graovac, "Populacijski razvoj Zadra", Odjel za geografiju, Sveučilište u Zadru, UDK: 314.8(497.5 Zadar, pages 59-62) ("Population development of Zadar", Department of Geography, University of Zadar)/

As you can see, censi 1880-1910 shown what language dominated in the city in that period (as reflection of social and not ethnic segregation) and not who made majority by ethnical or national key.


 * Namely, the 1910 official Austro-Hungarian census affirms that Italians were the majority within the city walls, but represented only 28% of Zadar county.

Silvio’s proposal offers his own conclusion directly opposite to this scientific analysis. It is not Croatian vs Italian source, forget about that kind of division, it is Silvio about Zadar vs University of Zadar about Zadar! Or some poor unsaid source vs quality analysis published by the University of Zadar. Also, because of phrase within the city walls I can see that Silvio has no idea what this city looked like and what was city area in the 19th century or how rich and poor quarters were distributed in the city area in that century. It had nothing to do with inside or outside the city walls.


 * << Sorry about possible grammatical errors, I’m not native English speaker. I’m not finished with this section yet. Next 2 days I’m going to present another source of the same publisher (University of Zadar) to explain political situation in relation to ethnical composition in the city and province in the 19th century. It is impossible to speak about nationalities or ethnicities without understanding the politics in this case. And it is extremely important here. I know this is long exposition, but there is no other way, all of us must know what are we talking about to find the best solution. Whenaxis said: we should resolve everything now once and for all. – and I like this call, but it doesn’t leave me free space to drop any important fact, no matter how much time it takes. Please don’t reply to this section before I finish it. Thanks in advance. >>

To be continued... Zenanarh (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Šime Peričić, "O broju Talijana/Talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. stoljeća", Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, 2002, Zadar, UDK 949.75:329.7”19”Dalmacija ("About number of Italians/pro-Italians in Dalmatia in the XIXth century", Croatian Academy of Science and Arts, Department for history science, Zadar)

pages 327-351:

Questions of language and number of the Italians and pro-Italians occupied political scene of Dalmatia in the 19th century, these were subjects of constant argue between 2 politically opposed sides – Autonomist and Populist all times to WWI. From then especially the Italians have been insisting on this question, to prove justification of occupation of the Croatian coast promised to fascist Italy by Treaty of London (1918). Many Italian authors were writing about it, mostly Giotto Danielli (1917, 1918, 1919), but also R. Benini (1918), Attilio Tamaro (1915, 1919) and many others. All of them claimed that Dalmatia was "country, which during 2.000 years was exclusively and only Italian in all its civilization expressions". Italian irredentism was/is based on idea that the Italians (modern settlers of the Italian peninsula and members of modern Italian nationality) had/have rights on the European lands once composed into the Roman Empire (1st-5th century). Italian Irredentism was introduction and basis for Italian Fascism in the 20th century. It was fascism before fascism.

Austrian government ordered (1815) provincial administrations to use "the language commonly used in the provincial land courts", which meant Croatian language in Dalmatia but Italian administration in Zadar settled there after Venetian and short French rule, made a forgery, they changed words "language commonly used" with "idioma italiano" (Italian language) in the document and deceived the central government which on the other side didn’t care too much, it actually satisfied their politics of weakening and sharing Croats with Hungary. That way, after the most of the Venetian "crew" had gone, Italian minority which came mostly during first Austrian and following French government (1795-1815) held the most influent positions in administration, courts, schools, church and the economics of all province and their goal was to keep status quo as longer as possible.

At the end of the 18th and in the beginning of the 19th century, after fall of the Republic of Venice, some Italian politicians classified Dalmatia into interest sphere of their political wishes and imaginations, like imaginary so-called Republic of Auzonia (1918). These Italian imperial aspirations encouraged the Autonomists in Dalmatia. But Nikola Tommaseo (spiritus movens of the Autonomist Party) first stood against such aspirations and Italian imperial pretensions and stated that the most of Dalmatian settlers were not Italian speakers (1839), those who spoke Italian in Dalmatia "must be hanged up" (1840) metaphorically, but later under influence of political fight in the Dalmatian Senate he changed his position and opposed unification of Dalmatia (under Austria) to the rest of Croatia (under Hungary) and agitated for use of Italian language in Dalmatia (1861). However, at the end of his career after Croatian language had become equal to Italian officially, he once again changed position and started to prove that there were no Italians in Dalmatia and that Dalmatia was not a land of Italian culture. The 18th - 19th century in Europe was period of national awakenings in all Europe, so in Croatian lands too. Dalmatian Italians/pro-Italians developed their activities more strongly during mature phase of Croatian national revival (from the 60’s of the 19th), scared of awaken majority. They represented a need of further domination of the Italian language in the provincial public life as a method to protect their own political, cultural, economical and other interests. Although the most of the Autonomists were formed of the Italianized Croats and Serbs, they insisted on their Italianship, because of small Italian immigration from previous centuries which had usurped almost all key positions in province oppressing huge majority of population. Their idea was to hide all traces of Slavic population. There were also some objective Autonomists like Giuseppe Mazzini who stated (1871) that "Slavic element was predominant" along the Dalmatian coast and that the Italians in Dalmatia were only a "small Italian colony" there, or Špiro Petrović, first president of the Dalmatian Senate who said that "from the Dinarian Alps to the most far islands, people were the Slavs by ancestry". The Populists represented masses and demanded right for majority to decide about their destiny instead of despotism of the minority. The number of the Italians and pro-Italians was the most important point in argues and it is interesting to see what numbers were claimed, reported, noted.
 * Frane Carrara didn’t consider himself a Croat, but "Italo-Dalmatian" (1843): 16.000 Italians in Dalmatia in 1843, who had come mostly from Venice and 340.000 people who spoke Slavic language.
 * According to poll in 1846 only 15.305 people (3,72%) were Italians by nationality in Dalmatia.
 * According to a few Populists in 1846, Italianism in Dalmatia was supported only by "administrators strangers" hated by everyone and small number of the citizens who were mostly Italian immigrants. By 1848 claims for unification of Dalmatia with the rest of Croatia appeared.
 * According to Czoernig’s Austrian censi, based on ethnic features (1857), there were 14.645 Italians in Dalmatia in 1851 and 13.702 in 1857, which was around 5% of all population. The others found 45.000, 20.000 and 15.172 in 1857 by the same census. All agreed that there was no any Italian colony in Dalmatia up to that moment, since they had been naturalized by "Slavs". Criteria was spoken language in common life. In Zadar county they were present by 4,8%, while in Zadar city 24,8% according to official statistics.
 * Populists used these numbers to find 10.000, 15.000 or 20.000 Italians / pro-Italians and 400.000 Croats and Serbs in Dalmatia.
 * There were some unofficial Austrian statistics made to support Italian minority in Dalmatia by the Austrian government scared of Croatian separatist tensions and used to dispute statements of the Populists, like 55.020 Italians in 1865 (12,5%) and 57.000 in 1868. Criteria was Italians plus those who were meeting Italian language in professional life on any level of understanding. In these statistics, obviously irrelevant ones, there were no Croats at all.
 * Autonomist Bajamonti stated that there were 40.000 Italians in Dalmatia and Populist Jakov Grubišić replied (1860) with less than 3.000 Italians in Dalmatia and less than 800 real Italians among them, while Miho Klaić replied that there were 26.000 Italians in Dalmatia according to official statistics.
 * Populists (1860) mentioned 400.000 Croats and Serbs in Dalmatia and only 15.000 Italians who forced use of Italian language. They treated Italians in Dalmatia only as those whose direct ancestors had come from Italy.
 * Some populists exaggerated and found only 10.000 Italians; not more than 7.000 Italians; barely 800 "real Italians" in Dalmatia.
 * Fra Konstantin Antun Matas (1860) in his publication stated that Italians in Dalmatia were not the real one, but Italianized Croats and Serbs, while real Italians were mainly administrators driven from Lombardia. He noted that only 15.000 people use Italian language in Dalmatia, all settled in several cities.
 * Vinko Milić replying on some Tommaseo’s writings in Zadar and Rijeka (1861) mentioned 20.000 Italians and 380.000 Serbo-Croats.
 * Mihovil Pavlinović in the the Senate on the day of its establishment (1861) accused provincial government for "setting" limited election queue which enabled 15.000 Italians and Italo-Dalmatians to have 23 and 21 representatives in the Senate, while 410.000 Croats and Serbs got only 20 representatives. But soon elections of Populists were annulled by commission and Autonomists secured 2/3 in the Senate. Populists accused provincial government for deception.

In 1870, autonomist majority proclaimed Italian language as the only one in use in Senate. That caused Populist fight for use of Croatian language in the Senate, they based their claims on valid Austrian law from 1867 and finally succeeded in 1883, although they had won Senate earlier, in 1870.
 * Different evaluations noted 20.000, 40.000 and 48.000 Italians in Dalmatia in 1869.
 * Autonomist supporter Luigi Maschek (1870) noted more than 40.000 Italians in Dalmatia, mostly those from Venice (– later Tamaro (1919): 44.880 Italians in Dalmatia in 1869).
 * According to a few Italian geographers who never visited Dalmatia (mid of 70’s) there was 89% Serbo-Croats and Morlachs who spoke Serbo-Croatian, 10,5% Italians and Slavs who spoke Italian in Dalmatia. Another one (’77) found 60.000 Italians in Dalmatia.
 * Unofficial census in 1875 noted only 15.672 Italians in Dalmatia.
 * Autonomist Lujo Serragli in the Dalmatian Senate (’84) mentioned 45.000 Italians in Dalmatia.
 * In some moment Dalmatian Serbs distinguished from the Populists and collaborated with the Autonomists, Bajamonti in the Senate (‘86) mentioned 70-80.000 Italians in Dalmatia (- it became start numbers for Italian authors Dainelli and Tamaro by occupation of Zadar (1919)).
 * French traveler Paul Bauron (’88) noted half of population of the Latin race in Dalmatia but was criticized in Zadar newspaper Narodni list by P. K. Bačić (’89): in Dalmatia not even 10.000 Italians by ancestry.
 * In the same year German anthropologist and linguist August Leskien in Narodni list (1889) used name “half-Italians” for the Italians and pro-Italians and accused them for not sharing development with population of province of Slavic language and called them to drop off Italianism in Dalmatia which was opposite to the spirit of justice and humanity desired by the rest of civilized world.
 * Autonomists cited professor Ascolli from Udine, Italy (1895): 60.000 Italians in Dalmatia.
 * Autonomist representative Giacomo (Jakov) Giljanović announced in Senate (1896): around 11% Italians in Dalmatia in 1860, less than 6% in 1890, something more than 3% in 1890, concerning ethnic Italians and those who were Italianized, without Italian season workers – regnicoli (#). He admitted official numbers at the end.
 * Autonomist representative Josip Smodlaka in the Senate advised his colleagues (1902): to leave position of hatred and contemn towards domestic population, since there was no basis for Italianship in Dalmatia with not even one Italian peasant.
 * However directly after WWI and Italian occupation of Zadar Italian historians Tamaro and Danieli claimed that there were 85.000 Italians in Dalmatia directly before WWI. They reached this number by adding imaginary natural increase to their irrelevant evaluation of cca 45.000 Italians in 1865.


 * (#) Regnicoli were the Italian season workers and citizens of Kingdom of Italy, who often came without families or came with families and settled for some period. Rural and working population in both Italy and Dalmatia/Croatia searched for better lives in either American continents or elsewhere. But since Italian workers were privileged in Dalmatia by administration of that Austrian province, some Italians found an easier way to find a job across the sea in Dalmatia. Economical Consular report from Zadar (1870): 295 Italians by nationality in all Zadar county, more than 170 of them regnicoli. In 1875 and 1903 there were conflicts between domestic workers and regnicoli in Šibenik and Solin because of privileges given to the strangers. There was sometimes up to 400 regnicoli in Split and up to 500 regnicoli in Dubrovnik. Last statistics in 1910 noted 2.425 regnicoli - citizens of Kingdom of Italy who lived freely with domestic population. Similar number was given by Italian Consule in Zadar, 2.500 regnicoli in Dalmatia, a half of them contributed to population of  Zadar settled by 14.000 people in 1910. They were subjects to the Kingdom of Italy by origin from Veneto, Romagne and Marchi. They were mostly possessors, small industrials, fishermen, merchants, cafe-owners, and various tradesmen. According to report of Antonio d’Alia, consule of Italian Kingdom in Zadar (1914) around 3.000 regnicoli were living in Dalmatia, which means that dynamics of their immigration in the past was not as high as has been claimed sometimes, since they were mostly coming and leaving and their total number in all periods was 15.000, but 7.900 of them were members of the Autonomist Party in Dalmatia thus highly influencing political life in Dalmatia, province of another monarchy.

The autonomists usually exaggerated and even multiplied numbers in their appearances in the Dalmatian Senate, from 10% or cca 26.000 to more, 40.000, 60.000 etc, all unrelated to any evidence, but those became reference numbers to Italian writers (WWI) who pumped it up to 80.000. On the other side populists exaggerated and lowered it, from 2,5% or 10.000 down, 7.000, 3.000, 800 and even "2-3". Some number of reports, polls, statistics and evaluations can be taken into consideration, ranging from 15.000 – 20.000 Italians in Dalmatia (3-5%) during the 19th century.

1865 – 55.020 (12,5%) 1869 – 44.660 (10,8%) 1880 – 27.305 (5,8%), 11,7% of them settled in the islands and 0,78% settled inland 1890 – 16.000 (3,1%) 1900 – 15.279 (2,6%) 1910 – 18.028 (2,8%) Numbers in censi show constant decrease of Italians in Dalmatia, who were almost all settled in the cities, especially in Zadar: 1880 – 6.676 1890 – 7.423 (7.840, 7.773) 1900 – 9.018 1910 – 9.318 These numbers has shown irrelevant in censi 1865 and 1860, while only those more precise from 1880 and later can be treated as more objective. There was no any Italian exodus in that period. These percentages were not related to the Italians only, but also to the pro-Italians. They declared differently, like "Dalmatians", "Italo-Dalmatians" and "Italo-Slavs" in common life, their names were completely Slavic, partially transcripted to Italian or completely transcripted/translated into Italian, they were all bilinguals. But there were only “Italians” in censi and they declared that way in support to ruling Italian minority, led by their interests, confusing national affiliation with those who spoke the Italian language. Italian language meant their appurtenance to aristocracy. Many autonomists / pro-Italians hid behind the concept of the Dalmatians and similar names thinking this an easier strategy to make the region Italian. In the same time, Croat and Serb were different nationalities but treated as Serbo-Croats in Austrian censi, showing what position of Vienna toward Slavic nations was. In spite of irrelevance of the first few censi a gradual decrease of the number of Italians / pro-Italians appeared especially after 1882. Namely, some of the Croats and Serbs who had declared themselves otherwise returned to their root identities while the real Italians moved to Istria, Trieste, the Slovenian coast or found sanctuary in Zadar, the last bastion of the pro-Italian faction in Dalmatia.
 * According to official population censi in Monarchy, number of the Italians in Dalmatia was:

This migrations had direct influence on Zadar population, where use of Italian language intensified during last 3 decencies of the 19th century. While Split and Šibenik were industrial centers in Damatia, Zadar was administrative center with many strangers in transfer and sometimes over 1.600 Italians were in the city in a moment in that period. But within numbers in Zadar censi, also pro-Italians were hidden, the citizens of Austro-Hungarian Monarcy, bilingual (Croatian/Italian) people who were not related to Italy in any way except use of language in public as a symbol of the class. This makes spoken language an important moment in the province and Zadar.
 * According to Tamaro (1919) there were 25% citizens of Italian ancestry in Dalmatia in 1813 and 1814 who were using Italian in communication and a few years later 70.000 of them. These unproved numbers were already directly disputed by the monarchy government advisor Joseph Folsch (1827) who had stated that Italian language had been used only in cities Zadar, Split and Šibenik in 1827 mostly by the highest class and partially by lower classes, not precising how many of their citizens, but since these cities had been populated by around 20.000 people all together and only some had been speakers of Italian, Tamaro’s evaluations appeared multiplied and irrelevant.
 * Populist Stipan Ivčević in Narodni list (1851) wrote around 20.000 Italo-Dalmatians in Dalmatia who were using Italian language and all others used Croatian.
 * Autonomist Lovro Monti (1861) of Italian ancestry - in the most case there were all together 50.000 of those who spoke distorted Italian language and those who were able to understand it. But after Populist success in the Senate (1870) same author said (1874) that beside 45.000 strangers in Dalmatia there were only 10.000 citizens who spoke Italian exclusively. He also stated that some number of the Dalmatians declared as the "Italians" which they were not since there was no Italian ethnicity in Dalmatia
 * According to advisor Francesco Vergeri from Bellun (Italy), neutral observer in Dalmatia (1869) - 9/10 of administrators were members of Autonomist Party, while 19/20 of Dalmatian citizens were Slavic /Croatian speakers.
 * Regent Fluck (1876) noted 20.000 Italian speakers who were not able to rule with 400.000 Savic speakers with force.
 * Autonomists (1890) accused Slavic/Croatian majority for obstructing their use of Italian language. Dalmatian pro-Italians tried to save domination of the minority by all means, but unsuccessfully so they started to Italianize their Croatian names declaring as the Italians. Since Italian population in the cities wasn’t repopulated from rural city surroundings, it constantly decreased in Damatia. 7. 840 Italians in Zadar by 1890 census were the citizens of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Italians and Italianized Croats and Serbs, in the most part they belonged to feudal-citizen-administrative elite, formed of those who had been in the city from earlier and those who had moved to Zadar after 1882, retreating from the rest of Dalmatia.
 * Autonomists accused Austrian government for making forgery with numbers in censi - according to Italian authors Dainelli and Tamaro; according to Danielli (1919) there was 46% Italian, 41% Slavic, 11% German and only 1,5 % other ethnicities in territory promised to Italy by Treaty of London (Italia iredenta); according to Tamaro (1915) there were 150.000 Italian speakers in Dalmatia.

Speaking language was directly related to educational system.
 * In 1843 Croats who made huge majority of population in Dalmatia had not even one school in their language.
 * Medo Pucić (1848) demanded removing forced use of Italian language from the schools and offices.
 * In 1850 there were 127 elementary schools, only 18 exclusively Italian and only 12 exclusively Croatian
 * In 1860 there were 146 students in Zadar Gymnasium in Italian language, but only 10 students were the Italians.
 * Kosta Vojnović stated (1861) that 19/20 Slavs had not even one higher school or court with Croatian language.
 * In 1862 there were 153 Dalmatian elementary schools, 125 bilingual, 23 Croatian and 9 Italian by language.
 * During the 70’s there were cca 20 Croats and Serbs and 8 Italians in Zadar Gymnsium.
 * In 1865 there were 192 Dalmatian elementary schools, 99 bilingual, 87 Croatian and 29 Italian by language.
 * Italian – Austrian war (1866) and especially defeat of the Italians near island of Vis where Croatian navy was fighting in Austrian fleet, meant better affirmation of the Populists and easier entrance of Croatian language into the schools.
 * In 1874/1875 there were 8.809 students in141 Croatian elementary school and 776 students in 13 Italian elementary schools in Dalmatia.
 * In 1879/1880 in elementary schools of all Zadar and its county there were 3.429 students, 1.865 "Slavs", 528 Italians and 38 Germans.
 * In 1884/1885 there were 329 elementary schools in Dalmatia, only 3 with Italian language (1 in Zadar, 2 in Split).
 * At the end of the 19th century there was only 1 Italian elementary school in Dalmatia, in Zadar.
 * In 1897 "Croatian Gymnasium" was established in Zadar.
 * In 1910 there were 435 elementary schools in Dalmatia, only that 1 Italian in Zadar.
 * In 1912/1913 there were 5 Classical Gymnasiums in Dalmatia with 1.245 students, 94,3% Croats and Serbs, 4,2% Italians and 1,5% the others.
 * In 1919/1920 there were 1.533 Croats and Serbs and cca 1.000 Italians in Zadar schools.
 * Secret referendum in a part of Dalmatia occupied by Italians (1919) – 97% of population from that entire region voted for unification with the State SHS (State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) as well as 77% of Zadar citizens.

I hope it becomes clearer what real population of Zadar was, in relation to a declaration of publicly used language as a symbol of status.

My proposal for the article section:


 * From the fall of Venetian Republic (1797) to 1918 Zadar remained a capital of Dalmatia in Habsburg Monarchy, Austro-Hungarian Monarchy from 1867, but during short period (1806 – 1814) it was under French control as a seat of the Dalmatian land government. In this period French authorities abolished privileges of Zadar noblemen; they kept their properties and continued to contribute in cultural and political life of the city, but as the ordinary citizens. Main target of Austrian politics in Dalmatia was to isolate it from its background. Therefore Italian language was established as the official and immigration of the Italians was stimulated and incited. In spite of rural exodus and economical immigration of the domestic population from the surrounding and immigration of numerous Austrian and Italian administrators and merchants, population in Zadar stagnated due to low natural population increase. During 1st half of the century city started to spread from the old center, some citizens left from the center to new suburb of Stanovi to the north.


 * There was constant increase of population during the 2nd half of the 19th century, over 100% to the end of the century, due to economical growth and immigration; the city continued to spread to Voštarnica and Arbanasi quarters, the bridge in the city port was build. Except being the city of administration, agriculture, industry of liqueurs and trade were developed, many brotherhoods were established similar to the Central European trade guilds. The southern city walls were thrown down, new coast build and Zadar became open port. Also cultural development was recorded; there was a large number of print-offices, new libraries, archives, theatres, etc. At the end of the 19th century there was stronger industrial development, with 27 small or big factories in the city before the WWI.


 * Questions of language and number of the Italians and pro-Italians occupied political scene of Dalmatia in the 19th century, in argues between 2 politically opposed sides – Autonomist and Populist Parties. Italian minority which came mostly during first Austrian and following French government (1795-1815) held the most influent positions in administration, courts, schools, church and the economics of all province and their goal was to keep status quo as longer as possible. From the middle of the century, Zadar played important role in fight of the Populist Party for annexation of Dalmatia to the rest of Croatia and use of Croatian language, representing huge majority of Dalmatian population. Italians and pro-Italians organized in Autonomist Party developed their activities more strongly during mature phase of Croatian national revival. They represented a need of further domination of the Italian language in the provincial public life as a method to protect their own political, cultural, economical and other interests. Ethnic and social structure of the city was significantly influenced by immigration of Italian administrators from Lombardia and and Venetia as well as Italian and pro-Italian immigration from the rest of Dalmatia in the next decencies. Although the Croats made majority of the city population, Italian language predominated gradually in public life of the city. But Croatian language became predominant in education and in 1910 only one of 435 Dalmatian elementary schools was in Italian language, placed in Zadar. Zenanarh (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Zadar
Place information on Silvio1973's proposed sources for Zadar

I don’t have problem with Silvio’s proposed sources as long as they are in support to objective view. I don’t think his view was objective and probably source is also inadequate.

Luciano Laurana
Place information on Silvio1973's proposed sources for Luciano Laurana

Once again I don’t have problem with Silvio’s proposed sources as long as they are in support to objective view. These two are not.


 * Chilvers, Ian. The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists. Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 45.
 * Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.

I don’t think these sources are bad in general, I only think they are not objective on this matter. But both of these sources are tertiary sources, dictionary and encyclopedia, question is what is reliability of particular references. Many Italian authors define Luciano Laurana as Italian sculptor without any evidence or explanation and they are probably hidden behind references on the matter in these tertiary sources. Italian literature treats him that way just because he spent a part of his life in Italy.

Some important facts. Zadar and Venice were in war for some 300 years. In last episode Zadar fleet heavily defeated Venetian fleet in Zadar channel, which resulted in Piece of Zadar (1358), Venice renounced all rights and pretensions towards Dalmatia. Next 50 years were the most flourishing period in history of the city. Then Dalmatia was sold to Venice in 1409 and Venetian persecutions of Zadar citizens and nobility started and not massive Venetian settling of Damatia. Laurana was born in Vrana, 20 km SE from Zadar, in 1410. A few words about Vrana.

Town Vrana, by the Lake of Vrana (Cro: Vrana, Eng: crow), a few km near Biograd na moru - Medieval Croatian royal center, had important position in Croatian history. In early Medivial it was possession of the Croatian kings, recorded in Latin documents as Aurana, Laurana Arauzona. Settlement developed around fort "Castrum Aureanae" mentioned already in the 9th century. In 11th century there was Benedictine monastery which Croatian king Dmitar Zvonimir sold to Roman Pope (1076). However it remained important spiritual and political center of the Croats and played umportant role in politics like direct participation in crowning of the Croatian kings and selection of Croatian bans. "Ban" was political title parallel to the prince and king, chosen among Croatian noblemen and one related to the far past of proto-Croats saved together with a name "Croat". Kings and bans of Croatia automatically became priors of Vrana.
 * - Grga Novak i Vjekoslav Maštrović, "Povijest Vrane - političko, kulturno i privredno značenje vrane kroz stoljeća", Institut JAZU Zadar, 1971., Zadar ("History of Vrana - political, cultural and economical importance of Vrana during the centuries", Institute of Yugoslav Academy of Science and Arts, Zadar)

Our sculptor was born there just a year after Venetian had entered in Zadar. There were no any Venetians in Vrana in any moment from 1409 to the 16th century when it was occupied by the Turks. Or earlier. He was named after a settlement. Croatian and Dalmatian notary was in Latin language and names were transcripted to Latin, former Vrana or Urana became La Vrana and La Urana in new Venetian administration in Zadar and his surname became De la Vrana or Dellaurana. Laurana was not the only Croat one recorded with that surname, like De Urana. There are others in archives too. All of them were Croats from Vrana During his stay in Italy he became Laurana, but also used nickname Schiavon, which meant directly "Slav" and was related to Dalmatian Croats. It was usual that emigrants from Dalmatia got nicknames in Italy related to region, Croatia or Dalmatia. Nickname Schiavon was very frequently used. It was sign of his ethnicity added to name, usual practice in subscriptions of habitatores – the lowest city class (immigrant in this case) during their sojourn in a foreign land in Medieval and Renaissance. He was a son of Martin and Martin is typical Slavic form of name. He was not Italian. That is obvious.

More appropriate sources must be used If there is any in English language, I am glad. If not I’m offering those 2 Croatian sources. Zenanarh (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973
Zenanarh, I must confess that rarely in my academical life I have been so much offended as during this long discussion. I don’t know how this discussion is going to finish but I genuinely believe that you had absolutely no right in treating me in such a way because I always treated you with respect. I removed my initial answer following your remarks. They are however recorded in the talk page and you can make any use of them, if you want to do so. Proof that the sources are reliable secondary sources and how they are interpreted that way rather than original research It's unclear why Croatian source should be preferred to the others (including some extremely reputable English ones). Zenanarh, makes constant allegation that Italian sources manipulate the history and Croatian don't. Zadar’s article on en:wiki has currently 35 external references, 23 of them are Croatian sources! Perhaps the question of the neutrality of the entire article should be raised.

Croatian historiography on Dalmatia is very different from the others (the most comprehensive being the English, German and Italian), because the first one refuses to admit that Italian speaking people populated this part of the world since the Middle Age. Anyone interested in the matter could perhaps report to the very comprehensive North-American book “The Italians of Dalmatia” edited in 2009 by the University of Toronto. I will not be tempted to enter into unnecessary discussion (this mediation is not a forum on Dalmatian history). The excessive length of Zenanarh’s statements is a solid demonstration that his/her “sources” are in reality only original research. Zenanarh tries to convince the reader that he/she is right, indeed the sources should convince the reader of that.

I have proposed some changes to those articles and I do not need to defend them with long discussions. My sources will do that job for me. And I will sustain my arguments as much as possible with English sources to avoid any claim of non-neutrality (and all my sources are verifiable on line). ZADAR I propose to add to the existing text the sentence (and in order to reach consensus I do not insist to report the exact figures and of course I will accept any rephrasing from any English mother tongue user): 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. I have requested mediation to check the acceptability of the information (and only about the pure information, not the interpretation of it) contained in the official censi. Similar information are reported in hundreds of articles in en:wiki and despite your long talk it remains unclear why this source should not be admitted in Zadar's article as long of course it is not used to get to any subsequent conclusion. However, in order to avoid any discussion about this information being primary source, I have also reported hereafter three secondary sources supporting my position.


 * Full 1900 census available at page 82 of the following link:


 * Page 189 of “The Italians of Dalmatia” - Univerity of Toronto Press Incorporated -2009:


 * 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 your request, scan of this book and of its cover page.


 * For anyone wanting an easier reading, even the information contained in this travel book (English) could be interesting. Page 318 of “The hidden Europe” by Francis Tapon:.

LUCIANO LAURANA Initally Luciano Laureana was reported in the article as both Italian and Croatian (the statement is already awkward in itself). I requested Zenanarh to justify the Croatian origin of Luciano Laurana with an English verifiable source. Zenanarh's answer to the request was to entirely delete the Italian origin reference (despite the seriousness of the sources in support). The Italian origin of Luciano Laurana is supported by many reputable sources, all of them are not Italian and can be easily verified, the three most relevant being:


 * Chilvers, Ian – The concise Oxford dictionary of Art, page 45: The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists.


 * Luciano Laurana. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.


 * T.J. Jackson – The Renaissance of Roman Architecture, page 12:

Currently the Croatian origin of this artist is supported only by Croatian sources. In view of the difference of quality, reputation and quantity of sources in support, I kindly request to exclude the reference to the Croatian origin of the artist, if some reputable international sources are not in support of the claim. Yours sincerely --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Whenaxis
We shall wait for Zenanarh to provide full evidence for his/her case. Meanwhile, Silvio1973, I highly recommend that you find evidence to prove your sources during this waiting period. We will start voting soon after all the evidence is provided.  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 14:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Whenaxis, I think you should create 2 additional sections at the bottom of "Findings of fact": one where Silvio can reply directly to my section (with replacement of his already written partial reply there) and I can answer and one where I can reply to him and he can answer. This way (and Silvio has already started although I'm not finished) we will have chaos with disconnected replies in our "main" sections, it will be hard to follow discussion. I'm still working on the second source, it's full of data, I'm trying to present it as shortened as I can, I hope I will finish it tommorow, in worst case day after tommorrow. Silvio I'm asking once again, don't reply before I'm finished. Cheers. Zenanarh (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, Let's leave Whenaxis' template as it is. I have removed my initial answer. I will answer when you will finish, but please keep it as short as you can.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And when you answer, where am I going to reply? Zenanarh (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This section above "Findings of fact" is to provide your full evidence to prove your point. Then, Silvio1973 is to provide full evidence for his case. There will be no replying to finding of fact statements because that will lead to unnecessary lengthy discussions. So instead I ask for you to provide as much evidence as you need to prove your point. Then I will evaluate both claims and provide a resolution where all three of us needs to vote on.  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very nice. But I don't trust Silvio. His comment, now removed, was manipulation of what I wrote. Please, don't trust his citations, check it. Also, my impression is that Silvio doesn't know a lot. I cannot see future and I cannot know what wrong way will his comments go. In such cases you will probably need to think about possibility of replies. Zenanarh (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour
Zenanarh, I have been very patient during this discussion and I will continue to be patient. Nevertheless I have a dignity, as any decent people, and it has come the time to protect it. The comment you wrote hereafter at point 8 litterally comes out of the blue. I am supporting a position with sources (and on top of that 6 of the 7 sources are not Italian) and without any reason you make reference to extremistic ideologies and to the Mein Kampf. Do you realise how insulting is what you wrote? As I respect you, I have no other option but believing that you really don't. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the mirror first. Do you realise how insulting to the Croats is all your contribution in Croatia wiki articles by now ? Do you realise how insulting is to say many things you have in the talk pages, I don't want to link it all and pour oil to the fire... If you change yourself you will certainly find different atmosphere waiting for you. Zenanarh (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Zenanarh, the only user that is insulting another user here is you. You can be offensive and disruptive as much as you want but you will never manage to make me loosing my patience. I was very tempted to open a new section on the Administrators' noticeboard about your behavior and perhaps I will do it when this dispute is over. From my perspective we are just two users with different opinions, we are supporting our opinions with different sources and a mediation is ongoing. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

I regret the discussion was not conducted under the required atmosphere. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...thanks to you in the most part. You have declared as the Italian living in Romania, how come you have never tried to edit anything related to Italy or Romania? I am Croat and I usually edit history articles about my homeland, especially about Dalmatia, that is area of my interests because that is where my knowledge is the best. From your first edit in en.wiki to the last one, except a few, all your contribution was concentrated on Croatia related articles, in very negative tone, your "User contributions" looks like dossier of your offensive approach towards Croatian history and culture. You were called to assume good faith , you were caught in manipulation with sources by the others too  etc, even before two of us have stepped into any coflict. And I have noticed that you are constaly refusing to step into any disccusion any deeper than your prejudice about Croatia, Dalmatia and Croats, your prejudice which, BTW, have all elements of nationalistic bias, one typical for Italian irredentists. I have tried to warn you, but you have defined my attempts as offensions. Zenanarh (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

Before answering to this question I have gone again trough all the discussion. With the all due respect, Zenanarh's discussion is mostly at the periphery of the dispute and the proportion of the discussion itself is in my humble opinion not reasonable. I thought the discussion was about the pertinency and acceptability of my contributions. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your contribution was forcing one document (data from the primary source) and your POV about it. My discussion was all about it. About acceptability of that selective source and your own selective explanation (OR) of that source. Instead of one document I have offered you all documents and even detailed analysis, as much as it was possible due to limited wiki format space, all based on scientific works published by University of Zadar. Zenanarh (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Article sourcing
3) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

Primary sources should be used only to report quantitative facts, as long the editor does not elaborate any conclusion for the reader. Thisis my intention. To report the facts contained in the censi. --Silvio1973 (talk)
 * Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. - Silvio, your intention was to edit your own interpretation of data from the primary source. It is opposite to: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Zenanarh (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. This applies to any and all pages on Wikipedia, from articles to templates to project space.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

I fully agree. I asked for a third opinion too lately. I should have requested the third opinion before the discussion escalatede. Lesson learnt for the next time. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to know what building consensus means to you. If you think it is asking for a third opinion even before you become familiar with a problem... From the very first moment when we started to discuss in Talk:Zadar I was informing you about previous discussion on the same matter which ended in consensus between me and one another Italian wikipedian 2 years ago and I was directing you to Talk:Zadar/Archive 3, where I had already presented, among the others, 2 sources I have used here. So this discussion is nothing new. I have informed you about that consesus many times, , , , , , , obviously you didn't even try to read it or understand it. That's not how consesus should be built in wikipedia, and third opinions and mediations are only last possibilities if consesus can not be not reached and not possibilities when you didn't even try to come into any consensus. Zenanarh (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Conduct and decorum
5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

Fair criticism and personal attacks
6) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Open discussion is encouraged in every area of the encyclopedia, as it is only by discussion that cooperation is possible. However, certain types of discourse – in particular, personal attacks – are not only discouraged but forbidden because they create a toxic atmosphere and thwart the building of consensus. For this reason, editors are expected to comment on the edits, not on the editor. Editors with concerns about other editors should use the community's dispute resolution processes calmly and civilly to resolve their differences rather than repeatedly engaging in strident personalised criticism in multiple forums. Editors who are unable to resolve their differences should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them and, in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

I have been suspected of being an already banned user. And qualified of extremist and ignorant. It required a big effort to remain controlled. The only thing I want now is this dispute to end, whatever the conclusion will be. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly how you are manipulating. You have not been suspected of being an already banned user, at least not by me. When some user is suspected it is reported to wiki administration. I haven't reported anything. I wrote this at the top of page ending with but I can't be sure and I don't want suspect Silvio for nothing. In the same manner, I haven't accused for irredentism directly:
 * But irredentistic side of a story is simply unacceptable because it is not objective and is based on selective data and manipulation with data...
 * ...Finally, you say you are not an irredentist, I would like to believe you, but you insist on using typical distorted irredentistic arguments!? Don't you think it would be much more fair if you first get better informed?...
 * ...it's much more important to explain processes and occasions, as well as complex political situation in the city, than to produce a political pamphlet which is your obvious intention (I would like to believe it's not, but you haven't shown anything else)
 * As I've already said I've warned you about ideology which goals and methods are unacceptable. Zenanarh (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
7) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

At some point I moved away from the edit war. Still, I have a share of responsability because I should have moved out of it earlier and requested directly a third opinion. - Silvio 1973
 * In fact what you should have had to do was to read the Archive 3, this, so we can build discussion on that position or from that position, since a lot was already said and resolved. That's why I was edit warring with you, In wikipedia throlls and spamers are usually reverted by the other users, your continual refusing of getting into the matter as well as extremely negative approach to Croatian history, culture and people seen in your contributions were signs to me that you are probably a throll or someone who is not coming in good faith. Zenanarh (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Topics covering multiple perspectives
8) While many articles deal solely with scientific content or with philosophical/religious content, many public policy topics, including Zadar and Luciano Laurana, involve both descriptions of scientifically observable facts and religious or philosophical reactions to those observable findings. In order for a topic to be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, each sort of source must be used appropriately in such an article. Care must be taken with weighting and appropriate use of sources, such as avoiding undue prominence in the lead section or elsewhere.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

I agree completely with point 8). But also, I would like to add that claims of extremistic ideologies cannot be a part of multiple perspectives. You can inform people that Mein Kampf treated the Jews as the animals, but you cannot edit Jews as they are the animals and use Mein Kampf as reference. Zenanarh (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeated discussion
9) Subsequent attempts at discussion of a topic previously settled by community discussion are often initiated by those who are not initially involved. Thus, covering topics already discussed through consensus building discussion.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

We are here because my attempts of reaching any consesus with Silvio have failed. He refused to a) see what was discussed earlier; b) understand how our discussion is related to the older one; c) understand what is our discussion now. Zenanarh (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Locus of disagreement
10) Whether or not to include Italian sources versus Croatian sources.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Unfortunately Croatian and Italian historiography on Dalmatia are very different. For this reason (and expecially on the English Wikipedia) I am of the opinion that in the contested areas English and American sources (or perhpas German) should be preferred. Please note the currenlty the 2/3 of the sources cites in the article Zadar are Croatian. Is this neutral? --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have voted for both. Why? Because of scientific method used in history science. When there are 2 diferent sources in conflict about the same thing and if position is unresolved, both sources and both positions must be taken into consideration and reported, so a neutral reader can be informed about controversy. However if one source is beaten by the other by set of arguments, then it is reasonable to use that source and not the "beaten" one. Objective scientists who respect their science usually mention all other theories, then they build their own theories with arguments and that's how irrelevant theories are disputted. But that is how it works in original researches of the scientists. Encyclopedia is not original research, it must inform. So it is unreasonable that encyclopedia informs about "beaten" theory. It must inform about the matter and not about scientific conflicts about that matter.
 * Unfortunately we have position here that sources claiming opposite are coming from 2 different nations. It makes all things more complicated, because it all becomes covered by a shadow of possible nationalism.
 * It is obvious in our case, that Italian claims about Italianship of Dalmatia were coming from the Italian Irredentists and Fascists in the past and that same claims are sometimes coming from some modern Italians at present. Where do they get their information (usually selective data) is not something I want to discuss, but from what I've noticed by now, Dainelli, Tamaro etc were the Italian authors who supported Italian irredentism and fascism in the beginning of the 20th century and they are still references to many more modern Italian writers. That means that there is still unobjective and even extremistic approach in a large part o Italian historiography concerning Dalmatia. I believe there is also objective literature in Italian language. I am not Italian and it is unavaialble to me.
 * On the other side, I'm relying on prominent Croatian authors and scientific material published by University in Zadar. The best place to research history of Zadar is Zadar. Because very rich Zadar historical archive is here, in Zadar, available to those who want to research it. That is why I believe this is the best quality literature about Zadar.
 * Also we have situation that sources I have used heavily defeat claims of the Italian authors, probably since almost all were based on selective data, without needed criticism (as a part of scientific method)). So in my eyes it is just quality source against poor source and not Croatian source against Italian.
 * That's why I have voted for both. My vote is "pro" to include Italian sources versus Croatian sources - if situation is unresolved in the scientific circles. My vote is "con" if Croatian source beats the Italian or opposite. If some Italians don't accept a fact that some of their statements are irrelevant and beaten by the Croatian scientists, by arguments, it is not our problem here, it is their problem because they are not able to accept modern science. We don't have to encourage them.
 * And what is worst of all, some Italian claims here, emerged from extremestic nationalistic movements in Italy in past (and present), irredentism and fascism, and were not thrown away by time. It is especially something we should not encourage. Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against English sources, or German sources, as long as they are references for somthing real. Here we have situation that 131.000.000 Italians can produce more sources by quantity, than 8.000.000 Croats, so Italian literature is better presented to the other languages. Quantity is not quality and cannot be used as criteria. Only quality must be used. That's why I'm using quality scientific researches. Real science has no ethnic name and language. Giving priority to quantity and not to quality, or to balance between languages in sources and not to arguments is forgery by meaning of scientific method.Zenanarh (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

11) Whether or not teritary sources (i.e. encyclopedia and dictionary) are as reliable as secondary sources.


 * Support:
 *  Whenaxis  about talk contribs 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Zenanarh (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:

They can be equally reliable, as long very reputable. IMHO the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Oxford dictionary (along with many others) satisfy this requirementet. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certain that tertiary sources (i.e. encyclopedia and dictionary) can be reliable. In the most cases it's much easier to look at another tertiary source than to read 20 secondary sources to find something that is already found by someone else, and many things in wikipedia are referenced by the other teritary sources. But it doesn't mean that other tertiary sources are perfect and completely reliable in every detail. Tertiary sources are also referenced and reliabilty of statements and definitions depend on reliabilty of used references. It is not impossible that use of wrong reference can produce innacurracy in tertiary source. Britannica is quality but not perfect, I have found many innacuracies and superficialties there, especially concerning things related to non-speaking English world, a few years ago there was even statement of en.wiki becoming better by quality than Britannica, especially because of way how wiki is edited, it can change and develop every day. Therefore wiki is more actual than Britannica, in many things. Sometimes tertiary sources must be used with caution. This is exactly such case. Tertiary source provides info which is already scientifically disputted. That's why I'm giving priority to adequate secondary source in this case. We are trying to contribute to quality of wikipedia, aren't we? Zenanarh (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)