![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Austrian census for the town of ZARA (including the center and the localities: Barcagno, Boccagnazzo, Borgo Erizzo, Casali Maggiori, Ceraria, Cerno Malpaga, Puntamica) :
Italian commune:
-- Giovanni Giove 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
1) Here, I don't see the source for this. I may also write here that in the city of Zkhda'r (Clingon for Zadar), in 1857 lived 12.000 Clingons and 4.768 Romulovulcans.
2) Has Giove told us here, that during Austria-Hungary (that was "against Italians"), "person with knowledge of Italian" was in censuses misrepresented promptly as "person of Italian ethnicity" (no matter if that person was a Croat or Slovenian), in order to statistically lower the number of Slavic peoples (Croats and Slovenians), suppressing all political influence and political requests from them that would arose, when true numbers once appear?
3) Has Giove told us here, the reason what happened when Habsburg Monarchy settled Italian officials from Lombardy, Venice and Furlany in Zadar? Also, what was the consequence, when all those similar officials from those same provinces, previously settled in other cities in province of Dalmatia, moved to live in Zadar?
Kubura
06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha, you must be blind; NOBODY talks about "Croats or Slovenes". It is only in your IMAGINATION and nowhere else. Giove and the facts he presented above about Zadar talk about SERBS OR CROATIANS, or as it is originally: SERBOCROATIANS. You cannot change those facts with your senseless ignorance. They are as they are-Slovenians are never mentioned in the Zadar's history, and all your efforts to 'involve' them here will be unsucessful. The history of Zadar belongs to Croatians or Serbs (Srerbocroatians) and Italians, even though I also don't agree that the number if Italians was in that proportion towards the Serbocroats. A reasonable proportion from that time should be probably approximately half:half. Cheers.
24.86.110.10 (
talk)
05:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It was generalization by Austrian cabinet, the key for keeping Croatia weak was to separate Dalmatia from Pannonia, they were afraid of nationalistic movements in Croatia. Zenanarh ( talk) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Once the page protection period is over, maybe we should add the fact that Zara is also the name of the city in Venetian. I mention this because, since its Latin name was Iadera, the regular derivation in Standard (Tuscan-like) Italian should be something like Giadra. However, Italians in general seem to have adopted the Venetian name for the city, hence Zara-Zadar and not Giadra-Zadar. KelilanK 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This part is a catastrophy. This city has very rich history, almost none of it is written here. This text is a remain of edit wars a year ago and the mostly suitable for history of Dalmatia, not Zadar. It's all about why something happened and never what happened.
My intention is to reorganize it and repair it. New sections after Antiquity will be Early Medieval, Medieval and From 15th -18th century. Zenanarh ( talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello IP address 200.74.186.210. It seems you are unaware of the content of Wikipedia's policy regarding place names. It is available for you to read at WP:NCGN. I would like you to read this before you attempt to edit the article on Zadar again. In a nutshell, it says that places should be called by their modern English names. It does not matter what a place was once called. Reference can be made to previous names once in the lead section. Thank you for your attention. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, first of all lets stop reverting non-controversial improvements, shall we? For example, Ragusino, why did you remove the wikilink fix from " Greek language" to " Ancient Greek language"? Get in there and edit only the controversial parts of your revert, don't just click undo because its easier. ffs, we are here to actually improve the article, aren't we? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ragusino and the IP editor. Let's take the next few days as an opportunity to talk about the article. Edit warring is not going to solve anything. Please discuss the changes here. Unfortunately, regarding the use of non-English place names, that is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. There is a specific policy about this, which you can read at WP:NCGN. Please read it carefully. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the point of view of have an universal and public encyclopedia "wikipedia", is introduce facts that occurred during the history, in this case of Zadar, where good or bad, we can not omit historical facts, that I do not like or think is political propagand, of one side or the other, the idea is to integrate the historical dalmatia an a multicultural region, as it was throughout its history, so Dalmatian Italians, Croats, Serbs, can be integrated into a better society, elsewhere in this area Italy pursued sovereignty, good or bad, this was well and want to omit it is not good policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragusino ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 July 2008
OK, in the Republic of Ragusa, all the names are in bilingual names; Croatian and italian, the dalmatian were bilingual, don`t forget the latin roots, (italian is an modern concept). Zara were under italian pursued sovereignty, is a fact!, Austrian pursued sovereignty, is a fact! why not tell all the history?
But the history of Zara, is not only in the Republic of Croatia, Austrian, Italian, and they had authorities, podestas, mayor, etc, nobility, why forgot that?
Ragusino, Ragusino... According to your comments I can see that you've just jumped here edit warring without even reading the article, and what's more important in this case, without reading this talk page. Have you seen "Place names" and "Name" sections at the beginning of the article? It's there to avoid discussions like this one, concerning the name of the city. Have you seen long discussion about it in this talk page? Mentioned sections are results of that discussion. Do we have to do it all again just because you didn't find 5 minutes to read it? No way.
Next point - history. Once again, have you read the talk page? If you have, then it would be clear to you that there was long edit warring a year ago here because of every second God damn sentence in the history sections. An Italian user heavily damaged complete article by pushing his irredentistic bias, he was not able to communicate and make consensus with anyone and now he's banned forever. All in all it was WWIII here. User:DIREKTOR tried to repair the text by Brittanica pieces, but it was all more general about Dalmatia than really about Zadar. In that moment it was the only thing possible to do because article was constantly assaulted by different anon IP's who were trying to prolong the edit wars. For that reason the article was blocked for editing and frozen in version which is not really good. After it had been unblocked a half year ago I didn't touch it for months just to be sure that situation is peaceful and that all zealots have gone away. A few months ago I've edited the "Name" section according to consensus in the talk page, and then again waited with other actions to be sure that the lunatics are not coming back. A month ago I've started to repair the history sections, starting with Prehistory and Antiquity (edited by me a year ago but never finalised because of the edit wars). I'll edit a few sentences more about the Liburnians, the 1st known settlers of the city. Concerning the Roman architecture it will be a part of new "Architecture" section which will follow history in the article. If you take a look a little bit above from here in the talk page you'll see my comment about Medieval sections. At this moment I'm preparing the text. It's not really easy concerning the amount of accidents, Zadar has one of the richest history stories in all Europe. So much of it could be written here, but then again there's not enough space. It takes some time but it's the only way to do it objectively. Also it's important to do it systematically, step by step, from prehistory to the modern times, without jumping up and down. It's the only way to have a high quality text. I'm really interested to gain quality here, since I'm born in Zadar and I live in Zadar. I love this city more than all of you together, I know its history very well including many details that only the natives can know about. However my intention is to edit it and repair it only by references from the high quality sources.
So I must ask you this: please give me some time, join me if you want, or just follow my edits and if you think that something is wrong, write your comment here in the talk page, so we can discuss it in civil manner and find a better solution. If you want to contribute describe your intention here first before editing. And never war edit. It's the worse thing for the article. Don't jump immidiately to the end of history because it will lead us to chaos, we already have chaos here. If you want to contribute describe your intention here at the talk first. So we can have homogenous text and not violently joined pieces. Don't attack the article with definitions that prove something just because you think it was like that and not the other way, unless it's something important for the history. I will edit slowly, so if you think that something is wrong, don't panic. I don't own Wikipedia or this article so I can only ask you to behave this way and hope that you are rational and intelligent person. Regards. Zenanarh ( talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But in the meantime the official page is your true!, is not a neutral policy, look in the future Zadar comes free port under italian rules, and the italians try to forgot the slav roots, this is not correct too!, respect all the Zadar/Zara history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.185.3 ( talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
More Source and History
After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. In 1867 Count Cosimo Begna di Possidaria was elected podesta of Zara.
After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats (People's Party) and the Italians (Autonomist Party), both of whom founded their respective political parties. There are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in this period; in general the era saw Slavs grow more than Italians throughout Dalmatia, fostering a neatly distinct national spirit.
Podestà is the title of Mayor of the city, the Ruler of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.186.143 ( talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) , i.f you don`t know about the Podestas, don`t know about the Zadar and the dalmatian city history. Ragusino
Supplementi al saggio bibliografico della Dalmazia e del Montenegro Autor Giuseppe Valentinelli
In October 31 1918 the population of Zadar rebelled against Austrian rule and raised the Italian flag and on 4 November 1918 the city was occupied by the Italian army. The Treaty of Rapallo (12 November 1920) gave Zadar with other local territory to Italy. The Zara enclave, a total of 104 sq km, included the city of Zadar, the municipalities of Bocanjaċ(Boccagnazzo), Arbanasi (Borgo Erizzo), Črno (Cerno), part of Diklo (Dicolo) (a total of 51 sq. km. of territory and 17,065 inhabitants) and the islands of Lastovo (Làgosta) and Palagruža (Pelagosa) (53 sq km, 1,710 inhabitants). The territory was organized into an Italian province. Zadar remained under Italian sovereignty until 31 October 1944.
If any have info of nobles families of Zadar in the same way of the Republic of Ragusa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.76.240 ( talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ragusino, IP editors, where are we going with these interminably lengthy posts? We're supposed to be talking about how the article can be made better. Can you make your suggestions kind of bullet point style? I mean, so that we can see what you want? Beacause if we don't make progress here, and you start reverting when the protection is over, you know, the next protect is going to be a very very long one, so, best to list your points here in order for us to see them and get your good suggestions into the article straight away. Any good suggestions we'll accept immediately, by the way, please let me reassure you of that. We're sitting with our fingers on the trigger to type them up. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Two guys that own some distillery die during the Second World War (circa 70,000,000 dead) and we have to write sentences about that on an encyclopaedia? Completely and utterly irrelevant... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Richest family in Zadar"? If they really were the "most important and rich family of Zara/Zadar" their death is worth including. However, I'm not going to take your word for it, get a (reliable) source. (Also, I consider most ex-Yugoslav sources biased as well, stick to neutral non-local sources.) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
He's trying to include them because they're exiles (i.e. from an esuli family), that's clear enough. That's biased writing, PIO. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some real sources in accordance with WP:V. The random internet web pages you listed are completely against Wikipedia policy and may be disregarded. Concentrate on historians, scholarly sources, and most of all: actual evidence of a "Tito's conspiracy". Furthermore, if you engage in any edit-warring whatsoever, you will be immediately reported. I've had enough of that. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
No I wont, because there was no conspiracy. The city was bombed because it was the main Italian port in the eastern Adriatic, and was "on the way" to more important targets. I corrected your nonsense and wrote it was an alleged "Allied" (Yugoslav/American) conspiracy, because evil old Tito could not have ordered the
USAAF to bomb Zadar. You can forget about all that now, as the whole thing is a wild guess by Italian emigrants. Read what I said above about sources.
I don't want to report you, because that's a lot of work, but if you really persist in edit-warring you'll leave me no choice. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK)
16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's how things work: you have to PROVE something before it is included as fact. I do NOT think there was any conspiracy whatsoever, "Allied", "Tito's" or whatever. If the article (not "voice") Bombing of Zadar in World War II also misses any real scholarly sources, all mention of this nonsensical conspiracy theory will be removed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Your (reliable verifiable scholarly) sources:
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I will list some major problems with this section:
Moreover, this way of putting it seems like justification/defense of the violence from May 1991. from Croatian POV.
Saying that JNA was under Milosevic control is POV, to say the least. In fact, Milosevic had no direct control over JNA. Locally, Dudukovic and Mladic were in charge, and Milosevic did not have direct control of the army in 1991 at all, as evidenced by proofs at ICTY among other things. In any case, this claim is Croatian POV.
Also please be civil and do not brand people here as trolls and be civil. Please mind WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. My issues are legitimate, and are shared by a lot of people from Serbia/of Serbian origin, so please deal with the problems here. 78.30.150.253 ( talk) 13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
To claim that Milošević had no command over JNA generals in 1991 would be just POV-pushing lie. This is what Ante Marković said in 1991:
The line has been clearly established [between the Serbian government, the army and Serb politicians in Bosnia]. I know because I heard Milošević give the order to Karadžić to get in contact with General Uzelac and to order, following the decisions of the meeting of the military hierarchy, that arms should be distributed and that the TO of Krajina and Bosnia be armed and utilised in the realisation of the RAM plan.
It was all oraganized and well-planned from Belgrade. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 14:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A lot of rubbish... until September 1991 JNA was serving as a a buffer between local Serb forces and Croatian militia - until September JNA was protecting Serb rebels and "stealing" weapon of "Terotorijalna obrana" ("Territorial defence") - which belonged to Croatia. Croats deliberately broke many ceasefires in summer - in summer there was no fire, so there were also no ceasefires to be broken, only Serb separatist "bulk revolution" and dead Croatian policemen muredered from the ambush in spring. Barracks were blocked for months, and the main reason for shelling was oficially deblocking - no, the barracks were blocked for less than a month - from around 20th August to 15th September and shelling was part of the same story which comprised occupation of Croatian cities and villages in the same time. JNA was controlled by Serbs, no doubt about it, soldiers were massively escaping during all that period, some couldn't make it but it doesn't prove wide ethnical composition of it since there was repression. The presidency of SFRY was disfunctional - yes, thanks to Milošević, an attempt to disqualify Slovenian and Croatian legal secession., etc etc... This is not a place for this discussion. There are other articles about this. Move it there... Zenanarh ( talk) 06:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Jadi jadi jadi... find sources, not arguments. Then we can move forward. Until then, it's all just piss and farts. It's just like arguing in a bar about football. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Austrian census for the town of ZARA (including the center and the localities: Barcagno, Boccagnazzo, Borgo Erizzo, Casali Maggiori, Ceraria, Cerno Malpaga, Puntamica) :
Italian commune:
-- Giovanni Giove 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
1) Here, I don't see the source for this. I may also write here that in the city of Zkhda'r (Clingon for Zadar), in 1857 lived 12.000 Clingons and 4.768 Romulovulcans.
2) Has Giove told us here, that during Austria-Hungary (that was "against Italians"), "person with knowledge of Italian" was in censuses misrepresented promptly as "person of Italian ethnicity" (no matter if that person was a Croat or Slovenian), in order to statistically lower the number of Slavic peoples (Croats and Slovenians), suppressing all political influence and political requests from them that would arose, when true numbers once appear?
3) Has Giove told us here, the reason what happened when Habsburg Monarchy settled Italian officials from Lombardy, Venice and Furlany in Zadar? Also, what was the consequence, when all those similar officials from those same provinces, previously settled in other cities in province of Dalmatia, moved to live in Zadar?
Kubura
06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha, you must be blind; NOBODY talks about "Croats or Slovenes". It is only in your IMAGINATION and nowhere else. Giove and the facts he presented above about Zadar talk about SERBS OR CROATIANS, or as it is originally: SERBOCROATIANS. You cannot change those facts with your senseless ignorance. They are as they are-Slovenians are never mentioned in the Zadar's history, and all your efforts to 'involve' them here will be unsucessful. The history of Zadar belongs to Croatians or Serbs (Srerbocroatians) and Italians, even though I also don't agree that the number if Italians was in that proportion towards the Serbocroats. A reasonable proportion from that time should be probably approximately half:half. Cheers.
24.86.110.10 (
talk)
05:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It was generalization by Austrian cabinet, the key for keeping Croatia weak was to separate Dalmatia from Pannonia, they were afraid of nationalistic movements in Croatia. Zenanarh ( talk) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Once the page protection period is over, maybe we should add the fact that Zara is also the name of the city in Venetian. I mention this because, since its Latin name was Iadera, the regular derivation in Standard (Tuscan-like) Italian should be something like Giadra. However, Italians in general seem to have adopted the Venetian name for the city, hence Zara-Zadar and not Giadra-Zadar. KelilanK 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This part is a catastrophy. This city has very rich history, almost none of it is written here. This text is a remain of edit wars a year ago and the mostly suitable for history of Dalmatia, not Zadar. It's all about why something happened and never what happened.
My intention is to reorganize it and repair it. New sections after Antiquity will be Early Medieval, Medieval and From 15th -18th century. Zenanarh ( talk) 11:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello IP address 200.74.186.210. It seems you are unaware of the content of Wikipedia's policy regarding place names. It is available for you to read at WP:NCGN. I would like you to read this before you attempt to edit the article on Zadar again. In a nutshell, it says that places should be called by their modern English names. It does not matter what a place was once called. Reference can be made to previous names once in the lead section. Thank you for your attention. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, first of all lets stop reverting non-controversial improvements, shall we? For example, Ragusino, why did you remove the wikilink fix from " Greek language" to " Ancient Greek language"? Get in there and edit only the controversial parts of your revert, don't just click undo because its easier. ffs, we are here to actually improve the article, aren't we? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ragusino and the IP editor. Let's take the next few days as an opportunity to talk about the article. Edit warring is not going to solve anything. Please discuss the changes here. Unfortunately, regarding the use of non-English place names, that is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. There is a specific policy about this, which you can read at WP:NCGN. Please read it carefully. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the point of view of have an universal and public encyclopedia "wikipedia", is introduce facts that occurred during the history, in this case of Zadar, where good or bad, we can not omit historical facts, that I do not like or think is political propagand, of one side or the other, the idea is to integrate the historical dalmatia an a multicultural region, as it was throughout its history, so Dalmatian Italians, Croats, Serbs, can be integrated into a better society, elsewhere in this area Italy pursued sovereignty, good or bad, this was well and want to omit it is not good policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragusino ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 July 2008
OK, in the Republic of Ragusa, all the names are in bilingual names; Croatian and italian, the dalmatian were bilingual, don`t forget the latin roots, (italian is an modern concept). Zara were under italian pursued sovereignty, is a fact!, Austrian pursued sovereignty, is a fact! why not tell all the history?
But the history of Zara, is not only in the Republic of Croatia, Austrian, Italian, and they had authorities, podestas, mayor, etc, nobility, why forgot that?
Ragusino, Ragusino... According to your comments I can see that you've just jumped here edit warring without even reading the article, and what's more important in this case, without reading this talk page. Have you seen "Place names" and "Name" sections at the beginning of the article? It's there to avoid discussions like this one, concerning the name of the city. Have you seen long discussion about it in this talk page? Mentioned sections are results of that discussion. Do we have to do it all again just because you didn't find 5 minutes to read it? No way.
Next point - history. Once again, have you read the talk page? If you have, then it would be clear to you that there was long edit warring a year ago here because of every second God damn sentence in the history sections. An Italian user heavily damaged complete article by pushing his irredentistic bias, he was not able to communicate and make consensus with anyone and now he's banned forever. All in all it was WWIII here. User:DIREKTOR tried to repair the text by Brittanica pieces, but it was all more general about Dalmatia than really about Zadar. In that moment it was the only thing possible to do because article was constantly assaulted by different anon IP's who were trying to prolong the edit wars. For that reason the article was blocked for editing and frozen in version which is not really good. After it had been unblocked a half year ago I didn't touch it for months just to be sure that situation is peaceful and that all zealots have gone away. A few months ago I've edited the "Name" section according to consensus in the talk page, and then again waited with other actions to be sure that the lunatics are not coming back. A month ago I've started to repair the history sections, starting with Prehistory and Antiquity (edited by me a year ago but never finalised because of the edit wars). I'll edit a few sentences more about the Liburnians, the 1st known settlers of the city. Concerning the Roman architecture it will be a part of new "Architecture" section which will follow history in the article. If you take a look a little bit above from here in the talk page you'll see my comment about Medieval sections. At this moment I'm preparing the text. It's not really easy concerning the amount of accidents, Zadar has one of the richest history stories in all Europe. So much of it could be written here, but then again there's not enough space. It takes some time but it's the only way to do it objectively. Also it's important to do it systematically, step by step, from prehistory to the modern times, without jumping up and down. It's the only way to have a high quality text. I'm really interested to gain quality here, since I'm born in Zadar and I live in Zadar. I love this city more than all of you together, I know its history very well including many details that only the natives can know about. However my intention is to edit it and repair it only by references from the high quality sources.
So I must ask you this: please give me some time, join me if you want, or just follow my edits and if you think that something is wrong, write your comment here in the talk page, so we can discuss it in civil manner and find a better solution. If you want to contribute describe your intention here first before editing. And never war edit. It's the worse thing for the article. Don't jump immidiately to the end of history because it will lead us to chaos, we already have chaos here. If you want to contribute describe your intention here at the talk first. So we can have homogenous text and not violently joined pieces. Don't attack the article with definitions that prove something just because you think it was like that and not the other way, unless it's something important for the history. I will edit slowly, so if you think that something is wrong, don't panic. I don't own Wikipedia or this article so I can only ask you to behave this way and hope that you are rational and intelligent person. Regards. Zenanarh ( talk) 13:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
But in the meantime the official page is your true!, is not a neutral policy, look in the future Zadar comes free port under italian rules, and the italians try to forgot the slav roots, this is not correct too!, respect all the Zadar/Zara history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.185.3 ( talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
More Source and History
After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. In 1867 Count Cosimo Begna di Possidaria was elected podesta of Zara.
After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated and the city became divided between the Croats (People's Party) and the Italians (Autonomist Party), both of whom founded their respective political parties. There are conflicting sources for both sides claiming to have formed the majority in this period; in general the era saw Slavs grow more than Italians throughout Dalmatia, fostering a neatly distinct national spirit.
Podestà is the title of Mayor of the city, the Ruler of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.186.143 ( talk) 16:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC) , i.f you don`t know about the Podestas, don`t know about the Zadar and the dalmatian city history. Ragusino
Supplementi al saggio bibliografico della Dalmazia e del Montenegro Autor Giuseppe Valentinelli
In October 31 1918 the population of Zadar rebelled against Austrian rule and raised the Italian flag and on 4 November 1918 the city was occupied by the Italian army. The Treaty of Rapallo (12 November 1920) gave Zadar with other local territory to Italy. The Zara enclave, a total of 104 sq km, included the city of Zadar, the municipalities of Bocanjaċ(Boccagnazzo), Arbanasi (Borgo Erizzo), Črno (Cerno), part of Diklo (Dicolo) (a total of 51 sq. km. of territory and 17,065 inhabitants) and the islands of Lastovo (Làgosta) and Palagruža (Pelagosa) (53 sq km, 1,710 inhabitants). The territory was organized into an Italian province. Zadar remained under Italian sovereignty until 31 October 1944.
If any have info of nobles families of Zadar in the same way of the Republic of Ragusa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.76.240 ( talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ragusino, IP editors, where are we going with these interminably lengthy posts? We're supposed to be talking about how the article can be made better. Can you make your suggestions kind of bullet point style? I mean, so that we can see what you want? Beacause if we don't make progress here, and you start reverting when the protection is over, you know, the next protect is going to be a very very long one, so, best to list your points here in order for us to see them and get your good suggestions into the article straight away. Any good suggestions we'll accept immediately, by the way, please let me reassure you of that. We're sitting with our fingers on the trigger to type them up. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 22:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Two guys that own some distillery die during the Second World War (circa 70,000,000 dead) and we have to write sentences about that on an encyclopaedia? Completely and utterly irrelevant... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 13:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Richest family in Zadar"? If they really were the "most important and rich family of Zara/Zadar" their death is worth including. However, I'm not going to take your word for it, get a (reliable) source. (Also, I consider most ex-Yugoslav sources biased as well, stick to neutral non-local sources.) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
He's trying to include them because they're exiles (i.e. from an esuli family), that's clear enough. That's biased writing, PIO. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some real sources in accordance with WP:V. The random internet web pages you listed are completely against Wikipedia policy and may be disregarded. Concentrate on historians, scholarly sources, and most of all: actual evidence of a "Tito's conspiracy". Furthermore, if you engage in any edit-warring whatsoever, you will be immediately reported. I've had enough of that. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
No I wont, because there was no conspiracy. The city was bombed because it was the main Italian port in the eastern Adriatic, and was "on the way" to more important targets. I corrected your nonsense and wrote it was an alleged "Allied" (Yugoslav/American) conspiracy, because evil old Tito could not have ordered the
USAAF to bomb Zadar. You can forget about all that now, as the whole thing is a wild guess by Italian emigrants. Read what I said above about sources.
I don't want to report you, because that's a lot of work, but if you really persist in edit-warring you'll leave me no choice. --
DIREKTOR (
TALK)
16:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Here's how things work: you have to PROVE something before it is included as fact. I do NOT think there was any conspiracy whatsoever, "Allied", "Tito's" or whatever. If the article (not "voice") Bombing of Zadar in World War II also misses any real scholarly sources, all mention of this nonsensical conspiracy theory will be removed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Your (reliable verifiable scholarly) sources:
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I will list some major problems with this section:
Moreover, this way of putting it seems like justification/defense of the violence from May 1991. from Croatian POV.
Saying that JNA was under Milosevic control is POV, to say the least. In fact, Milosevic had no direct control over JNA. Locally, Dudukovic and Mladic were in charge, and Milosevic did not have direct control of the army in 1991 at all, as evidenced by proofs at ICTY among other things. In any case, this claim is Croatian POV.
Also please be civil and do not brand people here as trolls and be civil. Please mind WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. My issues are legitimate, and are shared by a lot of people from Serbia/of Serbian origin, so please deal with the problems here. 78.30.150.253 ( talk) 13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
To claim that Milošević had no command over JNA generals in 1991 would be just POV-pushing lie. This is what Ante Marković said in 1991:
The line has been clearly established [between the Serbian government, the army and Serb politicians in Bosnia]. I know because I heard Milošević give the order to Karadžić to get in contact with General Uzelac and to order, following the decisions of the meeting of the military hierarchy, that arms should be distributed and that the TO of Krajina and Bosnia be armed and utilised in the realisation of the RAM plan.
It was all oraganized and well-planned from Belgrade. -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 14:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A lot of rubbish... until September 1991 JNA was serving as a a buffer between local Serb forces and Croatian militia - until September JNA was protecting Serb rebels and "stealing" weapon of "Terotorijalna obrana" ("Territorial defence") - which belonged to Croatia. Croats deliberately broke many ceasefires in summer - in summer there was no fire, so there were also no ceasefires to be broken, only Serb separatist "bulk revolution" and dead Croatian policemen muredered from the ambush in spring. Barracks were blocked for months, and the main reason for shelling was oficially deblocking - no, the barracks were blocked for less than a month - from around 20th August to 15th September and shelling was part of the same story which comprised occupation of Croatian cities and villages in the same time. JNA was controlled by Serbs, no doubt about it, soldiers were massively escaping during all that period, some couldn't make it but it doesn't prove wide ethnical composition of it since there was repression. The presidency of SFRY was disfunctional - yes, thanks to Milošević, an attempt to disqualify Slovenian and Croatian legal secession., etc etc... This is not a place for this discussion. There are other articles about this. Move it there... Zenanarh ( talk) 06:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Jadi jadi jadi... find sources, not arguments. Then we can move forward. Until then, it's all just piss and farts. It's just like arguing in a bar about football. AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |