![]() | 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. |
Portions copied from User talk:EdJohnston:
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)
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)
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)
Zadar county (then officially called Comune di Zara), neighborough that included places outside the "venetian walls" :
Zadar city (then officially called Citta' di Zara), inside the old town's "venetian walls":
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)
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)
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 (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)
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)
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)
You text was:
This is not sourced and actually it's incorrect. I have replaced with:
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. 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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Zenanarh ( talk) 15:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
As per WP:NCGN, the lead (starting line) should have the English version only. Also, as per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, I would maintain the revision by User:Zenanarh. Additionally, in the future do not edit war— Whenaxis ( talk) 23:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
If you have any questions please place them below. Whenaxis ( talk)
( 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)
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:
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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
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)
Zenanarh, I would like to go for a stable solution to this matter even if this will be not be necesserely of my taste.
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)
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)
Zenanarh
Silvio1973
Whenaxis (third party dispute resolver)
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! [4]. 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:
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 [5]) 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.
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)
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
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):
The claim that he is Croatian is supported by two CROATIAN sources:
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)
The result of the proposal was 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)
<-- 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Speaking language was directly related to educational system.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
[6]
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.
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:
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)
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)
-- Silvio1973 ( talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
In order for a resolution to be agreed upon, all involved parties must support the statement
To vote, follow these steps:
|
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.
I regret the discussion was not conducted under the required atmosphere. -- Silvio1973 ( talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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)
10) Whether or not to include Italian sources versus Croatian sources.
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)
11) Whether or not teritary sources (i.e. encyclopedia and dictionary) are as reliable as secondary sources.
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)
![]() | 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. |
Portions copied from User talk:EdJohnston:
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)
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)
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)
Zadar county (then officially called Comune di Zara), neighborough that included places outside the "venetian walls" :
Zadar city (then officially called Citta' di Zara), inside the old town's "venetian walls":
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)
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)
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 (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)
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)
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)
You text was:
This is not sourced and actually it's incorrect. I have replaced with:
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. 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)
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.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Zenanarh ( talk) 15:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
As per WP:NCGN, the lead (starting line) should have the English version only. Also, as per WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, I would maintain the revision by User:Zenanarh. Additionally, in the future do not edit war— Whenaxis ( talk) 23:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
If you have any questions please place them below. Whenaxis ( talk)
( 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)
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:
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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
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)
Zenanarh, I would like to go for a stable solution to this matter even if this will be not be necesserely of my taste.
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)
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)
Zenanarh
Silvio1973
Whenaxis (third party dispute resolver)
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! [4]. 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:
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 [5]) 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.
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)
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
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):
The claim that he is Croatian is supported by two CROATIAN sources:
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)
The result of the proposal was 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)
<-- 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Speaking language was directly related to educational system.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
[6]
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.
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:
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)
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)
-- Silvio1973 ( talk) 12:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
In order for a resolution to be agreed upon, all involved parties must support the statement
To vote, follow these steps:
|
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.
I regret the discussion was not conducted under the required atmosphere. -- Silvio1973 ( talk) 11:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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)
10) Whether or not to include Italian sources versus Croatian sources.
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)
11) Whether or not teritary sources (i.e. encyclopedia and dictionary) are as reliable as secondary sources.
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)