Talk:Zadar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Kubura

Zenanarh, you're forgot to mention that your last two sources are from Academy. "Knjiznica.hazu.hr" is a online library of Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU).
The catalogue search result of "Vazetye Szigheta grada /...Zadraninu is [1].
The catalogue search result of "Vila Slovincha Givrgia Barachovicchia Zadranina" is [2]. Printed in Venice in 1614 (Appresso Antonio Turini).
Here is a later edition from that very same book, Vila Slovinka Givrgia Barakovicchia Zadranina v cettare varsti petya sloxena ça yest v pismi skupne, u osmo redke, u zuçno poyke i u polvredke.. Printed in Venice (Appresso Nicolo Pezzana) in 1682. (front page). The catalogue search result is [3].
A translation of Classic Latin literature (Vergilius Maro, Publius), Eneida. Eneide Virgilia kgniga drvgga / novo u slouynski yexik iztomaçena i u piesmah sloxena po Ivannv Zanottv nauçitegliu i pridstolne zadarske kanoniku. Odlvcena prisvitlomu...gospodinu Nikoli Salamvnichiv... - V Bnetke : Po Iuannu Antonu, i bracchi Zulianichia. The front page is [4]. Catalogue search result [5]. Printed in Venice in 1688.
Holy orders Q&A. Kratka, dalli koristna vpitovanya i odgovori vbrani iz kgnygh priuzuyscenoga gospodina kardinala Toleda, za onnyh koy xelle naprydkouatise i prymati cryquenni redi; / Iztomaçena u sclouynki yexik po Ivannv Zanottv nauç: i kanoniku zadarskomu. - V Bnetke : Po Nicoli Pezzanu, 1688. Translataion: Short Q&A from the books of honorable cardinal Toledo, for those who want to join Holy orders. Translated in Slovinski by Ivann Zanotto, kanonik of Zadar. Front page [6]. Catalogue search result [7]. Printed in Venice in 1688.
A translation of New testament (Luke), by Franciscan. V parvu nedigliu priscastya Gospodinova Euangelye po Luci. pogl. 21. / v diacci yezich slozeno, i po slovu istomaceno, po M. P. Otcu Fra Ivannu Royardu male bratye S. Franciska ; a sadda novo, po Ivannu Zanottu illi Tanzlingheru naucitegliu, i Pridstolne Zadarske kanoniku u slouynski yezik istomaceno. Odluceno pripostovanomu Otcu Fra Ivannu Sessegli Tretyega Reda S. Franciska, Istrie, i Dalmatie provincialu. - V Bnetkte : Po Ossippu Tramontinu, 1690. Front page [8]. Catalogue search result [9]. Printed in Venice in 1690.
Book for Eucharist and Holy mass.Ispravniich za erei ispovidniici, i za pochornih, prenesen s latinschoga iazicha v slovignschii = Breve direttorio, per sacerdoti confessori, e per penitenti, tradotto da lingua Latina nella Illirica / [otza Iuanna Polancha... ; tumacen s'latinschoga iazicha u slouiignschi po popu Scymunu Budineu Zadraninu]. - [In Roma : Per Francesco Zanetti, 1582]. Catalogue search result [10]. Printed in Rome in 1582. Kubura 06:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Official language:
[11]. The site is of Gymnasium from Zadar. On the session of Dalmatian Diet (Dalmatinski sabor) and Landrat (Zemaljski/pokrajinski odbor)from July the 21st of 1883, it was accepted the proposition in which Croatian language becomes official language in Dalmatian Diet and in Landrat. That change was done thanks to the victory of the Narodna stranka, party that had in programme reuniting Dalmatia with the rest of Croatia, and that had won the majority on previous elections in 1883, for the 3rd time in a row (pro-Croat Narodna stranka won 26 places, Srpska stranka 8, pro-Italian Autonomaška stranka 7 places in the Diet [12]. That's scientific article from author M. Diklić, titled Don Pavao Zanki (1839.-1909.) preporoditelj i političar ninskog kraja, Rad. Zavoda povij. znan. HAZU Zadru, sv. 42/2000, str. 309-331.. The works of Historical Department of HAZU (Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts).
The government in Vienna has decided on October 20th of 1897 to replace Italian with Croatian language as command language instead of Italian. There're some old Austrian newspapers from those times online and free (though, they're written in gothic letters, pretty hard to read), and if we are lucky, I'll decode those pages and find an article that says about that. Kubura 07:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove

I've introduced several edits in the Middle Age paragraph, all taken from Britannica 1911. --Giovanni Giove 11:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that User:Zmaj wants to start a new edit war. I've reverted his action in the historical paragraph. I ask the moderatore his opinion. Among other things, historical name shall be respected. Best regards--Giovanni Giove 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added further edits from Britannica. I will sign the single sources as soon as poosible.

I've reintroduced the edits delete by user:Zenanarh (under the alleged reason "no edits without consensus during RFC"). They are all sourced.--Giovanni Giove 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Community Input

Well, I just added in previously deleted information that is important to the Croatian history of Zadar, especially with King Kresimir (and his wife wasn't called Jelena of Zadar for nothing. I would also like to point out that the edit warring did not begin until a specific user started drastically changing--not simply adding information--but drastically changing the entire outline and facts of the article which have already been edited and added onto so meticulously by many other users. He has also done this to numerous other Croatian articles. Hopefully, more people will be able to see this and help save the dignity of this beautiful Croatian city's page.--Jesuislafete 02:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not intoduced the sources. Your unsourced edits diasgree with the present sources. Your personal opinions about "meticulously" are meaningless.--Giovanni Giove 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a proposal: to introduce a chapter presenting the city's different names, but to use the city's current official name in all the other chapters, including history. This has already been successfully done in many Wikipedian articles, such as Oslo or Dublin. --Zmaj 22:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Z makes an excellent proposal. Use the OFFICIAL CURRENT name, but introduce the historical one and debate over the name.Balloonman 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that proposal, but I don't think a whole new chapter is needed. A paragraph explaining how the name changed through history will be quite sufficient. --Dr.Gonzo 12:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Estabilshed Wikipedia's rule for historical names

I shall remember that the established rule for the historical name is to leave them. See Gdansk/Danzig, Istanbul/Constantinopolis, Republic of Ragusa, Izmir/Smyrne, Szczecin/Stettin, Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg. Without the rule we would have Kant born in Laliningrad, and Costantinus movinge the Roman Empire's capital to... Istambul. For its contoversial nationalistic involvemets the rule was widly discusses, and it's not an us to change it.
A good guideline for the present article is Gdansk, a city that has experencied the same etnich change after WWII. There is a paragrahs listing all the names, then for each age, there is the proper historical name.--Giovanni Giove 08:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You should remember that Zadar has a some few historical names and changing it through sentence into a sentence doesn't have a sense. We can use 10 different names in 30 sentences…

Whose controversial nationalistic involvements?

Your links are irrelevant for our case.

Gdanks talk page was about this: [13]

"Danzig" easier than "Gdańsk"? English speakers are more likely to have familiarity (if flawed) with German pronunciation than with Polish pronunciation. It is far easier for almost all English speakers to to try to pronounce the old German name for the city than to make any attempt at the Polish name for the city.

then it was prolonged with German/Polish war in the talk page and ended:[14]

So why use Gdańsk, the common Polish spelling, and not Gdansk the common English spelling?

Zadar has experienced ethnic change before WWII too... But we haven't come to that point yet.

Please don’t jump out of RFC, you have headline with your name. Zenanarh 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The disccussion you have read it about the title, not about the use of the historical names:-))))--Giovanni Giove 08:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are really funny... Zara was just an administrative name of the city from 15th century to 1943. The most of its citizens didn't use it, until 18th century. See the sources in RFC section. Zenanarh 09:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To be correct, till 1883. Italian name was in use after WWI (not promptly in 1918, but after the political treaties), when Zadar was given to Italy (as a reward for betraying her allies). Kubura 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your sources show just that a Slavic name existed toghether 'Zara'. This was the only official name, the one used by its Italian majority. ANyway your opinion is uselessl. According the Wikipedia rules, the historical names shall be used.--Giovanni Giove 16:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names#Examples. The dispute is over. Zara is the proper name until 1947.--Giovanni Giove 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you don't use this rule, you are just mentioning it but not using it. What's your proof that Zara is historical name? Please explain it. Zenanarh 08:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed, Original Research, POV tags

I added these tags to article, since faked history of the city was edited, or better to say the most of it. There's a lot of incorrect data, manipulated data, incorrect statements, original research details, incorrect use of terms, names, statistical numbers and finally conclusions derived from it. The history of Zadar written this way looks like history of some other city. It really looks ridiculous for anyone who is familiar with a topic. Since an RFC is going on I'm going to use it for sourcing and explanations. Here I'm going to specify some points (this is just an announcement for discussion through RFC) that are looseness.

• Middle Age

Using of terms Slavs, Croats, Serbs in scientifically "out of date" manner.

moral if not the material support of their kinsfolk in Italy??? Italy???

Latin or Italian population - Italians in the Balkans in 7th century???

linking to Morlachs article which is also incorrectly edited

Holy Roman empire by Pepin of Italy - where were Franks in that sentence?

Italian cities, Trogir, Zadar and others???

Generally some details are mentioned and some even more important are not.

• Rivalry of Venice and Hungary in Dalmatia

In 1099, the Kingdom of Croatia was invaded and conquered by the Hungarian king Coloman - incorrect

A "golden" period of Zadar history described through a few sentences that are connected to Venetians and... that's all?

Incorrect usage of names and "rivals" including the topic.

This part of history edited this way is a basis for later manipulations in the text

• Republic of Venice (1409-1797)

Hiding occasions in the city from this period is manipulation.

400 years in 2 sentences?

• Napoleonic era

and 5 years in 3 sentences... and it has a topic

• Austrian Empire (1815-1918): the age of nationalism

Having a large Italian majority - incorrect

Austrian census for the city of Zadar - speakers or ethnicities? Where are the real numbers?

What exactly happened in this period?

• Italy

Incorrect numbers again Zenanarh 22:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The data come from Austrian Census (you can read well they are according to the spoken language), the edits you don't like are from Britannica. After my last edits the paragraphs are finnaly balanced (the last are still missing...). The Italian majority is rather sourced (not only by the Cenusus itself)--Giovanni Giove 08:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC is about the name of the city and we still didn't finish it. We didn't come to the question of population in 19th century yet.Zenanarh 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The RFC about the name is finished!: there is already a rule!!!! For th 19th, I repeat again: read the Austrian Census.--Giovanni Giove 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC about the name is not finished, it just began...Zenanarh 08:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As you like. Meanwhile search with google a map of Dalmatia printed before 1918, and let me know. I've serched and searched, but I never find 'Zadar' or 'Split' (English, Germans, Austrian, Hungarian, Spanish, French mape&atlas are OK). If you find, just let me know. Tx--Giovanni Giove 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

English, German,... writers or geographists used their own names for Zadar (same as Venetian maps and documents before 15th century), therefore those maps are irrelevant. Examples: French name of Zadar during Medieval was Jadres while it was official Jadera and spoken Jadra (Zadra) and Zadar by its citizens. Zenanarh 06:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this...

Hello everyone, I have done my best to rewrite the history section as NPOV as possible. Despite being written as if Zadar was (or should rightfully be a part of) Italy :D, it is also terribly written, gramatically speaking. One should NOT edit the ENGLISH Wikipedia if one posseses only partial knowledge of the ENGLISH language. Please refrain from this, as correcting mistakes in sentence construction is very hard work. Also do not reference statements with unreliable sources. This is very damaging to the Encyclopedia and only makes it SEEM like you're right. Refrain from insults and nationalist and/or irredentist outbursts in this, apparently sensitive, article, the national borders are where they stand and will not be moved even if Benito Mussolini himself wakes from the grave and edits Wikipedia ;D. Thank you.

Just one more VERY important thing: DO NOT REMOVE THE GRAMMATICAL CORRECTIONS. If you do, I assure you, your edit will be reverted. DIREKTOR

Dalmatian Romans

one important matter: Dalmatian romans are NOT italians, they are romanized Illyrians, this is a scientific fact and is not disputable. Italians came to Dalmatia during the period of Venetian rule. I do not base this on this fact, but I am a living example. :) (for example: my family came from Venice in 1506). DIREKTOR

ALL the romans were "Romanized", Latin was spoken only in small area around Rome. North Italy was Celtic, the South Greek and Phoenician. The Center Etrurian,and many other things.

Giovanni Giove, no offence, but we seem to have an misunderstaniding here. What you say about the languages is true, absolutely, but we are not talking about languages. Please note: yes, all of Italy was romanised, all of the Mediterranean was romanised, but that did not change the ethnic composition. According to your thinking, all Romans are Italian. This is not true. The Greeks are the best example. They were all Romans (at the later period of the Empire, of course, everybody was a Roman then) but they were ethnic Greeks. The same applies to the Illyrians. They were Romans, absloutely, but they were not Italian in origin. There is a difference. Ifthere was no difference, than Italy would have a rightful claim to the entire mediterranean shoreline and France. This is of course not so. The people living in those areas before the barbarians would be Italians, which is laughable. The Kelts you mentioned are another example: They became Romans but they remained ethnically Celtic Romans, like the gauls... Savvy? Perhaps now we can clear this thing up, eh? DIREKTOR 00:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to find someone normal here. You don't have to base it on your own example. It's known that a number of ethnic Romans who came in Dalmatia during the Romanization was rather small. According to the scientists who were writing about Illyrians. Romanization was a process carried mainly by already Romanized Illyrians, native people who were mobilized to political or millitary life of the Empire and by the end of their careers, while returning to their cities and villages, they brought knowledge and culture. That's why it is said that Romanization of Illyrians was not complete, it was selective! Only a few cities at the seaside got some amount of the ethnic Romans (Zadar is good example - Roman citizens colony), but this influx was limited at a some few hundred years (1st-3th century) and constant re-population was made by natives (Illyrians), so it's hard to expect that "Romans" in Zadar in the early-Medieval were ethnic Latins, especially after many ethnic changes through all of that period (late Empire - early Medieval). Therefore claims Morlachs = ethnic Romans sound more than stupid. Imagine this: ethnic Latin lives in Zadar, has hot water in his Antique bathroom, a bunch of slaves,... a few hundred years later the members of his family are traditional shepherds - Morlachs... Weird... In fact Morlachs were nothing but Romanized Illyrians again! Zenanarh 11:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way Liburnians were huge producers and suppliers of sheep meat and wool, they were well known of it in every corner of the Roman Empire. The name of Delmatae tribe comes from the name of "sheep", so... Zenanarh 11:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think even Mussolini went as far as to claim that Dalmatia was Italian because it's people were ethnic Romans, I mean that's just riddiculous. Dalmatia is a small yet culturally SEPERATE region from Italy. The fact remains it was culturaly more simmilar to Italy than Croatia, it had a romanic culture, but this simmilarity can be compared to that between the Italian and Spanish culture. For a more vivid example one can compare the Dalmatian language with the Italian language. It is very untrue (not to mention provocative!) to say that Italy has a rightful claim to Dalmatia (as was certainly implied in the article) simply because of this simmilarity and because of the small geographical extent of the region. Historically and culturally speaking (without regarding current ethnic composition), Italy (as the Venetian sucsessor) has no more right to Dalmatia than modern Croatia.

One more important issue: Dalmatia was under Venetian rule for centuries this means A) it aquired a SMALL, but elite, Italian minority, and B) that it's population was actively italianized. Not forcibly, as in the XX. century, but italianized it undoubtably was, to a certain extent. This means that a census concerning the spoken language, while probably true, by NO means represents the ethnic composition of any population group, as was claimed. Who ever posted that census, is a very adept and intelligent manipulator and should be forthwith reported to the Admins for immediate banning. He knowingly posted untrue information on Wikipedia. I will not go into this any further, however. It was a while ago, but if it is posted again I shall be forced to act. Do not revert the edit with that peace of untrue info intact, please.DIREKTOR

Impartial irredentism

First of all, as far as I'm concerned you can be an Oxford professor, I still wouldn't let you revert gramatical mistakes: "Bulgars"?, "reconquest" as a verb?, etc... Second of all, you are POV. Why should there be an Italian name for Zadar in the introduction? It is irrelevant. Then we should put the German name there too. IT WAS UNDER THEIR OCCUPATION AS WELL. The city is now Croat. Historically it was not Croat or Italian, it was Dalmatian. Dalmatians are romanised Illyrs that changed many rulers, had their own Dalmatian language and mixt to a certain extent to with the slavic population. Italians came only later with the longest period of Venetian rule, and in small numbers. Italianization forced your culture on the Dalmatian one and now you are using this fact to, de facto, make it seem like Dalmatia should by all rights be in Italy! DIREKTOR

Using Brittanica to distort facts

Some Italian editors seem to support an sinister propagandist method to distort information posted on this encyclopedia. Example: Brittanica census on the language spoken in the city of Zadar is used in an attempt to prove that the Italians were a majority in the city. Wich is laughable considering the historical facts of the area. This is manipulation and propagandism => VANDALISM. It will not be tolerated. Furthermore, the last version is nearly illegible as it is full of very many mistakes, both in spelling and in sentence construction. Undoing my hard work in actually making this article legible is disrespectful, uncompromising, POV and (once again) VANDALISM. I will keep it simple: the next person who simply reverts my work without discussion will be reported to an IMPARTIAL (non-Italian, non-Croat) Admin and will be in serious (objective) danger of being blocked for vandalism. DIREKTOR

I (the "some Italian editors") have reverted the article to the version based on Britannica. You are allowed to correct grammar, and typos. You can use those, as a pretest to impose POV, indiscussed and non referencied.,--Giovanni Giove 21:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained your method of using Britannica as a pretext for destroying this article, read what I told you, and respond intelligently. You twist and distort Britannica to suit your POV. This is incredibly horrible. I think I am going to go to the Admins with your nice ethnic census.... DIREKTOR 00:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Kasichescu sedea,truiblinca leshen tu' olsiuh meteran Titu, en tu Istriia bhlesciu zardenkien op ilkjeje lomasdenhia tu italii kroatii on slevenshki? Nikita Orolov.

Very nice... what does it mean? Something very clever?Zenanarh 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably that Tito is DEAD or something like that... DIREKTOR 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you speak english or italian?Nikita Orolov.

On the English Wikipedia? English. (That's Romanian if I'm not mistaken...) DIREKTOR 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

alright,I think it's not democratic sistem,cause if you have an idea you can be a monster.Nikita Orolov. Ps:I am polish

You are Polish?, is that right now... You wouldn't happen to be ITALIAN, by any chance, would you? DIREKTOR 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Your translation made no sense...

scusa ma conesco poco l inglese comunque ora vai a dormire, sogni d'oro amore.Nikita Orolov.

To you too, golden Polish dreams... DIREKTOR 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the current version

1) THE CURRENT VERSION DOES NOT REMOVE REFERENCES (from Britannica), except that one I have mentioned many times, about the spoken language being presented as ethnic composition of the City (read the section, up there).

YOur edits are tottaly against the source (britannica). In many cases you have deleted the source, or you have totally changed the facts providing no sources.--Giovanni Giove 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

2) THE CURRENT VERSION IS GRAMMATICALY CORRECT. DO NOT REVERT MY HARD WORK ON FIXING SENTENCE CONSTRUCTION MISTAKES, TRUST ME, IT IS NOT EASY.

FALSE. The most of the sentences are copy&past from Britannica. Correct the neutral version. Grammar shall no be a pretest to impose your POVs.--Giovanni Giove 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

3) BECAUSE IT IS NEARLY ILLEGIBLE AND VERY LOW QUALITY THE OLD VERSION CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR DISCUSSION. Discussion itself, I welcome. Will you PLEASE write down your grievances (the things you dislike) in an organised way, so we can get to work?!

FALSE. THe neutral version are just minor errors. The most of the sentences are copy&paste from Britannica1911!!!!--Giovanni Giove 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

4) DO NOT START A NOTHER EDIT WAR! THE OLD VERSION IS NEARLY ILLEGIBLE AND CANNOT STAND. I AM NOT SAYING MY VERSION IS PERFECT, I'M ONLY SAYING: LET'S WORK TOGETHER ON MAKING IT SO. Thank you. DIREKTOR 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

FALSE. THis IS an edit war. Started by YOU. YOU have imposed falsifications so evident to be childy. You are the TROLL here, not me.--Giovanni Giove 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Name one instance in wich I am against Britannica, TROLL! This entire article is written as if Zadar, and indeed, Dalmatia are historically Venetian. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT. This is a Croatian city we are talking about. You cannot go around rewriting history and then call me a troll when I correct you. NOW EXPLAIN THIS EXAMPLE: YOU POST A (correct) CENSUS ON THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE AND TRY TO PASS IT OFF AS THE CENSUS ON THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE CITY. EXPLAIN THAT FALCIFICATION! JUST FOR THAT, FOR SUCH FASCIST MANIPULATION OF WIKIPEDIA'S READERS, YOU SHOULD BE BANNED. IF I SEE THAT FALCIFICATION ONCE MORE, I AM GOING TO THE ADMINS. Anyone can see your offensive article for what it is: A petty fanatic's insulting claim on another nation's city. DIREKTOR 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you have been copy-pasteing, (that seems to be the only thing you are capable of) it amazed me that some sections are correct, but are horribly connected to the rest of the text, which is written in a simply WRONG way. Just look at your sentence for example (I state this not to insult, but to illustrate my point wich you have called false): "YOU have imposed fallsifications so evident to be childy." While I can guess it's intent, this sentence is ILLEGIBLE by normal standards. Yet you continuously remove my work on cleaning up these Italian mistakes! DIREKTOR 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All this "Giove situation" speaks for itself. In fact it's very transparent. His editions were of "for God sake, what is this?" quality. At first he used Irredentismo page History of Zara (italian) for editing, for those who don't know Italian irredentism is percieved as facistic in Croatia, since it was based on ideas that ~ one third of Croatia is Italy, even there was no any serious historical reason. I was edit warring with him but as you can see only me was present with the sources in the talk page. When RFC was started he was panically changing the text and used other on line encyclopedia and Brittanica data in combination with his old known POV which produced another indigestible "sourced" version of "What is this?" And his choice of what to take or not from the sources was unbelievable.

Listen Giove if you have a block in your head you can use it in the forums, blogs, you can put it in the newspapers etc... But this is an encyclopedia and it has some rules, although you have freedom to express your opinion. So use the talk page! You must explain what you want to change with the others. In the talk page. IS IT A PROBLEM FOR YOU?. Zenanarh 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys at least be civil to each other (aka not insulting each other and using pointless name-calling)? I see some challengeable works on both sides. Maybe we should start discussing each section separately in the talk pages and work on it until everyone agrees. This page is a disgrace because it keeps getting changed. Poor Zadar. Jesuislafete 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, let's start! But let me tell you this in advance, I don't think Giove and his ilk have the dedication for this kinda serious work. DIREKTOR
1) The Medieval Period - list the parts in question.

There, Jesuislafete. Do you see? These people are not here to discuss, but to mindlessly revert to their incredibly ignorant version. DIREKTOR 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Britannica references deletion

All right let's get this clear. In the interest of supporting a certain radical POV, two manipulative things have been done here:
1) Britannica info has been PURPOSELY distorted to decieve the reader. [FREQUENTLY cited example: a (probably) correct Britannica census on the LANGUAGE spoken in Zadar is used to represent the (SIGNIFICANTLY different) ethnic composition of the city.]
2) (Correct) Britannica info has been copy-pasted and then VERY BADLY INTEGRATED INTO THE REST OF THE TEXT and/or the same info HAD BEEN "AUGMENTED" BY UNREFERENCED (and BADLY written) SENTENCES REPRESENTING THE PERSONAL VIEWS OF THE (Italian) EDITOR.

I have, therefore, done 2 things as well:
1) I have removed the quite obviously distorted info (after reading the sources).
2) I have integrated (NOT DELETED) the copy-pasted Britannica material and removed the (unreferenced) POV sentences written by the Italian editor. LET ME SAY THIS ONCE MORE, I LEFT THE REFERENCES TO THE BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA UNTOUCHED. THE INFO IS UNCHANGED, MERELY WRITTEN IN DIFFERENT WORDING TO BETTER INTEGRATE IT INTO THE REST OF THE ARTICLE. DIREKTOR 10:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, let me clarify what this Venetian POV, I keep mentioning, actually is. This is basically what they believe: "Zadar is rightfully an Italian (specifically Venetian) city swamped by barbaric Slavs. Itlians have been tortured here by this barbaric horde and were either killed or forced to leave their ancient homes. "Zara" was Italian from antiquity with Italians bravely defending themselves from the invading half-humans, but to no avail. The eeevil barbaric Slav communist totalitarianists have ripped this land from it's mother-country and forced the Italian government to accept this outrage. But now, with Yugoslavia ripped apart, the Italian government should probably try to take the lands back from the weak balkans republics."

The historic information is, actually, a tiny bit different. In ancient times the city was populated by romanized Illyrians which, though Romans, had nothing ethnically in common with the population of the Italian peninsula. After the Avars pillaged much of Dalmatia, the Slavs arrived and formed permanent settlements. Zadar (and the rest of the cities) were a completely SEPERATE romance culture from Italy and were increasingly mixing with the Slavs. Italians only arrived after Venice conquered this area in the 15th century, and in small numbers. They did have a strong cultural influence, but did not replace the local (non-Italian) population. Because of this italianization Italy laid asked for these land in exchange for betrayig ut's erstwhile allies during the First World War. Italy did very badly so it was granted only the Zadar and Istria. As the capital of the centuries long Venetian occupation, the city's (Dalmatian, i.e. romanised Illyric and Slavic) population was more intensely italianized than anywhere else so it was granted to Italy. By the second half of the XX. century the city had a strong Slavic majority, but Mussolini's Italy tried to change this BY ACTUALLY FORCEFULLY CHANGING THE LAST NAMES OF THE CROATS INTO ITALIAN VERSIONS. Italy lost the second war and with it Istria and Zadar, a fact many REVANCHIST Venetians have still not come to terms with. DIREKTOR 11:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Medieval

This part misses a lot of important historical data of the city itself. Population is never mentioned? Even it is mentioned a lot?!

Nada Klaić, Ivo Petricioli: «Prošlost Zadra – knjiga II, Zadar u srednjem vijeku do 1409.», Filozofski fakultet Zadar, 1976. «History of Zadar –book II, Zadar in Medieval until 1409», University of philosophy Zadar, 1976.

page 57:

…Dalmacija dočekuje provale barbara u VI i VII st. koje iz osnova mijenjaju njezin teritorijalni opseg, etničku strukturu i najzad njezino političko uređenje…

…O teritorijalnoj rasprostranjenosti nove bizantske Dalmacije nisu mišljenja u historografiji bila složna prije svega zato što se nije vodilo računa o tome da se od VI st. dalje političke i etničke granice na Jadranu nisu podudarale…

Translation: …Dalmatia was on the way of barbarian irruptions in 6th and 7th century which basically changed its territorial latitude , ethnic legality plus finally its politician legality… Verdict in historiography wasn’t concerted about territorial publicity of new Byzantine Dalmatia, since from 6th century further on, political and ethnical borders were not the same.

page 59:

…Tako toponomastika zadarskog otočja nesumnjivo pokazuje da je hrvatski element naselio gotovo svaki otok preuzimajući od starosjedilaca nazive za gradove ili veća naselja, dok je sam davao imena selima i zemlji u kraju koji je obrađivao i u kojem je živio. Nema nikakvog razloga datirati naseljavanje Hrvata tek X stoljećem, jer se procesu hrvatskog naseljavanja otoka nisu protivili dalmatinski Romani, već su ga naprotiv podupirali.

Translation: So onomastics of Zadar archipelago undoubtly show that Croatian element inhabited almost every island taking over the names for cities or bigger settlements from indigenous people while it gave its own name to the villages and the lands… There’s no reason to date inhabiting of Croats into the islands as late as 10th century, since Dalmatian Romans didn’t go against Croatian populating of the islands, in the contrary they encouraged it.

page 60:

…neće biti neopravdana pretpostavka da je hrvatski element postepeno dostigao i do 70 posto otočkog stanovništva.

Translation: …it wouldn't be unreasonable conjecture that Croatian element gradually succeeded around 70% of the islands population.

page 61:

Dosadašnja je historografija suviše malo vodila računa o slavenskoj i hrvatskoj kolonizaciji bizantske Dalmacije, te joj stoga nije bilo lako odgovoriti na pitanje kako se moglo romansko stanovništvo stoljećima održati među mnogobrojnim Slavenima i Hrvatima. I to ne samo kao politička jedinica nego i biološki. Gledajući upravo s tog biološkog stanovišta na romanske ostatke, morali bismo zaključiti da se Roman brzo izgubio u hrvatskom i slavenskom moru. To bi se doista i dogodilo da gradovi i otoci nisu uvijek iznova dobivali iz hrvatskog zaleđa svježe snage. Tako je hrvatsko zaleđe produžavalo život «ostacima ostataka» neprestanom kolonizacijom čitave bizantske Dalmacije… Hrvati su dakle dali krv i meso tom romanskom kosturu koji bi se bez njih brzo slomio i nestao. Romansko-slavenska simbioza je na području bizantske Dalmacije bila potpuna, jer je sve stanovnike te daleke bizantske pokrajine povezivao zajednički interes… Slavenska je kolonizacija također ublažavala antagonističke odnose između hrvatskog sela i grada s jedne i dalmatinske općine na jadranskoj obali s druge strane druge strane.

Translation: A much of history didn't concern Slavic and Croatian colonization of Byzantine Dalmatia, so it was not easy to answer how could have the Roman population survived among numerous Slavs and Croats. Both politically and biologically. Observing Roman remains specially from that biological side, we should summarize that Romans quickly disappeared in Croatian and Slavic ocean. It couldn't have happened since the cities and the islands continually accepted fresh forces from the Croatian inland. That was how Croatian inland carried the life of «remains of the remains» by constant colonization of Byzantine Dalmatia… Roman-Slavic symbiosis in the area of Byzantine Dalmatia was signed, because all habitants of that Byzantine province shared the same interest… Slavic colonization also soothed antagonisms between the Croatian city and the village from one and Dalmatian communes from the other side.

page 77:

…svi su bizantski podanici na Jadranu prema svjedočanstvu cara pisca X st. jedva dočekali vladavinu cara Mihajla II (820-829) kad je «carstvo Romeja zbog mlitavosti i nesposobnosti tadašnjih careva došlo do ruba potpune propasti» Tada i «stanovnici dalmatinskih gradova postadoše samostalni, ne pokoravajući se ni caru niti ikom drugom…

Translation: …according to testimony by the emperor writer in 10th century all Byzantine vassals in the Adriatic were delighted about the ruling of the emperor Michael II (820-829) when «the empire of Romans declined due to the looseness and inability of former emperors». Then «the population of Dalmatian cities became independent, not submitting to anyone»

Between 867 and 879 Dalmatia became Byzantine «theme»

page 80:

Pa ipak, usprkos tome što je Bazilije poslao stratega u Zadar, čini se da tematsko uređenje u Dalmaciji nije do kraja provedeno. Nema, naime, zasad nikakvih podataka da je Dalmacija tada zaista pretvorena u vojnički čvrsto organiziranu provinciju.

Translation: Although Basil I sent a strategist to Zadar, it seemed that theme organization was not completed in Dalmatia. There's no any data Dalmatia was really transformed into the military strong organized province.

page 84:

Poznato je da je razdoblje posljednjih decenija IX pa do sredine X st. vrijeme mira i zbog toga dosta velikoga napretka mediternskih i jadranskih gradova. U Jadranu su nastale osobito povoljne prilike prestankom saracenskih navala, jer se more otvorilo za slobodnu plovidbu. S druge strane uređenje odnosa s Hrvatima omogućuje zadarskom trgovcu poslovanje u zaleđu.

…u ranosrednjovjekovnom zadarskom društvu nema oštrih razlika. Gradski su slojevi još otvoreni, prijelaz je iz jedne grupe u drugu moguć i on je ustvari jedan od uvjeta uspješnog napretka grada. Pogotovo zato što grad odasvud, a najviše iz susjednog hrvatskog zaleđa neprestano prima novo stanovništvo.

page 86:

Već neka imena među članovima zadarskog patricijata iz X st. pokazuju da su se Hrvati popeli do najviših gradskih časti

Translation: It is known that a period from last decencies of 9th century to the middle 10th century was time of peace so therefore Mediterranean and Adriatic cities developed a lot. Specially favorable conditions occurred in the Adriatic sea after Saracen attacks stopped, since the sea was free for navigation. Also adjusting of relations with Croats enabled Zadar merchants to trade in the inland too. …there were no sharp differences in the early Medieval Zadar society. City classes were open, it was possible to transfer from one group to another and it was a condition for successful development of the city. Especially for the reason that Zadar accepted new inhabitants from everywhere, but mostly from the Croatian inland. Some names of Zadar patricians showed that Croats reached the highest city honors already in 10th century.

See the history of nobility in Zadar [15]. Many noblemen from 10th to15th century were Croats.Zenanarh 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected

I've noticed that since I semi-protected this, the edit warring has continued between a few editors. I've fully protected the article at this point. I'm going to recommend a 3rd opinion or request for comment be obtained here. No offense intended to the parties involved, but I don't see this edit war being solved without an infusion of neutral outside opinions from editors who don't have a point of view on this topic.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Colonization of Italians in Zadar

Here's the work that describes (in one its part) the ways and reasons of immigration of Italians to Zadar, changing the ethnical picture of the city [16]. The article is called "Populacijski razvoj Zadra" ("Zadar Population Development", by Vera Graovac. The article is in Croatian, but at the end of the article, there's a summary in English. Kubura 06:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: ethnicity of Zara/Zadar

This is a dispute about the possible ethnicity of Zadar throughout its history (Latin, Dalmatian, Slavic, Italian).
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The city shall be reported with the proper name for each historical time (according to the Wikipedia's rules), and not always as 'Zadar'--Giovanni Giove 09:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Croats were a minority in all the XIX and later (until WWII). THis was recognized by the peace conference in Paris, in 1919. This is also shown by all the Austrian Census.--Giovanni Giove 09:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• The vernacular used inside the city, after the disappearing of the Dalmatian language, was the Venitian dialect (even if the countryside was Slavic).

--Giovanni Giove 09:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• The name recommended for use is the English name and local name for the city (i.e. Zadar) with the internatioanal name in the 19th century in brackets.
• Croats were a majority in all the 19th century and later. No mention was made of the population of Zadar in the Paris conference. The tired Austrian Census is not valid since (even if it is reliable) it is solely on the spoken laguage, not on nationality. There is no evidence supporting the Italian majority claim.
• The vernacular bame used inside the city, after the disappearance of the Dalmatian language, was the Croatian language, since by than the Croats in the city far outnumbered the Latins (Dalmatians). (The Italian elite came to the city only much later.)

Comments

Giovanni! You didn't include them all! Let me enumerate: Liburnian, Latin, Dalmatian, Ostrogothic, Byzantine, Hungarian, Croatian, Venetian, Italian, German, Yugoslavian. I may have missed one or two. Of course, the simplest thing would be to put the state where the city is in. But Giovanni doesn't like that. --Zmaj 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The ethnicity and culture of Zadar/Zara during it's history may be shortly rendered thusly:

1) Before the arrival of the Slavs and during the Roman Empire: Culture: purely Roman, or Latin, if you will (note that there is a strong distinction between "Roman" and "Italian", the two are certainly not considered synonyms). Ethnicity (numerically speaking): predominantly the ancient (Romainsed) Illyrian peoples.

2) Early middle ages, before the permanent establishment of Venetian sovereignty: Culture: Latin (Dalmatian)/Slavic (important: the first one is considered primary: 1./2.). Ethnicity: Latin (Dalmatian)/Slavic

3) Period of permanent Venetian rule (400 years): Culture: Italian (Venetian)/Slavic. Ethnicity: Slavic/Italian (Venetian) (numerically, of course)

4) Period of Austrian rule: Culture: Slavic/Italian, Italian/Slavic (an even "mixture", so to speak). Ethnicity: Slavic/Italian.

5) 1918 - 1945: Culture: Slavic/Italian, Italian/Slavic (an even "mixture", so to speak). Ethnicity: Slavic/Italian.

6) Modern times: Culture: Slavic/Italian (decreasing, I'm afraid). Ethnicity: predominantly Slavic.

(Note that things like Culture: Slavic/Italian, by no means represent cultural "superiority".)

One other important matter, in case anyone attempts to present a certain irrelevant Austrian census (mentioned) in support of Italian claims, let me say this in advance it is a census ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY ON LANAGUAGE, NOT ON ETHNICITY (two completely different things by ANY demographic standard). AS SUCH IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF IN ANY CONTEXT OF THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF ZADAR. This is an old, tired argument completely proven irrelevant (see the "Using Britannica to distort facts" section above). DIREKTOR 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what's the purpose of other users comments if Giovanni Giove changes and makes a "stylization" of it. This discussion practically didn't begin and it's already corrupted. Zenanarh 08:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC) +

I don't know who is right, but maybe it is important to clear a fact. In Italy the concept of ethnicity is never used to refer to the concept of being Italian. Almost everyone, AFAIK, considers Italian who speaks Italian, or at least uses it as a language of culture (I mean, to write something, to express complex concepts...). So, in Italy, speaking about the ethnic composition of a city makes no sense, we consider only nationality defined by language. Consider for example that our law defends linguistic minorities, not ethnic minorities. I don't know which is the Wikipedia rule for such a situation, but it's important to understand that there is a cultural difference in what is considered more relevant to describe the nationality of a city. Clap 12:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

FINALLY! I was beginning to doubt there are any level-headed Italians because of this guy. Thank you for clearing that up, according to International law (UN policy), however, ethnicity is not determined solely on the basis of spoken language. i.e., a census on spoken language does not determine nationality. I hope that makes sense. DIREKTOR 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The western Balkans area was populated by Illyrians, precisely Illyrian tribes during the Iron Age and Antique. Although the scientists use one universal name for these people (Illyrians – according to Greek and Roman Antique writers), they all conclude that they were separated among themselves and self-identifying through their tribal appurtenance. Liburnians were known as rulers of Adriatic Sea 9th-6th century BC. Some historians mentioned up to 4 different or partly different languages spoken by Illyrians. After 300 years of war between Roman legions and a several Illyrian tribes (the longest resistance was given by Delmatae tribe – name of Dalmatia) Roman Empire province was formed by the name Illyricum (todays western Balkans). Romans were known as «civilized conquerors», which means that they didn't kill the natives neither they were trying to force their culture. Their provinces were their colonies. They built trade roads between the cities and established their administrations. That's why a half of Europe is built on Latin culture basis (not to mix with Latin blood!). It was not some universal culture. It was an economical globalization based on Latin language as a connection (still present in «whitemen civilisation» everywhere). Same as our modern economical globalization based on English language as a connection. I believe that English is the first language that some Japanese manager wants to learn.
So Romanization of Illyricum was never completed. People didn't lose their traditional customs. Most of them never learned how to speak Latin. Also Romanization was carried mostly by the natives who were engaged in political, military and cultural life of Empire. However Romanization was the strongest in the coastal Dalmatian cities. Liburnian Iader (Zadar) became Latin Iader and a colony of Roman citizens (Roman citizens, not ethnical Latins for sure!) – mostly ex-legionaires who were awarded properties in Illyricum. There were just a few such colonies in the eastern Adriatic coast, so the real number of Latin people by roots was rather small and by the time it was additionally decreasing. The most of population in Dalmatia were Romanized Illyrians. That's why an original language developed – Dalmatian language. It got its name from Dalmats – Illyrians. Through all Medieval Illyrian was a synonym for Croatian!
From the late-Empire period and further on, Dalmatia was under pressure of «barbaric» incursions and demographic changes, Huns, Vandals, Alans, Ostrogoths, Ants (Slavs), Avars, Sclavenes (Slavs),… The term Slav is recently disputed among historians as name of some unique ethnical or cultural group of people but I will use it for this article purpose and simplicity.
Slavic languages were lingua franca for these people in the same way as Latin language for the population of Italian peninsula. While Romanization was selective in Illyricum, Slavization was almost completed. In 5th century a strong earthquake destroyed Zadar and adding all these other changes we are coming to the moment in 9th century when Croats massively inhabited Zadar which was obvious already in 10th century when the most of names found in the notes, inscriptions and documents were Croatian and it was never changed until nowadays. The only exception was a short period 1930-1943 when Italians made a majority but I will discuss it later.
Until 10th century Croats succeeded around 70% of islands population (previous to that the most of Dalmatian speakers left the cities and escaped to the islands). See Medieval section of this talk page.
Zadar citizens were mostly Croats who were using both languages Dalmatian and Croatian, precisely Dalmatian was language of noblemen, while Croatian was spoken by masses. It is clearly shown in the names of these people. Dalmatian and Croatian elements in the same name. See History of noble families in Zadar section on this talk page.
The name of the city was Jadera or Jadra, spoken Zad'ra. See previous RFC - about the name discussion on this talk page. All Zadar citizens used this name, neither Croats tried to change it, so it's not false to say that Jadera was Croatian name of the city too.
I'm little bit reapeting myself, since I was writing about all of this already on this talk page, but that's life. Coming soon with more… Zenanarh 20:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's this from, Zenanarh? DIREKTOR 20:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A part about Illyrians and Romanization - Stipčević: "Iliri", Wilkes: "Illyrians"
Slavs controversy - well, read any new work of prominent historians about Slavs. I.Mužić's book "Hrvatska povijest devetoga stoljeća" ("Croatian history in 9th century") is a fascinating work about the region from late Antique to 10th century, entirely available on-line [17], written as a compilation of all existing theories and conclusions of other relevant historians, sometimes opposite theories of different scientists are used by the author to clean up historical mess. It includes historical, anthropological, linguistical, archeological, genetical data. Even Mužić's opponents gave him a maximum relevance.
The rest as I said is sourced already in this talk page in mentioned sections. Zenanarh 21:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to understand a thing. In the Austrian census people told which language they spoke. Imagine that a man, who descended from a Croatian family, had always spoken Italian in all his life, and therefore considered himself Italian. Will you consider him Croat, in a hypothetical ethnic census? And which is its nationality, according to you? In other words, according to you, is nationality (which is not ethnicity) a thing that someone can choose or something determined by one's ancestors? Clap 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A very good question. And I'm afraid I do not have a straightforward answer, but an answer I have. Both are correct, are they not (in historical considerations)? A Venetian in Zara can call himself a Russian, it still won't make him less Venetian. And yet, a person has the right to state his nationality in a census the way he/she sees fit. We must make case to case judgement, concerning this, in historical considerations, would you not agree? The context of the time makes all the difference in my oppinion.

Let's take a look at that context, shall we. We have here probably the most italianized city in the world. Genetically a complex mixture of Dalmatian ancestoral inhabitants, Venetian "colonists" and Croatian Slavs. political context: Despite being part of the Austrian Empire, Venetians (Italians) ruled the city, therefore it was considered most useful to learn the language. In my oppinion, we could expect very many bilingual people here (it was a city and these were citizens, not peasants) that would in a census, despite actually considering themselves Croat and speaking the language, state their language was Italian. Therefore, to summarise, you do have a point, but applied to this very complex context, we must take any census "con granum (more like the whole box ;) sale" when interpreting it in the context of nationality. This is why I do not accept anything but straightforward nationality censi in this matter. (Also, there are sources we have brought forth to the contrary of this doubtful census.) DIREKTOR 04:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thre are 2 scientifical sources on this talk page: [18] - "Populacijski razvoj Zadra" ("Zadar Population Development", by Vera Graovac and Šime Peričić: “O broju Talijana/Talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. Stoljeća” (“Concerning the number of Italians/pro-Italians in Dalmatia in the XIXth century”), Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, UDK 949.75:329.7”19”Dalmacija [19].
These 2 researches explain everything. I don't have time this moment so I'll appreciate if you can wait one day or if some other user can translate important parts.
However it includes other Austrian censuses in 19th century too which show the difference between the number of Italian speakers and ethnic Italians. The most of Italian speakers were "pro-Italians", not Italians. They were also called "Autonomaši" (Autonomists). Italian language was some kind of symbol of distinguishing from "lower" city masses. It was a result of 370 years of Venetian administration - people who had some city honors or properties and didn't want to lose it became Italian speakers. That doesn't mean that they didn't speak Croatian too. Rapid decreasing in number of "Italians" from the beggining to the end of 19th century was caused by the fact that many "Italians" were throwing away their "Italian names" and were taking back their original Croatian names. This "disappearing of Italians" in Dalmatia was explained by some Italian historians as escaping of Italians from Dalmatia because of the Austrian politics. Some Italian migrations out of Dalmatia were truly recorded but in a much smaller amount than it was claimed. According to mentioned sources there was all together 2-5% of ethnic Italians in all Dalmatia. There were many funny situations from the end of 19th and begging of 20th century, recorded in Croatian literacy (see: M.Smoje - "Velo misto"), where some of these last pro-Italians were acting as they couldn't speak Croatian, so all public were making jokes on their count. In fact it became impossible for them to participate in the society with such attitude. Zenanarh 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider NPOV something like this (note that I use the name Zara only because it was the Austrian name)?

Austrian Empire (1815-1918): the age of nationalism

After 1815 Dalmatia (including Dubrovnik) came under the Austrian crown. After 1848, Italian and Slavic nationalism became accentuated.
According to the Austrian census, which recorded the main language spoken by the citizen, the majority of the inhabitants of the urban centre of Zara spoke Italian. Most of the sources agree that a relevant part of the Italian speakers traced their origin in ethnically Croatian families. Croatian sources usually say that these speakers were Croats who adopted the language as a kind of symbol of distinguishing from the masses, especially from the countryside, which was Croatian, and they conclude that the majority of the inhabitants were Croatian. Italian sources, on the other side, usually say that many ethnic Croats had adopted Italian culture during the centuries of Venetian rule, and that they were fully assimilated with it at the beginning of the XX century, and they conclude that they have to be considered Italian.

Italy (1920-1945)

In November 1918 Zadar was occupied by the Italian Army, like most of coastal Dalmatia, under the 1915 Treaty of London. Being a centre of Italian nationalism in Dalmatia, it was annexed to Italy in 1920, under the Treaty of Rapallo (1920)... Clap 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad that we finally have normal discussion here, but please give me a day or two for digging out some important data from the source (translating is so boring :(). It would be much easier to find NPOV version. Your suggestion is not bad but still has some incorrect details. Correct name of these autonomists was "Dalmatian autonomists", their idea was more likely autonomy of Dalmatia than annexing to Italy. Some of them actually didn't use Italian names, but rather pure Croatian. This political movement was started in Dalmatian cities, not in Italy. In fact it was not recognized in Italy in the beggining. Later misinterpreting of it occured in Mussolini era, by politically led "scholars". Real NPOV should be placed in historical envirement, not later or modern. So give me a day or two please. Thanks. Zenanarh 17:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

G.Novak: "Prošlost Dalmacije", Zagreb 2001 /"History of Dalmatia", Zg 2001

Page 137-138:

Najstarija zadarska isprava, koja nam se sačuvala je oporuka zadarskog priora Andrije, iz 918. I taj prvi prior koji nam je poznat ima kćer Dobrušu (Dobrosia). Drugu zadarsku ispravu, iz 986. potpisuju uz ostale zadarski tribun Crneča (Cerneche) i njegov brat Dabro. Iz zadarskih isprava ovoga vremena poznati su nam zadarski priori: Grubiša, Drago, Dabro, Vitača (Vitaza), Desinja (Desinia), i drugi, pa tribuni: Dabro, Crneča, Drago, Draže (Drase), sudac Desinja (Dessina). Unuka priora Madija, zvala se Čika (Cicca), a njezina majka Većenega (Uekenega)…
::… U jednoj ispravi iz godine 1116., koju izdaje Ivan, opat sv. Krševana, nalaze se kao svjedoci Zadrani: Josip Ture Talarić (Talarigi), Martin Zluradov (Zluradi), Petrić Vitače (Petrizus Vitaze), Vlčina Lopre (Vilcinna Lopre), Borić Mihovilov (Borizius Michaeli)…<br />::…Za zadarsko stanovništvo je naročito bila presudna godina 1243., kad je Venecija osvojila pobunjeni Zadar, a njegovo stanovništvo izbjeglo, našto je mletačka vlada pozvala Mletčane da se u Zadar nasele, nudeći im kuće i imanja izbjeglih Zadrana. I doista nekoliko se mletačkih porodica naselilo. Ali kako te nisu mogle ni da se brane od napada iseljenih Zadrana, a ni da brane grad, dopusti mletačka vlada g. 1247 da se izbjeglice natrag nasele. I doskora je Zadar u svojoj većini naseljen hrvatskim elementom…

Translation:
The oldest saved document found in Zadar was prior Andrija's testament from 918. That first known prior had a daughter Dobruša (Dobrosia). Second document in Zadar, from 986, was signed by (among others) the tribune of Zadar Crneča (Cerneche) and his brother Dabro. From the documents of these ages we know about Zadar priors: Grubiša, Drago, Dabro, Vitača (Vitaza), Desinja (Desinia) and others; tribunes: Dabro, Crneča, Drago, Draže (Drase); judge Desinja (Dessina). Granddaughter of prior Madi was Čika (Cicca) and her mother Većenega (Uekenega)…
… In the document from 1116, published by Ivan, an abbot of sv. Krševan, Zadar citizens were noted as witnesses: Josip Ture Talarić (Talarigi), Martin Zluradov (Zluradi), Petrić Vitače (Petrizus Vitaze), Vlčina Lopre (Vilcinna Lopre), Borić Mihovilov (Borizius Michaeli)…
… For Zadar population the most decisive year was 1243, when Venice conquered rebelling Zadar and they all escaped, after that Venetian government invited Venetians to inhabit Zadar offering the houses and properties of escaped Zadar citizens. So indeed a few Venetian families came to the city. But since they couldn't defend themselves from attacks of escaped citizens neither to defend the city Venetian government allowed the return of refugees in 1247. So Zadar population was again its Croatian element in large majority…

After exodus in 1243 and return in 1247 the number of Croatian names in the documents was absolutely predominant and was only increasing furthermore. While the names of Zadar nobility accords to bilinguals (Croatian and Dalmatian language), all other the major part of the city population used almost only Croatian names. Zadar was (same as Dubrovnik) the centre of Croatian Renaissance in Medieval. No doubt that from 10th to 15th century the citizens of the city were Croats.
:Also there were exclusively Croatian names in all Zadar district population found in the documents (both inland and islands). Continual wars with Venice didn't change it. Since one of the most profitable activities was trade, many strangers in transition were also recorded in Zadar documents: Tibald Atonis from Firmo, Marsilius Marsilii de Atona, inheritors of Pelegrino de Lastello (de la Stella) from Venice, Stjepan de Meco (Venice), Petar Marignano, Marin de Foltrino and some others.
 :(N. Klaić, I. Petricioli: "Prošlost Zadra – knjiga II – Zadar u Srednjem vijeku do 1409." Filozofski Fakultet Zadar, 1976. / "History of Zadar – book II – Zadar in Medieval until 1409" University of Philosophy Zadar, 1976 ).

Venetian ruling of the city from 1409 didn't change the situation concerning the population. Except a few people on positions and administrators all the rest were still Croats.

G.Novak: "Prošlost Dalmacije", Zagreb 2001 /"History of Dalmatia", Zg 2001

Page 159:

Tada su svi ti gradovi, svi od reda po jeziku i življu, i u svojoj pretežnoj većini, a neki i sasvim, hrvatski. Stari se Romanski element pretvorio u hrvatski, romanskog jezika je nestalo, a umjesto nekadašnjeg latinskog, bio je sada službeni jezik talijanski, donesen u Dalmaciju od mletačkih knezova i njihovih kancelara…
::…Giovanni Battista Giustiniani , koji je kao mletački sindik obilazio Dalmaciju 1553. godine, kaže u svom službenom izvještaju mletačkoj vladi, da u Zadru zbog mnoštva stranaca (mletačkih činovnika) plemići žive, govore i odijevaju se na talijanski način, "dok svi pučani – žive po hrvatskim običajima"...

Translation:
In that period all these cities (Dalmatian cities) were Croatian in the large majority and some even completely, concerning the language and population. Old Roman element (Dalmatian) transformed into Croatian, Dalmatian language disappeared and instead of Latin language Italian became official, brought to Dalmatia by Venetian dukes and their administrators…
… a Venetian trade unionist Giovanni Battista Giustiniani was traveling across Dalmatia in 1553. In his report to Venetian government it was noted that because of many strangers (Venetian administrators) Zadar noblemen lived, spoke and dressed on Italian way, "while all citizens – were living by Croatian customs"… Zenanarh 15:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, Clap, only Zadar, Istria and a couple of Northern islands were granted to Italy in 1918. Not most of Dalmatia... DIREKTOR 08:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Zenanarh's comment, if I have understood which is the problematic phrase, it could be changed from "Being a centre of Italian nationalism in Dalmatia" to "Being the city with most Italians in Dalmatia" (this doesn't say if they were the majority or not). Regarding DIREKTOR's comment, my text is ambiguous, it's true, so "it was annexed" could be changed to "Zara was annexed" (again, I use the official name at the time). The text translated by Zenanarh is very interesting, but the text I have proposed regards only the paragraphs "Austrian Empire" and "Italy", which are not affected. Do you think I can use the text in the article? Clap 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have much against your version, just one thing. The city was called Zara only after the annexation (the Croatian nationalists have managed to change the international name by WW1 to Zadar). Perhaps we should add the explanation of the name-change in brackets something like "Zadar (renamed to "Zara" in Italian) was annexed". Would you find this acceptable? DIREKTOR 08:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If everybody agrees, tomorrow I will edit the article. Clap 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe it! An actual consensus! I do not think Giovanni Giove (the guy that posted this RfC) would agree though, but then he doesn't care much for anybody's version save his own and has apparently abandoned his RfC. Insert it at leisure. DIREKTOR 15:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

During Venetian ruling of Dalmatia Zadar was not really Italianized nor many Italians removed there. Venice was taking taxes from Dalmatian cities and was trying to subgrade its economy. Therefore Venetians didn't do much for developement of these cities. For example during 370 years of Venetian ruling in Zadar almost nothing new was built. Just 2 defending castles (first built castle was used mainly for defending against displeased citizens in 15th century) and a few storehouses. Or next example University of Zadar from 1396 was turned off in 1807 - well positioned Italian minority didn't want to have ejucated Croats as vassals. Notars were Italians so names of the citizens were changed into Italian formats - that's why we have a lot of Italianized Croatian names in the beginning of 19th century in the city. That doesn't mean that these people were Italians. Also the most of Italian speakers were also Croatian speakers too. The most of citizens in Zadar were in position that they had to know how to speak Italian since all documents were writen in Italian, but on the other side it's hard to imagine that they really used it in their common lives. Also not earlier than at the end of 18th century some limited influx of ethnic Italians to Dalmatia was recorded. So these few Italian families together with already settled little group of administrators and merchants were only real Italians in the city.

Šime Peričić: “O broju Talijana/Talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. Stoljeća” (“Concerning the number of Italians/pro-Italians in Dalmatia in the XIXth century”), Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, UDK 949.75:329.7”19”Dalmacija [20].
Page 331:
When government in Vienna in 1815 ordered that "administration must use the language which is usually used in the courts of the country" it meant undoubtly usage of Croatian language in Dalmatia, which was one of the territorial units of Empire. However Italian administrators in Dalmatia didn't follow it , in the contrary they used regulation which was valid in Lombardo-Venetian territorial unit, by making little changes in the document: they simply exchanged words «language which is usually used» with «idioma italiano» (Italian language), so that was how they consciously made a fake and deceived central government. And since this central government didn't care about the rights of the major population of its peripfery province it stayed like that for many years until turning on of the nationalistic movements. That was how a little minority, which came to Dalmatia mostly during the first Austrian government and then next French government, retained influencial positions in administration, courts, church and economy of all province.
Zenanarh 22:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Page 335:
According to consular report in 1870 in all Zadar district there was only 295 ethnic Italians (nazionalita italiana), more than 170 of them were «regnicoli».
This source gives a lot of numbers, percentages, official and unofficial, results of polls in Dalmatia concerning the language and nationality, also it shows how opposing political sides handled numbers for their political purposes and finally how some of these numbers (created by politicians in their Dalmatian Senate debates) became «official» numbers of some later Italian historians. It would be the best to translate it all, but the text is huge and so I'll give only a few official numbers:
Page 342:
According to the population censi of the Monarchy until WWI, the number of Italians in Dalmatia was:
1865 - 55.020 - 12,5%
1869 - 44.880 - 10,8%
1880 - 27.305 - 5,8%
1890 - 16.000 - 3,1%
1900 - 15.279 - 2,6%
1910 - 18.028 - 2,8%
However the author doesn't give 100% relevance to all results, for example in this case those from 1865, 1869 and 1900:
Official Austrian statistics proved superiority of Croatian population in Dalmatia in relation to Italian, although it gave some, probably, incorrect numbers in the beginning... (-> 1865, 1869)...Obviously all people who noted Italian language as one in usage in public life were comprised as Italians. What's more, according to these censi (first 2) there was no any Croat at all! It's only proving statements that Austria didn't want nationalities in its territory, scared by their separatistic charges... In a list from 1875 only 15.672 persons were registered as citizens of Italian ethnicity. So this number could be also doubtful.
According to this scientific research the number of Italians in Dalmatia fluctuated between 3-5% of all population. However Zadar was definetively the strongest bastion of Italian language in Dalmatia, especially in later years of 19th century, since the most Italians and pro-Italians removed there from other parts of Dalmatia in that periods. The source records Italian speakers in Zadar:
1880 - 6676
1890 - 7840
1900 - 9135
This is very interesting because we've already seen that really a small number of them was concerned to be Italian by ethnicity. Zenanarh 00:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's very interesting indeed, but now I would not introduce all this data in the "Zadar" article, because the history section should not be too long. It would be interesting to create an article like "Nationalism in Dalmatia between the XIX and XX century", but it would probably be just a source of edit wars (and we should avoid Nationalism in the XXI century...). Now I modify the article Clap 08:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, what it does do is give a source for the actual ethnical (national) composition of Zadar. Remember that there are still no sources (censi) supporting the idea that Italians formed the majority in Zadar (or in any Dalmatian city for that matter). There is this one language census. I was certain the Austrians would have conducted nationality censi, and here are the results. The language census is irrelevant, as previously predicted. DIREKTOR 08:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We did not agree on the addition of this text, however mildly written. Despite its reconciliatory wording it displays information from only one Austrian census (merely on language). If we are going to take Austrian censi into consideration, we should certainly add the nationality censi as well. Also take note that since the Italian authorities in Zadar were in control of the local censi, only one nationality is in danger of being reduced: the Croatian nationality. DIREKTOR 09:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The central authority was Austrian, and the Italians usually say that it was more sympathetic to the Croatian (you said that the name was changed to Zadar...), and that it could control the census. AFAIK, there were no official ethnicity census, and the concept of nationality changes around the world, and none is official, AFAIK. Anyway, I don't know who is right, I only tried to write something NPOV about a matter of difficult solution, describing the main opinions. Clap 09:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand. This is a very tough matter to resolve, though. For now I would exclude the Austrian censi all together. Oh and the central authority in Dalmatia as a whole was Italian as well (the governor was mostly Italian). Also such a Croatian majority (97.2%, for example) could not possibly be falcified. I hope you understand if I edit the language census text later on, the other censi must be included then as well to maintain NPOV... DIREKTOR 09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant the central authorities in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I know for sure that the large majority in the whole of Dalmatia was Croatian, we're talking about Zadar/Zara. Clap 09:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Clap I must dissapoint you concerning Austrian sympathy to one or another. As you can see, in 1815 Italian language was made official by faked documents from Italian ruling minority (administrators). Austrian government did nothing to change it, although the number of Italians in the province was 1/20 of all Dalmatian population. The results of a first few censi (about nationality) didn't mention Croats at all! Like they didn't exist. Austrians were just trying to stop national movements since it could only made heavier for them to keep Dalmatia under control. Do you know how Austria got Croatia a few centuries before that? By destroying its nobility! And as we all know the noblemen were the carriers of economical and political power in Medieval European countries. So when Italian language was noted as official they didn't involve. However it just strenghtened Croatian nationalistic movement in Dalmatia - pure logic. Imagine that a few strangers with foreign language rule with your country - would you be happy about it? By the time Dalmatian Autonomists were losing their influence and positions in the province and paralelly their claims and statements were getting more and more unreal and ridiciolous. That's how idea of Austrian sympathy for the Croats developed. As irrelevant statement of an Autonomist in Dalmatian Senate in the moment when they already lost their influence. Italian irredentism was feeding by their claims and "pre-fabricated numbers" and unfortunatelly a lot of Italian historiography too. In fact it was contrary. If Austria had sympathies for the Croats, Italian language would never be official in Dalmatia.
Ruling Italian minority definitely tried to "Italianize" the province, but it was not working.
Page 350:
It's known that in 1843 Croats made a huge majority of overall population, but in the same time they didn't have any public school with their language...
In 1850 there were 127 public bilingual schools, 18 exclusively Italian and only 12 exclusively Croatian...
In 1860 in Zadar Gymnasium there were all together 146 pupils, only 10 of them were Italians; in Dubrovnik Gymnasium there were 143 pupils, only 2 of them were Italians. Same situation was in Split too, but education in these gymnasiums was made by only Italian language and it was forbidden to use Croatian. In 70's Split Gymnasium had over 80 pupils, only 2 of them were Italians, Zadar Gymnasium had ~20 Croats and Serbs and 8 Italians... In the school year 1881/1882 the language used in Split Gymnasium was predominantly Croatian...
Page 351:
In the school year 1874/1875 in all Dalmatia there were 8809 pupils in 141 public schools with Croatian language and 776 pupils in 13 public schools with Italian...
Already in 1879/1880 in the public schools of Zadar district there were 3429 pupils; 1865 of them were "Slavs", 528 Italians and 38 Germans. Additionally in the school year 1881/82 it was similar, while in 1884/85 there were 329 public schools in Dalmatia and only 3 used Italian language for education (1 in Zadar and 2 in Split)...
By the end of 19th century only one public school used Italian language and it was one in Zadar. And in 1910 in overall province there were 435 public schools; only that one in Zadar had Italian language.
As we already know Zadar was the last bastion of usage of Italian language in Dalmatia. Even it was annexed to Italy and a lot of Italians came there and a lot of Croats removed out of the city relation Croats/Italians wasn't on Italian side.
Page 353:
In the school year 1919/20 in all Zadar schools there were 1000 Italians and 1533 Croats and Serbs which shows obvious superiority of Slavic population in the last bastion of Dalmatian Italianism. How the majority of population in the province felt like in that period was best seen in the results of secret referendum made on their occupied territory in the beginning of 1919: 97% of signers were for the uniting with SHS State (State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes). In Zadar percentage was 77%, so it clearly showed the national composition of the city or at least indisposition of their staying in or appurtenance to Kingdom of Italy.
I hope this would be helpful for finding a real NPOV version. Zenanarh 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was only reporting what the Italian sources usually say, not my personal opinion. I think it's important to say that there was a relevant number of Italians in Zadar at the time and I believed that my edit was just reporting facts. I mean, it's a matter of interpretation: were they really Italian? Were they just pretending to be Italian? Were they just saying which was the language that they use with the administration? How can we know that? How can we know how many people among them would have really said "My real nationality is Croatian"? I think that the best thing it's just to report the two points of view. Concerning Direktor's edit, I repeat, AFAIK, there were no official censuses about nationality. Clap 17:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself, I believe the Austrian census is unreliable due to the overwhelming information to the contrary. I agree we should make a statement about the dilemma, but without refering to that census: it is on language, not on nationality. Noone would say "my real nationality is Croatian" because noone was actually pretending to be of another nationality in the census: it was on language. A man may consider himself an Italian speaking Croat, for the purpose of social climbing. Remember that Croatian was standardised only lately and was considered by many (Croats) to be a concoction of modern times. DIREKTOR 18:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe improving the article is beyond my possibilities, as the matter is very complex. Anyway, I think the article is better now than before my edits (let me believe just this...). Clap 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You can say that this is Croatian source, but in the same time it is not an article, propaganda or whatever. It is official scientific research published by "Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru" - "Institute for historical science HAZU (Croatian academy of Science and Arts) in Zadar". So it is universal, not Croatian, Italian or... The author doesn't want to prove anything. He is simply giving the numbers and statements of all subjects involved in last 200 years. Now observe this:

Population of Zadar (official censi):

1869 - 9.898

1880 - 11.992

1890 - 13.726

1900 - 15.847
According to [21]. "Populacijski razvoj Zadra" ("Zadar Population Development", by Vera Graovac, Department of Geography, University of Zadar

Number of Italian speakers in Zadar:

1880 - 6.676

1890 - 7.840

1900 - 9.135

Number of ethnic Italians in overall Zadar district:

1870 - 295 (more than 170 of them "regnicoli" - season workers)

Number of students in Zadar Gymnasium:

1860 - 146 students, 10 of them Italians

1870's - 20 Croats and Serbs, 8 Italians

Students in public schools in Zadar district:

1879/80 - 3.429 (1.865 of them were "Slavs", 528 Italians and 38 Germans)

1919/20 - 1.000 Italians and 1.533 Croats and Serbs

According to source previous to last one

I don't want to be misunderstood. I don't want to prove anything. My point is that we have sources so we can avoid mentioning of Italian or Croatian sources with opposite claims - because it automatically means irrelevance of the article section and pushing to new questions and POVs. Sooner or later there will be an user who will delete one of statements - what is said by Italians or what is said by Croats - it only means new edit war. Cheers. Zenanarh 18:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Clap I'm glad you are here! ;) Zenanarh 18:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ;) I know that it's wrong to label historians as "Italian" or "Croatian", it was just a way to solve the dispute. A little curiosity, what does Graovac mean when she says "ethnic Italian"? Which is her source? Clap 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That was from Peričić - his source is Petar Bratanić, Sulle condizioni della colonia italiana di Zara, Zadar, 1872, Page 4. Full citation: According to consular report in 1870 in all Zadar district there was only 295 ethnic Italians (nazionalita italiana), more than 170 of them were «regnicoli» They were mostly workers and their families. But there was also a lot of inconstant or fluctuating Italians (workers, pedlars, fishermen, sailors, theatre actors and industrialists), so sometimes more than 1600 Italians were in the city at the same time. Zenanarh 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, does she call "ethnic Italians" only the ones who were born on the Italian peninsula, like the regnicoli (who were the citizens of the Italian Kingdom, AFAIK) or does she include the native Italians, born in families from Zadar? Consider that "nazionalità" in Italian means "nationality" but it's often used to mean "citizenship" (in official documents, too). Clap 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question... I'm sure it's about Italians - citizens of Austrian Monarchy who were living in Zadar so it's very possible that many of them were born in Zadar or else in Dalmatia, but Italy too. There were 2 main flows of Italians to Zadar after Venice. In the beginning of 19th century - from Italy encouraged by Austrian politics of isolating of Dalmatia from Croatia, second in the 2nd half of 19th century from other Dalmatian cities due to changed political occasions, losing in the Dalmatian Senate... There was of course a lot more of Italian speakers when you add bilinguals "Italo-Dalmatians". When speaking of Zadar P.Preradović was crying to his friend I. Kukuljević already in 1844 that "all is becoming Italianized here... rare people understand our language". What happened at the end of 19th was that Italians and many of these Italo-Dalmatians removed to Zadar from other Dalmatian cities. That's clearly shown in the numbers. But I don't think that Italo-Dalmatians were counted as nazionalita italiana. Maybe only those who came in the late Venetian Republic years and were not assimilated by Croats. Italo-Dalmatians was name mostly used by the local people who were selectively Italianized. Some of them were using only Italian but most of them both languages and maybe some of them were not too literal in Italian but whatever. The number of Italian speakers probably hide both Italians and Italo-Dalmatians. It's interesting that some Croatian families were totally Italianized and removed to Italy later. On the other hand some Italian families were Croatized and stayed. Small numbers of either but cool... Zenanarh 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Clap 07:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zadar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==November 2012== Assessment as a part of 2012 WP:CRO drive, performed on 4 November 2012: B1 (referencing) - criterion not met: The article has significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. There are substantial parts of prose without any references. It is absolutely necessary that each paragraph contains at least one reference to a WP:RS, hence the criterion is not met. Even though {{cite web}} and similar appropriate referencing templates are not required I'd recommend applying the templates if GA or better quality is aimed at. At present the article employs a mix of the citation templates and bare-url references - which is not an obstacle for B-class in itself. B2 (comprehensiveness and accuracy) - criterion not met: Several major aspects of the topic are not covered comprehensively (or at all). The gaps include: media, education and public services (not covered) and topics with token or very sketchy coverage at best (such as population, economy and science). On the other hand, the history section could be trimmed down a bit, possibly spinning off a new article. B3 (article structure) - criterion met. B4 (reasonably well-written prose) - criterion met. Not good enough for GA or better, but acceptable for B-class articles. B5 (supporting materials) - criterion largely met - except for the gallery section which should not be in the article per WP:IG. B6 (appropriately understandable presentation) - criterion met. A lot of work went into this article, but it still falls short of the B-class considerably. Consequently downgraded to C-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 21:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)