Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmatian Kristallnacht

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It is pretty obvious that nearly all those in the debate are simply making a recommendation in line with their personal POVs. That's not useful for determining the fate of an article. -Splash^talk 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmatian Kristallnacht

No Google results for the article's name, which appears to be the editor's original research and is highly POV to boot. Propose either deletion or merging with Zadar. ChrisO 11:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nemanyya (talk • contribs • count) has been solely created to advertise this AfD in Serbian.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Niz 15:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, I think. The only usage I could find for anything resempling Zadar Kristallnacht is a fully English translation (Crystal Night in Zadar), and both uses are from the same source -- Slobodan Milosevic testifying and also questioning a witness at his trial. So it's not OR -- but we don't have enough material here for an article solely about this event. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence this in itself was significant in the course of recent Balkan history, and not enough sources to ensure NPOV on such a potentally partisan issue as this. Merge any neutral info to parent at will. Deizio 01:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have moved the article to Dalmatian kristallnacht, as it is better known. Also, gives google hits. Purqer 06:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There ARE google hits for 'Dalmatian Kristallnacht'. There is not much evidence in English media, but the event is well known in Serbo-Croatian media. Look at the testimony at ICTY with link provided. Purqer 04:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you enter 'kristalna noc zadar' into google (it is also called 'dalmatinska kristalna noc' etc.) you get plenty of hits. Enter "Dalmatian Kristallnacht” - plenty of hits. And just because there are no sources in english media it is not a reason to exclude it. if there are no sources online in english, other languages will do too, as per wiki policies, though there is an ICTY testimony in english at least. Purqer 05:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For instance, 'Nezavisne novine' published this

BEC

Promocija knjige o dogadjajima na prostorima bivse SFRJ

Ambasador SRJ u Becu Mihajlo Kovac ocenio je sinoc da je objavljivanje knjige "Putovanje u zemlju ratova - dozivljaj stranca u Jugoslaviji" znacajno jer je oznacilo "razbijanje crno-belog" klisea o dobrim i losim narodima, agresorima i zrtvama. Prilikom prezentacije knjige, austrijskog autora Kurta Keprunera, Kovac je kazao da knjiga daje razlog "da se ne nadje mir u snovima". Jugoslovenski ambasador je dodao da mnogi Austrijanci sada verovatno nece prihvatiti takvu knjigu, ali da ce Austrija u buducnosti biti zahvalna ljudima poput Keprunera. Predsednik Austrijsko-jugoslovensko drustvo (AJD), koje je organizovalo promociju knjige, Peter DJokic predstavio je njenog autora koji poslednjih 12 godina zivi u Nemackoj i koji je delo napisao inspirisan licnim poznanstvima i iskustvima na prostoru bivse Jugoslavije. Kepruner je kazao da je u bivsu Jugoslaviju dosao pre 10 godina i da su ga dogadjaji u toj zemlji inspirisali da u jednoj knjizi ovekoveci svoja vidjenja cetiri rata. Kepruner je, izmedju ostalog, podsetio na "brutalne primere" medijskih manipulacija sredstava javnog informisanja u Austriji i Nemackoj. On je naveo primer kada je grupa hrvatskih fanatika, potpomognuta policijom, 2. maja 1991. godine u Zadru izvela pogrom, poznat kao "Dalmatinska kristalna noc" kada je demolirano i opljackano 116 srpskih lokala. Taj dogadjaj zapadni mediji su precutali iako je Jugoslavija bila u sredistu zbivanja, istakao je Kepruner. On je, navodeci i druge primere medijske manipulacije, kritikovao zapadnu stampu zbog iskrivljene slike o uzrocima i akterima krize u bivsoj Jugoslaviji. Kepruner je, takodje, ocenio da ne bi bilo pravedno svu krivicu pripisati stranim sredstvima javnog informisanja i zapadnim politicarima, jer deo odgovornosti snose i lokalni akteri.

In short, it is a news in which ambasador of SRY in Vienna talks on promotion of a book of Kurt Kepruner, in which it is explained that events such as Dalmatinska kristalna noc were not promoted in western media, and in fact it is referred by Kepruner as a "brutal example" of media manipulation in Austria and Germany (i.e. the selective presentation of information). So, it is no surprise you cant find any reference to this event in western media. This book, I think, can also be quoted as a source - I will find more details. The sources DO NOT HAVE TO BE ONLINE (and this book is not online). Purqer 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is more information in this article. The date - 2nd of May. The number of cafes blown up - 116 (this is more precise than 350 cafes, shops and houses quoted by witness at ICTY) Purqer 05:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Info about the book [1] Purqer 05:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dalmatian Kristallnacht gives plenty of hits at google.

Uh, six to be precise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Purqer has been idefinitely blocked. Apparently there are too many accounts such as User:Purger and User:Purrger which all share predilection for the same pages on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP - I'm shocked that someone would want to delete this article. Although, I do have a problem with the name of the article, it should be called "Dalmatian Kristallnacht", that is the more correct term of what happened. Also, the incident is probably not as important as other incidents that lead to the Balkan wars, but it certainly deserves an article. Secondly, there ARE Google results, but just as Purqer said, the info doesn't have to be online in order for the article to exsist. I suggest to all people who's best argument is "No Google results" - read more books, and spend less time in front of the computer. It's also bad for your eyes... --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion, change the name of the article to "Dalmatian Kristallnacht" --Boris Malagurski ₪ 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the title already. Purqer 06:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP: one of the evidence for the current happening in Croatia. In 1991. in just one night in Zadar (Croatia) 116 Serbian owned shops were demolished. Prelude to ethnic cleansing, in which more than 400 000 Serbs were deliberately expelled from Croatia. --Manojlo 08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP: You can delete this article, but you can't delete history!!!!!!!!

• Strong KEEP --Jovanvb 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge: the ONLY official proof that supports the existance of such an event is in the transcript that was provided with the article, in the form of testimony and verbal exchange between the witness (who overheard it, and not seen it with his own eyes) of the account and Mr. Miloshevic during ICTY trial. Even though the event is sad, it was talked about in only 4 lines of the transcript, which could suggest the importance of the event, even to the Serb side. Damage to anyone's and everyone's property was widespread during the war, with cities being razored to the ground, so I don't know why this particular event should stand out..

Svetlana Miljkovic 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge, whatever's better. Bottom line - it needs to be kept for it is a valid happening. --Filip (§) 09:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or merge, First keep then start a vote for merging --Milan Tešovic 13:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but provide some more information. In case that there is no more info on this event, then merge with Homeland war in Croatia. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (merge) and rename. Why a German name, it's too POV to connect the happening to the holocaust.--TheFEARgod 14:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Noone is connecting it with the Holocaust, it's just a name. You can't change Kristallnacht, because it SOUNDS like something to do with the Holocaust. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's a Holocaust reference. There is no other context for the term Kristallnacht other than the pogrom of November 9, 1938. There's no reason Milosevic would have used this term other than to make a sidelong reference to Croatia's fascist interlude during WWII. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, too bad. What do you propose we do? I suggest changing it to "Dalmatian attempt of ethnic cleansing" or maybe something more simple that has the same meaning. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First, determine if the event is worthy of an article in itself (as opposed to a being just one of a zillion atrocities committed by all sides in the former Yugoslavia during that period); determine what it is called by other people than Milosevic; and get independent verification of the events described. Are there any neutral (neither Serb nor Croat) descriptions of the incident? "Well, too bad" indeed. (I do note that the that translation sourced from the Free Republic mentions the event, and footnotes the reference to two books written a decade after the purported event.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Milosevic is not the one that described that incident as "Kristallnacht", it was described in "Travels in the Land of War: Experiences of a Stranger in Yugoslavia" by Kurt Kepruner (Austrian-born author from Germany). Here's what he wrote: The Tudjman regime began with a purge of all non-Croats in state offices. Serbian journalists in the media were fired. Serb teachers were fired. The Croatian media organized a campaign against Serbs and everything Serbian, Yugoslavia, and the JNA. Croatian superiority and racism were promoted.

Kepruner was told: “Serbs are inferior to Croats, they have smaller skulls and smaller brains. Croatia is for Croats only, while Serbs are deemed a minority. Armed Croat interior ministry troops were encouraged to attack Serbs. The Serbian Cyrillic alphabet was outlawed. Serbs were evicted from government housing. Streets were renamed after Nazi/Ustasha leaders such as Mile Budak, a racist ideologue of the NDH regime. The Croat police and military forces began wearing the “U” symbol which had the same symbolism as a Nazi swastika. The police tolerated private acts of ethnic cleansing and terror against “Croatian Serbs” which Kepruner described as a “Dalmatian Kristallnacht”".

Wasn't it really similar to what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you just say Noone is connecting it with the Holocaust, it's just a name? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did. It is just a name. Noone was connecting it with the Holocaust, untill you mentioned it. So, I explained why its kinda similar to the Kristallnacht (not Holocaust, I said what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany) and then you asked me a question, and I answered it. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Serbian propaganda, original research, POV, non-existent word in English. Croatian historian 19:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, our good old Croatian historian has been blocked for a while for vandalism... Ha, ha, I don't think we should count this vote, ha, ha! --Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

B.M. - I think that the process related to your failed request to become an administrator has revealed much about your own credibility. Not to mention a tendancy to leave inflammatory remarks in Serbian on a number of user pages. EurowikiJ 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Čini ti se. Možda ti se priviđa hrvatski :-) --Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and merge. I'm not sure with what article it should be merged as there are few possibilities. Lakinekaki 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Once the veracity of the incident is verified -- and I'm naturally a litle skeptical of the Milosevic mentions, but whatever in here can be independently verified (the German press seems to have some sources) -- the useful information would fit in History of modern Croatia (only because that's where Croatian War of Independence redirects.) -jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep --JustUser 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Luka Jačov 01:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Both sides of the tragic story of the civil war in former Yugoslavia must be heard.--Marko M 09:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This article is nothing more than one of those sordid pieces of propaganda that served to justify Milosevic's wars in the former Yugoslavia and bring Serbian minorities in a state of nationalistic histeria. Furthermore, and more shockingly, the reference is being made to a Kristallnacht in which Nazis carried out pogroms over Jews and destroyed their property. That is unforgivably scandalous and should be enough to see the article dispatched into a cyber-oblivion. Also, an event of this magnitude would have undoubtedly caught the attention of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague. I should also like to draw attention to the author of the article Purger who has emerged after User:Medule has been exposed of using a number of sockpuppets to push his POV remarks to a number of articles related to Croatia's history. Besides, though many participants in this vote have made their standing point abundantly clear, it would be a good idea to go through a list of their contributions - particularly on the user pages - to ascertain the degree of their neutrality. Also a thorough check for sockpuppets is in order. EurowikiJ 11:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed. In fact, for events in Gospic the Tribunal was involved, and Norac was persecuted. Not so for events in Zadar and Trogir. That only speaks of the selectivity of ICTY - it does not claim to be competent for NATO war crimes, nor for what happened in May in Zadar nor it does investigate crimes against Serbs nearly as much as it should. It has even admitted that, saying that Serbs are responsible for not givnig enough evidence (!!). The paralels with Nazis are quite in place, knowing what Ustashi have done in WWII, and they were drawn by a German for that sake, and also by Feral Tribune, a purely croatian newspaper. The regime of Franjo Tudjman, that changed a name of a square in Zagreb from the square of victims of fascism to square of Mile Budak - was in many ways, to Serbs in Croatia, reminiscent of NDH. In fact, Edo Murtic, a prominent Croatian, has reported that Tudjman has told him that he intends to finsh what Pavelic has started, and that 250,000 serbs can pack their siutcases (1/3 killed in NDH, 1/3 expelled in 95, 1/3 to be assimilated). That he in fact expelled more than 1/2, and that from 12% number of Serbs fell to 3% is well known. EurowikiJ has an agenda to hide this side of the story, as have the Croatian users, but Croatian POV is certainly quite biased. The term 'hrvatska sutnja' is a well known term for the attitude of coverup in Croatia - do not make waves, and the crimes of Croatians will be forgotten - they think. Well, not so on wikipedia. Wikipedia policies say that ALL sides of a story should be presented in a NPOV way, and should not be supressed just because some nation with nazi-past wants to hide it. It is a valid article just as any other, and persecution of Serbs were real - the Serbian victims of the pogroms in Croatia will have their voice! And that voice says DO NOT DELETE REPORTS OF CROATIAN CRIMES Pirkovank 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody is saying that there was not such persecution; certainly there was, by all sides. There are two questions here: is the deliberately inflammatory neologism "Zadar Kristallnacht" or "Dalmation Kristallnacht" an appropriate title for the event, given that neither of them have other than minimal use in English (the language of this encyclopedia)? And is there enough information about this event to warrant a seperate article rather than a piece in a more generic article about ethnic cleansings during the post-Tito years in the former Yugoslavia? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

there is plenty of information about the event - even on internet, just type "dalmatian kristallnacht". there is a whole book on the events in dalmatia - quoted as a source in the article. Note that the author of the book is neither Serbian nor Croatian, but an Austrian. He has used the title Dalmatian Kristallnacht, among others, and that alone makes it an article deserving its place. There is also an article by Sultz, or what was her name, quoted also in references - and that is online, in english, and there are plenty of other google hits. There are numerous accounts of these events in Serbian and Croatian media. Feral Tribune, A CROATIAN newspaper has called these events kristallnacht. So, the events are well documented and substantial. The fact that something is reported in media/books earns this thing a place here, according to the stated policies of wikipedia. The "Zadar Kristallnacht" was perhaps a bad choice of a title, but Dalmatian Kristallnacht - as the events are refered to commonly - has plenty of hits on google. Had the article been titled like this, google check would have given you satisfactory support and this whole deletion would not have been proposed - note that NONE of the original reasons for listing this in AfD hold with the title Dalmatian Kristallnacht - plenty of google hits, lots of testimonies by third parties (neither Serbs nor Croats), even a book, etc. As for the use of Kristallnacht itself, it is not an English word, but it is used in English for the events in Germany. The title is derived from this, so that is why it should be called Dalmatian Kristallnacht (and indeed is in articles in english) rather than Crystal night - it is a language question. That you might find the title inflamatory, is your POV, the only thing that matters is that there are events which are reffered to by this name (Dalmatinska Kristalna noc in Serbian and Croatian, and the proper translation, which is indeed used in English, is Dalmatian Kristallnacht, as you can see from Google hits). Many other pieces of POV in media that Serbs find inflamatory exist - for instance, detention camps in Bosnia of Bosnian Serbs were called "concentration camps" even though they were quite different, not withstanding the atrocities, but they were not concentration camps as there were in WWII, then calling some events massacres, and not the others. The inflamatory language was used to demonize Serbs, and that is quite widespread. So, inflamatory language exists and it is POV to judge what is inflamatory and what is proper - wiki should just REPORT things, as they are called by others, report, not judge. And in this case, Dalmatian Kristallnacht is how it is called - by Serbs, Croats, and indeed by third parties. That is name of the event, that you find it objectionable is not an issue. Pirkovank 20:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

to add to this, I personally find the comparison quite in place - look what happened there, and in Germany. VERY SIMILAR! and so, there are various opinions, but the only fact that matters is that this is how these (by no means minor) events are called (not only by Serbs in fact by Croats (Feral Tribune) , Germans, Austrians... )Pirkovank 20:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to rain on your parade here Pirkovank, but i get really annoyed when Serb extremists try and equate modern state of Croatia with NDH. Croatia was thoroughly de-ustashized in the 45 years following WW2, same as Germany, and noone in the right mind can claim that those people acted out of the same motives as the fascist government of NDH. It's the same bullshit Serbs have been trying to push for the last 20 years. While it is true that some of the radical elements entered Croatian politics after 1990., mainly through former post-WW2 emigrants from US and Canada, it is malicious to say that their respective ideologies shaped Croatian politics in the 1990s. A certain degree of right wing influence did exist, but Tudjman was a former partisan and a marxist for chrissakes! Only in his later years, when he started to push for more Croatian autonomy in the Yugoslavia did he come under persecution of communist authorities, as did so many emminent Croatian politicians, most of them marxists themselves. The term Croatian Silence refers to the period between 1971 to 1991 when all political activity towards greater autonomy for Croatia within Yugoslavia was deemed "dangerous" and "disrupitive". Your twisting of the term is not only malicious, it is offensive to the greatest degree! And besides, who can argue that in 1990 the goal of Croatian politics was, as ever only more autonomy? No ill intent towards the Serbs was implied. It was Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies that decided to use the political climate of the end of the Cold War to try and realise the dream of Greater Serbia, and are therefore DIRECTLY RESPONISBLE for all the wars of Yugoslavian sucession. In fact, were it not for Milosevic and the Greater Serbian extremists, Yugoslavia could have seceded peacefully, much like Czecho-Slovakia. And that's THE TRUTH. And no amount od manipulation of facts on the part of your buddies here can change that fact. So, while i do support the notion that no truth should be hidden in Wikipedia, the malicious bias of this article make it most deserving of DELETION. --Dr.Gonzo 21:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And I get really annoyed when Croatian extremists try to equate the position of all Serbs with that of Greater Serbia - Serbs in Croatia were truly frightened from what was going on, and you can choose to be blind about that but that is how it was. You claim that noone in the right mind can claim that the motives of Tudjman were similar to that of NDH. And then you proceed to claim that actions of Serbian side, and opinions of those who speak merely of SERB SUFFERING AND PERSECUTION are those who want Greater Serbia. Well, to me that proposition is just as laughable and in sick mind as the other claim seems to you. You just fail to see the other side of the story - you are probably brainwashed and think that all Serbs wanted greater Serbia. That is far from truth. In fact, Serbs in Croatia were frightened - and how they could not have been, when their houses and churches were painted with neo-nazi grafitti, when their houses were blown up and their parents or granparents HAVE LIVED THROUGH THIS in WWII and were expecting the worst. Your suggestion that it was they who wanted Greater Serbia was insultive and malicious. But you fail to see that. That Milosevic wanted Greater Serbia is a Croatian myth, all he wanted was power for himself, and serbian nationalists (and there were some who actually wanted Greater Serbia, just like there were those in Croatia who wanted NDH back - but they were far more minor from what your Croatian propaganda machine has brainwashed you into thinking) blame him for that. What happened and how and why Yugoslavia fell apart is far from undisputed and Serbs and Croats will probably never agree about that. Your POV is not more justified that that of Serbs just because it is yours. Wikipedia has contributors who disagree about many issues, and the principle that opinions should be presented nevertheless. You want to exclude the side of the story that you dont like. Learn some tolerance - there are people who see things differently than you do, not because they are for Greater Serbia, but because they have different point of view and come from different backgrounds and you should respect that, and supress your bias and hatred. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete or at the very least merge. This is really quite typical of Greater Serbian propaganda, trying to blow up individual incidents out of all proportions to make it seem like the Serbian side is the victim of organized persecution and therefore justified in its actions. Let's not forget, May 2nd 1991 is the date of the Borovo Selo incident where nearly 40 croatian policemen were killed or wounded and their bodies mutilated while trying to disarm armed Serbian rebels who had killed 2 of their colleagues a day before, while they were on routine patrol. The bloody images were aired on Croatian Television later that day which started riots in many Croatian cities. While the loss of life and property is most regretable, most of those responsible were brought to justice. It certainly cannot be argued that the event was planned or that it represented any kind of "ethnic cleansing" type activity on the Croatian side. The claims of the "british reporter" are also very much biased. While it is true that many Croatian cities saw the emergence of NDH related graffiti in those days, any sociologist would argue that it was done out of spite, pure frustration. People tend to choose strong symbols when put in similar situations, but that does not necessarily mean they believe in ideology behind it. It's a statement of revolt, of spite, and desperation. Besides, present day Croatia has only 5% representation of the extreme right option in its parliament (and even this does not represent the most extreme elements) while present day Serbia has these political options represented around 30% . It goes to show that this so-called "Neo-ustashe" ideology did not stick nearly as well as those Greater Serbian propagandists want you to think. But I digress. In any case, this theme does not deserve a separate article and should be deleted or merged. --Dr.Gonzo 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article a Greater Serbian propaganda, while it merely speak of suffering of Serbs. To you, everything written from point of view of Serbs is Greater Serbian propaganda. One might say that everything written from your point of view is Ustasha propaganda - and indeed that is how it seems to many Serbs. Cool down, and try to understand other point of view, and learn to be respectful even if you disagree. As for your rationalizations, put things into perspective. The original Kristallnacht had a killing as its cause - a killing that was USED BY NAZI MEDIA to provoke rampage on Jews. Dont you think Germans were just as revolted, frustrated, did it out of spite towards jews due to this propaganda before Kristallnacht happened, just as you say Croats were. Does that excuse them from responsibility. You speak of Borovo incident, yet title of article here is Borovo massacre - should that perhaps be deleted as Croatian propaganda with inflamatory title? If that was the cause (moreover, the hysterical reporting in Croatian media) than that should be part of the article. You fail to see that the whole story of Grater Serbia was in fact used (and is still used) by Croatian media to cause this frustration and hatred towards Serbs, just as Serbs have been frightened by NDH - and indeed, they had real reasons to be frightened. If media is to blame for what happened in YU (and I think they share great part of responsibility as they spread hatred on all sides) that should also be explained here. There is never going to be any compromise if people just stick to their POV instead of reporting things and events in NPOV - and in the case of ex-Yu war, there is another side to the story that you refuse to hear and want to erase. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As for your quoting of percentages, HDZ from that time to me is the same thing as Serbian Radical party is to you, and indeed, there were the true extremists (Beli Orlovi etc.) that had far lesser support. That you see things differently, is just your POV and you are probably unaware how biased (or perhaps ignorant or brainwashed) you are. Pirkovank 04:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing - articles that can't be supported by verifiable sources are considered original research. You can look up the NOR policy of Wikipedia to understand why that's a strict no-no. And frankly, even those few sources that you do cite are strongly biased and can't be taken at face value. There are no official reports on this, no hard numbers, no nothing. Just another myth Serbs use today to excuse themselves of all responsibility. And you may be surprised but I'm really quite familiar with the political situation in modern Serbia and have visited several times in the past few years. I think I can objectively say that the Serb nation today, if it were viewed as a person, suffers from a case of amnesia, denial and PTSD. There's a strong political movement to blame everything on Milosevic as if noone else had anything to do with the genocide and the nationalist expansionism and everything else. There is also a very strong media campaign still ongoing that tries to equate the position of Serbs, Croats and Muslims in Yugoslavia, so as to make it like everyone is equally to blame for everything that happened. The truth however is, that Serbs controlled virtually ALL the military capacities of YNA and were therefore in a vastly superior position in 1991, they were the fiercest in their agressive expansionist nationalism and were by far the largest of all Former Yugoslavia nationalities. It was only due to a lack of political vision on the part of Serb leaders, and a lack of loyalty on the part of the squabbling clans within Serbia proper that the whole Yugoslavia wasn't absorbed in a matter of months. But then we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? In any case, I don't even try to claim that there are no level-headed people in Serbia today, as in those days, but the fact that the Serbian Radical Party can get 30% of the vote in 2005. means that nothing has changed significantly in the past 20 years. Serbia needs to face up to the facts, nothing can change before that happens. And by supporting flawed, biased and unnecessarily inflammatory articles like this one that serves only to propagate modern Serbian myths you are directly preventing that from happening any time soon. I mean, for fvck sake, even completely neutral observers in this very thread are claiming this is nothing but pure propaganda, what more do you need?? --Dr.Gonzo 21:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this topic is clearly not original research. Read what NOR says, and you will see it plainly, as others have already noted. Second, you just have admitted that even in your twisted understanding of Serbian issues, Serbs have their POV that is different from yours. For all wikipedia is concerned, it does not care who is right - all that matters is what is out there, it should not even attempt to determine what the truth is - that would be OR. It has to report about ISSUES. And the issue clearly exists. That so many Serbs feel that they are not treated fairly in the Western media is no secret. For instance, some polls put number of Serbs who think ICTY is biased against Serbs at close to 90%, while supporters of what might be called nationalist position have less than 40% now, which is indeed up from 25% 6 years ago, largely due to the tribunal bias. Serbian Radical party, FYI, does not earn votes on nationalist issues so much as on economic issues and percieved corruption of new government. I for instance am neither their nor SPS supporter, but am much more symphatetic to their point of view than in the 90s, as are many other. The thing which is not understood by people like you is that Serbs are not denying their responsibility, but objecting to the twisted view that they are to blame for everything, and that Croats and all others were innocent, or vastly less responsible than Serbs. That is simply not true - Tudjman has openly admitted that there would be no war had Croatia not wanted it. Croatians were those who choose the path of breaking constitution, arming and attacking federal government. Nationalist euphoria existed in Croatia, and it was the cause of break-up just as much as any other. But Serbs are blamed 3 times more than they are supposed to, while others are amnested. That creates the atmosphere of victimhood in Serbia and is precisely what you, if you were wise, would like to avoid. After the I world war, everyone was blaiming Germany and Germany was unjustly treated. And what happened? Cant you learn from history. The lies in Croatian media, constant presentation of twisted version of history and brainwashing (like the absurd claims that, for instance, in Vukovar 8000 JNA soldiers died or that they have destroyed more tanks and airplains than NATO did in Kosovo War, for instance), are meant to homogenize new Croatian state, but these lies cannot be accepted as history here. Your bias is understandable, but it does not give you the right to be the judge of what is truth and to impose your POV as only worthy of a word here. That is clearly against NPOV policies. History is always twisted to serve political purpose - so Tito equated genocide of Ustashe with crimes of his rival antifascist Mihajlovic, and promoted equality in crimes even if that was far from truth. Now again, history is being twisted and crimes of Serbs are inflated, while suffering of Serbs and crimes against Serbs are not to be talked about. Of course Serbs will object. There were more than a million Serbian refugees, more than any other nation in YU wars, the Serbs are the largest victims of ethnic cleansing, especially in Croatia and now in Kosovo. And then you want to scilence the truth about crimes commited on Serbs. Well, if you cannot understand why people who opposed Milosevic in the 90s now object to this twisting of truth (in fact you cant beleive it, according to what you say), this should give you a hint. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ on the NOR issue but thats for this arbitration to decide. In any case, I find it interesting that you so readily proclaim me a victim of "brainwashing" but you certainly don't think there is anything wrong with your information or your bias? Also, you are trying to implant the notion that Wikipedia is somehow pro-Croatia and anti-Serbia biased? Do you even realise how rediculous that sounds? Someone else already said it better - POV + POV doesnt equal NPOV. Therefore, any strongly biased article like this one (which also bears an unnecessarily inflammatory title - Kristallnacht, an obvious reference to the Holocaust, as to imply that Serbs suffered the same fate at the hands of Croats in the last war) needs to be radically NPOV-ed or deleted. And since you and your buddies obviously won't let it be NPOV-ed, then there is only one choice. Nobody is denying the Serb Krajina tragedy, what we are denying is that it played out quite as you want to portray it. Croatia has moved on, when will we be able to say the same thing about Serbia? Oh, and by the way, the Vukovar casualties number is agreed upon not only by Croatian historians but most of the foreign researchers who have studied the topic. Only Serbian historians deny it... Why? And why oh why do we always come back to the Ustashe? Ever heard of the Godwins Law? Look it up. --Dr.Gonzo 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Every person has a bias, and I have lived in Serbia, you have just visited it, and I have lived outside Serbia so I think I am relatively well informed. What surprised me when I came to West is that CNN is worse in its methods of propaganda than RTS or other televisions in ex-yu. Brainwashing is universal in the world. What makes me think you are brainwashed is your conviction - but of course, it is hard to tell. Wikipedia is certainly not inherently pro-Croatian or pro-any side, and it should not be, as the very NPOV policies make it in principle more objective than any other media wich all - CNN, NYTimes, BBC, or HRT or RTS or B92 or Feral in fact all have some agenda and wikipedia has only users wich come from all around the world. The good thing about wikipedia is that it allows every side of the story to be presented - according to NPOV policies. And this is exactly why this article must stay. The only reason some articles in wiki are biased in this or other way is that some people push their POV, but the community, given large enough number of participatnts, will eventually ensure that this is avoided. You are strongly pushing Croatian POV, and this is why you oppose this article. You claim that someone will not allow this article to be NPOV-ed, while it is exactly you and your buddies who does not allow articles about Vukovar battle or such to be NPOV-ed. Have you even made a single edit to it to correct what you think is wrong? You are assuming something, that is assuming bad faith but that is wrong attitude. In fact, many people just dont understand the other side and if you explain your POV then a compromise can be found. Read what NPOV means - it says that claims should be attributed, not claimed by wiki. It exactly means PRESENTING different POV-s with relevant sources. Of course, things are not so simple, but a compromise can be worked out with good will. But you refuse to allow even existance of this article - note that POV is a separate issue here. You cannot get rid of the other side of the story, no matter how you want to hide it. You can attribute POV, but not delete it, since Serbians are a large group of people whose sufferings are relevant as are their opinions and perceptions. As for what you say about Vukovar, its simply ridicilous. It is exactly Croatians who have an agenda of making this into some wild inflated heroism story - and what other historians are you talking about. Who has an interest in that - there are many questions but you cant deny that Serbs have much better sources about their losses. Anyway, there are many topics which are hot and disputed by opposing sides, and wiki NPOV policies are clear. If there is no concensus (and there is not despite what you try to say by involving some western historians who after all, got it from you - it is all media war after all, historical distance is not there for no reason and many topics in history are disputed for decades if not centuries) and therefore, the best one can do is EXACTLY to present both sides. It would be far better if for instance Vukovar battle article would be divided into two - Serbian version and Croatian version. So, a reader can see what each side CLAIMS. That would simplify situation/avoid edit war there. Wikipedia does not judge what is true, that is OR. It just presents things, and in wars, recent especially, there are always two sides and two stories. That holds for many other topics, and not just YU-wars, and this article should not be an exception. As for the title, dont you find Borovo massacre inflamatory? Yet that is the title - and there are many more here. If there is bias in western media, that does not mean that WIKI should be biased, and in fact it is not. If policies are to be followed. Pirkovank 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't assume anything and if you take a better look at my edit history you'll see I tried to reach a consensus with serbian Wikipedians on numerous articles and numerous ocassions. But then those users turn to plain vandalism and rv wars. It's unacceptable. A user called Medule in particular has been very troublesome in the past few weeks and has earned himself a ban so he(she?) now edits under a number of sockpuppets. I've been involved in the revert war on Battle of Vukovar article not because I think Serbian view should not be represented, but because I try hard to stick to the NPOV policy, in particular to avoid Content forking and Undue weight. It's the same reason why I believe that this article should be deleted and merged, because there's no need to create a separate article about an incident that is (in the context of the Croatian War of Independance and Wars of Yugoslav sucession) - insignificant, to say the least. After all, it wasn't me who started this arbitration or requested the deletion, but I do have an opinion and I hope it counts when it's time to make a decision. Oh, and by the way, I don't find the title of Borovo selo massacre inflammatory because it gives an objective definition of an event. Or maybe you want to deny the fact that the bodies of those policemen were unnecessarily and brutally mutilated? Which was caught on tape no less? Oh, but you readily support calling this article "Kristallnacht". How very neutral of you. --Dr.Gonzo 13:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete or at the very least merge. Unfortunately, many users here (and their sockpuppets apparently) have great difficulty distinguishing intelligent, dispassionate analysis from outright propaganda. And holding up the Feral Tribune, a contrarian satirical tabloid, as support for a full-blown "Kristallnacht" is laughable. --AHrvojic 04:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Feral tribune is NOT EXCLUSIVELY a satirical tabloid - in fact, it has part with serious articles, and they have honestly talked about expulsions of serbs. You are just holding an extreme Croatian POV, and it seems you also lack honesty - perhaps you never read the Feral, or you pretend not to know about its nature. Pirkovank 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP This incident must remain documented. It is appalling that someone may consider removing the information about a controversial issue. The very notion only demonstrates that the Dalmatian Kristallnacht is alive in the public mind and its concealment profits the negotiators of hate and violence. Just as humanity cannot forget the evil of the Nazi regimes in the 30’s and 40’s, it must also never overlook the resurgence of Nazi ideologies in the world of today. The suggestion that this is an example of “Greater Serbian propaganda” is about as valid as the suggestion that the articles on the Holocaust represent “Greater Jewish propaganda”. It is crucial that the Yugoslav wars’ descriptions on Wikipedia remain impartial by providing information on the atrocities committed by all sides in the conflict. kilternkafuffle 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UCT)

This is kilternkafuffle's first contribution on Wikipedia. EurowikiJ 07:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but that does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion on this issue. I assure you that this is my only account, but it is also expressively stated on this page that this is not a vote, so the matter itself is more important than the number of participants. kilternkafuffle 01:53, 29 March 2006 (UCT)

• Delete. I must admit, I am a complete outsider on this one, I know very little in detail about the Serbo-Croatian struggles. I do, however, know POV propoganda when I see it, and this is it. The title is POV, the writing is poor and POV, and all the (very limited) verification I can get on this also looks heavily biased. A New York Times search reveals nothing as big as this happening in Zadar around the times mentioned in the article. (There are several reports about Zadar in 1991, but none about this.) Sorry guys, the lack of verifiability I'm seeing is troubling. I would think something this big should be much better covered... It's perhaps not nearly as notable as it's made out to be. Grandmasterka 10:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NYtimes quotes certainly do not contain all the truth of this world. Try searching for some lesser known scientific topic, and see how you go. This is just invalid reasoning. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What in the world does science have to do with this? (Speaking of flawed reasoning.) That doesn't compare to a widely reported conflict such as this one. You're trying to tell me that the Times had 12 reports out of Zadar in 1991 alone, but somehow missed the bombing of 116 cafés?? And Time Magazine? (These are the only sources I can find that archive their news back to 1991 for free...) I realize these are English sources, but 116 cafés?? It's very difficult for me to swallow that this would have been missed by EVERYONE except by Serbian sources. When I strongly outgoogle any sources for this, that's real cause for concern, and the rampant sock/meatpuppetry on this page really doesn't help my opinion of this. Grandmasterka 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

well, science is an example of something that does not give rise to that many emotions, and therefore, you can find many obscure topics in this very wikipedia, most of them never get a line in NYTimes, and yet, noone thinks they should be deleted just because NYT does not write about them. As for your second claim, that is exactly the essence of the problem. Western media DID NOT REPORT about such events. Thats not because events did not exist, thats because NYT had an agenda. NYT in fact does not report many things which happen in the world, and yet that does not mean the things are not happening. Do you think Abu-gharib would be reported if photos have not leaked? What gets into NYT depends on many things, editorial policy including, and Serbs didnt get their share of the story. I read NYT all the time, and am aware of things happening in my country, and have a pretty good idea how much of it gets there and why. So, blowing up of 116 cafes didnt get reported - thats what the Austrian guy was objecting to if you read the link - he wrote a whole book about it. And thats what Serbs are objecting to. That NYT is biased is no excuse to exclude Serbian side of the story. And if you think NYT is not biased, you are quite naive, I can tell you that. Pirkovank 03:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Times magazine is even worse. And remember - these events are not reported ONLY in Serbian media (in fact, they were not reported there as much as some other events), but also in Croatian media, and in few Western sources - most notably, in the mentioned book written by AUSTRIAN. So, it is not invented. And as a matter of fact, how many murders, crimes etc. do you think happen in some obscure places and do not get into limelight? The treatment of Serbian side was like that - noone cared about crimes on Serbs. This is just one in a very, very long list of examples. And yet, if you search a bit, you will find plenty of evidence - even from western sources, even from ICTY, about crimes against Serbs that never did and never will get a line in your beloved and trusted Times magazine. Pirkovank 03:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 11:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment --- It's been repeatedly asserted that the phrase "Dalmatian kristallnacht" shows multiple Google hits. This is correct, if "multiple" means five. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are 7 listed hits in your link, and 21 if you include all (the number is so 21 with your search, including ommited ones). You should also try the Serbo-Croatian version. In any case, there are multiple sources, independent, and you can see that the issue exists, even if it is a bit obscure in English. The obscurity of an issue and the fact that there are more material offline than online are no reason for exclusion. Pirkovank 01:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It should be included. As part of some other article, or under some generally accepted NPOV name. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if there is anything sourced and salvageable it should be merged with appropriate other articles. If it's kept, the name Kristallnacht has to be changed it's POV, anachronistic and in if this Serbian-Croatian event is known in English at all it's not by a German name. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• NPOVize and Rename to whatever. I'm pretty sure that the events took place, but their presentation in the article is quite problematic. I believe that sources exist and can be found, yet the very title is inadequate and an obvious neologism. Duja 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd add two further comments. We should be very cautious about treating as facts news reports from either Serbia or Croatia during this period, given the degree to which both countries' media were under state control and used as propaganda outlets. I'd definitely be happier if we could verify this event using non-Yugoslavian sources, e.g. State Department Human Rights reports or Human Rights Watch reports. Also, I agree entirely that the article should be rewritten - it's very non-NPOV and I think it's particularly objectionable that it should use the term "Kristallnacht" as a synonym for "pogrom". It's plain propaganda and cheapens the memory of the original Kristallnacht. -- ChrisO 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The events which took place in Srebrenica are called "genocide" - you might, and in fact people - Jews and other - as well say that this cheapens the memory of the original Holocaust. But that was not reason for consideration here. In fact, the naming convention is pretty clear - these aspects ARE NOT to be considered when naming an article. They are pretty precise as to how to proceed when choosing a name, having alternatives (and we do not have that even - Zadar Kristallnacht was inferior to Dalmatian Kristallnacht as first had almost no references, and second is how it was called IN ENGLISH). NPOV-ing is a separate issue. Let me just say that what ChrisO said about Serbian/Croatian media is absolutely not true. Neither media in Croatia, neither in Serbia, were ALL STATE CONTROLLED - thats nonsense, though it is a prejudice in which many westerners who do not understand these issues believe. In fact, in Serbia under Milosevic press was relatively free, only the MAIN RTS was state controled. A lot of criticisms and attacks on Milosevic were present in the media. The same holds for Croatia - Feral Tribune is one notable example. Also, we should not trust BBC or CNN as they in fact have bias, and it is comparable to the bias of what you call state media in Serbia/Croatia at the time - believe me, I was surprised to discover how much manipulation there is myself. Also, wiki policies make it plain that one should not judge, but report about ALL things in NPOV way. That dominant western media were more/less interested in something is really not an issue here - there are events called Dalmatian Kristallnacht, they deserve an article, and all other issues can be solved IN THE ARTICLE within the guidelines of NPOV policies. Policies for NPOV and naming exist precisely to give guidelines in cases like this. However, this is obviously a separate issue - there does not seem to be any concensus here, Serbian contributors are for Keeping and Croatians are for deleting, that should be clear - so per policy, there is no concensus, the article stays, but of course, it can be NPOV-ed like any other article. And there are much worse examples of POV in wiki present then this. Pirkovank 01:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

second is how it was called IN ENGLISH -- by whom? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

By professional translators at ICTY - they have translated 'Dalmatinska kristalna noc' in such a way. By people who wrote other articles, that are quoted and can be found on Internet. Obviously, Kristallnacht is a German word, used in English to refer to a particular event, and Dalmatian Kristallnacht is a name derived from this. That is why translators have used this translation. Pirkovank 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Solely when translating the words of Slobodan Milosevic, as far as I can tell. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Once, again, Slobodan Milosevic didn't give the name to the incident, he was not the first one that called the incident in that way. He just accepted the name like everyone else. By saying that the word was solely translated from something Milosevic said, Jpgordon, shows just how much you know nothing about this topic. Let's get some actual historians in here. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• The cite your verifiable sources. Show us exactly where the English/German hybrid phrase "Dalmatian Kristallnacht" is used. Please. That could end this whole thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The incident got it's name from the media. Just like Milosevic is oftenly called "The Butcher of the Balkans" in Western media, the events in 1991 in Dalmacija are called "Dalmatian Kristallnacht". I don't see what's the big deal over the name. If you find me an edition of any political newspaper (including the New York Times) from the time when the incident happened, I'll show you where it says " Dalmatian Kristallnacht", sadly I don't save newspapers that long, so... Jp, read the article carefully, and if you still think it sounds nothing like the Kristallnacht in Germany, feel free to continue discussing it. Also, read the new text I just posted. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• In other words you are unable to cite verifiable sources giving legitimacy to the nomenclature. Thanks, that's all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd also like to ask you if you ever heard of a different name for the incident? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 05:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP-- evey argumen for deletion I have seen here is a harangue about "Serbian propaganda," while, at the same time, no facts are given to argument the deletion. The sources listed and the google results definitely warrant an article - Ketz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketzman (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep on probation. This is one of these AFDs where most of those that might have a clue about the topic also seem to bring their POV to the table. On the face of it, though, this does seem to be a much talked-about (non-?)event, and is probably notable either as a genuine atrocity or as a Reichstagsbrand-style propaganda piece, depending on whom you believe. So keep for now and present sources for both points of view. Sandstein 09:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting and very good point. Grandmasterka 10:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.