Talk:Zadar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Croatia Portal
Zadar is part of WikiProject Croatia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the nation of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

Contents

[edit] On re-joining Croatia after WWII

As far as I know zadar (at the time Zara) was part of Dalmatia county in the austrian part of the Austro-Hungaric empire, while Croatia was a separate region in the hungarian part.
Therefore I am a bit concerned wheter this statement is correct: "Afterwards it was joined again with Croatia (at the time in Yugoslavia)." (why again?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.155.76 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason for an Italian name of the city. Latin is fine but not Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.139.48 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Zadar wasn't in the Austrian part in the times of Austro - Hungaric empire, Zadar was under Italy at those times, for quite a while, hence the "joined again with Croatia" part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.129.19 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Britannica says: "The town was an Austrian possession from 1797 to 1920, except for a brief French interregnum between 1808 and 1813." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.31.2 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC
Zadar (and Dalmatia) were in the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Dalmatia was one of the 15 Crownlands of the so-called "Cisleithania" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisleithania So, the text should not say "joined again" with Croatia. giordaano87.65.136.192 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Dalmatia and Croatia were different regions under the Austrians. (Moreover, at the time of the Empire, Dalmatia was much more a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural region than it is today) So, if there is not another explanation we should remove the "joined again". --Paolopk2 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Paolopk2, Croatian Assembly had title of Sabor of Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.
Joined again? Yes, of course. Whome Zadar belonged before Venice occupied it? Kubura 18:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

You have written "In the 10th, and especially in the 11th century, although it survived the migration of Slavs, the rulers of the town were the Croats." It's false. Where does come this information from?
Zadar had been conquired by Hungarian Kingdom but it still had a large autonomy (as well as the other cities of the coast) and it has never been part of Croatia before 1947. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.216.8 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Croatia and Hungary were united in a personal union, union of two kingdoms, united in a person of king. Kubura 09:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Koloman was first hungaro-croatin king. Before him Croatia was kingdom with Tomislav, Kresimir,.. as kings (10th century) and Zadar was a part of that kingdom from 1069. Church st. Donat (early 9th century) got its name to bishop Donat (?-811). It's build in oldcroatian pre-romanesque style typical for croatian builders of that period in wider area populated by Croats in Dalmatia. Also Donat is recognised as typical croatian name found only in Zadar as well as Stosija (slavic version of Anastasia). St. Stosia is Zadar's chatedral and it got its todays shape in 18th century. In early 13th the rivalty of Zadar and Venice resulted in destroying the city. There is a rich archive of hystorical documents in Zadar with many croatian names as early as 9th and 10th century and til now croatian names make the most of all found in all of documents. Because of important strategic position in centre of Adriatic sea, Zadar has frequently changed its political rulers and has been the part of political trade but did not changed its croatian population. You should use -joined again- 83.131.131.75 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Venice and Italy were nothing but invaders in history of Zadar. During venician occupation of Zadar citizens of the city were Croats and administration was venician. In the northwestern corner of the old city centre there are still walls of castle inside the city walls. Today it is called Kampo Kastel. It was built by Venicians and was used to hide venician city government and guards since they were not wellcome among citizens. Venecian tax collectors, politicians, administrators couldn't walk safely through the city so they were usually followed and protected by well armed soldiers. The fact is that Zadar was never really venician town, only in papers. The same goes for italian control of the city. Italy got Zadar just few times for some short periods and it were political trades in every case. Italian ruling of Zadar was always resulting in cultural stagnation of the city and losing population. Italian population in Zadar were mostly soldiers and administrators and their families. Not too many civils at all. All positive cultural movements after 9th century were initialized by Croats and in croatian cultural envirement. These are just few historical facts and there are thousands more of it in historical documents written in croatian language and placed in Zadar archives.83.131.146.247 15:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Zlatan Ibrahimovic

Page says that Zlatan Ibrahimovic's mother is from Zadar, but the Zlatan Ibrahimovic page says she is a Bosnian Croat from Tuzla. Cordless larry 12:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Zlatan´s father is from Tuzla but his mother is from Prkos, small village just near Zadar. This is 100% certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.145.45 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem

The text refers "Adapted from the "Miroslav Krleža" Lexicographic Institute text about Zadar."

I see copyright issue here. Wikipedia should be made by original contributions. --Paolopk2 08:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

You both know that both sides are true, so how about this compromise...

Since World War II the city has developed as a strong economic and tourist centre. In 1991, attacks on Serbian civilians occured, culminating in the Zadar Kristallnacht where over 350 Serbian shops and houses were destroyed. Later, the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) along with Serb paramilitaries converged on the city and it found itself as the subject of shelling. Connections with the capital Zagreb were severed for over a year, the only link being via the island of Pag. Zadar was once again damaged in the war, including its historical bastions and churches. The siege of the city lasted until January 1993 when Zadar again came under the control of Croatian forces. Attacks on the city continued until the end of the war in Croatia in 1995.

Not so hard is it... - FrancisTyers 16:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying it in, if you want to complain, complain here. - FrancisTyers 16:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If Dalmatian Kristallnacht gets deleted, that specific reference needs to be deleted to. By the way, the number has recently been revised by Serbian wikipedians to 116 shops. I, of course, can't verify either one. Everyone, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmatian Kristallnacht and add intelligent discussion if you can. Grandmasterka 03:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Zadar Kristallnacht happened after Serbs have killed Croatian police officer Franko Lisica in Benkovac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.145.45 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh this is really not a good place for compromise! The war in Croatia started during 1990. with Serbian "Balvan revolution"... Balvan is balk, log in English... Serbian paramilitaries started the chrises in Croatia - cutting trees by the roads and blocking the traffic. At that moment Croatia didn't have any kind of army, just an official police. Franko Lisica was a Croatian policeman sent with his unit to clear the passage in one of many such points (02.05.1991.). He got killed by Serbian paramilitaries hidden in ambush. Lisica was born in Bibinje, a village next to Zadar, so the day after he had been killed, a group of people from Bibinje came to the centre of the city and damaged Serbian shops. Around 100 shops. "Zadar crystal night" was a title in newspapers. 83.131.131.215 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected this, since this revert war doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon. Adam Bishop 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the protection, it would be convenient if the [[Crusaders]] link could become [[Fourth Crusade|Crusaders]] so it does not end up going to a disambiguation page. Dpv 00:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot about this...I've unprotected it. I don't understand the crusade links though...why doesn't "crusader" just redirect to "crusade"? Adam Bishop 00:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Famous People

There were alot of edits to the famous people area on June 20th 2006 with NO explanation as to why so many were removed....I informed the IP address that did it to not remove info without valid reason on the talk page as per Wiki policy but the IP address did it again. Can someone with more knowledge about Zadar please take a look at the edits and restore as necessary. Also, this editor seemed to take offense to the Italian source of the Zadar name but not the Latin??? KsprayDad 23:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slavica lingua

I cut the following lines:
An annalist from the year 1177 noted that the joyous people of Zadar accompanying Pope Alexander III on his way to the basilica sang songs of praise 'in their native Slavic language'
Reason: it's not connected with culture or literature. Those lines should be insert in the *proper contest*. A note about the language used by some common people of Zara is neither, nor literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 08:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Zara between Diadora and Zadar? False. Zara is name used by Italians and there are many documents where you can see that the name in usage was Zadar, slavic version of illyric Iader. This Zara nonsense - where does it come from??? Maybe Italy??? In croatian language the citizen of Zadar is called Zadranin - you can find it in many documents in 14th, 15th,... century. During italian occupation Zadranin was changed to Zaratin according to Zara, and not before. This thing about name is really wrong and has nothing to do with documentation and encyclopedia editing, but it deals a lot with politics. It's very sad!83.131.146.247 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Iader, Iadera is illyric or better to say liburn name for Zadar, not latin as it is written in the text. Latins were just using this name. You can see connection Adriatic - Iader. In croatian it is Jadran - Zadar. Zadar is slavic version of Iader. It is obviously that italian name Zara comes from croatian name Zadar and not contrary. Letter D in the middle is present in all names except Zara. Zara withot D sounds more italian and accords to reshapening Zadar - Zadra - Zara. Zara is found mostly in Venice and italian documentation.

Maybe genetics can help? Recent genetical investigations of Y-chromosome shows that modern Croat is 76% mix of Illyrian and Slav (42% I1b "illyrian" and 34% R1a "Indoeuropean"). Also Herzegovina (populated with Croats only) is a place where I1b reaches the maximum 72%. The dispersion of I1b haplogroup indicates that population of Dalmatia must have frequency >50%. By the way Dalmatia is illyric name too - the Dalmats illyrian tribe. Following R1a frequency and dispersion it is obviously that slavic tribes came to west Balkan massively in 7th century, but small groups and collonies were there much earlier starting from 1st century BC. Collision of Croats and Illyrians into croatian identity was a process. It couldn't be just a happening of a few hundred years. Croats are recognised as christians very early (8th century). They create their own style of curch building in 9th century especially in Zadar area. Also there are more then 1 document where you can see that language used in churches was Croatian. Everywhwere else it was Latin. The coming of Pope Alexander III (1177.) to Zadar was just acceptance of that situation which was a litlle bit disturbing before. That's why An annalist from the year 1177 noted that the joyous people of Zadar accompanying Pope Alexander III on his way to the basilica sang songs of praise 'in their native Slavic language'. It's not just a documentary screenshot. It is an accent of the moment and happenning. 89.172.64.60 18:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has Anyone Noticed?

Has anyone noticed that lots of foriegn cities (outside the US and UK that I'm aware of) only have the name of the city, but not ", [country]". I put wikilinks on my page that said Zadar, Croatia, and, well, I thought no one had an article on that. Just thought I'd like to comment. Cheers! The RuneScape Junkie   20:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dundee

Dundee is in the United Kingdom of which Scotland is a region. Scotland may have existed as an independent country 300 years ago, but at the moment it is part of a state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.95.26 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

The page is protected, congratulations. Adam Bishop 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croathood of Zadar

For all the HAZU sources, here's the catalogue search page [1]. Enter the title text into "title" box. If that fails, enter the title text into "author" box. Kubura 07:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some links for those who doubt about that.
From HAZU. First two pages [2] of a book "Vazetye Szigheta grada / szlosheno po Barni Karnarutichiu Zadraninu.
Translation is: "The Capture of Szigetvar, ...by Barne Karnarutić of Zadar ("Zadraninu", not "Zaratino"). The book is from 1661.. More to come. Kubura 09:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From HAZU. First page [3] of a book "Vila Slovincha Givrgia Barachovicchia Zadranina v çettare varsti petya sloxena ça yest v pismi schvpne, u osmo redche u zuçno poyche i u polvredche. Printed in Venice in 1614."
"... of Juraj Baraković Zadranin (not "Zaratino")...". Kubura 09:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From HAZU. First page [4] of a book of Christian religious poetry "Pisma od pakla : navlastito od paklenoga oggna, tamnosti, i viçnosti, koju iz svetoga Pisma staroga i novaga zakona, takoger iz sveti otacza i nauçiteglia / izvede i harvatski jezik pivagne otacz F. Lovro Gliubusckoga reda S.O. Francesck, darxave Bosne Argentine ... u pet poglavj razdigliena. - U Mneci : po Bartulu Occhi, 1727". On the first page says, that the book is dedicated to "Vicentiu Zmaevichiu, arcibiskupu zadarskome"/"Vicentije Zmaevich, arcbishop of Zadar". Printed in Venice in 1727.. Kubura 07:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zadar in Hungarian

Could any of the admins add the Hungarian name of the city, which is "Zára" (without the quotation marks, of course)? CoolKoon 10:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How is Zadar's name in Hungarian in any way relevant? —KingIvan 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
How about because it was part of Austria-Hungary (and before the Kingdom of Hungary) for quite a while (centuries)? CoolKoon 00:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Big deal, Croatia was occupied by many different powers at different times; Hungary had little impact on Zadar and there are very few Hungarians in Croatia. That is not reason enough to put the Hungarian name there. --Jesuislafete 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Then you can remove the Italian name too, saying that it had little impact on it. In fact, one of our king was crowned in Zára, who happened to be the king of Naples too. (that's why its name is Nápolyi László in Hungarian -which translates ti László from Naples- ). Meanwhile I found the Wikipedia entry too: Ladislas of Naples. So can you leave the Hungarian name there? CoolKoon 20:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You obviously don't know history. Zadar was a part of Venice for centuries, the impact it had on the town was enormous. Meanwhile, the best you can come up with is that a king was crowned in the city? That is not reason enough. --Jesuislafete 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You aren't a bunch of nationalists, are you? Because if so, then please remove Rijeka's Hungarian name too stating it's irrelevant, there's no reason for it to be there, it has little to do with Hungary etc...And BTW I think it needs to be there because it has SOMETHING to do with Hungary, not because of whatever reasons you think aboutCoolKoon 08:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If the best you can do is call someone a nationalist over a name link, than you are a very funny person indeed. Don't get so fed up over it; why don't we add Greek, French and Austrian too? All of them had an "influence over Zadar too. The only thing you mentioned was a Hungarian king got crowned in Zadar, and apparently, that "has SOMETHING to do with Hungary," and it's so enormous, it requires a name link. Can you possibly name anything else? And you never fully answered my other points. Regards. --Jesuislafete 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There is one thing, which is funnier than me: it's the fact that we're arguing over a name. Why does it matter to you if it's there in Hungarian? Oh, and there is no 'Austrian' language, and never has been any. It's German, and I'd put there its german name too if I'd know it. I don't know however that how does Zadar relate to the Greeks and the Frech....CoolKoon 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
and what does it matter to you so much that Hungarian is there in the first place when it has absolutely no relevence to the city? If you give me good evidence, I will change my mind, but from what I am seeing, you are spamming the page by putting something that you personally want that does not have importance to the page (from what you said, it was a crowning place for the king.) Regards.--Jesuislafete 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Zadar was a strong city with a lot of cultural and political influence and what's the most important - placed at the sea side so it was the nearest and the best way to take a crown sent from the Pope. After the crowning, the king, his head and a crown on it has gone to the north. 83.131.134.191 14:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Bah! You keep sounding like some nationalists who think that Hungarians shouldn't exist at all. Well, tough luck, but Zadar is part of the Hungarian history, just as much as Nándorfehérvár (i.e. Beograd) for example. But for NPOV you say you need something more than a Hungarian king crowned there. Well, how about the peace threaty of Zára between Hungary and Venice in 18. february 1358 [5] (sorry, but it's in Hungarian), when Zára became part of Hungary (again)? But anyway, I got a picture too, which shows a street in Zadar: [6] (Hungarian source again, what a shame....). Anyway, the interesting thing is that it looks as if it would be in historical center of Pozsony (i.e. Bratislava). Is that a coincidence? Probably. Or if you deny that, just come and visit Bratislava once....oh, and how about parts of Vienna downtown resembling Budapest downtown? Nah, just a very weird coincidence too....Brno bearing some resemblance to Wien & Budapest.....nah...that's beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory, right? Maybe you'll get to those distant places once (I know how distant is it. Our trip from Bratislava to Pula lasted a whole night and about half of the next day...), and realise that these cities actually do have some things in common. Or maybe you won't, since the whole problem of Central Europe and the Balkan was/is the lack of consensus, so I guess we won't be able to agree because of the CE/Balkanian mentality....CoolKoon 21:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm down child, this is the internet. Your post is enough to prove you are irrational. Thank you. --Jesuislafete 18:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't loose your nerves, guys.
Point is... you're having a discussion with the user whose signature is red. An empty link. That's often the case with the vandals and trolls.
They came on Wikipedia for the reason of disrupting its work, as well as the inciting the verbal clashes between users and by using inflammatory statements.
If that empty-link user think that Hungary and Hungarians were important for the Zadar in history, he's wrong. Albanians had much more influence. Kubura 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's really nice to call me names like vandal, troll etc. And I'd be one, how come I've been around for 2-3 years? And BTW who are you to state that Zadar absolutely doesn't have anything to do with Hungary? Are you a historian? I guess not. And then if I state something and you state something, who's right? You say that you're right because you said so? I can say that too. But then none of us has a NPOV, which is very important in Wikipedia. Oh, and you think that because most of this article's visitors share your POV then it's the truth? I don't think so. Coolkoon 10:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha and Krakow is part of German history... but this is not good association because Germans WERE in Poland, Hungarians were not in Zadar. 83.131.135.140 15:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not gonna argue with you anymore. It's quite sad that you guys have categorically refused to leave there 17 characters which refer to a part of your history. Yes, your part of the history, since Hungary, and later Austria-Hungary is part of your history too. You can deny it, of course, but it remains to be a fact. Even if your whole nation denies that. Actually you can even stop teaching about the "opressing" kingdom of Hungary/Austria-Hungary (if it's part of the curriculum over there). You can lie yourself as much as you want, it still remains to be a lie. Anyway, to settle this dispute (and for you a chance to show that you're not nationalists:P) I recommend you putting this in there: see also other names CoolKoon 19:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't even know what are these other names! And how can Hungarian name can be relevant for Zadar? It's not even Hungarian name! It's Italian. Should we give Croatian names to all Hungarian cities? 83.131.153.141 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Look, I've already discussed above that why has Zadar its part in the Hungarian history, and I really don't want to repeat myself. And yeah, you're right, the name Zára was probably derived from the Italian name. So what? The Hungarian name for Bratislava (Pozsony) is derived from its Latin name (Posonium), and despite that it's still called Pozsony in Hungarian. Or e.g. Brno is Brünn in Hungarian, which is also its German name. And other non-Hungarian cities' Hungarian name greatly differs from their official name, e.g. Bécs (Wien), Koppenhága (Copenhagen), Fokváros (Cape Town). So what then? The World still goes 'round!
Oh, and yes, you can give Croatian names to all Hungarian cities! If fact, you're advised to do so on the page which I've linked above. So I'll finally know the Croatian name of Debrecen, Kecskemét, Székesfehérvár, Miskolc, Eger, Esztergom, Komárom, Győr, Pécs etc. ;) CoolKoon 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I answered on CoolKoon's talkpage on 23th June 2007. Names in Croatian, Albanians and Zadar. Kubura 06:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hungarian history and Zadar? That must be some kind of joke? Of course every summer we drag a few Hungarian tourists from the sea - they can't swim. That's mostly Hungarian history here.. and statistics too. Just a joke. Listen buddy, that's not Hungarian history, that's Croatian history with some Hungarian involved. Leave your history at home, among Hungarians. You know, my grandma was singing in the radio in 30's last century (there were no recordings and music was live on the radio). At one occasion she sang as a guest at Austrian radio. Question for you: is that occasion my grandma's or Austrian cultural history? 83.131.157.128 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As I've seen here (. doc file) Oktatási és Kulturális Minisztérium "Részletes érettségi vizsgakövetelmények és vizsgaleírás - Horvát népismeret", the name in contemporary Hungarian language for Zadar (and Dubrovnik) are the same as in Croatian. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...still protected

I don't think there are anymore disputes, and this page has been protected forever, I want to at least fix some of the appalling spelling errors on the page. If anyone has anymore disputes, then get it over with on this page.... --Jesuislafete 02:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's sad but it seems it needs protection again. Somebody is constantly vandalizing it with some fascist ideas! 83.131.153.141 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broj stanovnika

Zanima me zašto netko uporno lažira broj stanovnika grada Zadra, istovremeno stavljajući link na World Gazeteer gdje se piše da je broj stanovnika za cca 10000 manji od onog na ovoj stranici?

[edit] TAGS weasel&NPOV

I've added the tags for the several historical errors present in the article, that try to hide or minimize the Italian roots of the city. I'm going to correct them as soon as possible. Some comments, just likes the ones added by user:Kubura are indecent, false and cowdard. Such as the claim about the Italians expelled from the city just because they were 'fascists'. Nothing of surprising for the people who knows this fanatic nationalist.--Giovanni Giove 14:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This city has no Italian roots at all. Italian version of its history is not objective which is understandable - Italians were aggresors and occupators in Zadar , starting with Venician destroying of the city (13th century) in the ages when it was the most powerful in the area (11-14 cent.) and populated by Croats. You wouldn't destroy something that is yours, wouldn't you? And that was not just an attack to take the millitary control, the battle had lasted 15 days. That was destroying to ashes piece by piece which lasted a few years after taking it under control! Venicians were controlling the city after that in some periods, forcing taxes and some quazi-culture over Croatian population. From point of view of Zadar citizens that was foreign culture and Italian language was foreign language!
Zadar is not (was not) just the city of a few square miles. It's the logical and natural centre of the area with 4 big and over a hundred smaller and small islands, Ravni Kotari plains behind the coastal side all across to Velebit mountains in the north and Bukovica in the west. All this area was populated only by Croats from 10th, 11th century to present day. Zadar has been always acummulating and re-acummulating this population not Italian since there has been no Italians at all!!! Not even one small village or port or... Just the rulling minority in the centre who were anything but no wellcome.
All these "Venician culture" days of "Zara" were followed by stagnation and losing the leading position on the Adriatic sea. Venician conquering Zadar was not because "it was Italian". Zadar was a great difficulty for Venician ambitions on Adriatic. Destroying it (1202.), ruling it (13th, 15th-18th cent.) Venice had become the leader of the Adriatic and much wider in fact.
For the begining it was the most important to destroy Zadar and to control it (weaken it).
But anyway during the history it didn't lose its major Croatian population.
Italy got the control over the city again (1920.-1945.). Italian fascism years! Am I wrong? Should we discuss about it? What fascism meant for imperilled sides?
The funniest thing is that even the languge spoken in "Zara" was not Italian - it was Zaratinian (Zaratinski) a weird mixture of Italian and Croatian!
Italian history appropriate the legacy of Zadar even all that region was never settled by Italians! The region - not only a few central city squares or streets!
How can such "history" be relevant for encyclopedia editing??? 83.131.152.109 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard such a lie as this one: "This city has no Italian roots at all". Any serious Wikipedia administrator around? We need his/her help against unbelievable croat nationalism! I am the son of an italian born in Zara (who was forced to move away in 1945) and I am offended by this lie......

Aha, a few daddies are quite enough to say that Zadar have Italian roots. I'm so stupid... 83.131.136.120 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We need an IMPARTIAL administrator to deal with this excessive croat nationalism full of lies. By the way, "the few daddies" were 95% of the Zara population in 1945....or you want to deny even this? And it is well documented, even by the United Nations!!!!

Don't forget that Wikipedia is an impartial encyclopedia......

I reread the article and removed some of the sketchy wording in there that I have not noticed before, I think everyone will be ok with it, which is why I am removing the tags. Also, the two anonymous users that are fighting, I see none of you have much experience editing on Wikipedia, or you are just trolls that like to cause trouble, but please dont make accusations like Zadar was never settled by Italians or that the page is full of Croatian nationalism. Let's try to work on getting some references for the page. I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try to get on that in the meantime, that way the facts on the page can be verified. --Jesuislafete 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic history of Zadar

Zadar (Iader, Iadera) was important Liburnian centre (Liburni were Illyrian tribe by official science, recently some scientist conlude that Liburni are not Illyrians, on the other hand geneticists state that Liburni and Delmati should have the same genesis). After the latest archeological investigations it's estimated as at least 3000 years old settlement (10th cent. b.c.). Some estimates of Iader population accord to 2,000 habitants - Iadasines (Iadasini). Zadar was Romanized during a long period after the arrival of Romans (2nd cent. b.c.) so the very first population of Varoš (todays old centre) was a mixture of native Liburns and Romans. In 4th century it had 20,000-25,000 citizens. Although the number of Romans who settled in the Balkans was very small, Rome has influenced a lot this area culturally. Language that developed in Illyricum (especially at the seaside) through this period was of Roman family languages (derived from Latin language) but original one. In early Medieval it was in use in Dalmatian cities, so it was called Dalmatic. Anyway very soon Croatian language became dominant, later Italian language (as official one) came with Venetian occupation of Dalmatia and by the time this Dalmatic language disappeared. Last heard in an isolated village on the northern Adriatic island of Krk 200 years ago.

A.Stipčević (Iliri, 1974. , Zagreb), pages 69-76 in “Illyrians in Roman ages” passus: Illyrians didn’t save any note in their Illyrian languages… they used Latin, but not the one which was used in the city schools… it was adapted to their original languages… It was not admitted as official language of administration and army…
Dalmatic language (Dalmatski) is Roman, neo-Latin speaking, used in Dalmatian cities before Venetian arrival. That idiom was born in Medieval at direct continuum of spoken Latin in Romanized Dalmatia. It originated spontaneously, as in Italy (Italian language) or France (French). Dante Alighieri didn’t mention this language in his writing “De vulgari eloquentia”, but many travelogues writers were reporting about it, so Venetian chronicler Giustiniani (16th) named it “schiavo ma diverso dall’atro” (Slavic but different than that other) and more precise: “un idioma proprio, che somiglia al calmone”. Dalmatic language was never used as official language in the notes and writings, except sometimes in Dubrovnik. Latin language was the official one. With arrival of Venetian and then Italian (Toscana) languages in Dalmatia, this Dalmatic language was disappearing by the time. It’s presumed that it vanished the most earlier in Zadar – the centre of Venetian government of Dalmatia, where Venetian influence was the most strongest. It was the most longest preserved in island of Krk. Mateo Giulio Bartolli (from Istra – peninsula in northern Adriatic) wrote 2 toms of “Das Dalmatische”. Bartolli noted this language as “neo-Latin” or “Roman” - not Italian! – Dalmatic in fact! Also he noted that Italians as well as the other neo-Latins didn’t understand this language… [7]
In the last centuries of Roman Empire, Illyricum province was more stabile politically than the centre of empire – Rome itself. Native Illyrians were mobilized at first into army, later in culture, administration, politics, even some Roman emperors were of Illyrian roots (Decius (248.-251.), Claudius II (262.-264.), Aurelian (270.-275.), Probus(276.-282.), Diocletian (284.-305.), Constantine I (306.-337.). The cities were populated by Illyrians and Romans and by the time repopulated repeatedly from surrounding Illyrian substrate. This process was Zadar’s destiny as well. Earthquake in 6th century enormously damaged the city and probably caused significant demographic changes. Historians conclude that some new inhabitants moved in and built the city again using the material of destroyed Roman buildings. Certainly these people were Dalamatic speaking natives.
A period between 2nd century b.c. and 7th century is age of final forming modern Croats genesis which ended with Croatian identity in 8th and 9th century. Illyrians (Liburni, Iapodes, Delmati, western Ardeiaei) as a majority were mixing with Sclavens (5rd- 8th) and Goths (Ostrogoths) (5th-7th). Present time Croatian population in Dalmatia has more than 50% of autochthonous pre-Indoeuropean genotype, popularly called “Dinarian” (Haplogroup I1b (Y-DNA)), possibly of an old pre-Bronze age Gravetian culture in the Balkans, in general Croats have the highest frequency of this haplotype in Europe (Croats in Hercegovina 72%), which is logically connected to Illyrians (proto-Illyrians)by all relevant scientists in that field recently. Some new history revisions also show that massive Slavic migration from 7th century was not so massive as it was propaganded in former Yugoslavia for communists political reasons. Slavization (South Slavic languages) of the Balkans demographic structure was a process starting among village population and out of the Romanized cities and trade routs at first. Dark centuries (6th-9th century) was a period when a lot of demographic changes occurred and it surely influenced the city populations as well. According to the genetics studies Slavs make only around 23% of overall modern habitants in the Balkans, in the distinction from the fact that all of them speak South Slavic languages. Also modern Croatian language is full of non-Slavic Romanized but autochthonous words (for example the most of maritime term-words in Croatian are not of Slavic roots – Dalmatic romanisms are in question) and Slavized Latin words. The names of Adriatic sea or Adria (Jadran) and Iadera (Jadera, Zadar) are older than Greek and Roman civilizations and many authors evidently connect it with Liburni tribe in fact. Liburni tribe was marked by scientists as an older one of Illyrian family, they were best known as the rulers of the Adriatic sea in pre-Antique ages.
Only Dalmatic was heard in early Medieval Zadar, but from 10th century 2 languages were equally used: Dalmatic and Croatian. Italian became administrative language in 15th century after Venetian conquer of Zadar and somewhat more in usage from 17th and 18th century among citizens, but evidently in massive usage not earlier than 19th and 20th cent. until the moment when almost all Italians left the city (1944., 1945.)

In the middle ages a lot of demographic changes occurred in Zadar and its area - global ethnic migrations, Venetian and Turkish sieges, natural catastrophes. There are not relevant data about exact number of citizens from this period, since all authors had their individual evaluations which can not be taken for sure. In 10th century the majorities in Zadar and in the area were Croats and Zadar belonged to Croatian kingdom (Croatian-Hungarian from 12th). Until 15th century Venicians were ruling Zadar in a few short turns (administrative ruling not physical). The plague epidemics occurred 25 times in Medieval Zadar, spread by Venetian trade ships, later it came from Bosnia too. The other incidences which caused the population losses were hunger, earthquake and Venetian sieges, especially 1202. when Venetians and crusaders conquered and destroyed the city which was left burnt down and robbed after their departure and all of the city population escaped in the surrounding area and the islands – the space which, after some time, gave a new wave of Zadar citizens including some of the refugees. According to the source of an anonymous Zadar writer there were 8,698 citizens in 1291. These people were mainly Croats, others were the most of Dalmatian (Romanized natives – not Italians!), Byzantine and Greek origins. This process of losing population and repopulating with some returnees and some new people from wider Zadar area were repeating through all Middle Ages. During Venetian ruling (1409.-1797.) there were a few population lists made. Plague epidemic in 1500. killed over 4.000 people. These epidemics enormously reduced overall population of the city in 16th century which was 8,051 in 1527. (that was first population list made by Venetians) and 28% smaller in 1608. During 17th century population was continually decreasing even it was repopulated repeatedly with native Croats and Italian administrators and traders. A list from 1695. had noted 52% population decrease in comparison to the list from 1609. This century was marked with 2 big Ottoman-Venice wars which remarkably influenced the demographic movements, causing suffering and dislodging in addition to low natality and often occurred hunger. Peaceful ages came in 18th cent. after Otomans defeat in the Balkans. The city was settled again by Zadar district population, inhabitants from the other Dalmatian cities and from Italy. Albanian immigrants have settled in the eastern part of the city (Arbanasi) from 1726. By the end of 18th cent. population increased 57%. After Venice Republic fault (1797.), Zadar was in Habsburg monarchy (from 1867. Austro-Ugrian) until 1918. Short period (1806.-1814.) under French government. During this period Zadar has been the principal centre of Dalmatia. Since Austrian politics was isolation of Dalmatia from the rest of Croatia, Austrian government set Italian language as an official one of administration in Dalmatia and encouraged the immigrants from Italy to settle exclusively in the principal city (Zadar). At the end of Venetian government (1797.) Zadar had around 5.000 citizens, but very soon in the early 19th century it had 6.000. Also there were around 10.000 inhabitants of the islands and much more in the continental background so all together around 40.000 people gravitated to Zadar city. In the second half of 19th century population was continually increasing and 100% growth was marked in 50 years as a result of strong economic development. Zadar was annexed by Italy in 1915. Cutting off from its surrounding area meant hard times for Zadar and its population. The best proof is the fact that all other Dalmatian cities had demographic increase until 1931, especially Split (more than 100% growth), while Zadar decreased. A population list from 1921. – 15,804 citizens, 1931. – 17,358 citizens. In 30’s a lot of Italian soldiers were brought and concentrated in Zadar and therefore some demographic increase occurred. A population list published by Italians in 1936. – 20,022 citizens, 68% of them expressed themselves as Italians.

Even this number could have been smaller, since almost all Croatian names and surnames as well as the other toponyms were changed into Italian synonyms due to a fascistic regime and after the war changed into Croatian origin again.

After capitulation of Mussolini’s Italy in 1943., Zadar was occupied by Germans. In 1943. and 1944. Zadar was bombed 70 times by Allies and many people were killed. Only in a few first bombardments 2.000 of them. Also around 10.000 Italians escaped to Italy. These incidents changed the ethnical structure of Zadar’s population. From 1948. (~ 15.000 citizens) until 2007. (~ 80.000) the majority are Croats (>95%). [8]Zenanarh 14:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of noble families in Zadar

From the original scientific research made by Jelena Kolumbić “Grbovi zadarskih plemićkih obitelji” (“Coats of arms of the Zadar nobility”) UDK 949.75:929.6:929.7 (Zadar)[9]

Zadar is a city which has been existing for a few millenniums. In the long history it always tried to save its political and economical autonomy. From any new government it demanded recognitions of communal independence. Commune was directed by Communal council made of the eminent citizens – patricians, noblemen, although they didn’t have a class organization as the noblemen in the rest of Europe did. Actually they were civilian aristocracy which took the management of the city in their own hands and until 14th century they developed into an isolated group. This group couldn’t have been entered by new members for a long time and it finally happened at the end of Venetian ruling (late 18th cent.). At that moment the number of noble families was very small so Venetian government allowed the fulfillment of the noble society with new members. During the Middle Ages the rich citizens, patricians were appropriating main church and civil honors and trying to keep it for the members of their families. Patricians were contributing in the city government, in distinction from the members of the other social classes. Reformation of the city statute in 1458. made that any of Zadar citizens could become a member of the great council if their fathers or grandfathers had been already in. The statute of Zadar differenced 2 groups of the city population – cives and habitatores – citizens and habitants. Civety was a condition for acquirement of the membership in the councils of Zadar. The development of Zadar’s patricianity was connected to the profit from agriculture and trade. Venice had a great (the mostly negative) influence on evolution of Zadar patricians. Venetians were doing anything to subordinate the economy of Zadar to Venice. Also they tried to change the ethnical structure of Zadar’s population and to reduce the authorities of the domicile nobility by weakening their economical power. This politic was realized by evicts and persecutions of some of the noble families which started when Zadar felt into Venetian hands (1409.). During the period 1410.-1414. 47 noblemen were captured and sent to Venetian prisons. First of them were members of the families: Benja, Butovano, Civaveli, Galo, Galeli, Georgii (Jurjević), Ginano, Nassi, Pechiaro, Pomo, Sloradi, Soppe, Varicassi (Varikaše) and Zadulini. The next were: Cesanis, Calcina, Grisogoni, Kršava, Petrachis, Raducho, Rosa and Vitcor. Remaining nobles returned to Zadar in 1433. after Venice signing the peace treatment with Sigmund. Venice had installed 2 subjects on leading positions: duke who was completely subordinated to central government organization and Zadar’s commune; captain for military purposes. Apart from economical and political pressure by Venice, communal system regulated by statute orders enabled the nobles of Zadar to control the city by communal council. From 14th to 18th century the numbers of these noble families was decreasing and some of them even died out. In the different sources from 1442. to 1527. these families were mentioned: Arimondo, Begna, Bartolazzi, Batono, Calcina, Canaruto, Cipriano, Civaveli, Detrico, Dominis, Fanfogna, Ferra, Fumatis, Galelis, Grisogoni, Jurjevići (Georgiis), Justiniano, Kršava (Cressava), Ljubavac, Matafari, Nassi, Pechiaro, Rosa, Soppe, Zadulini. The council was closed for new members with the exception of Kolan Dražić (1573.) nobleman from Cres island. The number of nobles was considerably decreased in 17th century, only 60-70 members left in ~20 families, so Venetians government allowed the filling up of the noble society during 17th and 18th century but preferring the coming of strangers as an intention to additionally weaken the domicile families. New families were: Alberti, Lantana, Pellegrini, Fondra, Ponte, Posedarski, Soppe Fontezza. Zadar council enlarged in second half of 18th century the mostly with nobles from Nin (Croatian city in the west of Zadar). New families were: Grimaldi, Sanfermo, Pasquali, Stratico, Bianchini (1756. – 1789.) . The Great council had these members (20.07.1796.): Borelli, Ferrari, Lantana, Petricioli, Zanchi, Albinoni, Kreljanović, Dall’Acqua, Damjanić Vrgadski, Corponese, Carrara, Califi, Spalatin, Giusti, Parma, Salamoni, Ferro, Smiljanić, Mirković, Licini, Benvenuti. The fault of Venice Republic occurred 1797. New Austrian government admitted and affirmed the noblemen’s titles. French government affirmed their titles but not their privileges as well. In all this period (19th century) the nobility political influence was reduced and equalized to the citizens one so at the end both classes entered in the city council. New names were signed in the register of noble families in 19th and 20th cent. by Austrian government. They were eminent citizens who came later and were distinguished in cultural, economical or political life of Zadar. Considerable number of old Zadar noble families disappeared, died out or migrated out of the city until the beginning of the 19th century, so already at that moment there were a small number of noble families with origins in old Croatian nobility. New names in register (1838.-1911.) were: Ivan Felicinović, Josip Bersa, Gabriel Ivačić, Francesco Petris, Carlo Kutschig, Giusepe Sabalich, 4 members of Medici family, Nikola Nardeli, Josip Tončić.

It’s very hard to define the origins of some of these families mentioned in the previous text, since there were no notes in the sources of their roots in the moments they inhabited the city. Zadar and its surrounding were settled by families who belonged to old Croatian nobility. Some of them were: Nozdronja (Draganić), Lapčani, Posedarski (Gusić), Šubić… Different styles of writing personal names have made a lot of difficulties for investigators and impossibility of connecting some of the individuals to their families.

Albinoni
Alberti – a family from Split, came in Zadar in 17th century
Arimondo – Venetian noble family, Dominis and Justiniano were marked (16th) as the members of the council even they were not Zadar’s noblemen.
Batono(Botono) - one of the poorest noblemen with no particular influence in life of the city, mentioned in the notes from 14th to 16th century.
Dalmatian roots? (2 leaders of the last Illyrian rebellion against Roman Empire were both named – Baton!? – from Daesitiates tribe which was mixing with Dalmati tribe)
Benvenuti – old Italian family (13th century) from Bergamo, came to Zadar in 18th century, Angelo Benvenuti was the president of the court in Dubrovnik (1820.), Latin and Italian poetry, Angelo de Benvenuti – historian, pro-Italian writer in 20th cent., some Benvenuti’s left for Italy in 19th cent.
Benja (Begna, Benković) - they also used patronymic Kožičić of name Cosa (Coxa, Koša) – Croatian roots – one of the oldest families from Zadar, their family tree started with Dobre de Benja in 10th century, many members of the family were dealing in economical, political, clerical and cultural life of Zadar. Dobre, Dobrolus and Benko were the most frequent names found among them. Juraj Benja (- 1437.) was the collector and one of the first Croatian humanists, Šimun Kožičić Benja (1460. – 1536.) the bishop of Modruša, Senj, political engagement in Croatia. They got the title “conte” in 1669. Family got split in 19th cent. in a few branches: some of them were gone to Zagreb, others to Austria (conte Begna Benković) and Italy (Begna conti di Castel Bencovich).
Benja Posedarski – a branch of Benja’s (Posedarski originated in Gusić family), Austrian government excepted them as noblemen in 1806., Kuzma (1809. – 1885.) a representative of Dalmatian autonomists. Family left the city in 20th century.
Bianchini - Italian family accepted to nobility of Zadar in 1789. noted as noblemen of Split (1822.) but place of residence in Zadar and as noblemen of Zadar (1823.) but place of residence in Venice, lived from 1834. in Zadar and returned to Italy to the end of 19th cent.
Borelli – Italian family of Norman roots, came from Bologna to Zadar at the beginning of 18th century, rarely quickly assimilated in the new place and got naturalized until nowadays. Venice gave them feud of Vrana (1752.), Andrija was accepted to Zadar nobility in 1796. and was one of the most prominent follower of the French revolution in Dalmatia, Franjo Borelli – Dalmatian autonomist, their properties decreased by the end of 19th cent. but they were still eminent and influent people in the area, members of this family played important roles in political life in Dalmatia and some Borellis were noticed as artists.
Bortolazzi (de Bartolatijs, Bortolačić) – some members of one of the oldest Zadar families – Grisogono used surname adjective “de Bartholatijs”. They were noted in the sources much before 15th cent. During 16th century Bortolačić’s were adding Grižogoni and in 18th century Bortolazzi kept Grisogono. The duke gave them the title “conte” in 1781. In 19th cent. they were named only Bortolazzi and left the city. This family is of unknown roots, heraldic symbols of their coat of arms could be one of the oldest in Europe.
Butovano
Calcina (Calcena, Calcigna, Calzina, Chalcina, Galcigna, Galcina, Gauzigna, Kalcina) – the family has lived in Zadar 13th – 18th cent. Unknown roots (the most possible Dalmatian). First known was Marinus Calcina (1239.), Pauli de Calcigna – donator (1326.), Marin – in the surrender delegatation to Venice (1346.), Petar – taken away to Venice as a hostage (1414.), some of family members were interpreters of Croatian language, Ivan was notary public (1439.- 1492.), Grgur – principal councilor, fiscal advocate and the President of Zadar’s Economic Chamber (Kamerlengo) (died 1693.), Girardin - reviser of financial management in brotherhoods of Zadar, managing the system of taxes, fiscal advocate, kamerlengo, teacher of Croatian language (18th cent.). Family died out to the end of 18th cent.
Carrara – old Zadar family from the “citadins” class. Became the noblemen in 1796. but only Franjo kept the title during second Austrian ruling of Zadar. Their coat of arms was similar to the coat of arms of an Italian family in Italy with same surname – Carrara. They were probably among first Italians who settled in Zadar (16th ?)
Cedulini (Cedulinis, Cedilimus, Cedolini, Cedulinus, Ciedulini, Zadulini, Zadulinus, Zandulinus, Zedolinus, Zedolino) – old Zadar family, noted as noblemen in 1283. and 1384. Some of them used nicknames Salčić, Travašić, Moscatello, Babon. They were acting in the public, cultural, political and clerical life of Zadar from 12th to 17th century. In 15th cent. the time of Venetian persecution of the Zadar noblemen they lost a lot of their rich properties. Jerko, Donald (13th), Mihovil, Grgur (14th) were engaged in politics, judges, rectors, Šimun (16th) teologist and Latinist, Petar (17th) bishop. From 17th century no notes about them anymore.
Ciprianis (Cipriano, de Ciprianis) – the noble family that had lived in Zadar, Trogir and Split. First mentioned in the documents were the brothers Dobrana and Prestancije in 12th cent. Members of this family in 14th cent. managed some important positions in Zadar, they were judges and rectors, Zoilo – judge investigator and kamerlang in island of Pag, some Ciprianis were mentioned in the documents as donators. The family died out in 16th cent.
From the first sign they had typical Croatian names
Civaveli – old Zadar’s family, one of the most prominent in the city. In the notes from 1247. in the beginning the owners of the lands near Zadar, later on the islands and on other territories too. After 1409. their economical power decreased from Venetian anti-patrician politics. Anyway they saved a lot of their properties and were engaged in cultural, military and clerical life. Last Civaveli died in 1713.
Corponese – Šimun de Corponese – Venetian administrator and governor in 17th century, his descendant Petar came to Zadar at Venetian engagement and became Zadar’s nobleman in1796.. Family died out in 19th century.
Dall’Acqua - Italian family, accepted to Nin’s nobility in 1752. and then to Zadar’s in 1796. Left to Italy in 19th cent.
Damjanić Vrgadski (Damijanić, Domijanić, Damijanović, Damiani, Damiani de Vergada) – old Croatian family and noblemen from Poljica, (recognized as noblemen in 1605.), from the moment of Venetian ruling like many others they use Italian version of surname – Damiani. Settled in Šibenik and Zadar. Accepted in Zadar’s nobility in 1821. They lost their title in 1860.
Detrico (Detriko, de Trico, de Tricko, Tedrico, Tedricho, Detricho, Thetrico) old Zadar’s noble family of Roman roots. Members of this family were rich and eminent people in Zadar’s commune, elected on important positions in Zadar. First mentioned was Detricus in 13th cent. as strong landowner, Grgur (14th) judge and examinator, Šimun (14th – 15th) iudex examinator , successful in politics, got the title “miles”, a nobleman who accepted Venetian government and therefore realized a lot of privileges for his family including the title duke of Trogir. His descendants played important roles of Venetian politics in Dalmatia, engaged in military forces in the wars with Ottomans. Last male member Lujo died in 1749.
Fanfonja (Plebanis, Fantonja, Fafogna, Falfogna, de Fefognis, Fanfogna, Fafonić) – old Croatian noble family in Zadar, noted from 13th cent. In the beginning they used 2 surnames Fantonja and Plebanis. From 14th cent. the other versions too. Krševan – conductor of St. Mary’s church (1319.) and bishop in Šibenik, Venetians didn’t let them to participate on important positions in Zadar’s commune until 1520. Petar – “Illyrian” (Croatian) notar (1653.), Šimun – military commander (17th). This family left Zadar in 1840.
Ferra – old family in Zadar, their name is on the list of nobles found in St. Simeon’ s grave. Some of Ferras were the members of the city council; also they were mentioned in the church documents (1258. -1638.). The most of the Ferra’s properties were on islands Ugljan and Dugi otok. In 15th cent. some of the Ferras had advocatory and military positions. The last male ancestor of Ferra family was Ludovik – the troop commander in the Croatian cavalry (1705.)
Ferrari – Italian family accepted to Zadar’s nobility in 1796, died out in 19th century. Giovanni Maria (18th) – advocate and theologist, his writings were used by Italian historians of Zadar.
Fondra – old Venetian family titled “conte” in 1413. Settled in Zadar in 17th century.
Fondra Ferra – originated in marriage of members of Fondra and Ferra families. Died out in 19th century.
Fumatis – noted in 15th cent., members of council in second half of 15th cent and early 16th when disappeared or died out.
Galeli (Galelli, Kokošić, Galello, de Galeli, Galelis, Galellis, Galetus, Galio, Gallelli, Gallelis, Gallello, Gallis, Gallo, Gallus) – old Zadar’s patrician family of unknown roots – probably Croatian since they used 2 surnames until 15th cent. – Galeli and Kokošić, originated in the end of 13th century, more data in 14th century, owners of the lands deep in the Zadar’s background; Benedikt – evicted from Zadar by Venetians (1411.), Šimun – prisoned in Venice. This family was weakened a lot by Venetian politics, but anyway they survived. The most known Bernardin – humanist, advocate, general vicar of Krakow bishop’s diocese (16th), Franjo – member of Zadar’s Great council in 16th cent. Last data in 1611.
Ginanis – old patrician family in Zadar, agrar properties and finances, persecuted by Venetians, died out in 15th century.
Grisogono (de Grisogono, Grisogoni de Mauro, de Grisovanis, de Bartholatijs, Grisovano, de Grisogonis, de Grixogonis, de Grisogonis Schodeuich, Schodeuich, Duichoduich de Grisogonis, Crisogonis de Ducouich de Bartolatijs, Grižogoni) – family originated in Zadar of unknown roots, heraldic symbols of their coat of arms could be one of the oldest in Europe and were related to the Central Europe heraldics; on the noblemen list from 1283. Very rich and large family with a lot of properties in the islands and all Zadar’s background, dealing with trading and finances. Many members of this family were placed on important positions in Zadar’s commune, rectors, examinators, councilors and theologists. They were spreading their properties until 1450. They started to lose their positions under Venetian government, a member of this family was prisoned in Venice. Federik Grisogono (1472. – 1538.) - scientist, cosmographist, astrologist, mathematician, physicist, phylosophist, doctor, musicologist, student colleague of Nikola Kopernik Last Grisogono was Ivan – died in 1765.
Grubonja (Grubogna) – Croatian family with small properties, last mentioned in documents in 15th cent.
Jurjević (de Georgiis, de Georgijs) - old Zadar noble family of Croatian roots from 12th and 13th century. They (Franjo, Ludovik, Pavao) played an important political role in resistance to Venetians, and had principal positions in other Dalmatian cities (Trogir, Pag, Šibenik, Rab). Filip Jurjević lost all of his properties (1402.), 2 members of Jurjević family were hostages in Venice (Pavao and Ludovik de Georgiis -1412.). Died out in 16th cent.
Karnarutić (Carnaruto) – old noble family of Croatian origin, members of the council in 15th cent., Brne (16th) – captain of Croatian cavalry in Venetian army, administrator, writer. Died out in
Kotopanja (Cotopagna) – in sources from 12th century, got their name from catapanus (Byzantine administrator) , at first the landowners in the islands, in 13th cent. they spread their properties on the continental lands too. Died out in 14th cent.
Kreljanović Albinoni (Kreglianovich) – Croatian family from Senj, titled as “knights”, settled in Zadar in 18th century, they were participating in cultural, economical and political life.
Kršava (Cresava, Cressava, Cressavis, Kršavić) – Croatian family belonged to older noble families, found in the documents in 13th cent. In 15th century they were persecuted as the enemies of Venetian government but also found as members of the city council in 15th and 16th cent. The last marks about this family were in the beginning of 17th cent.
Lantana - Italian family from Bergamo, accepted to Zadar’s nobility in 1796.
Lapčani – old Croatian noblemen, properties in Karin, Jurislav was a judge. Their properties felt to the ownership of St. Krševan monastery in 18th and 19th century when this family vanished.
Lemeš - died out in
Licini (Latičić) – old Croatian family from Poljica near Zadar which moved in Zadar and died out in 19th century.
Ljubavac (Giliubavaz) – rich family in the 15th cent. , members of the city council. The most known was Šimun Ljubavac (1608.-1663.) historian, writer and teacher. Croatian roots.
Martinušić (de Martinussio) – Vučina was donator (1326.), after 14th cent. not noted in the sources anymore. Croatian roots.
Matafari – old patrician family in Zadar, in 13th century they got their name from nickname “Matafar” (murderer in Italian). They were successful businessmen and traders. The most frequent name found in this family was Vučina. They were enlarging their land properties in 13th cent. out of Zadar district. Members of this family were followers of Ladislav of Napoliand and were Venetian enemies. Nikola (14th) – an author of “Thesarus pontificum” and probably “Obsidio”, Petar (14th) - the bishop, on the noblemen list in 1527. and members of Great council, in 1557. not any notes about them anymore. Croatian roots.
Mirković – Croatian family, noted in 15th century, a branch of old Zoranić family that was settled in the island of Pag changed their name into Mirković – Ivan (1433.), Matija and Nikola (1503.) got title “conte paladino”, last nobleman was Aleksandar in 18th century.
Nassi (de Nassis, Našić) – old patrician family in Zadar, got their surname from their ancestor Nasce di Bivaldo; one of the richest family in 13th and 14th century. After 1409. their properties decreased, 5 members of the family were prisoned in Venice (1411.). They contributed in the council work in 15th and 16th cent. Died out in 19th cent.
Nozdronja (de Nosdrogna, Nozdronjić) – belonged to the Croatian tribe of Draganić, settled in Zadar in 13th cent. Died out in 15th cent.
Parma – old Italian noble family in Parma(Italy), Ivan came to Zadar in 1750. Died out in 19th cent.
Pečar (Pechiaro) – Croatian family, rich properties of this family were first mentioned in 1275., in 15th century they were members of council, rectors, councilors and as many others persecuted by Venetians.
Pellegrini – Venetian roots, noblemen in island of Hvar with surname Dobretić, Pellegrino changed his surname into Pellegrini (1480.). His descendants came to Zadar in 17th cent.
Pellegini Danieli – a branch of Pellegrini’s, titled in 1826.
Petrachis
Petricioli – Italian roots (Brescia) accepted to Nin’s nobility (1775.) and in Zadar(1796.), gave their contribution to cultural and economical development of Zadar.
Petrizo (Petrica) – one of the oldest patricians of Zadar; Ivan – judge (1384.), Toma – helped Venetians to conquer Zadar in 1409. Died out in 15th cent.
Pomo
Ponte – Italian family (Bergamo), first mentioned in Dalmatia was Ivan in 17th cent. Noblemen of Zadar from 1694.
Posedarski (de Posedarie) – from Croatian tribe Gusić, Slavogost – the landowner in Posedarje (north of Zadar) in 1456. They escaped from Otomans and settled in Zadar, members of Zadar’s nobility from 1694. The marriage of Dinka and Josip Benja – a new surname Benja Posedarski.
Qualis – old noble family, owners of the lands in Biograd’s background, Rogovi and island of Pašman, they were spreading their properties later, but after 1387. they were mentioned only as traders. It’s presumed that this family died out until the beginning of 15th century.
Radučo (Raducho, Raduchis, Radući, Raduko) – Jakov was one of the most eminent citizens of Zadar in 14th cent. engaged in politics, 3 members of this family were prisoned in Venice.
Rosa – first mentioned at the end of 13th cent., before that this family was called Scolatura, on the list of nobles in 1384., increasing their properties in Zadar background (14th and 15th cent.), one member was the hostage in Venice, some were in the city council but with low political influence, they lived under Venetian pressure. After 16th cent. not connected to Zadar anymore.
Saladin (de Saladinis) – got the properties even outside of Zadar district, came from the east – Byzantium origin, Cosa Saladin was the richest man at the end of 13th century, got the highest honours in the period of Anguvines ruling. After 14th cent. this family was not noted anymore.
Sanfermo – old Italian family (Verona) – accepted to Zadar’s nobility in 1784.
Smiljanić – came to Dalmatia from Lika in 17th cent., many members were engaged in wars with Turks, noblemen of Zadar from 1796. Died out in 19th cent.
Soppe – old Zadar’s noble family, mentioned in 12th cent. Strong landowners in 14th cent., losing their properties in 2nd half of 15th cent. under Venetian government, contributing in publical, cultural and clerical life of Zadar until the early 19th cent.
Soppe Fortezza – a branch of Soppe
Soppe Papali – a branch of Soppe
Stratiko (Stratico) – Greek origin, from Crete. Escaped from Otomans and settled in Split, Zadar and Italy in 17th century. First known member was Ivan with important political positions in Dalmatia given by Venetian government. 3 of his sons played important roles in science and culture of both Dalmatia and Italy: Šimun (1733. – 1824.) doctor of medicine, professor in the University of Padova, a few important positions in Italy, senator; Grgur (1736. – 1806.) administrator, collector and poet in Zadar; Ivan Dominik (1732. – 1799.) the most known member of the Stratiko family – a “wonder-kid” in science, professor on 2 Italian universities, teologist, reformator, the bishop of Novigrad and Hvar-Brač-Vis islands;
Šubić – a branch of Šubić Bribirski (Cassano, de Cesano, Cesanis, Cisano) – Croatian family settled in Zadar in 1324. Members of Zadar Commune, land properties in Jošani; Jakov – son of Matej, was a prisoner in Venice, after escape became a king Ludovik’s councilor for Dalmatian and Croatian questions, the duke of Hvar-Brač-Vis and admiral. Meant a lot of trouble to Venetians. This family branch died out in 15th cent.
Varikaša (Varicasso, de Varicasis) – Croatian roots, among the most richest noblemen in 14th century, important positions in Zadar commune, rectors, judges, deputies. They were very successful in economics until the Venitian ruling of Zadar. After 15th century they were not connected to Zadar anymore.
Vitcor (de Victor) – noted in 2nd half of 14th and early 5th century. Persecuted by Venetians.
Zanchi – Italian roots (Bergamo), noticed in culture and economics. First Zanchi came to Zadar in 1674.
Zloradi (Sloradi, Soloradis) – old patrician family in Zadar of Croatian origin, mentioned in 12th cent., big property in 14th century, Bartul was a hostage in Venice (1412.). Died out in 15th century.
Drechia and Rave families were also marked as noble ones in some historical sources. Families Nassi, Grisogono, Benja and Fanfonja could be the oldest patrician families in Zadar.


It,s easy to notice that almost all earlier noble families found in the sources (10th – 16th) fall into Croatian and Dalmatian ethno-pool. Individuals of that “Dalmatian” ethnicity were actually the mostly Roman speaking natives (Illyrian genetical heritage). Some of them could have been of Greek, Latin, Byzantine, Frank or Gothic roots too if we presume that they survived population changes a few centuries ago. We can see that their names have Romanian (Dalmatian) and Croatian shape or both. From 10th century they obviously used both languages. Once again - this Roman language (Dalmatic) was formed from the Latin basis in the way that it was adjusted to native Illyrian speaking and in the area populated with Illyrians. It has nothing to do with Italian language, which is by the way formed in the same way but in the territory of present-day Italy. This is important fact because Italian expansionists abused (and still abuse) the form of these names to prove or conclude that they had (have) some historical rights on this territory - eastern coast of Adriatic sea, which by the way has never been populated by Italians with the exception of some Dalmatian cities (especially Zadar) and in much later ages. Italians as the citizens inhabited these cities not earlier than 17th or 18th cent. in the moments when Venetian occupation was a ~200 years long fact, encouraged by privileges given from Italian governments. In addition Italians has never formed the majority in Zadar (except 1930. – 1943.) and what’s the most important there have never been Italian settlers out of the city borders.
By history the rulers of Zadar from 10th century were Croats and the city was the part of Croatia (or Croatia-Hungary dual kingdom) until 15th century.
First Italians came to Zadar after Venetian conquering in 15th century, but these people were only some administrators and soldiers. Some significant Italian populating of Zadar occurred not earlier than 18th cent. and culminated in 20th cent. The most of noble Italian families stayed for a short time in Zadar, the same goes for Italian citizens.
Nobody can say that Zadar have Italian roots. It’s much more correct to say that Zadar have Liburnian roots. In the other words this city belongs to the people who still live there at the present as they have lived for 3.000 years and are incorporated in Croatian identity for last 1.300 years. Italian politics in Zadar from first half of 20th century was pretending that Zadar is Italian city and obviously relied Italian history teaches modern Italians to think the same way.
Original scientific research by 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 [10]
Summary:
The long submerged aspirations of Italian irredentism regarding the occupation and appropriation of Dalmatia, of Zadar especially, has recently again, even in a muted fashion, come out into the open. This aspiration has always been founded on the supposedly large number of Italians who lived in Dalmatia during the XIXth century. Instigated by this appropriative aspirations the author makes an attempt once again, after Ivo Rubić and Dinko Foretić, to establish the number of Italians/pro-Italians who lived in Dalmatia during the said century or, to be more precise, up to WWI. He relies on extant literature, publications which have not yet been known and on rare archival sources. For the sake of objectivity he approaches the matter from a number of perspectives – from the autonomist/irredentist, the populist and the official perspective – contending that this is the only way to approach at least approximately precise numbers and the true state of affairs. From the available sources it is clear that the pro-Italians, led by their interests, exaggerated the number of Italians living in Dalmatia at the time, confusing national affiliation with those who spoke the Italian language. Many autonomists/pro-Italians hid behind the concept of the Dalmatians thinking this an easier strategy to make the region Italian. The opposing side generally relied on the official Austrian census which showed a gradual decrease of the number of Italians/pro-Italians especially after 1882. Namely, some of the Croats and Serbs who had declared themselves otherwise returned to their root identities while the real Italians moved to Istria, Trieste, the Slovenian coast or found sanctuary in Zadar, the last bastion of the pro-Italian faction in Dalmatia. Proportionately to the decrease in the number of Italians within the region there was a drop in Italian speakers and those who attended their elementary schools so that the contention “Dalmatia is pure Italian land” is without any support. This was the case in the past and such is the situation nowadays. Zenanarh 14:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of these families have peacefully assimilated into Croats. Peacefully croatized, even during the rule of Venice. Italian immigrants merged into Croat majority. Example is with Zanchi. [11]. 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 translation of that science work is "Don Pavao Zanki, risorgimentist (note: fighter for Croat risorgimento, national renaissance) and politician of the area of Nin". Kubura 12:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

The objective and official source: [12]. Italian source previously edited is not objective and it is prolonging the Italian irrendentism.Zenanarh 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Since this article is under heavy violence of user Giovanni Giove whose edits are childish example of manipulating with data (citating the half of the original sentence, than changing the other part - so it has changed meanning and all of that to introduce his political attitude) I'm going to clean it, step by step and word by word if it's needed and I'll appreciate anyone to discuss about every change I make. So I go from the beggining. At first I will use simple sources from the net, but if it wouldn't be enough I can come out with academical stuff... It seems that only the name of the article can not be disputed...Zenanarh 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The name of the city

Zadar, also known by its Italian name Zara!? Known to whom? Maybe Italians?! New York is also known as Big Apple? So should we put there Big Apple?

From the source in Croatian: Prvi pisani spomen o životu naselja na području zadarskog poluotoka (Liburni, 4. st. pr.n.e.) - spominje oblik imena Jader - preuzet od starosjedilaca, i danas neotkrivenog značenja. Prolazeći povijesni put ime se mijenja u : Idassa (grčki izvori), Jadera (rimski izvori), Diadora, Iadera (u svome djelu "O upravljanju državom" Konstatin Porfirogenet daje objašnjenje prema kojem ime grada Iadera proizlazi od latinskih riječi iam erat - "već bijaše", tj. izgrađen prije Rima.). Za vladavine Venecije i kasnije Italije grad je poznat kao Zara. Iz rano-srednjovjekovnog romanskog oblika Iadra, što se izgovaralo Zadra, razvio se i današnji oblik imena - Zadar.

Translation:

The very first writing about Zadar mentioned the name Jader (Iader) – taken from the indigenes, the real meaning of that name is unknown, but some presume that some ancient hydrographic term was in question. Iader wasn't Latin name. Romans just used it. The name was changing to Idassa (Greek sources), Iadera (Roman sources), Diadora (Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 10th century), Iadera. Present name Zadar was developed from the early Middle Ages Roman version Iadra (Dalmatian language!), which was also spelled Zadra. The city was known as Zara during Venetian ruling of the city and later Italian . [13]

In other words - the city was known as Iader or Iadera for at least 1.100 years (9th BC – 3rd AD). It was known as Diadora maybe for a several hundred years (? – 10th)) as well as Idassa (3rd BC), depended who is the one who «knew», known as Zadar 1.000 years (10th – present) and known as Zara 500 years (15th – 20th).

It's absolutely irrelevant how it's known to Italians. With such a rich history… Zadar is the Croatian city and that's the only relevant fact. Other names that were in use should be placed in brackets. This is encyclopedia isn't it? So I will edit 3 names: Zadar (Iader – Liburnian; Zara – Italian); Zara just becuse it's fresh, no other reason…Zenanarh 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre Antiquity

The origin of the name Jader (Iader). The source written in Croatian language: [14]. Fragment: Šire zadarsko područje naseljeno je još od pradavnih vremena. Nalazi te ranije kulture datiraju još od starijeg kamenog doba, dok su u vrijeme neolitika arheološkim istraživanjima utvrđene brojne ljudske naseobine... Prije naseljavanja ilirskih plemena ovaj je prostor naseljavao pradavni mediteranski narod iz čijeg predindoeuropskog jezika vrlo vjerojatno potječe i sam naziv naselja - Jader, Jadra ili Jadera, koji su poslije preuzele i druge civilizacije. Ime naselja vezano je uz neki pradavni hidrografski pojam. Translation to English: All Zadar district is found to be populated by people since the ancient times. Discoveries of that earlier culture originated in the Late Stone Age, while numerous settlements were dated as early as in Neolithic. Before Illyrians, ancient Meditteranean people were settled in that area and the name of the settlement Iader, Iadra or Iadera (also spelled Jader, Jadra or Jadera) came from their Pre-Indo-European language, could have been connected with some hydrographical term. This name was lately used by other civilisations.Zenanarh 15:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "Pre Antiquity" is not good term since periods in question are Late Stone Age, Iron Age and Bronze Age. If somebody have better idea...Zenanarh 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antiquity

Sources: [15], [16], [17], [18]. Population of Liburnian Iader and Roman Iadera were estimated (no reliable data) by Marčić (1928) and Peričić (1999) by the source "Zadar Population Development"[19].

[edit] Middle Age

Upon the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the destruction of Salona in the early 7th century, Zara became the capital of the Byzantine theme… This is incorrect… The name of the city is Zadar as well as the name of this article, not Zara. Zara was found in later stage in Venetian documents! In 5th century Zadar was ruled by Ostrogoths and was the part of the Byzantine Empire in 6th century (Dalmatia was union of the autonomic cities) and by 7th century the capital of Dalmatia

In 998, the city sought Venetian protection… This is incorrect. Zadar and Venice were the enemies. Venetians protected Zadar?! From whom? Themselves? The people of Zadar sought protection from their enemies? Interesting… The truth is that in 1000 Venetians attacked Zadar for the first time and their administration lasted for 2 years. That was not some protection…

…for the next four centuries it was under Venetian or Hungarian rule, changing hands repeatedly Incorrect again… In fact it was under the Croatian rule, see “History of Zadar nobility” in the talk page, since the city had municipial autonomy. There was no Hungarian rule at the later stage… There was Croatian – Hungarian rule! It was dual kingdom of both Croatia and Hungary. Croatia didn’t disappear niether lost its borders just because the kings were from Hungarian family!!! Read the history. In all that period (1000 – 1358) the city was not under Venetian rule exactly – it was caught in the wars with Venice and in a few short periods Venetians, who were the stronger rivals, occupated it and imposed their “administration”, but they had non of control upon the city and its citizens. Continual rebelions, insurrections and fighting (inside the city walls at that point) against Venetians were the historical factuality.

In the 10th, and especially in the 11th century, although it survived the migration of Slavs, in this time, for about 50 years, it was ruled by the Kingdom of Croatia. There was no need to survive the migration of Slavs in these centuries. Migration of Slavs occurred from 6th to 8th century. Avars and Slavs, together, were attacking Dalmatian cities in a short period in 7th century. In the 10th century Croatian language was already common in Zadar and Dalmatia. In fact 2 languages were spoken: Dalmatian language in the cities and Croatian language in the cities and everywhere outside the cities. That is the reason why the noblemen of Zadar and other Dalmatian cities used Croatian and Dalmatian versions of their names. See “History of Zadar nobility”.

Dalmatian language (See “Demographic history of Zadar” in the talk page) was written in documents in Latin alphabetics and therefore Croatian names got the Dalmatian “shape” in those documents. The point is that Zadar patricians and noblemen, who were judges, notars were using Latin alphabetics in documents, inscriptions and notes. Venetians documents used “Zara” and Italian language (not Dalmatian!) in their documents, so it can not be relevant for Zadar, since Zadar citizens didn’t use it.

In 1117, Pope Alexander III visited Zadar. A document from that time noted that the inhabitants of Zadar greeted the Pope singing songs "in their Slavonic language".

See Croatian language: The beginning of the Croatian written language can be traced to the 9th century, when Old Church Slavonic was adopted as the language of the liturgy. This language was gradually adapted to non-liturgical purposes and became known as the Croatian version of Old Slavonic. The two variants of the language, liturgical and non-liturgical, continued to be a part of the Glagolitic service as late as the mid-9th century. Until the end of the 11th century, Croatian medieval texts were written in three scripts: Latin, Glagolitic, and Croatian Cyrillic (arvatica, poljičica, bosančica), and also in three languages: Croatian, Latin and Old Slavic. The latter developed into what is referred to as the Croatian variant of Church Slavonic between the 12th and 16th centuries. Glagolitic inscriptions and documents were found in Zadar as early as in 9th century. The source: “Croatian Glagolitic Heritage in Zadar and Zadar district” by Darko Žubrinić, 2004. [[20]]. It’s written in Croatian. Is there any need for translation?

In 10th century Zadar (as the city) had political autonomy, but it was culturally, economicaly and even militarilly connected to Croatia (Zadar surroundings were already the part of Croatia and naturally, the city was dependent of its surroundings), which was affirmed in 11th century by treaty. Venetians were trying to conquer Zadar and to cut it off from its surroundings, so on that condition they could weaken it. Actually they succedeed it in 15th and 16th century, not before. The period between 11th and 14th century was called the golden years of Zadar, as well as later period under Venetian government (15th – 18th) was called the dark centuries in its history. This is history of Zadar in Middle Age by all relevant sources.

Sources: [[21]], [[22]], [[23]]Zenanarh 11:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring 23.06.07.

I'm going to make evidence this way on every change by mr. Giovani so anyone could see what is going on here and I'll be glad especially if any administrator could see this... All my edits are transparent, followed by sources and described on the talk page. I cannot make consensus with a person who is avoiding the talk page...

This was my last edit (23.06.07): [24]. He obviously wants to prove that Zadar is Italian city (which is more than funny idea) so he have deleted anything where Croats, Croatia,... were mentioned: [25]

1. He uses Italian name of the city (Zara) even the article and the city is called ZadarZenanarh 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I use the wikirule of historical name. Zara was Zara until 1947.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 June 2007
Zadar citizens didn't call it Zara all the time until 1947. Venice used this name at first in the documents, later they conquered the city. Zara was in usage in administrations and in public but not all the time and not by all population of the city, from 15th to 20th century. That population was not even of Italian roots. They were the mostly Italian speaking Croats or pro-Italians... Coming with the sources soon.Zenanarh 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
University of Zadar was founded in 1396 - Universitas Iadertina
Wikirule of hystorical name? Link please...Zenanarh 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

2. In the middle of the sentence he sets needless point: because of the Slavic invasions - to accent some imaginary rivalty between Zadar and Croats. Slavic invasions did happen but by the means of all of the western Balkans. No continual wars between Slavs and Zadar occured in the 7th century or later! Zenanarh 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In the 7th century, Slav destroyed an amouunt of Dalmatian and Istrian cities, such as Salona adn Epidarum. It was becausum of this invasion that some Latin peopple foundend new cities such as Ragusa and Spallatium to find a new shelter against the raids..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 June 2007
You are talking about Sclavens, groups of warriors who came to the western Balkans with Ostrogoths and Goths at first in 5th century and some more in 7th century, when they attacked Dalmatian cities together with Avars. They make just a part of Croatian ethnogenesis. Who where those Latin people that you are talking about? Romans? Wrong! They were Romanized Illyrians! Dalmati tribe in fact. More than 50% of modern Dalmatia population (Croats) are descendents of Illyrian tribes: Liburni, Delmati, Iapodes and western Ardeiai. Coming with the sources soon Zenanarh 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

3. He deleted: Meanwhile, the Croatian state was forming inland, and trade and political links with Zadar began to develop. Croatian settlers began to arrive, becoming commonplace by the 10th century and this: In the 10th the true rulers of the town were the Croats and Zadar sought independence from Byzantium- no need for comment...Zenanarh 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The kingdom of Croatia ruled the city for a Short time, It is know that it was a short living state, and it was soon conquered by Hungary, whose king got the crown. The hingaruan kingdom did not inluded Dalmatia..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 June 2007
The area was populated with Croats, the city too. Nin, the city of some Croatian kings is just a several kilometers in the west of Zadar.Zenanarh 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

4. He deleted: In 1102, the Croatian-Hungarian state was formed, and in 1105, Zadar officially recognized the rule of the first Croatian - Hungarian king Coloman, The rivalry with Venice intensified, and at the end of the first millenium the Venetians began a series of onslaughts and occupations that were to last over three hundred years. Zadar was a possession of the Republic of Venice between 1111 and 1154 and between 1160 and 1183. Their administration lasted throughout three unsuccessful citizen's uprising in 1159, 1164 and 1170 till 1181. The town was developing economically and culturally. The citizens of Zadar continued to recognize the sovereignty of Croatian - Hungarian kings up to 1202,

and replaced it with:

In 1183 it rebelled, asking protection to the Pope and to Hungary, but it was come again under Venetian controlo in 1202, - so it looks like Zadar was in the war with Croats, not Venetians!!!Zenanarh 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The king was Hungarian, and he was the ruler of Croatia. So he was Hungarian and not " Croatian-Hungarian", according to a nationalistic POV.
I restored one of the liens you have deleted.
Zara regerded their own indipendence against Venetians, Croatian Kigdom (for a short time), and Hungarian. Zara had no preference for a specific side, so the story is more colpicated that 'poor Zadar fighting agains evil Venetians'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 June 2007
Zadar was culturally and economically connected to Croatia and Croats. See "the history of Zadar nobility" - Croatian and Dalmatian names until 15th century! - no Italians! It was caught in the wars with Venetians. Zadar citizens had communal autonomy, that is sure. You obviously forget that Dalmatian language is not equal to Italian language. That language dissapeared but many words and toponyms are saved in modern Croatian language - not Italian! Zenanarh 13:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

5. He deleted: but they had to surrender under the worst conditions - obviously he wants to hide any historical fact which compromised the role of Venetian politics against Zadar! And of course he used "Zara" again.Zenanarh 11:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The line is unquoted and weasel. Zara surrended: what are this "wors coonditions"?. Of course u want to enforce the sterethipes of the Evil venetians.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs) 08:32, 23 June 2007

I reverted the page to my last edit and I'm ready for discussion on the talk page. Zenanarh 23:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You have just restored the POV that you added to the previous version. I will restore the page to the version prior to your arrive.--Giovanni Giove 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not POV! That is official history, even in Britannica! And you didn't revert it to the version prior to my arrive! You reverted it to your last version. You are manipulating again!Zenanarh 10:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You added several POV and Weasel words, not included in Britannica. 0ve restored to the version prior to your arrive. Now you have the chance to edit it in the proper way without massive unsourced edits.--Giovanni Giove 12:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You really think that all of us here are stupid or crazy? Version prior to my arrive? Massive unsourced edits? Anyone can see what you're doing here! Do you really think that you can hide it with comments like previous one?Zenanarh 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What you have done, was to copy&past the 'history' of some Croatian tourist sites. Their level is comic. Zadar was called 'Zara' by the Italians in 1920. LOL.--Giovanni Giove 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It is true that I've previously used sources from the net (tourist sites) but it's also true that those sites use reliable data from the history books. I didn't have to translate it that way. The most richest history of Zadar was written in 3 toms of "Povijest Zadra I,II,III" in Croatian language in the very same place - Zadar, with the basis in all known historical sources - Zadar archives in Zadar - in the first place (old documents, inscriptions, papers, books,... in Latin, Dalmatian, Croatian and Italian language), as well as the sources written in Venice in Italian language and others. Your source is irredentismo page which is historical fake created by irredentists in Dalmatia in the second half of 19th century. The best of all is that even these Dalmatian irredentists were the mostly of Croatian roots, not Italian! But never mind I'm preparing the original sources and researches so you could learn something about Zadar finally. Zenanarh 17:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

List your arguments and sources here and please remain civil. The dispute is over the Italian and Croatian occupation of the city and the correct terms of the city name for different periods of its history. Policies and guidelines involved include Manual of Style, Neutral point of view, Reliable sources and verifiability of information --Dark Falls talk 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zenanarh

The article is 35 times changed by Giovane Giovani from 22.6. to 01.07. Many versions of Zadar history were introduced and the last one is combination of other encyclopedia material and sets of proofs why Italians have hystorical rights of Dalmatia and particularly Zadar, even they had never made a majority in the region. Where to begin? – the name. What wiki or any other rule proposes usage of Zara as the name of the city through all its history when it was the name not earlier than 15th century until 1943.

Scripts of Zadar notars in 13th and 14th century: [26]

Spisi zadarskih bilježnika Henrika i Creste Tarallo 1279.-1308./Notariorum Jadrensium Henrici et Creste Tarallo acta quae supersunt 1279.-1308.Mtirko Zjačić, Notarilia Jadertina/Spisi zadarskih bilježnika (dalje SZB) 1, Zadar, 1959.

Spisi zadarskih bilježnika Ivana Qualis, Nikole pok. Ivana, Gerarda iz Padove 1296…1337/Notarium Jadrensium Johannis Qualis, Nicolai quondam Johannis, Gerardi de Padua acta quae supersunt 296…1337. - Mirko Zjačić i Jakov Stipišić, SZB 2, Zadar, 1969.

Spisi zadarskog bilježnika Franje Manfreda de Surdis iz Piacenze 1349.-1350./Notarii Jadrensis Francisci ser Manfredi de Surdis de Placentia asta quae supersunt 1349.-1350. - Jakov Stipišić, SZB3 , Zadar, 1977.

Usage of the Croatian – Zadranin during Venetian government:

First 2 pages [27] of a book "Vazetye Szigheta grada / szlosheno po Barni Karnarutichiu Zadraninu.
Translation is: "The Capture of Szigetvar, ...by Barne Karnarutić of Zadar from 1661.

First page [28] of a book "Vila Slovincha Givrgia Barachovicchia Zadranina v çettare varsti petya sloxena ça yest v pismi schvpne, u osmo redche u zuçno poyche i u polvredche. Printed in Venice in 1614. Zenanarh 22:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

About Idassa – name of Zadar found in the Greek inscriptions:

M.Suić: Odabrani radovi iz stare povijesti Hrvatske, Zadar, 1996. (Selected essays from old Croatian history), page 230:

…onda bi se ipak moglo ono ιδασσα zajedno sa αττιενιτης rekonstruirati u ime Zadra, odnosno u njegov etnik, ali ne u obliku, u kakvom ga sretamo u antici (Jadestini), već u kasnijem, ranosredovječnom Jaderatini (ІАΔΕΡΑΤΙΝΟΙ) prema obliku Jadera, koji je u kasnoj antici i u ranom Srednjem vijeku posvema prevladao, naprama klasičkom Jader.

Translation: …in that case those ιδασσα and αττιενιτης could be reconstructed as name of Zadar and its ethnicity, but not in form which was found in Antiquety (Iadestines), but more in later, early-Medieval Iaderatines (ІАΔΕΡΑΤΙΝΟΙ) according to form Iadera, which was absolutely predominated in late-Antiquety and in early-Medieval, exchanging the classical Iader.

Conclusion: the name of Zadar was Iader (Jader) in Antiquety, Idassa was Greek version of early-Medieval Iadera (Jadera).

M.Suić: Prošlost Zadra – knjiga 1 “Zadar u starom vijeku”, Zadar, 1981. (History of Zadar – book 1 “Zadar in ancient ages”), pages 111-112:

…ilirskom jeziku pripada i predrimsko i antičko ime Zadra, nezavisno od mogućnosti da je ono nastalo i u predilirsko vrijeme. U izvorima ono se javlja u dvama oblicima: Iader i Iadera, s različitim grafijskim varijantama, a ime njegovih stanovnika s oblicima: Ίαδασινοί, Ίαδαστινο (na grčkim natpisima?), Iadestini i Iadertini, a u postantičko doba Jadrenses, Jaderani, Jaderitani i dr. (većinom u Codex diplomaticus II i III t u srednjem vijeku pojavljuje se oblik Jadertinus, -a, -i. Pitanje je da li se u tome ogleda neprekinuti nastavak antičke tradicije ili je to učena rekonstrukcija u službenoj srednjovjekovnoj latinštini.) Oblik Iader susreće se podjednako u natpisima kao i u djelima klasičnih pisaca, a oblik Iadera pretežno u pisaca, i to onih kasnijih. Teško je utvrditi koji je od njih primaran. Činjenica je da Iadera prevladava u kasnijim djelima i da su upravo od njega razvili hrvatski naziv Zadar i talijanski Zara….

Translation: ...pre-Roman and Antique name of Zadar belonged to Illyrian language, irrespective of the possibility that it had been originated in pre-Illyrian ages. It was found in the sources in 2 forms: Iader and Iadera, with different graphy variances, the name of its citizens in forms: Ίαδασινοί, Ίαδαστινο (Greek inscriptions?), Iadestines and Iadertines, in post-Antique ages Jadrenses, Jaderani, Jaderitani and others (form Jadertinus was found mostly in Codex diplomaticus II and III in Middle Ages. The question is uninterrupted continuation of Antique tradition or educated reconstruction in official Medieval Latinism.) The form Iader was found equally in the inscriptions and in the writings of the classic writers, form Iadera was found predominantly among later writers. It's hard to establish which is primal. The fact is that Iadera predominated in later writings and that was the form from which Croatian Zadar and Italian Zara were developed....

Page 113:

…Etnik Iadestinus (pl. Iadestini) načinjen je pomoću u ilirskom jeziku čestog formanta –st-, koji se pojavljuje i s vokalom –i- i s vokalom –a-, pa vrlo vjerojatno i u imenu samih antičkih Zadrana, ako se oni kriju pod nazivom Ίαδαστινοί, što ih donosi, kako će se vidjeti, jedan grčki natpis iz Salone, koji potječe iz prve polovice 1. st.pr.n.e. Etnik završava sufiksom –ino koji je također čest na tlu starih Ilira.
Treba još dodati, da je naglasak i u obliku Iader i u obliku Iadera bio na prvom slogu, što je utjecalo na postanak ranosrednjovjekovnog romanskog oblika Jadra od kojeg su se razvili nazivi za grad u hrvatskom i u talijanskom jeziku, gdje je akcent zadržao svoje izvorno mjesto. Jadra je ustvari samo grafija u službenoj srednjovjekovnoj latinštini, sačuvana tradicijom. U ranoromanskom periodu to se izgovaralo Zadra, jer je grupa –Ja-, kao i drugdje, prešla u Za-. U mletačkom narječju grupa je –dr- prešla u –r- (što je jedna od karakteristika tog dijalekta, upor. patron – paron), dok se u našem jeziku sačuvala, pa se iz toga vidi da je hrvatski naziv bliži izvornom obliku od talijanskog naziva, koji je preuzet iz mletačkog. U muški rod Zadra je prešla kongruencijom s apelativom «grad», upravo kao Sisak od Siscia.

Translation: …Ethnicity Iadestinus (pl. Iadestini) was made of frequent formant in Illyrian language –st- which was found together with vocals –i- and –a- , also very possible in the name of Antique Zadar people, if they were hidden behind the name Ίαδαστινοί, from a Greek inscription from Salona in the 1st half of 1st century BC. Ethnicity was ended with suffix –ino which was also often found in the territory populated by Illyrians. Very important is that accent was on the first syllable in both forms Iader and Iadera, which influenced the early-Medieval Roman form Jadra, from which in addition were developed the names of the city in Croatian and Italian language, where accent kept its original place. Jadra was actually only a graphy in official Medieval Latinism, saved by tradition. In early-Roman period it was spoken Zadra, because the group –Ja-, as everywhere, was transformed to Za-. In Venetian dialect, the group –dr- was transformed to –r- (that is one of the characteristics of of that dialect, examples patron – paron), in the contrary it was saved in Croatian language, so obviously Croatian name was closer to original form than Italian name, which was undertaken from Venetian dialect. Zadra (female gender) was transformed to male gender (Zadar) by congruence with appellative «grad» ("city" in Croatian language - male gender), in the same way as Sisak from Siscia.

Obviously this corresponds with historical facts: Croats have been common people in Zadar from 9th, 10th, 11th centuries. Venetians occupied it in 15th century and brought new name for the city - Zara. Italian name is the youngest, used only from 15th to 20th century and not by all of its citizens.

More to come. Zenanarh 17:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

About Diadora

Diadora as a name of Zadar was found in Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio in 10th century. A few theories were developed by scientists. P.Skok (“Studije iz ilirske toponomastike” Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, 29/1917, Sarajevo) considered that it had come from Slavic spoken format Zadera.

B. Gabričević: “Kako je nastao naziv Diadora“, Radovi 1975/1976 sv. 14-15, Filozofski Fakultet Zadar (“How the name Diadora originated”, Essays 1975/1975, 14-15, Philosophic Academy Zadar), page 133:

Za početno di- navedeni naš znanstvenik je smatrao da se radi o grafijskoj oznaci za glas z , budući da se u ranom srednjem vijeku Iadera izgovaralo Zadera. Što se tiče vokala ο, koje je umjesto e došlo između konsonanata d i r, Skok je bio mišljenja da je Porfirogenet time “učinio koncesiju slavenskom poluglasu u izgovoru ovoga imena mjesta”. Pri tome naime treba imati u vidu da su Slaveni, došavši na Jadran, bili već zatekli kako fonetsku promjenu j > z, tako islabljenje vokala u nenaglašenoj penultimi, što je u romanskom govoru dovelo do sinkope (Jadra koje se izgovaralo Zadra, odakle i kasniji talijanski oblik Zara), a u slavenskom do kompenzacije poluglasom (Zadъrъ > Zadar) i do prevođenja u muški rod, …

Translation:A scientist (Skok) considered that initial di- was a graphy mark for voice z, since Iadera was spoken Zadera in early-Medieval. Concerning vocal o, which exchanged e between consonants d and r, he thought that Porphyrogenitus “made a concession to Slavic half-vocal in spoken name of the city”. It must be kept in mind that Slavs in the moments when they had arrived on the Adriatic found already finished: phonetic change j > z and weakening of vocals in atonic penultima, which resulted in Romance speaking with syncope (Jadra spoken Zadra from which later Italian Zara was developed) and in Slavic speaking compensation with half-vocal (Zadъrъ > Zadar) and translating to male gender… This theory was disputed by A. Mayer (Die Sprache der alten Illyrier, Wien, 1957) and B.Gabričević(-):

B. Gabričević: “Kako je nastao naziv Diadora“, Radovi 1975/1976 sv. 14-15, Filozofski Fakultet Zadar (“How the name Diadora originated”, Essays 1975/1975, 14-15, Philosophic Academy Zadar), page 135:

Prigovor na Skokovo tumačenje da omega u nazivu Diadora predstavlja zamjenu za slavenski poluvokal izrazio je A.Mayer navodeći da je takva pretpostavka nedokazljiva.

Translation: Skok’s interpretation that omega in the name Diadora was exchange for Slavic half-vocal was disputed by A.Mayer who said that it couldn’t be proved. Page 37:

…Odatle bi se moglo zaključiti da oblik Diadora uopće nije Porfirogenetov, nego da je nastao najvjerojatnije uslijed lapsusa prepisivača koji je umjesto epsilon u prepisivanju unio omega.

Translation: …Thus could be considered in summary that format Diadora was not Porphyrogenitus’s one and that it originated most likely due to the error of the copyist who had edited omega instead epsilon into a rewrite.

B. Gabričević disputed Skok’s theory but with a notation:

Page 135:

…pretpostavka o slavenskom refleksu toponima Iadera, kao podloga za Porfirogenetov oblik Diadora, nije ni s užeg lingvističkog stajališta potpuno bez zamjerke.

Translation: …conjecture about Slavic reflex of the name Iadera , as a mount for Porphyrogenitus format Diadora , is not nor with frowzy linguistic view signed free of umbrage.

The research and method are too detailed so I have quoted just summaries. Issue is whether denomination Diadora turned up through Slavic word format or by fault. Second opinion could be nearer to the reality than first one. Italian format name yet turned up at a later time so it was not mentioned in the research.

I think Dr. Gonzo's proposal is the good one. But very important fact is that there are many articles connected to Zadar article where Zara is edited in the same way as it was here, so this solution should be applicated to all of it. For example: Siege of Zara article. The age was 1202 and the city was not called Zara! Zenanarh 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the origin Iader - scientists conclude that it was not Latin name, but much older: Liburnian for sure but maybe even older - pre-Indo-European Zenanarh 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

About the origin of the name

Mate Suić: «O imenu Zadra», Zadar Zbornik, Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb 1964 ("About the Name of Zadar")
Page 96:

Za ime grada Zadra može se pouzdano utvrditi da nije ni hrvatskog, ni romanskog, ni latinskog porijekla, već da je nastao u daleko predrimsko vrijeme... U dijelima antičkih pisaca i u natpisima iz istog vremena javljaju se gotovi oblici za naziv Zadra, a onda i u srednjovjekovnim dokumentima, kao Jader, Jadera, Jadra, te u drugim grafijskim i fonetičkim varijantama. Od ovog toponima načinjen je u antici i domaći oblik za etnikon (ime stanovnika) staroga Zadra, koji se ponajviše susreće u natpisima: Jadestini. Odvojivši nastavke... dolazimo do osnovnog elementa (korijena) iad- najstarijeg naziva grada Zadra. Proučavajući geografsku rasprostranjenost tog korijena, može se utvrditi da se on ponajviše susreće na etničkom teritoriju što su ga zapremali stari Iliri...

Translation: Concerning the name of Zadar it can be surely stated that it was not of neither Croatian, neither Roman, neither Latin ancestry, it originated in ancient pre-Roman ages... Finished formats of Zadar name were found in the writings of Antique writers and in the inscriptions of the same periods, later in Medieval documents, as Jader, Jadera, Jadra (Iader, Iadera, Iadra) and other graphic and fonetic variances. From this format, the name for ethnicon (name of the habitant) was developed in Antique – Jadestini (Iadestini). Without suffixes there is a basical element (root) iad- the oldest name of Zadar. According to the geographic incidences of that root, it can be stated that it was found mostly in the ethnic territory populated by ancient Illyrians...

Author now discuss about the element adr- and finds it in the Illyrian territory but also it can be found somewhat wider.

Sve to upućuje na zaključak da se postanje naziva grada Zadra potraži u još daljoj prošlosti, u predilirsko doba i da ga treba smatrati jednim od onih brojnih naziva mjesta što ih je staro mediteransko stranovništvo ostavilo po svim obalama Sredozemnog mora.

Translation: In summary originating of the name of Zadar should be found in much older past, in pre-Illyrian ages, and it should be concerned as one of those numerous names that ancient Mediterranean population left over across all Mediterranean coasts.

...Prema tome toponim Jader(a) možemo smatrati ilirskim u istoj mjeri, u kojoj suvremeni naziv Zadar smatramo hrvatskim, jer je pouzdano da je Jader ilirizirani oblik starije toponimije kojoj polazni oblik vjerojatno nećemo nikad saznati.

Translation: ...Therefore toponim Jader(a) / Iader(a) can be considered as Illyrian at the same degree as modern format Zadar is considered to be Croatian, since confidently Jader (Iader) was Illyrianized format of some older toponimy, of unknown initial format.

Obviously Iader was not Latin name. Noting it as Liburnian name would be the most correct.Zenanarh 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

About Zadar

Page 102-104:

U ranom srednjem vijeku naziv Zadra doživio je još jednu fonetsku promjenu jer je tada početno J- prešlo u Z-, što je karakteristično upravo za starodalmatinski romanski jezik… Ta se promjena morala dogoditi veoma rano jer se ona odrazuje i u hrvatskom nazivu za ovaj grad…
…ime stanovnika srednjovjekovnog Zadra s grafijom Jaderani, koje je zabilježeno u legendi o našašću tijela s. Krševana, a potječe, kako se misli, iz IX st… treba istaknuti da se taj oblik Jaderani, u izgovoru domaćeg življa IX st. jamačno Zad(e)rani , ne može odvajati od polaznog staroslavenskog oblika Zadъrane, od kojeg se razvio naš današnji etnik Zadrani.

Translation: There was one more phonetic change of the name in the early-Medieval, initial J- became Z-, which was a characteristic of old-Dalmatian Romance language… That change supposed to occur very early because it was reflected in Croatian name of the city too...
...name of the habitants of Medieval Zadar with graphy Jaderani, found in the legend about St. Krševan, as thought from 9th century… must be accented that format Jaderani, spoken Zad(e)rani by domestic population of 9th century, cannot be separated from initial old-Slavic format Zadъrane, from which ethnicity Zadrani was developed.

as seen in literacy through Medieval. Zenanarh 15:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A. Škegro: "PROVINCIALE VETUS – Stari pokrajinski katalog ili Katalog provincija opće Crkve – Provinciale vetus sive Ecclesiae universae provinciarum notitia" , Hrvatska akademija znosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb, 2005
(PROVINCIALE VETUS - Old provincial catalogue or Catalogue of universal Church provinces, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, 2005). [29]
This is translation to Croatian language of the writing (original in Latin) which is full of data about late-Antique and early-Medieval accidents in church and political life of cultural Europe, compiled of several sources from different time periods and finally arranged by an author from the fall of early-Medieval ages. Last changes were from 13th century.
Previously to this edition it was last published by Jacques Paul Migne in his Patrologia Latina, Paris, 1851, compilation of Medieval sources.
It includes one of the most oldest lists of catholic bishops dioceses in Christian Medieval countries.
In the section Civitates Dalmatiae et Croatiae num. XX, 19 Croatian cities were noted as sitting places of dioceses. Zadar was noted as civitas Jadera.

Jadera = Zadar. Croatian language was in the earlier centuries written mostly in Glagolithic alphabetics especially in liturgy. When Croatian language in Zadar was written in Latin alphabetics it was done by Dalmatian language "grammatics". And in Dalmatian language letter J was spoken Z. Written Jadera was spoken Zad'ra. An earlier inscription from 9th century in the St. Simeon's church in Zadar found with graphy Jaderani , spoken Zad'rani, which is typical Slavic ethnonym for Zadar citizens (modern Zadrani - people of Zadar).

Mate Suić: «O imenu Zadra», Zadar Zbornik, Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb 1964 ("About the Name of Zadar", Zadar - Scientific essays, Zagreb 1964) on the page 102 mentiones a document from Medieval (12th century) Cod. dipl. III 231 where Latin Zadur which was Croatian Zadъr was found. This "Latin" literal variance is an example how Croatian name was used in the documents (written in Latin language) related to the Kingdom of Croatia and it clearly shows the weakening of the second syllable also present in Dalmatian variances Jadera->Jadra. Original source was last published: Smičiklas Tadija, ed. Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, sv. III, Zagreb 1905 Zenanarh 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


About Zara
U mletačkom govoru naziv Zadra doživio je dalji razvoj. U to jeziku naime grupa -dr- prelazi u -r-... Tako je i Jadra, u izgovoru Zadra prešlo u mletačko Zara, a odatle u talijanski kjnjiževni jezik. Vidi se prema tome da je hrvatski oblik Zadar bliži pratipu od kojega su se razvili moderni nazivi za taj grad.

Translation: Further development of the name was in Venetian language. A group -dr- transformed to -r- there... So Jadra, spoken Zadra was changed with Venetian Zara and from there later into Italian literral language. This proves that Croatian format Zadar is closer to pre-format from which modern names were developed. Zenanarh 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical usage of the name in other languages

Mate Suić: «O imenu Zadra», Zadar Zbornik, Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb 1964 ("About the Name of Zadar", Zadar - Scientific essays, Zagreb 1964)

page 103 (translation): …The name of the city was also found in old French chronics which were describing the accidents from Fourth Crusade (P.Skok: Tri starofrancuske kronike o Zadru u godini 1202., Zagreb 1951, - Three old-French chronics about Zadar in the year of 1202). The name of the city was Jadres there. It’s usually considered that this graphy had responded to the local people pronunciation of the name, according to format Jadra which was most found in the documents, with final –s of French language singular nominative. Some of the authors of these chronics were passing through the city so allegedly they were able to hear how native population pronounced the name. However a somewhat different view is much more convincing. In the age of Fourth Crusade Zadar was very important centre, known much far out of Dalmatia; its name written in official Latin was spreading through the documents and literal writings. Therefore much more logical conclusion is that authors of these chronics, written directly after the accidents that were described (a siege), simply Franchised a conventional graphy Jadra (-e- exchanging –a- and adding –s for nominative), taken from numerous written sources and without interference by local educated people...

Conclusion: original documents about the siege written by French writers in the same year were using Jadres!!! Crusaders were mostly Frenchmen and some of these chronic writers were actually some kind of literal escort of the Fourth Crusade. Zara in "Siege of Zara" was an invention of Italian historians in 19th century. Zenanarh 07:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary:

  • Iader - Liburnian or older;
  • Iader/Iadera - Antique (Greek: Idassa);
  • Iader/Iadera/Iadra (Jader/Jadera/Jadra - spoken Zader/Zadera/Zadra in Dalmatian language, Zadar in Croatian) - early Medieval (Greek: Diadora);
  • Jadera/Jadra (spoken Zadera/Zadra/Zadar), - Medieval (Venetian: Zara, Jatara)(Toscanian: Giara)(French: Jadres)(Arabian: Jadora, Jadera, Jadra - spoken as in English)...
  • Zara (administrative), Zadar and Jadra (spoken Zadra) mostly in use - 1409-1798
  • Zara (administrative), Zadar and Zara in use - 19th and 20th century til 1943
  • Zadar - 1943-present Zenanarh 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [30].
The catalogue search result of "Vila Slovincha Givrgia Barachovicchia Zadranina" is [31]. 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 [32].
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 [33]. Catalogue search result [34]. 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 [35]. Catalogue search result [36]. 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 [37]. Catalogue search result [38]. 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 [39]. Printed in Rome in 1582. Kubura 06:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Official language:
[40]. 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 [41]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [42]
"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:[43]
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [44]. Many noblemen from 10th to15th century were Croats.Zenanarh 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [45]. 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)

[edit] 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 [46], 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: [47] - "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 [48].
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 [49].
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 [50]. "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)

[edit] Census for Zara

Austrian census for the town of ZARA (including the center and the localities: Barcagno, Boccagnazzo, Borgo Erizzo, Casali Maggiori, Ceraria, Cerno Malpaga, Puntamica) :

  • 1869 - 8.014 (no ethnic divison)
  • 1880 - 11.861 (no ethnic divison)
  • 1890 - 11.496 (Italians: 7.423 - Serbocroatians: 2.652)
  • 1900 - 13.016 (Italians: 9.018 - Serbocroatians: 2.551)
  • 1910 - 14.056 (Italians: 9.318 - Serbocroatians: 3.532)

Italian commune:

  • 1921 - 18.623 (Italians: 12.283 - Serbocroatians: 2.538)
  • 1931 - 20.324 (no ethnic divison)
  • 1936 - 25.302 (no ethnic divison)

--Giovanni Giove 12:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


How nice. Are these censi on ethnicity? Do you have an actual unbiased (non-Yugoslav, non-Italian) source for all this, or is this all your own personal approximation? Remember, no Bande Nere websites... DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm it seems that source is Giove himself. Zenanarh 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Here, I don't see the source for this. I may also write here that in the city of Zkhda'r (Clingon for Zadar), in 1857 lived 12.000 Clingons and 4.768 Romulovulcans.
2) Has Giove told us here, that during Austria-Hungary (that was "against Italians"), "person with knowledge of Italian" was in censuses misrepresented promptly as "person of Italian ethnicity" (no matter if that person was a Croat or Slovenian), in order to statistically lower the number of Slavic peoples (Croats and Slovenians), suppressing all political influence and political requests from them that would arose, when true numbers once appear?
3) Has Giove told us here, the reason what happened when Habsburg Monarchy settled Italian officials from Lombardy, Venice and Furlany in Zadar? Also, what was the consequence, when all those similar officials from those same provinces, previously settled in other cities in province of Dalmatia, moved to live in Zadar? Kubura 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Ha, ha, you must be blind; NOBODY talks about "Croats or Slovenes". It is only in your IMAGINATION and nowhere else. Giove and the facts he presented above about Zadar talk about SERBS OR CROATIANS, or as it is originally: SERBOCROATIANS. You cannot change those facts with your senseless ignorance. They are as they are-Slovenians are never mentioned in the Zadar's history, and all your efforts to 'involve' them here will be unsucessful. The history of Zadar belongs to Croatians or Serbs (Srerbocroatians) and Italians, even though I also don't agree that the number if Italians was in that proportion towards the Serbocroats. A reasonable proportion from that time should be probably approximately half:half. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was generalization by Austrian cabinet, the key for keeping Croatia weak was to separate Dalmatia from Pannonia, they were afraid of nationalistic movements in Croatia. Zenanarh (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venetian Zara

Once the page protection period is over, maybe we should add the fact that Zara is also the name of the city in Venetian. I mention this because, since its Latin name was Iadera, the regular derivation in Standard (Tuscan-like) Italian should be something like Giadra. However, Italians in general seem to have adopted the Venetian name for the city, hence Zara-Zadar and not Giadra-Zadar.KelilanK 14:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need if you ask me. Tuscan was Giara, in Venice 2 names were found Zara and Jatara (Venetian hyper-urbanism), both derived from original Jadera. Zara originated in Venice and it was transfered into Italian literacy so it became Italian name too. If it's added as Venetian name, then Iadera (Iader) should be added as Liburnian name since it's not of Latin root, also Jadera (Jadra) should be added as Croatian name together with Zadar, since Croats were using Jadera and Jadra from 10th to 15th century. It just complicates the situation. My intention is to write a section in the article about the name. Zenanarh 14:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)