Talk:1991 riot in Zadar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

bias

Intercepted this on NP patrol, and the last sentence and external link indicate that the author may have Serb bias. I do not know much about the nitty-gritty of the Balkan wars to comment.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• It's interesting. "Zadar Kristallnacht" draws a blank on Google. However, Slobodan Milosevic uses an phrase translated as "Crystal night in Zadar" several times during both his testimony and his questioning of witnesses. I think the article needs to go, but possibly it just needs to be moved. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

what exactly are you disputing? you have to say what is disputed, not just to add a notice like that. —This unsigned comment was added by Pirkovank (talk • contribs) .

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 17:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In view of this, I have to propose the following - heavy NPOV-ing is needed. More sources are needed (two of those cited in external links section are biased to say the least, one being Milosevic's testimony in Hague, the other from a known apologist of Milosevic regime Carl Savich). Title should be changed to something like "Dalmatian Serb pogrom of 1991", pogrom being much more neutral and not relating to a specific incident, but Dalmatian Crystal Night should remain as a redirect. I won't change anything without at least some kind of consensus, but I will certainly not allow this version to stay. Please comment. --Dr.Gonzo 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea, change it to Dalmatian Serb pogrom of 1991. Also, at the begining of the article it should be mentioned that the incident is sometimes refered to as Dalmatian Kristallnacht or Dalmatian Crystal Night. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now let's move on to bigger issues. Serbian bias needs to go. All of it. In view of the controversy of this article reliable sources are needed, and by reliable I don't mean Serbianna, or Feral, or any local newspaper. I mean reputable news agencies, books from reputable authors, verifiable police statistics, anything. Infact, I see very little that can be salvaged from the existing article. Please, let's just stick to the cold, hard facts, and let's leave the personal (and suspiciously superficial) opinions of book authors aside. I'm asking rational Serbian wikipedians like Bormalagurski to do this themselves, since you probably wouldn't like what I'd do with it. So, once that is done, maybe we can come to a consensus on the rest. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 22:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article is too biased, a lot of stuff must go. I've added some text to the media section (quotes from the New York Times, Croatian Nedeljni Tjednik (the newspaper that published the names of the people that were killed),...). I will now try to make the article more NPOV, so please comment when I'm done, together, we can make this article completely neutral. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 22:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I welcome your willingness to compromise. Please add links for every verifiable source or I'll be forced to remove those paragraphs. I look forward to cleaning this article up. Later. --Dr.Gonzo 22:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up a bit, but I didn't write the article myself, so I don't know where some people got the information. Before we delete it, we should ask the people who wrote the text to post a link, and if it's unverifiable, then we delete it. I did add a few links, but the article needs more. What do you think of my more "neutralized" article? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your edits are a step in the right direction, however, a lot of unverified nonsense remains. I think we shouldn't wait for those sources, but delete everything that is not verifiable. If those users have interest in making this article NPOV they will provide sources and restore the deleted paragraphs (that's what "history" tab is for). I think it's a far better solution than leaving the article as it is for who knows how long. --Dr.Gonzo 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Which parts do you want to delete? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 23:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole "Background" part has nothing to do with background. It is conveniently left out that May 2nd 1991 is the date of the Borovo Selo massacre and that the public outrage over the deaths of the policemen was the main cause for the violence against Serbs and Serb property. Also, the Human Watch link you provided is a good, reputable source, and it doesn't go into any specifics, but does point out that all crimes against Serbs were investigated by the police and over a hundered cases made it to court. It also states that the official policy of the government was to help those Serbs that decided to stay, and that the violence was perpetrated mainly by "gangs or individual extremists". The claim in this article of "tens of thousands" of houses destroyed is directly refuted, since it quotes that in 1992 7,489 houses were damaged or destroyed, but only 220 in the first 3 months of 1993. That indicates that the violence was calming down. In the last section, "Reporting of the events in the media", last two paragraphs need to go, especially due to the dubious "Night of the Long knives" reference. That's it for now, will comment more later. --Dr.Gonzo 23:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added information about the Borovo Selo massacre, you were right, it's very important to mention that in the background section. I've deleted the very last paragraph of the media section, and modified the second last one. Also, some text from the Human rights watch link should be added. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your addition to the Background section is a little clumsily written, but it can stay for now, it's certainly much better than not mentioning it at all. I think we shouldn't be adding any more text until we clean up and agree on what should stay of the existing article. That brings us to another problem, one I pointed out in the AFD talk. Should this article be merged into a bigger one dealing with human rights violations against Serbs in Croatia during the war? If it's to stay as it is, a lot of unneccesary info not relating to Dalmatia should be removed, for example, Gospic is not in Dalmatia. --Dr.Gonzo 00:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of a bigger article as you suggest would be a good one. On the Gospic incident, I see there's already a fair bit of info on this in Mirko Norac. -- ChrisO 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, Dr. Gonzo, let's do it, lets make an article about human rights violations against Serbs in Croatia, and put the stuff, that doesn't fit in here, into the new article. Once again, excellent idea. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to that, under one condition - that you commit yourself to making this new "HR violations" article a part of a series of articles concerning HR violations across Former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. I'll commit to it too, naturally, but I can't do it alone. I think that your involvement in such series of articles would raise it's credibility considerably. Concerning this article - if we do this then it needs to be stripped to basics, as everything else can be explained elsewhere. By the way, "HR violations against Serbs in Croatia" is a very clumsy title for an article, any suggestions on improving it? --Dr.Gonzo 01:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I said "lets do it", and I meant "lets do it together". Of course, I will commit, I think that the article will look better if we do it together, and probably more neutral, since I'm a Serbian Wikipedian, and you're a Croatian Wikipedian. Concerning the title, it's pretty hard to find a shorter title without offending someone. My proposals are "Croatian crimes against Serbs", "Crimes against Serbs in Croatia", "Croatian violations against Serbs", "Violations against Serbs in Croatia", OR those could just be redirects, and the original article "Human rights violations against Serbs in Croatia in the 1990s"... I don't know... I'm not very creative :-) --Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we just leave Serbs out of the title and make the article more general in nature? It will be mostly concerned with Serbs anyway, but this way we can add problems with Bosniaks also. Something like "Croatia human rights record 1990-1999"? We can then branch out from there with more specific articles when needed. --Dr.Gonzo 02:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. The title could be Human rights violations in Croatia in the 1990s, and we'll make a bunch of redirects to that page. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed in the Human rights in Europe article that there is already a red link for Human rights in Croatia, so maybe we should start from there, to cover as much ground as possible. We can certainly branch out to HR in 1990s, and we would actually be doing a good thing for other articles that have that red link already. I'm certain that once we open that article more wikipedians will start to contribute. Anyways, if you want you can start with that right away, I'll retire for the night. We can continue this discussion on Human rights in Croatia talk page tommorow. --Dr.Gonzo 02:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've wrote a few lines of text, and added a few links. Lets continue this discussion here. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts on how to proceed

I agree entirely with the move of the article to this title (I've sharpened it up a bit further). Wikipedia has a long-standing convention of using neutral titles for contentious incidents (see Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, not "Tiananmen Square Massacre"; likewise September 11, 2001 attacks, not "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks"). Given that "Dalmatian Kristallnacht" is such a POV term, the move is a good idea.

Regarding the contents of this article, I think it conflated two separate things. First, the actual "Dalmatian Serb pogrom of 1991" was the incidents in Zadar and Sibenik (apparently not Trogir?). The killings in Gospić were an entirely separate incident that happened months later, and Gospić isn't in Dalmatia anyway. Second, the material about the anti-Serb manifestations in Croatia seems to me much more relevant to an article on human rights in Croatia in the 1990s in general.

In view of this, I've revised the article so that it focuses squarely on the events of 2 May 1991. I've made it much less POV (hopefully) and added more references. I'll move a revised version of the Gospić content into a new article, Gospić massacre. I suggest that the generic material on anti-Serb views be moved to a general article on human rights, which can link out to specific incidents such as 2 May and Gospić. -- ChrisO 11:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

you removed links, context etc. after long debate this is not justified - boris and gonzo have worked hard to npov this. Pirkovank 17:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert again before discussing here Pirkovank! You're right, Bormalagurski and I have worked hard to come to a consensus, but the version of the article where we stopped last night is by no means NPOV. I see ChrisO's edits as positive, especially since he can bring a level of neutrality we cannot (being an outside observer). In any case, there's no need to blow up this article out of proportion with dubious excerpts from outside sources. You are welcome to contribute on the new Human rights in Croatia article and articles that branch out from that one, but let's do this the Wikipedia way. And remember, if Wikipedia isn't neutral it's nothing, and everybody loses. --Dr.Gonzo 19:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The article about Zadar pogrom is full of serbian pro fascist propaganda and therefore it should be widley considered unrealible and with desputed neutrality!!!

Can you say what specifically you dispute? -- ChrisO 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Gospić massacre

I've now created a new Gospić massacre article. Unfortunately, because of the lack of any sourcing for the material in the old version of the Dalmatian Serb pogrom article, I've had to dump all the Gospić-related material from that and start from the beginning using only verifiable sources. See what you think of it... -- ChrisO 01:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Hmm, this article could be a bit more NPOV-ised... --HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It think it has pro fascist elements because it states that the croatian authoroties did nothing to stop the violence, and this simply is not true. The police acted instantly. Also the number of serbian owned buissnese damaged is enlarged, it was probably less then 50 maybe evan less than that. It was a response to serbian nationalist agression backed by Belgrade. Few days earlier the dalmatian Serb minority sang Serbian nationalist and anti-croat songs in the center of [Zadar]. One of the "songs" was Slobodane donesi salate bit će mesa klat ćemo Hrvate! (Slobodan bring us the salad there will be meat we will butcher the Croats!; the same thing they later sung when they occupied [Vukovar].

Emoutofthevee

Neutrality

Kristallnacht sounds like a Nazi pogrom. That is absolutely inacceptable. Prkno 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly POV, but it's clearly a name that some have given to this event (see the discussion above). However, it's not what the article itself is called. We simply note alternative names - even if they are POV - in the text while keeping the article title neutral. See for instance Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which notes the name "Tiananmen Square Massacre" in the text, even though that name is disparaged by supporters of the Chinese Communist Party. -- ChrisO 21:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

biased article, needs to go

These incidents need to be moved into the description of events that took place during the war. Referring to these events as a "pogrom" is not only inaccurate but insultingly so. This article is blatantly biased and should be removed.

- r. — [Unsigned comment added by 70.70.183.154 (talk • contribs).]

Proper name - a rename needed

I think there was an other name for these events.
The title of this article should be considered for renaming. Kubura 18:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What name would you suggest? -- ChrisO 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I also find the name tendentious, and in need of revising. I only agreed on "pogrom" categorization a year ago because I was trying to come to a consensus with user Bormalagurski, but, again, in retrospect this wasn't a good idea, since this user has clearly shown he cannot be trusted or reasoned with (hence the 1 year block on his account).

I would suggest we eliminate the word "pogrom" from the title and the article and replace them with "riot" or something similar. I think it's important to note that no one was injured or killed in the riots and so the categorization "pogrom" is perhaps too biased. The new title could be "Dalmatian anti-Serb riot of May 1991" (not perfect, but better). --Dr.Gonzo 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no pogrom. Serbs that left Dalmatian cities in 1991 left by their own will or decision. There was warring atmosphere pumped up from Serbia and S. Milošević so it influenced conduction of many Serbs. In the same time many of them stayed and what happened... nothing... Some of them were soldiers on Croatian side, which is not strange, since Crotia was defending, not attacking! All normal people were about how to save their homes and how to defend their city. Zenanarh 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Those Serbs who left these cities, left for rebelled areas, so they could be among their samethinkers and act against Croatia. In fact, many of them were later recognised on radio or TV.
These Serbs weren't "innocent civilians". They sided against Croatia, some of them because of the hate against Croatia they had from the beginning, even during rosy times in Yugoslavia- sad, but truth; I couldn't believe that they had such attitude towards us, locals, with whome they lived; point is, they kept themselves living in their isolated world from us, although they were among us. Don't be confused, I'm speaking about co-citizens, persons that lived in the same city, whose children went to same schools with you.
Some of them knew that they'll lose their really privileged positions (they would became normal citizens, but many didn't want to lose such privileges they had).
To tell the truth, some Serbs, at least as I know, haven't set themselves in action against Croatia. Simply, they didn't want to live in new Croatia, and events accelerated theirs earlier decisions to move to live in Serbia (especially the case of military personnel). So, it was the case that many of Serbs and Montenegrins that were professional military personnel in JNA, have exchanged the military apartments with Croats that were JNA professionals, that were professional military personnel in Serbia, Vojvodina, Montenegro, B&H. Aactions were prearranged, so they organized ...mutual "prekomanda" to other city, so that those Croats were still JNA professionals (later joined HV). As I know, most of those Serbs left for Vojvodina, to Serbia (mostly in Belgrade), Montenegrin Littoral, not Kosovo and not in Bosnia and Herzegovina (some native Serbs did so).
Still, some of them left for Serbia, without "exchange", but left their apartments and - mined them.
Those who left, they didn't do it with two nylon bags in each hand or with "gaće na šćapu". They moved with complete organisation, just like you move to live in other apartment with removal van.
Then, words like "Kristallnacht" are heavy ones. Why the author of this propagandist text hasn't compared the Serb rebellion and annexation of so-called Republic of Serb Krajina to Serbia as the case of Sudetenland and Hitler's Germany? Why hasn't he compared the behaviour of some local Serbs, that set themselves in the service of Milošević's Serbia, with those of the Volksdeutschers (Germans in other countries), that set themselves in the service of Hitler's Germany?
Interesting, the author of this text hasn't said a word about rebel Serb attacks on the Croat populated village of Kijevo (an enclave) in the neighbourhood of the capitol of the rebel Serbs' territory, Knin, with the aim of ethnic cleaning of those areas? These attacks on Kijevo were organized before those "anti-Serb" riots. Kubura 08:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On June 12th, 2007, I moved it to Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991, because that is a more appropriate name. --Joy [shallot]

On July 24th, 2007, User:Roramaster moved it to Dalmatian Serb pogrom of May 1991 saying: restoring title which was concensus from the Kristallnacht - see page history. reverting unjustified move of consensus title

This explanation is clearly lacking - there is no consensus for Kristallnacht, not by far, and the discussion at the talk page indicates so, too. At the same time, this user also reverted content in the article without even bothering to given an explanation. I reverted both. --Joy [shallot] 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The page was originally called Kristallnacht, and was renamed Dalmatian Serb pogrom after long discussion and it was result of the deletion proposal. The word pogrom is exactly the one describing what happened - destruction of business and homes of Dalmatian Serbs.

I'm not comfortable with the word pogrom, even if it does fit the wide definition from our pogrom article, because the word generally implies much more violence than there was in this riot. Merriam-Webster says it's "an organized massacre of helpless people". Dictionary.com says it's "an organized massacre" and notes synonyms "slaughter, butchery". WordNet says it's an "organized persecution of an ethnic group". All of those are pretty far from the description given in the article - there are no fatalities nor casualties listed. The word riot fits just fine in this case. --Joy [shallot] 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing here that some users try to bellitle suffering of Serbian civilians, even going so far as to rationalize their suffering as "they were not innocent civilians" (probably they justified existence of Lora concentration camp in the 90s in the same way, where Serbs were taken from their flats in Split, at gunpoint, just because they were Serbs) reveals their POV and possible some of them stand on neo-ustasha positions which are very widespread in Croatia nowadays (on a recent concert by neo-nazi megastar Thompson, in front of full stadium of people, the public was using nazi salute which can be seen here [1],[2]). Roramaster 03:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article dear sockpuppet Roramaster need to speak about 2 may 1991 and nothing else. On that day nobody is injured or killed so calling this pogrom or Kristallnacht is serbian fantasy. --Rjecina 04:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no any pogrom in Dalmatia. There was no massive escape of Serbs from Dalmatian cities in that moment. Serbs who were anyhow connected to Yugoslav army or already existing Serbian paramilitaries were leaving these cities mostly at the end of august because obviously they knew what is gonna happen. And what happened was that these cities (Zadar, Šibenik, Dubrovnik,...) were massively attacked by artillery. Also they were not forced to leave, in fact many Serbs didn't leave Dalmatia and still live there, also many ethnic Serbs were soldiers in Croatian army, so this article is nothing but shameless propaganda by someone who knows nothing about all of this or has some bad intensions. I repeat Serbs knew all that time what was to come all about, Croats didn't know! There were many examples which can prove it. These escaping Serbs from august 1991 were massively taking the bank credits a month before. In september they have already dissapeared. Some of these escaping Serbs were stealing from the companies they worked in, a few days before leaving. I know about case in Zadar, where the first man of a company was a Serb (companies were not private). In august 1991 he directed the replacement of removeable company properties to their (company) outpost in Benkovac. 15 days later Benkovac was not accesible for any Croat anymore. Reading these lies makes me sick... Zenanarh 12:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You make interesting reading Zenanarh, why not start an article titled Serb Corruption prior to leaving Croatia and claiming they were forced out. You obviously have all the information. Evlekis 12:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Many articles of that kind could be started, but let me ask you this: where is it going to lead us? Into new wars? Think about it. Croatia was attacked, there was a bloody-5-years-war in the territory of Croatia. You don't know what the war is until it happens to you. It's nothing like watching war movies on TV. Nobody in Croatia wants to remember it, especially people on the attacked territory (which was a half of the country). There are still consenquences in the heads of many people in Croatia. Cronicle diseases, cancers,... Do you know how many Croats made a suicide after the war because of PTSP (post traumatic sindrom)? All economy was crashed down during the war. We can write a hundreds of articles of that kind (like "privileged Serbs in ex-Yu" or like your "Serb corruption..." and similiar) but what we get? I think nothing...

In the same time there was no war at the territory of Serbia. Their medias were so fulfilled with such a propaganda that it was unbelievable. That propaganda was created by their politicians as a mechanism to explain what was going on in Croatia and Bosnia and why! They surely had to explain the reasons to their people. They simply said Croats attacked Serbs! With what? How? Throwing the stones? Yelling? Do you know that Croats didn't have the weapons in the beginning of that war. On the other side there was a powerful machinery controlled by a Serbian radical S.Milošević (it was always said that Yu army was the 5th army in the world, by power). This propaganda was obviously very succesful, so now we have a bunch of Serbian users on Wiki with sick and unacceptable ideas. The most number of this kind of articles is written by Serbs as I can see, and Croats are defending, the same story as 15 years ago, previosly it was by weapon, now by net... How long...

Yes I know a lot about it, since I live in one of these attacked Dalmatian cities and I was a witness of these things and also a participant (soldier). My friend from teenage years (a Montenegrian) was really a hero fighter on Croatian side. Now he runs a company in Croatia. The other who was a Serb and was also fighting for Croatian side made a suicide after the war because of the PTSP. He was my best friend. AT present I have 2 very good friends, both Serbs who are still living here and have never left Dalmatia. They had no reason to leave. The father of one of them was the main JNA (Yu-army) officer in one of the city barracks. Born in Šumadija (Serbia) and married to a Croat female he decided to stay away from the war and to stay in Dalmatia. Yes he had some problems because of his ethnicity, but guess what... These problems came from Serbian side not Croatian!!! Because he didn't go with them!!! Pogrom? Shameless lie!!! It's really unbelieveable what one can imagine in his head! Zenanarh 14:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, take it easy, I wasn't seriously suggesting starting the article. I was joking at the fact that much of your information is based on first-hand experience which cannot really be used here. I fear an edit war, the page has been reverted again. Propaganda is a two-way enterprise, not one. I wish to be neutral in this affair so for now I'll say one thing - to Serb editors: yes, there is much missing information across Wikipedia about atrocities towards Serbs in Croatia from 1991-1995 as documented by the thousands of agencies across the globe. Indeed you cannot expect Croatian editors to agree with them when their own intelligence sources point to counter-claims. Every scrap of evidence here is secondary, from ITCY reports to CNN analysis right down to Mujihadeen magazines in Saudi Arabia. My point is, that this page is largely irrelevant looking at the bigger picture. When you can find your anti-Serb sources, match them with the event; locate its most suitible article, or start one - then offload your opinion and sources. These events of May 1991 were minor: they were not a pogrom, barely a riot for that matter, just a "wild carnival" at most. Nobody was hurt and that is the bottom line. This is as neutral as I can be and I apologise if any Serb feels offended by this. Evlekis 15:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes these are information based on first-hand experience which cannot really be used here, I agree. But I don't care. Since this article is based on a fake with no sources, my experience or experiences of other users have the same or even better importance than unsourced propaganda. Nevermind. I don't need this.

Anyway I'm going to tell you a little true story about "pogrom in Zadar in May 1991" from the first hand. Franko Lisica was a Croatian policeman murdered by Serbian paramilitaries hidden in ambush 2. May 1991. His police squad was trying to clear the passage at one of the blocked roads. Serbs were blocking the roads with logs ("balvan-revolucija" = "log-revolution" as it was called).

Lisica was born in Bibinje - a village next to Zadar. People of Bibinje are known as very honest and straight people, but in the same time very dangerous if you do something bad to them or one of them, they always stick together and take a care of each other. I know this seems somewhat funny and maybe unusual but this is really true. I remember an occasion in 80's - Zadar city council decided to enlarge the city territory over the Bibinje village and funny thing happened. The very next day a half of Bibinje came to the city and protested against that decision. They made such a big noise and blocked the city council building until it was changed so this decision was immediately thrown away and it's hard to expect that it could be ever realized in the next hundred years or maybe even more.

So these people were very offended and angry about Lisica's death. Same day a group of them (40-50 young people) came to the city and damaged Serbian shops and agencies of some Yugoslav companies (like JAT - Yugoslav Air Traffic). Newspapers recorded all together around 100 of shops and agencies. And that was all. Nothing else. There was a lot of glass of broken windows in the city centre streets so the next day the title in Zadar newspapers "Narodni List" was Zadarska noć kristala (Zadar crystal night). It was just a word game according to the broken glasses and little bit a journalist sensationalistic writing (we all know how journalists sell their sensationalistic titles). This title was immediately spread out through all other medias in Croatia and Europe and... now we have some clever Serbian guy who have started this article about pogrom! This is not for renaming, this is for deletion. Or rewriting to an article about broken windows. Zenanarh 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say one small thing: I believe your story. Now if you dispute this article, the best thing to do is nominate it for deletion. With regards to the events: everything Zenanarh, every high profile massacre and bloodbath around the world is fuelled by something you consider tiny. But never believe anyone's propaganda that the whole affair was "unprovoked". If a policeman is ambushed, be it in Zadar or Cape Town; they, the organisation that is, have their reasons for doing so, which they will tell you is for another reason... the sympathisers of the victim and fellow supporters of his politics will constantly cry that the attack was unprovoked until they hear the reason why it happened; then within a short time, they will justify "the victim's original action" which precipitated his murder/attack by blaming something else on the opposition. When that opposition gets hold of the story, they will hark back even further to justify their own actions and state that they were in retaliation to something else from the victim's side; looking backwards, the events get smaller and smaller and smaller; violence caused by anger, caused by diagreement, caused by gestures, caused by frowns, caused by alternative thinking, caused by dissatisfaction, caused by personal greed. Well I am greedy, I'm 120kg and only 1,82cm in height: I eat my food, then finish my wife's when she cannot. Sadly in this sense, we don't live backwards, we move forward, and live in a world where the gestures translate to serious thoughts, to dissidency, and eventually to war, and all like a game of tennis: you move, I move, you move, I move...if I don't move, I lose the point; if you don't move, you lose the point. Lose too many points, you lose the match. I can publish a thousand theories as to what started the wars, that's probably more than you can fit into the whole of May and June 1991. Every Serb knows of a story in which local Croats did things to change the climate, fuelled by Tudjman and cronies; every Croat points the finger of blame at local Serbs, encouraged by Serbian polititians. It is never-ending. Neither is that fact that everyone's experience is first hand... so how on an encyclopaedia do we know who is telling the truth???? Evlekis 07:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This article and many similar are only showing Balkan sentiments and fact that internet (and wikipedia) has become place for hate propaganda. If Croats and Bosniaks answer with similar article for every crime which Serbs has done during Yugoslav wars they will loose. This has been antiserb riots and nothing else. I know that in Serbia they like to call this "incident" crystal night, pogrom or similar, but fact is that nobody is killed or even injured. Sorry for Serb fundamentalist but right name for this article is Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991. ---Rjecina 15:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I've thought about it a lot now; I don't really believe that this page should stand. As far as I am concerned, it was a local gathering which did not directly involve any notable person or organisation. It was very minor, nothing major precipitated it, and it didn't lead to anything which wouldn't have happened one way or another. Just one thing Rjecina, in politics, nobody loses arguments, when you're right, you're right, and so is your opponent. Evlekis 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been 1 voting for delete of this article, but when Serb user have seen that article will be deleted they have asked for voting help from serbian wiki [3]. Similar stuff has happened with other similar articles ---Rjecina 17:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe it is time to meet as good humans; remind ourselves that this is not the conflict of 1991, and start concentrating on ourselves rather than the others. Maybe this is easy for me to say as I stand from an uninterested angle. But I think that, it is down to the "people of the perpetrator" and not the "people of the victim" to tell the story: ie. Serbs to stick to writing about the bad that they performed, Croats about their own evils, Albanians about theirs, Bosniaks theirs and so on... but until we create a special talk-page in which the most objective of semi-involved people can meet; kick-off on the right foot, this will go on forever. I will happily contribute anything I believe to be true: this for example to me doesn't even constitute a riot. Riots are a bad thing and people always get hurt. Riots normally involve a minimul of two rival sets of people who fight each other, it becomes a three-way event once the intervening authorities get involved (such as police) because they are dragged in. This was a "rowdy demonstration" and that is all. Evlekis 09:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was not a *very* violent riot, I think it still makes sense to have this article because it helps describe the context of the early days of the war in Croatia. The riot's significance is that it seems to be a continuation of events in Kijevo (and Krajina), and more generally it helps illuminate what other articles generally describe as a "ready for war" atmosphere that had existed at the time. I only wish we had more *content* in the article, rather than all this argument over propagandist bits and pieces... --Joy [shallot] 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gospić in the intro

Somehow it seems to me that the Gospić massacre is much more egregious compared to these events, and that there are insufficient common denominators to link these events. Obviously, both were attacks on Serbs on the Croatian-controlled territory during the wartime, but for the Gospić events we know that they were organized, systematic, straight-off rounding up of particular people, their transfer to a remote area and killing, and all this happenning on several occasions, over a period of several days/weeks, involving silent consent from officials, and later persistent cover-up. On the other hand, in Zadar and Šibenik a mob assembled in a few hours and they smashed a lot of property, while no person was seriously injured or killed. Also, it all happened six months *prior* to the Gospić murders, and it was not covered up. The police didn't intervene, I guess that's an odd common denominator. The riots are a far stretch from the said massacre, so the reference doesn't really belong to the intro section. --Joy [shallot] 17:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Off course Serb nationalists are trying to connect these minor incidents with the bigger ones to bring some weight to their nationalistic cause.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also another difference: in May there was no war in Croatia. Situation was little bit disturbing but the most Croatian politicians were still speaking about peaceful solutions and every accident was shocking for all publics. In October there was already a war. Zenanarh 17:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Serbian history revisionism

(again) to compare a incident with Kristalnacht is an attempt to envoke sympathy and again trying to connect Serb suffering during ww2 and the war in the 90's.Serbs are totally trying to hide their aggretion on Croatia by inventing or exagurating incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 06:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then in the aftermath section they are trying to connect this event with the aftermath of Operation Storm to "show" the nature of the "ethnic cleansing campaign" against Serbs while the Serbs ethnicly cleansed 1/3 of Croatia from 1991-1995. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GriffinSB (talk • contribs) 07:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

2.^ Timeline for Croatian War of Independence

this link doesn't work. i'm removing it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article???

^ Sixth Report of the FRY Government on War Crimes committed in the territory of the former SFRY, December 1995

--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

^ War Crimes, Report VI This link doesn't work as well.

This article is crap.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's title is still not NPOV

On the Republic of Macedonia article there's this.

Macedonian reprisals After several attacks on Macedonian security forces, Macedonians took to the streets of some towns, attacking and setting on fire Albanian-owned shops, mosques and houses. Such attacks took place mainly in Prilep, Skopje and Bitola.[6] Local Macedonian citizens in Prilep demanded weapons to attack neighboring Albanian-populated villages, which they claimed needed to be done "in order to save Macedonia". Those targeted in the attacks were mostly Albanians.

The article should be called Croatian reprisals.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't riot. Riot should have a leader, idea,... In context of time period and war that came later, this accident named "riot" could mislead to conclusion that it had some importance for the following accidents, which it certainly didn't. It was just local and minor reaction or better to say reflection of the other really important accidents.

This article was started by title "Zadar kristallnacht", edited to produce "balance" and to equalize responsibility for starting the war, that's how Serbian radical politicians propagated it. Well, the same people claimed that 10.000 Muslims made a suicide in Srebrenica, so... Anyhow, there was already discussion about it and "riot" was introduced as a kind of NPOV attempt, but with comment that even "riot" is exaggarated term.

"Reprisal" is much more suitable, one word which describes accident and its nature.

There's another problem - adjective Dalmatian. It was added instead of Zadar, a week after 1st edit [4]. That's another misleading fact here. It didn't happen in all Dalmatia, it actually happened only in the centre of Zadar and next day in Šibenik in much smaller amount. This "Zadar -> Dalmatian" change was obviously just another propagandistic step in this article creation, BTW performed by User:Purqer, banned Serb POV pusher.

All this article is just WP:OR and WP:POV creation and construction built upon minor accident. Some opinions that this article is important for understanding of political atmosphere in pre-war Croatia can be understood as logical thinking but only of those who are not familiar with this topic. It would be more relevant to create new article about political occassions and accidents in '91 pre-war Croatia, like expansion of something already edited in other articles like Yugoslav Wars or Croatian War of Independence etc, where this accident could be mentioned with a few sentences (practically, more than a few is impossible to write), or to rename this one and completely change its content. To be honest, this one is for deletion. From the beggining written as hard-core POV it suggests that "Dalmatian anti Serb riots" produced some special atmosphere in all story of the region, while in reality it was contrary: it was just minor action performed by a few tens of the citizens, as their reaction on much more important incidents in the same period.

How this article is comic is the best seen in fact that even the editors who tried to make it more NPOV had to use OR: The demonstration grew into a riot... - there was neither real "demonstration" nor "riot" - this sentence "saves" the article making connection with its title - "riot"! Well, title should be reflection of the article contents and not opposite! Zenanarh (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the concensus name

The present name was changed by Croatian side without agreement from the other party after a year of the stable title Dalmatian anti-Serb pogrom, itself proposed by DrGonzo, a Croat, as a compromise from Dalmatian Kristallnacht, which was accepted by all sides. Ever since this POV change (dumbing down Kristallnacht to mere riots) the title has not been stable, with original name Kristallnacht, compromise name pogrom, and pro-Croatian POV name riot alternating. I propose moving back the title to the compromise name or the original name. To make things easier for you to review here is list of changes: [5] Changed by Croatian user DrGonzo. The current title was changed to next year (2007) by Croatian user Joy [6]; the support came from 2 other Croatian users, but was disputed soon after - there was no consensus in fact. Now a pro-Croatian POV title remains. As you can see from the article history, a war over the title name was present ever since the compromise name was changed. In 2006, after the deletion discussion, there were much more editors involved, and the title "pogrom" was in fact proposed by a Croatian editor as a compromise from Kristallnacht. So, it was agreed by both sides, who were aware of the title, including the people who later changed it. After the compromise from 2006, a year passes, and editors go away, and title is quietly changed. Since then it has been changed back and forth, so it is hardly a concensus name at this point. OdDjerdapa (talk 10:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you consider the "pogrom" name to be better than any of the alternatives? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The name is better than the pro Croatian current POV name for such a violent event, that was aimed at installing fear and insecurity in the Serbian population. In fact, Dalmatian Kristallnacht is how the event is known in Yugoslavia and in the Balkans (the name given to the event by Croatian journalists, as a matter of fact). Not only name, but the content is much whitewashed from the much better concensus versions from 2006, after extensive discussion, by a sequence of pro-Croatian POV pushers, that deny the atrocity and its extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdDjerdapa (talk • contribs) 11:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that after the Kristallnacht, the event was also characterized as a pogrom, and this name has more merit than mere "riots" as Croatian POV tries to belittle this atrocity. From the Kuepner, in Serbo-croatian (see deletion discussion): On je naveo primer kada je grupa hrvatskih fanatika, potpomognuta policijom, 2. maja 1991. godine u Zadru izvela pogrom, poznat kao "Dalmatinska kristalna noc" kada je demolirano i opljackano 116 srpskih lokala. - translation: He mentioned that a group of Croatian fanatics, helped by police, on 2nd of May 1991. in Zadar made a pogrom, better known as Dalmatian Kristallnacht when 116 Serbian shops were destroyed —Preceding unsigned comment added by OdDjerdapa (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming, which is our policy on how to title articles. In particular: "A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." The term "pogrom" is obviously highly emotive, as is "Kristallnacht"; the current name appears to be much more neutral. I would think that everyone would agree that there were riots, but not everyone would agree that it was a pogrom, let alone a "Kristallnacht". Endorsing one side's point of view in an article name violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; massacre, murder, pogrom etc. are words used in titles, even when there are people who dispute their neutrality. Would you call Katyn massacre Katyn incident, for instance? I am sure some Russians would be in favor of this, but it would be insultive to Polish people. Just as some people find it objectionable to call something massacre or murder, other are insulted by euphemisms. Such "neutrality" is pretty relative - what is neutral to Croats is highly offensive to Serbs, just as it would be offensive for Jews to use some whitewashed euphemsim for holocaust or gas chambers. The pogrom name was in fact accepted by both Croatian and Serbian side, and hence by your definition is more neutral than this title, which only suits Croatian denial of this atrocity. While Kristallnacht is the most common name, it was changed to pogrom to suit Croatians. Dumbing it down further to "riots" is certainly not neutral, but pro-Croatian POV. Also, I notice that it was you who proposed deletion in the first place. Now you are using your admin powers in dispute you obviously care about. Do you think that is appropriate?  — [Unsigned comment added by OdDjerdapa (talk • contribs).]

How is the current title "pro-Croation"? "Pogrom" is just a riot against a particular group. "Riot" may not be specific, but it is NOT "pro-Croation" and is neutral. I have no opinion on the move request, I just thought I would like to point out that the current title is not "pro-Croation" (are you Serbian?). TJ Spyke 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we close this discussion - OdDjerdapa has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)