Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian exodus

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silvio1973 (talk | contribs) at 23:54, 24 July 2013 (Proposed solution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:54, 24 July 2013 by Silvio1973 (talk | contribs) (Proposed solution)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Istrian–Dalmatian exodus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Croatia Mid‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Italy High‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Slovenia Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl)
Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations
Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle
Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308
Expand: Education in Slovenia
Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska
NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band)
Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture
Help assess the quality of 37 unassessed articles
Take/Add requested photographs

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Yugoslavia Mid‑importance

	Istrian–Dalmatian exodus is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ustaše

I have slightly modified the section "World War II" to include that Fascist Italians committed crimes and atrocities against local popoulation with the help of Ustaše. I report a source from BBC. Can suggest others if necessary. It's important to make clear that in Dalmatia the local population was not all subject and against the Fascism. Many Croats supported the Ustaše movement and committed atrocious crimes, often against other Croats. Unfortunately things were much more complex that a mere fight of good boys against bad. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Ustaše were (after 1941) very much anti-Italian, and did not "assist" in any of the numerous Italian war crimes against Croats and Slovenes (for which no one ever answered in any court). The faction that did assist the Italians were the Serbian Chetniks (who were of course very much anti-Ustase). See MVAC. The Ustase regime protested numerous times against Italian pro-Chetnik, anti-Croat policies in the (horribly mismanaged) Italian occupation zone.

So the view you're pushing is plain nonsense. Croats may or may not have been supportive of the Ustase (and in Dalmatia they were generally not - having been abandoned by them), but no Croatian faction was in favor of Italian annexation or occupation, and no significant number of Croats (particularly in Dalmatia and Istria) supported it. Let alone assisted in Italian or Italian-sponsored (MVAC) terror campaigns. Show otherwise? -- Director (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The cited source does NOT actually state Ustase assisted Italians in the crimes. -- Director (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, you literally put words in my mouth. Of course the Ustase were anti-Italian (they were anti-everyone except Croats). This is what is called ultra-nationalism (and however the portion of territory given witht the Treaty of Rome was so large that of course this caused a problem with the Ustase). Still, Italians and the Ustase were allied (e.g. against Croatian Jews) nd even if the Ustase later in the war did not tolerate the Italian presence the two armied cooperated (not as much as Mussolini wanted). Also for the benefit of you knowledge please note that the Chetniks and he Ustase also cooperated against the partisans (I can provide sources if you need to be convinced).

Actually, they were very fond of the Germans and Austrians..

The Ustaše and Italy were indeed formally "allied", but the Ustaše did not "assist" the Italians in the war crimes. The Ustaše and Chetniks did indeed cooperate to an extent - in northern Bosnia, not in the Krajina. The sources you propose to show me are probably my own (if they're from Chetniks or Ustaše).

To cut a long history lesson short: please provide sources that explicitly state the Ustaše assisted the Italians in their (mainly anti-Croat) war crimes. Your previous source was blatantly misquoted. -- Director (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias drift..

So again we have the "Bias drift" on this article, as angry Italian IPs post various accusatory nonsense.. #1 Neither Italian nor Yugoslav sources should be considered reliable unless there's reason to believe otherwise (they pretty much "cancel each-other out" on this issue); #2 Milovan Ðilas was later an open opponent of the Yugoslav government, leading a fringe anarcho-liberal faction. He was later arrested, etc.. His quotes can only be quoted, they cannot be used to draw any conclusions. -- Director (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, it is not issue of Italian or Yugoslav drift. I have just a concern about the fact that statements are made without support of any source, Italian, Yugoslav or anything else. And when the fact stated are very bold a source is needed. Concerning Dilas, no-one discuss that later he was an opponent of the Regime. We speak here of his involvement in the process of the Istrian exodus. This is not an invention of POV Italian sources. It was contained in an interview and it's quoted in a English source, the Monzali's book that is edited by a Canadian University. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the previous version, that has been there for one year and was the result of a long research of consensus. If we want to change as there is no consensus now we need to discuss first. Direktor, do you have a problem with which of the following facts:

1. The fact that Yugoslav Government pushed the Italians out of Istria?

2. That Dilas participated to such process?

3. That this process was made to make the area ethnically more homogeneous and therefore making the political and ethnic borders coincide?

Please state and I will provide sources (even if for 1 and 3 it's like proving the sky is blue). Also in the meantime you can tag with but please do not remove text. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The current lede cannot stand, i.e its last paragraph can't stand as it only represents the Italian POV. Clearly it was "covertly" added on in the past months. Nothing Đilas states can be used in support of any conclusions, as his statements are primary. Please read WP:OR and don't make me repeat that. As for the lede paragraph, as always it can either be expanded to accommodate both differing views - or it can be scrapped. I'll keep scrapping it until its expanded in accordance with WP:NPOV. All mention of the Garibaldi Division appears also to have disappeared.. -- Director (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Its about POV representation of sources in the lede, i.e. WP:UNDUE, not about sourcing itself. Please read more carefully.

We cannot have a final lede paragraph presenting only Italian figures and the Italian POV. Especially the nonsense about the Yugoslav government orchestrating the departure. -- Director (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not pretend the exclusivity of views. If you want to source an alternative view, you are welcome. But you cannot remove sources in English reporting what is a fact, i.e. that Dilas reported to have sent to Istria to organise the expulsion of the Italians. The content of this declaration is a fact. It might not be true and in this case please report sources in English saying that is not true (and BTW I would be please to see a source saying that Dilas declaration were false). Concerning the organic matter of the problem. Yes, Yugoslav government pushed the Italians to leave.

What can be discussed is why. Ethnic reason? Possibly not. Issue of future territorial claim? Very likely. Consequence of WWII? Certainly. Or very likely a combination of these three. I believe we should discuss about that bringing sources, rather than admitting the evidence of 200 to 350,000 people that decided to leave their houses and all their wealth from a day to another.

PS But do not forget that the communist sworkers from Monfalcone came freely to Yugoslavia and were persecuted. So the suspicion that an ethnic reason existed (at least partially) can exist. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I will not explain WP:OR to you again. Read policy please. Đilas did say he was sent there, but as his statement is a primary source, you can quote it directly, not draw any conclusions from it. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Plain and simple: balance the paragraph out if you wish (I shall certainly not do so), but as it is it is blatant POV nonsense and cannot stand. -- Director (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I am not quoting anyone. Look what is the modification now. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know you're not quoting Đilas' statement. The problem is that's the only thing you can do with it... You cannot use the statement as a source in support of something you write. Again I ask: do you understand OR and what a primary source is?? -- Director (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, if in a secondary source a scholar (actually more than one) report the words of Dilas in support of an argument, this does not make by 'pollution' primary what is the secondary source. However, I never wrote (and actually never tought) that 250-350,000 Italians left only because of the Yugoslav Regime. I wrote the Yugoslav Regime incited this, and I put sources in support. And please, I agree in removing misquoted sources but you cannot remove the role of the Ustase in the atrocities done by the Fascists during WWII. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue of the Yugoslav government inciting the departure is still not adequately sourced. Milovan Đilas, I say again, is not a reliable source, having later become an active opponent of the Yugoslav government - and a primary source.

The kind of source needed is non-Italian and non-Yugoslav, that actually states "The Yugoslav government incited the departure etc.." (or something like that of course). Not a source that only states what Đilas said, as in "Milovan Đilas said the gpvernment incited the departure". In short, the citation should not be Italian (Gaetano Rando!), it needs to have a page number, and I would be very grateful if it had a brief direct quotation so we're sure there's no misrepresentation (as has been previously the case). -- Director (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, we need to use in en:wiki English sources not sources of English scholars. Now I have some sympathy for your argument that consist in excluding sources from scholars Italian or Yugoslav in contended matters such as history of Dalmatia and Istria, but it that case do you want me to remind you that 70% of the sources used in Zadar are Yugoslav / Croatian?

Said that the sentence "The Yugoslav government incited the departure etc.." is supported by P. Ballinger, clearly a non-Italian source. Concerning the reformatting of the text, I will do within the next hours. There is room to discuss. I tend to agree that this exodus was not only the consequence of the pressure from the Yugoslav Regime but not citing it as one of cause would be historically incorrect (whatever is the version in the FRY or today is in Croatia). 300,000 people do not leave like that, especially when the half of them had been living there for centuries. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, if Ballinger does support it - well and good. But I would like to see a page number and a quote, pls. Possibly we may add a note that Yugoslav sources do not see it exactly that way.. Possibly.

The figure of "300,000" or ("350,000"!) is just one of many estimates. Italian estimates are higher, Slovene and Croatian much lower (contending, for example, that many left well before Tito's 8th Dalmatian Corps even arrived etc). We can't have one side's estimate, and one at the extreme high end, presented as fact in the lede.

Re Zadar. Silvio, Zadar is a Croatian town. In Croatia. Well of course most sources will be Croatian, particularly with a (relatively) obscure place like that. That's like me complaining that 90% of the sources in Trieste were Italian. The point is that neutral sources be used on bitterly controversial issues - such as whether or not the Yugoslav government incited the exodus etc. Not to source, for example, the population of Zadar.

So the bare fact that there are more Croatian sources is really not objectionable. That said, I don't know whats going on over on that article, that's Zenanarh's "domain". For all I know he may be taking it too far; couldn't say. -- Director (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, Ballinger (and many other foreign authors, I can provide sources) writes much more. She writes (I am quoting) : "If the Socialism experiment in Yugoslavia was so wonderful, why would so many people abandon their homes and properties and found an uncertain future in Italy? The claim (later seconded by Tito's former collaborator and subsequently critic, Milovan Djilas) that the regime has purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria...". Indeed, I have rounded the text because I knew you would have find the sentence POV. This sentence is from page 103 and a full sizeable part of the book reports similar content.

It is also intellectually hard (to say the less) that only opinion from people that were adverse to the Yugoslav regime should be considered as acceptable on WP. Also because Djilas related about this matter in 1991 when Tito had disappeared since years and the SFRY was already finished.

Yes I have the concern that people like Zenanarh used Croatian sources (in English, but still Croatian) sources to push NPOV concepts in the article. Well, this is old story.

A last one Direktor, too much truth about what happened in Istria had been silenced until recently. Especially in Italy and for political reasons. Italy lost a war and for my perspective the loss of Istria and Zara was the less that could happen, but the expulsion of over 150,000 (I refer only to the autochthonous people) ethnic Italians, privating them of all their properties and impeding the few people remaining to keep their culture, well this is a different matter.--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"The claim (later seconded by Tito's former collaborator and subsequently critic, Milovan Djilas) that the regime has purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria..." Yes? :) Could you finish the sentence of the quote, please? As it is it of course indicates nothing. (I probably won't have time to look up the book until well into next week.)

I'll say again. Source your position properly and thoroughly, with neutral secondary sources, and we'll have no disputes, I assure you. Give me a page number and a brief (but relevant) quote and I'm fine, but I won't buy anything less in these sort of things. People, including you, have been known to misrepresent sources here. -- Director (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

P.s. Re Ðilas. Let me be clear: all I meant was that he's a primary source. That's all. And I mentioned the fact that he was an anti-government dissident only to illustrate why primary sources are tricky and can't be used by us to draw conclusions. If he's used by a secondary source (as he appears to be) - I of course have no problem with the conclusion the secondary source draws. The point I was making is that only secondary sources can interpret primary sources (like Ðilas).

Re Zadar. Croatian (& Italian) sources should in general probably not be used to source controversial issues regarding Italian-Croatian national disputes. If they are, I likely agree with you, but this is not the place to discuss that article.. -- Director (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I don't like to answer keeping the same tone you use. People like you have in the past literally monopolized this project saying they were defending WP from irredentists, nationalists and extremists like me. I had to be in many situations exceedingly patient to demonstrate that I was not the sock of anyone.

Also you are making a big issue about the size of the exodus. Summing Croatian + Slovene estimate we get to 240,000. Italian sources quote 350,000. I do not see the issue when I write 250-300,000.

Concerning the article, I have provided the source and the page. You are kindly requested to look into the book. Do not take me wrong, I respect you as contributor and I respect the fact you have a different view on certain matters. But if you start to act like a censor, well things are different. I am sure this is not your intent. Also concerning the images you posted recently I genuinely believe you should remove them. It is fine to give information (including images) in support of what happened before and after the exodus but this article should not encompass the whole history of Istria. Especially because at least one of the image you posted are frankly WP:UNDUE for this topic. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, precisely as I expected: you're misrepresenting sources again, as with the WWII issue just above. As is very obvious from your refusal to complete the only relevant sentence of the quote. You can feign "offense" however much you like, but all it does is kind of insult my intelligence. From what you did quote it is clear the source refers to Yugoslavia targeting ethnic Italians as a "claim", not a stated fact. Which is in-line with what I know of the general position of scholarship.

I will remove the selective representation of (maximum!) figures from the lede, and the claim that Yugoslav authorities incited the exodus -and will keep removing it until its sourced actually, as in outside the fantasy world. You are free to complete the quote at any time, showing you are not once again lying when you claim its support. I think we both know, however, that you're not about to finish the sentence. Feigning "offense" over the polite request to write a few additional words - not buying :) -- Director (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It has been done. By the way, please try to be more polite when dealing with me. I do not lie, I can make a mistake but lying it's a different matter.--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What has been done? You still did not complete the quote, and the sentence fragment you did provide indicates nothing at all. Please provide quotations. Not only have you previously misquoted sources, your command of formal English is also less than perfect (no offense). Whether you've purposely misrepresented the sources, or misunderstood their precise meaning in accordance with your preconceptions, either way - I must insist that your citations come complete with a brief quote, so that we can see whether they've been misrepresented.

Otherwise I fully intend to roll back your additions. I find them biased, and cannot be certain whether they are sourced at all. I'd like to see what it is you think supports you.. -- Director (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

More sources

Direktor, it looks that YOU try to defend an extreme position ,i.e. that the Yugoslav Regime had nothing, but really nothing to do with the exodus. I wrote 'incited' not 'organized'. And the fact that there was no document signed by Tito to do instruct what to do to pressure the Italians to leave it's irrelevant.

I have added more sources and reading them you get the idea that the Yugoslav Regime after 1945 did more than just observing the Italians leave. You have to realize that I cannot copy the exact text of the book (because WP does not replace the human culture and because exist rules on copyright), so you have to read the entire book and just not make a google research. Remember, fighting is easy but research is work. And time!

However this time I have copied more from the sources so that the suspicion of misquotation is excluded. However I suspect you might still found a 'good' reason not to be convinced. I have added five sources and I am sorry but an English book edited by a reputable British University is acceptable is an acceptable source even if one of the author is Italian (indeed we don't know, he got a name sounding Italian such as Robert De Niro or Nicola Cuomo).

There is one thing that is true. I also believe that the Yugoslav Regime would have welcome an exodus of smaller size (it is embarrassing to have such an exodus from a Socialist Paradise). Unfortunately the history of the Balkans in the XX century has shown how efficient is the ethnic cleansing in that part of the World.

However, I do not know why it is so difficult to discuss with the Yugoslavs about their history (I am not the only one thinking that, see how much contented are the pages concerning the history of the Balkans here in WP). Perhaps too many of them believe they are entitled to write the history just because they won the war. The task of Croatian history today looks merely centered to find arguments to reduce the size of the Serbian genocide, of the Istrian Exodus, of the Serbian exodus from Kraijna and so on. And after you speak of neutrality...

One thing is sure: Direktor, I won't follow you in any edit-war. If your idea is to make your idea prevailing at any cost, you'll get there alone. I am a peaceful person from a peaceful country.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Whereas I am not? :) Your implication is inescapable, extremely insulting, and probably sanctionable. I am puzzled as to why you think a user's proclivity towards revert-warring has anything to do with his home country? As a matter of fact, about a dozen or more users from Italy were banned from this project for disruption on this subject. Many of them frequently proclaimed the high level of civilization and love of peace they supposedly have as opposed to their opponents in debate.. though one wonders whether a one-time fascist aggressor state (the home country of Fascism), where innumerable & perpetual petty wars were fought over the centuries, should so frequently be called upon as a supposed "beacon of peace"? In something of a contrast, South Slav states only fought each-other twice in recorded history, the first of which was arguably caused by external invasion. I'll grant the latter instance was recent, but surely we should not make implications based on 20 years of time?

I say again (see above thread): please provide brief quotations, without which I shall not be convinced you had not continued your practice of misrepresenting sources here - and will roll back your non-consensus POV edits. -- Director (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I have been discussing this subject for quite a long time, and I have a pretty good idea which points of view are and are not generally accepted by international (neutral) scholarship. Coupled with the fact that you have previously "bent" the sources and used them to support statements they do not explicitly support, I am strongly inclined towards believing you have continued said practice. I was only further confirmed in this when, for some reason, you suspiciously refused to complete the crucial sentence from the source which might have confirmed (or denied) your position.

All that said - I could be wrong. I will not, however, seriously entertain that possibilty until I see (completed) quotes. There is really no reason why someone in your position might refuse to copy-paste a few sentences to end the dispute.. I include quotes in my citations rather frequently when the issue is controversial. As things are I intend to roll back these changes after a reasonable period of time wherein you might copy down the two measely sentences I respectfully request. Regards. -- Director (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Timing

This is wrong: "At the time of the exodus, these territories were part of the SR Croatia and SR Slovenia (then parts of SFR Yugoslavia), today they are parts of the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia."

Between 1943 and 15 September 1947, Istria was an Italian territory occupied by Allies (USA/UK and Yugoslavia depending by zone). --Grifter72 (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but there are two points: #1 the "exodus" is claimed to have continued taking place after 1947 as well (perhaps even primarily after that time). #2 The "exodus" supposedly also includes areas not part of Italy even before 1947.. ("Istro-Dalmatian" exodus). The issue needs clarification.

P.s to your objections I also add that the Croatian and Slovene states did not have a "SR" prefix at this point, but "PR". Though they likely need it not at all. -- Director (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Modified wording somewhat. -- Director (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

Rolled back opposed non-consensus changes to the lede per talk, in light of Silvio1973's lack of response to objections. Would still very much like to see what exactly the sources have to say re the crucial issue of the Yugoslav governments active complicity. To Silvio1973: I am in no case dismissing your sources, but would like to see what is their precise position before we can discuss a source-accurate formulation. This would not be the first time your source does not explicitly state what you suggest it does.

In addition, your own formulation of the lede is patently biased and slanted (e.g. "there is still much debate, but from this and this and this we can see its silly to disagree with the Italian point of view.."), and represents a cherry-picked selection of information that supports your point of view - without the opposing position or the many complex circumstances.

In short, if you're serious about expanding on this complex and controversial issue, I would please like to see a few (brief but relevant) quotations to start us off. -- Director (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My edits were seriously sourced and you have removed all of them as if I was misquoting or selectively sourcing POV´s interpretation of facts. You are keeping in this matter exactly the same approach of modern Croatian historiography. This is quite misfortunate because amongst the various parties involved, the Croatian is perhaps the MOST POV. However I will try to edit again and requote again but I will not insist more than that. It takes me hours of research to write and source, and to you 30 seconds to remove. Eventually, I will ask for a third opinion because it has been proved that discussing with you it´s mainly a loss of time. And yes, this picture from the Camp in Rab is a fake. And mind well, I do not believe Italy has ever been a beacon of peace, but it's a fact that Croatia has a distinctive (for the small size of the country) and prominent presence in the ethnic conflicts and genocides/democides of the XX century. And there is a reason but this is not a forum, so I won't develop any further. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes yes.. I don't see any completed quotes?

And p.s. you've been reading too much of the discredited right-wing author Rummel; as your spell check might tell you "democide" isn't really a word. As for Italy and ethnic conflicts.. I hope we've established you should first look at yourself before engaging in absurd generalizations and condemning whole nations from on high? :) -- Director (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Child in the Concentration Camp

I'm not sure that the image is from Arbe/Rab. The same image appears in some websites as "Camp of Visco", near Palmanova:

Here is considered as from Gonars: http://lombardia.anpi.it/voghera/dossierfoibe/frontieraorientale.htm --Grifter72 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I just got it from the Rab article.. You should bring this up at Commons. -- Director (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Did it on Commons. I think that image is wrong. The photo should be from "Muceniska pot k svobodi" book. That images are also showed in this website: http://muceniskapot.nuovaalabarda.org/galleria-ita-5.php No traces about that childen. --Grifter72 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

POV banner - Request of a 3O

The current edit of the lead suggests the Istrian exodus was the free decision of the ethnic Italians to leave, despite all the efforts made by the Yugoslav Governent to retain them. Additionally there is the false and unsourced edit claiming the Italians leaving received housing and other benefits returning back to Italy. This last is false; ethnic Italians returned to Italy as refugee without any guarantee about their future. Only later the economic prosperity and development of Italy create the opportunity to the Italian Government to provide housing and jobs to them. Only the people counting on some family in Italy found immediately proper accomodation. Most of the people spent indeed years in camps and other kind of provisional shelters. And had to leave all their propertied in Istria, some of them owned by centuries.

One should feel embarassed to propose such an extreme version of the events. But it looks some editors (I am sorry to say it, but it is a fact they are Croatians) are not embarassed of anything. I posted at least 5 English sources containing a different version of the facts but editor Direktor has removed all of them.

Well, it looks the neutrality of the article is at least disputed, hence the posting of the banner. As all options to get to a comprosime have been exhausted I took the decision to request a third opinion. It can be found here . Let's hope we can find a compromise and give to this article some stability.

I imagine the article will be stable enough when you at last abandon your attempts to modify it through edit war, and focus on discussion. See WP:BRD. -- Director (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disputed matter

There is a large variant of opinions in the available literature about the reasons of the exodus. At one extreme there is the Croatian position affirming the ethnic Italian decided in absolute freedom to take the option to leave (this is the version posted by editor Direktor); at the other extreme there is the claim the exodus was due to the ethnic cleansing planned by the Titoist Yugoslavia. Please note that, at least in the last four years, no-one has edited the article supporting this second extreme position. Also note there are very limited reputable sources supporting anyone of these two extreme positions.

After a long research I proposed the following edit (with proper sourcing) but it was removed with the reason that is an absurd and a NPOV version of facts.

The formal responsibility of the Yugoslav Regime in the exodus is still today a matter of discussion amongst historians. However, the measures implemented, some summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities and the press forced the ethnic Italian to leave quickly and en masse.

Prominent members of Tito's inner group, such as Milovan Dilas and Edward Kardelj (than Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs) were sent to Istria to organise anti-Italian propaganda, as Milovan Dilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991.

Going trough all secondary sources above listed (Pamela Ballinger, Arrigo Petacco, Pertti Ahonen, Gaetano Rano and Jerry Turcott. All sources are issued by reputable Universities and Institutes) appears that the intention of the Titoist Government was to retain only the ethnic Italians (please refer to Raoul Pupo, Pamela Ballinger) meeting thefollowing criteria: "Being enemy of Italy, having at least partial slavic descendency, having a full faith in the communism". 'The issue is that in Istria such an ethnic group simply did not exist.' The consequence was that the exodus did result in a massive departure, much bigger than the one whished by Tito and Edward Kardelj. This was a problem for the allies but also for Yugoslavia for an obvious number of reasons (departure of skilled workers, reputation of Yugoslavia as a Communist country).

The events after 1947 suggest that even if this was not in the will of the Yugoslav Government, that the ethnic hate was the prominent factor giving to the exodus an unplanned dimension. However this last sentence is a deduction hence my decision not to post it in the article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

#1 If your (pro-Italian-POV) position is so mainstream that it merits it being stated as fact in the lede of the article, you really should have no problem finding non-Italian WP:THIRDPARTY authors that support it. The issue in question is one of distinct political significance in ex-Yugoslavia and esp. Italy, and this is the central point.

#2 If you do find such sources, please post a brief-but-relevant quote here, so that our discussion with regard to the lede's wording on this sensitive matter can have some focus.. and so we can have at least some assurance you have not continued misquoting sources as you had before. Frankly, I don't trust you after the stuff you pulled, and even if I did, I still would have liked to see what it is exactly that the English source states, due to your understanding of English not being quite at the professional level (no offense).

The rest you can read above. Your edits were reverted as any disputed, non-consensus, controversial edits would be. Discuss, please.. I hope I'm wrong, but my impression at this time is that you do not really have a single solitary WP:THIRDPARTY author that supports your extreme position. I hope you shall at last post a quote soon, or I myself do not see what else there is to discuss. Regards -- Director (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'd be tempted to agree with the editing suggested above, with one slight exception. There is no POV from the "other side". I think that, in order to resolve this dispute, POVs from both sides should be put in the article, with as many citations as possible. Under no circumstnaces should the edit be written in such a way as to blame either side. The Historian (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have said several times, I suspect Silvio1973 is simply misquoting sources and/or wildly exaggerating their position. He has been caught doing this before. All I request is that he posts a few brief quotations (accompanied with page no.) wherefrom we may proceed to arrive at a consensus. He has consistently ignored requests to do so, and get this single quote that was provided:

"If the Socialism experiment in Yugoslavia was so wonderful, why would so many people abandon their homes and properties and found an uncertain future in Italy? The claim (later seconded by Tito's former collaborator and subsequently critic, Milovan Djilas) that the regime has purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria...".

..and there Silvio cuts us off! :) In the middle of a sentence wherein the author was about to comment on the issue at hand ("The claim..", etc), and simply ignores requests to finish it.. Forgive my cynical, unkind nature, but given the extreme controversy surrounding the subject matter, given that the user has misquoted sources before, and with this suspicious cut-off - I think I am not out of line in respectfully requesting to see a (brief) quotation or two, that we might read what statements Silvio uses in support of (what I believe is) his slanted opinion piece.

I'll say again: imo the sources are (as before) quite possibly misquoted in that they do not explicitly support the text, with Silvio likely drawing his own conclusions from source material. -- Director (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I must confess this is hilarious. I suggest an edit with 4 English sources reporting word by word (to the border of copyright violation) my edit. User Direktor insists posting an edit completely unsourced and wants it to prevail because he claims my position is extremist. I welcome instead user Direktor to provide sources stating the edit he's pushing (ie the Italians took freely the option to leave without any pressure of any kind).

Imho I tried to propose an edit as much as compromising as possible. There are 4 quotes in my edit and none of them is currently the one Direktor cite in his/her last post. I suggest user Direktor to take the time to read my post. Now, if the intention of Direktor is to have his POV prevail he/she needs first to discuss and find consensus. Untill consensus is not found the NPOV banner stays and well, if Direktor insists in writing the article his/her way without first discussing I will escalate the issue. Two things are certain: 1) I believe there is room to compromise 2) I will not follow Direktor in any edit-war but instead I will use all the available options to get to consensus.

Silvio1973 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC

Blah blah blah... :) There are no "quotations" in any of your edits (there is a difference, of course, between a reference and a "quotation"). Can you please post one or two? While you continue to ignore others with your WP:ICANTHEARYOU attitude, I do not see what there is to discuss.. I'll cetainly not repeat myself over and over again.

I am not asking you to "compromise" the position of the sources - accurately presenting the position of (third party) sources is all I am interested in. However, I do not trust you. You have falsified the position of sources in the past, and now as well its rather obvious (for numerous reasons) that you are likely doing so again. The very fact that you claim to have changed and "compromised" the position of sources is suspicious on top of everything else: your edits are almost certainly a biased WP:SYNTHESIS as before, and do not represent the position of the sources. You can cite 30 refs as supposedly "supporting" your POV essay - I would still find it no more convincing.

You can easily dispel all my suspicions by posting a few brief quotes here on talk (or at least completing ones you began). That is the only neutral point wherefrom we can proceed towards source-based consensus.

As I said several times, pls keep WP:THIRDPARTY in mind as well: I myself will not accept Italian and/or ex-Yugoslav sources. If your position is so strong it warrants unambiguous statement in the lede of the article - surely you will be able to find a non-Italian author that supports it? -- Director (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@Direktor, I am not interested in the slightest if you trust me or not. Keep it for yourself, this is not the place to share your feelings. And try to be more polite when you deal with me, I am not your brother or a friend of yours. Do you realise that you contest my edit without sourcing at all yours? My edit is sourced. You are welcome to check the consistency of the sources, but if you want to have your edit prevail (as your edit-war suggests the intention) you need to equally source yours. However I want to keep factual and brief. I propose the following edit (in brackets you can find full reference of the source reporting exactly what I write).

The formal responsibility of the Yugoslav Regime in the exodus is still today a matter of discussion (Yugoslav and Croatian sources exclude any will of the Regime to second it) but the measures implemented, summary killing, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities and the press forced the ethnic Italian to leave quickly and en masse. (People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Page 108, Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008), (History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Page 103, Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2001), (Refugees in the Age of Total War - Page 139 and 143, Anna C. Bramwell, University of Oxford, UK, 1988)

In some cases, such as in Rijeka (inhabited by an Italian majority), the arrival of the Yugoslavs was marked by a series of public murders and an intense policy of Croatization of the local population. (People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Page 106, Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008)

Silvio1973 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not trust you - because your citations have previously been shown to have been misrepresented, and the text you purport to have supported with them a slanted WP:SYNTHESIS of your own. One also cannot help but consider in addition other suspicious behavior and facts indicating bias. For example: it is impossible (or at least highly unlikely) that both Ahonen, Ballinger, and Bramwell use the exact same words(!) as you appear to purport above. In fact, if that is your claim, you are clearly not being truthful: as neither a search of Ballinger's book (for one), nor of Google Books in general(!) renders any results for the phrase "formal responsibility of the Yugoslav regime".

But lets talk about Ballinger's book, which is indeed a reliable source. There the phrase "Yugoslav regime" is used on p.103, but only in the sentence: "In 1953 Edvard Kardelj argued that Italians who had settled in Istria during the fascist period had naturally returned to Italy after the end of Italian rule there with no pressure from the Yugoslav regime but rather as a natural process..." . So, in Ballinger's case at least, we can be certain you are definitely not directly quoting ("word for word") what the source states.

On Ballinger p.103 we can, however, find the previous quotation you posted here in the above thread. You repeatedly ignored requests to complete the crucial, cut-off sentence dealing with the issue of Yugoslav government responsibility in the exodus. I can now finish it for you, however. It states:

"The claim (later seconded by Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic, Milovan Djilas) that the regime had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria further exposed the Yugoslav leadership to the charges of nationalist imperialism, used by Stalin to justify the Yugoslav Communist Party's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948."

The author does not state the Yugoslav government "has purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria" or anything of the sort (as your edit suggests), but is merely discussing Stalin's(!) accusations during the Tito-Stalin split. You knew this, and purposely ignored requests to complete the quotation, presumably imagining users around here are stupid enough to take half-completed sentences as evidence of something..? Not only that, but as far as I can see, nowhere on page 103 does Ballinger support the text you use her for. I am deeply curious to see what text from Ballinger p.103 you believe supports you? Can you quote it? As far as I can see, however, Ballinger p.103 is yet another fraudulent misquotation.

So I can only repeat: can we see the text of the sources that you believe supports you? Can you here post (brief) quotes from Ahonen p.108 and/or Bramwell pp.139/143? Or even Ballinger p.103, to show me that you haven't misquoted that source? Given the circumstances, until you do I myself am not prepared to acknowledge you have referenced a single word from your edits: misquoting references seems to be a common theme with you.

P.s. "One thing is sure: Direktor, I won't follow you in any edit-war... I am a peaceful person from a peaceful country." :) -- Director (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It does seem rather sad to me, but from what I've read, I could easily apply Misplaced Pages:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to both Silvio and Direktor. At the moment, there is no obvious problem with WP:COMPETENCE, except a possible problem with bias-based incompentence. I would also ask that other editors have a looksee and see what they can do. If no resolution is reached by Friday, I may refer this to the Misplaced Pages:DRN.

I maintain that, in all objectivity, I am in no case guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I am perhaps "guilty" of repeating myself - but there is a difference. Its really rather simple:

Silvio has been caught misquoting refs at every turn.
I suspect that listed sources again do not support his edit, and request he post brief quotations so that they can be easily verified. (In fact, if you read my immediately-preceding post, you can see at least one of his three sources has indeed been misquoted. Again.)
He continuously ignores said requests (in all objectivity probably because the other sources are misquoted as well). And I continuously repeat them.

As for WP:COMPETENCE, I am an editor with well over 45,000 edits on this project, and with extensive experience editing on this specific subject. So much so I have a good idea what's very likely to be fraudulent misquotation. Please note: of the four sources Silvio has recently posted for various edits, at least two turned out to be blatant misquotations (bbc.co.uk, and Ballinger p.103), and I believe one would have to be pretty gullible not to suspect the rest are probably misrepresented as well in varying degrees. Hence, I must insist on Silvio showing us what the sources are really saying: twice now in this discussion alone they were saying something else entirely.

For the record, I am certainly not suggesting we ignore what these sources have to say - I would just like to be sure Silvio isn't distorting them again: as I said, I believe we can proceed from the quotes towards arriving at a source-based consensus. I will not, however, take any more of Silvio's quotes at face value. -- Director (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor please, you cannot keep removing the NPOV banner. We clearly have a problem of consensus here. Also, you speak about my sources but WHERE ARE YOURS ? Silvio1973 (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh.. the issue here is Yugoslav culpability for the exodus - the lede makes no claim in that regard that you yourself did not agree with. Unlike you - I care for the legibility and coherence of the lede of this article. I'll not have you butcher it and remove copy-editing out of some "revenge" for my resisting your fraudulent attempt to enter highly-biased nonsense with no real sources.

Present a few quotes, Silvio1973. Or else please take a break. You have been caught misrepresenting sources and that is really one of the worst things a responsible Wikipedian can do. Insult me, implicitly insult my country - I don't care, but this entire project hinges in great measure on the honourable conduct of its editors with regard to sourcing. -- Director (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal from Silvio1973

@Direktor, if WP community believe that we fail to understand and listen each other, we need to aknowledge it and change our approach. I might find sometime awkward to have my attitude compared to yours, because I did not insult you (as you did in my respect). However, things here are extremely simple. I believe you are in good faith; indeed, in full good faith you are pushing the Croatian view on the Istrian exodus. The issue is that you do not source your POV. If you want to make us believing that between 250.000 and 350.000 people left Istria in absolute freedom and only for reasons of economic opportunity, you need to seriously source it. And untill now you did not.

From my side I propose a more compromised approach. The Istrian exodus was not the free decision of 250-350.000 people (as the Croatian history claims) and was not ethnic cleansing (as some Right-Wing people in Italy believe). But the Yugoslav Government had some responsabilities as I describe in the following edit. For the sake of clarity I clearly state now sources and the relevant pages and lines. I would welcome a Mediator giving his/her opinion in this respect. I kindly request user Direktor to do the same: propose a version for the lede with sources / quotations / citations. It will come the time to discuss the quality of the sources of the opponent side, but please let's first proceed in the order:

Sources:

1) People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen, Berg, USA, 2008 - Look at page 108 lines 3-4 and 8-9-10 from the top. Also look at page 105 last two lines.

2) History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 - Look at page 109 the last paragraph.

3) Refugees in the Age of Total War - Anna C. Bramwell, University of Oxford, UK, 1988 - Look at page 139 lines 6-5-4-3 from the bottom and page 143 lines 8-7-6-5-4-3 from the bottom.

Sources

People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008 - Look at page 106 last 8 lines.

Sources

Literary and Social Diasporas, G. Rando and Jerry Turcotte, Belgium, 2007 - ISBN 978-90-5201-383-1 - Look at page 174 lines 14 to 21.

History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 - Look at page 103 lines 16-17-18-19.

If necessary I will provide more sources showing the Istrian exodus was not the mere choice of opportunity of at least 250,000 people, as User Direktor pretends it was. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any quotes.

You repeatedly misquote sources and attempt to defraud other users - and then seriously expect people to take your remaining refs seriously? Goodness only knows what it is your sources actually state.. Just in case we have a linguistic misunderstanding: a "quotation" is a piece of text you have copied from the source and written down on this talkpage. In this context it is different from a "citation", in that it is and actual passage (piece of text) you have written down, as opposed to merely writing up the information of the source? Ok? Unless you do post such a brief "quotation" or two (a piece of text from a source), I myself will not take it that you have sourced a single solitary word. DO you understand this? By now you've written so much vain, useless text a paragraph or sentence from a source would be an incomparably smaller investment of effort (unless, of course, you are again lying, in which case you will never post anything).

In fact, I am rather sick of this. I've stood down and allowed you to butcher the lede, but (as long as you're concerned) I will certainly revert-on-sight any attempt to enter Italian-nationalist tripe about Yugoslav responsibility without a WP:THIRDPARTY source complete with a quotation and page number.

You should know I am on the verge of reporting you for WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior (WP:ICANTHEARYOU), citing fake sources (in support of offensive nationalist POV), edit-warring, and generally attempting to insult me and my entire country along the way. If it is me you're talking to in your next post, you can either post some quotations from your remaining (also-likely-falsified) sources - or you might as well post nothing at all. -- Director (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear user Direktor aren't you tired of spending your time to qualify me of being a lying, a nationalist, an extremist and so on? If the objective is to push to me exhaustion I need to remind you that this effort won't be more productive than writing on sand.

Do you realise that untill now we have not seen any proposal from you? Is your edit more sourced than mine? Untill now certainly not. Please bear in mind that the mediator is giving us some time to find an agreement and we are showing we are not able to do so. However, I have literally copied section of text from the sources in my edit and I have also the exact location (pages and lines). This should be enough to check if I am lying or not.

Concerning the fact you are on the verge of reporting me for WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour, please go ahead if you think to be the victim here. It looks clear that we will almost certainly need the decision of a mediator to get out of this dispute. At least we shoudl try to have a civilised discussion in the meantime. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, those are not quotations from the sources but are your own WP:OR "summaries", probably again without real foundation. Please provide actual, direct quotations.

Ahonen. It is interesting that from Ahonen you take pp.107-108. On p.106 (second paragraph) he states: "It does not appear that an official decision for the general expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia was ever taken", going on to explain that the Yugoslav authorities discriminated only on the basis of ideological position (pro-fascism) and not ethnicity.

On pp.107-108, however, the author elaborates on each individual case of the exodus, stating that "The exodus of Italians, which is often described as an essentially unitary process, should, in reality, be broken up into specific cases". Then he goes on to elaborate on the individual cases of exodus. From these, you have WP:CHERRYPICKED the 1952 events from Zone B up in the extreme north of Istria, and presented them as a general occurrence.

As regards Rijeka: not only dooes that particular instance not require a mention in the lede, but you also presented events taking place there as a general occurrence once again ("in some cases, such as in Rijeka"). The author there also refers to the expulsion of the Italian "ruling class".

Ahonen is essentially another misrepresented source (as per usual). We can, however, discuss a more neutral wording representing the actual position of the reference. Please present a direct quotation from Ballinger p.109 -- Director (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have copied the original text from these sources, word by word. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There was never an official decision (even for the exodus of the Serbians from Krajna there was never an official decision). It was the effective behaviour of the authorities (or at least a part of them) that contributed to the exodus. I have clearly stated this in the present talk page and my sources confirm it. Please help yourself, go trough them. They are on Google books, it's free. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No-one is this article describe the process at unitary. What happened in the Zone B was relevant because interested 51.000 ethnic Italians (70% of the overall population of 68,000). --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not mispresented at all. An arbitration however will confirm it or not. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Rijeka was with Zadar the main centre of the Italian community in Istria and Dalmatia. Over 40,000 people left the city during the exodus. Major pressure was exerced to create such an exodus. We speak of places inhabited by 70%+ of ethnic Italians, where by 1970 the Italian community was reduced to less than 3% (sources on request). --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Direktor, I am still waiting for the sources supporting your POV. Where are they? --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, please do not distort the coherence of my posts in future. Second of all, you most certainly DID NOT copy the sources "word for word". Any moron realizes no three books use the exact same paragraph, and I checked two of your sources and they DO NOT have a unitary piece of text that even resembles what you wrote. What you did is copy-paste cherry-picked fragments from various sentences into one. I know, I read those sentences. Enough with the fraud, pls.

You never clearly stated that there was no government decision in your proposed text (which Ahonen states), instead you had some "it is debated" nonsense. You never mentioned the activities of the Yugoslav government in preventing the exodus, also mentioned by Ahonen on the same page. You never mentioned the incentives of the Italian government, and its insistence that ethnic Italian Yugoslav citizens be allowed to leave. The source never states that the "effective behaviour of the authorities contributed to the exodus" - those are your assessments. And if there were "300,000,000" exiles as you originally wrote, how can 51,000 be "70%". Not buying any of these wacky figures, sig. Silvio.

Of course no one describes the process as unitary. The point is that you listed atrocities from one area as being generally-occurring.

In such a manner, Ahonen is indeed misrepresented. Partially by omission, and partially by selective cherry-picking of data. And you may rest assured WP:ARBCOM is highly unlikely to bother with us.

Rijeka is notable enough as a specific case, but not for the lede in my view. And certainly not in the way you wrote it up: again implying various events there were somehow universal.

Thus far, all I see to discuss is Ahonen. Now, can you post an exact, direct, "word for word" quotation from Ballinger p.109. Or are you not going to do so? -- Director (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Direkor, I will be very brief because I am sick to death of this useless discussion and I had enough of reading about me in your posts.

1)I don't know if WP:ARBCOM is currently bothered with us, but if you continue like that they will certainly be. I don't know how sanctionable is your behaviour, but it is not polite and quite aggressive.

2)Untill now you have not presented us anything yet. Instead you look more interested in convincing third parties that I am a lier. Well I have proposed a text with relative sources. Now I am ready to discuss about any possible compromise but you need first to propose an alternative sourced variant. Direktor, discussing it's easy but research it's work.

3)I genuinely do not understand. If I am a lier (and I have precised well enough my sources so this should be not a problem) you need only to wait a couple of days and any mediation will give you gain de cause.

4)51.000 was 70% of the 68.000 population of zone B of the FTT when the exodus from this area had place. Nothing is wrong with this.

5)You are pushing the main Croatian POV on the Istrian exodus. Fine, but you need to source it with English/International reputable sources. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Because this debate has nearly degenerated into a spat between editors which is not going to be resolved, I am going to refer this to Misplaced Pages:DRN. I will be listed as a party, but only because I'm filing the dispute. Obviously, if Parties object to this, please inform me. --The Historian (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

My ability to participate on Wiki at this time is rather restricted. I don't know if I'll be able to join in in an appropriately-diligent manner. If you do refer this to DRN, please take note my chief concern is Silvio1973's misrepresentation of various sources. As I said, at least two (the ones I've been able to check) are certainly misrepresented, whereas the position of the third (Ahonen) is, in my view, distorted through cherry picking various sentences (and fragments of sentences) while ignoring statements that contradict Silvio's narrative.

Its a sticky situation because on the one hand we cannot dismiss sources, whereas on the other I think we also cannot allow Silvio1973 to post his biased and/or falsified misrepresentations. Optimally what is required is a read-thru of the source material Silvio brings forward, and its objective representation in the lede. That's what I'd do (and usually do), except that I'm not at my home computer and am extremely busy. -- Director (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, Ahonen and (particularly) Ballinger are indeed excellent sources, and their reliability & neutrality is not in question - it is Silvio1973's representation of their position that is in doubt.

Ahonen. Most of Silvio1973's additions appear to be based on Ahonen's statements. As I said, the text he cites with Ahonen is, however, not representative of the author's position:
- Silvio1973: "The formal responsibility of the Yugoslav Regime in the exodus is still today a matter of discussion amongst historians."

This is manifestly not supported by Ahonen on the page(s) mentioned. What he does state (on p.106) that "It does not appear that an official decision for the general expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia was ever taken" (i.e. in the terms of Silvio's text, the author denies the "formal responsibility" of the government).

Silvio1973: "However, the measures implemented, some summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities and the press forced the ethnic Italian to leave quickly and en masse."

This is also obviously Ahonen again. The "measures" here referred to are definitely Ahonen, but relate specifically to one instance of the exodus, whereas Silvio1973 presents them as occurring in general. In fact, Ahonen states "The exodus of Italians, which is often described as an essentially unitary process, should, in reality, be broken up into specific cases", and goes on to describe each case separately.

Silvio1973: "In some cases, such as in Rijeka (inhabited by an Italian majority), the arrival of the Yugoslavs was marked by a series of public murders and an intense policy of Croatization of the local population."

This is again one instance of the exodus (the town of Rijeka), the characteristics of which are essentially represented as generally-occurring in the process ("cases such as in Rijeka", which other cases??). I dare say that the other side of the coin of the "public murders" would be to call them "executions of Fascist collaborators by an angry mob". Silvio neglects to mention the author refers to ethnic Italians in this context as the "Italian rulers". MY main objection to this would be that Rijeka is just one town and is probably not relevant for the lede anyway - unless you are attempting to emphasize something or other by picking and choosing particular cases.

The general problem, on top of the above, is that Ahonen conveys a complete narrative of this highly complicated and tragic event, mentioning, for example, Italian insistence on the Yugoslav citizens of Italian ethnicity being allowed to leave against Yugoslav objections. And mentioning also the efforts of the Yugoslav government to stop the exodus. Silvio1973 has apparently perused this narrative and selected from it the worst instances he could find, and essentially presented them as generally-occurring - all the while ignoring the complexity of the events and anything not in accordance with the POV.

Ballinger. Ballinger is probably the better source, dealing specifically and in great detail with this event. And has been used on this article before, only to disappear over the months. However, Silvio's stuff appears to be primarily form Ahonen. When asked to demonstrate what it is that Ballinger states that he draws upon, he cited page 106 and quoted this sentence

"If the Socialism experiment in Yugoslavia was so wonderful, why would so many people abandon their homes and properties and found an uncertain future in Italy? The claim (later seconded by Tito's former collaborator and subsequently critic, Milovan Djilas) that the regime has purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria..."

It is exclusively the "claim that the regime has purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria..." that is relevant in the sentence - and the user cuts off right there in mid sentence. Presumably his moderate understanding of complex English forms led the user to believe the fragment would be indicative of Yugoslav responsibility? I must have asked 15 times to hear the remaining few words. Eventually I obtained access to page Ballinger's page 106, to find the full sentence, which reads:

"The claim (later seconded by Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic, Milovan Djilas) that the regime had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria further exposed the Yugoslav leadership to the charges of nationalist imperialism, used by Stalin to justify the Yugoslav Communist Party's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948."

The author merely refers to Stalin's accusations during the Tito-Stalin split. Not only that, but I could not find a single word on Ballinger p.106 that supported anything from Silvio's text. Then he shifted to claiming its Ballinger's p.109 that in fact supports him. I returned the book by then and, frankly, I deeply suspect there is again nothing on p.109 either. Silvio1973 refused repeated requests to provide a brief quotation.

And this is all on top of Silvio1973's previous misquotation of bbc.co.uk for his claim that "Croats helped Italians in the latter's WWII massacres". -- Director (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Direktor, you wrote quite a lot for someone busy doing something else. I suggest you to take a small break. Soon each of us will have to propose a version for the lede and sustain it with the best sources. And in the end accept the solution of the mediation. And I hope this will have place in a civilised manner.

Hi guys;

Since it appears that no consensus has materialised, this whole dispute has been filed at the DRN. Link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Istrian_exodus I'm only listed as a party because I filed the dispute, and I gave you a 3O. --The Historian (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed solution

For some reasons (perhaps because it is summer or because he is busy) User Direktor did not participate to the dispute resolution. However, based on the exchanges I propose a tentative solution. Most of my edit is moved out of the lede and is formatted to fit more the sources. What remains in lede of my initial edit has modified to include some comments from User Direktor. I hope it will work. Once compromise found we will remove the POV banner, of course --Silvio1973 (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories: