Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian exodus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

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)

The MVAC emblem. I thought it might be a fitting illustration here..

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). [1] -- 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:

• http://pulcinella291.forumfree.it/?t=63898902
• http://diblas-udine.blogautore.repubblica.it/2010/04/21/il-potere-di-dichiarare-sicuro-o-insicuro-il-campo-di-visco/
• http://u.jimdo.com/www30/o/sc5bcd2057fde6442/img/i2900d14197146f82/1327167673/orig/image.jpg

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 [2]. 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.

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.

Prominent members of Tito's inner group, such as Milovan Dilas and Edvard 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 Edvard 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)

Prominent members of Tito's inner group, such as Milovan Dilas and Edvard 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.(Literary and Social Diasporas, Gaetano Rando and Jerry Turcotte, Belgium, 2007)

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..." [3]. 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 [Silvio's Cut-Off] 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." [4] :) -- 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Wikipedia: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 [Silvio's Cut-Off] 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/wiki/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)

You are, once again, not being truthful: I most certainly did participate in the DRN thread [5] (as you know full well); it simply did not arouse interest. I also must say I wish your manner were less flowery and your proposals more in-line with sources. The key here is amicable cooperation, not oh-so-politely worded "proposals" from on high on the take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Direktor, I am just polite not flowary. You might want to do the same, this would not harm. And again stop consider untruthful everything that does not correspond to what you think. By defintion absolute objectivity in history does not exist and modern Croatian historiography (that by chance or choice seems be reflected in your views) certainly it is not in the top of objectivity (I can cite sources in this respect if you mind the tone of the sentence).

Without a source that directly and explicitly supports you, I can not agree to your implying the Yugoslav government was forcing its Italian citizens to leave. Ahonen (p.106) explicitly states no such decision was made, and you have a lot of convincing to do before I myself can agree to a text laden with implications to the contrary.

If you really are prepared to cooperate and compromise for a change (and are not just endlessly talking as before) - lets make a test of it. Please oblige me with a quotation from a source upon which you base your claim that "The formal responsibility of the Yugoslav Regime in the exodus is still today a matter of discussion." That's your first sentence. What statements from which source do you base that extraordinary summation on? -- Director (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can removed that sentence if this is what bothers you. It was there to find a compromise and express a fact: amongst historians some believe the Yugoslav Regime was formally responsable and other not. Indeed, Direktor if you want my view: I do not believe the Yugoslav Regime was formally responsable, but yes it was responsible (which does not mean guilty). Because nothing was done to avoid such a massive exodus (by istance Ahonen speaks of the growing optimism of a part of the Regime in seeing the Italian fleeing away.

It looks you are more interested to the actual formalism of things that on their essence. Even Serbia was not formally responsable for what was done in Bosnia or Croatia for what was done in Krajina or Albania in Kosovo. Yes there was never a document signed by the power in force. And so what? Howewer, it is what I have precised and I am modifying again it if this help to placate you. Once the lede approved I would like to continue in the rest of the article. We speak of an important event of the XX century and beside all differences of views, I believe such an event deserve a better article.

However, I am impressed. For a week you did not propose anything on the DRB and 12 hours after a modification on the article you reply promptly. Are you busy or not? Also, I would welcome to see some proposals (with English sources!) from you and not just concerns for what I do. Dear Direktor, only people that do not make anything are not in disagreement with the others. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not re-introduce your new changes again, please. This article falls under WP:ARBMAC, and you can read the {{Controversial}} template up there. There is no agreement for your edits. But lets discuss, and take the chance to try and solve this while I'm (briefly) back.

Ok, so I gather your first sentence has no direct support (as required by policy), and was based on your own summary of what you believe is the position of scholarship? If so, it does indeed "bother me so much", and I definitely can't agree on having it in the lede. Moving on. This is your second sentence:

"Even if does not appear that an official decision for the general expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia was ever taken, the actual measure implemented (summary killing, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities and the press) forced the ethnic Italian to leave quickly and en masse"

This sentence is the main problem. Increasingly familiar bad grammar aside, it appears to me as another OR work of your own, a WP:SYNTHESIS that "draws conclusions not evident in the reference". Let's go through it.

"summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities and the press". You refer to these as "implemented measures", and your sentence implies they were "implemented" by the government for the purpose of expelling ethnic Italians ("measures"). You also claim these supposed "measures" forced Italians to leave. Please indulge me with a quote and page number to show direct support for the following:

• #1 That each of the four "measures" actually took place.
• #2 That they are called "measures" in sources ("implemented" or otherwise). A term that implies purpose.
• #3 That they were implemented by the government (since that's what you imply). And that they were implemented with the purpose to expel Italians (as is implied by the term "measures").
• #4 That said "measures" caused Italians to leave.

The above is your sentence in dissected form, all four claims are included in it - its basically what you're saying. If you based the sentence directly on source material, you should presumably have no problem showing direct support for each point. -- Director (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I report in the lede what is written in Ahonen at page 108. Ahonen speaks of measures implemented in the North as similar to those used elsewhere in Istria and list them as: summary killing, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities and the press. However I have changed the wording according to your comment.

You know better than me that reporting exactly the text of the book in the lede is not possible (for obvious reasons of briefness). Of course we need to make a summary. Now it looks that you are against all of my edits. Well, you know the sources. Please go to the book at page 108, read the page and propose any amendment to my text. Do what you want, but propose something instead of complaining all the time.

I am reverting my edit, not because it think is perfect but because I think can be used as basis of discussion. If you want to revert, please DO NOT revert everything because there are plenty of things I added that should not create an issue to issue. Rolling back all the work is perhaps not a constructive approach.

Please also mind that until now you have not proposed one, but only one, source in support of your edit.

Last but not least, a 3O was requested (and gave me right), the issue was carried on the DRB but you contributed only in the beginning but after you did not propose any version for the lede (why?). I can continue here for 2 months if things move forward every day, even little by little. If you just revert my edits, without proposing anything I will request a RfC. Indeed, you look more interested in writing Kbytes in this talk page but when it comes the time or a more official instance of discussion you are merely not interested. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly the WP:BURDEN is on you, not me. Secondly, a 3O does not "give you right". Lets move on, however. Here are a few additional points of concern:

• #1 The selective representation of Ahonen, as I said before. I propose to remedy this by including (rather than excluding) some info from the paragraph immediately above the one you use (pp.107-108). The crucial elements I feel are omitted are as follows:
  • The 1948 Treaty of Paris, on Italian insistence and against Yugoslav objections, granted inhabitants of Istria the option to leave. Also, "Thanks to Italy's diplomatic intervention, the options [to leave] were renewed in 1950." (It almost seems as though the Italian government wanted to strip Istria of remaining Italians?!)
  • "Yugoslav authorities tried to curb the flow of emigrants, putting up a series of bureaucratic hurdles."
  • The Yugoslav authorities attempted to stem the exodus by threatening its proponents.

In short, a) the complicity of the Italian government in demanding the immigration be allowed is ignored, as well as b) Yugoslav attempts to stop it. Do you agree on my modifying the article paragraph to include aforementioned elements?

• #2 I would switch "Even" in your sentence with "While".
• #3 I would remove all refs there besides Ahonen.

-- Director (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, yes you are right the burden is on me for my edits, but of course it's on you for your.

There is one thing we should reciprocally understand. At the end of this dispute the final version will not be of your taste and not of mine. This is what it's called compromise. In other words we are condamned to success, unless the intention is to spend an entire life arguing and I guess we have better to do.

We need to be necessery brief in the lead. According to the sources I cite, it is clear that the size of the exodus was much larger than what expected (and whished) by the Yugoslav regime. If some members of the regime saw with growing enthusiasm (I quote Ballinger) the exodus, others were concerned of the impact that such exodus would have on the country's reputation. We will write this in the article, of course. But I guess not in the lede, that should by obvious reason restricted to few lines. The lede should just describe the events, the reason should be reported after. At the end of the day the reader should take the pain to get into the article and not merely be satisfied reading the first 10 lines of the article. Wikipedia is already making people in the world allergic to books. People cannot pretend to learn about an event like this reading just 10 lines !

This article has the potential to become a very good one. As long we agree that it should report - in a proper manner - the wide range of views from the most reputable sources (and there are many).

Italy did not want to strip Istria of remaining Italians, but please understand this once for all. Yugoslavs went really hard with the ethnic Italians. Over 10,000 people were killed and they were not all fascists. 650 were killed in the only Istria. The people were bloody scared and with reason. Whatever bureucratic hurdle you put after so much violence people leave. And it was not easy for them to leave, expecially for the communities estabilished there for centuries. On top of that the ultra-nationalism took over on the socialist ideals. Italy was not in condition to negotiate a better deal in Paris. There was negotiation to give the West of Istria to Italy in exchange of a larger portion of territory in the North of Venezia-Giulia (I can provide sources). In the end the only thing that could be done was to permit to those people to leave.

In conclusion, fine for your proposition as long we can make it brief, neutral and not tendentious. I have an idea on what write but I prefere this time to leave the first word to you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Reviewing Ahonen, you will find (on p.109) his summary regarding the motivations for the emigration. He states flat out that "modern historiography places social and economic factors to the forefront", and follows that up with a reference.

Your text implies otherwise. You chopped "-to leave quickly and en masse." from "Italians were pressured to leave quickly and en masse" and attached that to "summary killings, confiscations", and other actions by the government, adding that these "forced the Italians" (+to leave quickly and en masse). I'm sorry, but this is a POV Frankenstein of misrepresentation.

• I took "summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities" and placed them in Ahonen's proper context of examples of violence that took place - not as the prime causes of the emigration as your lede states. I introduced a summary of what Ahonen actually states on motivations (p.109).

• The part of your sentence pertaining to Yugoslav government complicity I introduced in the form of a small paragraph conveying what Ahonen has to say on that significant subject.
  I placed "-to leave quickly and en masse" in that context, where it belongs per Ahonen. I.e. describing Yugoslav "pressuring" - not as descriptive of something that occurred ("Italians were pressured to leave quickly and en masse").

The following is based directly, without OR and misrepresentation, on Ahonen pp.107-109:

Motivations behind the emigration are complex. Fear caused by the initial post-war violence (summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities) was a factor. However, modern historiography places social and economic conditions to the forefront. Factors such as the general repressiveness of the communist state, nationalization in Yugoslavia, and the subversion of traditional social and cultural hierarchies in the context of the new country.

On the Yugoslav side, it does not appear that an official decision for expulsion of Italians in Yugoslavia was ever taken. The actions of the Yugoslav authorities were contradictory: on the one hand, there were efforts to stem the flow of emigrants, such as placement of bureaucratic hurdles for emigration and suppression of its local proponents. On the other hand, Italians were pressured to leave quickly and en masse.

You do not appear to understand that we must go between both copyright infringement and misrepresentative WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. (I am also not here to chat, but discuss article changes) -- Director (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In case I was unclear, I posted the draft here so we might discuss any objections without the antagonism reverting tends to generate. I assume you have some objections to this formulation? -- Director (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am pleased that we are at least reducing the number of areas of disagreement. Let's get into those areas.

1)It seems that you downsize the impact of the numbers of such massacre (perhaps because in the context of the casualties of WWII and of the toll paid by former Yugoslavia it is a relatively small number) but you tend to underestimate the impact that such killings had on small communities. Ahonen, Petacco, Ballinger, Rando and Bramwell make clear in their books that the killings where one of the main reasons to make the ethnic Italians leaving. Perhpas they write it down in a way that does not satisfy all tastes, but this is another argument. Rarely history books are so direct (unless we do not face an extreme situation such as the Genocide in Srebrenica or in Rwanda). And never the very reputable ones, because good historians know that it is never good boys against the bad ones.

2) On one thing I tend to agree, this exodus lasted around 15 years. In the beginning the killings were one (if not the main) reason but in the late 50's it was more the nature of the Yugoslav regime. Now it is also true that numerically the most of the exodus had place during the first years. We should account for that in the article, but not necesserely in the lede.

3) Please mind that I dislike here such a recurrent use of the word emigration, because contains a strong element of willingness of the people to leave. Let's use it with moderation.

My proposal to your edit:

The exodus started in 1943 and ended in 1960. According to sources between 250,000 and 350,000 people left. In 1961 less than 20,000 Italians lived in Yugoslavia, around 10% of the Italian population before World War II. Modern historiograph considers the motivation of the exodus as multiple. The fear caused by the initial post-war violence (summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities) was the main reason of departure during the first years of the exodus. Later on, other factors such as the repressiveness of the communist state and the subversion of traditional social and cultural hierarchies in the new Yugoslav state, bolstered the departure of ethnic Italians.

I would not write more in the lede but later in the article and I would explain with the whole thing entering in all the details, starting with the second sentence you propose. This thing is too complex and IMHO there is no way here we can condensate in the lede without making things standing more in favour of one side rather than on another. But if you are really keen we can make it longer, but this will make of course the research of consensus more difficut. Also we should not populate the lede with sentences politically correct but obscure. This article is not here for our benefit, but of future readers.--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Numbers of the exodus are another topic, they certainly need inclusion. Lets finish Motivations and Yugoslav complicity. I too am glad to see some progress, but I have two objections:

• re Motivations. You are again suggesting we misrepresent Ahonen. Ahonen does not say socio-economic factors were predominant "later" - but overall (speaking in general). I cannot agree to that modification as it does not correspond with the source.
• Under no circumstances can I agree to omit Ahonen's coverage of Yugoslav government complicity. This subject is of very high importance and deserves treatment in the lede - not least to balance it out against implications to the contrary of sources.

So in short I submit again the paragraphs I posted in my previous post. I agree numbers need to be added to the lede in general, but speaking of the two paragraphs I do not agree with your change to the first one, nor the omission of the second. I frankly think they're good, I think they follow the source very closely, and I think they ought to go in. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not to be rude but I would appreciate it if we could wrap this up in a few days? -- Director (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I also want to get this thing solved in one or two days. I will reply today to your proposal. I am not concerned with the content but it is to my taste too long for the lede. Also it speaks clearly to you and me and another handful of people interested on the topic, but not to a general audience. The fact is that this matter is complex and the reader need to go trough the all article to understand what happened.

Concerning your comment about the reasons I do not think we get into OR admitting that the killings were the dominant reason in the beginning, very simplistically because summury killings had place only until 1949. IMHO the distinguo should remain, but I see your point. Can we write "a main factor" or "one of the main factor"? You see Direktor, I try to convince myself that without the around 10,000 killings in the years 1943-1948 the magnitude of the exodus would have been the same. No way I do not get there. Nor Ahonen and Ballinger ignored it. The fact that something is clearly not written, does not mean should be ignored. My proposal:

The exodus started in 1943 and ended in 1960. According to sources between 250,000 and 350,000 people left. In 1961 around 20,000 ethnic Italians lived in Yugoslavia, less than 10% of their population before World War II.
Motivations behind this exodus are complex. Fear caused by the initial post-war violence (summary killings, confiscations and pressure from the governmental authorities) was a main factor, but modern historiography places also social and economic conditions to the forefront. Factors such as the general repressiveness of the communist state and the subversion of traditional social and cultural hierarchies in the new country.
It does not appear that an official decision for expulsion of Italians in Yugoslavia was ever taken. Nevertheless, the actions of the Yugoslav authorities were contradictory. Efforts were made to stem the flow of emigrants, such as placement of bureaucratic hurdles for emigration but on the other hand, Italians were pressured to leave quickly and en masse.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sigh.. See, this is why I don't trust you very much (with respect). You want the text to adhere to your perception of what must have caused the events - not how the source puts it.

I don't like your changes. Modern historiography doesn't "also" place socio-economic factors to the forefront alongside the killings - it "places them to the forefront" explicitly instead of the killings. As Ahonen states outright. The killings are not the "main factor", the source does not call them that. You or I may or may not think this is reasonable or unreasonable - but we did not spend years in research on the subject and/or publish something on it. Our own ideas are irrelevant, and should under no circumstances influence our text.

I also don't like how you're omitting parts of what Ahonen has to say on Yugoslav efforts against the exodus. I am a veteran editor, and please allow I have a very good idea of when a lede is too expansive. This one is actually too brief.

Finally - please leave the emigration numbers outside of the drafts, and please postpone that topic until we're done with these two paragraphs? I generally agree with you, but I believe Motivations and Yugoslav Government are self-contained topics that we need to get rid of first. I naturally don't mind modifications to the two paragraphs (that's why I posted them here), but these thus far are blatant distortions of the source materiel. I just cannot go along with them, under any circumstances. -- Director (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you seem to cannot go along with anything which goes against your POV. From a methodological point of view you should cease asap to say other people are driven by their POVs while that's quietly true also for you. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Writing reports is tedious work, Vituzzu, and I really do not care what fantasies you've constructed regarding who I am, but if you start WP:HOUNDING me now and continue posting WP:PAs, I have to say you look much more likely to go the way of Brunodam than myself. Please do not transport your distasteful conduct over here.

@Silvio, I feel bad, I really want to move forward, but I couldn't possibly agree to distorting what the source states on such sensitive questions. The source does not say "also", and he doesn't say "main" factor. And why not mention the Yugoslavs persecuted exodus proponents? -- Director (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to put a bunch of non-related links, it has turned into a global issue rather than a local one, didn't you yet realised that? --Vituzzu (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, it is much easier to disagree and to agree. In general, war it's easier to do then peace. I consider you should revise your language, because it does not help. And does not honor you. I could also write that I do not trust you or that you push a POV or that you use WP as mere vector of national propaganda (as many other users in the past did in your respect). But I do not, very simplistically because I do not think so. I merely think you are a different individual, with different views. Let's answer to your queries.

1)Here we do not speak of my perception. Here we speak of sources. Both Ahonen and Ballinger precise - even if they do not say it with the words that you like - that different stages of the exodus were triggered and bolstered by different situation. This exodus lasted 17 years. Also, going trough the report of the mixed Slovenian-Italian commission what I say appears clear. This is not my OR. Ahonen says at page 106: The exodus of Italians ... should in reality be broken up into specific territorial cases ... that had their particular characteristics. And after list different situations (starting from Zadar to finish to the partition of the FTT). At page 107 says also: The Italians inhabitants, accused of being enemies of the people, found themselves in an unbearable situation.

2) Ahonen does not write what you say. He writes: There were attempts to stem the exodus by threatening its 'instigators'. Mind well, the word instigators in the source is within brackets. So please, do not try to push too much this concept that really someone was instigating the Italians to leave. The source does not say so.

3) Ahonen qualifies the reasons you report as merely other reasons and put well the violence as the main motivation. And precises that: more recent historiography has tended (mind well, tended) to put the other reasons in the forefront. This does not equate to: modern historiography put that reasons in the forefront, as you suggested. Read page 109 if you are not convinced.

I still believe there is room to find an agreement. But please try no to insist in making the balance too much on your side or otherwise we will have to put in the lede only what makes us both comfortable and we will have to develop all the concept later in the article. This would be sad, we can make better.--Silvio1973 (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• For that paragraph, I draw support from Ahonen's Corni's concluding summary on motivations, where he speaks in general terms There he states outright that modern historiography tends to place social and economic factors to the forefront overall. I intend to quote him on that, and I will not agree to your obvious attempts to diminish or alter the meaning of that statement:
  • I will not agree to say these factors were predominant "later" - rather than overall.
  • I will not agree to add your own WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH regarding whatever you think were "main factors" at certain times. Find direct support for that, and we can introduce it in the context of individual phases of emigration - not in the paragraph that discusses motivations overall.

Ahonen Corni is your own source - now follow him, closely and accurately. Kindly adhere to project policy and guidelines.

• And I will not agree to your censoring for no reason, other than bias, what Ahonen Corni has to say re contradictory Yugoslav activities. No way.

I take your point regarding wording, but weren't you the one who complained we shouldn't copy the sources verbatim? I attempted to use more encyclopedic wording - but fine, I'll copy down his sentences exactly. -- Director (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Scratch the above. I've been investigating that ref. It turns out that Pertti Ahonen is just the editor. The actual author, who of course wrote the Istrian chapter - is one "Gustavo Corni". Which does much to explain the bias I couldn't help but detect in his approach. Upon discovering this newest probably-deliberate deception on your part (you continuously misquoted "Ahonen" as the author), I cannot but advocate discarding the source altogether. I am extremely annoyed, disappointed and, frankly, angry as all hell. I am sick of this constant dishonesty, and really want to report it for the WP:DISRUPTION it most likely constitutes. I will not agree to using Sig. Gustavo under any circumstances, except to illustrate the Italian point of view with attribution ("Italian author Gusravo Corni claims, etc.") -- Director (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, you cannot upset like this everytime people disagree with you. I have gone trough previous disputes you had and it looks a general behavior. Well, again it does not help. And will not work, because I will remain calm and polite whatever you say or do. Answers to your queries:

1) I did not know - in the slightest - who was the actual author of that section. The author of the book is presented as Pertti Ahone et al. I could not know.

2) However, this does not make any difference to me. What makes the reputation of the source is the editor. If the author is a reputable English / American / Canadian institution and the author is Italian or Croatian for me does not make a difference. Assuming that whoever is Italian describes the event to favor a specific point of view, tastes of ethnic discrimination. I cannot agree on this approach. And feel free to report my conduct to WP:DISRUPTION, if you think it deserves it. Basically you are saying that if someone reputable enough to be edited by Oxford, Princetown, Cambridge is Italian, then this impinge on the reputation of the source. Interesting point of view...

3) What you are trying to have edited in the lede is not more supported than mine. The difference is that I try to have something written that is not quoted directly and you try to have something edit only because in opposition to my edit. Awkward approach, even to describe.

4) You try to have on the lede the idea that Italian Government incited the exodus. Indeed this was your first version of facts. Now it is more hiddenly presented, but still there. Direktor, this is historically false. The mixed Slovenian-Italian commission at page reports at point 7 of period 1945-1956 that: Italian government more than once exerted its influence to stop or at least restrict immigration.. Direktor, Italy was a destroyed country, there were not houses for the Italians and you want to make us believe that Italian Government gave support and incited the immigration of over 250,000 people? There is no source saying that and after you speak to me of misrepresentation? Please...

5) Since our discussion escalated you have been editing the article. I have realized this today. I was not even controlling because applying good faith to you. Please Direktor, refrain from modifying an article that is already on dispute.

6) You have removed the edit concerning Djilas in 1945/1946. Well, this is sourced and I will enforce all the available options given by WP to have it in. And of course if an administrator will give right to you I will accept the decision.

7) Direktor, you insist in displaying that image reporting the actions of some Fascists in Dignano as represented of the general conduct of Italians in Istria. Do you want me to prove with sources that such events were occasional and not representing the general conduct of the Italians in Istria. Indeed I can source the opposite, i.e. that the Fascism had a major problem in making the ethnic Italians to adhere to such policy of discrimination against the Slavs.

8) I am not pleased that we are stuck in this situation. There are a lot of things in my sandbox waiting to be written in the rest of the article and this prolonged discussion delays the entire job.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The "ethnic" classification of historians doesn't work at all. For instance, Slovenian authors deal with ~40.000 Italian exiles from Slovenia, while Croatian most notable historians deal with ~190.000 IT exiles from their country, finally most prominent Italian historians (I won't take into consideration neo-fascist hyperboles) consider about 250.000 people moving away from both countries, from a mathematical point of view they're saying the same thing, regardless of their citizenships. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tried to explain to our colleague Direktor, but could not persuade him. Perhaps the issue is that there are no Yugoslav / Croatian authors edited by so many reputable English speaking institutions. May be the issue is of content not of nationality. However I have just gone trough the WP guidelines there is nothing like that. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You tried to explain what? That you've been caught fabricating sources and blatantly misrepresenting them? That your edits are merely based on these opinionated personal theories you feel the need to explain over and over again? That you introduced those same figures Vituzzu refers to as neo-fascist hyperbole? "250,000 - 350,000" was your edit. I happen to agree with the figures in Vituzzu's summary. Note the difference between "190,000 - 250,000", and your own. The summary is generally not disputed, and hence its fine if someone wishes to remove the nationalities.

I also don't buy all this "edited by respectable institutions" nonsense you're peddling. That book was just plain published, its not even a peer-review publication. For years now on this article, both Yugoslav and Italian sources are used with attribution of nationality for reasons of WP:THIRDPARTY and NPOV - when used to source controversial claims; they pretty much cancel each-other out anyway. If you really need to introduce contentious claims here, than surely you can find a non-Italian/Yugoslav author who agrees with you. In no case will I myself agree to deviation from this practice.

To be clear, its fine using Yugoslav/Italian refs - to reference the Italian/Yugoslav point of view. As in "Slovene historian XY holds there were 40,000 refugees", or "Italian author Corni states this or that".. I can not, and will not, under any circumstances agree to base our lede on authors that belong to one side of this controversial international dispute. There are sources aplenty that belong to neither Let us move on to Ballinger, probably the best source on this. -- Director (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and P.s. Silvio, I did not actually edit the article (added something, then removed it), though I hope you will be there to "control" me when I do (lol). as for Djilas - your basic facts are accurate, but your text is again disgustingly biased and misrepresentative. Djilas was a Yugoslav dissident, an opponent of the Yugoslav government: that must be made clear, his statements (while certainly noteworthy) must be viewed as claims and be clearly attributed to him - not reported as facts. -- Director (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I will be back tomorrow with Ballinger's take on the motivations for the exodus. I'll try to find a paragraph where she summarizes the issue, so as to provide suitable wording for the lede. -- Director (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, clearly it does not help that you are upset like this. I am not less annoyed than you by this thing but I believe we should try to remain calm. Is it possible that you end classifying anyone with different views from as a right-wing extremist? I do not like to make such comparison but please note that such arguments have been used in the XX century in some nations and with limited success. However:

1) I do not control you. I found out it by chance and many days later.

2) I did not say that we should use Italian and Yugoslav/Croatian sources. I think we should not. But considering Italian or Croatian a source because the scholar is Italian or Croatian even if the source is edited in English and by English/American reputable institutions it's a different matter.

3) Djilas organised the propaganda in 1946-7 when he was not a dissident. This is a fact. And he confirmed to the press that he organised that propaganda in 1991. Tito had been dead so many years before that in his grave were only bones by 1991. So I do not understand the link with the fact that he was a dissident. Here we discuss if he did or not something (i.e. organising the propaganda to pressure the ethnic Italians to leave). And I did not report anything else than the source. If for some reasons you want to contest the source, please tell us on which ground. And sincerely I do not see what do you find of so disgusting in this. Around 10,000 people were killed. You aknowledge that as a fact of history but you find disgusting that Djilas did some propaganda along with Kardelji in Istria. We speak of an exodus with a ratio expelled/killed of less than 25. It's a lot (and consider that almost all 10,000 were killed in the first 3 or 4 years when only 100,000 had left). And you still want to interpretate the sources admitting that in 1943-1945 it was the nature of the Yugoslav Regime to make the people leaving? Honestly... --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Added summary of Motivations and Phases per Ballinger and Weldes. Followed source material practically word-for-word (practically!). Moving on to numbers. We need to scrap the unsourced "350,000" number and stick with 190,000 (Croatian) - 250,000 (Italian). Also, found source for contemporary Croatian majority in Istria (Bousfield); no surprises there. -- Director (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The summary you report is word by word what Pamela Ballinger writes and this in principle fine for me. What I do not like is that if we agrees to take a scholar as a reference in the lede, this scholar should not contradict him/herself in another source (i.e. Pamela Ballinger has to decide what she thinks). More clearly what makes me uncomfortable is the sentence most compromised with the Fascism because later in 2003 she writes that also innocent people were killed. If it cannot be contested that most compromised people with the Fascism were the ones exposed (with reason!), writing exactly as Ballinger suggests is in contradiction with the scholar itself and with other sources used in the very same article, including the Slovene-Italian report: Endeavors to carry out preventive cleansing of real, potential or only alleged opponents of the communist regime, and the annexation of Julian March to the new SFR Yugoslavia..

I propose a solution to this via a correction to your test so that we can move after on numbers and afterwards find a way to report my accurate facts about Djilas (your words) in a way that I hope won't be disgusting (always to quote your words) to you. And find a solution for this leafleat that occupies an undue place in the article. Of course if you are uncomfortable witht this, let's continue to talk. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The author does not contradict herself, you've not shown anything of the sort and I'm not about to take your word for it. Ballinger is probably the foremost scholar specializing in these events.

Clearly you do not understand what "most compromised with the Fascist state" means in that context. Please refrain from butchering sentences from the source and rendering them illegible.

I'm starting to see a pattern here. I follow the source exactly, then you demand we distort them to one degree or another in order to accommodate what are essentially your own personal syntheses. -- Director (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, "most compromised" can mean a lot of things, indeed. Can mean everything from people a relocated teacher to an army officer who persecuted locals during the Fascism. My correction might (mind well might) be illegible but the current one is not clear how it should be understood. And please refrain from using always the word "context". Things have to be clear to everyone, not only to those who knows about the "context". Perhaps if I do not understand, someone else might not understand. We are not all cultivated, intelligent and well educated like you. If you want me to preferring a source rather than another you have to compromise it (at least a little) with the other sources. That sentence, removed out of context can be equated to something else. You know very well what.

PS However, your connational Franjo Tudjman also considered that ethnic Italians expelled out of Istria were all compromised with Fascism (indeed he said they were fascists).

PPS The most foremost scholar", according to whom? She must be around 40 years olf so I have a doubt about her notoriety. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the author's summary of these events. This is what the author thought relevant to mention and/or take into consideration when describing the events in several sentences. That's the value of such a summary. I do not agree we should modify the source, least of all based on your "impressions".

In short there is no ambiguity in Ballinger's statement; if you think there is, you are wrong. There is nothing to misunderstand. I'm afraid this project is written with English-speakers in mind. Do not presume to "clarify" world-class scholars from a university publication edited by four other world-class scholars.

Imo you're just looking to remove mention of the fact that the phases of emigration included "those who were most compromised with the Fascist regime". Rather than the silly concept that such a statement needs to be "clarified". That will not fly. -- Director (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Direktor. I have right now e-mailed Pamela Ballinger and asked her what she intends to mean with that sentence. Also I have kindly requested her - in case she also would find the sentence ambiguous - to provide an alternative formulation.

I do not mind at all writing that people compromised with the Fascism were exposed, what I mind is that said in such a way, it can be understood that being compromised with the Fascism was a condition necessary and sufficient to be exposed.

I consider Ahonen being world class and also Anna Bramwell. I could even consider A. Petacco being world-clas (indeed I don't in the slightest but I could, if I wanted). However, the article is in dispute and exactly as you did remove my edits because qualified of misrepresentation, I am entitled to do the same with yours untill a compromise is not found. There is no reason that your sources should be preferred to mine. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have honestly had enough. Do not change what the source states - that is misrepresentation and misquoting, I've seen too much of that from you as it is. If you do actually start another edit war to distort sourced material I will report this entire farce on WP:AE as WP:DISRUPTION. Respect sources and sourcing policy.

Even if you did actually decide to bother prof. Ballinger with this nonsense (*facepalm*), are you aware we're only supposed to quote published sources (*double facepalm*)? And what makes you think I or anyone else here would necessarily believe anything you claim to have gotten from the professor (considering your record)? -- Director (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely forward you the e-mail and of course you could check if I am sincere or not. Do you really think that I would spoil the value of my word just to have this page edited in a certain way. I know the value of the word "honesty". And for this reason - opposely to you - I do not qualify the others of being a lier. Because this is a serious and big offense.

However, this does not change the issue. You removed my edits saying that they were misrepresentating the source. I think you do the same extracting from a entire book (by the way I checked Ballinger's CV: her only book) the sentence more convenient to you. You see Direktor, I am not going to remove anything you put in the lede. But if you put disputed matter (if corresponding to a source) I can do the same. Do you think this would help? You should realise that with the force you will not get anywhere. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no reciprocity here, my stuff is meticulously sourced, whereas your modifications thereof are NOT. Your stuff thus far has been nothing but selective misrepresentation - or just plain fake quotes. E.g. you wrote the stuff by cherry-picking from "Ahonen" and constructing incredible "Frankenstein sentences", then you just misquoted a few additional sources besides to make your stuff stick. Then it turns out "Ahonen" didn't write a word of it, but instead Gustavo Corni... And this is just the tip, shall we talk about the fake Ustaše source? Do not talk to me of honesty who is here basically "employed" just trying to unravel the incredible POV mess you've created and follow the sources.

If you have sources that contradict Ballinger, or differently-worded summaries we can compare - by all means - present them. But give me their (exact) words, not yours. If you post more distortions and misquoted, cherry-picked nonsense, instead of meticulously sourced additions, I will indeed revert. Make sure you have quotes in short. -- Director (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Djilas material is by an Italian ref (Rando). If you do find a source, it must be made clear these are claims by a Yugoslav dissident who served time in prison (Djilas claimed he and Kardelj were sent"..). Finally, such claims are not for the lede.
• Rijeka is also by an Italian ref (Corni), but I'm willing to let it stay without attribution. Its not for the lede, however. -- Director (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Pamphlet

I must confess that I do not understand how things can degenerate on this project. We are already having so much trouble in finding an arrangement on the lede and I see those small disputes starting in the rest of the article, such as this "edit-war" on this pamphlet. Don't we have more important things on the plate?

However, in the respect of this pamphlet I need to clarify the following:

1) It is abnormal to have 5 lines of caption for something like this. Also this pamphlet is alredy present in the article Italianization. And after all is it sensitive to give to this stupid pamphlet almost the same space that on other more important matters in the article?

2) We do not know where this document come from. Perhaps it did not even represent the opinion of the local Italian administration. I am sure that Direktor would complain (and with reason!) if I was using a similar document (such the picture of one of numerous graffitis made on a wall in Pola or Fiume) and I was trying to sell it as official position of the Yugoslav government

3) Very likely this document is true but do you all realise that your represent with this document a POV that could be extremely restricted? It is like if I report on the article a document from a Yugoslav extremist and claim that the Istrian exodus was a pre-ordinate plan of ethnic cleansing. I am going to be bold and I am removing this thing untill we do not find a due way to use this kind of "source". Should I also make everyone noting that in the project this "document" is used in an endless number of article? Should I also remember that local ethnic Italians never used a discriminatory policy against the Slavs (and not the opposite). At least not in Istria?

4) Most important. Please see this extract from the Slovenian-Italian commission:

On the other hand, Italian liberal governments - although within the general plan of the Italianisation of the annexed territory - were generous in making promises to the Slovene minority and allowed for the restoration of its national representative organisations, revival of education in Slovene and the activities of organisations which were urgently needed by the Slovene national community for its development. The plan of the preservation of partial autonomy, following the example of that enjoyed by the annexed territory during the Austrian rule - which was supported by political representatives of Venezia Giulia and Trento and respected by pre-fascist governments - could contribute to better relations between the minority population and the state. In addition, the Italian Parliament voted in favour of the protection policy towards the Slovene minority.. THIS IS A SOURCE, so please let's discuss before pushing more POV's with pictures of doubtful origin. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Categorically opposed to the deletion of long-standing and relevant image providing all-important historical context. Not interested in what you consider "abnormal", your arguments do not justify removal nor do they have much relevance on the issue; am not prepared myself to discuss this in any great length. I'm sure we won't "edit war" if you do not try to push blatant POV in such a manner.

See Corni, your own source, on p.103:

"At least two points should be borne in mind to place the exodus of the Istrians in its proper context: the policies of the Italian fascist government vis-à-vis population groups defined as "alien" between the two world wars, as well as during the war..."

-- Director (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I am not going to edit-war. I got better to do and what is more important I do not "discuss" like you (i.e. I do no get upset when others disagree with me). At the end of the day, it is so abnormally undue the weight given to that image that I doubt that caption will resist in the time. Concerning your last comment, we speak of the lede. There is an entire article and it looks you are only interested to the first 10 lines. The intent should not to make out of this article a vehicle to give a specific opinion to distracted readers. I insist on the necessity to have in the lede the most neutral and shared content and to develop in details everything afterwards.

I need to ask you the intellectual honesty to realise that using an image of doubtful origin (do you know who posted it?) to arrive to a conclusion it's like making OR from scrap. Where this image is from? God only knows who made it. It's already too much to have it on the page without knowing the actual source but arriving to conclusions it's stretching the whole thing too fare. If we start making OR from images we open the door to everything, but really everything.

Have you realised the frequency of the words POV, nationalist, fascist, extremist, irredentist, right-wing and similar in your posts? I realised that this worked in the past because you faced users with hot blood, but it will not work with me. I will remain calm whatever it happens.

PS However, we have a problem now, the images overlap one on the other and we dot understand anymore to which period correspond each image. There is clearly too much there. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Compromise found ?

Dear Direktor, if you want to post disputed (but sourced material) I am entitled to do the same. You are extracting out of an entire pile of sources what is more convenient. I was ready to give you reason (even if this version of the lede was not of my taste) because at some point a compromise need to be found in exchange of a minor correction. It did not worked. It is really sad. We were close to a compromise but this has proven impossible.

At the end of the day the current length of the lede is still acceptable. You have reported some text, I have added the rest. The two are sourced and not in disagreement so they can stay. We can move on numbers on the numbers of people. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is another excellent example of your brand of disruption. See above for my response. -- Director (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am filing a RfC. It is not possible that everyone discussing with you should undertake such an effort everytime. Here the possibilities are two: 1) We are all ignorant and do not understand anythig. 2)You are here the one always being right. Let's see what other users think.

PS I understand now why you have 45,000 edits. If every time, to get to consensus with you, it takes a minimum of 200 edits it does not a long time to get to 45,000. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You have #1 no respect for accurate representation of sources, #2 no respect or understanding of basic Wikipedia policy, #3 poor understanding of complex English forms, #4 you do not adhere to user understanding (continuous use of Italian sources). You fraudulently add sources that do not support your text and that you apparently hadn't even read, you distort and cherry-pick from sources you have read, you misattribute statements to people who had not written them ("Ahonen"). You demand to be allowed to alter and distort what the sources state. For all this I can provide diffs. I would need 20,000 edits to move one millimetre with you. I doubt anyone is as crazy as I am to actually waste time trying to make sense of your claims and fake sources. -- Director (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Rolled back fully. Oppose adding the Rijeka stuff without attribution to "Italian author Gustavo Corni". Oppose addition of your Djilas "construct" without similar attribution (to Gaetano Rando) and modified wording reflecting the fact that this is the claim of a Yugoslav dissident and convict - not a fact. Oppose adding either to the lede in any event. Goes without saying I oppose your Corni-based paragraph as a Frankensteinian POV concoction that badly misrepresents what is anyway a source that needs to be attributed. -- Director (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also Tito said of Djilas that he was just a convict. It is very sad that you speak in such terms of one of the very few true communist of Yugoslavia. However, at this stage there is little room to discuss. I recognise you experience as veteran user, but you cannot treat like you have just done every user disagreeing with you. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I know very well who Djilas is; he was certainly no "communist" ("Communism doesn't work. It works neither at the economic level nor at the level of satisfying essential human needs and liberties... Communism is a 19th-century relic and a prescription for disaster"). He was not "just" a convict, but he was also a convict. By the time he made those claims about his past he had long-since become an opponent of the old Yugoslav government, and had served time in Yugoslavia. I am of course neither a socialist nor communist nor anarcho-liberal as Djilas was, so I do not understand your "sadness".

Silvio, we had agreed no to use Italian or Yugoslav sources. I have not brought any Croats up (as I easily can), but everything you've written is based on either Corni or Rando. As I keep repeating like a parrot: neutral sources, with quotes (like Ballinger!) and we're fine. Preferably you could find summaries of the events to find wording better suited for the lede (as I have done!).

But the fundamental problem here is that your intent is to convey your own perception of these events, as made obvious by your frequent monologues on the subject, rather than that of neutral sources. -- Director (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, we were very close to find a compromise. I agreed on 90% of the text and required only a minor modification. Let's be clear there are at least 3 or 4 reputable sources here. I agreed to take Ballinger with a correction (minor I believe) in order to make the lede consistent with the rest of the article.

The argument of the nationality of the scholar is not relevant. We do not even know about the nationality, indeed. However, if you find a Croatian scholar edited by Oxford, Cambridge or Stanford, this would be fine for me. Mind for example that I would never used Petacco or Monzali here as sources, because their works are not absolutely neutral. But in the case of the two sources used here: Rando and Corni the situation is different. They are published along with other foreign scholars and their books are not edited in Trieste or in Fiume.

I do not know what is you political belief. And I do not mind. In what it minds Djilas' status of convict and why it should impinge on the actual correctness of his works?

However, I think we should take a night and rest on it. I am quite bothered by your manners. Indeed, it is only because you have 45,000 edits that I am still discussing here. Perhaps with the RfC/U I have just posted we will have the opportunity to understand what we have done wrong in this Talk page. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I can't agree to base the lede of this article on sources from one side of this highly-contentious international dispute. You yourself agreed more than once not to deviate from that long-standing practice on this article (of course, now you say otherwise). There are non-Italian/non-Yugoslav sources aplenty, but I fear they are not so much in accordance with your narrative?

I won't be wasting much more time here for at least a couple weeks. As I said on your RFC/U, it was a mistake to seriously devote time here, and I probably should have written a report immediately. I won't revert any properly-sourced edit from a non-local source accompanied by a quote that its directly based on (which is in my view only reasonable considering your conduct). Otherwise, please consider me opposed by default. I don't have a single word to add to that. Cheerio. -- Director (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Direkor, as there is a standing RfC/U on us I need to be clear because I have somehow to reply to your affirmations.

1) I could quote from Pamela Ballinger the following sentence (I copied exactly, word by word): In the decade after WWII, up to 350,000 ethnic Italians were displaced from the zone between Italy and Yugoslavia known as the Julian March. This does not sound like yours, because the sentence you report implies that people moved by choice and not with the force. Still it is the same author.

2) I agreed to take Ballinger as reputable scholar (indeed, I am the one who started in this article citing her) for the lede and to ignore the other scholars. But the content of the lede need to be coherent with the rest of the article (i.e. should be a brief summary) so I proposed that corrections. Alternatively, if you really want to keep the citation as it is, you must leave other editors adding properly sources material. This is what I did but my modifications were rolled back.

3) I suggested to remove that sentence to reach consensus and because it is in opposition to the conclusions of the Slovene-Italian commission and other sources cited later about the violences of 1943. This document should be used in my eyes as a reference document, because it close a contentious matter between two countries (indeed, it would be great it Croatia and Italy did the same) and aknowledge that facts as of history, without neglecting any responsability from one side and another. For some reasons you disregard this document as reputable source. Indeed, later in the article, you insist in qualifying that violence as exclusively anti-fascist. The conclusions of this Commisssion are others. The conclusions are that violence was in principle directed against the people compromised with the Fascism, but ended striking many people not linked at all with the Fascism.

4) You concentrate enormously on the lede. This creates per se the potential for the conflict. Many times I insisted in the necessity to have in the lede only non-contested matter. We could just leave as it is, adding some numbers and developing the other arguments later. And then, yes you can report that sentence integraly and so I will do with other sources, or the other citations from the same scholar. I believe the opposite. This argument is contested enough, with numbers and conclusions extremely variable according to the scholar, so the lede should be less conflictual as possible.

5) You insist a lot of WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Have you realised the size of the caption that you insisted to have to clarify the content of a pamphlet of doubtful origin (God only knows from which book - if any - it has been scanned). --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Research of consensus

A 3O, a RrC and tons of edit have not helped to reach consensus. Nevertheless I believe this is to our reach. The amount of information waiting to be posted on this article is enormous (there is not an issue of competence of the editors involved in the editing of this article). Unfortunately we are currently blocked on the lede, so all changes to the rest of the article seem today out of question. Perhaps the summer break has helped all of us to take distance from this dispute, so that a solution is now possible. BTW, I have removed some text in the article because supported by a source that does not exist anymore (if ever existed). --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restaured two sentences: one (which I did not liked) in the lead with a minor correction (added mainly for the reason described in the description of the edit) and another one (which Direktor agreed to insert but not in the lead) later in the article. There is major work to do on this article and I do not see an issue of competence from the different editors involved. I entrust we will be stronger of our disagreements. Perhaps the summer break will help to do so. There is potential for making of this article a very good one. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have restaured the reference to Milovan Djilas but placed later down in the article in order not to influnce the content of the lead. Let's hope for the better. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Krk was not given to Italy after WWI

As far as I know Krk, or Veglia, was not given to Italy after WWI, as mentioned in the article. Krk / Veglia was popoulated by Croats, with the exception of the eponym village, which hosted a compact Italian community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.101.216 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

yes you are fully right. Under the treaty of rapallo krk was given to the new Kingdom of Yugoslavia. And yes Istria and Quarnati were inhabited by a majority of Slavs (as the most of Istria except its western part, Fiume and Pola. The concept of "Italian Istria" was an invention of the Fascism which enforced all actions (except generalised violence on the Slavs) to denaturate the ethnic structure of this land. What I do not understand is why on the other side there is so much resistance in admitting the exodus interested 200.000+ people and was marked by 8.000+ killings of people (many of them only marginally linked with the Fascism, such as people working in the Public Administration). However, the issue of this article is that an extreme amount of time was - without success - spent on finding consensus on the lead. Imho we should first correct all the "horrors" written elsewhere and only after research consensus for the lead. Wikipedia is getting at some stage a kind of involution of culture (books are not necessary anymore for many people). Concentrating so much on the lead represents a further involution: knowledge of facts in just 300 words. Silvio1973 (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe the historical context belongs to the lede because otherwise cherry-picked facts can be taken out of the context

Unless, of course, it suites you that cherry-picked facts can be taken out of the context. I sincerely hope this is not your intention, is it? --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in your general assertion (after all Corni p.103 says so himself), but your wording is a bit extreme and you lack sources. You need to find a source and follow it very closely in describing the context. That's the lede after all. -- Director (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

OK Direktor, I have removed all the edits I have added since yesterday. I thought that including your proposal in the edit and mines later in the article was a compromise. I also do not understand what there is of POV in the number of the people that left Zadar/Zara. They are sourced in so many books. Also I do not know why refusing the historical evidence of the role of Djilas but because we was a dissident. This would be like saying that declaration of dissidents of the Fascism or the Stalinism would be not reliable because made by dissident? Interesting approach...

However, I prefere to give up (perhaps other editors will be interested). In future, I will just check from time to time that this fragile line of cease-fire won't be broken However, it is better to leave things as they are rather than starting another edit war. We had the potential to make of this a good article but does not matter. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Any relevant change to contentious aspects of the article that is added without talkpage agreement will be reverted. -- Director (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I told you already. I am tired to death of this talk. I restaured the text you wanted in the lede. In exchange later down in the article I inserted some sentence (quoted, although may be not at your taste). Well, you kept only what you liked and removed the rest. This is compromise? Of course now I need to remove the rest of the text and put things as in the beginning. You are really a strange guy. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue is that you consider the research of compromise of the other party as a sign of compromise. However I offer you a compromise, if you wanr to gain on all sides you will spend your life doing so. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

WW II Section

Below is my proposal for the article's WW II Section:

Existing text

Proposed text

After the Wehrmacht invasion of Yugoslavia (6 April 1941), the Italian zone of occupation was further expanded. Italy annexed large areas of Croatia (including most of coastal Dalmatia) and the Province of Ljubljana (now Slovenia). The Italian occupation continued with its brutal repression of Partisan activities and the killing and imprisonment of thousands of Yugoslav civilians in Italian concentration camps (such as the Rab concentration camp) in the newly annexed provinces. This fed the anti-Italian sentiments of the Slovenian and Croatian subjects of Fascist Italy. During the Italian occupation until their capitulation in September 1943, the population was subjected to atrocities, described by Italian historians Claudio Pavone, Gianni Oliva and Corrado Meroni as "aggressive and violent. Not so much an eye for an eye as a head for an eye" as orders by Italian generals explicitly called. Under Mario Roatta's watch, the 2nd Army's record of violence against the Yugoslav population easily matched the German. Tantamount to a declaration of war on civilians, Roatta's '3C' pamphlet involved him in war crimes. Roatta insisted, "If necessary don't shy away from using cruelty. It must be a complete cleansing. We need to intern all the inhabitants and put Italian families in their place." Executions, hostage-taking and killing, reprisals, internments, and the burning of houses and whole villages were ordered by him in '3C' circolare.

After the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was overrun by Axis forces and partitioned between Germany, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and client regimes, Italy annexed large areas of Croatia (including most of coastal Dalmatia) and the Province of Ljubljana (now Slovenia). In Province of Ljubljana violence against the civil population escalated and easily matched that of the Germans with summary executions, the burning of houses and whole villages, and the deportation of 25,000 people — which equated to 7.5% of the total population of the province - to Italian concentration camps. This fed the anti-Italian sentiments of the Slovenian subjects of Fascist Italy. Italian historians Claudio Pavone, Gianni Oliva and Corrado Meroni described Italian policy as "aggressive and violent. Not so much an eye for an eye as a head for an eye" as orders by Italian generals explicitly called. Under Mario Roatta's watch, the 2nd Army's record of violence against the Yugoslav population easily matched the German. Tantamount to a declaration of war on civilians, Roatta's '3C' pamphlet involved him in war crimes. Roatta insisted, "If necessary don't shy away from using cruelty. It must be a complete cleansing. We need to intern all the inhabitants and put Italian families in their place." Executions, hostage-taking and killing, reprisals, internments, and the burning of houses and whole villages were ordered by him in '3C' circolare.

Would anyone mind if I replace the existing one with the text proposed above? --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I detect a bit more emphasis on goings on in Slovenia, but sure go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Keep in mind, though, that the exodus took place primarily in modern-day Croatia and that the repression in these Croatian-populated areas is objectively more relevant with regard to the atmosphere of intolerance that pervaded there at the time. This is not to say the Slovene people didn't suffer more grievous injury relative to population size, merely that we need to focus on the territories in question. -- Director (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not know as much about what happened in the now Croatian part of Istria as I know about the history of Slovenia. They didn't teach us much about each others' history during WW II in our schools, didn't they? In other words, I would like to cover the whole area's history during WW II, but I am not able due to the reason I have just stated. Feel free to expand the history of the part that I - sadly - don't know enough about. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I will tell you what, dear collegues. This article is about the istrian exodus and you both are focusing so much of the events before and NOT during that the o erall balance of the article is getting up-side down. Indeed this article is getting a re-edition (same text, same images) of Italianization. I have volountary reduced the text on Foibe Killings (and direct to the relevant main article)) to avoid an excessive unbalance in favour of the aftermath. Clearly you do not mind giving undue space to the background. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What would you think if I was copying the entire article if the Foibe Killings was reported here? Or about the killings of Zadar. You would tell me that is undue. And you would be right. And please note that on top of that you are not using English sources. Behave with the others like you want the others do with you. Concerning the sources, it is not because a source is Italian that a fortiori justifies an Alleged Anti-Italian position. In Italy there was also a large variety of position about the Istrian Exodus (more than in Yugoslavia or Croatia, where all the intellectuals were standing with the Regime - very simplistically because otherwise were jailed), so cherry-picking is very easy. I do not mind if the author is Italian, but text and editor must be English speaking. No compromise on this, Mr. Direktor docet. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Exodus from Pola

I have just replaced the source concerning the exodus from Pola with an English source. Mr. Direktor, make the effort of reading before rolling-back. If you do, I will restore it 3 times and report you for edit-war just after. This does not mean this edit cannot be removed, but in this case I want to understand why if you dare to do so. There is an immense number of sources quantifying the size of the exodus to more than 27,000 but you still qualifies this of POV. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I rolled back all your changes. You will please not remove relevant background information without consensus. I am utterly disinterested in your opinion regarding the propriety of it being there, as that is sourced. You do not own this article and will please make the attempt to practice restraint and honestly collaborate with your fellow editors. In my own view, this has still not occurred. Regarding your "Pola" addition, it is sourced by a #1 contemporary, #2 news source, that #3 marginally mentions the subject. By this time I've grown used to what your "sources" inevitably turn out to be, though. As for you reporting me for actions here, I can only take that as an attempt at humor. Good one.

Considering your (in my view) appalling conduct re sourcing here, I myself will not agree to any of your additions that are not accompanied with #1 page number(s) and #2 direct quotation(s) from a third-party scholarly source (and there are of course a great many such sources). To this point I've not seen you post a single such source (while I have taken the effort of posting several). If you refuse to collaborate with others, particularly amid various apparent attempts at fraud, then you cannot expect them to agree with you. -- Director (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Rolled back. Report me for edit war. I am curious to know what others think. Indeed they said already. As long you refuse a compromise you will be rolled back forever. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Direktor, take the pain to read

Mr. Direktor, you dot even take any more the pain to read before rollbacking so please note the following:

1) I do not have any problem with your edit (adequately sourced) as long you are fine with mine (adequately sourced).

2) We agreed to have only sources in English here, for some reasons this applies only to me.

3) You are reporting entire sections of articles such as Italianization, instead of extending the article in question, this is WP:UNDUE. But you know that already.

4) You are claiming the exodus of Pola is a POV. Indeed if you really believe this a fact of history (thousands of video, pictures and books support this) is a POV, you are really a dangerous man. However, in the meantime I will continue to source.time a serious administrator will take care of this case will come. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm "taking the pain", believe me..

I am not here to "trade edits" with you. Post proper scholarly, neutral sources, with a page number and a quote for good measure, and you can add whatever in the world you like. That's what I've been saying from the start. For some reason, though, we've yet to see such an entry... -- Director (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, the basic difference between us is that I do not have anything against your edits (indeed I am leaving them) but you have a problem with mine. Because your edits are better, you are better. the other post POV, you are neutral. We can easily understand this going trough the talk pages involving you (and no surprise you have 45,000 edits, the two-thirds must be talks and rollbacks). And BTW I report the page, I do not copy the entire sentences because this is copyright violation indeed. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly, neutral source, with a page number and a quote. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is what I am doing, you will keep reverting more and more sourced edits. You will respond of this. Ah, and BTW you have not answered to the issue 3 I reported above. Unpleasent, yeah when also the others know about the rules, isn't it? --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously not what you are doing. -- Director (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I start to believe there is an issue of communication. Or really you are pulling my leg. What there is not: the page, the quote, the neutrality of the source? You could try to be less vague. But it looks you do not have the interest in doing so. You are like those people: [[6]]. Two pages about the history of the city, but not a world about the exodus. You would like to use Wikipedia to achieve de facto the same target. You won't be successful with such revisionism. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I used to think its a communication issue. But now I'm convinced you're just a nationalist POV-pusher attempting to have his way through fraudulent referencing and edit-war. You would have to be institutionalized if you did not understand: #1 non-Italian/Yugoslav sources. #2 Scholarly. #3 With page number and quote. Very simple...

Thus far you've posted Italian sources, non-Italian non-scholarly sources, or non-Italian scholarly sources - but with no quote... that inevitably turned out to be ridiculously misrepresented or just plain misquoted. Isn't this a fun time we're having? -- Director (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all: kindly cease removing long-standing text.

• The Morosini thing. I have no idea what that is nor who Morosini is, but she's clearly another author of Yugoslav or Italian origin. Plus whatever in the world that thing is, it is certainly not a scholarly publication. Not going to discuss her further.
• I've already addressed the Times ref as a non-scholarly, contemporary (primary) source that marginally mentions the events in a caption. Absurd.
• Trawick Bouscaren p.53 is interesting, but its probably just you adding one seemingly-relevant source so your edits would stick. From experience I know in all likelihood he says nothing like the thing you've placed him by. Or maybe he's taken out of context again? Or maybe he's just the editor and the author is some Italian guy? Lets find out..

Could you please post a quote from Bouscaren page 53? (I sound so stupid to myself asking this again :)) -- Director (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, in Italy would be: Per chi cazzo ti prendi?. In English is more vulgar, but in Italian is not. What mind is the language of the source and not the ethnic origin of the author. This talk page is not Sarajevo or Tuzla, please mind it. About the consistency of my sources Google exactly the sentence Particularly dramatic was the wholesale exodus of the Italian population of Pola, a naval base at the tip of the Istrian Peninsula. Of Pola's 32,000 inhabitants, 28,000 filed applications to be evacuated to Italy and find out. Concerning Trawick Bouscaren, he quote the number of 28,000 Italians leaving. However I am not going posting additional sources for something that is a fact. Affirming 27-28,000 Italians left Pola in 1947 would be like Rab Concentration Camp did not exist. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've lived in Italy, thank you. Non-Italian/Yugoslav scholarly authors, with page number and quote. You know what I'm saying, you're just probably not finding any non-Italian authors that support your POV - sorry, no dice. Per provisions, Italian authors (when opposed) can be quoted as representing the Italian view of these events. Nothing more to add.

You do have two apparently non-local, scholarly sources. But you've not posted a quotation. In every single previous instance of your adding such sources they were misrepresented and misquoted. You just add them as "fluff" to support stuff you get from your Italian sources. So now I must please see a quote before I take them as actually meaning anything. -- Director (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well you should first remove that crap from unknown Italian authors about the Italianization of Istria. It is not because we have been a democracy for the last 70 years (and so you can find a variety of opinions, which was impossible during the Yugoslav Regime) that such sources are acceptable. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted the page, what do need for quotation then? The quote Particularly dramatic was the wholesale exodus of the Italian population of Pola, a naval base at the tip of the Istrian Peninsula. Of Pola's 32,000 inhabitants, 28,000 filed applications to be evacuated to Italy in The refugees in the world: displacement and integration - Page 68, by Joseph B. Schechtman speaks by itself. Such as the value of the scholar himself.

And please stop using technicalities to affirm 28,000 people did not leave Pola. I have heard about of this crap about the different Holocausts of the XX century (and I am not making any comparison of matter, just of method).--Silvio1973 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing text supported by Italian authors discussing Italian war crimes (or Yugoslavs on Yugoslav crimes) is against the idea behind the provision. If you insist, I will not object to that removal, but your POV will finally be made quite obvious.

Thank you for the quote. I'll have a look at Schechtman.

I am not positively "affirming" anything, I'm just reverting you. I do not care about Pula or how many people left there. I am not here fighting for the memory of anyone's suffering - but to help write an encyclopedia. And besides, compared to the 1,000,000 Yugoslav dead as a result of the Italian/German invasion that you're trying to sideline through the same technicality, and the countless misplaced persons around here, those folks were on a little pick-nick trip. And what about the other uncounted millions of dead during WWII? Please do not refer to this silly nonsense as a "Holocaust". -- Director (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Based on Schechtman I consider you have sourced that the exodus from Pula was "wholesale" (and "dramatic" but that's not an encyclopedic term), and that 28,000 out of 32,000 inhabitants were evacuated to Italy. See how easy that was? Just please be sure not to embellish on or add to that which you have sourced. -- Director (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

New additions

I've reverted to the long-standing June version. Silvio1973, If you'd like me to support your contentious changes to the extremely controversial aspects of this article's scope, please reference them with (one of the many available) publications by non-Yugoslav, non-Italian scholars, complete with a page number - and quotation to be posted here on the talkpage. I recommend the {{quote}} template.

That's #1 non-Yugoslav, non-Italian, #2 scholar(s), #3 with a page number, and #4 quotation (posted here on the talkpage) of the text from that page that you believe supports your edit(s). -- Director (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first thing should be to remove the crap from this version. In the lede there is an issue of undue weight to the 3000 non-Italians leaving Istria. On top of that there is a political identification of those people that can be extended to the others. Finally we claim that Italians sources estimate the size of the exodus to 250,000 - 350,000 people. This is incorrect, the upper estimate is Italian the lower is Yugoslav. The current text leaves the doubt the real number could be less. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Undue" is a meaningless word. Its entirely subjective. I disagree mentioning the 3,000 is "undue". The political identification is also warranted considering most Italians might or might not've been anti-communists, but these people almost certainly were, by the vast majority.
• Overall I'd agree to an entry of "from 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 Italians left Istria", based on Weldes p.63:

"Between 1943 and 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 of these Italians left the peninsula in what became known as the Istrian exodus."

Perhaps with a mention of other estimates. Croatian and Slovene estimates range around 190,000, I'd like that mentioned in any lede passage dealing with numbers (but I'm not married to that request, 200,000 seems to me close enough).

See, I added a quote. It was very easy. And now you're not guessing whether the source has been twisted. And if you suspect its out-of-context, I can post more of the text on request. -- Director (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources used are poorly formatted and leave the reader with a summary webpage and no page from the book cited so I believe part of the dispute stems from the shady poor presentation. I note that the fourth source used (Ballinger, 2004: p. 275) summarizes the controversy: "The precise number of refugees, as well as their ethnic composition (Italian, Slovene, or Croat) remains in dispute. The standard statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italian exiles gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians (Colella 1958). More recent Italian works (Donato 1997; Nodari 1997) have argued for a number closer to 200,000. Raoul Pupo (1995) gives an estimate of 300,000 individuals." So its entirely appropriate to state in the lead that the precise number and ethnicity of refugees is in dispute and that Italian sources estimate between 200,000 and 350,000 exiles. --◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lets try to merge Weldes and Ballinger somehow:

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the peninsula. The precise number, as well as their ethnic composition (Italian, Slovene, or Croat), remains in dispute. The statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italians gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians, while more recent Italian works have argued for a number closer to 200,000; estimates generally range between the two figures."

Ok? We should also introduce a proper sourcing system.. -- Director (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Producer. Undue, is not meaningless at all. I have all the respect for those Yugoslavs who escaped the Regime but it is not in the lede of this article they should be mentioned. Certainly some precisions can be given later in the article. If we want to move on we should tend to have the less controversial lede or the entire job become impossible.

@All. Leaving a number between 200,000 and 350,000 is not serious. However even - reputable - Yugoslav sources quote more than 200,000 : Vladimir Žerjavić (Croat), 191,421 Italian exiles from Croatian territory + Nevenka Troha (Slovene), 40,000 Italian and 3,000 Slovene exiles from Slovenian territory = at least 230,000.

For me what counts is homogeneity. We need to agree for this entire article not more than 8-10 sources and use the relevant information. Or we will never get out of this mess. And believe it or not, I am also not pleased of this situation but you have to understand this is an extremely controversial piece of history so it will require patience and openness to compromise to find an agreement.

Of course the banner of neutrality has to be put again. Let's hope won't stay for too long.--Silvio1973 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@"Undue". Well, I disagree. The ethnic composition of the emigrants is right alongside their number in importance. Ballinger mentions it in its intro, and I see no argument for stripping long-standing relevant data from the lead to accommodate nationalist POV-pushing. Nothing more to say about that.

@Range of estimates. "200,000" is sourced by a majority of sources as the lower figure in the range of estimates. Look at all these publications summarizing the numbers for the exodus in the same way [7]. In contrast, the "250,000" figure [8] is mentioned almost exclusively as a particular estimate - one of those that fall into the range by Weldes & Ballinger (and many others). It is absurd beyond words to suggest that individual estimates that fall into the 200,000 to 350,000 range somehow disprove that range. Further, Ballinger clearly states that "more recent works have argued for a number closer to 200,000". You disagree with her? and do not consider her's and all these other scientists' figures "serious"? Well, I hope you're not "serious".

Re "compromise". I hope you're clear that "compromise" is done between positions on the same level with regard to sourcing. I might bring Weldes, Producer might bring Ballinger and then we "compromise" on how best to represent them. We do not "compromise" when one guy has reliable sources, and the other has a lot of opinions and meaningless words.

And finally, will you at last leave the article alone while discussions are taking place!? Or will you lecture people on "patience" while you start yet another of your edit wars? -- Director (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, you are not well placed to give lessons about "etiquette" of the good wikipedian. Getting trough the history of your edits this is clear. So keep discussing but do not try to have attitude. Concerning the fact the article is on dispute, I do not like it but it is a fact. If discussion were going on with civility I would agree nor to post the banner, but it is not the case. I cannot even add a fact of history such the 28,000 people exodus from Pola... However untill now at least two administrators have expressed in this talk page their opinion about your attitude. Indeed I might not be better, but I do not give lessons. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I shall certainly not be lectured on the subject by the likes of you. Fine, place the NPOV tag, but any non-consensus changes to contentious info will be reverted without fail.

If you bothered to read other people's posts [9], you would know I agreed to your addition providing it closely follows the Schechtman sentence. See my post. It would be nice if you could post your addition here first (such as I did above) so it can be reviewed and discussed without the potential for edit war. It will be reverted if its expanded or embellished-upon without additional sourcing.

It would also be nice if you did not switch subjects but retract your untenable position on the "250,000" figure as the lower limit, in accordance with sources (Ballinger, Weldes, de Haan, Bendix, Hinton, Getty, Stoklund, etc...). Thus demonstrating for the first time that there's more to your activities here than incessant POV pushing, and allowing the discussion to move forward. -- Director (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

For some reason the Fascist repression was 'brutal' (never heard of gentle repressions) but when 90% of people are forced to choose to leave this is not 'dramatic'. I am sure it was great fun. The word dramatic is used in other sources. That for some reasons you do not like. Direktor, I agree on the neutrality, language and reputation of the sources but I cannot agree on any ethnic discrimination. Of course this does not mean I agree on all sources from Italian scholars just because are in English. Indeed I am not using and not intending to use Monzali or Petacco. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And now can se start discussing from the top, ie saying that not only Italians sources estimates the exodus to that amount of people? And incidentelly write that 10,000+ people left for good? Silvio1973 (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Yugoslav/Italian authors: I've been saying all this before, but I'll try to outline what its about all in one place. #1 If the statement supported by the source is not opposed, then its fine to use them. #2 If there is opposition, then its also fine to use the source - but only with attribution of ethnicity (e.g. "Slovene estimates are" or "Croatian author XY states"). Naturally this refers to the authors, not the language the source is written in (the latter is completely irrelevant with regard to neutrality: even the most rabid Croatian-nationalist source can be translated to English - what would that matter?).

So the only thing that's frowned upon is using a local-ethnic source to introduce opposed edits, without attribution. Are we clear on this at last? Its not "discrimination": both sides of the (extremely contentious) national dispute are included. The idea behind all this is to ensure WP:NPOV on these articles by basing them on entirely third-party sources. There are many, many non-Yugoslav/Italian authors out there on this.

Re numbers: please review the above discussion and proposal based on the text of Ballinger and Weldes. "200,000 - 350,000" appears to be by far the most common range of estimates found in sources; besides Ballinger and Weldes found about a dozen sources that use it also (see links just above). Individual estimates of 250,000 actually confirm rather than somehow refute the validity of the 200k-350k range, and specific estimates of 200,000 are mentioned by Ballinger. In short: not going to agree to raising the lower limit of estimates to 250,000 as that has no support whatsoever. Read the above posts.

Re Pula: I'm fine with removing "brutal". Please make sure your draft is based closely on the source, and please post it here in advance so we can avoid edit war. -- Director (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I had replied in details but as we are continuously in Edit Conflict I lost the page. However short version:

1)For me a range of 200,000 - 300,000 is OK. For a number of reasons I do not believe a second to a bigger estimate. Perhaps only with people arriving in Istria after the last census before WWII. In that case they would not be ethnic Italians so I do not mind for the purpose of this article. All most reputable sources are in the range 200K - 300K and we can remove the reference to Italian sources (otherwise it does not make sense that we use pure English sources and after cite Italian sources in the lede).

2)I am not OK to give to the 1% Yugoslavs (the difference Croatians / Slovenian is not applicable in 1945) more details (ethnicity, number, political orientation) than for the 99% of Italian. BTW can you source only anti-communists left. Perhaps some people left because they simply realized the Communism was pure crap?

3)Remove in the aftermath, the exodus lasted 17 years (the current formulation is from an historical perspective the current wording is wrong).

4) We will speak of Pola once the lede is agreed. Let's be progressive, there are hundreds of issues before getting there. 5) It is very rich we mention 3,000 Slavs but we do not mind about 10,000+ people killed. Dear Mr. Direkor 200,000 exiled / 10,000 killings = 20. Quite a ratio. Perhaps only in the Volga in the 40's you could find a lower ration. Despite a morbid nationalism how can we proceed and pretend to be historically correct if we not quote in the lede such a number of killings?

5)I still have an issue with the fact Italy gave assistance to them. What does it mean? Well they arrived in Italy and where put in camps. What should the administration have done? Organizing fire squads to kill them? I can source they were even persecuted when they arrived. I can source they had to be protected by the Police. This is the assistance you meant in the lede?

6)The section Slavs under Italian Fascist rule is a copy of the old version of Italianization. Beside the fact that it is a copy of what was a dispute page (so it should be updated) I have a problem with the actual size. It is fine to cite the main facts but it had to direct to the relevant article if the reader wants to know more. I propose a tentative change. Do not hesitate (and I know you will not) to revert if you do not like. One thing is sure we cannot copy/paste the same article everywhere. I also have a problem with the main article. Less than 10% of sources are in English. The others are Slovenian/Croatian/Italian. The Italian are mostly from well-known left-wing intellectuals and not very recent. The Slovenian/Croatian I have no idea as I do not speak the language. WP is a 3rd level source, if the article is controversial (and that one is controversial) we need to refer to text in English.

7)I disagree in restricting to English sources from not Yugoslav / Italian authors. We cannot consider by principle that a German author writing in English is more reputable than an Italian just because the last one is Italian. This is not acceptable. We need English sources - because this is en.wiki - and we need non-local and neutral because this is a very disputed article. We need also very reputable sources, indeed what counts is how much the editor is reputable, who is publishing the scholar and other similar factors. I refuse the idea to base the reputability of the source on the ethnicity of the scholar (or worse on the sounding origin of the surname). Simplistically I cannot admit the someone like R. Pupo is out of the game, but I can easily continue without A. Petacco.

Proposal for the lede: According to sources between 200,000 and 300,000 ethnic Italians and 3,000 Yugoslavs left the areas between 1943 and 1960. The first years of the exodus were marked by around 10,000 executions in the events known as Foibe Killings. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I find DIREKTOR's sentence acceptable. I don't think going off on a thousand tangents nor mishmashing opinion with what sources actually say is helpful. Ballinger specifies they are Italian sources in a careful manner for a purpose and she is the one citing them not us. I'm guessing you're getting the "3,000 Yugoslavs" from Troha who apparently (again poor referencing in the article, not found in the cited summary webpages) states they are only Slovenes from Slovene territory. Again, as Ballinger pointed out, the "ethnic composition (Italian, Slovene, or Croat) remains in dispute" so I see no reason why Troha's figure would be put as the definitive figure. Weldes gives the years 1943 to 1954 not to 1960. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues, don't pull the rope too much. I don't know anymore how much Ballinger is a reputable source, not for numbers. She never quote exactly and she never takes clear position. For someone that has mainly published only about the Istrian Exodus is fairly poor (however as often, the academic people do not own the knowledge. They often just lecture enough to keep their job). The fact the composition is in dispute, does not mean that we should ignore that 200,000 - 300,000 Italians were forced to leave. If after 3,000 or 5,000 or even 10,000 Slavs left along this is indifferent to the article and personally to me. Is this your method: between 200-350K people left, some authors say 200,000 so it might be that the difference are Slavs? Or let's leave the doubt in the lede.

Are you going to look for consensus like that. The fact there is dispute about the numbers does not suggest the composition of the exile was 99%+ ethnic Italians. Should I remind you the conclusion of the Italian-Slovenian commission (until now the only official binding document about the Istrian Exodus? Should I remind you that not more than 3,000 Slovenes left? Unless you do not consider that more Croatian left that Slovenian (and you should source it adequately) your conclusion does not work. And even if they were 10,000 (and they are not) what should change. The quote 200,000 - 300,000 ethnic Italians stays as sufficiently referenced. If you want to quote that the actual number of Slavs is not known this is your problem, but suggest an appropriate wording. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't conclude anything the sources do this for us. That's your issue here. Ballinger is published by the Princeton University Press with positive peer reviews. It's a perfectly reputable source. I never said the 200,000-350,000 Italians be ignored nor did DIRETKOR in his proposal. I merely suggested that they be attributed to as Italian sources as Ballinger has carefully done. His proposal was: "From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the peninsula. The precise number, as well as their ethnic composition (Italian, Slovene, or Croat), remains in dispute. The statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italians gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians, while more recent Italian works have argued for a number closer to 200,000; estimates generally range between the two figures." The commission you're citing says "several thousands of Slovenes" no word on the number of Croats. As it stands Ballinger did not give any figures on Slovenes or Croats. That does not mean we can claim Troha's 3,000 or the commission as the definitive number nor can we name them Yugoslavs instead of Slovenes as you have misleadingly done. I took time to look up your vague claims with good faith, but for future reference all claims brought into any discussion should be reliably sourced with the name of the author, publisher, book, and page number (as I have done with Ballinger) otherwise they can't be taken seriously or entertained. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Silvio, your problem is you do not know how Wikipedia functions and/or simply do not respect its policies. Do not bore people with your opinions and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If you continue to refuse to acknowledge what reliable sources state it will obviously be impossible to conduct an objective discussion with you. I'll be leaving the talkpage at that point. -- Director (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you may edit-war until you're blocked (since you're clearly unable to restrain yourself). But please take my personal assurances that you will not achieve any lasting change on this article without cooperating with your fellow editors. And that can only be achieved through objectivity - by following the sources. And disregarding your personal feelings and opinions on this, however strong they seem to be. -- Director (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you think with your edit you are getting to compromise go ahead. I cannot believe it will just hurt me. The issue is that other sources clearly state the exodus was a overwhelming Italian thing. You will however face this issue with other users. Go ahead. Silvio1973 (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow :). I really must say: in my opinion your English skills are not sufficient for you to be editing enWiki, particularly engaging in complex discussions about wording... even if you were not on this article to push POV. Here is the text:

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the peninsula. The precise number, as well as their ethnic composition (Italian, Slovene, or Croat), remains in dispute. The statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italians gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians, while more recent Italian works have argued for a number closer to 200,000; estimates generally range between the two figures."

The above (directly sourced by Ballinger) clearly states between 350,000 and 200,000 ethnic Italians left the peninsula. There is no question about that at all. You, however, see any proposal, whether it is based on sources or not (you don't care), as a conspiracy. Presumably you assume everyone is here with the same motives as yourself? And as if that weren't enough - you base said conspiracy theories on a lack of understanding of English, which also makes it difficult for you to read talkpage posts and often leaves them unanswered or inadequately responded-to. Please allow I have seen a lot of this indeed.. Don't get me wrong, you clearly understand English, but not on a level required for understanding complex English forms - probably about as much as I understand Italian. And I would not ever presume to edit itWiki. -- Director (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy, what inappropriate wording...

Direktor, I often do not agree with you but I had already the intellectual honesty to consider that you are competent on this matter. Concerning your last comment about my English proficiency, I kindly remind you to be nicer when you speak to me. Think to yourself, you have a lot to learn (beside English) from the life. You do not need to be flowery (to use a word keen to you), being polite will be enough. Indeed, some politeness from your side could only help. However, I account such behavior on your young age. Don't be worry, in twenty years when - hopefully for you - you are married with children you will calm down much more.

However, what I find surprising is that every time we start from scrap and every time you make the same mistake. You concentrate too much on the lede. This article is already extremely controversial, the sources are controversial. Very simplistically because for 50 years Italy and Yugoslavia (for different reasons) did everything they could to make the all thing get into the oblivion. And you want to condensate in 3 lines the essence of what is actually the most controversial aspect: the size and the structure of the exodus. Of course concentrating the text without fail you end concentrating the controversies. And this makes the research of the consensus more difficult. This is the reason why I suggested to be less detailed in the lede. We have an entire article to fill with sources. I even believe this article could be a good article (according to Wikipedia's definition), if we develop the article progressively without the pretention to arrive to a conclusion in the first 10 or 20 lines.

We have been bugged down in this bloody lede for the last two months. Can me move away from this WWI front-line style dispute?

My proposal is to remove the reference to the structure of the actual ethnic composition (later in the article we will have all the time to do it). The reference to the statistical work of the Istrian Italians makes the use of one or two sources too prominent (who else says so) when compared to the endless number of reputable sources existing on the matter. Also I would like to see what are the Italian sources stating the number of 200,000. What are they? Ballinger says so, fine. Can I see them? To the best of my knowledge there are sources stating 200,000 but they are not Italians so I do not see why enter a precision that is equally controversial and doubtful. Finally no reason to say the estimates are between the two numbers, this is redundant. Let's use this space for something more relevant, i.e. that 10,000+ left for good, if you do not mind. Because you underestimate (but many scholars don't) the role that such killings had in the decision of the people to leave. Addressing the lede priority to the ethnic structure of the exodus (knowing that it was in any case at least 95% of Italians), rather than to the size of this massacre it's at least arguable.

To resume, I suggest to use the following (and I would go for something even more generic):

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the peninsula. The precise number, as well as their ethnic composition remains in dispute. Some Italian estimates give a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians,, while more recent works have argued for a number closer to 200,000. The first years of the exodus were marked my around 10,000 executions in the events known as Foibe Killings"

PS If you do not like the word executions, you are welcome to propose something else. And we still have an issue with geography, because we restrict the exodus to Istria and this is mainly true, but not absolutely true. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, Silvio, this sort of complex, serious discussion is obviously not really for you. This is the "big leagues" in terms of controversial and problematic, and you just have neither the experience, nor the English skills, nor apparently the appropriate motivation to participate here. Your post up there is so silly, it may be worth taking the time to dissect to prove my point. Let me illustrate: I "concentrate too much on the lede"? You find that "surprising"? All this time we've been discussing the lede because you brought it up above at the start of this thread.

"Well, the first thing should be to remove the crap from this version. In the lede there is an issue of undue weight to the 3000 non-Italians leaving Istria. On top of that there is a political identification of those people that can be extended to the others. Finally we claim that Italians sources estimate the size of the exodus to 250,000 - 350,000 people. This is incorrect, the upper estimate is Italian the lower is Yugoslav. The current text leaves the doubt the real number could be less. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)"

And then you actually demand "to see what are the Italian sources stating the number of 200,000. What are they?". Are you kidding me? Is this some kind of weird joke? Not only do you presume to question Ballinger as a source with no backing, which is ridiculous on its own, but when Producer mentioned the source here he quoted the sentence for you!! [10]

"The precise number of refugees, as well as their ethnic composition (Italian, Slovene, or Croat) remains in dispute. The standard statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italian exiles gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians (Colella 1958). More recent Italian works (Donato 1997; Nodari 1997) have argued for a number closer to 200,000. Raoul Pupo (1995) gives an estimate of 300,000 individuals."

And then I point that out to you explicitly in a later post ("..specific estimates of 200,000 are mentioned by Ballinger." [11]). But none of this really matters since the "200,000" number is sourced by about a dozen sources which have been linked to you twice. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE NOTHING OF THIS.

My theory, as I said, is that reading English is too much of a bother to you so you just read some parts and ignore most others. I don't really care, though, I just know I cannot afford to spend my time posting these kind of posts, explaining to you how wrong you are in your entire approach.

Then you switch the subject again(!) and try to push in some "10,000" figure for the Foibe without any sources or backing. Again, is this some kind of a joke? You're not only changing the subject but are trying to "trade" with me again ("I'll let you have that exodus text if you include my cockamamie figure in the edit")?? Do you honestly expect me - anyone - to just take your word for some Foibe casualty number you list no support for?! Do you seriously think any Foibe number will be introduced without extensive research in reliable sources??!

And this kind of stuff happens all the time. Silvio, good buddy, I think its time you seriously consider taking a break from serious discussions like this one. You're just not up to working with sources on the necessary level. These constant shallow deceptions, these "little tricks", the "trading", refusal to accept what is sourced, the constant insistence that your personal views influence the coverage of controversial subjects, etc. etc.. I made a massive effort to put up with this effective disruption, but unless some kind of miraculous change comes over you and you start cooperating with others in a manner cooresponding with Wikipedia policies... I'm done here. -- Director (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, you can still submit a report for 3WR or enter a RfC. I am not sure you would gain anything. Indeed I believe the opposite. Feel free to do it. Going trough the talk you had with other users, it looks you had this issue in the past with other people. However, let's move on (and please stop judging the others if you do not want to be judged). I propose the following (X,Y,Z and K to be replaced with numbers according to appropriate, reputable and relevant sources):

"From 1943 to 1954, between X and Y people left from Istria and Dalmatia. The precise number, as well as their ethnic composition remains in dispute. Some Italian estimates give a figure of Z ethnic Italians, while more recent works have argued for a number closer to K. The first years of the exodus were marked by numerous executions in the events known as Foibe Killings"

File:Italy's bloody secret (excerpt of article published in Guardian).png

User:Silvio1973 is sick to listen to Slovenians crying all the time, he wrote above. What is really sickening, as attested by the The Guardian's article "Italy's bloody secret" (screenshot of an excerpt above for everyone to see) is this sickening attitude which only Italians have towards nations that were subjected to war crimes committed against them during WW II by very those who started the war in the first place, Italy amongst them. Having such an attitude would be unimaginable for Germans/Austrians/Japanese, only Italians can afford it because Italian role in WW II was made a "bloody secret" even here on Wikipedia as I pointed out here. Not only to Slovenians, to everyone it is sickening how Italy has whitewashed its history, portraying Italians as victims only, as pointed out in the Guardian article.--DancingPhilosopher (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes we all concentrated too much on the lede and you still do the same. We should agree for something more generic (and refine it later) and move to the rest of the article that honestly is too poor for an event of such relevancy for the history of the involved countries. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why insisting in the political orientation of the people leaving. This insert an element of conclusion on the causes of the exodus which should be given to the reader once the all article is read. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor the numbers for me are not the issue, it is the formulation. Indeed we should agree on the formulation leaving X,Y and Z and later fill the blanks bringing sources. Too complicate to be done? And by the way I do not know any reputable source (Italian, Yugoslav, English, Japanese or whatever else) quoting more than 300,000. This does not match with the census before WWII, so it makes no sense. And again if 350,000 people left because 50 or 100,000 Italians from the rest of the country moved there in the late 30's this should not find room in the lede. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I don't. For me the number is not the issue. I could only be pleased to find out that reputable sources estimate the killings to only 500 victims. The issue is that only some Croat ultra-nationalists and the former President of Croatia consider the Foibe involving a few hundreds people and motivated by reason of pure revenge. However, for me quoting the number is not the issue. I leave the reader the right to get informed if he/she wants to. Concentrating so much on the lede is like serving food to a child with a spoon. And it is not rocket science, in a spoon does not enters a lot. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to give in the lede the list of the ethnic groups. May be some Germans were there. Or some Istro-Romanians. What else? This just creates additional dispute were we need the less. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am answering you item by item (by instance you did not bother to do the same, when I listed above 7 exceptions to your arguments).--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks it will take a while before we move from the lede, but there is a lot of research that I would like to start structuring. I have added - adequately sources - the edit about the exodus from Pola. I understand there is a (fragile) agreement on this text. I replaced brutal attitude with violence. If someone as a better definition than violence for 100+ people killed and a few hundred women raped (I can source it but I am not putting in the text in order not to create additional dispute) I am ready to take it. Concerning the section copied/pasted from Italianization I am ready to everything but 1) We cannot copy/paste the other article 2) The section has to be coherent with the actual version of the main article 3) The paragraph should summarize briefly and have a link to the main article 4) The main article has 90% of sources in Italian/Croatian/Slovenian/German. I have proposed a change, revert it but please propose something else than the current one. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I already asked you not to post your responses in the middle of my edits, so as not to create an illegible mess. And not to start silly, pointless sections for no reason. I also asked you three times to source the Pula stuff with the one relevant source you brought up, and follow the sentence from it closely. I asked you to please post a draft here so we can discuss it without me having to revert you again. You just posted your unsourced nonsense from before. In short, I asked you all these things and more. Many things have been repeated and screamed at you, with no effect at all. My time is far too valuable to be spent screaming policy at a brick wall. I really don't see any way for you to introduce what you want to introduce: you're going to be reverted every single time. Without discussion, you can forget about making any controversial changes to the article - and you clearly cannot communicate. As such - I'm finished talking. Maybe others will want to waste time with you over here on talk, I'll just be there to revert you. -- Director (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, how can you pretend that my modification should go trough your censorship while you keep modifying the entire article without going trough the Talk page? We agreed to return to the version of June 2013 and to discuss all the modifications. Do you remember this?. Also you keep expanding all sections but you do not give a damn to the actual exodus. With source sometime in Italian/Croatian/Slovene language. Is this done voluntarily? And after you lecture me ?!

This is getting weirder and weirder :). This, this, this, and this is you currently edit-warring to modify the June version without discussion. I did not expand any sections whatsoever; I didn't "modify" the article in any way. Silvio, I really hope for your sake you're just pulling my leg. Otherwise, this stuff is not your game. -- Director (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, this is may be the only section where I do not have a direct problem with you. The problem I have with you is that you leave doing in those sections things that are not consistent with the approach and methodology used in the rest of the article. However, like it or not, you should acknowledge that such sections are too large when compared to the actual space given to the Istrian Exodus. Also they are the copy/paste of other articles. This is not compliant to WP guidelines, if you still mind. And I hope you do. And BTW I am sick to death to listen the Slovenians crying all the time. But this is personal, take it as a side note. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ugh.. you clearly don't know who you "directly" have a problem with. And I really, really do not care what you have to say. Your opinions about what is "too large" or "assessments" regarding "approach and methodology" matter to me not at all. I could not possibly care less. But it is really funny when you "scold" me in bold about the precise thing you're doing instead :D. And then try to offer your meaningless personal opinions on why you're justified in doing that same thing that you just attacked me about. Sig. Silvio, what are you doing here? -- Director (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For DancingPhilosopher

Dear DancingPhilisopher, I am without words. I can only reply to your last edit with the following prescription:

20 mg Fluoxetine once a day in the morning

50 mg Lamotrigine once a day in the evening

I hope this will help.--Silvio1973 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Exodus from Pola #2

There is need to create a new section because the previous one is too long and it takes to much time every time to load it. I hope you understand it. I thought the exodus from Pola was an agreed thing, but for some reasons you want that everything goes trough the talk page. I do not like you censorship but I agree to work this way, please mind you are the one violating the pacts because you keep modifying the article without going trough the talk page. Also you impose to me a level of sourcing that does not apply to you. Typical.

However, concerning the exodus from Pola (I feel such as I am sourcing the deportation to Auschwitz, however let's move on). In Italic you find the exact quotation from the sources. And again I do not mind the authors are not English. I am ready to ask a 3O if you continue to oppose this "ethnic" argument.

"Just after the annexation of Istria to Yugoslavia, the city of Pola was the theater of the most massive movement of population of the entire exodus from a single place. Within a few months, the city almost completely emptied as its residents exercised their "option" for Italian citizenship. Between December 1946 and September 197, 28,000 of Pola's population of 32,000 (which included 3,000 Yugoslavs) decided to leave. The violence of the Yugoslavs Army witnessed in 1945 during the 45 days occupation of the city and the potential decision of the Regime to move them in the Yugoslav hinterland bolstered their departure

Source 1 The refugees in the world: displacement and integration - Page 68, Joseph B. Schechtman, 1964 Particularly dramatic was the wholesale exodus of the Italian population of Pola, a naval base at the tip of the Istrian Peninsula. Of Pola's 32,000 inhabitants, 28,000 filed applications to be evacuated to Italy.

Source 2 History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Page 89, Pamela Ballinger, 2003 Within a few months, the city almost completely emptied as its residents exercised their "option" to for Italian citizenship. By the way, Ballinger qualifies in the same page the exodus of highly dramatic.

Source 3 A Tormented Land. The Italian Exodus from Istria after World War II. A Case Study of Pola. - Page 2, Mirjana Morosini-Dominick, The drama experienced by the Italians in Istria is most powerfully visible in the exodus from Pola. Between December 1946 and September 1947, the city was abandoned by 28,000 of its 32,000 inhabitants.

Source 4 Exodus from Pola - Italians get out of their city when it is given to Yugoslavia. From Life of the 24 March 1945. More than 27,000 of Pola's population of 33,000 - which included 3,000 Yugoslavs - have packed up to return to Italy. They also feared that the Tito government might move them from Pola into the Yugoslav hinterland.

Now for me this edit is sufficiently sourced, and mind well there is not a single Italian there. I wait for your comments, than if you contest the sources I will post the edit anyway. And if you revert it more than 3 times I will report for Edit War and I am really curious to see what happens after. Possibly we do not need to get there. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This is really rather sad... I've not modified the June article in any way (post a diff?). You have, however. Repeatedly [12], [13], [14], and [15].

Lets have a look then. Well, as I said, "sources" "3" and "4" are ridiculous. Sources "1" and "2" are fine, and thank you for the quotes. Btw, you can really stop "attaching" these little unsourced "additions" of your own to your proposals (your last sentence above). Its kind of sad (again), and its not going to work: noone with half a brain would ever fall for it.

Lets have a look then. Well, as I said, "sources" "3" and "4" are ridiculous. Sources "1" and "2" are fine, and thank you for the quotes. Btw, you can really stop "attaching" these little unsourced "additions" of your own to your proposals (your last sentence above). Its kind of sad (again), and its not going to work: noone with half a brain would ever fall for it.

Removing stuff you got from "3" and "4", removing your own additions, and we get this:

"Pula was the site of a wholesale exodus of its Italian population. Between December 1946 and September 1947, Pula almost completely emptied as its residents exercised their "option" for Italian citizenship. 28,000 of the city's population of 32,000 decided to leave."

• "most massive movement of population of the entire exodus from a single place" - this is unsourced, it can't go in.
• "The violence of the Yugoslavs Army witnessed in 1945 during the 45 days occupation of the city and the potential decision of the Regime to move them in the Yugoslav hinterland bolstered their departure" - this is just you venting a little nationalist rage isn't it? :) No dice, source it. Reliably and properly.
• "which included 3,000 Yugoslavs" - not sourced. Time from the '40s is not a secondary, scholarly source.

So as usual I can agree to the entry if its stripped of all your unsourced and badly-written "attachments" and modifications. I'm not prepared to discuss this at all: we're not here to trade. You can either follow reliable sources in writing your text, or you can forget about having anything stick. -- Director (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I will post the edit, revert it. 3 times and I'll file a Edit War report. Then we will see. There is no reason you use with me such meter when the rest of the article is supported by even less solid sources. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"We'll see"? :) A stupid move like an edit war report at this point will either be ignored (if we're lucky), based on the fact that you're a party to the edit war. Or, if we're not lucky, we'll just both get blocked. Can't see how either will help you, but, go ahead - see if I'm wrong :).

I take it you disagree with my counter proposal? :) Its funny because, you see, no serious editor would ever disagree with removing completely unsourced text. Especially in a case such as this. You of course, are special - you have your personal views to squeeze in there. -- Director (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

My edit is there. It is well sourced. If you do not like the sources revert it. BTW, it is much well sourced than the rest of the article, so mind about the methodology you are imposing.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I will revert it, rest assured: I've restored the June version again. And clearly, you do not understand what "sourced" means. You adding (poorly-written) stuff like "violence of teh Yugoslav army bolstered their departure", is just the most obvious kind of OR imaginable. And yes the article is in very poor shape, but that's certainly no justification for you adding more unsourced nationalist bull. Its your kind of edits and your kind of editors that brought the article into its current state in the first place.

Your problem, besides the English thing, is the fact that you do not have any respect for sources or proper sourcing. -- Director (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, focus on your limits rather than on mine (if you realize you have any). The edit on the exodus from Pola that I posted it's strictly coherent with the sources. Your version is indeed farther from the content of the sources than mine. This does not mean that my edit cannot be refined, definitely it can. But your version cherry-picks two sentences from one of the five sources and ignore all the rest of my research.

However, what annoys me the most of the whole thing is that you operate with different criteria in the different section of the article. There are entire paragraphs badly sourced (not sourced at all) and you do not bother. Indeed, I have removed the unsourced material (of course if you restore such edits, this will be the physical evidence of the problem I am living with you). On the other hand you impose me absurd criteria such as deciding if a source is acceptable or not on the basis of the alleged ethnic origin of the scholar. This cannot work and indeed from now I will use reliable, reputable international sources whatever is the alleged ethnic origin of the scholar. Nothing in the WP policies stop me from doing this. This is Wikipedia Mr. Direktor; we are not in Sarajevo or Tuzla in the 90's. The ethnicity here does not matter, please keep it in mind. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reliable and neutral ("#1#2#3#4") sources. I already discussed reliable sources with you: see #1#2#3#4 above [16]. I hope its clear to you by now(!) I will not accept anything that's not from such a source. If it is from such a source - I will naturally accept the info without question (unlike you). As for you adding stuff without any backing at all, well, do I even need to say anything about that?

Time from the 1940s is not only non-scholarly, its arguably primary considering its date. It is simply absurd that anyone would actually post news sources for something that happened 65 years ago! News sources are used for contemporary events where scholarly sources do not exist in any significant number, like Syrian civil war e.g. - not extremely controversial aspects of historical events! Its up to scholars to evaluate data from the '40s (and '50s) and give us secondary opinions.

• The state of the article. I am sick and tired of your Italian-nationalist paranoia and conspiracy theories. Yes this version is very crappy just like every single version of this article, yes its got both Yugoslav and Italian unsourced POV - but its supposed to be a temporary long-standing version while we discuss. I rolled back to it in order to stop your edit-warring, to stabilize the article and not get us blocked! You need to stop making unilateral modifications to the text, and instead proceed with a PROPER good-faith discussion that will solve the issues one by one. "PROPER" = you do not suggest or add a single solitary word without direct backing from scholarly, neutral sources ("#1#2#3#4"). Stop reading the article and getting yourself worked up and instread discuss here. PROPERLY

-- Director (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Direktor, see below. I am demonstrating good faith. For the time being, I am not pushing any source you do not like (still I reserve myself the right to do it later) because the priority now is to put water on fire.

Nevertheless, if we want to progress we need to mutually understand which sources enter in the scope of work. In English certainly, from reputable institutions/universities of course, from internationally recognized scholars (i.e. people recognized for their work and possibly that wrote enough (and in that sense I have an issue with the young age of certain scholars such as P. Ballinger. In this sense PhD or similar document are not eligible as sources). Concerning contemporary document I agree about the fact that conclusions cannot be drafted (such as with primary sources) but some basic facts, such numbers of dates can be used (such as with censi); of course they have to be in English. Finally if a scholar is used (extensively enough) as a source in another secondary sources that we consider reputable, we need necessarily to consider the first in the scope of our works. So scholars like Raoul Pupo are reputable and cannot be ignored just because they are Italian. I understand your concern, but you should recognize that:

1) For a number of reason from the Italian side there is a wider range of opinions that on the Yugoslav/Croatian side (to the point that some left-wing people in Italy sustain the same arguments of the most morbid Croatian nationalists). This is a fact, it is not my fault.

2) The ethnicity cannot be a criteria to exclude a scholar (I have checked in WP guidelines, no mention of this criterion).

If we cannot agree on the basic principles to select the sources, I doubt we will move forward. In that case we will leave someone decide to us (one day, may be). And in the meantime we will lose our time in a unproductive wall to wall. Tell me if the list of criteria above make sense and please amend. Do whatever you want but do your pqrt to move away from this moving sand. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said many times, its fine to use Yugoslav and/or Italian sources. When what they say is opposed, when its a controversial issue, we can still use them, but with attribution. So the reader knows the info represents the view of Italian or Yugoslav scholarship. We should avoid them, though. Both you and I will be more disposed to accept a source with least trouble if we know its not from Yugoslavia or Italy respectively.

Why complicate issues when there is no reason to use Yugoslav/Italian sources - we have many excellent alternatives to write the article with. Your insistence on Italian sources (in spite of the over-abundance of alternatives) gives me the idea you're searching for extreme wording and a slight pro-Italian slant that only Italian authors may have introduced. -- Director (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for the lede

I propose the following (X,Y,Z and K to be replaced with numbers according to appropriate, reputable and relevant sources) text:

"From 1943 to 1954, between X and Y people left from Istria and Dalmatia. The precise number, as well as their ethnic composition remains in dispute. Some Italian estimates give a figure of Z ethnic Italians, while more recent works have argued for a number closer to K. The first years of the exodus were marked by numerous executions in the events known as Foibe Killings"

If you do not like let me know why and which modifications you propose so that in the end at least we agree on the formulation before going to the sources to decide on numbers. And BTW please note that I brought to the discussion sources such as Ballinger so please stop lecturing me on sourcing this article.

No, thank you: you are not a source :). -- Director (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So you prefere to leave things in such a state? However I do not understand on which grounds you can insist in keeping so much absolutely unsourced text when after you remove mine that is so extensively sourced (although the sources do not say what you like). It will take time but yoy will respond of this attitude. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I have no choice, do I? I'm not about to let you introduce unsourced sentences like "the first years of the exodus were marked by numerous executions in the events known as Foibe Killings", that claim is likely true but it needs direct backing or else its WP:OR. I am not going to agree to add anything that's "likely true" but unsourced on such an important subject. And people have searched "appropriate, reputable and relevant sources", there are about a dozen of them or more [17] - but they do not satisfy you. You think you know better ("where are the 200,000 estimates!?" then "where are the over 350,000 estimates!?" etc.). You question scholarly sources and do not understand how sourcing works on this project - what can I do? -- Director (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, even the abstract of your favourite source (Ballinger) quotes 350,000. Do we need a source stating exactly the sentence The first years of the exodus...killings? Is this article just a jigsaw of sentences from sources? Does WP works like that? And how can you remove a fact of history (ie the Foibes happened between 1943 and 1945? More, how can you remove this evidence and after keep 20 lines of unsourced text? If you really want yo move forward we should remove all unsourced relevant text and after move from scrap. Because on one thing I agree: this article is very controversial. It require an higher level of sourcing. So, do we want to start removing this unsourced text? Silvio1973 (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

However, I want to move on. For the time being I accept provisionally to put on the side 3 of the 5 sources on the exodus from Pola and I agree on your edit (but I insert highly dramatic, because P. Ballinger - the source you like - writes so). Now demonstrate your good faith and remove that unsourced material. Do not waste this opportunity Mr. Direktor. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Re numbers. I am completely confused now. What is your position?? Do you or don't you accept the 200,000-350,000 range of estimates as presented by Ballinger and about fifteen other reliable sources? - because I certainly have no problem with it! You kept on saying you have some kind of problem with it but your posting is so erratic I can't even keep up.

Re how WP works. SEE! That's your problem - right there. @"Do we need a source stating exactly the sentence?" Don't you see where your approach is wrong? You don't dream-up a sentence and seek out a source that says it - you see what the source says and put together a sentence in accordance with it! See what Weldes or Ballinger have to say on the killings or their motivating the exodus, just for example. RESEARCH. Then follow the source closely(!) when you put together your proposal, back it up with a quote and page number, and we're fine! Its the basic sort of stuff for this kind of controversial editing. And if you can't find any reliable sources - then be prepared to modify your position.

I can't agree to removing all unsourced text just yet. Not until we have a sourced alternative. Lets instead replace it step by step. The lede first, then the sections in descending order (or whichever order you prefer). -- Director (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So for you it is fine to keep 20 lines of unsourced (and Direktor, there is a lot of crap in that 20 lines. And not because the Fascist did not harass the Slavs in the Julian March). On the other side you consider that affirming that between 1943 and 1945 had place the Foibe Killing require sourcing? Do you think we can move any forward operating like this? --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Again: I'm not letting you remove that stuff, not because I want it in (its clearly unsourced jabber) - but because this is the long-standing version we agreed to keep in place while we discuss and agree on a replacement text. If you start removing Slav bullshit, then I have to start removing bullshit from the other side, then you disagree with me removing something, then we edit-war etc. etc. Plus the article would probably be stripped of all content with no replacement ready, that's not good (AfD). So could you please stop annoying me with what the June version says and instead start discussing an overhaul of the article?!

And please respond regarding the numbers. Do you or don't you agree with "200,000 - 350,000". If not, provide sources that show other RANGES of estimates (i.e. "[number] - [number]"). -- Director (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, IT IS a lot of crap. This is an extract of the SLOVENE-ITALIAN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL COMMISSION [[18]]

On the other hand, Italian liberal governments – although within the general plan of the Italianisation of the annexed territory – were generous in making promises to the Slovene minority and allowed for the restoration of its national representative organisations, revival of education in Slovene and the activities of organisations which were urgently needed by the Slovene national community for its development. The plan of the preservation of partial autonomy, following the example of that enjoyed by the annexed territory during the Austrian rule - which was supported by political representatives of Venezia Giulia and Trento and respected by pre-fascist governments - could contribute to better relations between the minority population and the state. In addition, the Italian Parliament voted in favour of the protection policy towards the Slovene minority.

The violence certainly did not start before the Fascism set in Italy. How do you want me to discuss with you if you believe your Svalik collegues on unsourced material that can be easily challenged. But indeed this is even not the point, why their unsourced material can stay and mine is continuously challenged? --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Direkor, I agree with numbers. What I want to see it's an alternative formulation. Neutral, generic and not suggesting conclusions for the reader. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it is a load of crap, but don't touch it - find what the sources say and propose and propose an alternative. But for the record, this is no way to work. You're all over the place, you start talking about whatever you're mad about most. Focus on a subject until it is entirely resolved; keep calm and carry on. Lets do the lede first since we've yet to show we can work together at all. After that, I can move on to wherever you wish.

btw, tag whatever you like just don't overdo it. If there are multiple unsourced statements in a paragraph just tag the entire paragraph - or better yet - just put up the banner. Currently there's a banner up, keep that in mind and only tag very sparsely. -- Director (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, what makes me mad it's when there is uniformity of methodology. And this is THE problem I have with you. For some reason highly dramatic is not encyclopedic (but sourced) and wholesale is fine (we speak of an exodus not of the sales in a supermarket). I suggest to replace at least wholesale with massive. But if after you insist to keep wholesale because it is sourced, than I really get mad. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Highly dramatic" is unencyclopedic because its value-laden with emotional undertones. Its like "tragic" or "horrible" or "abhorrent", etc. "Wholesale" conveys no emotional state and it is a perfectly normal term in formal English. Its fine.

I am convinced you are only hung up on "dramatic" because I oppose it. This isn't going to work if you continue on like this. Do not get hung up on every detail or we will never agree on anything. You just want to "stick it" to the Slavic barbarians or whatever and imagine everything is somehow damaging to the Italian position. What is the big deal? The text clearly explains the extent of the exile, but you insist on an unencyclopedic term. Remove that, remove "brutal" - remove unencyclopedic terminology. We must maintain a detached tone. And why "highly" dramatic? "EXtremely Dramatic"? "Überdramatic"? "Gigadramatic"? :) -- Director (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor what is dramatic is the time we are spending on this article. Ok to remove this dramatic thing, but replace wholesale with massive or almost complete or whatever else you like.

So the lead, I am fine with (almost) all of your numbers. What I do not like it's the useless reference to the ethnicities in the lede (it creates only disagreement), because later in the article we have all the room to explain everything. The current version is:

"Italian sources consider that up to 250,000/350,000 ethnic Italians and (some thousand of) anti-communist Slovenes and Croats, left the areas in the aftermath of the conflict."

We do not have to state why it is not satisfactory. It is historically incorrect to reduce the exodus to the aftermath of the conflict. I do not also like we cite that Italian sources consider up to 350,000. Wikipedia guidelines is clear: in the lede should be cited only the most reputable sources. To be more clear: the 350,000 ethnic Italians of Petacco have no room there.. Not until such figure will get some international recognition such as the 300,000 of Raoul Pupo.

"From 1943 to 1954, according to sources between 200,000 and 350,000 people left from Istria and Dalmatia. The precise number, as well as their ethnic composition, remains in dispute. Most reputable Italian sources give a figure of 300,000 ethnic Italians leaving the areas of the exodus, while more recent works have argued for a number closer to 200,000."

--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Silvio, I will repeat again: base your phrases and sentences DIRECTLY on sources. -- Director (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I am replying to you immediately. No reason to give any comment on the recent edit of DancingPhilisopher. So your question. Direktor, WP does not work like that. An article is not a jigsaw of sentences from sources. Beside the objective difficulty of putting the sentence in the existing text (only a moron can imagine to fin exactly the right sentence) there is the impossibility to find a source matching everyoneùs taste. Indeed I can prove it that. I report hereafter the exact text from Weldes (a source that you like), who himself reports P. Ballinger:

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 of these Italians left the peninsula in what became known as the Istrian Exodus"

Cultures of Insecurity - Weldes - Page 64 (the text is from Pamela Ballinger)

I could push from this source to exclude the few thousands Yugoslavs and the reference to the Italian sources. I could stick to sources to exclude evident facts just because they are cited, but I don't because I look for compromise first. --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a confused again. What is the text you propose? -- Director (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The quote above; directly from Weldes.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you use as a source for "most reputable Italian sources give a figure of 300,000 ethnic Italians"? In my view we should simply follow Ballinger who covers the issue of the numbers in much more detail.

"The precise number of refugees, as well as their ethnic composition, remain in dispute. The standard statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italian exiles gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians. More recent Italian works have argued for a number closer to 200,000."

What's wrong there? Please note Ballinger does state there that the 350,000-200,000 figures relate to Italians. If you imagined otherwise you're mistaken. -- Director (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I do not imagine anything. you are not going for the lede of an event of such relevance to use only one source. And you cannot seriously cite in the lede a scholar that 50 years ago stated 350,000 with all the much more serious works issued since. Also I do not see - unless extremely reputable and recognised wwide, to report ONE scholar in the lede. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If you really insist to use ONE source, I am for the definition used by Weldes. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(Oh, forgot to remove the brackets.)

Can you explain how this is "using one source"? It seems that whenever you write something in bold its inevitably off. I'm not using one source I'm just using the formulation from one source, a formulation that is in accordance with about a dozen sources. And how is that any different from you supposedly "using one source" with Weldes?? *facepalm*

Ugh.. never mind. I'll try to combine both Weldes and Ballinger. How's this:

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people, the vast majority of whom were ethnic Italians, left the Istrian peninsula. The precise number, as well as the ethnic composition of the emigrants (Italian, Croat, Slovene), remains in dispute. The statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italians gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians, while more recent Italian works have argued for a number closer to 200,000."

If you finally stop nitpicking and agree we can move on to mentioning what (ex-)Yugoslav estimates state. No doubt they are around "200,000" too, but I'd like to find a source and make a note of that. In this formulation our text represents only Italian estimates. Note: I do not propose to modify the "350,000-200,000" range we agreed upon, I simply want to find a source and mention Croat and Slovene estimates as the entry sounds like it represents only one side. No doubt Croat/Slovene estimates will be cca. "200,000" and we can just mention that. -- Director (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, for the last time: the reputability of a source has nothing to do with the - alleged - ethnicity of the scholar. Also you should give an end of this idea that Italian scholars sustain invariably the concept of bigger number of exiled than Yugoslavs/Croat estimates. I know this is perhaps difficult to believe because in Croatia there is these days a much larger uniformity of thought about the history (expecially the recent one) of Crotia and former Yugoslavia. But in Italy it is not like that. So assuming Italian sources overestimate the number of exiled (or even suggest this concept) is incorrect and drive the reader to wrong conclusions. There are Italian sources quoting as low as 200,000 but there are no modern Croatian sources quoting more than 250,000. And you know why (and I am convinced that if you like neutrality when dealing with history, the current approach of modern Croatian historiography must drive you mad).

However, we cannot restrict to Istria the exodus, because out of Istria (Fiume, Cherso, Veglia, Zara) at least 40,000 left. My proposal is to be more generic and remove the reference to the ethnicity (prevalent or not prevalent).

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the Istrian peninsula and other locations of Dalmatia. The precise number, as well as the ethnic composition of the emigrants, remains in dispute. Some Italians sources gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians, while more recent works have argued for a number closer to 200,000."

--79.130.71.46 (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Silvio, this is you? Athens?

@"Direktor, for the last time: the reputability of a source has nothing to do with the - alleged - ethnicity of the scholar." What are you talking about? I'm not talking about reputability, we're just mentioning the estimates are "Italian", just like Ballinger. If prof. Ballinger, the source that covers the issue in much more detail than Weldes, considered it relevant and perfectly ok to mention the ethnicity of the authors - on what grounds do you propose to exclude it? Its sourced, by any standards. If I introduced it - how could you possibly justify removing it in any policy-relevant way?

Re Croatia. Croatian scholars and Croats in general are horribly biased. The Croatian Wikipedia (hrWiki) is a disgrace to the Wikimedia Foundation. However - Croats don't care about this. Sure there's old weirdos like Mesic (who only responded to an statement from the Italian side), but generally, Croats don't feel enmity toward Italy and just don't know anything about this whole thing. Croatian aspirations towards Italian territory have (unfortunately for Italians) been entirely fulfilled. On the other hand, in Italy, there's quite a bit of "revanchism", especially among the esuli, but also a lot of negative feeling in general (and I should know, many of my own cousins feel very strongly about this).

So while I certainly agree Italian authors are much more neutral - on average - than Croatian authors. I'd say that's kind of "balanced out" by the fact that practically nobody in Croatia feels the need to push any nationalist position on that issue ("what for? we won, its over") - wheres there is a certain national mood of periodical outrage regarding this in Italy. There are indeed some are obsessed (pro-)esuli maniacs with a diploma across the Adriatico.

I got a little carried away, damn... Now you;re going to write a huge unfocused response aren't you? The bottom line is, and please focus on this in your response: if the source mentions the nationality - so should we. It costs us nothing, is perfectly accurate, and it does not (as you seem to think) imply the source is of lesser quality. -- Director (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am Greece, right now. I travel a lot for business.

Revanchism... Direktor, you make me laugh. For over 50 years the Istrian Exodus was a completely neglected argument in Italy (I knew about it only 15 years ago). In Italy there is no necessity at all to push any nationalist position in this respect. This is perhaps your perception because for over 50 years there was literally no discussion and now we start to speak about it. And perhaps you do not like it, because the previous situation of full ignorance was ideal for Croatia. At the end of the day, here we do not speak of changing borders but just of assuming responsibilities for the past and if possible to preserve what remains of the Italian ethnicity of Istria. Apparently even this for the Top Management of Croatia is too much.

Dear colleague, the fact that Yugoslavia won the war does not give to Croatia the right to revise the last 1000 years of history to the point of building from scrap the house of Marco Polo in Corzula. So no surprise that on the other side of the Adriatic some people are concerned (when are not laughing). And please understand MY concern when I find Croatian sources about the history of Pola that does not even mention about its exodus.

Concerning the sentence for the lede. I do not understand why from the same scholar we should prefer to quote one source rather than the other. What I quote is also Ballinger. The issue is that this (young) lady does not take a standard position in all her different works. However, either we quote exactly a source of if we make a fusion of the most appropriate we need to have generic enough so that we do not influence the reader. It's not an issue of POV pushing, as my proposal demonstrates.

Indeed, I do not understand what it is wrong with this proposal:

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the Istrian peninsula and other locations of Dalmatia. The precise number, as well as the ethnic composition of the emigrants, remains in dispute. Some Italian sources give a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians, while more recent works have argued for a number closer to 200,000."

--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well its very good, except that "Some Italian sources" is more vague than "The statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italian exiles". It ought to be clear that the topmost estimates in our range are the statistics endorsed by Italian exiles. Switch the passages and we might as well introduce it right now.

As I said I would like to research what Croatian and Slovene sources say. Now, I emphasize again I am not trying to introduce any figures lower than what we already have (200,000) - I am not forging a conspiracy of any sort! :) I would simply like to see if we can complete our entry with a reference to what the Yugoslav sources say. In fact, if they are in any way significantly smaller than our lower limit from the sources (cca 200,000), I will not propose the inclusion of such nonsense estimates. I think I remember reading that some Croatian/Slovene sources stick by a 5% lower figure of 190,000, I'd like to see if I can source that reliably. -- Director (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I have estimates by Vladimir Žerjavić: "Recent Croatian demographic research has estimated the exodus at 220,000 to 225,000 people, of which 188,000 left from what became Croatian territory." Ok to add that as well to the entry? To be clear, what I support is:

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the Istrian peninsula and other locations of Dalmatia. The precise number, as well as the ethnic composition of the emigrants, remains in dispute. The statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italians gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians, while more recent works have argued for a number closer to 200,000. Recent Croatian demographic research has estimated the exodus at 220,000 to 225,000 people, of which 188,000 left from what became Croatian territory."

I think this is a very good entry on numbers for the lead. Of course, the fact that I like it may make you suspicious and make you not like it, but if that doesn't happen I think we solved our first major issue. If you think the first sentence is too vague in terms of ethnic composition, I am ok with adding ",the vast majority of whom were ethnic Italians," to it (as shown in my proposal earlier). -- Director (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No comment, about the fact that I might be suspicious about anything you would like.

1) I do not understand why the "statistical work" of some exiled should have right to be mentioned in the lede of an article of such relevance. Perhaps we speak of people (mind well not scholar) without any international recognition.

2) The issue with your last formulation is that does not make clear if the 188,000 were just ethnic Italians (I understand they were not, am I right?). Indeed your formulation starts to be too detailed for the lede and it's still not precise enough in absolute terms.

3) I do not understand why not stopping to the first two lines of may be the third one replacing the source (and the respective numbers) with something more reputable than the work of some exiled. Because I agree on something. The works of exiled people should be handled with care and in principle looked with suspicion. Very simplistically because who has been forced to leave - and to abandon the house and the land received from his ancestors - might not be very, very objective. Even less if your ancestors had lived there for a few hundred years. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

1) You misunderstand: the statistical work is not by exiles, it is merely endorsed (approved, approvata) by exiles. If Ballinger believes it is important to point it out, I'm for it: all I want to do is follow the source. And why not mention what figure the exiles themselves are behind?

2) This is by no means too detailed for the lede. The lede can and should be much, much more detailed than that, in fact - as this is one of the more important topics for the article. As I said, if in any sentence you feel the text is vague regarding the majority-Italian ethnicity of the exiles, we can add "the vast majority were ethnic Italians". But I personally believe the text is ok regarding that.

3) As I said at "1)" all Ballinger says is that its "endorsed" by exiles. Its relevant because it explains where the 350,000 estimate comes from.

-- Director (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I answer to 3 questions with one answer: because Ms. Ballinger is obsessed with this thing of the exiles. She even give a description three pages long in her book of the discussions she had with an exiled woman in order to demonstrate how futile and partial are their thoughts. Direktor, I do not look for that crap. Indeed we should not. And other sources - equally if not more relevant than Ballinger - does not make reference to the fact that exiles endorse such numbers. However, the real answer to your questions is: it does not mind at all that some exiles endorse such numbers. What the exiles think it's indeed absolutely irrelevant. If you really want to give some room to this (I personally don't) you have plenty of space later in the article. In the lede we report the numbers with the relevant sources. What the exiles think or endorse have no room there. --79.130.72.22 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, who are the Istrian Italians there? The ethnic Italians still in Istria or those who left? A bunch of people still living or people already did? Does it really deserve to find room in the lede of such a controversial article? It does not. --2.86.252.252 (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ballinger is not "obsessed" with exiles: she's a historical anthropologist - its her job. And in future keep such opinions to yourself: your own views on neutral, published scholars are completely and utterly irrelevant. All such comments do is annoy me. Until you learn to accept and follow sources you will not be able to edit this project seriously. And the views of the exiles are entirely relevant to this subject.

This is the bottom line: either we scrap the whole reference to the estimate (i.e. minus "the statistical work endorsed by Istrian Italians gives a figure of 350,000 ethnic Italians"), or we include it in the way the source reports it. "Some Italian sources give a figure of 350,000" is entirely unacceptable (its actually incorrect: Ballinger states its just one source). -- Director (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You are complicating this beyond all reasonable measure, all because we must cater to your own personal feelings and opinions regarding various scholars. You also often misunderstand and cannot comprehend the exact meaning of the source, and have little understanding of what is appropriate on Wiki (e.g. how large a lede can be, expressing your feelings about sources, etc.) Here is the draft without the reference to the exile-approved study:

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the Istrian peninsula and other locations of Dalmatia. The precise number, as well as the ethnic composition of the emigrants, remains in dispute. Recent Italian studies have argued for a number closer to 200,000, as does recent Croatian demographic research which estimates the exodus at 220,000 to 225,000 people, of which 188,000 left from what became Croatian territory."

If we're mentioning the Italian statistical work claiming 350,000 - we're also mentioning its endorsement by the Italian exiles, as the source does. On that much I am not prepared to compromise. -- Director (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, there is nothing of personal. It depends who is the Italian exile who endorse the 350,000. If he's Bettiza you can quote him in the lead, but if you just refer to a generic Istrian exile it does not work. I don't undestand your opposition in just quoting the extremes of the range and reporting in the notes the reference. You are too clever to not understand that with your formulation you are de facto saying the most likely number is 200,000. And may be it is the case, but can you demonstrate it. PS Direktor, do you want yo know how much your comments annoy me? Actually I find the anthropology work of Ms. Ballinger of poor quality. Of all the sources quoted here it's the poorest as she does just a compilative work without any research on primary sources and archives. I read the book, this is my opinion and I respond of it. When one writes a book also take the "risk" to be judged for what writes. Period. Let´s keep going and explain my all that necessity to refer to one source and why just not report the strict facts (between X and Y left and report the sources). Why all the BTW we call that people exiles in the Talk page but emigrants in the Article? Direktor you are not a source neither. So let´s stick to them. I reported you the exact quote from Weldes :

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 Italians left the peninsula in what became known as the Istrian Exodus".

What´s wrong with it? This does not mean that we have to restrict the lede to this sentence if course. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Its wonderful that you have your opinion of the book. Write it down, have it published, then we can talk about it. Right now, all I know is that you're some internet weirdo who's nitpicking for days over the structure of a single sentence in a language he barely understands - and I could not possibly feel less interested in what you think of various published scholarly works. I hold your opinions in such regard that if you told me something was of "poor quality" I would conclude it was excellent. Ok? Do you finally understand that? Because I've really, really had enough of this meaningless drivel.

"From 1943 to 1954, between 200,000 and 350,000 people left the Istrian peninsula. Their precise number, as well as ethnic composition, remains in dispute. Recent Italian studies have argued for a number closer to 200,000, as does recent Croatian demographic research which estimates the exodus at 220,000 to 225,000 people, of which 188,000 left from what became Croatian territory."

I've removed the reference to "emigrants" and have removed all reference to the exile-endorsed study per your (extremely annoying) requests. Now, AGREE or I am leaving here. I think I'd rather have my teeth pulled out than discuss this whole article like this with you. -- Director (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, I can write (being polite) what I think of a book. Ms. Ballinger should be delighted I read it. The formulation is fine, sufficiently generic. Now can we finally duscuss of the sources in support of the numbers? I am going to report hereafter all I know with estimates so that the sentence is adequately sourced. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Ballinger would be ecstatic to hear about you reading her book, but this is WP:NOT A FORUM for literary discussion.

"Can we discuss the sources behind the numbers"??? What do you think we've been doing thus far? -- Director (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, of course we discussed numbers but the most difficult part was to get to a proper formulation. Now we have it, we just need to source the numbers to consolidate the entire thing.

Minister of Foreign Affairs : 250.000 (by 1955) - 270.000 (end of exodus)

Colella : around 250.000

Marina Cattaruzza : at least 250.000

Raoul Pupo : around 250.000

Vladimir Žerjavić : 191.421 exiles only from Croatia

Flaminio Rocchi, Arrigo Petacco : 350.000

Important note: I have not find any source saying 200.000, but all sources (except the last two) report the figure of 201,500 (take or leave) which correspond to the actual people who referred to the Public Administration in Italy and were censed. This figure was reported in a work made by Colella in 1955. But he also adds that this figure did not included the people that moved elsewhere without transiting trough Italy, hence the estimate of 250.000 [[19]].

Have you got a source saying 200,000? I have not found but probably exist if Ms. Ballinger says so. However all recent Italian I could find says 250,000.

PS Please note the Italian Government has never claimed for a number bigger than 270.000 with 250.000 being the most likely. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Even more important note: Ballinger says "closer to 200,000", not "200,000" exactly. And that's how we wrote it. Can you please read the damn source - its been quoted here for you and I'm sick of explaining again and again what the same sentence actually means. She also lists two specific studies in support of that statement: Donato 1997, Nodari 1997. This is the fourth time people have pointed that out to you without it reaching your conscious mind. STOP questioning secondary sources and doing original research.

And what are you talking about here anyway? Listing all these people actually is too much for the lead, its for the specific section. You're all over the place again! Can you keep to the subject of discussion: the current subject is THE LEAD. FOCUS. When we get the lead out of the way we can both relax and take this more easily. I'm not discussing anything that isn't meant for the lead.

Lets move on to writing the lead paragraph of the article. First and foremost, we need a definition based directly on sources. -- Director (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)