Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian exodus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

New non agreed section

I must dream, a new paragraph (mainly unsourced and that has nothing to do with the period of the exodus) has been added without discussion. Direktor, don't try. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, again, both of you. @Silvio1973:, you're being disruptive now. DIREKTOR added your edit and further information. Why the hell did you revert to the version before yours? That doesn't even make sense in the context of a genuine content dispute, that is just reverting for revertings' sake (otherwise you would have reverted to your last version). Are you just trying to enrage him? I am going to request full page protection to cool down the issues. --cyclopia^speak! 14:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive? Cyclopia, give a look and follow the modifications. Director had reverted to a version [[1]] that was not the one we started the ANI. Check to get convinced. For this reason I reverted to the Actual version. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have seen that. I don't see why he should revert back to your preferred version. He included your edit in a larger one. That is reasonable in my book. Discussing the additions he did is one thing -for sure they can be debated. Plain blunt reverting is edit warring. In any case I requested page protection and I hope it is enabled ASAP.--cyclopia^speak! 14:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Far from me any intention to be disruptive, but we agreed that any modification had to be agreed and Direktor modified the article without giving notice. Also the modification only partially reportedy edit and contained 90% of facts non relevant to the section (descriptio′n of last year of WWII where we should write about the exodus). On to of that most edit was unsourced. But if you decided to protect I do not discuss. My concern is that I provided edit, sources and context and still we have not discussed about it. Can we please start focusing on the matter, rather than generalising on principles? Silvio1973 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We discussed it. See above. So much that DIREKTOR changed his mind and allowed the edit. You don't like the other addition DIREKTOR did? Fine, discuss that, but your edit is not anymore an issue, so no need to go ahead and discuss it. And just to clarify: protection does not mean that the "frozen" version is in any way endorsed. It just means that now you are forced to sit down and discuss. It is all useless until someone else comes to the table. Did you ask around as I recommended? --cyclopia^speak! 16:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you say that Direktor changed is mind, this is good. Finally we got there. But mind well, the edit he posted was not the one I proposed. He just proposed a part of it. So if Direktor is fine with my edit (and its sourcing) can I have confimation from him)? The complete edit is at the end of the previous section. Do not take me wrong Cyclopia, but I want to be sure that we are not implying something that he did not declare clearly. @Direktor, can you please be assertive that my edit is not an issue anymore? For the sake of clarity the edit is:

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to achieve control. In 1945 in Rijeka the liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city. by January 1946, more than 20,000 people had left the province.

Sources and context are listed above.

Once this issue is solved (if it is solved, I would like to see it first), can we ask to someone with adequate rights to have it published in the article (alternatively we can put it on the side or if the discussion return to civility you might ask to unprotect the article)? And then let's move on. If Direktor wants to add more I am happy to discuss about it, but he needs to:

1) Put information were it should go to avoid the risk to dilute the relevant facts about the exodus. By istance taking 80% of the place of the section to discuss about the last year of WWII in former Yugoslavia it is hardly acceptable.

2) Source adequately, as much as I did. The requirement is the same. For me the highest the quality and the quantity of the sources in the article, the better it is.

I have informed other users, I posted a 30 and a thread on AN/I. Suggest me what I can do more. I want to keep my hands free and do not want on to canvass. At the end of the day I am not the only want that should ask for external advice otherwise it could be claimed I chose the participants to the discussion. So please tell me how to proceed.

And of course, frozen does not mean endorsed. It is just to cool down the situation. I could not agree more on this choice.

So I wait to the answer from Direktor to move on. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Silvio1973, you are heating the issue needlessly. What DIREKTOR actually agrees or not in his heart is irrelevant, what counts is that there appears to be a consensus on that specific sentence between you two and this is a good thing. We got a sourced statement in the text that gives more relevant information to the reader, and this is good. It makes no sense to complain once you got things as you wished. You didn't wish the other addition? Fine, but it is a different issue. Discuss it separately and stick to the issue. I will take care of informing possibly relevant wikiprojects -not the national ones, but history ones, so there is some chance it is done somewhat neutrally. --cyclopia^speak! 18:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopia, very well for me and yes the discussion on the rest of the text it's a separate issue. I insisted, because I do not want to be reverted again but if you say that this specific edit won't be reverted I am fine. And very happy. It can be published, please? Silvio1973 (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't publish it: page is protected, I am not an admin and when pages are protected due to an edit dispute, no edit is going to happen anyway, even by admins. That edit is just the tip of the iceberg. The meaning of the page protection is to get the two of you to call someone else to help and to force you to decide edits here instead of reverting each other. To allow edits -by you,me,anybody- would nullify the meaning of the protection. The goal is that when the page is unprotected, one month from today, hopefully a series of edits will have been decided here, consensus will exist, and thus the page will be updated peacefully, following the result of the consensus here. And then we will try to progress from there. I can't of course promise that the edit will never be reverted in the future: this is a wiki, anyway, where everyone can edit. But so far it does not seem in danger. --cyclopia^speak! 19:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course the last edit can be changed. It is not the bible. New sources could be brought and be more relevant than the ones I provided. But what counts is that once the ANI is closed it won't be reverted without reason. Tomorrow I put under the attention of the ANI and in this talk page another point of conflict similar to the actual one and I hope we all we will discuss more smoothly. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Uggghhhh... here we go. I don't even know what you're saying... do you think that closing the ANI thread will make sure edits aren't reverted? Why?! And why would you put content issues up on ANI? The Bible? Are you even listening to what Cyclopia is saying?

You got the article protected with your pointless revert! And all I did was fix the war background and even provided a ref for the WP:BLUE info to cater to your demand, that's all. I need paracetamol.... -- Director (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Direktor, I said something else. Do not put your words in my mouth. Cyclopia and I understood you agreed about my edit and the related sources. Is it not the case? For the avoidance of doubt please be assertive. I do not know what to think now.

Concerning you addition, I am here ready to discuss. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I self-reverted as a show of good faith, in hopes someone will arrive to lend a hand. I still will not discuss with you one-on-one. I hope I get indeff blocked first... -- Director (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not self-reverted to the full edit I propose (see above) and we discussed. So the question? Do you agree on it or not. And if not, why? Silvio1973 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the other half of your "full" edit is the removal of WP:BLUE info, which (as I already said!!!) I restored and sourced. I was under the impression that you were removing it because its unsourced, and that once its sourced and fixed you would not remove it. Silly me: I forgot its you. And I literally do not have the composure to try and decipher what in the world you're talking about in the second half of your post. What "question"?? -- Director (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is: Do you agree on the edit I proposed above? To be clear, the edit I proposed is the one at the end of the section before this and it is supported by 4 sources. Once you agree we will discuss of your additional text. I kindly wait for an answer. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding?! Bah, that's enough of this for now... -- Director (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Silvio1973:, I begin to understand why DIREKTOR is so mad at you. You first revert an edit by DIREKTOR which acknowledged your edit, and then you turn everything upside down ("rigirare la frittata", in Italian, to make sure you understand) by asking DIREKTOR some kind of oath that he will never, ever revert your edit? This makes no sense whatsoever. The edit by DIREKTOR is enough. All else you're doing is just pointless harassing at him. We acknowledged your edit as fine, that's enough, now, again, please let us all move on. --cyclopia^speak! 23:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cyclopia:, please I am not that way out (harassing the others is not the objective of my life). I am not asking to Direktor to swear he will never revert my edit, this makes no sense. Give me only 3 minutes of your attention and you will understand what I mean. The edit according which one Direktor would have acknowledged my proposed edit is this one: [[2]]. It contains this text:

By 1945, the Yugoslav Army (known as the Partisans) numbered cca. 800,000 troops organized in four field armies, and included Italian volunteers from the defected 19th Infantry Division Venezia, now known as the Garibaldi Division. On March 20 1945 the Army launched a general offensive along the entirety of the Mostar-Višegrad-Drina sector. With large swaths of Bosnian, Croatian and Slovenian countryside already under Partisan guerrilla control, the final operations consisted in connecting these territories and capturing major cities and roads. By the end of March the Wehrmacht was engaged in a front-wide retreat from the Partisans, along with the local collaborationist factions (the NDH military, the Domobranci, and the Chetniks). The second wave of Italian refugees left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to establish control.[29]

Now, my proposed edit was (see discussion: [[3]]:

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to achieve control. In 1945 in Rijeka the liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city. by January 1946, more than 20,000 people had left the province.

You can see now the issues. 1) The section highlighted in Direktor's edit was never agreed and this is the separate issue we have to discuss now (not enough unsourced and not relevant to the section "Periods of the exodus"). 2) But the most important thing is : his edit does not contain 100% of my proposed edit (i.e. does not contain the part of my edit I have highlighted), so he did not acknowledged all of it, as you wrongly stated in your post. I hope now it is clear what I mean and why I am insisting. Silvio1973 (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The second part of your edit is not backed up by the source, so DIREKTOR is correct in leaving it out. In any case, again, even letting one half of your edit in means moving forward. Do you understand this? Do you also understand your pushing attitude is making things worse? Please cool off and stop complaining about who reverted/edited what; begin to discuss about what you want to add to the article and why. In a separate section, possibly, so we can close this mess. --cyclopia^speak! 16:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, in your edit here there is no trace whatsoever of that second, highlighted part. Nor in this previous edit. So, where does that "highlighted part" come from? Are you making things up? --cyclopia^speak! 16:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cyclopia:Where it was the edit? Well. It was on the talk page, the edit I posted at 12:33 on the 8th of November (end of previous section). You even answered "FYI I'm not an admin". I did not put in the article, I proposed it first in the talk page because you and Direktor told me everything has to be discussed before modifying the article. So if someone did not respect the deal, that user was not me. When I asked you if Direktor had agreed on it you told me "yes, do not insist". Now, you see why insisted.

1) Concerning the sources and the context I reported the sources in the aforementioned section. Two sources support the first sentence et two more the second. I copied also in this case verbatim from the source. Cyclopia, I am not the best editor but I try to be honest. i always support with sources and when I disagree I also oppose sources because these are the rules on the game. No, I don't make things up. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

2) The sentence entered by Direktor is fully out of context. What as to do the military strategy of the partisan with the numbers and the facts of the second wave of the exodus? I accepted in the previous version already three lines (already out of context) in order not to fire too much the issue. But now, I do not see at also the place of this edit with such precision of the events. It looks only that is to put to dilute the actual facts of the exodus. Also the facts described are mainly out of the historical period of the second wave of the exodus: the first happened during the first 4 months of 1945, the second wave of the exodus started mainly in May. 77.37.131.77 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Some long standing edits have been for some reasons removed or cn tagged. Let's proceed in the order.

@Cyclopia. Per extension the departure of the Italians from Zadar is part of the Istrian Exodus. At least this is what several scholars write. The sources in this sense abund.

[[4]]

[[5]]

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]]

[[9]]

@Direktor. I have seen you have removed some sourced edit. Can you tell us briefly why?

@All. This article is far from being great but the current version has been standing for a while. For this reason all modifications need to be really seriously sourced. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide full citation format with quotes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I did say why in my edit summary (you didn't read, as per usual). But I will repeat myself since that's how one must communicate with you: the source link doesn't work, and even if it did, it is not reliable. And even if the source were reliable (which it is not), the statement is a gross oversimplification in direct contradiction with many sources, several of them quoted to you on this talkpage (repeatedly, of course). So three separate independent reasons.

I am not opposed to the latest changes. -- Director (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Director, limit yourself to discuss in this talk page about the article and not about others' alleged attitude. You are kindly requested if you think that the material is unsourced to tag it and request for clarifications. Removing it direcly is not a valid method. I also agree that you removed a sentence that was not sourced and however a completely different level of sourcing (in terms of quality and quantity) would be necessary to sustain statements like that. Nevertheless I think I am not wrong in writing that seen the contested nature of this article it would preferably to first tag and only later remove the contested edits if sources are not provided. I believe the confrontation experienced in the recent past was essentially due to the fact that an insufficient number of users contribute on this article. Silvio1973 (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Silvio1973,

1. twelwe minutes earlier you wrote "Direktor, I decline to make any comment on your confrontational attitude."
2. Now, you request that DIREKTOR should limit himself "to discuss in this talk page about the article and not about others' alleged attitude."
3. You ignored my question to "provide full citation format with quotes"

Please be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Property reparation and assistance to exiles

I have added a sourced edit concerning the alleged assistance given to the exiles. It is worth writing what they actually received (indeed not really much) and how they were "assisted" in Italy. More important, until now the exiles (better their descendants) have not received a penny. I have tried to find some references about those agreements listed in the paragraph "Property reparation" between Italy, Slovenia and Croatia but could not find anything. Are we sure this is real? I start to have a doubt. All comments welcome. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know Croatia and Slovenia have agreed to pay reparations. Yugoslavia refused to do so because Italy refused to prosecute and/or extradite those accused of war crimes committed on Yugoslav soil (smaller countries are more easily pushed around, one would surmise). Whether any reparations have actually been paid, I wouldn't know. -- Director (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, what I would like to know is if the detailed agreement listed in the article exists or not. I could not find any single reference on the web and it is not sourced so I start to believe it is not true. Also I know for sure that after the end of the Socialism in the FYR the de-nationalised properties were returned to the owners but that the real estate belonging to the exiles was not returned because those last were foreigners (untill 2001 at least). Anything has changed since? PS Between Yugoslavia and Italy I honestly don't know in the 50's and the 60's which was the smaller country... --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It was still Yugoslavia; but I was referring there to Croatia and Slovenia. Italy was still larger in terms of population, territory, economic output.. she did have a smaller and less impressive military than Yugoslavia, but that's about it.

All I can tell you is that I recall an agreement of some sort was mentioned on the news, some years ago. -- Director (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that in the article there are information very detailed but they cannot be verified. Also it is unclear what is the situation today. I would feel more comfortable in reporting some up-to-date information and the related sources. We speak here of agreements between countries, the minimum would be to have a link to those agreements (if they exist or ever existed). For the meantime I am going to tag cn the section. I have also added some information about the Istrian Democratic Assembly. They have in their program to find solutions - whenever this is possible - to solve the issue of the property compensation. Actually I do not know if they effectively do so. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I searched the news, couldn't find anything. But I'm absolutely certain there was some agreement. Quite possibly the governments were keeping this quiet deliberately.. so as not to aggravate the peasants. -- Director (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I understand... :)) So what do we do? We keep this unsourced and unreferenced thing in the article? I am pretty sure some things are going on (especially with the integration of Croatia in the UE, the claims of an Italian citizen should be treated with the same level of consideration than those of a Croatian citizen). But in the meantime what do we do? --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Misquoting sources (again and again) and insisting on doing so

“ 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 to pressure the Italians to leave, as Milovan Dilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991. ”

Two sources are quoted for this:

• The source from Pamela Ballinger is misquoted. Ballinger refers to it as a "claim, later seconded by Milovan Dilas, used by Stalin to justify the expulsion of the Yugoslav Communist Party from the Cominform" [10]. Yet it is presented as a matter of fact.
• The specific page of the second source is unavailable online, and we are unable to see whether that too has been deliberately misquoted (yes - deliberately, as User:Silvio1973 has already been warned against misquoting the above source in that sentence). And even it is not misquoted, it is yet another example of insisting on pushing the Italian perspective, by quoting Italian authors.

Then there's the bit added to the lead that "there are still some Italians living in some cities of Istria despite the efforts made by the Yugoslavian Government just after World War II to force the Italians to leave", referenced by an interpreted primary source (a breach of WP:PRIMARY), the interview of Milovan Đilas - by that time a political opponent of the Yugoslav government (having lost in a bid for power within the complex party politics of that time).

I'll set it up so I'm notified by e-mail when this page is edited. Blatantly dishonest referencing by Silvio1973 will be reported henceforward. -- Director (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

3O on the role of Milovan Đilas in the Istrian exodus

Director, you should really refrain from attacking your fellow editors. Apart being not civil your behavior does not help. Involving other users does help, hence I requested a 3O.

There are various sources clearly explaining the crucial role Milovan Đilas had in the Istrian Exodus. And many more state that the Yugoslav Government used force and intimidation to force the Italians to leave (even if there was not a formal decision from such authorities). This is the mainstream view of modern history. I would be happy to change my mind if Director was presenting alternative sources to mines. But so far I have not seen any, so I do not see any reason to remove my edits and indeed I have reinstated them.

However, the sections actually removed (indeed vandalized) were the following (with sources):

1. In various municipalities in Croatia and Slovenia, census data shows that despite the efforts made by the Yugoslavian Government just after World War II to force the Italians to leave, there are still some Italians living in some cities of Istria, such as 51% of the population of Grožnjan, 37% at Brtonigla and 39.6% in Buje.
2. 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 to pressure the Italians to leave, as Milovan Dilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991.

Apart being very lengthy Director's arguments are unclear. The declarations of Milovan Đilas cannot be considered not reliable because he was an opponent of the Yugoslav Regime. Also, the sources in question are not primary sources, so where is the issue? Silvio1973 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• The two links to Tesser merely vaguely reference "pressure, expropriations, etc." that the Yugoslav authorities exerted "in order to establish control" post WWII. The source does not state the Yugoslav authorities engaged on a campaign to expel anyone. The source does not mention Djilas at any point. Misrepresentation.
• Ballinger. Its a blatant misquotation, I've said all there is to be said there in the thread above. The author refers to the claim by Djilas as just that - a claim.
• Rando & Cresciani. Both Rando and Cresciani just quote Petacco, who differs from Ballinger only in that he refers to Djilas' statement as an "admission" instead of what it is - an unsupported claim. Bah, its local, Italian authors delivering a skewed pro-Italian POV on a national dispute that involves Italy. Mincing words in referring to a statement by a Yugoslav political dissident. Its the only source that in some way supports you, and its contradicted in phrasing by neutral Ballinger - who refers to the statement as a "claim". And even Petacco at least attributes the claim in text, whereas you take it one step further and just present everything as certain fact.

Petacco is, btw, notoriously nationalistic in his approach (even pro-Fascist) and has previously been rejected as a reliable source in Wiki discussions on these topics. The Cambridge Historical Journal refers to him as "hopelessly biased and inadequate" (THE ITALIAN NOVECENTO AND ITS HISTORIANS). Note also this scathing review by Ballinger herself [11].

As I've said from the start, the claims by Djilas can not be treated as certain fact - they can only be treated as "claims" and attributed to him. What he stated can not be accepted at face value, simply because the sources do not do so (neutral ones anyway).

That's all I really have to say, unless you bring up other sources. -- Director (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No-one speaks of decision taken or not by the FYR. Edits and sources just speak of pressure. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, the scholars report about Djilas to explain what was the atmosphere of terror in Istria. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion, provide sources or get your opinion published by a reputable editor. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No mention to Petacco in your link. Please elaborate. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of saying the scholars are not neutral, pro-fascists, nationalits, etc please provide alternative sources. And keep your posts short. Your technique to make lenghty discussions so to discourage others to participate won't work this time. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Pressure" - "in order to establish control" after WWII, not expel Italians. And how can you say "noone claims decision" when just above you propose to enter "efforts by the Yugoslav government" were taken to expel Italians!? (also the abbreviation was never "FYR", it was "FPRY" at that time)

Request access. Or Google it, if you like [12]. To verify please request access though. Ballinger below should be enough, however.

I will not provide alternative sources, why should I? I do not propose to introduce anything. And Petacco is unreliable. Note, in addition to the above, this scathing review by Ballinger [13]:

• "Though the ethnic cleansing thesis remains a controversial one among scholars, Petacco takes it as a starting assumption.."
• "Under the guise of 'investigative journalism', however, [Petacco's] book forwards a particular perspective on extremely controversial historical questions."
• "Petacco relies upon historically untenable stereotypes about the Yugoslav propensity for ethno-nationalist violence." (quite untenable: there are only two recorded Yugoslav-on-Yugoslav conflicts, and in comparison literally dozens of inter-Italian conflicts, large and small)

Etc.. To use Petacco's phrasing to write this article would be quite unacceptable and, indeed, offensive, esp. in overruling other sources.

P.s. Please do not, under any circumstances, mangle my posts by placing your retorts in the middle of them. I've had to spend far too many edits extracting them. -- Director (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not using Petacco, so please stop arguing. A small incipit from one of his book is used by other scholars. Abd BTW the same facts are reported by Ballinger. Please stop flooding this talk page unless you do not have sources. The best is to wait for the 3O, discussing just the two of us won't bring anywhere. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: (ec*2) I have to decline your request at WP:3O as this matter is currently the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI (the section seems impossible to link to, as the square brackets in the section title appear to confuse the wiki). Sorry. -- Stfg (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yah.. ingenious move. The fact that he did that exact same thing before (ANI + 3O/RfC) is what's curious.

@Silvio, both of your Italian publications (the only two sources you really have), explicitly reference Petacco in the relevant passage, and use his term ("admission") in referring to the statement by Djilas. -- Director (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Minor issue. When the ANI is closed I will post again the 3O request. The fact is that I do not have all your experience with ANI, 3R and RfC/U. Get some sources if you want to remove my edits. Your appraisals about the scholars are not a source. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not about experience, you've been around here more than long enough. I do not need any sources, get that straight as well, please. My position is that your sources are misrepresented and/or unreliable, my being correct on that point more than justifies opposing your proposed additions. -- Director (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The edits in question do not misrepresent anything. Severel scholars cite Djilas in the context of Istrian Exodus. Even more, specifies that pressure was exerced to induce the Italians to leave (albeit a decision from the FYR was never taken). If you want to revert this is your choice, such as the consequences.

Bah, not going to repeat myself anymore... You can not enter what you want to enter with the sources you have. As I said, I'm not opposed to mentioning Djilas' claim in this context with attribution (though not in the lead). But you can't simply take what he said and present it as a certain fact unless the sources do: and besides Petacco - none do. -- Director (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

1. I do not share your view on Petacco. Nevertheless I did not use him as a source in order to avoid useless arguments.

2. I am editing copying almost verbatim from sources and the edits do not misrepresent the sources. This is just your POV.

3. The role of Djilas in the exodus is not in the lead. It never was. Perhaps yesterday night you were tired. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1. You did use him as a source: the links you post simply quote him. You don't seriously believe the claims of an unreliable source become reliable if they're repeated? All that does is it discredits them too in this regard. And its not about your view or mine (which I don't care about), its about the views of neutral scholarly reviewers.

2. Hahah.. no. No, you're not. Ballinger: "Djilas claimed that he was sent to Istria to pressure Italians to leave". You: "Djilas was sent to Istria to pressure Italians to leave". And that's a generous paraphrasing.

3. Yes it was. In the lede you introduced the claim that (quote) "efforts were made by the Yugoslavian Government" to remove Italians - and you referenced that with a link to the text of Djilas' statement. Which is wrong on many, many levels of course.

-- Director (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Petacco is not used as a source. Not directly. If other reliable scholars might cite him in some istances this does not mean that the work of such cholars is non neutral.
2. Your view. Just your POV.
3. In the lede there is no reference to Djilas. It was already the case yesterday evening. The source in question reports many other facts that just Djilas' interview. I have however modified the lede following your comments. And replaced an Italian source with an English. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, Petacco is indirectly used as a source: and for this article to mirror his position and use his phrasing - is just not acceptable. Especially when he is contradicted in said phrasing by other sources whose reliability is not in question. In short: this article will not voice Petacco's views, directly or indirectly.

2. Ballinger reports claims made by Djilas - and you quote her to present that which he claims as a matter of fact. To say that is not misrepresentation is just untenable. And silly.

3. Whatever. Djilas or no Djilas, the lead will make no claims that cannot be supported with reliable sources. Especially your ideas regarding Yugoslav complicity.

You added changes you knew are opposed. The changes have no reliable sourcing. While the issue is discussed - do not attempt to reintroduce your changes without consensus. You will be reverted. -- Director (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The changes are very well sourced, and every time you will roll back I will source even better. I have just provided two more sources. And it is easy because I am just editing according to the mainstream and sources abund. Of course you can continue reverting well sourced material. Indeed, instead of acting as a censor you should provide alternative sources to support your POV. But you don't. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated that the changes are not well sourced. -- Director (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

substantially agree with Silvio but Director's approach is uncooperative, disruptive and with personal attacks in long series despite reports in ANI--Teo Pitta (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)