Talk:Dalmatian Italians/Archives/2012/December

scope

Is it proper to dump Istrian Italians into Dalmatian Italians? Even the Roman province of Dalmatia doesn't fit. I'm wary because this is User:Brunodam "territory"... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is titled Dalmatian Italians, I would say no, because Istria is not a part of Dalmatia in any definition of either term throughout the history. A parallel example is Banat Swabians and Danube Swabians where a similar distinction is made. Since Istrian Italians article already exists the info related to Istria should be moved there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, an alternate solution is to merge the two articles into Italians in Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First, most of the content of Dalmatian Italian and Istrian Italians is talking about histoy of these regions and overlaps with History of Dalmatia and History of Istria (currently at Istria#History) and should thus be merged there. Then the leftovers talking about Italians in these regions should be purged from POV crap and merged into a "History" subsection of Italians of Croatia, which itself should also have a section dealing with their present-day status and numbers. That way we'd have a merge target for all of Brunodam's future essays on Italians in X. He might be writing a colossal work on Italians in Rijeka as we speak (and Rijeka is neither Istria nor Dalmatia). Timbouctou (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Make that Italians of Croatia :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a fair point. Facts about the Italian Community in Riejka must be moved out of this article. This city is not in Dalmatia. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Awful to see and confusing to read

With the all due respect to the users that contributed to write this article, I must confess it's awful. Perhaps because a lot of energy was spent on pushing opinions rather than focusing on facts. I don't know. However, the structure is pretty slanted, the language is not clear, the English is average. Even the images are placed in a way that disrupte the structure of the article. The whole article looks more a battlefield than anything else. There are facts of minor relevance oversourced mixed to important but unsourced. To start, I will make some obvious corrections of style and grammar but clearly to make of this a decent article the road is long. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I mean... it was even claimed that Fiume was ceded to Italy after the Treaty of Rapallo instead of the Treaty of Rome... --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You are very much correct in characterizing it as a battlefield. I have no objections whatsoever to your fixing it up, but do bear in mind that its a battlefield. Please be careful to tread the fine line between two points of view (its Rijeka, for example; the third Croatian city). And again I recommend keeping to BRD. -- Director (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, I am not sure how to understand your suggestion. However, the article today is really written in a poor way. By the way, it is amazing that Mbytes of discussion had place but no-one really realised about major historical mistakes, such the one I describe above (confusion between the Treaties of Rome and Rapallo). My aim is firstly to solve such obvious issues (and again I cannot believe that experienced users concentrated their energies and time on which toponym should be used for Rijeka, rather than firstly checking the correcteness of the basic historical information relevant for this city). Indeed this shows that many contributors does not really care about the informations contained in the article, but just use it as vector of propaganda. Useless to say, I am not interested in the slightest to that rubbish.

Yes, there is the risk that any modification to this article could trigger a new battlefield. In that case, you can be sure I will move away. In the meantime it would not be responsible to leave such obvious mistakes just because of the risk of reviving previous existing conflicts. At some point, the respect of basic rules and principles must prevail.

PS I would never use Fiume instead of Rijela in the article, but please leave me the right to write as I think, at least in the Talk page. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies Slivio, if I reverted some of your edits with my last one, but I was working for a while and I had no choice but to enter the edit over yours. You do post quite a lot of small edits, I couldn't get my edit through due to successive edit conflicts. In future, bear in mind that its generally advisable to take it easy on the Wikimedia servers and post a smaller number of larger edits. Please do restore your work. -- Director (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This is fine. The issue is that the article was (and it is still) so badly written that it is difficult to post larger edit because this would mean rewrite it completely and I can do only at risk of deleting some main facts. However, I am absolutely fine with the replacements you made about the toponyms but I would like to go deeper than this.

Some text was removed and I would like to have your opinion:

Following the Italian emigration from Dalmatia and the events following World War II, the Dalmatian Italians communities were drastically reduced in their numbers. Today according to the official censi only a few hundred citizens in Croatia and Montenegro declared themselves of Italian ethnicity. It is claimed by the Italian Communities in Dalmatia that the official census of 2002 underestimate the real number of Italian Dalmatian because several Croatian citizen of Italian descendency might not declare their real ethnicty for various reasons. If it is difficult to assess if this claim is correct, but it has to be noticed that the Italian Community of Zadar counts currently around 500 members even if during the last census in 2001 in the entire Zadar county only 109 inhabitants declared to be of Italian ethnicity.

I think it's relevant because otherwise we make use of primary source (the censi) and also because it is a fact that all together the different Italian Associations in Dalmatia count over 2,000 members and this cannot be with only 300 Croatian citizens of Italian ethnicity. I think the two facts should be cited. I restored the text, but let me know what you think. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I noticed you did already the job. I believe the list of Notable Dalmatians need to be shortened to the truly relevant people.

PS I know some of them personally, and with the all due respect I do not think they are relevant enough to have their room here.

Like I said, it was an editorial necessity. I believe I restored all your edits? I concur regarding the list. -- Director (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Imo this article should be merged with Istrian Italians into an Italians of Croatia article. Never mind Kotor. -- Director (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah ah ah. This could be a good idea, though the history of the two communities are quite different (and there is the issue of the Italians of Slovenia that are in Istria but not in Croatia). You see, if Yugoslavia was there the job would be easier. However, I have reduced the list to the really notable people. En:wiki counts over 4 million article. If they are really notable an article must exist (or should be created), otherwise no reason to cite them. Honestly.

• Re Kotor Bay. There are 135 Italians in the whole(!) of Montenegro today, and there's no indication that many of these few don't live elsewhere than the Bay of Kotor (in the Montenegrin capital, for example). Effectively, there are no Italians of Kotor Bay. I'm not saying this area should be excluded, I'm just saying it would be sensible to cover the few families there in the Italians of Croatia article.
• Re Slovenia. There are a few options there. We could cover them in Italians of Slovenia, which is I think the recommended format for these sort of minority articles. OR since we're just talking about a few towns, and there isn't much to say specifically about them, we could just cover them in the Italians of Croatia article entirely.

I think it would be a good idea to create one decent and significant article out of two shoddy ones. We should be concerned with substance, not so much the title. The very few people from the regions of Istria and Dalmatia that are outside of Croatia are probably just below WP:NOTE. -- Director (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, don't take me wrong but when it comes to censi in former Yugoslavia caution is due. The number of Italians in Croatia changed between in 1981 and 2001 dramatically, and this should already ring a bell. I don't know why people did not declare their ethnicity in the past but I do not see how the censi can rappresent correctly the various ethnicities before the entire Balkans will not be fully stabilised. Of course censi are a fact that cannot be ignored, but also to be used carefully.

However, the consistency in Kotor Bay is larger than that. Many ethnic Italians declare themselves as Montenegrins. Otherwise the size of the local Italian Communities could not be explained. And there is a significant historical reason to include Kotor Bay. However, you raise a good question and I believe it is fair to discuss about it. But I also believe that in the time a new article covering distinctly the two areas would appear if we make a merge. Because beside any practicle consideration, it is true that the history of the two Italian communities (Istrian and Dalmatian) are very different (the size, the link with Venice and later Italy, the Slavic/Romance duality...).

Concerning your last modification it triggers a couple of issues. I agree on the fact that the article cannot state that Dalmatia is transnational across Croatia and Montenegro. We discussed enough about it and agreed that only some sources support this definition of Dalmatia. On the other hand the definition Croatian Region of Dalmatia (your last edit) push things too much in the other direction. I can propose 2 formulation:

• 1)Dalmatian Italians are a small Italian national minority living in Dalmatia.
• 2)Dalmatian Italians are a small Italian national minority living in Croatian Dalmatia and in the Bay of Kotor (Montenegro).

And of course I know that version 2 might suggest the fact that there is another Dalmatia other than the Croatian Dalmatia, but I really cannot make better. I believe that a formulation that is bomb-proof simplistically does not exist because it is the definition of Dalmatia itself that is not 100% estabilished (and we spoke enough about that). I believe formulation 1 is the most appropriate because this is not an article of geography. The reader going to Dalmatia will read and understand what there is to understand. At the end of the day we are not here to take conclusions for the reader. Let me know what you think. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Re census data in SFR Yugoslavia.. I'm prepared to take it as reliable. Particularly after, say, 1960. Why? Well because, unlike Fascist Italy under Mussolini, there was no real issue here. The Italians were practically gone and no serious political/diplomatic faction in their right mind would even suggest an Italian annexation of Dalmatia or Istria. The main issue was whether Trst would be ceded to Yugoslavia, rather than Istria to Italy (not to speak of Dalmatia or Kotor!). No, the Yugoslav government was safe and secure in its hold on Istria and Dalmatia, more so even than modern-day Croatia, and I would like to see any accusations of census bias sourced.

All that said, the figure of 135 Italians in Montenegro is from a 2011 census. There are more Slovenes, Turks, Germans, and Russians there, for example, than Italians. And we're talking about the census for the whole country, not the couple counties on the shore. To all intents and purposes, there are no more Italians in Kotor Bay. They are well below WP:NOTE. Even Dalmatian Italians might be considered below WP:NOTE as a modern-day minority. As you can see, practically the only thing there is to speak of here is history.

The fact that Dalmatia is a "Croatian region" has been sourced profusely and has been settled(?) on Talk:Dalmatia. Several sources even explicitly state that Kotor Bay is not in Dalmatia anymore (since the '20s). -- Director (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the interesting thing is that there are more Dalmatian Italians in the Bay of Kotor rather than in the whole Croatian Dalmatia. If any of the population was well below WP:NOTE this would be the second and not the first.

Re the census, I have been misunderstood or perhaps I did not write exactly what I should have. I do not think in the slightest that during SFR Yugoslavia the censi were manipulated and even less I think that his happen today in Croatia. Administration in Yugoslavia was a very serious thing (and it's very serious in modern Croatia, certainly more than in Italy ). No, it's just that for some obvious reasons ethnic Italians were concerned of outing their identity. However your comparison (i.e. comparing the rights of minorities in SFR Yugoslavia to those in Fascist Italy) is historically inappropriate. Minority rights in SFR Yugoslavia in the '60s and '70s should be compared to those in the Republic of Italy in the same years. And you would have an hard time demonstrating that the rights of the Slavic minorities in Trieste or Gorizia were less guaranteed that in Rijeka or Pula during the same years. However this is not my opinion, it can be sourced like at page 4 of this essay [[1]] by Matjaž Klemenčič from the University of Maribor : We have to emphasize that the data of the Yugoslav censuses are unreliable in relation to the real number of Italians, since many members of the Italian minority, for various reasons, chose ‘Nationally Undeclared’ or their regional identity (mostly as ‘Istrians’).

However, we have to discuss now about the Lead in the article and not of Istrian exodus. What do you propose? I also believe the current formulation is not appropriate.

PS By the way I do not mind if you use the toponym Trst, because I know how much the culture of this city own to its cultural duality. If everyone in Croatia (and I genuinely do not speak of you) would finally recognise how much his country owns to the its romance past (rather than trying to demonstrate that Marco Polo is Croatian) things would be easier for everyone.

"Veneticization"?

I have just removed this word, that merely does not exist. I can (hardly) tolerate words like Italianization and Croatization, but Veneticization really borders the absurd. Also I had to rephrase the sentence: The larger Slavic population proved more resistant, partly because of its size and the linguistic unsimilarity, and partly because the Slavs (Croats and Serbs) were mostly situated outside the cities (in the hinterland and the islands).. This sentence contains a negative meaning, such as that Venice was trying to convert them. This is historically incorrect because Venice did not pay a damn (to be nice) to such matters, they just cared about money. Indeed, the issue is the language itself. Is there any reason (other than the necessity to slide the concept that the Slavs were there and the Venetian were the bad guys invading Dalmatia) to use such bold words? Also what is the reason to specify that the Slavs were Croats and Serbs? I would not be surprised if in the next days someone would add: "Croats, Serbs and Slovenes". And please I remember we are speaking of the 15th century... --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Venice certainly could not care less. And, personally, I am of the opinion that its silly to differentiate between Serbs and Croats and Bosniaks and Montenegrins - even today, let alone hundreds and hundreds of years ago. The same goes for Macedonians and Bulgarians and now "Kosovars" and Albanians all the rest of these silly "nations". Its all the same succotash :). But(!), on the whole very few people would agree with me there - most sources included. Therefore, it is justified to note that these "Slavs" weren't Russians or Ukranians or Czechs, i.e. that they were specifically Croats and Serbs (in Dalmatia), and Croats and Slovenes (in Istria). It might even be worth noting that Croats are undoubtedly the majority in both cases. These are the modern-day nations that are retroactively imposed on that time, but that's the state of modern historiography. -- Director (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

When I deal with some users, I have the impression they believe that Venice built schools to teach Venetian in the territories under their control. Well, of course the Croats were the majority in both cases, because on the coast the most of the people were Croats and here we speak of Dalmatia and Istria, so well you get the rest. However, I do not see anything of good in this endless process of small nation creations. This will drive to more movements of population (as if in the Balkans in the last 100 years this had not happened enough) and to more ethnic conflicts. Bah...--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

just fixed this image up

Its really nothing more than regional antagonism, Italians of all people might understand it. In America "Italians" are very often perceived sort of as Sicilians, or generally as Italians from the Mezzogiorno - and that of course has a huge impact on global perception through American media. If you're from Veneto, for example, and you really don't want to be called by the same name as, say, people from Lazio or Tuscany, you'll have your own language (i.e. not a "dialect") - and its a small step further to declare your own nation. Then you need to have religious differences, and very complex intermingling of regional identities caused by Turkish invasions - and presto: where do you draw the border? If you told someone around here in 1985 that Yugoslavs would be tearing each-other apart in a couple years, you'd be laughed out of the room.

But seriously, though, it is necessary to make it clear which South Slavs we're talking about. -- Director (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine for me, we can replace Slavs with Croats but I suggest you to source it or sooner or later someone will contest it.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

PS I noticed that quite a bunch of Italian nationalists have edited in the past on Dalmatian related articles. Do not get confused, Italian are by far a non nationalist people regardless of a minority that makes a lot of noise. Culture and religion are a strong glue, and there is short supply of the second one in Italy. Italian regionalism is so strong in Italy that never people would bother to make a nation of their region. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, I know. I know the whole story :). Religion would hardly be a "glue" (what's so special about being Catholic? you need a national church for that), but it can be the cause of intense hatred. I'm rather conservative myself, but I don't buy into any of that pointy-hat stuff. This is the only mitre I'm concerned with. -- Director (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)