Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian exodus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Extreme POV

PIO, stop adding the same information you have been trying to add to the Tito page. What you are stating is hardly NPOV, not to mention unfactual. I have yet to see any proof of what you have added, and will revert it until you get a valid source for the information.

Ethnic cleansing in Croatia is a method which was used by Croats several times to change the balance in national composition of Croatia in twentieth century. It went hand in hand with genocide against the Serbs and foibe massacres of the Italians in WWII, but the method was used again in '91-'95 Croatian secession war.

Croatia, as it is today, consisted of several regions with very different history. The northern part of this country belonged to Austro-Hungarian Empire and Hungary, while the Dalmatian coast had a fate similar to the other parts of Adriatic coast, and cities like Venice. Republic of Ragusa was one example of such a city state, and it was later included in Austro-Hungarian Empire after the conquest of Napoleon.

Dalmatia had a distinct population, which consisted of Italians and Slavs. Italians were mostly concentrated in cities, like Zara, Fiume, Ragusa and other. Istria was always a part of Italy, up to 1945 when it was occupied by the Croatian Tito's communists. But even further to the south, around 400,000 Italians lived, which constituted around 40% of the population of Dalmatia. The remaining population was mainly Slavic, roughly half of which were Serbs, and the rest were Catholic Dalmatians, later turned into Croats. Serbs were also concentrated in Krayina region which extended further to the north, along the boundary with Turkish Empire. They lived there for centuries, and there were around a million of them in the present day Croatia in 1900. Out of 4 million people almost half were not Croats, even if one counts Dalmatian Catholics, indeed all Slavic Catholics, as Croats.

After WWI, Italy lost part of the Dalmatian coast. It remained in Istria and some other towns, like Zara further to the south. The Serbian forces, who victoriously defeated the Austro Hungarian army at the Solun front marched all way to the Slovenia, and the country, dominated by the victorious Serbs, was created.

In WWII, Italians regained control of most of the Dalmatian coast, despite some of it being incorporated in the notorious NDH. The NDH was involved in the genocide against the Serbs, and almost a million of them were killed in present day Croatia and Bosnia, which were both included in this Nazi puppet state. Their plan was to get rid of the Serbs, by killing one third, expelling the other third and assimilating the rest. The first goal was achieved in WWII by the Ustasha genocide.

However, in 1943, with the fall of Mussolini's Italy, Germany regained control of the Dalmatian coast, while partisans engaged in the first wave of killings of Italians in the notorious foiba pits. The worst atrocities perpetuated by Croatian communists were done however in 1945, with German withdrawing. Tito's communists killed several thousand Italians and foiba's were filled with Italian bodies. They occupied Istria, cities of Trieste, Fiume, historical capital of Dalmatia Zara, which were always Italian, and expelled several hundred thousand of Italians in the first wave of ethnic cleansing.

Some Germans, who lived in Slavonia, were also expelled, but their number was not so large as Germans were a small minority there. While Germans were Nazis up to '45, Italians fought on the side of Allies since '43, like they did in the WWI.

The final episode of ethnic cleansing happened in '95, where all of the Krajina Serbs were expelled, while thousands of mostly elderly and hapeless were mercilesly killed. Out of over 500,000 Serbs present in Croatia in '91, most of who lost someone in the genocide in WWII. Out of them, only around 100,000 Serbs remained, mostly in cities where they were further discriminated against, just as the remaining Italians are forcibly assimilated and slowly expelled from Croatia after WWII.

Thus, the 95% population of present day Croatia claims to be purely Croat. This is up from 82% in the 1991, 68% after WWII, and 35% (52% if one counts all Slavic Catholics) after WWI. The results of ethnical cleansing in Croatia are indeed impactful.Dalmatian language, a dialect of Italian is now extinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovaniGiovany (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war?

We need to figure out some way of solving the edit war that is currently going on here. Apparently, one side is consistently trying to impose an Italian POV over a clear Yugoslav POV that had previously taken over. I appeal to both for joint cooperation so that we don't waste time on useless and endless reverts.E.Cogoy 05:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it was a clear Yugoslav POV, as the person who created the initial article was Italian himself. This was followed by PIO's heavily pro-Italian POV changes which I tried to change to NPOV. Then there was another Italian edit that was very close to NPOV, but lacked proper citations for actions like "political cleansing" taking place, etc.--Zivan56 20:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Major editing

I apologize as I did a major editing, trying to write a few NPOV paragraphs, and forgot to log in. There is still a Reference section that should be added. FrancescoMazzucotelli 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

history

I consider simple history!--PIO 17:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, where to start with all your edits. First of all, its "Yugoslav" people, not "jugoslav" as you put it. These changes are considered racist, and perhaps even defamitory if they have any meaning in Italian. Furthemore, all identifiable ethnic groups are treated as proper names, and as such should be capitalised.

Second of all, Dalmatia was not an Italian province; check the article you linked to before making changes. Tito was not the leader of Yugoslavia during this time, Ivan Ribar was until 1953 the leader of the communist part of Yugoslavia.

I suggest you stop editing these pages, as you are clearly the one who is not familiar with them. If you have something to contribute that you know is true, I have no problems with it; but this is just "vandalism" as you call it. --Zivan56 02:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The exodus is also dalmatian because Zadar was an italian town with a high percentage of Italians (about 83%) actually there are not italian people here, we could suppose that 20.000 Italian were forced to exodus. --Ilario 09:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The capitalization could be an error. If you think that is a "racism", your opinion could be also racist. --Ilario 09:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The integrations of other contibutors are not "vandalism". I'm verifying them with integration and references. --Ilario 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confused as to who the comment was directed at. This is to PIO (aka Jxy) and not your edits. If you have proof, that is in English, feel free to post the info here. It is not an error, he does it all the time and its not proper english. He has been vandalising pages before and he is very close to being banned for that. --Zivan56 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tito

I've verified. The persecutions among Istrians with Italian ethnicity was caused suddenly the Armistice (1943-1945) by local populations following revenge's desire caused by Fascism and its nationalist politic. A second phase (started in the 1945) was caused by Tito and Yugoslav Army who had the aim to acquire Trieste before other Allied Forces. In this last situation the aim was not an revenge, but a political aim. If Allied Forces had been persuaded that the Slav ethnic presence was a majority (or the entirety) in comparison with Italian presence, the Istria and Trieste would been assigned easily to Yugoslavia. The aim of Tito was political, but it was present. In fact in the following years Tito became aware that in some parts of Istria these aims were destroying the economic structure because a lot of Italians were traders or artisans, and he changed his politic. --Ilario 10:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Now i add in article some identical informations of foibe massacres: in fact is the same historic context!--PIO 11:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

It surprises me that some people have not even read this article fully before making changes to it ad-hoc. The London Memorandum of 1954 gave to the ethnic Italians either the choice of opting to leave (the so-called optants) or staying. These exiles were to be given compensation for their loss of property and other indemnity by the Italian state under the terms of the peace treaties. Get it now? Now, read the definition of Ethnic cleansing and tell me if it matches up. Nobody was forced to leave, and they were given compensation if they did leave. Also, with regards to the Tito, he was not the leader until 1954 (see List_of_leaders_of_communist_Yugoslavia). You, PIO/Jxy, see bent on accusing anything you can think of that is negative. --Zivan56 20:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

In 1954 the exodus was over since a long time. The refugees were already in Italy or somewhere else. They had no choice whatsoever. They fled in mass under threat of mass murder, of becoming apolids, of living in a Communist country with no right. They've lost everything, lived in refugees camps and never came back. Many people suffered this kind of tragedies at the end of many wars. Now it's time to acknowledge rights and wrongs on both sides. Italians did it already. They do not want any kind of revenge. Southern Slavs should give up all this hostility and hatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.178.67 (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC) About command of Broz and ethnic cleansing you must apprehending above statements of Ilario and mine: Tito's command expression is in foibe massacres too and ethnic cleansing is in see also section of foibe too! Your interpretation about optants is wrong because you ignore Prominent Italian historians like..... This article is simple an other part of same historic event of foibe: both were ethnic cleansing for prominent Italian historians! Your changes are POV very much because you are an admirer of dictator Broz and you are negative obstructionist. Moreover in my next change i approve your some words added in article to verify your real intention of neutral collaboration! In Slovenia you can find this book: Tudi mi smo umrli za domovino.--PIO 16:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Prominent Italian historians - need I say more? Either way, it is very clear you have an inherent bias against Tito, no matter what "sources" you provide. Anybody can find any source with any POV easily, but finding more than a few is what will allow you to prove your argument (especially with non-peer reviewed sources) --Zivan56 19:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't know history! You are alone troublesome admirer of dictator Broz in this discussion: an administrator needs block you! Moreover in my next change i use different words.--PIO 16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So, despite the fact that 5 people so far have reverted some of your edits, you still think you are right? Two of them were Italian, so you can't say they were "admirers." You are the one that clearly needs to be blocked, its just wikipedia bureaucracy that keeps them from doing it. Furthemore, I don't even want to start with your violations of the English language; I suggest taking an in depth course instead of doing ad-hoc translation from Italian. --Zivan56 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasichescu sedea,truiblinca leshen tu' olsiuh meteran Titu, en tu Istriia bhlesciu zardenkien op ilkjeje lomasdenhia tu italii kroatii on slevenshki? Nikita Orolov.

Che facciamo, comunichiamo in italiano? LEO

Zivan56, pay no attention to the irredentists, this is all rooted in the fact THAT ITALY LOST WW2 and that there is a LOT of bottled up frustration and irredentist sentiment nowadays towards Croatia and ex-Yugoslavia. In simple terms: they want Istra back and want to criminalise it's loss. It's that rudimentary. Well here's what I have to say about that: there will be no criminalisation of Yugoslavia, revanchism and irredentism while there is yet a key on my keyboard. You will either use reliable sources in expressing your oppinion or they will be considered untrue. What Zhivan56 is qoting is historic fact, what you are saying is the oppinion of biased Italian authors. I can find you dozens of historians in Croatia that say our border should be in Macedonia, but they are not automatically right! DIREKTOR 19:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DIRETTORE stop your propaganda against Italians!!!! LEO 25 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.95.202 (talk) 17:38, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I am afraid you are neglecting a simple truth: in Istria and Dalmatia lived and prospered a vast population who defined themselves Italian.They were majority in many towns (e.g. Fiume (Rjieka) and Pola (Pula)). They left their houses in mass after WWII. In 1948 most of them had left. They never came back. They lost everything. They had no compensation whatsoever. They flew after some mass murders accomplished by yugoslav army and irregulars. The aim was to free those places from any "foreign" presence. This is widely accepted by most Italian and non-Italian scholars. Probably something different is taught in Slovenian and Croatian schools. I understand the nationalistic reasons, but if we blame Turkey for denial of Armenian genocide, we should blame Croatia and Slovenia in the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.62.178.67 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear unregistered user, you don't want to let the genie out of the bottle. Why don't you skip the part about how the Italians settled in Rijeka. Pula was a military base, small town that exponentially grew in 19th c. And, don't forget the criteria that someone use to statistically "create Italians" - one person knowing Italian language was automatically represented as a person that's Italian, which was not always the case. However, that way, Croatian and Slovenian majority in Istria was suppressed with such policy in 19th .c (only in 20th. c., befor WWI, they've managed to emancipate, however, WWI stopped further progress, and later assigning the territory of Istria to Italy did severe damage). Kubura (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

IP user, look at what Mussolini's thugs did in Yugoslavia. Have a good look at the Italian uniforms here: [1]. Seen enough? Do you wonder why people are skeptical about your protests about how badly the Slavs treated you? Now, perhaps you can and should focus your mind on the western side of the Adriatic, not the eastern. Leave it alone. Everything's OK over here without any Italian advice, suggestions, etc. Instead of worrying yourself about Croatia and Slovenia, perhaps you could spend some time thinking about how to fix the rubbish disposal problem in and around Naples. I've seen it on TV and it looks terrible. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Work on the compromise version, further refinement

If my Italian collegues would merely list their proposed changes, we could get to work on getting this version of theirs finallized. On the other hand, your uncompromising editing would lead to an edit war (I will never let you bully people into your version without a consensus). Let us therefore discuss the issues, Slavic communist barbarian to Italian fascist oppresors. Please? DIREKTOR 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am PIO unlogged and in next edit I add integration. PIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.90.185 (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PIO!, my favourite fascist oppresor (a joke, of course, see my post above)! Here's the situation, PIO: I had my version, you had your version. I edited your version somewhat to produce a compromise version. This compromise version is here to be the article while we discuss changes. Are you willing/able to discuss changes? I repeat: the version I made will stay only until we can reach a civilized democratic consensus. You edited the compromise version so I reverted that edit, for now, only until we reach conenesus. Can you discuss in English? Will you discuss in English? DIREKTOR 10:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am democratic anti-communist and you are communist lier. In next edit I restore my integration and put your POV statements in a section called -denial-. If you are accurate, understand that you started edit wars in many articles against 12 and more editors: they need ban you! If you remove again my integration, I will report you to an administrator for disruption! PIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.93.231 (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not gonna work, PIO. I'm not gonna let you push your fanatical POV. Get this: I am not "denying" anything! Nowhere did I write that the foibe massacres or the exodus did not occur. I am merely questioning (not denying!) the connection between the two. I also rewrote your Italian city names that were historically Slavic after World War 2 and I removed your obvious personal oppinions added to a text copy-pasted from a real source.

FYI:

• I am not a communist (or socialist). In my oppinion communism is a failed and deeply flawed ideology. I support Yugoslavia not because of its socialism, but because it brought together all southern Slavic nations in a truly equal and prosperous union.
• I am not a nationalist. I loathe the ideology. Seeing the nationalism-inspired killings of the Yugoslav wars can do that to you, believe me.
• Living in a democratic country does not make a person democratic. You are absolutely not democratic, obviously because you do not respect anyone's oppinion but your own.

I did not report you for your (frequent) previous personal attacks, but I believe I may now be forced to do so. I will never let you push your version without consensus, remember that. DIREKTOR 18:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you have not consensus and make edit wars in many articles!!!! You are a communist supporter of criminal dictator Josip Broz!!!! You are anti-Italians and insult defining Italian soldiers of WW2 cowards!!!! You are fanatic denier of ethnic cleansing against innocent Italian people!!!! If you remove again my integration, I will restore again it and I will request for mediation. PIO, 9 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.94.37 (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I have no consensus because you (and your buddies) categoricly refuse to discuss anything.
2) Tito is not a criminal dictator (officially, he was the most liberal Socialist leader of the eastern bloc), nor even a textbook dictator for that matter. I support his ideals because they kept the second Yugoslavia together.
3) I am an Italian (Venetian) by ancstry so it would be kind of STUPID if I was an "anti-Italian". I merely answered to Italian military boasting and utterly riddiculous war threats of several users (LOL) by stating several historic facts about Italian miltary exploits.
4) Look it up on the UN websites. The Istrian exodus was not ethnic cleansing, the people left VOLUNTARILY (hell! even the Croatian Operation Storm isn't ethnic cleansing).

5) And finally, before you bother another Admin, please remember that there is currently an Arbitration taking place on this and other articles, that you add historically incorrect data (example: "Fiume" was "Rijeka" after WW2, when the exodus took place etc...), and that you are about to be reported for your repeated, open, and unmistakable personal attacks against me and other editors. DIREKTOR 09:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to the use of ethnic Italians in this page

"Italians" and "Italianization" should be used only when referring to Mussolini's propaganda. It should not be used to describe the historical ethnicity of Istrians, and Venetians for that matter.

Just because Istrians spoke a romance-language for centuries, they were not speaking an "Italian" dialect. Even Venetian (that subplanted the autoctonous Istrian tongue) is not an "Italian" dialect. Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Catalan, Venet, etc...) are not Italian dialects. They are all sister languages with closer ties than Slavic ones, but it does not make them a dialect of one another.

The Venet tongues spoken from Verona to Istria are very similar to one another, and belong to the same language, with a distinct literature dating back to the 9th century (that's right, the Verona's riddle was written in Venet). Dante Alighieri himself, in his De Vulgari Eloquentia highlighted the different language spoken in Verona, Vicenza, Venice and Istria.

I object to historically referring to Venetians as Italians. They were an indipendent country who fought fiercely against Italians, often enlisting Sclavones in their army. Istrians were part of the Venet Republic as far back as the 12th Century, much before Padua, Vicenza, and Verona joined. Culturally Venice looked to the East (the Greek world, Bisantium and the East) rather than Tuscany, Genoa and Rome. By the way, during the League of Cambrai, Venice had to fight against the Italians, the Germans, the French and the Spanish,...and won.

If Venetians are not Italians, I wonder why Venice used to be the publishing center of Italy? Two books that you may want to examine are the biography of Christopher Columbus, written in Castilian by his son Fernando, which was translated into Italian and published in Venice in 1571. "Historie del S. D. Fernando Colombo; nelle quali s'ha particolare, & vera relatione della vita, & de fatti dell'Ammiraglio D. Cristoforo Colombo, suo padre: Et dello scoprimento ch'egli fece dell'Indie Occidentali, dette Mondo Nuovo" is at: http://www.liberliber.it/biblioteca/c/colombo_fernando/ Another very famous book published in Venice is G.B. Ramusio's, "Navigazioni e Viaggi," which is at: http://www.liberliber.it/biblioteca/r/ramusio/ User:Italus 22 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 05:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

When Napoleon inveaded the Venet mainland, it was the Dalmatians and the Istrians who insisted to temporarily bring the Venet government across the Adriatic. Most of the military resistance to Napoleon in the Venet mainland was fought by Dalmatians. The Venet Republic was almost more theirs than anyone's. So much for the "occupied lands" theory. Even under the Austrian Empire, Venet, Istrian and Dalmatians fought together in the 1866 Battle of Lissa (Vis) against the Italians,...and won.

When Italy annexed Venetia (thanks to their alliance to Prussia against Austria) they made a referendum-farce, where people voting NO had to use a different ballot box. Less than a quarter of the population voted, and the result would have made any dictatorship blush (646thousand YES, 69 NO). And by the way, Istrians did not even vote in the referendum and remained under Austria until World War I. After millenia (because the Roman Regio X went from Mantua to Pola), Venets and Istrians were divided. 138.88.200.242 22:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to question the objective intent of Italian contributors to this page. But after a century of propaganda to Italianize the Venetian territories, by default it has become customary to refer to non-Slavs as Italians, even by the Istrians (and Dalmatians) themselves. If there are no objections I will correct the ethnic references. 138.88.200.242 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Venetian were and are italians, hethnically, historically and culturally. The original population of Venice was from Roman cities of Italian peninsula fleeing successive waves of Germanic and Huns invasions. The city has always been strongly supportive of italian cause even, as most of the italian city, it has a distiguished, proud, and glorious history and identity. Everything in Istria and Dalmatia, except the gifts given by the nature, is a product of the italian civilization and culture. Sadly, balcanic nationalism prevent many to admit this disturbing thruth.--151.100.9.229 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

the only balcanic nationalism i see here comes from the italian penninsula. "italian civilization" is an oxymoron, as it's based on exploitation and conquering of other civilizations, so do consider refraining from posting all your propaganda crap, this shit is getting old. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please bring you racial hate and propaganda elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a wall on you can paste your propaganda-posters. More, be polite. Thanks. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone has an odd view of history and doesn't fear to express ridiculous opinions. Stating that italian civilization is based on exploitation and conquering of other civilizations it is one of silliest things ever said. Check any subject concerning human intellectual activity (art, science....) and be prepared to be appaled by the massive italian creative contribution to any fields during the centuries....The coastline cities of Istria and Dalmatia have always been under italian cultural influence by any point of view. Slavs were peasants from the inland forcibly introduced by foreigner power in order to diluite and weaken italian presence in those towns. I don't have problems saying that alto adige (Sudtyrol) region in italy is a territory more related to german than to italian culture, the only difference is that when it was annexed to Italy after one of the bloody war ever fought none in Italy thought to take revenge against innocent indigenous population by throwing them in alpine crevasse,something different happened somewhere else some years after ( the term foibe sound you familiar?....) with italian population... but you know balcanic are very good at cleaning...especially ethnically!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.100.9.229 (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Firefighters = Axis forces???

I don't know wich is the pourpose to pass the strange idea that Firefighters are a combattant forces (never been nowere!!!) but anyone like you can easely enlarge the picture by your/his self and will see that there are naked bodies on the ground, 1 firefighter wearing a head (like a spelealogist!) light close to a civilian (on his left), two womans (on his right) an a bust of a man in an Anglo-american tunic with Boots (yes... for who are attempting to make some propaganda the Italians were dressing whool Jacket, shirt&tie and the infamous cardboard shoes during the war Russian front included!!!...) nevertheless is impossible that this picture was taken in 1943 just and simply because the first bodies exumations took place in the A zone of the Trieste Free Territoy since 1945 managed by English troops and firefighters! Nickel Chromo 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, understand this: nowhere did I say the Axis military found the bodies. I merely meant that Axis authorities found them (and they did if it was taken in 1943). It is irrelevant wether a firefighter or a police officer or a social worker found them. As for the 1945/1943 dilemma, I went by the original wording, I have no idea wether the photo was taken in 1943 or 1945. DIREKTOR 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Impossible that was taken on 1943 as explained above (The man wearing an anglo american tunic with anglo/american boots). On '43 there were just "rumors" aobut the killings and since sept. 8th the first exumations took place on the A Zone of the so called Free Territory of Trieste there are also some filmed documentaries about this showing English troops, firefighters with trucks full of coffins and civilians.

Point number 2. The Istrian exodus must be considered as Ethnic cleansing since sept. 43 till the and of the war, Forced migration (since the end of the war untill the signature of the Peace treaty (10 Feb. 1947) due to yougoslav killings deseappering policy adopted as revenge against civil italians, loyalist and anticommunist peoples living in the area; must be considered as Human migration since the signature of the treaty till the signature of London Memorandum. --Nickel Chromo 18:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Like I said, I do not know when the picture was taken. The original wording said 1943 so I took it for granted, I suppose. Since you proved it was an Allied recovery I suppose the Axis had nothing to do with it.
  
• The Istrian exodus must be considered ethnic cleansing? Perhaps you read a little too much of the local Italian fanatical version. I do not believe the United Nations recognise it as such. The reasons are obvious: even lavish (Italian) estimates place the number at around 5000 all together. Spread all over the Dalmatian coast and Istria, the Italian minority was around 300,000 strong. Also, the killings were obviously politically, not ethnicly motivated and included for the most part the anti-partisan elite, not the innocent majority population.
• Forced migration? Are you suggesting that the Yugoslav authorities held guns to the head of 200,000 people and ordered them to leave? In 1954, no less! All those people had a choice, in accordance with the treaty between SFR Yugoslavia and the Republic of Italy. DIREKTOR 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• To the first point someone added the info about the Picture released on IT-PD coming from the Italian National Partisans Association.
• To the 2nd and 3rd point just to be cleaver I have never, nor will I ever, read books written by fanatic (nor from the right point of wiew neither from the left!) ...I don't know why are you saying and thinking this... The info I have found are coming from the final relation of the Italian-Slovenian History Commission, has reported from the Corriere della Sera (The top Italian newspaper - openly decleared to support the Center left coalition during the 2006 Italian political elections) as you are assering to ha have Italian ancestry may be some of your relatives shuold translate this final report that you can easely find on the ANPI, the Italian National Partisans Association - (Rome section) official web site here linked: [2]

I don't like the page Istrian exodus as it right now, but the block must be kept, infact it look clear that there is something strange on your point of view, are you sure that you are the whom who is not reading the fanatic former communist yugoslav sources as some one can easily think after have read your personal user page? and after have read your comment here? User talk:UstashkiDom#Take it easy where you stated:

We can always use support against radical Serb (četnik) and (especially) Italian theses in Wikipedia.

• I would like just remark that your POV is against the radical Serbs but also against especially (all) Italian theses on wikipedia So I'm afraid to say this but I don't trust in what everyone can easely see there because it look clear you are prejudiced against all Italians.
  

Do Viđenja, gospodine direktor. Nickel Chromo 10:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did not presume you read books on this, when I said "local Italian fanatical version", I meant the article.
• I do not read fanatical Yugoslav communist books.

• The foibe massacres are not ethnic cleansing (not recognised as such by the UN), as they were done by the criteria of ideological background, not ethnicity, i.e. the Partisans did not kill all Italians because they were Italian, they killed some Italians (probably aroun 5,000 out of 250,000) because they were (or were considered to be) fascist or right-wing.
• The Istrian exodus is not forced migration, because the Italians were givien a choice (options) by the international community and the Yugoslav government (Treaty of peace with Italy (1947)). In fact those who chose to leave were known as the "optants".

• I am not prejudiced against Italians at all, I love Italy and I lived in Milan and Riva del Garda for three months. The statement you are quoting is misunderstood, what I said was that I can use help against radical Italian nationalist theses, not all (that woud be stupid). Read the sentence more carefully. (BTW, its: "Doviđenja gospodine Direktore." Not bad though, its a difficult language, :D)
  

Arrivederci, signore Nickel Chromo... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

This block will not end the dispute, I'm afraid. While I realise I am an involved party here, it is nevertheless a certain objective fact that the other side in this conflict (namely, User:PIO, in his favourite IP "form") refused repeated requests for discussion on the article even when he faced a tiresome edit war if he refused. It is therefore highly unlikely that he is about to start cooperating now, when his version is temporarily enforced by the block. I also doubt that he is going to give up on this, since he has patiently waited for the longer semi-block to expire.
Once again, even though I realise I am an involved party, I feel I must reccomend the reinstatement of the old prudent semi-block as the only means to secure an end to this edit war. DIREKTOR 09:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I request to related administrators article's full protection until disputes have been resolved by mediation or arbitration because it's impossible imminent agreement for disruption of DIREKTOR who started edit warring against many other editors: you can read edit of Ilario -12:57, 19 July 2007- pp-dispute|expiry=14 August|reason=edit war, user DIREKTOR is rollbacking any contribution without justification, please see the history. PIO, 23:55 12 September 2007

My efforts to achieve consensus through discussion are clear at the History and the Discussion pages. The accusations brought forth by User:PIO are, of course, utterly riddiculous. My only intention was to engage in civil discussion at some time.
In case of further fanciful accusations, note that only User:PIO, myself an User:Nickel Chromo (in a much smaller cappacity) participated in the dispute about this version of the article. PIO would not hesitate to go back ten years to find someone who confronted me in some way, in order to create the illusion of me being the invading madman confronted by a whole pack of editors. He has even claimed there are a dozen editors confronting me (at User:Riana's talkpage), wich is an outright lie. DIREKTOR 09:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Related administrators I report list of editors trying to stop DIREKTOR's POV edits since 08:58, 12 July 2007, when he started:

• 1 LEO, unlogged
• 2 IP 4.231.203.5
• 3 IP 4.231.202.71
• 4 IP 209.215.160.114
• 5 Ilario
• 6 IP 151.33.91.64
• 7 Rjwilmsi
• 8 IP 74.169.117.194
• 9 IP 151.33.92.29
• 10 IP 84.52.165.115
• 11 IP 89.172.231.41
• 12 PIO, unlogged
• 13 IP 138.88.200.242
• 14 Nickel Chromo.

Dear administrators do you think are they few users???? PIO, 11:50 14 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.91.76 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

, :D , at least three of those IPs are your sockpuppets.... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR we can collaborate like as for foibe massacres. PIO, 15:04 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.88.231 (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Work on the compromise version

Hmmm, this version that was blocked on is so POV towards one side that it requires a thourough makeover. Nickel Chromo does not like it either. I'm not saying "no", though.
Let's first clear a couple of things up:

• Sources must be non-Yugoslav and non-Italian, as these two often contradict and are biased.

• The city names must be written in their post-WW2 versions (by Wikipedia rules), since this is post-WW2, after all. The Italian names should go into brackets (), if you like (though even this is not demanded by Wikipedia policy).

• Do you consider the Istrian exodus a forced migration, if so do you have sources showing that Yugoslav troops forced Italians out of their homes (in 1954, when the exodus occured)?

• Do you consider the foibe massacres ethnic cleansing, if so, bear in mind that I can present (reliable) sources (UN, Britannica) showing they were done because of ideological, not ethnic reasons, even if ethnic considerations played some part. This is not ethnic cleansing by UN standards.
  

Example: an Italian peasant or ordinary citizen would not be killed by the Partisans (during the foibe massacres), nor forced to leave his home. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR I added in article section periods of exodus because these periods are important in connection with forced migration, ethnic cleansing and political cleansing. I added in article section denial of exodus because denialism of forced migration and ethnic cleansing is in your words and it's the same denialism of some Slav and Italian historians. Sources must be in English language: this is hard problem!!!! The city names must be written in version demanded by Wikipedia policy. Doviđenja gospodine Direktore. PIO, 17:24 17 September 2007

So you insist on irrational behaviour and unsourced edits? (I hope this will not destroy our work on the Foibe massacres article version.) You must understand that claims and accusations of ethnic cleansing and forced migration are very hot stuff that absolutely needs reliable proof and sources. Do not start another edit-ar! Discuss! DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR I not edit in articles: those IP are not mine!!!! PIO, 17:51 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.88.231 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake! I know, your IPs start with 151.33.**.***. Just respond to my previous post. Do you insist on ethnic cleansing and forced migration allegations without proper unbiased sources?
Italian sources are just as reliable as Yugoslav ones. The problem is they contradict, we need to move beyond that, we need things like encyclopedias and books by objective emotionally uninvloved (NON-ITALIAN, NON-YUGOSLAV) authors. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Giove's editing

Giove, discussion is currently taking place (between PIO and myself) on the more acceptable version for both sides, do not edit widly and without consultation as you may endanger the fragile "ceasefire" (or "ceaseedit", if you will). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record Giove, your undiscussed and incorrect edits won't last. I'm backing down for the time being to discuss with PIO and maybe reach a consensus. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR needs to reach a consensus between all involved users not between you and myself!!!! Points of ethnic cleansing and political cleansing against Italian people were discussed above and we can to wait opinions of other users. PIO, 16:26 25 September 2007

I know that PIO, it just seed to me that Giove did not respect our efforts and went on to edit as he pleased. All I'm saying is that he should do what we do. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it now?

Someone isn't happy even with this POV version. I thought this matter was finally closed! DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You are under warning by administrators: you can not edit in this article!!!! Leo

You really are "confused", as you say. I'm allowed to edit in all articles. Also I'm not "under warning by administrators", where do you get that from? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Look Leo, this version was worked hard on by both User:PIO and myself. It is POV even without your edits. I thought we finished this matter! Why are you reopening this? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairy tales and pseudohistorical claims by Petacco -part1

Here I have seen some sources that are disputable:

• Book Arrigo Petacco, L'esodo. La tragedia negata degli italiani d'Istria, Dalmazia e Venezia Giulia, Mondadori, Milano, 1999.

There is an English translation of the book that can be viewed ob Google Books here

That book is disaster as well and unreliable for several resons.It is full of errors and scandalous(at the moments fascistoid interpretations )

• All sources(bibliography for the book) are Italian. All cca 55 books!! It is obvious that author speaks no South slavic language.Moreover , I suspect that the author speaks any Slavic language, or any foreign language at all. So , the author, journalist from Liguria, from the opposite side of Apenin peninsula gives himself a right to write a book about this region. Not just about one historical period of Eastern Adriatic but morever, about the enire history of that region.That can be read as a fun book , or as a source about "prejudice towards to Slavic people", but certainly not as a valid historical book. at least in English language could have been found enough sources for that book. The book was translated into English by Konrad Eisenbichler, German speaker.

• At the begining of the book author claims :" first Rome , then Venice , have brought the civilization with themselves and that is undisputable fact " . Even if we accept the fact that there was no any indigenous/authohtonous civilization before Romans ,that can not be true . Greeks were the first colonizers who came there, at the period when the inhabitants of Lazio were illiterate barbarians. And ,second of all, Modern Italy does not the exclusive owner of Roman legacy.Claims that entire inheritage of Roman Empire belongs to Italy is one of the basis of Irredenta movement. If the Julius Cesar was an Italian , then Traian was Basque and Diocletian Croatian statesman.The author obviously believes that indigeneous inhabitants of Eastern Adriatic were some humanoid creatures like Yahoo creatures from Gulliver's Travels. I guess that the author classifies the Slavic people on that way , as well.

--Anto (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairy tales and pseudohistorical claims by Petacco -part2

• There are huge contradiction about the rule of Catholic clergy. On one place claims catholic clergy has been widespreading Slavic nationalism(???) in the villages and that in historical Diocese of Trieste 190 of 290 priests were Slavs , that filoaustrian Catholic church disliked laicized Italy. On the other , however, he claims that the Slavs were expelling from there two most important stubs of italianicity:teachers and Catholic priests.

• According to Petacco fascism was nothing but the response to the Slavic (Slovene and Croatian ) opression and antifascism is ,in fact, a solution and a hiding place for historical and frustrating Slavic nationalism. Following that logic, according to Petacco Gabriele d'Annunzio was poet-warrior and Vladimir Nazor was (believe or not) great chauvinist.

• Writting about fascist oppression and forced Fascist Italianization of the personal and place names in Istria Petacco speaks about Slavic language (???). He makes no difference between Croatian and Slovenian .He followss the logic of generally accepted name in Italy for all the people from the Eastern Adriatic , phrase «Slavo»,derogative term for amorpheus Slavic "the other one" (see again [Yahoo (literature)|Yahoos]]  !!) , illiterate Creature who distroyed great Italian culture. For information, Croats in the 9th were using three scripts:Latin alphabet, Cyrillic alphabet and Glagolitic alphabet

• It is tragicomical example of a basic lack of knowledge that the author can not name properly the nationalities which lived in ex-Yugolavia. This proclaimed expert claims that in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia were living 12 million of people. There were ethnic groups , who mutualy hated each other,  :Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians(??) , Macedonians, Montenegrins, Dalmatians(????) , Morlachs(????) and Kosovars (????) ass well as Italian, Hungarian and Austrian minorities.
• Diletant pseudo-historical description of the situation continues with the the description of Croats and Serbs as wild tribes whose only historical essence was to have war(s) against each other until extinction one of them. "Serbs and Croats have been always separated by original hate for which were spoiled literally rivers of blood" . The author is obviously not interested in fact that such a behaviour wasn't appearing before creation of Yugoslavia and after ww2 . It simply does not match with his " theory".

--Anto (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairy tales and pseudohistorical claims by Petacco -part3

• Another elementary notnsence is desciprtion of the murder of Stjepan Radić in Belgrade by Puniša Račić [3] he describes as revolver duel amoung them.

It would be comical if it was not tragical.  :( Brothers Radić as Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday vs. Puniša Račić as Billy the Kid

• According to this "historiographer" Ante Pavelić (leader of Ustaše) was medical doctor by profession and Ustaše were making ethnic cleansing of Muslims. Makes me laugh!

• After he has disqualified antifascism in Istria by couple descriptions of the murders he adds an extra dimension to the story : " another dark custom gave a mark to these massacres:after putting the victims into fojbe on the bunch of dead bodies they were throwing the the live black dog. Since there is no mentions of that legend in any country of ex-Yugoslavia, neither in Bulgaria, Albania , Romania or Greece, we can ask ourselves what were the sources for that story: Dylan Dog comic books ?? Japanese trash horror movies ??? According to the ancient Balkan legend, the dog , barkling non-stop, was not permitting the resting in peace for the souls of murdered people on the other world. Another controversy about that ritual is that partizans , described as apassionate atheists, would be so careful about their victims' destiny in the Other world.

• His description of chetniks is more than childish :they all had ,beside modern machine guns , laso long daggers/knifes that were using in death duels with their eternal enemies Ustaše. That stereotype is equal insult to Serbs and Croats . Does author know at all that all armies in the world have daggers in their standard equipment??? Or he believes that they use it for cutting the nails or cleaning the teeth after eating lambkin?
• Petacco writes:"in order to Croatize Istria, it was arranged the forced immigration of Bosnians and Macedonians". A new recipe: Macedonians and Bosnians make Istria more Croatian???
• Author describes with simpathy the murder of Robert De Winton , commander of Brittish troops in Pula. Murder was committes by Maria Pasquinelli, apassionate fascist after Western Allies decided to leave Pula in Yugoslavia
• Instead of conclusion we can just mention Petacco's claims that the existing of Goli otok and prisons on it was discovered couple years ago , thanks to Giaccomo Scotti. IF you want to write something about whi ch you know nothing, take a look at Petacco-He will be your idol!

--Anto (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anto, you have to try to ignore 'writers' like Petacco. It's political propaganda for 4-year-olds. The problem (or joy) of Wiki is that it's a democratic forum where ideas should meld into a concensus, but legitimate sources and fascist idiots get equal weight if they've published a paper or two. On this page and others, it's up to the sensible ones among us to sort out what is accurate and what is nonsense. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Anto is total out of this talk: this page is for exodus not for that Petacco's book!!!! Your personal opinions against fascist idiots or communist idiots or anarchist idiots or socialist idiots are propaganda too!!!! LEO, 24 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.86.203 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to punctuate how reliable are Italian sources here. Petacco's book mentions Raoul Pupo's book as one of the source so I guess we can find the same mistakes there. Perhaps Giorgio Napolitano has found an inspitation for his speech in Petacco's book.

Also , there is no any non-italian book quoted here !!

--Anto (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Amico croato, ti rispondo in italiano perchè conosci questa lingua e il mio inglese non è buono: complimenti per la tua buona conoscenza di certe lingue! Il problema dell'attendibilità e neutralità delle fonti riguarda l'essenza di questo progetto ma se i libri sono di autori solo italiani è perchè gli storici italiani hanno studiato meglio di tutti le situazioni delle foibe quindi esodo! Se tu conosci libri di autori croati, sloveni, serbi, montenegrini e altri puoi inserire i collegamenti con tali libri: la citazione dei libri di autori non italiani è valida per la neutralità dell'articolo! Puoi citare autori e testi nella sezione historical debate. Io disprezzo Napolitano perchè è un vecchio sovietico e servitore fedele dei russi ma proprio per questo la sua dichiarazione ha importanza storica: il vecchio comunista Napolitano ha riconosciuto la pulizia etnica che i comunisti capeggiati dallo schifoso Palmiro Togliatti negavano. Condivido il tuo parere riguardo il comunismo the worst political movement in 20th century e il cambiamento della bandiera australiana quando ci sarà la Repubblica Australiana: forse un giorno mi trasferirò nella splendida isola australe. Puoi comunicare a DIREKTOR che il suo fanatismo è noto a tutti e la sua ostinazione sarà causa della sua messa al bando!!!! LEO, 25 nov 2007

For those who don't speak Italian, LEO starts by complimenting his "Croatian friend" on his good knowledge of languages. He goes on to say that he sees the essence here as the reliability and neutrality of the sources, but if there are only books by Italian authors then that's because Italian historians have studied better than everyone else the Foibe and therefore the exodus. If anyone knows of any Slavic authors, then you can cite the authors and texts in the section he calls 'historical debate'. Then, just in case you think that LEO loves all Italian authors then think again, because he goes on to condemn Napolitano ("old Soviet" and "faithful servant of the Russians") but "therefore his statement has historical importance: the old communist Napolitano recognised the ethnic cleansing that the communists led by disgusting Palmiro Togliatti denied". LEO describes communism as "the worst political movement in the 20th century". Optimistically for all of us, he then speculates that when there is a change in the Australian flag and an Australian republic then he might himself "transfer to the splendid southern island". Well, from your mouth to God's ears, Leo. Lastly he says you can tell DIREKTOR that his fanaticism is well-known to all and his obstinacy will be a cause of him being banned. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Layers upon layers of deep political biase, I don't know what to say, except that the threats are laughable considering who they come from... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

"Former times"? What does that mean specificly? Also, why did you remove the link and turn it into a reference? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that "The main motives for the mass killings seems to have been a plan of ethnic cleansing and political cleansing, that is to say, elimination of potential enemies of the communist Yugoslav rule, including members of German and Italian fascist units, Italian officers and civil servants, parts of the Italian elite who opposed both communism and fascism and even Serb, Slovenian and Croatian anti-communists". It cites as its reference Carl Savić in his article on Yugoslavia and the Cold War (http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/085.shtml). If you take the trouble to read the article, Savić makes no such claim.

Firstly, there were undoubtedly reprisals after the Italian capitulation in 1943, but whether there were "mass killings" is highly questionable.
Secondly, there was no attempt at ethnic cleansing against the Italians or anyone else by the Partisans. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of Partisan strategy and the subsequent policy of Yugoslavia knows that they were the only ones ever to seriously attempt to stamp out ethnic divisions and suspicions in the region. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Another matter, in the recently added "Periods of the exodus" section I found the 1943 exodus period, is there actual confirmation of some kind mass Italian emmigration in 1943, I mean this was wartime!? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another one: Is this reversion correct? (Do not answer this, LEO.) We've been having some IP vandal trouble from a certain anti-Croat, anti-Istrian user. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits in November 28

I did several edits. They are mainly evident corrections of historical errors. They are self evident from the wikilinks. They do not affect the "political" POV of the article.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni approvo il tuo testo e integrerò: collaboriamo con l'amico sloveno che mi sembra in buona fede.
Slovenian friend AlasdairGreen27, this proposal by DIREKTOR or message number 4 is vandalism!!!! In next edit I add other links and fix link of Slovenian historian Darovec: your link is uncorrected then impossible to visualize! LEO, 28 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.5 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about me, Leo. The link is http://www2.arnes.si/~mkralj/istra-history/naslovna.html
Feel free to correct it if it doesn't work for some reason. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27, your revert seems edit warring and I don't understand: why???? I insert sentences of Slovenian historian Darovec and you remove: this is non plus ultra!!!! LEO, 28 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.5 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Look out!

LEO is here, editing from 151-numbered IPs. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem???? Why removed my version???? LEO, 28 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.5 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw your messages above and in my talk IP: Gp75motorsports, this is not a war against inexistence sockpuppets!!!! Citizen of world, stay calm!!!! LEO, 28 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.5 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Isn't it strange to promote both "cosmopolitan" and nationalist values at the same time!? 8| ) I can't do much, but I'l do my best... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Famous Italians from Istria

There's this bit near the end of the article:

Some famous postwar exiles from territories include actresses Alida Valli and Laura Antonelli, race driver Mario Andretti, singer Sergio Endrigo, boxer Nino Benvenuti, tennis player Orlando Sirola, stylist Ottavio Missoni and chef Lidia Bastianich.

That's just a list of famous(ish) Italians that were born in Istria. Having read all their Wikis, only two - Mario Andretti and Lidia Bastianich - mention that their families left as part of the exodus. For all we know, the others might still be there if they hadn't gone on to have successful careers elsewhere.
I'd say this bit needs some attention. Re-write or delete, in my view. AlasdairGreen27 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've just added some references for Sirola and Endrigo mentioning that they were indeed refugees. It turns out that Missoni spent years as a prisoner of war in Egypt and then went straight to Trieste, and Alida Valli had left the region long before the war. Couldn't find much about the others, though.Ko'oy 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For famous postwar exiles I will insert a section. AlasdairGreen27, formulation of articles is standard: never references stay in bottom! For section periods of exodus I fix years 1943 beginning and 1960 finish: beginning of exodus was in wartime because many Italian or Istrian fascists, after fascist regime collapsed, escaped. I will restore sentences of Slovenian historian Darovec in section historical debate; AlasdairGreen27, if you support this historian, I support too but I insert him and you remove: your action is strange very much!!!! LEO, 1 December 2007

Ko'oy, good man, that's what we need. Some serious research, rather than name calling and POV. I'm actually really interested to hear these people's stories.

Leo, I neither support not refute Darovec. His account of events is interesting, and helpful, but no more than that. The reason your edit got lost was not "strange very much" at all. It's just that Giovanni had made 17 edits in an afternoon, without any attempt at discussion or consultation, so I reverted to the version before those 17 edits, which was far superior, more balanced, more neutral. That how Wiki works.
Regarding where references go, well, I would mildly point out that you should have a wander around and see what other people are doing.
As for when the exodus happened, 1943 or not, well, if you can find some decent reliable sources to support this, then we'll all be happy to see 1943 written in the article.
Nobody's trying to prove a point here, or get one over the other side. It's just about making a balanced, reasonable article that somebody can come to and find out more or less what happened. AlasdairGreen27 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27, good and dear person, list of exiles is important: I restore it. You have no valid reason for remove list.--PIO (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

PIO, my friend, the list is indeed important; that's why it should be accurate. As our friend Ko'oy has pointed out, for example, "Alida Valli had left the region long before the war". So we need good verifiable encyclopedic sources about this. What I propose is that you bring the names forward one by one and we'll check them together, and when we establish that a particular person was part of the exodus we'll put their name on the list. Is that reasonable? Until then, I'll revert your change. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Amico sloveno AlasdairGreen27, so che capisci l'italiano quindi possiamo capirci meglio. Tu non hai valido motivo per rimuovere la lista perchè la puoi leggere anche nella versione Wiki in italiano. Se Alida Valli e altri hanno lasciato prima la regione non è significativo poichè poi non sono potuti tornarci: anche se son andati via prima, poi non riuscirono a tornare in Istria e Dalmazia a causa della politica anti-italiana del dittatore Tito. Se vuoi collegamenti a siti con informazioni puoi leggere la versione Wiki in italiano di questo articolo. Ripristino la lista.--PIO (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

PIO, surely the article is about people who (supposedly, according to the Italian side) were pressurised into leaving somehow. But now you want it to include people such as Alida Valli who had left the region years before and (apparently, although you don't present any sources for this other than Italian Wiki) later on felt unable or unwilling to come back because of the "anti-Italian policies of the dictator Tito". Frankly, my friend, that is bizarre. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You can read here or in alphabetical list sources pertinent Alida Valli, Laura Antonelli, Fulvio Tomizza, Agostino Straulino and many others. List in article is incomplete: needs to add painter Mario Gasperini, composer Luigi Donorà and others.--PIO (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

PIO, excellent news my friend, well done. As the article very clearly says "Famous postwar exiles from territories include:" I'll be able to slowly work my way through the list and remove all those, like Alida Valli, who are obviously not "Famous postwar exiles from territories". Thanks buddy. I'll reference all my changes. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian friend, we have incomprehension pertinet conception of postwar exiles definition what means. I explained reason for to consider Alida Valli and others postwar exiles too: you can read here. It's not Italian POV: because for these exiles was impossible the return in their homes confiscated by communist dictatorship of Josip Broz. No reason for remove just one of persons in list.--PIO (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now now, PIO, a post war exile is a post war exile, in other words, somebody that left after the war. And saying that somebody is an exile because they couldn't return is pure and simple speculation - who says they wanted to return? Alida Valli was doing very nicely in her acting career, so was quite happy in Hollywood, I expect - and is wrong, anyway. There was nothing to stop people returning. To say anything else is just Italian propaganda, exactly as is Italian Wikipedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in error. Propaganda was made by historians under command of Josip Broz. In Italian Wikipedia seems propaganda only for some anti-Italians editors and sure you are not anti-Italian.--PIO (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RV of edit by Basil II

Basil, I've read and reverted your edit marked "let's put thing in perspective, long live to truth and death to political correctness". Unfortunately, what you see as the truth is to others simply propaganda. You simply cannot change "voluntary diaspora" to "forced diaspora" without adding any sources to support your statement and expect nobody to notice. Similarly, you have removed balanced sentences which leave possibilities on the table such as "Their motives for leaving may have been fear of reprisals, economic motives, or ethnically based" and changed it to "Their motive for leaving was mostly fear of reprisals" as though this is a simple statement of fact. Well, just a moment, please. Were you there? Did you personally interview people as they were leaving asking them to tick a particular box on your questionnaire?
As I have said previously on this talk page, the purpose of this article is to help people who don't know to find out more or less what happened. Not to say one side or the other was right or wrong, good or bad. So therefore, if you casually throw your POV into the article (with statements like "long live to truth and death to political correctness") then you can expect to have them reverted. Mostly, you should bear in mind that controversial material carrying no sources whatsoever has no place here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian friend, I agree your reasoning pertinent sources but not all integration of Basil II is wrong. In next edit I add section -Slovenian, Croatian and Serb view pertinent exodus- with warning to Italian editors for not edit in this section: we all collaborate for accurate and sourced article.--PIO (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Basil, you've done it again this afternoon so I'll say to you again, please don't put things into this article without providing sources. It clearly says at the top of this page "Make sure you supply full citations when adding information". I removed your edits yesterday because you didn't follow the rules of this encyclopedia. And I'll happily do it again. PIO, could you please explain this to Basil? So Basil, if you really believe that l'unione fa la forza... della verità (a union makes a force... of the truth) then I'll just recommend that your union should use proper sources as its weapons. Not your own opinions. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Slovenian friend, section -Slovenian, Croatian and Serb view pertinent exodus- is for you and others not Italian editors: I invite you and others to edit in this section POV of historians and people in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia then stop polemic pertinent suspect of Italian propaganda!!!! In next edit I add some sources pertinent forced migration: in Italy important historians report ethnic cleansing then forced migration.
2. Amico Basil, il nostro collaboratore sloveno è in buona fede e capisce la lingua italiana ma devi considerare che la storia dei massacri delle foibe e della pulizia etnica contro l'etnìa italiana fatta dal dittatore comunista Josip Broz è stata mistificata proprio in Italia quindi figuriamoci in Slovenia, Croazia e Serbia!!!! Sui libri di storia, scritti dai fedeli servitori di Josip Broz nella ex-Iugoslavia, risulta che la popolazione di etnìa italiana andò via spontaneamente e le loro proprietà furono confiscate come riparazioni di guerra in accordo con il governo di De Gasperi: ovviamente questo non è vero poichè i cittadini italiani furono perseguìtati e depredati di ogni bene proprio per indurli ad andar via quindi non erano optanti come li chiamavano i titoisti bensì costretti a scappare per non finire morti o ancora agonizzanti nelle foibe; De Gasperi s'impegnò con Broz a pagare le riparazioni di guerra ma non con le proprietà dei cittadini italiani diventati residenti in ex-Iugoslavia, dopo il trattato di Parigi nel '47, bensì in denaro anzi proprio De Gasperi si attivò chiedendo al governo statunitense d'intervenire a difesa della gente italiana in ex-Iugoslavia onde evitare l'esodo e sperando di convincere Broz a istituire uno Stato di lingua ufficiale italiana federato con gli altri Stati nella federazione multilingue iugoslava: questo progetto non fu possibile a causa dell'odio anti-italiano di Broz e suoi seguàci comunisti. Praticamente, se i cittadini di etnìa italiana fossero stati tutelati almeno relativamente sotto una dittatura comunista in un ipotetico Stato Istriano di lingua ufficiale italiana con quasi mezzo milione d'italiani, forse l'esodo si poteva evitare ma l'odio etnico non consentì tale soluzione. Quindi amico Basil, quando integri il testo, in un articolo così controverso, è corretto farlo aggiungendo collegamenti a fonti leggibili su internet onde evitare polemiche con altri editori.--PIO (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Grazie PIO. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Work!

I have fully read the article page and this discussion page with its many petty debates and arguements but in general I think this is a balanced article which airs all view points and appears to be based on interpretation of facts rather than personal opinions. I am a British person living in Trieste but I frequently visit Slovenia and Croatia. I'm of the view that neither 'side' is entirely clean, wrongs have been committed by Italians, Triestines, Slovenes and Croats (and therefore also Yugoslavs). Istria and its surroundings are the most beautiful parts of the world and the people whether they are Italian, Slovene or Croatian are truly great. Thank god we now live in a peaceful European Union (which should include Croatia as soon as possible) and where the borders can once again become invisible. 213.230.130.56 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. I read through the talk page, and I don't usually do this, but: I tip my hat to you, DIREKTOR, for your seemingly endless patience and respect. I admire you, sir. Keep up the good work. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Napolitano's statement (AGAIN!)

2 simple questions, and I'd also like a simple answers:

QUESTION 1, Is president Napolitano a respected historian, by any chance? or is he a historical layman?

QUESTION 2, Does the stated oppinion of laymen (no matter their position) matter in these complex historical disputes? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop your ridiculous and nonsense statements!!!!--PIO (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The declarations of an Italian official may be includable in the Italian Wiki, but they are of no concern to the wider public that wants professional historians to answer these matters. (One exclamation mark would have sufficed) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Property reparations

I changed the voice, because the Treaty of Rome (1983) speaks only about the property in the former Free Territory of Trieste! Here[4] you can see the text (in italian) of the treaty:
ART. 1 of the Annex 1: I BENI, DIRITTI ED INTERESSI INDICATI NEL CITATO ART. 4 DEL TRATTATO DI OSIMO SONO CONSIDERATI COME DEFINITIVAMENTE ACQUISITI DALLA REPUBBLICA SOCIALISTA FEDERATIVA DI JUGOSLAVIA.
Free translation: All the properties inclused in the art. 4 of the Treaty of Osimo are Yugoslav.

ART. 2 IN VISTA DI QUANTO PRECEDE, IL CONSIGLIO ESECUTIVO FEDERALE DELLA ASSEMBLEA DELLA RSF DI JUGOSLAVIA VERSERÀ AL GOVERNO ITALIANO A TITOLO DI INDENNIZZO LA SOMMA DI 110 MILIONI DI DOLLARI USA.
Free translation: For this properties, the Yugoslavia have to paid 110.000.000 US$.

Now, let's see the art. 4 of the Treaty of Osimo[5]:

ARTICOLO 4 I due governi concluderanno, al più presto possibile, un Accordo relativo ad un indennizzo globale e forfettario che sia equo ed accettabile dalle due Parti, dei beni, diritti ed interessi delle persone fisiche e giuridiche italiane, situati nella parte del territorio indicata all'articolo 21 del Trattato di Pace con l'Italia del 10 febbraio 1947, compresa nelle frontiere della Repubblica Socialista Federativa di Jugoslavia, che hanno fatto oggetto di misure di nazionalizzazione o di esproprio o di altri provvedimenti restrittivi da parte delle Autorità militari, civili o locali jugoslave, a partire dalla data dell'ingresso delle Forze Armate Jugoslave nel suddetto territorio.
Free translation: Yugoslavia have to pay the due for the properties inclused in the art.21 of the Treaty of Peace with Italy.

Article 21 of the Treaty of Peace (Scroll down!): There is hereby constituted the Free Territory of Trieste, consisting of the area lying between the Adriatic Sea and the boundaries defined in Articles 4 and 22 of the present Treaty. The Free Territory of Trieste is recognized by the Allied and Associated Powers and by Italy, which agree that its integrity and independence shall be assured by the Security Council of the United Nations.

So: the treaty of 1983 speaks only about the properties in the Free Territory of Trieste.
Italy have more laws regarding the property reparations. My family received FEW money more than fifty years ago, from Italy. If you want, I can write a complete legal/historic report about property reparations here in Italy, but I need a translator (I speak a terrible English)! --Luigi 28 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Famous Italians from Istria

Luigi, as you and I discussed last December at Talk:Istrian_exodus#Famous_Italians_from_Istria, just being from an Italian family and being born in Istria does not make a person an exile. I'll go through the list and see what's what. If they really left Istria at the time in question that's no problem. But last time I went through the list there was all manner of nonsense on it, with people who'd left the region long before WWII on it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Before adding people to the "esuli" list, provide a reliable source that 1) they are, undoubtedly, Italian, 2) that they were born in Istria/Dalmatia, and 3) that they moved due to the so-called "exodus". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I've never discussed about this because I'm pretty new in Wikipedia
   
2. I provide for all my edits a reliable source.
   
3. You erased also the name of Ottavio Missoni, who is maybe the most famous exile here in Italy. He call himself Esule da Zara. Do you understand the Italian (obviously, I made the translation of this three words)? Read my source, please.
   
4. Please, dont' make the sophistics, only because you want erase all the names. You are too late for the Magna Graecia.--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the stuff you wrote actually means anything. You're not discussing. Prove that: 1) they are, undoubtedly, Italian, 2) that they were born in Istria/Dalmatia, and 3) that they moved due to the so-called "exodus", before writing them up. If they are as "famous" as you say, then it should not be hard to find a biographical reference on the World Wide Web. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian statistical data

Regarding this[6], when you stated that official data from the Slovenian Statistical Office shows that between 1953 and 1961 the numbers of ethnic Italians living in Slovenia - almost exclusively in Slovenian Istria and along the Italian border - actually increased by nearly 360%, maybe you don't know that in 1953 the Free Territory of Trieste, weren't Slovenian (only from 1954, after the London Memorandum). The Slovenian census of 1953 doesn't registered the Italians of Koper/Capodistria, Piran/Pirano, Izola/Isola, almost all the Italians in the today Slovenia! Tomorrow I'll correct the voice, obviously all my edit will be well sourced!--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Very, very little populated territory actually went to Slovenia after the dissolution of the Free territory. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You really don't know what we are talking about...--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You really can't understand what we are talking about... Those are small towns, with a small percentage of Italians (see your own data). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Direktor, look the dates: 1953 (first Slovenian census, without the Free Territory of Trieste: in the Free Territory of Trieste the great exodus does't not happened) is quite different from 2002 (the last census). Koper/Capodistria was one of the most Italian town of the interely Istria (according the Austrian census, 9.340 Italians in 1910); Piran/Pirano also more (12.173 Italians); and Izola/Isola the same (6.215 Italians in 1910). Be quiet, please, and let me work for my perfect sourced edit, please.--Luigi 28 (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Luigi, Klemenčič is a good source, but you should bear in mind that he is very firm that "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’)". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Right: now I add that quote.--Luigi 28 (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Voluntary free-will departure

It wasn't a voluntary free-will departure. It's incredible the this part of text is write on Wikipedia --En.mat003 (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Italians maintain that they were forced out, expelled, whatever phrase you choose to use. Reliable historical sources to support that claim are, as far as I am aware, absent. Should you be able to produce any reliable sources to support the Italian claim, that'd be fantastic and I personally will immediately add them to the article. Regarding your being summoned to this article by PIO, I'll be posting at yout talk page about that as I feel you may not be aware of certain facts. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Read here, it everything write: http://www.lefoibe.it/approfondimenti/dossier/02-puliziaetnica.htm --En.mat003 (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if I may comment, the source you added does not qualify as a reliable source by Wiki standards. As you may know this is a very touchy subject: look for published works by reputable, non-biased, historians (preferably in English, if possible). For more info read WP:V (policy) and WP:RS (guideline). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Among the reasons for emigration, one should above all mention the oppression by the regime, which with its totalitarian nature made it impossible for people to freely express their national identity, oppose the redistribution of the leading national and social roles in Istria, and refuse major changes in the economy. The oppressed and frightened people were not so much attracted by the propaganda of the local Italian agencies, spread without any special instructions from the Italian government, but more by the neighboring democratic Italian nation state, although the Italian government more than once exerted its influence to stop or at least restrict immigration. One should also not ignore the deterioration of the living conditions, which was typical of socialist societies, and the break of contacts with Trieste, which made Italians in Istria fear that they would find themselves on the wrong side of the "iron curtain". The Italian population recognised the impossibility of retaining its national identity - with the conglomerate of the living habits and feelings, exceeding the mere political and ideological dimension - in the situation offered by the Yugoslav state, and experienced emigration as the choice of freedom. Within the broader historical framework, the special features of the Italian emigration from Istria belong to a more general process of the formation of nation states on ethnically mixed territories, which led to the disintegration of the multilingual and multicultural reality in Central and South Eastern Europe. The fact that Italians emigrated from a federal state, based on the internationalist ideology, demonstrates that national differences and discrepancies within the framework of the Communist social and political systems continuously and profoundly conditioned the political developments.[7] (SLOVENE-ITALIAN RELATIONS 1880-1956. Report of the Slovene-Italian historical and cultural commission. Koper-Capodistria, July 25th, 2000. Published by: Krožek PREMIK, Trst-Trieste with permission of Nova Revija Trst-Trieste, January 2004)--151.48.47.96 (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you posted this: "EMIGRATION", as in free will departure, not "banishment". Oppression was one of the causes for the emigration of a portion of the population, granted, but noone came out into the streets with soldiers, threw people out into the streets, loaded them into trucks and carried them across the border. That would be "exile", that would be "banishment" or "ethnic cleansing" as they call it (what a joke, that!), this is emigration, caused by a number of reasons. These are: cultural, economic, ideological, political, and, yes, oppression of minorities played a significant part. But so did the Italian government which offered citizenship and jobs, and so did the deteriorating economy of post-WW2 Yugoslavia, and so did the general hatred of Italians brought on by their/our own actions, and so on... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, IP 151.48.47.96, a useful contribution. Thank you. This one, which is already in the article, is also helpful. In its 1996 report on 'Local self-government, territorial integrity and protection of minorities' the Council of Europe's European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission), i.e. an unimpeachably reliable source, put it that "a great majority of the local Italians, Italianites (of Slavic and other origin), many thousands of Slovenes and of nationally undefined bilingual 'Istrians' used their legal right from the peace treaty to 'opt out' of the Yugoslav controlled part of Istria. In several waves they moved to Italy and elsewhere (also overseas) and claimed Italian or other citizenship. The mass exodus of the optanti (or esuli as they were called in Italy) from 'godless communist Yugoslavia' was actively encouraged by the Italian authorities, Italian radio and the Roman Catholic bishop of Trieste. After this huge drain, the numerical strength of the remaining Italian minority became stable".[8].
If we are collecting reliable English language sources in order to see about improving this article, I'd like to add [9], a thoughtful and scholarly introduction to a much longer book; [10] which discusses the Italian government's encouragement of people to leave and the violence and intimidation suffered by Slavs at the hands of extremists (p144, 145); this article [11] by a professor at the American University of Rome which includes valuable first hand testimony and puts it into context of admissions that (some of) those who suffered reprisals had collaborated first with the Italian and the German occupying forces; lastly, this one [12] by a British professor should be required reading for all before they even think of editing this article. In short, therefore, once everyone has read that lot, we can see that:

• nobody is denying that an exodus took place;
• nobody is denying that there were some reprisals and that people died after 1943 and up to and after the end of the Second World War;
• people who left were Italianic, Slavic and Istrian (they themselves view their ethnicity as a hybrid of Italianic and Slavic);
• it is open to question and debate how many people left. Differing sources give different numbers;
• the motivations for leaving were many, complex and differed from person to person, family to family;

Any simplistic POV-motivated attempt to say in this article "Tito's butchery and savagery led to about 350,000 poor terrified innocent Italians being murdered/expelled from barbaric Yugoslavia" will be rejected. The article is much better than it was last year. The improvement of it will continue. All additions will be based on scholarly reliable sources. That's all. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Regarding the "1996 report on 'Local self-government, territorial integrity and protection of minorities' the Council of Europe's European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission", you can easily see here [13] that everyone Country made his personal statement about himself: an Italian for Italy, a Spanish for Spain, and so on. The Slovenian Anton Bebler (Permanent Representative of the Republic of Slovenia to the UN Office in Geneva), stated that all in Slovenia is wonderful, and the Italians are happy. Exodus? What exodus?!? Yes: it's a real equilibrate source!!!

2. We are speaking only about the words: "voluntary free-will departure" that a Croatian (real indipendent and equilibrate, of course!) guy added some days ago. In Istria, Rijeka and Zadar we had killings, oppression, we had "impossibility for people to freely express their national identity". See above what said the Slovene-Italian commission. I know that in Croatia is still very difficoult to speak about the "forced exile", and I know that you consider all the Italian historian like irredentist/fascist, but maybe (repeat: maybe) you can read some Slovenian source, like this[14]. Here we have a witness. Page 136: "You could no longer speak Italian. Going to church was also considered something like a crime. The people who decided were not even from Istria. They were Slavs from somewhere else. Not even the local Slavs understood their language! (...) People had been sent away, people had been killed. Everybody was afraid, no one could feel safe. (...) All Italians were treated like criminals. (...) Nobody wanted to live under these conditions. (...) We chose Italy". Is this a "voluntary-free-will departure"? You are a real democratic, so you can answer. But you maybe think that this woman is only a fascistic/irredentistic/sockpuppet.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot: if you stated that the book of Pamela Ballinger is a realiable source, I have it! Wonderful source, IMHO! My I to add in the article some Ballinger's statements?--151.48.47.96 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without doubt Ballinger is a reliable source. Second, the quotes you add are from Thomassen, a Danish professor at the American University of Rome. It was me that drew your attention to that article by posting it here this afternoon. If you wish to be taken seriously around here do you agree that you should avoid referring to it as "a Slovenian source"? Next, given that I posted the link to Ballinger, and referred to it as "a thoughtful and scholarly introduction to a much longer book" it is hardly plausible that I could think of her as "fascistic/irredentistic/sockpuppet". Again, if you wish to be taken seriously here I would courteously advise you to moderate your intemperate language. Lastly, do you agree with the five points I made above? As after all they are the essential key to a balanced respectable article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovenian source, because the article is in "Acta Istriae" edited in Slovenia, of course. I wrote "fascistic/irredentistic/sockpuppet" about the witness (an old lady) in the Thomassen's article: read better, please. I would like to be taken seriously, but do you remember that you and your excellent friend banned me from edits here, 'cause I'm a Venetian/irredentistic (so stated the young gentleman from Split)? You knew that I'm not a sock, but of course you ignored this point, and mr Pio (my sockpuppet, for you) stressed myself in my Italian talk page even few hours ago. Sure you (mr Sherlock-No-Holmes) think that I wrote by myself the questions (Pio) and the answers (Presbite), from two different towns! So, what is for you the meaning of the words "to be taken seriously", here in en-Wiki?--151.48.47.96 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is no "of course" about it, my friend. First, there is absolutely no indication that the article has been edited in any way, except by Prof Thomassen himself. You are confusing the publication with its publisher, Acta Histriae [15], which, irrespective of the location in which it is based, is undoubtedly a scholarly and a useful source in that it publishes numerous texts written by academics on a variety of themes. I very much doubt that the publisher has the temerity to edit any of the material submitted to it. Perhaps, though, you may wish to ask Thomassen, as his e-mail address is very clearly on the first page. Next, if your post was open to misinterpretation, forgive me for doing so. I will try harder in future to try to work out what you really mean. Now, if you would kindly refrain from referring to me and stick to the matter at hand, which would undoubtedly assist your campaign to be taken seriously, perhaps you could take a moment to address the main issue here, which is whether you agree with my five points above? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I receive "Acta Istriae", and I know who is the editor: the "Università del Litorale - Centro di Ricerche Scientifiche di Capodistria" (this is the official Italian name). I was many time in Koper/Capodistria, also in the local University. But the real question is: do you agree with prof Thomassen? Is this a realiable source? What do you think about the witness? "You could no longer speak Italian. Going to church was also considered something like a crime. The people who decided were not even from Istria. They were Slavs from somewhere else. Not even the local Slavs understood their language! (...) People had been sent away, people had been killed. Everybody was afraid, no one could feel safe. (...) All Italians were treated like criminals. (...) Nobody wanted to live under these conditions. (...) We chose Italy". Is this a "voluntary-free-will departure"? Regarding the article, is full of POV. Very offensive POV, for most people who left Istria, with many mistakes:

1. The use of the words "free-will departure". Do you know some esuli? Have you read some witness of esuli? I'm sure that you never spoke with an Italian/Slovenian/Croat Istrian esule! I know more than 100 esuli, but their words are forbidden here, in the article regarding the esuli! The "free-will departure" is only the old Yugoslav view.
2. There are Serbian in Istria? Only in the small village of Peroi, but montenegrins!
3. The use of the words "so-called optanti emigrants". These are the words used in Yugoslavia to explane the disaster of the exodus (do you remember: "Bratstvo i jedinstvo"? A bullshit for the Italians!). The esuli call theirself "esuli", and say that wasn't a "normal" emigration.
4. Your 'Local self-government, territorial integrity and protection of minorities' is only the point of view of Slovenia. Do you know what say the Italian minority in Slovenia? Have you never read something about it? Read here, please: [16] and learn something. Pag. 11: "Dopo gli anni terribili dell'esodo, della pulizia etnica operata sugli Italiani dell'Istria, Quarnero e Dalmazia, i rimasti decisero di conservare la propria identità confrontandosi con una realtà revanscista che minacciava di sopprimerli" (After the terrible years of exodus, ethnic cleansing carried out on Italians of Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia, the Italians remained decided to maintain its identity and meeting with a revanscist reality that threatened to suppress them.) These are the real words of the Italians of Croatia and Slovenia!

For now I will stop here.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR are you serious? The ethnic cleansing was a joke? You have never study this history? It's a historical fact that was an ethnic cleansing --En.mat003 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mat003, I'm not sure how your post helps us here. perhaps you could take a little while to read through the various scholarly sources being discussed above in this section? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing? oh no, Bosnia was ethnic cleansing, not even Operation Storm is (officially) ethnic cleansing. You need to be at gunpoint (or very near to it) to be ethnically cleansed. Italians left of their own free will, the Yugoslav government did not tell them they would be killed, imprisoned or forcibly expelled if they did not leave. This may seem "naive" of me, but ethnic cleansing is a very strict official term, and such events are mostly kept track of by the UNHCR. Have a look at the much more violent Operation Storm, even that is not considered "ethnic cleansing". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Yugoslavia was at the time a fully communist/Stalinist state (later not so), and people everywhere felt the difference. In the first years after the war, before the Tito-Stalin split it was a problem for everybody to go to church. People everywhere were in danger of being proclaimed "Ustaše" or "Chetniks" or "Nedićevci", i.e. criminals. The esuli are not editing this article? Well, of course, this is an encyclopedia, not a "historical complaints department". Let me ask you this: do you think the esuli are NPOV on this subject? If so you're biased as well. I'm just a guy from Dalmatia I'm not a communist, nor do I support them or their actions.
I've worked for a while on Yugoslav Wars articles and I have some experience with the term "ethnic cleansing". The strikingly similar example I've pointed out before is the Croatian Operation Storm. The HDZ and Franjo Tuđman wanted to get rid of the Serbs, so they accomplished it very elegantly by frightening them to leave. The alleged ("alleged" - because you can never get evidence for this kind of stuff) plan unfortunately worked nicely. The Serbian "exodus" was far larger than the Italian one 40 years earlier, (For the record this is evil, down-handed, and wrong.) but it was not ethnic cleansing, and had the Serbs stayed Tuđman could not have expelled them by force (because of Clinton). If he somehow did, that would be ethnic cleansing.
Exactly the same case in Istria, but on a much smaller scale. Premier Broz wanted the Italians out, so he got them out by frightening them with the kind of massacre and/or forced expulsion he could never have actually gone through with because of Yugoslavia's tenuous diplomatic position (he would be condemned in the UN and lose all his western backing). This kind of sneaky "psychological ethnic cleansing", is, I'm afraid, not really ethnic cleansing, and its certainly not "democide". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you thing the Jews are NPOV on the Holocaust? Do you think the Croats are NPOV on Oluja? Do you think the Albanians are NPOV in Kosovo? Do you think the Russians are NPOV on Operation Barbarossa? Your view of history is very strange, my dear, a real, total, absolute POV view: only Slovenians and Croats can speak on Istrian exodus (you said that you don't like Italian sources: you erased all the Italian sourced I wrote, also one Slovenian source, because you don't like it!), but the esuli can't speak on Istrian exodus! We haven't to hear what they tink on theirself in an article wich speaks about the esuli!

But you think that during Operation Storm we have no ethnic cleansing... Read here[[17]] and here [18] and here [19]. Now I understand more... about you!--151.48.47.96 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood, "my dear", I did not refer to nationalities, what you're saying is a play on words. I (naturally) have no problem with Italians or Croats editing the article, my point was that people who've been brought up to believe that their family was expelled and tormented by the Yugoslavs are clearly not unbiased on this matter. Like I said before, you are biased as well if you claim something like that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

For sure it was not as in Bosnia, but calling it "Voluntary free-will departure" is out of place. Maybe "mass emigration" is better, and like "esuli" is labelled "as they were called in Italy", "optanti" should be labelled "as they were called in Yugoslavia". These choices maybe would avoid edit wars... 79.17.238.247 (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but emigration is voluntary, its nothing but a different wording. Since it was voluntary, then they did indeed "opt" to leave, the term is not incorrect. Furthermore, "Optanti" is an Italian word, not Yugoslav, only biased users have so far claimed that the term was somehow "created" by the evil communists. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

They opt to leave, and in the same years the Italians remained wrote something like this: "Noi Italiani dell'Istria e di Fiume affermiamo che nella Jugoslavia socialista le nostre possibilità di sviluppo economico, sociale e culturale sono tutelate al più alto livello" (We Italians of Istria and Rijeka say that in Socialist Yugoslavia our opportunities for economic, social and cultural development, are protected at the highest level). I have this original document in my personal historical collection about Istria. Of course, also this statement was "voluntary and free-will". "Free-will", "free-will": Yugoslavia was for sure the most free country in the world!--151.48.47.96 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So you think the Yugoslav government or somebody actually had a gun to their heads while they were writing it? I must say, your theory is completely improbable and very hard to prove. Yugoslavia was well known as the most liberal socialist state in Europe, it was not even part of the Eastern Bloc because of this. You've apparently "demonized" the country in your mind... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you have to read something coming from the Italians in Croatia and in Slovenia, don't you think so? Do you know the story of the first Italians, put at the head of the Italian Community in Yugoslavia? All - except three - sent to Goli Otok! Do you know the story of Antonio Borme, the head of the Italians Community in the 70's? Banned because demanded more autonomy for the Italians! Do you know the name of one prominent Italian in Croatia in the 50's-60's-70's? I have more and more and more and more doubts about it.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"All except three", how many were there? I'd say they were probably imprisoned not because they were Italian people, but for nationalism and "demanding autonomy", which is separatism (Kosovo, for example, only "demanded autonomy"). Any prominent Croat or Serb would face prison sentences for the same offenses. Why? For good reason. Have you heard of the Yugoslav Wars? nationalism is generally very bad for Yugoslavia. And even if they were all sent to Goli, that does not make the departure of the Italian population "ethnic cleansing". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are like a guy without a light walking in the darkness, regarding the Italians in Yugoslavia. Before writing something else, please read this: [20].--151.48.47.96 (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot: this study is wrote also by Furio Radin, an extremely POV fascistic/irredentistic/sockpuppet of Brunodam (all the Italians are Bruno's sock) who seat in the Croatian Sabor for the Italians (of course separatistic) of Croatia. A public enemy: call the UDBA!--151.48.47.96 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about Furio, he's generally ok (nice last-minute touch with Brunodam ;) but is he a historical scholar? Or is he a politician working towards a political goal? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Politician working towards a political goal"? I'm laughing if I think that in Croatia one of the most important historical scholar is... Franjo Tudjman! However, Radin was one of two editors of the study. The historic articles are by M.Budicin, A.Damiani, P.Ziller, L.Giuricin. They are all historical scholars. If you want to read the best history study about Istria (in Italian) here: [21] you can download "Istria nel tempo". Only Italians from Croatia and Slovenia wrote this book. But of course if I could put here in en.Wiki some statements from this book, you and the other guys from the Slavo-ring of course will think the same thing: "All Italians are fascistic/irredentistic/separatistic, a incredible danger for the sacred soil of Croatia (and Slovenia, of course)". You know: we in Italy are thinking only to "Istria" and "Dalmazia".--151.48.47.96 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm the defender of the "holy soil of Croatia", and I absolutely loooove old Franjo and his fantasies. LOL! You don't know much about my editing, do you? Maybe you need to look at the kind of stuff I've had to deal with from the reeal Croatian nationalists? And maybe you should ask my cousin in Milan weather or not I think he is "fascistic/irredentistic/separatistic" or whatever? As for Radin, he does indeed have quite a few political goals, not the least of which is getting double voting rights for Italians and so on. You know, twice the culture, twice the vote, right? ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway: the Italian historians think that the exodus was a forced migration (of course, all the esuli think the same). The Croats and the Slovenians think that was a free-will departure (not so much, if you read the Slovenian-Italian Commission). In this article we can see only the Slo/Cro point of view (i.e. your point of view), and many, many passages quite offensive for the esuli. But the esuli - the victims, do you remember this? - of course are POV, only POV and you don't want to hear their voices. DIREKTOR said: "Shut up, fascistic/irredentistic esule! You can't speak!". The article is in your hands. What do you think to do?--151.48.47.96 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I disagree with your summary of the issue. I hardly think Italian historians, for example, have a consensus on this matter. Even if they did, this is not a matter of "what do nations think", as you simplified it, this is a matter of actual events and evidence. And here's the problem with the "forced migration/ethnic cleansing" idea: please show me the directive of the Yugoslav Federal Government ordering the JNA to "force the migration" of the Italian minority, or anything even close to that. Where's the soldiers on the streets, where are the trucks and trains taking people against their will, i.e. "forcing them to migrate"? Where are the long winding columns of Italian refugees fleeing from their homes in terror... you get the picture. Let me put this in so simple terms its almost offensive: Tito duped a large part of the Italian minority into leaving of their own free will. Actually forcing them out ("forced migration") would be completely and utterly impossible for Yugoslavia in that period. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a digression concerning your earlier statements on my position regarding Operation Storm. I want to make myself clear as you may have drawn some completely wrong conclusions ("But you think that during Operation Storm we have no ethnic cleansing... (...) Now I understand more... about you!"). Only small incidents therein might be considered "ethnic clensing", but the whole operation is not considered so by the United Nations. I am personally deeply saddened by the fact that Croatia lost so many of its citizens. I am sure that the HDZ and Tuđman (my hero :P) prayed to god for the Serbs to leave, but there's a catch: the Croatian Army was built up by NATO (= USA) and Tuđman could not risk actually ethnically cleansing the Serbs. Why? because the Clinton administration would be seen as indirectly supporting ethnic cleansing, and crossing the Americans is a very bad idea. So you see, the matter is a tad bit more complex than you might think (this is only a part of the equation), and Storm could not be organized as an ethnic cleansing operation. Not because that #X%&! Tuđman is a nice democratic ex-communist, but because it simply could not be executed as such. As it happened, Tuđman unfortunately had it his way and came out clean. Much like the Italians, if the Serbs stayed, they could not have been removed by force. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR do you know what is a Diaspora? Go to read what does it mean and then say if this wasn't a Diaspora --En.mat003 (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Mat003, frankly, I hardly think, on the evidence seen so far, that you are in any position to question somebody else's English knowledge. I would imagine that DIREKTOR has forgotten more English than you will ever know. Just to help you, this is from dictionary.com:
Di·as·po·ra /daɪˈæspərə/–noun

1. the scattering of the Jews to countries outside of Palestine after the Babylonian captivity.

2. (often lowercase) the body of Jews living in countries outside Palestine or modern Israel.

3. such countries collectively: the return of the Jews from the Diaspora.

4. (lowercase) any group migration or flight from a country or region; dispersion.

5. (lowercase) any group that has been dispersed outside its traditional homeland.

6. (lowercase) any religious group living as a minority among people of the prevailing religion.

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I can't speak English like DIREKTOR but I live in Trieste and I know better than him this historical facts. I think DIREKTOR is too involved infact he writes that he strongly supports Josip Broz Tito ideas. Tito who kills thousands of Italians. However Italian was forced to leave Istrian territory. This is history --En.mat003 (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? First of all, please do not say that you know more than another editor. Here at en.wiki we have various key policies which you would do well to abide by. One of these is that we must all assume good faith about other editors. So therefore it is not appropriate for you to say "I know better than him this historical facts" (you mean 'these' historical facts, BTW). Now, is it history? Is it? I asked you yesterday to read some of the sources that we have been discussing. You have not bothered to do so, or, at least, you have chosen not to enter our discussion of them, rather preferring to make remarks about other editors. I also addressed you at your talk page yesterday and, not only have you failed to reply, you have compounded the situation by copy-pasting and forwarding [22] messages sent to you by a former editor and multiple sockpuppeteer that you know full well is banned from both Italian and English wikipedias. Now, if you wish to continue to contribute here I would definitely advise you politely but firmly to improve your behaviour. Kind regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets keep this simple and civil. We're all discussing like normal people and that's more than this article has seen for quite a while. Here's my question: If you guys maintain that this was a "forced migration", please produce evidence of the act of "forcing". In other words, please show us who exactly, and when exactly, used "force" to move a large portion of the Italian minority across the Yugoslav/Italian border. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So far we've made progress. You guys provided refs showing that, "According to some sources, the Yugoslav Federal government was allegedly ["allegedly" - because this is, as you yourself said above, debated and impossible to prove] attempting to incite the departure of a portion of the Italian minority in Istria." I myself would not mind the inclusion of such a statement in the text of the article, and you've certainly proven that much. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of illustrious books that talk about these facts confirming that was a Diaspora. I invite you to read someone like "Il Lungo Esodo" di Raoul Pupo --En.mat003 (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Diaspora"? So you guys are Jews? ;) A diaspora can be forced, but it also may not be. Read the meanings: Dalmatian Croats have a diaspora of people who left because the economy fell apart in the late 19th and early 20th century, they were not forced. Read the meaning of the word posted above:

"4. (lowercase) any group migration or flight from a country or region; dispersion."

"5. (lowercase) any group that has been dispersed outside its traditional homeland."

In short, while the Esuli and their departure or flight can be considered a "diaspora" in the 5th and 4th sense of the word respectively, the use of word itself does not do anything to prove they were "forced" out. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that is correct write that it was a Diaspora. We have to rewrite it in the text --En.mat003 (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not put words into my mouth. What I'm saying is that "diaspora" (small, lowercase "d") is far too general a term to be used in the context of this article. It does not clarify anything. It can mean the Esuli "fled" their homes (ethnic cleansing) or that they simply "migrated" from their homes ("migrated" = "emigrated", voluntary departure). Read the above text. What I think you're hoping for is that the text might be vague enough for most people to think the meaning is "fled", that's not gonna fly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Exodus... Oluja... the story from the point of view of executioners: no way for the victims. Now I have to open the windows of my room to breathe a little easier.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No my friend, its the ugly truth. Its always ugly with these kind of things. Its ugly with the Oluja, and its ugly with the exodus. You want another example? Kosovo. The Serbs were also "psychologically ethnically cleansed" from there as well. They were a minority unwelcome among the Albanian majority they opressed for a long period of time, and they left. Economic reasons played their unpleasant part here as well. The Albanians didn't "ethnically cleanse" them, but the effect is the same. Very similar to the exodus again, don't you think? You see, the exodus is just another small example of this Balkans phenomenon. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere is written that is a diaspora, only on this Wikipedia we cannot write this. At least write "departure" and not " voluntary free-will departure" --En.mat003 (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Mat003, unfortunately your English is sufficiently limited that you do not seem to appreciate the meanings of 'diaspora', despite the fact that the various definitions have been provided for you above. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know that "diaspora" is an international word. So I know what does it mean --En.mat003 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You should say "So I know what it means". In English, we don't form a direct question structure in the middle of a sentence. Meaning (4) of the definition of diaspora is applicable here. I really fail to see what you are driving at. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my teacher, it will be the last time that I make this mistake. I'm saying that the correct word to use is "diaspora" but you and Director don't want to use this word (I don't know why). So I'm saying that is more correct to write "departure" and not " voluntary free-will departure"- Only this. Sorry if my english is not at your level --En.mat003 (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Diaspora is a synonym for departure, with the only possible difference being that 'diaspora' would emphasise multiple ultimate destinations. There is no relevant difference between the article saying 'diaspora' and 'departure'. That's why I'm confused as to your insistence it should say 'diaspora'. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt03, perhaps it would help if I pointed out that, since this is an encyclopedia, we are required to use encyclopedic wording. We can't simply use "poetic" terms with vague meanings. Let me repeat the possible meanings of "diaspora":

"4. (lowercase) any group migration or flight from a country or region; dispersion."

"5. (lowercase) any group that has been dispersed outside its traditional homeland."

As you can see, the word can mean both that the exodus was "ethnic cleansing", OR that the exodus was "voluntary free will departure". This is a very controversial issue, and we must be careful, and in any case, we can't have such vague wording on an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Every historian agree that it wasn't a voluntary departure. Tito and his army killed thousands of Italian and so the remaining people were forced to leave their own home. Do you agree at least on this? --En.mat003 (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's another argument entirely. Concerning the term "diaspora", it does not matter what the exodus really was. If it was ethnic cleansing, the term diaspora could be misinterpreted as voluntary departure. If it was voluntary departure, the term diaspora could be misinterpreted as ethnic cleansing. We just can't have that kind of vague wording.

Concerning voluntary departure, we already had that argument. The migration was not forced. Historians rarely (or never) "all agree" on things, and they certainly do not agree on this. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If they didn't leave their home, they would have been killed sure --En.mat003 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So you honestly think that the federal government of Yugoslavia, a country seriously threatened by invasion from the Eastern Block (see Tito-Stalin split) would order the Yugoslav People's Army to go out into the streets of major Istrian cities, seek out tens of thousands of ethnic Italians, drag them into the street and shoot them? You don't think that something like that might destroy the diplomatic protection it received from the West and leave it open to Stalin? Or that it might lead to a declaration of war by Italy and the rest of the NATO pact? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So, in your opinion Tito's army didn't kill thousands of italian --En.mat003 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the foibes are another discussion entirely. As far as the exodus is concerned, it was completely impossible to kill the Italian minority if they didn't leave.

As for the foibes:

1) The exact number of victims is completely unknown. Ranging from several hundred to several thousand. Saying "thousands" means you believe the worst estimates.

2) Not even the most biased historians seriously claim that Tito personally ordered the killings.

3) The killings were most probably not ethnically, but ideologically motivated. Which means those who were killed were suspected of being fascists by the local Slavic civilians and troops of the scattered 8th Dalmatian Corps battalions. Of course, this is not an attempt to justify the killings. Even if it was proven somehow that all victims actually were fascists (unlikely), such summary executions are apalling.

4) Just north of the foibes, a far worse ideologically motivated massacre, the Bleiburg massacre of mostly Croatian fascists took place (Tito was an ethnic Croat himself). Again, Tito is not seriously suspected of ordering it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Really you think that Tito didn't known nothing? Did you really think that the motivations were only ideologically and not ethnically? You are re-writing the History as you want, but this is not possible on an Encyclopedia --En.mat003 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not "want" anything, and I do not like being accused of rewriting history. You are completely biased as you've been hearing the same story over and over again, and are thus completely unable to accept anything else. You imagine it was all some "grand master plan"? Fine. Bring me proof of your conspiracy theory. Tito is not considered to have ordered any mass killings, do you have any evidence to the contrary? or are you trying to rewrite history.

Its simply a known fact that the foibes were killings made by groups of local civilians and soldiers of the Dalmatian Corps against local fascists. Such reprisals unfortunately often took place when the Partisans liberated an area (the Italian, Ustaše, and Axis reprisals were, of course, much worse, like the slaughter and complete destruction of the entire town of Bol by an Italian gunship). These reprisals were not ethnically motivated, and it is logical to assume the foibes were not as well.

The Partisans as a movement had nothing against Italians as a nation (though the same cannot be said for the Germans). The best proof of that can be found in the fact that they incorporated volunteer Italian units in their army, organized in the 'Giuseppe Garibaldi' Division. Furthermore, I remind you that the Partisans' ideology was extremely anti-nationalist, perhaps more than any other WW2 formation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me summarize: it is not a question of what you or I "want", it is a question of what you or I have evidence for. Before something can be incorporated into an article, you must prove it. You have to prove that Josip Broz Tito ordered these small disparate groups to kill Italians, randomly. I just told you why it is completely unlikely that this was all a "grand master plan". If you have evidence, a directive, a document published somewhere, I will agree. What I will not accept, are random opinions of biased historians.

If you do not have proof, and you try to incorporate genocide accusations against one of the "great Allied leaders" (as he was called by the western press), then you are "re-writing the History as you want", but this is not possible on an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of source that agree with what I'm saying. The problem is that you consider them POV only because say something different than what you are saying. Is useless to talk with you, you are too involved infact you "strongly support Josip Broz Tito's views". --En.mat003 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And you, since you choose to make personal remarks, have repeatedly forwarded messages that you received from an ex-user that is banned on both itwiki and enwiki, despite the fact that you know full well that the message was sent to you by a banned user. This fact, as well as the fact that the message itself is full of things that are untrue, leads me to believe that there is no reason to think that you intend to contribute seriously to this project. Therefore, the sensible strategy is probably to ignore your remarks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand where's the problem if I send that massage. I think that you are writing something wrong on this page so I'm finding someone that can help me to improve it. --En.mat003 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are banned (rather than just blocked, even indefinitely) this means you are not welcome to contribute to the project in any form. See WP:BAN which says that "The standard invitation Wikipedia extends with the statement "edit this page" does not apply to banned users". Secondly, the message itself includes allegations about sockpuppetry (made by a multiple sockpuppeteer, which is ironic) that are absolutely untrue and which you have absolutely no reason to believe. That the message includes allegations of anti-Italianism is not a problem - I don't care what opinions other people have. Now, if you wish to send your own message to other editors, then that is OK, and I have no problem with it. As long as it does not contain any lies, which is the case with PIO's message. Unfortunately, I have already told you about this at your talk page (twice) but you have chosen to ignore me. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing: you may find sources that say "Tito killed thousands of Italians", but I'm not saying they're "biased" because I "strongly support Tito's views (on the unity of the Yugoslav nations!)". I'm saying that these sources are biased because they claim something that is not supported by actual historical evidence. And THAT'S what you need to provide: a source presenting actual historical evidence, nothing else matters. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to keep flogging a dead horse, but I think there is a valuable point that En.mat003 made, which got a bit lost in the course of the discussion: could not the initial statement just read: "The expression Istrian exodus or Istrian-Dalmatian exodus is used to indicate the departure of ethnic Italians..." etc? This would not put up front a judgment on the character of the departure and would be, I think, more in tune with the rest of the article (which I find quite good, by the way), which hints to a multiplicity of causes leading to the departure (or departures). The quotes from the Italian-Slovenian relation (which I personally consider a capital document on the issue) at the bottom of the article also seem to reinforce the idea that different interpretations can be reached of the nature of the exodus and that, in some instances, historians are left with "deducing" what really happened. Simply calling it a "departure" in the opening would not prejudge the final views on such a debate, leaving up to the reader to form his/her own opinion after a careful reading of the article. Thanks Farinata1260 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)