Jump to content

Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian exodus/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Tentative proposal for #1

I went again trough the archives and the various discussion. The sources (namely Ballinger and Ahonen) precise that pressure was put mainly during the first phases of the exodus. Ahonen writes at page 107-108 of his book: Motivations behind the emigration are complex. Fear caused by the initial post-war violence (summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities) was a factor. However, modern historiography places social and economic conditions to the forefront. Factors such as the general repressiveness of the communist state, nationalization in Yugoslavia, and the subversion of traditional social and cultural hierarchies in the context of the new country. On the Yugoslav side, it does not appear that an official decision for expulsion of Italians in Yugoslavia was ever taken. The actions of the Yugoslav authorities were contradictory: on the one hand, there were efforts to stem the flow of emigrants, such as placement of bureaucratic hurdles for emigration and suppression of its local proponents. On the other hand, Italians were pressured to leave quickly and en masse. Going trough the sources it surfaces that strong measures had place mainly during the first phases of the exodus (aftermath of WWII), so we should report accordingly in the lede, because the exodus lasted nearly 15 years.
In order to represent briefly that there is no agreement about the responsability of the Yugoslavian authorities I suggest the wording (sourced by the way): The formal responsibility of the Yugoslav authorities in the exodus is still today a matter of discussion amongst historians..
To represent Ballinger's and other sources positions about the little availability of options to the ethnic Italians I suggest: However, in many cases the pressure put on the ethnic Italians gave them little option other than emigration.
Finally, integrating the comments from Director I get to the following tentative formulation (referencing can be refined):
According to various sources, the exodus is estimated to have amounted to between some 230,000 and 350,000 people (a figure including several thousands of anti-communist Croats and Slovenes) leaving the areas in the aftermath of the conflict. It does not appear that an official decision for the general expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia was ever taken. However, in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the measures implemented (some summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities and the press) pressured the ethnic Italian to leave. The formal responsibility of the Yugoslav authorities in the exodus is still today a matter of discussion amongst historians but in many cases the pressure put on the ethnic Italians gave them little option other than emigration.
Director, Stfg, what are your thoughts? I have distributed the sources along the edit so that we can discuss each sentence independently from the others. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That might be a good way to go. Let's see what Director thinks. One point: you must take care either to paraphrase or to give an attributed quotation. If you want to use words copied directly from Ahonen, as you have done, you should do it in the form According to the historian Pertti Ahonen, "it does not appear that an official decision for expulsion of Italians in Yugoslavia was ever taken."[citation here] Ahonen is a tenured academic historian (see here), hence an excellent source. --Stfg (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought about that (side note: I sourced Ahonen). The issue is that Ahonen/Ballinger/Sarti (all of them recognised historians) state that during the first years of the exodus pressure and violence bolstered the exodus (with reason: between 5 and 10,000 killed on a population of 250,000 was a lot - basically in each family of exiles there is one or more person killed). I am not sure we would find consensus in quoting anything about that, hence my compromise. Let´s see what Director says, but clearly if we give emphasis to the citation of a scholar we need to do completely. Indeed, in order to get to consensus I would try to be as much neutral as possible in the lede (still sticking to source as much as possible) and develop the matter further down in the paragraph "Reasons of the exodus". Silvio1973 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you may have missed my point, Silvio. You have used Ahonen's exact words, but without quotation marks and without in-text attribution. That is WP:COPYPASTE, and not allowed. When you use someone else's words, you must enclose them in quotation marks, you must say in the text (not just in a footnote) who said/wrote those words, and you must provide a citation saying where you got the words from, very close to the quotation, not just one of several citations somewhere in the general area. My version in green is how to do it. You should also check out WP:Quotations.
One other thing: the lede is supposed to be a summary of what is in the rest of the article. I think your paragraph probably belongs later, and the conclusion just summarise in the lede. Having large numbers of citations in the lede is dubious. --Stfg (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair points (I understand you were raising an issue of misrepresentation of the source). I will correct immediately accordingly. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Tomorrow I will refine better the citations. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have (I hope) entered the quotations according to WP guideline. Actually I do not want to quote more in order to keep the article readable.
It is important that we precise that the exodus was bolstered by different factors during the its long duration (17 years). This is paramount to avoid the binarism "voluntary, free-will departure" / "ethnic cleansing" very keen to some users but not represented in any mainstream scholar. Indeed, in all sources presented (notably Ballinger, Ahonen and Sarti) appears that violence was a factor bolstering the exodus only during the first years of the exodus (and definitely not after 1947). Later less violent form of pressure had place. For this reason the word "pressure" need clarification. I have modified in this sense the lede (being adamantly close to the sources) to make clear this difference. This is the best guarantee to avoid the article becomes again a battlefield between different extremisms. @Director, @Stfg, please let me know what do you think (also comments about the formatting of the referencing are more than welcome). Silvio1973 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the quotations are fine now, and I agree with what you just said. Last night, I saw that you were concerned that the lede is a bit thin at present. It may be, but if you get the body right first, then we can easily update the lede to summarize it fully. Good work, Silvio. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think is a bit thin, but you are right this is less of an issue. The important thing now is to land to something well sourced and agreed. I have RL commitments but by tomorrow to refine even more the referencing. I hope these edits will resist, but please do not hesitate to act any chagement of form, grammar, content or sourcing. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Completely unsourced section

Stfg, I have been very busy in the RL during the last weeks. The section dedicated to property compensation is unsourced. It reports very precise facts about the compensation of the properties lost by the exiles but without a single citation. I tried hard to find a source but could not find anything. For some reasons Director insists in keeping the edits. As we speak of property compensation and the article reports very precise figures, corresponding precise sourcing is necessary. (Personal attack removed) Silvio1973 (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's have a copy of the text you deleted here for the record, in case anyone can find sources for it. It read:
Up to its breakup in 1991, Yugoslavia had paid US$18 million.{{citation needed|date=May 2014}} Slovenia and Croatia, two Yugoslav successors, agreed to share the remainder of this debt. Slovenia assumed 62% and Croatia the remaining 38%. Italy did not want to reveal the bank account number so in 1994 Slovenia opened a fiduciary account at Dresdner Bank in Luxembourg, informed Italy about it and started paying its US$55,976,930 share.{{citation needed|date=May 2014}} The last payment was due in January 2002.{{citation needed|date=May 2014}} Until today, the solution of the matter between Croatia and Italy has been delayed.
I agree that this requires sourcing and shouldn't be included otherwise. I've removed an unnecessary comment about another editor. He hasn't edited the article for over a month, nor this talk page for over three weeks. If he wishes to move on, there's no need to make him feel he needs to come back to defend himself. I remain neutral about the article and won't allow comments about other editors to change that. --Stfg (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg, I appreciate your efforts to keep this page free of any unnecessary comment, but mind well that writing that a user is using a double standard is not a personal attack. Perhaps if my comment had not been subsequent to Director's unjustified reverts, one could say that my comment was unjustified. However, as you can see on this talk page, I tried to persuade with legitimate arguments the user that some sourcing was necessary, but the user just ignored my comments and reinstated the unsourced text on the ground that some years ago he heard something in the news. So please don't take me wrong, but IT IS double standard, or if you prefere it's quite rich to push an entire unsourced section (with so precises figures!), and at the same time insist that the other users have to provide extremely precise sources to make their edits accepted. However, you are right. Let's remain factual: that section needs sourcing before being reinstated. Concerning the general issue of conduct of the user, I was too busy in the RL to take the necessary steps to request the opinion of the WP community. I reserve the right to do so in the near future, but this talk page is not the appropriate place. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Political factor?

The following sentence: The "political factor"[clarification needed] also played its part, especially regarding the local intellectual elite. has been there unsourced and unexplained for almost 3 years. It has been just removed. If reinstated sourcing is necessary. And by the way it would be nice to understand what it does actually mean. In the current state it does not mean anything. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sentence removed in the lead

It cannot be stated that the exodus had place from territories belonging to Yugoslavia. Large movements of population (accounting to more than a third of the total exiles) had place from Zara, Fiume and Pola (I am using thre Italian toponyms with reason, because those territories were still within the borders of Italy when those events had place) before 1947 so before the Treaty of Paris. This fact is clearly explained in the rest of article. The current formulation suggest a fact that is historically wrong, i.e. that the exodus was a fact involving since the beginning Yugoslav citizens from Yugoslav land. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right.. even after 1947 much of the exodus took place from Zone B of the Free Territory of Trieste. For the purposes of the lead, it should rather be said that the events took place "as the area passed to Yugoslavia". -- Director (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
From my perspective, the modification you suggest can have place. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Slavs under Italian Fascist rule

  1. This section is the verbatim copy of the article Italianisation. Indeed it's the copy of an old version of it and contains a lot of material which was challanged and removed because unsourced. Also, exactly as with the Foibe killings, the section Slavs under Italian Fascist rule should be shortened and directed to the main article, which is Italianization. I suggest to copy from the current version of Italianisation, agree on a shorter version of it and redirect to the main article. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. There is no discussion around the fact that the Fascism acted an intense policy of Italianisation in Istria. On the other hand this policy did not start before 1922, opposely to what it is affirmed in the article. Director, I am fine in keeping things as they are but I need to see sources. Can you provide? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
As has been explained to your on numerous previous occasions:
  1. The background to these events is part of this article's scope (no matter how much you appear to dislike said background). I disagree that it needs "shortening", in fact it probably needs expanding. Whether its repeated somewhere else (verbatim or otherwise) is none of our concern in terms of writing this article.
It is essential to describe the policy of Italianisation to understand the background of the events. No discussion about that. Still, there is an issue of sourcing of several sections. Those unsourced sections were removed from the main article so I do not understand why should be reinstated here. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. The text does not state Italianisation took place before 1922.
It does, as the article says: Even during the brief preliminary period of occupation (1918–1920) Italy had begun a policy of assimilation of Croats and Slovenes. This is historically incorrect and what is most important it is unsourced. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
-- Director (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said before... do not insert replies into my posts, please.
I'm waiting for someone to reply to the 3O you say you requested. As I said before, I'm not prepared to discuss one-on-one with you: I find it a waste of time. As regards Italianization prior to Mussolini, I've done some cursory research and it appears to have actually occurred, albeit on a smaller scale (forced Italianization of Croatian and Slovene surnames [1]). Such actions are hardly only features of Fascist regimes.
I've rolled back your non-consensus edits one last time. You attempted these changes before and you knew they are opposed. I hope you will not continue with the same pattern ("blah blah these edits must go in") that just earned you sanctions only a couple days ago. -- Director (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, in the text there are facts unsourced (closure of schools before 1922, deportation of distinguished Croats and Slovenes). Why you keep removing the cn? Also why do you keep removing the text concerning the exodus from Zadar? What do you find POV in this edit? There will be no 3O if there is not a serious discussion first (the 3O has been declined for lack of discussion). I have requested the help of a mediator trough the DRN, but please now join the discussion and if you want to rollback sourced edits at least explain why. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Content Issue

There was an unsuccessful attempt by one of the editors at this article to resolve a content dispute about this article at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Unfortunately, the volunteers at the noticeboard had to close that thread, because there continued to be back-and-forth discussion after editors were told to wait for a moderator, and the comments were personal and unproductive. Discussion should continue here, at this talk page, or at another of the forums described in the dispute resolution procedure. I will remind the editors here that the peninsula of Istria is in the Balkan region as usually defined, and so is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC, which means that disruptive editing may be subject to topic-bans and other restrictions. Be civil and concise. Discuss content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What is in dispute?

Can anyone explain what the recent disagreement is about? It seems that User:Silvio1973 and User:Director got into a dispute over at WP:DRN that caused the request there to be closed with no substantive action. If the parties will join in an WP:RfC or other discussion, it can be worked on here. But if personal antipathies prevent them engaging in negotiations, the possibility of page bans under WP:ARBMAC might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I do not understand what the disagreement is about. My edits have been rolled back but in spite of my multiple requests I did not get an answer. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Period of the exodus

Expanded, as well brief reference to the foibe entered in the lead. Discussion about those modifications welcome.--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC) @Director, I do not understand why you consider the section describing the exodus from Zadar as POV. The insertion is very well sourced. Can you list the reasons of your disagreement about the insertion of the followig section of text?

The first city to see a massive departure of ethnic Italians was Zadar. Between November 1943 and Zadar was bombed by the Allies, with serious civilian casualties (fatalities recorded range from under 1,000 to as many ad 4,000 of over 20,000 city's inhabitants). Many died in the carpet bombings, and many landmarks and centuries old works of art were destroyed. A significant number of civilians fled the city. In late October 1944 the German army and most of the Italian civilian administration abandoned the city.[1] On October 31, 1944, the Partisans seized the city, until then a part of Mussolini's Italian Social Republic. At the start of World War II, Zadar had a population of 24,000 and, by the end of 1944, this had decreased to 6,000.[1] Formally, the city remained under Italian sovereignty until September 15, 1947[2] (Paris Peace Treaties) but by that date the exodus from the city had been already almost total. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Director, removing sourced text without a reason is vandalism. If you think the insertion is POV please discuss here. Without any discussion I have no option but rolling back. Please start to discuss and explain the reasons of your disagreement. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Director, to show good faith I have removed this edit. Please can you tell us what's wrong with it and propose an alternative formulation? Silvio1973 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Director, can you please join the discussion and tell us why you contest this edit. Without an answer from your side I will reinstate the edit. And of course feel free to roll it back but please explain us what is wrong with it. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Begonja 2005, p. 72.
  2. ^ Grant, John P.; J. Craig Barker, ed. (2006). International Criminal Law Deskbook. Routledge: Cavendish Publishing. p. 130.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Istrian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Istrian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Istrian-Dalmatian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Istrian-Dalmatian exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian_exodus/Archive_7&oldid=1139434538"