Talk:Italian language in Croatia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Please, Alasdair, don't do such things [1]. Kubura (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not, if I may ask? The stuff you have restored is unencyclopedic nonsense that rambles on incoherently. Most of it is absolutely off topic. Most of it is unsourced. Perhaps you might like to explain why you think that version of the article is better rather than just saying "Please, Alasdair, don't do such things". Many thanks. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may ask. Deleting sourced information without even discussing it is vandalism and just calling it "unencyclopedic nonsense" does nothing to strengthen your case. The section is based on multiple references and deals with both the present situation and the history of the Italian language, mainly in Istria. Based on your Wikipedia activities, you seem to be very fond of deleting sourced information whenever you don't personally like what the information says. That's not a responsible way to behave. JdeJ (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jdej, as I have just made clear at your talk page, please do not accuse me of vandalism. Next, your accusation about my "Wikipedia activities" is groundless and inflammatory. Please confine your remarks to the content. The section is not really based on "multiple references". It has four. The last of them says "Petar Strčić, in HRT's TV-show Latinica". Really? We're using what someone apparently said on a TV show as a reliable source? Standards must be slipping. As a general point, this section is a content fork of Istrian exodus. Why does this article need to go on about how many Italian speakers allegedly left Istria after the Second World War? Why does it need to say "Many Italians and Italianized Croats left Croatia, but also many Croats, using the opportunity to leave Communist-ruled country (Communist countries didn't allowed its citizens to leave their country)"? The whole section is indeed nonsense and should go. However, I will not revert your changes; we will see what consensus emerges. Regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Alasdair, I hope you are aware that the use of sockpuppets is illegal. It is entirely possible that you are innocent, but you'll have to admit that it is a tad strange that a user appears for the first time on Wikipedia just after you have been involved in this conflict, and the only edits this new user does is precisely the edits you have been calling for. And as that user removed sourced information without discussing the edits on the talkpage, I consider them acts of vandalism. JdeJ (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC) That post was completely out of line and I offer Alasdair my unreserved apologies. JdeJ (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make it clear, with regards to my comment above, that it is entirely possible that this is a coincident and my wording may have been too strong. To remove any doubts on this issue, perhaps Alasdair would like to take care of reverting this anonymous IP while we are discussing the article. I'm not saying the present version is the best one, but no good argument has been made for changing it. Apart from the Latinica argument, Alasdair is correct when saying that it is of limited or even no value as a source. JdeJ (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you don't take the words from an academic as mentionworthy, here's this link: [2] (from Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb).
Works of Darko Dukovski. Report of Faculty Council.
Negativne gospodarske, socijalne i političke prilike u Istri (1945-1954), u: Dijalog povjesničara/istoričara 6, Zagreb 2002., 277-293.
Temeljni gospodarski proces u novostvorenoj jugoslavenskoj federaciji nakon rata bila je ubrzana industrijalizacija, no ona je vodila propadanju poljodjelstva i stagniranju stočarstva. Usto, narodna je vlast u Istri euforično podlegla i pogrešnim procjenama o gospodarskoj samodovoljnosti Istre. Organi političke, a dijelom i vojne vlasti, ubrzano se birokratiziraju, a njihovo djelovanje štetno djeluje na ukupnu situaciju. Jedna od najočiglednijih posljedica jest iseljavanje Talijana (pa i Hrvata) koje je bilo motivirano političkim, a kasnije i gospodarskim razlozima..
Translation to follow. Kubura (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Kubura, in what way is any of this relevant to this article? If you want to talk about the economic and agricultural situation in Istria in the 1950's, perhaps the best place to do so is the article on the Istrian exodus or similar?
However, I can see why you are so keen to defend this section. It is because you added it. [3]. I maintain that this is a content fork from other articles. This article should be about the Italian language in Croatia (I don't necessarily see why this topic deserves its own article but there you go), not about alleged reasons for or speculation about why there are fewer ethnic Italians in Istria than there used to be. Lastly, you may not have noticed Kubs but the Great Wikipedia War of Dalmatia/Istria is over. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shame

This article is a shame. A group of users is trying to push their nationalistic POV by systematically reverting all edits which they don't agree with. The content is illogical and unsourced.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see... so you are completely neutral? The reverts occur because you "systematically" don't have sources and do not discuss. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: this article is a shame. A group of users is trying to push their nationalistic POV by systematically reverting all edits which they don't agree with. The content is illogical and unsourced. This is the problem, my young student.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: the reverts occur because you "systematically" don't have sources and do not discuss. Wow... your mastery of your computer's copy and paste functions is amazing! You can "repeat" all you want, it probably won't change a thing. Also, "shame" is incorrect: the word you're all looking for is "disgrace". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone can explain, please?

1. Italians were colonized in Istria during Mussolini's rule in areas given to Italy after WWI (Istria, Zadar, northern Adriatic islands) (44,000 according to Žerjavić).
2. In 1939, Italy conducted a secret census of the non-Italian population (Croats and Slovenians) in Istria, Kvarner, Zadar, Trieste and Gorizia.(...) However, secret data proved that the share of Croatian language speaking population did not diminish in that period.
After the Italian colonization (44,000 Calabrians!) the share of Croatian population did not diminish!--151.48.39.38 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Your point is not at all clear here IP editor. Could you possibly explain what you want to say? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think old Luigi is trying to say that an increase in population by 44,000 people during 20 years was an impossible feat for the Slavic untermenschen :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've already pointed out a while back that the whole section is unencyclopedic nonsense that should be removed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some Yugoslav and Croatian historian said:

1. Italians drove 100,000 Slavs to leave away from Julian March.
2. Italians brought more than 40,000 from Calabria in the same land.
3. The census showed that the percentage of Slavs had not changed.

This is a nonsense.

I see that as usual mr Direktor do not understand nothing, while someone else might show some logic. Obviously I have all the data available, but I do not want to trigger an edit-war, especially if in the other side there are people like our young (ignorant) medical student.--151.48.18.61 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... I'll once again bring myself to ignore your (badly spelled) taunts. Tell me, Luigi, are you forgetting to add the time variable or is that a deliberate oversight?
Also, are you disputing that the percentage remained unchanged, or that the population was moved? You're still unclear. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I read virtually everything that has appeared on the subject, but would discuss it with someone who has a genuine interest about the history, without ideological blinkers, like yours.--151.48.63.61 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.15.104 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.9.208 (talk)

fake info

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, but the article shows fake news and sources. --Karanko (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalisms

08:01 30 October 2008, I've written a large section, with references.
Since then, it has been several times vandalized and trolled. Some of those vandalisms/trollings weren't with bad intentions, but the outcome was bad.
08:31, 30 October 2008 [4]. Why, Alasdair? This equels the page blanking. I believe you had no bad intentions, but the outcome is.
18:08, 30 October 2008 [5] by IP 94.161.186.225. Vandal has deleted "unwanted" sections, although these were referenced.
18:11, 30 October 2008 [6]. Same IP, 94.161.186.225, has deleted another section he disliked to see.
18:13, 30 October 2008 [7]. Vandalism by DIREKTOR. Whole referenced section deleted. This also equals the page blanking.
18:57, 30 October 2008 [8]. Thanks for revert, JdeJ, but you've deleted the section that speaks about the TV show on which that information was given. I know that info now because of that TV-show, not because of certain book. So I gave that source. Here's confirmation in Italian that that TV-show was aired and that that academist told that Petar Strčić e la storia falsata. JdeJ, you probably had no bad intentions, but the outcome is.
12:06, 4 November 2008 [9] by IP 87.28.126.85. IP user has deleted referenced sections.
12:07, 4 November 2008 [10]. By same IP. OK, I owe you the source.
12:10, 4 November 2008 [11]. By same IP. Deleted referenced source.
20:24, 6 November 2008. This is called "playing dumb" [12]. Same IP has inserted the template "fact", although that information was already contained in the given reference. All those data was on the Vjesnik: Prešućivanje s poznatom namjerom, but vandal obviously doesn't read the article on the link or plays dumb. We don't have to put "ref" behind every word in the sentence. The reference is at the end of the paragraph, that means, all data given there are referred on that source. If you don't know that, than please, don't mess into scientific articles. However, today I've given that so you don't have any excuses for that disputing. Note about "Where are the Italian sources?". Italian sources mostly don't talk about this.
13:02, 12 November 2008 [13] by IP 151.48.5.84. Even he hasn't read the reference at the end of the paragraph (Vjesnik). Our beloved IP-user obviously thinks that surname ending on -ich, -cich, -az, -iak and other Slavic surname-endings are Italian. About Monti: yes, we have croatized Italians. Does that deny the existence of italianized Croats?
13:03, 12 November 2008 [14] by same IP. Again "fact" with comment in summary "Inter-state agreement? It was the Peace Treaty!". Here's the article in Croatian about that Esuli ili optanti. There were several laws that regulated that. First options were regulated by peace treaty with Italy, articles 19. and 20. and later with the Inter-state agreement about opting. : Pravilnik o opciji osoba s područja pripojenog Federativnoj Narodnoj Republici Jugoslaviji po Ugovoru o miru s Italijom, Službeni list FNRJ 109/1947. Second Inter-state agreement was signed on 1951 (Službeni list FNRJ br. 1/1951. i br. 12/1951). Further there was Memorandum o suglasnosti (under 8.) signed on 5 Oct 1954 (Službeni list-MUIDS br. 6/1954.). It regulated the abandoning of Zone B of Free Territory of Triest. Another agreement about options was signed on 1965 (Uredba o ratifikaciji sporazuma između Jugoslavije i Italije o regulisanju nerešenih slučajeva opcija za italijansko državljanstvo, Službeni list –MUIDS br. 8/1965.). There was a less used option to leave, given by Zakon o jugoslavenskom državljanstvu/Law about Yugoslav citizenship (Službeni list SFRJ br. 38/1964) and Osimo Agreement from 11 Mar 1977. (Službeni list-MU br. 1/1977.).
13:19, 14 November 2008 [15] by IP-user 87.28.126.85 . Again trolling with "fact", although that info is in reference in Vjesnik. See the line "44.000 Talijana doseljenih u vrijeme fašizma (plus dvije tisuće prirasta)".
13:23, 14 November 2008 [16] by same IP. This is called "I don't like it, so it's POV".
12:36, 21 February 2009 [17] by user 79.42.140.36. This edit contained deleted words from the sentence = filtering of information, as well as distortion of information given in the reference. Also, it contained some wrong info. Italians and Italianized Croats (and Slovenians) were both equal in Yugoslav statistics - both groups were counted as Italians.
If someone doesn't know Croatian, he can ask me. I'll translate the section. Kubura (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Kubura, I reverted a banned user with that revert. It was not vandalism and I'd do it again. Bear in mind that this article is constantly edited by irredentist IPs. If I'm not mistaken, the IPs you're referring to are banned User:Ragusino (now probably active as User:Solitudo), and banned User:Luigi 28. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Kubura, you are a complete idiot. You are a Croatian nationalist, whose interest does not align with that of the encyclopedia. The last time I visited this stupid "article" I deleted the most obvious propaganda trash, and you reinstated it for no obvious reason. Pathetic. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1