Talk:Poreč

Notes

I can't figure out what is meant by "Bishop Mauro possesses his building". Did he construct the basilica, or is it merely named after him, or what? Perhaps someone could clarify.

The population numbers are questionable. ie. population of 10,500 with 20,000 in the municipality limits, and 17,500 if including the surrounding municipalities.

The Capital section reads like a tourist brochure, and as such doesn't seem NPOV, so I added the NPOV banner. JethroElfman 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poreč as the "tourism capital" of Croatia is insane. I'll try to clean it up. --AHrvojic 18:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Is this name pronounced Por'EHtz. Could someone add a pronunciation key? Thanks --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 04:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'c' in Porec is pronounced like the 's' in mission' (very close)! BN May 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.171.211 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Poreč (grb).gif

Image:Poreč (grb).gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antother time the same question!!!!!

User:AlasdairGreen27 erased another time in this article (like in many others) every notice regarding Italians in Istria. He doesn't like these words: "The Italian population left the city and it was substituted with slavic people from different regions of Yugoslavia".He wants to know if is a real fact that Italians left Parenzo after the war. Of course, because he is a real democratic historian without any kind of anti-Italianism: he has big doubts, unbelievably always about Italians, this evil race. So I have to write another time the same things. How many Italian-speakers lived in Parenzo in 1910? And in 1961 (after the Istrian exodus)? How many Serbo-croatians (so the Austrians called the Croats in the censi) in the same years?

The sources:

G.Perselli, "I censimenti della popolazione dell'Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune città della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936", Unione Italiana-Fiume, Università Popolare-Trieste, Centro di Ricerche Storiche di Rovigno, Trieste-Rovigno 1993
"La Comunità Nazionale Italiana nei censimenti jugoslavi 1945-1991", Unione Italiana-Fiume, Università Popolare-Trieste, Centro di Ricerche Storiche di Rovigno, Trieste-Rovigno 2001. These books come from the most important historian of the Italian minority in the former Yugoslavia. Do you want to see the covers? Here they are: [1]. Click on "Editoria del CRS".

City of Parenzo: 1910 (Perselli, p.189)
Italians: 3.962
Serbo-Croats: 9
You read that right: only nine. Every one who read something about the history of Parenzo (now Porec/Parenzo: today this is the bilingual official name of the city, but of course you can't read this info in the article...) knows that Parenzo was the most Italian city of all Istria! But User:AlasdairGreen27 doesn't know it. I've just said: he has some doubts about it.

After 51 years:

Parenzo: 1961 ("La Comunità Nazionale..." p. 235)
Italians: 339
Croats: 2.454

Of course I have the dates for every one census: Al may request all he wants!

Now the question is: do you think that AlasdairGreen27 will add in the article these numbers, or he'll write that we haven't a reliable source? We seat here and wait for the response of Alasdair alias the Eraser of Italian memories.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that AlasdairGreen27 demands a source for that sentence when the entire article has no sources! In any case I restored the sentence and cited one of the sources above. Please check the fields in the citation template for correctness. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more accusations of anti-Italianism. Pathetic. If that were the case, how could you explain my edits between 11:18, 26 July 2008 and 11:44, 26 July 2008. Next, you will observe that all I am doing is correctly applying official policies and guidelines. Namely, in this case, WP:BURDEN and WP:NCGN. There are people who seem to think that because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that this extrapolates that it is the encyclopedia that can say whatever you want it to. This is not the case. Policies must be adhered to if this project is to mean anything at all. They are there for a reason, and I suggest that you spend a little time reading them instead of erroneously criticising other editors. That's all. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet more"? So is not the first time for you? Very strange :-)))!--151.48.47.96 (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem, your sentence is a play on words. The Italians left. Of course they did! noone is disputing that. But then we get to the real issue: "it was substituted with slavic people from different regions of Yugoslavia". What this suggests is that they were "removed" and then "substituted". Nobody "substituted" anybody, people simply moved into the town, but your agenda here is, as it always has been, to depict some kind of evil plan by the even more "eevil communists". I did not go into your sources, but they appear valid, so we should include the info. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Poreč - Parenzo"

The town is bilingual, but its name is not. "Poreč - Parenzo" is simply how they wrote the title on the official website. Quite simply, the name of the city does not consist of two words. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that in western Istria, road signs and other signs are bilingual, and that the municipal website also says Grad Poreč - Città di Parenzo. But officially Poreč is Poreč. Not Parenzo. The Italian minority's proposal about bilingual official names for a few of the towns was rejected in 2003 [2]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't know the change of 2005 for the Istrian Statute and for many towns names: see here, please page 3, and revert your changes.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kako je u međuvremenu dana 28. srpnja 2006. godine ("Narodne novine", broj 86/2006) donesen Zakon o područjima županija, gradova i općina u Republici Hrvatskoj, Zakonom su ova pitanja uređenja na način da dvojezični nazivi jedinica lokalne samouprave glase: Buje-Buie, Novigrad-Cittanova, Poreč-Parenzo,..."

Since in the meantime on July 28 2006 ("Narodne novine", issue 86/2006) the 'Law on the Areas of Counties, Cities and Municipalities in the Republic of Croatia' was passed, these questions are ordered in such a way that the bilingual names of the units of local self-government are: Buje-Buie, Novigrad-Cittanova, Poreč-Parenzo,..."

Looks like he's right, Alasdair. Its a recent development... The town's official bilingual name is "Poreč-Parenzo". Why did I emphasize "bilingual"? because its "standard" official name is still simply "Poreč". The town's name does not consist of two words (like Stari(#1) Grad(#2) ). What this effectively means is that the Italian minority is allowed to use the name Parenzo in an official capacity. In any case you're right here, Luigi, your sentence stands as far as I can tell. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that is the most recent document on this. Perhaps it has been amended. If you look at article 2 of the regional statute, in all three languages it says Poreč, not Poreč-Parenzo [3][4][5], whereas various other municipalities have both names given. I won't revert the change though unless we can find the definitive answer to this question. BTW 151.48.47.96, you seem to have moved a section of the text into the references section. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, we need to get more info on this. So far, the IP's source trumps ours, as it explicitly states the bilingual name of the city. Zen, do you have any knowledge about any possibly even more recent developments here? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you e-mail them [6] and ask them what the truth is? That'd settle it. Maybe it's a mistake on their website. I'm sure they'll be happy to correct it if it is, though it seems unlikely with such an important document as their statute. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ask them, then ask! I'm sure about the bilingual name of Poreč-Parenzo. The law is changed and also the Statute of Istria. If you go in Poreč-Parenzo, you can see all the public labels of the "commune" in Croat and Italian. I owned a flat in Poreč-Parenzo until two years ago!--151.48.47.96 (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I made a little examination. Istrian county statute was written in 2001 with some bilingual names. There were probably some problems about it, since an Italian minority association in Rijeka asked for estimate of accordance of Crotian constitution concerning the language of the minorities in some locations, which was rejected by Croatian constitution court [7] - constitution already gives the rights to the minorities, it should be conducted by the local statutes. Therefore an Istrian statute with some changes was realesed in 2006 [8]. Some communes have bilingual names officially: Buje - Buie, Novigrad - Cittanova, Poreč - Parenzo, Pula - Pola, Rovinj - Rovigno, Umag - Umago, Vodnjan - Dignano; and towns: Bale - Valle, Brtonigla - Verteneglio, Fažana - Fasana, Funtana - Fontane, Grožnjan - Grisignana, Kaštelir-Labinci - Castelliere-S. Domenica, Ližnjan - Lisignano, Motovun - Montona, Oprtalj - Portole, Tar-Vabriga - Torre Abrega, Višnjan - Visignano, Vižinada - Visinada, Vrsar - Orsera.

Sorry Alasdair I gave you wrong information, I must admit my mistake here, this is the list of bilingual geographical names in Istria, according to Istrian county statute (2006). We must edit it that way. I believe bilingual naming in Croatia ends with this list (I don't know if there are some Croatian/Slovenian places on the Zagorje/Dolenska border?). Mr/Ms 151.48.47.96. thanks for information. Zenanarh (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many more official bilingual names in Istria. Here the complete list:[9]. What do you think about the box in the article Pula? Maybe someone Croatian guy could add the real official bilingual name, here!--151.30.184.190 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must change my opinion after prolonged discussion in Talk:Pula [10]. This bilingualty is a legal technicality which allows the Italian minority to use the Italian name of the city in an official capacity, but nothing more and nothing alse. Poreč is Poreč, not Poreč/Parenzo. Zenanarh (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but now you make a mistake. The Croatian law wich stated the official topographical names is here: [[11]. If you read the first article, it stated: "Ovim se Zakonom utvrđuje područno ustrojstvo Republike Hrvatske te se određuju područja svih županija, gradova i općina u Republici Hrvatskoj, njihovi nazivi i sjedišta" ("This law establishes regional constitution of the Republic of Croatia and to determine areas of all counties, cities and municipalities in the Republic of Croatia, their names and headquarters"). Please, go to Članak 21. - XVIII. ISTARSKA ŽUPANIJA and press "TABELA". You have all the official topographical names. You can find many bilingual names: Croatian/Italian. This is your law. Best regards.--151.30.172.50 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that IP guy is correct on this one. However, one small problem which I see could be the ambiguity of the statement, because the comma-separated phrase njihovi nazivi i sjedišta could be interpreted as refering to županije, not to općine and naselja (only županije can have sjedišta, and in this phrase nouns sjedišta and nazivi are connected with conjunction and), but OTOH why would the law border listing bilingual names at all if it had not in mind proscribing them? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the towns have a minority. The IP of banned User:PIO has provided no explicit and undeniable evidence in this matter. However, if you guys agree, we might consider adding "Pola" and "Parenzo" as the "Other name". If I'm not mistaken, that is the practice. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But what about - for example - the Istrian Region? The Statute [12] indicates the official bilingual names: "ISTARSKA ŽUPANIJA - REGIONE ISTRIANA". This isn't "Other name", I think...--151.30.172.50 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's one name slot, then we place the primary name. Once again, PIO, don't push it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porec was bombed

In 1944, the city was bombed by the Allies 34 times, damaging 75% of the city.[4]

Are you sure about this? I've lived near Porec for ten years and never heard this before. I'm an estate agent in Porec and have never seen any sign of wartime bomb damage whatsoever. It sounds more like Zadar, which was badly bombed then, as it was a wartime military naval headquarters. Most of Zadar's old town was destroyed and now concists of much more modern buildings. Porec had no military significance at all and there would be no reason to bomb it. Apart from that, most of the old town concists of buildings that have been there for centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istracpsboss (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germans had a military garrison and a bauxite transport facility in the town, so the Allies bombed the hell out of it. Today's parks of Olge Ban and Matije Gupca were created at the spots where old quarters were razed to the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.54.101 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True the city was heavily bombed, Americans, British and the last raid was carried by Southafricans. the city was bombed because the Germans used its port to load bauxite bound for Venice and then Germany. Around 75 % of the old town was demolished or destroyed, all green spaces in the town are a result of the bombing, the present hotel Riviera (ex Neptun) was constructed after the debris of destroyed building was cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.232.107 (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Poreč. 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) 08:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]