Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:27, 25 October 2013

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Croatia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Slovenia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Slovenia to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks you can do (watch): Requests: , Protestant Reformation in the Slovene Lands (sl), Metlika black (sl) Wikify: Russia–Slovenia relations Unreferenced: Inner Carniola, Litostroj, Pavel Golia, Predjama Castle Cleanup: Edvard Ravnikar, Škofja Loka, Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308 Expand: Education in Slovenia Stubs: Ajdovi žganci, Čop Street, Radenska NPOV: Gregorij Rožman, Siddharta (band) Portal maintenance: Update News, Did you know, announcements, and suggest Selected article and picture Help assess the quality of 37 unassessed articles Take/Add requested photographs Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yugoslavia Mid‑importance Istrian–Dalmatian exodus is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Misplaced Pages coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead paragraph

First, the lead sentence: "The expression Istrian exodus or Istrian-Dalmatian exodus is used to indicate the diaspora of ethnic Italians from Istria, Rijeka (Fiume) and Dalmatia, during and after World War II."

Proposed rewrite: "The term Istrian exodus (Template:Lang-it; Serbo-Croatian Latin: Istarski egzodus) denotes the mass migration, primarily of ethnic Italians, from the Istrian peninsula and the city of Rijeka during and after World War II, roughly in the period between 1943 and 1955."

Basic source basis: Ballinger p.287 "In the Istrian context, the term l'esodo istriano refers to the mass migration of ethnic Italians from the Istrian Peninsula between 1943 and 1955."

If we're seriously rewriting this accursed article, we have to deal with huge problems with this sentence.

1. "Istrian-Dalmatian exodus". Reviewing the lead sentence and the sources , not a single publication I can find uses the term "Istrian-Dalmatian exodus".
2. "...from Dalmatia". The claim that the departure from Dalmatia is included in the term "Istrian exodus" definitely needs sourcing. In which case we will not restore the invented term "Istrian-Dalmatian exodus", but will restore the mention of Dalmatia as one of the areas where the exile took place from.
3. Further, the lead needs to indicate that (while ethnic Italians were certainly the vast, vast majority of those who departed) this was not an exclusively Italian mass migration (which has been sourced) - as the current lead sentence indicates.
4. "diaspora". A "diaspora" primarily indicates "a group of people who live outside the area in which they had lived for a long time". It is much clearer to refer to this with a scientific and less WP:VALUE-LADEN term such as "mass migration" (sourced by Ballinger & Weldes).
5. "used to indicate the diaspora of ethnic Italians from..". While there is no question we're talking about Italians here, they are not exclusively those who departed. Hence "primarily ethnic Italians".
6. Fiume. No justification for using the Italian (rather than English) toponym.

-- Director (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, firstly remain polite please. Secondly, if you want yo use ONE source (Ballinger) in such a prevalent way, this source must be solid. If we do not find (I did not, and I am Italian) any recent Italian work at 200,000 we should consider that source so serious? However for me the formulation if´s ok but the numbers need sourcing. At least the source itself should support with something. Otherwise we say in the lead the most recent Italian works say 200,000 but later in the article we do not cite any Italian source quoting the same number. This would be serious? Silvio1973 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REMAIN POLITE WITH YOUR WP:ICANTHEARYOU DISRUPTION REACHING UNBELIEVABLE LEVELS! I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TRY CAPS LOCK TO GET YOU TO COMPREHEND WHAT I AM SAYING TO YOU!

For the fifteenth time!

1) BALLINGER STATES THE SOURCES ARE "CLOSER TO '200,000'"! NOT PRECISELY AT "200,000"!

2) BALLINGER LISTS SPECIFIC SOURCES IN SUPPORT OF THAT!!!!!! GODDAMN Donato 1997, and Nodari 1997! WHO CARES IF YOU CAN'T FIND ANYTHING, WHO ARE YOU? WHO AM I?

3) THE PUBLICATION HAS IMPECCABLE REVIEWS BY HER ACADEMIC PEERS! AND IS PUBLISHED BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY!

3) EVEN IF BALLINGER DID NOT DO ANY OF THE ABOVE THINGS - WE WOULD STILL TAKE HER "SO SERIOUS" - BECAUSE SHE'S A PUBLISHED, SCHOLARLY SECONDARY SOURCE! AND YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT WITH REGARD TO THE QUALITY OF SECONDARY SOURCES!

DO NOT DISCUSS THE QUALITY OF SOURCES WITH ME HERE, UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE THAN YOUR MEANINGLESS APPRAISALS. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, can you pay me a little bit of respect? You are much more experienced than me, but I am not completely novice. Do you think that I did not check the consistency of Ballinger's affirmation, before replying to you?

If Ballinger quotes that some recent Italian sources are closer to 200,000 and we do not find such sources, well it's the entire reputation of the source that does not stand. And for two reasons: there are more recent works than 1997 than reports 250,000 and - what is the most important - IT IS NOT TRUE THAT DONATI AND NODARO WRITE OF 200,000. Not convinced? I could propose you an Italian source stating that, but let's see an English one. Well look at page 12 of this ]. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It´s not all. Ballinger states that Colella in 1958 estimated at 350,000. Well, this is wrong. He clearly wrote 250,000 in his work. This is sourced in my yesterday's edit. For me now the reputation of Ballinger - at least for numbers- is at least doubtful. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, again? You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me. The only alternative is that you're deliberately trying to be disruptive and drive me crazy, but that's probably not the case. I'm sorry, I really tried my best. I can decipher what you mean most of the time, but when you cannot understand me this turns into a game of telefono senza fili. -- Director (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, you are driving this thing too fare. I just demonstrated - With sources - that Ms. Ballinger messed up the sources. The 350,000 endorsed by the Istrian exile was Flaminio Rocchi not Colella. Colella always stated 250,000. And (as I also sourced) Donati and Nodaro never stated 200,000 or any close to that. Why you want give me the blame of Ms Ballinger mess-up? Silvio1973 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

("fare" = to do something well or badly). No, I'm sorry, you're wrong and you do not understand. Read my comments, try to figure it out, it doesn't really matter because, either way, I cannot discuss with you. I'm happy to talk about this subject, happy to work towards a well-sourced version of the exodus article, but Silvio - you don't speak English. At least obviously not to the extent that is needed for this sort of discussion. Honestly, I don't know what you want from me? - you can't read what I write. And often, I can't grasp what you're saying either and need to sit down and try to work it out, just to take an example from your latest post: "The 350,000 endorsed by the Istrian exile was Flaminio Rocchi not Colella." What you said there basically means "Flaminio Rocchi è stato il 350.000."

I guess I could try Italian but I haven't used it for ages and I'm very rusty - and we would have to translate everything we write so I can't imagine how that would go. -- Director (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, this is a Talk page. Do I have to write exactly as if I was writing the article? However, I think you understand very well what I meant but if the language is the issue I can be clearer. My English can be fairly decent, if I need - as it seems being the case here - to do so.

Ms. Ballinger quotes in her book that Colella estimated in 1958 the number of the exiles at 350,000; this is wrong, because - as I sourced above - in his work Colella reports the figure of 250,000 The scholar usually cited by the Istrian Italians is instead Flaminio Rocchi (estimate of 350,000 people). On top of that Ms. Ballinger quotes that recent Italian estimates (Donati and Nodaro) report a figure closer to 200,000. This is also untrue because - as I also sourced - Donati and Nodaro report a figure of 350,000. However, this discussion is futile and sterile, because recent reputable Italian estimates (such as Raoul Pupo) estimate the Istrian Exodus at 250,000 (all ethnicities) and this number is not so different from to recent Croatian. So I do not see the reason for this huge discussion (I understand we do not have to fall in the OR, but we cannot use an unreliable source). The issue is that for some reason you push Ballinger to the point that this article should be a resume of his book. Clearly this is not going to happen, because this source is not that reliable (not for the estimates of the exodus, anyway).

My English is certainly not good as yours (neither I pretend it is). Fortunately for me, also my arrogance is not big as yours. Please mind that I am an extraordinary patient person. Whatever you write I will remain solid, calm and polite. Anyway, like it or not, two administrators have already expressed their doubt about the way you conducted this Talk, so instead of my English you should care for your behavior. However, this is not my problem. My problem is that you are pushing a source that confuses the scholars and their estimates of the Istrian Exodus and this is not acceptable.

Finally, you are not obliged to talk to me. You can push your modification. In this case I will revert and require a 3O. Indeed, I do not even understand why you talk to me. If you are so convinced to be right why don't make your edit and get forced consensus asking the help on an administrator? But may be we can avoid this modus operandi and do not get to this extreme (and ineffective) solution. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You clearly consider writing barely-intelligible sentences some kind of special effort, to be undertaken when you're editing an article. Fact is even when you edit the article its in terrible grammar and spelling. It seems clear reading English is just as much of an extra effort for you, one you just can't be bothered with too often. This a talkpage, yes, and understanding what people say here is necessary for proper discussion. Re Ballinger - as I have explained, you have no idea what you are talking about, and don't understand both Wiki policy and the source itself. We can not communicate. I am not going to push anything, if you want to introduce the (EXACT PRECISE!) numbers draft we agreed upon in spite of the language barrier, I naturally won't revert. But, as you can't really understand me (and are very stubborn in your misunderstanding) I will not communicate with you. Arrivederci, Sig. Silvio. -- Director (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I have been trough your talk page. It is not the first time you have an issue with your counterparty. Indeed it happened a few times. And the conclusion was always the same. You qualified your counterparties of being ignorant, nationalist, insufficiently proficient in English. Those users replied badly and were for this reason blocked. This cannot happen to me, whatever you will say or write. Please note that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project and people contribute as they can. Of course users need to make a step back when they discuss with more experts contributors. Indeed I tried to do so. But here we are facing a different issue. You want to enter an edit supported by a source that is in evident contradiction with the sources allegedly used on support. I won't have any option, other than requesting a 3O, if you will enter an edit supported by this source. In the meantime I will continue to edit the article, with edits duly supported by sources. If for some reason they are deleted without a reason I will file a report for edit-warring or vandalism. Of course, it will take time before the present issue attires the attention of an administrator. This does not matter, I can wait. I am a patient man. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Director, from a linguistic point of view, if you are unable to understand a written sentence because the wrong auxiliary has been used or to understand the phrase 'driving sth too far' because there is an e too much, I should very much assume that it is you that lacks the neccessary knowledge of English to take part in any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.194.173 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Period of the exodus

I have removed the following sentence:

The Wehrmacht was engaged in a front-wide retreat from the Yugoslav Partisans, along with the local collaborationist forces (the Ustaše, the Domobranci, the Chetniks, and units of Mussolini's puppet Italian Social Republic).

Not because it is not true, but because I do not see what this sentence has to do with the Italian exodus, unless proper sourcing does not estabilish a clear link (which one?). However the position in the section is doubtful. The retreat from Northern Yugoslavia finished certainly in the beginning of 1945 but most of it had place in 1944, so between the the first and the second wave of the exodus. Indeed, during the second phase of the exodus (which started in the second part of 1945 and continued in 1946) Yugoslavia was de facto in full control of all the territory except the future zone A of the FTT and the enclave of Pola. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the reference to the Wermacht, although I do not understand what is its pertinence in the section. I do not understand why user Direktor keeps removing my edit about the second period of the exodus. It is sourced with a secondary English sourced and I reported exactly the content of the source without any change. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Croatia articles
• Mid-importance Croatia articles
• All WikiProject Croatia pages
• C-Class Italy articles
• High-importance Italy articles
• Italy articles needing attention
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• C-Class Slovenia articles
• Mid-importance Slovenia articles
• All WikiProject Slovenia pages
• C-Class Yugoslavia articles
• Mid-importance Yugoslavia articles
• WikiProject Yugoslavia articles