Talk:1918–1920 unrest in Split

Multi issues

I'm concerned with various aspects of this article. Thus, I have tagged it. Unrealable sources are blatant, original research and unbalanced POV are riddled all over this article. Where to begin? You can't, basically the whole thing is. There's also a thread about it on AN/I. Please discuss how these issues can be remedied. Thank you --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article will be either deleted or rewritten from scratch. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Map

The map should be a zoom of adriatic area of this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Map_Europe_1923-en.svg --Grifter72 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Name

As I have commented upon, I find 'incidents' too vague. How about the more specific 'unrest'? Agricolae (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. Srnec (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unrest against whom? No, I think that term would imply this was some sort of rebellion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Unrest against the perceived threat of Italian domination on one side, and against a perceived threat of ethnic mob violence on the other. Active disaffection. Any street conflict is an example of unrest. When a street mob and a navy are exchanging munitions, that is not very restful, to say the least. It is better than an unqualified 'incidents' which means nothing more than 'things happened', so vague as to be completely meaningless. If here we intend to mimic the Italian L'incidente di Spalato then the reference should be more direct, naming it 1918-1920 Split Incidents (capitalized) and made explicit in the text (e.g. 'that came to be called in Italian "L'incidente di Spalato" (the Split Incident)'. Otherwise, we need something better than a term that could could refer to anything from a rain of frogs to a spelling bee. Agricolae (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That kinda looks like word games to me tbh. "Unrest" against abstract concepts and general sentiments? As I said, the term implies rebellion or uprising. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Word games? I just don't get your argument. It doesn't matter what their motives were for the unrest. There was unrest in New York a few days ago, in opposition to Wall Street. There was unrest in Vancouver a few years back, in opposition to globalization. A few more years back there was unrest in many US cities in opposition to a jury verdict. The Winter of Discontent in England in the late '70s is called a 'notable historical unrest'. For a while there was unrest in Detroit every Halloween, just because a lot of people got their kicks out of lighting abandoned buildings on fire and vandalizing cars. The term doesn't imply an uprising or rebellion, although it includes those. It also includes labor unrest, industrial unrest and civil unrest, of which Wikipedia says, "a broad term that is typically used by law enforcement to describe one or more forms of disturbance caused by a group of people." Webster's defines unrest as "a disturbed or uneasy state: Turmoil." It is about the most generic, most neutral way of referring to things not completely peaceful. Agricolae (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify then. "Unrest" implies an authority or institution present against which the unrest takes place, e.g. Wall Street, or a corporation, or government. Its just a poor choice of words for events that were essentially an ethnic conflict. Since the only actual legal authority in Split was the joint Allied military, this would imo imply that Split was in a state of "unrest" against the Allied military administration, whereas this was not the case. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I just don't accept this. What part of "a disturbed or uneasy state: Turmoil" suggests it must be against some governing authority. Inter-ethnic violence is a classic example of unrest. Just search "ethnic unrest" and you will get more hits than you can read in a lifetime.

• "Ethnic unrest in Guangxi over water pollution by industrial plant"
• "ETHNIC UNREST BETWEEN THE CIRCASSIANS AND THE KARACHAY-BALKARS"
• "SOVIET TROOPS MOVE TO STOP ETHNIC UNREST BETWEEN ARMENIANS & AZERBAIJANIS"
• "Burundi is a small country situated in the Great Lakes region of Eastern Africa that has a history of ethnic unrest between its two main tribes: the minority Tutsis and majority Hutus"
• "Sunday's attack came amid mounting ethnic unrest in Darfur"

Maybe you make this mental association, but there is nothing in the term that implies such a need for a governing authority or institution against which things become unrestful. It can be between groups within some other state, over their relative position. It can be between two tribes over the killing of a goat. Agricolae (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "ethnic unrest" that is besides in a sentence clearly ruling out any misinterpretation - is perhaps not misleading, but the term alone imo is. In other words, there is a difference between "unrest in Split" and "ethnic unrest between Croats and Italians in Split" - the latter can hardly be misunderstood in any case, by way of the depth of its elaboration, but that hardly indicates the term is the best choice. What I don't understand is why you're so keen on changing the term in the title anyway.. it seems perfectly descriptive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Already said that - because 'incidents', as an noun, it is so vague as to be completely meaningless. It could refer to anything from a miraculous crying icon to a street-sweeper's convention to an asteroid impact. That is, unless we are intending a direct translation of the specific name the Italians give this, in which case Split Incidents would be a proper translation. (And no, it is not inherently POV to give it the Italian name, if the Italians have a specific name for it and the Croats do not. Even if they do, it is not uncommon to pick one or the other rather than coming up with a neologism, as is done for several American Civil War battles where the two sides had different names for the same battle, e.g. Battle of Bull Run vs Battle of Manassas.) The title needs to give some indication of what occurred, rather than just leaving it as 'something happened in Split'. I would be fine with 'Split Incidents' (if the text indicates that this is a translation of the Italian proper name for the events, if that's what it is), 'unrest in Split', 'civil unrest in Split', 'ethic unrest in Split', or some other descriptive term that gets the point across, but 'incidents in Split' just reflects linguistic imprecision and inadequacy. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go for either term, as to me "unrest" is synonymous with "malcontent" and "incidents" is vague (but not so much, see Nanjing Incident and the like) . I would describe these incidents as "scuffles" or "clashes", so "1918–1920 clashes in Split" might be a suggestion. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I draw the distinction between Nanjing Incident, the established formal name of the event (another information-free term), and 'incident in Nanjing', which has no such weight and hence could mean anything. If L'incidente di Spalato is indeed the formal Italian name for this, then I would be all for Split Incident. Otherwise, we need to describe it with more precision. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"The 1918–1920 Italo-Croatian chauvinistic display of silliness in Split" is what I would call this article. The thing is that "incident" seems to be what episodes of unpleasantness were called in diplomatic circles during the 20th century. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a time in the 20th century when such usage was not uncommon, particularly in diplomatic circles where an extra effort is made to put nothing into words that anyone can take offence to (and thus 'something happened' is as detailed as they would want to get), but we tend now to be more descriptive. Rather than creating a new name, if these events were named The Split Incidents by people 70 years ago we should go with it. However, if not, then archaic or limited-purpose-driven usage is no reason to give a page a name that conveys no information. It should either be Split Incidents (formal name, as in Nanjing Incident) or 'clashes in Split', 'unrest in Split', 'riots in Split', 'bloodshed in Split', 'people shooting and throwing hand grenades at each other in Split' - something that actually describes what took place rather than the 'a funny thing happened on the way to the forum' kind of name, 'incidents in Split', that is neither a proper name nor in any way indicative of what the article is about. Agricolae (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus for the move was there. There was also a discussion about a merge. That was not something that had consensus and this is not the best way to deal with the merge issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

---

1918–1920 incidents in Split → 1918–1920 unrest in Split – The current name does not sufficiently describe the subject, the word "incident" being so vague as to be virtually devoid of descriptive value, nor is it part of a proper name as used. Unless a proper name exists, we should describe the topic clearly and as unambiguously as possible without introducing POV, and 'incidents' does not accomplish this. 'Unrest' does. Arguments against 'unrest' seem to be based on personal impressions of the word and not the actual definition, which is spot on for this usage, i.e. "a disturbed or uneasy state: Turmoil". I would be happy to entertain alternatives, but they all are somewhat problematic. 'Split Incidents' doesn't get around the problem of vagueness, but would be suitable IF it is an accepted proper name, but I don't know that this is the case and there is no point a neologism that is so vague. 'riots in' borders on POV issues. 'bloodshed in' is an option. 'turmoil in' would be another. It has already been at 'unrest' for a week before being reverted, so it couldn't have been too bad. Agricolae (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why move it? It may seem "vague", but if so it is only out of necessity, as terms such as "unrest" imply attributes that do should not be ascribed to these events. "Incidents" is the term used in sources and contemporary commentators. "Unrest" is something invented on this talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. As I said in my edit summary when I moved the page, the lead already says "violent fights". Is Direktor suggesting that "violent fights" spread out over a period of two years do not constitute unrest? He is just wrong: "unrest" implies attributes that are indisputably ascribable to these events. According to Wiktionary, our sister project, unrest is "a state of trouble, confusion and turbulence, especially in a political context". Direktor appears not to know what the word means. Srnec (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into History of Dalmatia. Like I said before, these six paragraphs here don't demonstrate a need for a standalone article, instead, a lot of it isn't specific to Split. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As I said before, I support that proposal. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    • That a lot of it isn't specific to Split might be an argument for a move, but not for a merge. An important period/episode in the history of Dalmatia with sufficient discussion in secondary sources can stand alone as an article. I am currently working offline on an article on the Adriatic Question, so I oppose this merge for now. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Sure it can. But we don't need to be dealing with hypotheticals here - when and if that happens, do that - until then, this still looks odd like this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. It is a Brunodam article after all. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Brutal, Bruno has factiously translated the original article on it.wiki.--Grifter72 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. (Oppose to merge into another article).--Presbite (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. ok for "unrest", NYT also used "disorders" and "riot". --Grifter72 (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Disorder" would work as a substitute for "unrest". Srnec (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.