Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian exodus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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 (Italian: Esodo istriano; 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 [1], 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 [[2]]. --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 Wikipedia 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)

Well, Direktor I want to discuss but it looks you dislike this approach. I am here to discuss. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear User Direktor, you keep reverting my sourced edit. I am proposing to discuss here but for some reasons you do not consider worth discussing. I have posted a 3O request to try to involve other users in the discussion. I hope this will help. Silvio1973 (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. The request made there has been removed. I'm afraid that you cannot obtain dispute resolution without talk page discussion first. If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations that I give here. A RFC could also be an alternate method. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, the article has been protected to the version just after the unjustified reverts of User:Direktor. The issue persists. Here we have a sourced edit that is reverted without any reason. Hereafter the edit and the source:

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to estabilish control.

What to do? The reverter refuses to participate in any discussion, he just reverts. I cannot believe this is the way things should work. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Direktor, if for some reason you disagree with the edit hereabove please tell us why. Reverting an edit because any reason and diserting the proposed talk it's disruptive behaviour. I am posting the same advice in your talk page. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

New talkback request

Dear Direktor, my sourced edit has been reverted three times without any explanation. Hereafter is the edit and the source:

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to estabilish control.

Please note that it is the second time that I am kindly requesting to explain why you reverted this sourced edit. --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

References

I know you like to spend your time surfing the web looking for "spicy" sentence fragments to slant the article in accordance wit your pre-conceived Italian nationalist POV, but frankly I am sick of it. That is no way to write an article, and you certainly appear to be unable to do otherwise.

And I suppose now I am supposed to get the source and read it in order to find out how you've misquoted source material again, taken stuff wildly out of context - again, or whatever it is that you did this time, misunderstood the source maybe? Or perhaps you just wrote your own sentence again from completely unrelated fragments of various different sentences? No dice. I have written an entire talkpage archive talking to you (or rather at you), and will not be suckered into this again. Get other people involved, or find someone who understands English at a reasonable level to discuss for you. Otherwise, I say openly: I will just revert everything you do to this article. It is NOT my job to spend time "policing" your attempts at fraudulent referencing, and not a single user can be asked to discuss with someone who reads every other post because he barely understands the language. It is also not my job to fix your faulty grammar: if you don't understand English up to a certain level - you're not supposed to edit articles on enWiki.

Get others involved, or there will be no more "discussion". As I said, I'd rather have my nails pulled out than go through another round of "discussing" with you. -- Director (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, I am not sure that other users might share your opinion about my English proficiency. However if you refuse to discuss and if you just revert my sourced edits without a reason I will ask the community to enforce the Wikipedia's rules. The choice is yours. You are a competent and expert user but this does not give you the right to revert sourced edits without giving a reason. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Just for the sake of full disclosure, Direktor, you need to be aware of this discussion. I don't have an interest in this matter one way or another, but if you're not going to discuss this because you feel that Silvio1973 is too biased or incompetent to be here then you can't reasonably take the position that because of his general characteristics that you're simply going to revert everything that he writes. If you feel that you can no longer assume good faith then you either need to stay away from his edits and let someone else deal with them or, better, take him to RFC/U or ANI. He's probably going to continue to follow my recommendations regarding editors who will not discuss and take you to one of those places if you do not do something, either discuss or walk away or report. I'm not saying that you're right or you're wrong about Silvio, but am saying that WP generally does not take kindly to those who refuse to discuss but continue to revert, especially in an area which is arguably under general sanctions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Silvio1973, you mean your proficiency in English?

@TransporterMan. Nobody, on this entire project, has probably spent more time discussing with User:Silvio1973 than I [3]. My concerns with the user's conduct are multiple and serious - in fact, he should probably be blocked for the serious kind of damage and disruption he's gotten away with on this article. He's relatively polite, I'll grant you that, which is what made me get into the whole mess in the first place. I figured the fellow must be reasonable, lets see if we can solve this. I was sorely disappointed. Practically every time the user brought a reference I discovered that, one way or the other, the user had been acting dishonestly, both with regard to Wikipedia policies, and our own agreements on the talkpage. I have no doubt this is again the case. But it is the users entire approach that bothers me. His goal is not to properly expand the article, and perhaps in the process shift its tone in some direction, but his primary goal is to introduce the slant. In fact, he almost certainly lacks the English skills to expand the article in any way that wouldn't require extensive proofreading by others (me). But not only does he misrepresent sources in a half-dozen different ways, he also simply refuses to accept when something is indeed sourced, demanding that a slant be introduced to the sourced text that panders to his personal views. Then there is the fact that reading English requires an effort to the user. Every other post he will not read entirely or will not read it at all, responding partially or just ignoring the key points altogether. I can usually make out what he's trying to say, usually(!), since I do know some Italian,o but the other way around is just a massive case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. And yes, I am aware how WP looks on refusal to discuss, I've been around (I must have about 50,000 edits on this project by now) - and that's why I discussed, but I can't go through with another pointless grind of that sort.

In short, my own personal view is that the user is neither willing nor capable to participate in the kind of serious discussion required to solve complex problems, such as this matter, which is the subject of an international dispute. His only goal is to fish for any means by which he might introduce badly-written inflammatory sentences, in accordance with his POV, into the article. -- Director (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to read through this exchange, and maybe further if you like. You may get an idea of what I'm talking about. -- Director (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Insults, allegations, appraisals. I won'y reply, basically because it's not worth. Many people in that past have been blocked because the temptation to react when discussing with you is strong. But it will not work with me. I am a patient man and I have an adamant faith in the power of the law, because I believe that in the end the law always prevails. However Direktor, you had/have a lot of issues even with experienced users and administrators. I can see it in the ongoing discussion on the talk page of Republic of Kosovo [[4]]. We start discussing if the Republic of Kosovo is a state or not and you start discuss that the Republic of Kosovo is involved in the traffic of human organs... Can we focus on the content of the dispute, if you do not mind?

Concerning my English. Yes, it is not good as yours. But from there to affirm that my sentences are barely understandable there is a vast ocean.

However, I kindly request you again (this is the third time) to tell us why the following sourced edit was reverted three times:

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to estabilish control.

Silvio1973 (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I know you like me to repeat myself as many times as humanly possible, but really, this is the last time: the main problem is you understanding me, rather than vice versa. This is actually a good example. I make it quite clear in my above post that I can usually understand you, and that this is not the problem - but yet your post is written as if you didn't quite get that bit.

Most of the time I can indeed understand you, though often enough I have to make a special effort at "decryption" through my high school-level understanding of Italian. The main issue is that, when a serious discussion really gets underway, you get tired of making the special effort of reading the entirety of the other guy's post and replying to it properly. You either ignore key points, or you disregard them a few posts down, or you just ignore posts altogether. Typically, a few posts down, I'll get shocked to realize that you're just proceeding as if nothing's been said. Now, I certainly hope this is because of your lack of English skills, and not you deliberately mocking me and/or engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Because if that's the case (as you seem eager to convince me) then I should just report you right now. But I don't think so, because you often enough end up embarrassing yourself as well as annoying the life out of me (I'm sorry, but insulting me for edits you're actually doing yourself, and not I, is just weird and embarrassing).

Then there's the persistent disregard for WP:V and WP:OR, the fake refs, etc. etc. etc... -- Director (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Direktor, for the 4th and last time do you want to discuss and explain why you reverted 3 times my sourced edit. If there is an issue with the source, the citation or the scholar please let me know. Without an answer from your side I will process a formal RfC or a ANI. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I do NOT agree to your spiking the text with random sentences taken out of context from various sources, and specifically sought out in order to slant the article in accordance with your bias. I am disgusted at your methods of seeking out the sentences that, taken out of context to various degrees, will most insinuate a connection with killings and slyly imply that the Yugoslav government deliberately incited the departure. If you were another user, I would bring out other sources and work towards a sensible representation of sourced material. This being you, however, and my having gone through that song and dance with you a dozen times to my profound annoyance and disgust, I will simply revert - and will not waste another minute of my time, which can be spent improving this project, on suppressing your campaign here through attempts at reasoning (which may not even be read or understood). You may proceed however you please, and were naturally free to do whatever you liked from day one.

If you wish to open discussion on this, then I suggest you bring in others besides myself who are crazy enough to want to waste time here. Then we might have a proper discussion. Another one-on-one round with you is entirely out of the question. -- Director (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, you know very well that I can provide more sources in support to my edit. They have been provided in the talk page but for some reasons they are never good. However you are not new to such kind of issues and very often you reply with the same arguments, i.e. "insuffient proficency in English" or "the edits are made by incompetent or nationalist users". Whatever does not correpondend with your view is POV, nationalist or made by an incompetent. It really looks like if you know always what is right and what is wrong. However, my edit is sourced, it does not misrepresent the scholar and does not represent a fringe view. I am goint to edit it again, in case of revert from your side without any civilised and proper discussion I will report you to ANI. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion may be regarding English and the other problems, its clear we two are unable to discuss alone. Bring someone else in, in some capacity, and we can proceed. Otherwise and in the meantime, you will be reverted without fail until you finally learn to edit through WP:CONSENSUS. Your aggressive POV-pushing campaign on this article shall not yield success I assure you. -- Director (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR:, you should really not comment on the contributor but on the contribution. Can you explain what is wrong with that specific addition? The source looks fine and seems properly quoted. --cyclopia^speak! 11:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll explain, pls bear with me. This is really a very problematic case... The topic is complex and highly controversial, and requires thorough research and serious talkpage discussion to produce a neutral and balanced coverage of source material. I am unable to work in that manner with Silvio1973, perhaps its me, but really I think the majority of the problem lies in (what I perceive as) Silvio1973's dishonest, OR attitude, as well as constant WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

This particular sentence (that he's started an edit war over) appears indeed to be copied directly from a source (and not say, entirely invented as had previously often been the case, or composed of fragments from different pages, etc.). Nevertheless, this is no way to expand an article on such a sensitive subject. As I say, we need to bring in more sources on the second phase of the exodus and compose a faithful and neutral representation of the available source material. This, I must say, is not what Silvio is here to do. To illustrate I'll copy down the sentence:

"A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to estabilish control."

This sentence was, I am absolutely certain, specifically cherry-picked by Silvio because it implies the Yugoslav authorities performed killings and expropriation, and subtly insinuates that said authorities "pressured" the Italians to leave. Even though the author doesn't quite explicitly say that. Such an implication is also explicitly contradicted by other sources (quoted earlier in archive 3) which deny the Yugoslav authorities had any plan to expel Italians. As I said, its a complex issue and requires a lot of discussion.

Said discussion, however, is virtually impossible to go through with Silvio1973. I don't want to repeat myself, but the user conducts himself dishonestly when sourcing (I can provide diffs for that), doesn't abide by WP:V and WP:OR (regardless of how many times they're pointed to him), doesn't read talkpage posts or does so only partially, constantly creates pointless talk sections (usually when he's proven wrong in some regard), and I generally can't bring myself to work with him anymore. I wrote an entire talkpage archive and more trying to do so. I did my absolute best. Yet on the other hand I cannot very well stand by and let the man get away with introducing his slant..

Frankly what's missing is more people. More users; this is effectively another neglected Balkans article. We tried DRN, RfCs, I think even mediation at some point - to no avail. Nobody wants to waste time here. But I have this thing on my watchlist and can't make myself to just stand by and see it go to the drinks. -- Director (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, despite a standing ANI you continue to revert my sourced edit. Clearly you believe to be right. Let's see if you are. This time I want to see clear trough it.

You are sure that I cherry-pick sentences, that I misrepresent, that I push aggressive POV-campaign (I quote)... what else? I am a nationalist, an incompetent. And in the end when all the options are exhausted you can still write that my English is so poor that it' not possible to discuss with me because you do not understand me (your exact words).

However, you have not told us what is wrong with the source. Indeed, I asked before for a 3O on a very similar matter and an adminisitrator agreed with me (User:The Historian on the 1st July 2013, it's in Archive 3) but he said also that he could enforce anything because you were not providing an alternative POV. Last but not least, many users (including one administrator) also expressed concern for your attitude and behaviour in this issue.

Do I misrepresent? Do I cherry-pick? Well, the content of the edit that you keep reverting is in other sources:

1) In History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 at page 77 about the second wave of the exodus it is written exactly the same : A second wave followed at war's end as Yugoslavs used force and intimidation to install the facto control.

2) In People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008 at page 106 concerning Rijeka/Fiume it is written : The liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city.

I could continue. But I won't, because three reputable sources it's enough. Hence, now the question: are we sure that DIREKTOR's contribution are not driven by a stronger POV than those he claims I push? --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This sentence was, I am absolutely certain, specifically cherry-picked by Silvio because it implies the Yugoslav authorities performed killings and expropriation, and subtly insinuates that said authorities "pressured" the Italians to leave. Even though the author doesn't quite explicitly say that. Such an implication is also explicitly contradicted by other sources (quoted earlier in archive 3) which deny the Yugoslav authorities had any plan to expel Italians. As I said, its a complex issue and requires a lot of discussion. - @DIREKTOR:, I am sure that the sentence was cherry-picked to add a specific fact. That is obvious. But there is nothing wrong with it (unless it is certain that it is a fringe point of view). The problem is that we have two points of view, and frankly you, DIREKTOR, do not seem any less POV-pushing than Silvio1973 so far. Now, if there are competing views in the historiography of the exile, and if both of them are represented by respectable scholars and sources, then the correct and NPOV thing is to describe both of them, as in "Some historians maintain that Yugoslav authorities did this(refs)... while others deny this(refs)". I have no experience on the subject to be able to say what of the two points of view is more or less mainstream among historians. Last, about the "insinuations", I personally acknowledge I have a bias: I know from family experience (my father is an Istrian exile) that such pressures on Italian Istrians existed. But we are on Wikipedia and my dad is not a reliable source, so I abstain as much as possible from pushing one view upon another. All I can say that, if there is a real debate between historials, then refusing to acknowledge such sources is at least as disruptive as aggressively pushing them. Now, if we want to be constructive: Can we list the points of contention and begin to discuss about sources discussing them one by one? --cyclopia^speak! 14:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cyclopia, DIREKTOR did not provide a single source. I provided all of them (go trough the archives of the Talk page to get convinced) and he just acted like a censor or used technicalities to deny the relevance of what it is written. However I am miles away from willing to have a general definition of the responsabilities of those tragic events, because I know how much this is controversial. Instead I started to describe the period of the exodus, with factual quotes from sources but even that was impossible. However I do not mind where you are from, where DIREKTOR's ancestors are from. I mind only to know why my sources are refused.

And please, is there any sensible reason justifying DIREKTOR's attitude? Please go trough the talk page and see if you can find a single one insult I directed to him, for mild that this could be. Is it acceptable to be treated like that only because I have a different view (sourced!) on things? Silvio1973 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Silvio1973:, let's stop commenting on each other behaviour for a moment. There is the AN/I thread for this. Let's reset the discussion instead. What does each one of you want to add/remove from the article and what sources back each proposed edit up? Let's make a concise bullet list. From that, other editors (not necessarily one of us three, at this point) can begin to work out what to do. --cyclopia^speak! 14:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the edit is on top of the section and the three sources with the citation listed just after. Nothing new, I already tried to do so but did not work. And I can't understand what it's wrong. And I would like someone telling me why everything I edit is reverted, despite the substancial sourcing. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that edit is the only point of contention between you two. I'd like to have a summaŕy of the full picture. --cyclopia^speak! 15:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. Of course there are other points of disagreement. Indeed, my mistake has been from day 1 not to use the tools available on WP (3O, RfC, ANI). Instead I got more and more bugged down in endless discussions that messed up the talk.

However, please note that all sources in this discussion have been provided by me. Direktor has been only censoring them because they were not neutral or I was misrepresenting them, or cherry-picking sentences or I was dishonest. He never provided a source stating something different, he just claimed I was wrong. It is very sad but it went like that. Indeed only for the language used he should have been at least warned.

Demonstration? This is the edit that Direktor has been keep reverting (even after the information to be involved in an ANI):

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to estabilish control.

The sources:

1)Ethnic Cleansing and the European Union - Page 136, Lynn Tesser - It contains the exact sentence of the proposed edit.

2)History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 - Page 77 - It contains the following sentence about the second period of the exodus : A second wave followed at war's end as Yugoslavs used force and intimidation to install the facto control.

3)People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008 - Page 106 - Concerning the exodus from Rijeka/Fiume that had place during the second wave of the exodus it is written : The liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city.

Even with so many sources in support it has been impossible not to be systematically reverted (and insulted BTW). Direktor contests that a fact of history that I can source (and I have sourced already) from multiple books, i.e. that there was pressure on the ethnic Italians to leave, is contested as POV.

However, now I want to know why this last edit has been reverted. Once this issue is solved we move to the next one. You will see how difficult is going to be even to get this done. Or possibly Direktor will accept the edit. Let's see.Silvio1973 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::A bit more context for the quotes of the 2nd and 3rd book would help (You can take pics and post them somewhere if it's a paper book you own). I agree that if DIREKTOR contests the edit, he should provide a sound justification and possibly opposite sources, otherwise I see no reason to revert it. --cyclopia^speak! 22:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. This is how Silvio operates (and this is him at his best, with actual sources, and when he isn't removing referenced material, e.g. [5]). Here we have out-of-context sentences that, to one degree or another, distort the position of the source on the whole. Notice how the first two sentences were both carefully cherry-picked (no doubt among dozens of screened sources after hours of Google Books search) for their out-of-context implication that the various actions by the Yugoslav authorities such as nationalization of property and executions of (perceived) fascist sympathizers after years of fascist occupation and atrocities (both of which occurred throughout Yugoslavia often to a greater degree) were the cause of the "second wave" of departures. An intentional cause at that - even though none of this is explicitly stated by the source. And, as mentioned (and quoted) previously, some of these same sources do actually contradict Silvio's intended implication explicitly. Coverage of the "second wave", if undertaken seriously, requires a much more thorough discussion and review of source material. And this is precisely what we (or rather I) repeatedly attempted to do with this or that section or the lede - to end in dismal failure time and time again (imo because Silvio doesn't fully understand English or WP policy); I recommend users should read through Archive 3 (particularly the later sections) to get some idea.

The third source is of course just fluff as the quote discusses only Rijeka and doesn't even mention any departure. Improperly cited too. The author of that text is not Pertti Ahonen, but one Gustavo Corni. This is not the first time Silvio has deliberately quoted the editor instead of the author to give the source more credibility.

My point is to illustrate Silvio's goal is to push a specific POV, not expand/improve the article. And to explain that this complex and controversial issue requires the kind of through discussion Silvio and I are apparently unable to undertake. As I said, I will not seriously engage here again as I did before, i.e. with sources, quotes and refs, until (if) we receive assistance in the form of impartial mediation - or at least the participation of one more user. -- Director (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR:, there are several problems with your comment:

• The first sentence, from here, is copied verbatim, and it is exactly in the context of what are the causes of such exile. The paragraph where the sentence is taken from begins with "For the Italians, the specific causes of the mass exodus varied yet again...". So it is hard to defend the position that it is out of context: to state it as a cause is the obvious context of the source. For the other two quotes, I wait for context, but so far this one seems genuine -and this is the one Silvio included in his edit.
• If you say that some of these sources contradict Silvio edits, please provide them. You can't just brush the source he brings off, you should provide evidence that the academic consensus on the topic is otherwise.
• Silvio might be personally editing because of a POV, but as long as his edits are well sourced, factual, in context and do not violate WP:UNDUE, I see no actual POV-pushing. At least not from this single edit. And after all there is no such thing as a NPOV editor. If you tell me there is a pattern of tendentious editing, fair enough, but this episode does not demonstrate it. That's also why I asked what are the other points of contention.

So, again, please do not comment on what is the theoretical Silvio goal, nor just vaguely explain "this is how Silvio operates". You need to prove him wrong. He has a source in the correct context on his side; I'm ready to side with you, DIREKTOR, but you have to provide at least a similar amount of evidence.--cyclopia^speak! 22:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• The source does not actually state that said events caused the "second wave". Notice that please. Neither does the other source. Yet the sentences were chosen by Silvio in order to imply precisely that (and I will keep saying it). Not only that, but the sentences, quoted alone as in Silvio's edit, do also imply (without saying so) that these events were the intentional cause of the "second wave", which is a point explicitly contradicted by some of these same sources. And context of the events is missing, etc. etc.

But this is my main point. What I'm saying is that coverage of the issue requires thorough discussion, and that I will not engage in one-on-one discussion with Silvio again. That's all I'm saying. Sources abound and are quoted in Archive 3 and elsewhere, but I will not waste time researching them again, copying them down again, writing up arguments - until we achieve participation from at least one impartial user. Until I am certain that my valuable time will not be wasted entirely once more. I love editing wikipedia, but not torturing myself for nothing.

Now, I don't really care about this one sentence. And I am not hell-bent on keeping it out, it does have some support in that killings of perceived fascists and nationalizations did indisputably occur - but its the principle of the thing. Until this article's talkpage can serve its function again I am wary of letting Silvio have his way and modify the rolled-back status quo version. Next there'll be more of such dubious sentences, and worse, and more of Silvio's edit-warring. I'll undo myself and restore the sentence. But will revert further such modifications by Silvio1973 until discussion over here is a plausible option.

Its really a problem when one can't properly discuss, when, effectively, the talkpage doesn't really function. We don't have the means to solve the problems opened up by Silvio's misleading cherry-picked sentences. And that's me basically signing off for now, until we do. -- Director (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The source does not actually state that said events caused the "second wave". Notice that please. Neither does the other source. Yet the sentences were chosen by Silvio in order to imply precisely that (and I will keep saying it). - That is utterly disingenous. Yes, they have been chosen to imply that because (at least the first one, where I can see context), does exactly that. It is in the context of what caused what. Everyone can see that.

Sources abound and are quoted in Archive 3 and elsewhere, but I will not waste time researching them again, copying them down again, writing up arguments - until we achieve participation from at least one impartial user. - I may be technically "partial", I acknowledged it for full disclosure, and notice that indeed I am refraining from directly editing the article. But I honestly have very little emotional investment in that old story, and about this specific edit, we could be talking the price of potatoes in Idaho and it would be the same. If you want, at the above talk page, there are indeed points where you are right and Silvio is wrong in his use of sources (e.g. when he contests the 200.000 number). I do not deny that Silvio might be pushing a POV, and I have a dim view of nationalistic POVs. But in this specific case the source is blatantly clear. The context of the source is clear and proper, and it would be the same if it said the opposite. And sorry, but if you want to contest this specific edit, you have to bring sources about this specific edit. You still didn't do that. Nor you provided evidence that they are quoted out of context. Saying that you don't want to "waste time" does not help. You are a few copy-and-paste away from proving me and Silvio wrong by showing us the context of other sources (something that Silvio should do, indeed) and/or other sources. If you do that and indeed they acknowledge what you say, I'll gladly change my position accordingly.

And no, you can't revert people on "principle". And we are all discussing with you. So far the only one who has occasionally refused discussing, on this talk page, seems to be you. --cyclopia^speak! 22:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, I more or less agree and have reverted myself in this specific case. Sources are paramount in my view, believe that if you believe anything. And the main gripe I have with Silvio is precisely his misquoting references. But this is really it for me. Either we have a functioning talkpage or there is no point in my taking out books, researching sources, and doing serious work here. Again, I will not discuss with a disruptive user of Silvio's caliber. And I don't doubt that this is just his "crowbar" to break the rollback, and that he's itching to push much more.
• I certainly do not mean to imply you are necessarily biased on this (after all, I'm not and my folks in Spalato/Split suffered too during WWII), but I would certainly still like to see others involved.
• When I say "principle", I mean that this is a rolled-back version that we more-or-less agreed to keep to, and that now that "truce" has down the drinks. Ugh...

If you want to participate, it might be a good idea (if you have the time), to review Archive 3. -- Director (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)-- Director (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a look. I agree Silvio1973 should really post all the relevant context for what he quotes, and I understand where you come from. Still it seems to me none of both parties is especially above the other in this dispute. I'll look better tomorrow. --cyclopia^speak! 23:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the three sources and the citations are absolutely in the context. You can check yourselves. If they are not tell me why. If the burden to copy the context in this talk page it's to me I will do it.

This discussion has been literally tortured with the use of technicalities that have nothing to do with the consistency of the sources. I have read about a lot of theory but now I want to know why the edit has been reverted and after I happy to move on other point (where I can equally source my edits). And please, there are huge sections in the article without a single decent source but Direktor - without any opposed arguments - insist the my edit despite multiple sources is POV. In what? I want to know please. Silvio1973

And last but not least, I am tired to read about me. OK, Direktor you will not discuss with a disruptive editor my caliber but in the meantime the user refusing to aknowledge the evidence of blatantly sourced edits it's you. You have arrived to affirm that it is not possible to discuss with me because my English is too poor. Please focus on facts, if you can. I never labelled you in any way. However, you had and have issues of that kind everytime (right now you are involved in 3 DR and the words you use when dealing with your counterparts are always the same). You should concentrate in providing sources rather than just doing the censor using arguments based more on personal perception rather than on research. Arguing and insulting it's easy, but research it's work.Silvio1973 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. More. "Research it's work", yes, but its useless work with you. You just don't accept sourced text you disagree with, remember? And demand it be modified.

Any further edits entered without consensus will be reverted without fail. Until we get more participation and help with discussion, I refuse to waste further time here. Signing off for now. -- Director (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Both of you, please stop. Silvio1973 yes, the onus of providing context is obviously yours, and given the history of this article it should be provided regularly and verifiably whenever an edit is challenged. Your edit in any way has been discussed and DIREKTOR self reverted, no need to complain further. DIREKTOR, please do not edit war for warring's sake. In any case I agree that all of you, given the heat, should first propose any edit on the talk page and discuss it. Please also contact some Wikiproject (possibly more than one), if you didn't already, to call for more participation, DIREKTOR is absolutely right on this. This article needs more eyes. --cyclopia^speak! 10:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I genuinely believe discussing is never useless. It is the core of the partecipative effort.

However, I can only be happy to have more eyes on this article. Indeed, the issue is that for too long time this article has been basically the "land" of one single editot. Concerning comments from other users, Cyclopia, you are already the second administrator aknowledging that my edits are correctly sourced (the first after a 3O).

But, for the avoidance of doubt let's put the sources in the context. This is the edit (I have extended it to verbatim copy from the sources and exclude any allegation of misrepresentation and also because 4 sources can well support three lines of text):

A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslavs authorities to achieve control. In 1945 in Rijeka the liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city. by January 1946, more than 20,000 people had left the province.

The description of what happened during the second wave of the exodus is perfectly in the context. Get convinced by yourselves:

1)Ethnic Cleansing and the European Union - Page 136, Lynn Tesser - It contains the exact sentence of the proposed edit. The full paragraphs says: They left in several waves, first following Italy's capitulation in fall 1943 and the departure of collaborators with the fascist regime. Terrifying air raids in Zadar troughout 1944 also led half of the city's residents to flee to Italy. a second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslav authorities in their campaign to achieve control.

2)History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 - Page 77 - It contains the following sentence about the second period of the exodus: A second wave followed at war's end as Yugoslavs used force and intimidation to install the facto control. The full paragraphs says almost the same thing: The first wave abandoned Istria in 1943 when the collapse of the Italian regime and army left vulnerable those individuals most compromised with the fascist state (including officials sent from other parts of Italy, especially the south); a second wave followed at war's end, as the Yugoslavs used force and intimidation to install de facto control.

3)People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen et al., Berg, USA, 2008 - Page 106 - The exodus from Rijeka/Fiume started in 1945 and had place during the second wave of the exodus: In Rijeka the liberators carried out a series of public murders and instituted an intense policy of Croatization of the city.

4)Literary and Social Diasporas - Gerry Turcotte, G. Rando, Belgium, 2007 - Page 174 - Concerning the events of 1945 in Rijeka/Fiume the book says: On the night of 2 and 3 May 1945, Fiume was occupied by vanguards of the Yugoslav Army. Here more than 500 collaborators, Italian military and public servants, as well as anti-Fascists and innocent people were summarily tried and executed. By January 1946, more than 20,000 people had left the province. This very same book starts the paragraph with the description of what happened in Zadar.

All 4 sources are available on google books for verification. I cannot copy the entire books (they are pdf file so I had to do this job manually, but if you need more tell me. Now I would be happy to see Direktor's sources. Otherwise the edit is legitimate and should be published. Pleaae mind that in the article there are not many sections so well sourced. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I am not an admin.--cyclopia^speak! 14:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)