Talk:Italianization

Merger

This is very biased nonsense against Italy, the Yugoslav forced assimilation was much worse. They murder many people. I suggest move this to Nazism it was part of that its not Italian. 121.45.41.47 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Joe

I have proposed a merger of this page back with the Italianization. There is no reason to breake article's subsections into different articles. Clearly this is against Wikipedia's policy. --Raguseo 02:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Forced Italianization of Dalmatia and Istria occured in several periods: during Venetian occupation of Dalmatia (1409-1798) - Venetianization, during Italian administration in the area in 19th century and finally during Italian fascistic years in 20th century. This last Fascist Italianization was ideologically based on previous attempts and was meant to be finalization of it. Articles should be merged. Zenanarh 14:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Italianizaton and Italian cultural expansionism/imperialism can be seen even today (one of best examples are revisionist and expansionist claims told by highest officials of Italy).
Regarding Italianization before fascism, that's known thing.
E.g., the persecution of Croat friars during Republic of Venice; then, the terrorist methods (perpetrated by pro-Italianists and tolerated by Austria) against pro-Croat voters in Austrian part of the monarchy.
So, I agree with merging this article back to the article Italianization. Kubura 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is correct as it is, it was recntly splitted. Italianization is a linguistic, historic, cultural phenomena. The fascist italanization is just a small aspect of this (and the worst, BTW). Other claims by R and Z. are disputable POVs. The same article is present even in the Italian, Norvegian and German wikipedia. --Giovanni Giove 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascist Italianization is part of the same phenomenon of Italianization. There is absolutly no reason to divide it like this. --Raguseo 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That was it was done in 4 different Wikipedias.--Giovanni Giove 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about Italian, Norwegian and German Wikipedia, my concern is English Wikipedia. --Raguseo 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Italianization in Dalmatia during Venetian ruling was not a linguistic, historic, cultural phenomena! It was political, economical and cultural terrorizing of the huge majority of population. It can be presented by: persecutions of native Croatian/Dalmatian noblemen, anti-Slavic regulations by Venetian government, forced changing of original toponims, forbidden usage of native language (i.e. it was impossible to publish Croatian literacy in Zadar in 16th century, it was much easier to publish it in Venice! - for Venetians it was important that it's not published in the place of originating!!!), destroying of economical prosperity of the region and the natives, etc...
Italianization in 19th century: Italian language made official in Austrian province Dalmatia by faked documents - an act done by Italian immigrants-administrators removed from lost Italian provinces to Dalmatia by Austrian government, forced Italianization of personal names and toponims in Istria and Dalmatia, forbidden usage of any other language except Italian in public schools and gymnasuims until 1860 when Italians and pro-Italians lost their influence in the Senate, conducting of censi results in Istria and Dalmatia, etc...
All this cannot be described as Fascist Italianization! Zenanarh (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So write an article about this supposed italianization by the evil Venetians, THAN propose again the merge.Giovanni Giove 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Many authors describe Republic of Venice as one of the most criminal state in Europe. That was not for no reason. During its history Venetian republic was involved into trading with slaves, caused dozens of international and inter-religious conflicts,blackmails.... Most shameful part was so called Fourth Crusade which included Siege of Zadar .

--Anto 08:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Double criteria

There seems to be be double criteria even today judging Romance and Slavic World. Romance is beeing treated as developed, progressive, and Slavic something filthy and aggressive by default.

• If there are beeing sold "souvenirs" with images of Hitler and Mussollini in Italy that's "freedom of speech and democracy". If somebody in Croatia attempts to sell something with an image of Ante Pavelić that's the sign of an obvious neo-nazism and expression of desire for new Jasenovac .

• When Italian is burning somebody's house that is the beautiful image, fire dancing on the wind and house dissappering in the song... If the Croat/Serb/Slovene somebody's house that is the pure racism or antisemitism.

• If Italian is that Juraj Dalmatinac was Italian that's their natural right. What else could be a great artist but Italian?? Surely not filthy Slav. If Croats are claiming that he was a Croat that's extreme nationalism.

• If Croatian football fan come to matches in Italy they are beeing announced and described as bands of barbarians who come to distroy beutiful Italy. When Italian hooligans kill the cop or when every week appear some incidents or car burning that's the product of Mediterranen temperament and Latino charm.

• If Italians are cheating with football matches results that's game. When Croats/Serbs/Slovenes do that that's the result Balkan outlaw tradition.

• If some Italian is travelling around the world and speaks no foreign language that is simpathic.

If Croat/Serb/Slovene is doing like that he is an illitarate barbarians.

• If Croats/Serbs/Slovenes are having war against neighbour countries that' because they were always in barbarian societies. If Italians are conquering foreign countries that is the widespreading of the beautiful culture. An all methods are permitted for it. Including wearing BlackShirts and rising right hand.

• If the Italians are linching Roma/Gipsy people that is democracy, respecting the desires of native population, defending the beautiful Italian culture from intruders. If the Croats are doing that they are criminals which should have been sentenced permanently.

• If the Italian fishermen are roberring in Croatian sea that's their natural right. Croats , of course have no right to fish in Italian part of Adriatic.

Croatians have never been attacking Venice, Ancona ,Verona....!!!

Croatians have never been bombarding these cities!!

Croatians have never occupied these cities !!!

Croatians have never been establishing concetration camps for the Italians in these cities , banning them to write and speak their language(s) !!!

At the end I will say something all Italians/Germans/Frenches/Americans/Spaniards etc :

Do not talk to me about your culture! Do not speak to me how great and beutiful it is !

I am quite conscoius of that . I am also quite conscoius of many bad thing of it. I am quite conscoius of the fact how are/were you ready to smash and distroy everybody who appears to be on your way. We all know what was the destiny of non-Indoeuropean population of Europe, Native Americans, African slaves , Jews in ww2 etc.

We must accept that all people are equal, have equal rights including to be protected not to become a victims somebody others' rights. Until we accept that ... it will not be good!

Peace with you!

--Anto (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anto you seem to oblivious to the fact that your great uncles came to your present day lands via force, raping and murdering and pillaging all in their path. Barbarians were what you were called and that tradition was carried on after WW2 where your people murdered civilians because they were Italian, the first ethnic cleansing in Europe. We stuck you in school and gave you an education even if it was in Italian, we didn't kill you.

The lands that were returned to Italy after WW1 had a majority Italian population for many centuries until we kindly allow immigrants from yugoslav to come there. They repay our kindness by trying to take over it. 121.45.41.47 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear 121.45.41.47 there was never an Italian majority in those lands. In the contrary there was just a small minority and the best part of it were not ethnic Italians, they were Italianized natives - Croats, Slovenes,... Learn some history first. Zenanarh (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnical cleansing"? Dear child, there was a different policy towards those Italians who dirtened their hands against locals (Croats, Slovenians...) and towards those that didn't.
Otherwise, if Yugoslavia had as a goal to make ethnic cleansing of Italians, how come that Italians had their partisan brigade (and that was in every schoolbook), that there were memorial plaques (dedicated to Italians that joined to partisans) all over Croatia (Garibaldi brigade, if I remember well), that Italians had and have their TV-station in Slovenia, that Italians had and have their newspapers (and publishing house) and theatre and organizations in Croatia?
Second, don't mix those who escaped because of their feeling of guilt, or those who knew that they'll be punished (for their fascist activities and crimes against locals) with persons (manyof them Croats) who used opportunity to leave for the West and avoid advancing Communism. Oh, by the way, did Italy processed fascist officials? We've processed all those that collaborated with nazists and fascists (with very severe penalties, death penalty or losing or being stripped of all citizen rights wasn't rare case). Oh, speaking about "cleansing". How many Italians were colonized into Slovenia and Croatia (on occupied and annected areas, on Eastern Adriatic)?
Do you know for the data, that Italian authorities have brought personnel (teachers, artisans, engineers) from Italy into annected and occupied areas, in order to ensure functioning of system (and at the same time increasing the number of Italians there), becaue the locals have boycotted schools (and teachers and pupils) and work in factories?
At last, do you know what the term Italo-optants means? Kubura (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This was "glorious rule of Italy" [1]. On this link is a memorial plaque for the victims of fascism in Kampor on the island of Rab. Kubura (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

Very interesting. Now how can all of the above (cited, of course) can be used to improve a one- or two-paragraph stub of an article that essentially doesn't even begin to treat the subject in any detail? Also, we need to keep the discussion here on topic: what can be done to improve this abbreviation of an article? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural phenomena -no way

Italianization of the Eastern Adriatic coast can not be condidered as phenomena!

Cultural phenomena might be a volunteer iItaliazation of the Croats (or other ethnic group ) who live or come to live in an Italian majority regions.

Ex. Some Croatian family comes to Venice/Rome/ Florence . It is very probably that descendents of that family in the next generation will adopt Italian language and Italian identity. Volunteerily! there's nothing wrong about that. And nobody would ever blaim Italy for that! These kinds of things happen in every country. Minority accepts the identity of majority!

But the problem is when the minority wants to impose its identity to the majority! that's what is usually called apartheid!

It is very well known that in Istria Italians were relative minority (majority Croatian-couple percentages more to be honest) . And in Albania and Dalmatia they were absolute minority !

But it did not stop Venice , Genoa... (and later Italy) to invade those regions!

Fascist italianization was just one episode of that unhappy history . Motives and ideology was the same. Methods of blackshirts were just more brutal.

--Anto (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Joining articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Articles merged by AlasdairGreen27 on 25 July 2008.

This article should be joined with Fascist italianization. Goals of the acts were same . Just with another players.

Don't remember that during Duce & his team were doing all those for "Italian cause" !

Article Germanisation was made properly. All other articles from Category:Cultural assimilation

From the medieval time up to modern times.

As this one should be !

--Anto (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody see who messed up with the history of article "fascist italianization"? It looks like it's much older article (from 7 Dec 05), although it was created much later (I must rely on my memory and on my previous messages [2]).
Look the history of pages:
- Italianization (so small article??) [3] (1st edit on 5 oct 2007, move done by vandal Giove; his comment "moved Italianization to Fascist italianization: Better name")
- Talk:Italianization [4] (1st edit [5] is move by banned vandal Giove on 5 Oct 2007???)
- Fascist Italianization [6] (1st edit [7] from 29 Dec 2004, mentions "Italization" as title)
- Talk:Fascist Italianization [8] (1st edit [9] from 7 Dec 2005, doesn't mention adjective "fascist")
However, on 08:35, on 5 Oct 2007, article still started with "Italianization" [10]. 14 minutes later, banned user Giovanni Giove started his edit crusade [11] 17 edits in 1 hour and 11 minutes)... ending with redirect and contentforking article "fascist Italianization". See the bottom.
See this. This is the moment of creation of the article "fascist Italianization" [12], on 8 Oct 2007, on 09:32, by banned vandal Giovanni Giove. 2 minutes later, the title of the text [13] is changed... by banned troll Giove.
As we see, the creation of article "fascist Italianization" is ordinary content forking and, as we say in Croatian, razvodnjavanje (pouring too much water in order to milden the original content).
Or someone wants to keep the legacy of proven troll alive? Kubura (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

El Shatt

Because of Fascist occupation of Dalmatia there were 30.000 refugees from Dalmatia (mainly women, children, oldmen) in the camps in Egypt (El Shatt). I can't find one mention of this in the articles. It's not in History of Dalmatia either. We should edit it. Zenanarh (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

South Tyrol

Clear case: the historical sections should refer to South Tyrol and South Tyroleans, as, inter alia, scholarship does:

• Seymour, Charles, WOODROW WILSON AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE TYROL, Virginia Quarterly Review, 38:4 (1962:Autumn) p.567
• C. F. Latour: Germany, Italy and South Tyrol, 1938-45, The Historical Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1965), pp. 95-111 Gun Powder Ma
• see also for standard use of "South Tyrol" throughout: Sterling J. Kernek: Woodrow Wilson and National Self-Determination along Italy's Frontier: A Study of the Manipulation of Principles in the Pursuit of Political Interests, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 126, No. 4. (Aug., 1982), pp. 243-300 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring# 3RR and overall pattern of disruptive editing by User:Supparluca reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (result: warned). The user is requested to address the concerns of other users on the talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in general consensus has been to use Alto Adige-South Tyrol, Bolzano-Bozen, etc. If you think you are doing any service to anyone by trying to erase one term over the other, well, you are wrong, but do as you please. :) Icsunonove (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Mussolini

Mussolini's racist statements are not found in the book cited. At least the first one is found in Mussolini's own writings[14], but the book does not say if this was included in the speech held in Pula in 1920. The Pula speech might be notable for documenting Mussolini's racist ideology, but it should be better documented.  Andreas  ^(T) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've not added the quote the first time, but as it seems illustrative, I've readded it with the sources by Jože Pirjevec (contains the English translation of the quote) and Armando Sestani (contains the cited date and place). There is some discrepancy between sources regarding the date and place, but I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the data given in Sestani (referenced to Discorso di Pola, in Opera omnia di Benito Mussolini, edited by Edoardo e Duilio Susmel, La Fenice, Firenze 1962, volume XXXV, p. 70.). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is derogatory

This article is openly anti-Italian and insistently uses derogatory terms. The responsibilities of Fascism in the italianization of eastern Adriatic areas are today accepted, but here they are presented as if they were a genocide or worse. An encyclopedia article should be more neutral in the description of the context and the events, especially with regards to the ethnic presence in the disputed areas. Also, it should at least be mentioned that analogous events of slavization of Italian areas (both of majority and minority of population) happened both before and after the Fascist period. All these processed should be neutrally analyzed and described, and put in the correct historical context. Instead, everything in this article is seen from a factious point of view. A Wikipedia page should help creating a better mutual understanding and respect, and not be used for what is basically racist propaganda. I kindly request that a neutral commission (composed by neutral observes) would revise this page and edit it in such a way that while historical facts are preserved, factious comments are purged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercatlas (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP user your comment is valid but you cannot count on an "Neutral commission" to revise the page. Wikipedia does not work like that. If you or anyone else think this page can be improved you are pleased to make constructive comments and modifications. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

General revision of the article

This article, at least in the current state, is a real mess. It looks that in the years 2006-2008 a fierce edit war had place between Italian and Slovene/Croatian extremisms on WP. Well, the results are regrettable still visible on WP. Concerning this article I have several issues:

• From a general historic perspective it cannot be qualified of forced the spontaneous process of unification of a country.
• Concerning Italy, the unification of Italy was not the construction of a foreign country, but a desire - albeit of course not being shared by 100% of the population, but this is a banality - of all regions. The size of Garibaldi's army was so ridiculous that without a large support from the Southern regions Italy would have never been unified.
• I could not find the word "Italianization" in any decent second or third level source. A google research shows that 90% of the links take from this article on en:wiki. More, apart some doubtful web sources I could not find any decent book treating the argument. This does not mean that many facts cited in this article are false but just that the the word "Italianization" in the reference of the facts cited in the article creates at lest an issue of WP:OR.
• The polict of "Italianization" had place in Italy exclusively during the Fascism. If someone believe this is not true, please bring some sources.
• The language used in the article is by far inappropriate. Most of the editors involved in the use of the strongest language used in the article have long history of edit warring and some of them have been for blocked for long (if not unlimited) periods of time. Trying to wikify it is going to be a major task. It looks more the endless complaint of a nostalgic nationalist than an article about 20th century history.
• There is a constant issue of WP:UNDUE. Punctual episodes of repression take by far too much place in the article and give to the article an inappropriate structure for an Encyclopedia.
• Some affirmation are supported by links to websites of doubtful reputability (such as Slovene nationalist), with strong doubts of WP:FRINGE and WP:V.
• If there is no doubt that the Fascism aimed to impose cultural uniformity in Italy, it can be easily argued that the language used in the article ("brutal and violent repression" or "ethnic cleansing") is appropriate from an historical perspective. If it was the case it could be easily argued why still today the Austrian minority is still a majority in South Tyrol or why there is stil a sizeble Slovenian minority in the East.
• Where is the source supporting that the Albanian minority in Southern Italy was persecuted during the Fascism? Certainly the Fascism did not like them, but from this to persecution there is a large distance. And also in the relevant article about the Albanian minority in en:wiki there is not a single word about this alleged repression.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dodecanese

The more I go trough this article and the more I realised that what is written is false to the hedge of being hilarious. I have removed the entire section described the alleged "italianisation" of the Dodecanese for the following reasons:

• The unique source in support is a travel guide, hence inappropriate in view of the strong facts cited in the section (ethnic cleansing and major violation of human rights). For facts of such relevance appropriate secondary sources from reputable scholars are needed. As it is today the section cannot stay.
• The cited source (page 436 of this travel book) does not say at all what is written in the article. Ironically going trough the book, it looks that the Italian presence was not detrimental because the population in Rhodes got citizenship assimilated to Italian and therefore could emigrate to North-America.
• Latinisation had place in Rhodes but in a framwork completely different from the claimed ethnic cleansing (indeed intermarriage between Italians and local Greeks was encouraged, this is not consistent with ethnic cleansing).

If the editor of this section insist to have it in the article, then proper sources and language need to be provided and used. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting sources on date

The Mussolini's quote was from a speech made on the 20th September 1920 in Pola (some sources report also the 24th September 1920). Now the source currently cited says the 22nd February 1922 (which cannot be because there was no speech in Pola that day and even not that year). According to WP:V this creates an issue of verificability for the source. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The new source complies. The issue is closed.

Ethnic cleansing, sources please

The article use several times the wording "ethnic cleansing", "brutal repression2 and similar expression. The ethnic cleansing is somethinhg of very specific and consist in "the systematic and violent removal of undesired ethnic groups from a given territory". Almost all changes of borders and administration create some conditions for the replacement nor departure of existing people. Now, qualifying any forced assimilation with the label of "ethnic cleansing" is inappropriate, to say the less. It is clear and undoubt that the fascism tried to latinise the Slavik minority in Istria and due enphasis has to be given to such facts here but qualifying such facts of ethnic cleansing require adequate international, reputable sources. Today, almost one century after the end of WWI, the overwhelming majority of South-Tyrol speak German and in what remains in Italy of the Julian March there is still a sizeable Slovenian community, while on the Slovenian and Croatian parts of Istria the Italian community has been reduced in small numbers (numbers vary about the size of the exodus of Italians from Istria but the size of the exodus was between 20 and 40 times the Slovenian one after the Treaty of Rapallo). If we were qualifying of ethnic cleansing the second one, what should be said about the first?

For this reason I need to insist on the necessity to support wording like ethnic cleansing only if supported by appropriate sources. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "ethnic cleansing" policy is applicable to the Italian occupation of Province of Ljubljana during World War II period, so I removed the term from the sections dealing with the pre-WW II period. I also added references to the sources. DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear DancingPhilosopher, may I suggest to make the modification one by one, otherwise the corrections from other users risk to impinge on the structure of the text? To enter in the organic matter of the issue I think we have to make a clear difference between what happened between 1922 and the beginning of WWII and what happenede during WWII. There is no discussion that acts of ethnic cleansing had place during the war, but unless not supported by a souce the same cannot be claimed before. Forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing and genocyde are three completely different acts. It is important to make the difference and to sustain the facts with sources. Also please note that the period when Italy occupied Dalmatia was so small that it is hard to affirm that any policy of cultural assimilation had place. Instead several episodes of violence had place and if documented can (and actually need) to be cited in this article. On the other hand I need to insist that this is not an article on WWII, so we should restrict really on the matter of the article, that is the latinisation of these regions.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The political (Communist vs Fascist) conflict or the ethnic Slovene minority vs Italian state one?

What a mess. Wikipedia should be an online Encyclopedia, not a political Manifesto. --Grifter72 (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's exactly what I think. What do you suggest to do then. The article as it is today - and even more as it was untill two weeks ago - has to be cleared of a lot of things to become, as you say, enyclopedic.--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Dancing Philosopher uses stereotypes and cliches so, facts that are clear and attested seem to be communist Propaganda. All the article should be rewritten.

P.S. Correct Mario Robotti sentence was: "Non si ammazza abbastanza!" --Grifter72 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Silvio1973, I am kindly asking you to distance yourself from the user Grifter72 calling the article a communist Propaganda unless you want the Berlusconi's statement about Mussolini only using to send people on "vacation" be characterized as "good old" Fascist propaganda? I urge you to think carefully about it. Best regards DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 11:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Dancing Philosopher, my intention is to contribute in Wikipedia according to its principles. Now, do you genuinely think that this is the place to cite Berlusconi statements? I believe the article today is badly written, because it is 1) Historically incorrect 2) Inadequately sourced 3)Improperly written.

In the respect of the recent modifications of user Noclador, I welcome his modification but it historically incorrect, because: 1) The policy of assimilation was not made exclusively against minorities (i.e. in South Tyrol). 2) Mussolini was not the head of the Fascist Government untill 1945. I will rewrite the sentence in order to avoid the confusion.

Concerning your last modification, I am sorry but I will have to remove it because it is unsourced and because raise an issue of WP:UNDUE.

The article as it is today cite again the same concepts in the lead and in the beginning of the first section. This has to be corrected.

--Silvio1973 (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Award to Noclador

I have awarded this user for making clear what Italianization really was and not what some Italians would still want others to believe it was - i.e. a mere cultural assimilation without violating the minority's right to use the minority language. DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 13:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dancing Philosopher, feel free to award whoever you like but beware that your affirmations border the limit of hatemonger. If you insist I will have to ask for an arbitrage and a sanction from an administrator. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Maps

@Dancing Philosopher, it is absolutely fine to insert a map about the Italianization of Ethnic Slovenes and indeed the modification from this IP user can be qualified of vandalism. On the other hand I need to ask you to make some changes on the map if you want this map to remain. The area annected after the treaty of Rapallo in 1920 is decribed today at ethnically Slovenes + some colors not included in the legend. Indeed most of the area annected after the Treaty of Rapallo. I can provide sources proving the area was ethnically Italian-Slovene (with a prominence of Slovenes in the East and Italians in the West). Please find a better map or amend the existing one. For example in 1910 the official census shows 47.8% of the population of Gorizia was of Italian language and 34,8% of Slovenian, the remaining being mainly German speaking. Also you cannot link "Italianization of Ethnic Slovenes to the page "Italianization" because this is WP:CIRCULAR. I have corrected this. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973, I have corrected the map so that the hatched area (used to depict the area where Slovenes were in majority in Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)) now does not include Gorizia. DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 13:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I have not been clear. Gorizia was just an example. The current map is not clear. Firstly, the colors do not correspond to the legend but the big issue is another. I do not want Gorizia or other places to be shown as ethnically Italian after WWI because this was not true. There was a mixed population and this should be reflected in the map. You have to possibility, either you post a map from a secondary or tertiary source or if you want to make the map you need to support the modification on the map with relevant sources. Otherwise you fall in a issue of WP:OR. I do not understand why simply not posting your Etnographic map as it is and merely drawing on it the former border of the Julian March?

By the way this map is of doubtful quality because shows the area only with one color (one ethnicity) and the reality was by far much more complex that that. It is however a valid secondary source and I would have no problem admitting it if not substancially modified. In the meantime I remove the image only because it is not acceptable in the current state but I will welcome to see it back properly modified. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I also wander the interest of this pre-Italy map in this article. If no-one is really keen in keeping it, perhaps could be removed. It would be more interesting to put a map with the Borders change before WWI / After Rapallo Treaty. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Teachers moved to South of Italy

@DancingPhilosopher. This is an interesting subject but needs to be refined and sourced (expecially when quoting a fairly exact number). Also the sale fact is repeated about ten lines below. Please choose which one to keep. Also about the 500 schools + 500 associations. It sounds really round, do you have the exact page in the source citing it? --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is getting urgent to have a neutral and reliable source to sustain the sentence: "...while Slovene and Croat teachers were assigned to work in Sardinia and elsewhere in southern Italy". This cn has been sitting for already three weeks.--Silvio1973 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Until a neutral and reliable source is found to sustain the sentence, you can temporarily remove it from the article. I'll search for such a source in the meantime. DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 15:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to erase some text without reason. You got more time to look for a valid source. Said that, please believe tha I am in favour to describe in this article everything of relevant suffered by the Slavic and German minorities during the Fascism, but all information has to be duly grounded. This is important to avoid that in future article like this become a battle-fields (as sadly already happened in the past).

POV re: relative sizes of regions and populations affected

I have no doubt that the Slovenes considered that region part of their historical land. And also the number cited is correct. After the Treaty of Rapallo a more than significant number of Slavics (different sources, different numbers but certainly between 300 and 500,000 people) become citizens of the Kingdom of Italy. This is a fact of history and a consequence of an International Treaty. Like the Italians that become Yugoslavian after WWII. And so what? The article need to concentrate on the process of Italianisation that they suffered. Your edit does not add anything to the geographic definition of the Regions affected. This is what that paragraph is for. Please do not forget this is an article of history and we need to make the effort (I realise, sometime difficult) to present the things in the most neutral way is possible. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning you seem to be proposing above is based on a logically false non sequitur that the article needs to concentrate only on the processes that took place (such as the closing of Slavic schools/associations/etc, renaming personal names etc) because the article's title itself only denotes the process, and therefore, you think (which is the other non sequitur) that the relative size of the populations subjected to the process (and the relative size of the regions subjected to the process) are irrelevant for the article. But, and this is a big but, irrelevant they seem only from the specific (i.e. Italian) Point Of View.

This specific P.O.V. is, indeed, a natural, but still logically flawed, conclusion based on relatively (much much smaller) size ob both territory and populations affected here in relation to the (much much larger) total territory of Italy (and the total population of ethnic Italians). Your edits are, therefore, in fact based on a very specific (i.e. Italian) Point Of View. Both you (and user user:Direktor in case of the article about Julian March) are making a flawed conclusions (technically speaking, those kind of conclusions are called statistical syllogisms by logicians/philosophers) based on your specific POVs (i.e. Italian one, and Croatian one, respectively) when opposing the inclusion of the relative sizes of regions and populations affected.

--DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 11:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

DancingPhilopher, make it easier. It is extremely relevant the fact that between 300 and 500,000 people changed of country. I am fine with the concept itself (because it is a fact of history), but it has no room where you put it. Otherwise someone could claim that Italy received after the Treaty of Rapallo only a small fraction of what was in principle promised between the enter in WWI. But the article is not about such facts. If we get into this, the article will progressively lose any organic coherence. Indeed, the concept you want to express is correctly already reported in the articles Treaty of Rapallo and Julian March. Please note that it's not because a fact is true that can be reported everywhere.

However if you are very keen to do it, the only thing I can suggest to do it to create a new paragraph giving a description of the ethnic structure of the territories interested after the Treaty.

The legitimacy of this article is already doubtful. The term Italianization founds little reference in English international sources. Let's do not overcharge something that looks already quite a creation of some Wikipedian users rather than a concept widely present in secondary sources. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

By citing only the absolute numbers, when the topic of discussion are the relative numbers, you are changing the subject, and even when you happen to mention the relative numbers, you only rise the issue of the promised (as if, what was given to Italy was not already including areas that were never Italian, such as the municipalities that were exclusively ethnically Slovene, that Italy had no historic basis whatsoever to base its expansionist ambitions on?) vs. the granted ones, yes, feel free to add the numbers showing how greedy Italy, indeed, was for territories that were never Italian -do it, if loss of face is what you want, and one thing more, since you raised it, the legitimacy of this article is much less doubtful than the legitimacy of the expansionist ambitions and the Italianization that did take place ever were in that low, dishonest decade. According to author Paul N. Hehn, "the treaty left half a million Slavs inside Italy, while only a few hundred Italians in the fledgling Yugoslav state". DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 14:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

DancingPhilosopher, you should revise your wording or you won't find me anymore ready to discuss with you. Indeed you will have your account blocked.

Indeed, you are mixing everything. I am not writing that this was fair or legitimate. I am saying that if you start making of this article a manifesto, than other people will do the same. And if I allow you to do so, other people will be tempted to compare the persecution suffered by the Italians in the Democratic Yugoslavia and will affirm that they were larger than those suffered by the Slavics in the Fascist Italy... Well, I am not interested in the slightest to such things. Again, if you want to introduce concept of ethnic distribution in the article do it, provided it is done according to relevant guidelines.--Silvio1973 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Silvio1973, what you are afraid it may happen in future has, indeed, already happened with the historic revisionism in Italy. Just go ask any Italian and they will all tell you they believe that it was the Italians who suffered not only more (they may be, but so did Japanese who suffered, and still suffer, from the well-known bomb being dropped on them by Americans), but also they suffered first. The history, according to Italians, started in 1945, not in the 1920s with the 20 years long forced Italianization continued by the Fascist Italian occupation of Province of Ljubljana, no, it started in 1945 with their suffering. This is the result of the Italian war crimes kept bloody secret (called so by the Guardian, read the article) and the memory of who (it was the Fascist Italy, not the Slavs) initiated the suffering being repressed in Italy. You (and I don't mean you personally) will have to face the history, but, by all means, you can have me blocked and/or censored the way Alessandra Kersevan is censored (and called names on the Italian national TV) in Italy. Partially financed by the Italian public funds a monument was erected to Fascist hero Rodolfo Graziani - in 2012 (sic). --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 14:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Survivors of war camp lament Italy's amnesia, 2003, International Herald Tribune

Hehn, Paul N. (2005) A Low Dishonest Decade: Italy, the Powers and Eastern Europe, 1918-1939., Chapter 2, Mussolini, Prisoner of the Mediterranean

Italian states map?

What does the map of Italian pre-unification states have to do with italianization? Isn't it more appropriate to have the map depicting "0unredeemed territories"? -- Director (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually concur, the previous map does not make any sense at all. Indeed, in principle I would prefere the map you recently posted but there are a few issues about its pertinence.

1) It is out of context when compared to the article. The article is about the process of Latinisation in some territories. This had place exclusively during the fascism, and as you know the irredentism (albeit at different stages and with different claims) lasted something like 150 years.

2) The irredentism was a movement of opinion very diagonal (almost transversal) to the Fascism. Not everyone in the Fascism was irredentist (only a very tiny minority claimed that Corsica and Malta should be Italian), on the other hand out of the Fascism there was an ideology prone to see the former Venetian possessions as Italian. Even after the treaty of Rapallo, the most of the Fascist intelligentsia considered that Italy had got what was in its rights and that any additional territorial gains would have been too much and undue (I can source this affirmation, but perhaps you are already aware). Do not forget that Giolitti was an irredentist but also fiercily opposing to the Fascism.

3) From an historic perspective the map is out of context. The claim of Corsica (and the same for Savoy) started in the 18th century, stopped completely for about 100 years because France helped Italy to get independent and restarted (with minor support) only in the late 1930's. Concerning Corfu speaking of irredentism is incorrect, because those islands had nver been populated by Italians.

4) Suggesting a link between the process of Latinisation in the territories gained after WWI is historically and the Irredentism is incorrect. Many fascists were not that irredentist and many irredentists did not agree with the method of the fascists.

5) The map does not give any additional information concerning the article.

I think a map with the ethnic distribution of these regions would be the most appropriate. To discuss, of course. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Language used in the article

Well, it looks that some more editors showed interest in correcting the excessive language used in this article. Perhaps within the next weeks this article will cease to be a political manifesto to become an article of history. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You happen to be unaware that this user has been asked by me here to provide a Third Opinion on this article, because the fact is that neither of us (but at least I am aware of it, while you pretend to be neutral) is without bias, so, please, do not assume anything. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 09:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

DancingPhilosopher, you look more interested about politics than history. The first is based on opinions, the second on sources. Please keeep this in mind. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I will not bother to consider your conduct as canvassing (please refer to WP:CANVASS even if indeed what you did could have qualified of that. In a nutshell, you can ask to an editor some help but you cannot selectively choose an editor to provide a third opinion. The rule is that you request a third opinion and the user agreeing to provide the third opinion has not be prompted to do so by anyone of the parties involved in the dispute. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I asked this particular editor was that I have noticed he made some proof reading (copy editing) on the article about Slovenia, and it felt natural to ask him to proof read and provide (informal) third opinion to some related articles, as well. And you must admit (as you have already above) that he proved to be very neutral, indeed. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 10:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources in English needed

Due to its content, this article is of course prone to controversy. In order to reduce the number of potential disputes we need even more to use English sources. I have removed the sentence claiming Slavs could not buy any land, very simplistically because there is both an issue of comprehension and a doubt of neutrality. I would personally not be surprised if an English source would affirm that Slavs during the Fascism could not buy any land, but here we need a neutral, verifiable and English source. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It goes by itself, that even Italian sources (supporting or opposing to one or another POV) are not acceptable. Expecially in the context of the events concerning Istria and Dalmatia. For over 50 years in Italy such items have been for various reasons not discussed properly. I have seen an endless number of sources refused in the article Istrian Exodus because they where not English so I am not giving up with this. English sources please. This does not mean that Italian scholars are not admitted. They are fine as long edited by a reputable English / International editor. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So far as I know there was never such provision for this article. Foibe killings and Istrian exodus were the two, if I remember, due to the extensive never-ending conflicts long ago over different national sources. But I must tell you again: it was never about English language, that is your own misunderstanding - it was about writing these articles based on WP:THIRDPARTY non-Yugoslav, non-Italian authors. enWikipedia in general, however, discourages foreign-language sources.

In principle, therefore, you are correct in requesting the sources be in English, but don't pin that on me. And don't tell me you're abiding by the provisions on Istrian exodus simply because your sources are in English. That is naturally about neutral non-local authors. Your understanding there is rather nonsensical: anything can be translated into English, what does that matter in terms of NPOV?

So in short, the sources here ought to be in English if so demanded. They need not be non-local. On Istrian exodus they ought to be in English and non-local. -- Director (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

See my comment above, concerning the NPOV issue. Of course it has nothing to do with the language.--Silvio1973 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that this article is extensively copied/pasted in both Foibe Killings and Istrian Exodus so by extension we need the same level of sourcing. It is true that I am not so stringent as you because otherwise if we just restrict to English sources from English speaking authors in some cases we do not have sources at all. Of course this has nothing to do with NPOV, this is the reason for me it is not only the language that counts but also the editor. For me a Croatian scholar writing in English and edited and published by a reputable university in England / Canada / USA is fine. Again I do not have an issue with ethnicity. I do not believe all Croatians are anti-Italians, although in Croatia today I do not think anyone being out of the chorus would be very popular.

However, we have an objective problem with sources from not prominent languages (i.e. English, French, German and Spanish) because very simplistically they are not verifiable as cannot be easily translated. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all if the text is similar, its no "issue" at all. And its just plain obvious you're fishing for excuses to remove references to Italian wrongdoing. Who edits(?!) a publication is also quite irrelevant. -- Director (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

POV

This page is really bad in both directions. It is clear that is something like a battle between users that use Wikipedia as Risk. Can an English/American reader understand what happened in Istria and Dalmatia in that years after reading this article? There are a lot of not sourced political sentences. Also, the article is not centered with the argument. When started the process of italianization of Slavic population of Istria and Dalmatia? For sure not in 1920. Austrians decided to schoolarize that people in Italian for cultural and economical reasons. Why a lot of people from Fiume/Rijeka and Zara/Zadar consider themselves as Italians in spite of the Slavic pedigree? --Grifter72 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, this crap is copied/paste in the article Istrian Exodus and other users do not accept to have it removed. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You seriously think the text is supposed to be deleted because of that? Should I rewrite it in different grammatical arrangement, would that make you feel better? :) -- Director (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the order. The article is so badly written to the point of being almost not intelligible. An example is the sentence: The former Austrian Littoral (later renames Julian March) was after Armistice with Austria occupied by Italian army. Following the annexation, 400[1] cultural, sporting (for example Sokol), youth, social and professional Slavic organisations, and libraries ("reading rooms"), three political parties, 31 newspapers and journals, and 300 co-operatives and financial institutions had been forbidden, and specifically so later with the Law on Associations (1925), the Law on Public Demonstrations (1926) and the Law on Public Order (1926), the closure of the classical lyceum in Pazin, of the high school in Voloska (1918), the closure of the 488[1] Slovene and Croat primary schools followed.

Also there is clearly an issue in presenting the Italianization of these regions as a process that started in 1920. This is historically incorrect, the process started later.

A decent source stating that priests were massively moved to Sardinia is needed. I do not exclude (and indeed I believe it) that some Slovenes priests were deported there because many other opposants were. But the way it is presented now depicts that massive deportations of priests and intellectuals to Sardinia had place just after WWI. If it is the case (but it is not) I would like to see a decent source. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ionian Islands - unsourced

In the lead there was written: "It is most known for a process organized by the Kingdom of Italy to force cultural and ethnic assimilation of the native minority populations living in the former Austro-Hungarian territories that were given to Italy in exchange for their joining an alliance with the United Kingdom in World War I, but italianization was also applied in the South Tyrol and in the Ionian Islands"
Firstly, South Tyrol was part of Austria-Hungary so the sentence as it was did not mean anything in its state. Secondly, I do not have knowledge of any policy of assimilation conducted in the Ionian Islands. The Italian occupation lasted less than 30 months. Can we have a decent source stating that during this very little time something of similar to the forced italianisation of inner Istria or South Tyrol happened?
Indeed, all references to the Ionian Islands should be removed. Even if a source was brought supporting that a policy of annexation had place the issue would persist. It was a fact of war and it is presented in the lead as something of comparable to the policies conducted in Istria or South-Tyrol. No-sense. I call all users willing to insert a reference to the Ionian Island to kindly first discuss it here bringing sources. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The paragraphs you deleted contain 4x different sources: Rodogno, Knox, Corvaja & Miller and Vallianatos. That are 4x books. Removing sourced content is unacceptable. If you wish to change this paragraph, do not just delete it, but provide sources that back your claim. noclador (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to see what's in the source: [get the book]. noclador (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, the source is not accessible and from what I can see in the preface there is no mention of cultural assimilation. You need to be rigorous if you want to post the proposed material. You are bringing number of sources, none of them stating that a policy of assimilation had place. What you do is WP:SYNTHESYS. Listen, I am removing it again, until I do not read in a source what you are claiming. Feel free to report me if you really think you have a valid point. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please Noclador, list hereafter in the due order the sources with the precise citation supporting the edited text. I never heard before of any policy of assimilation during the two years of occupation of the Ionian Islands, so please appreciate I want to see clear through that. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

1. I did not add that paragraph.
2. The paragraph has 5x books as sources.
3. YOU have to prove that these 5x books/sources are wrong.
4. If you remove the paragraph one more time I report you for vandalism.
5. You are acting in bad faith. Offline sources aka books/journals/newspapers are valid sources.
6. This is your last warning. noclador (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, I will write you once again. Before even proving that the sources are true or wrong, we need to see them. They are not accessible so it's impossible to check if you are posting valid material. One or two offline sources could be acceptable, but you are posting an entire section with exclusively non accessible material. What do you expect from other users? Should they show good faith to such a point to accept all of them? For the time being I tag the entire section for citation needed, but please really state here your reasons. It's the first time in my life I heard about policies of assimilation in the Ionian Island during WWII, so I need to see clear through that. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

As you are not reading what I write you, I assume you are a troll. If you would not act in bad faith you would READ what I wrote! See point 1 above. I did not write this paragraph. I only reverted your deletion of sourced content. Since you are obviously unwilling to properly contribute I now googled the sources:

• Mussolini Unleashed, 1939-1941: Politics and Strategy in Fascist Italy's Last War, by MacGregor Knox
• Hitler & Mussolini: The Secret Meetings, by by Santi Corvaja (Author), Robert Miller (Translator)
• The untold history of Greek collaboration with Nazi Germany (1941-1944), by Markos Vallianatos
• Il nuovo ordine mediterraneo. Le politiche d’occupazione dell’Italia fascista in Europa 1940-1943, by Rodogno Davide

As you can see there are excellent sources. You could have googled yourself, but proceeded to spuriously delete material instead of improving the references! Whoever wrote this paragraph was sloppy in properly citing them, however you act in bad faith if you remove sourced content. ALSO if you would work properly you would have checked, WHO added this paragraph and asked them for a source. Instead you deleted sourced material. This is unacceptable.

Noclador, you are equating occupation = assimilation. We need to see if what has been posted was wrote by scholars in secondary sources. Insofar I have not seen in the slightest any citation proving this. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, you just push your edits without really discussing. I do not want to enter in an edit war with you. The options are two: do you want to discuss the issue here and explain on which grounds you revert or perhaps we need to have a 3O / RfQ? Waiting for a quick (I hope) solution, the article has to be tagged because it looks this discussion has stalled. If this matter is so uncontested as you claim, you should have no problems is finding inline citations and the issue will be swiftly closed. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

1. There are inline citations.
2. It is all properly sourced.
3. I am assuming nothing. Either you are clueless as to how wikipedia referencing/citations/sourcing works or you are trolling.
4. The sources given are ALL by reputable publishers, at least 2 are from professors of history.
5. I do not need to discuss with you anything. You keep deleting sourced material. You keep dismissing sources "because you never heard of such a thing happening".
6. Go ahead have a 3O / RfQ. You're wasting my time, and if you want to have someone else tell you, you are wrong, feel free to go for it.
7. AGAIN, I did NOT add this paragraph. IF YOU want more inline citation, go through the history of the article and FIND, who added the paragraph and asked them. I am rescuing sourced content. I am not editing the material in the slightest. You want to change sourced content - then YOU bring sources! noclador (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, the sources (the ones which are verifiable) do not speak of assimilation, but just of occupation. They have nothing to do with this article. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Prove it. noclador (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, the article as it is now says (I left the numbers of the sources) :

The cultural remnants of the Venetian period were Mussolini's pretext to incorporate the Ionian Islands into the Kingdom of Italy.[20] Even before the outbreak of World War II and the Greek-Italian 1940-1941 Winter War, Mussolini had expressed his wish to annex the Ionian Islands as an Italian province.[21] After the fall of Greece in early April 1941, the Italians occupied much of the country, including the Ionians. Mussolini informed General Carlo Geloso that the Ionian Islands would form a separate Italian province through a de facto annexation, but the Germans would not approve it. Nevertheless, the Italian authorities continued to prepare the ground for the annexation. Finally, on 22 April 1941, after discussions between the German and Italian rulers, Hitler agreed that Italy could proceed with a de facto annexation of the islands.[22][20]

From then on, and until the end of the war, the islands passed through a phase of Italianization in all areas, from their administration to their economy. Italian was designated the islands' only official language; a new currency, the Ionian drachma, was introduced with the aim to make trade with the rest of Greece impossible; transportation with continental Greece was limited; in the courts, judges had to apply Italian law when judging, in the name of the Italian king as in the rest of Italy; and schooling followed the educational model of the Italian mainland.[23] The Italianization efforts in the Ionian islands ended in September 1943, when Italy switched sides and began to back the Allies. In the text above there is no mention of assimilation but just of occupation, except when it is written:

Italian was designated the islands' only official language; a new currency, the Ionian drachma, was introduced with the aim to make trade with the rest of Greece impossible; transportation with continental Greece was limited; in the courts, judges had to apply Italian law when judging, in the name of the Italian king as in the rest of Italy; and schooling followed the educational model of the Italian mainland.[23]

The fact is that cannot find any citation supporting the content of this last section. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The last added source is what we need. Thank you for posting it. It speaks clearly of assimilation without contest. I think the source just after should be removed as not verifiable in its current state. If you want to reinstate it please state on which grounds. There is also the issue of the other offline sources. I made a quick search on Google books but could not get into them. I will try tomorrow morning. I don't mind if some sources are offline but as it is now only one is verifiable, which is honestly not enough. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The Stato Maggiore Difesa and its Commissione Italiana di Storia Militare made up of 3x Italian university professors and the heads of the history departments of the Italian Navy, Italian Army and Italian Air Force, who with their team of dozens of graduate students; and under the tutelage Defense Minister, the president of the Senate, the four defence chiefs and five university presidents wrote the OFFICIAL Italian military history of World War 2 isn't a source that is good enough for you???????? If you want more sources, go find them. I am fed up with your trolling. The paragraph IS sourced. EOD. noclador (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Listen Noclador, firstly remain civil. I can see only one verifiable source. All the others are offline / non verifiable. IMHO the entire paragraph cannot be supported by only one verifiable source, for good that can be (and this is certainly a good one). You have, with the support of one verifiable source, filled almost 30% of the article and 100% of the paragraph.

Also, mind well the source is in Italian and you are using the source extensively in English Wikipedia, translating it very liberally (to say it nicely). However, I have requested a 3O to have the opinion from a neutral editor because your behavior is too aggressive to have any kind of discussion. Let's wait and see what happen. In the meantime have a good night of sleep and calm down. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

Regarding user:Silvio1973's disruptive editing:

1st Silvio1973 deleted half a paragraph from this article as "Completely unsourced" (the section in question had been added by an IP [15] with 4x sources and 6x references)

I reverted the deletion as paragraph was sourced with a book, which meant that the deletion as "Completely unsourced" was in bad faith.

Then Silvio1973 kept deleting the paragraph over and over, claiming that he needs to know what is inside these books. Then he proceeded to delete the whole section with its 6x references, because he "need to see where the sources state what it's written in the article"... The authors and pages were there, but he just kept deleting content, demanding I (!) find him the sources the IP had added and prove to him that in these sources state what the article says.

As I don't want sourced content to be deleted I found the books in question and added them with proper refs i.e. while he kept tagging the paragraph with ridicolous amounts of "cn" tags. Not once did he operate in a constructive way.

As books were not accepted by Silvio1973, I found an online source: the official World War 2 history, published by Italian ministry of defence. This is an excellent source: the Italian Defence Staff's "Italian Commission of Military History" made up of three Italian university history professors and the heads of the history departments of the Italian Navy, Italian Army and Italian Air Force, under the tutelage of the Defense Minister, the president of the Italian Senate, the four defence chiefs and five university presidents wrote the OFFICIAL Italian military history of World War 2 and confirmed word for word what is in the paragraph.

and now Silvio1973 wants to delete the paragraph because he sees "only one verifiable source"

He is a bad faith editor wasting your time and my time. He stated earlier on my talkpage that "E tra l'altro sarebbe davvero strano se lo dicessero. Non ne ho mai assolutamente sentito parlare. Se anche ci fosse qualche fonte che lo dice, sarebbe un tipico esempio di WP:UNDUE" (It would be strange if [the sources] said so. I absolutely never did hear speak about [the italianization of the Ionian islands]. But if there would even be a source that that said so, it would be a typical example of WP:Undue). So his "I never heard it" beats 5x sources... This is not how sourcing/referencing works.

Even the ministry of defense is not a source he accepts

He is now looking to waste more people's time. There are now 4x books and the Italian Ministry of Defence as sources, he doesn't like any of them. He just wants to disrupt, delete and annoy. When I told him that the discussion is finished, he requested a Third Opinion. 51.5% of his edits is talk space... he repeatedly deletes material he dislikes (like i.e. his 2nd edit to this article ever (first edit was naturally to slap a refimprove on it, event though the aricle had already 21 sources back then)

and he habit of showing up and deleting stuff goes back years [16] (incl. lying about the source's content)

in short: a good faith editor would a) try to improve the references b) believe that the IP adding the content acted in good faith c) if in doubt google for additional sources d) if unhappy with the translation of the the Italian source, improve the text. Silvio1973 has done neither a nor b nor c nor d. His behaviour is uncooperative and time wasting.

If Silvio1973 wants to add/change/delete material in the article, he is welcome do so, IF he sources it! Deleting material by dismissing sources for ridiculous reasons ("offline", "just one", "in Italian") is not acceptable. noclador (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion comment

A third opinion has been requested, but I see that this does not appear to be a two-way content dispute, because one editor is charging the other with disruptive editing. I will offer a third opinion if one of the editors will pose a straightforward question. Otherwise I will see if someone else can answer, or will suggest that the editors re-read the civility policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The reason why I posted the 3OR is that I am not able to convince the other user to civil discussion. My question is very straight-forward. The paragraph is currently sourced with one one verifiable source. This one:

Commissione Italiana di Storia Militare (1993). L'Italia in Guerra - Il Terzo Anno 1942. Rome: Italian Ministry of Defense. p. 370.

Can this one single source, edited in a language which is not English, be used to source the entire paragraph? Mind well, I do not contest the pertinence of the paragraph nor the source but the emphasis Noclador is given to the source and to the cited events. I am also uncomfortable that facts of war lasting less than 20 months in the Ionian Islands, are used to described policies of assimilation happening in time of peace elsewhere in Italy. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Without question one source can be used to source an entire paragraph; happens all the time all over Wikipedia. Italian may be preferable to English for subjects which are exclusively about Italian issues. Discounting sources because they are not web-accessible or not in English is not really correct, either. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree: moreover, the Ufficio Storico of the Italian Stato Maggiore is well known for its papers about WWII, which have a scientific and neutral approach. I would only advice to check the translation, since there are some problems: for example, the source says that two newspaper had been published under the Italian occupation, not one, and the second had been published in Italian and Greek. Alex2006 (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Again Silvio1973 refuses to acknowledge the existence of other sources in the section. Books written by i.e. MacGregor Knox and Davide Rodogno are not accetable to him. As said: if he wants to remove entire sourced sections, he needs to provide sources that say that i.e. MacGregor, Rodogno and the Italian Ministry of Defense are lying and his hearsay is correct.
2. As for the two newspapers comment by Alex2006: one was a newspaper the other, the " Bollettino Ufficiale degli Affari Politici delle Isole Ionie" was the communiques of the occupation force i.e. the Official bulletins by Parini.
3. I found Rodogno's book online. I will add that as a source now too. And then reinstate the section about the Dodecanese Island italianization with sources, which Silvio1973 had deleted. noclador (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Gents, Silvio1973 does not refuse to acknowledge the content of sources and I do not contest the pertinence of the section. Furthermore, since I raised the issue Noclador has added verifiable sources hence my position has somehow changed. I just do not understand why he just merely did not reply with facts instead of qualifying my legitimate request of trolling. There are some important remaining issues though:

1. Specify that were facts of war and distinguish them from the policies of assimilation exerted in time of peace.
2. Give the right dimension to this chapter. While I do not contest the facts, they are presented here in a very forced way. There is no reason to give to the acts of the occupant in Corfu more weight than elsewhere, unless the sources do not justify doing so.
3. Ensure the translation is done correctly, as Alex2006 correctly states. There are facts cited which do not seem to equate to the Italian source. I cannot find for example the Italian equivalent of: "Italian was designated the islands' only official language", "Schooling followed the educational model of the Italian mainland" and "The Ionian drachma was introduced with the aim to hamper trade with the rest of Greece, which was forbidden by Parini" just to cite three. I hope you realized that for occupation and assimilation are two different things. Hence, from an historical perspective it's very relevant to describe properly what happened without OR. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Again Silvio1973 DELETES sourced content! Again he vandalizes the article. IF you have a problem then ADD content! And as an Italian you should know that the source distinguishes between ONE newspaper in Italian and the OFFICIAL BULLETIN of the occupation force in Greek/Italian. Next time you delete sourced content you are up for a vandalism report. noclador (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, you are pushing a strong anti-Italian POV. No-one contests the facts, I contest the way you are describing them and the translation you gave to the source (see my post just above). --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

To show my good faith, I have tagged three unsourced sections instead of removing them. Now, would you mind please showing us where in the source there is mention of the facts you "translated" in English? Silvio1973 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, you are good in verbally assaulting, calling me troll and vandal but you do not answer to the questions. You have posted unsorced text. Would you mind please tell us where the source say what you posted? Silvio1973 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Noclador: Removing content because you are uncertain about the veracity of the source is not vandalism. Please stop referring to Silvio as a vandal, or a troll: these things contravene our policy on civility. Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to request a quote from a source they cannot access. People misuse sources all the time. If you do not have access to the relevant source, just say so, and try to find someone who does: if you have access, there is no reason for you not to post a quote. @Silvio1973: It is actually quite common to use a single source for a paragraph, and it is not a problem unless other sources explicitly contradict it. Sources in Italian are not ideal, but not removable simply because they are in Italian. Vanamonde (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: The problem is not that Silvio requests sources, the problem is that every time I bring a source, he is moving the goalposts. I do not have the offline sources, but I assume good faith on the part of the IP editor, who posted the content and gave the sources. To placate Silvio I found an excellent online source, which Silvio tries to discredit (It's just one. It's in Italian.) Now that other editors confirmed that the use of one source is good enough he is cite-tagging every line that is not in the online source and demand I prove to him that this written in the source. Again, I do not have the offline sources and I assume the original content creator, who gave five books as sources, acted in good faith when he added this content. Somehow now Silvio assumes he can force me to provide him with proof of every line in the section he dislikes. Also Silvio complains about my translation, but doesn't offer a better version. He is unwilling to be constructive as shown by this comment on my talkpage [17] where he says: "It would be strange if [the sources] said so. I absolutely never did hear speak about [the italianization of the Ionian islands]. But if there would even be a source that that said so, it would be a typical example of WP:Undue." So far there have been 0 suggestions by him how to improve the article. Constant demands, abusive cite tagging, no will to cooperate are the signs of a troll. One example: the online source says that on the islands only one newspaper in Italian language and the "Bollettino Ufficiale degli Affari Politici delle Isole Ionie" in Greek/Italian (= the official bulletin by the occupation forces) were published. Now Silvio tries to have the line about "The only newspaper on the islands was the Italian language "Giornale del Popolo" removed, because I didn't mention the other. As an Italian he knows that the Bollettino Ufficiale isn't a newspaper (they are still published by the national, regional and provincial governments in Italy), and he could add the text about the bulletin at any time to the article, but he tries to delete the line (incl. with two lies about the source's content), or is abusive cite-tagging; both sign of a troll, who does only want to disrupt/annoy/waste time. Until he comes up with concrete proposals how to improve the text, by adding content, I will treat him as the timewasting troll he is. noclador (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, this is hilarious. Noclador pretends that I have to demonstrate that what he writes is false. Unless it's not WP:BLUE (and it's not the case), the burden of the proof is on the editor posting the material. However, please note that I tried to be diplomatic limiting myself to just tag those edits, because I noticed that Noclador gets excited very easily, but the issue is actually quite different. The thing is that Noclador pretends that he is sourcing facts which are not sourced at all. The possibilities are two:

1. I realize at my age (and I am not exactly that young) that I am not able at all to read Italian, my mother tongue.
2. The facts presented by Noclador are simply not sourced at all. Look, even if I make the biggest effort of interpretation, I do not find in the verifiable sources anything close to Noclador's edits. And honestly I am not surprised. The Fascist occupation of the Ionian Islands lasted little more than 20 months, a time insufficient even to start what Noclador claims it happened. Noclador, is describing usual facts of military occupation as organic policy of cultural assimilation. If he wants to write that a policy of assimilation was acted, he needs to seriously source it. I will remain calm, patient and kind but I won't give up. This does not make of me a troll. I am just rigorous. As a gesture of good faith, I leave one or two days to Noclador to source "Italian was designated the islands' only official language", "Schooling followed the educational model of the Italian mainland" and "The Ionian drachma was introduced with the aim to hamper trade with the rest of Greece, which was forbidden by Parini" (just to cite three). After I will tag the relevant sections. Noclador cannot complain that I make bad use of his time just because I do not accept such things to be posted without a grain of evidence. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

How often do I have to tell you that what you complain about was posted by an IP [18] and you keep asking me to source what the IP posted. I already expanded the references added by the IP, I found you an online source, I added more material, I put in proper references and now you flat out lie about my additions! Your claims about my additions:

1. "simply not sourced at all" is a lie.
2. "if I make the biggest effort of interpretation" your only effort is in trolling productive editors. (see below for what the source you obviously didn't bother to read says.)
3. "I do not find in the verifiable sources anything close to Noclador's edits." is another outright lie.
4. "what he writes is false." is yet another lie.

Either you did not read the source, or you willfully lie in the hope other editors, who do not know Italian will not be able to check the source. The Italian Defence Staff's Commission of Military History source says about the schools: "erano stati altresì introdotti i programmi scolastici in vigore nel Regno d'Italia" and about trade: "ogni commercio tra le isole ed il cosiddetto "Stato Greco" venne proibito dall'autorità governatoriale." So: if you had (!) read the source, you would have seen both these lines that 100% confirm what is in the text. If you had looked at the source on the pages given you would have found both these lines. But instead you accuse me by lying about my edits, which is clearly pure trolling.

And then you are surprised that I am angry? Come on! Do some proper reading, before you throw around accusations! For the sake of "Good Faith" I will assume that you did not read the source properly and that you also did not see that I added an online copy of Rodogno's book [19], where on page 284 you can read how the Ionian Drachma was introduced "to separate the economy of the Ionian Islands from the rest of Greece". Only for the "only official language" I can not point you to the exact page, as Rodogno's book doesn't show these pages in the preview. This line was added by the IP and seeing that all what the IP added was confirmed by other sources, and in the spirit of "Good Faith", I assume that the IP editor has Rodogno's book added this line truthfully from the book. Now if you want confirmation for this one line, feel free to write the IP a message. As for me: after having wasted 3 days on your obvious trolling (not reading a source and then lying about other editor's work is trolling), I will returning working on NATO articles, but if you keep cite-tagging or deleting sourced material on this article here I am going to revert you every time UNTIL you bring a source justifying your edits.

One last note: "The Fascist occupation of the Ionian Islands lasted little more than 20 months, a time insufficient even to start what Noclador claims it happened. Noclador, is describing usual facts of military occupation as organic policy of cultural assimilation." I don't claim anything. I describe nothing. I cite a source. You on the other hand push a your personal POV, you have no source, you denigrate other editor's work - that all is trolling. Not acceptable, and it won't be tolerated. noclador (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Noclador, I also assume good faith. Indeed, I start to think you are not so familiar with the Italian language. In a nutshell:

1. "Italian was designated the islands' only official language" it's not cited in the verifiable sources.
2. "Schooling followed the educational model of the Italian mainland" is not the translation of "erano stati altresì introdotti i programmi scolastici in vigore nel Regno d'Italia", because the way you translate suggest that existing schooling was replaced with the Italian.
3. "The Ionian drachma was introduced with the aim to hamper trade with the rest of Greece, which was forbidden by Parini" does not mean "The Ionian drachma was introduced to separate the economy of the Ionian Islands from the rest of Greece". Why don't you stick to the sources? Silvio1973 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Again you lie. I am not indulging you with any answer until you re-read what I wrote above and present all the sources properly. My stuff is sourced. Hint: you ignore "ogni commercio tra le isole ed il cosiddetto "Stato Greco" venne proibito dall'autorità governatoriale." to make up you lie at point 3. That's tolling. Don't feed the trolls. So, ciao. noclador (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italianization. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111164234/http://razor.arnes.si/~mkralj/istra-history/e-periodtotal.html to http://razor.arnes.si/~mkralj/istra-history/e-periodtotal.html

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) 22:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)