Talk:Foibe massacres/Archive 2

This article is confusing, hard to read and missing context
First of all, why is the background section at the bottom of the article? It should come after the lead section. The article is hard to read because it's not arranged chronologically. Also, the background section doesn't seem to have much to do with the killings.

It's alluded in the article that there were some ethnic tensions between Italians and Yugoslavian forces but the causes of this are not explained in a straightforward manner. Maybe the lengthy background section explains this? It looks like there might have been some Italian people living in Yugoslavia due to some historical reasons. And during the Second World War, Italy, which was part of the Axis powers, occupied Yugoslavia. After the war, the Foibe massacres targeted Italians in Yugoslavia who were Nazi collaborators. But some of those people might have been targeted because they were ethnic Italians?

I might be wrong but this is the idea I got from the article. It might be a good idea to spell this out in the lead section. Right now this article has a lot of words but it's extremely hard to put together what it's trying to say.

AuburnDistrict (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * For example, compare this article to Rwandan_genocide, which does a lot better job:
 * 1. Describing events in chronological order
 * 2. Explaining the ethnic tensions between the two sides
 * AuburnDistrict (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, Background section should go right after Intro, as in many articles on historical events. Also should be a shorter version of Background, just back to WWI, instead of back to antiquity.Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No such claim in cited source
The article states:


 * For the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia, (i.e. Dalmatia), the 1910 numbers were 96.2% Slavic speakers and 2.8% Italian speakers, recording a drastic decline in the number of Dalmatian Italians, who in 1845 amounted to 20% of the total population of Dalmatia.

Looking at the cited source, no such claim is found on p. 342 for 1845 (in fact the year 1845 does not appear anywhere in the article), instead the page shows all the official Austrian censuses, with the first carried out in 1865, showing Italians constituted 12.5% of the population, which then continued to decline in all subsequent Austrian censuses. The article notes that before that only informal guesstimates were made by various observers, and on page 340 the same author quotes "the Italian Dalmatian”, Frane Carrara who in 1843 stated there were 16,000 Italians, at a time when the province numbered more than 340,000 inhabitants, thus they constituting less than 5% of the population. He quotes others making similar estimates, while others made higher ones. Given that these estimates were informal and all over the place, they do not seem reliable, and the article should stick to the census data. Incidentally, in the same article, the author repeatedly makes the point that the Austrian censuses did not count ethnic nationality, since Austria-Hungary sought to discourage nationalism, but instead counted people by the language they used in daily life. Thus the author and sources he cites state that many of these Italian-speakers in Dalmatia were actually ethnic Croats and Serbs, who had been Italianized under prior Venetian rule, later abandoning it as under Austria Croatian schools and the use of Croatian in administration and courts started to be allowed Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Targets of killings
The main targets of the killings were not repressive fascists or collaborators but Italian partisans and Italian socialists as such could have been a threat to Tito's power. There is a specific order issued to the Yugoslav Partisans to eliminate anyone not recognizing Tito as the supreme leader. There is plenty of historical evidence also printed in publicly available books so I am rather surprised by the incorrect information provided from the onset. No emotion on my part, just historic evidence countering the rather simplistic and incorrect description of the victims. Appalling for a history encyclopedia entry Donvisentin (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Provide a citation from a reliable source for Tito's supposed order. Regarding the targets, Raoul Puppo, history professor at the University of Trieste, probably the most frequently cited authority on the foibe is now cited in the article, plus other, mainly Italian historiansThhhommmasss (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Justifying the killing
"following a brutal war in which some 800,000 Yugoslavs, the vast majority civilians, were killed by Axis occupation forces and collaborators." this really sounds like justifying the killing of that people. 151.34.221.156 (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Everything needs context. I don’t sense an attempt to justify, only the placing of the killings into their necessary context. They didn’t just happen out of the blue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022
the link to Gabriele D'Annunzio's page has been written incorrectly: it's "Gabriele d?Annunzio", not "Gabrielle d'Annunzio" 195.39.194.119 (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Looks fine from my end. Link works and renders correctly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

On Italic peoples living on east side of Adriatic
Article cites some website as claiming Italian people lived on east side of Adriatic as far back as Bonze age. The article makes no such claims, instead merely states that the Adriatic served as means of contact with the Balkans, same as Brenner pass with rest of Europe. Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Question of expulsion
I think it is inappropriate to use the term expulsion for the postwar departure of Italians, as had been done in the article. This was unlike the case of Germans in central and eastern Europe, where with Allied support, expulsion laws were implemented and people were physically rounded up and sent to the border, many perishing in the process. Most Italian-speakers had already left Zadar in 1943, with the withdrawing Italian Army. Following the wave of reprisals of May 1945, Yugoslav troops retreated from Trieste in June. Yugoslavia sought to build solidarity with Italian-Slav friendship societies, Italian leftists came to Yugoslavia to “help build socialism”. Italy turned down an American proposal for plebiscites to settle territorial disputes, since if it also applied to South Tyrol, it would likely lose the province. The 1947 Yugoslav-Italian treaty gave Italian-speakers the right to opt for Italian citizenship, but this meant they had to move to Italy. Testimonies of some who opted to leave indicate they simply wanted to remain Italian citizens. After Yugoslavia split with Stalin, the Italian Communist party sided with Stalin. This led to tensions, and the exodus of some Italian leftists. The 1948-1953 period was politically very repressive in Yugoslavia, toward Stalinists, supposed Stalinists and more broadly, regardless of ethnicity. Nationalization also affected everyone, but since Italian urban-dwellers had more property, including large land holdings, they were more affected in areas along the coast. Yugoslavia was poor and devasted after the war, which put further economic pressure on everyone. Disputes over Zone A and Zone B caused tensions, with Italy sending troops to the Yugoslav border, thus provoking the 1953 Trieste Crisis and threatening to occupy Allied-controlled Trieste, with rightwing riots in Trieste, when local police killed 6 rioters. That too did not help relations. All of the above contributed to emigration, most of which happened in 1948-1956. While some in the Slavic populace no doubt resented Italians, following two decades of fascist repression and war, there is absolutely no evidence that the Yugoslav authorities sought to expel Italians. Later in the 1950’s Yugoslavia granted extensive minority rights to the remaining Italians, including Italian schools, bilingual signs everywhere, etc. Slovenes in Italy had to wait until 2001 to gain similar rights. Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement which is why I made an edit removing that. However in your recent edit why did you threw in “referred to as Serbs” for the slavs of Dalmatia? Aside from countless sources that argue otherwise against a primary source saying so, it doesn’t really make sense. Comes across pov. For example for one of the Sub regions it said that “but a closer reading of the source suggests that the Constantine VII's consideration about the population's ethnic identity is based on Serbian political rule during the time of Časlav and does not indicate ethnic origin.[9][10][11][12][13][14] According to Noel Malcolm, today's western Serbia was area where Serbs settled in 7th century and from there they expanded their rule on territory of Zachlumia.[15] According to Tibor Živković the area of the Vistula where the Litziki ancestors of Michael of Zahumlje originate was the place where White Croats would be expected and not White Serbs,[16] and it's unclear whether the Zachlumians "in the migration period to the Balkans really were Serbs or Croats or Slavic tribes which in alliance with Serbs or Croats arrived in the Balkans".[17] ” This is why Secondary sources with analysis by historians is promoted on Wikipedia i stead of primary sources. OyMosby (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You provided no citations for what you are quoting. In De Administrando Imperio, Constantine VII states that Croatia stretched from eastern Istria (probably the Raša River) to the Cetina river. On pages 153-155 he then states that south of the Cetina lie Pagania (Neretvania), Zachumlia (Hum), Terbounia (Travania) and the country of the Kanalites (Konavle), in which the Byzantine Emperor settled Serbs. In following pages he then describes each of these separately, saying the inhabitants are descendants of unbaptized Serbs, and he also states Serbs originate from White Serbia, next to White Croatia. Here's the link to the Harvard University published version of De Administrando Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the wikipedia articles of any of those substates instantly answers your request. So it is odd you chose not to look despite me mentioning where to find it. It is mentioned that White Croats entered and settled in these placed as well. Why leave that out? I took liberty and added it to the article and on here so you can see as well. Once again, De Administrando is a primary source and again you cannot ignore conflicting sources, so include all or nothing is typically how it is done. Here is the passage with citations “but a closer reading of the source suggests that the Constantine VII's consideration about the population's ethnic identity is based on Serbian political rule during the time of Časlav and does not indicate ethnic origin.  ” OyMosby (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It is undue weight placed on one primary source to claim states of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunija and Duklja residents were Serbs when countless sources state both Croats and Serbs arrived there. Seems pretty straight forward. I linked the individual articles to quicker provide you the details on those territories. Do agree or still disagree with what I am showing? OyMosby (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * John A. Fine makes those exact same arguments about Croatia and Croats - i.e. that Croats were a small group who came to rule over other Slavs that had previously settled from elsewhere, plus the old Illyrian populace, and that Croat was a political designation, with no ethnic meaning. He provides lots of proof that there was very little ethnic differentiation in much of the Balkans until the spread of nationalisms in the early 19th century, with many in Dalmatia identifying theselves as Dalmatians, Slavs or Illyrians, or just members of their local subregions and towns, like Zadar and Drubrovnik, who fought encroachment by others, including Venice. See his book, "When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans." Btw you quoted a lot of Croat historians, I am sure there are many Serb historians who state the opposite, e.g. that people from Dubrovnik are Serbs. That is why citing independent sources is better Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you cannot censor sources because they are Croatian and not “independent” as if all part of a nationalist cabal. Those Croatian Historians didn’t claim the population there were all Croats either. I didn’t ignore any Serbian historians or sources. They weren’t cited in that sentence that I copied over. You are free to add whatever other sources you wish. If that is your concern of biased Croat historians. But the sentences have cited non-Croat historians as well. Florin Curta is not Croatian. Are they biased by chance too? I coppied the sources from the other article. I didn’t cherry pick them individually. You can see for yourself. So let’s drop that form of argument. Fine isn’t Croatian yet wrote that mist of Dalmatia was originally settled by Croats. You may have missed that. The rest of your reply argues against posting De Administrative states because you agree that Slavs in Dalmatia were just Illyrians, Slavs, Dalmations who later took on a new identity. But yet they are the whole times Serbs? You seem to be inconsistent here. In that case why push for one sources claim of Serbs but ignore another’s counter claim? It should be noted as Southern Skavs like it was before your edit and neither Serb or Croat. Like I said, you have to use all cited sides when it comes to claims or just leave it out in total. OyMosby (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine says Croatia and other Balkan lands were first settled by other Slavs, on top of original populace, and that Croats were only a small minority. Ethnic designations are fuzzy. Genetic data shows that for both Croats and Serbs the haplogroup I2a is predominant, which is the old "Illyrian" halpogroup of those who were there before the arrival of the Slavs, so that's one objective measure. Also, many sources state that many of the "Italians" of Istria and Dalmatia were in fact older settlers - Illyrians/Slavs - who became Italianized, in fact many had Slavic last names ending on -ich. I am not interested in citing Serb nationalist interpretations, nor Croatian or Italian nationalist interpretations Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Your reply is in line with what I have read before. I ws not arguing against any of that. I guess you are realizing what I was getting at this whole time? And I am literally repeatedly agreeing with fine and all you just said. Identity politics is a more modern issue. I was typing all of that same time funny enough. But why push the Serb identity for those 4 Dalmatia states then? They are just Southern Slavs. Which was what it said before your edit today. We should leave it at that. They were southern slavs. However we cannot interpret De Administrito, a primary source, on our own and edit accordingly either. I would thing based on all you said that you would steongly appose including “with the Kingdom of Croatia in northern Dalmatia, and the South Slavic states of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunija and Duklja occupying southern Dalmatia, whom he described as Serbs.” You are intpreting that primary scripture. As how do we know he didn’t mean Serbian rule as apposed to it being the White Serbs??? All the Illyrians there vanished and only Serbs remained? Again this is why secondary sources where historians more trained than us who can interpret the writings ate better trusted. Who interpeted Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII words in that document? If you did yourself, that is individual research. It would be different if you cited a historian offering their own analysis. Florina Curta analyzed Constantines words in that transcript and stated that “ According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Slavs of the Dalmatian zhupanias of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travounia, and Konavli all "descended from the unbaptized Serbs."51 This has been rightly interpreted as an indication that in the mid-tenth century the coastal zhupanias were under the control of the Serbian zhupan Časlav, who ruled over the regions in the interior and extended his power westwards across the mountains to the coast.” Meaning they were under Serbian rule but not Serbs themselves. . See the difference? Your statement of “In following pages he then describes each of these separately, saying the inhabitants are descendants of unbaptized Serbs, and he also states Serbs originate from White Serbia, next to White Croatia.” is your interpretation. But how are the natives of those areas descendent of the newly arrived Serbs from White Croatia? Again this is why person research and interpretation is not allowed on Wikipedia. We leave that to professional secondary sources published that interpret these transcripts that were translated from different languages. OyMosby (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Živković a SERBIAN historian make a statement of: The Croats, Serbs, Zachlumians, Travunians, Konavlians, Ragusans, "with all the men of the towns of Dalmatia", crossed over the sea to Langobardia and took Bari. Implying people of Zachlum were there own identity. Both Croats and Serbs were small tribes that came from elsewhere and ruled over others. Not just Croats. Hence the theorey of the origin points White Croatia and White Serbia. Pleas enough with this. I have been through this re-run discussion countless times. The argument that Dalmatians are Serbs, particularly Southern Dalmatians, is usually clung on to by vested interest groups used to justify modern political aims. It is clear that these 4 sub states were their own thing. Not mearly Croats or Serbs. Ag times these areas were political under Serbian rule. But not ethnicity or all genetical related to the Serbs. Or Croats for that matter. Especially in thr 6th-8th century it is a nonsense claim. Again, which is why it is best tk use secondary sources talking about De Administrio instead of using it as a primary source for self interpretation. Which is what you are doing when citing it. That’s personal research. However puting in direct quotes what is written in that primary source should be fine. But we would need secondary sources confirming that the Byzantine ruler referred to the inhabitants as unbaptized Serbs. I know that many in the Balkans try to claim each other as the Catholic/Orthodox/Muslim Version of the other so we should be careful about these things. OyMosby (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're interpreting what you say Zivkovic implies, i.e. that he is talking ethnicity instead of political entities. Ivo Banac, a Croat historian, wrote that Slavonians were "undifferentiated Slavs", hence also the name Slavonia, and were thus not Croats as Croatian nationalists state. Like I said ethnicity is a fuzzy concept, especially in the Balkans, where for example people who live in Mostar, and who are genetically identical to one another, have for hundreds and thousands of years lived together, and not only speak the same language, but the exact same local dialect of the same language, are then deemed to be of 3 different ethnicities and talk 3 different languages - Croatian, Serb and Bosnian - and that you have to "translate" between these 3 languages, i.e. the exact same dialect they speak. Furthermore, the people of Herzegovina are genetically very distinct from Croats and Serbs elsewhere, and thus much more closely related to one another, than to Croats and Serbs elsewhere. As for Dubrovnik, they too are much more closely genetically and linguistically related to Serbs in Trebinje than to other Croats, etc. Fine shows that many of the Dubrovnik writers reffered to themselves as simply as Slavs, Dalmatians or Illyrians. I just quoted Constantine VII source, and indeed do believe that for both Croats and Serbs he meant ruling political elites, or small groups or tribes, similar to how there was no Byzantine ethnicity Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * “Like I said ethnicity is a fuzzy concept” And like I said, you are preaching to the choir. I am saying that too. You cannot just claim “these were Serbs because looking at the similr genetics”. When you literally said that Croats and Serbs same similar genetics. News flash. Croats and Serbs speak the same language. They just speak different various dialects. Notice how Croats and Serbs can speak full conversation with each other no problem. Sadly this was used by both groups to claim each other. And that I will not tolerate. Zivkovic is talking about groups/tribes etc not political entities. Not my interpretation. Not at all the same. Thing. You are ignoring much of what I wrote. You are repeating what I said about how ethnicity gets complicated. You made your own interpretation of a primary source translated from another language. I used secondary sources. Big difference. You interpret Serbs. Historians even non Croatian ones interpretive Serbian political entities. Being ruled by Serbia for that time, does not make everyone there ethnic Serbs. Just like large parts of Bosnia being under the rule of Croatia at some time doesn’t make all inhabitants there suddenly all Croats. It doesn’t work that way. Otherwise minority groups could not exist.


 * “or Dubrovnik, they too are much more closely genetically and linguistically related to Serbs in Trebinje than to other Croats” Who is “they” in Dubrovnik? You mean Croats there? why are you treating today’s Dubrovnik as not Croat inhabited but in Trebinje you acknowledge Serbs there? Lol. This seems very telling to me of great concern when it comes to npov. Are roats of no identity but Serbs, no-matter where they reside, are? As that seemed kinda dismissive and reluctant. Perhaps you mean Croats in Dubrovnik share more in comment with Serbs in Trebinje than with Croats in Slavonia. Absolutely. Just as Serbs in Voijvodina share more genetically and linguistically with Croats in Slavonia than elsewhere. Also Serbs in Parts of Republik Srpska will have more in common with Croats in Slavonia than mainland Serbia. Serbs in Trebinje more closely with Croats in Dubrovnik than with Serbia. It has to do with the closer proximity. Also population shifts over centuries of conflicts and migrations. But Souther Dalmatia surely is close with Dubrovnik as well. Your claims about Dubrovnik and Herzegovina are individual research which is not for Wilipedia per policy. Do you have a source for this claim? Because I have only Seen  nationalists claim that Dubrovnik as some very Serbian place. We can’t keep going by your opinions or interpretation. We have to go by cited facts. That doesn’t prove that People of Dubrovnik are Serbs. Croats mostly live in Dubrovnik.


 * “Fine shows that many of the Dubrovnik writers reffered to themselves as simply as Slavs, Dalmatians or Illyrians.” Exactly! I trust Fine’s works so no need to keep quoting them. You re literally proving my point. I guess you agree to some level. However, Where did he write that they identify as or more with Serbs as apposed to Croats? Many Ragusans even mention their feeling of connection to Croatian culture. That alone doesn’t decide who is what however. As Ragusans in general called themselves Ragusans. You aren’t reading fully what I wrote. “Ivo Banac, a Croat historian, wrote that Slavonians were "undifferentiated Slavs", hence also the name Slavonia” Yeah. I know. And? Oh please enough. If you believe Constantine meant ruling elites than why did you put in the article he meant just Serbs instead of ruled by Serbs? OyMosby (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly most of your replies are arguing against things I agree with you on. I don’t think you fully examined my replies. I state that modern identity is not the same as what i was back then and then you repeat that to me. It’s getting a bit annoying going in circles honestly. My point was that you are going against Fine’s works by personaly interpeting a translate scripture, a primary source and concluding that Constantine was labeling the inhabitants of Southern Dalmatia as Serbs. Where as secondary sources state he is referring to them OyMosby (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

talk]]) Being under Serbian political rule at the time not that they were all White Serbs and not Ilyrians, Slavs general etc. So your replies should serve as self advice. I stated many times that the inhabitants of these territories are GENERIC SOUTHERN SKAVS AND ILYRIANS. I cannot be more clear. I am not arguing they are Croats. You are arguing with me as if I am saying they are Croats. You keep going on about Fine and how Croats were also political rules. But you fail to understand you are proving my point with those failed “gotcha” attempts. I never said that the Croat invaders didn’t assimilate native inhabitants. Hell todays Croats and Serbs aren’t even real. Todays Croats and Serbs are only partly original and mostly not Slavs. You y want to look i to that. I think I read that Croats and Serbs are only maybe 20-35% Slavs genetically speaking. I don’t know how to be more clear but I cannot keep repeating myself in this overly complicated discussion. I cited secondary sources. You cited a primary source and made edits based on your interpretation and original research of the transcripts which I think isn’t in line with Wikipedia source guidelines. How do I know you don’t have biases like any Croatian or Serbian historian? Do you have no ties to the Balkans? I think we both do. And I don’t think either of us have published books on this matter. So secondary sources is what we must use to be as neutral as we humanly can be as the flawed imperfect humans we are. OyMosby (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a dialect map showing Dubrovnik speaks the same dialect, Eastern Herzegovian, as Trebinje, but different from Central Dalmatia and Zagreb. In fact, I can quote you Czech and other linquists who consider Dubrovnik-Shtokavian-Herzegovian to be a different language than Central Dalmatian-Chakavian and Zagreb-Kajkavian. How fuzzy things are you can also read in the article "The Serb-Catholic Movement in Dubrovnik" As for genetics, the Croatian geneticist Dragan Primorac showed that Herzegovian Croats have something like 71% of the old I2a haplogroup, vs 30+% for Bosnian Serbs in Bosnian Krajina, the latter being closer to the average for all Croats. In fact he himself says that Croats are not Slavs, but "Old Balkanians", with more pre-Slav or "Illyrian" genes, than "Slavic" R1a genes, which is also true for Serbs. So I will update the article to add the same explanation that Croatia did not imply ethnicity, and per Fine in fact, Croats were only a small groupThhhommmasss ([[User talk:Thhhommmasss|


 * That maps shows the dialect spoken in Dubrovnik also spoken all over Croatia including Central Dalmatia (maybe you ment lower centra Dalmatia doesn’t speak it), Just not in Serbia. The map Shows it is also spoken near and on both sides of Zagreb. I’m not sure your point. Croats and Serbs speak many dialects. I wasn’t disagreeing with you on the proximity of dialects Thhhommmasss. However that doesn’t make or prove the people of Dubrovnik are Serbs exclusively. I was asking why you refuse to acknowledge Croats in Dubrovnik and write “They in Dubrovnik” yet you acknowledge Serbs in Trebinje. Again there seems to be misunderstandings here. Also, Hah! Once again we both started writing about the same Stuff. I was writing that Croats and Serbs aren’t really Slavs but perhaps a quarter. Also I hope you accidentally removed part of ly comment. And look, I believe Serbo-Croatian is one language. Just multiple dialects. Too close to be different languages. Much like Germans is spoken in Germany and Austria. “So I will update the article to add the same explanation that Croatia did not imply ethnicity, and per Fine in fact, Croats were only a small group” Croatia is an entity, Croat is ethnicity. Hmm, but Fine said the same of Serbs being a small group you said. Why are you not updating the article with that too??? And update where? And why state that only the Croats were small group and not the Serbs? Surely you must be able to see how biased that looks. Christ. “you can also read in the article "The Serb-Catholic Movement in Dubrovnik" I would but I already know about it :) But that doesn’t make Dubrovnik inhabitants all Catholic Serbs my dear Thhhommas.  OyMosby (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * East Herzegovian is spoken today across wide areas of Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia, because of East Herzegovian migrations from the 16th century onward. Before that much of Croatia spoke Kajkavian and Chakavian, not East Herzegovian, like Dubrovnik. For Serbs you already put part about ethnicity, I will do exact same for Croats.Thhhommmasss (talk) Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You posted the modern map. I’m going by the map you showed, bud. You are contradicting yourself here. Revenge edits don’t look well on here. Especially since I added sourced content in reference to the Serb claim YOU initiated. I did not put a claim that Dalmatia are all Croats. Note that I wrote nowhere that Serbs were a small group. So what is the explanation of selecting to only say that for the Croat group? I am being way more patient than I should be with what you are writing to me. Sir. It is evident you have a favor over one group than the other. “For Serbs you already put part about ethnicity, I will do exact same for Croats.” WP:POINT is not a proper form. Hoping to edit to spite me is pretty silly. Especially as I edited in reference to Constantine. I did not write that all Serbs are just entities. But you do you and I will have to act appropriately. OyMosby (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I quoted what Fine writes. He also states that most Croat historians state that Croats were a small minority, but also goes to show that most people in Dalmatia did not consider themselves ethnic Croats until the beginning of 19th century. That the region was culturally mixed is a fact. The oldest Croatian manuscript is Povljanska listina from Brac Island, written in Cyrillic. The 15th century, southern Dalmatian Duchy of St. Sava, was named after a Serb Saint, most Catholics in Bosnia celebrated Serb-style "slava" well into the 19th century. I am sure that if you told these people, or Italian speakers in Dalmatia, that they were Croats, Serbs or Italians, many would not have a clue what your are talking about. Like I said that is Fine's point that all these ethnicities were invented much later Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet you only say it about Croats being “invented” later. Serbs are Serbs but Croats are Serbs. Noted, Thhhommmass. Could you please point to the page Fine writes that “Croats” is not an ethnicity but a political entity? I found a page that said “Croatian” (nationality) but not “Croat”. Also I am waiting on your inclusion of Serbs being a small ruling group as well. Also that they, like Croats, don’t exist as an ethnic group. Go on. Waiting for the neutral edits. Given rhat nowhere did I write Serbs don’t exist in totality as an ethnic group nor that they are small. I wrote of those small Southern Dalmatian states exclusively. Go on. Mean time I will have an admin double check to make sure all is fine. :) OyMosby (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I updated the article per Fine who mentions both Croats AND Serbs as smaller group ruling over larger Slav and Illyrian populations. And that the Term Croatian/Serbian are political terms for those under their rule. Took me a while to find a non locked preview of the book. Good thing I did! You cannot leave out the part about Serbs and only mention this about Croats as a reaction to edits of mine you find personally agribating. Sorry. Nationalist pov edits are no go. Cited sources says same for both. Also FYI. The same goes for every ethnic group or nation in Europe. All these countries became bugger through absorption. Look up any Slavic country and the genetic reports. All show less than half Slavic. Its how countries get big. Empire building. It’s common sense. And I never disagreed with it. Have a nice day. Bye. OyMosby (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine's book is mostly about Croats, and that is what I quoted. You only quoted that Serb didn't necessarily mean ethnicity, while 95% of Fine's book focuses on Croats, and specifically the fact that Croat did not mean ethnicity. It's also non-nationalistic, as opposed to Balkan nationalists who believe the world started with Croat and Serb amoebas. Btw, Morlachs, living in Herzegovina, Lika and the Dalmatian hinterlands, are a good example of a Slavic-speaking group, no-doubt largely decendents of pre-Slav pastoralists, mostly Orthodox, some also Catholics, who only in the 19th century figured out they were Serbs or Croats. They split accordingly, most likely killing each other for the first time in the nationalistic wars of the 20th century, since those were areas of great violence in WWII and the 1990's. In fact Serbs and Croats never fought a war until the 20th century Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * “You only quoted that Serb didn't necessarily mean ethnicity”For the umpteenth time! Only in respect to the Part of Dalmatia in Croatia, states of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunija and Duklja only that you added were all Serb populations. You initiated that. I found on another article a contrary sentence with multiple sources stating that DAI was likely referring to them that way because of Serbia governing those territories. I didn’t Say Serbia the state didn’t exist nor that Serbs is not a true ethnicityZ I was speaking of a specific territory. You were not in regards to Croats. Which shows blatant revenge editing. Nowhere did I say it was all Croatian either. What, you think Illyrians came out of Serb tribes too? It is clear that my edit was very differ from the subject matter to tried to make this all about. Your edits left the section talking a good amount of how Croats don’t really exist as an ethnicity meanwhile the part I put contradicting DAI did NOT deny the existence of Serb identity in the Balkans or even Dalmatia let alone. You seemed totally fine with using DAI to imply central and sourh Dalmatia was only Serb populated and no Croats but as soon as that was challenged it triggered your “updated”? Funny that.


 * I knew your “update” was a happy excuse to promote distorted views not even accurately representing Fines findings. And no amount of word play combined with spamming off topic paragraphs will successfully deter me. And I see this is a recurring issue on other pages. And will potential be met with admin action if continued such as original research which began all of this today.
 * Searching Serbs in his book showed way more pages than just 5% bud. You even said that both Croats and Serbs were small groups that ruled over other Slavs and Illyrians. And you probably regret that now. It is evident you have dislike for one group and a bias towards another. Hell, there were edits about Italian atrocities against Slavs and you put Sloevens while completely ignoring Croat victims that existed as well. I mean really, there is an evident patern here. And I cannot and will not tolerate such nationalist point scoring. Balkan editors doing this anger me greatly. Fine points out both Croats and Serbs assimilated tribes. You cannot write that Croats don’t exist as an ethnicity but that some Serbs did. White Croats and White Serbs were the “Slavic groups” that migrated down. You are twisting semantics to write of one but not the other. That is an issue I have with you write now. Double standards. Fine was writing that many would be Croats weee actually generic Slavs or Illyrians given that assimilated identity. But you cannot then pretend Serbs are completely Serbs. The Same for Croats applies to Serb identity too.
 * Fine said “Croatian” was not ethnicity but popitical identity. Your edit implied Croats as an ethnicity didn’t exist at all. Not what Fine was saying. He said that both Croats and Serbs grew in size as they absorbed other tribes and group. But you seem to only want to write this about Croats and not Serbs. Why? The illusion of this neutral editor image wears away with such behavior l. Sorry man.
 * It weird as at some moments you appear to understand that nationality is a modern construct but then later not so much.
 * I made an edit in response to your original research from a primary source that the inhabitants of those 4 small states in what is now Southern Dalmtia are Serbs. But in the past this DAI has been addressed by multiples secondary sources as meaning Serb rulemover those statesZ notice both Croatia and Serbia are shown as seperate states here from those mini states. There are multiple sources rhat state that not only Serb tribes lived in those micro states but Croats as well. Along with Other Slavs and Illyrians and native European Balkaners. Facts. Where did I say that it was all Croats living in Dalmatia? Nowhere. So enough with the “I only write what you wrote” because that isn’t the case. Nowhere did I state that Serbs in Serbia or anywhere are not a real ethnicity.
 * There is no consensus that Southern Dalmatians are all Serbs. Period.


 * “ Balkan nationalists who believe the world started with Croat and Serb amoebas.” Never came across Croats claiming Croats are the origin of the world or along those lines as close as I have heard Serb nationalists push it. I don't see Croat nationalists try to claim Serbia the eay Serbian nationalists try to claim all of Croatia as “not Croatian but Serbian lands”. Again the amoeba analogy is not remotely honest. That is a flase equivalency. Yea, There are Croatian nationalist chavs that falsely try to claim all of Bosnia and call Bosniaks Croats who converted to Islam or Serbs in Croatia as “Orthodox Vlachs” or some other immoral identity theft on minorities in Croatia which is idiotic as hell and disgusts me. I have seen some IPs try to make such edits on here and I get them banned fast for that shit. But nonstop I am told online how God is a Serb, from Belgrade to Tokyo, and how Croats are Catholic Serbs even using DAI, claims on Dalmatia etc to prove that Croats don’t exist and are just Catholic Serbs and the land all up to the Adriatic Coast belings to Serbs only and Serbia. In the 90s, Karadzic wanted to cleanse Croats from Dubrovnik to “Reclaim the Serb Dubrovnik” based on decrepit interpretations of DAI probably. So you can see why your edits don’t look to great. And grabbed my attention. They travel along those rhetorics. And these selective historical views influence future ultranationalist minds of Greater (Insert country here). The amount of violence the modern Croat and Serb groups unleashed on each other is horrifying. All for nothing but a name. So pardon me if I am especially annoyed by attempts to push past territories as exclusively one ethnic group or tribe when most sources disagree, sir.
 * All countries in Europe are conglomerates. Poland for example is a fusions of multiple ethnic groups. Russia thinks Poles are just Russians. Nope. Russia is a combo of many different tribes as well. Same with France, Germany, Italy. These modern countries are made up of so many mini states and tribes. They jjst got good at assimilation into one larger entity.
 * You are intentionally misusing Fines passages for WP:POINT.
 * states of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunija and Duklja where not fully assimilated as Serb, and to day they are all Serb populations is wrong. As most sources point out. But now suddenly Fine matters when I came in with apposing edits and you only mention what Fine says about Croats. And not just Dalmatia Croats. I spoke of states of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunija and Duklja only. Which were there own states under various governance. They were not part of Serbia or Croatia. So my edit is not at all the same As the edit you made creating this notion that Croatia and Croats are made up. See the map of the Pagania, Zachumalia and etc. Me saying those states were government by Serbia but rhat the population was not all Serbs is very different from you stating that Ceoats in general are not an ethnicity. As I never said that about Serbs. No amount of wordplay will confuse me on that. The subject was who lives in those 4 mini states bordering Croatia and Serbia at the time. You turned it into a totally different matter.
 * You cannot ignore parts of the book you feel are too low percentage. Facts are facts. First time I heard an argument of ratios to leave out the same facts about to different countries but only favor one. If the book was 95% about Serbs, doubt you would use the same excuse. Especially given that Balkan articles have especially strict edit rules due to the high amount of problematic edits on these articles. This discussion is going in circles. Not sure if a language barrier issue or intentionally fogging the conversation. I will not keep repeating myself. Bye. OyMosby (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said I quoted Fine, go argue with him. He has dozens of section headings and none of them mention Serbs, all mention Croats, Slavs, Illyrians. Ante Starcevic, "the father of the Croat nation", claimed that all are Croats, not only Bosnians, but everyone from Triglav (i.e. Slovenia) to Salonika (i.e. the Greek Aegean), He also wrote a book that translates as the "Slavo-Serb dog-breed" (Pasmina Slavo-Serbska) which states that Serbs are the descendents of Turks, Gypsies and Vlachs. Ironically he was half-Serb, his mother coming from an Orthodox family, which shows just how twisted Balkan-nationalisms are. The Ustashe invoked Starcevic when they claimed all of Bosnia, and committed genocides there as well. Thus Balkan-nationalistic excess is pretty widely distributed, and not the exclusive realm of any one Balkan nation. As Fine notes these nationalism arose in the 19th century, same for Italians, whose nationalists claimed the entire Dalmation coast, all the way from Trieste to Albania, plus much of the Mediterranean, just like Croats nationalists claimed all of Bosnia and Vojvodina in today's Serbia, and Serb nationalists claimed a big chunk of Croatia where Serbs lived, plus Bosnia. And it is those types of nationalisms, not only in the Balkans but also elswhere in Europe that brought us two World Wars, plus the post-Yugoslav wars of the 90's, and all that accompanied them Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said you misquoted parts of him and ignored anything he said about SerbsZ Why would I argue with Fines when he confirms what I say also in his book? Like I said, you mis quoted him. Not my issue. You are the one denying his write up on Serbs also being the Same as Croats in terms of identity issues, political identity, small groups that came to the Balkans. Ignore Fines’ inconvenient truths all you want. But that dislike for Croats and bias for Serbs will only fail you in the future. You will see rhat inconvenient truths are better than blissful ignorance. Both Croats and Serbs suffer the same

Identity manifestations. You admitted this way back and then went silent after your reliazed you were confirming my argumentZ ;)I have no qualms with Fines as I was the one who first cited his 1991 book! Which you should also look at. Talks about Serbs as well. Why you want to ignore Fine’s views on Serbs is pretty funny and excepted. Easy to criticize Croat identiry but not others. Ignorance can be bliss I guess. Just because the specific book you chose focused a bit more on Croats doesn’t mean Fines was lying about all the information on countless oages he states about Serbs. Why deny his analysis? Because of a unsuspected surprise eh? ;) Again, he wrote multiple Balkan identity books. So broaden your horizon from books that fit a pov. He said “Croatian” not “Croat” is the political term. And I am not disagreeing with him. He acknowledges that though much smaller than originally thought, both Croats and Serbs started off in the balkans quite smaller but got kore and more influence and power. No idea the ratio but I’m amazed how Croat and Serb travelers from Central Euope managed to govern such size able lands. Fines even mentions that Hungarians at first never heard of “Serbs” but knew of populations that just identified as Slavs. Same with Dalmatian “Croatians”, as the French said that those Dalmatians didn’t really identify as much. They didn’t call Themselves Croats. Identity like with many countries, came with time. Treating Croatia as the only case is ignorant and again telling.Likely many of which migrated in the 6th century. Fines said this. So if you are mad at me, get mad at FinesZ its all in the book your cited. Sorry bud. I am disagreeing with your backtracking. First to claimed both Croat and Serbs were both small groups that assimilated other groups. Now you pretend it isn’t the case. Searching Serbs turns up plenty of pages in the book. Go argue with him for talking about Serbs not me. Also he has multiple book but ignore them if you like. The rest of what you wrote I never disagreed. History has been abused so many times and the expenses of innocent livesZ and it’s why I don’t take this shit lightly such as nationalist pov edits. You misquote Fines. And I would like to know why. You can easily search any term and find it in the book. To ignore it just because of a chapter title is the weakest excuse. You really think Fines didn’t mention Serbs? Not sure I can make you type in the search with your keyboard. Ignore it if you like. But admins watch these pages. And double check edits with the sources. Fines literally on page 9 mentioned Croats and Serbs together in almost every sentence. So it seems it is you that has to take grivemces up with Fines. Me? I quote what Fines actually said. He didn’t say Croat is not an ethnicity. He said Croatia and Croatian are. Nationality is a political identity. He doesn’t deny the existence of Croat ethnicity. He simply says that not all people governed as Croatian were Croats. Makes sense. A Vlach who lives in Croatia is Croatian by nationality but a Vlach by ethnic heritage. You understand know how it works even today? Fines says this. Some assimilated and took on the ethnic identity as well. Like someone who is Half Italian half Hungarian might identity only as Italian. As these are terms made for the “citizen population” in a governed land. I showed you the map even of Croatia and Serbia at the time. Very different shaped states. With very different population self identities. The heads of these states didn’t even care if Illyrians or Southern Slavs identified as what. It was just states with a bunch of random people who slows assimilated to each other. Same as any other European country. Fines talks about this. Why you deny him now? I always tell Balkaners. “You arent pure anything. You are all mixed. No matter how tight you wrap your flags around you. And being Serbian or Serb doesn’t make you any more immune. Starcevic chose to embrace one of his two identities. Many people tend to decide to pick one and compensate hard through hatred. He was a mental mess. Botice how Ustashe, mainoy Ceoats from Bosnia claiming to be the biggest Croats on the Planet. Just like how Serbs outside Serbia are more Serbian than Serbians from Serbian. Serb friend of mine tells me how Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, Slovenes, Albanians, Bukgarians, Wtc all compensate super hard as diaspora. Pathetic. I’m glad In the US where it is more about being yourself than what ethnic identity you have to be. May you find peace. I said all I can of which Fines also said the Same. Your favorite historian. Though now you probably dislike him after I pointed out the rest of what he said. Again, he could mention the word Serb like one time, but if it is when stating both Croats and Serb were small groups that assimilated largwr populations. It’s still a fact. How you cannot understand that is wild. If a book mentions that 2+2=4 but 99% of the book is about Chemistry, is 2+2 not 4 anymore? I’ll consult with other admins in the coming days to see their input on these arbitration rules you have for books. And what we are allowed and not allowed to say from them that the historians say. Weird. May you find peace one day, Mr T. ☮️ OyMosby (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have zero clue what your point is, and what you are endlessly running about here. You were the one who first wrote that Constantine VII writing southern Dalmatian territories were inhabited by Serb, did not imply ethnicity. I cited Fine for the same regarding Croats. Was I supposed to repeat what you had already written about Serbs?Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I simply added the counter to your addition claiming about all people living there being Serbs. Even though later you agree the people their didn’t identify as anything but just slavs or Illyrians. Like be consistent. Else it seems agenda driven only when it benefits a Serb perspective. You cited a primary source but wrote in your own words instead of quoting the scripture. That IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH and I cited secondary that respond to it. Sources that actually analyze the scripture. You are not a historian. And blabbing Fines Fines Fines as if you innocently cited him when realy you misquoted him and also misrepresented what he was referring to. You misbalanced things instead of supposedly balancing. I cannot be more clear. Bit ironic. You are endlessly going on about random factoids about genetics, Starcevic and repeatedly claiming I write the same About Serbs as you about Croats which is not at all true. I just said you keep going on tangents about various new topics. Also my point is once again, you didn’t repeat anything I said. You wrote one thing about Croats and failed to write the same about Serbs. Where did I call Serbs a “small group” and that “Serbs” is not a real ethnicity? You would not be repeating that as I never wrote that. Please srop accusing me of writing things I did not write. You keep ignoring that point in my replies. What you should do is not have a double standard and write about Serbs what you write about Croats given they are the same circumstance of small tribes ruling over larger populations. You misquoted a few words of Fine. You can keep ignoring that but it won’t change anything. So no, i didn’t “already write” anything comparable to what you wrote. False premise. Again. Also you didn’t properly cite Fine who was not even talking about the dame subject matter of Constantine VIJ writings. So you are using misrepresenting Fines on a subject Fines wasn’t referring to. And that is dishonest. That is the issue. That and original research of primary sources. Your argument of “you did it so I did it too” is nonsense when I didn’t write what you claim in the first place.Let the admins figure it out. They can see though the clutter and notice when one is trying to wiggle in pov via cherry picking source quotes. I am not continuing kn this conversation in which you also are rambling in. Bye. I’m not going to keep explaining again what the issue is when you refuse to acknowledge. I am better off reasoning with a brick wall. You probably feel the same. I notice this isn’t the first talk page where there was such long winded empty conversation. I should have kept that in mind and saved my time here. Haha. Evidently you don’t understand what I am saying to you. And I don’t underyour points or logic in your long winded posts about genetics and other random subjects. So this conversation is pointless. We are speaking on two different frequencies apparently. My edit made it at least fairly neutral and True to Fines’ views on BOTH Croats and Serbs. Which you originaly admitted but now ignore for a reason of inconvenience. Thing is what you accept Fines writes about Croats, you must also resoect what he writes about Serbs. And also resoect the context in which he writes and not isilate his points to form into your pov. Again he was not speaking in context of Croatia rulimg kver another territory. My included sentences was about those 4 mini states. Bot any of the other states ruped by Serbia. And that is the last time i am explaining that again. Also fui, I don’t label you a “Serbian editor”. I don’t care who or what you are. I judge people by their actions, character, behavior, etc. OyMosby (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Why this article even has "Ancient times" section? What the f* have mid-20th century Foibe massacres to do with out-of-WP:SCOPE 7-10th century historical sources and events? Why is disruptively used only one source even to describe those sources and events? Serbian editor Thhhommmasss mentions dialects, genetics...?!?! Did this summer's Sun hit somebody in the head?! --Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Filigranski. First of all I am not Serb, and if you think calling someone a Serb is an insult, your fellow Serb nationalist think calling people a Croat is an insult. Second the entire history was brought in originally by someone with obviously an Italian nationalist perspective, originally claiming that even Illyrians were supposedly Italic peoples, and with huge maps showing of how Dalmatia was all Venetian, i.e. Italian territory, which means it is even Italian today, when in fact Italian-speakers were a minority in Dalmatia since around the 8th century, and even before and after that Latin and Italian speakers were mostly Latinized Balkan-old settlers, not Romans or Italians. So it is a case of promoting nationalist myths. Btw, I am going to propose on Meta that anyone calling people Serbs, Croats, Italians or whatever as an insult be permanently banned from Wikipedia, Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone. We don’t know who anyone is. It is not proper to assume people’s ethnic backgrounds. It isirrelevant. And not the right way to figure this all out. Let’s keep it to the subject matter as it will only further cloud the conversation. Point though is original research of DAI seems problematic. I don’t know what is the official rules on such things. As I know I was told in the past that primary sources are an issue to use. That is why I included secondary sources of historians assessing the Constantine scriptures that were translated. However some interpreted that as a attack on Serb identity for some ridiculous reason. But I’m not going into the above marathon again. Look. Translations themselves can introduce artifacts. Hence the problem with primary sources and Wikipedia editors making their own personal interpretation of what was meant by the scripts. Paraphrasing and not even putting in quotes not even. OyMosby (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One of Fine's central points is that secondary sources - he mentions Croatian historians specifically - often write from a nationalistic perspective, and thus present biased views of ethnogenisis. Same is true for Serbian historians, same for Italian. One example is Croatian historians writing volumes to dispute Constantine VII on supposed Serb ethnictiy of coastal prinicipalities, while ignoring facts Fine brings up, that exact same can be said of Croat ethnicity at the time. I'm sure there are Serb historians who make the exact opposite, biased arguments regarding Serb and Croat ethnicities, just like they deny Croat identity of Dubrovnik residents, claim they were Serbs, while ignoring that for the most part Dubrovnik resident did not identify as Serbs either, but mostly as Dalmatians, Slavs and Illyrians. Same for Italian historians trying to claim Italian heritage for Latin speakers in Dalmatia, when first of all they did not initially speak Italian, but instead spoke Dalmatian, a Latin-vulgar language, like French or Romanian. In fact many, likely most, were Latinized Illyrians, Slavs or whatever, and cities like Zadar and Dubrovnik fought Venetian encroachment mightily. Dubrovnik - where first Latin was the official language, then local-Latin Ragusan - even gave a strip of land to the Ottomans, so they would have a buffer between Dubrovnik and Venetian lands (this today is Bosnia's exit to the sea). Even in the 19th century, as ethnic nationalisms emerged, and Italian nationalists were claiming the whole eastern Adriatic coast, from Trieste to Albania, there were those among Latin- or Italian-speakers in Dalmatia who explicitly stated they did not want to be part of Italy, while others recognized that the vast majority of the people in Dalmatia were not of Italian heritage, etc. All this indicates that history and identity where much more complicated than nationalists on all side try to present it. Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine literally is a secondary source. It’s why I cited him in the first place. If you search in his book “Croatian” it comes up 100 times in inquiries and “Serbian” comes up 94 times. He talks about both. But you only talk of his mentions only about Croatians or Croats. See my issue with your behavior? I cited other non-Balkan secondary sources as well. Not sure you point here. I am not disagreeing with any of the rest that you wrote. No. I know that many populations did not adhere to Croat or Serb or Italian identities. In Fines book he criticized Serb historians as writing from nationalist view points. He didn’t say “Croatians Historians specifically”. He said the same of both Croatian and Serbian historians. Why do you keep leaving out his criticism of Serb related matters? Its in that very book! Enough. you are once again pushing a pov ignoring the rest of Fine’s writings and misrepresenting his writings. Which I am not sure why you left that part of Fines’ claim as well. It’s literally in the book of his you cited… You are coming across very passive agressive by doing this. It’s noticed. We can move past the already. Not at all what I have been talking about this whole time. And again, not gonna repeat myself. So again we can move on from that stale point. And we don’t need to start writing mass passages about Adriatic coast, Alabania, etc. let’s stay on topic please as it will keep things simpler. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will repeat what I said before: ":I have zero clue what your point is, and what you are endlessly running about here. You were the one who first wrote that Constantine VII writing southern Dalmatian territories were inhabited by Serb, did not imply ethnicity. I cited Fine for the same regarding Croats. Was I supposed to repeat what you had already written about Serbs? Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thhhommmmasss, ehat donyou want from me??? As I have said to you before from the beginning (before you repeated the same after me), I OyMosby have zero clue what YOUR point is, Thhhommmass and what YOU are endlessly running about here. Your replies constantly don’t relate to mine. I don’t know how to respond to you really. I feel as if you are messing with me here. Can we stop beating a dead horse? What are you on about? First you go on about Alabania and other topics like Starcevic and then you say I am going off about things? Lol. Please stop reapting the same comments that adress nothing I write. That is just brick walling at this point. I don’t understand YOUR point. You are arguing with me about things I am not even argue and ignoring me calling you out on being selective in what you chose to cite from Fines. You keep telling me that Dalmatians have their own identity yet I keep telling you I agree with you. Simple. You initiated  the edit staying Dalmatians are of Serb inhabitants. You began this journey. Let’s get that straight. Not I. I simply applied the same contrary sentence used in other articles related to DAI. I did not write that Serbs are not an ethnicity in general nor small. Anyway, enough with beating a dead hourse.  What are your thoughts on the other user’s points about Wikipedia scope issues due to the context of 20nth century events the artixl is about vs a section on ancient times? OyMosby (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also please note. I will not respond to you anymore if you keep spamming ( WP:STONEWALLING and [|WP:FILIBUSTERS] repeat old replies and writing paragraphs about random factoids about Croatians/Serbian nationalism, random factoids about religion and Illyrians, random examples of genetic and linguistic studies all unrelated to what I write or points I made while pretending you don’t know what I am talking about in order to dodge my specific questions. It is doing my head in and wasting time and beyond frustrating. As I said, move on. Let us move on to discuss the potential issue of Out of Scope. What are your thoughts on the other user’s points about Wikipedia scope issues due to the context of 20nth century events the artixl is about vs a section on ancient times? OyMosby (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I cited Constantine VII, saying this is what he said. WP specifically states that reputably published primary sources can be cited, and in fact can be valuable, when used to make straightforward, descriptive statements. Here is what I wrote: "In 951 the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII described Dalmatia as consisting entirly of Slavic lands, with the Kingdom of Croatia in northern Dalmatia, and the South Slavic states of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunija and Duklja occupying southern Dalmatia, whom he described as Serbs." What in that statement violates WP rules, and why did you delete it? Then you added citations about Serb ethnicity, and I cited Fine stating same about Croat ethnicity, and since they you've written thousands of words, regarding I do not know what, and then you claim other people are spamming on top of it all 22:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you've written thousands of words yourself as well so enough with the moot points. I wrote a lot yes, but at least it was consistent about a specific issue, not random stories that distract the conversation. The other user deleted the section and cited WP Scope as the violation. I added other citations about the ethnicity of those 4 micro states not Serb ethnicity in general after your sentence stating they were all Serbs. I didn’t delete it otherwise I wouldn’t have added the contrary sentence without your pretense addition. You may be confusing me with the other user. Also wrong: You literally wrote thousands of words many of which weren’t even on topic. Only you decided to bring up genetics, Starcevic, amoebas, Albania, Random Ilyrian Sub grouops and how their languages changed. I didn’t bring all that up. I wrote a lot, but it was all about citiation and selective incorporation issues. OyMosby (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true, here is the diff with your undo. And I didn't say anything, I just stated what Constantine VII stated, and made that clear Thhhommmasss (talk)
 * I thought you meant today’s deletion as you have not brought it up since Inlast explained my reason. I deleted it before as it had no citation. My diff literally explains “ Got a source for the claim that Slavs of Dalmatia were referred to as only Serbs?)” I explained this before so I don’t understand why this is being talked about again? You restored it and added a citation and I didn’t remove it a second time. So what is your point?????????????? What in earth do you want about it and why is this problem now? See what I mean about you keep rehashing the same replies beating a horse to death yet claim I am doing that?. What more do you want? Argue for the sale of arguing? You still haven’t answered (4th time) What are your thoughts on the ‘s points about Wikipedia scope issues due to the context of 20nth century events the article is about vs a section on ancient times? OyMosby (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So you beating a horse to death with thousands of words isn't beating a horse to death? My view is that much of the history should go into a separate article, and that Background should start with WWI and its aftermath, since that had a direct impact on what followed. I think I wrote something like that long time ago. Going back to Roman or Venetian times is done to make nationalistic, irredentist claims for a Greater Italy, same as Croat and Serb nationalist make claims of a Greater Serbia or Greater Croatia, to include Kosovo or Bosnia. Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But I’m not repeating the same Things. You claim you don’t know what points I am making but then say I am repeating the same old points???. Wrong premise. You kept repeating the same answer (with random Historical factoids thrown in) that didn’t at all address what I wrote. I could write “It is sunny in Spain today” and you would reply about “Fine Fine Fine and about genetic mapping of Bosnia” Funny, when I criticized your large texts you then started doing it to me which is silly tit for tat stuff. I eventually gave up and wanted to move on and you did not. I didn’t want to ignore your reply and make you think I was ignoring you so I kept going hoping we would come to a conclusion. Please, can we drop this matter for the love of god, as it is again irrelevant for this talk page. It’s silly to fixate on. I admit I write a lot. But I felt I was pretty on topic. Perhaps we can chalk it up to both of us not understanding each other. Let us both try to keep our responses shorter and concise from now on to keep things simple. And I keep trying to move the conversation on. It took me 4 tries to finally get you to start answering about the Scope issue. And thank the Lord you finally began addressing it. Haha. Miki made the observations today. So I am not sure what past conversations you had about the scope. However I agree. WWI is good to start with and simplifies things. The focus is the Foibe Massacres. And I agree with you that I do not understand the exodus claim. In fact the info box has “ethnic cleansing” in it? OyMosby (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My points were in response to claims of ethnicity, and the fact that some historians apply these principles very selectively, plus the fact that as Fine and others point out, ethnicity has been a very complex issue, not at all like nationalists on all sides try to present it. And it is the latter nationalistic interpretations that led to the bloody nationalistic wars of the 20th century, and everything that followed. Same with selective interpretations and distortions of history. This article was originally a prime example of that, going back to Roman and Venetian times, plus extensive quotes of Austro-Hungarian, supposedly anti-Italian attitudes, yet without mentioning WWII even once. I believe some context is needed, but going back to Roman times, or the arrival of the Croats in the 7th century, or the battle o Kosovo field, as Serb, Croat and Italian nationalist love to do, is unnecessary. Regarding ethnic cleansing, historians dispute that and it should not be in info box Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those specific points I do not have issue with. I always agreed with the problems of imposing modern ethnicity on 1,000 year old societies. I want to be clear. I was talking about another matter I was raising issues with during our back and forth the whole discussion. Probably miscommunication. Now worries about that. It is past and not related to the situation of the article anymore. Moving on. Yes I was confused with the dispute thing as I thought only consensus reached topics should be in the box. It seemed weird. And the title for the Exodus of Dalmatia was also defined as “expulsion” yet wouldn’t that have been the title then? It is hard to tell how much is it the politicization of victims and how much is legitimate. Like with any of these crimes in Europe’s history. I am not well read on the Foibe Massacres but I have seen it be a very sensitive topic amongst some Italians when editing. I just want these articles to be neutral. Like the Encyclopedia Brittanica. OyMosby (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This article initially had many parallels with Balkan nationalistic narratives, both Serb and Croat, which focus on victimhood. In fact multiple historians have stated that they seek to present themselves as “the Jews”, i.e. the ultimate victims, and they say this for Serb, Croat and Italian nationalists. Of course, they have all indeed been victims, to greater or lesser extents, at different times. But as Italian historians have also noted, you cannot look at the foibe issue without the broader context of what happened during before and during WWII. And that was totally lacking in the article, just as for example in Croatian rightwing narratives of WWII, history starts in May 1945, with the mass killings of Croat and other captured quisling troops, while supposedly nothing worth mentioning happened prior to May 1945. This does not mean one crime justifies the other, but on the other hand it makes no sense to present history as if Yugoslav troops one day just decided to kill certain Croats, Serbs, Italians, etc. This goes to point of distorted and selective histories, including distortions that go back centuries.

I’d add nationalistic maps to this category, like maps of Greater Serbia and Greater Croatia, and the big map of Venetian holdings in the 1400’s, in this article on post-WWII. How about a big map across the entire page showing Austria-Hungary with Trentino-Alto Adige as part of Austria, in an article about post-WWII Italy - would that be appropriate? When does information become POV-distortion, even propaganda? I think the facts of what happened should and need to be presented, but building irredentist narratives going back to the Romans, for Dalmatia where Latin-speakers have been a minority for at least a millennium, and in 1918 amounted to 1% of the populace, is not NPOV. Similarly using terms like ethnic cleansing in the infobox, for which there is no consensus, plus democide (in the Istrian-Dalmatian Exodus article), a term coined by one controversial political scientist, is questionable. At the very least the term democide can then also be applied, even more appropriately, to what the Italians did during the occupation of Yugoslavia, Greece, Ethiopia, etc, i.e. in the case of Yugoslavia executing thousands of civilians as hostages, with thousands more Yugoslav civilians, including women and children dying in Italian concentration camps Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss @OyMosby, just an advice, please be concise and stick to the point on edit changes and other, and finish this discussion. It became WP:TEXTWALL, nobody will read it as almost all of 83,000+ bytes go only on it while "The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Serenissima.svg

Question of ethnic cleansing
Older versions of the article stated in the introduction that it is disputed whether or not the killings constituted an ethnic cleansing. Since November 5th 2022, however, the sentence reads "The type of attack was state terrorism, reprisal killings, and ethnic cleansing against Italians." Same claim is also made in the infobox, as if this were an undisputed fact. But this is contradictory to how the article itself then treats it. The rest of the article repeatedly cites historians, such as Pupo and Pirjevec, who dispute this view, and also quotes a whole paragraph from the report by the Italian-Slovenian historical commission that describes the events as part reprisals against fascists and part political purges, but not as ethnicly motivated. There is a section titled "Alleged motives", not simply "Motives", again treating the motives for the killings as not yet completely objectively established. There is, however, one paragraph from which it can nonetheless be understood, that while some people were killed as fascists or anti-communists, some people were killed simply as Italians (and this is presented as objective fact and not as just somebody's statement, like Napolitano's further down): "The foibe massacres were state terrorism, reprisal killings, and ethnic cleansing against Italians. The foibe massacres were mainly committed by Yugoslav Partisans and OZNA against the local ethnic Italian population (Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians), as well against anti-communists in general (even Croats and Slovenes), usually associated with Fascism, Nazism and collaboration with Axis, and against real, potential or presumed opponents of Tito communism." All this makes the article self-contradictory. Either it should not say anywhere that the massacres were ethnic cleansing without at least prefixing it with some word like "allegedly", or it should have a section called "Genocide denial" and only present Raoul Pupo's views there. I think the article should clearly state, as it previously has, that ethnic cleansing is disputed, because there clearly are different views on this, and Pupo and others are presenting perfectly legitimate arguments for their case. Perhaps the Alleged motives section should also be expanded with more detailed description of what the actual arguments for each interpretation are. 84.255.245.95 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. At most what we can say is that the motivations are disputed, with some claiming this was ethnic cleansing (with sources cited), while other state it was reprisals against occupying forces (again with sources cited), etc. It should be noted that much of the Italina exodus happened years after the war, while the massacres ended in May and June of 1945. And unlike the expulsion of the Germans, where German civilians in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere were indiscriminately rounded up and forcefully expelled, with tens-of-thousands killed or dying in concentration camps, this did not happen to Italians in former Yugoslavia. Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I restored the previous version as there doesn’t seem to be a consensus remving the disputed part. Thoughts? Unless new findings gind that it was without a doubt ethnic cleansing by goal. I know recently it has been a heated controversial topic in politics as of late. OyMosby (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There are literally 5 different references, written by academics from all over the world, and all of them call it ethnic cleansing against Italians. Stop making up things without any source backing you. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you specifically attacking me personally here and in the article edit diff summary when this was a disputed claim and multiple users brought it up? The “Disputed” part has been in the article for years long standing, I returned it after your unexplained edit removed it. It was not my personal introduction to the article. Please do not make claims that I “made it up” or added it as new. I simply reverted and came here to discuss further. Such attacks don’t go unnoticed per Wikipedia guidlines. As well as assuming bad faith. The other users such as stated there are sources disputing the claim of ethnic cleansing. You cannot ignore sources that are inconvenient or dislike. Consensus is needed. As I said I don’t have an issue either way so long the their is a consensus in the sources. Pinging  who has contributed before here and has experience with this era, maybe can offer some inpute on best course to proceed? OyMosby (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Further referenced answers at. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

False claim
The intro states that victims included: "ethnic Slovenes, Croats and Istro-Romanians who chose to maintain Italian citizenship". All Slovenes, Croats and others under Italian fascist rule were citizens of Italy, since Italy took over these areas following WWI, and were subjected to forced Italianization, so no one "chose to maintain Italian citizenship" in 1945, hence the claim is simply false. As Pupo notes, the tragets were not Italians for being Italian citizens, but mostly members of fascist forces, collaborators, etc., including Slavs. In fact many more Slovene, Croat, Serb and other collaborationists were killed elsewhere in Yugoslavia, than Italian citizens. And many Italian citizens, Slavs and Italians, in Istria, Slovene Primorska, Italian annexed Ljubjana Province joined the partisans Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pupo is not God. The statement you call "false" is supported by the attached sources, so you should stop making things up, genocide deniers. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I quoted reliable sources. The official Italian-Slovene government commission makes no reference to genocide, nor ethnic cleansing, and notes that most of the exodus occurred after 1950. Italian forces killed probably around 60.000 Yugoslavs, in their aggression with their Nazi allies, in Italian concentration camps where tens-of-thousands of civilians were herded, in mass shootings of hostages, etc. So according to you that was a much bigger genocide. This article used to be extremely biased and one-sided, thoroughly violating NPOV. For example, on the historical background it went extensively all the way back to Roman times (why not go back to the Big Bang?), to make irredentist, imperialist "Mare nostrum" type claims how all this is Italian, yet the fascist interwar period and WWII did not exist at all, and suddenly history resumed in May 1945, and something starts happening out of nowhere.


 * Rome, the Venetian Empire and Austri-Hungary have practically nothing to do with these events, but WWI, the interwar period and WWII certainly do, and all those huge maps of the Venetian Empire, whose sole purpose seems to be to make claims that everything from Istria and Dalmatia, to Albania and Greece is still Italian, plus similar stuff, needs to be deleted, with perhaps a link to the history of Dalmatia Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the part you're contexting: The foibe massacres [...] refers to mass killings [...] against the local ethnic Italian population (Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians), as well the ethnic Slovenes, Croats and Istro-Romanians who chose to maintain Italian citizenship, against all anti-communists, associated with fascism, Nazism, and collaboration with the Axis powers, and against real, potential or presumed opponents of Titoism. The type of attack was state terrorism, reprisal killings and ethnic cleansing against Italians. The Yugoslav partisans intended to kill whoever could oppose or compromise the future annexation of Italian territories: as a preventive purge of real, potential or presumed opponents of Titoism (Italian, Slovenian and Croatian anti-communists, collaborators, and radical nationalists), the Yugoslav partisans exterminated the native anti-fascist autonomists — including the leadership of Italian anti-fascist partisan organizations and the leaders of Fiume's Autonomist Party, like Mario Blasich and Nevio Skull, who supported local independence from both Italy and Yugoslavia — for example in the city of Fiume, where at least 650 were killed after the entry of the Yugoslav units, without any due trial. As you can see, there are references for every statement. What's the issue here? A single Italo-Slovene cultural (not juridical) commission not explicitly stating nor denying it doesn't delete all the other academics who stated it explicitly. Your daydream about "Mare nostrum" is totally inappropriate. No word has ever been said to deny the Italian Fascist barbarity, but a barbarity in a certain direction doesn't cover an equal barbarity in the opposite direction. Both are true, both happened, and that's why there are two big sections on further § Investigations and § Alleged motives. Fascist barbarity is a historical fact, like the partly coexisting anti-Italian barbarities (not just anti-fascist, as shown massacring the Italian anti-fascist partisan organizations). History is a documented fact. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The Italian-Slovene commission included 8 historians, 4 from each side, with the 4 Italian ones appointed by the Italian government, so it is completely false to say these carried no authority on the matter. I've also seen Italian articles that list Pupo specifically as the leading authority on the matter. I am certain I can find more Italian historians who do not call this ethnic cleansing, nor genocide, plus many more Slovene, Croatian and others. So clearly there is no consensus on this issue, and it is against WP rules to make such claims in the name of WP. Second, we're not talking about "equal barbarities" but much greater barbarities perpetrated by Italian fascists when they attacked Yugoslavia with their Nazi allies, invading Yugoslavia, grabbing big chunks of territory and annexing it to Italy, killed tens of thousands of Slavs, sent tens-of-thousands more civilians, women and children to concentration camps - i.e. killed and put in concentration camps all Slavs who dared oppose the Italian aggression and occupation. Per you and authors you quote, this is even greater genocide.


 * Third, I've seen absolutely zero evidence that Italians were expelled from Yugoslavia. Sources state the exodus happened mostly in the 50's, years after the postwar retributions, unlike for example the of Czechoslovakia, which suffered much less in the war than Yugoslavia, yet 3 million Germans were forcefully expelled by decrees of the rightwing Benes government, with tens-of-thousands killed. By contrast, sources state that following the retributions, the Yugoslav government first pursued a "Slav-Italian brotherhood" policy. Later tensions mounted because of the Informbiro split and disputes over the border, which included the 1953 fascist rioting in Trieste, with 3 Italian policemen plus 7 rioters killed (the only killings I'm aware of after 1945), Allied machine-guns on the streets, plus Italian government threats to invade Allied-administered "A Zone", leading to massive military mobilization on both sides, hardly conducive to good relations. Unlike Germans in central and eastern Europe, Italian-speakers were not rounded up and were not expelled, instead the 1954 Treaty signed between Italy and Yugoslavia gave them a right to opt for Italy, and historians state the fact this was time-limited also hastened the exodus. There was no forced "Slavicization" as there was forced "Italianization" during 23 years of fascist rule, when 100.000 Slavs fled, or per you, were ethnically-cleansed. Among other reasons for leaving, authors list propaganda coming from Italian sources to get them to leave and promises that they would be compensated by the Italian government for any abandoned property (at the time no foreigners could own any property in Yugoslavia, regardless of ethnicity).


 * So sources give many reasons for the departure. Yes, crimes were committed in extra-judicial postwar retributions in May-June 1945, as Pupo states, mostly against members and supporters of the fascist regime, yet many less than the number of Italians killed by Italian partisans postwar, many less than Slav quislings killed by Yugoslav partisans. But to ignore what precipitated that, and try to falsely present the Italian side as the primary victims, is same as trying to make Germans the main victims of WWII. In response to Italian media articles that showed this photo of fascist Italian soldiers executing Slovene civilians and falsely claimed that this was an illustration of Slav "foibe crimes", one author wrote the following, similar to what others have also written: "This is the result of a long-term process of abusing historical actions and related systemic manipulations with parallel amnesia or denial of the crimes of fascism (in Abyssinia, Libya, the Soviet Union, the Balkans, also over the Slovenian population). The purpose of such actions, which otherwise is most clearly reflected in the exaggeration of the number of victims of massacres and deportations. In this case the Slovenes or the broader Slavs are depicted as a genocidal nation, and the Italians as victims of the so-called Slavocommunism" . I'll dig up the references, but others have also written, that unlike Germany, Italy has never adequately reckoned with its fascist past, and the one-sided emphasis on Italian victimhood, falsely elevating the foibe to the greatest crime, is part of that (don't have the exact numbers, but dozens were tried in Italy for postwar retribution killings in Trieste and surroundings, all of them Italian citizens, but absolutely no fascist military leaders were tried for much greater crimes perpetrated in Yugoslavia, Greece, Ethiopia, etc.)Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please ensure your signature is dated stamped? Thanks. This is not how we operate on en WP. We do not choose one or a group of reliable sources because we think what they say is more accurate. We compare and contrast reliable sources IN the article. So, we say things like "According to X, Y and Z, the killings comprised, to some extent, ethnic cleansing. In contrast, A, B and C assert that they were mainly carried out as revenge against anti-communists." or whatever reflects what the reliable sources say. If a view on the killings was truly fringe when examined in the context of the range of academic perspectives, we might or might not mention it, while saying that it is not a widely-held view in the scholarship. If the discussion of motives is complex, examine it in a section of the article and just link to that section from the infobox rather than trying to summarise the various views in one-liners there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that is why such things in intro paragraph need to mention that some claim this, others state that, instead of claiming, as it does now: "The type of attack was state terrorism, reprisal killings and ethnic cleansing against Italians". Other than reprisal killings, I do not see any consensus on this. However, I do not see how all the non-consensus views can be listed in the infobox, since there are a host of interpretations. At least a further 5 descriptions could be added under Attack Type in infobox, with citations of historians, certainly very different than claims of ethnic cleansing. Expulsions of Germans article does not put such claims in infobox, instead they are discussed in rhe article. Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)



Report of the Italian-Slovene historical-cultural commission (in three languages):

Sections need to be removed
The historical background sections from Rome to Austrian Empire needs to be taken out. This is already covered in the Dalmatia article, and link can be provided. The Expulsion of Germans article should be used as an example, where the entire pre-WWI history is summarized in one paragraph, while considerably more space is given to the interwar period, and WWII. Also same as in that article and practically every other Wikipedia article, the Background section needs to go upfront to provide context, which is indeed the purpose of such sections Thhhommmasss (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start editing the article as described above, so that it starts resembling standard Wikipedia articles, instead of the non-confroming, disorganized mess it still is. For the time being, I will park copies of the full current background historical sections, up to WWI, in the Talk section, so if anything of this is missing in the Dalmatia article, it can be added there Thhhommmasss (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When making changes, you need to provide sources for new edits and content. Also when changing the wording of what was there. I believe had brought this up about sourcing. For example when in the WWI section regarding 1920’s violence in Dalmatia toward Italians, you changed “by Slovene and Croat nationalists” to just “Croat nationalists” with out verification of a source. I would think it is meant that both in Istria and Dalmatia Slovene and Croat nationalists had enacted violence towards Italians as Italians did so to Slovenes and Croats. I am also curious the impact on and from Serb populations. Did they also partake against Italians/victim of Italian actions?  I placed a citation needed tag as a cited source is needed to verify. I came across this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/abs/carabinieri-stood-by-the-italian-state-and-the-slavic-threat-in-19191922/FEE9517940EB1EC16DCFB4F400491892 Regardless, why remove Slovenes nationalists? Also you removed ethnic cleansing from the info box however the intro still lists it with multiple citations. That’s conflicting. OyMosby (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Early history
Via conquests, the Republic of Venice, between the 9th century and 1797, extended its dominion to coastal parts of Istria and Dalmatia. Thus Venice invaded and attacked Zadar multiple times, especially devastating the city in 1202 when Venice used the crusaders, on their Fourth Crusade, to lay siege, then ransack, demolish and rob the city, the population fleeing into countryside. Pope Innocent III excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders for attacking a Catholic city. The Venetians used the same Crusade to attack the Dubrovnik Republic, and force it to pay tribute, then continued to sack Christian Orthodox Constantinople where they looted, terrorized, and vandalized the city, killing 2.000 civilians, raping nuns and destroying Christian Churches, with Venice receiving a big portion of the plundered treasures. The coastal areas and cities of Istria came under Venetian Influence in the 9th century. In 1145, the cities of Pula, Koper and Izola rose against the Republic of Venice but were defeated, and were since further controlled by Venice. On 15 February 1267, Poreč was formally incorporated with the Venetian state. Other coastal towns followed shortly thereafter. The Republic of Venice gradually dominated the whole coastal area of western Istria and the area to Plomin on the eastern part of the peninsula. Dalmatia was first and finally sold to the Republic of Venice in 1409 but Venetian Dalmatia wasn't fully consolidated from 1420.

From the Early Middle Ages onwards numbers of Slavic people near and on the Adriatic coast were ever increasing, due to their expanding population and due to pressure from the Ottomans pushing them from the south and east. This led to Italic people becoming ever more confined to urban areas, while the countryside was populated by Slavs, with certain isolated exceptions. In particular, the population was divided into urban-coastal communities (mainly Romance speakers) and rural communities (mainly Slavic speakers), with small minorities of Morlachs and Istro-Romanians.

Republic of Venice influenced the neolatins of Istria and Dalmatia until 1797, when it was conquered by Napoleon: Koper and Pula were important centers of art and culture during the Italian Renaissance. From the Middle Ages to the 19th century, Italian and Slavic communities in Istria and Dalmatia had lived peacefully side by side because they did not know the national identification, given that they generically defined themselves as "Istrians" and "Dalmatians", of "Romance" or "Slavic" culture.

Austrian Empire
The French victory of 1809 compelled Austria to cede a portion of its South Slav lands to France, Napoleon combined Carniola, western Carinthia, Gorica (Gorizia), Istria, and parts of Croatia, Dalmatia, and Dubrovnik to form the Illyrian Provinces. The Code Napoléon was introduced, and roads and schools were constructed. Local citizens were given administrative posts, and native languages were used to conduct official business. This sparked the Illyrian Movement for the cultural and linguistic unification of South Slavic lands.

After the fall of Napoleon (1814), Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia were annexed to the Austrian Empire. Many Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians looked with sympathy towards the Risorgimento movement that fought for the unification of Italy. However, after the Third Italian War of Independence (1866), when the Veneto and Friuli regions were ceded by the Austrians to the newly formed Kingdom Italy, Istria and Dalmatia remained part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, together with other Italian-speaking areas on the eastern Adriatic. This triggered the gradual rise of Italian irredentism among many Italians in Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia, who demanded the unification of the Julian March, Kvarner and Dalmatia with Italy. The Italians in Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia supported the Italian Risorgimento: as a consequence, the Austrians saw the Italians as enemies and favored the Slav communities of Istria, Kvarner and Dalmatia, During the meeting of the Council of Ministers of 12 November 1866, Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria outlined a wide-ranging project aimed at the Germanization or Slavization of the areas of the empire with an Italian presence:

"Her Majesty expressed the precise order that action be taken decisively against the influence of the Italian elements still present in some regions of the Crown and, appropriately occupying the posts of public, judicial, masters employees as well as with the influence of the press, work in South Tyrol, Dalmatia and Littoral for the Germanization and Slavization of these territories according to the circumstances, with energy and without any regard. His Majesty calls the central offices to the strong duty to proceed in this way to what has been established."

Istrian Italians were more than 50% of the total population for centuries, while making up about a third of the population in 1900. Dalmatia, especially its maritime cities, once had a substantial local ethnic Italian population (Dalmatian Italians), making up 33% of the total population of Dalmatia in 1803, but this was reduced to 20% in 1816. In the 1910 Austro-Hungarian census, Istria had a population of 57.8% Slavic-speakers (Croat and Slovene), and 38.1% Italian speakers. For the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia, (i.e. Dalmatia), the 1910 numbers were 96.2% Slavic speakers and 2.8% Italian speakers, compared to 12.5% Italian speakers in the first Austro-Hungarian census of 1865. Many of these Italian speakers were local Slavs who became Italianized due to Italian long being the only official language, and later returned to Slavic languages. In 1909 the Italian language lost its status as the official language of Dalmatia in favor of Croatian only (previously both languages were recognized): thus Italian could no longer be used in the public and administrative sphere.

Historians note that while Slavs made up 80-95% of the Dalmatia populace, only Italian language schools existed until 1848, and due to restrictive voting laws, which allowed only wealthy property owners to vote, the Italian-speaking aristocratic minority retained political control of Dalmatia. They fought to keep Italian as the only official language, and opposed granting official languages rights to the Croatian language, spoken by the great majority of inhabitants. Only after Austria liberalized elections in 1870, allowing more majority Slavs to vote, did Croatian parties gain control. Croatian finally became an official language in Dalmatia in 1883, along with Italian. Yet minority Italian-speakers continued to wield strong influence, since Austria favored Italians for government work, thus in the Austrian capital of Dalmatia, Zara, the proportion of Italians continued to grow, making it the only Dalmatian city with an Italian majority.

When Italy took over the Veneto region, it sought to repress the language of the local Slovene minority. In 1911, complaining of local Italian efforts to falsely count Slovenes as Italians, the Trieste Slovene newspaper Edinost wrote: “We are here, we want to stay here and enjoy our rights! We throw the ruling clique the glove a duel, and we will not give up until artificial Trieste Italianism is crushed in dust, lying under our feet.” Due to these complaints, Austria carried a census recount, and the number of Slovenes increased by 50-60% in Trieste and Gorizia, proving Slovenes were initially falsely counted as Italians.

After World War I
Although a member of the Central Powers, Italy remained neutral at the start of WWI, and soon launched secret negotiations with the Triple Entente, bargaining to participate in the war on its side, in exchange for significant territorial gains. To get Italy to join the war, in the secret 1915 Treaty of London the Entente promised Italy Istria and parts of Dalmatia, German-speaking South Tyrol, the Greek Dodecanese Islands, parts of Albania and Turkey, plus more territory for Italy's North Africa colonies.

After World War I, the whole of the former Austrian Julian March, including Istria, and Zadar in Dalmatia were annexed by Italy, while Dalmatia (except Zadar) was annexed by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Contrary to the Treaty of London, in 1919 Gabrielle D’Annunzio led an army of 2,600 Italian war veterans to seize the city of Fiume (Rijeka). D’Annunzio created the Italian Regency of Carnaro, with him as its dictator, or Comandante, and a constitution foreshadowing the Fascist system. After D’Annuzio's removal, Fiume briefly become a Free State, but local Fascists in 1922 carried out a coup, and in 1924 Italy annexed Fiume.

As a result, 480,000 Slavic-speakers came under Italian rule, while 12,000 Italian speakers were left in Yugoslavia, mostly in Dalmatia. Italy began a policy of forced Italianization. which intensified under Fascist rule from 1922 to 1943. Italy forbade Slavic languages in public institutions and schools, moved 500 Slovene teachers to the interior of Italy, replacing them with Italian ones. All Slavic newspapers and publications were banned, while Slavic libraries were closed. The Italian government forcefully changed people’s names to Italian ones. All Slavic cultural, sporting, professional, business and political associations were likewise banned; minorities in Italy were left without any representation. Slavs were restricted from public sector empolyment. As a result, 100,000 Slavic speakers left Italian-annexed areas in an exodus, moving mostly to Yugoslavia. In Fiume alone, the Slavic population declined by 66% by 1925, compared to pre-WWI levels. The remnants of the Italian community in Dalmatia (which had started a slow but steady emigration to Istria and Venice during the 19th century) left their cities toward Zadar and the Italian mainland.

During the early 1920s, nationalistic violence was directed both against the Slovene and Croat minorities in Istria (by Italian nationalists and Fascists) and the Italian minority in Dalmatia (by Slovene and Croat nationalists). In Dalmatia hostilities arose when in 1918 Italy occupied by force several cities, like Šibenik, with large majority Slav populations, while armed Italian nationalist irregulars commanded by Dalmatian Italian Count Fanfogna proceeded further south to Split. This led to the 1918–20 unrest in Split, when members of the Italian minority and their properties were assaulted by Croatian nationalists (and two Italian Navy personnel and a Croatian civilian were later killed during riots). In 1920 Italian nationalists and fascists burned the Trieste National Hall, the main center of the Slovene minority in Trieste. During D’Annunzio’s armed 1919-1920 occupation of Fiume, hundreds of mostly non-Italians were arrested, including many leaders of the Slavic community, and thousands of Slavs started to flee the city, with additional anti-Slav violence during the 1922 Fascist coup,. In a 1920 speech in Pola (Istria), Benito Mussolini proclaimed an expansionist policy, based on the fascist concept of spazio vitale, similar to the Nazi lebensraum policy:

"Towards expansion in the Mediterranean and in the East, Italy is driven by demographic factors. But to realize the Mediterranean dream, the Adriatic, which is our gulf, must be in our hands. When dealing with such a race as Slavic - inferior and barbaric - we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy. We should not be afraid of new victims. The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps. I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians."

With Fascist Italy’s imperialistic policy of spanning the Mediterranean, Italy in 1927 signed an agreement with the Croatian fascist, terrorist Ustaše organization, under which contingent on their seizing power, the Ustaše agreed to cede to Italy additional territory in Dalmatia and the Bay of Kotor, while also renouncing all Croatian claims to Istria, Fiume (Rijeka), Zadar and the Adriatic Islands, which Italy annexed after WWI. The Ustaše became a tool of Italy. They embarked on a terrorist campaign of placing bombs on international trains bound for Yugoslavia, and instigated an armed uprising in Lika, then part of Yugoslavia. In 1934 in Marseille, the Italy-supported Ustaše assassinated King Alexander I of Yugoslavia, while simultaneously killing the French Foreign Minister.

World War II
Seeking to create an Imperial Italy, Mussolini started expansionist wars in the Mediterranean, with Fascist Italy invading and occupying Albania in 1939, and in 1940 France, Greece, Egypt, and the Malta. In April 1941, Italy and its Nazi Germany ally, attacked Yugoslavia. They carved up Yugoslavia, with Italy occupying large portions of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia, directly annexing to Italy Ljubljana Province, Gorski Kotar and Central Dalmatia, along with most Croatian islands, with the creation of the Governatorate of Dalmatia. Italy proceeded to Italianize the annexed areas of Dalmatia. Place names were Italianized, and Italian was made the official language in all schools, churches and government administration. All Croatian cultural societies were banned, while Italians took control of all key mineral, industrial and business establishments.

Italian policies prompted resistance by Dalmatians, many joined the Partisans. In response, the Italians adopted tactics of summary executions, internments, property confiscations, and the burning of villages." The Italian government sent tens of thousands of civilians, among them many women and children, to Italian concentration camps, such as Rab, Gonars, Monigo, Renicci, Molat, Zlarin, Mamula, etc. Altogether, some 80,000 Dalmatians, 12% of the population, passed through Italian concentration camps. Thousands died in the camps, including hundreds of children. Italian forces executed thousands of additional civilians as hostages and conducted massacres, such as the Podhum massacre in 1942. On their own, or with their Nazi and collaborationist allies, the Italian army undertook brutal anti-Partisan offensives, during which tens-of-thousands of Partisans were killed, along with many civilians, plus thousands more civilians executed or sent to concentration camps after the campaigns.

No Italians were ever brought to trial for war crimes committed in Yugoslavia or elsewhere. In 1944, near the end of a war in which Nazis, Fascists and their allies killed over 800,000 Yugoslavs, Croat poet Vladimir Nazor wrote: "We will wipe away from our territory the ruins of the destroyed enemy tower, and we will throw them in the deep sea of oblivion. In the place of a destroyed Zara, a new Zadar will be reborn, and this will be our revenge in the Adriatic" (Zara had been under Fascist rule for 22 years, and was in ruins because of heavy Allied bombing).

Need better sources
For historical postwar events multiple Italina newspapers and journalists are cited, including Italian Huffington Post, Republica, etc. While newspapers may be appropriate for current events related to foibe, they are extremely weak sources for historical facts, and better sources need to be found Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Thhhommmasss I'm afraid the current head of the article is very poorly phrased and biased. It doesn't even mention the possibility of ethnic cleansing, while there clearly was bias against these ethnicities by the responsible forces. When I last checked, the Infobox also included "Ethnic cleansing (disputed)", which was much more appropriate than just not mentioning it. It's whitewashing.
 * We have to re-add those references, the introduction is not complete. Zerbrxsler (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Intro to article already includes claims of ethnic cleansing as well as no ethnic cleansing. If you're thinking of infobox, there is no consensus on this. If someone puts in "Ethnic cleansing" in infobox, I will put "No ethnic cleansing", Killing of members of fascist forces, and other descriptions, since there are multiple reliable source who state these. As mentioned, since there is no consensus, it is best to leave this to body of article, same as in Explusion of Germans, even though the latter was much nore clearly ethnic cleansingThhhommmasss (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)