Talk:History of Istria

NPOV problems
This article has major WP:NPOV neutrality problems and I am inclined to tag it as such. I thought I would start a discussion here. There is a recent edit I have reverted again now, and it is (1) a violation of NPOV (2) a violation of WP:V, providing no sources and (3) clearly adds a redundant sentence that is repeated immediately following it. The edit cannot stand. The editor shall be warned. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Problems in article as of April 30, 2017
 * "when they made secret treaties and cheated to get it back" - unsourced - secret treaties are not verifiable - "cheated" is a loaded word - it is not explained what kind of "cheating" went on.
 * "secret agreement was made in London in April 1915" - once again, unsourced, and not verifiable.
 * Several sections, including one mentioned above, have been tagged as unreferenced for 1.5 years. "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" - we mean that. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the full quote, and it's even worse:
 * The only time Istria was Italian was when Italians conquered it, which was then taken back from Croats, and when they made secret treaties and cheated to get it back just like they have done in the treaty of London in World War 1.
 * That's blatant POV, and it cannot stay in the article. GregorB (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Since the challenged part has been removed, is POV template in the article still necessary? GregorB (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since there was no reply, and no other objections have been raised, I have removed the POV template, without prejudice against re-adding it if POV is still present. GregorB (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
I'm imppressed by the amount of forgeries inserted in the article.--Rosso Veneziano (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you provide some examples here? Also, could you provide examples of "ultra nationalist" content (and tag the offending sections, perhaps)? GregorB (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Histria is presented largely slavicized under Frank rule: wrong (see "Placito del Risano". 2)Middle age: just some battle of (slavicized?) cities as presented... that all. A fierce resistence? No: there was a convergence of interest, so, Istria became Venice in a (mainly) peaceful way (of course,not always with flower) 3) In XIX cent. just the Croat revival is exposed: nothin else. 4) Historical names are not respected ("Kopar" is simply shilly). So on....
 * Let's find a neutral work, and work on it. To expand the work I suggest this "printed in Croatia" work . Sadly, it's in Italian, but I can help.--Rosso Veneziano (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW: In Croatia is full of "good" history book: find them, and use them. Sadly there is a noisy nationalist minority... The result is this article in the present moment. I have nothing against Croatia, where I have some of my roots, but I know about the historical approach of a particular "minority". --Rosso Veneziano (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. It's hard to say whether the text is biased because it's based on biased sources, or it is biased because it's not based on sources. Istrapedia articles are provided, so I'll try to use them to add footnotes and see where it takes us. GregorB (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO it's not based on sources. See you!--Rosso Veneziano (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Having just taken a look at Istrapedia articles, I tend to agree with you. The text does not follow what these articles say. Also, qualifications such as "colonists and locals whom they had enslaved" have no basis in Istrapedia (which, as far as I can tell, is a fairly neutral source). For the time being, I'll insert as many supporting refs as I can, and then we'll see what to do with the rest. GregorB (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)