Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian exodus/Archive 2

Biased
"The expression Istrian exodus or Istrian-Dalmatian exodus is used to indicate the voluntary free-will departure of ethnic Italians from Istria, Rijeka, and Dalmatia (present-day Croatia), after World War II. According to some sources, the exodus was allegedly incited by the Yugoslav government, while the Italian government offered incentives for immigration."

It was not at all voluntary they were forced to flee by Tito's thugs, also the Italian government did not offer any incentives other then a safe refuge. Is there any source for this nonsense?

Biased
"It was not at all voluntary they were forced to flee by Tito's thugs"

You're obviously biased as well, you know, "thugs"!? "Tito's thugs forced them to flee?" What does that mean, exactly? Could you be more specific? Did the JNA get out into the streets and force people to leave? Did the OZNA or the UDBA go into people's houses ordering them to leave?

"the Italian government did not offer any incentives other then a safe refuge."

Actually, accomodation is incentive, even on its own. However, that's not all: the Italian government also offered material assistance and instant-citizenship. That definitely qualifies as "incentive". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Instant-citizenship"... what? They were Italians, also according to the Peace Treaty! Boys, this article is dominated by ignorants!--151.48.31.49 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Enter the idiot (calling others "ignorants"). PIO, they were ethnic Italians. By 1954 they were all citizens of Yugoslavia and did not have Italian citizenship. Therefore the Italian government agreed to offer them citizenship if they move to Italy. Whether or not that was specified in the 1947 treaty or in some other document is irrelevant. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

They were already Italian citizens. Does the Israeli's occupying Palestine instantly make the Palestinians into Israelis? Rodolfo Graziani (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they were Yugoslav citizens after the 1947 peace treaty. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have rephrased and hope not to enter a POV. It is a fact that Italians were forced to leave (I don't know a lot of people that would abond their home and land if not pushed to do so). On the other hand these Italians received some assistance when arrived in Italy. Let's not enphasise too much the help they received. They were considered as anti-communists and many of them (including children of little age) were left without any basic help. The previous sentence make understanding that this ethnic group left voluntarely the country because they would have received assistance from Italy. This is too much. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Line
This line is wrong: "At the time of the exodus, these territories were part of SFR Yugoslavia, more specifically, its federal unit SR Croatia."

It was under Yugoslav occupation but was it not made into Yugoslav territory until well after the war. Rodolfo Graziani (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. The exodus took place after the peace treaty with Italy, and most of it well after. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Website
http://intranet.istoreto.it/esodo/ --92.72.207.66 (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

 * 14:41, 22 June 2008 Moreschi protected Istrian exodus ‎ (persistent PIO socking [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly 16 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming views from regular editors I've also contacted Moreschi, the protecting admin. --TS 09:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The sock of User:PIO is still around, as he has been for months... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I asked Moreschi what his protection log message meant but he hasn't yet responded.   If this user is still actively socking there's little point in unprotecting. --TS 10:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that IP sock will go away in the near future. I've also been told there'd be too much collateral damage to block his IP permanently. I remove every single edit of his I see, but he'll still frequently make posts against me in any discussion he notices, along with wise-ass comments and the like. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The POV nationalistic editing spilled over into an article that I worked on. I don't think the problem is going away anytime soon. I think it should remain semi-protected and any attempt to unprotect in the future needs to be personally monitored closely by the admin who unprotects.  Royal broil  19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Giordaano (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)== Anti-communist slovenes and croats ==

No one likes to remember them, but there were some thousands of anti-communist people, not "ethnic Italians", who fleed Istria, Fiume and Dalmatia after Tito's victory: I added just a very small citation at the incipit of the article. Filippo83, h15:05, 28th February 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Words to avoid
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid

"To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter."

"Said", "wrote", "consider", "state" etc are neutral, "claims", "alleges", "asserts", "maintains" etc are not Giordaano (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have taken out Bebler's opinion from the text. The quoted text does not constitute the Venice Commission's conclusion, but a personal view. It should be presented as such, if at all (why should we, out of all opinions, quote Bebler's ?)Giordaano (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no use crying over spilled milk
I don't know why so many Italians keep crying over territories that belonged to Italy once in the past (like Nice, Corsica or Istria). It's 2011. Get your maps updated. Stop living in the past. Tutto chiaro?
 * I'd rather see you chased away from your home and lose everything because of the madness of some criminals who threaten to throw you into a foiba. Shame on you! --87.14.178.130 (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who can be so reckeless writing the comment above (however it is not signed). The issue here is not about land claim (Italy lost the war so logically lost the land), the issue is about people forced to leave their homes or worse killed. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is written is not the only important thing; where counts too
The last sentence in the introducton («In various municipalities in Croatia and Slovenia, census data shows that there are still significant numbers of Italians living in Istria, such as 51% of the population of Grožnjan, 37% at Brtonigla and 39.6% in Buje.»), straight after mentioning how many people left their homes is atrocious. It looks like an attempt to belittle the event, saying «It happend almost nothing since there are still some Italians»: ideed there are (and probably they are more than is believed, but that's not the point) but it would be far more intelligent to compare things such as the Italian population in places such as Pola or Fiume (and not only those little towns) before the WWII to the current estimates. If admitting what actually happend hurts your sensibility too much, at least move that sentence elsewhere, because there, where it stands now, it makes all the article a joke. --87.14.178.130 (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)