Talk:Vergarola explosion

Semi-protect?
The page may need semi-protection from banned User:PIO/Luigi 28. Apparently his short-term range block did not deter him for long, he's reappeared in other articles as well. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But sourced info should stay-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 14:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...well, provided it comes from a reliable source, rather than, as in this case, from a propaganda sheet. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources are not adequate to support a wild conspiracy theory, particularly one so nonsensical. If we entertain the notion only for a second, its absurdity becomes obvious. Note: the idea is that Josip Broz Tito, the PM of Yugoslavia, conspired to blow up some naval mines near Pula for the purpose of scaring the Italian minority. Why would he choose a method of "intimidation" that would almost certainly be considered an accident by the populace? How is something thought of as an accident supposed to intimidate people to leave their homes?! Why naval mines!? Why risk killing Yugoslavs as well? The whole thing can only be seriously considered by esuli ("exile") Italians, which perceive any larger event as connected to their departure from Istria. Pure paranoia and self-aggrandizement, which should not be entertained without support from professional historians ("some have claimed...", Who?!). There is no evidence to support this idea, nor are there any respectable historians backing the conspiracy theory (that I have seen). These are speculations in newspaper articles, not verifiable sources. I might just as well claim that the Italians blew up the mines in order to sabotage the Yugoslav government's authority in the region, or some other nonsense. (The two possible explanations listed in the article are concerned with who ought to be blamed for the accident, not who was "behind" it.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. All edits and comments on the part of User:PIO/Luigi 28 will be reverted. The guy needs to get the message. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article stated: "some in Italy claim that the explosion was in fact a diversion by Josip Broz Tito's partisans done in a bid to accelerate the Istrian exodus". The sources explain this point. Where is the problem?--80.74.186.201 (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And some say JFK was assassinated by Martians, yet we do not find a paragraph stating anything like that in the article. Conspiracy theories are ok to be mentioned if they're not complete nonsense. How do we tell one from the other? By having a look at what support the theory has among professionals. This one, I'm afraid, falls in the "complete nonsense" category. (This isn't you Luigi, is it?) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We do have articles about much wilder consp. theories. Let's add the response to these claims from the historian community too. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 16:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The "complete nonsense" is sourced, also in Croatian. (Who is "Luigi"?)--80.74.186.201 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So, we have to "rewrite, including proper sourcing", you stated. The previous sources are "a propaganda sheet", you stated. Glas Istre (the most important Istrian newspaper) is "a propaganda sheet", you stated. Well said!--80.74.186.201 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the article with proper sources. In line with well-established Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE, I have removed the section on conspiracy theories, as it is nothing more than a fringe theory espoused by a tiny minority of extremists. The fact is that there is no evidence for a cause. It could have been summer heat, it could have been a stray cigarette, it could have been something else. Nobody will ever know. In the unlikely event that a) WP:UNDUE is magically overturned anytime soon and b) there is consensus to restore this section, I will preface it with sources to point out that those squawking about sabotage are just a few irredentists and pro-fascists. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For your info: your "irredentist" and "pro-fascist" Fabio Amodeo is a leftist University Professor. Where are you come from?--80.74.186.201 (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "For your info"..? Ok everyone, this is User:PIO. We should probably ignore him, his persistent block evasion and disregard for the rules of this website have to stop sometime. Should his posts be removed? TheFEARgod? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, Fabio Amodeo is in fact a journalist and lecturer at the University of Milan. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another silly dispute
OK, I have changed "Pula, Croatia". While that is the only logical thing to put in the article (we are simply seeking to point out where Pula is for the benefit of those readers who do not know), it is clearly unsatisfactory for one or two IP fanatics who would seek to do everything to promote their glorious imperial past. However, sadly for them, it is not only unnecessary, but also incorrect, to say that Pula was then in Italy. Therefore, the first sentence now correctly (if in a rather cumbersome fashion) reflects the state of affairs at the time. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are so interested in truth and the benefit of the encyclopedia, why is it you have never turned your attention to this piece of garbage ? That would surely be a logical place to start. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Beware getting involved in an actual discussion with the hatemongering banned sockpuppeteer. I recommend we revert him and completely ignore his posts. If his fanaticism rears its ugly head again as it did before, I'll petition for a possible implementation of a range block or something (though maybe a semi-protection will be sufficient if he keeps quiet enough). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sentence
Post the sentence here please. Could you explain what it is supposed to say? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Direktor, I think that you can clearly understand the meaning of my poor-English sentence with a minimal effort: you are a smart guy, I suppose, smarter than my English could be shoddy. More, if you read Italian (I think you are able to) you can find the same informations and you could translate them in English surely better than I, since Italian version of this voice is far better sourced and structured. We can useful take from it and enrich this article. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More, instead cutting massively (remerber, it is not a good Wikipedia behavior to cut massively sourced infos, it is always better to fix than to cut!), we could ask someone if there is some better English-shape for my sentence. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sig. Mastrangelo, you made an edit. It was reverted due to the simple fact that it is completely illegible (hardly a "huge cut"). See WP:BOLD. You were bold, you were reverted. Now discuss this matter on talk. You will not succeed in pushing your edit with edit-warring. It is rather comical for you to try and do so while leaving messages like "let's not edit war". You introduced this edit, you were reverted, now kindly refrain from edit-warring until discussions are complete. In any case, there no way illegible sentences will be included in the text. Now, if you want me to fix the sentence, please help me to do so. Post the sentence from the article text here and explain its meaning, please. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, while I really am not sure what your point is, it seems likely to be controversial. May I suggest that, after we fix the grammar, we agree on a formulation while NOT revert-warring? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Direktor, don't try to play me for a fool. You are perfectly able to understand the meaning of my edit. And the problem is not in the arguable grammar of it, but in its meaning. You cannot accept the meaning, nor the grammar.
 * And - please - don't use never again terms like "gibberish" about me or my edits. Be polite. I'm not a classmate of yours.


 * Well. Now, let's discuss about the matter. I'll write a new version of the sentence. But, I'm sorry for the meaning: as you know very well (I hope...) Wikipedia is not a place in which one can enforce his own POV. Wikipedia articles "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles".. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're being paranoid. Nobody is "playing you for a fool". You assume hostility from the outset and therefore you see some form of it in every edit. Please write the sentence here first for the sake of ending an edit-war before it starts. Please? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, before I have to call a therapist for my... paranoia, I want to ask you how can you declare that a sentence is "completely illegible" and at the same time find its meaning "gibberish" and "controversial"? If something is "completely illegible" its meaning should be obscure and cryptic...


 * More: next time remember this rule (and related rules). --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Last but not least: I've wrote that - since Italian version of this article is far better referenced and structured and takes care of all viewpoints - we can take from it or translate directly it to improve this article. Since your English is beter than mine, we can collaborate in translating it. Each of us can use his skills: you, your better English grammar. I, the comprehension of the sources. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The individual words are legible, the structure is random and incoherent making the sentence itself indeed quite illegible. I did not say you suffer from paranoia, I said you were being paranoid in your approach ("being paranoid"). I do not need reminding of the "rules" (they're called policies). The WP:3RR does not apply when reverting things like illegible material (I should think especially so when one offers help in fixing it). Also, it prohibits reverting more than three times. I reverted you three times. "Next time remember" that.

Finally, I don't think I'll be translating the whole article... I'm quite busy with other matters. I suggest you translate it yourself as best you may, post it here, and I'll fix any grammar problems? (In case anyone's counting, that's the fourth time I've offered you my assistance.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * About the WP:3RR, you have not pick my allusion (my bad): I would have wanted, I could revert a third time, and you should be closed in the edge: accepting my edit or violating the rule. I didn't revert for fair play (so, don't say that I wanted an edit war).


 * Very well, let's translate: I started with the first paragraph.

"The massacre of Vergarola (in 1946 still Vergarolla) was a massive killing caused by the explosion of a stock of mines and other war devices, which occurred on 18 August 1946 on the beach of Vergarola, Pula. The explosion caused the death of no fewer than 80 people.

At that time Istria was claimed by Yugoslavia, who had occupied the peninsula since Spring 1945. Pula, on the other hand, was administered, on behalf of the Allies, by British troops, and was therefore the only part of Istria beyond the control of Yugoslavia.

The responsibilities of the explosion, the dynamics and even the number of victims are still a source of heated debates.

On 18 August 1946, on the beach of Vergarolla (Pula), it would have to keep the traditional swimming races for the 'Scarioni Cup' (1), organized by the rowers club "Pietas Julia". The event had the declared intention of maintaining a semblance of connection with the rest of Italy, and the newspaper "L'Arena di Pola" (2) advertised the event as a kind of manifestation of Italianity (3)."

Footnotes as follows:


 * 1) The 'Scarioni Cup' was created in 1913 as "Gare Popolari di nuoto" (People's swimming contests) by the journalist Franco Scarioni, secretary of the Federazione Italiana Rari Nantes (Italian Federation Rari Nantes). It was a national juvenile contest of swimming, with regional rounds of matches and a final tournament. The contest was eventually titled to its founder, that died fighting during First World War.
 * 2) L'Arena di Pola (Pula's Arena) was the main newspaper of Pula, at that time directed by Guido Miglia. The newspaper was favourable to the Italian sovereignty. In 1945-1956 at Pula there was another newspaper in Italian language: Il nostro giornale (Our Newspaper), directed by Domenico Cernecca, that was closed to partisan movement, and claimed the annexation of Pula to Yugoslavia.
 * 3) A. Fonio Grubiša, La ferita di Vergarolla (Vergarolla wound), in La Voce del Popolo (People's voice), Rijeka 18 of August 2004

--Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1st sentence. Ok, first of all this was not a "massacre", it is the Vergarola explosion. "No fewer than" is not neutral encyclopedic wording. The current lead sentence is perfectly fine. Your first sentence implies that the bombs were set off on purpose, this is not known. Other than that, there is no information contained within it that is not already in the article.
 * 2nd sentence. The 2nd sentence carries arguably important information and may warrant inclusion. With altered wording, of course, to avoid the standard POV attitude towards Yugoslavia. You need to understand that Yugoslavia = Allies. Here it is:
 * "At that time Istria was administered by Allied forces, who had occupied the peninsula since the spring of 1945. Most of Istria was occupied by Yugoslav forces, while Pula was administered by British troops."


 * 3rd sentence. Completely unnecessary (and probably incorrect). The "Allied investigation" section clearly lays the matter out for the reader to judge the situation on his own.
 * 4th sentence. Ah yes, here we go. I am unable to comprehend the meaning of "it would have to keep the traditional swimming races for the Scarioni Cup" Post the sentence again with that part reworded, pls. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 - We have to deal on the English name of this fact. In Italian it is known as "Strage di Vergarolla", and refers to the killing caused by the explosion. In Croatian it is known as "Eksplozija na Vergaroli", focusing on the blast instead of its consequences. Now, what English sources deal with this fact? In a British document it is called "Vergarola accident". IMHO it could be a NPOV definition that allow to comprehend every interpretation of the event: accidental blast, Yugoslav terrorism or Italian terrorism.


 * 2 - It's no a POV attitude toward Yugoslavia. It depends on the use of the term "Allies" in Italian, that often refers only to Western Allies. Your version is very good.


 * 3 - No. Sice there is still an hot debate about the fact, it's important to write this in the incipit. The "Allied investigation" section eventually will be integrated with the recent discoveries in Brithis National Archives that re-opened the file. More, it is important too mentioning the minority opinion of Claudia Cernigoi, that argued that an Italian hand armed the devices.


 * 4 - I try again: "On 18 August 1946, on the beach of Vergarola (Pula), many people gathered for the traditional swimming races called 'Scarioni Cup' " etc. Do it sounds good? --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 - Gather sources, inform involved editors, etc... I expect it won't work, though... "Vergarola explosion" makes a lot more sense in English than "Vergarola accident", because "accident" simply doesn't carry enough "weight" and is not entirely accurate ("Vergarola massacre" is out of the question).
 * 2 - Well, "Allies" on Wikipedia generally includes the Red Army and the Partisans. "Western Allies" refers to, well, the Western Allies... :)
 * 3 - Hmmm, you may have a point. Provided, of course, that you present a source confirming that (if you haven't already).
 * 4 - Yes, that's ok obviously. So let me fix up the rest and put the whole thing together...
 * "On 18 August 1946, on the beach of Vergarola (Pula), many people gathered for the traditional swimming competition called the 'Scarioni Cup', organized by the rowing club, 'Pietas Julia'. The event had the declared intention of maintaining a semblance of connection with the rest of Italy, and the newspaper "L'Arena di Pola" advertised the event as a kind of manifestation of Italianness." (...or "Italianity", if you like. Both sound terrible in English, and it would be good to rephrase somehow. English is generally bad at such nouns.)
 * This would be ok as far as grammar is concerned, but lets look at the POV. The first sentence (of the two) is perfectly ok, but there are 2 problems with the second. (1) Can you (or did you) properly source the claim that "the event had the declared intention of maintaining a semblance of connection with the rest of Italy"? (2) I suppose that you have a proper source for the statement that L'Arena di Pola advertised the event as "a kind of manifestation of Italianness"?
 * -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Istrianet.org uses the term "Vergarola Tragedy". I think would be the correct title. "Explosion" is not clear and "Massacre" can be considered POV.

http://www.istrianet.org/istria/history/1800-present/vergarola/media.htm http://www.istrianet.org/istria/history/1800-present/vergarola/media-piccolo.htm http://www.istrianet.org/istria/history/1800-present/vergarola/media-lavoce.htm --Grifter72 (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 - About the title of the page, there is few discussion: we are not here to do a trial to alleged terrorists or to enforce the accidental disgrace version. We are here to register what is the name of the event for English language users. Since in an English official document I have found "Vergarola accident" I've proposed it. If someone will find something different, let's discuss about it.


 * But the core of the problem is English. Neither Italian nor Croatian versions.


 * And more: if in English documents or sources would appear - making an hypothesis - "Vergarola massacre" - we do use it, without saying "a" and without any complaint. So never say "is out of the question" without proper sources. The same with "Vergarola explosion". Sources make the difference. Chattering is no use.


 * Go on.


 * 2 - The problem about Allies and Western Allies is resolved, right? Just a question of translation.


 * 3 - I'm working about this. Italian chapter about further investigation is heavy sourced and referenced, we can use it. Of course when new studies would appear, we will add them.


 * 4 - I'm searching for the original issue of the "Arena di Pola" that advertised the event. Be patient.


 * I've found this source that it could be used in death toll section. It gives 116 people killed and 216 people wounded. It shoud be used as the "top" of the casualties range. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 - Title. Both "accident" and "massacre" are out of the question, as they both imply things which are completely unknown. "accident" (besides sounding weird) means that the mines went off on their own or due to neglect. "massacre" implies that the explosion was intentionally planned. Both have zero hits on Google. Forget about 'em... "Tragedy" is ok if it is most common.
 * 2 - Resolved.
 * 3 - You need to present a source confirming that there exists a heated debate on the subject.
 * 4 - Patient? I just assumed you already have them. Take all the time you need.
 * Your source is not adequate (WP:V). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Title: I would stay with explosion, which is what actually happened. I don't understand why its meaning is not clear. Tragedy is close to "calamity",  "disastrous event" according to the Webster too,  i.e. similar to "(fatal) accident".--Bramfab (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) About the last link proposed by Mastrangelo, I'm not sure that is not adequate following Verifiability. This source has its own wikipedia article Balkan Insight (Balkan Insight distinguishes itself among other news publications in southeast Europe by its independence and accuracy, according to wikipedia), so is probably not a case of "Self-published sources (online and paper)", "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves". And obviusly is in english.
 * So, it can be recognized as a "good source" following Verifiability, surely in a general context (even according to wikipedia...).
 * About the exact number of victim, probably a source like an history book with its own bibliography is better than a newspaper article, even from a publication that distinguishes itself among other news publications in southeast Europe by its independence and accuracy, but this always the best practice. However, due exact victims number is not known, i think that is a good practice define the number interval, around 68, from the 43 initally reckoned, to an upper limit, like 116, (surely exaggerate) with its own reference (like Balkan Insight). --Il palazzo (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Il Palazzo. More, we are using several other articles from newspapers in this voice. I see no reason to exclude this one while keeping the other ones.


 * About the title: assuming that "Vergarola explosion" is the most common form on internet is self-refentiality. If you make a check, all the pages on internet about "Vergarola explosion" are clones of this one.
 * Vergarola tragedy can also be a good deal. I see that there is much consensus about it, but before giving my own consensus, I want to put on your attention on English documents that about the tragedy used other terms. If you think that we can proceed too with "Vergarola tragedy", let's rename.


 * About the source of the last sentence. It is supported by an article by A. Fonio Grubiša. But since it seems to be not sufficent for Direktor, I want to find directly the issue of the "Arena di Pola" that Grubisa was referring to. More, even this source says the same (I try to translate):

"The event (...) joins sports with patriotic symbolic value"


 * It's from a Resistence Historical Institute. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion "Tragedy" is better than "Explosion" because you can understand that there were a lot of dead. I've seen Croatian Wiki uses "Explosion" http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eksplozija_na_Vergaroli, but I think "Tragedy" can express better the event without take a strong position like for "Massacre". In medio stat virtus. --Grifter72 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Really the focus of this event wasn't the blast of a stockpile of mines, but the death tolls caused by it. After the WWII there were so many accidents caused by weapon surplus... but the core of this accident was that it caused 60-120 death and eventually strongly contributed to the decision for Italians of Pula to go in exile. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to now
We have reach a valuable consensus about the new translation, IMHO. Sure, there are some phrases or sources that need little more work around, but I think that we can be bold and insert the new material. Perfection is not in this world.

About the title
 * "Vergarola explosion" is self-referenced on Internet. If we change the title of the article in "Vergarola tea party" in few days the great majority of google search results about Vergarola will follow this version...
 * There is only "Vergarola accident" that appears on English documents.

So, since so many of us think that "Vergarola accident" is POV or shifting, I agree with "Vergarola tragedy", that is sufficently NPOV and involves in its meanings the casualties.

May we proceed?--Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Moving articles is a big thing. I've still seen no real reason why the vague "tragedy" is more appropriate than "explosion", which is perfectly correct, accurate, and adequate. As I said above: please propose a proper move and, optionally, invite all involved users (that are currently not paying attention) to participate. (Please don't feel frustrated or anything, these kind of things must be done "by the book", especially in Istria/Dalmatia related topics.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with DIREKTOR. 'Tragedy' is inherently emotive and POV, whereas 'explosion' is descriptive. There is no reason to change the title of this article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be good to invite here TheFEARgod that created article with "Explosion" title.--Grifter72 (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Grifter72. But "Explosion" really shifts the core of the topic to the bare mechanical event. If you find "tragedy" too emotive, let's try with "slaughter", that does not have intentionality in its meaning.


 * Excluding any Wikipedia-related issue in English language on Google searching, the only page that refers to Vergarola is Istrianet that use "tragedy".


 * Using the original name of the beach - "Vergarolla" - there are some more results:


 * Javno.com uses "Tragedy of Vergarolla Beach"
 * 9starki (a site about feng-shui and Macrobiotics ... -_-) uses "Vergarolla explosion". This chronology has 4-5 clones on the net.
 * gpbnet (a tennis site!) uses "Vergarolla explosion" (but this is not a clone of the former webpage).
 * limun.hr uses "Tragedy at the former bathing area Vergarolla"


 * So we have now TWO problems. The first is that in English appears to be used more often the old Italian name of the beach than the modern Croatian name. The second is that that "explosion" and "tragedy" have apparently the same importance on the net.


 * But, while "explosion" appears mainly in general chronologies (excluding the clones of this WP article), "tragedy" appears on articles and short essays strictly related to the topic. IMHO, tragedy is more well referenced.


 * But ok. Let's stop about title a while. May we proceed with the rest? --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hellooo-oh? is anybody here? --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

For the title there is no consensus, so remains "explosion". About the content I agree with you. Go a head.--Grifter72 (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to add some remarks, then up to you all to take them into account or to disregard them. This is a "delicate" matter. There are still a lot of controversial points and from the Italian side many people think this "accident" was caused by OZNA in order to put psichological pressure on the Italian polulation of the city (more than 95% at that time). Thre have been some recent news thta are reported in the Italian page on Wiki about this fact, and these news are competely neglected here.

If really Wiki wants to give a complete information also on the English page of this topic, we cannot avoid to mention the two different viewpoint that still, at present day, the Italians and the Croatians have about it. Neutrality does not mean that every kind of controversy should be cut off by a person whose own convinctions are clearly stated at the beginning of this talk:

[quote:DIREKTOR]The sources are not adequate to support a wild conspiracy theory, particularly one so nonsensical. If we entertain the notion only for a second, its absurdity becomes obvious. Note: the idea is that Josip Broz Tito, the PM of Yugoslavia, conspired to blow up some naval mines near Pula for the purpose of scaring the Italian minority. Why would he choose a method of "intimidation" that would almost certainly be considered an accident by the populace? How is something thought of as an accident supposed to intimidate people to leave their homes?! Why naval mines!? Why risk killing Yugoslavs as well? The whole thing can only be seriously considered by esuli ("exile") Italians, which perceive any larger event as connected to their departure from Istria. Pure paranoia and self-aggrandizement, which should not be entertained without support from professional historians ("some have claimed...", Who?!). There is no evidence to support this idea, nor are there any respectable historians backing the conspiracy theory (that I have seen). These are speculations in newspaper articles, not verifiable sources. I might just as well claim that the Italians blew up the mines in order to sabotage the Yugoslav government's authority in the region, or some other nonsense. (The two possible explanations listed in the article are concerned with who ought to be blamed for the accident, not who was "behind" it.)[/quote]

It is crystal clear to me that DIREKTOR is not and cannot be neutral on a fact of this kind. His viewpoint does not take into account any of the Italian sources and is merely proposing his own view. The result is an article which is very "political correct" but very much poorer in content than the Italian version in Wiki, where the various hypotesis are correctly formulated, without coming to a firm conclusion anyway. Giulio74 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

=
The title has a poor information content. An explosion does not necessarily imply victims. Explosions occour everyday in mining activity, old buildings are destroyed through explosions and so on. The title focuses more on the blasting of bombs than on human victims. It sounds sadly reductionist. Are you sure you making a good job for truth? Fabioantonello (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)