Talk:Istrian–Dalmatian exodus/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

3O request on Istrian exodus

In spite of the long discussion, consensus has not been found yet on some sections of the article Istrian Exodus (two edits are particularly contested). User:Director opposes the changes affirming that the sources in support of the aforementioned two edits are misrepresented, non neutral and/or insufficient. User:Silvio1973, the editor of the those sections, estimates conversely that those edits are correctly and sufficiently sourced:

1. According to various sources, the exodus is estimated to have amounted to between some 230,000 and 350,000 people (a figure including several thousands of anti-communist Croats and Slovenes and Croats) leaving the areas in the aftermath of the conflict. In various municipalities in Croatia and Slovenia, census data shows that despite the pressure exerted after World War II to induce the Italians to leave, there are still some Italians living in some cities of Istria, such as 51% of the population of Grožnjan, 37% at Brtonigla and 39.6% in Buje.

1. Prominent members of Tito's inner group, such as Milovan Đilas and Edward Kardelj (than Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs) were sent to Istria to organise anti-Italian propaganda to pressure the Italians to leave, as Milovan Đilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991.

A 3O is highly appreciated to give an end to a discussion that has been going on for over a year. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Piles of misquoted and/or useless sources. You do not appear to understand basic principles of sourcing: sources have to basically say what you want to support with them. -- Director (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources are fine, they say what it's in the edits. However, let's wait the 3O. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Some sources are fine and don't discuss the issue at hand (Djilas and pressure). Some are fine, discuss the issue, but don't say what you want them to support with them; others say what you want (more or less) but are biased and unreliable as demonstrated above; others are just useless links and not "sources" at all. Its just a pile of googled bull, if you'll pardon.

And now you're also throwing in additional issues, packaging them with "pressure to leave" and "Djilas was sent to force Italians to leave". You have sources up there that don't even touch on the disputed issues. Presumably you hope to push in your claims re Yugoslav complicity alongside sensible changes which aren't opposed. All you'll achieve is to confuse and complicate the discussion, as per usual. -- Director (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Director, the sources are there. If the issue is the formulation we can discuss of course. But just writing it is a pile of googled 'bull' does not make things going forward. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues are Djilas and the lead reference to "pressure to leave". You're piling on sources that have nothing to do with those issues.

• Djilas. All you can do, with the sources you have, is make note of Djilas' claim, referring to it as such. That is to say: Ballinger, not Petacco. You can say "Djilas claimed to have been sent to make Italians leave" (or something along those lines ofc).
• Pressure. You will not imply in any way that the Yugoslav government "pressured Italians to leave" without reliable sources that make that claim. And even if you had them, they'd be contradicted by others like Ballinger.

-- Director (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: Yet again, I'm forced to decline this 3O request, as the requester has taken the matter to WP:ANEW and has also addressed administrator Callanecc on the matter. Too many editors have now been involved for a third opinion to be possible on this issue. If you can stop treating it as a conduct issue and start treating it as purely a content issue, WP:DRN might be able to help. Stfg (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Callanecc, who has protected the article for a week, I am willing to read through this talk page and its archives and see whether or not I can offer a third opinion. I have RL duties today and tomorrow and then the reading will take some time, so please understand that it will be days, not hours. To avoid issues of Wikilegality , please would both Silvio1973 and Director confirm whether you wish me to do this. I'll only do it if you both want it. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No objection at all. We need more eyes on this article and every user is welcome. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean.. someone is going to help? Really? Honestly?! On this article?! [1] -- Director (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Yes, I agree ofc.) To clarify regarding Silvio's proposal as laid out in his point "1." above: the only thing that's disputed there is "despite the pressure exerted after World War II to induce the Italians to leave", which is a fragment inserted by Silvio1973 into that (otherwise appropriate) sentence. Due to Silvio's the previous formulation which explicitly blamed the Yugoslav government without any sources, it seems to me that the obvious implication is to somehow blame the government.

The numbers are not disputed (i.e. the first part), nor is the census data disputed, neither in accuracy or relevance to the lead. I have no idea why the lot is even quoted here, unless its to try and bury the faulty sourcing among undisputed, perfectly normal stuff..

Re "2.", I am not opposed to mentioning the claims of Yugoslav dissident Djilas - in the manner as they are mentioned in reliable sources.. but I said all that.

-- Director (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Director, it is sad that it is always necessary to report you in order to convince you to follow the guidelines of this project. Please note you have this issue not only with me but with almost everyone. You merely reverted my edits without even proposing a different formulation. My edits are very well sourced (I copied verbatim from sources) and I will wait patiently for the outcome of my 3O request. Of course, in the meantime I remain open to any of your proposal because the research of consensus is the essence of this project.

PS Please appreciate that the reply you gave to Stfg was inappropriate. This user is available to invest some of his/her time to solve our dispute and even just for that deserves our respect. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Uggh... -- Director (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, Silvio, I believe it was intended as friendly. Homer was cheering. --Stfg (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

---

@Silvio1973, @Director: There's a lot of reading to do, and then probably a lot of thinking, so I won't be stating any opinions today, at least. It would help me a lot if each of you could make a brief statement of what issue(s) are still outstanding for which you'd like an uninvolved opinion, and what outcome you (realistically) hope for. In doing so, please would you avoid threaded discussion and commenting on each other's statements. I'd like to understand what each of you thinks independently of the other, and I will try to accommodate both of you if possible. Thanks in advance.

To get the formalities out of the way: as far as I recall I haven't interacted with either of you before Silvio posted the lastest 3O request. I have never edited this article. I have no COI concerning the territories, peoples or events referred to in the article. I am not a historian. --Stfg (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Stfg if you want to go trough the article go ahead but I am ansure you should take this pain for the sole purpose of this 3O request. I have entered a 3O request because my two edits above have been systematically rolled back but I think they are sufficiently (indeed very well) sourced and their removal is unjustified. Please give a look to the sources and see if they sufficiently and correctaly support the edits. From my side I can only said I literally copied verbatim from the sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

In a sentence, I perceive Silvio1973 as having an agenda of trying to promote the Italian point of view through implying (or just stating outright) that the Yugoslav government purposely expelled Italians from Istria. This is primarily done through a really slimy WP:OR misrepresentation of sources discussing the claim by the Yugoslav political dissident, Milovan Djilas, that he had been sent to expel Italians (or through just quoting sources that don't really say anything on the issue). The one source that in fact supports him is Petacco, an Italian journalist who has time and again on Wiki (and now as well) been discredited as an impartial source through negative peer reviews (e.g. [2]).

My position is based on Ballinger, however, who contradicts Petacco in his approach through offering (what I think is clearly) a far more impartial perspective. Things become strange when you notice that Silvio1973 quotes that source as well - even though, as I think you'll find, it in no way supports his text.

Note also that this is unquestionably a highly political and sensitive issue in Italy, a matter of international controversy, and that both (ex-)Yugoslav and Italian sources should, in my view, probably be handled with care, i.e. as representing the view of their respective national scholarships, rather than a fully neutral and impartial perspective.

Finally I'll just say that what I hope you'll do more than anything else - is thoroughly investigate Silvio1973's sourcing for OR and misrepresentation, while keeping in mind that the two Italian sources he quotes reference their position through Petacco. Thanks for taking the time, honestly. -- Director (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Your statements have helped me to understand where you're coming from. At this stage, it may be helpful to say that I can look carefully at the specific content issues you both raise, and I hope also to make some general suggestions about what further developments the article needs going forward, which is why I plan to read the talk page and archives. But I don't plan to comment on the conduct or broader editing patterns of either editor. RFC/U is available if you want it (yes, I know there has already been one). That's all I'll say today. Thanks again. --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am also not interested in the slightest to comment the conduct on other users or to discuss about politics or international controversy, because this is not the purpose of a 3O. Indeed, I have requested another 3O (the first one was requested about one year ago) because without the help of other users we won't get out of this 'impasse'. One side note: I will voluntarily limit the size of my posts to make the discussion straightforward and because in the end there is no better argument than the quality and quantity of the sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

substantially agree with Silvio but Director's approach is uncooperative, disruptive and with personal attacks in long series despite reports in ANI--Teo Pitta (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bravo! :) -- Director (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

you don't know good education--Teo Pitta (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

NB: this is an obvious sock, possibly of Brunodam, or Giovanni Giove, or Ragusino... frankly there are so many accounts from Italy banned over these issues its hard to pin down who their socks belong to anymore. -- Director (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Director, do not hesitate to report those users if you think they are socks. Also, if you feel the need to reply and make humour linking to youtube please use the users' talk pages. Imho this 3O is not intended to host those kinds of exchanges. Thank you for your help. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

This is just my view of the issues raised in the main section above. I'll post a separate section later concerning progression of the article. Let's have a look at Silvio1973's sources:

• 1,2,3,8: because Director said above that the statements cited to these are not disputed, I haven't examined them.

• 4: (Tesser, p.136): This is published by Palgrave Macmillan. I see no reason to doubt its reliability. In the paragraph beginning "For the Italians, ..." she writes: "A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation, and other forms of pressure from the Yugoslav authorities in their campaign to establish control."

• 5: (GianFranco Cresciani in Italian Historical Society Journal p.8): He writes, "The loss of these territories prompted a mass exodus by ethnic Italians, who were innocent victims of a concerted strategy of terror on the part of the Yugoslav authorities," and then continues in some detail about Djilas's claims. However, this paragraph is based on citing Petacco, and I think that Ballinger's critique of Petacco (which Director linked above) casts serious doubt on his reliability.

• 6: (Ballinger: "Cleansed of experience?" in Linton & O'Neill (eds), p.295): Certainly a reliable source. She writes, "Certainly ... families may have seen little choice but to leave. Yet after 1945 physical threats generally gave way to subtler forms of intimidation such as the nationalization and confiscation of properties, the interruption of transport services (by both land and sea) to the city of Trieste, the heavy taxation of salaries of those who worked in Zone A and lived in Zone B, the persecution of clergy and teachers, and economic hardship caused by the creation of a special border currency, the Jugolira." Considering what has been said elsewhere on this talk page and in the archives, please note that Ballinger goes on to refute the notion of a "forced migration".

• 7: (Minahan, p.248): Minahan does say "the Italians [in Slovenia] have maintained their separate culture through decades of Communist repression and persecution", but he is writing about Italians still living in Slovenia, and he does not say that the "Communist repression and persecution" were designed to induce Italians to leave.

• 9: is a reprint of the Cresciani paper (5). To repeat, it's based on Petacco.

• 10: (the famous Ballinger page 103 that generated so much of a stir last year): Once more, the full sentence reads, "The claim (later seconded by Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic, Milovan Djilas) that the regime had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria further exposed the Yugoslav leadership to the charges of nationalist imperialism, used by stalin to justify the Yugoslav Communist Party's expulsion from the Cominform in 1948."

On the basis of these sources, I think:

1. that Silvio's proposed words "despite the pressure exerted after World War II to induce the Italians to leave" are slightly inaccurate, in that the sources don't explicitly say that the pressure was for that purpose, but the words could be amended to "despite the pressure exerted and hardships imposed by the Yugoslav authorities after World War II" (omitting Silvio's last six words), and this would be justified by sources 4 (Tesser p.136) and 6 (Ballinger in Linton & O'Neill, p.295). I wouldn't use sources 5 (Cresciani) and 7 (Minahan);
2. that we don't have sources good enough to assert as a fact that "Prominent members of Tito's inner group, such as Milovan Đilas and Edward Kardelj (than Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs) were sent to Istria to organise anti-Italian propaganda to pressure the Italians to leave, as Milovan Đilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991". What we do have (in Ballinger) is a reliable secondary source supporting a statement such as "Milovan Đilas, who was once a high-ranking official in Tito's regime, stated that the regime had deliberately targeted ethnic Italians in Istria." In my view, there is no excuse for omitting mention of this altogether (although this source doesn't enable us to mention Kardelj). If Silvio can bring forward a better source, we can look at it. Also, if Director can bring forward a reliable source showing that the statement is controversial, we should also represent that.

Regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion #1: The problem with the formulation "despite the pressure exerted by the Yugoslav authorities there are still some Italians there" is that it suggests, without actually saying so(!), that "pressures and hardships" were imposed in order to expel Italians. Whereas, if you'll note, Tesser states that, while these did cause departure - they were imposed "in order to establish control". Ballinger also does not state, in the quote that you have provided, that the "hardships" (again undoubtedly a factor in the migration) were intended to drive away Italians. Hence I would oppose the proposed formulation, not on the grounds that pressures and hardships did not exist, or that they did not cause the migration, but on grounds that sources do not explicitly support the suggestion of intent implied in the sentence. Your opinion?

Conclusion #2: I'm ok with describing Djilas' statement, as I said. I just can't agree with his claims being presented as fact. So I'm fine with #2, ofc (though Silvio won't be..)

-- Director (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Stfg, firstly thank you for your help. This OR stems essentially from the words proposed by Director for the lede (and some other modifications he was very keen to use such to use the word migrants instead of exiles). Those words suggest that the Istrian exodus was just a voluntary migration. The issue is that such formulations are not in agreement with the sources provided and are not consistent with the rest of the article.

As already stated before I am in favor of any compromise as long it is consistent with the sources provided (and a quick perusal of archive 3 can confirm that I actually provided the most of the sources used in this Talk page, including Ballinger). Concerning Petacco I do not share Director's view (otherwise it would be unclear why so many other scholars refer to him), but I strongly want to find a compromise so I am happy to put it aside. Concerning Djilas' I share the concern that his declarations are not reported as more than his statement (of course, until the day another source won't be available).

Do you agree or disagree with the proposals? And if the latter on what grounds. Try, please try to write useful talkpage posts. -- Director (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's below. Of course if you keep the Talk page busy just to push personal attacks I cannot physically write anything... Silvio1973 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of conclusion #1

@Director: consider this: I were to say "despite the violence it portrays, I regularly watch Game of Thrones", that would not imply that the violence was there in order to prevent me from watching it, would it? Or "despite the cold weather, we went swimming in the lake". The cold weather isn't trying to stop us on purpose! Likewise, my wording doesn't imply either that the "pressures and hardships" were imposed in order to expel Italians or that they were not. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the view of the exchanges, sftg's proposal and of the sources (once source [5] removed) I agree to remove the last 6 words and I propose the following formulation for #1 (and BTW we will have to replace with the more recent censi):

According to various sources, the exodus is estimated to have amounted to between some 230,000 and 350,000 people (a figure including several thousands of anti-communist Croats and Slovenes) leaving the areas in the aftermath of the conflict.[1][2][3] In various municipalities in Croatia and Slovenia, census data shows that despite the pressure exerted by the Yugoslav authorities after World War II,[4][6][7] there are still some Italians living in some cities of Istria, such as 51% of the population of Grožnjan, 37% at Brtonigla and 39.6% in Buje.[8]

@Stfg. "despite the violence it portrays, I regularly watch Game of Thrones"? that doesn't seem to be analogous at all. If you were to say, "despite the pressures exerted by HBO, I regularly watch Game of Thrones", the implication would indisputably be that the pressure is there in order to stop you from watching the show. Or "despite pressure from my family, we wen't swimming", etc, same thing. If you say something is such "despite pressure", then it I think it is clearly implied that the pressure is opposed to that something being such - i.e. Italians remaining. -- Director (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Director, if we had to copy verbatim from the sources the actual formulation could be stronger than the compromise proposed. However I leave stfg arbitrates. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No it would not. The source at no point indicates intent to expel. Suggesting otherwise would be playing into the hands of one side of the controversy. -- Director (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Director, what the source actually says is "other forms of pressure from the Yugoslav authorities in their campaign to establish control". It does say pressure, and it doesn't say that the purpose of the pressure was to establish control, merely that it was applied in the course of trying to establish control. What the purpose of the pressure was, the source doesn't say. What can be inferred from my mention of pressure is no more than what can be inferred from the source's mention of pressure. But feel free to propose other wording, providing you don't water down the reliably sourced statements. --Stfg (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The original purpose of that sentence was to cover the current ethnic situation in Istria, not to describe the hardships and/or pressures of the period. Into it Silvio (rather typically) inserted the fragment "despite the efforts made by the Yugoslavian Government just after World War II to force the Italians to leave". I'm for removing that altogether and covering the hardships etc. per Ballinger in a separate sentence. (And I think Silvio's full original sentence makes it obvious what the implication is and that it is indeed there.) -- Director (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Director, I would appreciate if you discontinue with your your appraisals about me. Keep to the sources, please. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I gave no "appraisal". -- Director (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, as regards this issue, like I said I am opposed to Silvio introducing this fragment in the first place, in a sentence intended to basically point out the existence of the Italian minority in Croatia. In fact, that sentence seems rather superfluous altogether: "there are still some Italians there", accompanied by all these percentages, is altogether kind of pointless - as the text at no point claims all Italians left. I'd replace it entirely with a sentence or two focusing on Ballinger's hardships. -- Director (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not pointless at all, however what is your proposal? We need to get to and end. As long - to use stfg´s words - you will not water down the sources I welcome your wording. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing that clause and making a separate sentence would be an improvement, yes. Do you want to suggest wording, Director? --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What is your stand on replacing the sentence? As I said, it seems to me rather pointless. -- Director (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My stand on replacing it? Neutral. Three days ago you wrote, "I'd replace it entirely with a sentence or two focusing on Ballinger's hardships," and I'd be interested to see what sentence or two you have in mind. --Stfg (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading through Ballinger again, gimme some time. Its more difficult than I thought at first, since Ballinger does not support the notion of the migration having been forced, and a sentence describing hardships in the Free Territory of Trieste ought not be written in a way that suggests otherwise. That, and this is the most controversial part of the whole issue: I get the feeling anything I come up with will be perceived by SIlvio as being slanted. In my experience he takes the assumption of bad faith as the starting point. -- Director (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Director, please stop taking free digs at Silvio. It does no good whatever, and I must tell you that it makes me less willing to take your views at face value, not more. When you discuss content, I can work with you, but I want you from now on to respect my neutrality and not to try to make me take sides. In working on this issue, please tell us what you think the article should contain, not how you anticipate Silvio (or me) responding to it.

Yes, of course take whatever time it needs. And I agree that we should mention that Ballinger refutes the notion that this was a forced migration (as already noted in my original 3O, commenting on ref 6). One way to reflect her in a balanced way, of course, would be to quote her. Since this is such a key matter, I think it would not be excessive to quote the whole of the paragraph of which I quoted the first half above, and to include her Brubaker reference in the citation for it. (Footnote in the form Ballinger xxx, citing Brubaker yyy). --Stfg (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Its an unfriendly comment, but I didn't mean it as a dig: I meant to point out an actual problem. AGF is a huge issue on this talkpage, and imho it'd be better if you suggested something, and we all took it from there. Whether or not Silvio or yourself may think so, I do actually strive towards representing NPOV. I don't want to put together (what I perceive as) a neutral paragraph, to have Silvio demand it be slanted his way. I've been here before, more than once. One actually feels like one ought to propose a slanted paragraph, if he wants to see it brought to neutrality through compromise. -- Director (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Director: Very well, my proposal is that we quote the paragraph beginning, "Certainly, though, in many other instances, families may have seen little choice to leave" from Ballinger: "Cleansed of experience?" in Linton & O'Neill (eds), p.295, except that the text ", though, in many other instances," should be replaced by an ellipsis, since it refers to previous material we don't need to quote. The preamble should read simply "Pamela Ballinger wrote:", and the citation should take the form <Ballinger source>, citing <Brubaker source>. We'll need to identify the Brubaker source, since the page listing it (probably p.311 or soon after) is not previewed in that google books reference. If either of you has access to the book, please could you supply the Brubaker citation? I propose that we should not add any commentary to this quotation. --Stfg (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Some comments:

Ballinger is a valuable source and it should be stressed that I added it to the discussion (please check in Archive 3). But there are other sources (I provided at least 3, English and in principle reliable) with different views on the causes of the exodus. Indeed, even Ballinger - although less firmly - precises that ethnic Italians left because they had little other choice.

I know that Director has a different view. I respect his view, but also I start to think it's WP:FRINGE. In over one year of discussion he provided little sourcing stating that the exodus of the ethnic Italians was not forced or bolstered by objective conditions. In this sense I suggest that we compare the sources supporting Director's and mine POVs. I will start listing all the sources later today, Director is invited to do the same, because it is more than one year that he insists that he argue about the reliability of my sources, but in the meantime he did not provide a single source clearly supporting his POV.

During the aftermath of WWII between 5 and 10,000 ethnic Italians were killed. The mixed Italian-Slovenian commission stated that these killings, although not in the slightest wanted by the Yugoslav Government, bolstered the departure of the Italians. Indeed, where views differ is in the actual implication of the Yugoslav Government in pushing the Italians to leave. To reach consensus I agreed to remove any reference to this.

Concerning Director's attitude with me, I can just say that it does not happen only with me so I do not take it personally. My actual issue with Director is that he seems very keen in demonstrating that my sources are POV but I have not seen so fare a single source Silvio1973 (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, seeing that we're talking about the lede, quoting that whole paragraph would be overweight. Quote it in the body of the article, yes, but not in the lede. For the lede, I return to my original position: that Silvio's wording should be changed to "despite the pressure exerted and hardships imposed by the Yugoslav authorities after World War II" and included in the lede sentence like that, sourced to Tesser p.136 and Ballinger in Linton & O'Neill, p.295, but not Cresciani and not Minahan.

That's all on the questions I was asked. I do intend to comment on the future progression of the article, but that will be separate from the 3O. It may be later today, more likely tomorrow. A lot of work is needed. I'm sure the sources Silvio has listed below will be helpful. Regards to both of you. --Stfg (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg:, it would be fine for me. As any other formulation compromising across the different sources provided would alos work. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources by Silvio1973
In order to maximize the reliability of the sources (and reduce useless discussions) I have excluded from this list all blogs and all sources edited by any individual, group or editor close to associations of exiles and/or political parties. All sources (except the conclusions of the mixed Italian-Slovenian commission) are edited / published in an English speaking country.

[3] - P. Ballinger - In the decade after World War II, up to 350,000 ethnic Italians were displaced from the border zone between Italy and Yugoslavia known as the Julian March. Ballinger writes that people were displaced not that people emigrated.

[4] - P. Ballinger - The departure occurred for a variety of reasons (including outright persecution from Titoists, fear, the Italian's state promise of a better life in Italy). This incipit shows that even Ballinger (albeit with some nouances) includes the persecution from the Yugoslav Authorities in the reasons bolstering the exodus.

[5] - Jonathan Bousfield - Despite promising all national minorities full rights after 1945, the Yugoslav authorities pressured Istria's Italians into leaving and the region suffered serious depopulation as thousands fled.

[6] - L. Tesser - A second wave left at the end of the war with the beginning of killings, expropriation and other forms of pressure form the Yugoslav Authorities

[7] - Alexander Laban Hinton, Kevin Lewis O'Neill (from P. Ballinger) - Families may have seen little choice but to leave. Yet after 1945 physical threats generally gave way to subtler forms of intimidation such as the nationalization and confiscation of properties, the interruption of transport services (by both land and sea) to the city of Trieste, the heavy taxation of salaries of those who worked in Zone A and lived in Zone B, the persecution of clergy and teachers, and economic hardship caused by the creation of a special border currency, the Jugolira. Are these facts sufficient to use the words "forced emigration". I don't know. however, this is not the issue, my edit does not even use the words "forced emigration" but merely described the conditions that bolstered/triggered the exodus.

[8] - Thammy Evans, Rudolf Abraham - Between 1943 and 1945 a significant proportion of Istria's Italian population moved to Italy in several ways, trough fear of persecution, economic uncertainty and with encouragement both Italy and Yugoslavia.

[9] - Slovene-Italian mixed historical and cultural commission- The Yugoslav side perceived the departure of Italians from their native land with growing satisfaction, and in its relation to the Italian national community the wavering in the negotiations on the fate of the FTT was more and more clearly reflected. Violence, which flared up again after the 1950 elections and the 1953 Trieste crisis, and the forceful expulsion of unwanted persons were accompanied by measures to close the borders between the two zones.

[10] - Roland Sarti - Italian rule ended in 1945 when Yugoslav partisan forces loyal to Marshal Tito occupied the area and expelled most of the Italian-speaking population.

Thank you Silvio. Just to point out that Alexander Laban Hinton and Kevin Lewis O'Neill are only the editors of a book of collected essays. The passage you quote is by Ballinger, and it's the one I recommended quoting. RL calls. I'll be back here later today. --Stfg (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, this actually confirms that actually also for Ballinger the exodus was not "chosen emigration". I am doing more research and I think I will be in the condition to extend this list. Arrived at 8 I will only replace the existing sources with better ones to avoid the issue of over-referencing. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ballinger does not support the claim that this event can be generally characterized as a forced migration. Quoting fragments that suggest otherwise does not change that fact.
• "Bousfield" is a Rough Guides travel guidebook, not a scholarly source.
• Tesser, as we already know, states in the immediate continuation of that quote that those were actions done "in order to establish control"; or at best, mentions no motivation. Silvio1973 has a propensity to omission of sentence fragments that conflict with his agenda: this is exactly the sort of thing he attempted to do with Ballinger's statement on Djilas back in archive 3. There he quoted "the claim (later seconded by Tito's former collaborator and subsequently critic, Milovan Djilas) that the regime has purposefully targeted ethnic Italians in Istria..." and refused over and over again to complete the sentence [11].
• Hinton and O'Neill merely quote Ballinger, as has been noted.

Istria in modern-day countries. Its uncertain northeastern boundary is outlined in red.

• The Slovene-Italian commission report is a primary source. Also: it does not represent the position of the Croatian government. Only a small fragment of what is usually called "Istria" is Slovene territory, so one can't help but point out that such "conclusions" are rather convenient for the Slovenes.
• "S. Roland" is in fact "Sarti", i.e. the man's surname is Sarti. Don't doubt for a second that Silvio intended to conceal the fact that this is another Italian author, by switching from the way he listed authors up to that point (Pamela Ballinger is "P. Ballinger", Roland Sarti is "S. Roland"), and probably also by listing him last. Whether that particular fact matters or not, the user's constant attempts at petty deception do not help to build trust and an AGF attitude. In fact they demolish it. Further: the source does not appear to be scholarly, lists no references for the claim, and covers the entire issue in one sentence.

My position is that Ballinger, represented properly, should be our central source for the sentence, augmented to a degree by other scholars such as Weldes. Certainly not Silvio's googled sentence fragments from various scholarly or non-scholarly publications.

@Silvio, do not disrupt the thread by posting headings over your posts. Subsections are there to define topics, not to serve as emphasis for your posts. -- Director (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did not think I disrupted anything. I just wanted to list the sources and it was done with the best intentions.

Roland Sarti is not an Italian name. However, Roland Sarti is Professor Emeritus in the US (University of Massachussets) [12] so you might want to pay respect to my sources without taking conclusions based on alleged nationality of the scholar.

About Slovenia, yes this is the position of Slovenia. We can put in the article that Slovenia aknowledged that the exodus for forced, Croatia has not. Again you claim that my sources are not reliable or misrepresented. It would help if you start providing sources because in the last year I did all the job of research. Director, you do not own this article. Your behaviour made many editors run away, but I will not. I will be patient and respectful whatever you do. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Use subsections to introduce arbitrary breaks or define new topics. Not as headings for posts. Imagine if I too started posting subsections like that.

"Roland Sarti" is about as un-Italian a name as "Michael Corleone", i.e. "Rolando" and "Michelle" respectively. Sarti (derived from sarto, "tailor") is a very common Italian surname, as you presumably know very well. In fact - its a common name among people of Italian ancestry in my own hometown (one mayor of Split was surnamed Sarti). Whether the ancestry matters or not (and imo it does), I wanted to point out that you attempted to misrepresent it.

From what we've seen, you can not claim "Slovenia acknowledges a forced migration" in referring to the term as a whole. That's OR. In fact, I'm not even sure the Italian government officially acknowledges it (source?).

You did not do all the research, that's insulting. You posted a lot of sources, most of which turned out to be fake or misrepresented or misquoted, etc.. Ballinger and Weldes are all the sources that I myself think we need. -- Director (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Director, I posted 95%+ of the sources. Please consult the archives if you are not convinced. And yes, I also sourced Ballinger and Weldes in June 2013 so of course I think they are good sources. But there are also many other reputable sources. And none of them even suggests that ethnic Italians left without any pressure. Different views exist because some sources affirm the pressure was acted by the Yugoslav authorities, some other scholars write that only some sectors of the administration acted in this sense. Finally, other sources affirm that despite does not appear that a decision from the Yugoslav Authories was even taken, de facto the pressure existing left to the Italian little choise but emigration. Ballinger belong to these last sources. From a WP perspective the so called compromise must be researched across the position taken by the different reliable and best sources. In this sense, Ballinger must have significant weight in the article but using only this source would equate to say that other sources would not count at all (inacceptable in view of the reputable institutions and scholars who edited the sources I listed above).

Writing that alledged ancestry counts in assessing the reliability of a source is simply inadmissible. Roland Sarti is an American Emeritus Professor in one of the most reputable American Universities. I have no idea where his ancestry was from. Might be (as for tens of millions of Italians in the US) some of his ancestry is from Italy. And so what? Hoz could you dare to judge about the reliability of a scholar looking to the alledged ethicity (i.e. name sounding) of his ancestry? This is an hardly acceptable argument.

I wrote that Slovenia aknowledged that the exodus for forced not anything else. However, I do not know why your posts are so aggressive. You should really comment on edit and not editors. Have you realised that in over one year of discussion I never insulted you? It is not insulting or attacking your fellow editors that you will gain more recognition for your views. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, both of you, take care what you ascribe to whom. Hinton and O'Neill don't "quote" Ballinger. They are the editors (not authors) of a compilation that includes a chapter written entirely by Ballinger. Similarly, Weldes is one of four editors of a compilation that includes a chapter written entirely by Ballinger. See the page immediately before or after the one Director links to. The chapter begins on page 63, where you see both the full chapter title and the author. Weldes wrote another of the chapters, but it's nothing to do with Istria.

Sorry I haven't posted any suggestions about going forward today as promised. I decided to read once more right through the talk page and archives first. It will take another day or three. --Stfg (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg, thank you for this observation. I have modified my list according to your valuable remark. Still, we should cite the two scholars, the one who wrote the initial essay and the one edit the collection reporting the essay (or part of it as here it is the case). Take your time, it is important to arrive to a shared, agreed and stable version of the article. Silvio1973 (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of conclusion #2

@Silvio1973: it's Ballinger's view of Petacco that interests me; Director just provided the link. Please read it closely. She dismisses Petacco's book as not scholarly in really quite strong words. But as I say, if you have other, more informative and reliable sources, please show them. --Stfg (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by stfg, I am fine to remove Kardelj (less of an issue), rephrase the sentence, remove source [9] (i.e. Petacco) and present the whole thing as just a statement from Đilas.

Milovan Đilas, a prominent members of Tito's inner group stated that the regime had deliberately targeted ethnic Italians in Istria, as Milovan Đilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991.[10] Silvio1973 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed amendments on my part: A) Ballinger refers to it as a "claim" not a "statement", so I would prefer if we follow the source. B) Further, "member of Tito's inner group" must in my view be rephrased to "member of the Yugoslav general staff" (which is what he was): the proposed formulation suggests the Yugoslav state operated by cronysim. And C) it also must be made clear (as the source does as well) that Djilas was at the time of the statement a political dissident, politically opposed to the Yugoslav government. Not to mention that crucial bit of information would be obviously misleading.

So my counter proposal would be: "Milovan Đilas, a member of the Yugoslav general staff at the time of the events, later claimed in an interview that the Yugoslav government had dispatched him to Istria to induce Italians to leave. At the time of the interview Đilas was a prominent political dissident in Yugoslavia, and an opponent of the ruling party." -- Director (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Director, hardly! (A) Djilas stated something in an interview, not claimed. (B) I do not quite see the link between his condition of dissident and the reliability of the interview he gave. Assuming that being a dissident his statements are not reliable would be OR. (C) At the time of the events "he was a member of Tito's inner group". Finally (and most important), I could understand (and still would be OR) your argument if Djilas had declared those things during the time he was a dissident. But in 1991 there was no ruling party to be opponent of, because Tito had died almost by a decade and FYR almost did not exist anymore.

If you want to have the edit you propose you need to adequately source (or better you need to publish a book) because Ballinges does not says so. My proposal is much closer to the source and indeed I make it even closer to it:

Milovan Đilas, Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic, stated that the regime had deliberately targeted ethnic Italians in Istria, as Milovan Đilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991.[10]. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Silvio: please stick rigorously to what you can source. The source currently provided doesn't mention the interview being given in 1991.

I agree, we have one source and we need to stick to it. The source does not speak of interviews and does not give a date. So I rephrase:

The claim that the Yugoslav regime had deliberately targeted ethnic Italians in Istria was seconded by Miilovan Đilas, Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic.[10].

This is exactly the source. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Director: I agree with the first part, but you are also exceeding what the source says, which is only that Đilas has become a critic of Tito. By all means mention that, but all that about being "a prominent political dissident in Yugoslavia, and an opponent of the ruling party" is irrelevant. --Stfg (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There would be no problem at all sourcing "political dissident" for Milovan Djilas, I assure you [13] :). He was the archetypal "dissident" of Yugoslavia ("Yugoslav dissident Milovan Djilas"). The term is imo more appropriate than "critic of Tito", as its a more accurate term: he was an anarcho-liberal and a social democrat, not just someone who criticized Tito. This is what I like atm:

"Milovan Đilas, a member of the Yugoslav general staff at the time of the events, claimed in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had dispatched him to Istria in 1945-46 to induce Italians to leave. Since 1954, Đilas had been stripped of all offices in Yugoslavia, becoming a prominent anti-government dissident."

The interview was indeed given by an 80-year-old Djilas in 1991. -- Director (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

His age at time of the interview is unrelevant and unless you do not endorse Petacco as a source you cannot affirm he was 80 years old. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

?? He was 79 in 1991, and I certainly don't need Petacco for that, but I agree it doesn't matter. I didn't propose to introduce that information. -- Director (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ballinger does not say the interview was given in 1991, only Petacco does. So no-one here can affirm he was 80 unless we do not assume Petacco as reliable source. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC) However my formulation above is much closer to the source, indeed it's copied practically verbatim. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg. This is why working with Silvio1973 is near-impossible. He is deliberately disruptive and malicious.

Silvio, the plain fact that the Panorama magazine interview took place on 21 July 1991 is not disputable or controversial. Your conduct is childish and obstructive. Petacco is a biased source delivering the Italian exile point of view, but I don't think he's a retard who can't get dates right. While a publication might be useful enough for some meaningless snippet of information (like the date of an interview), that doesn't mean its reliable enough to provide a neutral perspective on controversial historical issues.

But why are you even talking about this? Does that mean you agree with the formulation in every respect besides that one? Or are you just writing meaningless posts to annoy other participants? -- Director (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Childish, obstructive, disruptive, malicious.... Dear Director, this is a 3O, not a RfC/U. You should really comment about the edits, not the editor.

I also think Petacco is reliable enough to source the date of the interview. Indeed the actual content of the interview could be sourced from this source (indeed if Petacco was so unreliable as Ballinger writes, I would wonder why so many other scholars cite him when they speak about this interview) but our decision was not to use Petacco, and all the sources citing him. Stfg very correctly pointed (please read his post above) that I cannot cite the date of the interview if we have as source only Ballinger as a source. I agree with his indication and strictly sticked rigorously to what we can source. To resume:

1)If Ballinger is the unique source and we strictly stick to this source, I got:

The claim that the Yugoslav regime had deliberately targeted ethnic Italians in Istria was seconded by Milovan Đilas, Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic.[10].

2)If we include also source [10] we can formulate:

Milovan Đilas, Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic, stated that the regime had deliberately targeted ethnic Italians in Istria,[10] as Milovan Đilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991.[9]. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Then why did you bring the date up at all? As I said, please try to make your posts concrete and productive.

Now look, if I'm interpreting the current state of affairs correctly, both Stfg and myself generally agree on "Milovan Đilas, a member of the Yugoslav general staff at the time of the events, claimed in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had dispatched him to Istria in 1945-46 to induce Italians to leave.", i.e. the first part of the proposal. This removes "inner circles", "regimes" and such offensive Petacco stuff, and changes to "claim" rather than "statement" per Balliner. How do you stand on that? -- Director (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Induce Italians to leave is not sourced and it does not explain exactly what happened. Again please stick to the source, my two formulations above do. Regime is not used by Petacco but also by Ballinger. I see your formulation, IMHO mine is closer to the sources (indeed it's verbatim copied from Ballinger). Let's wait stfg to manifest his thoughts about the two proposals. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No you're right, modifying:

"Milovan Đilas, a member of the Yugoslav general staff at the time of the events, claimed in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted Italians, and to that end dispatched him to Istria personally in 1945-46."

You're right about "regime" too but I oppose using that term per WP:NPOV due to negative connotations for the Yugoslav authorities, and per requirements to use encyclopedic wording. "Government" conveys the meaning exactly. "Claim" is "verbatim from Ballinger" so are you fine with that?

Also please bear in mind your original proposal in this section is not well composed in terms of grammar (no offense). "Djilas stated he was sent to Istria, which he himself would declare in an interview"; its superfluous. -- Director (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with what I proposed. in my first formulation just above (or the second if admit source [10] for the sole purpose of the date of the interview) because it sticks rigorously to the source.

1)If Ballinger is the unique source and we strictly stick to this source, I propose:

The claim that the Yugoslav regime had deliberately targeted ethnic Italians in Istria was seconded by Milovan Đilas, Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic.[9].

2)If we use source [9] for the date of the interview, I propose:

Milovan Đilas, Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic, stated that the regime had deliberately targeted ethnic Italians in Istria,[10] as Milovan Đilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991.[9].

I used the word claim exactly as Ballinger does. I am not proposing anything like Djilas stated he was sent to Istria, which he stated in an interview, so I do not understand what you mean. Please read my posts. Again, let's wait for stfg to manifest his thoughts.--Silvio1973 (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Arrrgggh... So its either a stupid verbatim quote from Ballinger, or some nonsensical sentence you came up with. I pick neither. I pick the article as it is right now - and reverting you 'til kingdom come.

Colonel General Milovan Djilas was not Tito's "collaborator", he was his military subordinate, and later he was not just a "critic of Tito", but a critic of the entire Yugoslav economic system. Using those terms would be stupid over "member of the general staff" and "political dissident". Those are more accurate terms, more informative, well sourced, and more encyclopedic. And the entire second part of your sentence ("as Milovan Đilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991") is grammatically superfluous, and can be written much much better. Leave phrasing and sentence construction to Stfg and/or myself, you lack the English skills (and again - no offense, you just do).

This is no way to collaborate in editing an article. I will not haggle over every word.. -- Director (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Director, again you should comment the edit, not the editor. After stfg's comments I have reformulated my edits, so you did. Now we need to give the time to stfg to read and give advise. In the meantime feel free to reformulate your edit if you want to so. I suggest you to discontinue judging other users, this is not functional to this 3O. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read what a 3O is, Silvio... goddamnit. -- Director (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some good work here, guys. Sorry not to have come in sooner. Yesterday evening I was getting edit conflicts and was very tired, and I wanted to see what you could come up with. This morning was real life. Silvio, your version reflects sources, but we also have to take care to avoid WP:Close paraphrasing. Remember the rule: say what the sources say, but say it in your own words. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you've both agreed to include the date of the interview and to say government rather than regime. If so, I'm happy with both of those. In my view, briefly stating who Djilas was is desirable, as most English-speaking readers won't know this, and it isn't controversial. So the version I most like right now is:

"Milovan Đilas, a member of the Yugoslav general staff at the time of the events, claimed in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted Italians, and to that end dispatched him to Istria personally in 1945-46."

with suitable sourcing, of course. I'm not 100% happy with "claimed" -- it indicates scepticism and is in fact one of the WP:words to watch (see WP:CLAIM). The neutral word is "said".

The reason I object to "Since 1954, Đilas had been stripped of all offices in Yugoslavia, becoming a prominent anti-government dissident" is that it is irrelevant to the article and seems to be "poisoning the well". Director, can you agree to leave that part out, please? --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear stfg, thank you again for your help. Of course I am fine in including the date of the interview but in this case ideally we should source it (we can cite source [10], i.e. this source is not Petacco). Two minor things: 1)Djilas was not just a member of the Yugoslav general staff, he was perhaps the closest collaborator to Tito in those years. 2)We can still write that he "declared", instead of he "claimed".

"Milovan Đilas, Tito's former collaborator at the time of the events, declared in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians, and for this reason was dispatched to Istria personally in 1945-46.". --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Source [10] (Ballinger p.103) doesn't appear to mention the date. Did you mean source [9] (Cresciani)? For such an uncontroversial detail as the date, I think that's OK. (1) Collaborator can actually have slight negative overtones. Remember, this isn't about Djilas; we're just introducing him for readers who haven't heard of him before. If you want, you could say "a senior member" instead of just "a member". (2) Declared sounds a little strange to a native English ear. You can safely take my word for this: if somebody says something and we want to report it without implying whether we believe him or not, said is the best word.

I've thought a little more about how to make clear that Djilas was no longer speaking for the Tito government in 1991, but without poisoning the well. Here's a possibility:

"Milovan Đilas, a senior member of the Yugoslav general staff at the time of the events until 1954, claimed in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted Italians, and to that end dispatched him to Istria personally in 1945-46."

What do you both think? --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes we can cite Cresciani (I.e. soruce [9]) just for the date. Fine for "said". I genuinely do not see the reason to add the reference "until 1954" and also it is not cited in any source. I also do not like collaborator, this is the reason I proposed initially "prominent member of the Yugoslav Government". However, apart the reference "until 1954" I am fine with your proposal. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Milovan Djilas wasn't in the military until 1954: he was speaker of parliament when he was dismissed amid political controversy. That's why I used that formulation. Also a small correction of my previous comment: Djilas was never colonel general (general pukovnik); his highest rank was lieutenant colonel general (general potpukovnik), which was the rank he held in 1945/46 (an error in translation on my part). That basically corresponds to the NATO rank of lieutenant general (tenente generale). -- Director (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. Let's stick with "a member of the Yugoslav general staff at the time of the events" then. --Stfg (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the sentence then. We should move on to the second sentence for Djilas. Is "political dissident" disputed? -- Director (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it's relevance is disputed. We aren't writing an article about Djilas here. The only point of this addition would be to cast doubt on the truth of the claim. That's the fallacy of poisoning the well. --Stfg (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, lets get this straight. You're proposing to describe a statement by a person referred to as a "member of the Yugoslav general staff" (or "inner circle" whetver), a statement essentially accusing the Yugoslav government of ethnic cleansing - without happening to mention that the person was a prominent political opponent of said government for some 40 years? "Poisoning the well"? How about "misleading the reader" as to the credibility of the source?

I gave it some further thought. A proper formulation should describe this person's status at the time of the interview first and foremost:

"Milovan Djilas, a prominent Yugoslav political dissident, claimed in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted Italians, and to that end dispatched him to Istria personally in 1945-46. At the time of the events, Djilas was a lieutenant general serving in the Yugoslav general staff."

-- Director (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The statement does not accuse the Yugoslav government of ethnic cleansing. It does not even suggests it. Indeed, You create a link between his condition of dissident and the reliability of his interview. This is your OR, unless you do not provide a source. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no OR here, he is sourced as a political dissident (you really don't know what "OR" refers to on this project). That's what he's most known for, its who he is. Not to mention that fact in some way is unacceptable POV as far as I am concerned, condicio sine qua non. -- Director (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, Director, I think that version has a better balance. How do you wish to source the "political dissident" epithet? Either of the two sources at the end of the lede in the Djilas article seem OK to me. --Stfg (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Me as well. Though of course we could probably find hundreds of sources for that term [14][15][16], its WP:BLUE almost. -- Director (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Director, I do not have a problem in writing that Milovan Djilas would be later a dissident (and actually I do not see any real need to source this fact in the article). My concern is that the sentence starts with "Prominent Yugoslav political dissident" and this really poisons the well. This associated to the word "claimed" results in completely misrepresenting the source.

@Stfg, citing the grade of Djilas is superfluous and does not give in the slightest the real dimension of the positions he covered. During the years 1945-1946 Milovan Djilas was Vice-president of Tito's government. In 1953 he was about to be chosen President of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (all this can be sourced, but I guess Director knows better than me). So if the idea is to write which position Djilas covered, this is what we need to write.

In view of the above comments and in order to get to a compromise I propose (I add ethnic to Italians because those citizens were not Italians but Yugoslavs of Italian ethnicity, also Ballinger writes so):

Milovan Djilas, at the time of the events Vice-president of Tito's government and later a prominent Yugoslav political dissident, declared during an interview in 1991 that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians, and to that end he was dispatched to Istria personally in 1945-46. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Djilas was not "vice president" of anything until 1953, when he became speaker of parliament, which is sort of like being "vice president" in the Yugoslav system. He was the provisional "Minister for Montenegro" in the provisional government, but that lasted until November 1945. By far his most influential posting at the time was his spot on the general staff... Making sense of Yugoslav communist politics and the myriad offices is surprisingly difficult, Silvio.

Stating first-off that a political dissident is a political dissident is not "poisoning the well". He was not an official at the time of the interview, but a dissident. Hence it makes more sense to place that first.

Also again, your sentence is of inferior grammatical quality. -- Director (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, in 1991 he was not a political dissident anymore. Tito has dead 10 years before and Yugoslavia was almost over. In the preface of "Conversations with Stalin" (book in front of me) he is described as being in 1953 as one of the 4 vice-president of Yugoslavia and untill 1954 seen as potential successor of Tito. Need sources? Silvio1973 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, - in 1953, your sentence states he was a vice president in 1945/46 ("at the time a vice president..."). What does it matter when Tito died? In 1991 the Communist Party was still very much in power (the same party, headed by Milosevich since 1987, would remain in power in Serbia and Montenegro until October 2000). SFR Yugoslavia also did not dissolve until a few months after the interview. -- Director (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I made one oversight: Director, your version returns to the use of claimed. That is a loaded word -- please see my earlier reply to Silvio. I accept your version only with the change claimed -> said. Sorry I overlooked that before. Please note also that Ballinger did not say he may that claim; she said he "seconded" it. And Silvio, you continue to insist on declared. As I've pointed out to you, that is a strange word in this context, and probably not NPOV either. Now please can we stop trying to put spin on a statement that he said something.

Silvio, Director's version seems OK to me. Saying that he was a prominent dissident at the time of the interview is accurate and it neither credits nor discredits his statement. Political dissidents sometimes reveal the truth, sometimes state falsehoods. And his military role seems more relevant to the claim than his political role, whatever that may have been at the time. --Stfg (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I based "claim" on Ballinger, but I'm fine with said if it'll bring this affair to a close. -- Director (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I listen your arguments and I am pleased that we are in spite of the difficulties moving forward to a compromise. Let's say that this part is agreed this section once the word "said" used:

"Milovan Djilas, a prominent Yugoslav political dissident, said in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians, and to that end dispatched him to Istria personally in 1945-46."

I have a problem writing "At the time of the events, Djilas was a lieutenant general serving in the Yugoslav general staff". The thing is that it's much easier to source Djilas' position in the government than in the army. Sources invariably cite first about his role in the government and not in the army. In Conversation with Stalin (perhaps his most important book) it is written on the cover: He was up to the time of the expulsion from the Communist Central Committee in January 1954, one of the four chiefs of the Yugoslav government, at times a Minister, head of the Parliament, and Vice-President. Some other sources: [[17]], [[18]], [[19]] (incipit: Milovan Djilas was, until 1954, Vice President of Yugoslavia, President of the Federal Parliament, and a Member of the Politburo and Central Committee.. I could probably found another dozen of sources in less than an hour. @Director, what do you think? --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What position did he have in the government at that time? I honestly don't know for sure.. Communist politics, and single-party politics in general, are a sort of merry-go-round where the same people rotate in the same offices. I know he was "Minister for Montenegro" at some point in the provisional government.. but that office certainly did not last beyond November 1945 and I'm not sure how long he held it exactly. He was primarily noted at the time as being a Yugoslav envoy on important diplomatic missions.

I certainly oppose referring to him by his one-year tenure as vice president, as he held it neither in '46 nor at the time of the interview in '91. -- Director (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking into Djilas' offices in 1946. He seems to have been head of the propaganda committee of the Communist Party.. or at any rate performed an important function related to propaganda. I've also looked into his exact statement in the Panorama interview: he basically says he was sent to Istria to organize propaganda in favor of the Yugoslav claim on the region. Propaganda seems to have been his job at the time. -- Director (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. In 1946 he was 'Secretary of the Department of Agitation and Propaganda of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia'. That is to say, the member of the Central Committee (the CKKPJ) in charge of the Party's propaganda; 'secretary for Agitprop' in Communist jargon.

I agree to amending the general staff bit to "member in charge of propaganda of the Yugoslav Communist Party's Central Committee". A mouthful, but more accurate I agree. Being a member of the vaunted CKKPJ certainly trumps any military function. The Nazis launched whole airborne offensives to capture those guys.. -- Director (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Director, I do not want to be vulgar but Djilas was a guy with two balls big like that. Before being a dissident seen my many as #2 in the Yugoslav Politburo. Just after the WWII the ambassador of Tito in Soviet Union and elsewhere (indeed he was more important than the Minister for foreign affairs of the time). Concerning his role of Vice-president I can cite sources stating he was Vice-president until he become a dissident 1953 and others saying he was in office for this function only in 1953-54 (and I actually believe the second are right without any doubt). However, all sources invariably give prominence to his many offices in the Government rather than to those in the Army. However, if we were to agree on "member in charge of propaganda of the Yugoslav Communist Party's Central Committee", you can make it shorter writing "member of the Yugoslav Government in charge of the propaganda".

So the sentence would be:

"Milovan Djilas, a prominent Yugoslav political dissident, claimed in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians, and to that end dispatched him to Istria personally in 1945-46. At the time of the events, Djilas was the member in charge of propaganda of the Yugoslav Government."

The issue is that the edit sounds awkward and unclear to those unfamiliar with the history of Yugoslavia. Mainly because there is no chronological consecutio (I mean being initially a prominent member of the Politburo and later a dissident). Indeed Ballinger says "Tito's former collaborator and subsequent critic". For this reason and to stick more to the source I would propose:

"Milovan Djilas, Tito's former collaborator and later a prominent Yugoslav political dissident, said in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians. At the time of the events, Djilas was the member of the Yugoslav Government in charge of the propaganda and to and to that end dispatched him to Istria personally in 1945-46.".

And of course feel free to replace collaborator with any more appropriate wording (as long does not reduce the actual prominence of Djilas). Silvio1973 (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Bah, he was just stupid. If you really want to change things you don't run around naked in the streets shouting about it. But even that aside, his views were pretty stupid as such.. he seemed to actually, seriously think Communism would seriously work, as in "no ruling class", which is just deluded. Communism did a lot of good for Yugoslavia (as opposed to much of the rest of Europe), but only morons would seriously think that it would bring about some kind of absolute classless society.. The best you can hope is you'll get a better, more capable ruling class. Nvm though.

@Director: Communism in Yugoslavia was not very different from the Fascism in Italy. One party, very little freedom and respect for the diversity, and a lot of violence (although not as much as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Union under Stalin). But if you want, you can still think Communism did a lot of good in Yugoslavia. At the end of the day some people still think the Fascism did a lot of good for Italy, but I genuinely think they are wrong.

No "former collaborator", that just sounds weird; I also don't think it needs replacing with anything. So far as I can gather, he was not a member of the "Yugoslav government", but a member of the Communist Party's Central Committee. There's a difference. We should not call him a member of the government (a minister) if he wasn't such. Finally, in the interview he says he was sent in 1946 specifically, not "1945/46" so that needs to be amended.

"Milovan Djilas, a prominent Yugoslav political dissident, said in a 1991 interview that the Yugoslav government had purposefully targeted ethnic Italians, and to that end dispatched him to Istria personally in 1946. At the time of the events, Djilas was the member in charge of propaganda of the Communist Party's Central Committee."

This is, I think, very generous on my part, given that: #1 Ballinger calls it a claim, and we don't; #2 that the phrase "targeting ethnic Italians" refers in Ballinger primarily to the Soviet claim - not Djilas' own. Djilas in his actual statement says he was sent to "persuade Italians to leave", not "target" them. I think we should finish this now. -- Director (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for continuing it a moment longer, Director, but I think you are partly right and are conceding too much. I have been slightly confused in the last day or so, because about a week ago you posted this, citing WP:PRIMARY. The policy on primary sources says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I think that a week ago you may have been objecting to interpretation of the primary source. I see no problem in using the interview as source for a direct, attributed quotation of what Djilas said, do you? I think this is important, because Ballinger's words may actually be unhelpful here. Especially "targeted" can be (mis)understood to mean targeted with violence, and many readers would assume that meaning. If his mission was merely to persuade, using a direct quotation from the interview would be better. I can't find the interview online, but if you can supply a quote, we can do something like:

"Milovan Djilas, a prominent Yugoslav political dissident, said in a 1991 interview: <insert quotation here>.<insert ref here> At the time of the events, Djilas was the Communist Party Central Committee member in charge of propaganda."

(Note that I've slightly changed the word order of the last sentence. It's slightly better English.) It's up to you. --Stfg (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Nobody really cares about that meaningless interview with the half-senile, 80-year-old Djilas besides pro-exile/right-wing Italian factions. Nobody's quoted it besides Petacco, and I can't find the Serbo-Croatian-language original. Petacco reports the conversation as follows, and of course frames it in terms of "Aha! An admission!":

"MD: I remember in 1946 me and Edvard Kardelj went to Istria to organize the anti-Italian propaganda. It was all about proving to the Allied Commission that those lands were Yugoslav and not Italian: we organized manifestations with signs and flags..

P: Wasn't that true?

MD: Of course it wasn't. Or rather, it was partly true, Italians were the majority in the towns, but not in the countryside. It was therefore necessary to persuade them to leave with all kinds of pressure."

He's talking about propaganda - his job at the time, "manifestations with signs and flags".. It boils down to "in 1946 me and Edvard Kardelj went to Istria to persuade them to leave with all kinds of pressure". I would still love to find the Serbo-Croatian original, as it seems kind of fishy to me (I can't easily render it into Serbo-Croatian). I've never heard of the Panorama magazine, it seems to have been a minor Serbian Communist-era weekly publication, no longer in existence: I can't find the website, much less any archives.

P.s. Note re Edvard Kardelj: he was not foreign affairs minister in 1946, but in 1948-53. What he was at the time is the diplomatic envoy in charge of negotiations over the Yugoslav/Italian border. In fact he became foreign affairs minister as a consequence of that post. -- Director (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There appear to be a number of Panorama magazines, including an Italian one (which has a Wikipedia article, a Polish one, and something published by the EU. And that's only from the first page of this Google search. This is far too difficult. I'm willing to stick with what we've got. --Stfg (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Wait a sec, it may well have been that Italian magazine that conducted the interview. I've been laboring on false assumptions, I'll look into the question further. -- Director (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, it was the Italian settimanale Panorama, edition of 21 July 1991. This is the original, according to Petacco:

MD: Ricordo che nel 1946 io ed Edvard Kardelj andammo in Istria a organizzare la propaganda anti-italiana. Si trattava di dimostrare alla commissione alleata che quelle terre erano jugoslave e non italiane: predisponemmo manifestazioni con striscioni e bandiere.

P: Ma non era vero?

MD: Certo che non era vero. O meglio lo era solo in parte, perché in realtà gli italiani erano la maggioranza nei centri abitati, anche se non nei villaggi. Bisognava dunque indurli ad andare via con pressioni d'ogni genere.

Can you guess how prominent the quote is at it:Milovan Gilas? :)

Anyway, its a reputable magazine, certainly more than Petacco's book. I do know some Italian, and a more accurate translation than the one I posted above would be something like this:

MD: I remember in 1946 Edvard Kardelj and I went to Istria to organize anti-Italian propaganda. It was about proving to the Allied Commission that those lands were Yugoslav and not Italian, we organized demonstrations with banners and flags.

P: But it wasn't true?

MD: Certainly not. Or rather it was true in part, because in reality Italians constituted the majority in urban areas, but not in the countryside. It was therefore necessary to persuade them to leave with all kinds of pressure.

Here are the magazine's archives [20], but unfortunately they don't seem to have earlier editions available there. I think, however, that we can probably trust Petacco's quotation (i.e. I won't challenge his use for this quotation). As I said, nobody else, not even Panorama, cares about that interview.. -- Director (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So, how about:
"In a 1991 interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, prominent Yugoslav political dissident Milovan Đilas claimed to have been dispatched to Istria alongside Edvard Kardelj in 1946, to "organize anti-Italian propaganda" such as "demonstrations with banners and flags". He stated it was seen as "necessary to employ all kinds of pressure to persuade Italians to leave", due to their constituting a majority in urban areas. Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954, in 1946 Đilas was a high-ranking Yugoslav politician: a member of the Yugoslav Communist Party's Central Committee, in charge of its department of propaganda."
-- Director (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well found. I'll copy edit that slightly:

"In a 1991 interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, prominent Yugoslav political dissident Milovan Đilas said that he had been dispatched to Istria with Edvard Kardelj in 1946 to "organize anti-Italian propaganda", such as "demonstrations with banners and flags". He stated that it was seen as "necessary to employ all kinds of pressure to persuade Italians to leave", since they constituted a majority in urban areas. Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954, in 1946 Đilas was a high-ranking Yugoslav politician: a member of the Yugoslav Communist Party's Central Committee, in charge of its department of propaganda."

I agree we can cite Petacco for this. In the footnote, I suggest including the full Italian text you quoted above. Doing so will help us if POV editors later try to tinker with the text. --Stfg (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you switched "claimed" with "said", I thought we could compromise on that with having "claimed" in the first sentence, and "stated" in the second, where the serious accusation is made (i.e. the "all kinds of pressure" bit)? Also amended "since they constituted" to "due to their having constituted". -- Director (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:SAID. Why do you want "claimed" in this? It expresses doubt as to the truth of the statement, and that is editorializing. As to the other, please don't edit what I've typed and signed, as it makes it look as if your choice of words was mine. I've restored what I wrote. It's simply a prose improvement: they both mean exactly the same, but "due to their having constituted" is rather clumsy. --Stfg (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that the guideline does not apply when the phrasing is sourced. Our one reliable source that even mentions this statement refers to it as a "claim". The word is not forbidden, and it seems to me that the requirement to "use it with care" would be satisfied with a direct source.

Sorry about that. I favor "due to their having constituted" as it kind of makes the sentence flow more smoothly, making the comma unnecessary, but this is really going into absurd detail :). I'm fine with whatever. -- Director (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, I am getting into Edit conflict all the time. My comments: it is not a good idea to cite Petacco. It is much better to cite Cresciani. As already I said in the past (see in Archive 3) I do not particularly like this source (indeed I do not like it at all), but the situation it's different when it comes to objectives facts that can be cross-checked with other sources. Using Cresciani instead of Petacco will avoid in the future to any editor to "sneak" the source to push a POV.

This interview it's primary source. If it has to be inserted, it should be done citing 100% of the interview but without taking position (unless some reliable and indisputable scholar will do one day). You might appreciate that the sentence "Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954" it's a bit hard for someone who decided voluntarily to move out of the Government.

I see that we all agree to describe with more details the implication of Djilas in the events. I can only be happy about that. However you see that stating "demonstrations with banners and flags" and "necessary to employ all kinds of pressure to persuade Italians to leave" are two actions at the antipodes. Sure, one could argue the first it's a fact, the second it's a claim. Indeed they are both claims. Why can't we just insert 100% of the quote?

The English version of the interview corresponds to the Italian text. I do not speak Serbo-Croat but I have decent fluency in Russian and I know that these two languages have strong similarity. Due to their differences, any translation from a Slavic language in a western language (either neo-Latin or not) is always an approximate exercise so if a Serbian-Croat mother tongue could give a look to the original (if can be found) this would be a plus.

Panorama is (and was even more in 1991) a very reputable magazine. In order to give you a magnitude of the impact this interview had in Italy please note what follows. Until the end of the cold war the subject of the Istrian exodus was hidden to the Italians to the point that the exiles often used to hide their origins. Two generations of Italians grew-up without even knowing that Istria and Zadar had even been Italian between the two wars. So you can imagine the noise that this interview (published on a left-oriented magazine) made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio1973 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 September 2014‎ (UTC)

No you don't get it Silvio, we're not quoting Petacco's wording, we're merely using him as a reference for what was published in Panorama. His own phrasing isn't neutral or reliable, neither in his book, nor repeated in other refs like Cresciani. -- Director (talk) 11:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Silvio: "You might appreciate that the sentence "Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954" it's a bit hard for someone who decided voluntarily to move out of the Government." -- according to the article about him: "Tito and the other leading Yugoslav communists saw his arguments as a threat to their leadership, and in January 1954 Đilas was expelled from the Central Committee of the party, of which he had been a member since 1937, and dismissed from all political functions for his criticism. He resigned from the League of Communists soon afterwards, in March 1954." If the article is right, then Director's proposed words are valid, but that paragraph of the article is completely unsourced. Whatever we say here, we shall need a source. --Stfg (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg, I see your point and you are right. Indeed, I can source that he broke with the regime as much as that he he was expelled. In this case, the difference between the two situation is small. For example, this source [21] says he broke with the regime. The long version is that in 1954 he published a number of newspaper articles critical of the regime and and was promptly stripped of his various offices and given a suspended sentence. In 1956 he pushed things more and he ended being sent to 3 years of forced labor. [[22]]. Writing that he was expelled is technically right, but without some additional explanations that information creates confusion rather than adding any value. Indeed, Director I disagree about Djilas. He was not stupid (to use your words) but perhaps intellectually too honest. But this is another story.

IMHO we should not make things that wordy, otherwise we need to source and explain so much that in the end we do not speak anymore of Istrian exodus but we end making a mini-biography of Djilas. Indeed Ballinger's formulation (Tito's collaborator and subsequent critic) or something similar could be a good way to avoid this issue.

@Director, I get the issue very well. But please do not be impolite (it does not help and removes all the enjoyment). However, I do not have a problem if you want to cite Petacco, but I think it is not a good idea because lets the door open to misuse of this source. But I am not opposed if you want to cite it. However, it looks we are getting this matter to a workable compromise. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Silvio, for the text of the interview I think we have to cite Petacco, because that is the only source we have for that text. Unless you have another? As to his exit from the regime, I don't really think that the words "Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954" are essential here, but it's a compromise I can live with. It's true, after all. But we don't need to elaborate every detail. If you both want to, we could add "... for publishing newspaper articles criticizing the regime" to it. I don't really mind that, but more would be too much. The "broke with" formulation is too weak, and a book blurb on Amazon isn't a reliable source anyhow. We have correct information on this episode now, and I think we should move on. --Stfg (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok let's cite Petacco. It is fine for me. I agree that we can live with "Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954". No I do not want to make it too long, I think this incipit is already long enough. Indeed the only thing I do not like it's putting aside two sentences like "demonstrations with banners and flags" and "necessary to employ all kinds of pressure to persuade Italians to leave". Either we find a way to formulate briefly the content of the full extract from the interview or we have to cite it entirely. If we go for the first solution I would suggest (I have removed the reference of the ethnicity in the villages and the cities, this thing of the banners and flags and removed "Yugoslav politician"):

"In a 1991 interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, prominent Yugoslav political dissident Milovan Đilas said that he had been dispatched to Istria with Edvard Kardelj in 1946 to organize anti-Italian propaganda to prove to the Allied Commission that those lands were Yugoslav and not Italian. He stated that it was seen as "necessary to employ all kinds of pressure to persuade Italians to leave". Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954, in 1946 Đilas was a high-ranking member of the Yugoslav Communist Party's Central Committee, in charge of its department of propaganda.". Silvio1973 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My problem with that, Silvio, is that it can be read as including a mandate for violence, whereas the interview only says that the mission was propaganda. So I can't agree to it. Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you see this risk we need to be more specific:

"In a 1991 interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, prominent Yugoslav political dissident Milovan Đilas said that he had been dispatched to Istria with Edvard Kardelj in 1946 to organize anti-Italian propaganda such as demonstrations with banners and flags to prove to the Allied Commission that those lands were Yugoslav and not Italian. He stated that it was seen as necessary to employ all kinds of pressure to persuade Italians to leave. Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954, in 1946 Đilas was a high-ranking member of the Yugoslav Communist Party's Central Committee, in charge of its department of propaganda.". What are your thoughts? Silvio1973 (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ugh.. I don't see what your changes add to the previous composition - why does every discussion with you turn into a petty squabble over nonsense??! Are you incapable of accepting the proposals of others? I am done with this. This is the only version I will accept:

"In a 1991 interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, prominent Yugoslav political dissident Milovan Đilas claimed to have been dispatched to Istria alongside Edvard Kardelj in 1946, to "organize anti-Italian propaganda" such as "demonstrations with banners and flags". He stated it was seen as "necessary to employ all kinds of pressure to persuade Italians to leave", due to their constituting a majority in urban areas. Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954, in 1946 Đilas was a high-ranking Yugoslav politician: a member of the Yugoslav Communist Party's Central Committee, in charge of its department of propaganda."

..there is really no point in discussing this issue any further. Take it or leave it, Silvio. O mangiar questa minestra o saltar questa finestra. Posting an entire paragraph on this drivel is WP:WEIGHT anyway, pandering to Italian right-wing propaganda-peddlers - and there's an argument that this entire statement falls below WP:NOTE: our one reliable source that mentions this is an entire book devoted to this specific subject (as opposed to an article!), and only mentions it with a brief note in brackets. No doubt on itWiki it would be in the lead in full quotation, but I'm afraid enWiki in contrast is not a showcase for irredentist political bias.

I'm sorry to adopt this posture, @Stfg, but you've not had to put up with this sort of nonsense as much as I have - and its always the damn same. My patience with it has been worn down entirely (re "claim": its sourced as the appropriate term for this statement, and by the only fully reliable source we have on it). Unless someone puts his foot down and says "enough already", Silvio1973 will never stop with his petty objections - its always just one more little thing, just a bit more his way.

I frankly have better things to do, and more productive editing to post, than to quibble in an infantile manner over meaningless nonsense with no end in sight. - And this is all just one half of the issues! -- Director (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(Sorry for accidentally editing the post there. I modified it so as to be able to compare versions with the "show changes" function, meaning to restore it.) -- Director (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec*2) Director, for the second time I have to point out to you that you do NOT edit other people's signed posts. The discussion becomes meaningless if we cannot see what each participant posted. I wasted time this morning wondering what the heck Silvio was changing until I guessed that I needed to check the history of this page and discovered what you had done. I have restored what Silvio wrote. This is your last warning: don't do that again.

Having spent two days of my life reading through this talk page, all its archives, and several other pages at places like ANI, ANEW, DRN, RFC/U, ARBMAC, SPI, I know quite a lot about the history and about the role you have taken on. But your "posture" (your word) is one of ownership. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by demands to "Take it or leave it" or telling people to eat the soup or jump out of the window (yes, I read Italian too, you know). You are not neutral and are not entitled to dictate the contents of this article. And please stop coming back to tweak your rant every few minutes. It creates edit conflicts and thus obstructs discussion. Compose it, preview it, sit on your hands and convince yourself it's what you really meant to say, post it, and then let us get a word in edgeways.

Silvio, I don't think your proposed modification was an improvement, and I don't think you are making it clear why you want this discussion to continue. You have the mention of Djilas that you wanted. I am beginning to wonder when you'll be satisfied. Move on, please.

I have RL commitments all day today, but will return here tomorrow. I have asked u|Callanecc}} to extend the article's protection for another two days to give us time to wrap this up. I hope not to ask for any further extension. Please use the next 24 hours to calm down, and to reflect on what you are and are not entitled to do here, and on what are your realistic aims are for this article. --Stfg (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit was an accident, I was using 'show changes' as explained. No need to post "final warnings" etc. Stfg, I'm not exactly a newbie 'round here. And I apologize for the ec, I'm trying to post from my phone.

Yes, posture is the term I used, and its not a "bad word". My posture is imo appropriate as this discussion has turned, yet again, into a "Silvio Discussion"^TM, and is turning out pretty ridiculous as per the pattern. I don't want to write tomes in infantile debates over meaningless nonsense noone should waste time on, you or me. I remind you that the author who devoted years of study and wrote an entire book on this subject - mentions this offhand statement by the semi-senile Djilas with a half-dozen words between brackets. By rights and sources our sentence should be "Milovan Djilas seconded the claim by Stalin that the Yugoslav government targeted ethnic Italians in Istria", and basta (I've no doubt you can read Italian, Stfg).

I repeat I am not prepared to compromise any further for the sake of compromise, in deviation from sources. You can call it OWN if you like, but that paragraph is about as far as I myself will go. Wikipedia does function by consensus - but by consensus based on sources. Its not a democracy. -- Director (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg, my proposal clearly confirmed Director's edit, albeit shortening some sections because I found the edit really too wordy. I suggest to insert the edit as Director proposed. I have no doubt in future a more stylish wording will be found. @Director, you know that many times I have expressed words of elogy for your wikipedian seniority and competence. Unfortunately you behave too often in a way that is - to use nice words - not as good ad your competence. You should really reconsider your attitude because you won't find always patient people dealing with you. However we might discuss of this issue in a separate instance, not in this 3O. @All, in Italian the right wording is O mangi questa minestra o salti dalla finestra. :) Silvio1973 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've always heard it spoken that way [23], must be a dialectical thing. Sadly I'm barely fluent in Tuscan, let alone the various dialects.. In Dalmatia we'd say "ili jedi manistru ili saltaj kroz ponistru"; here's a 'thank you' link :) (its a bit by Tijardović in the old Split dialect, but there's other stuff as well.. [24])

You always push too far, Silvio.. Just once I'd like to see these discussions end with "ok I'm fine with that", instead of nitpicking over every insignificant detail. The edit was perfectly fine two days ago!

Should we move on to the next issue, abandon it, or take a break? (Again, apologies for the numerous edits, I'm trying to post from my phone) -- Director (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Director, please read your posts since the beginning of this discussion (including before I posted the 3O request) and your baseline provocation on my talk page and you might understand how inappropriate is your language. I value your comments, but when you start being rude I prefere to ignore because it is not worth reacting. Indeed, whatever insult you direct to me I will remain calm and systematically involve other users using 3O and RfC. Mind well, the fact I ignore your behaviour does not entitle you to continue. Yes, we need to close this 3O and we need to go to section 1 (please answer to stfg if you have an alternative wording for the edit in discussion #1. Concerning the edit about Djilas I still believe we should work the wording because it´s too "twisty", but for now it's OK. Let's move on. Silvio1973 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be your perception, but from my perspective whenever I engage you in discussion I know I have to waste days of my time on Wikipedia surmounting problems such as your dishonest sourcing, your incredible insistence on OR, your condescending attitude, your nitpicking, your ICANTHEARYOU, your bad English, your assumption of bad faith to such an extent agreement is made impossible, etc. etc. And you do also, to boot, like to post your share of comments implying my "genetic" propensity for conflict, on grounds of coming from the wrong side of the Adriatic. A bit too much Petacco, one might say. I don't care why you consider yourself entitled to ignore the talkpage posts of other users you are discussing with: you're just not.

I am not prepared to discuss this further. Note: Ballinger is our only reliable source that mentions this statement by Djilas. By rights, as I said, we should represent her without any OR or additions based on biased Italian (quote) "folk" sources. "During the Tito-Stalin split, the Soviet side voiced claims (later seconded by Milovan Djilas) that the Yugoslavs purposely targeted ethnic Italians in Istria". Instead I've agreed to represent Djilas' words and statements precisely, and devote much more space to them than our source deemed necessary. This is a concession on my part and a departure from reliable sources. I myself am not prepared to agree to any further such concessions. This is not OWN, I am just not. -- Director (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Director, we have occupied stfg for over a week to land on a compromise. Now you want to start from the top again? I suggest you to take a small break. and please you should really comment about the edits and not the editors. I am ready to start from the top and admit only Ballinger as valuable source (indeed it was my initial proposal). The thing is that we have discussed for a week and I genuinely think we cannot abuse of stfg's time. Silvio1973 (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about me. I was only asked for a 3O, so I was free simply to hit the talk page with an opinion and run quickly away. That I chose to stay was my own choice. What I think about this particular issue is that Director's version is better than simply quoting Ballinger. I believe Petacco is reliable on what Djilas's words were, and having these words in the article serves us better than having Ballinger's interpretation (and it obviously is an interpretation). There are things I don't like in Director's formulation, but we should all remember that being neutral and giving a 3O doesn't make me judge and jury, and I'll tell you that if it goes in, with "claimed" and the bit about being stripped of office, then I don't intend to edit it. And I think you shouldn't either, Silvio. We have sourced information here now. Please may we let this section rest, and progress to #Discussion of conclusion #1? --Stfg (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg, for the third time: yes I am ok with Director's suggestion ie:

In a 1991 interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, prominent Yugoslav political dissident Milovan Đilas claimed to have been dispatched to Istria alongside Edvard Kardelj in 1946, to "organize anti-Italian propaganda" such as "demonstrations with banners and flags". He stated it was seen as "necessary to employ all kinds of pressure to persuade Italians to leave", due to their constituting a majority in urban areas. Although he was to be stripped of his offices in 1954, in 1946 Đilas was a high-ranking Yugoslav politician: a member of the Yugoslav Communist Party's Central Committee, in charge of its department of propaganda."

And yes, now we need now to move to part 1 of the discussion. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm done here

I was going to say what needs to happen to this article, but it's pointless, isn't it, since everyone can already see. It needs neutral editors to have space to straighten out the obvious POV and sourcing problems without having to negotiate the hostilities evident on this talk page and in the article's edit history. This article and its talk page are a battle ground, and the outrageous conduct here would send any sensible neutral editor running a mile. Which is just what this sensible neutral editor is going to do now. I've posted on the talk page of Callanecc, the admin who asked me to accept this 3O request, to say why I think this is purely a conduct issue and that it needs some decent disciplinary control here. That's all. --Stfg (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least a 3O with some long-term protection of the article could have helped to move things forward. I hate to judge the other editors but for what I have seen elsewhere it looks that Director's conduct is organic exactly to this objective: making other editors running away. Unfortunately I do not have the seniority and the competence to avoid this from happening. The best I can do is not to react to the provocations. But this has proven being not enough. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a 3O can achieve "some long-term protection of the article", Silvio. 3O is for getting a non-binding opinion on a content issue. --Stfg (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add just one general comment about this article and talk page. One of the themes running clearly through all the discussions is whether to present the events described here as genocide/ethnic cleansing, or whether the exodus was a "voluntary, free-will departure". This absurd binarism has wasted a lot of time and energy here. It was neither. Things were done that considerably limited people's choice and amounted to a significant degree of coercion, but these things fell far short of genocide. That is the NPOV, and it can be sourced from the Ballinger p.103 paragraph that has occupied so much space. Even Djilas's strongest statement was "It was therefore necessary to persuade them to leave with all kinds of pressure," and that is nowhere near genocide.

On the whole, I think the main body of the article (but perhaps not the lede) adequately represents both views. One change I'd like to see would be in the section The exodus, to replace "choosing to leave" with "leaving". That would be a routine copy edit in a non-controversial article. Here it would also be a move towards NPOV. --Stfg (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg, classifying the Istrian exodus of ethnic cleasing is just a morbid nationalist position. Perhaps even more morbid than trying to represent it as a voluntary free-departure. I have stated this position of mine many times before in the course of the discussion. I also think the article represent fairly both views and at the end of the day it is to the reader to take conclusions. The issue is that the leade as it is now does not resume the actual content of the article (how can we reasonably write that the exiles in the caption of the picture in the lede are just migrants?). Listen, I want to believe that it is still possible to find a compromise, hence propose the following formulation (voluntarely I concede more than I intended to). I can only hope this can help to reach consensus.

According to various sources, the exodus is estimated to have amounted to between some 230,000 and 350,000 people (a figure including several thousands of anti-communist Croats and Slovenes) leaving the areas in the aftermath of the conflict. Despite the pressure exerted and hardships endured by the ethnic Italians, there is still a sizeable Italian minority in Istria accounting to 20,000 people.

I made the comment about the binarism because it's an element I detect throughout this talk page and its archives, right back to 2007. You surely understand that these what-you-call "morbid nationalist positions" have been represented in these pages and have created sensitivities on both sides of the discussion. Other editors may come here in future, and I wanted to alert them to the issue.

As to the rephrasing you now propose, that is issue #1. I've already given my opinion about that, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life word-smithing one phrase. Your new version of that phrase may or may not be all right, but I don't see why you needed to propose it, nor what problem it solves. You still haven't responded to my reasoned opinion that Minahan is not a useful source for this. Once again, you are attributing to Hinton and O'Neill what Ballinger wrote for a book merely edited by them.

The caption of the lede picture says "emigrants", not "migrants". There is a considerable difference in flavour, and "emigrants" is a neutral term that doesn't say anything about whether they went gladly or sadly. It's good NPOV.

That reminds me about one thing I had been planning to mention: the references in the article are very poorly presented and need fixing up. Sometimes it's just a bare URL; other times just a URL and a title. We need at least all that are available of: author, author link, editors (separately identified as such), publisher, pages for books, access date for web pages including PDFs. --Stfg (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg, U take your point about "emigrants", but I do not understand why we use the word "exiles" everywhere except in the lede.

@Director, I have removed the reference to the current Italian population in Istria and copied from Ahonen that the actual implication of the Yugoslav authority is a matter subject to controversy. I also explained that emigration was reduced to unique viable option in view if the pressure exerced. This in my eyes correspond to a sensible compromise (and I actually conceding quite a lot).

According to various sources, the exodus is estimated to have amounted to between some 230,000 and 350,000 people (a figure including several thousands of anti-communist Croats and Slovenes) leaving the areas in the aftermath of the conflict.The formal responsability of the Yugoslav authorities in the exodus is still today a matter of discussion amongst historians. However, in many cases the pressure exerced on the ethnic Italians gave them little option other than emigration.

I do not have access to my PC, so I will refine the presentation of the sources tomorrow, if the edit passes the night. I welcome all modifications and comments and hope this edit won't merely be reverted. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Re emigrants vs. exiles: emigrant is a good NPOV word for someone who leaves somewhere for whatever reason. I imagine exile was used because it's the usual dictionary translation for esule, but I don't know whether they mean precisely the same thing. The English word mainly refers to someone who is banished, prevented from returning. Does esule mean that as well? The choice of word is difficult, but I guess translating esule literally is logical if that is what they call themselves. --Stfg (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, "exerced" isn't a word. Pressure is put on people, so that's the word to use there. --Stfg (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an exile is un esule. They were indeed exiles (and called themselves like that) because could not return to their land and regain possession of their properties, owned during centuries and lost forever. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)