Talk:Foibe massacres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Foibe killings)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New version discussion[edit]

DIREKTOR I have just read your sorry in my comment: I accept but your behaviour is very dubious. Your proposal is reasonable: let's none of us touch the article for now. This is list of my grievances with the current wording:

  • IX or 9 Korpus included communist Italian combatants: how many were? In article no data
  • foibe killings of Italian people in 1943 were made by communist Italian too, in article no data
  • Estimates range from between 2,000 and 15,000: minimum of murdered was about 5.000 for important historians
  • the Germans, the Italians and their Slavic collaborating allies (the Chetniks, the Ustaše and Domobranci): Chetniks were not allies but fought against strangers and communists under Tito's command
  • in whole article is not a citation of Bleiburg massacre that was in connection with purge of foibe planned by Tito and communists
  • in whole article is not a citation of Italian Communist Party under Togliatti's command that was ally of Tito.

I know that other related discussion is in RfA-Dalmatia. PIO, 17:55 15 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


  • The 9. Korpus (9th Corps) did not have Italian Partisans (that were part of the Partisan forces). The reference to the Italian "Giuseppe Garibaldi" Partisan Division was meant to show that the Partisans were not an anti-Italian movement.
  • Sure, the deserters/defectors (after the capitualtion) were likely to behave violantly. I'm not particularly against this but it would be good if you had a source, do you?
  • I agree. Most acclaimed Italian historians round the number up at 5000, that's true. We can state that, but estimates do range between 2,000 and 15,000 and it shouldn't be removed (even though it is unlikely the very lowest, and the very highest estimates are true, they stil exist don't they?).
  • Chetniks were a collaborator movement. They were even at Bleiburg with their Ustaša allies. They recieved ammunition, supplies and weapons from the Italians (until 1943) and the Germans.
  • What does the Bleiburg massacre have to do with the foibas? it is not interconnected in any way. These are two seperate and completely different war crimes. There is no evidence of a grand master plan by Tito that would include both the Bleiburg massacre and the foibe massacres. Here's the thing, it is impossible to prove this and it is not very likely, and without proof (sources) we cannot let it in Wikipedia.
  • What was Togliatti's connection with the Yugolav front? Did his units participate in some way?

DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR I have sources for all points but are in Italian language and in books: you read my old comment, my sources crack you up? I know that you understand Italian language then is useful this link of it:Norma Cossetto: in this article you read Dopo l'8 settembre 1943 Norma Cossetto fu vittima dei partigiani jugoslavi e italiani dell'Istria.PIO, 16:12 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please answer by points (*), thats the only way to discuss an issue this complex.
While I respect Italians I am not prepeared to accept Italian or (ex-)Yugoslav sources as valid in this matter, here is why: the two often contradict, and they are more than often biased.

The Net is mostly English and it is a BIG place, so I relly doubt it will be too hard for you to find reliable sources. Do you realise that for every Italian source you find, I can find a Yugoslav source that contradicts it? I think it is best to keep away from all that... DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR is not simple to find reliable sources in English language and is important to wait opinions of other users. My question is: needs to remove all references in Italian language?PIO, 15:58 25 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the foibe[edit]

The "Origins of the foibe" section is vague. The English translation is bad and the title "origins of the foibe" is very vague. Do you mean geologically, or otherwise? The current title can only be used if you are discussing them as geological features. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean the first usage of foibe -for massacres. And that was Italian invention! Some better name??--Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to say that usage of foibe(that were natural pits!!) in massacres was not invention of Yugoslav partisans. This source shows that foibe were used for that purpose muc time before ww2. I did not mean that Italian have been digging out them. --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph has to be removed or corrected. The only citation given to prove that the "Foibe were used for massacres before World War II", is a quote from a propaganda speech of Giuseppe Cobolli Gigli. Is not possible to claim that "During Italian sovereignty there were many killings of Slavic population." just by a sentence pronounced by a fascist politician, also because there are no storic evidence of slavic massacre during fascism. Also you cannot say that the yugoslav partisan took the idea of using foibe from Cobolli Gigli. The burial of dead body inside the foibe was an usual thing during all the history. --Paul Gascoigne (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to move forward on a historical rather than an emotional basis. So let's call for reliable sources here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that foibas were in history a "natural" way of getting rid the enemy. Cobolli's statement is sort of confession .He wrote it in a belief that he will be remembered. He was, but not on a planned way. --Aradic-es (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Politic clean?[edit]

The reason of the foibe wasn't pricipally for politic,but to terrorize the Italians and were a revenge because of the violence of the Fascism(people could't talk in public in Sloven or in Croat,the Sloven and Croat newspaper were closed,in the schooles no more croat or sloven and the "italianization" of the surnames).--Ujkaj4president (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


Mr/Ms IP 151.48... (it keeps changing for some reason; apologies that I cannot address you accurately), cut out the aggressive edit summaries. This is not a war, or a competition. This is an encyclopedia. You ask us to take you seriously, but you behave in such a similar way to departed friends that it is hard to do so, sadly. I have absolutely no problem with properly sourced additions, such as the one you have made this evening. Good. Please keep these coming. I think you need to work on your English ("For Katia Pizzi...") is Italian, not English. Please correct this. "According to..." would be an appropriate change.
Now, in general terms, it appears that I have to speak to you sternly. You choose to hide behind the cloak of an everchanging IP address. This we must tolerate. Until I came to Wikipedia I had never heard of any encyclopedia that offered its editors anonymity. That's why I choose to edit under my real name. Regarding edits to this and any other controversial article, we have made huge progress in the last year or so in clearing out the worst of the POV pushers who seek to use Wikipedia as a vent for their nationalist frustrations. As as final remark - and I mean this in good faith - if you choose to go down the same hotheaded road as those that have left us, then you will find that your edits are restricted, like so many other people's, to Bruno's blog. So, in summary, hotheaded, aggressive = bad; sourced, helpful = good. È quello chiaro? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
... mmm, and while we're talking, a word for your friends. You can copy-paste this to Bruno's blog, of which I am an avid reader... Bruno - I don't know where the schizophrenia comes from. What was with all the alternate accounts? Serious question. Your edits, irrespective of the account, were normally sourced and, while very POV, correct. If you'd stuck to one account, definitely you'd still be editing. GG - you were a hothead. If you'd kept your cool, and focussed on the articles, not the editors, maybe you'd still be around. Everyone got pissed off because of your behaviour. PIO - poor PIO. Cannon fodder. The infantry. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Al. How are you? Please, do not stir ghosts: I'm your old Itlaian friend Luigi (do you remember?), and sorry for my English. Excuse me also for my IPs changing: I live in a small island and I have a very unstable connection. Mrs. Pizzi - among the Italian historians - is completely unknown. She is not a historian, but a young scholar of literature who works in London. Do you like her words: "(Italian) partisans and civilians, were imprisoned and subsequently thrown alive by Yugoslav partisans into various chasms"? Italian partisans thrown alive in the chasms by Yugoslavs! What a kind of bullshit! I know why you were interested in Katia Pizzi: she is the only source that you are able to find where someone talks about opponents of fascism thrown in foibe by the fascists. One thing that I have never read anywhere, and it is also illogical: the fascist regime had no interest in throwing his opponents in the foibe, indeed: in the 30th celebrated spectacular public processes (do you know the "Tribunale Speciale per la Sicurezza dello Stato"?) and then ordered to shooting the Slovenian patriots! Instead, if we're talking about the years of war, after the Italian armistice in effect in Istria commanded the Germans. Maybe you do not know that the bodies were pulled out of foibe in late 1943 by a group of Italian firefighters from Pola, commanded by a certain Harzarich. Well: this Harzarich left a report with detailed lists of names of people recovered and recognized: no names of partisan. So if there is a reasonable source, it's perfectly acceptable to me that "Fascist soldiers had also used 'foibe' as open-air cemeteries for opponents of the regime". Were are the realiable source? Take care of yourself.-- (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon your words, I will happily remove all Pizzi-related text. In this, and other articles, we need to get to quality. All unsourced or poorly sourced statements have to go. This is an encyclopedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-wrote the phrase that was even before (no Pizzi-related text, of course), and that you have accidentally deleted, with a veifiably note. If you want, I have a complete list of the recovered and ricognized people from the foibe (only from the foibe!) in 1943/1945.-- (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Mr/Ms, nothing was accidentally deleted. I note that you have not "re-wrote" anything at all. You have restored previous text in line with your nationalist POV. And now, instead of being sourced from a University of London affiliated scholar, it is sourced from an Italian fireman. You are not serious. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Al, Al... you deleted the Pizzi's words and 'also other words, well sourced. Nothing new, for you: other good material for the Bruno's blog. The Italian fireman in historiography is a so-called primary source (do you knew this words before now?). Read the article here in Wikipedia: absolutely useful! So the Italian fireman is more and more important then mrs Pizzi. Do you understand? Anyway, if you don't like the Italian fireman, then I can write something about the people recovered and ricognized from the foibe in 1943/45 (Italians, Yugoslavs? You have so many doubts...), from the book of Raoul Pupo and Roberto Spazzali "Foibe". Of course, Pupo and Spazzali are both historians, and the first was also in the mixed commission (Ita/Slo). Do you know the mixed commission? Some days ago I talked with the Slovenian historian Nevenka Troha, and maybe also mrs Troha for you could be "not serious". Italian fireman or Pupo/Spazzali? As you prefer...-- (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

An excellent example of what an article shouldn't be. POV, original researches, selected sources. That's why I've added the tag. This article shall be totally rewritten.--Barba Nane (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Barba Nane. While I agree that the article needs some work, it is also highly controversial. I'd like to ask you to please discuss your proposed changes before implementing them. If you're here to promote a particular POV, rest assured that you will encounter problems no matter in which direction you shift the emphasis of the article. Can we agree on editing after consensus? Often enough non-discussed edits will simply be edit-warred over and no change will be brought to the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, please note that many ex-Yugoslav and Italian sources are extremely biased on this matter, and support a pro-Yugoslav or pro-Italian point of view respectively. Because of this, the neutrality of Yugoslav and Italian sources should first be discussed and agreed-upon, this is why I emphasize discussion and consensus. However, if you have non-local sources (preferably in English), they will almost certainly be accepted by both sides. (Just trying to fill you in on the reason why this issue is so problematic.) I also hope you will keep an open mind and remain civil during discussions ("comment on content, not the contributor"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I've used the Report of the mixed commission. That's enough.--Barba Nane (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the commission is not a fully neutral source. The commission represents the Italian and Slovene view, but it does not represent the views of the Croatian side, on who's territory nearly all of the killings took place. Also, it is Croatian Partisans that are accused of the killings. The commission's findings are worthy of mention in the article by itself, but it is not an NPOV source because it basically ignores the Slavic point of view almost completely (Slovenes are Slavs, of course, but Croatia is ignored). A mixed Italian-Croatian commission would be a different matter, because Slovenes had little to do with the matter and with Istria as a region. (Also , the English name for "Venezia Giulia" is Julian March.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The commission represents the position of the Italian government? Please, explain this point, if you can.-- (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain also "it basically ignores the Slavic point of view almost completely". What are the Slovenians, from your point of view?--Barba Nane (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful your words: "Slovenes had little to do with the matter and with Istria as a region". Slovenes had little to do with the matter! And the Free Territory of Trieste? Boys, what a kind of incredible POV!-- (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barba Nane (talk)

@User:Direktor. I've heard about the story of Luigi's block in It-Wiki. User:Luigi28 is totally unrelated to PIO. This is not a claim of mine: there are indisputable evidences, i.e. some very accurate check users, made by some administrators. There is no discussion about this. If you want to be honest, ask to Administrator Moreschi to un-block Luigi28. Meanwhile respect his comments and try to answer him (if you have proper arguments).--Barba Nane (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, Nane, I personally do not care. All blocked users incessantly repeat they were wrongfully banned... All I know is (1) that he knows quite a bit about the subject, (2) that he is incredibly pompous, stuck-up, and rude, (3) that he is not objective and is heavily POV, and (4) that he is community banned from editing on the English Wikipedia. He is not allowed to make edits or comments, and his edits should be ignored and removed. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Direktor, I've very good evidences for my claims. Show us you are a gentleman and contact user Moreschi.--Barba Nane (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Barba Nane, if you wish to discuss other editors, it is entirely your choice. We could spend many happy hours here discussing your behaviour on itwiki, when you were, if my memory serves me correctly, sternly reprimanded for attempting to organise some kind of co-ordinated Italian nationalist assault on articles at enwiki. Meanwhile, I have reverted your edits as a) they are purely nationalist and non-encyclopedic and b) because the English in them leaves rather a lot to be desired. Cheers, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not know about this "nationalists". Nationalism, here, is over in 1945 and I will not reply to your insults! I've reverted some unsourced claims of you. Provide your sources. I did it! Do the same! Meanwhile provide your apologies for your accuses.--Barba Nane (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I swear, Alasdair, I'm often amazed at your insight in itwiki affairs. I myself barely ever go there. "Co-ordinated Italian nationalist assault", LoL... what are they doing there!? :P
So Nane, here I am trying to start a proper discussion and all the while you had prior plans. Is the quickly-banned User:Puttana Persiana some kind of pal of yours? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, You should head over to itwiki more often. Highly entertaining. They spend more time moaning about you and me than is probably healthy. Such grumblers. Like old men at a bar complaining about everything. If they're not at itwiki, they're over at Bruno's blog moaning and grumbling about how they've all been blocked or banned. Dearie me. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Italian "foibe" translation[edit]

Dear Sirs, as a coworker of Gariwo ( I found that the foibe entry in the Italian wikipedia was accurate. I translated it into English and I will submit it to you upon request. Maybe it could provide an accurate basis for compiling this entry! Best regards Carolina —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gariwo (talkcontribs) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As a humble contributor of Italian article about "Foibe", I want to thank you very much for your appreciation of our hard work. "Foibe" is still an hard topic to deal to (inside and outside Wikipedia), but with a honest and scientific use of the sources it could be possible to gain good results even on disputed topics. Feel free to ask me any help. Love, --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiume killings[edit]

I noted this edit. This massive cut was motivated as follow:

The source says nothing of the kind, and is concerned with war victims 1939 - 47

But, as all you know (I hope...) war ended in Europe may the 17th 1945, with the surrender of the last groups of Axis forces. So calling "war victims" the victims of the period 1945-'47 is - at least - improper.

It could be possible to have a better reason to cut so much informations in an article? Otherwise I think we should restore. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason given in the edit summary was perfectly correct. I have no objection to the information being in the article, but I deleted it yesterday as it was unsourced. The source given is entitled Le vittime di nazionalità italiana a Fiume e dintorni (1939-1947). It a) says nothing at all about the numbers we had in the article and b) covers the period 1939-1947 - this is why I used the phrase 'war victims', as I believe that is in essence the topic that the document covers. If you can find a good quality reliable source for the info, please restore it, but this source is no good. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I've misunderstood. "Unsourced"? Thet document is from a State Archive, and is the result of a joint work by the "Società di Studi Fiumani" and "Hrvatski Institut za Povijest". Not exactly "unsourced". Source and autors are some of the the most reliable you can desire for a Wikipedia article: a scientific publication, from a State Archive, by authoritative (and from both sides) autors and interely avalaible on internet. What do you want more? ^_^
More: the number of victims we had in the article is not the problem. The section is titled "Investigations of the Foibe" and the paragraph exacly reported a report of an investigation. The number of victims is a result of an investigation. You can accept it or deny it on your own, but Wikipedia have to give this information. We are not writing the *TRUTH* but just humbly giving the results of other autors and scholars investigations and studies.
The period covered by this study comprehend the entire World War II and the post-war, but the number of victims given (652) in our article is stricly related to post-war period. If you read at p. 206 you can find the following:

Totale complessivo delle vittime dal 3/5/1945 al 31/12/1947 e oltre

Sveukupan broj žrtava od 3/5/1945. do 31/12/1947

In English is: "Total of the victims from May the 3rd 1945 to December the 12th 1947 and beyond", that is from the occupation of Fiume (just 4 days before the V-Day in Europe). So this information covers perfectly the argument of our article. The document is about the entire period war and pre-war, but the section quoted is only about post-war victims. It's perfectly focused on the topic of our article.
Does anyone want to give his opinion about the problem? Otherwise I think we can restore. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The text removed was the following:

In September 2006, the Società di Studi Fiumani - Roma (Society of Fiuman Study - Rome) and the Hrvatski Institut za Povijest - Zagreb (Croatian Institute of History - Zagreb) published an overall study regarding the Vittime di nazionalità italiana a Fiume e dintorni (1943-1947) (Italian Victims in Rijeka and the surrounding area (1943-1947)). For each victim found with his first and last names all personal data were reported (first name, last name, date of birth, last known address and so on), the date of death and the cause. According to this study, the total number of Italians killed after the liberation of the city (May 3, 1945) until December 31, 1947 was 647, including 37 women.

Now, the source given (which was published in 2002, not September 2006, but that's a minor point) does indeed include the figure 652, as you rightly say, on page 206. However, it goes on to say that "tenendo conto di 87 vittime che a noi risultano decedute per cause non certo addebitabili al nuovo regime comunista jugoslavo (accidentali, affondamento in mare, conseguenti alla deportazione in Germania durante il conflitto, ecc.), sia del tutto anomalo" ("including 87 victims who passed away due to causes definitely not accreditable to the new Yugoslav communist regime (accidentally, sinking at sea, a consequence of deportation to Germany during the conflict, etc), or completely anomalous). My questions are therefore 1) What do you think the article ought to say, bearing in mind the information the source provides us with? 2) In what way is this information related to the foibe? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Read carefullly the next page (207):

  • "Deportati in prov. Fiume e Jugoslavia deceduti o dispersi" (from 3 may 1945 to 1948): 33
  • "Soppressione e/o condanna a morte da parte jugoslava" (from 3 may 1945 to 1948): 478

Now go to pag. 95 and read: "Si può comunque affermare con assoluta certezza che a Fiume, per mano di militari e della polizia segreta (OZNA prima e UDBA poi), (...) non meno di 500 persone di nazionalità italiana persero la vita fra il 3 maggio (1945) e il 31 dicembre 1947. A questi dovremmo aggiungere un numero imprecisato di 'scomparsi' (non meno di un centinaio) che il mancato controllo nominativo nell'anagrafe storica comunale ci costringe a relegare nell'anonimato (...)". (no less than 500 persons of Italian nationality lost their lives between May 3 (1945) and December 31 1947. To these we should add an unknown number of 'missing' (not less than a hundred) Do you think that this information is unrelated to the foibe? We can write another article: "Fiume/Rijeka killings (1945-1947)".-- (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@AlasdairGreen27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuele Mastrangelo (talkcontribs) 12:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. When you find an error, (like 2007 instead 2002) you have to correct it, not to cut the entire paragraph, if you want to become a good Wikipedia editor.
  2. The article is focused on "killings that took place mainly in Istria during and shortly after World War II". The source provides to us a reliable count of the victims of the killings in Fiume area.
  3. Since "the foibe" is not used stricto sensu, but is used about generical killings in Istria, Venezia Giulia and Dalmatia during and after WW2, the source matches perfectly with the topic "foibe".
  4. If you use the function "search" in the pdf of the source, the word "foibe" (or "infoibare") appears more than 50 times.
Any more questions?--Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just one more question, if I may. What do you think the article should say from this source, if anything? Please write your proposal here. I'll also point out that it is not at all true to say "Since "the foibe" is not used stricto sensu, but is used about generical killings in Istria, Venezia Giulia and Dalmatia during and after WW2, the source matches perfectly with the topic "foibe"". There are only a few irredentists and right-wing Italians who use the term generically. Nobody in academia or the wider world does. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody in academia? The truth is quite the opposite! Read this, for example. Pag.2: Quando si parla di 'foibe' ci si riferisce alle violenze di massaa danno di militari e civili, in larga prevalenza italiani, scatenatesi nell'autunno del 1943 e nella primavera del 1945 in diverse aree della Venezia Giulia e che nel loro insieme procurarono alcune migliaia di vittime. E' questo un uso del termine consolidatosi ormai, oltre che nel linguaggio comune, anche in quello storiografico, e che quindi va accolto, purché si tenga conto del suo significato simbolico e non letterale. Raoul Pupo and Roberto Spazzali. Do you know the international academic debate about the "foibe question"?-- (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Uhmm... so you think that this article is "right-winged" or "irredentist"? Maybe you shuld put a tag to cue that this page of has a political POV. Indeed the incipit of this article says: "killings that took place mainly in Istria during and shortly after World War II". I think that this is a "generic use of the term", don't you? So your phrase shoud be re-written as follows:

There are only a few irredentists and right-wing Italians and en.wikipedia who use the term generically.

But maybe you do not know how is a Metonymy... foibe is largely used as a metonymy to all the killings by Tito's troops in former Italian lands and in Trieste and Gorizia. And likely you have read very few or no scientific literature about this topic, if you ignore that the term is widely used genericaly about the slaughters in former-Italian land and Trieste and Gorizia during and after WW2. Once (15 or 20 years ago at least) the term was used almost only by right-winged parties or by irredentists, but times are changed: actually (anno Domini 2009) is used - even in, as you can see - as the methonymy of "killings by Tito's men in Istria and other Italian and former-Italian lands of Venezia Giulia and Dalmatia".
This article should take from that source exactly what the source says: that a joint comittee of Croatian and Italian scholars have studied killings in Fiume area, and their conclusions. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well, when I said "academia" obviously I meant non-Italian academia. The ability of Italian academics, who really ought to know better, to take a partial, distorted view of Italian history - their outrageous forgetfulness when it comes to dishonourable or ignoble events - is well documented. While I think it is fine for this article to point out that for some in Italy the term 'Foibe' is broadly interpreted, the article itself should, and will, remain focussed on what is accepted that the term means in the wider world. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr. AlasdairGreen27, I'm working actually with several preminent scholars of Italian academia and I find your comment very offensive and unjustified. Please, retire or rewrite it, otherwise I'll consider this unfair attack as a personal attack. It's very difficult to cooperate with an editor that has prejudice against you. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I will neither withdraw nor rewrite my comments. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You said: "The ability of Italian academics, who really ought to know better, to take a partial, distorted view of Italian history - their outrageous forgetfulness when it comes to dishonourable or ignoble events - is well documented". I repeat your words: Well documented. Well. If, within a couple of days, you will not find at least ten well documented sources about it, I consider this sentence as a personal opinion. A biased nonsense that does not even deserve comment.-- (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Compare the size of the Foibe killings/Istrian exodus and the Rab concentration camp (2,500 dead) article. Might give you an idea about what kind of attention those two are getting. The truth of the matter is, numerous Italian mass killings, ethnic persecution, and other war crimes in Dalmatia, Rijeka, and Istria are rather neglected when compared to these minor (in the context of WWII) events some even estimate never even topped 1,000 dead. The death toll in Yugoslavia was cca. 1,100,000 casualties, no wounded included. The death toll in ALL of Italy is estimated at cca. 450,000. Italy occupied a third of Yugoslavia for two and a half years. I'm just trying to put all this into perspective so that you may curb your quasi-indignant outrage, as it is well known that Italian scholars are the first to neglect Italian war crimes (not so unbelievable, though, is it...). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

10 well documented sources... well, first of all there's a whole book on the subject. The Missing Italian Nuremberg: Cultural Amnesia and Postwar Politics by Michele Battini (2007). You probably haven't read it, but it's very good. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First: Michele Battini is Italian! Second: you haven't read this book. If you had read this book, you could know that it absolutely does not speak of "the ability of Italian academics (...) to take a partial, distorted view of Italian history" (your words), but why in the immediate postwar period in Italy wasn't celebrated a process similar to that of Nuremberg, against the military command of the German power structure in Italy. Because you don't read this book, you do not even know that the historical period analyzed from the Italian Battini arrives until the mid-'50s, and therefore has nothing to do with today. This is your first source. Now please, can you speak about the other nine?-- (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well. I have to assume that this is a clear insult and an attack against me and the scientific community of my Country. Such behaviors are certainly the best way to create a poisonous atmosphere in Wikipedia. It's impossible to collaborate in this climate, and such behaviors damage both Wikipedia and her reputation. Guidelines such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility could help you, if in future you want to deal with me again.
Your edit - IMHO - is trolling: this is not the place to judge Yugoslavian or Italian war crimes, neither to make a hall of fame of the best butchers of WW2. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. WP:NOTAFORUM If you want to discuss there are several better places outside. More, reading your post, IMHO your information about this (off) topic is quite lacunose. If you want to investigate that topic, start HERE. Cheers, --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
@Luigi 28:
I was not talking about any one person specifically. I was just defending Alasdair's (somewhat badly phrased but correct) assertion. It is, in fact, normal that Italian historians are more biased towards Italy (WWII), French historians towards France (the Revolution and Napoleon), English historians towards England (imperialism), Croatian historians towards Croatia (Yugoslav wars, the NDH), etc...
@Sig. Mastrangelo:
Anyone is entitled to their opinion. If Alasadair feels the way he wrote, he is completely free to express his beliefs. Be insulted if you must, but do not turn it into something it is not, like an "attack on Italy", or whatever.
As for me being a "troll", I can only assert you do not really know what a troll is. You should probably read your own link. I am aware my post was somewhat off-topic, but I do not believe that warrants a reaction of such intensity. Being aware of the digression, I clearly wrote at the end of my post that my purpose was to defend Alasdair's statement about the generally imperfect view that may exist among Italian scholars on subjects of such sensitivity.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Generally imperfect view that may exist among Italian scholars"? Please, provide your sources about it, or I'll consider also this sentence as a personal opinion. Another biased nonsense that does not even deserve comment. PS This is a lie.-- (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, Luigi, I'm going to go around Google Scholar searching for vaguely biased text by Italian authors in order to prove a basic fact that each country has its own slightly different view of history (particularly its own). Hold your breath, I'll be right back... In the meantime, remember that denying the possibility of bias is biased in itself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yo ho ho, IP 151.21. Did I say that all Italian academics suffer from this troubling ability to take a partial, distorted view of Italian history? No, I don't believe I did. I am very well aware that Battini is Italian. Regarding the book itself, I am helpfully able to enlighten you that in his review of it, Paul Ginsborg, Professor of History at the University of Florence wrote that "Battini is a historian of ideas, and concentrates on what he rightly calls the Italian ‘deconstruction of memory’ in comparative perspective. Why have the Germans reached a reckoning day with their history, while the Italians have chosen the path of what Battini calls ‘a voluntary collective amnesia’? What is the importance in general of the reconstruction of memory, or its absence?" Meanwhile, while I have your attention, let me point out that I think you have (generally) done a very good job on the article on Vergarola. Therefore, instead of wasting your time here, why don't you be a good chap, and run along to see if you can do something similar to the vast array of other articles at itwiki that are in equally dire need of your attention? Many thanks in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC).
Pirate Flag of Jack Rackham.svg
Arrrgh, ye may also remember yer exploits at revealing my "secret identity" about 50 times in blatant and repeated breach of Wikipedia's extremely strict privacy policy, not to mention yar insults. Ya' can bet your barnacles that ya'll be keelhauled for yar offenses one way or the other... ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

@Al. You haven't read the Battini's book (this is a fact): only a little part of the Ginsborg's review here. And Ginsborg is teaching at the UniversitY of Florence from 1992: an Italian University! Now, your blatant opinion about "the ability of Italian academics (...) to take a partial, distorted view of Italian history" is completely unsourced. Pure speculation (or bla-bla-bla, if you prefer). @Dir. I'm speaking about Hermeneutics.-- (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Having just read this discussion from the beginning, I believe I am now aware of why it is generating so much heat. When I wrote "a partial, distorted view of Italian history" I meant 'partial' in the sense of 'viewing in part', instead of 'as a whole'. I did not mean 'partial' in the sense of biased, the opposite of 'impartial'. If that is the cause of the ire this has stirred up, I profoundly apologise for expressing myself in that way. Having said that, it is indeed my deeply held view that too many people in Italy and people in the Italian diaspora around the world have a troublingly incomplete perspective of Italian history. This I believe is to an extent, but by no means mainly, caused by the willingness of some Italian academics to focus on wrongs committed against innocent Italian people - wrongs of which there are very sadly far too many, and that is a fact - and not focus strongly enough, and even in some cases overlook, wrongs committed against innocent non-Italian people by the Italian state in the first half of the 20th century - wrongs of which there are very sadly far too many, and that is also a fact. You may dismiss this as "pure speculation (or bla-bla-bla, if you prefer)", or if you really want me to I can indeed spend time (of which I have very little these days) trawling through the books finding the relevant quotes about "what Battini calls ‘a voluntary collective amnesia’" in the next day or two. As you wish. I don't really see much point though, to be honest, as I don't see anything other than dogmatism here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please: spend your time and show:

  • That Italian academics (I want the names of this "academics") take a partial, distorted view of Italian history (with some sourced examples)
  • I want to know what kind of "disonhourable or ignoble events" were distorted from this academics. Examples, examples, examples!
  • I want to know how many academic historians all around the world documented this "ability of Italian academics". Name and citation, please.

I consider your sentence only your biased personal opinion.-- (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

..."blatant" means "obvious"... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Luigi, you are as angry as a man with a fork in a world of soup. Flailing your arms in the air like a man with a hat full of bees. You are here not to contribute or to learn a little (you think you already know everything and have nothing else to learn). You are here because you think Wikipedia is a chance to Demand Justice, and to Correct Terrible Past Deeds. Unfortunately for you, it is clear that you have forgotten what amnesia is. Luckily for the encyclopedia, you are banned. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You can talk all you want, but the reality is only one: you wrote a historiographic statement and you are not able to demonstrate it. In short: you wrote a nonsense.-- (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well no, in short, he wrote a historiographical statement that doesn't really need "demonstration", and "demonstrated" it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this kind of "statement that doesn't really need demonstration": the correct name is Ipse-dixitism.-- (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No Luigi old buddy, my dear friend, surely "the correct name" for your POV is Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato, no? Isn't it? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me understand: you have written something that you can't prove and then I become a fascist? This is only your last attempt to disguise your false statement: the personal (and ridicolous) attack.-- (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Luigi, old friend, you and your buddies are the personal attack specialists. Given time, I can easily prove my assertions. I have a demanding real world life that requires me to earn a living and to maintain the normal family life. You, I think, are retired, and can spend your days as you please. The greatest pity is that I extended a hand of friendship to you at the weekend but you rejected it. C'est la vie. Your choice. Me ne frego.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My dear, the only way you can prove your "friendship" is this: repair the lie. Everything else is chatter. For your information, I'm still working. I expect to retire in about two decades. But I do not like wasting time, never. I taught my staff to do two things in the same moment, at once. I love the comparison, even harsh, but I hate the tricks. If you want to talk to me about history, you must have your sources with you. "Tutto nello Stato (...)" and "Me ne frego" aren't sources: only your desperate attempt to round around the point. Read some good book, instead to write these bullshits.-- (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
You have so much ground to make up, so many apologies to make, before we even begin. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. But now, show the sources for your statement about the Italian academics. You said "well documented", but in 48 hours you have not produced any documents. Ridiculous.-- (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Society of Rijeka Study, Académie française, Società' di studi fiumani, Lalit Kala Akademi[edit]

  1. Académie des Beaux-Arts, Institut de France, Accademia dei Lincei, Uffizi, .... It is not clear to me why the name of Società' di studi fiumani, based in Rome, has been translated in a non existing Society of Rijeka Study, without providing the correct names (even as note or between parentheses. I should note that people used to look for reference can hardly find any reference in the literature searching the "society of Rijeka in any database. In fact wikipedia is full of situations, I reported some examples, of cases, where the original and unique name has been left, spite of fact that this is an English version of encyclopedia.
  2. The rule is quite clear: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage. The english usage is easily checked , in according to the suggestions presented inWikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references using Google book and Google scholar and we can find eeasily a lot of english pubblication containing inside referce to :Societa' di studi fiumani, for example in World guide to scientific associations and learned societies" By Helmut Opitz. viceversa no results found for "Society of Rijeka Study".
  3. Plus the usage of a non existing name is against Wikipedia:Verifiability because nobody can verify what does non exit.
  4. So I wrote this wordy comments, not to convince to replace Académie française with "French accademy", but to explain the wiki-reason why the correct common name of the Rome base society should be at least indicated, in order to avoid a defective paragraph.--Bramfab 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramfab (talkcontribs)
The same about the translation of the title of the book "Pola Istria Fiume 1943-1945". More, the correct translation of "Studi Fiumani" is "Fiuman Studies", since in English the adjective "Fiuman" exists and is referred to the city of Fiume before Yugoslav occupation, settlement and re-naming. If we speak about "the Fall of Constantinople" we do not write "the fall of Istanbul", for Istanbul is the current name (from XX century), but Constantinople is the name of the time we are referring to. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Woooah there, Sig. Mastrangelo. "Yugoslav occupation, settlement, and re-naming"? How about "liberation, demographic increase, and official use of the name used by the majority population for centuries"? Now, I wouldn't go as far as to call this brief summary of the post-WWII events "fascistoid", but some could certainly consider it revanchist and revisionist. I can assure you that none of this distasteful tone will be pushed into the article. The events we are considering take place after WWII, when the city was liberated by the Yugoslav forces from the hands of the fascist Italian Social Republic (exactly when the situation was formalized is completely irrelevant). The "widely accepted name" of the city (see WP:NCGN), and its contemporary name is "Rijeka" as it was already de facto a part of Yugoslavia. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If a title of a book is provided only as traslated, but actually it had never published in that language also this fact is in contrast again Wikipedia:Verifiability, no way to locate something not having his correct name. Obviously there is the solution indicated in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Sources_in_different_languages clearly (with common sense) states the correct way: However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate. [as the present case is] If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. So original its true (original) name and its traslation: simple and in according with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--Bramfab 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Bramfab, read your own quote: " English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Note that the English translation is listed primarily, "with the original-language quote beside it". I may have omitted the Italian name of the book by error, and for that I apologize, but the name of the source "should be given in English". As far-fetched as it may seem, there are in fact people who do not comprehend the Italian language. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
@Direktor. After 1947 you can use the current name of the city of Fiume, that is Rijeka. Before, like Constantinople-Istanbul since 1930, or Koenigsberg-Kaliningrad since 1945 or Nieuw Amsterdam-New York since 1674, you have to use the correct name. Or do you say that Emmanuel Kant was born in... Kaliningrad? Please read better the guidelines before making new edits like the last ones.
About your personal view of occupation, Yugolav settlement and re-naming of Fiume, it's your personal one. Very personal, but based on no evidence. Fiume was a Libero Comune Italiano, a Corpus Separatus of Hungary with the name of "Fiume". Maybe was called "Rijeka" by some peasant of the countryside, before 1947. And - of course - by some ultra-nationalist Yugoslav and Titoists. But the official name was Fiume until 1947.
Before 1947 the most spread name used in the world for the city was Fiume. Prove the contrary if you want to impose your POV. As you can see, there is no consensus about your re-editing. So don't start an edit-war before bringing concrete sources of your POV.
The same is for the translation of the book title. Readers understand very well that the autor is speaking about Italian cities of Pola and Fiume before they became "Pula" and "Rijeka". Do you translate maybe the title of Steve Runciman's "The Fall of Constantinople: 1453" as "The Fall of Istanbul: 1453"?
More, please do not use that tone with me. Be polite, and respect etiquette. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
(conf.) @Direktor: In fact English+ original languages serves encyclopedic spirit, helping who does not known the foreign languages, but at the same time helping who need made bibliographic search of original foreign language. So are you so kind to correct the no conformities presents in the text? Letting us, after closing this unexpected linguistic issues, to concentrate to the core, i.e. history and facts. Cheers. --Bramfab 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
[1] So you did read the talk page. Ok. I've to assume that you have no consideration of other editors consensus. It's very impolite IMHO editing a page while a discussion is open about changes that have no consensus. Do you think that this Wikipedia article is your own property maybe? --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
E.M. You have to assume what you have to assume, I suppose. However, you should also "assume" that this is a minor alteration (as Bramfab says) discussed about 50 times on this talkpage and others for which I have little "discussing power" left. See all the previous conversations on the subject. Further, while respecting Wikipedia policy to the fullest extent, I don't think I shall allow you to determine the tone of conversation I may or may not take with you (or anyone else).
"Before 1947 the most spread name used in the world for the city was Fiume." You're ordering me to prove the contrary? Well, I haven't seen proof of your sentence either, and I'm supposed to disprove it? Yes Sir, right away! :) Anyway, I hope you won't reopen this nonsensical debate again. How do you "measure" the notability of "Rijeka" and "Fiume" in the English speaking world 60 years ago? How do you determine the date when Rijeka started to be the most widely known name for the city? The date of the peace treaty? So suddenly on the date of the signing of the peace treaty with Italy the name Rijeka became the most well known?
Needless to say this is all nonsense. The time of this article is post-WWII, the only proper names to be used are... you guessed it, post-WWII names. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 05:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Società di studi fiumani", according to its website [2] was found in 1923. So your last except seems (to me) a bit captious. Also, the only references that you can find on the web for this society in english language are "Society for Fiume Studies" an "Society of Fiuman studies". Yes these reference are very very few, and are on the english sections of society like "Associazione Nazionale Venezia Giulia e Dalmazia"; but on the web there are no reference about a "Society of Rijeka Studies", in Rome. So the previous partecipation of Bramfab and Mastrangelo are correct. Regards --Il palazzo (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware when it was founded (I had a look). However, please note that in this article we are simply translating the name of the Italian source in English, as per guidelines. We're not trying to discover what its name would be in 1923, 1945, or 1947, we're just translating. The English translation of "Fiume" is "Rijeka". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I linked above the rules (so anybody can read those) and I report those here again: The rule is quite clear: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage. The english usage is easily checked , in according to the suggestions presented inWikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references using Google book and Google scholar and we can find easily a lot of english pubblication containing inside reference to :Societa' di studi fiumani, for example in World guide to scientific associations and learned societies" By Helmut Opitz. Viceversa no results found for "Society of Rijeka Study". It seems, that other users share my interpretation (we are not here to carry out automatic computer-style translation, otherwise the page about name convention could be written using 2 rows at miximum). however, before to made I'll look for a third opinion from somebody not yet involved in this page.--Bramfab 09:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just fee examples: London Pact (1915) speaks about "city of Fiume", nor Rijeka. The "Free State" was "Free State of Fiume" and Croat version was never official, and without diffusion outside SHS borders. As you can see on... wikipedia the names of the Free State were Stato libero di Fiume Fiumei Szabad Állam, Freistaat Fiume, Free State of Fiume. So widespread in Europe and in the world the name was FIUME. Nor "Rijeka". Could you found a lone newspaper or book in any country outside SHS Kingdom-Yugoslavia that refers to "Rijeka" instead of Fiume before 1947? Please provide it.
About "Studi Fiumani", if you search the adjective "Fiuman" in English it exist. So you have to use the correct versione: the Society studies Fiume mainly before Yugoslav occupation. Like other cases I've reported (like Costantinople) the correct term is the one that is referring to the main topic of research. We have "Byzantyne Studies", not "Istambulian Studies", since the second term refers strictly to the modern city once called Costantinople\Byzantium, even in some Turkish dialect the name "Istanbul" still existed.
Naming "Rijeka" the city of Fiume before 1947 is a nonsense in any language (but Croat, since there is correct even before 1947) like calling "Kaliningrad" Koenigsberg before 1945. Do you refer to the "battle of Volgograd" or to the "battle of Stalingrad"? Do you say "the Siege of Leningrad" or "the siege of St. Petersburg"? Was Emmanuel Kant born in Kaliningrad? Do you read something about Tel Aviv instead Jaffa during Crusade Era?
Nonsense. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a "freudian slip" that you translate "Pula Istra Rijeka 1943-1945" the title of La Perna's book? since in English "Istria" is written like in Italian... I still do not understood if your editing are in the spirit of a collaborative and constructive way of contributing or - on the contrary - a kind of "ethnic cleansing" of every Italian term in this voice... --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Emanuele, I have corrected your edit. The stuff you added may be sufficient for the readers of your magazine, but it is not good enough here, sadly. We have somewhat higher standards. Your highly selective quote from Pupo has also been properly balanced. I have to say, however, that dear old Raoul is not up to much as a reliable source, as his memory is extraordinarily selective - deficient, I would say - about Italy's role in the Second World War. Italy was, he seems to forget, Hitler's foremost ally from the start. He really ought to attend some evening classes to remedy this deficiency. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alasdair, when you'll read sources as well as I use to read them, I'll take advice from you about my work extra-Wikipedia. And even in Wikipedia.
If you call "higher standard" to extrapolate a Raoul Pupo paragraph, without reading (or deliberately ignoring - but I hope it's not so) the sentences before and after it, we have different ideas about "higher standard". And maybe even Wikipedia and you.
In the paragraph starting " a need to put the episodes in 1943" etc, Pupo doesn't stated - as your edit suggests - his personal view of the problem, but he quoted Galliano Fogar and Giovanni Miccoli. Furthermore, he stated that this point of view is very limited. So we need to correct this bias.
Maybe foibe were used even by Germans to hide corpses. But the great majority of the foibe was used by Yugoslav partisans. And the most spread use of the term refers to Yugoslav slaughters during and after WWII. Of course, we can must pinpoint that Yugoslav use was not exclusive.
Raoul Pupo could be a "not-reliable source" in your own opinion. Fortunately, your opinion is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to citate every reliable source, and reliability is not linked to contributors goodwill or allergy. So, I've quoted Pupo (in the right way), and despite your allergies, Pupo is a reliable source (arguable, as every scientific source, but reliable). You could quote someone else that thinks differently from Pupo. So Wikipedia works. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
AlasdairGreen, you are saying that "Mastrangelo's quote from Pupo are highly selective". Maybe yes, or maybe not. But, even these citations can be too selective, you are doing even a worst operation with this edit [3]. Your quote of Pupo statement is totally out of the context. In that paragraph Pupo is speaking about opinions of other scholars, not about his ones. Some lines below, Pupo says: Tuttavia, interpretare complessivamente il fenomeno delle foibe come prodotto di un eccesso di reazione, è una scelta che presenta alcuni limiti di non poco conto ... (However, reduce the foibe as a an excessive response product, it's a choice that present some remarkable limits...).
And, at last according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, a lecturer in University of Trieste (like Pupo), seems to be a reliable source. So your humour about evening classes seems out of context. --Il palazzo (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. Pupo was not at all saying what the article now claims he was saying. He was, in fact, pointing out how the foibe were and are a central element in the historical reconstruction of the period, aimed at transcending Fascist/Anti-fascist oppostion and promoting popular patriotism. That is what he was referring to as having "become an obsession in moments of national and political uncertainty". The paragraph needs to be rewritten, which I will do as and when I have time. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Re this [4] odious nonsense, you have no idea what Wikipedia is or how it works. Dreadful. Allow me to enlighten you, my dear banned friend. We work here on the basis of sources, not opinions. We may not introduce our opinions, nor allow them to interfere with our editing. It is our job to faithfully reproduce what the sources say. Now, regarding sources available on the internet, which you also seem to have droned on about at your forum, you have absolutely no idea what books I have at home and what I don't. How dare you be so presumptious. You may not be aware, but a cornerstone of wikipolicy is verifiability, hence the excellent reason for using sources in controversial articles that are also checkable via Google books by other editors. Immensely better, I feel, than paper only sources, especially in the current climate of POV pushers who seem to be remotely controlled like little cars by you, who have no qualms about simply finding some part of a text and twisting it to fit the bill and who then constantly run back to your forum to check back with papa to make sure all is OK. And regarding your persistent moaning about Italian sources not being used, sorry, but this is enwiki, and I would simply refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. Now, why don't you be a good chap and turn your attention to the legion of articles at itwiki that are in dire need of your expertise rather than troubling yourself needlessly with matters here? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Al, all your statement is simply wrong. I have spoken only of facts, and based on the facts I have tried your intervention in this article. The facts are as follows:
1. You have incorrectly quoted.
2. The book contains an error (1929 instead of 1930) and you do not notice it yourself, because you do not know the episode referred to.
3. It's very likely that you do not own this book. If instead you have it at home, you can easily answer this question: what is the first word of the third line of page 166?
So the truth is that you have violated the rules of Wikipedia: you wrote a false quotation (I remember also your false accusation of sock about myself), which I have explained in my "nonsense". I am sorry for you.-- (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Your last edit is the only pathetic thing in this circumstance.
I've to thank you for your edit of my "shoddy English". But if my skills in English grammar are shoddy, your skills in reading comprehension are at the same level or even less.
You've added a quote that has no connection to the "foibe" topic.
Pamela Ballinger does not say a word about the infoibamento of the four TIGR followers. They were judged and then executed in the Basovizza Army Facility (in 1930 and not in 1929) and they were not dropped into the Basovizza pit (or any other foiba). Do you find any evidence that Ballinger was saying that the four TIGR followers were dropped into the pit? So your quote is - simply - wrong and off topic.
More. You've eliminated for the second time the fact that the main use of the foibe was by Yugoslav partisans. But this is the core of the topic of this article. If you do not believe to this fact, you have to aknowledge that the term "foiba" is or a geologic term or stictly related to the (alleged?) Yugoslav slaughters of Italians in Istria and other former Italian lands. Tertium non datur. "Foibe killings" refers only and merely to these facts.
You are free to believe in them or not. And you are strongly requested to enrich the article bringing sources that support your POV about the topic, but you cannot change the topic to enforce your POV. And you have no rights to eliminate other sources in order to enforce your POV. You can only add sources and add POVs based on scientific and verificable sources.
Last but not least. Please, stop using your hateful and angering sarcasm against Presbite. You know very well that the ban inflicted to him is unjust and is a shame on en.wikipedia. Your way to collaborate with other editors of Wikipedia is not accordant to the behavioral standards of Wikipedia. Please think about this. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Pamela Ballinger statement[edit]

...and was in 1929 the first recorded location of the use of these subterranean features for the disposal of bodies ( Ballinger, Pamela (2002). History in exile: memory and identity at the borders of the Balkans. Princeton University Press. p. 23. ISBN 0691086974.)


The first claims of people being thrown into foibe date back to 1929, when "four Slovene antifascists [were] executed by the Italian regime", and their bodies disposed of in the Basovizza mine shaft (Ballinger, Pamela (2002). History in exile: memory and identity at the borders of the Balkans. Princeton University Press. p. 23. ISBN 0691086974..)

Do someone find any word in the source of this sentence that states that Basovizza "foiba" was used to hide the corpses of the four TIGR followers executed by Italians in 1930?

Note that while the first part of the statement is a quote

four Slovene antifascists [were] executed by the Italian regime

the second part

and their bodies disposed of in the Basovizza mine shaft

is not a real quote (it is not between quotation marks). We have to suppose that the second part is an arbitrary inference of the editor, without any correlation with the source cited. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No evidence in page 23 (and also no evidence in any page of that book), that the four heroes of Basovizza, Ferdo Bidovec, Fran Marušič, Zvonimir Miloš e Alojzij Valenčič, killed 5 sempteber 1930 (not 1929), were buried in a foiba. Also no evidence that they were buried in a foiba from other sources. It seems a little manipulation (euphemistic) Wikipedia:No original research. --Il palazzo (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove unsourced[edit]

About this edit [5], it seems to me a "little excessive". One of the information was with reference, and was an useful information in a incipit (name's ehtimology). So I've restored it. About other information there wasn't a single note, yes, but in the article was explained clearly the "mainly by Tito's partisans" removed, so a phrase like that, a small "resume" in incipit, seems correct to me. It can be controversial, yes, but there are more powerful tools, like Wikipedia:Citation needed. Remove informations like that edit seems to me, instead, a more like Wikipedia:Gaming the system behaviour. Regards --Il palazzo (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, partly that was my mistake. I removed more than I intended to. Sorry. However, I have once again removed the POV about the Yugoslav Partisans, and will continue to do so until a source can be found for this highly contentious claim. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
You have been granted. The source was found. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, once and forever[edit]

What is the topic of this article?

Well, "Foibe killings" is referring to slaughters happened around karst caves called "foibe" in Italian. Now, these killings didn't happened casually. These killings didn't were perpetraded by unknown or generic actors. Neither these killings were perpetrated by a great number of actors. "Foibe killings" is strictly and exclusively related to slaughters perpetrated by Yugoslav partisans of Tito's Army.

No others.

You cannot find any source that refers "foibe killings" to other situations or generic actors. Any single source - academic, journalistic, on internet etc - that refers to "foibe killings" speak about Yugoslav alleged crimes, to confirm or deny them, but in every case relating to them.

So, you can deny that Yugoslav Army mass slaughters thousands or hundreds of Italians as well as Istrian Slavs that were not congenial to the new regime, dropping them into caves or foibe, but you cannot avoid that "foibe killings" are closely tied to Yugoslav mass-killings. If there were cases of Fascist or German use of the foibe (and this is still very argued) these cases were just occasional. No source refers to "foibe" both for Yugoslav crimes and German or Fascist crimes. In every case, we will speak about Fascist or Nazist crimes in the articles related to Fascist or Nazist crimes, not in "Foibe killings", that are a Yugoslav Communist crime (alleged or proved, this is not so important, we can debate on it reporting different sources, but the topic exists, so Wikipedia needs to deal with it).

Picking an encyclopedic definition, such as Treccani's one, (and Treccani is still one of the biggest and better encyclopedia in the world), it says:


fòiba In geografia fisica, tipo di dolina. Nella regione istriana il termine indica grandi conche chiuse, formate da doline fuse assieme, al cui fondo si aprono inghiottitoi di varia profondità, tristemente famose perché tra il 1943 e il 1945 vi furono gettati molti italiani, ma anche croati e sloveni, vittime delle rappresaglie militari e politiche dei partigiani comunisti del maresciallo Tito. A seguito di un acceso dibattito che ha riguardato la memoria storica della società italiana a proposito della questione delle f., il Parlamento ha emanato la l. 30 marzo 2004, n. 92 istituendo il Giorno del ricordo, con lo scopo di alimentare e tenere viva la memoria delle vittime delle f. insieme al ricordo dell’esodo dei dalmati, fiumani e istriani dalle proprie terre di origine, durante il secondo dopoguerra. La ricorrenza è fissata per il 10 febbraio a ricordo del trattato di pace firmato a Parigi nel 1947 tra l'ONU e le nazioni alleate della Germania, con cui l'Italia cedette tra l'altro alla Iugoslavia Fiume, Zara, alcune isole dell'Adriatico e gran parte della Venezia Giulia. La legge prevede inoltre stanziamenti a favore della Società di studi fiumani e dell’IRCI (Istituto regionale per la cultura istriano-fiumano-dalmata). Il legislatore ha infine stabilito il riconoscimento del Museo della civiltà istriano-fiumano-dalmata, con sede a Trieste, e dell’Archivio museo storico di Fiume, con sede a Roma.

I cannot read a single word about the use of the foibe by any other but the Yugoslavs.

Moreover, the "Treccani" doesn't speak of "generic killings" but clearly of "militar and politic retaliations of the Communists partisans of the Marshall Tito". There cannot be ambiguity: "Treccani" is speaking unequivocally of Tito's troops. And - since Tito was the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia leader - these are Yugoslav crimes.

Since there are no sources of this importance that could confirm that "foibe killings" happened casually, or by other actors than Yugoslav partisans, or mainly by other actors than Tito's Army, in the incipit of the article it should remain clearly the fact. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Before May 1 1945, the city of Trieste was a city of the Kingdom of Italy under a state of occupation by troops of the Greater German Reich. The Kingdom of Italy was allied to the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia in 1945. Units of the DF Yugoslavia freed Trieste from German occupation, and administered it for the next forty days (much in the same way that western Allied forces administered much of Italy at the time). Another word for "freed" is "liberated". This term is usually used in this context [6]. I'm afraid I can't be flexible on this issue, because the only alternative to "liberated" is obviously "occupied", a term which is most certainly incorrect. (Remember I'm talking about the very act of liberation on May 1, not subsequent events.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've to correct you. The Kingdom of Italy was nor "ally" of Yugoslavia neither of any other Power of United Nations. The Kingdom of Italy was "co-belligerent" with the United Nations. In fact UN used the term "Occupied Territories" to indicate "liberated" Italy. More, in literature - that is the source we care at - "occupation" and "entering" are far more spread than "liberation" when speaking about Trieste.
Indeed Yugoslav Army enterd Trieste not with the purpose to "free" it from Axis forces and then give back the city to Italian Kingdom, but with the objective to annex it to Yugoslavia. Is slightly different from the liberation of Paris: in Paris marched together French, US and British forces. Trieste was taken by Yugoslavs, then pulled out by NZACs and - finally - turned into a "Free Territory" under US-UK and Yugoslav (not join) occupation.
The contest between Paris and Trieste is completely different. More, even in Italian literature, while you find easily the term "liberation" about any other city of Italy taken by Allies, almost every source uses "occupation" about Yugoslav entrance in the city and "liberation" related to New Zealand troops arrive.
So the term most correct is "occupation". Since it could be considered POV, we have proposed a neutral "entering", that is a perfect alternative. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I've always known Italy "switched sides" (both in WWII and one may argue WWI as well), but I was not aware of her status as "co-belligerent" instead of full ally. Very well my mistake then, no harm done I suppose. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, during wars shit happens... For example, Yugoslavia (former Axis ally) switched side in 1941 after a golpe, and this cost her the debellatio and the Axis occupation. In WWI Italy didn't change side: Austria refused to comply to her duties of the Alliance, and Italy could denounce the pact. History is an harsh mistress... --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Heh if I'm not mistaken, that was the contemporary excuse used to justify betraying the country's pre-war allegiance. The Treaty of London and the preceding negotiations are well known nowadays, however.
Ah yes the incompetent Prince Paul regime signed the Pact, but upon further inspection you'll find the country did not "switch sides". After the pact was signed, anti-fascist revolts and riots tore the country apart (the slogan was: "bolje rat, nego pakt!", which kind of rhymes and means "better war than the Pact!"). The riots culminated in the pro-fascist government getting ousted by a pro-Allied coup. However, essentially, the new government did not anull the Pact, but rather made a point of the fact that the country honors its previous commitments as a signatory of the Pact. Hitler then attacked Yugoslavia while the pact was still in effect. So it was actually Germany that "switched sides" in relation to Yugoslavia :). Also, the kingdom never actually fought alongside the Nazis or rendered any kind of assistance to the Axis during its few days as a signatory. However, the new Yugoslavia never switched sides during its history did it? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, please, don't cut never again a edit of mine in the talk. You can use your own rule against banned or blocked users but I'm not one of them. If I find interesting for this talk some informations perfectly related to the topic, you have no right to delete them.

More, this is not "meatpuppetry" since I've not recruited anybody: I've found interesting informations you have deleted using the arguable rule "banrevert" and I've copied them by my own. So now these informations are mine. Please, respect them. And read carefully this rule and this essay.

The following sources are all about "occupation" vs "liberation" of Trieste. And all of them speak about "occupation".

  1. A.C.Bowman, Zones of strain (Bowman was the head of the Allied Military Government of Venezia Giulia during the years 1945-1947)
  2. P.Ballinger, Politics of the Past, in J.Weldes, Cultures of insecurity
  3. R.J.Donovan, Conflict and Crisis
  4. A.Petacco, A tragedy revealed
  5. K.Pizzi, A city in search of an author
  6. F.Lindsay, J.K.Galbraith, Beacons in the Night
  7. I.Banac, With Stalin Against Tito
  8. A.Bramwell, Refugees in the age of total war
  9. H.S.Truman, W.Churchill, G.W.Sand, Defending the West
  10. R.J.Rummel, I.L.Horowitz, Death by government
  11. E.G.H.Pedaliu, Britain, Italy, and the origins of the Cold War
  12. D.M.Hellegers, We, the Japanese people
  13. W.D.Miscamble, From Roosevelt to Truman
  14. R.J.Aldrich, M.F.Hopkins, Intelligence, defence, and diplomacy

--Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sig. Mastrangelo, you've not recruited anyone but you're posting a banned user's edit, i.e. you yourself have been "recruited as a meatpuppet" of User:Luigi 28. Believe me when I say that restoring banned user edits is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. You're not so smart as to be the first User on the internet to think of this. However, since the matter has already been concluded amiably between the two of us I see no reason to persist in this. I just hope you won't again put yourself in such a position, as I usually don't hesitate to uphold Wikipedia policy to its fullest. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"My own rule"? The template above is not a "rule" it is simply a warning template, and it is fully in accordance with actual "rules" (i.e. policy). You yourself are also supposed to revert banned users if you notice their edit. With users allowed to ignore blocks we'd have total chaos on Wiki, and that's no joke. I alone reported more than a few banned Croatian ultranationalists that would wreak havoc all over the place if they could avoid their block with impunity. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Everybody: I hope you want speak only of the "foibe killings"; we are wikipedians, not policeman. User L28 is banned, Ok for the revert. Books are "banned"? No. So now I can read books and agree or not. --Retaggio (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, you know perfectly (perfectly) that Luigi28 was banned by an unforeseen mistake. The rule of automatic revert for banned users exist to protect the Encyclopedia from vandalism and trolling, not from editings that bring new references and sources useful for us all and for the article.
Presbite - as you can see and as you surely have seen - is one of the best editor of, and he is not a warmonger or a ultranationalist. His ban was an error and a loss for But, this problem will be resolved soon. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if what you say were somehow "true", which is doubtful at best, between getting banned and now he has earned another cca. 50 bans. Even if we ignore his constant block evasion, I'd have to write for hours trying to list all his violations of SOCK, HARASS, and NPA. I was often the unfortunate target of his harassment and insults, and I'll certainly do my best to make sure he doesn't get away with ignoring Wikipedia policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can easily check the IP of the guy that harassed, insulted etc etc etc you, and personally ascertain how many of the insults, harassments and so on belong to Presbite and how many belong to PIO and his sockpuppets. You will be surprised. So when you will have done the check I'm sure that you will join the request to unban Presbite, since your love for the rules and policies of Wikipedia seems to be so deep and warm. --Emanuele Mastrangelo (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the IP which beyond a shadow of a doubt belongs to User:Luigi 28 (aka "Presbite"), since the IP was stupid enough to actually admit being a sock. There is no question who the IP belonged to, and that can easily be confirmed. Aside from that, this IP responds to "Luigi" and frequently naively stated "I'm not PIO, I'm Luigi". This IP is responsible for repeated violations of SOCK, HARASS, and NPA. Not to mention that you're not supposed to evade your block even if you're blocked by "mistake", which happens extremely rarely. Perhaps he should have been more careful before he started posting other user's personal info about twenty times on several separate articles (just for example!), right before he answered to "Luigi" and edited in his very characteristic "English". I don't know how things are on it.Wiki, but takes its privacy policy very seriously. Again, this is only an example. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, show me this examples, when I've posted your personal info. But read carefully the IP's.-- (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism POV edits[edit]

Users DIREKTOR and AlaisdairGreen have taken to vandalising this site by removing content simply on the basis of not liking it. The foibe killings are regarded as an example of ethnic cleansing, they are also listed as an example on the Wikipedia article Ethnic cleansing. Removing it without providing any reasons is just plain vandalismJdeJ (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What nonsense. Firstly, you obviously have no idea what "vandalism" is. Secondly, a See also entry is not "content". Thirdly, I have every right to remove unsourced gibberish which has been discussed a million times on this talkpage and has been now restored by a sockpuppet of a banned user. I am not going to enter into another discussion as to why the foibe killings are "ethnic cleansing" about as much as the Bleiburg massacre. If this same kind of propaganda is present on the Ethnic cleansing article then, without question, it must be removed from there as well. It is an incredibly controversial claim which requires about a metric TON of evidence of scholarly support. Fascists and "anti-communists" are hardly an "ethnicity". You should also learn to distinguish between the Foibe killings (1945) and the so called Istrian "exodus" (mostly early 1950s).
I find your immediate and ridiculous accusations of "vandalism" quite rude, uncalled for, and frankly a little biased. If this response seems "gruff", remember that its a response to your hostile and unfounded accusations. I'm going to revert this sock edit. Feel free to report me for vandalizing the article, preferably while you're reading up on WP:MEAT. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi DIREKTOR, you can ask for a CU for Ducatista2 and Rasmani. They can be Brunodam, but we are not sure about it. After CU, remember to respect the article that was created with consenus rule.--Grifter72 (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"After CU, remember to respect the article that was created with consenus rule."? What do you mean? If this isn't a sock of PIO, or Luigi, or Bruno, or Ragusino, or... etc., it would change my entire world view. Edits by these users, even if they aren't socks (LoL), are not agreed-upon or even discussed. "Consensus"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
If Ducatista2 is a sock of Bruno you can revert all his edits. If not, you should discuss with him. --Grifter72 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course, but I already am discussing the issue, albeit not with him. A CU will be filed when I get the time. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
DIREKTOR; I think you are being a little liberal with the truth, as you claim to be removing "unsourced gibberish" in the Ethnic Cleansing article when it was actually sourced [7] - You may dispute these sources in discussion, but instead you took it upon yourself to simply, and unilaterally, dismiss (and censor) them. Indeed, your (and ironically unsourced) claim in the edit that the Istrian Exodus was simply a "voluntary departure" of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Italians is bizarre, to say the least. Corinth (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Jdej, I have had occasion to remark to you before that you really ought to quit the personal accusations. Regarding the Ethnic cleansing article, if you had bothered to spend half an hour reading the source provided, you would have discovered that nowhere at all does it support the contention that this was an act of ethnic cleansing. Quite the reverse, in fact. I have removed it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
And I have reinserted it, but left out the source you objected to. Instead I completed the paragraph with four new sources that explicitly label it an act of ethnic cleansing. As it is extremely well sourced with lot of different sources, I'm also inserting it here. For anyone wanting to check the sources, feel free to read them at Ethnic cleansing.JdeJ (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
"extremely well sourced" my arse. To be clear, Ballinger most certainly does not refer to this as ethnic cleansing, which is why you have not included a page reference as you should have done. Then there're the two Italian sources, and the Rome correspondent of a London newspaper. You should preface your POV with "It has been claimed that..." if you have any desire at all to present your opinion as anything encyclopedic. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Alasdair, but certainly NOT. JdeJ, I will not have you basing this sort of outrageous and, frankly, absurd crap on a few newspaper articles. You will either bury us in published, reliable, professional historic works using the term "ethnic cleansing", or I will take this to MEDCOM before I let you include a syllable of such nonsense. Ethnic cleansing?? Even Operation Storm isn't generally considered ethnic cleansing because soldiers did not actually force anyone to leave, and you are postulating that the voluntary departure of people because they did not feel welcome or terribly comfortable is "ethnic cleansing"?? Excuse me, but you need to have a look at what is actually ethnic cleansing. We Jugos have some experience in this, in fact, we bloody invented it! It is soldiers and militiamen knocking down your door and telling you to get lost or get shot! Terribly sorry, but I don't think general discomfort making the prospect of emigration appealing counts as the same thing as being thrown out at gunpoint! In other words: if you decide to move out yourself and are not explicitly forced to do so, no matter how bad life was, - its NOT ethnic cleansing. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you can forget about this. There is absolutely no way you will push such disgusting POV that not only defies reality, but also demeans and insults all the refugees and victims of real ethnic cleansing. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen's response is very revealing. If a source is published in Italy, it is POV. If it is published by a leading French newspaper but written by an Italian, it is POV. If it published by a leading English newspaper whose journalist is working in Italy, it is POV. So Le Monde and The Independent are biased and unreliable? It is an interesting argument, but one which only speaks about Alasdair's and DIREKTOR's personal WP:POV. Refusing to accept any source that does not support one's personal view is hardly constructive. Neither am I convinced by Alasdair's and DIREKTOR's use of terms such as "my arse", "absurd crap" to try to argue their case. Perhaps both users would benefit from calming down a bit and to try to argue in a factual manner. I welcome DIREKTOR's suggestion to take the issue to MEDCOM, as I do believe that independent sources weigh heavier than Wikipedia users national WP:POV, no matter how wordy it is put.JdeJ (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Before we go any further, Ballinger does not say it is ethnic cleansing. Are you going to correct your little "mistake"? As for "calming down a bit", if you refrained from personal attacks on other editors, it would be much easier to do so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Alasdair, let's settle what a personal attack is. Pointing out that a user appears to be driven by a nationalist POV in his edit is not necessarily a personal attack, not if that POV is obvious from the user's edits. Calling another user "pathetic", and "idiot" and "you're a complete idiot" as you've recently done, that is what a personal attack is. What Ballinger says about the Foibe killings, the topic were discussing, is this "Gigi had left in the face of partisan threats to 'finire nelle foibe', that is, to meet his end in the karstic pits (foibe) in which partisans executed several thousand persons in 1943 in Istria and in 1945 around Trieste.". Forcing out people based on ethnicity with the threat of killing them if they don't leave, that sounds pretty much like "ethnic cleansing". Apart from that source, there are three other valid sources all claiming it to be ethnic cleansing. Your only argument for dismissing the sources is that they are written by an Italian (the book), written in a French newspaper by an Italian journalist and written in an English newspaper by an English journalist based in Rome. The fact a journalist is writing an article based in Rome, or that he is Italian, is no reason to dismiss the source. We judge sources for their worth here, not by the ethnicity of their authors.JdeJ (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to settle what "vandalism" is before you embarrass yourself any further with such transparent allegations? Preferably before you start lecturing people on policy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have a valid point there. As WP:VANDALISM only applies to edits with the aim of lowering the quality of articles, not edits that do it without the intention to do it, I don't think it's fair to accuse you of vandalism and I retract that. I certainly think you repeatedly violate WP:NPOV, you're no vandal.JdeJ (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a vandal? Thanks so much!... wow, you must really be objective... (note:sarcasm). In light of your courtesy, I must admit that I also think you're not really Genghis Khan reincarnated. quid pro quo... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Jdej, what Ballinger actually says, using the quote to which you refer to illustrate the case, is that different people have different perspectives of what happened. It's on page 10 of the book, if you are interested. Ballinger describes and contrasts interviews she conducted with Eleonora, one of those who opted to leave but who says that the Slavs "stole an Italian land" and with her cousin Gino who opted to stay and has an entirely different perception of what happened. Ballinger is saying just that different people see things differently. For you to try to use this quote to say anything else is entirely dishonest. And for you to follow such dishonesty with "we judge sources for their worth here" is an utter disgrace. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Ballinger says precisely what AlasdairGreen claims she says, so I'm glad we agree on that point. As she (Ballinger) shows, different people have different stories and views of the events. It would be unique if that was not so, for every event if history we'll find people with different views. I think Alasdair will agree with me that the Serbs conducted a policy of ethnic cleansing towards the Bosniaks? Yet we find some Bosniaks (such as Emir Kusturica with a markedly different story to tell. Some' of the people Ballinger interviewed felt that their lifes were threatened because of their ethnicity and that they were forced to leave because of their ethnicity.JdeJ (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thus I'm sure you'll also agree that it is entirely misleading and inappropriate for you to try to use this book as a source to support your personal view that the events in question constituted ethnic cleansing. Some people are of that view. Most, and importantly most of the reliable sources, including Ballinger, do not come to that conclusion. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27, Pamela Ballinger work is really complex and She never took a position: --Grifter72 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. That's my point entirely. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
LoL :) anyway, the discussion appears to have moved to Talk:Ethnic cleansing. Just a heads-up... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing"[edit]

The term "ethnic cleansing" is not used for the foibe killings. All authors use other terms to describe the events. The Istrian exodus has been called "ethnic cleansing" by only one author, but the foibe killings were never described by that term by any published, let alone professional, work. The term is simply not used by the scientific community. I won't repeat myself, please read the extensive discussion on Talk:Ethnic cleansing#Istria and the list of professional publications using other terms, and describing the exiles' use of this term as a morality play (Dr. Jutta Weldes). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ethnic Istria,Austrian Empire,1880[edit]

Source 35[edit]

Source 35 appears to be a "letter to the editor". As such, I question its use here. It does not provide the credibility needed for the claim that the "Istrian exodus... was motivated, for the most part, by the desire of the Italian people to live in their own country." It should be noted that the host site for the source is an historical association, and not the original publisher of the letter in question. -- Crusher1 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree to remove it as POV --Theirrulez (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


I just finish reading this article and I'm astonished. It's incredibly politicized, controversial, fuzzy, and above all it's offensive to the tens thousands of infoibed deaths, hundreds of thousands of Italians dispossessed of their homes and exiled; it's offensive to the history of the Italian nation and even more against the Historical Truth.
I'm simply afraid to edit this article.--Theirrulez (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Theirrulez please direct your attention to the top of this talkpage:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Please be sure you do so. Newspaper language is non-encyclopedic. "Solemn speech"?? "The President of the Italian Republic, took a solemn speech during celebration of the "Memorial Day of Foibe Massacres and Istrian-Dalmatian exodus" in which he finally stated the historical sense of this dark page in European history." This is encyclopedic? Bare FACTS only, Theirrulez, none of your POV "embellishments", please. A seperate section for two sentences? Right... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the official website of The President of Italian Republic. An institutional website, one of the most Italian reliable sources available. I just cited it without changing, adding English translation.
Only English sources? Are you sure? Please check guidelines and be by far more respectful for the argument, having care do not revert other users' edits without cheking sources. This article is awful and I just trying to add images and reliable sources. Watching to the hundreds of edits you did on it, I saw instead how you are interested in the argument. The Foibe Massacre has an heavy historical weight for all our consciousness, so please, use, since now, the necessary attention in reverting automatically, or in silly debating or in challenging reliable sources. Thanks --Theirrulez (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing: this is an encyclopedia. As surprising as that might be, we are actually NOT supposed to copy sources verbatim, but instead use them as - sources for a neutral text that cites BARE FACTS. That is encyclopedic wording. Yet here you are, actually proud that you've copied text from some website verbatim without making sure its suitable for Wikipedia. Bravo... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson but if I were you I will behave less pov an less disruptive sir, I TRANSLATE IT for English usage, and as you can see it's just a little passage ina long speech. Thanks also to be more respectful. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Here it is again, User:Theirrulez please direct your attention to the top of this talkpage:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

What have you to say for yourself. You not only inroduce controversial changes without discussion, when you are reverted you start edit-warring. Let me just say this: you can forget about your "Ode to the Glorious Speech" right here and now. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Ode to Glorious Speech?? Where did you see edit-war in my edits on this article, sir? Please be serious, I added three images (one just uploaded by me), I added and translated a short passage of the president of the Italian Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, already cited in the article before my first edit and supported with a very reliable source.
Where can you find edit-war purpose in this, sir? Why are you saying and doing that? Why are you stalking me this way? What does it mean this incredible post you left on another user's talk? Sir I'm very worried about your way to do.--Theirrulez (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Revert-warring over this edit forfeits discussion. Please stop re-inserting that "poetic" journalist text and discuss. I shall not repond to your talkpage posts so long as you try to win arguments by displaying your clicking abilities. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The Foibe killings is not an article - its a battleground. Please discuss prior to making controversial changes. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my! Who said that? Theirrulez (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's Foibe Massacres?[edit]

This article must be renamed above all as per WP:UE and WP:CN, and also because the globally most common used word "massacres" is not accidentally referred to the foibe: it underline the way to murder thousand of people, throwing them, one on the other one, still alive, in dark holes in the karst ground (hundreds of meters deep), where there wasn't any way to get out.--Theirrulez (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting POV. The article used to have that excessively emotive title. It was changed, very appropriately. This is an encyclopedia, and it is entirely possible that the reader can form their own opinion as to the nature of the events without being instructed by the title that it was a "massacre". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Very well, but... who changed the "excessively emotive title"? You, in December 2008. Anyway: what do you think to do about this "excessively emotive title"?-- (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That term is also unencylopedic. That does not mean we should reduce the quality of all articles, does it? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
That term is also unencyclopedic? It's un excessively emotive title? We want to joke? Every single wikipedia, but the English one (anyone could explain me why?), use the historic -and most common in all languages- title "Foibe massacres".--Theirrulez (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess its true what they say - the English Wikipedia really is the best of the lot. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but trying to be serious tell my an acceptable reason to keep this title.. Leaving a part political positions. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Kindly stop removing sourced quotations. Please learn how and when to use the cquote template. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes why don't give a lesson like your "Google test using" lessons? Fun --Theirrulez (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they certainly seemed to help you argue your case.
Stop adding the absurd Croatian-to-Italian-to-English translation, and latering the wording of the press release. Grazie mille. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop doing what? I just provide a correct translation of the quotation text, and some fresh link to the sources. Your obsolete translation was a bit tendentious. Is there something wrong with your POV? Theirrulez (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahem.. I want to underlined (please could the faster reverter in the West and his friend pay attention) how the quote is sourced by an Italian publication. So please don't invent a translation from Croatian that fit better your POV, because there isn't any source in Croatian to translate for that quote. Many thanks. - Theirrulez (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyways you can't do that [8]. It's a scaring pov pushing, like you are doing on Flag of Yugoslavia, Croatization, Josip Broz Tito, Draza Mihajlovic. Stop political and nationalistic pov without discussion. --Theirrulez (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I know what the text of the statement was, your translation is just wrong. Why don't we just post the whole thing here on talk then? If I recall its just a few sentences. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

U tekstu izjave Ureda Predsjednika Republike Hrvatske glasi:

Hrvatska strana primila je na znanje objašnjenja pružena tijekom razgovora koji je u Farnesini (Ministarstvo vanjskih poslova Talijanske Republike) 13. veljače održan između ministra vanjskih poslova Massima D'Aleme i veleposlanika Republike Hrvatske Tomislava Vidoševića.

Ta su objašnjenja primljena s razumijevanjem, te su pridonijela prevladavanju nesporazuma nastalih u svezi teksta što ga je izgovorio Predsjednik talijanske države.

Riječi Predsjednika Napolitana nikako se nisu polemički odnosile na Hrvatsku, niti je u njima bilo ikakve namjere da se dovedu u pitanje Sporazum o miru iz 1947. i Osimski i Rimski sporazumi, niti je u njima bilo revanšističkih ili povijesno-revizionističkih inspiracija.

Predsjednik Mesić temeljem tih objašnjenja smatra da je potvrđena bitna osnova za daljnje građenje prijateljskih i uzajamno korisnih odnosa između dviju zemalja.

The text of the statement by the Office of the President of Croatia is as follows:

The Croatian representatives received the explanation offered during the talks between the Italian minister of foreign affairs Massimo D'Alema and the ambassador of the Republic of Croatia, Tomislav Vidošević held at Farnesina (the Italian Ministry of Foriegn Affairs) on February 13.

These explanations were received with understanding, and have aided towards the overcoming of the misunderstandings created by the statement of the President of the Italian state.

The words of President Napolitano were in no way intended to cause controversy regarding Croatia, nor did they contain any intention to question the 1947 peace treaties or the Osimo and Rome Accords, nor were they inspired by revanchism or historical revisionism.

Based on these explanations, President Mesić holds that the solid foundations for the development of further friendly and mutually beneficial relations between the two countries have been reaffirmed.

Yaawn... the source is from an Italian publication, do you know? So the translation was from Italian to English. It's so hard to understand? Anyways, after you'll realized that, please restore the right version washing out your pov. Many thanks - Theirrulez (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sleepy? Better get some rest, you'll be waiting a while... [9] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the magazine page you linked didn't report any speech passage and cited as a source, the "Repubblica" article (present as source in the article). Please stop push your pov. Theirrulez (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I report that Theirrulez is a neofascist user who make censorship on italian wikipedia page removing any edit who link between italian war crimes and foibe killings — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I know user Theirrulez in it.Wiki, and he's not a fascist at all. Stop offending people. You and your Direktor, you are the shame of Wikipedia. -- (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


Why someone is continuing to add the word "worst" (in Italian: "peggiori") in Napolitano's speech? The Italian president said: "una delle barbarie del secolo scorso": literary "one of the barbarity of the past century".-- (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopelessly badly written[edit]

I learned more from than from trying to read this article. -- (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Direktor's cut[edit]

Since it seems that almost all articles about history of former Yugoslavia are under monopoly of Croat ethnic activist (or activists) under alias Direktor, I call Italian members to protest against this kind of monopoly and intellectual dishonesty. His goal is to block any source that can jeopardize official Croat stance about these events, and to prevent any kind of different views on the matter. His behavior is deteriorating neutrality of wikipedia articles to the point that this is no longer encyclopedia, but ethnic pamphlet-ism. It is interesting to see how he try to make relative ethnic cleansing(s) made by his countrymen, and at the same time inflate and insist on validity of crimes made by groups perceived as enemies of Croatia. English wikipedia articles should be contributed by neutral persons who are not in the conflict of interests. --Ganderoleg (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that Director is right. Ganderoleg...we are not in italian wikipedia where is forbidden to mention the fascist responsability on foibe killings, where is forbidden to write that most of the italians killed in the foibe where collaborationists of the fascist regimes and where they say that slavic = bad ones, fascist italians = innocent ones. No, we are not in the italian neofascist wikipedia and fascist POVs are not allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You must be joking. With this history of Mussolini and fascist, a regime not anymore existing in Italy, you are out of history. The world goes on. Italy is a democratic Republic now, and italians are not fascists. You are injuring all italian people if you say things like that. Foibe massacres are a crime against humanity, and you and yours friends, you are trying to minimize it. What a shame for Wikipedia: people like you and your Direktor should not be allowed to write nonsense like that. You are worst that fascists.-- (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am quite upset to read this sort of things in Wikipedia; the history is quite simple: in those lands, now parts of Slovenia and Croatia, lived for centuries peoples who spoke romance languages, side by side with persons speaking Slavic languages. In some places, like Pola (Pula), Fiume (Rijeka) and Zara (Zadar) they were vast majority. Nowadays almost nobody speak Italian in Istria (Istra), Quarnaro (Kvarner) and Dalmazia (Dalmacija). Did they disappear by magic? Obviously not. They were killed in huge but unknown numbers and thrown in vertical caves of a limestone plateau (many were thrown still alive among corpses).This happened at the hands of their former neighbours wearing the uniforms of Yugoslav Army.The survivors of this mass slaughters fleed in fear, of course, and every trace of their lives was deleted. Even the Lions of Saint Mark carved on gateways were shoveled. This kind of attitude, of ethnic hatred still exist. As you can read in many places of the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

« Ricordo che nel 1946 io ed Edward 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. Ma non era vero? (domanda del giornalista) 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. Così ci venne detto e così fu fatto. » (Milovan Gilas - Panorama, 21 luglio 1991) I try to translate at my best: "I remember that in 1946 Edvard Kardelj and I went to Istria to organize anti-Italian propaganda.The goal was to demonstrate to the Allied Commission that those lands were Yugoslav and not Italian: we prepared manifestations with flags and banners. Wasn't it true? asks the journalist Sure it was not true.Or better, it was in part true, for the Italians were the majority in cities and towns, not in villages. So it was necessary to make them go away with every kind of pressures. So it was told to us and so we made." Interview to Milovan Gilas april 1991 Panorama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


The POV of this article is, to put it simply, essentially and extremely biased against the Italians who, (YES), were the object of an ETHNIC CLEANSING. Disgusting quotations, such as "attention on the foibe killings is much broader for the Italian victims than the Slavic ones", the very fact the title says killings instead of massacres (because massacres they were), and the absolutely non-neutral statement in the opening paragraph on the modern reputation of the massacres, are all unacceptably ridicolously biased. -- (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The POV of this article is, to put it simply, essentially and extremely biased against the Italians who, (YES), were the object of an ETHNIC CLEANSING.

This wikipedia page was written by a slovenian (DancingPhilosopher) and a croat (DIREKTOR). You now know the reason for this impartiality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

From 1943 to 1949?[edit]

The lead states that the killings took place from 1943 to 1949, suggesting a continuous process. Most sources, however, refer to killings in Istria in September/October 1943 and, subsequently, killings in the Trieste and Gorizia areas in May 1945. These events are documented by many (often contradictory) sources, and there is considerable disagreement over the numbers involved. Unless someone is able to offer sources for foibe killings after 1945 and up to 1949, the lead should be rephrased. It may be a simple typo or perhaps it is a case of conflating the foibe massacres with the phenomenon of the exodus from Istria and other territories. Even this, however, would not explain the choice of 1949, given that the main periods of the exodus were 1943, 1945, 1947 and 1954. Otomixal (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Foibe massacres would me more accurate[edit]

Requested move 25 June 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Foibe killingsFoibe massacres – The number of people killed makes the term 'massacres' more appropriate. (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support the move - the most often used description in the sources dealing with the subject.[10] --Eleassar my talk 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: nom's argument about the number of people killed is irrelevant (it's arbitrary). Name needs to reflect the most used term in reliable sources. If massacre is the most used term, then by all means go for it. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Massacre is indeed more used than "killings", and in light of the numbers (disputed, but anyway in the range of some thousands overall) I don't think it would be arbitrary to consider 'killings' as rather diminutive. (Since we're at it, I think the entire page needs a serious peer review by some users who are not biased either on the Italian or Yugoslav side). --Olonia (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the move. The use of killings is diminutive. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So, what now? A week has passed. Should somebody call an admin to close the dicussion? There seems to be consensus towards the move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confusing passage[edit]

I find the following sentence (from the section "Events") extremely confusing. I think it should be re-written from scrap. Also it is classified as "evidence" a fact supported only by one source.

"Many of the bodies found in the Basovizza pit, and in the foibe of Corgnale, Grgar, Plomin, Komen, Socerb, Val Rosandra, Cassorana, Labin, Tinjan, Cerenizza, Heki and others were ethnic Italians, but, according to Katia Pizzi, "despite evidencethat Fascist soldiers had also used foibe as open-air cemeteries for opponents of the regime, only their equivalent use on the part of Yugoslav partisans appeared to arouse general censure, enriched as it was with the most gruesome details."--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Whereas Italian forces murdered a number of Jugoslav civilians during the occupation, I have never heard of foibe being used for their burial.-- (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


  • ''In March 2006, the border municipality of [[Nova Gorica]] in [[Slovenia]] released a list of names of 1,048 citizens of [[Gorizia]] (Nova Gorica's Italian half) who disappeared in May 1945 after being arrested by the Partisan [[9th Corps (Yugoslav Partisans)|9th Corps]].''
Part of the above seems to be the subject of debate. I am not an expert. Anybody care to weigh in? Thanks. Quis separabit? 00:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) there is no debate. The modification is actually due. The cities of Gorizia and Nova Gorica are two different cities (the first Italian, the second Slovenian) but they are just one urban entity. I guess the previous version aimed to explain it (creating actually confusion more than anything else). --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, @Silvio1973, so if you could word it so everyone understands clearly, that would be great, Silvio. Thanks, Quis separabit? 16:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, not an easy task without being very "praisy". I will try to be clear and concise, tell me what you think. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC), it's done. I have also rephrased some sentences and removed two sources, because very dubious (to say the less). However, keeping this article tidy and NPOV is almost impossible. It is the continuous target of extremists (Italians, Slovenes and Croats). It should be reworked under the supervision of an administrator and after semi-protected. I doubt this will happen any time soon. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Silvio1973: Thanks Silvio. Quis separabit? 18:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Dreadful English[edit]

The very confused discussion on this talk page isn't helped by the dreadful quality of the 'English' used by the various contributors, few of whom are (quite evidently) native speakers. Sorry, English isn't just a lingua franca that everyone can use as he or she sees fit - it's a language in its own right, and should be used correctly, or preferably not at all. Write your text in Italian, or Slovenian, or whatever, and get it properly translated by someone who knows English well. (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, man, English is a lingua franca that anyone uses at the best of his possibilites. Your observation looks extremely out of place here.--Olonia (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foibe massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)