Talk:Dalmatian Italians/Archives/2015/April

‎Teo Pitta

Please Teo stop reverting the article and join the discussion here on the talk page. Wikipedia has rules. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Teo Pitta has been warned, both as to discretionary sanctions and that the use of the word "vandalism" in what is clearly a content dispute is a personal attack and so itself is sanctionable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The partisans entered/liberated the city

Zadar was part of the Kingdom of Italy and formally remained such as until 1947. I think that it is incorrect to say that the partisans liberated the city. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If you think something is incorrect, it does not make your argument right. ;)

And please refrain yourself from changing the article, you know that you have to discuss such things here if a change is reverted. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, take a breathe. If I was sure to be right I would not discuss here but directly source (mind well that your edit is not more sourced than mine). The question is open and is: can we speak in the case of Zadar of liberation as for the rest of Dalmatia? Untill 1947 Zadar remained de iure part of the Kingdom of Italy so "liberated" for an unoccupied city is perhaps improper. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not the original, I hva reverted the recent changes of another user, ok? Go and see the page history. [1]

Zadar just remained under Italian sovereignty until that year. I don't see your point at all. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, it is unrelevant who put the flag first on the page. What is relevant is what is conform to WP policy. I checked on your edit log and it looks that you have problems edit-warring with a lot of users. However, the important thing is to arrive to consensus. I am not reverting again your edit but now answer to my (IMHO fair) objection. Refusing to discuss but imposing your view is not a valid method. The question again is: can we speak in the case of Zadar of liberation as for the rest of Dalmatia? Untill 1947 Zadar remained de iure part of the Kingdom of Italy so "liberated" for an unoccupied city is perhaps improper. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked many times because of edit-warring, but put that aside. How can you say that Zadar was unoccupied? Zadar was until 1947 just on the paper under Italian sovereignty. Here are examples that say "liberated": [2][3][4] --Tuvixer (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, I have been blocked only once. And it was discussing with you. All the sources you quote are not English. So again the question: was the city liberated or occupied by the Partisans? Between the two versions (equally POV) I recommend to use the neutral "entered". Silvio1973 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem if they are in Croatian? We are after all discussing about a Croatian city, right? The articles talk about the 70th year from the liberation of Zadar, of you do not understand Croatian. Every city and village that was not under the control of the Partisans was or needed to be liberated because it was occupied either by foreign fascist regimes or by the puppet regimes. I hope you understand that. Because that is how things were there in the war. "Entered" is not neutral, "entered" is inaccurate. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, you are editing the WP in English. You need English sources because I am not supposed to speak Croatian. If you want to stick to sources I can source that the Partisans occupied the city, not liberated. See here [[5]]. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope this is enough. Britannica [6]

So please revert your last edit, and show good faith by putting the reference from Britannica in the article next to liberated, ok? --Tuvixer (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, secondary sources have priority on tertiary (cfr. WP guideline). I have sourced "occupied" from an English book by Winston Churchill. But I am still open to a compromise and write instead "entered". However, if you really want "liberated" in the meantime we will have to keep the neutral "entered" and in parallel ask for a 3O. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your link is not directly accessible. I tried to activate a free trial access to Britannica but did not work. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't lie. everyone can see that article. It seems that you are not willing to back from your position even when confronted with deniable evidence.

So hre is the whole text of Britannica about Zadar:

Zadar, Italian Zara, Latin Jadera, picturesque historical town in Croatia, the former capital of Dalmatia. It is located on the end of a low-lying peninsula that is separated by the Zadar Channel from the islands of Ugljan and Pašman. The inlet between the peninsula and the mainland creates a natural deepwater harbour.

The old town on the peninsula dates from the 9th century bc, when it was a Liburnian settlement called Jadera. The town became Roman in the 1st century bc. Spared in the Avar and Slavic invasions of Dalmatia (c. 5th–6th century ad), it remained a thriving commercial, cultural, and artistic centre of Byzantine Dalmatia. Between 1045 and 1358 the town was intermittently at war with Venice, and in 1409 it was sold to Venice. From this point the town was oppressed by the Venetians from within and the Turks from without. It withstood a Turkish attack in 1571, and in the succeeding period Zadar became the most heavily fortified town on the Adriatic until its fortifications were partly demolished in the late 19th century.

The town was an Austrian possession from 1797 to 1920, except for a brief French interregnum between 1808 and 1813. By the Treaty of Rapallo (1920), Zadar became Italian, thereby losing further ground to Split as the chief town of Dalmatia. During the course of World War II, Allied bombing destroyed 75 percent of Zadar’s buildings and damaged the port facilities. Liberated in 1944, it became part of Yugoslavia.

Most new construction has taken place on the mainland. Zadar’s industries now include distilling of liqueurs (notably maraska [cherry]), canning and processing of fish, and the production of rope, cotton, and synthetic textiles, cigarettes, plastics, leather, and household appliances. The Zadar Riviera is a developing resort centre for water sports. The town has excellent road, rail, air, and ferry connections with the rest of the Balkan region and with Italy.

Old Zadar is especially noted for the many fine churches that survived the air raids during World War II, as did the Roman forum and several of the old, narrow cobbled streets. St. Donat’s remarkable circular church dates from the 9th century (see photograph); St. Mary’s Church (1091) has one of the most important church treasuries in Croatia; and the Romanesque Church of St. Krševan was consecrated in 1175. There are also the 13th-century Cathedral of St. Stošija (Anastasia), the largest and finest Romanesque church in Dalmatia, and the Franciscan church and monastery (1282). Zadar has an archaeological museum, the state archives, a theatre, and a small branch of the University of Zagreb. Pop. (2001) 69,556. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please show good faith and change it to "liberated" and place the source from Britannica, ok? :) --Tuvixer (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, I have a source stating "occupied", you have a source saying "liberated". The art of the compromise wants to find a middle position, i.e. "entered". Again, if you think your source has priority we need to go for a 3O. This is laborious of course, but what is the alternative other than the compromise?--Silvio1973 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In every article I have edited somehow you have managed to oppose my position. Now you are opposing the position of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. But ok, ask for the 3O. That is just fine with me. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC) In the meantime remove your edits and leave it like it was before April 14th. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Tuvixer, my edit is sourced. If you want in the meantime we can leave "entered" which is neutral. I do not see why your version should preferred to mine. I am going to change with "entered". Silvio1973 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you ask for the 3O? If yes, place the link here. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. [[7]]. Mind well that entered could be a good compromise. However, let's see where we get with the help of a third party. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No. "Entered" and "occupied" are both wrong. Everyone can see that the city was liberated. Except one person, it sees so. --Tuvixer (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, with Winston Churchill we are already two. :)) Silvio1973 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

From a pure military perspective when the Partisans arrived in Zadar, the city was almost empty and there was no battle to take it. Also the city had been since the beginning of the war in the hands of the same administration. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Churchill won the war and then lost the elections. A very smart person indeed. xD

Liberation does not mean that there was any battles. ;) In the hands of what administration? --Tuvixer (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he lost the election. It happens in democracies. Great Britain after the war was not Yugoslavia. Mind well, that I am not saying that Dalmatia was not liberated. It was indeed, but in the case of Zadar it cannot be spoken of liberation because the city had not been occupied by the Italians. However, here we have two sources using two different wordings, hence my research of the compromise. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

"Entered" the city seems neutral. "Liberated" and "occupied" have connotations. If "entered" isn't satisfactory, then I would suggest a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There is some incivility here. Civility is required (not merely requested) everywhere in Wikipedia. Since Dalmatia is in the Balkan region as usually defined, disruptive or tendentious editing may be subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. (If you don't know what that is, you don't want to know what that is.) Be civil. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@McClenon The definition of liberate is: to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government. So the city of Zadar was indeed liberated from a foreign fascist regime of Italy. I really can,t understand why is it a problem to include liberated in the article? The city was liberated. It was the second world was. And the liberated the city in 1944, the war ended in 1945. Can you get back on this? Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Also Encyclopædia Britannica says that Zadar was liberated in 1944. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tuxiver, I am trying to do my very best to deal with your concerns but this is proving being astronomically difficult. I have proposed a compromise, I have myself requested a 3O. Indeed since the beginning I have not forced the wording of my source but proposed this compromise. Finally, I have ignored your incivility. And I will continue to ignore your incivility, because I am firmly convinced that there is only one way to make this project improving and this way requires compromise and tolerance. Zadar was part of the Kindgom of Italy so the word "liberated" implies a connotation. Clearly it seems you like this connotation, but this project work on sources not on political belief. The things is that available sources use conflicting wording ("liberated" and "occupied"), hence the use of "entered" to overcome the issue. The 3O is in favour on "entered". If you are unsatisfied you can initiate a RfC. But please try to remain polite. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

When McClenon was talking about incivility he was thinking about you, not me. ;) You have forced your wording, you started to edit-war. Everyone can see that.

Yes exactly, and I have provided a source from Britannica. Are you saying that those who edit Britannica are wrong? ;) The liberation of Zadar is commemorated every year. The city was liberated. Look what liberated means if it is hard to understand. You have insulted me a hundred times and now you act like you are a nice guy. That is funny. Everyone can see what you really are. ;) --Tuvixer (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a rest Tuxiver. And breathe. --Silvio1973 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Here's the thing everybody appears to be forgetting: Zadar was at that time a part of the Kingdom of Italy - under occupation by Mussolini's Nazi-puppet Italian Social Republic (RSI). The city was indeed at that time under Axis occupation, and was liberated from that occupation by the Allies, namely the Partisans, who were fighting on the same side in the war as the Kingdom of Italy (indeed, with many Italians in their ranks). This is looking awfully like pro-fascist/RSI revisionist POV-pushing: the Allies didn't "liberate", eh? Take a long, deep breath - and go for a hike, Silvio.. your entire argument is void. -- Director (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Director, I see your argument but here we have 2 sources using conflicting terms, hence the use of "entered" as supported by the 3O. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No but, Silvio. He has explained it very well and you have said it yourself. Now don't try to play a lawyer and stop this discussion. It is over. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternatives

When someone asks for a third opinion about the Balkans, there is generally another editor who doesn't want a third opinion. At this point, the editors need to decide whether this is a content dispute, or whether to make it into a conduct dispute. Read the dispute resolution policy. However, of the remaining choices for content disputes, only one appears to be left. The editors don't seem to want mediation, so that only leaves a Request for Comments. Get the community to provide their judgment as to which word to use, and stick with it. Put the edit-warring on hold for 30 days and listen and follow the guidance of the community. The other choice is to be stubborn. If so, I suggest that all of you familiarize yourself with Arbitration Enforcement and be prepared for sanctions. Of course, you can try WP:ANI instead, but that isn't likely to be any easier to deal with than Arbitration Enforcement. Those are the choices. Get community consensus, or be stubborn and face sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I proposed the use of "entered" as a compromised position between "occupied" and "liberared". Do you suggest I post an RfC? I doubt it will solve the issue. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Director has explained it very well. "Liberated" is the only right term to use. It is like saying that Mussolini was not a fascist and saying that he was a left wing politician. Then trying to make a compromise and put in the article, as a compromise, that Mussolini was a centrist. Absolute nonsense. That is what Silvio is trying to do in this article. It is obvious that Silvio is not willing to even hear others arguments, so as long as he does that this discussion can go forever. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Should an RFC be posted? Yes, if the intention is to resolve this issue as a content issue. Will it solve the issue? That is up to the editors, and whether they accept the consensus established by the RFC. Is there any other alternative to an RFC? Not unless anyone really thinks that WP:AE, WP:ANEW, or WP:ANI are the best ways to resolve things. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that the outcome of the 3O has been ignored. Probably the outcome of the RfC would be also ignored. Silvio1973 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed vandalismTeo Pitta (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Director gave a good 3O. Surely Robert McClenon after reading the Director argument, and seeing that Brittanica states "Liberated" thinks that "liberated" is the term to be used. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

After Silvio now Teo Pitta starts another edit-war. How convenient. Robert McClenon please can you resolve this issue with Teo Pitta. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This whole discussion is typical Italian right-wing POV-pushing by Silvio1973. He either accidentally forgot or deliberately tried to sideline the fact that the city was indeed under Axis occupation, and that Italy had switched sides by that time. Not only is the entire argument behind this push thereby void (as the Allies did liberate Italy), but the formulation is also well sourced. I don't see why we should in any way accommodate what amounts to a pro-fascist edit from what we have now, and frankly why anyone should have to bother with this sort of nonsense.

He's also using Italian SPAs recruited from itWiki. Teo Pitta is at least a POV-pushing WP:SPA, and at most a another proper sock of a banned sockpuppeteer sharing the same political point of view (such as Brunodam or Ragusino, etc.. etc..). References to users long gone from this project - amply testify to the fact these people are not new here. -- Director (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not an Admin

I am not an administrator and do not have the block button. Do not ask me to block anyone. If anyone really wants to request a block, they should first read the boomerang essay. Then if you really think that the edit is vandalism, report it at WP:AIV, but only if it really is vandalism. Otherwise if you really want to request a block, go to WP:AE or WP:ANI or WP:ANEW, but remember that if your own editing is not clean, you might get a block, of yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop stalling and block someone! :)

Welcome to the Balkans, Mr. McClenon. I'm afraid this whole business was farcical from the start.. if you will, please consider revising your position - given that most of what has been said by Silvio1973 up to this point was in direct contradiction with the actual historical situation. See my above post. Italy had already switched sides, and the city was in the hands of Mussolini's puppet Italian republic, from which it was liberated by Allied forces.

Indeed further. According to the Axis the city was (as I said) "legally" a part of the Italian Social Republic, but if I'm not mistaken, not even the Italian Social Republic actually held power in the city by the time the Yugoslav army got there. I recall reading that de facto authority over the city was by that point exercised by the Independent State of Croatia (another Nazi puppet), and/or the Germans directly. -- Director (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Director, I sourced the proposed wording without doing any OR. Concerning the actual control of Zadar, untill the arrival of the Partisans the city had been controlled by the same authority in charge since the beginning of the war (albeit may be only formally) hence my initial comment. Mind well that I asked for a 3O, I did not push any POV and I do not know anything about those users (Ragusino, Brunodzm), no idea who they are. One side note: to share your words, why everything connected with the Balkans is always so conflicting? Silvio1973 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong Silvio:

Administrative Divisions (1943–45)

Zara RSI or the Italian Social Republic. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Why [is] everything [connected] with the Balkans ... always so conflicting?" Tragic history, probably. Those topic areas in Wikipedia that are most subject to battleground editing include those that have been historical battlegrounds. Don't try to restart World War One. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yeah.. specifically this is a historical battleground where Fascist Italy occupied Yugoslav territories (riding on the German army's coattails of course - they couldn't even take the Greeks), and proceeded to Italianize, and mass-murder the local population in concentration camps, while empowering (Serb) gangs of cutthroats to keep peace in the (Croat-populated) countryside... the Blackshirts roaming about burning towns and villages. WHY is it so conflicting? I can't imagine..

But you don't get it: Silvio1973 represents the Civilized World in this - but the "conflicting" balkanites just won't let him be. As he likes to point out, HE comes from a (quote) "peaceful country" (also the homeland of fascism and theater of innumerable petty wars throughout the centuries). This is the sort of bigoted, condescending bull one continuously has to put up with when Silvio is around.

@Silvio, I understand what you're saying: you have a source - so does the current formulation. Do you have any coherent reason why anyone should prefer your position? Up to now you've been harping on how its historically inaccurate to use the current term - turns out all that's a load of gibberish. The city was NOT "under the same authority": after 1943, it was under the authority of a completely different state. That is, unless the authority of Italy and her King is equivalent to that of Mussolini's puppet republic? (And I'm reasonably certain even that state held no power in Zadar, it was under de facto Ustase control.. but be that as it may, makes no difference.) -- Director (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Director, how much talking. Can you discuss about the pertinent matter without starting an endless one-man talk? Side note: I am not from a more peaceful part of the world than you and I do not ignore the responsability of my country during WWII (but they have nothing to do with the long-standing ethnic issues of the Balkans). --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the three of us, I wrote least on this talkpage; what I wrote was at least correct, rather than a mountain of pointless gibberish. And actually, as I pointed out, the Italian authorities actively participated in fanning ethnic hatred in the region with their Chetnik friends, managing to inflict quite a bit of damage. Not that it did them much good, they were handing their guns over to the Partisans in two years time...

I'll take the lack of a relevant reply to indicate we're done here. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)