Talk:Foibe massacres

Again massive background history

I had shortened the background historical sections, particularly pre-WWI, and put a link to Dalmatia where much of this is already mentioned. Recently this was reverted to the previous massive background history with an Italian nationalistic POV. This POV background section is completely different from similar sections in other Wikipedia articles, where the background section is much shorter. See for example, the Flight and Expulsion of Germans - it does not have long sections on Germanic migrations, Teutonic knights, the Prussian Kingdom which extended into present-day Poland, etc. (incidentally, per the Italian nationalistic POV promoted here, much of Italy is obviously German, Arabic and Spanish since it was for centuries under such rule (Lombards, Normans, the German-led Holy Roman Empire, Austria, etc), same as Dalmatia under Venice

I'd like to hear from other editors and Admins on wether the pre-WWI background section should be shortened. Thhhommmasss (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Even the linked-to Dalmatia article suffers from such POV skewing. The Expulsion of Germans article and the point about former German held territories in what is now Poland are perfect examples you bring up. They don’t go into detailed and one-sided takes on German migration. In fact in the over 11,000 character edit, while claiming to “restore” sources and content they also deleted some. For example removing:

They retained local political control until 1870, when Austria expanded voting rights to more local Slavs. Croatian parties then gained large majorities in Dalmatia, advocating for unification with other Croatian lands, while minority Italian-speakers opposed that, seeking first autonomy, later led by irredentists they sought union with Italy.

Meanwhile adding content in its place of Italian populations wanting to unify with Italian lands instead. I don’t know if the editor is aware they did this when editing. This come across as part of a pov push to justify the “rightful” Italian rule over these territories and other Slavic inhabited territories. This edit makes the section more pov than it was to begin with. Not sure if you looked into some of the content removed in this edit. There was room to add 11,000 characters of content but not enough room to maintain what was already there before this May 8th “restoration”. The previous version was more streamlined and to the point. Also the occupation map the user insists on doesn’t display the full extent of Italian occupation during WWII. Is it sourced? I would support a revert of this mass edit. Feel free to do so unless anyone objects. OyMosby (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

References

POV-pushing by Est2021

I'd like to see some Admin intervention for the repeat POV-pushing by Est2021. In his latest edit, he repeated as a general view claims that Slavs were supposedly killed only because they wanted to maintain Italian citizenship, when at least a dozen historians I cited make no such claims (I had moved this claim to the second paragraph, indicating this is the view of some, for which he cites only one journalist, but he reverted it as a general claim)

He also repeatedly keeps changing my edits where I say historians "noted", to "argue", when in fact these historians provide extensive evidence for what they state - e.g. analyses of hundreds of victims that show that the vast majority killed were in fact members of fascist forces, and I cite specific data in the footnote. I make no claim that all victims were members of fascist forces, and the article states that victims included political opponents

He also deleted my edit where I cite many critics of the way the foibe are commemorated. And as mentioned before, he previously reverted my efforts to shorten the Background section, which is much longer than background sections in other Wikipedia articles. For example, the 1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans article does not go back to Germanic migrations, Teutonic knights taking territory in the East, etc, unlike the long historical sections here. All this history is already covered in the Dalmatia article, and the main purpose of repeating same here, seems to be to make Italian irredentist claims, based on the Venetian Empire's conquests and rule over these areas prior to 1797 (as illustrated by the map at beginning of background section, showing Venetian Empire at maximum extent, overlayed by Slav-majority areas Italy demanded in 1915 to join the Allies in WWI, and also the borders after fascist Italy invaded and annexed parts of 99%-Slavic Dalmatia) Thhhommmasss (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. The intro edit made it seem like the consensus was ethnic targeting and for avoiding annexation which ignores the plethora of sources stating the contrary. Both sides should be in the intro and infoboxich for a long time had the “disputed” note showing that there are ample sources stating the contrary. It was oddly censored and removed. It is POV to only state one side or exclusively Italian sources as somehow more important or relevant. Perhaps @Peacemaker67: could you chime in? Shouldn’t both stating sources and contradictory sources takes both be mentioned? Unless there is overwhelming consensus for one or the other? You deal with WWII Balkan topics so your insight would be appreciated. OyMosby (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unauthoritative sources

There are multiple references to unauthoritative sources, like the newspaper La Repubblica, as to what happened in 1945. The journalist Petacco and other similar sources also fall into this category. Better sources need to be found (i.e. reputable historians, etc,) and all such sources deleted. Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Dalmatia in the lead/scope issues

The lead claims that Dalmatia was occupied by Italy when these foibe killings occurred. The Italians surrendered in September 1943, and withdrew from the parts of Yugoslavia they were occupying. And the killings occurred after that. So this is not correct. Dalmatia was abandoned by them under the surrender terms and was partly occupied by the Partisans for some time, then by the Germans when they recovered the occupied territory. The Germans then occupied the lot and part of it became the Operational Zone of the Adriatic Littoral, the rest was reclaimed by the German-occupied NDH. This article needs to properly explain the occupation regimes at the time of the killings, not make claims about the lands being Italian controlled when they were not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The more important question is why is Dalmatia extensively mentioned at all in the article, since as far as I can see no foibe-related events are described in Dalmatia. Dalmatia had 2.8%, or a total of 18 thousand Italian speakers in the 1910 Austrian census, with Zadar the only city with an Italian majority. From what I've been able to find out, Italians who had moved to Zadar after 1918 and the Fascist administration largely all left after Italy's capitulation in 1943. Most other Italian speakers from Zadar left, or were evacuated to Italy, as a result of the heavy Allied bombing in 1943-1944, thus practically no Italians were left in Zadar at liberation. I have not seen any mentions of any foibe-related events in Zadar, nor in Split, which had a few thousand Italian speakers, nor anywhere else in Dalmatia. The heavy coverage of Dalmatian history going all the way back to the Romans and Venice looks like pushing an irredentist agenda in a Dalmatia with few Italian speakers, the same agenda pushed by the Fascists to occupy and annex Dalmatia, There is no similar historical coverage of Germanic migrations, Teutonic knights, Prussia, etc. in the article on the fate of a much larger number of Germans in post-WW2 Central and Eastern EuropeThhhommmasss (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, and having read Pupo’s conference talk a few times, it is clear that the scope of this article needs to be narrowed. He talks about two periods and one geographical area. September-October 1943 in inland Istria, and May-June 1945 in Venezia Guilia, specifically Trieste and Gorizia. Neither of these regions are remotely Dalmatian. He says the numbers of deaths in the first phase was 500-600, and in the second the most reliable estimates are 4K-5K, with estimates of 10K-12K “very high” and including dead and missing in combat, and 20K-30K as “pure propaganda”. So some serious scope reduction is needed here, unless other historians with expertise in the foibe are defining it differently. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The only basis for the inclusion of Dalmatians would be those who left Yugoslavia in 1918 and moved to Venezia Guilia. This could be mentioned in background, but shouldn’t be in the lead, because any that were targeted in 1943 or 1945 were targeted not because they were Dalmatian Italians but because of their activities during the interwar period and WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Source queries

I'm going to list concerns about some of the sources being used here, as a result of discussions on the similar Bleiburg article. Feel free to chime in with responses:

Silvia Ferretto Clementi

Silvia Ferretto Clementi's website indicates she is an Italian politician who completed a political science degree (with a thesis on the foibe apparently), but it isn't clear if this was a masters or PhD equivalent. For the claims being made in the lead using her as a source, I definitely do not think she is a credible academic, and we need high quality sources, and preferably not ones that may have an apprehended bias. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have now tagged all citations to her as needing a better source. Absent any information about her academic credentials on this issue, I will look to remove them, except in the case of explaining how she was involved in bringing the events back to public attention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I've established she was a National Alliance politician, the AN grew out of the fascists, and given fascists were many of the victims, I don't think it is sufficiently independent of the subject. The source is a link to a short footnoted "dossier" apparently written by her and published in 2005, when she was still a politician. It is pretty radical, and doesn't gel with the academic works like those of Pupo and the mixed commission, so I am going to remove it as it is likely subject to political bias, its academic status is unclear, and seems fringe and non-independent of the subject to me. As always, happy revert if someone can establish its academic bona fides and other reliability issues I've identified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, these have been removed for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Giorgio Napolitano

Giorgio Napolitano was an (very eminent) Italian politician who was a qualified lawyer, and the citation is to a speech he made early in his presidency. There can be no sense that his words have been subjected to any sort of editorial checking for accuracy, so this is merely his opinion. It cannot be used as a source for the foibe killings being "ethnic cleansing", and I have removed it. This footnote appears to be a case of citation bombing to try to push a POV. Quality academics may well state they were "ethnic cleansing" but we cannot use Napolitano's speech to support such a claim. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed all but the one which translates his speech and the controversy it caused. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Italian Red Cross page

I have been unable to resolve the dead link for the Italian Red Cross page via Wayback Machine. I will try it again a few more times, but if it hasn't been archived, it will have to be removed because it cannot be verified. I will however attempt to find something from the ICRC, because that would be better than the Italian Red Cross, due to the greater role in international humanitarian law. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, so I haven't been able to resolve this, so I' m deleting it as unable to be verified. Including anything that it is being used to support. Happy to reverse the deletions if someone else can find an archived version, but I'm just getting 404 errors going back years. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I should add that I haven't been able to find anything substantive on the ICRC website either. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, these are all deleted for now. As I say, happy to revise if someone has better web archive skills than me and can find a saved copy that says what the IRC is purported to have said about ethnic cleansing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thammy Evans & Rudolf Abraham (2013). Istria. Bradt Travel Guides

Yeah, nah. We are not using a travel guide as a source for this article. Deleting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Tobagi encyclopaedia article Treccani

I note that the question of people wishing to retain Italian citizenship is solely cited to an online encyclopaedia. This is a tertiary source, and don't consider this a high enough quality source for this subject, as if it was the case, the intercountry commission or Pupo would have mentioned it. I will check those sources for a reference to it being an issue, but if it does not appear there, or no-one is able to put a high quality academic source to it, I'll be removing it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, neither the commission or Pupo mention it, so I'm removing it for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Naimark (listed under editors Konrád, Barth & Mrňka 2021)

This doesn't even have page numbers, but the linked page 20 which is by Naimark, says the numbers range from one or two thousand to 20,000. He doesn't just say 20,000 as the article seems to indicate. I will try to find a copy and check what the book says about the killings and add pages, as presently this is very hard to verify. It is also attributed at least partly incorrectly, as Naimark is the author of this early chapter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I should add that Naimark gets these figures from Blozham and Dirk Moses, so this is rather circular and self-saucing, so Bloxham and Dirk Moses should be used as the source for these figures, not Naimark. I will look at Bloxham and Dirk Moses to establish exactly what they say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that Norman Naimark defines genocide differently from the Genocide Convention (he believes it should be extended to political groups and different classes, essentially), and his take on it may need to be provided as context for what he says about the foibe (which isn't much as far as I can tell, to be fair). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Specific versus general sources

There are a number of otherwise reliable sources on the general subject of ethnic cleansing or genocide that are being given far too much weight here when there are specific scholarly sources focussed on the foibe that are available. A passing mention of the foibe in a general text on ethnic cleansing should be given a low weight on this article. A chapter specifically on the foibe in a more general book or as the subject of a journal article should be given greater weight, and the greatest weight should be given to academic quality book-length investigations of the foibe, especially those that have been carried out by joint authors or researchers from Italy, Slovenia and Croatia, or by scholars from uninvolved countries. At present, some of the first type are being used to support material that just isn't supported by the more specific sources. This gives them far too much weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

For clarity;

• The first type includes Konrad et al, Bloxham et al.
• The second type includes Baracetti.
• The third type includes anything by Pupo, and also Oliva, Pettaco, etc.

The weighting of sources needs to reflect the above if this article is to have any chance of meeting WP standards. This weighting also needs to be applied to the scope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This recent Balkan Insight article bells the cat on the way Italian nationalists are treating this subject, and makes it clear that the joint Italy-Slovene commission report should be the basis for this article [1]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I don't know whether this article had a disputed tag on it before, but it should have one. Just a few hours looking at some of the sources for the ethnic cleansing claims shows that both Pupo and the Slovenian-Italian Commission (both highly reliable sources) agreed that it wasn't ethnic cleansing, but that the killings targeted people for political reasons, because they were collaborators and/or fascists etc. Balkan Insight, a highly reliable news source on the Balkan region, says that the ethnic cleansing narrative is being driven by right-wing Italian politicians. I will continue to examine sources and make edits until the article takes a NPOV and reflects the consensus academic position and identifies fringe views for what they are. As it stands the article is highly misleading, especially in the lead and infobox, but there are also extensive issues in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added a POV tag as well, it is entirely justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Why on earth is the infobox image a photograph of a foibe used by a criminal gang to dispose of its victims, when the article is about sites used by the Yugoslav state to dispose of victims? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Scope reduction

I had already shortened the first 2 Background sections, Ancient Times and Austrian Empire, which are largely irrelevant here, and in any case the same history is already covered in articles on Dalmatia and elsewhere. Est2021 reverted my edits, I suggest we go back the shorter version. Here's the diff: Foibe massacres: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

it certainly needs trimming, but it will have to be done manually again, as I have changed a whole lot of stuff outside those sections since then. If you could just trim back the old history and leave the WWI-WWII period, then I’ll look at that part. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said before. I think the map showing the Roman and Venetian Empires, and 1915 Treaty of London proposals, needs to be deleted from the Background section. This is the same as if the article on the 1940's Greco-Italian War started off with a map of Roman and Venetian Empire holdings in Greece, plus Treaty of London promises of parts of Greece to Italy. I.e this would just repeat fascist imperial claims to Greece, which they used to justify the Italian invasion/occupation of Greece, same as such a map is used in the Foibe article to repeat such claims, which were used to justify the Italian invasion/occupation of Dalmatia, along with other parts of YugoslaviaThhhommmasss (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree about anything pre-WWI. Italian irredentism during and after WWI is relevant background, and any maps of the Treaty of London remain relevant. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss and Peacemaker67: The Austrian edict of 12 November 1866 is extremely relevant for the context, and you Thhhommmasss deleted it again on 14 October 2023 (19:32 UTC). I'm going to restore it again. The next time I will consider its deletion pure vandalism. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Est. 2021 Then the forced Austrian Germanization of Slovenes is extremely relevant to the article, and I will add a ton of info on that, and if you delete any of it, I will report it as vandalism Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss: Go ahead, try. This childish attitude won't take you anywhere. But since you already mentioned me in multiple talks without ever tagging me, ping me next time. I can't wait. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of pointy editing behaviour going on here. This is a controversial subject area, and disruptive editing is very much frowned on in such areas. The Austrian section is already way too long, and editors are adding more... Please refrain from adding more until you can write more succinctly and summarise the history more concisely. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: You requested me to shorten the Austrian section and I did, but now Thhhommmasss is expanding it again with POV statements like The local populace, italianized under Venice, reverted back to Slavic languages, assuming against any source that Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians were just italianized Slavs, not ethnic Italians, and that Slavic languages were their natural state. Please, revert this idiocy. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Est. 2021: So per you "scope reduction", i.e. your scope expansion, is only OK if it is partial and biased, by quoting weak sources like media articles on historical issues, while deleting the academic sources i cited (e.g. Croatian Academy of Sciences). Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss: I'm not expanding anything, I restored the previous status quo version (that doesn't need consent) and shortened it on Peacemaker67's request. You're the one deleting sources (e.g. about Dalmatian Italians) and making unsourced POV nationalistic statements. You're not the one deciding the scope of this article, and if I wanted, I could restore the previous status quo version of the page, before any controversial edit of yours, going back months or even years if needed. But I don't want. Stop this confrontational attitude of yours, or I will. If you want an edit-war, I'd just need to restore the status quo version and report the multiple clownish threats you made in edit summaries and talk pages (examples below). You'd be gone, deleted, obliterated. Have fun. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

1. «Also if term "exterminated" is used for killings in Rijeka, I will start using extermination for much Italian war crime»
2. «If exterminated is used here, I will use extermination for much greater number of Slavs killed by Italians, and throughout the Italian war crimes article»
3. «Then the forced Austrian Germanization of Slovenes is extremely relevant to the article, and I will add a ton of info on that, and if you delete any of it, I will report it as vandalism» (just above)

and so on. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Due to the nationalistic viewpoints on both sides, this article should rely almost entirely on academic quality sources from outside the countries concerned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Not both sides. I never denied nor deleted anything about Italian bad actions, I just restored the timeline: after millennia of Roman and Venetian citizenship, there was a forced Slavization of Italians, followed by a forced Italianization of Slavs, followed by an ethnic cleansing against Italians and pro-Italian ethnic Slavs. Just simple like that. Both Slavs and Italians did horrible things. Yet this article is about the foibe massacres, ethnic cleansing against Italians, not about Italo-Slavic relations, so requesting me to shorten a section about anti-Italian actions and then adding unrelated unsourced POV nationalistic statements like the one quoted above looks way out of scope. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The sources Est2021 uses are very poor. He cited an AFP wire source, i.e. a non-academic newspaperman writing on supposed Dalmatian demographics in the early 1800's, which in turn cited zero academics, and furthermore the source was falsely cited, since it does not say that 30% of Dalmatians in the early 1800's were Italian-speakers. Other media sources are cited in the article, like La Repubblica, for what supposedly happened in 1945. Such low-quality citations and everything related to them should be immediately deleted, and only academic sources allowed for historical facts. Television personalities and journalists-turned-"historians", like Petacco and Tobagi, should also be immediately deleted for any claims of historical facts (although they and other media sources may be relevant for present-day controversies). Furthermore, the Franz Joseph citation is a primary source, and when some context is provided, as per the second citation of same, it is in a book about the forced Italianization of the South Tyrol, and such context needs to be included. Est 2021 is POV-pushing the notion of anti-Italian discrimination under Austria, while I have seen zero academic evidence of discriminatory actions in Dalmatia or Istria. On the contrary, there are academic sources that show that Austria employed Italian-speakers to rule Dalmatia, and local Italian authorities sought to suppress Slovenes declaring themselves as such, in Austrian censuses in the Julian March. The contextless, primary-source Franz Joseph citations have been plastered all over - in the Foibe article, where it is entirely irrelevant to Italian-Slav relations in 1943-1945, as well as in the articles on Dalmatia and Istria. Such violations of Wikipedia rules need to be addressed (btw, I've been unable to confirm this citation - on page 279 of the second cited source, no such words are found, and a Google search of the cited words finds them only plastered on various instances and copies of Wikipedia) Thhhommmasss (talk)

There is obviously a fundamental problem here. This is not about Dalmatians. The foibe relate to Istria, as I've mentioned above. The public investigation and wider academic consensus says that the vast majority of the people who were thrown in foibe were killed due to their fascist actions, not because they were Italian per se. At present this article has far too wide a scope and it needs severe trimming. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I had cut the pre-WWI stuff to 2 paragraphs, while providing links to the Istria and Dalmatia articles, and then Est 2021 started expanding it, with his poorly-sourced, clearly biased take. To start with, we need a decision that what Franz Joseph said in 1866 has zero to do with Italian-Slav relations in 1943-1945. That whole long quote needs to go. Same with things like Austria removing Italian as an official language in Dalmatia 1910 (when there were 2.8% Italian speakers in all of Dalmatia), not to mention your point that the Foibe was mostly confined to Istria. I think the only relevant info from Austrian times is the 1910 census data, which sets the stage for post-WWI stuff Thhhommmasss (talk)

@Thhhommmasss and Peacemaker67: I did not expand anything, I never added anything to this article, I just restored pre-existing content you had deleted. If the forced Slavization of Italians would not matter here, then the following forced Italianization of Slavs and other fascist actions would not matter as well, because they're intertwined, action and reaction. You can't start with a reaction without mentioning the actions that preceded and caused it. Reactions always follow actions. If you delete the forced Slavization of Italians, the following forced Italianization of Slavs has to be on the same plate, as well as every other fascist action. I don't want the fascist faults to be deleted, so you better keep what ignited them. That's the timeline. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Est 2021 and Peacemaker67: That is false, you only selectively restored content that you wanted, while deleting content from the same section, and with your latest revert, you again deleted well-sourced content I had added the previous day to the section. I'd like to see the Admins take some action here, to put an end to this highly disruptive behavior. I'd also like to hear from the Admins what relevance does a long citation of Franz Joseph in 1866 have to Foibe in 1943-1945. Would long quotes of Fanz Joseph in the Czechoslovakia in WWII article make any sense? How about me adding to the WWWII in Yugoslavia article background on Rome's bloody conquests of Illyria, Venice's raising of Zadar and its other wars of conquest in Istria and Dalmatia plus, then making Italian the official language in areas with large Slavic majorities, Austria keeping Italian as the only official language until 1883 and using Italian speakers to govern Dalmatia, etc.? Or in the article on WWII Italy, background how Italy was part of Greece and Byzantium, Germanic kingdoms, the German-led Holy Roman Empire, Muslim kingdoms, Norman Kingdoms, Spain, France, Austria-Hungary, etc. with clear implications these still have claims over Italy. This is getting to be a total farse Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss: Are you kidding or what? I already answered your questions. You're the one who added tons of info about the forced Italianization of Slavs and other fascist war crimes to justify the foibe massacres. That's a cause for sure, but we also know for sure that antifascists and children were targeted as well by the Yugoslavs. Moreover: nothing can justify massacres, on any side. Btw, yet you added those infos and I don't mean to delete them, so we have to explain why they did so. The forced Slavization of Italians caused the forced Italianization of Slavs, which caused the ethnic cleaning. Causes and effects. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Historians like Pupo and others, directly link forced Italianizatian, fascist rule and Italian war crimes to Foibe. None of them mention Venice, Franz Joseph and Austria making Croatian the official language in 1910 as in any way related to that. So again you are pushing your POV, and again I ask that Admins put an end to these repeat, gross violations of Wikipedia rules.Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The background should only include background that the key sources in the foibe provide. On en WP we follow the sources, not our own ideas of what the timeline was. I’d like to know what Pupo and the joint commission provide as background. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67 and Thhhommmasss: In fact, that's not my own idea, the sources are on the page, even if you deleted some of them, e.g. Treccani, the most important historical and cultural institution in Italy, or Napolitano, the communist Italian Head of State who had been allied with the Yugoslav partisans and had been as senator part of parliamentary commissions that analyzed the history of the foibe massacres. Meanwhile, Thhhommmasss added nationalistic and unsourced POV-pushing statements likes The local populace, italianized under Venice, reverted back to Slavic languages, that needed a revert. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I cited Pericic in a scientific article by the Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences, who cites contemporary Dalmatian-Italian and other sources that the majority of Slavic speakers in Dalmatia at the start of the 19th century were Italianized Slavs, and that once majority Slavs were granted equal language rights by Austria and allowed to have schools, much of the Italianized populace reverted to Slavic languages. At the same time, for historical facts about the 19th century, Est. 2021 cites an online website of the Italian Light Athletics Federation. This is what I mean by gross violations of WP rules. He also cites the online article by someone identified only as Writer (at something called IEMed, which seems like nonprofit for current Mediterranean issues), for supposed facts on Istria's population in the early 1900's and centuries before, and he manages to cite this wrong, since article does not state Itailan-speakers made up 50% of all of Istria (in fact, Est 2021's sentence implies Italians made up 50% of Istria AND Dalmatia, an even greater falsehood). Instead, the IEMed article states they constituted at least 50% only in cities on Istria's west coast. Citing present-day, very-biased politicians from one side, regarding supposed historical facts 80 years ago, is yet another RS and NPOV violation, otherwise let's then cite a whole bunch of Yugoslav, Slovene and Croat politicians on 1942-1945 history. Also, I do not see how Petacco, a journalist who wrote film scripts and mainly worked on television, and has been criticized in his approach by historians, qualifies as a RS Thhhommmasss (talk)

If you have valid reasons why you challenge my deletion of a source, then put your argument under the source in the appropriate thread above and we can discuss it. If we can't reach a consensus, then we can always take it to RSN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Austrian Empire

The Italian-Slovene Commission doesn’t mention Franz Joseph, instead starts in 1880, with rising nationalism on both sides, compounded by the coastal/Italian vs. inland/Slavic split, and class divides. Italy suppressed all local languages, impacting Slovenes in Venice province. In the Julian March, under Austria, Slovenes started asserting their language and political rights, which local Italian authorities, until then the ruling elite, repressed. Slovenes resisted Italianization and had a more favorable view of Austria (but only in the Littoral, elsewhere Slovene nationalism focused on resisting Germanization and Austrian rule). Slovene-Italian relations deteriorated further during WWI, as Italy demanded areas with large Slovene and Croat majorities, to enter the war on the Entente side. This parallels what Pericic writes for Dalmatia, where the Italian-speaking minority retained political power, keeping Italian as the only official language. Things changed when the Austrian Empire lowered property requirements for voting, allowing more poorer strata to vote, leading to victories for Slavic parties in 1870 in Dalmatia, and equal rights for Slavic languages in 1883.

I’m going to rewrite the Austria section to reflect this and delete the Franz Joseph quote. Population data from the 1910 Austrian census on ethnic composition of Istria and Dalmatia, should be retained

Thhhommmasss (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Please explain the basis on which we are including Dalmatia. There are no foibe in Dalmatia. What evidence is there that Dalmatians were killed and thrown down the foibe? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Use of media sources for historical event

The intro cites only 3 media sources for this claim that victims were thrown alive into foibe

The term refers to some victims who were thrown alive into the foibe.

I have not seen any such claims of people being thrown alive in Pupo and Baracetti. I would like the Admins to present their views of use of media sources on controversial historical events from nearly 90 years ago Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss You requested reliable sources, and I added them. Your sources not mentioning this does not mean this did not happen. There is zero concern or controversy about the fact that people were through alive into these holes, as far as I'm aware. I also saw that you again modified the introduction section, continuosly over weeks adding more content that more and more neglects the fact that a major part of these killings were unarmed civilians, of them is not even sure if they all were anti-communists, hence the strong allegations of ethnic cleansing by historians. With your argumentation towards not mentioning this in the introduction at all, one could also dispute that it was reprisal killings. At the moment this article absolutely does not accurately represent the fact that this was a massacre against largely unarmed, unrelated civilians, motivated by - the reason why does not matter - ethnic hatred. Revenge killing is morally not acceptable. Zerbrxsler (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zerbrxsler I cited reliable sources, i.e. Italian and other historians, for everything I wrote. Find and cite reliable sources for whatever you claim, that is how Wikipedia works, it does not work by convoluted arguments that just because historians do not state it, it does not mean it didn't happen. Regarding citing media articles on historical events from 80 years ago, I think it is only justified if the article is quoting a RS, such as a historian, regarding the subject, and then only to quote what this RS stated. Newspaper reporters are not experts on history from 80 years ago. I did not quote any Slovene or Croat newspaper reporters on historical facts, nore some Czech or Japanese reporter on what happened in Istria in 1945, unlike the Repubblica, AFP and the NYT articles that are solely cited for the above claims. The only other area where I believe media articles can be cited here, is on present day controversies regarding these issuesThhhommmasss (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I see that the AFP story as its "reliable source" quotes Italian-Argentine director Maximiliano Hernando Bruno, since the article is about a film, an acted drama, supposedly about the events. Let's then for historical facts on WP cite articles about Hollywood movies Thhhommmasss (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)