Talk:Dalmatian Italians/Archives/2007/October

WikiProject Italy?

For those who don't know what is "WikiProject Italy" I copy here an excerpt from the related tag: "...This WikiProject has been formed to foster the improvement of Wikipedia’s coverage of Italy—both the modern nation state and the rich and bewildering variety of historical states and cultures which have inhabited its territory. We intend to work in a spirit of cooperation with the many Wikipedians who have contributed to articles on “Italian” subjects..."

Please, do not erase, because the article is related even to the historical state of the Kingdom of Italy and its culture (and most living Dalmatian Italians, who were born in Dalmatia and are closely related to the few hundreds of them still living in Zara and Croatia, reside actually in Italy mainly in the "Quartiere Dalmato" of Rome).

As a member of the Italian WikiProject team, I invite to cooperate to the article with constructive additions (like "the Italianization of Croats- and possibly other groups- during the last century", proposed by Mariokempes).Regards. --Brunodam 14:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Italians whose family originates from Dalmatia (in today's Republic of Croatia)"?
What is this?
Again an attempt to avoid the adjective "Croatian"?
Who's hiding behind this nickname?
What are the differences between Italians in S Croatia and with Italian in other parts of Croatia?
That Italians from S Croatia originate from Croats from S Croatia that italianized, while Italians from e.g. W Croatia originate from Croats from N Croatia that italianized?
Do I need to present the report (it will take a while to find a reference) that was presented to Mussolini, when he ordered a research to find "original Dalmatian Italians"? When they discovered that "longest present local Italian family" are only few centuries there, and that they are originally Bosnian Croats?
"Dalmatia (in today's Republic of Croatia)"?
Of course, it's in Croatia. Where else it could be? In Sri Lanka or in Uganda? Dalmatia is part of Croatia since early Middle Ages (litany ends here). Kubura 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kubura you are right, Kubura you are right, Kubura you are right, Kubura you are right, Kubura you are right,.......--Giovanni Giove 11:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Italian POV

Dalmatian Italians are one of the historical ethnic groups of Dalmatia - this is uncorrect. This statement means that Italians originated in Dalmatia, which is not true. There should be written that they were "historical ethnic minority in Dalmatia, formed by or developed from Italian immigrants". Change it please. Zenanarh 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As hundreds of time discussed, that would be your own POV.--Giovanni Giove 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not mine. You don't have not even one serious proof for that statement. It's original research. Zenanarh 12:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariokempes (talk • contribs)

It's seems that is exactly the opposite, as discussed in the deletion page. I wait with indifference you next insults, they are the proper signs of your level.--Giovanni Giove 17:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice joke. Your discussion on the deletion page was on some high level? Especially yours Giove! Zenanarh 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For now you show your "level" with your personal attacks, against Wikirules.--Giovanni Giove 15:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Italianization

To be fair, this article will also benefit from mention of what I perceive as an Italianization of Croats- and possibly other groups- during the last century. Mariokempes 17:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So??? Is no one going to touch this? I could add some material I have come across in history books, but I would rather that an "expert" contribute to this aspect. Mariokempes 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Done [1]--Victor falk 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. From what I gather, there was significant Italianization in the latter 19th C- often with Austrian encouragement to balance the German population in littoral Austria (which sided with the Italians) with the Slavic populations. This process might also help clarify why so many Dalmatian Italians have slavic surnames (or not, just a comment!!). Mariokempes 19:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like an reasonable explanation. But "littoral Austria" would be Istria, wouldn't it? If you have the sources, I think that could be included in that article.--Victor falk 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

they were clever, the austrians, italianing the croats in istria and croatising the italians in dalmatia...--Victor falk 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanized Illyrians

Look, first of all I want everyone to remain calm and discuss this civilized-like.
Will someone explain to me what Illyrians have to do with Italy? These people had their own seperate culture (ethnicity) as well as genetic background, and were assimilated prior to the emergence of Venice as a powerful influence in the region (around the beginning of the 12th century, after 600 years of intermingling). They didn't even consider themselves Italian, not by a long shot. (Their topographic names persisted, of course, but that's besides the point.)

Also will you stop with the "Slav invasion" stuff? Read up a little, FFS! It's not that simple in real history, just because the Slavs now populate the region does not mean they were the ones to destroy Roman Dalmatia. The people who destroyed and pillaged Dalmatia (and Salona) were the Avars who forced Slavs into a subjugated position (much like the Huns did with the Ostrogoths, later north Italians) and used them as auxilliary infantry. The Slavs peacefuly settled the ravaged region, this is why they took root while the Avars were annihilated (doesn't this make sense to you?). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Slavs from modern point of view are the speakers of Slavic languages. In 7th century Sklavens were many different groups of warriors led by Avars. Name "Slav" comes from "Sklaven". Slavs didn't destroy Dalmatia at all. Neither Sklavens did it!

This article at this moment is already shameful falsification and appropriation of somebody else's history, culture and people. Statements noted here are the same as fascistic Italian claims from 20th century. This will not work. Zenanarh 10:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's calm down Zen, we can all work together to make this article as professional and neutral as possible. I will request a name-change in the meantime. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know how to explain this to you, but Dalmatian simply IS NOT Venetian. A point of view is ridiculed in the text. Romans are not Italians, they thus simply do not fall under the definition Dalmatian Italians. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically Victor, there are more than a few incorrect facts being mentioned there.

• For instance: Venice did actually conquer the independent Dalmatian city-states (Iadera (Zara/Zadar), Spalatum (Spalato/Split) and later Ragusa for a while). This notion, while actually being true is riddiculed in the text.
  
• Next, Dalmatian language is simply not considered a dialect of Italian (as is mentioned in the text), but is actually considered an independent (albeit extinct) Romance language (like French, for example).
  
• Finally and most importantly, (Latin) Dalmatians are not Italians, to put it simply. In other words, Romans from the province of Dalmatia (Illyrians) are no more Italian than Romans from the province of Achaea (Greeks), or Britannia and Gallia Narbonensis (Transalpina) (Celts). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for raising those points, direktor. Taking them one by one:

• The Illyrians could have been Lao language-speaking Bantus that migrated to Illyria from the Kola peninsula, it would all be exactly the same. They were just the people living there when the Roman conquered it.

• Invasions is contentious. I changed that to migrations.

• Isn't impose its influence a not-so-subtle euphemism for "grab as much land as you can"?

• Italian, Venetian and Dalmatian, are they separate languages, dialects, or sub-dialects of each other? "A language is a dialect with a flag and an army".

I've made the following edits: [2]--Victor falk 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem.

• I will try to make my point as clear as possible, but bare with me. The Romans (outside the peninsula) are simply not considered Italian. We must remember that by the time of the demise of the Empire, everyone (with the possible exception of the Greeks and very few others) within it spoke Latin and had very much the same uniformed Roman culture. Everyone within it was considered a Roman Citizen of the Empire. However, in modern historiography, these people, while undobtably Romans, are not considered Italians.

Example: by the end of the 4th century, the people of Gallia Narbonensis were not French, were not Gaelic (for the most part), they were Roman and were not considered Italian. This exactly applies to the Illyrians. They were Roman and had later developed their own Romance culture with the Slavs: the Dalmatian (Romance) culture (although it later became extinct because of its size). Much like the Romanized Gauls developed their own French Romance culture with the Franks (and others like Burgundians).

• Ok.

• At first, the Venetian Republic began to use its trade influence (gold) to annex the Dalmatian coast (absolutely essential for the state). Later, when the time was right and the Republic's power increased, various forms of military power were used (see Fourth Crusade). In the end, this brought forth the continuous 400-year period of full Venetian rule.

• I will be brief: the Dalmatian language is an extinct independent Romance language. (Example: Spanish, Portugese, Romanian, Dalmatian, French, Italian...) Its simply much smaller than the others on the "list", that does not make it a dialect.

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move' Duja► 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

First of all I want it clear that there are no alterior motivs for this request other than improving Wikipedia and the accuracy of the article names. I assure everyone that I am doing my best to avoid a biased perspective on this matter and am not concerned at all with the intentions of the maker of this article, Giovanni Giove (as was previously suggested)

Here is the reason for this request:

An article in this matter can be about three things:

1) A historic event (cultural impact, presence, etc...), wich exists, but such an article should be named accordingly and without sugesting anything else, to make Wiki as useful as possible.
2) A national minority. (there is none)
3) An ethnic group. (there is none)
The existance of an entire seperate enthnicity (and culture) is simply not there (take a look at the Istro-Romanians, for example). The numbers do not matter, but cultural distinctiveness does. As things stand, Dalamtian Italians are neither a seperate ethnic group nor a national minority (there are 30,000 Italians in Croatia, but they live in Istria and [[Rijeka).
The current Italians that originate from Dalmatia, should be considered within the context of the historic Italian presence in that region, as the reprecussion of a very real historic situation we should describe in this article.
The article in its current form deals for the greatest part with history anyway, since there is simply little or no material wich adresses the present. Wiki articles should have the best possible name. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• No consensus from Brunodam. Because of the same reasons I have explained in the discussion on the rejected deletion. BTW, the article has only one section dedicated to "History", like many other articles in Wikipedia.Regards. --Brunodam 18:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the move. First, this is a naming convention for an ethnic group that lives outside of their country (I never saw an article about "Historical presence of X in Y"). Second, there are still, if very few, Italians who live in Dalmatia. Third, per article, the phrase is used to refer to Italians from Dalmatia, even if they no longer live there. Nikola 09:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is not entirely historical — the first section includes info on current ethnic organisations. Furthermore, historical peoples (e.g. Cumans) that no longer exist are still usually referred to simply by the name. — AjaxSmack 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Wether or not there still are Italians in Dalmatia, articles about minorities are named simply after them, as noted above; see, for instance, Volga Germans.--Victor falk 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Victor (BTW I am not the "maker" of this article. Giovanni Giove 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This article should be part of "Italians in Croatia" article. What makes the Italian from Primorje, Kvarner, Kvarnerić so different from those in Dalmatia? Romanic population had same pattern of origin: Romanized Illyrians lived on all islands. Also, there was a migration from Italy on those areas in Croatia. Kubura 09:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Post-war

• There's a blank after wwii. What happened then? Were they a recognised minority by the Yugoslavian government? What was its attitude towards them? How many were left after it (say in the 50s)? Were contacts allowed between families? Travel? Emigration? Have they been the pretext for diplomatic frictions between the Italian government and the Yugoslav/Croatian ones? Anybody knows anything? --Victor falk 10:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're placing your finger in the full bloodied cut of the massacres during world war two.Better to leave a blank.The Croats have exterminated the Italians in Dalmatia and now they want to exterminate even their memory, like does the nationalist Kubura. The Croats destroy even the cementeries and the church registers of the Italian deaths and births, and then send a scholar to check the data about; then the expert find only data of the Croats and so the trick is done: no Italians in Dalmatia! Finally comes a croat nationalist like Kubura saying that the archives in Dalmatia are only showing croatian names. GOOD TRICK! But shameful and stupid in the end because the real scholars and the international communities UNDERSTAND soon or later the trick.THe same trick is used even with the birthplace of Marco Polo. What a shame! An exiled Dalmatian italian

I know. I just hope I'll heal and not infect.--Victor falk 01:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources request for several problematic claims

Now I do not want this interpreted as a hostile move, but there are many claims people do not have any way to look up because of obscure and unverifiable sources. I'm not saying they are necessarily untrue, but I request some tangible verification of the following claims, I think you'll accept they are pretty strong:

• "...(30% of the Dalmatian population during the last century of the Republic of Venice was Venetian speaking)..."

How do you know this? Please verify.

• "According to two census data of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that substituted in Dalmatia the Republic of Venice after the Napoleonic wars, the Dalmatian Italians were 12,5% in 1865 and were already reduced to 3,1% in 1890. These censi results were anyway referred to all Dalmatia (with the Slavic inland), whilst the Italians were present only in the coastal cities and in the islands. For example, in the Habsburg empire census of 1910 the city of Zadar (Zara) had an Italian population of 9,318 (or 69,3% out of the total of 13,438 inhabitants)."

Where are the censi? Can we verify their existence, and the accuracy of the representation of the info here in any way?

• "Between 1848 and 1918, the Austro-Hungarians favoured the Slav communities in Dalmatia, mainly out of fear of Italian irredentism."

This needs examples and verification. Otherwise this is conjecture, and many may say the Austrians were equally hostile to the Croats, who wanted to join with the Croatians (Croatian mainland) in the Hungarian part of Austro-Hungary.

I think the more correct way to view this is "the Habsburg government played different populations of the Empire against each other to maintain its rule"

Agreed. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• "...The 1816 Austro-Hungarian census registered 66,000 Italian speaking people between the 301,000 inhabitants of Dalmatia, or 22% of the total Dalmatian population."

Once again, where is the Austro-Hungarian census data?

DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All of this is sourced (except the Austrian policy, and also unless you mean you want the sources' sources:), but to non-easily accessible (and potentially biased) sources. I think the general idea currently presented in the article, that it diminished from a significant minority to almost disappear is correct. The solution in my opinion is finding sources with another bias. That means, to begin with, yugoslavian and croatian ones.--Victor falk 01:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the info is supposedy sourced, but while I'd be willing to accept that elsewhere in the article, the singled-out pieces of practically unverifiable info are of such "magnitude", so to speak, that I feel there simply must be some way to check the authenticity of the claims.
I have good reason for this. It would not be the first time I encounter language censi and other simmilar "tricks" used freely to personally approximate the nationality of whole cities and regions in these matters, while existing nationality censi are disregarded because they are unavailable to the "other side". DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC) I'm prepared to wait a while, but these censi (if true), should be relatively easy to find. Anyway, how can one be sure the content of the book(s) is presented accurately? This is an important matter... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard about the Burgenland Croats or Banat Swabians? So what should be wrong with the Austrian census? For the 1857 census for example see here: Dalmatia: Slavs 369.310, Italians 45.000, etc. etc. --DaQuirin 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(Of course I heard of them) I'm not saying the censi are necessarily wrong. All I'm saying is that they make some pretty strong claims wich need to be verified.

Example: "...(30% of the Dalmatian population during the last century of the Republic of Venice [the late 1700s] was Venetian speaking)..."

How can this possibly be verified? I mean, I could just as well write whatever I like and name some obscure book as a source. Elsewhere in the article I'd be willing to go along but these censi are presented as 100% certain, fullproof info. I'd just like to see exactly why (without travelling to Italy and buying the book in the antique shop). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you are not interested in real historical sources. The "obscure book" is the Statistisches Handbüchlein für die österreichische Monarchie, edited by the k.k. Direktion der administrativen Statistik. Frankly speaking, it doesn't go more official. What are we discussing about? --DaQuirin 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(How many times will I have to say that I'm concerned solely with the accuracy about the presented info, and NOT "SOMETHING ELSE"!)
So you have official info, can it be verified (that's the key word)? Can I please have a look at these censi? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The people are all dead now... So what do you mean with "verified"? But I have maybe a solution for you, there is a special conference on 31 October, 2007 in Pula, Croatia, remembering a "milestone in the history of demographic statistics", that is the Austrian census of 1857 in Istria and neighbouring regions. The program is available in Croatian: see here and here. --DaQuirin 15:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean a simple link to the census numbers somewhere on the web will satisfy. While I accept the 1857 census, the one expressing a 30% Italian presence in Venetian Dalmatia is the one I'd like to see most of all. It was apparently conducted prior to those areas even falling under Austrian rule (and prior to any censi actually being held in the aera, for that matter).
I am really surprised to find such denouncement of the legitimacy of my request. Is everyone aware that anyone can just write any numbers that he finds appropriate and name an unverifiable source. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the 30 percent data can be found even from the french census of Auguste De Marmont (governor-general of the napoleonic Illyrian provinces). But why show exactly the data to the croatians who will always find something to complain about? It is a loss of time, believe me. Croats deny even that they have made disappear entire italian cementeries. An exiled from Cherso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.105 (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, this kind of talking is not civil, and lack of civility beggars distrust. Think about that.--Victor falk 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Direktor, what is special with that census that it makes you suspicious of it? If it was 4% in 1890, 15% in 1865, and 20% in 1816, what so incredible about a third in 1797, the last year of half a millenia of Venetian rule? --Victor falk 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Cherso, the Yugoslav 9th Corps didn't comprise of Croats for the most part, I was also not aware that General Marmont conducted any censi of the Illyrian provinces.
It's not that I'm extremely suspicious of that census (though it is the most doubtful), its a matter of principle: such censi, presented as full-proof should be verifiable. What puzzles me is why everyone appears to be so ready to take them for granted, I could falsify a simmilar contradicting census within 10 minutes and source it equally.
I assure you, I would be equally neutral if the census was on the Croatian population. I have often encountered demographic issues such as this (for example, in the Mostar and Jajce articles), and I always held that censi, because of their importance should be official as well as easily verifiable. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits and reorganisation by Brunodam

Brunodam, first of all, why did you revert all my hard work on writing the organisation names in accordance with Wiki policy? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, political parties and organsiations (such as Unione Italiana, a minority party) are written in English form on the English Wikipedia (examples: Communist Party of Russia, National Socialist German Workers Party, Social Democratic Party of Croatia, etc...). DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My last contribution for a while

I have suffered 3 days ago a car accident and as a consequence I am now partially crippled. For ten months I 'll have to do a painful rehabilitation to be able to use again my arms and hands. Because I cannot write and/or type on my computer, my wife is typing this last message.

I want to calm down (or at least try) what is going on about the historical section of the article. That is why I have reverted to my last edit before all the successive corrections and countercorrections. I have added a main historical article, as DIREKTOR indicated. I agree even that the Croatian names should be placed before the Italian names of the dalmatian cities. I agree even that the Dalmatian language is an extinct language that is different from the venetian dialect spoken by the Dalmatian Italians in the last two centuries.

But I want to remember that in Wikipedia a name between " " is a proper name and can remain so (with a translation between parenthesis, if needed or wanted): so "Comunita Italiana di Zara" maintains the italian word Zara, and the same rule applies to"Libero Comune di Zara in esilio" (Free City of Zadar in exile).

Finally I want to remember DIREKTOR that -like all scholars do- he must find the books in a library (or whatever): if he goes to the Library of Trieste, he will find the book of Bartoli with all the data he wants or needs about the 30 %. Of course, he can find information in the internet (like in the 1853 census data from DaQuirin): may be an austrian wikipedian can help him? Anyway, the statistical decrease is clear to all of us: 1797 30%, 1816 22%, 1853 12.5% and so on......what is the problem here? This is a huge but normal percentage decrease, without ups and downs. And is fully documented by serious scholars and institutions (like the Austrian Census).

Last but not least, it has been a pleasure to interact with all of you in wikipedia. For many months I will stay away from editing. Regards. --Brunodam 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am truly sorry about your injury, Brunodam... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is the time for real important things in life. We wish you well and hope to see you back soon! Wikipedia should be more about mutual understanding and compromise. Must be strange for Non-Europeans to see all this bickering here on the history pages (there are of course, German and many other nations' wikipedians involved too). Let's see. Happy is the man with a wife like yours! --DaQuirin 15:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your accident. I hope you get well.--Victor falk 15:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Brunodam I wish you bunjee jumping after 6 months. BTW statistical decrease presented by you is just result of selected evaluations not of the same relevance. I will present academic source with all existing evaluations, censi, claims of opposing sides and statements. Zenanarh 08:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sad to hear of your injury. Here's to a quick recovery! Mariokempes 19:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

History section organisation and wording

Lets make this subsection a little more organised. I didn't remove anything, I just rewrote some of the sentences to improve the quality, organisation as well as neutrality of the subsection. If one wishes to revert, one should first compare carefully.
Here's a short list of more important edits:

• Dalmatia was subject to constant emmigration (in three periods, on a mass scale) for economic reasons between 1880 and 1950. We must remember that this is one of the poorest regions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The repeated outbreaks of the peronospora (a desiese that afflicts grapevines) decimated the Dalmatian economy and population during several (long) periods. On the other hand the devealoping industrial regions of northern Italy were in need of manpower, and there was no cultural barrier. In short, I added economic reasons as the possible cause for emmigration.

• It is biased to say Slavic (Croatian) nationalism is the only source of conflict in the emmigration period. Italian nationalism was famous for its fervour (see Italia irredenta), and was the first to arise, was it not? It was certainly present in Dalmatia.

-- DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical context expansion

Please discuss before removing info. I worked hard for two days now to fix numerous errors, typos and sentence miscunstructions, as well as to write the sorely needed expansion of the historical context. I made numerous copy-edits as well as consistency improvements.
If you think the text is biased in some way, say so, and name it so we can see what can be done. I'd like to assure everyone that my only motivation was the improvement of the article and that I didn't remove a single scrap of data. All of the (doubtful) censi are there, organised by the time period they refer to. Please look carefully before editing, and discuss. (Bear in mind that Istria and the area of Fiume are not Dalmatia, and were not considered as such since the 8th century A.D..) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WARNING

The croatian DIREKTOR is sabotaging the article!! First he wanted to DELETE it, but was defeated, then to MOVE/RENAME it and was again defeated, now he is PROVOKING we Italians to start an edit war with his continuous changes of the article. His final objective: a BLOCK of the article!!He first has erased in the article the reference to the word EXILED calling ridiculously EMMIGRANTs (Do he knows the difference? All of us, Dalmatian Italians exiled, sadly know what it means!!!), then cancel the reference to the website of the Lussinpiccolo exiles, and now he is making an article FULL OF RECENT HISTORY OF DALMATIA. He places maps of Yugoslavia that have nothing to do with the article (who cares about the borders of Slovenia and Macedonia in this article??) and places maps (Sheperd 1910) criticized by experts because there it is no reference to Zara and his italian majority (70% in austrian census of 1910). Evidently he wants the reaction of we Italians with EDIT WARS similar to the one he, with his croat friends Kubura, Zenanarth, ecc.ecc.., has created with articles Zara, Dalmatia, Marco Polo, Foibe, Istrian exodus ecc.. ecc.. WARNING: he wants a final BLOCK of the article by some admin!!. What a shame! An exiled Dalmatian italian from Cherso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.103 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

INCREADIBLE!! I am a Dalmatian Italian by ancestry! One of my great grandfathers, Matteo Rumora, was even a prominent member of the Autonomisti in Spalato (I added info about that faction too!, it was completely forgotten), and AS I HAVE FREQUENTLY stated my one and only objective is to improve the article!! I added the best available maps of the era's I wrote about (I had no idea Shepherd was controversial in any way, I added it because it reffered to the ethnic situation), I only tried to rename it so the article would concentrate on history! I DO NOT want a block of the article! I have principles far above any conflicts I may have entered into in the past, and while I can see that Italian editors may see me as a threat, I am editing completely in good faith. I REMOVED ABSOLUTELY NO INFO (even the censi), but only expanded the historic context just enough for people (who don't know much about Dalmatia) know what the article is bloody TALKING ABOUT!! DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You are the great grandson of Matteo Rumora? Then why you write this[3] against we Italians:<Since when is Italy the source of historical knowledge? It's documents are mostly incomplete and often biased in comparison to American and UK ones.BTW, AFTER WW2 YUGISLAVIA COULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY PASTED ITALY, IT HAD THE 5th STRONGEST ARMY IN EUROPE. THE ITALIAN ARMY COULDN'T TAKE 200 METERS OF GREEK TERRITORY. IT WAS THE WORLDS MOST COMICAL ARMY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, FAR MORE FAMOUS FOR IT'S RETREATS THAN DEFENCE. :D :D BELIEVE ME, YOU WOULD HAVE A BORDER ON THE RIVER PAD (PO) IF YOU HADN'T COWARDLY BACKED DOWN OVER TRST (TRIESTE). This is military fact. DIREKTOR>. We Italians shoud have backed to the Po river because of Tito Army? I believe you have been brainwashed by the ridiculous & full of lies Tito propaganda since you were an elementary student. And after those 'unbelievable' remarks we italians must believe, now, that you want to write in the article Dalmatian italians editing completely in good faith. Astonishing! You don't want a block of the article? let's see: I am adding the website of the Lussinpiccolo exiles. We exiled are Dalmatian italians too! A Dalmatian italian from Cherso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.95 (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

YES I AM THE GREAT GRANDSON OF Matteo Rumora!!!, I have his bloody coat-of-arms in my living room!

You're TAKING THAT OUT OF CONTEXT! While it is clear to everyone as an exaggeration, it was stated as a response to the flagrant military boasting of radicals, who exaggerated beyond common sense the fascist military strength. Anyway it was a half joke, intended as a rsponse to one single IP radical that needed to cool down with his fascist rhetoric. And NO, Italy should definetly not "back down to the river Po". While I LOVE Italy and Italian culture (I lived in Milan for three and a half months and I have visited my cousins in Venezia, Trieste, and Napoli, actually Pozzuoli), I really don't like fascism and a uniformed Italy, that caused your exile in the first place and turned Dalmatian Croats against their Italian neighbors.

But that's all personal stuff, lets get back to the article. I am NOT trying to start an edit-war, are you? Anyway, can you verify the figure of 4,000 Dalmatian Italians living outside Dalmatia? And do you have anything to confirm that "thousands" of Dalmatian Italians are organised in Italy? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a while for some kind of verification, but not forever. 80.80.56.39 01:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)