# Talk:Allied occupation of the eastern Adriatic

I have removed the "background" subsection recently added to the Italian zone section since it is entirely off-topic. Starting with a mention of the 9th century it had zero to do with the Italian zone of the occupation started in 1918. I also removed a map showing proportion of Italian(-speaking) population in Dalmatian districts as patently inaccurate. Published Austrian census figures clearly list districts and percentages (with approx. 70% Italian majority in the city of Zadar and below 3% everywhere else) so no 18% share existed anywhere. At glance, other recent additions to the article appear problematic, pushing Italian irredentist POV as well. Tomobe03 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
For example, saying that Venice ruled a given area and then Napoleon is completely irrelevant for the topic of the allied occupation of 1918. Ditto for the information that the area was subsequently annexed to Austria. Information that people identified in 19th century as Romance, Slavic, Dalmatian etc. is irrelevant in view of subsequent Risorgimento, Illyrian Movement and Yugoslavism because other people living in the same areas at the time discussed by the article did not identify as their predecessors in the 19th century, but as Italians, Croats, Serbs, Yugoslavs etc. And the London Treaty was not offered to Italy for the sake of ethnic Italians living outside Italy (an irredentist claim), but as an enticement to join the Allies of the World War One. It offered Italy parts of Albania and Ottoman Empire as well. (Removed per WP:BRD.) Other recent additions appear pushing Italian irredentist POV as well--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I have also removed the non-NPOV edit of the caption of the image of D'Annunzio's arrival. The figures are discussed and put in context in the prose - neither "side" ever disputed any of the figures, but disagreed on what the figures should or should not encompass. The same cannot be achieved in a caption of normal size; selecting one without context is Italian irredentist POV pushing and therefore removed. Further recent additions appear pushing Italian irredentist POV as well--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I reverted the section title Italian Regency of Carnaro to D'Annunzio's rule, because the Italian Regency of Carnaro was declared in September 1920, and the section discusses events from September 1919, while linking to the Italian Regency of Carnaro for further information. The "regency" lasted 3 months, D'Annunzio was in charge for 15.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The reference to the first Governorate of Dalmatia seems odd at best. (Presumably the one established during the World War Two Axis occupation of Yugoslavia was the 2nd governorate then.) Davide Rodogno speaks of only one - established in 1941 - in Fascism's European Empire: Italian Occupation During the Second World War [1] and so does Ben Shepherd in Terror in the Balkans [2]. The Italian Wikipedia article on the Governorate of Dalmatia likewise speaks of only one - established in 1941 [3].--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I endorse all of the actions you have taken as mentioned in this section. There is a lot of Italian irredentist nonsense being inserted into various article about the Dalmatian coast, the foibe articles etc. There is no place for that here. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I noticed this was added by LukeWiller (talk · contribs). I recall other disputes about their edits in this vein, Talk:Dalmatia, Talk:Italy (geographical region). @Peacemaker67 is it time for WP:AE? --Joy (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, this is a behavior I will never have again. LukeWiller (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC).
They say “it won’t happen again” everytime time and do it again. There was this recent Administration Notice Board that was opened about them due to contentious edits dealingbwith WWII and Falmatia related articles. They were earned there too, but seems to see themselves as having done nothing wrong. This doesn’t even include even more contentious long term edit waring on other articles ignoring talk pages. OyMosby (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I have also removed additions referenced to eastjournal.net because it does not appear to be a reliable source. In its impressum, it is clearly stated it is not linked to any scientific institution. It appears to be a self-published source, in this case pushing the irredentist POV. Tomobe03 (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I just remembered that we had a similar problem at Talk:Demographics of Slovenia a while back. --Joy (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)