# Talk:Istro-Romanians

This review is transcluded from Talk:Istro-Romanians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 16:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


#### Basic GA criteria
Well written: the prose is clear and concise. 
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning"). 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. 
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. 
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. 
No original research. 
No copyright violations or plagiarism. 
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style. 
Neutral. 
Stable. 
Illustrated, if possible. 
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. 
For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


#### Comments
There are just a few comments but nothing of any significance. I could see as soon as I had scanned the article that it was going to pass GA and so I decided to think about a future FA nomination if you are interested in going for that, which I recommend.
1. Some minor tweaks of wording were needed but I've done these myself.
2. There are some redlinks and it's worth pointing out that, subject to notability, articles about the subjects should be created in the near future.

Sure thing, in fact this page had more red links about locations, but I created them all except Dubašnica (which as far as I remember, is no longer populated but I'm not sure).
3. I see that there are several WP articles relating to places which have Brdo in the name but I assume none of them are about the region and hamlet in Istria? I was curious as to why Brdo is unlinked.

Since Brdo was just an Italian frazione during the interwart period, I didn't consider it necessary to create a page, but there is enough material and I guess I could create it.
4. A lot of sentences begin with "However," and you might wish to moderate this if going to FAR because some people would question it. It's one of those minor "correct English" issues as there are those who insist that "however" should only be used mid-sentence to introduce a clause.

Yeah, I've noticed I use too much "however" or similar words.
5. I assume from words like "recognized" that you are writing in American English although there is no style designation. I haven't checked this fully but, for FAR purposes, please make sure that spellings are consistently American.

This article is not written in any specific type of English, but I will take that into account.
6. The previous point also relates to dates. You had used 27 October 1887 for the date of a newspaper but that is British style. American style is October 27, 1887. I was going to amend that one but it isn't necessary for GA. For FA, you need to ensure consistency throughout.
7. One feature of the article that I particularly like is the use of maps. These are excellent reference points.


#### GA criteria
GACR #1a – very well written: clear, concise, interesting, understandable and highly readable; no problems with grammar, linkage, spelling or syntax.
GACR #1b – the lead provides an excellent intoduction to and summary of the article; layout is good; no problems with words used,
GACR #2a – reference list is as expected and well presented.
GACR #2b – all sources appear to be reliable and potential challenges to content seem unlikely.
GACR #2c – no evidence of original research.
GACR #2d – no apparent violations.
GACR #3a – completely within scope.
GACR #3b – lengthy but by no means overlong and each section is handled as a broad summary.
GACR #4 – neutral; no POV issues.
GACR #5 – stable.
GACR #6a – media are all seemingly fair use at least and no problems are evident
GACR #6b – entirely suitable and are indeed informative; captions are fine.


#### Result
An excellent article that easily passes GA and should be nominated for FA in due course. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this article could become a FA, but I will consider nominating it in the future. Thanks! Super Ψ Dro 11:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

HI, @Super Dromaeosaurus:,
these templates you inserted does not seem work...what they to be meant exactly?(KIENGIR (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC))
Hello. These templates are to replace the use of italics in words or sentences in other languages. I don't see it really necessary but this page was tagged as in need of clean up because of that. The templates are not supposed to show the language, otherwise it would be something like: {{lang-ruo|xxx}}. Super Ψ Dro 17:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I edited this page (without changing the text, except for a clarification) to make it clear that the section in which Flacius is mentioned should be corroborated with more, diverse and valid sources from  multiple authors without an interest in the matter, and this because I believe the idea that Flacius  was Istro-Romanian to be (too) absurd. It shouldn't even appear on our encyclopedia as an allegation, because the speculation is too weak. Otherwise one may literally claim anything at all. I understand there is one (single) source. But the author is the founder of the only Istro-Romanian association in the world. 
First: the claims ("allegations") should be removed because the source is one; and is not reliable. Then, the claims are absurd by themselves. The premises for the allegation is that Vlacich necessarily stands for Istro-Romanians. This is absurd, especially because even the assumption that it [Vlacich] point to the the Vlach people isn't established. 
As mentioned in my edits, I also find the suggestion (or "allegation") that Tesla had Romanian/Istro-Romanian roots preposterous, even if sold as allegation. It's misinformation. That, too, should be removed.
The user who reverted my edits (which, again, did not change the original text, but merely provided cn's and dubious-tags) has failed to satisfy my legitimate request for more impartial sources (btw, someone had already disputed Tesla), removing the tags. He replied to me that it is I who should provide sources against false allegations that make no sense and have no meaning whatsoever outside an Association of Istro-Romanians. P.S. Sorry for my excessive specifications and notes in this section, but the author who reverted my edits was being pedantic as regards terminology.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You are making a big deal out of a simple claim that is not even said to be true. Your own opinion about whether Flacius was Istro-Romanian or not is irrelevant. You can try to prove by yourself whether or not he was one (even if using sources indirectly talking about this), but this is WP:OR. I don't see any source denying the claims that he was an Istro-Romanian. If you manage to quote one saying this claim is false, I'll add a sentence saying this claim is controversial. If you quote a source proving that this claim is false, I'll remove it. A person has already been removed in the past from this article and I did nothing to prevent it as the editor was right. But you are literally proposing to remove Flacius and the whole claim from the article, an inflexible solution that obviously I won't want to agree with.
"Vlach doesn't stand for Istro-Romanian" to who else could it possibly stand for in Istria then? By the way, the relationship established between his surname and "Vlach" is again not stated to be a fact, just a claim. "Labin hasn't and never had a Romanian (who said Romanian?) majority, minority, or even presence". This is a lie. In case you did not know, the only school that offered lessons in Istro-Romanian (but wasn't an Istro-Romanian-speaking school) for a long time was in Labin, until the one at Šušnjevica was inaugurated. You might also be interested to read some articles such as the following which talks about an Istro-Romanian minority in Labin (nobody spoke of a majority): [1], page 160 (in Romanian, but you can copy-paste and translate). There are probably more sources talking about this but I haven't searched on depth. But the claim that Istro-Romanians were never in Labin is fake. "Vlachs mostly moved to to Western Istria in the 15th and 16th century, hardly to Eastern Istria" Istro-Romanian presence in Western Istria was very small and restricted to a few inland villages (one of them called "Romania", I assume that now "Rumunija" or something like that). It's precisely in Eastern Istria where they were the most numerous. It is for a reason the only region in which they are still left.
I disagree with removing the claim of Tesla. It is already explicitly stated that "However, they are not based on stated facts and an Istro-Romanian origin for Tesla seems very unlikely" in the article. What's the use of a "dubious" tag here? What are you saying is dubious exactly? That this claim is unlikely? There are claims that Tesla was Istro-Romanian, which are quite obviously fake (this one is clearer than Flacius), but they still exist and are worth mentioning.
"has failed to satisfy my legitimate request for more impartial sources (!)" do you realize that this discussion started a few hours ago? Yes, the only author who has published claims on Istro-Romanian origins on Flacius is Emil Petru Rațiu, but he published an article on the journal "Revista Transilvania", published by ASTRA, a rather prestigious and not a random cultural association. By the way... It's funny that I'm qualified as "pedantic"... I don't know if you have readed your own comment.
And to finish, the Istro-Romanians hardly are Romanian. I don't know if you are saying that they are Romanian to try to say that my actions have some nationalistic and "egoistic" bias or something like that, but it is false. I've already stated in the past that these Balkan peoples with "Romanian" on their name are not actual Romanians, they are related to them but not the same, at least on my personal opinion. If you want to resolve this conflict, propose solutions that I too can be happy with (WP:CONSENSUS). I think it can be fixed with changing the wording, but I am opposed to remove the claim, at least for now. Super Ψ Dro 22:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You fail to get the point: one source is not enough; the source is not reliable; the claim is dubious, even if sold as an allegation, (inducing somebody who seeks to learn about Istro-Romanians to think that Flacius was Istro-Romanian is not good for them). Yes, it is my opinion that this is misinformation, and it's your opinion that it isn't, but what you or I think is not relevant here: Flacius never claimed Istro-Romanian descent, not a single author, biographer cited in this or Flacius' wiki articles (and not a single one that I know of) has made this claim, apart from the one in the source you provided, the president of the only Istro-Romanian association in the world. The bit's unfitness for publication is not contingent on the fact that the argument is fallacious and the proposition absurd. Again, a single source from this particular author on this particular subject is not acceptable. If you took it personally, and were offended by my call to try and be free from bias and don't let personal interests affect our writing and edits, I'm sorry about that (it was a general allusion and reminder of the do-goody editor), but maybe that can help you figure out whether you are the right person to decide what's good and what's not for this article. (I mentioned nationalism and racism because, unfortunately, that's often the case in ethnicity-related disputes, especially when it comes to the Balkans). Yet, again, I never changed or cut the text of this article, merely called for more sources, via tags, which you removed. As for Flacius' article, you had recently edited the article, adding the allegation that he might have been Istro-Romanian. You provided the same source there. In that case, the bit was removed because his ethnicity/origins, there, are not relevant. Somebody has come around late (and disagreed), but finally they came; that's all.
You deleted helpful material I wrote, including valid sources from different authors, that objectively improve the article [Flacius'], are relevant to it, and clarify some points, yet later you said you don't disagree with my edits, except where they undermine yours (as they included the removal of the fake news that Flacius was Istro-Romanian). That is because my edits provided facts and were disinterested and useful, the opposite of yours. I didn't make exceptional claims, seeking instead to improve the article.
Now then, there is no space for improbable and single-sourced claims that Flacius was Istro-Romanian on Flacius' main article, because not a single scholar, or even person who's not of Vlach/(Istro)Romanian descent has ever mentioned the fact. I did, however, mention the fact that Vlacich may be etymologically related to the Vlach people in a footnote (which I did as early as in my first edit), although I'm still not sure that even that's worth being included in the article, even as a footnote. The bit about Flacius (and Tesla !) might be considered for deletion here too. In the case of Tesla it might even be interpreted as propaganda, and seeking to promote an individual or group over others, but for that I would wait for somebody else's opinion. At any rate, you can't remove valid sources when people make edits; you can't undo whole improvement-seeking edits when you disagree on a single part of them, and you definitely can't remove tags as you please. Also, you need to understand that it's not a bargain. In Flacius' article, the information you provided is not even relevant. If you notice, not a single time is it mentioned that he was (or might've been) ethnically Croat, even though he had two Croatian/Slavic surnames and there are dozens of scholars that point to his Croatian ethnicity and descent (English scholars too and, surprisingly even Italians). It just isn't relevant. We can leave it at that here on the Istro-Romanians, still under the heading Alleged, until someone else comes around, but with the tags I'd placed or at least two tags at the end of the sentence wherein the claim/allegation is expressed (dubious+better source needed).  We can discuss their number and position, if you wish. For anything else, I'm done.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
My god, I am not going to reply this with a huge answer again. I've already said that I removed that extra text on Flacius' article because I did not realize you had added more (apart from the change from Albona to Labin). Be aware that Rațiu Emil Petru has conducted several interviews in which he mentioned Flacius being Istro-Romanian. As a result, his claims are now known and even believed by a small but still existing number of people. These claims have been published on other Istro-Romanians-related websites made by other people who mention them, which gives them more notoriety (although these websites would be rejected as reliable sources). Not to mention the people Petru himself would have said this to in real life... Again I am opposed to remove the claim, but we can rewrite it. I propose:
According to Istro-Romanian (or Romanian, I don't know his nationality) researcher Rațiu Emil Petru, Flacius could have had Istro-Romanian roots or could have been one himself. He based this on the fact that Labin (Flacius' hometown) had in the early 16th century (when Flacius was born) a notorious Istro-Romanian presence. Petru also claimed that the house in which Flacius was raised was on a place called the "Plain of the Vlachs" and that the surname of his father, Andrea Vlacich, could come from the word "Vlach", which would have subsequently been Latinized as "Flacius".
By the way, your tags (some completely unhelpful such as adding a reference saying "simply not true") are excessive and some are not true (such as the "citation needed" one). Super Ψ Dro 11:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Any such claim is misinformation spread by a single author, the president of the only association of Istro-Romanians in the world, and as such can't be published on Wikipedia. As a single-sourced piece of information with exceptional claims, it can't be published at all. Further, all other sources (as you just explained) would be derivatives of it. The claim is factually irrelevant; Flacius didn't claim Istro-Romanian descent, and the assumption that Flacius had Istro-Romanian roots hasn't been made by any scholar of Flacius, and, in the latter's wiki article, it is simply not relevant (as would be reporting that he was nationally Venetian or might've been ethnically Croat or Italian, even though there are dozens sources by international authors for that). Here it's relevant, but it remains misleading and misinforming imo. As for the tags: then if you want to change the current version it might be substituted with a "better source needed" (+dubious).--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
So what do you want me to do with it? I remind you again that no sources exist disproving Petru's claim. The claim is already on an alleged subsection and it will now be rewritten further to make it not look like the text is saying it's a fact. Super Ψ Dro 12:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I won't discuss with you further, because you fail to understand the reason why your contribution to the article was challenged, as well as Wikipedia's standards. I also daresay you might have an interest into making Tesla and Flacius appear as Istro-Romanians, althoughthat goes against assuming good-faith. If you leave it in the alleged section, with a "better source needed" and "dubious" tag at the end of the text (possibly rephrased) it's okay.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Whatever you say. I've tried to reach a consensus but you haven't even stated what do you exactly want. This is not how discussions work in Wikipedia. I am going to apply my proposals and remove the tags you added. Don't revert my changes unless you are willing to have an actual discussion. Super Ψ Dro 12:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
"I also daresay you might have an interest into making Tesla and Flacius appear as Istro-Romanians" any person legitimately thinking Tesla was an Istro-Romanian is quite honestly not too smart. I only intend to list more people in the "Notable figures" section. Super Ψ Dro 12:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
How it works on Wikipedia is we do not spread misinformation; how it works on Wikipedia is we don't accept unreliable sources; how it works on Wikipedia is one source is not enough, even if reliable. What I want is the name of Flacius (and Tesla) completely removed from this article, and in the meanwhile the restoration of the tags you suppressed (dubious+better source needed). On Flacius the same: there the information is not even relevant.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Wiki.Jaap.07: Super Dromaeosaurus makes a valid point that you have failed to provide a source that opposes Petru's claims and you have not clearly given your reasoning for deeming Petru to be unreliable, I don't see why him being the president of the only association of Istro-Romanians in the world makes the source unreliable (at most it can be deemed biased - biased sources are not unreliable if cited for the opinions expressed therein and if these opinions are clearly attributed to the authors). Even if the figures under "alleged" were not actually Istro-Romanians, I think they are absolutely relevant to bring up here in that case precisely to point out that they likely weren't Istro-Romanians; if removed, we could face a persistent problem of editors adding them in (this happens a lot in articles on ethnic groups). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: Yes, I see what you are saying. I'm sorry, I don't know the exact terminology, yes, I would call it "biased". Before I edited this page, the text read something like "many authors have[...]". Still, I argue that the source is biased and the claim improbable, and because the thing affects prominent figures of Croatian and Serbian culture, we might consider not publishing the bit at all, i.e. the source is biased, and the claim so clearly absurd and potentially dangerous that there's no need to disprove Petru in this case, because his claims are not fit for publication in the first place. There is no counter source to Petru because the author's claims and writings are so irrelevant (with all due respect to Petru) that nobody explicitly wrote that Tesla wasn't Istro-Romanian and that Flacius wasn't I.R. To see that they were a Croatian (or Italian) born in the Republic of Venice and a Serbian born in Austria Hungary you can just type their name on your search engine, see  for example Tesla's article on Britannica; Flacius'; and books where their ethnicity is mentioned specifically: Flacius; and Tesla. There might be no need to treat these claims in the article, even if it's to make it clear they're absurd, due to possible spread of misinformation based on biased sources and generation of new, derivative biased sources, as well as misreading by some (that is, twisted interpretation of what's being said) and possible later edits that might make it less clear the claims are absurd. But again, I also see what you are saying. I think maybe we can leave the claims here under "alleged" if we say that its' Petru (not "many scholars") who made these claims and that they are "unlikely", or "questionable". However, because (as I mentioned) they are note relevant there, I strongly oppose reporting them on Flacius' article, much less on Tesla's (whose article has not been edited in this respect, anyways). In Flacius' case, the subject of ethnicity is not relevant to the article.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I feel like we are finally actually getting close to a solution. About that "many authors have" thing, you are right, I hadn't looked too much in depth into that claim and assumed there just had to be someone else claiming this on a reliable source (as there are several on other websites), although it seems that this is not the case. I had changed the text so it was shown that only Petru had made this claim but you reverted this. I would not be opposed to a source saying that he was Croat/Italian/Venetian (naming these three as I don't know much about Flacius) and to adding in the text something like "However, it is mostly agreed that he was nationality" or something like this. I think we could also apply this to Flacius' article. It could be added with several sources that he was one of those three in detail but briefly mention Petru's claim so it is still mentioned there. I think that if we do this we both will be happy. At first I wanted to keep most of the text in Flacius' article but now I am satisfied that the claim not being completely removed. And I did not even try to add Tesla's claim into his article because not even the ones saying he was Croatian were included, so it was pointless to even try. This kind of stuff is not allowed in major figures. I did add the claim in Flacius' article because I considered him to be a minor figure and that this claim would thus not be controversial (which was not the case either). Anyway, do you agree with this proposal? Super Ψ Dro 01:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I agreed with Ichthyovenator. He offered us his insight, and his solution is the best. I reverted your edit because (and now you get the italics!) you removed tags, seemingly to prevent the possible removal of the fake claims that Tesla and Flacius were Istro-Romanians. In Flacius' article (where you removed valid information and multiple sources that were relevant to the article), again, the information is not even relevant. His ethnicity is not mentioned anywhere in the article (and that's the way it's supposed to be) as in several other articles on (allegedly) Croatians born in the Republic of Venice. He was born in Venice - his surname was Vlacich-Francovich - and that's it. There are many authors and Flacius' scholars that claim he was Croatian, several who claim he was Italian. Neither Flacius nor none of his contemporaries claimed his ethnicity/ descent. That's the main reason why his possibly Croatian and possibly Italian ethnicity isn't mentioned. Still, I've included the fact that Vlacich may point to Vlach in a footnote, and I'm still not sure that's even worth a footnote (because the article is about Flacius, not the surname Vlacich). You had what you wanted: the fake information is still there. But don't attempt to pollute Flacius' and Tesla's articles, and please, fulfill tags instead of removing them (!). As for anything else: I agreed with Ichthyovenator, the article is okay now. I'm done.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah we were not even close to getting a solution. I am honestly very tired of this argument. I am willing to leave the article of Flacius as it is as long as you leave this article as I proposed. Yes, I will change the text to specify that only Petru claims this. But you will have to accept the tags getting removed. Do you accept? I don't need any other response to this repeating that "this information is false" or "not relevant", "you removed something unrelated although I did too" blah blah blah blah. Yes or no? Super Ψ Dro 21:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I said I agree with Ichthyovenator (also that I was done!). That means I also agree with the way he settled the tags in the article, tags that should be there! I think we can leave the tags or make it as clear as in Tesla's bit that the thing is unlikely. I think you can reformulate the phrase where its is expressed that Petru (or anyway, one author) made the claim. And yes, I will leave this article to other editors.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear: the goal should be that there shouldn't be any tags in the article - they exist to illustrate problems that should be fixed and they look ugly. As long as biased/controversial info is attributed and it is made clear that the views presented in the "alleged" section are minority views, expressly attributed to Petru, I don't think the tags are necessary. I removed them from Tesla's part because there didn't seem to be anything in the text itself there that was actually in dispute - it was made clear that him being Istro-Romanian was unlikely and a minority view. If the same thing is made clear for Flacius (and maybe if Petru's arguments, apparently also disputed, are looked over to see if they hold up) in his "entry" in the list, I don't see what the problem would be with removing the tags from there as well. Though it's already brought up earlier in the article, Petru's inherent bias as the president of the association could be made clear in this section as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Excellent then. I will restore my changes to Flacius' article that were unrelated to the dispute (such as capitalization for the word "vlach") but I won't do anything else there. Regarding this page, I will change the text so the claim is atributted to Petru. Tesla's claim is already said to be unlikely, so no change is needed here. Ichthyovenator, sure, I'll mention that he's the president of that organization in the alleged subsection. Many thanks for your participation by the way, it heated things down and accelerated the settling of this dispute. Super Ψ Dro 22:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I thought (and meant in my last reply). Again, I agree. As long as the bit is rephrased under those conditions for me it's okay, and like I said I will let this article to other editors. I think the best thing would be for Super Dromaeosaurus (or another editor except me) to rephrase the bit and remove the tags. Then Ichthyovenator may have the last word and decide whether it's okay.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I immediately recognized headline photo to be wrongly described as the place in the picture isn't Žejane but Trsat (Rijeka). SavoyenCRO (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right about this, the caption has been corrected and I'll correct it on other wikis as well. Super Ψ Dro 00:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


### Third opinion
[[User:Springnuts (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)|Springnuts (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:Springnuts (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Springnuts (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)|contribs]]) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
; Viewpoint by (name here): ....
; Viewpoint by (name here): ....
; Third opinion by Springnuts (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC): ....

Overtaken by events.  Conflict solved per above and [2] Springnuts (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

not sure why there's an entire alleged section, with a single dubious source for tesla being connected to the article, but that poor guy can't get a break from articles making claims they cannot reliably source, but there you go.
seems sketchy,
Augmented Seventh (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's a ridiculous claim but I've always found it as interesting trivia, and there's very very few people that are attributed Istro-Romanian ethnicity anyway. Maybe it is given undue weight but I think it's worth at least mentioning. How keyboard warriors from many different nations clash to claim Tesla is well-known yet his article completely omisses them which I don't agree with. Perhaps it could be mentioned in one single short unbulleted sentence, without many details, below Illyricus' claim. What do you think of cutting off the details (such as that his real name was actually Nicolae Teslea) and writing a short sentence such as "There are also fringe claims of Istro-Romanian ethnicity for Nikola Tesla"? Super Ψ Dro 20:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
i think you're on it, and are making solid decisions.
thank you for the reply, Augmented Seventh (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Excellent, I have applied my proposal. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 21:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
i think you fixed it. Augmented Seventh (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Great. Thank you for your intervention. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 08:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Super Dromaeosaurus the article, as well as Romanian sources, are full of WP:SYNTH, false and exaggerated claims. The villages of Male and Vele Mune were not inhabited by the Istro-Romanians - ever. People in those villages never spoke Istro-Romanian language. The toponymic map by Pușcariu is unreliable, Istro-Romanian was never spoken in Vele and Male Mune neither in nearby Vodice and so on (in which as "Vodice oasis" was spoken only Southwestern Istrian Chakavian-Shtokavian dialect). That old map must be removed and replaced with a reliable map from Croatian academic sources. Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I disagree in principle, could you please bring Croatian sources commenting on Pușcariu's map? The map's caption says it is based on toponymy, and now I have attributed it to Pușcariu and his work. Pușcariu is an authoritative voice in studies on the Istro-Romanians, being cited in a majority of them, at least by posterior Romanian authors. There is not much research on this people, so I don't believe that the map is old should be a reason by itself to remove it. I'd like to see the opinion on Pușcariu's toponymy in reliable sources, otherwise I don't think Wikipedia policy would support removing this map. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 19:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Not only is it old, but it is inaccurate. I should check the academic literature in Croatian about the Istro-Romanian language to see if this map can be found and if anyone has commented on it. The map, as shown in the Studii_Istroromane Vol. II, pg. 27, is based on claims by "Miklosich (Slav. EI. 56) ştie că româneşte se vorbeă și în Vodica şi Lanišče. C. A. Combi (Cenni etmografici... p. 115) socotește între comunele în care se vorbeă odinioară românește şi în Mune, în care şi după...", but that is completely inaccurate (and not the first time these authors spread false information), in Vodice and Lanišće surely and most probably in Mune as well was never spoken Istro-Romanian (and surely not in the 19th century), as confirmed by linguist Josip Ribarić (1880-1954, native of Vodice) in his seminal PhD thesis O istarskim dijalektima. Razmještaj južnoslavenskih dijalekata na poluotoku Istri s opisom vodičkoga govora (1916, re-published 1940, often quoted in academic literature), pg. 28 "Ni u kojem selu na kraškoj visoravni nije sačuvana ni najbljeđe predanje, da su ikada govorili drugačije nego danas, pa ni u Munama Velikim i Malim, koja su sela isto tako izolirana i zabitno smještena kao istrorumunsko susjedno selo Žejane. Ja sam se mnogo trudio, da u Munama Velim i Malim otkrijem tragove rumunjskoga dijalekta, ali uzalud. Čak sam došao do zaključka, da su stanovnici Žejana poradi specifično štokavskih utjecaja (natruha), kojih nema nimalo u čakavskom dijalektu Muna, morali živjeti u pređašnjoj domovini nedaleko ljudi ikavskoga štokavsko-čakavskoga prijelaznoga dijalekta" (In no village on the Karst plateau has there been preserved even the faintest tradition that they ever spoke differently than they do today, not even in Mune Veliki and Mali, which are villages just as isolated and secluded as the neighboring Istro-Romanian village of Žejane. I have tried very hard to discover traces of the Romanian dialect in Mune Veliki and Mali, but in vain. I have even come to the conclusion that the inhabitants of Žejane, due to specifically Štokavian influences (traces), which are not at all present in the Čakavian dialect of Mune, must have lived in their former homeland not far from the people of the Ikavian Štokavian-Čakavian transitional dialect).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Add; about the vocabulary of the village of Vodice, pg. 128 "Ima i rumunjskih riječi, ali malo... Ove riječi nijesu možda uzete od rumunjskih Čiča u sjevernoj Istri, kojih je nestalo, nego mogu da su posve lijepo jezično blago iz stare domaje. Bâta, birikāta, glindūra, pūca, střpla, šûrla, trzjāk, žinžire upotrebljavaju se u svim selima „Slovinaca“, mnoge od ovih riječi također inače u Dalmaciji (glindüra, birikāta, tîze), püca i šūrla u srpskohrvatskim kolonijama južne Italije, třze na vrlo velikom dijelu srpskohrvatskoga jezičnora područja izvan Dalmacije (u Bosni, Srbiji i t. d.)...". --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
As can be seen in Pușcariu's source, the claims about the spread of the Istro-Romanians and their language are based, aside from confirmed cases where Istro-Romanians actually lived and the language was spoken, on inaccurate secondary foreign claims and poor onomastic assumptions that wouldn't even pass modern academic standards. The usage of the map is pointless and not doing anyone a favour because it is not actually showing the spread of the Istro-Romanians, there's no evidence for it. It is not even needed when already exists your map with the actual spread of the Istro-Romanians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
August Kovačec, "Neki apelativi i vlastita imena istrorumunjskog podrijetla u središnjoj Istri (1995) shows how some anthroponyms and toponyms in Istria, e.g. on the map Katun/Catun and Sugar, don't necessarily have Istro-Romanian provenance but from Romanian/Romance language borrowings in Croatian spread by Croats from Dalmatia, and caution is needed when making such claims. So indeed, the map is more misleading than else. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I am convinced. Thank you for the thorough reply backed with academic material. Feel free to do the fixes you deem necessary to the article (I'll still discuss those I disagree with). Most of it (60–70%) is a translation from the Romanian Wikipedia article, it wouldn't have crossed my mind back then that it could have so many issues. Super Ψ Dro 22:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Puscariu linguistic-map1.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Puscariu linguistic-map1.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)