Talk:Istria

message: The beginning of this section states that "Istria returned to Italy".  My understanding is that parts of Istria were previously in the domain of Venice or Rome at various times, but that Istria was never previously, in part or in whole, in the domain of united Italy.  I think a more accurate statement would be that Istria came under the governance of Italy.  If necessary, this section could reference the historical facts related to Venice and Rome noted earlier in the article (although not sure why).  This section should also reference the source of this transfer, linked to capitulation at the end of WWI.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerozeroonezeroonezeroone (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Question on Interwar section

message: I came to this page to convert the SAMPA for the English pronunciation to IPA, but on further investigation decided the SAMPA was wrong anyway  - it said /Ist'4i@/ which means that the t is supposed to be palatalised. Alternatively, and more likely, the  '  has been used in error to indicate the stress (strictly and confusingly " in SAMPA, although many people get this wrong) in which case it means that the stress falls on the second syllable, which seems unlikely, especially given that it's stressed on the first syllable in the local languages. In the end I decided to ditch any representation of the English pronunciation, and let the Italian and Croation/Slovenian pronunciations speak for themselves. rossb 06:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of the name

message: Use this feature if you're at a loss how to improve this very brief article, too heavily stressing ethnic issues. --Wetman 08:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What links here?

message: I have a problem with this paragraph:
"Similarly, national powers claim Istrian Slavs according to local language, so that speakers of Cakavian dialects are considered by the Croatian government to be Croatians and speakers of Kajkavian dialects are considered by the Slovenian government to be Slovenians. Many Istrian Slavs consider themselves simply to be Istrians, with no additional national affiliation. Others consider themselves to be patriotic members of the larger nations."
I see what the author was trying to say. However, the process of establishing ethnic identity, at least as described here, is largely a thing of the past in Istria. In other words, there is now a clear division between people who consider themselves Slovenians and those who consider themselves Croats (this division largely coincides with the international border). Even in the past, the ca/kaj divide wasn't an absolute determiner of ethnic identity, as is evidenced by some traditional "kaj" speakers in Istria who consider themselves Croats.
I also have a problem with the use of the term Kajkavian in this context: "...speakers of Kajkavian dialects are considered by the Slovenian government to be Slovenians." After all, Kajkavian is a term used to describe a dialect of the Croatian language, so it can never be used to describe Slovenians without indirectly impying that these people were actually Croats (or Croat-speakers) who became Slovenians later, which is clearly not the case.
WorldWide Update 08:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity 

message: While of course the past cannot be ignored, I fell that we should speak more about the culture of the region as well. What do you think? --Paolopk2 10:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond ethnicity, let's add more about culture 

message: Being one of the lands claimed by Italy (irredentism), the Austro-Hungarian government stimulated the migration of additional Slavs into the region in order to reduce Istria's Italianism.
Well, Italian nationalists claimed that Austria favored the migration of Slavs, but AFAIK that argument regarded Trieste and not Istria. AFAIK under Austro-Hungary there was no major influx of Slavic population in Istria, maybe except for rapidly growing Pula, but still the majority of civil inhabitants of this city were Italians, so it is rather hard to argue that the Austrian authorities favored the migration of Slavs into the city and personally I think I have never heard this argument be raised. Boraczek 09:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  migration of Slavs 

message: If Italians are speaking about Fojbe masacar, then its justly fair to speak about Fasistic crimes in Istria.The first use of Fojbes was done by the Fasist.  To blaming Nazi for worsened the traditionally tolerant ethnic relations is not completly true.  
Approximatly 70 000-130 000 Croatian-Slovenians emigrated because of the fasistic regime, for the ones that stayed the Croatian-Slovenian names were changed with Italian ones. The subsequent Italian occupatio, followed by Nazi occupation from 1943-1945. further worsened the traditionally tolerant ethnic relations. After the Italian surender in the 2WW the Partisan of Istria menage to free almost all of the Istria and in the city of Pazin declared that they are going to be reunited with theirs mother land Croatia.
Fasistic intolerance brought worsened ethnic relations, the Croatian language was forbiden, names were changed, and Approximatly 70 000-130 000 Croatian-Slovenians emigrated. Because of this Exodus or shell we say etnic clensing today in the city of Zagreb you have some Istrian strets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.152.206.58 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does fasistic mean?  155.188.247.5 (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fasistic terror 

message: The fact is,  that Tito assisted mostly for the unfair division of Istria between Slovene and Croatia, why do you keep cutting this facts. This is important. I demand, that you justify your cutting!!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.72.104.84 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, this is an encyclopedia, not the Historical Complaints Dept. Next, you must properly source your edits with checkable, reliable references. COBISS is not checkable, ergo, does not comply with Wikipedia's rules on verifiability. I will send a message to your talk page with a how-to guide about editing this encyclopedia. You should read it. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Istria in the SFR Yugoslavia

message: One shold mention that Istria is formally first time in their history under Croatian jusrisdiction. This is evident from the book of croatian historian Stjepan Srkulj: Hrvatska povjest u devetnaest karata (1937). This is very important fact.  
Since the border line, as you mention, is not defined clearly, you can not cite explicitly the border length, therefore this sentence is been removed. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.72.104.84 (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant fact, aimed at depicting the post-WW2 peace treaty as a mistake. Istria came under Italian jurisdiction "for the first time" just 26 years earlier. Istria has remained under majority "Croatian jurisdiction" for the following 63 years (and counting), much longer than it ever constituted a part of Italy. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? Austria-Hungary has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I am also fully aware of all that you are saying, but I do not see what you are trying to say since it does not impact the argument I put forth concerning the irrelevance of that info you put out. Not only is that claim completely meaningless, it is also selective representation of facts. Also please refrain from "analyzing" my actions or those of my country's foreign policy, you are neither qualified nor called upon to do so.  --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Istria after the breakup of Yugoslavia

message: The croatian language is not the same as/with serbian language it was so during the yugoslavia. So mixing those 2 is a mistake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.152.206.58 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, YOU are mistaken! Serbian and Croatian is, and will be ONE SAME LANGUAGE with many dialects! Naturally, Istria as a civilized European Region respects that fact, unlike the nacionalist's government in Zagreb. Long Live Istria with best wishes for you to be an Authonomus Euro Region soon! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Croatian and Serbian languages are extremely similar, to the point of near-perfect understanding between speakers. The difference, for instance, between the Kajkavian dialect and the modern dialect of the Dalmatian Croats are FAR greater than the differences between the modern dialect of the Dalmatian Croats and the standardized Serbian language (and this is just an example). However, current politics demand that they be considered separate and that's how we must consider them on Wikipedia, that much is beyond discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian croatian language 

message: There are no Serbs in Istria (except the many colonists that are no more). There's only one things: Peroj; a Serb village of immigrants from Montenegro that have been there for centuries (I think 17th century or so). --PaxEquilibrium 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peroj 

message: An anonymous user with the IP 83.131.157.167 removed all references to the Slovenian part of Istria and all Slovenians. I reverted the changes, but I would urge all users to keep an eye out for such vandalism.WorldWide Update 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for repairing that. And I added a link to the site "Natural parks od Slovenian Istria". Jonson22 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Vandalism 

message: This is a simple request... Can someone create some kind of redirection, so that when one search for "Istra", is directed to this page? -- Martin 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Istra" is currently used by the Russian town of Istra (И́стра) . See also Istra (disambiguation). - Regards, Ev 23:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Istra 

message: 1) Do you realise that the text is written in a very emotional way, unfit for an encyclopedia? </br>
2) Do you have a (RELIABLE) source for the population reduction of Pula (Pola), a census or something? </br>
3) The section you keep renaming is on the period of Austrian rule. If you want a section only on the Venetian period, write it (coldly, objectively, without emotion and with RELIABLE sources like Britannica). </br>
4) There is no need for a specific section on the Istrian exodus since there is an entire article about it. </br>
DIREKTOR 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several problems 

message: This article is in desperate need of a map of Istria for the introduction. Not a map of Istria County, of course, but Istria in its entirety. --WorldWide Update 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Does anyone know where to get a map showing the entire area of Istra? --Jesuislafete (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map needed 

message: I've taken out this outrageous unsourced POV claim. Sure, definitely, the Yugos were such savages that not even the dead were safe from them and the poor fleeing refugees carried the corpses of their loved ones away on their backs with the savages in hot pursuit. Did they dig up the long-dead ones from the cemetaries as well, or just pick up the recently dead that they happened to have lying around at home? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm ehm: I have two sources about this point. The first: Fulvio Tomizza, "Materada". The second: this movie: . See from minute 1.45. So, it's absolutely true: "some emigrants took with them not only their belonging but also their deceased".--151.48.31.119 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have another example: the Italian Istrians took with him also the body of the Italian hero Nazario Sauro, today in Lido di Venezia. His monument in Koper/Capodistria () was partially dismantled by Germans in 1944 and then erased by Yugoslavs.--151.48.31.119 (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: About the Italian graves now in Slovenia and in Croatia, here you can read an article (in Italian) from "La Voce del Popolo" (the Italian newspaper of Rijeka/Fiume). Some words: "molte tombe sono state nazionalizzate, e di molti proprietari sparsi per il mondo in seguito all'esodo si sono perse le tracce" (many graves were nationalized, and we have lost the tracks of many owners around the world because the exodus).--151.48.31.119 (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Dear Mr/Ms IP 151.48.31.119, the first of your two 'sources' is what exactly? The second is clearly an over-emotional propaganda piece for an Italian audience of the 1950's. Hardly a reliable source. The last about Nazario Sauro is more plausible (but not at all what the sentence I have removed was claiming), but removing his remains is unsurprising as he was some kind of heroic figure. I've read his final journey was not exactly glorious, though. The body was greeted by "a volley of jeers".  Oh dear. Not the most patriotic thing to do, eh? BTW, Koper-Capodistria is not a place, it is a local authority. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Dear Al, my first source is a book of the very famous Istrian writer Fulvio Tomizza, absolutely not involved with esuli, right-wing parties and so on. "Materada" is the name of his village in Istria, and also the name of his first autobiographical book. I have a late edition (Bompiani, 1992). In the last three page he speaks about an Holy Mass in Materada, with Kyrie, Credo and so on, after which the people began to dig away for bringing its dead. About the Italian "propaganda movie", you can see the open graves without the deads, but I'm not surprised that you do not believe even the images. If you want, I can send you a series of photographs of graves here in my little island: all Istrian deads transported here. The transport of the bodies was permitted from the Allies (Pola) and in some cases also from Yugoslavs, but only for the bones and ashes. So I can answer your macabre and sarcastic insinuation: you could not take away the recently deads.--151.48.31.119 (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I noticed your kind and sarcastic words about Nazario Sauro. I really do not expect anything different from you, who obviously know those geographical and historical reality only from postcards.--151.48.31.119 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, my I re-write the "outrageous POV claim"? Sourced, of course...--151.48.31.119 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not unless you can find a few better sources than the rubbish you've drawn my attention to here this afternoon. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Fulvio Tomizza rubbish? Sure you aren't an Istrian, my dear, and a little bit ignorant! See here, and read more, my dear Old Man of the Mountain who never saw the Adriatic.--151.48.31.119 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some emigrants took with them not only their belongings but also their deceased." 

message: While I don't mind you restoring old images (if you like them that much), I also do not take kindly to your removal of the new images. Please restore the images of Istria you removed without discussion.
Concerning the lead image, I believe you are forgetting that we're not talking about a political entity. It is a peninsula, a geographical region of Europe. It is not required that the lead image "must" cover its entirety. An image covering 90% of the geographical region is the best we can do apparently, and it is also the image that best shows the peninsula's relation to the Adriatic coast. Admittedly, it is a map of Istria County, but it is the best we can do (find a full geographic map and it gets the lead). Try not to see "anti-Slovenian POV" whenever someone attempts to improve the article by shuffling around the gallery and adding a lead image. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Very nice.  They show the beauty of Istria perfectly and include a nice sample from Croatia, Slovenia and Italy.  I was pleasantly suprised to see the inclusion of Muggia as it's often forgotten considering it's the only significant Istrian town in Italy.  Istria is magical and the sooner that Croatia joins the EU and Schengen the better and then it'll be so much easier to travel from one great town to another regardless of which country you are in.--217.203.156.61 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos at end of the article 

message: I have tried to neaten up the Geography section by making the alternative names of places and features clearer through the use of italics and parentheses. I still feel, however, that this section is generally untidy and could benefit from a total overall. I don't want to undertake this unilaterally, so am opening it up to discussion. Does any one else feel that this section would benefit from a format change? At present, it is basically a list - should the format reflect this? Leonvince (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography Section 

message: I came across this in the article: The data for Slovenian Istria is not as neatly organized Now it's not obvious to me from the article itself how Croatian data is better organized, maybe someone simply doesn't like Slovene statistical office's website :) In either case this bit is redundant, but before I remove it maybe someone has a good reason to keep this. --Messlo (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More about census

message: "There is also a suspected link (but no historical documentation is available) to the commune of Istria in Constanţa, Romania."
Who suspects this?  Surely Istria, Romania, and ancient Histria, took their name from the nearby Ister (Danube) river.
I almost just deleted the line, but I'm not an expert.
BobShair (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to Istria, Romania? 

message: List the total area in square metres.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.64.217 (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Area in square metres 

message: The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Istria as being part of Croatia and Slovenia, excluding Italy . Where exactly does this peninsula end towards the northeast? -- Director (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, usually Trieste and sorroundings are not considered part of Istria. Barjimoa (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise northeastern boundary? 

message: While I'm sure whatever happened to the random dead people pictured in the inset was tragic, exactly what is the point of this picture and how does it relate to the article? I suspect a lot of people have died in Istria at one time or another, so the fact that there were dead people there at some point doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or encyclopedic. I get that this is probably the remnant of some edit war of the "your ethnic group's atrocities were worse than my ethnic group's atrocities" type but this isn't the place for it. Tarchon (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Corpses 

message: I have added  a source to a fact that was simply labelled "citation needed". Hopefully that provides a better understanding of the information. Ashleybent (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: According to this article:
Italians were the one who started ethnic persecutions in those lands, the only one to use violence against minorities and practice discrimination based on race. This is a blatant falsification of historical reality. Austrians and slavic nationalists persecuted italians well before 1919.  
It is stated:
".....Istria's political and economic importance declined under Italian rule, and after the fascist takeover of Italy in 1922, the Italian government began a campaign of forced Italianization. In 1926, use of Slavic languages was banned, to the extent that Slavic family names were ordered to be changed to suit the fascist authorities..."
What about the policy of de-italianization carried out by the Austrians,then?
During the Council of Austrians Ministers, on November 12, 1866
“His Majesty -Franz Joseph- has expressed the precise order that we decisively oppose the influence of the Italian element still present in some Crown lands, and to aim unsparingly and without the slightest compunction at the Germanization or Slavicization – depending on the circumstances – of the areas in question, through a suitable entrustment of posts to political magistrates and teachers, as well as through the influence of the press in South Tyrol, Dalmatia, and the Adriatic Coast.”
This was 60 years before 1926.
What about this?
"...the present race animosity between Croat and Italian is deplorable. The Croats, [today] being in the majority, are using their power to oppress the Italian-speaking portion of the population. The schools are now all Croat, and the Italians have no means of instruction for their children in their own language except at Zara. At Spalato the race feeling is especially bitter... The Italian theatre was burnt down some years ago...”
—Frederick Hamilton Jackson, The Shores of the Adriatic, the Austrian Side, 1908 
So the editorial policy is:
it is possible to mention everything about the italianization of Istria by the fascists but nothing about the violence carried out by the austrians and the slavic nationalists against the italians before 1919?
Stop reversing my passage about the emperor orders to impose the germanization and slavicization of Istria and Dalmatia.
Magnagr (talk) 04:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Austrians and Slavic nationalists started ethnic cleansing in Istria before Italians, editors of this article don't allow to mention it

message: 1) There was not a "squadristi group" in Dignano.
2) Nearly all the population of Dignano was Italian so there was no necessity to implement such a order.
3) Signing a manifesto with the term "squadristi" would have been silly. It is like a german manifesto in WWII giving orders to the population and signed as: "The Nazis". A manifesto was usually signed by some specific authority. "We Squadrists will enforce this order with persuasive methods" is also an awkward and very unconventional way to express the order. It is evident that who created this fake document wanted to emphatize the Italian/fascist oppression towards the slavic population. No official italian/fascist authority would have ever written a manifesto in that way.
I am not saying that during fascism there was no oppression of slavic people but the picture of that document in the Istria article should be removed because blatantly false. Moreover, the vast majority of the people reading the english version of the Istria article don't know italian and so cannot understand the content of the manifesto. Furthermore, the article does not mention at all the anti-italian policies carried out by the austro/slavic 60 years before the fascist took the power in Italy. A picture testifying the persecution of slavic people by the italians should be balanced by another picture showing the austro/slavic oppression against the Italian in the XIX century, otherwise this article is skewed toward only one historical perspective. 
--Magnagr (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The document is not a forgery, according to historian Raoul Pupo: https://www.triesteprima.it/cronaca/raoul-pupo-unione-degli-istriani-manifesto-dignano.html 185.215.195.17 (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-slavic "Manifesto di Dignano" is a forgery

message: I realize this is a difficult subject, so I am bring it up with all of you first.  (This is all from memory, and assumes suitable sources can be found) That the Austrian policy was largely proItalian in the first half of the period and changing to anti after the loss of Venice and growing fear of The Kingdom of Italy. Is this the sort of thing we want to include.74.83.121.73 (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian racial policy (post Napoleon) 

message: Much is the article is unsourced or poorly sourced. Some sections have been tagged since 2015. This material should be sourced or it should be removed. I am tagging the entire article. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The village of Santa Croce/Križ is not the most northern part of Istria, it is located in the Karst/Kras/Carso region. The settlement lying farthest to the north is Aquilinia/Žavlje, in the Muggia/Milje municipality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.215.195.17 (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Croce/Križ not part of Istria 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: hi I search in the web and Koper is in Slovenia not in Croatia
maybe im wrong I don't know ... 2A01:E0A:B6A:E180:7DBC:6AB7:E564:29B3 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  issue with Koper