Talk:Italianization

message: This is very biased nonsense against Italy, the Yugoslav forced assimilation was much worse. They murder many people. I suggest move this to Nazism it was part of that its not Italian.
121.45.41.47 (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forced Italianization of Dalmatia and Istria occured in several periods: during Venetian occupation of Dalmatia (1409-1798) - Venetianization, during Italian administration in the area in 19th century and finally during Italian fascistic years in 20th century. This last Fascist Italianization was ideologically based on previous attempts and was meant to be finalization of it. Articles should be merged. Zenanarh 14:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is correct as it is, it was recntly splitted. Italianization is a linguistic, historic, cultural phenomena. The fascist italanization is just a small aspect of this (and the worst, BTW). Other claims by R and Z. are disputable POVs. The same article is present even in the Italian, Norvegian and German wikipedia. --Giovanni Giove 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascist Italianization is part of the same phenomenon of Italianization. There is absolutly no reason to divide it like this. --Raguseo 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was it was done in 4 different Wikipedias.--Giovanni Giove 23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about Italian, Norwegian and German Wikipedia, my concern is English Wikipedia. --Raguseo 00:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So write an article about this supposed italianization by the evil Venetians, THAN propose again the merge.Giovanni Giove 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: There seems to be be double criteria even  today  judging Romance and Slavic World.
Romance is beeing treated as developed, progressive, and Slavic something  filthy and aggressive by default.
*If there are beeing sold "souvenirs"  with images of Hitler and Mussollini in Italy that's "freedom of  speech and democracy". If somebody in Croatia attempts to sell something with an image of Ante Pavelić that's the sign of an obvious neo-nazism and expression of desire for new Jasenovac .
*When Italian is burning somebody's house that is the beautiful image, fire dancing on the wind and house dissappering in the song... If the Croat/Serb/Slovene somebody's house that is the pure racism or antisemitism.
*If Italian is that Juraj Dalmatinac was Italian that's their natural right. What else could be a great artist but Italian?? Surely not filthy Slav. If  Croats are claiming that he  was  a Croat that's extreme nationalism.
*If Croatian football fan come to matches in Italy they are beeing announced and described as bands of barbarians who come to distroy beutiful Italy. When Italian hooligans kill the cop or when every week appear some incidents or car burning that's the product of Mediterranen temperament and Latino charm.
*If  Italians are cheating with football matches results that's game. When  Croats/Serbs/Slovenes do that that's the result Balkan outlaw tradition.
*If some Italian  is travelling around the world and speaks no foreign language that is simpathic.
If  Croat/Serb/Slovene is doing like that he is an illitarate barbarians.
*If  Croats/Serbs/Slovenes are having war against neighbour countries that' because they were  always in barbarian societies. If Italians are conquering foreign countries that is the widespreading of the beautiful culture. An all methods are permitted for it. Including wearing BlackShirts and rising right hand.  
*If the Italians are linching Roma/Gipsy people that is democracy, respecting the desires of native population, defending the beautiful Italian culture from intruders. If the Croats are doing that they are criminals which should have been sentenced permanently.
*If the Italian fishermen are roberring in Croatian sea that's their natural right. Croats , of course have no right to fish in Italian part of Adriatic.
Croatians have never been attacking Venice, Ancona ,Verona....!!!
Croatians  have never been bombarding these cities!!
Croatians  have never occupied these cities !!!
Croatians  have never  been establishing concetration camps for the Italians in these cities , banning them to write and speak their language(s) !!! 
At the end I will say something all Italians/Germans/Frenches/Americans/Spaniards  etc :
Do not talk to me about your culture! Do not speak to me how great and beutiful it is !
 
I am quite conscoius of that . I am also  quite conscoius of many bad thing of it.  I am quite conscoius of the fact how are/were you ready to smash and distroy everybody who appears to be on your way. We all know what was the destiny of non-Indoeuropean population of Europe, Native Americans, African slaves , Jews in ww2 etc.
We must accept that all people are equal, have equal rights including to be protected not  to become a victims somebody others' rights. Until we accept that ... it will not be good!
Peace with you!
--Anto (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double criteria 

message: Very interesting. Now how can all of the above (cited, of course) can be used to improve a one- or two-paragraph stub of an article that essentially doesn't even begin to treat the subject in any detail? Also, we need to keep the discussion here on topic: what can be done to improve this abbreviation of an article? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward

message: Italianization of the Eastern Adriatic coast can not be condidered as phenomena!
Cultural phenomena might be a volunteer iItaliazation of the Croats (or other ethnic group  ) who live or come to live in an Italian majority regions.
Ex. Some Croatian family comes to Venice/Rome/ Florence . It is very probably that descendents of that family  in the next generation will adopt Italian language and Italian identity. Volunteerily! there's nothing wrong about that. And nobody would ever blaim  Italy for that! These kinds of things happen in every country. Minority accepts the identity of majority!
But the problem is when the minority wants to impose its identity to the majority! that's what is usually called apartheid!
It is very well known that in Istria Italians were relative minority (majority Croatian-couple percentages more to be honest) . And in Albania and Dalmatia they were absolute minority !
But it did not stop Venice , Genoa...  (and later Italy)  to invade those regions!
Fascist italianization was just one episode of that unhappy history . Motives and ideology was the same. Methods of blackshirts were just more brutal. 
--Anto (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural phenomena -no way 

message: This article should be joined with Fascist italianization. Goals of the acts were same . Just with another players.
Don't remember that during Duce & his team were doing all those for "Italian cause" !
Article Germanisation was made properly. 
All other articles from Category:Cultural assimilation
From the medieval time up to modern times.
As this one should be !
--Anto (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining articles 

message: Because of Fascist occupation of Dalmatia there were 30.000 refugees from Dalmatia (mainly women, children, oldmen) in the camps in Egypt (El Shatt). I can't find one mention of this in the articles. It's not in History of Dalmatia either. We should edit it. Zenanarh (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Shatt 

message: Clear case: the historical sections should refer to South Tyrol and South Tyroleans, as, inter alia, scholarship does: 
*Seymour, Charles, WOODROW WILSON AND SELF-DETERMINATION IN THE TYROL, Virginia Quarterly Review, 38:4 (1962:Autumn) p.567
*C. F. Latour: Germany, Italy and South Tyrol, 1938-45, The Historical Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1965), pp. 95-111 Gun Powder Ma
*see also for standard use of "South Tyrol" throughout: Sterling J. Kernek: Woodrow Wilson and National Self-Determination along Italy's Frontier: A Study of the Manipulation of Principles in the Pursuit of Political Interests, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 126, No. 4. (Aug., 1982), pp. 243-300 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring# 3RR and overall pattern of disruptive editing by User:Supparluca reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (result: warned). The user is requested to address the concerns of other users on the talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in general consensus has been to use Alto Adige-South Tyrol, Bolzano-Bozen, etc.  If you think you are doing any service to anyone by trying to erase one term over the other, well, you are wrong, but do as you please. :) Icsunonove (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Tyrol 

message: Mussolini's racist statements are not found in the book cited. At least the first one is found in Mussolini's own writings, but the book does not say if this was included in the speech held in Pula in 1920. The Pula speech might be notable for documenting Mussolini's racist ideology, but it should be better documented.  Andreas  (T) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not added the quote the first time, but as it seems illustrative, I've readded it with the sources by  Jože Pirjevec (contains the English translation of the quote) and Armando Sestani (contains the cited date and place). There is some discrepancy between sources regarding the date and place, but I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the data given in Sestani (referenced to Discorso di Pola, in Opera omnia di Benito Mussolini, edited by Edoardo e Duilio Susmel, La Fenice, Firenze 1962, volume XXXV, p. 70.). --Eleassar my talk 21:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting Mussolini 

message: This article is openly anti-Italian and insistently uses derogatory terms.
The responsibilities of Fascism in the italianization of eastern Adriatic areas are today accepted,
but here they are presented as if they were a genocide or worse.
An encyclopedia article should be more neutral in the description of the context and the events,
especially with regards to the ethnic presence in the disputed areas.
Also, it should at least be mentioned that analogous events of slavization of Italian areas 
(both of majority and minority of population) happened both before and after the Fascist period.
All these processed should be neutrally analyzed and described, and put in the correct historical context. 
Instead, everything in this article is seen from a factious point of view.
A Wikipedia page should help creating a better mutual understanding and respect, and not be used for what 
is basically racist propaganda.
I kindly request that a neutral commission (composed by neutral observes) would revise this page
and edit it in such a way that while historical facts are preserved, factious comments are purged.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercatlas (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear IP user your comment is valid but you cannot count on an "Neutral commission" to revise the page. Wikipedia does not work like that. If you or anyone else think this page can be improved you are pleased to make constructive comments and modifications. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is derogatory 

message: This article, at least in the current state, is a real mess.
It looks that in the years 2006-2008 a fierce edit war had place between Italian and Slovene/Croatian extremisms on WP. Well, the results are regrettable still visible on WP.
Concerning this article I have several issues:
* From a general historic perspective it cannot be qualified of forced the spontaneous process of unification of a country. 
* Concerning Italy, the unification of Italy was not the construction of a foreign country, but a desire - albeit of course not being shared by 100% of the population, but this is a banality - of all regions. The size of Garibaldi's army was so ridiculous that without a large support from the Southern regions Italy would have never been unified.
* I could not find the word "Italianization" in any decent second or third level source. A google research shows that 90% of the links take from this article on en:wiki. More, apart some doubtful web sources I could not find any decent book treating the argument. This does not mean that many facts cited in this article are false but just that the the word "Italianization" in the reference of the facts cited in the article creates at lest an issue of WP:OR.
* The polict of "Italianization" had place in Italy exclusively during the Fascism. If someone believe this is not true, please bring some sources.
* The language used in the article is by far inappropriate. Most of the editors involved in the use of the strongest language used in the article have long history of edit warring and some of them have been for blocked for long (if not unlimited) periods of time. Trying to wikify it is going to be a major task. It looks more the endless complaint of a nostalgic nationalist than an article about 20th century history.
* There is a constant issue of WP:UNDUE. Punctual episodes of repression take by far too much place in the article and give to the article an inappropriate structure for an Encyclopedia.
* Some affirmation are supported by links to websites of doubtful reputability (such as Slovene nationalist), with strong doubts of WP:FRINGE and WP:V.
* If there is no doubt that the Fascism aimed to impose cultural uniformity in Italy, it can be easily argued that the language used in the article ("brutal and violent repression" or "ethnic cleansing") is appropriate from an historical perspective. If it was the case it could be easily argued why still today the Austrian minority is still a majority in South Tyrol or why there is stil a sizeble Slovenian minority in the East.
* Where is the source supporting that the Albanian minority in Southern Italy was persecuted during the Fascism? Certainly the Fascism did not like them, but from this to persecution there is a large distance. And also in the relevant article about the Albanian minority in en:wiki there is not a single word about this alleged repression. 
--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: General revision of the article

message: The more I go trough this article and the more I realised that what is written is false to the hedge of being hilarious. I have removed the entire section described the alleged "italianisation" of the Dodecanese for the following reasons:
* The unique source in support is a travel guide, hence inappropriate in view of the strong facts cited in the section (ethnic cleansing and major violation of human rights). For facts of such relevance appropriate secondary sources from reputable scholars are needed. As it is today the section cannot stay.
* The cited source (page 436 of this travel book) does not say at all what is written in the article. Ironically going trough the book, it looks that the Italian presence was not detrimental because the population in Rhodes got citizenship assimilated to Italian and therefore could emigrate to North-America. 
* Latinisation had place in Rhodes but in a framwork completely different from the claimed ethnic cleansing (indeed intermarriage between Italians and local Greeks was encouraged, this is not consistent with ethnic cleansing). 
If the editor of this section insist to have it in the article, then proper sources and language need to be provided and used.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dodecanese

message: The article use several times the wording "ethnic cleansing", "brutal repression2 and similar expression. The ethnic cleansing is somethinhg of very specific and consist in "the systematic and violent removal of undesired ethnic groups from a given territory". Almost all changes of borders and administration create some conditions for the replacement nor departure of existing people. Now, qualifying any forced assimilation with the label of "ethnic cleansing" is inappropriate, to say the less. 
It is clear and undoubt that the fascism tried to latinise the Slavik minority in Istria and due enphasis has to be given to such facts here but qualifying such facts of ethnic cleansing require adequate international, reputable sources.
Today, almost one century after the end of WWI, the overwhelming majority of South-Tyrol speak German and in what remains in Italy of the Julian March there is still a sizeable Slovenian community, while on the Slovenian and Croatian parts of Istria the Italian community has been reduced in small numbers (numbers vary about the size of the exodus of  Italians from Istria but the size of the exodus was between 20 and 40 times the Slovenian one after the Treaty of Rapallo). If we were qualifying of ethnic cleansing the second one, what should be said about the first?
For this reason I need to insist on the necessity to support wording like ethnic cleansing only if supported by appropriate sources.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "ethnic cleansing" policy is applicable to the Italian occupation of Province of Ljubljana during World War II period, so I removed the term from the sections dealing with the pre-WW II period. I also added references to the sources. DancingPhilosopher my talk 13:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear DancingPhilosopher, may I suggest to make the modification one by one, otherwise the corrections from other users risk to impinge on the structure of the text? To enter in the organic matter of the issue I think we have to make a clear difference between what happened between 1922 and the beginning of WWII and what happenede during WWII. There is no discussion that acts of ethnic cleansing had place during the war, but unless not supported by a souce the same cannot be claimed before. Forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing and genocyde are three completely different acts. It is important to make the difference and to sustain the facts with sources. Also please note that the period when Italy occupied Dalmatia was so small that it is hard to affirm that any policy of cultural assimilation had place. Instead several episodes of violence had place and if documented can (and actually need) to be cited in this article. On the other hand I need to insist that this is not an article on WWII, so we should restrict really on the matter of the article, that is the latinisation of these regions.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic cleansing, sources please

message: I have awarded this user for making clear what Italianization really was and not what some Italians would still want others to believe it was - i.e. a mere cultural assimilation without violating the minority's right to use the minority language. DancingPhilosopher my talk 13:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dancing Philosopher, feel free to award whoever you like but beware that your affirmations border the limit of hatemonger. If you insist I will have to ask for an arbitrage and a sanction from an administrator. --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Award to [[User:Noclador|Noclador]]

message: @Dancing Philosopher, it is absolutely fine to insert a map about the Italianization of Ethnic Slovenes and indeed the modification from this IP user can be qualified of vandalism.
On the other hand I need to ask you to make some changes on the map if you want this map to remain. The area annected after the treaty of Rapallo in 1920 is decribed today at ethnically Slovenes + some colors not included in the legend. Indeed most of the area annected after the Treaty of Rapallo. I can provide sources proving the area was ethnically Italian-Slovene (with a prominence of Slovenes in the East and Italians in the West). Please find a better map or amend the existing one.
For example in 1910 the official census shows 47.8% of the population of Gorizia was of Italian language and 34,8% of Slovenian, the remaining being mainly German speaking.  
Also you cannot link "Italianization of Ethnic Slovenes to the page "Italianization" because this is WP:CIRCULAR. I have corrected this.
--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Silvio1973, I have corrected the map so that the hatched area (used to depict the area where Slovenes were in majority in Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)) now does not include Gorizia. DancingPhilosopher my talk 13:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I have not been clear. Gorizia was just an example. The current map is not clear. Firstly, the colors do not correspond to the legend but the big issue is another. I do not want Gorizia or other places to be shown as ethnically Italian after WWI because this was not true. There was a mixed population and this should be reflected in the map. You have to possibility, either you post a map from a secondary or tertiary source or if you want to make the map you need to support the modification on the map with relevant sources. Otherwise you fall in a issue of WP:OR. I do not understand why simply not posting your Etnographic map as it is and merely drawing on it the former border of the Julian March?
By the way this map is of doubtful quality because shows the area only with one color (one ethnicity) and the reality was by far much more complex that that. It is however a valid secondary source and I would have no problem admitting it if not substancially modified. In the meantime I remove the image only because it is not acceptable in the current state but I will welcome to see it back properly modified. --Silvio1973 (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I also wander the interest of this pre-Italy map in this article. If no-one is really keen in keeping it, perhaps could be removed. It would be more interesting to put a map with the Borders change before WWI / After Rapallo Treaty. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: Well, it looks that some more editors showed interest in correcting the excessive language used in this article. Perhaps within the next weeks this article will cease to be a political manifesto to become an article of history. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You happen to be unaware that this user has been asked by me here to provide a Third Opinion on this article, because the fact is that neither of us (but at least I am aware of it, while you pretend to be neutral) is without bias, so, please, do not assume anything. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 09:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: DancingPhilosopher, you look more interested about politics than history. The first is based on opinions, the second on sources. Please keeep this in mind. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Also I will not bother to consider your conduct as canvassing (please refer to WP:CANVASS even if indeed what you did could have qualified of that. In a nutshell, you can ask to an editor some help but you cannot selectively choose an editor to provide a third opinion. The rule is that you request a third opinion and the user agreeing to provide the third opinion has not be prompted to do so by anyone of the parties involved in the dispute. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I asked this particular editor was that I have noticed he made some proof reading (copy editing) on the article about Slovenia, and it felt natural to ask him to proof read and provide (informal) third opinion to some related articles, as well. And you must admit (as you have already above) that he proved to be very neutral, indeed. --DancingPhilosopher my talk 10:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Language used in the article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Italianization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111164234/http://razor.arnes.si/~mkralj/istra-history/e-periodtotal.html to http://razor.arnes.si/~mkralj/istra-history/e-periodtotal.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified