This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
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)[reply]
What you mean for united Italy? Even in 1939 Italy was not fully united as a state (Corsica, San Marino, Vatican, Monaco, Italian Switzerland). But for centuries Istria (or western coast of Istria) was a part of an Italian State (Kingdoms of Italy in Middle ages, Republic of Venice, Aquileia, Kingdom of Italy (Napoleon). --Deguef (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)
That number is very low, there were far more than that who came from Italy to dilute the Slavic population, particularly if 300,000 left after World War II. It is my understanding that ethnic Venetians never to have lived inside an Italian state have never used the word 'Italian' to describe themselves even if some may have switched nationality as it were from Venetian to Italian. Either way, the number of Venetians is and always was small... the base of a Italian ideology stems from people originating from the Italian peninsula, a long way from Istria, and no closer to many of the northern regions today to actually be in Italy. Celt 08-01-06
"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 Update08:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Paolopk210:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Boraczek09:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Should I repeat to you some history facts?? Till 1918 Istria was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Croatia itself was in the time prior to 1918 under Hungarian leadership with limited Croatian authorities. The whole Istria including Reka, Cres and Lošinj was under Kranjska, which is Austrian part. After 1918, this part fall under Italian rule till 1945, although Pavelić's NDH wanted to incorporate whole Istria after the capitulation of italy in 1943 (Hitler did not allow him). After 1947 with Paris peace Treaty most of Istra except Svobodno Tržaško Ozemlje - STO (ang Free territory of Trieste)(North of Mirna river) was given to to that Tito's Jugoslavia in return for Slovenian teritory east of Soča river. This was called "remarkable sacrifice of Slovens". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.72.104.84 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
--193.2.15.1 (talk) 05:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Whole Piran bay is still under Cadastre commune Piran including savudria. The other fact is, that Croatian side duplicated cadastre for the Savudria and with such maneuver wants to pre-define the border line betwen Slovenia and Croatia. I still see Tuđman's nationalizem in what you are doing!! Said!
--212.72.104.82 (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"it become an international boundary" -instead of boundary you should use border- since boundary means edge, like boundary conditions in some physical problem.[reply]
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)[reply]
--89.143.175.146 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I ommited the citatation of precise border length, since it can not be theoretically known if the border is not defined precisely. That is clear to school children!!![reply]
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)[reply]
How are the Croatian and Serbian langauges the "same", e.g. the word for a "thousand" tisuca/hiljada, "train" voz/vlak, names for the twelve months of the year, etc? Just because more than two languages are intelligible doesn't necessarily mean that they are the "same". If i use your logic, then other intelligible languages are also the same, e.g. Norwegian and Swedish are one and the "same" and are just considered to be "dialects". As for Istria gaining any futher autonomy within Croatia, i hate to tell you this but i doubt that Zagreb will devolve any further powers and responsibilities even under a "non-Nationalist" SDP. That was the main reason why the IDS quit the first post-HDZ coalition government due to how the then Prime Minister Ivica Racan "mistreated" the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.169.75 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between norvegian and swedish is much bigger than the one between 'croatian' and 'serbian'. Having a few words different between 2 dialects of a same language is a normal thing, and not all the regions in Croatia use the croatian names for the months. On the contrary, the months in Dalmatia and Slavonia are named by their ordinal number. The grammar is 98-99% the same, and vocabular fond is ~95% the same. That's not a case with norvegian and swedish, which share only 60-70% of the same vocabulary and 80% of the grammar. Those are the facts, you like it or not. Evertything different that that is just a senseless propaganda and lies. Cheers 24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
they are not serbs, they are montenegrins from montenegro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braculj (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Update19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is English not Italian Wikipedia, and therefore usage of Italian names for every single town is Istria is completelly irrelevant in this article. Practice of alternate names that are used in Wikipedia show that such names are used FOR THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE, not for every single name in it, i.e. since this is article about Istria, then Wikipedia should use Italian name for Istria, but Italian names of Istrian towns belong in the separate articles about those towns (and they are already there), not in the article about Istria. There is simply no reason to use Italian names for Istrian towns here, because: 1. This is not article about those towns, 2. There are separate articles about those towns where Italian names for them are already mentioned, 3. This is article about region in Croatia and Italian language is not official in Croatia, 4. This is English Wikipedia and English language usually use geographical names from the official language of the country, which in this case is Croatian language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.111.206 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Since Istria is officially a bilingual county it's perfectly proper to use both Italian and Croatian names for cities. If you take a walk in any Istrian town or village, you will see that all names of the streets are in both Croatian and Italian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messk (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a walk in Istrian towns or villages you will not se all the names in italian. That is a false statement.
Italian it is an official language in the municipality of UMAG, BUJE, NOVIGRAD, GROZNJAN, BRTONIGLA, OPRTALJ, MOTOVUN, LABIN, RASA, MEDULIN, PULA, FAZANA, LIZNJAN, VODNJAN, FAZANA, ROVINJ, POREC, FUNTANA, VRSAR, VISISNJAN, VIZINADA, KASTELIR, TAR.
IN THIS TOWN YOU CAN SEE (EXPECIALY IN BUJE, GRAOZNJAN, BRTONIGLA, UMAG, ROVINJ) SPEAK ITALIAN... BUT IN THE NOT BILINGUAL AREA PEOPLE DON'T SPEAK ITALIAN IN THE STREET...
YES... MORE PEOPLE (80%) IF DON'T LIVE IN THE BILINGUAL AREA KNOW ITALIAN BUT THEY DON'T SPEAK ITALIAN.
He's right. I've traveled in Istria extensively from Trieste to Rijeka and a large amount of the towns in Slovene and Croatian Istria have bilingual names and these are readily displayed on the normal entry signs to each town just as the names of municipalities around Trieste often display Slovene names. The version of the name which corresponds to that country's major language should be used first - i.e. Trieste/Trst, Koper/Capodistria, Pula/Pola, Rijeka/Fiume, etc. Generally the name used most often in English is the version of the country where the place is located although a few big cities have separate English names (Paris, Rome, Miland, Venice, Warsaw, Prague, etc.). Drive along any highway between Trieste, Rijeka, Pula and Postojna and you'll see 2 or 3 versions (i.e. Rieka, Fiume, Reka are all the same place and Opicina and Opcine are the same) of the same name on street signs and town entry signs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.203.156.61 (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a simple request... Can someone create some kind of redirection, so that when one search for "Istra", is directed to this page? -- Martin15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Do you realise that the text is written in a very emotional way, unfit for an encyclopedia?
2) Do you have a (RELIABLE) source for the population reduction of Pula (Pola), a census or something?
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).
4) There is no need for a specific section on the Istrian exodus since there is an entire article about it. DIREKTOR20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference links for the census data do not lead to this specific topic, they just lead to the website of the statistics departments of the involved countries. Please reference the data properly, PIO/Luigi_28, it is not sourced. If you do not have the sources the data will be removed. --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing. My I to remove all your edits, if they aren't punctually sourced, exatly like my edits? Best regards from Italy.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, here's the problem: I suspect that the "Mother tongue Italian" category is your invention and I'm going to be crazy enough to ask you to exactly source where you got it from? Link it, please, the statistics websites are HUGE. If it is from some "exiles"/irredentist website you may be sure it will not stick. Best wishes from Dalmatia. --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Didn't you - a Croat - know that in your Country the census is done also for mother tongue?!?!?!? How old are you, my little friend? Are you just alive in 2001 (last census in Croatia)? Me, an Italian, are teaching to a real Croat his census!!! In-cre-di-ble!!!
So: listen to me.
For the Slovenian Census, you can read directly in the link here[1]: Population by mother tongue, municipalities, Slovenia, Census 2002
For your census: [2] --> released data --> census 2001 --> tables --> population by mother tongue by towns/municipalities --> (scroll down) County of Istria. Voilà! You have your irredentistic source!!! You are really fantastic, my friend!!! Regards from the Adriatic Sea.--Luigi 28 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable to add a Section under "Demographics" in a paragraph explaining mother tongue, but to have a whole list that has every single municipality is overkill. I will make a better paragraph for that.--Jesuislafete (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm. I've seen your edit. Please, who stated that a whole list is "overkill"? Look here, please:[3]. Maybe Istria is less important than Alto Adige / Sudtirol? I'll wait for one day for your comments, then I think that I'll reverte the voice. Thank you and best regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Istria is not Alto Adige, but my questions were: "Who stated that a whole list is "overkill"? "Maybe Istria is less important than Alto Adige / Sudtirol"? We have more "whole lists" here in Wikipedia! Any other comments?--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no censi on Wikipedia. The link you posted is not a census. Wikipedia is not a statistics website. Also, please correct the grammar on your post in the foibe massacres article, its nigh-unintelligible. --DIREKTOR(TALK)01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...I forgot: about my post inthe foibe massacres article, I simply added some sources in the paragraph. The author of this paragraph was User:Aradic-en[25]. User:Aradic-en is a Croatian/American[26]. I know that I speak a terrible English, but he says that he "speaks English at a near-native level". I kindly suggest to prepare yourself better, next time.--Luigi 28 (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fine, but its still ridiculous to add population censi for every damn county, town, and village. I understand that you spent a lot of time on this, PIO, but it is overkill. Why don't you write up a summary of the information instead and post it on the talkpage? Then we can all agree on the wording and the text will be longer-lasting. I'm still not sure what you're trying to say with the censi information. --DIREKTOR(TALK)12:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's he trying to say? We know that all his edits are along the lines of a) Istria and Dalmatia should be parts of Italy; b) you savages over there should see us as your natural lords and masters; c) it's a disgrace how badly you savages treated all those culturally superior Italians whose rightful homeland is Istria and Dalmatia. Though having said that, I'm also a bit confused as to where the census data leads us. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For both of you: I'm not PIO. For User:DIREKTOR: so, are you saying that the voice Istra in the Croatian Wikipedia is ridiculous? For User:AlasdairGreen27: take it easy. Maybe do you yhink that the census data in Croatian Wikipedia are a sign of those culturally superior Italians? Boys, I spend more than one month in Istria every year. You aren't Istrians: sure.--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PIO, Istrian Croats are tolerant, polite, welcoming people, but if you ask them if they think Istria should be in Italy you'll get a tolerant, polite, and welcoming NO. Possible (and debatable) economic advantages aside, nobody enjoys being turned into a national minority in their own homes. I'm sure you of all people can understand that, the difference being that Istria is, without a doubt, a Croatian province (if we exclude a few northern settlements). I'll assume here you are familiar with Istrian politics in saying that the IDS is a party with strong backing from Italy, but it is a Croatian party nonetheless. No amount of money can make up for the loss of support that party would experience if it ever even suggested any for m of territorial secession (not that it wants to).
Maybe none in Istria think that it should go back to Italy because tolerant, polite, welcoming istrian croats slaughtered, killed, and made life so impossible for italian that they were obliged to flee away wiping off their phisical presence...--151.100.9.229 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
btw, Alasdair, did you notice how he didn't deny not one of your points? You should simply "take it easy" instead, it would make things easier I suppose ;) Italy's playing Romania right now so I don't think we'll get a response soon... anyway, I sure would love it if Croatia got to play against Italy, though going by what happened to England and Germany, it might be a rather boring game. Still, I expect it would be kind of "emotionally satisfying". ;D --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And a wonderful win for Croatia yesterday ;-) btw, be careful. Please do not call him PIO. His name is not PIO. It is Sig. PIO-Agazio-Nemo-Jxy-Luigi 28. Though maybe PIO is OK for short, you know, between friends. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I think you forgot our friend LEO ;) I can't believe this, though, I usually don't even like football. But when a tiny poor country virtually humiliates international giants like that you have to take interest. Plus the whole city yelling outside sort of puts you in the mood, I think I could actually keep score just by leaving the window cracked... (Of course, the food prices that recently reached record heights are completely forgotten.) --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is called an article, "my old Italian friend" ("voce" is Italian). Change away, just keep in mind that you should try to work towards a consensus here. When you're blocked I will make a point of undoing any and all of your POV edits that were not added by consensus. --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God, how could I forget dear LEO? If I remember correctly, he was the one who offered to come to Split so you could have some kind of a fight, wasn't he? Just the way all Wiki disputes should be resolved. :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ehm ehm: I have two sources about this point. The first: Fulvio Tomizza, "Materada". The second: this movie: [28]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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". [30] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you want to write about forensics in Istria, feel free to create such article and move this pathetic talk about corpses there. All Europe was full of the corpses after WWII. This is about Istria. Isn't it a little bit unrealistic to force this emotional piece here and rasistic to distinguish the corpses by ethnicty? Italian occupation of Dalmatia and Istria didn't mean that Italians collected the flowers there. Zenanarh (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's entirely inappropriate to have a map of Croatia's Istria County in the lead of the paragraph about the whole of Istria. Precisely because Istria is not a political entity, there is absolutely no reason why it should be defined visually using a purely political map. And even though 90% of Istria lies in Croatia, the rest of the penninsula is not insignificant because of this. After all, Koper is one of Istria's biggest and most important towns (as well as its biggest port), and Piran is one of the Istria's more significant tourist destinations. Based on this map, however, these two places aren't even in Istria.
Because the map shows the whole of Croatia, the implication is that Istria (the whole of Istria) is just one of Croatian regions, but it's more than that. Having the article start out with this map is therefore highly misleading. (For the record, I have no problem with the map if it's placed further down in the article.)
Would anyone draw a map of the Iberian Pennisula and exclude Portugal?
The map caption clearly points out that it only depicts the Croatian 90% of Istria, don't try to make it look like my objective here is to "erase" Slovenian Istria. And you're missing the point: this map is the best we have. It is the only non-historical map that properly depicts modern Istria. I'm sorry you feel it "erases" Slovenian Istria, that's your own personal view. All I can see is a map that best describes the location of the vast majority of the Istrian peninsula. There is no Wikipedia policy that could possibly prohibit its use as the lead image. --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's not my opinion that the map ignores Slovenian Istria; it's quite literally the case. Also, the fact that 90% of Istria is in Croatia is irrelevant. For example, the Slovenian town of Koper is Istria's second most significant town (after Pula, Croatia), yet the map excludes it.
Istrian culture and regional identity are an integral part of Croatian culture, of course, but they're just as important part of Slovenian culture (from cuisine to music). In other words, the significance of Slovenian Istria cannot be measured solely by comparing territory. Therefore, its smaller size doesn't mean it's less important than the part of Istria that lies in Croatia. This is the point I was trying to make; it's the reason why the map is so misleading, even with the explanatory caption.
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)[reply]
==A SMALL PART OF ISTRIA, MUGGIA, IS STILL IN ITALY, SO ISTRIA IS DIVIDED TODAY AMONG 3 STATES: CROATIA, ITALY AND SLOVENIA == --Deguef (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As even an idiot (and I'm sure this site is full of them) could manage to realize, such sensible pages are being lobbied, on the English Wikipedia, by people like Direktor and Alisdair whathever the fuck, who represent their POV of ethnic Croatians and Slovenians, want to depict the Italians as genocidal maniac, and CONSTANTLY REVERT EDITS WHICH DO NOT FIT IN with their plan. This said (my regards), I don't see how the image of the massacred remnants of four Italian girls gang-raped and thrown in a foiba, in Istria, aren't "COMPATIBLE" with the article, but the sign of the forced Italianization is.
Again, congratulations.
Ah, also: scroll back this talk page. See how such individuals relate to whoever try to oppose them. They provoke and insult, then the non-registred contributor (of course) attacks them, and they ban them end rollback their edits.
This is a serious problem. How come no one addresses it?
Stop your ranting, if you continue making talk edits like that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for not assuming good faith and personal attacks. I removed the image because you added it to the section on SFR Yugoslavia (1945–1991) which made no mention whatsoever of the events depicted in the image. As a result the image was completely irrelevant to the section in question and had no contextual connection. Images cannot just sit on an article in a section that doesn't mention or talk in any way anything related to the image, Wikipedia isn't a random image dumping ground. I see now you've moved it to a section that does mention the events in question, so now it's in the correct place. Canterbury Tailtalk13:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why, on this Wikipedia, it's always ONE side (because there are sides, yes) who has to assume good faith about ther other; why personal attacks (and, MIND YOU! Mind you, if you can't even read! I have not said you're an idiot, I've said this place is full of them!) are condemnded only if coming from certain users and contributors, and NOT ON ALL CONDITIONS! If you actually can read, I'd ask you to scroll back the talk page, and read some of the messages by Direktor and that other fuck. THOSE are personal attacks, yet I do not see no one menacing them, no one complaining. One-sided much, right? Oh, and, I do not rant. You do.
Direktor has very much been held to task on his edits in the past, and this talk page contains edits from years ago. Not sure what that has to do with your image addition. The only issues you seem to have had on this page is over this image addition, that has now been rectified. However referring to other editors as "that other fuck" is a fast track way to getting yourself blocked. So Assume good faith and be civil. Canterbury Tailtalk14:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, I can add random links as well. I fail to see what that has to do with improving this article, or to you who hasn't been involved in such on this page or others. Please stick to the topic, this talk page is for improving the article. Canterbury Tailtalk02:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your kind of attitude is extremely wrong from a moral point of view, let alone instrumental and willingly idiotic. Just a dork (or someone playing the dork purpotedly, in your case) could say THE LINK I'VE POSTED IS "RANDOM". Jesus Christ, this is really sad. --95.251.8.69 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what it has to do with the picture under discussion on this article or how it's related to the improvement of this article in any way? Oh and don't make personal attacks against other users, you've already been warned for it. Canterbury Tailtalk22:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines Istria as being part of Croatia and Slovenia, excluding Italy [31]. Where exactly does this peninsula end towards the northeast? -- Director(talk)14:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, we all agree to a geographic definition of the peninsula using the northern red line boundary on both gulfs on the map to the side ( thus, including a tiny slice of modern Italy, but not the city of triest itself). I feel there isn't a lot of room for confusion on the east side, but could see arguments for either on the west. We should probably make that clear in the article. From what I can tell, the northmost end point of the line looks like it was the sea boarder between Venitian Istria and the Austrian free city of Triest for several hundred years - they often fought over who would keep the province, but not its extent.74.83.121.73 (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Austrians and Slavic nationalists started ethnic cleansing in Istria before Italians, editors of this article don't allow to mention it
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
I was wondering since the name of the penininsula is already included in those languages here, if it should also be added it in Istriot and Istro-Romanian, since they are languages which are native to this region, but maybe only official languages should be included, so I don't know. What do you think? 151.57.191.162 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
