Talk:Istria

Croatia Unassessed

	Croatia portal 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 has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Factual Question on Interwar section

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]

Pronunciation of the name

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)

What links here?

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)

50,000 Italians???

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

Ethnicity

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)[reply]

Beyond ethnicity, let's add more about culture

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)[reply]

migration of Slavs

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)[reply]

Fasistic terror

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]

Serbian croatian language

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)[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]

Peroj

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)[reply]

Major Vandalism

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)[reply]

Thanks for repairing that. And I added a link to the site "Natural parks od Slovenian Istria". Jonson22 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian names

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.

The names in Italian are only written in a small part of Istra (see Osimo treaty) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.17.224 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

THE AREA NOT-BILINGUAL IS SMALL BUT 75% OF ISTRIAN LIVE HERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.29.123.40 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istra

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)[reply]

"Istra" is currently used by the Russian town of Istra (И́стра) . See also Istra (disambiguation). - Regards, Ev 23:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several problems

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.
DIREKTOR 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map needed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Census data

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]

Your example has nothing to do with the Istria article, Louie. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:32, 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]

That is an article only about a list. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'll write an article about my list. Right?--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:14, 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]

No censi in Wikipedia? The answer is here:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Regarding Istria: the same tabel is in the voice Istria in the Italian Wiki[23], and... in the CROATIAN Wiki (voice Istra)[24]!!! Do you know the Croatian Wiki, my young Croatian friend? In few hour I'll simply reverte the voice. Best regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 07:13, 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]

Whoever wrote it, it's gibberish. English is my first language, and I can't make sense of it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple: write to User:Aradic-en or re-write the paragraph, my young Croatian friend.--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: you are the other guy. So "it's simple: write to User:Aradic-en or re-write the paragraph, my ~~young~~ Croatian friend".--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:12, 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]

If you speak such terrible English, what are you doing here bothering us? The Italian Wikipedia is thataway>>>>
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:22, 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).

Also, PIO, since you don't speak English, I don't see what you're doing here... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:48, 13 June 2008 (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]

Only football nonsense, nothing else? I change the voice.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:58, 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]

Article, I'll keep in my mind for the years to come, here in Wikipedia.--Luigi 28 (talk) 19:29, 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]

Bring him on, karateee chop!! *randomly chops objects* ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. :-))) Entertainingly, he also did the same to MBisanz over at MetaWiki when he was calling himself Jxy [27]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some emigrants took with them not only their belongings but also their deceased."

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]

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 ([29]) was partially dismantled by Germans in 1944 and then erased by Yugoslavs.--151.48.31.119 (talk) 15:16, 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]