Talk:Pula/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

whose presence included United States military forces

I removed this line, because it is of no particular interest to mention a certain country when talking about the UN. Or else we could just as well have mentioned Sweden or any other country participating in the UN.

James Joyce

I have added a little more info on what Joyce was doing in Pula. I also took out the statement that he wrote in Pula, because without knowing what he wrote, it isn't particularly noteworthy ... one imagines that Joyce was writing all the time. Can we find out what he was working on while he was in Pula, and then we can add it back into the article. — Stumps 09:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Pula" in Romanian

It would be more civilized to use the word Pola, instead of Pula. Knowing that "pula" is a swearword in Romanian, meaning the male genitalia, I consider the use of the world, even if reffering to one city name, as very offensive. It is a common fun among the Romanian tourists to take funny photos near the city hall..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

??? The name of the city I live in is Pula, so IT IS civilized to use the name the city has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Wiktionary has an entry for pula. - Ev 23:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Pula is by definition a very nasty and obscene word and wikipedia is not a place for obscene display ! Please change the name of the article and use "Pola" instead of "P..a". How anyone can say that it is a "civilized" name ? Shame on you !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is very arrogant and near-sighted of you guys if you think we are going to change the English Wikipedia name from English to Italian because it happens to be a swear-word in some language. There are probably a lot of other articles that are insults in some of the myriad languages of the world. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
"Shame on us"! lol, forgive us if we do not care what the word "Pula" means in your language. How arrogant can you get!? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Degenerics! Zenanarh (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agee with Romanians but it is better to do not touch the page. Now Istria is part of Croatia and it's better respect Croatian names. If in the future Istria will be independent, names will return to be romance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What a joke, who gives a damn about the Romanian language!? Is this the Romanian Wikipedia? Noone cares what the word "pula" means in some little-known Balkan language. This is a city we're talking about. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Are those birth and mortality rates correct? Surely if they are, then there is positive natural increase in Pula or am I misreading the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The percentage is probably supposed to be the other way around (mortality 1.7, and birth 1.1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Quality

I think that the article requires a bit of cleaning up, as some of the info is old (eg. Transport - Ryanair, the first flight has already happened). When I find some free time, I'll probably look it up. Also, the official Pula homepage ( has some great info that isn't included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

...or maybe not.

"Human remains, dating back to 1 million years B.C...." Or maybe not. This is the kind of zany statement that keeps people from editing here. Can we get a fix on this "fact"? --Wetman (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference. JoJan (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah-ehm, human race didn't even exist 1 million years Before Christ!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

During the Early Stone Age (Paleolithic) human communities lived in caves or in tents made of animal hide in open spaces. In addition to gathering wild fruits, hunting was also a source of food, so that the manufacture of stone and bone tools that made hunting more successful started early. In the beginning they were pebbles with hardly noticeable signs of stone chipping, used by the upright man (Homo erectus); the Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) manufactured better and more appropriate hunting tools. Early modern man, called the very wise man (Homo sapiens sapiens), mastered the manufacture of stone artefacts to perfection. The exhibit displays the development of such artefacts, both in the form of casts and original pieces, ranging from a chopper found at Šandalja I near Pula and a biface from Punikve near Ivanec from the Lower Palaeolithic (2.500.000 - 200.000 B.P.), to various cores, scrapers and points from Krapina and Vindija from the Middle Palaeolithic (200 000 - 40 000 B.P.), and numerous types of stone tools found at Šandalja II from the Upper Palaeolithic (40 000 - 10 000 B.P.)[1]. Zenanarh (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: human race didn't even exist 1 million years before Christ. And when I talk about human race I mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens, not Erectus nor Neanderthalensis. I corrected the article writing "Hominid remains" istead of "Human remains", I didn't erase the whole sentence. Altought it is widely used even for Hominins, the term "Human" should be a privilege of Sapiens Sapiens, because only the latter one is completely identical to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. Even as wikipedia states in Homo erectus : "Homo erectus (along with Homo ergaster) was probably the first early human species to fit squarely into the category of a hunter-gatherer society." (bolding by me), the Oxford dictionary states : "Human : 1. .... ; belonging to humankind; of, or belonging to the species Homo sapiens" Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis dont fall into this category. Therefore, the use of the word "hominid" is more appropriate. JoJan (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Official bilingual name

Ok, this point is a little complicated, but very important, bear with me. "Official bilingual name". From the grammar and context of the source you've provided, it is evident that the word "bilingual" (dvojezično) is not here to describe the "official name", i.e. it is not here simply to state that the "official name" of the city is "bilingual". The "official bilingual name" is different from the actual "official name" (native name), which is still "Pula". The official bilingual name is here as a legal technicality which allows the Italian minority to use the Italian name of the city in an official capacity. This point is evident, for example, from the fact that you won't find one single (English language) map on this planet which refers to the city as "Pola", or "Pula-Pola". Furthermore, the "native name" cat is for the name in the native language. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to start this all over again, are we? We have an agreed-upon method in the Poreč article, and now you're pushing for more! Now you're renaming the infobox name, and soon, you'll be proposing a move to "Pula-Pola". Just read the above, and believe me, its not a fabrication. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Croatian law I read the bilingual name: Pula-Pola. You wrote: "The official bilingual name is here as a legal technicality which allows the Italian minority to use the Italian name of the city in an official capacity". Where is your source about this "technicality"?-- (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

PIO/Luigi, we're done "discussing". As far as I'm concerned, you are a completely hopeless fanatic. Unlike myself, for example, when you are faced with undeniable facts you do not admit you are wrong and adjust your beliefs, you adjust the facts to your beliefs. You are indefinitely banned from editing the English Wikipedia. Why do you continue to edit? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First: I'm not PIO. Second: where is your source about this "technicality"? Just for funny...-- (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

First, you're PIO as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Second: you gave it to me. Read your own source. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the source doesn't speak about Italian minority. For me, this "technicality" is a fake.-- (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
And now I'll explane why this technicality is a fake. Here [2] you can read the official UN Toponymics guidelinesfor map editors: a report submitted by Croatian Government. Go to page 14 and read: "In municipalities with an Italian minority all the place names are bilingual: Rovigno-Rovinj, Umago-Umag, Citta Nova - Novigrad etc.". So, the Croatian Government says that the place names are bilingual. Now, do you want still continue this meaningless POV war?-- (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
But they're not bilinguial in Croatian-language or English-language maps. That's the big difference. That naming convention does not apply for the rest of the world - only for municipality with Italian minority. Wikipedia has its own naming guidelines, namely Wikipedia:NCGN#Multiple_local_names, and I suggest you study it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the regular Croatian POV. I'm not speaking about the title of the article: I'm speaking about the official name wich is in the box of this article.
Some examples:
  1. Aosta (Italy): [3]
  2. Ajaccio (France): [4]
  3. Zell (Austria): [5]
  4. Edinburgh (Great Britain): [6]
  5. Ottawa (Canada): [7]
  6. Helsinki (Finland): [8]
and also.....
  1. Bale (Croatia): [9]!!!
Who is the guy who added the infobox with the official bilingual name of Bale/Valle? User:AlasdairGreen27[10]!!!!
Now, I know that you Croat-POVs have some difficulties with the minorities, but please tell me: if your Sabor stated that the official name of Pula is Pula/Pola, what kind of problem do you have here in Wikipedia to write this name in the box?-- (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If the official name of the municipality and/or city is Pula-Pola, there can be no reasonable arguments against pointing out that fact in a sentence in the article. Unfortunately, I can find absolutely no mention at all in the City's statute that the official name is anything other than Pula. It's here [11]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So, the Croatian law for you is meaningless? Very interesting. Every day the same thing: Anti Italianism forever!-- (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Cut the bullshit and address the point. If the official name were Pula-Pola the statute of the city would have to say so. It is the city statute that defines in law the body as a legal entity (article 3: Grad Pula je pravna osoba - The City of Pula is a legal entity), its duties and competences. There is absolutely no mention at all anywhere in the statute of Pula-Pola. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, it seems Anti Italianism is produced by Italians themselves, as a result of their expansionistic zealotry. We have spared this bilingualty agenda. It was raped these days quite enough, it's exhausted. Dear IP 151.30.... take some rest, ride a bike, swim, make love, take care of yourself. All the best... Zenanarh (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. We may contrast Pula with, for example, Bale-Valle, whose statute clearly says "Naziv Općine je: - OPĆINA BALE - COMUNE DI VALLE", which is why I edited Bale, Croatia to reflect that fact. You see, Mr/Ms we have to be accurate and fair at all times. I agree with Zen though. I think you are a little overheated and should go and relax somewhere. Chill out a bit. Why not go for a beer or something? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Boys, you are speaking about a thing wich you know at very, very low level! Do you really think that the Croatian law about the offical topographical names is a bullshit? A joke? What a bleak vision: to feed your nationalism you are forced to deny the validity of your own laws! Al even think that a municipal statute has a higher value of a law of the state! You seem like Nureyev: unleashed dancers while denying that anyone running a little for Istria knows immediately: the official bilingualism.-- (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The official name of Pula is bilingual: Pula/Pola

We have a guy - User:DIREKTOR - who don't like the Italian names, but the official name of Pula is bilingual, so in the box we should read: Pula/Pola. Here the sources:

  1. The Croatian law: [12] (see Članak 21. XVIII. ISTARSKA ŽUPANIJA)
  2. Toponymic Guidelines for map editors and other editors, report for the UN submitted by Croatia. Page 14: "In municipalities with an Italian minority all the place names are bilingual": [13]-- (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia a municipality with Italian minority whose naming guidelines abide by Croatian law? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia? It's interesting that you respond to something serious with a joke, Ivan. I understand your difficulties, but I know that the official name is Pula/Pola (read the sources, please). Some Croatian guys dislike this fact required by Croatian law and manage to delete the bilingual name from the box of this article. This is the point.-- (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not a joke, it's a just literal reinterpretation of what that act says. Official name at the state-level is Pula, as is in Croatian language (standard name) and English (by "usage norm", as there is no body that regulates English). Not Pola or Pula/Pola. Law regulates bilingualism protection for minorities, it does not enforce bilinguialism onto Croatian majority. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If you think so, please explain to me in few words the meanings of this: [14].-- (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That's the law which states what city/village belongs to which municipalty, and municipalites to županije, not what the "official" names of cities or villages are. Completely irrelevant and inapplicable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the bilingual Istrian names in this law were a joke? A mistake? Very interesting... but fake! In the Article 1 we can read that this law stated "Ovim se Zakonom utvrđuje područno ustrojstvo Republike Hrvatske te se određuju područja svih županija, gradova i općina u Republici Hrvatskoj, njihovi nazivi i sjedišta". Please, translate from Croatian these words, my friend. Then, try to explain another document:[15].-- (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC) translation is: "This law establishes regional constitution of the Republic of Croatia and to determine areas of all counties, cities and municipalities in the Republic of Croatia, their names and headquarters".-- (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You're correct, I was being too sloppy reading this. That PDF indeed uses Pula/Pola etc. in one place, but the listing of municipalities in Istarska županija on page 28 uses exclusively Croatian names. If these are the official names of cities, as my current understanding is, it should be noted in the city infobox. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very, very, very much. And these are the official names of cities! If you or someone else has some doubts about this point, please contact Istrian Assembly here:
Administrative Department for the Italian National Minority and Other Ethnic Groups
Tel: 052/830-872
Fax: 052/840-318
Address: Obala A.Rismondo 2, Rovinj/Rovigno
-- (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Burn, official bilingual names, burn!

Another very significant thing. User:DIREKTOR has changed again this article. All the Italian names (officially bilingual for the Croatian legislation) have been eliminated, saying that "There will be a discussion on the names, please be patient"[16]. It's always the usual method extremely nationalistic-POV: FIRST delete all the bilingual names, THEN this will be tackled. DIREKTOR is every time the same fiercely anti Italian. Could he say: FIRST speak and possibly erase THEN? No: FIRST erase! And I notice that even in the Croatian Wiki (which also does not include the officially bilingual name Pula/Pola) all these names erased from DIREKTOR exist[17]! How will end up? All the Italian names (officially bilingual, according to Croatian law) disappear in article. Burn all the memories, we don't care also of Croatian legislation: the only thing that concerns is to make clear of these evil troublesome memories. Wonderful done!-- (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, if the official name of the municipality and/or city is Pula-Pola, there can be no reasonable arguments against pointing out that fact in a sentence in the article. Unfortunately, I can find absolutely no mention at all in the City's statute that the official name is anything other than Pula. It's here [18]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Now I must admit my mistake in the talk:Poreč [19]. Alas you're right. Chapter XII in statute of Pula: "Usage of Italian language..." [20]. BTW it's answer on User:'s question Where is your source about this "technicality"?. It's here in Statute of Pula and probably in the same way in all other city's statutes in western Istria. Bilingual names are really just a legal technicality which allows the Italian minority to use the Italian name of the city in an official capacity, but nothing more and nothing alse. Official name is still just Pula, never Pola! The same goes for other places. In discussion that we had in Talk:Poreč first I've noticed that it was not officialized by Croatian constitution, nor Croatian law. It was sent to local authorities. What I've missed was that it was sent to be conducted according to European law about the rights of minorities. So it IS technicality to help Italian minority to contribute in the social life and certainly not official renaming! Now I feel stupid because I didn't realize one simple fact: Italians in Istria are NATIONAL MINORITY, the key words for our discussion, so they gained the rights of a natioanl minority in Croatia. This discussion is over concerning my opinion. If you ask me we can stop this nonsense and take some action about all these articles and WP:NCGN. Zenanarh (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PIO, the general procedure is to discuss the controversial edit FIRST, and THEN include it after a consensus. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For DIREKTOR: you FIRST made the controversial edit, and THEN... what are you thinking to do? Of course, cancel all the bilingual name. Now, show me the consensus for your last edit! Anyway, when you have finished the arguments, the last thing that remains is call me PIO. You are only a capricious child, my friend. For Zenanharh. All the things you stated are only your personal opionion. First: we have seen that also Croatia - like many other countries - has a law about the official topographical names. In this law, we can find many Istrian cities and villages with the Croatian/Italian name. I notice that you and the other guys know the Istrian statute and the laws about the Italian minority in Croatia at very low level. Yesterday you don't knew the Croatian law of 2006, but now you have a pretty new theory about this law! We have also the Statute of Istria wich stated the same things: bilingual names for many cities and villages. Alasdair don't knew the being of the Istrian Statute, until two days ago, but now also this guy has a very interesting theory! Now, I think that you can call the Istrian Parliament:
Administrative Department for the Italian National Minority and Other Ethnic Groups
Tel: 052/830-872
Fax: 052/840-318
Address: Obala A.Rismondo 2, Rovinj/Rovigno
Dear Croatian/Slovenian friends, you are like the guy who stated: "One of the arguments that I've read these days within this intense discussion about introduction of bilingualism in Istria, was that 50 percent of population of Istria is bilingual, and speaks both Croatian and Italian. What sort of argument is that? It is not an argument at all!".
(Zlatko Tomcic, chair of the Croatian Parliament from the Croat Peasant Party -HSS), in Slobodna Dalmacija, April 2001. Have good holidays, national-sophistic ring!-- (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not an argument because 50% of Istria's population is not bilingual. If someone speaks Italian as a second language, that does not make him bilingual. Two questions: 1) What makes you think 50% of Istria's population is bilingual. 2) Why are you editing the English Wikipedia? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, read my lips: Zlatko Tomcic stated that "One of the arguments and so on...", and "The Feral Tribune" gave him the "Golden Bukalin for the linguistics" in 2001: [21]. Boys, are you sure to be Croats? You seem to me a caricature of Croats... You are perfect for the Uncyclopedia[22]-- (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly where you'll be going after you get banned again. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! "Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?"-- (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of this, lets keep it simple. I'm going to ignore your talkpage posts and continue my work around here. You will get reported and promptly banned if you edit the article again. You should be banned anyway, and since you were so nice to admit you were PIO/Luigi, it shouldn't take long. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Boy, your laws speak against your POV! The only words you can say is "you should be banned, you should be banned!". Your intention is not to mention the voice of truth that is derived from the documents. You want only deform the things you do not know and believe to know. Do you want the sources? You have the sources! All Croatian sources! The law wich stated the offical topographical names of your country! You canceled the official bilingual names (I repeat: Official bilingual names) only for your incredible and shameful anti italianism. Where is the honesty of the Wiki-editor? Where is the correct interpretation of the sources, if you and other friends refused also to take note of things written in your language? Call the Istrian Assembly!-- (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The official names are not determined by the Sabor, but by local statutes of each municipality. It is for each of them individually to decide. Some (such as Bale-Valle) are bilingually named. Most (such as Pula) are not. Now, if I were you IP I would calm down and retire gracefully from this discussion, which is clearly going badly for you. You are generating a lot of heat but no light. I'm worried that being in such a bad mood and yelling at everyone all the time may be bad for your health. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You make a mistake. The official names are determined by the Sabor. The statutes of each municipality determined the level of implementation of bilingualism, according to the general Croatian law and the Istrian Statute. Everything is connected with the general framework determined by the Croatian Constitution and the Treaty between Italy and Croatia on the rights of minorities signed in Zagreb on November 5, 1996. Here [23] you can read this Treaty (in Italian), and here [24] another Croatian source (in English). Regarding my words, I kindly notice that I'm the only one here who give the sources in this matter, the only one who read they carefully and the only one who has spoken with representatives of the Italian minority in Istria about their rights. Maybe you know that another one editor has still canceled all the official Italian names in the article, without any kind of consensus. Do you said something? I don't remember. I remember only many desperate attempts based on nothing to deny a obvious reality: the official name of Pula is bilingual: Pula/Pola (like Istra/Istria, Novigrad/Cittanova, Umag/Umago, Vodnjan/Dignano and so on).-- (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing you have written above is true, I'm afraid. And Tatalović's text doesn't even mention place names, not once, so I take your throwing that on the table as something of a red herring. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Another time: have you read the Croatian law? What stated this law? Anyway, if I call the Istrian Assembly, for you is a reliable source?-- (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PIO, do you like the current version? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not PIO (you know it), but I like very much the infobox. Maybe can be the standard for the bilingual topographical names in Istria. What do you think about it?-- (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this ought to be the standard, yes. However, I do not like the idea of replacing every single reference to bilingual towns with the Croatian name/Italian name form. That would be POV-pushing, as I'm sure you'll agree. Further, the text describing the bilingual nature of the city/town has no place in the lead, but should be placed in the "Demographics" section. Remember: Italians are still very, very far from an actual majority in any of these towns. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)