- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
6 July 2013
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Parties do not agree on how the lead section of the article "Istrian exodus" should be written, nor can they agree on appropriate sources
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
The original disputers have tried a discussion on the talkpage, followed by a 3O, which I gave. In response to that 3O, the discussion degenerated into a spat between editors that seemed to be going nowhere
How do you think we can help?
Help the original disputers reach consensus on the structure of the lead, and the appropriate sources to be used in that lead
I've written a rather detailed "deposition" on Talk:Istrian exodus (my last post) please refer to that. -- Director (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To make my position out in brief: Silvio1973 is misquoting and misrepresenting sources. Upon investigation all his stuff is essentially from one source, whereas the others are just misquoted fluff. That would not be a problem except that the source he does follow has been misrepresented: the author (Ahonen) goes into some detail, explaining each individual area affected in the event. From this long narrative Silvio1973 cherry-picked the most negative segments of text he could find, placed them in the lede - and presented them as generally occurring. Besides undue weight and distortion of that sort, his text is biased by omission in excluding many elements of this complex event described by that source, that do not fit his POV. His edit also includes OR conclusions of his own, and just plain old misattributed fabrications.
- The "positive 3O" he refers to was granted on the assumption any reasonable Wikipedian would make, namely that the refs he quotes do actually support that which they're quoted under - that is demonstrably not the case. And this isn't the first time Silvio1973 has been caught engaging in fraudulent referencing. Frankly, experience renders me incapable of trusting a single reference of his unless I have a reason to. For details please refer, as I said, to my last post on Talk:Istrian exodus (and indeed previous posts therein). The mess of misrepresentation needs quite a bit of unraveling and I don't want to clutter this page by copy-pasting stuff from there. -- Director (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is somehow sad that we have arrived here. I genuinely believed there was enough room to reach consensus.
The issue is that it's difficult to discuss when the other party does not assume good faith. Indeed, my counterparty went further than this and qualified me of lier, nationalist and extremist.
From my side I can say that I do not have any special opinion about user Direktor. He has different opinions on the Istrian exodus. He tried to push his opinions and this is normal. What is not normal (and I make abstraction of the language he used in my respect) is that despite multiple requests from me and the Mediator he did not provide any source in support of his edit. Indeed he looked more interested in demonstrating first the inexistence, then the unreliability and in the end (when all other options exhausted) the misrepresentation of the sources I would allegedly made to support used my edit. The whole discussion became even more difficult when the Mediator declared to be tempted to approve my edit.
Indeed, I do not believe my opinion is extremist at all. I have posted a well sourced edit and if necessary I can source it even more (I volunterely limited myself to the best available 4 sources).
--Silvio1973 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Direktor, you are the one being absolutely neutral. However, instead of pretending that the others are lying propose something and try to contribute to get to common compromise and consensus. Your initial edit was not sourced at all. However, until now it is your version of facts (i.e. there are no responsabilities - direct or indirect - of the Yugoslav government in the Istrian Exodus) that has not been sourced yet. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice try. #1 proving a negative is impossible ("that there is no responsibility.."), and the WP:BURDEN of evidence is on you to show the positive. #2 to quote your own source, Ahonen p106: "It does not appear that an official decision for the general expulsion of Italians from Yugoslavia was ever taken". And if I recall from previous discussions, Ballinger also supports this view.. yet you cite them both in implied support of the opposite.
- So you see, providing brief quotations like that is really very easy. Not that the specific one above is necessary at all given that (per "#1") you have no sources for the opposing claim anyway. -- Director (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already described, I am already heavily involved in this dispute per Wikipedia:INVOLVED, and, in a not unconnected manner, Wikipedia:COI. Threfore, I give formal notice of my recusal from this case, save in the instance where the eventual mediator asks for details about the Wikipedia:3O that I gave. Notwithstanding the above, I will be watching this page since I have other business to do regarding Wikipedia:DRN (namely, mediation of another dispute). --The Historian (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edit proposed by Silvio1973[edit]I propose the following version (please accept my apolologies for repeating me again) for the lede of the article. It goes by itself that in order to get to consensus I am ready to discuss about all possible compromise, but to proceed in this direction we need first to get from the counterparty a version of facts adequately sourced.
However, I need to stress that the article is today inadequate (in terms of sources, balance between the sections and general completeness) and further work will be required to increase the quality to the importance of an event of such significance. In this sense it is important to get to consensus from the beginning to work with proficiency in the future.
- The formal responsibility of the Yugoslav Regime in the exodus is still today a matter of discussion amongst historians. However, the measures implemented, some summary killings, confiscations, pressure from the governmental authorities and the press forced the ethnic Italian to leave quickly and en masse.
- In some cases, such as in Rijeka (inhabited by an Italian majority), the arrival of the Yugoslavs was marked by a series of public murders and an intense policy of Croatization of the local population.
- Prominent members of Tito's inner group, such as Milovan Dilas and Edward Kardelj (than Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs) were sent to Istria to organise anti-Italian propaganda, as Milovan Dilas himself would declare in an interview given in 1991.
- Sources
- 1) People on the move: forced population movements in Europe after WWII and its aftermath - Pertti Ahonen, Berg, USA, 2008 - Page 108 lines 3-4 and 8-9-10 from the top, page 105 last two lines and page 106 last 8 lines.
- 2) History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans - Pamela Ballinger, Princetown University Press, UK, 2003 - Page 109 the entire last paragraph and page 103 lines 16-17-18-19 from the top.
- 3) Refugees in the Age of Total War - Anna C. Bramwell, University of Oxford, UK, 1988 - Page 139 lines 6-5-4-3 from the bottom and page 143 lines 8-7-6-5-4-3 from the bottom.
- 4) Literary and Social Diasporas - G. Rando and Jerry Turcotte, Belgium, 2007 - ISBN 978-90-5201-383-1 - Look at page 174 lines 14 to 21.
This edit received a positive 3O about 10 days ago. I am ready to discuss it and to find a compromise with Direktor. The issue is that Direktor spends time (that allegedly he has not) just to contest my edit but does not propose anything. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
24-hour closing notice: Sometimes we encounter a case where no volunteer is willing or interested in taking on a case. This appears to be one of those. It will have been filed for 14 days tomorrow and it will be closed by a volunteer some time after 11:59 UTC on 20 July 2013 if no volunteer chooses to take it up. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be a slow moving edit war that began on or around 10:02, 24 June 2013 and has been the exclusive edits of the two editors alone. I recommend this be closed here and that it be suggested for Wikipedia:Third opinion as one of the editors involved has recused themselves (and was not involved in the edit war). Could also be a candidate for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no edit war; there was an extremely slow "edit war", if that's what you wan't to call it (no 3RR violations imo), that's now weeks old. -- Director (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no interest in mediating this case. The history seems to demonstrate that the article participation of other editors has actively slowed down to just these two editors. It seems that the stale edit war mentioned above may have put some off from participating. RFC it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.