" 
 ::::You tried to explain what? That you're fabricating sources and misrepresenting them? That you introduced those same figures Vituzzu refers to as neo-fascist hyperbole? ""250,000 - 350,000"" was your edit. I happen to agree with the figures in Vituzzu's summary. Note the difference between ""190,000 - 250,000"", and your own 

 ::::I also don't buy all this ""edited by respectable institutions"" nonsense you're peddling. That book was just plain published, its not a peer review publication. For years now on this article, both Yugoslav and Italian sources are not used without attribution of nationality for reasons of WP:THIRDPARTY and NPOV and have not been for years; they pretty much cancel each-other out. If you really need to introduce controversial claims here, than surely you can find a non-Italian/Yugoslav author who agrees with you. 

 ::::To be clear, its fine using Yugoslav/Italian refs - to reference the Italian/Yugoslav point of view. As in ""Slovene historian XY holds there were 40,000 refugees"", or ""Italian author Corni states this or that"".. I can not, and will not, under any circumstances agree to base our lede on authors that belong to one side of this controversial international dispute. There are sources aplenty that belong to neither. Let us move on to Ballinger, probably the best source on this.     

 :::::Oh, and P.s. Silvio, I did not actually edit the article (added something, then removed it). And as for Djilas - your basic facts are accurate, but your text is again disgustingly biased and misrepresentative. Djilas was a Yugoslav dissident, an opponent of the Yugoslav government: that must be made clear, his statements (while certainly noteworthy) must be viewed as claims and be clearly attributed to him - not reported as facts.    "