Talk:History of South Tyrol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section 1[edit]

Do we need this entry? Exactly the same text is in the page on South Tyrol, where it belongs.

I would say this page should be deleted. It just recycles the same stuff from the provincial page... Taalo 05:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

This article is a content fork of South Tyrol#History. Either merge this article, or reduce the History section of South Tyrol to a few sentences.  Andreas  (T) 13:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the merge was a no-brainer, but evidently others disagreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Frederick (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

This article should be re-written, or just plain condensed, to a more neutral discussion of the history. At this point it is heavily biased towards the POV that there has been a great wrong done to German speakers by "fascists". Really way too political. Icsunonove 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a POV, it's historical fact. But I admit the quality of the writing could be improved. Pcassitti 16:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pcassetti, you misunderstand my point. There was a wrong done to German speakers by Fascists, but it is not 90% of the history of Alto Adige/South Tyrol. This page reads like political propaganda for the Union for Sudtirol. Weren't the Ladin speakers originally wronged by the German speakers? Etc., etc. It is all quite boring in the end. The province is what it is, and should be cherished, not turned into some crude ethnic battle. Also, language does not define ethnicity.. Icsunonove 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a major flaw of this article: confusing ethnic with language groups. It makes it look as if in South Tyrol there was a sort of ethnic apartheid. So the article is biased in both directions. And you cannot compare the cultural displacement of ladin, which was a slow historical process, with the fascist rule which tried to violently and sistematically eradicate a native culture, causing a lot of pain and grief. And the memory of fascist rule is in fact still very present in the minds of both german and italian speaking south tyroleans, and it conditions society and politics to this day. So I think it is only natural that it plays a prominent role in the history of south tyrol article. Pcassitti 11:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, prominent, but not dominant. Also there are plenty of original Ladin-speakers in T-AA/ST that happen to speak German as a first language, so yes, there is a lot of confusion between ethnic and language groups. Also, I don't think any of us are really experts on how the cultural displacement of the original Ladin-speakers in T-AA/ST happened and how they felt a few-hundred years ago about it. The quick and violent means of the Fascists came and went. The displacement of the Ladins was much more grinding and permanent. Which is worse? I don't know. Anyway, I'll say again the article as it reads now is just biased political propaganda. my regards, Icsunonove 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article IS political propaganda, but it goes both directions. You just need to look at the last edit by 84.221.252.2: the addition "making the later accusation of 'treachery' and 'changing side' deprived of fundaments", is clearly not a NPOV statement. As for the displacement of Ladins, it was a peaceful cultural process, just like the decline of the raetoromanic languages in Switzerland, which is still progressing and can by no means be called violent. The language of the main language group and of the administration simply tend to displace languages spoken by smaller and rural groups of persons. Equating fascist rule with the displacement of ladin is a bit of a stretch, you could call it propaganda, even. Pcassitti 06:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and the last sentence you say is something I would not like to be a part of. Like I said, I was obviously not there, so I do not know the feelings of the Ladins during that time or the methods in which Germanization was processed. I simply don't know if it was a completely peaceful process; somehow from instinct and what we've seen throughout history, I kind of doubt it was such a natural process. But whatever. :) I just know that Ladin was/is the original language throughout this area south of the Alps, and it deserves some respect in that. That German and Tuscan are in T-AA/ST now, I have no problem with (I completely enjoy all three languages!). German was brought in by some of my own ancestors afterall. Anyway, it is also up to the speakers of these languages in Trentino to try and preserve these tongues; and part of the problem is ignorance of the history of the languages they speak. Anyway, in general it seems a lot of these Wikipedia articles on "history" would be better just moderated by neutral academic professionals. The WP project definitely has particular issue with this sort of article. :( Thanks for the discussion Pcassitti, and where are you from anyway?? :-) Icsunonove 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we both agree that the article is badly biased, whichever way :) I also think that History of South Tyrol before WWI is a content fork. How about moving the earlier history to history of Tyrol, and adding something like "This article is about the history of South Tyrol after its annexation to Italy. For the period before 1918, see Tyrol." And to the Tyrol article something like: "This article is about the history of Tyrol before its division into various political entities as a consequence of WWI. For after 1918, see Tyrol (Austria), South Tyrol, Trentino, etc."
You're right about my user page, it is quite blank at the moment, I'll see to add some info. Pcassitti 13:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the POV-tag should be removed unless specific POV-passages are pointed out. We have had this tag up for a while now without any suggestions for improvement coming in. I personally find the article relatively balanced, even though of course it could be better. Pcassitti 13:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far no suggestions for improvement have been made, and since the article is about the post-WWI history of South Tyrol I do not find that the stress on post-WWI history and the fascist era is biased. I'd like to get rid of the neutrality tag, unless some arguments for keeping it are given, or at least some suggestions for improvement of the article. Pcassitti 13:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One month has gone by and no arguments for the POV-tag hav been given, I will removeve it. Pcassitti 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

I added to the antiquity section, and into the napoleonic section I copied the text from historical Tyrol, since it is much more complete and better written.Pcassitti 07:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page move[edit]

Shouldn't we move this page to either a) History of Alto Adige/Südtirol or b) History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol? This would have the page fit together with History of Trentino to match Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Any preferences out there for either? Icsunonove 05:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for Alto Adige/South Tyrol, since this is the english wikipedia. But first there should be a few changes made to avoid a content fork with Tyrol. Move the history before WWI to Tyrol and modify the line This article is about the historical region. For the present-day political unit, see Province of Bolzano-Bozen. For other uses of Tyrol, see Tyrol (disambiguation). to something like This article is about the history of South Tyrol after its annexation to Italy as a consequence of WWI. For before WWI see Tyrol. For other uses of Tyrol see Tyrol (disambiguation). Pcassitti 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For now I think it is reasonable to move to History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol, if there is a case for discussions about using [[History of Alto Adige/Südtirol], whatever, we can have them need be. Icsunonove 20:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reason for the annection[edit]

I don't see a line about this fundamental subject. Why Italy annexed all the Tyrol to the Brenner Pass?--84.221.252.17 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Because nationalists in Italy had an "idée fixe" (obsession), that the northern boundary must be the main water division line resp. main mountain range of the Alps (also towards Switzerland), as a "natural border", even against the wishes of the inhabitants.
(Nevertheless in eastern direction this own "principle" was ignored with the call for annexation of wide territories in the east of Adriatic Sea...)
For more information see for example the article about Ettore Tolomei. --maurus84.160.226.59 16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were actually many reasons: geographical (the same reason why Aland island were given to Finland even if 95% of population speaks Swedish), strategic (in case of war, the Alps top would be a better starting point), historical (in the ancient time, the region was linked to Italy; again, during the Napoleon age, the region was split and Bolzano given to Italy), ethical (the region has undergone a long process of, sometimes forced, germanization; originally, a neolatin language, called ladin, was spoken, considered by Austria-Hungary itself as an Italian dialect), 'revenge' (Italy could gain its indipendence in the XIX century fighting Austria, which controlled a big chunk of the country). By the way, the region is not monocultural; a neolatin presence has always been there. Massimo, 14 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.0.27 (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks convincing, but if there are no sources, this is Wikipedia:Original research, and as such will not help in improving the article. Maybe the book Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan has part of the answer. Andreas  (T) 13:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indipendence controversy[edit]

The sentence "However Austria does see itself somewhat of a "protector" for the German-speaking population of this region", apart from being bad english, is not correct, and it should be explained what "somewhat of a protector" means. I do not understand why my edit was reverted unless for POV reasons. Furhermore, South Tyroleans ARE freely admitted to austrian universities, so the past tense in the sentence is wrong. But they are not treated as if having austrian citizenship, that statement is false. And there are many, not some South Tyrolean students in Austria. In Innsbruck alone there are 5000. Because of these reasons I will restore my edits. Pcassitti 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Correction: it's around 3500 students in Innsbruck, 5000 in the whole of Austria. Pcassitti 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph was written by our friend Gryffindor, so the best thing to do in my opinion could be simply to remove it. What does it mean that students from the province of Bolzano are freely admitted to Austrian universities? They are freely admitted also to French, Spanish and Russian universities, aren't they? The statistic about people studying in Austria could be good, but it should be followed by people studying in other places like Trento (and the word many should be replaced by a percentage).--Supparluca 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the whole paragraph is a bit dodgy. "Freely admitted" is also a bad way of describing certain privileges granted to South Tyrolean students. Maybe I will find the time to formulate them and add them to the article. As for the percentages, it would indeed by interesting to know them in detail. Pcassitti 15:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

The changes made from IP 138.232.1.229 are mine. I moved the history before WWI to Tyrol to remedy a content fork. Pcassitti 13:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of World War I[edit]

84.220.69.24, I do not see how your deletions and additions regarding the battle of vittorio veneto add to the quality of this article. This sentence: with the Austrian command having ordered its troops to cease hostilities one day too early. The Italian troops, which in the meantime had advanced into Veneto, Friuli and Cadore, overran the now undefended Austrian positions, penetrated deep into Tyrol and occupied its capital Innsbruck. In the process some 356,000 soldiers of the Austrian army where taken prisoner. , which you deleted, is perfectly accurate. If you would care to explain why in your opinion it isn't, I might restrain from putting it back.
If this develops into an edit war, we can always leave away the section about WWI alltogether. But whatever we decide, the map of the battle of Vittorio Veneto is definitely misplaced in this article, it might in fact give the impression one is trying to stress the Italian victory over Austria, which would a) be POV, and b) have nothing to do with the article which is about the history of South Tyrol AFTER WWI. Pcassitti 06:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you (you two) able to provide a reliable external source for your version?--Supparluca 08:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The version above is found in any history book. As a web-reference you could look up the "Encyclopaedia of Austria" published on the web by the University of Graz: http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.encyclop.w/w438953.htm . But any web-page with a detailed chronology of WWI would do. As a web-reference for the now deleted passage saying that the austrian empire was already disintegrating when the Battle of Vittorio Veneto took place there is the article of MSN Encarta: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569981_12/World_War_I.html, page 12. Deleting the above facts does not improve the quality and neutrality of this article. But if no consensus can be reached, we can always remove any reference to the final days of WWI, which are mentioned in the Tyrol article anyway. Pcassitti 10:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced a source, that I've found very fast. I don't care to enforce Italian nationalism and supposed glories, by I'm quite tired of those childy legends about a supposed "treachery", and the cowdard Italians fighting an undefended army, defeated by sombody else... --84.220.69.24 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did it say anything about treachery and fighting an undefended army? That the empire (not the army) was disintegrating is a fact which can be referenced. Also that the austrians made the mistake of ordering their troops to stand down one day to early. This fact allowed the italian army to advance deep into austrian territory and occupy Innsbruck, which can be assumed to have influenced later negotiations and is therefore relevant. Instead of just deleting the old version and replacing it with yours, you could have entered a discussion about it and integrated it or specified some details. You could for example explain what is specifically incorrect or POV in the following text, in which I have integrated some of your contributions, and which I am going to put back in the next days unless good reasons are given:
In the final days of World War I, the troops of the already disintegrating Austrian-Hungarian Empire were defeated on 29 October 1918 in the Battle of Vittorio Veneto in Italy. The Italian victory determined the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Army, which led to the end of the First World War on the Italian Front. The subsequent armistice of Villa Giusti was signed on November 3 but was set into force only a day later on November 4, with the Austrian command having ordered its troops to cease hostilities one day too early. The Italian troops, which had already advanced into Veneto, Friuli and Cadore, overran the now undefended Austrian positions, penetrated deep into Tyrol and occupied its capital Innsbruck. In the process some 356,000 soldiers of the Austrian army where taken prisoner. Pcassitti 08:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since no objections have been made, I added the above version to the article. Pcassitti 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

I propose that Night of Fire be merged into the "Terrorism" section of this article, for the following reasons:

  • Notability - The "Night of Fire" is only notable in the context of the long-running insurgency detailed here. It is not notable as a standalone event and currently has no context to explain why it is important and what its results were;
  • Context - the Night of Fire article has no context other than in relation to the history of the region. Anyone reading "Night of Fire" will need to also read this page to understand why the evernt happened and why it is important. Merging the articles would assist readers by locating the relevant material on a single page rather than across two (especially noting that the two are not currently wikilinked)
  • Length - the bulk of "Night of Fire" is a duplication of background material on this page followed by a very short section outlining the actual explosions. Merging the pages would result in comparatively small additional information here and would not overwhelm either the section or this article;
  • References - the Night of Fire article is unreferenced and is not the subject of any significant coverage outside mentions in articles and books on the wider history. Any references relevant to the Night of Fire are also more directly relevant to this page.

As always, any opposing views are welcome. If there is support for the merge I will add the relevant information to this page and redirect "Night of Fire" here. Euryalus (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The night of fire is the event which began the insurgency, and I think that as such it does have a certain importance. I agree with your remarks on context, as well as length, although the solution for these problems does not necessarily have to be a merge. I think the preferable solution would be to expand the article, adding more details and some background information, like in italian and german, as well as other languages wikipedia, where the article about the 'night of fire' is a stand-alone entry of acceptable length and depth. Pcassitti (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 78.13.164.180[edit]

I feel that substantial changes like the ones made by user:78.13.164.180 should be discussed, or at least explained in the talk page. I'm going to explain my objection to some of the edits. First of all, the "weasel words" deleted in the revision as of 22:54, 2 June 2008 where referenced, using articles by two encyclopediae. Other properly referenced passages have been deleted in subsequent edits without proper motivation. The added "background" section appears too long compared to the rest of the article, and contains little pertinent information. Some of the changes made are valid, but there are too many edits to undo them singularly, so I would tend towards reverting the article to to the last revision as edited by Neelix at 22:54, 2 June 2008, and invite user:78.13.164.180 to discuss his changes here. Pcassitti (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the edits have been going on indiscriminately, and some of them seem arbitrary and POV, like substituting "South Tyroleans" with "german speakers", I reverted to the last revision as edited by Neelix at 22:54, 2 June 2008, and hope that the anonymous editor will take notice and discuss the changes, some of which certainly could improve the article. Pcassitti (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss what you don't like without to revert. Your referenced claims are a just a famous falsification: Imperial army cease to combat after V.V. and not before. Just read Austrian books, such us Fritz Weber memories. "German speakers" is a total neutral descriptor, it avoid surrealistic adjective to describe properly the nature of the people of AA/ST. Do not edit war. Do not be destructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.115.234 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen your complians, now I've stop all edits. Your referenced claims were just a poor falsification. Imperial army ceased to combat after VV battle, and not before. If you do not agree, post your concern in the Vittorio Veneto battle article. Here it's not the place for such kind of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.115.234 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you finally noticed the talk page. The issues you are addressing have already been discussed, you could have at least taken the time to take notice of them before starting to rewrite the article. I will not start an edit war, but I also won't see POV and plainly wrong changes be made to a history article. And I am not talking about the Battle of Vittorio Veneto here. It's about all sorts of things, here are but a few:

It was agreed in previous discussions that the History of South Tyrol begins and is hence limited to the period after WWI, and that the earlier periods be treated in the Tyrol article, since anything else would be a content fork. Furthermore in the antiquity section you added, for some misterious reason you have changed the passage which correctly stated that the area south and west of the Bolzano basin where part of Italy's Legio X, while the areas north and east belonged to the provinces of Raetia and Noricum respectively. You have removed passages with interesting encyclopedic knowledge without reason (like the mention of the name Welschtirol, which linked to an interesting article about the ancient germanic word "valch", which now is included again since I restored it). In the Background section you have added so much information on italian irredentism that that section now makes up half of the article. Your figures on the percentages of the 1910 census are wrong, and you changed titles without logic, like the one about "reasons of the annexation" which talks mainly about ethnicity. Many of your statements are open to debate and not referenced. You have substituted South Tyroleans with german speakers, implying that all italian speakers would have been in favor of certain policies, and I could go on and on. I would like to suggest the following: lets revert the article to the last version before you started editing, and you then can apply your changes one step at a time, with proper discussion, so that we can find a consensus. Pcassitti (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done nothing of misterious. Beacause you seem to be found on the subject, do your own correction. History of AA/TT begin from prehistory, in Italian, French, German and other wikipedias... I've added something about Fascist italianization. Do your own correction now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.115.234 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then. I'll begin with removing the passages prior to WWI, as they have been copied over from the Tyrol article and constitute a content fork, please see WP:content forking. The splitting of the historical information into separate articles has been agreed upon in a lengthy debate which included a fair number of users, I ask you to respect that. If you think this decision was not a good one, feel free to open a debate and if a consensus is reached we can rearrange the articles. Pcassitti (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

I' ve added the POV since the article is fairly unbalanced and controversial. A complete rewriting or at least subastantial additions would probably make it better. Here are some of my issues:

  • The "Italy under Austrian Rule" section does not belong in this article, there are already several articles treating the subject, hence, besides missing the subject of this article, it also constitutes a WP:CFORK. It would be enough to mention the irredentist and nationalist movement in Italy as a driving force behind Italy's role in WWI and the annexation, and from there link to the relevant articles. It is clear that by including such a large section on "Italy under austrian rule" the impression is to be given that South Tyrol was also a part of Italy under austrian rule, when in fact it ethnically it was a part of austria under austrian rule.
Honestly, I'had not this impression. Anyway I've shortened this, too large, section.
  • Any mention has been removed of the misunderstanding about the date of the armistice at the end of WWI, which was crucial in enabling italian troops to occupy South Tyrol, thus strengthening its position in subsequent negotiations. I assume this was in an attempt to make Italy's victory seem even more glorious.
The mention was moved in the proper article (Battle of Vittorio Veneto), where is properly presented as a forgery. If you still enforce as a "crucial" this blatant forgery, it's not surprising if you claim as a try "to make more glorious" any attempt to properly describe the VV battle. Anyway I've removed the disputed claims: they actually belong to VV battle article. Forget any attempts to present your unrelevant "misunderstanding" as "crucial". Several sources already state that your claim was a forgery, I don't like to repeat my self.
  • Sentences like "Attempts of Austria to regain Alto Adige/South Tyrol, claiming to be the "first victim of Hitler" (by the way an Austrian), came to nothing." are partisan and should not be part of an encyclopedic article, especially since, in this particular case, it was the allied powers who used this term, it wasn't an austrian claim.
I've rewritten the sentences.
  • The Section "reasons for the annexation" also includes unreferenced statements which I find highly dubious, such as the claim that in the census of 1910 ladins where counted as italians, followed in the same paragraph by the claim that the amount of german speakers was artificially inflated. Not to mention the claim, made in note 7, that the Ladin language, which has an own official grammar and orthography, is an "unstandardised" language, comparable to german and italian dialects. Pcassitti (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced some sources. I will look for further sources ASA. BTW, I've a good direct knowledge of the lands, so I know what I say. Regards.78.13.167.236 (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons of the annexation[edit]

This section, expecially the last paragraph, look like Wikipedia:Original research. There is a source given (in Italian). However, the connection with the Sudetendeutsche issue and the German colonies are a matter of opinion, and should be state as such. I would recommend, rather than citing a rather obscure Italian-language book, to refer to the excellent book: Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World [ROUGHCUT] (Hardcover) by Margaret MacMillan.  Andreas  (T) 15:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the lines. Tell me if, in your opinion, now is ok.--78.13.167.236 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it would be nice if you didn't delete passages which are written in acceptable english and replace them with badly written ones. The whole article is starting to read like a justification for Italy's claims on South Tyrol. I will not interfere since, as has been stated elsewhere, the best way to make this article work is some history, and I might just find time to add relevant passages. And I am not going to tolerate any distorting editing on those without an in-depth discussion on this page. Adding other points of view, with citations, preferably not from some nationalist books from the late 50ies, is perfectly fine. Pcassitti (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history of south tyrol...[edit]

starts in the 19th century? or more simply less recent history it's not controversial enough to be interesting?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the history of the area started with its first human inhabitants, see Ötzi the Iceman. However, South Tyrol as a defined political entity has existed only since the partition of Tyrol in 1919. The previous history is presented in the Tyrol article. I have discussed this before at Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen/Archive 3.  Andreas  (T) 15:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I get it. After all, the same goes for, say, the United Kingdom, but the history section surely doesn't start from 1707!--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gryffindor[edit]

Nice to see Gryffindor is back and trying to erase Bolzano and Alto Adige again. :) He moved it to History of South Tyrol saying I moved unilaterally. LOL. It was someone else who put it to History of Alto Adige-South Tyrol, and these dual names were part of the agreement. Of course, if you are Gryffindor/Noclador/PhJ/etc. you want to erase anything non-German. Surreal. Karma guys, it is gonna get ya :) Icsunonove (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare us your usual accusations that we want to erase all non-German. There are good reasons for the lemma History of South Tyrol, because this article doesn't deal only with post-1918 history. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all articles about the Province and the Region should have double names, following the "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol" scheme. --Checco (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not this time, Checco. The name is South Tyrol, not Südtirol. If that was the case it would have been different.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the case in fact. The article begins with "modern-day South Tyrol...": modern-day South Tyrol is what we call "Alto Adige/Südtirol". We should always stick to that double name. --Checco (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:UE we should prefer an existing English name. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tirol-Suedtirol-Trentino.png[edit]

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Tirol-Suedtirol-Trentino.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Tirol-Suedtirol-Trentino.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Developments[edit]

What about the proposed referendum by the Italian President? What about the active secessionist parties? What about the Northern Liga, and the fact that the "Freistaat Movement" calls for a similar secession like was done in Kosovo minus the bloodshed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.85.101.45 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as you say- this are recent developments - most of it is current politics... the article is History of South Tyrol. I.e. if one day there will be a referendum, then the results will enter this article as it will be a fact, but all the things you pointed out above are just talk and thus not relevant for an article about the history of the province. noclador (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Kampf Reference[edit]

In the section German-Italian option agreement Hitler is referenced as saying, in Mein Kampf, "Germans were just a small and irrelevant minority in Southern Tyrol". I am unable to find anywhere in Mein Kampf where Hitler refers to the German population of Southern Tyrol as a small or irrelevant minority. The closest I could find is in Volume 2, Chapter 13 where he states that the Weimar government cannot "liberate 200,000 Germans, when more than seven million neighbouring Germans are suffering under foreign domination". ChrisShaw2012 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation to Italy was not a mistake due to lack of knowledge[edit]

La ethnic situation of South Tyrol was well known also to the US delegation. In fact the points of President Wilson were to be mitigated by realpolitik reasons dealing with natural borders and security to be given to new state-borders. So German majorities in Alsace and South Tyrol, Slovene majority east of Trieste and Gorizia, Croatian majority east of Pola, Romanian majority east of Belgrade had to be neglected in the peace agreements.--Deguef (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Various IPs try to change Meran into Merano and Bozen to Bolzano. I find that inapposite for the following reasons:

  • Both Meran and Merano are used in English language. Per WP:NOTBROKEN there is no need for exchanging one name with another.
  • The article deals with events that happened before 1923. At those times, both Bozen and Meran had only one single official name, namely Bozen and Meran. Bolzan and Merano were only introduced with the Regio decreto nr. 800 in 1923. Therefore, writing Bolzano and Merano in a pre-1923-context can be viewed as an anachronism. Immanuel Kant's birthplace was Königsberg, Umberto D'Ancona's was Fiume, and so on: It seems to be good Wikipedia practice to avoid anachronisms. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from Talk:Bolzano:

  • "Bolzano is the Italian name, Bozen is the German name, Bolzano is the English name; English wikipedia => English name"
  • "While I am more than happy to call the city Bozen myself, for the English Wikipedia Bolzano is the proper name based on common usage and naming conventions"
  • "All English language encyclopedia's will refer to Bolzano and all other cities that were formerly German by the name the country they are now part of calls them"

I quote from Talk:Merano:

  • "Wikipedia naming convention states to use the most common name in English which is in fact Merano"
  • "Bozen and Meran are most commonly called Bolzano and Merano in modern English, so we use those"
  • "What the English speakers do is of course more relevant for the English language Wikipedia, so Merano is the correct solution"

There isn't a single line where it was established that Bolzano/Merano must be called Bozen/Meran before 1923. It's just your personal, subjective opinion. If you think your opinion is correct, then create a new topic in Talk:Bolzano and Talk:Merano asking to change the consensus. If you succeed in persuading admins that the consensus needs to be changed, then you're free to edit these articles in that way, but now you're just going against consensus.
In order to reply what you wrote here:

  • Both Meran and Merano are used in English language > "Wikipedia naming convention states to use the most common name in English which is in fact Merano" + "Bozen and Meran are most commonly called Bolzano and Merano in modern English, so we use those" = "What the English speakers do is of course more relevant for the English language Wikipedia, so Merano is the correct solution"
  • there is no need for exchanging one name with another so why do you keep exchanging ona name with another?
  • The article deals with events that happened before 1923 are you serious? You instst with this argument, and I keep answering: Italy was officially created in 1981, before it's always been just a clusted of statelets, some of them dominated by Austrians, French, Spanish, etc.... Are you saying that, wherever there's an Italian town name in an article about a previous period than 1981, we should use the name used in that period (Latin, ancient Italian, local dialect, foreign conqueror's language...)? Again: are you serious? Or just incoherent because this is all right just for Bolzano and Merano, or even just for those 2 articles? Please...

And you also refused to write that Merano in that period was named Meran. Read what's written in it.wikipedia (it's in Italian, I know you'd rather reading Swahili, but don't pretend not to understand): Merano was an already existing and used name, even if it wasn't yet the official one as today is. But you would also refuse to write that Meran nowadays is named Merano... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.2.95 (talk) 2015-11-28T19:33:28 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of South Tyrol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LINGUISTIC MAP BEFORE THE ANNEXATION TO ITALY[edit]

The linguistic map wich shows the ethnic composition of the region before the italian rule has some mistakes. Not only Vadena had an italian majority, but also Bronzolo. According to the census of 1890 also Laives had an italian majority, which became a minority according to the 1900 census. Pochi di Salorno and Laghetti had an italian majority but they were a frazione of Salorno and Egna, so they don't count


sources: https://books.google.it/books?id=PHzM88AB1x0C&pg=PA59&dq=dialetto+trentino+bassa+atesina&hl=it&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj18cuk0frtAhUkuaQKHeQ5AI8Q6AEwAHoECAYQAg#v=onepage&q=dialetto%20trentino%20bassa%20atesina&f=false https://digital.tessmann.it/tessmannDigital/Medium/Seite/22905/34

--79.54.141.242 (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the data, there is no mistake. It correctly shows the linguistic distribution as of 1880...
The census of that time show a lot of fluctuation regarding the linguistic composition in the few municipalities south of Bolzano. In 1880, Laives hat a total population of 1668, of which 1272 declared themselves to be German-speakers and 380 Italian-speakers. 10 years later, as you correctly point out, there was a slight Italian majority (837 German-speakers and 937 Italian-speakers), in 1900 and 1910 however, a large majority declared again as German-speakers. A somwhow similar pattern ca be seen in other neighbouring municipalities (an increase of Italian-speakers particularly in the 1890 census, and subsequently a decrease in the follow-up census), but, as I said, the map shows the data of the 1880 census and is, as far as I can see, factually correct. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_South_Tyrol&oldid=1207555675"