From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Italy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. JPG-GR (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the traffic stats here and here, the article for the city (Bolzano) receives about twice as much traffic as the article for the person (Bernard Bolzano) which is certainly more, but not (I think) so overwhelmingly more that the city qualifies as a primary usage for the name "Bolzano" (and the various disputes above in the archive over the proper name for the city simply underscores this fact.)

I propose that the article on the city be moved to Bolzano (city) and that Bolzano be made a redirect to Bolzano (disambiguation) (or the disambiguation page moved here.) --Sapphic (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose That's what headers are for; this one required expansion. If there are two principal articles likely to be searched for as Bolzano, we don't make everybody click twice, when we can let half of them get where they want to go immediately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the redirect header is sufficient. The Italian name for the city is the primary usage in English (especially since the "Pass" is always used in that way). People looking for the person will find him without problem the was it is, whilst the city will get lost in a plethora of related usages. --Stomme (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Incredibly, super-strongly support with extra powerful support that beats all other kinds of opposition, in virtue of its strongness Disambiguation pages are meant to organize topics, not cut down on the number of clicks. As for primary usage, this passage from WP:D is relevant:
Primary topic
When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. If there's a disambiguation page, it should link back to the primary topic.
If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".
As for which usage is primary in English, I'd say that's far from decided. The article on the city receives about twice the traffic as the article on the person, and has about four times the number of incoming links — but a search on google or yahoo (ignoring Wikipedia page results) turns up results for the person before the city. So Wikipedia seems to favor the city, but the web as a whole favors the person as the primary usage for the name. Since "Bolzano" isn't even agreed upon as the proper name in English (see the various past arguments in the talk archive) I don't see how it is at all a settled matter. (BTW, putting "strongly" in front of support/opposition is silly.) --Sapphic (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Given the obvious lack of consensus for a move, and given a few more days to think about the issue and to try to think how the rest of you could be so obviously wrong yet think you're right, I've decided that you are, in fact, right. The way I think about it now that makes sense to me is that Bolzano should only be at most a redirect to Bernard Bolzano, and would never be the canonical name for the article on the person. However, Bolzano is currently the canonical name for the article on the city. So, given a conflict, the article on the city gets priority, and a hat note (already added by User:PMAnderson, thank you!). However — and here is where I think I perhaps still differ from the others in the discussion — if this were a case of redirect vs. redirect or canonical name vs. canonical name, I think we would be obliged to have Bolzano either be or redirect to the disambiguation page. This is an important point to consider, if the name of the article ever changes (again) and Bolzano is again turned into a redirect. Anyway, I thank everyone involved for helping to sort out this issue. --Sapphic (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. Is it appropriate at this time to delete the move template, or does that happen automatically after a certain number of days, or ... ?
It will happen when an admin closes the move request. (It would be perfectly OK to suggest to WP:RM that they consider closing it now.) As for Sapphic's point: It should still depend on frequency; but the frequencies here are comparable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The city is the primary usage for the name Bolzano, and the person has also a first name. Editors who want to link to the city use naturally Bolzano, and those who want to link to the person use naturally Bernard Bolzano--Supparluca 06:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment When I look for "bolzano", the first result is, and when looking for "bolzano city", its "Free University of Bozen-Bolzano". As I understand, the double naming was replaced by single name according to local language majority. Anyway, "bozen city" with 867.000 Google hits has more than twice as many as "bolzano city", so if the page is moved, it should be to Bozen or a double name. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Bolzano is the Italian name, Bozen is the German name, Bolzano is the English name; English wikipedia => English name.--Supparluca 11:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I actually get quite different results with Google using other search criteria (not that Google is the final arbitrator). I looked only at English pages, and removed Bernard and Bernardo from both searches to eliminate, in balance, any pages about the mathemetician. I also ignored Wikipedia, to keep our own pages from influencing the numbers: For "bolzano -bozen -bernard -bernardo -wikipedia" I get 298,000 pages, and for "bozen -bolzano -bernard -bernardo -wikipedia" I get 118,000 pages. That's a bit over twice as much for the Italian name, in English. And actually, all the previous search show is that the word "city" probably occurs on more German pages than Italian, since the search wasn't limited to English. A Google search as before, but only including English still favours Bolzano (although the person probably influences the numbers somewhat): 'Bolzano city' gives 452,000 and 'Bozen city' gives 98,000. 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. I also maintain my previous vote to oppose based on the fact that Bernard Bolzano already has a disambiguation in his name (Bernard) and changing the article to Bolzano (city) will just mean a lot of unnecessary piping and link maintenance (no links to the person should be referring to him by last name only if the MOS is followed). And I fear that this discussion will soon no longer be about separating the city from the person, but from separating the German and the Italian sides (again). --Stomme (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(You get Matthead's results searching for "bolzano city" and "bozen city" without quotation marks)--Supparluca 09:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my search is without quotation marks; I had used single quotes in my previous comment hoping to eliminate the ambiguity. The only restriction I used was the advanced search option to restrict the search to English language pages. It wouldn't make sense to use quotation marks in the search (those results are very small). --Stomme (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes you're right.--Supparluca 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Ok, I'm not going to get in another edit war. I'll just come on here to state that the sentence claiming Bolzano was an ethnic German city, because 95% spoke German, is bogus. Mother tongue does not equal ethnicity, sorry to break it to you. My mother tongue is English, I am not English. Jean Alessi's mother tongue is French, he is not French. You all completely pass over the fact that the people of Trentino Alto Adige were essentially all Ladin speakers at one point, until the German language along with some ethnic Germans migrated and mixed into this area. There are people all over the province of Bolzano with dark hair and features, having surnames like Seppi, or Rainer, (two names I know go back for centuries in Bolzano) who speak the German language because it was under a German-speaking crown. duh! Of course these same families likely have mixed roots of German, maybe some people from Veneto, Friuli, whatever. The point is that the great thing about this region is this mixture, and all you seem intent on doing is making it trivial. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to the group who think this area was simply some purely German "ethnic" area that was invaded. I guess that makes it easier to process for some people's minds... @_@ Icsunonove (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken: The multi-ethnic Austrian Empire explicitly asked the ethnicity of the people and not the language! 95,5% declared them to be German! The statement is referenced - it is a publication by the city of Bolzano! also: there are just 326 people named Seppi in the entire province [1] and 1512 Rainer, but than Rainer is a GERMAN name Rainer - so rightly there are lots of them in the province. --noclador (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
So you like names - for you they prove the ethnicity of person; GOOD here is the list with the 120 most common names in the province of Bolzano 2004 - to make it easier for you I highlighted the 2 Italian and the 4 Ladin ones in Green and Blue: - and saved myself the work to highlight the 114 German ones! --noclador (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Noclador, I'm seriously concerned you are going to have a stroke. =) Please, relax, and when you do, we obviously can discuss this better. I don't say I'm right about everything, you might want to consider that it may be healthy for yourself to look at this with an open mind as well. By the way, there are quite a few Rainer in Trentino as well; do you want to notify them they are "ethnic" Germans? :) I've told you before, you continue to insist on making things black and white, yet they are not, nor will ever be. If you don't want to accept that the region is not made up of some singular and pure ethnicity, that is up to you -- it doesn't matter to me really. I know people who speak Ladino dialects, yet when asked they identify them as dialects of Italian (Tuscan). Point being? Asking everyday people does not result in necessarily real results. Of course many people who spoke German at that time will call themselves "German", but what do you think happened to the original Ladin and Latin speakers of this region before Germanic people migrated down here a few centuries ago? They evaporated? My point is that the people of Trentino-Alto Adige ARE Germanic, but they are also Italic... and they are Ladino-dolomiten, and they are Roman, and they are Etruscan. How long as your family been in Trentino-Alto Adige Noclador? Are you blonde and blue eyes with a jaw like Michael Schumacher? Somehow, I'm willing to bet the answer is NO. Lastly, let me pose to you two questions: 1) Who in fact are the "Italians"? and 2) Why were the vast majority of towns in Alto Adige founded with Ladin/Italic names? Icsunonove (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "concerned you are going to have a stroke" Original Research - bring me a ECG, than this statement might be taken serious
  • "a few centuries ago" wrong 14x centuries ago
  • "Asking everyday people" you would prefer to ask just Tolomei then??
  • "I know people who speak Ladino dialects, ..." Original Research - bring me a study, than this statement might be taken serious
  • "Ladin and Latin speakers" wrong: original settlers unknown: -> Celts (450BC) Raetians -> Romans (15BC) Ladins -> Bajuwari (550AD) Tyroleans -> Italians (1919+ AD) South Tyroleans/ Alto Atesini ( -> = immigration / in bold = stable population)
  • "but they are also Italic" following that logic the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Tunisians, Egyptians, Turkish, English, Lebanese are Italic too? Mare Nostrum ahoi!
  • "like Michael Schumacher" I preferred when you called me pig!
  • If you don't know, maybe it is time you read it up: Italians
  • "Why were the vast majority of towns in Alto Adige founded with Ladin/Italic names?" Wrong; correct: "Why are the vast majority of towns in the major valleys based on earlier Latin names?" For the same reason as i.e Regensburg or Colchester or Córdoba or Manchester or Nevers or Lyon or Maastricht or Utrecht or Valencia or Dover or Antwerp or Liège or Sopron or Niš or Basel - all very Italian cities; with that line of argument the people of Cádiz, Algiers, Málaga, Genoa, Barcelona, Lisbon, Cagliari, Palermo are Phoenicians?? and the people of Feodosiya, Marseille, Syracuse are Greek? If that is so, than the people of Manhatten are all Indians! You are following in the logic of Tolomei (Re-Italianization of Germanized names!). --noclador (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • See, all you can really do is make accusations of Tolomei, Italianization, etc., etc. I don't know why you can't discuss this in a civilized manner. Instead, what my impression is, is that any hint of a non-pure German history in Bolzano-Bozen is very offensive to you, and that you lose control of yourself. As I mentioned before, you are making yourself do what Mussolini and Tolomei were interested in doing, but in just another direction. Do you honestly feel good about that? So, tell me this, since "Italians" are only in Bolzano-Bozen from 1919+, who are the people who are in Trentino? Are they Italians in your same definition? Do all Italians originate in Naples? Or do you realize that most of Trentino spoke Ladin dialects up until the establishment of Standard Italian as a national language? For example, Nones (Val di Non), Solardo (Val di Sol), on and on and on, are all Ladin languages. The languages of South East Switzerland (Romansch), of Trentino AND Alto Adige/South Tyrol (Ladin), and East over in Friuli (Furlan), are all a single family. They are the Sicilian (etc.. etc.) of this region, and pre-date both Italian (Tuscan) and German. So if you really want to play games, I say we get rid of the Italianization that happened and also the Germanization! ROFLOL. ps. so I take it not blonde/blue eyes.. I kinda figured. I'll tell you if you ask why, but it isn't a pleasant critique. :) Icsunonove (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, while the Germanic tribes started to come into the former Roman Republic many, many centuries past, if you look at the history of the village names in Alto Adige/South Tyrol, you may realize that many were Germanized only just a few centuries ago. Kaltern is one, in 800-900AD it was the Ladin Caldar or Caldare, the German settlers called it Kaltern. Neumarkt is another, its local name was actually Enna or Egna -- it was subsequently Germanized as the "New Market" by the newly arrived Germanic settlers around the 14th century. Do I dislike this Germanization of the town's name? No, it is part of the history of this region -- IT IS ALL GOOD. It is still Egna in the local Romance languages though, no matter what you hope to do. Then Eppan, which was in Ladin Appian or Apiano from 500AD; Eppan is a loaned word that was Germanized, much like the word Bozen or Botzen. Merano, is Meran/Maran in Ladin for centuries. It is borrowed and used in German, but it is not a German word. Terlan has been Terlan in Ladin for centuries. It is borrowed and used in German, but it is not a German word. If you want to complete your re-Germanization, you need to invent some new words for these, ok? That is again why I have always INSISTED that we respect all the names and history of this region. If it is easier for you to believe that the area is a "pure" German entity, and would like to wish all the other history away, good for you. But, all you do is become a Tolomei of this era, and appear now to be intent on re-Germanization and wiping out the roots of this wonderful region. So, you can come here again yelling and ranting, and making accusations of Italianization and Mussolini, it doesn't matter to me. My roots in this area are probably much further back than yours, and I am proud to have Roman and Austrian heritage. I will never try to trivialize this region by attempting to shove some aspects of the history out. What you appear unable to take, is any aspect that spoils your dream of Alto Adige/South Tyrol being PURE German. That is a pretty miserable need, and I do implore you to be more open minded. Icsunonove (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • and lastly Noclador, what did I ever do to you to deserve these vile attacks? Because I was fixing wikilinks from South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen? There was nothing at all wrong with the edits I made on those radio pages, I indeed fixed the links to point to the proper pages like the Austrian state of Tyrol. Or is it that I dare ask you to look a bit deeper into the history of this region, to realize it isn't so black-and-white? Hmm? I've never once asked for any German names to disappear or for only Italian (Tuscan) to be used... never. So, the impression I have for now is either 1) you are HYPER-sensitive, and go after someone fixing wikilinks assuming some dire conspiracy, or 2) you somehow have an inner need to yell to the World this area is purely German. Please, do prove me wrong. If you simply misunderstood my intentions because of the bridge page, that is fine, then chill the hell out. If you look back at those edits, I only wanted to cite things clearly, and as points were brought up I included them. That you kept adding old Austrian province of South Tyrol, certainly raised eyebrows for myself and others. Think about that action. I'm certainly somebody that if I learn for sure Ponte Romano was but a 1927 invented label for the bridge, then it means nothing culturally to me. It is just a blip in the history. But then other statements you make like all the names were German pre 1919 again makes my eyebrows raise, because you in one sentence disregard the real history of this region -- and that to me is unacceptable. Icsunonove (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Let us make this very simple: South Tyrol: from 600AD to 1919AD over 85% ethnic German. Italians: 3%-5% of population. Claims of multicultural South Tyrol (exception: the 2x Ladin valleys and the area south of Bozen were some thousands Italians lived) before 1920ies = myth, fable, legend, fairy tale. But you can always bring a verifiable and reliable source that says otherwise. Also: whatever the roots of local names were, relevant is what the cultural circle of the people was/is: overwhelmingly Germanic (and that since the early middle ages). But of course I invite you to bring proof that it was otherwise. I’m not out to “shove some aspects of the history out” I’m about to shove the made-up history out – with all the references needed, not because I’m a German nationalist (have a look at my “Top 25 mainspace article edits”) but because your idea of the local history is distorted. No matter how often you repeat it: there is no historical basis for many of your claims. Over the next weeks I will edit all the history in, with all sources and references. Afterwards the articles will be much more detailed, neutral, broader in scope and most importantly accurate, referenced and sourced. Good - right? --noclador (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you had better never imply that I have purposely added any made-up history. I'll assume for now you were not trying to do so.  :) So, wait, you think it is a myth and fairly tale that there were pre-Germanic people living in villages which have Ladin names that predate by a millennia the mass migration of Germanic people into this region? Wow! :) That is indeed a pretty quick shoveling out of what are irrefutable facts. Who named and founded the villages, garden gnomes? I was afraid you would do this as well, but you completely ignored many of the valid points I made about the greater extent of the Ladin language, the origins of the people just a few thousand meters away in Trentino, Switzerland, etc. I don't have any disagreement that in the middle ages that the area, especially in the northern reaches, had significant Germanic migration (some who are relatives of me!). What I do disagree with you is your dream that the Ladin speakers were always in just a couple pockets of Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Many of the people who spoke Ladin, were with time, mixed into the dominant language communities (and that goes on even now); the people did not evaporate; you can see the shared features in Trentino-Alto Adige to this very day (and you know as well as I do that the region is not full of blonde people). So sorry, many of the people are not "pure" ethnic Germans, and yes, the region has always always been multicultural. But, is that so bad?? How do you think the interesting culture exists! Also, hopefully it won't happen, but say the Romansch speaking people of Switzerland all someday speak either French, German, or Italian, is that their new ethnicity?? Hmm?? By the way, did you ever realize that the term Welsh in German did not originate in this area to describe modern Italian citizens? In the original context, it referred to the Italic people of this region and just a few centuries ago it was applied to describe Ladin speakers. So the German speakers in the middle ages, up until the 20th century, referred to Ladin speakers as Welsh. Did you ever try and put 2 and 2 together when looking at the history of a town like Welschnofen? That town, pre-middle ages, was Nova in Ladin, so where do you think the German Welschnofen might come from? Is that rocket science? Of course in this day and age the city is primarily German speaking. Again, does that specify ethnicity? No. Someone told me that the people in Val Gardena start to speak more German than Ladin. Makes sense, since German is a major commercial language. Are they morphing into "pure" ethnic Germans? No. Again with Welschnofen, would you prefer to believe that is was simply founded by a band of "pure" Germans, and they called it Welschnofen because when they were migrating they had actually dreamt of making it all the way down to Capri? :P Give me a break Noclador. It is difficult for me to fully believe you are not biased towards a hyper-Germanic view when it seems I can upset you by pointing out that Terlan and Meran are not German names, and that even Bozen and Botzen are Germanized words of the names used by the original inhabitants. Why is that so hard to deal with? It is our SHARED history and culture. The Germans NOR the Ladins grew out of the soil, we all migrated here one way or another. Look, speck is brought to us by German thinking mixed with Italic. I'd never try to claim it one way or the other, I LOVE the fact that is not one or the other. Anyway, you'd make a good step if you realized I'm not trying to refute you really, I'm trying to make you realize things are richer than they are. If I point out to you that Meran is not a German word, and comes from the Ladin people here originally, this does not mean anyone wants to de-Germanize or throw anyone out. Got it?? @_@ Icsunonove (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No reply Noclador? =) I'm sure you haven't given up yet on the "pure German" view and Italian history only from the last century... Icsunonove (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not worth my time to keep track of your snide attacks and biased statements, which are way too often incredibly full of factual errors. I have better things to do; like expand the articles about South Tyrol - with historical facts, sources, references,... isn't that great! Soon we will be able to put POVs, original research, myths and factual errors all to rest. --noclador (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is very mature of you Noclador. I've tried multiple times to get you and your man Gun Powder Ma to discuss things calmly, instead you guys would rather continue to play the angry internet warrior. Instead of addressing the points I make in a civilized debate, you run away with your tail between your legs calling them biased statements and snide attacks. You think I didn't expect that you would once again completely avoid the issues, given how you've repeatedly dodged any facts that spoil your "pure" German POV? Show me my biased statements, why don't you? Show me the "incredible factual errors", if you can. You have proven my point again and again that you are fearful of anything that shows the Province of Bolzano to not be purely German. That said, I must say you being from Merano provides a certain grand satisfaction with regard to the irony that this name is not, nor ever will be of German origin. Every time you say Meran, you will in fact be saying a Ladin word, a word of a people you would like to dream never existed in this area. In the end you are simply doing EXACTLY the same thing you accuse the fascists and Tolomei of doing a century ago; so I hope you do enjoy your company. Maybe one day you will realize this, and if you don't, who cares... Icsunonove (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see that as time passes on, things with Icsunonove never change. (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rarelibra, long time no see! :) How is Texas? Is this some sock puppet, or did you forget to log in? :) Yeah, I will forever be someone with an open mind and not tied to a black-and-white attitude. That will never change. :) Icsunonove (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article says " With the end of the Roman empire a Bavarian immigration began and the first mentioning of a Bavarian count as ruler of Bozen dates from 679. The area has been settled by German populations since than." I don't know how much clearer it has to be that this is a Germanic city. The article says the city was settled by German populations since the year 679. The article also says "At the time of its annexation {after WW I}, Bozen was an ethnic German city, with a pre-war population of 30,000 people, 95.52% of whom were German native speakers." Also, Bozen was part of the German speaking country of Austria for how long? Over a millenia? Also, the reason Wikipedia refers to the city as Bolzano is not because Bolzano is the English name of the city. 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. This goes for hundreds of cities taken from Germany and Austria since the end of WW I (Pilsen now PLZEN - Czech, Bozen now Bolzano - Italian, Danzig now Gdansk - Poland, Breslau now Wroclaw - Poland). Your attempts to deny the German history of this city are disgusting. Unfortunately, when it comes to anything German wikipedia will always be opposed to the German (and Austrian) point of view. Also, English is a Germanic language - derived from German. So, the the word Bolzano is used for the reason I explained above.

In addition, Italy is a beautiful country, but its not an accident that Bolzano or (Bozen) has the second highest standard of living in Italy. When the worlds best cities (ranked by standard of living) are published in magazines, there are typically 3 to 5 German speaking cities ranked in the top ten cities in the world (Zurich, Vienna, Munich). No other country has more than one city ranked in the top ten: The USA, the UK, France and Italy each don't have any cities that rank in the top ten.

You are biased, just as most of the wikipedia editors are. There is no question about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgg804 (talkcontribs) 03:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

English page: BOLZANO[edit]

After spending some time revising historic inaccuracies that were published without citing reliable sources and feeding mostly on common Italian historic rendition, I also realize that the article is a rough, approximate, and poor translation from Italian. Italian expressions are translated verbatim and as a result the English page reads awkward and unconvincing. Although I`ve edited several paragraphs that had been written and published with numerous English language issues, I believe that the article still needs major revisions, both with regard to contents and to English terminology and grammar.

Hello, I've reverted your edits as, unfortunately, they contained errors and were undiscussed. You talked about a war between Austria and Italy in 2015. No doubt a typo, but indicative of the changes. More seriously, you changed some statements that came from sources, which is not allowed. I agree with you about the need to improve the article, but please do so through careful editing and by discussing with other editors. Jeppiz (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)+


``No fighting took place in the County of Tyrol during the First World War.`` Jeppiz claims that this statement is supported by the cited source. That is impossible. He failed to evaluate the source and double check whether the statement respects the source. The Tyrolean front line was over 400 Km long and there were thousands of casualties in battles fought all along the Tyrolean borders, with tens of war cemeteries built to bury the dead. You can easily find evidence of the absurdity of the statement

``Nevertheless, those Germans who opted to stay in South Tyrol ....` Jeppiz wrongly reverted to this version. Inhabitants of South Tyrol are not Germans, although they speak German. Jeppiz reverted to a clearly inaccurate version without investigating my changes.

ENTIRE PARAGRAPH ``In the 1920s, along with the rest of South Tyrol, Bolzano was subjected to an intensive Italianisation programme.........`` Jeppiz erased all my changes, for no reason. I had edited the paragraph to improve readability, grammar and English language issues, accuracy (the previous paragraph spoke of `those Germans` whereas historically South Tyroleans were not Germans, although they spoke German. The paragraph was poorly written and I made changes to improve that.

`` After 1943, heavy fighting against Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers took place in the Dolomite Alps once the Allied Powers had liberated Italy.`` Jeppiz mistakenly reverted to this version. He made two mistakes: First, there is no such thing as the Dolomite Alps. They are called DOLOMITES, or, likely acceptable in English, Dolomitic Alps. Second, the statement is virtually impossible. The Allied troops could not have fought in the Dolomites after Italy had been liberated, because the Dolomites are in Italy and therefore the statement is nonsensical. My reinstated version ameliorated both points.

`` independence movements gradually gained popularity among the Germanic population in Bolzano and South Tyrol.` Jeppiz cl,early has no knowledge of local history and erased my ALL comments based on dubious reasons. In this case, I had improved the narrative by erasing the word `gradually` since the local population had overwhelmingly sought re-unification with Austria. My other changes, erased by Jeppiz, were meant to improve readability, since the pre-existing paragraph was poorly written. Jeppiz deemed my changes to be worth of his ax.

``In 1996, the European Union approved of further integration of the Austrian state of Tyrol with the Germanic province of South Tyrol and Trentino (Welschtirol) in Italy.`` Jeppiz incorrectly reverted to this version which shows two inaccuracies: 1) Tyrol is not an Austrian state; it`s an Austrian province (Land and not Staat). 2)South Tyrol is not a Germanic province. In 1996 it was an Italian bilingual autonomous province. My correction was accurate and needed no axing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I don`t know who you are, but evidently you play god with someone else`s work. The fact that you erased all my changes and reverted back to the original ``No fighting took place in the County of Tyrol during the First World War.`` proves your inadequacy as whatever your role is. There were thousands of casualties in battles fought all along the Tyrolean borders, with tens of war cemeteries built to bury the dead. You can easily find evidence of the absurdity of the statement that you re-installed by virtue of a power position, instead of using your knowledge of the themes discussed in the article. Before you intervene to defend a mediocre wiki page in need of thorough revisions, you should assess the validity of its contents, not just publish something just because ONE very questionable source is cited. How about evaluating the source? Did you do that? I can assure you that a source stating that no fighting happened in Tyrol is bogus, the same as saying that no fighting happened in Normandy during WWII. The Tyrolean front line was over 400 Km long, but that of course doesn`t count, because you decided that the `source` of the citation is valid. That would not get you a C on a freshman`s history essay. Furthermore, your comments are offensive and unsubstantiated, when, aside from blaming me for a typo that you could have fixed without much fuss, you imply that I made errors. Which ones? You didn`t elaborate; you just used your censorial ax and reverted EVERYTHING to a version filled with inaccuracies and language mistakes while, by your own admission, you ``agree... about the need to improve the article.`` If you recognize that need, since you play the expert`s role, why didn`t you say where and how the article should be improved? Your kind of editorial work must be very fulfilling - for you, but serves no purpose in terms of accuracy and readability. Wikipedia is a project written by informed people with a good attitude and openness towards learning. Where do you stand on that? Whatever your answer, it won`t matter to me, because I don`t subscribe to communication built on prevarication, which apparently you enjoy. I won`t engage. Good luck.

Thank you for your comment, but I encourage you to comment on content, not on other editors. Please read WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not about being right, it's about accurately representing reliable sources. Apart from the personal attacks on me, your reply largely consists of arguments that you're right and the sources wrong, therefore you can change what the sources say. That is absolutely forbidden, and a form of vandalism. If a source is wrong, and can be proven to be wrong by using better sources, then we can always remove a source. However, changing the text while keeping the same sources is to misrepresent them, and that is definitely not allowed. Once again, I encourage you to engage constructively and impassionately by discussing with other users. As a general rule, if somebody undoes your changes, you should first discuss and reach a WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating the changes (WP:BRD). Last but not least, you don't have the option not to engage with other users on Wikipedia. It's a collective project, and nobody is above discussing with others. Jeppiz (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea who Jeppis is, but he has no standing to preach a sermon. I said that I was not going to engage WITH JEPPIZ because he is not discussing anything. He is simply imposing his censorship without any knowledge of the content he is censoring and without addressing my comments and changes on their merit. Therefore I am not engaging with Jeppiz. He is acting out of a position of self-avowed power behind the pretentious claim that he is following Wiki guidelines. I have explained in details why Jeppiz` censorial cuts were wrong, mainly because Jeppiz didn`t act constructively - like he implies, failing to verify whether the many inconsistencies in the articles were actually supported by the sources that he is so adamantly defending. Jeppiz failed to act responsibly as an editor and didn`t consider the merit of my comments. Had he done that, he would have found out that THE CITED SOURCES DID NOT SUPPORT THE STATEMENTS I critiqued in my comments. Before accusing others of vandalism, jeppiz needs to develop the necessary self-analitic skills to ensure that he will no longer overstep his role by censoring someone else`s work without any knowledge of the subject, which jeppiz clearly lacks. Again, I am writing this for other users, as I find it of little value to engage with someone who is not even reading my full changes and comments and is unable to address them in a professional manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

My opinion: The newly written version seems to me clearly better and removes factual inaccuracies. For example, the statement that no fighting took place in the County of Tyrol is (excuse my French) plain bollocks... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Current day language statistics[edit]

I came across very different statistics on another wiki page. I decided to check out the references and it seems that the person that put in the statistics in this article must have inadvertently switched German and Italian as both given sources show German as the majority language. ("New") numbers taken from the same sources as given earlier. Engman90 (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you post a link to any reliable source that says German is the majority language in the city of Bolzano? Please note we're taking about the city of Bolzano here, not the province of the same name. Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bolzano. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bolzano. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)