|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Tyrol article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 2 months may be archived by.|
It's Bozen and Meran, not Bolzano and Merano
It's a clear insult against every native South Tyrolean to the "Italian" names "Merano" and "Bolznao" in English instead of the correct German names Meran and Bozen for these two cities.
The "Italian" town names in South Tyrol are not really Italian. In fact, they are pure phantasy names invented by a fascist criminal called Ettore Tolomei, for the "Ialianziation" of South Tyrol. These names are also an insult for Italy's language and rich cultural traditon. In fact, even the original Italian name for South Tyrol - "Sudtirolo" was banned by Mussolini in favour of the fictional "Aldo Adige". No one should be able to see anymore that this area has never really been part of Italy, but has been illegally (i.e. against the populations will) annexed after World War I. Tolomei worked on a whole catalog to replace virtually every German and Ladin geographical name in the area with an Italian one. Due to this fact, these new "names" are on the same level with communist phantasy "town names" like Stalingrad, Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Karl-Marx-Stadt or Ho Chi Minh City.
Using these fictional names in English instead of the original German and Ladin ones is like a posthumous glorification of Mussolini and his crimes against humanity!
- Due to constant edit-warring between italian and german POV, it was decided by a large majority to use the names, the inhabitants use. Therefore for most towns in South Tyrol we use the german names (over 100) and only 5 towns with an italian majority use the italian name and a few ladin towns are under their ladin name. Moreover "Bolzano" and "Merano" were already used before South Tyrol was annexed to Italy and are not inventions by Tolomei. For evidence please see the history of this talk-page - good reading!--Sajoch (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- As to fictional names. In historical South Tyrol people have always spoken Italian (vast majority), with tiny minorities of Cimbrians and Mocheni, moreover Ladins in so called Anaunia and Fassa. Indeed, under Austrian rule Südtirol meant today's province of Trento (Das Mineralbad Roncegno in Südtirol, Roncegno is in what is now called Trentino, just an example out of thousands), sometimes the region from Brenner to Borghetto.--Patavium (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you have difficulties with German language. Braumüller, which is one of Austria's oldest publishers (he was k.u.k. hof- und universitätsbuchhändler, but maybe you ignore the meaning) used Südtirol in order to indicate today's Trentino Das Mineralbad Roncegno in Südtirol. Or if you prefer this one: Analyse der Mineralquellen von Levico bei Trient (Südtirol) (Levico next to Trent (South Tyrol)). After heavily abusing Italian history, please try at least not abuse of Austrian history.--Patavium (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the anon user however that the name should be Meran, and not Merano. The majority of the population speaks German and we have established the rule to name the cities after the language spoken by the majority. That article needs to be moved. Gryffindor (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- The problem of the articles about so called "South Tyrol" (and historical South Tyrol, i.e. Trentino, but also used for Trentino-Alto Adige) are not the names but the contents. There is a lot of POV supported by users who do not know very much about it and there are incredible omissions. This leads to hilarious discussions like this one. Atrocious crimes against humanity? Actually they were committed at the time of the reintroduction of certain names, and I am not talking about the Italian names.--Patavium (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
- you're always welcome to expand the articles Patavium! These "incredible omissions" - please go and rectify that. But please do so with a positive attitude and a neutral point of view. Nobody here wants to re-open that idiotic discussion about names in this province and I dare say nobody wants to discuss who committed what crimes when against whom... and so on. So can we all just move on? thanks, noclador (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been discussed for years and the current names reflect the consensus. I'm in full support of using the names of the majority of the population, which means using German for most municipalities but Italian for Bolzano. Merano is a tricky case. It is split almost equally between speakers of German and Italian. The policy in this case has been to use Merano because it is by far the more common name used in English. So just as we say Rome instead of 'Roma and Florence instead of 'Firenze', we use Merano as it is common English usage.Jeppiz (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- The OP can't be taken seriously. The OP confuses legality with the population's will, doesn't know the Italian language, expresses anti-communist views, which don't have anything to do with this discussion and blames everything on the next dictator possible. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
POV-pushing bias in the article.
The article at its current state reads:
- South Tyrol is the term that is most commonly used in English [...] and its usage reflects that it was created from a portion of the southern part of the historic County of Tyrol.
I demand this to be changed to: the opinion it was created from a portion, etc. I do not understand why Ascoli inventing the phrase: Venezia Giulia is a clear, hateful example of Italian irredentism, while the poor and civilized Austro-Bavarian shepherds of Alto Adige claiming it to be an integral part of a long-gone County are simply assessing their rights against the bad, bad Italians.
- Alto Adige (literally translated in English: "Upper Adige"), one of the Italian names for the province, had been edited by me to: the standard name for the province. No one, no one uses Sudtirolo. Or anything else.
- It was reused as the Italian name of the current province after its post-World War I creation, and was a symbol of the subsequent forced Italianization of South Tyrol. was changed to: It was reused as the namesake of the current province when it joined Italy after the victory in World War I, within larger attempts of Italianization. A neutral, and objective statement, instead of the former, which is emotional in a way I do not even consider to comment at lenght.
All these changes I've been making have been reverted twice, and I've been asked to produce them here on the talk page. So I've done. I expect inputs. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- a) Sorry, but I don't have any idea what you are talking about (Ascoli? Shepherds?)... The word opinion, that you want to write into the article, implies something open to interpretation. That is simply not the case. Tyrol was divided by a border from east to west, creating a southern portion and a northern portion. The fact that the name South Tyrol refers to a southern portion of Tyrol is by no means an opinion... But let's have a look at analogue examples: The name South Sudan reflects that it was created from a portion of the southern part of the Sudan. Is that an opinion? The name West Virginia reflects that it was created from a portion of the western part of Virginia. Is that an opinion? I really don't know, if you're being serious...
- b) Well, recently we've been witnessing people denying even the obvious (There is no evidence that Suarez bit Giorgio Chiellini's shoulder.), but I don't think, that we need a discussion about Sudtirolo. That piece of information is excellenty referenced, and if you distrust the cited literature, you may want to do a simple Google search... As I said: I really don't think that getting in an argument about plainly obvious facts is doing anybody any good.
- c) I don't see any kind of emotional statement there. Please be more specific. Are you referring to the word forced. Are you denying that the Italianization of South Tyrol was forced? And please note again, that there is a specific reference for the sentence, citing a book written by the historian Rolf Steininger. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)