Talk:History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

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)

Contents 1 Merge 2 Neutrality 3 Changes 4 page move 5 Reason for the annection 6 Indipendence controversy 7 Changes 8 Aftermath of World War I 9 Merger Proposal

[edit] Merge

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)

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)

[edit] Neutrality

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Changes

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)

[edit] page move

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Reason for the annection

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)

- 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)

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)

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)

[edit] Indipendence controversy

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Changes

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)

[edit] Aftermath of World War I

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)

Are you (you two) able to provide a reliable external source for your version?--Supparluca 08:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Since no objections have been made, I added the above version to the article. Pcassitti 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

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)

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)