Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was let's start mediation. Lar has been kind enough to offer mediation below, so let's close this poll and actually get something done below in a civilized fashion. There is clearly no consensus on this poll.

[edit] Requested move

Trentino-South Tyrol → Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol – this page was originally Trentino-Alto Adige. It was moved to Trentino-South Tyrol on 25 Oct. 2005 with out consensus. Prior surveys have been done, but from my opinion, they have been tainted by Nationalistic ideas. Going to Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol allows a sharing of the regions between Italian-German. It is also the name used officially in the Italian constitution. It containts Trentino-Alto Adige, which is the most commonly used form in English (UN, CIA factbook, etc.). It is a compromise, keeps everyone happy, and this should be what WP is based on. Not promoting extreme POV. Taalo 03:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Addendum: I've made an update to the request. Merge the original Trentino-Alto Adige and Trentino-South Tyrol, both valid, into Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. This avoids OR and actually I believe best represents this region. I know this must be bad form to update the request on the fly like this. My apologies. I'm honestly just trying to help find the optimum solution. Taalo 06:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)***

      This is bad. You should have made another request. You asked a question, had people answer, and now changing the question.--Panarjedde 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

      *blush* Ok, I'm quite sorry. Forgive me based on a lack of experience and that I'm learning as I go along (with Wiki, the region, etc.). In some ways I'm just trying to moderate this discussion so we can come to some good, fair, decision. These move requests are so rigid, and with all the voting, it doesn't help a proper discussion really. It would be nice if we could just have a multiple choice. I'd actually like to suggest from the feedback that I've seen that we simply decide on the original Trentino-Alto Adige or the current Trentino-South Tyrol. We try, all of us to skip the POV, put themselves in the other people's shoes.. and try to come up with the best overall solution. Is this acceptable? Taalo 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

no sockpuppets please A user or two look suspicious below. If anyone is trying to help either side, know this won't help in the end. I really appreciate anyone trying to help make things right again, but this ain't the way. Lets not be so serious either on here, ok? If there are sockpuppet accounts, just say so, and you have to buy the first round of beers if any of us ever meet in the region. va bene? ok? I like the Forst beer. :) Taalo 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support: recasting my vote. I support this merging of both names, per the recent historical research papers I've dug up. Taalo 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't care, as long as there is a link from one solution to the other; this is sort of becoming a political war on what I consider a minor point. --Adriano 11:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and be aware in the archives who initiated this political war. A certain student of International Politics, based in Vienna. Taalo 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Taalo, please, stop attacking other contributors. This brings to nothing. --Adriano 19:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make an attack, but I did point out how this did start. Is even this an attack? Taalo 04:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like Adriano, I consider the point very very minor. I oppose because a) who on Earth will go searching for such a compliacted, not to say artificial name? b) it seems odd to substitute a name probably easier to pronounce for English speakers with two foreign ones. --Tridentinus 11:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the request based on my findings to Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. It looks like even the gov't has adapted this name, according to that latest link I found. I believe what the guy is referring to is the constitution which now has Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol.. which then does properly translate into Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Can this finally, maybe, perhaps, be a reasonable compromise? :) Taalo 07:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose obviously. This is already the third time we are voting on this issue, it was solved twice before but some just can't seem to accept that... Gryffindor 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I can accept your viewpoint when YOU come clean with what your intentions are. For all intents and purposes you are the originator of this huge debate. YOU originally moved this page from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol without debate, consensus, discussion, anything (i.e., you started it). Have the orbs to be honest with all of us. Taalo 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for being so hard on you here Gryffindor. But you have to understand, that how you did things originally was just not the right way to go about it, and ended us here after one year. In the end I agree with what you did "half-way". I think based on what I/we've found, Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol makes a lot of sense. It in fact merges the page you moved into the page you moved it into. va bene? Taalo 07:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, if it's sincere. Hopefully we can talk about this whole affair one day when things calm down again. ciao... Gryffindor 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gryffindor, if I say I'm sorry, I'm definitely saying it sincerely. I love sarcasm, so if I was not being sincere, you would of been able to tell..heh. Even if I come down on you again -- in the heat of the moment -- it definitely isn't making me happy to come down on you -- or anyone else for that matter. So anyway, I'm trying my best. :) I am however bothered about how you went about things on 25 Oct. 2005, and how you now insist others do things properly -- where at the time, you clearly did not. Please try and understand how this comes off, especially to those (such as myself) who care for this region (both provinces!). If you can somehow find the time to address that some day, I think it would be good for you and all involved in this fiasco. With regard to your last sentence: sure, and I would like that too. you take care now. Taalo 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Gryffindor - you are unprofessional, rude, and inconsiderate. People don't have to accept it when it is incorrect. You need to realize what POV and consensus is all about. Rarelibra 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  There is no need for personal attacks, Rarelibra. Olessi 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: in English Wikipedia use English names.--Panarjedde 17:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should use English where it is very clear. It is clear that South Tyrol is the English translation of Sudtirol. It is also clear from research articles posted and the current constitution of Italy, that the official name is Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. This translates into English as Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. I can translate Alto Adige to Upper Adige, but yes, it is not commonly done as the Sudtirol to South Tyrol translation.. hence the Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol I propose. reasonable? Taalo 07:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The official name of Italy is "Repubblica Italiana" (the country) and "Italia" (the georaphical name), yet in English it is "Italy". The official name of Tuscany is Toscana, of Apulia is Puglia, yet nobody seems to care to ask for them to be changed. I do not like this "South Tyrol" matter, but the rule is to use English names when available, ignoring official names. So South Tyrol should be.

Furthermore, oppose also to Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, which is worse than any other solution.--Panarjedde 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, well I didn't think it was that bad, but ok, opinion accepted. I see we have to either go with Trentino-Alto Adige or Trentino-South Tyrol to gain consensus. I don't know, at this point I can agree either of these is fine. There is the weight of having some English in Trentino-South Tyrol, but also there is the weight of Trentino-Alto Adige being used in the vast majority of English sources, maps, etc. You know, I wish the Austrian/German folk could also be a bit flexible with their thinking on this. I'm not insulting anyone! I'm just saying, lets really compromise on this, consider better others opinions. I'm certainly trying my best here..... Taalo 20:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: time to end all of this and keep it nuetral. Vargwilku 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible Vargwilku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

According to Rarelibra's edit summaries, this might be one of his co-workers, and so not a sockpuppet. That doesn't change the fact that he has no contributions outside these polls. Kusma (討論) 09:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I told you before, I mainly use wiki for reference and not edit. I don't appreciate you changing this - and labeling me. Check my account creation, it was well before this mess. Vargwilku 12:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be offended. We are using a straw poll among Wikipedia editors here, and you have not edited any Wikipedia articles. As this is not a vote, your comment stands and is not removed, but may be given less weight by the closer of the discussion. Kusma (討論) 13:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And please do not remove my signed comments. Kusma (討論) 13:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving in that I haven't had many edits, but I don't think I like the fact that you are labeling me as a "possible single user" account. Rarelibra and I work with geography from all around the world in international telecommunications, and I rely on Wiki as a reference many times. But I am a "techie" and database person, whereas Rarelibra likes to make a lot of the maps. As a contractor I don't have Internet access, thus, I have to access via his PC. So forgive me if it seems such - I will log on from my PC later tonight and you can check my information just fine. But please don't label me, especially because I don't get into the edits and such and, instead, rely on wiki as a reference tool for work! Vargwilku 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You're allowed to rebut the {{spa}} tag and you have done so but removing it completely gives the appearance of trying to hide your edit history from the closing admin. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone better be saving their beer money. :) Taalo 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose move, oppose moving during WP:RM discussion, and point out that Trento-South Tyrol listed above as the present name has never been other than a redirect. Gene Nygaard 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please re-evaluate the proposal. The page was originally Trentino-Alto Adige. It was unfortunately moved by not following proper wiki rules to Trentino-South Tyrol. It turns out that likely both of these are correct, so I've now proposed that we ==> Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Taalo 07:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'Support' when you mention Trento-South Tyrol being a redirect? Rarelibra 19:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, keep at Trentino-South Tyrol. Markussep 20:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

please re-review Markussep. I have proposed Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. There was actually never a hope to have Trento. That was probably a mistake somewhere. Taalo 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Trentino-Alto Adige" and "Trentino-South Tyrol" are both acceptable for me, both seem to be used in English. Just no double or one-and-a-half names, like T-AA/ST. Markussep 19:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. Prefer "Trentino-Alto Adige", which is used in my Hammond Atlas (1998, which translates Tuscany, Lombardy, Sicily, Apulia, Piedmont). Olessi 03:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

please re-review Olessi. I agree with what you say, but also the italian constitution and research papers also point to the adoption of Trentino-Sudtirol (aka Trentino-South Tyrol). I think the neutral compromise, based off the consitutions Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol, has the best English translation as Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Taalo 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral. I agree more or less with Olessi. I'd prefer the current title to the proposed move, as well. john k 03:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've redone the proposal. Please review the new information I've posted and notes I've placed throughout. Taalo 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, shouldn't use unnecessary double naming. Trentino-Alto Adige would be better than the proposed title. I don't really care whether the page is at Trentino-South Tyrol or at Trentino-Alto Adige, both seem to be used in English. Kusma (討論) 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the request to Trentino-Alto Aige/South Tyrol See above how this is most likely the best translation of what is in truth the official name(s) of the region. I can understand you don't care either way, but for the simple sake of coming up with a neutral compromise.. please consider this. Taalo 07:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. "South Tyrol" is the neutral ground between Alto Adige and Südtirol, and it's an English word which is in current use, so I see no need to change this. —Nightstallion (?) 12:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's Alto Adige or South Tyrol, not both. See Luxembourg for a similar case. (When will all this end?) -  AjaxSmack  19:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

AjaxSmack, please be patient my friend. I'm actually coming around to the Trentino-South Tyrol idea, even though I also feel we should be true to what is used on the majority of English maps, encyclopedias, etc.: Trentino-Alto Adige. Regardless, this naming convention is becomming the lesser issue afterall. The Province of Bolzano page to me seems more important since it seems POV is overruling simple technical fact. Anyway, I'm content to see at least a reasonable discussion. The past votes looked hyper-POV. Worst of all the page move without following Wiki guidelines. Hopefully this time it can properly be put to rest, but we should be patient. Taalo 20:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Just so everyone can see how neutral are friend Gryffindor is in this debate, please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Trentino-South_Tyrol_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Clinks.7Chistory.7Clogs.29 Real ethical of you there buddy. Non-sense names, eh? Thanks for showing your true colours. Oh yeah, I'm assuming that good faith! Taalo 10:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do not remove links to archived talk pages as happened above [1] User:Taalo, that is not in order. There was a lengthy discussion with arguments brought up, the decission was to stick to the English name, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Gryffindor 08:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies buddy, I didn't realize that I had deleted information. By the way, could you point me to the discussions and voting that was done before your move on 25 Oct. 2005? :))) Taalo 08:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you very much for sharing your opinion. I think this time though we will actually focus on the use of citations and not perform Original Research(OR). The name Trentino-South Tyrol is not a regularly accepted name for the region, by any means. In the large-majority of English citations, Trentino-Alto Adige is used. I am proposing a compromise for the sake of the Italian-German nature of this region, i.e., Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. toodaloo! Taalo 08:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to accuse anyone of original research. There were lengthy discussions on this topic, see Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol/name, we can't keep on bringing this topic up over and over again simply because you seem to have a problem with the English word "South Tyrol" for whatever reason. Gryffindor 09:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The English translation of Sudtirol to South Tyrol is fine. The region is South Tyrol, it is Sudtirol, it is Alto Adige, it is the Upper Adige. The thing is, this is all beside the point. In English, this region is referred to as Trentino-Alto Adige in the large majority of citations. If we develop our own criteria to deviate from this norm, then we are moving into OR. Lastly, you saying that I seem to have some problem, etc., etc. What was your motiviation to change the page from Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol without going through the proper steps in the first place? Why have you gone through SO MANY pages with relation to this region and systematically moved everything to a German-first POV? As someone who deeply cares for this region, I now have the right to ask you this. What is this problem you seem to have, that you can not even agree with using names that share the Italian-German heritage of this area? I specifically am suggesting Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol, because I want both names listed. Because the Tirol culture is all of ours in this region. It is something that has come from all the people of this region. I as a kid wore those Tirol style clothes! Have you? No, I'm not sending you pictures. :P Dude, come on now... Taalo 09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

English references which show this region as Trentino-Alto Adige and Province of Bolzano. Regardless, I believe we should have the Italian/German name, because this is fair to both groups of the region. Also, written directly into the constitution of Italy, they call the region Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. So at least the Gov't of Italy was able to make a compromise, eh?! Should, hopefully be a compromise so people can chill out, and we can actually get to work on making good pages.. not creating anger. I'm going to cross post websites that refer to the naming convention for the Province of Bolzano/Bozen & the region of Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol. Note once again, that if there is any reference that only has Italian, I full support listing both, which is done in the Italian constitution and locally in the region on road signs, buildings, etc. Let's share finally... Taalo 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html#Govt

Constitution of Italy (refer to Article 116): http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/it00000_.html

Countries and Cities website: http://www.countriesandcities.com/countries/it/provinces.htm

Province of Bolzano website: http://www.provinz.bz.it/lpa/autonomy/autonomy_statute_eng.pdf

World Gazetteer: http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gmap&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-108&srt=npan&col=aohdq http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-108&srt=npan&col=aohdq&pt=c&va=x&geo=-1956 http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gpro&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-1956&srt=npan&col=aohdq&pt=c&va=x&geo=491419135 http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Italy_Autonomous_regions.htm

More and more links *yawn* (simply searching under "listings of provinces in italy") Taalo 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC) http://www.slowtrav.com/italy/maps/regions.htm http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/it-reg.html http://directory.google.com/Top/Regional/Europe/Italy/Regions/ http://goeurope.about.com/cs/italy/l/bl_italy_region.htm http://www.infohub.com/Maps/italy_map_203.html http://www.big-italy-map.co.uk/maps/map-of-trentino-alto-adige-.gif

To Taalo,

• The CIA World factbook you cite (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html#Govt) contains names in the Italian only. The do not translate, for example Lombardia or Tosacana, which have widely accepted English names.

Yes, you are right. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• The translation of Art. 116 of Italy's constitution you cite (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/it00000_.html) is in conflict with the "official" translation from Italy's Lower Chamber (aka Camera dei Deputati) website (http://english.camera.it/deputati/funzionamento2002/03.costituzione.asp go to part two title V). :::Both are translations, and we do not know how accurate.

I think it is a little bit nit-picking. It states, "autonomous provinces Trento and Bolzano." Though, this link is more useful to the discussion on the Province of Bolzano. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• The province of Bolzano special statute (http://www.provinz.bz.it/lpa/autonomy/autonomy_statute_eng.pdf) is, once again, a translation (see above).
• The names on the map at http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gmap&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-108&srt=npan&col=aohdq are all in Italian.
• I did not check the other links at world gazetteer; but if you look at this site's overview page on Italy (http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gadm&lng=en&dat=32&geo=-108&srt=npan&col=aohdq) you will notice that many names are not translated at all (usual examples, Lombardia and Toscana).

Ok, they missed a few, but that doesn't make the citing worthless. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• the list at the link http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Italy_Autonomous_regions.htm is quite comprehensive, but, still, does not translate a few names (for example Puglia), and misspells others(such as Friulia Venezia-Giulia), which could mean they are not accurate.

BTW here we find the province of Bolzano as Bolzano-South Tyrol, thus supporting the use of South Tyrol as well.

• The map at http://www.slowtrav.com/italy/maps/regions.htm translates (at last!) Lombardia and Toscana, but not the other ones (Piemonte and Puglia, both of which are named Piedmont and Apulia respectively). All translations are present in the list under the map, though.
• the link to the flags of Italy http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/it-reg.html seems comprehensive, but with some spelling mistakes (Apolia); moreover it seems to be written by Italians.
• In the google list at http://directory.google.com/Top/Regional/Europe/Italy/Regions/ not all names are translated (for example, Lazio and Puglia)
• The names on the map at http://goeurope.about.com/cs/italy/l/bl_italy_region.htm are all in Italian. Moreover, in the list of Italy's regions http://goeurope.about.com/od/italyregions/ there Trentino-whatever is not there.
• Not all the names in the list at http://www.infohub.com/Maps/italy_map_203.html are translated (here, for example, Lazio and Valle d'Aosta are missing)
• The map at http://www.big-italy-map.co.uk/maps/map-of-trentino-alto-adige-.gif is all in Italian.

Ok, to sum up, everything is perfect in those pages, but that doesn't mean all this information is simply thrown away. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To sum it up: nearly all the links you provide use Trentino Alto-Adige because the have not translated all Italy's region names. Other are translations from Italian documents, and could be not so accurate (see the example of the Italian Constitution). The same goes for misspells in other documents

Only exception I see is from the website http://www.countriesandcities.com. This is jus one new element.

In my opinion, and I repeat it, we should all forget German and Italian languages. This is English and should be solved by using original English sources.

And, finally, this is just a name!! Don't you think that, as long as the article can be reached by typing the different possibilities, we should not care too much? --Adriano 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have posted some more links below. You don't know how much I agree with you Adriano, when you say it is just a name, just as in Shakespeare. The thing you have to realize though is that a certain user performed an injustice when this page was moved without consensus. That, and the term Trentino-South Tyrol in English is really not obvious as correct. I think on the other hand that certain users are trying to promote a pro-German POV. That is why this will never go back to a calm situation until a compromise is met, and why I suggested using both names. If you look at the situation, it is those who ignited this all that were the ones who should of realized "a name is just a name". Don't you think? regards. Taalo 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

--Adriano has got it right. No use pointing out to Italian websites, let's stick to English instead. Gryffindor 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They are English websites, and although not all perfect, they do point to what is commonly used. If you want to use English so bad, then why not Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol, or Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol (Upper Adige/South Tyrol). You know, I'd even suggest to you that you should remove yourself from this debate and actually observe. Why? Because you actually instigated all this on 25 Oct. 2005 by not following proper procedure in the first place. I'm not saying to go away, but you really need to look inward a bit there dude. Taalo 18:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should care - that is THE POINT here. Also, you not only reverted it back incorrectly, but you also changed it to read "High" Adige? Just so you know - "Alto" translates to "UPPER", not "High". Wow, you guys are something else. Rarelibra 14:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rarelibra,

• why is it so important?
• and on which basis should it be changed (i.e.: anything new to support your point)?

Please note: I haven't changed "Alto Adige" with "High Adige". You know, nothing should be changed, until consensus is reached. I do not know if this is a Wikipedia policy. It seems to me it's simply common sense. --Adriano 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding me, right? You haven't scrolled to the top of this talk page to see what article name it is? As far as importance - most of the known world refers to this area as "Trentino-Alto Adige", yet still we have those who refuse to recognize this. NOWHERE is the translation used as "South Tyrol" (other than your travel or tourism books) - as the official name from the Italian government is "Trentino-Alto Adige". How much more 'support' do you need? And as for your evaluation and comments of the websites - well, I guess it isn't enough to see so many sources listing the correct name. Go about your fantasyland and do what you may, do what you wish, as far as I am concerned this is done because of the outright, brutally obvious corruption that is occurring here. What exactly do you value in all of this? That an English user can get to the site? Seems that every possible redirect can handle that. So why not give in the the TRUTH and allow an honest edit to be made? As far as consensus... if 'consensus' decided to nuke the world, would it still be CORRECT? NO. In this case, it is so obvious, yet here we are continuing down the path of lunacy. Rarelibra 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rarelibra, you do not support your point. Instead you attack the other wikipedians.

• You say that most of the known world use Trentino-Alto Adige for this region. Is it an English mother-tongue speaking world? Do you also include Italy? Is there anything you can use to support your statement?
• The fact that this area is named Trentino Alto-Adige by the Italian government does not mean that this is the right name in English (Toscana is called Tuscany, Lombardia is Lombardy etc.). The very same article of the Italian constitution, as appears on the official link I provided, translates Sicily and Sardinia, but not Aosta Valley.
• The fact that South Tyrol is used in travel and tourism books could instead be important, if these are original English texts, showing the usage of either name.
• I have checked all the weblinks provided, stating my opinion on each of them, and why they should be considered or not. Why don't you challenge, point by point, my arguments with other arguments?
• You say all this is obvious, but it is quite clear that this is not the case for everybody. Hence, you need to support your point. Why don't you do that?
• As of consensus, please read Wikipedia:consensus, the relevant part on Wikipedia guidelines. ("Wikipedia works by building consensus")

I do not care about this name, but I would like to see the reasons supporting one position or another. Statements like "it's obvious" or "you are wrong" without any supporting proofs are -in my opinion- no use in forwarding wikipedia.

And, finally, once for all, I did not change the name of this article... Just tried to reverse changes made without consensus (which could be considered vandalism), but, not knowing how to do it, didn't change the article's title. You don't believe me? Check on the change list!!--Adriano 15:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Adriano, let me HELP you here just so you don't miss it. I have been the one to be brave enough to take this on, seeing all of the bugs come out of the woodwork to attack me and change things back when evidence has been given in support of the changes. The region is known as "Trentino-Alto Adige" which, if you wanted to translate, would be Trentino-Upper Adige. We tried that, it was changed back. There is an insistence upon this "South Tyrol" which must stop. That is an ALTERNATE name - a german name - which is given respect, following the rules of wiki, with the naming convention of "Trentino-Alto Adige (Sudtirol)" - the PROPER name. The fact that South Tyrol is used is an english translation of the germanic name, but using this does not keep in the rules of wiki with respect to multilingual areas. I'm challenging your entire argument to go to these websites and have the nerve to actually sit there and say "well, those are all Italian names". Wow, really? I thought they were yiddish. Some of those names translate (like Tuscany/Toscana) and some don't (like Campagnia or Calabria).

You know where my frustration works in? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. What do you do for a living? I work in GIS, also volunteer with the UN. I work with this stuff every day. I've been to 24 countries and speak 3 languages other than English (2 of them fluently) and know the variances of translations - how about you?. The statements supporting this show direct evidence and references - lists from official governments and entities. Rarelibra 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is somewhat obvious that "voting" on this matter is not going to get us anywhere. We will be stuck with the status quo that certain users are trying to cement. I think we need to ask for a group of neutral admins to help address the issues across the naming of this region, province and towns. I would also recommend an investigation be put forward onto the process that was used to originally change Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol, Bolzano to Bozen-Bolzano, etc, just so it is clear how we got here in the first place. Taalo 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rarelibra,

• I have already set my comments on the proofs which were provided, and this one by one. I agree with you on the point that some names have a translation, and some others haven't. But, when I find a few names in a list which are translated and others which aren't -although there is an English version of it- a little doubt comes to my mind: is the list accurate? If they "forgot" to translate, say, Lombardia, did they forget to translate Trentino Alto-Adige as well?
• I am not supporting either version. I would like just that people support what they say with proofs, in order to convince the others of their point. And to help you on this point, here is a link supporting your version, from the UK embassy in Italy website: http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1054570678725

On the other hand, on the BBC website we find Trentino and Süd-Tirol

http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/sport/clubs/newcastle_united/champions_league/inter_milan.shtml

Both these links are what we, professional translators, call "real life sources".

• You say there are wiki rules regarding multilingual areas. Could you please provide a link to it, I am quite new to wikipedia and could not find it.
• You say I have no clue of what I am talking about, and challenge me on qualifications. I have 2 University-level degrees and a master in translation/interpreting/simultaneous interpreting. Moreover I am certified tourist guide and certified journalist. I also work in tourism on promotion and marketing. Been just in about 15 countries, but lived in 5 of them, and speak 4 languages (3 of these fluently).

I like debates, whenever they remain polite and focus on what is said, rather than who said it. But, most of all, I am ready to be proved wrong, if someone brings clear evidence of this. Please, do. --Adriano 17:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a real debate would be nice, actually. If everyone could drop the nationalistic agendas. You know what, I don't think you can be proved right or wrong. The thing is that by the nature of this region there is the Italian-German conventions. That was my primary motivation to use Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol to finally come up with something that shares. I thought this could satisfy the camp that wants to just go with the German POV, which would be Trentino-Sudtirol or Trentino-South Tyrol. I could of just as well argued to put it back to Trentino-Alto Adige, considering it is what is most widely used in English and also that the move was done without going through proper channels. Instead, being from this region, I am hoping this compromise can be used. Because, as I said before, there is no straightforward wrong or right. my regards. Taalo 18:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Adirano, You have this education and experience and, yet - you even post a website from the UK embassy showing proof of the names (I would consider this more of a source than BBC). Interesting. BTW I've lived in quite a few countries as well. Seems even it Taalo produced pictures from the region and province, people here would still refuse to initiate the changes. Pardon me for pointing this out, but the very fact that you posted the UK embassy website proves this name incorrect, does it not? Rarelibra 18:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What really saddens me, besides all this b.s. revolving around the region my family calls home, is that there is no compromise at all. Very few people are even looking for that neutral ground which I asked for. I could of just as well pushed for an Italian POV, which I think would also be utter nonsense. This region is prosperous and peaceful, we don't have the situation of (cold) war like in Cyprus. But even the Cyprus page seems to have been able to satisfy all the children with some compromise. How certain users can actually use Wikipedia to promote political agendas is just plain frightening. I can only hope that certain users are using this as a case study in a Thesis, rather than it being their true intention. o_O Taalo 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the multilingual wiki pages use "South Tyrol" - Italian [[2]] and German [[3]]. So it seems the 'compromise' would be Bolzano-Sudtirol. Rarelibra 19:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rarelibra,

Yes, I have posted a website showing the use of Trentino Alto-Adige - and, after that, another one with Trentino and Süd-Tirol from BBC.

After another brief research on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I have found another sentence saying that "German is the predominant language in the South Tyrol (Trentino-Alto Adige)" ([4]) thus using both.

An occurrence of Trentino Alto-Adige is in the UK National archives ([5]).

Yes, the Embassy website could be considered more important than BBC - but, as often goes with diplomacy, the choice of Trentino Alto-Adige could have been a politically-correct option, in line with the official Italian version - and not necessarily a correct one.

You could consider this as in contradiction with what I've said - If I had said that I'd support one or another renaming. But, and I stress this point, I firmly believe that, as long as there are redirects from the other options, any solution will do. My initial comment to Taalo was that, as there had just been a discussion, with survey, on this point, whether there were new elements for this survey to be re-opened.

You could ask: "If any solution will do, so why not changing?". Then I could reply: "If any solution will do, why changing?". So, please, let's stop throwing mud at each-other and try to find consensus on the point, with sound, high-standard proofs and links, as I have tried to do. --Adriano 19:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To Taalo,

I have commented every link you posted. In order to gain consensus, wouldn't it be useful that you challenge my comments, or, else, add some new elements supporting your idea? --Adriano 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I Adriano, I tried to go through your list, in the same detail you have. Granted, I am actually needing to catch up on work after the fiasco of the past two days. :) Try to look at this from the other side. You did find little errors here and there, but how many links do you find with a list of regions that has Trentino-South Tyrol? Not many is the answer. Maybe Gryffindor, et al. hope to use WP as a method to change this. Isn't using WP for politics against all ethnical judgement? Call this an accusation, but with what I've seen, this is the conclusion I'm coming to. I have that right I think, especially given the hardnose methods he has used. I am a native English speaker, and am very familiar with this region. WP is the first time I ever saw this phrase used to describe the region. Taalo 20:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

stop. To comment on "politically-correct" options but "not necessarily correct"? Are you kidding me? The province is in Italy. Doesn't matter if the majority is German speaking. If the majority of the speakers in the United States become Spanish speaking, does that mean we change the name to "Estados Unidos"? I think not. The name, proper and official, like it or not, is Trentino-Alto Adige or Trentino-Sudtirol(acc). Just as the province name is Bolzano - not South Tyrol. I am not asking that any solution will do - I am saying do the right thing and let's change this to a proper, multilingual solution (since it is primary german speaking but still italian). You want to keep this page as is? Fine - it covers the translation of "Trentino-Sudtirol". But the single "South Tyrol" page MUST be changed to Bolzano or Bolzano-Bozen or something along the lines. Remember not to confuse the AREA of South Tyrol (passed on through historical means) as opposed to the REGION and PROVINCE proper. Cheers. Rarelibra 19:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

mmmm....

You are talking about a province, which is in Italy. But Trentino-whatever is not a province. It is a region.

The province of Bozen - South Tyrol is in Italy. But it is German speaking. German is the official language, besides Italian and Ladin. You should go there and ask if people feel Italian. And, also by personal experience, I can say that if you speak German, you are often better welcomed than if you speak Italian (personal experience, confirmed by other people). So the fact that a province/region is in Italy does not mean that the Italian name is the most correct one - even if used by the UK Embassy in Italy in order not to anger Italy's government (The last assumption is just my opinion, I have no proof that this has happened).

To see what damage politically correctness does, remember the name which was given to FYROM, commonly known as Republic of Macedonia. BTW if you click on the former you are redirected to the latter, not the other way round... Which means that the most "politically correct" solution - found in order to pleast the Greek government - is not necessarily considered the most correct one.

"Estados Unidos" is already happening. The White House website is in Spanish too! ([6]). BTW, in the English Wikipedia there is a redirect from Estados Unidos. Someone introduced this redirect in the English wikipedia more than a year and a half ago, and noone ever tried to change it. So there must be a reason. According to the article Languages of the United States there are already bilingual signs in Southwestern United States, with New Mexico as bilingual state... Ok, ok just teasing you!! :-) And, besides, this does not help in this discussion.

I found proof that both expressions are used... Which one is most widely used by English mother-tongues? That is the question --Adriano 20:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges with the Macedonia case. The Greeks are upset with the name from a very long history of the area and simple pride. The name is the Republic of Macedonia. Just because the Greeks have a region name by the same is of no matter. Should the United States be upset that there is a country named "Georgia"? Or should we force them to have the name "Former Soviet Republic of Georgia"? Apples to oranges. As for the redirect from Estados Unidos to the proper name - I would hope so! And of course there are bilingual signs in the US - which language are you talking about? In the City of Chicago, you can see a lot of signs with Spanish and Polish, while on the west coast, you can see signs with asian languages. This debate is about proper name, not popular name. To not have the proper name is misleading to all wiki readers (English or otherwise). There is a compromise possibility. That is Trentino-South Tyrol for this page (the region), and Bolzano-Bozen for the province page. Rarelibra 20:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, Adriano, Rarelibra is absolutely correct with the Macedonia situation. This is an entirely different issue. I've actually studied this situation a lot, and if you really understand the situation it is fascinating. Macedonia was basically almost like Rome, it spread far and wide. Macedonia is also a part of the Helenic culture, i.e. Alexander the Great. The Republic of Macedonia used the flag and the name because technically that land was also part of the Ancient Macedonia. Of course the irony is, just as the UK can claim to be the Republic of Rome since they were part of Rome, this is what the Republic of Macedonia has done. Where the Greeks become sensitive is that this country is right next to their own Province of Macedonia. There are fears that this is a conspiracy to create a feeling amongst the people of then Yugoslavia that this is all their homeland. The funny thing though is that the occupants of the Republic of Macedonia are actually Slavs which came to the land literally a 1,000 years after the Helenics. :) Anyway, it is kind of silly, though kind of serious too because it potentially can bend the history. I've even read of some Slavic Macedonians claiming Alexander the Great. If Alexander the Great is eventually portrayed as a Slavic, I will laugh to die. Ok, that is my take at least.. and sorry for deviating. It is just interesting the obsession a few have had throughout history to even be bothered with this sort of thing. Power hungry? Nothing else to do? LOL. Taalo 23:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To Rarelibra and Taalo;

My intention wasn't to compare the situation of Macedonia to Trentino-whatever. I just wanted so show the damage political correctness can sometimes do, and that politically-correct does not always mean correct.

A funny side: Rarelibra, you write that I am comparing apples to oranges with the Macedonia case. Now, the word macedonia, in Italian, means fruit salad, with apples, oranges and all the rest :-) --Adriano 12:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• (reposted from South Tyrol talk) Here we go: My hypothesis to why a lot of this debate is going on is the following. If this region was not part of Italy now, but instead was part of Austria, in all likelyhood the Province would be called Sudtirol (aka South Tyrol). If the ethnic Italians would have enjoyed the same rights as the ethnic Germans now do, we will never know. That said, I commend that the German people of the region stood up for their rights, and that we have the situation we have now, the people who have lived here for centuries (Italians and Germans) living in peace. Going back to the hypothetical argument that if Austria had retained control after the breakup of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. If the local Italians would have no say, most likely the province would of been called the Province of Sudtirol (as this is the common way to name provinces in Austria). The cities would of likely retained only their German names: Meran, Bozen, Brixen, etc., etc. As I have ancestors from Austria, I sincerely hope that they would of done a mirror of what exists in Italy now (i.e., naming cities Bozen-Bolzano, Meran-Merano, etc.). But I can only hope and guess. Now, the reality of how things did come to end is that the Italian gov't has control of the region. The Italian convention of naming provinces is by the major city of the province (and I've gone over this a lot above, and I find it hard to see now this is debatable). So, therefore the province (by this simple method) is called the Province of Bolzano (or Provinz Bozen in German). In fact, I find it even harder to believe that any average neutral non-political guy/gal in Bolzano/Bozen will not agree the province is called Bolzano/Bozen. Now, what I find disturbing in all of this, and I'll let you all be the judge, is when I see an insistence by primarily Austrian/German individuals (and mostly all not even from the region) to call the province Province of South Tyrol, the region Trentino-South Tyrol, and work on making the city names either Brenner, Italy or Bozen-Bolzano -- I feel sickened. Why? If you read the basic history I have outlined, I hope you can see that this mindset would be what an extremist minority would hope to convey -- because for all intents and purposes -- it is the naming convention that would of existed had Austria retained this area! Now, I know not everyone who is supporting using South Tyrol is German/Italian/etc., so don't blindside me with that argument please. I'm not trying to generalize or accuse German/Austrians. I'm just pointing out what I have seen. Anway, to me, whose family is from this region, I find this discusting that individuals would try to migrate the names to a would of been convention. Sorry, but that is my opinion. I have absolutely no problem with the history of the region (as long as it is done fairly). My culture is Trentino/Tirol/Tirolese. My background has "Italian" and "Austrian" roots.. though by far if you look in the archives and cemetaries, much of all our roots are firmly from Rome and Latin. This is really a family squable, because the people are all the same. I have Italian relatives that are blonde-blue eyed and look similar to user Fantasy. :) I have others that are dark haired and darker skin. All these relatives have their family tree tracable for literally centuries through the local churches. Anyway, by rights, and going by the rules of Wikipedia the cities should be in Italian, the region should be Trento-Alto Adige to preserve neutrality and the province should be the Province of Bolzano. But this risks a war going on forever, especially from those who have these extreme views I detailed before. So going all Italian is not a good way (and I don't buy this English in English wikipedia -- these places do not have straightforward English names. I am a native English speaker, I have some clue on this!). Going with the ultra-South-Tyrol mode of trying to move everything to how it might of been if the Austrian Gov't would of retained control is even worse --- far worse. Downright horrendous in fact. That is why I have said over and over again, for this special region in Italy, use the Italian-German as has been actually used in the region. The cities can be Bolzano-Bozen or Bolzano (Bozen). The province can be Province of Bolzano-Bozen or Province of Bolzano (Bozen). I would prefer to have the region as Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol or Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Something that maintains neutrality. People saying that the area is South Tyrol in English when arguing the province should be Province of South Tyrol are either absolutely oblivious to the history and reality of this region or are trying to push through a German POV. Anyway, I hope my small dissertation :) has helped a little bit to understand the cities, provinces, regions, and issues this brings up. The culture of this region is sharing.. everyone needs to back the heck up and realize this, and also think of how this page can be the most neutral and fair. Not an attempt to re-write history through WP or fantasies of the province being part of Greater Austria. Life is too short, doesn't this simple-minded stuff not get old? To the individuals who made it their purpose in life to start this a year ago.. come on guys, go down and visit the rivers and mountains and -- RELAX. regards. Taalo 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Point by point: If current South Tyrol was still part of Austria it would simply be part of Land Tirol, as it was until the aftermath of WWI. There has never been a current of thought advocating separation between Tyrolean peoples south and north of the Brenner. Incidentally, the official name of Trentino under Austria was Welschtirol, which means either “South Tyrol” or “Italian Tyrol”, depending on how do you translate ‘welsch’ translating. The official name for Italian versions of all documents was Tirolo meridionale.
The cities would surely have retained their German name, as would have befitted to places inhabited by an overwhelming majority of German-speakers: remember that many Italians came to South Tyrol during the Fascist era. Italian exonyms would have remained exonyms, I guess. And this is mere speculation, like yours after all. :)
Then you make a case of the official name of the province(s). All right, yes, officially they are called province this and province that. So, you say, “the region should be Trento-Alto Adige”. But let’s be paradoxical: can you honestly say that Tuscany should be renamed Firenze? In the case of my Trentino, it took decades to gain the right to use the name freely, if not officially, and we’re pretty attached to it (Venezia Tridentina was contested at its inception [which, I may add, was before Mussolini, contrary to what the history section says], and was cheerfully forgotten after WWII). In the case of South Tyrol, I honestly can’t see what’s so “sickening” about it, or biased. Nor do other Italian-speakers who entered this debate, as I see. Not to say that Trento-Alto Adige would be a first in the complex regional toponomastical history.
On one point I concur: this is a family squabble. But lo and behold, all the other cousins had no problem whatsoever with South Tyrol. Be a good cousin yourself: are you aware of the Italian philosophy called quieto vivere? If you’re very much isolated on an issue, the sensible thing to do is lay it to rest. :D Tridentinus 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I got to reply to this part: "can you honestly say that Tuscany should be renamed Firenze?". This isn't a valid argument really. Tuscany is the region. Firenze is a city, and also a province in this region. Likewise, the Province of Pisa (containing the city Pisa), the Province of Siena (containing the city Siena). So just as the Province of Trento and the Province of Bolzano are in the region of Trentino-Alto Adige, these three provinces (and seven more) are in the region of Tuscany. So, ok, in the end, I'm not sure what you were trying to argue with this paradox... but in the words of Marco Ranzani, "VAAAAAAA BENE!!! OOOOOK!!!" :))) Taalo 03:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

ma dai..., how can you say I'm "very much isolated"? That is patronizing after I try to do my best to explain my take on the situation. (not trying to be aggressive here, ok? :) Consider that by saying this you are essentially brushing my thoughts on the matter aside, with one sentence. Anyway! I'm not saying that South Tyrol is sickening. I'm saying that individuals trying to have the Province of Bolzano-Bozen webpage listed as the Province of South Tyrol has, what appears to be, less-than-ethical motives. You know, sometimes you assume the best, and that person is holding a knife behind your back. Let's not be completely naive, ok? I'm not being paranoid, I'm merely reacting to the process I've seen documented over one year. I dearly want to assume the best of everyone in this World.. but that often can bite back. Not everyone is so good, unfortunately. As far as the region, I'm simply saying lets come up with a neutral version. I am primarily from your Trentino, but obviously the entire region of Trentino-Alto Adige means a lot to me. The Tirol culture is ours too. Also, I really doubt these claims that the ethnic balance of the (province) of Bolzano was so drastically changed. I feel this is politics. I know a lot of this you are maybe getting from that statistic that says 97% were German, 3% were Italian? But from what I've seen in church records, the people for the most part stayed the same. It was actually a small percentage that went out and came in -- afterall maybe in the order of a few thousand. The thing is if you look at a census from the era of 1910 that says this and this "ethnicity", is it really verifiable? If I'm living in Merano in 1910 and the Austrian Gov't knocks on my door.. yes, I will probably just check off German and say.. ciao! I mean, auswiedersehen! :)) It is like going to modern day Germany and asking who speaks German. It isn't based on true ethnicity. These are not the only languages we have spoken also.. so it is not a clear language-to-ethnicity correlation. Heck, you know how many darn dialects the people REALLY speak, which are a mix of everything.. i.e. the dialect from the Val di Sol, the one from the Val di Non, etc., etc. So anyway, I don't even know where I am in this conversation now. :) I, being the (American) cousin, only want fairness and sharing of our joint-culture. That's all. A particular valley is my home, but Trento and Bolzano I consider all of ours who love this region. I have no problem with anything really whatsoever -- except users who are exactly going against the quieto vivere you just mentioned. But you are asking me to do this quieto vivere, maybe this is ironic afterall? Considering I would of been happily quiet and content had certain users (who sure do remain comfortably quiet to their intentions!) hadn't initiated things on 25 Oct. 2005. Anyway, at least we are having an interesting debate. Where are you at in general in Trentino? Don't give out too much details, or they may come to get you -- these POV dudes. JUST KIDDING. I love sarcasm. ciao. Taalo 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that large number of people lied to Austrian census-takers, or that the census was flawed in some way? All you have provided as yet is some vague hypothetical anecdote about what you would do. john k 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; good point. Yes, I'm just hypothesizing, and thanks for pointing that out. You know, I'm fine if somebody shows me I'm wrong. My field is one of research afterall, so no result is a bad result. The thing is, from cemetaries (the family tombstones mainly stay the same, etc.), accounts of elders from that era, etc.. there doesn't actually appear to have been this huge colonization. I was just trying to make a point to consider, that maybe you take with a grain of salt a census by the Austrian-Hungarian Empire from nearly a century ago.. You'll get a similar argument from peoples who were under the Ottoman Empire -- or any Empire for that matter. My opinion is that the people have mostly stayed the same over the centuries. But it is an opinion and also probably borders on the edge of OR. Actually, I've just been trying to give some information and background on this region to have a fair discussion -- so indeed take it all with a grain of salt as well. Regardless, my intentions are -- and have been -- just to come up with a neutral solution. If it was wrong for me even to bring up this discussion about the region, I can accept that as well. I do wish that a thorough discussion would of happened way before this process began last year -- when it was initiated unilaterally by a few users. To me the situation was and is not right -- but it is just my opinion. Of course I hope it was worth it, putting my neck on the line -- so to say. regards. Taalo 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Gonna bail for a bit. I've spend way too much time this past day and a half on this. I feel like I have talked too much also. :) I assume this process will be discussed at least for a week or two. I'll check back later. Just hope an actually valuable discussion/learning experience comes out of this -- for everyone (me too :) Taalo 04:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I'll provide this link I dug up. http://www.trinstitute.org/ojpcr/1_3kag.htm This does show that there were roughly 73,000 Italians that moved up to Bolzano-Bozen to help build hydroelectric plants. The only thing I can feel happy about this lousy time was that it appears the majority of "Germans" who were going to emigrate, ended up staying afterall. At least this is good to know that no one was cleansed out -- but there does appear to be many new families who moved in. I guess this fits with what I've seen in the churches/cemetaries at least -- that the original people have stuck around. My only point of contention then is that I still disagree with this strict term of "German" or "Italian" -- often based on language. I still believe the people of Trentino-Alto Adige/Sudtirol are a people.. and the "German" or "Italian" is actually a lot due to the rulers who have come and gone. Also, the people are definitely a mix of Roman, Germanic, etc., etc. -- so I really just can't agree that there is a "German" people in Bolzano and an "Italian" people in Trento. All in all, the cultures are almost identical.. and a lot of the dialects (that are actually used more than Italian or German) interweave. Anyway, I hope you all take this history lesson in good faith. I for one learned something more about what happened to my neighbors/cousins over the hill. Regardless, lets try to come up with a neutral position that respects this region and the people -- and indeed the new ones that arrived during those bad days some 70 years ago. That said, my current feeling goes to: cities: Italian-German (this is multiethnic Italy); using the proper Province of Bolzano-Bozen (with a page or section describing South Tyrol/Sudtirol) and maybe we do this page as Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol? Then we follow what is in the maps of the World (i.e., we do not go against the grain of what is really out there on maps, britannica, etc.), while respecting the Tirolese culture. I don't think this name is too confusing. How do you all think? Ok, now I really got to get work done.. damnit. :) Taalo 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Although the region "Trentino-Alto Adige" was not abolished, its name was changed to "Trentino-South Tyrol" and most of its important powers were taken away and transferred to the two provinces South Tyrol and Trentino." I really hope this author is giving an accurate account. So does this mean both names are in effect? Also, "Until the present, German and Ladin speakers did not distinguish between Italians in South Tyrol and Italians in general. Most of the people did not even distinguish between the Italian people and the Italian government. There is no awareness of the two distinct levels of the conflict. But Italians in South Tyrol can no longer be seen only as the invaders and as tools of the Italianization politics. After living in the province since the 1930s, or at least since the 1950s, they consider South Tyrol to be their homeland too. Their offspring were born there, went to school there and work there. Italians became, over the years, Italian-speaking South Tyroleans." Anyway, that is really a great historical article, if it is accurate. I don't know, I've given credit to the Trentino-South Tyrol folks, without them actually doing any research. :) I still think though, to be fair with what is on the maps, etc... more and more Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol makes the most sense. Again, with the cities, we really should use both names. The province, it is hard to argue with what exists.. i.e. the Province of Trento and the Province of Bolzano-Bozen. I like Olessi's idea the best to have a subpage or something describing South Tyrol. Man, for sure I did not like what the Austrians did in the 1800's to the Italians of Trentino... and no more do I like what the Italian Gov't did to the people of Bolzano-Bozen in the 1900's. I hope you all who are from this region can at least realize that many of us have been around here back when we were even all under Rome. I still consider all the people of this region brothers/sisters/cousins. regards. Taalo 06:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

(moved from Survey section)

You know, I can fully understand trying to be civil and a good person, I try to this in my daily life. It is obviously important to try and mandate this on Wikipedia. But, if someone appears to have conducted himself in a way that is unprofessional, rude, and inconsiderate, do we just keep it to ourselves? It is almost as if you see someone robbing someone else (just making a hypothetical argument), and you chastise the man/woman who goes and knocks the robber over the head. I know it doesn't help our argument, or probably even give a good impression when making accusations towards so-called established users. But the thing though is, sometimes the proof is in the pudding (the archives in this case). I for one can't be happy seeing what I have seen happen over the past year. Trying to protect the one being accused is commendable, however, it can also be naive and end up hurting the good people and simply protecting the bad (all while he/she stands quietly off to the side). Take no offense please; at this point I'm making a general statement -- just something a wise old someone once told me. take care olessi. Taalo 04:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the phrasing used over the last few days involving the South Tyrolian articles has, from my eyes, appeared almost slanderous and like a witch hunt. I happen to agree with some of your substance arguments on the disputed topics, but these constant references to "people from Vienna" are becoming quite annoying to see. I don't care how right or wrong someone is in a dispute; personal attacks (by anyone) are never allowed and go completely against Wikiquette. I am optimistic that your apology will help to create a more peaceful atmosphere. Olessi 17:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize if I offend Austrians or those from Vienna. I'm not singling out people from Vienna. I only say this because the people who went through and changed everything over the course of a year list themselves as being from Vienna. So, try not to confuse it as referring to people from Vienna as a whole. I'll try to just avoid it, fair enough? I am happy to admit I've become too emotional at times. Part of it also comes from seeing only a few people that have been willing to really take the time and see what was done in the past, what really initiated all this. It is disappointing from a humanistic point of view that the original aggitators don't even come out and say, ok, i did something wrong. Instead when people try to move things back to what they were (before being changed without discussions), they abuse WP and say vandalism or POV edit warriors. Look, someone last year started going through WP bit by bit changing to a particular POV. I don't want a witch hunt, but it would be nice to have at least an acknowledgement of what realy started this. I for one am not in the habit of being annoyed just out of the blue! I can actually understand their POV, but for the sake of being neutral, for the sake of trying to make everyone happy rather than just pushing a particular viewpoint (for whatever good or bad reason), it would sure be nice if people could think a bit deeper. You know, even admit they are wrong from time to time.. I have no problem with that. It is indeed good for the soul! Yeah, I also have no problem to say sorry. I hope it does make things more peaceful. But I also hope the ones who are at the root of this also have the orbs to come out make good as well. I'm pretty cynical though, so I doubt it will happen. :) regards. i have appreciated your ideas throughout this process. Taalo 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.