Talk:Julian March

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is it correct to say it was ceaded from Yugoslavia to Italy in 1922, when infact it was taken from the disgregation of the austrian-hungarian empire?

Very iffy on the "ruled by Venice" bit - for 3 years? Occupied, surely? Can I change this?

Contents 1 "Julian March," not "Venezia Giulia" 2 What? 3 Names 4 Revision 5 Split 6 Rename 6.1 CONCLUSIONS

[edit] "Julian March," not "Venezia Giulia"

The English name is Julian March, while the Italian name deserves to be primary, it still must go in the brackets I'm afraid. This is Wiki Policy, just like Istria, for example, must be called "Istria" and not "Istra," as is the local name. I remind you this is the English Wikipedia, I will go to the Admins if necessary on this. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Venetia Iulia" is the translation in Latin of the term "Venezia Giulia", created by the Italian glottologist. He used both terms, and the Latin term is used even by English authors in English books. In the English wikipedia can be used both: Julian March and Venetia Iulia. And -of course- the Italian term "Venezia Giulia" must go in the brackets I'm afraid, as you wrote. I don't see any reason to go to the admins for this. Direktor, sometimes you remember me a bit my nephiew Marko (who lives in Cherso and calls himself a "Croat of Dalmatian Italian ethnicity"): he is always worried of not irritating the nationalistic Croats around him, while he always defends his Dalmatian Italians roots. But "it is very hard the job of being in the middle", he says. --Cherso (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the job is hard, but I defend my Slavic roots not out of fear, but out of affection. Also, Latin cannot be used in article names, only English. The exact origin of the name is fully irrelevant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What?

What are you doing? This article is AGREED UPON by Italian, Slovenian and Croatian editors. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Names

Check Google for English pages with Venetia iulia[1] and Venezia Giulia [2], Venetia Euganea [3] and Venezia Euganea [4], Venetia Tridentina [5] and Venezia Tridentina [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.238.146 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC) The Roman Empire never used the terms Venetia iulia, Venetia Euganea, Venetia Tridentina, only Venetia et Histria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.238.146 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Ascoli invented the names, they were never used before « Noi diremo "Venezia propria" il territorio rinchiuso negli attuali confini amministrativi delle province venete; diremo "Venezia Tridentina" o "Retica" (meglio "Tridentina") quello che pende dalle Alpi Tridentine e può avere Trento per sua capitale; e "Venezia Giulia" ci sarà la provincia che tra la Venezia propria e le Alpi Giulie ed il mare rinserrà Gorizia, Trieste e l'Istria." (Graziadio Isaia Ascoli, "Le Venezie", 1863) "We will call "Venezia proper" the land closed in the present borders of the venetian provinces; we will call "Venezia Tridentina" or "Retica" (better "Tridentina") the one which lays on the Tridentine Alps and can have Trento as its capital; and "Venezia Giulia" will be the province between Venezia proper and the Julian Alps and the sea will enclose Gorizia, Trieste and Istria." 79.17.238.146 (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to explain this to you in simpler terms: the section you are editing is called "History", and the part of the text you are editing deals with the time of the Roman Empire. Now, the official language of the Roman Empire was Latin, not Italian, and Wikipedia policy demands that contemporary names be used when describing history. The contemporary names were in Latin, therefore they must remain in Latin, the Google test is not important here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagined that you had not understood. The Roman Empire never called this lands Venetia Iulia, Venetia Euganea, Venetia Tridentina. Ascoli wanted to create new names for these lands. if I remember well, the main reason was to have Italian names for the Italian zones of the Austrian Empire, the Adriatischen Kustenland (he called it Venezia Giulia) and the Welschtirol (he called it Venezia Tridentina). You know, if they had to be considered Italian, they had to have Italian names. So he created the names referring to the only time when these lands were considered an administrative part of Italy, during the Roman Empire. A region comprising, more or less, Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Istria formed the region "Venetia et Histria", so he used the Italian word for Venetia, "Venezia" to form the new names. Now, the name "Venezia Euganea" had less fortune (the region had already an Italian name, Veneto), the other two entered into use (Venezia Tridentina later fell out of use). Now, if you check Google, you'll see that the Italian forms are more used in English. Venezia Giulia is a case apart, because it's a part of the modern name Friuli Venezia Giulia, but the other too are more used, too, even if they are very rare, probably because they are only historical names. If you look here you'll see the third link is to Encyclopædia Brittanica. I think you can consider it a reliable source. I repeat, It does not care that the language of the Roman Empire was Latin, because these names were not Latin, they were not used at the time, they were created in 1863. 82.60.157.175 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see, my mistake. You appear to be correct, my apologies. The text was written very badly, and if you had my experience with IP accounts I expect your reaction would be the same (just today one began rewriting WW2 songs into fascist versions). Also, Wikipedia is positively teeming with all sorts of biased irredentist editors, trying to depict various areas such as Istria, Dalmatia and Rijeka as "rightfully Italian". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry ;) 87.15.237.46 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

Reverted senseless removal of info by IP editor/editors. This encyclopedia is not your own personal "frustration vent". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ' Venezia Giulia is not "G M", is part of present day Italy. Be educate, and do not be offensive, tx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.158.216 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I question you Dir.? Why that offensive comment?--217.202.158.216 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Ven. Giulia and G. M. are 2 different thigs, they need two different articles. I read that south Slavic authors often mix the concepts, but the present day V.G, is not the Slavic Giulian March. In many ways it was the same before WWII. --217.202.158.216 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Julian March is not a Slavic region, it is a region that encompasses both Italy, Slovenia, and Croatia. You made edits trying to present it as entirely Italian, which is simply untrue. Its just plain stupid to create a separate article only about the Italian part of this same region.

For example: it would be ridiculous to create an article called "Istra" only about the Croatian part of Istria, when another (Istria) already exists. This is not Wikipedia practice.

Concerning your edits: stop reverting, discuss, and for now include only the images. Do not force me to call in an administrator to protect this article from "educated" people such as yourself.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not reverted, I "restored" what you reverted. I've simply realized several errors and it is not possible that I was wrong everywhere... so why you restored ALL the previous version? BTW "mark" is just the translation of ths Slavic therm "kraijna". Starting from the mid 1800, Yugoslavs used the term "Julian Mark", in opposition of "Venezia Giulia". To be more precise,I will re-read ASA the Slovenian historian Novak. "Venezia Giulia" is the current official name of a part of the Italian Republic, no need to impose the Slavic therm "Giulian Mark", that was never in official use. Despite this shilly dispute,the most of my edits were OK. No need to restore previous claims, prividing no sources. Contact a moderator if you want, I did nothing of wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.173.107 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The term Julian March is the propper term in the English language for the region. It was coined in 1945 as the translation of the Slovenian and Croatian "Julijska krajina" and adopted by the Western Allies as the official name for the region disputed between Italy and Yugoslavia, precisely because it was considered as more neutral than the Italian term "Venezia Giulia" which implies a connection with North-Western Italy. Julian March is however not a "Slavic term", as it has been suggested by our unsigned friend above. In fact, the Yugoslavs always referred to the territory descriptively, either ennumerating all the region (such as in TIGR: Trieste-Istria-Gorizia-Rijeka) or more simply as "Istria and Slovenian Littoral". The term Julian March was only used for official purposes, as the most propper name for the whole territory disputed between Italy and Yugoslavia. Viator slovenicus (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool! So, now in Italy, we have thr region "Friuli-Julian March"!!!:-) I already wrote that this article shall be split. The two concepts do not coincide (or just partially coincide). This article appears to be on "Venezia Giulia" and NOT about "Julian March". Start a new article, if you like. Stop to revert my edits, even the undiscussed ones, under the pretest of the "wrong name".217.202.102.156 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please check out the article on the Italian wp on which a wide consensus has been reached: the Julian March is treated as a historical region, created as a consequence the Treaty of Rapallo (with a prehistory, of course), of which a small part is nowadays part of Italy. The only difference is that the English name of Venezia Giulia is Julian March. It is however true that this term is usually not used when referring to the name of the region Friuli-Venezia Giulia (which can be mentioned in the article). Splitting would just create unnecessary confusion. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(Totally agree with Viator Slovenicus. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

You (both) appear to be involved in a sort of club, which want to impose its point of view in several Yugoslavia-related articles. That the reason (I shall suppose) of you arrogance and your offensive comments. Nevertheless, your opinion does not seem to be so evident as you claim (see next point). But for you, to impose your own power, seems more important of a neutral conclusion.--217.202.111.51 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I know who you are. Not everyone makes the same grammatical mistakes, and I certainly hope noone else says "Cool!" at the start of his/her sentences so often. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

A Google-research "Julian March" give thousands of false resUlts. So I tried, "Julian March" AND (Trieste OR Pola OR Gorizia)[7][8]

[9]. Still no real results.

"Venezia Giulia" NAND "Friuli" gives several results. Those are significative [10][11][12][13][14].

[edit] CONCLUSIONS

It seems that "Julian March", referred to a land, does not exist in the Net. "Venezia Giulia" is used today as it was used in historical contests. The article shall be renamed "Venezia Giulia".--217.202.111.51 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Italian wikipedia seems to think otherwise. And not just the Italian wikipedia: please bring any reliable source according to which Venezia Giulia is another entity than the Julian March. In reality, Julian March is nothing but the most used English name for an Italian region that was divided in 1947 and of which only a small strip remains in Italy. The request for move is completely unsustained. Viator slovenicus (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop to cheat: in the Italian W. there is neither dicussion nor sources, for your claim. It is on you to provide sources --217.201.202.217 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Viator, I suggest you stop discussing with this guy, as he is obviously heavily POV and does not take rational arguments into account. Should he try to vandalize further the article or its name, I'll call in an admin to sort the problem out. See you around :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Can we take out the Fiulan version? There really is no need at all to have it in friulan, I think someone is jesting. DIREKTOR please comment as you seem to be top dog here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.82.57.134 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)