Disputatio:Tridentinum et Tirolis Athesina

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Movenda?[fontem recensere]

Credo. Quid credunt alii? Vide Disputatio:Tirolis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:15, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense to move given Tirolum was moved. It would be confusing otherwise.--Rafaelgarcia 12:37, 25 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't this page be something like Tridentinae-Altae Athesiae/Tirolis Meridionalis? -- [Anon]
My opinion, for what it's worth is: No. For the following two reasons:
  • The official name for these two bits of territory is a dvandva compound (the two parts linked by the hyphen). Dvandva compounds are OK in Sanskrit, French and (apparently) Italian, but they are vanishingly rare in Latin. In Latin you typically join two nouns into a single compound idea of this kind with the copula et, as in "Creta et Cyrenaica". (It's similar in English: you say "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". "Great Britain-Northern Ireland" would be bad English.)
  • The alternative names of the second half of territory represent Italian and German. We are not writing either of those two languages. We simply need a Latin name for the bit of territory concerned. It is known internationally as South Tyrol, so Tirolis Meridionalis seems a good choice, but if anyone wants to propose to replace it with a different Latin name, and can cite a source for that name, go ahead and propose it. But our imposing two Latin names on the same piece of territory would be childish, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:25, 31 Decembris 2008 (UTC)
Correction, it is known Internationally as Alto Adige -and- South Tyrol. If you pick one over the other, you are playing politics -- which is childish. :-) -- [Anon]
Touché, potentially, and certainly we don't want to play politics. But you'll have to prove your statement that it is known internationally as "Alto Adige and South Tyrol". If you Google that phrase, you'll find (or at least I did) that it has been used just once (identically on four pages) in a reference to the two separate names; and just once, in the Guardian, as a single name. And, let's face it, the much-loved Guardian, though famous for liberalism, isn't famous for getting things exactly right first time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
It is an either-or problem, either the officially allowed German name or the official Italian name. Commons has decided this way: commons:Category:Provinces of Trentino-South Tyrol, I would say, following the majority of the local population. --Alex1011 10:19, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Alex, and I know as a speaker of the German language you may be culturally biased towards the name Südtirol. Please don't take offense, I'm also of German background. Look, when you say the majority of the local population, that isn't easy to interpret. Is it of the Italian Republic? Then it is Standard Italian. Is it of the region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol? Then, it is still Standard Italian, with a minority speaking German as a mother tongue in the very North. I'd argue that the Ladin-Dolomitan (an old Latin language that predates Standard Italian and German in the region) is actually the most widely spoken within the homes, but that is another discussion for another day. :) But regardless, what is used in our dear 'International language' English most often is Trentino-Alto Adige. The vast majority of Latin-based languages as well use some form of Trentino-Alto Adige. So given these two points, it just doesn't fit to leave the term out of Latin Wikipedia -- the language at the core of the Latin-based languages and English as well! LOL. regards to you, -- [Anon]
Happy New Year, Alex! Yes, coincidentally, that's just the same decision that we have made.
The great thing about writing about modern politics in Latin is that Latin is not official anywhere (unless fitfully in the Vatican City). Notice this, O anonyme, and come and get an account and write for us! All we have to try to do is to find accurate names for places. If we achieve that, then, even when German names offend Italians, and even when Italian names offend Germans, we can rise above it all, because we are using Latin names. To give a place as many Latin names as there are modern languages spoken in it, because of some concern about not offending someone who hasn't even spoken up yet, would negate the benefits of using an international language. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 3 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Hi Andrew and Alex, let me help clarify a few points, if I may. First, there have been some rather hardcore discussions involving the naming of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. Second, I would suggest taking with a grain of salt the name used in the Commons, because the very user who started a long harsh debate on this topic set that name with little or no community discussion (it was something of his last stand I suppose...). Thirdly, and I know English Wikipedia is by no means the benchmark for everyone, but if you will see on both en:Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and en:Province of Bolzano-Bozen, there is quite a good discussion in the articles of what is indeed used most often, and why a multilingual solution was chosen. By the widest community agreement it was found that Trentino-Alto Adige is by far the most common term (especially in Latin-based languages) over the term Trentino-South Tyrol; but a multilingual solution was chosen to bring a lasting peace (and it is also the official name used in the constitution of the Italian Republic: Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol). Lastly, from a historical point of view, and I know that our Latin Wikipedia does not need to be kept in the past. But from this historical point of view going back to the times of the Roman Republic, there was never a Tirolis. There was however a Tridentium region and (obviously a) Athesiae river, and I think leaving Athesiae out of the regional name is just not proper. So, to match the official name in the constitution, I'd think following the same translation makes sense: Tridentinae-Altae Athesiae/Tirolis Meridionalis. If that is just too long a name, then I think Tridentinae-Altae Athesiae is the second best solution, because it is what is used in Latin-based languages, and it is also by far more commonly used in English and other non-Germanic languages. Yes, I will register an account, and thanks for the discussion. I hope you'll find I made some valid points... hah. cheers, -- [Anon]
Yes, I'm still thinking ... Meanwhile, out of pure curiosity, when in local administrative discussions people have to refer to this triple-named region twice a minute, what do they actually say? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Please, take your time, it is time for sleep where I live. We can discuss for awhile, no big hurry obviously. Well, no matter what people speak as a mother language in the region (Italian, Ladin, German, etc., and there are many...) the language that binds is obviously Standard Italian (i.e., the Mandarin Chinese of the Italian Republic). So, at the local regional level they are going to use Italian for discussions because 100% of the regional population speaks this at a native level. So in that case, they would simply say Trentino-Alto Adige. Given, I've never participated in such government discussions, so some of this is through personal extrapolation -- and to try and answer your question. :) However, again with English and Latin-based languages, where the individuals don't have such hangups over names, simply a form of Trentino-Alto Adige is used. This has been found in the vast majority of maps, encyclopedias (Britannica), etc. That said, I'd still favor simply translating directly the official name that comes to us from the constitution of the country where said region exists, and be done with it. More information is always more fun, rather than less. Regards to you. and I must say, I really like the civilized tone of discussions on this Latin-Wiki. -- [Anon]
What is the justification for the -ae endings?--Rafaelgarcia 10:09, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well how about Tridentinum et Alta Athesia/Tirolis Meridionalis or Tridentinum et Alta Athesia? :-) -- [Anon]
Or, just as a totally (I think) non-political suggestion, how about Tridentinum et Anaunia? According to my maps, the Tridentini lived just where you would expect and the Anauni lived in the upper valley of the Adige. Long since disappeared, they were surely neither Italic nor Germanic nor Rhaeto-Romance, and no one could now be offended by a reminder that they once existed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to see those maps, but it is indeed an interesting suggestion Andrew. -- [Anon]

(moving to the left for better readability): Might be interesting to take a look at de:Südtirol#Der Name: "Südtirol" has been attested longer than "Alto Adige", the latter name was invented by an Italian nationalist politician. See also de:Südtirol#cite_note-0: We do have a Latin attestation! --UV 23:14, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what you've read is instead the German nationalist explanation of the history. =) You should be aware that in politics you'll often get these "multiple truths". The fact however is the term Alto Adige (used in various forms in the different local Italic languages) has been around for centuries. It is merely a name describing this area at the upper reaches of the Adige river. Another fact is that the term Alto Adige predates Südtirol as a political name for this region, as it was first applied (and they certainly did not invent it) by the French (i.e., Haut-Adige) in Napoleonic times ... -- [Anon]
Yes, I can confirm that. The name Haut-Adige appears on a Napoleonic map (the upper map at Index historicus praefecturarum Franciae), so it wasn't a later nationalist invention. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:16, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
... It is indeed true that an Italian nationalist in the early 20th century played off this history to re-use the term as a political name. He certainly did not invent this name, anymore than inventing the Adige river! :) The term Southern Tyrol up until the middle of the 20th century had only meant literally the southern portion of the old County of Tyrol (which accounts for most of Trentino-Alto Adige). The current Südtirol is a nationalistic term that implies a reunification of the areas of Tyrol that historically had a portion of the population speaking German. That is why you will see a focus on the German Wikipedia about North Tyrol, East Tyrol... and South Tyrol. The irony is what Germans now call South Tyrol is more correctly the center and heart of old Tyrol (find Castle Tyrol on a map). -- [Anon]
Thanks, UV -- that doesn't surprise me, because I know that when the region was under discussion internationally in 1919 everyone called it (in their various languages) "Southern Tyrol". However, it is now a fact that the two names have become identified with the two linguistic communities -- and their politics. That's why, although we certainly can justify our choice of "Tirolis Meridionalis" historically, I am suggesting that we adopt a name Tridentinum et Anaunia which has nothing to do with this politics at all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 6 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Hey Andrew, do you have some historical references for that statement? I'd be curious to know them, about prior to 1919 "everyone calling it Southern Tyrol". The Germans did, I know this. The Italians never did, because Trentino/Tridentinum predates "Tyrol". Now, as for Anaunia: I was under the impression that Anaunia was the region which now makes up areas around the Val di Non, Val di Sol, etc., which are valleys within Trentino proper. On a side note, I've read some theories that the people from Anaunia were originally Hebrews. -- [Anon]
With good wishes, I leave this to others now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:28, 6 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Given the importance that Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors accord to the principle of NPOV, I find it hard to believe that the pieces of text that I referred to above are "the German nationalist explanation of the history", even if they are to be found on the German speaking wikipedia. I find it hard to believe that on the page de:Südtirol, references to well-founded scientific treatises describing any of the multiple truths that you refer to would be rejected.
It is obvious that before the end of World War I, there was no need for a distinct name for the area in question, which formed an integral and central part of Tyrol. I well aware of the fact that after the end of World War I, both sides chose a programmatic name for the area in question, "Südtirol" as a name referring to the former political entity that was destroyed by the treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919), and "Alto Adige" as a name deliberately not referring to any political terms but only to geographic features, at that time with the intention of negating the inhabitants of the area the right to self-determination and at that time with the intention of negating the German-speaking inhabitants' linguistic and cultural identity. Today, however, the situation is in my view different and I do not think that, as you write, today "Südtirol is a nationalistic term that implies a reunification of the areas of Tyrol": In my view, "Südtirol" today conveys no more or less nationalistic ideas than "Alto Adige" does (due to the course of historical events!) and I do not think that (save perhaps to a handful of illusionists) the name Südtirol "implies a reunification of the areas of Tyrol" any more than the names of South Carolina and North Carolina imply a unification of Carolina.
Having said all that, here are my proposals for the title of this page (in order of preference!)
  1. "Tridentinum et Tirolis meridionalis" (for the reasons given above by Andrew Dalby initially, furthermore this choice can probably be justified historically)
  2. "Tridentinum et Alta Athesia vel Tirolis Meridionalis" (to comfort both sides)
Regarding Anaunia – is there an attestation from more recent times that that name was used for the area in question so as not to violate our Vicipaedia:Noli fingere rule? --UV 22:07, 6 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
  • UV, I don't have time for a large reply, but as someone very familiar with this region, I will simply state again that the "truth" from the German Wikipedia is indeed an intense German POV. I have witnessed many dubious actions by some of the editors who harbor that page. As it may be shocking for you to realize this, you may want to think a bit more before you decide that it is so hard to believe that POV content may exist on DE Wikipedia. :) Anyway, this is a discussion for another time and another place. I do like and agree with your idea of Tridentinum et Alta Athesia vel Tirolis Meridionalis, as this fits well with the official name in the Italian Republic constitution and will go a long way to comfort all sides, as you say. Thank you. -- [Anon]
In case it's of interest, here's the pertinent entry in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (omitting the pronunciation): "Alto Adige or Upper Adige or South Tirol district N Italy in S Tirol in N Trentino-Alto Adige region." As the note on abbreviations explains, this is to be read: "northern Italy in southern Tirol in northern Trentino-Alto Adige region." IacobusAmor 22:32, 6 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Vide etiam hoc nexum: [1] --Alex1011 12:17, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Confer etiam it:Euregio Tirolese --Alex1011 23:44, 7 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that this page Euregio Tirolese is at an incorrect location. In Italian it is properly known as Euregio Tirolo-Alto Adige-Trentino -- [Anon]

Just to follow-up and summarize this discussion. It is reasonable decision to move the page to Tridentinum et Alta Athesia vel Tirolis Meridionalis? I like this solution. -- [Anon]

Yes, but you're only an anonymous computer (sorry and all that, but someone has to say it). You haven't yet persuaded any human beings (so far as I can see), and by suggesting that some of the human beings are showing cultural bias you haven't strengthened your case. As yet, I can see no momentum for change.
You might be more persuasive if you were open about your own human background and interest in this issue (it's not compulsory, of course, but it would be reasonable since you make assumptions about bias in others). And you might try writing on Vicipaedia -- the encyclopedia, not the discussions -- about one or two issues on which you feel less strongly. Personal enthusiasms may or may not produce good encyclopedia articles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with that! And as for the name, it's a customary principle that we should call people by names they prefer. If we apply that principle to territories that have multiple names, we should call the currently disputed name by the Latin version of whatever name the political power that controls the territory uses, and then give alternatives, perhaps in historical order. This principle can be applied to the Republic of Macedonia (pace many Greeks), Israel (pace many Islamists), Northern Ireland (pace many Irish nationalists), the State of Hawaii (pace Hawaiian separatists), and so on. If the principle is applied evenhandedly, then neither side of two-party disputes can rationally argue with the results. IacobusAmor 13:21, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
If I may join in on the discussion. Wow, first of all, I'm quite shocked to see this lambasting of users who happen to have no registered account. Andrew Darby, they are not "anonymous computer(s)" and nor is it true that "someone has to say it". Wikipedia has a foundation on anonymous contributions, and there is no reason to treat such users as second-class Wikipedians -- ever. Icsunonove 21:12, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
It's human nature for people to value more highly the opinions of people they know and/or respect than the opinions of people they don't know and/or respect. It's likelier that the opinions of people who've contributed serviceable articles & responsible edits in any wiki will receive more respect than the opinions of people who've contributed no articles and have given no evidence of being able even to write the language. That's not to say, of course, that arguments presented quasi-anonymously by Vicipaedia virgins may not be true & apt—but why would batters want to begin an at-bat with two strikes already against them? IacobusAmor 12:37, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Now, on to this subject. I have participated in discussions on English Wikipedia with regard to this naming, and I agree that Tridentinum et Alta Athesia vel Tirolis Meridionalis is a more correct and proper name of this article. Simply go to the homepage of the regional authority of this Italian province: http://www.regione.trentino-a-adige.it. Right there at the top of the page: Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol Sito ufficiale. That is how they call this region in the constitution of the Italian Republic (the super-level political authority) as well as in Trento, the regional capitol. There, as desired by IacobusAmor, is the "name they prefer", and what is used by the "political power that controls the territory". Calling it only by Tridentinum et Tirolis Meridionalis makes no sense. Icsunonove 21:12, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Read again, Icsunonove, and you'll see I was gently encouraging 76.89.215.49 to become a "first class citizen" (to adapt your expression) by getting an account and contributing more widely. Anyone can do this: all are welcome. Discussions are not votes; people who have accounts (like you) and contribute usefully to Vicipaedia (as I hope you will too) are, I think, more likely to persuade others to accept their opinions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
No worries Andrew Darby, I was just poking fun at you, but that doesn't come across always clearly in text. That said, I do believe the dual name is the best option. What is your opinion, given the regional website? Icsunonove 16:48, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Generally I prefer brevity, and therefore I prefer one Latin name for one place. But I understand the special problem in this case; I would not oppose a move to "Tridentinum et Alta Athesia vel Tirolis Meridionalis" if others prefer it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Rebus sic stantibus Athesiam Superiorem/Tirol....... dictionem valde melioram quam Altam Athesiam/Tirol.... esse censemus, cum "alta athesia" inversio vocabularum et dictio non classica reputetur! Usus publicus elucidatur ex exemplo ecclesiae catholicae, quae postpositionem adiectivi respicit atque dictionem "superiorem" illae "altae" praefert - vide exempli gratia kath.net 30. Juli 2008, 20:53 "Papa in Athesia Superiore ferias inchoavit"Bartleby08 (disputatio) 22:11, 21 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Consentio, et disputationem spectans propono Tridentinum et Athesia Superior vel Tirolis Meridionalis. Si nihil impedit, paginam movebo. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:55, 28 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Quam rem fecisti, sed Nuada (more suo) sine vera explicatione cito revertit.
Nomen melius hodie propono. Nescio cur locutionem "Tirolis Athesina" apud Googlem quaesivi. Eureka. Quod nomen, aeque Italianae quam Theodiscae nuncupationis redolens, e fonte fidei digno accipientes, singulam appellationem (sicut in aliis linguis) ad singulam regionem applicare possumus. Ergo propono nomen regionis Tridentinum et Tirolis Athesina et provinciae Tirolis Athesina. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:41, 17 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
Nemine contradicente, die 19 Octobris movi, sed, iam iter meum Novum Comum in urbem ad it:Wikicon parans, fontem huius nominis verbatim non citavi. Date veniam! Nominibus "Tridentinum" et "Tirolis" iam ab omnibus receptis, fontes verbi "Athesina" coniunctionisque "Tirolis" cum "Athesina" hic citabo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:29, 29 Maii 2019 (UTC)