Italy C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Dohn Joe, what are these sources you are showing? The book here you quote for Alto Adige [1] clearly gives "South Tyrol" as well on page 26 [2]. Same problem applies to this book [3], [4], and this one cannot be opened Grandi Vini: An Opinionated Tour of Italy's 89 Finest Wines therefore your claim hard to verify. And I don't know how an "Opinionated Tour of Italy's finest wines" can be considered as an academic source. Your quote about the Cisalpine Republic is also not clear, it is mentioned once on page 261 as "Distretto dell' Alto Adige Capo Luogo". Where is the information coming from in your sentence "Alto Adige was the name of a district in the Department of Benaco in the Cisalpine Republic, and consisted of municipalities now largely in the Province of Verona."? Gryffindor (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) As for the first set of sources, they're not meant to be academic. They're simply meant to show that "Alto Adige" is used in English-language sources. I never claimed that any of the sources used "Alto Adige" exclusively. And if using "South Tyrol" is a criterion to question its use, then it should be noted that at least one of the "South Tyrol" sources also uses "Alto Adige" on occasion: [5]. As I've said before, I was not a fan of the "South Tyrol" list of sources either. Neither list proves anything except that those particular sources use whichever term(s) they choose. But if we have one list, I think we should have both lists, to show people that both terms are used in a variety of English-language sources.

2) As for the Cisalpine citation, it seemed pretty clear to me that the "Distretto dell'Alto Adige" was part of the "Dipartimento del Benaco" in the Cisalpine Republic, and that the Comunità listed thereafter were largely part of today's Province of Verona. If that latter phrase seems too much like original synthesis, then I'd be willing to drop it.

3) I also dropped "Haut-Adige" from the provenance of "Alto Adige", as regardless of whether the term originated in the Cisalpine Republic or the Kingdom of Italy, both of those states named their political units in Italian. So while "Haut-Adige" was used in French, there's no reason to refer to it in this section, unless someone can show explicitly that it led directly to "Alto Adige". Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) You are backing your header sentence by having "Alto Adige" added to it with the claim that it is widely used in English as well. To what percentage though? And will that justify having it in the header sentence? So far the sources you have given are confusing in that they use South Tyrol at the same time. :2) The Cisalpine quote is not clear, can someone with Italian knowledge shed some light? :3) The Haut Adige was the term first given by Napoleon who created the Cisalpine republic and the Kingdom of Italy. The Italian term Alto Adige evolved from that, not the other way around. Gryffindor (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) I've removed the list of "South Tyrol" sources again, pending resolution of the issue here on the talkpage. If someone can explain the value of having those sources there, and why there should or should not be a corresponding list of "Alto Adige" sources, I'd appreciate it.

2) I found a clearer source showing that the District of Alto Adige was in the Department of Benaco in the Cisalpine Republic, and included the town of Zevio. Therefore, I added it back to the article.

3) Related to that, we now have sources calling the district "Alto Adige" in 1797 and 1798 - the very beginning of the Cisalpine Republic. If someone can prove that "Alto Adige" evolved from "Haut Adige", that's fine; otherwise, I don't think we can make that claim.

I also removed the POV tag, as I believe everything in the Alto Adige paragraph is verifiable. Dohn joe (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Bad idea, since we need sources to show that South Tyrol is the most commonly used term in English before anything else, which we agreed upon. So how should we prove that in your opinion? There can be a list showing that Alto Adige is also used in English, but you need to make clear that it is not used as often as the previous term, and the wording of your paragraph does not make that very clear. 2) I still object that you are putting in the Alto Adige in the leading sentence, and I know that I am not alone with this concern. It is creating an artificial highlight of the name, which is all explained in the "name" section anyways. 3) Concerning your new source, that one is much clearer and can be used. Concerning the history of the term, the Italian article here [6] and a map here [7] might help shed some light into the situation. 4) You seem to want to divide the "name" section into explaining South Tyrol and then Alto Adige, as opposed to a chronological order, followed by the official use of the moment, is that correct? 5) I am re-adding tags since we are still in disagreement and in current discussion, therefore obviously neutrality is not given yet. As it states in the tags, do not remove them until the issues have been clearly settled and we have found consensus. Gryffindor (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1)Unsure what to do. It's okay to cite sources, which show that the names are used, but it's not really necessary. It's certainly not okay to allow just sources for one name. 2) Alto Adige is fine in the leading sentence. 3) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 5) I don't think, that the tags are necessary.

In general: I think we're giving too much (undue) weight to that section. I guess, that only a very small part of the readers of this article wants to be informed about the history of names. I'd really like to abbreviate that section. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% on all points. The current history of names section is probably too long, and is there more to satisfy the editors than the readers, so I'd also be happy condensing it. How does this sound:

"South Tyrol (occasionally South Tirol) is the term most commonly used in English for the province, and its usage reflects that the province was created from a portion of the southern part of the historic County of Tyrol.

Alto Adige (English: "Upper Adige"), one of the Italian names for the province, is also used in English. Its usage reflects that the upper portion of the Adige River is found in the province. The term had been the name of various political subdivisions in the time of Napoleon, and was reintroduced as the Italian name of the current province after its post-World War I creation."

I'd still keep the official names section as is. I tried to keep it as simple as possible, and anything I removed should be able to find its way into the history section or elsewhere. I'd actually be fine with taking out the last sentence of the Alto Adige paragraph, for that matter. What do you all think? Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think your proposal is appropriate. But were there really various political subdivisions called "Alto Adige"? Not just two, or did I miss something? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to fix one issue after the issue. The problem with not having referenced sources is that some other users (those involved in the past know what I am talking about) will clamour for some "proof". I also find it a bit tedious to have to source everything that seems to be common sense or common knowledge (nothing a simple Google search wouldn't be able to show). However it would be better for future sake to show sources of the use in English for both terms (that is South Tyrol and Alto Adige). I think Dohn joe that one source of the old book that shows the history of the term AA is a good start. If you want to condense the name section it would be a good idea to have a full separate article about the department. There you could add all the information and sources available concerning this part. One or two sentences summarising the article can be included in the name section with a link to the full article built into it. How does that sound as a start? Gryffindor (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) The problem with lists of sources is that they can't prove which term is most common, unless you list every single source that uses both terms. Otherwise, it's essentially a random list. For example, if you had a list of five sources using "South Tyrol", I could create a list of six sources using "Alto Adige". You then could create a list of seven "South Tyrol" sources, which I could counter with an eight-source list for "Alto Adige", and on and on until we ran out of sources. And what do we do with the ones that use both? The only way we can "prove" that "South Tyrol" is more common is if there is a source out there that says explicitly, "South Tyrol is more common than Alto Adige in English", or something to that effect. I understand your concern about other editors, but I think there was enough evidence shown during the last move request that "South Tyrol" is more common (ngrams, Google Books, etc.), that we can leave that statement as is, and point doubters to those proofs.

2) I was actually thinking that a separate article on the history of "Alto Adige" - as district, department, and province - would be a good idea. I'll see if I can work something up - or anyone else is also free to do so.

3) And yes, Mai-Sachme, as far as I know it was just two. I put "various" more or less as a weasel word, since I haven't found a source saying it was exactly two. Dohn joe (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried to condense the section a bit, following dohn joe's proposal. Since Gryffindor's concerns only addressed the sources for the common usage of Alto Adige, which are not present anymore, I removed the tag in the Name section.

Regarding the Neutrality tag: Gryffindor, am I right to suppose that you object to the mention of Alto Adige? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Dohn Joe: There need to be sources that show that "South Tyrol" is used more commonly than "Alto Adige". Now how difficult can that be? To Mai-Sachme: please stop removing tags about issues which are not settled yet, it says in the notice "Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message." We have clearly not reached that stage. Tags exist to give other users also the time to discuss and participate, not to be removed unilaterally at the earliest instance within 48 hours. So I ask you to be mindful of that and leave them until an agreement has been reached. There is also an issue of the usage of "Sudtirolo", which needs to be moved from the subsection of "official use" up to the first paragraph which explains the usage of "South Tyrol". It is not a part of the official name in Italian, as opposed to the "Südtirol" in the German and Ladin one. Gryffindor (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the old tag, because the reason of your concerns (the given sources for Alto Adige) had been removed. Your new citation needed tag is fine.

Sudtirolo is already mentioned prominently in the introduction. More details about its usage in Italian would be completely undue, in an article about a political subdivision other topics are far more important than the third most used name in a specific language.

Could you please explain precisely the NPOV-tag in the introduction and the UNDUE-tag in the Official and local usage section? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what other tag would be more in order in your opinion? We have not agreed yet, so some kind of tag needs to be there. If we agree to explain the terms "South Tyrol" and separately after that "Alto Adige", it makes sense to bundle the "Sudtirolo" into that first part as well, since it is not an official name in Italian. Gryffindor (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the title of the second subsection, where "Sudtirolo" is mentioned, it's called "Official and local usage". Perhaps it would be clearer putting it the other way 'round...? Dohn joe (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous layout of a simple "Name" section is better than these two confusing subsections "English-language usage" and "Local and official usage". Subsections are warranted if they are long enough in text, and that is not the case. Best to revert to the previous format of having just one section. Gryffindor (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks here may be interested to know that Gryffindor and I have been working on a new article about the historical district and department of Alto Adige/Haut-Adige/Upper Adige. We're having trouble picking the right title for the article, though. Check out the discussion at Talk:Haut-Adige and weigh in if you're interested. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]