Revision as of 08:57, 22 July 2008 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,663 editsm Signing comment by 151.54.232.214 - "→No "terre irredente" but "terre irredenti": "← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:01, 22 July 2008 edit undo151.54.232.214 (talk) →Faded away and vandalismNext edit → | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Unregistered user removed the line about italo-optants. If he had doubts, he could put the tag "fact" or "citation needed". Interesting, those users that remove never put a line about the Italian fascists and fascist collaborators, that ran away, because of fear that justice might get them. ] (]) 09:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | Unregistered user removed the line about italo-optants. If he had doubts, he could put the tag "fact" or "citation needed". Interesting, those users that remove never put a line about the Italian fascists and fascist collaborators, that ran away, because of fear that justice might get them. ] (]) 09:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
That's true, irredentism did not disappear from italy, and that's how it's suppose to be: those lands were and are italian, they have been stolen, thousends of Italians were killed in order to make those lands Slavic, and thousands were sent away...and I think it's a good things for Italy not to forget what happened to its sons and doughters. | |||
Istria, Venezia Giulia e Dalmazia sono e saranno sempre italiane! ( They are and they will ever be italian) | |||
== Italo-optants == | == Italo-optants == |
Revision as of 09:01, 22 July 2008
Italy B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Politics B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Dalmatia
Dalmatia is not in the list of target regions, but the later disclaimer specifies it.
So did the party target Dalmatia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.3.237 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 October 2004 (UTC)
General tone- Irredentism
The general tone of the article is not very balanced. It treats the political aims of Irredentism as somehow illogical and childish.
It very conveniently neglects mentioning that Guglielmo Oberdan was executed, and so were Cesare Battisti, Nazario Sauro, Damiano Chiesa.
Not mentioning the main political figures of Irredentism is a major error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.72.16 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- This article was taken from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, that is in an age in which Italy was allied to Germany and Austria; thus the bias, and thus the interest in 1877-1878 events.--Panairjdde 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the most of the comment of Fromtline, that wrote an amount of Propaganda lies, about the irredentism in Dalmatia. I've verified he is one of the many fanatic nationalists, acting in wikipedia.--Giovanni Giove 06:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Including yourself! --Anto 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Lock?
Why the partial lock on this article? Epeeist smudge 13:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
No "terre irredente" but "terre irredenti"
There is a mistake in the title of an article: the correct form of "terre irredente" is terre irredenti. In Italian "terre" is a plural noun so also the adjective must be plural ("irredente" is singular adjective and so it's wrong). Another "irredenta" is an adjective so the first letter is small (no "Italia Irredenta" but "Italia irredenta"). Thank for consideration, --82.53.56.53 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The plural "irredenti" for the noun "terre" does not exist in the Italian language. A feminine noun MUST have a feminine adjective in the language of Dante. Sei bocciato! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.201.22 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- True, the form irredenti is masculine, irredente is the plural and corret form for a feminine noun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.54.232.214 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Faded away and vandalism
Who's playing dumb here ?
Deleting the lines "Italy openly propagates" and substitutes it with "irredentism faded away"?
That's vandalism.
"Faded away", but with persistent claims towards neighbouring countries territories?
There's no excuse for that. Even if someone uses the excuse like "it was by some minor parties, like MSI", these is not the excuse. Official Italy didn't suppress such expansionist rhetorics, nor prosecuted it. To make things worse, did MSI later became one of governing parties in 1990's? Kubura (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleting of external links. Vandalism by Pannonicus .Kubura (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Unregistered user removed the line about italo-optants. If he had doubts, he could put the tag "fact" or "citation needed". Interesting, those users that remove never put a line about the Italian fascists and fascist collaborators, that ran away, because of fear that justice might get them. Kubura (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That's true, irredentism did not disappear from italy, and that's how it's suppose to be: those lands were and are italian, they have been stolen, thousends of Italians were killed in order to make those lands Slavic, and thousands were sent away...and I think it's a good things for Italy not to forget what happened to its sons and doughters. Istria, Venezia Giulia e Dalmazia sono e saranno sempre italiane! ( They are and they will ever be italian)
Italo-optants
There were few accords regarding that.
Peace accord with Italy (articles 19 and 20) (whose legal "strength" started on 15 Sep 1947) regulated opting possibilities (opt to stay or leave).
Also, Pravilnik o opciji osoba s područja pripojenog Federativnoj Narodnoj Republici Jugoslaviji po Ugovoru o miru s Italijom, Službeni list FNRJ br. 109/1947, regulated this.
Second accord was signed in 1951.(Sl. list FNRJ br. 1/1951. i br. 12/1951).
Leaving of Zone B of Free territory of Triest was regulated with Memorandum o suglasnosti (točka 8.), signed on 5. Oct 1954 (Sl. list-MUIDS br. 6/1954).
Third accord was signed in 1965, Uredba o ratifikaciji sporazuma između Jugoslavije i Italije o regulisanju nerešenih slučajeva opcija za italijansko državljanstvo, Sl. list –MUIDS br. 8/1965).
Few legal possibilities, but lesser used for leaving for Italy, were one which was given option to give up on Yugoslav citizenship. Zakon o jugoslavenskom državljanstvu (Sl. list SFRJ br. 38/1964) and Agreement of Osimo from 10 Nov 1975 (his legal validity started on 11 March 1977) (Sl. list-MU br. 1/1977) . Kubura (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Rename
would it not be better to name the article "Unredeemed Italy", or "Unclaimed Italy"? We do not use the Italian version of the name: Italian Unification, so surely the same principle shoula apply here. Personally I would opt for "Unclaimed" rather than "Unredeemed". Crystalclearchanges (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It suggests that some kind of Italy is in question, which is not correct, since debated territorries are not Italy. Actually "Italian irredentism" would be the most correct. Zenanarh (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well I would be happy with Italian irredentism. But I think unredeemed italy or unclaimed italy would also suit it. What does everybody else think? We need an admin to help the move. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Maltese language
as is going on in a long-term discussion that comes and goes on this page, some users are trying to push the idea that Maltese is purely arabic with only an insignificant input from Sicilian and Maltese. I was hoping that some people here, having studied this sort of thing, will be able to help get rid of the POV pushers, and show that Maltese is just as equally Italian (well... Sicilian/italian) as it is Arabic. Thank you 78.145.139.94 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral language
I tried to use a more neutral language. Please, do not think that I like Fini, Menia, etc, but saying that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy" is not expansionism, just persecution complex, "we should annex Dalmatia" would be expansionism. I add some facts, with their references, checking what was added in the past to the article. Clap (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Ah, I erased the text which says that "Italy openly propagates irredentistic ideas even in the 21st century" because it's an opinion, and not a fact. There are no Italian politician, at least belonging to parties represented in Parliament, that says that the Italian State should expand itself to its "natural borders", like the irredentists said. Anyway, please note that I did not write this in the article. Let the facts speak alone. Clap (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I substituted the words "Italo-optants" and "exiles" simply because I think that noone outside Italy and former Yugoslavia know what these words mean. The expression "the Italians who went away from Yugoslavia after WWII" is only descriptive, as I did not want to say anything about how they are perceived in Italy or Croatia. Clap (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Italo-optants should be used (with an explanation inside brackets). It is easier to memorize.
- More important thing : does Italy have expansionistic intentions? We are not talking abou some irrelevant far-right figures.
Nobody would listen to Fini's words if he wasn't on the position. That gives an official meaning to that. Especially if Italian fascists protest in front of Croatian embassy. And authorities support it. --Anto (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please, "Italo-optants" is considered biased in Italy, so why shouldn't we use a neutral term? If you changed the expression, another edit war would start... I think that noone need to memorize the term. Regarding Italy's expansionistic intentions, don't worry. I'll answer on your talk page, 'cause it's a little off-topic. Clap (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have told: I don't care for some irrelevant right-wing figures. my concern are those who are on power. If the member of executive powers do something or say something then it is relevant. We don't care too much about Menia's statements so far.
But , if he came to power then .... it would be a huge problem.
--Anto (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Clean up
I've attempted to streamline the article to bring it back to what it's supposed to be about (more or less)- Italian irredentism of the Risorgimento. Most of the material better suited to Greater Italy and fascist aspirations don't really belong here, other than some mention because they may be "rooted" in irredentism or they use "irredentism" as a pretense. In addition, I've tagged some sections I see as WP:POV forks. They too need to be cleaned up and changed from what reads like a blog forum into something more encyclopedic. Dionix (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Irredentism today
I've deleted the chapter. Irredentism time is over in 1945. Nevertheless in Croatia there is a legend about a supposed Italian irredentism, still alive. Newspaper sometime print articles about this subject. Well, it's just a legend. To talk about an Italian past in Dalmatia is history (as Fini did), and not Irredentism. Please, let's try to remain logic and neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.164.57 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the intention of this editor's post. The post-1945 section, which has re-appeared since 78.13's edits, is given undue importance and is simply a series of isolated, petty events. I would suggest rewriting the section, weighed proportionately within the context of the article: one paragraph should suffice. Dionix (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Map
The map is perfectly suited for italia irredenta. It is well related to all the areas claimed by irredentism. It is a map that has nothing to do with fascism or antifascism but only with irredentistic areas of Italy, as was tought in official italian schoolbooks before and even after WWII. --Popovichi (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- User Popovichi, I LEFT the map. You can not revert several proper&correct&referenced edits under the pretest of a map, that was still in the article (though not at the beginning) and shouting for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.164.180 (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I had removed the map because the text was overbearing, repeated what is already in the article, and I thought the image was better suited to Greater Italy. The map repeats in that "main article" anyways. Nonetheless, I have no problem leaving it here, where it is, with the appropriate, short form text. Sorry if I sparked an unintentional edit war :) Dionix (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Name change
to "Italian irredentism" 89.243.190.182 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support 195.114.177.150 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Me too --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Go for it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Si toro Zenanarh (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. Done. -- Matthead Discuß 14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good moving. But what is "Italia irredenta"? Don't you think it needs an article? I mean, to tell what was the idea of "Italia irredenta" in different times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.167.236 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Irredentism today
No historicist today speak of It. irredentism: there is no irredentism today. Just few Croatian journalists do this claim. I've tried to change the paragraph into a more neutral version, introducing SEVERAL new sources. Two users from Croatia reverted me, ignoring all the sources, under the pretest of a "poor grammatic". They did not discussed their revert at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.167.236 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reasons why your version of article is wrong:
- You are taking position:"The Habsburg Monarchy permanently made obstacles to the Italian interests..." ????? This is against wiki rules.
- I've not written such claim!!!
- 350.000 Italians opted for Italy ? For that you need census data
- Not only I've not written this claim, but I've deleted it! .... but you restored it again!
- Your version of article is speaking about modern Italian irredentism, so why you write about that and then write on talk page that "there is no irredentism today". I agree with you that there is no modern Italian irredentism but only Italian pressure that Italian fishermen can take fish from Croatian sea, but in the end this is mistake of Croatian, and not Italian government.--Rjecina (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- That what I've tried to do! I've tried to say that there is a "supposed" Italian irredentism, listing some of the problems. You restored a version claiming there IS an Italian irredentism. I think this claim is a so-called "POV". I'm disappointed. (talk) Note: I've realized now that you have removed the par. "Irredentism today": maybe that is ok, there is no irr. today. The only thing I know that, today, could resemble an irredentist is "Onorevole Menia": a poor idiot and not the "typical Italian". I can see that the par. was deleted and reintroduced several times: I do not want to be involved in this question. Anyway if somebody will decide to keep the paragraph, I think it is necessary to say it is an "accuse" of few journalist and not a "matter of fact" (As I tried to write). Even president Mesic never complained of an Italian irredentism, but about other problems. --78.13.167.236 (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Again the same excuses. :( If the president of Italy gives a medal to a fascist governor of Zadar how we are supposed to understand that??
and yes calling for "historical rights in fishing " on the eastern Adriatic coast is also a sort of irredentism. Very live-still! --Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the chapter including both points of view: Italian and Croatian . Yes, signor Giove, it has to remain here .--Áñtò | Ãňţõ (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather see it disppear- however, I'm not opposed to keeping the section on "Irredentism today". I feel it opens the floor to serious POV pushing from both sides, based on flimsy, unimportant political views and meaningless quotations. However, if we must keep it, shouldn't it be trimmed down to a paragraph or two? This section is currently longer than the "actual meat" of the article above it. Dionix (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed the language and reduced the section somewhat. I still maintain that the first paragraph alone suffices. Dionix (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with Dionix. I removed this section as unsalvageable a while ago, but then it somehow returned. It is non-encyclopedic and just about impossible to understand. And will always just be an excuse for people to try to beat the other side over the head with more badly translated quotes. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed the language and reduced the section somewhat. I still maintain that the first paragraph alone suffices. Dionix (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)