Talk:Italian irredentism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dalmatia[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Including yourself! --Anto 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing should be stated: during fascism statistics were manipuleted in order to seem that things were going very well. It's a very fascist style thing to say that a linguist found 33% of people speaking italian in Dalmatia, but this maybe happened because if people refused to do so were killed! You must cosider that things are still going this way in Italy. The only relationship that Dalmatia foundation has with Italy comes from the Republic of San Marco, i.e. a venetian like slang is currently spoken in Spalato, and it's because many of those cities in Dalmatia were founded by Venice during centuries. Being objective it's a little forced thing to say that Dalmatia is an unredeemed territory! The only true unredeemed territories are Ticino and Istria, those places were part of the italian history since the roman empire, and are very regularly italian populated. Ticino may be considered a part of Lombardia, it's a very obvious thing that's noticeable simply going there, except the fact that's a Swiss territory, while in Istria there's a very balanced presence of italian, slovenian and croatian people like it's ever been. I've recently been in Gabrovec (Gabrovizza) a very little village near Trieste which has remained italian territory, an old woman said to me in a venetian like slang: "there in Gabrovec we are all slovenian, if you go to Sgonico (a very near village even closer to the slovenian marker) they are all italian, but we have ever been there (and them of Sgonico too), markers changed during time". This statement, coming from one of the most direct source we can have, must explain the senslessness of the irredentism, people living at the marker have always been of mixed race, if we consider unredeemed every place where lives many italian, a lot of New York city must be redeemed to the Italian Republic!! But politic interests has ever been of primary importance, the language doesn't matter and didn't matter at the time too. To be neutral you must mention that italian and slavic people were antagonized during the WWII, Tito's armies killed italian people in a very bloody way, not better than in a nazi lager, and then they throwed bodies away in carsic caverns, like garbage. Those episodes are known as Foibe massacre, and because this is a very vivid painful memory until today, maybe the irredentism movement has been influenced and some claims were not neutral at all at the origin. I think that this part should be mentioned. Hope to have been helpful, try to forgive my bad english. Bye from Italy --62.94.182.12 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lock?[edit]

Why the partial lock on this article? Epeeist smudge 13:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No "terre irredente" but "terre irredenti"[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Faded away and vandalism[edit]

Who's playing dumb here [1]?
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)[reply]

Deleting of external links. Vandalism by Pannonicus [2].Kubura (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered user removed the line [3] 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)[reply]

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.54.232.214 (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italo-optants[edit]

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)[reply]

Rename[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Maltese language[edit]

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)[reply]

Maltese is NOT a purely arab language, and I'll know because I am maltese and most of us know Italian too so we know what comes from where. The main grammar and roots come from Arabic, yes, but most of the modern vocabulary is from Sicillian and Italian, and now increasingly English. Maltese is a mix of several languages, which language influences most is a topic of discussion here. Jimbrock (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maltese as English is a mixed language.--Deguef (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral language[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

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)[reply]

Irredentism today[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Map[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Name change[edit]

to "Italian irredentism" 89.243.190.182 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Done. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Irredentism today[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Alleanza Nazionale[edit]

Two facts:

1. Alleanza Nazionale does not describe itself as neo-fascist, and it's not described as such by any Italian media. It's beyond doubt that it does not promote in any way totalitarianism.

2. Alleanza Nazionale did not exist in 1994 (it was formed in 1995).

I don't like them, but they are not neo-fascist, at least no more, and I have never heard any of their parlamentarians speaking of "occupied territories" after 1995. 87.9.235.99 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fini was welcomed as a friend in Israel. Could Israelians welcome a fascist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deguef (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Census information[edit]

Once again I must point out that there are no sources listed here that support the following census information presented in this article (and elsewhere):

  • "...around 70,000 Italians in a total of 301,000 people living in Austrian Dalmatia."
  • "In the Austro-Hungarian census of 1910 Zadar had an Italian population of 9,318 (or 69.--Deguef (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)3% of the total of 13,438 inhabitants)."[reply]

Censi information is not open to interpretation and is absolute, as such it should be properly referenced by sources in accordance with WP:V. These claims currently have {{fact}} tags and are awaiting any kind of confirmation. Please post sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, one more time: would someone PLEASE post sources for these censi? They look like they're correct, but they need sources to confirm that. They will be removed otherwise. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last one (9,318 in Zadar) is identical to GG's unsourced edit in Talk:Zadar. I've presented this source:
Šime Peričić: "O broju Talijana/Talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. Stoljeća" ("Concerning the number of Italians/pro-Italians in Dalmatia in the XIXth century"), Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, UDK 949.75:329.7"19"Dalmacija
with censi result for the year 1900: 9,135 Italian speakers, not surely Italians, census made on language spoken in the public life, not etnicity!
From the same source the number of all Italians in Dalmatia was 15,279 - 2,6% in 1900, or 18,028 - 2,8% in 1910.
Those 70,000 and 25% were not censi results. It was freely evaluated and claimed by pro-Italian politicians, these numbers were used in political struggle in Dalmatian assembly, it doesn't anything to do with official statistics. Zenanarh (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the census of 1910: G.Perselli, I censimenti della popolazione dell'Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune città della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936, Unione Italiana di Fiume - Università Popolare di Trieste - Centro di Ricerche Storiche di Rovigno, Trieste-Rovigno 1993 - Zadar: pp.451 ss. --> 1910: in the city were 9,318 Italian speakers, 3,532 Serbo-Croatian, 397 German, 191 other languages, 618 foreign inhabitants.
For 1850-1860: Carl Freiherr von Czoernig, Statistisches Handbuchlein fur die Oesterrichische Monarchie", Wien 1861. The statistics of Dalmatia from p. 36:
Total inhabitants: 415,628
Serben, mit Slavoniern und Dalmatinen (Serbs, with Slavones and Slavo-Dalmatians): 369,310
Italiener (Italians): 45,000
Albanesen (Albanians): 1,000
Israeliten (Jews): 318
This book is here: [4]. Ciao.--151.48.4.77 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what about Marmont? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marmont made only a statistical study, based on reports from municipalities of the region, in large part by information provided by local priests.--151.48.4.77 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source presented by me give numbers for Italians, with accent on censi question: language spoken in public life the most often? Not ethnicity! It was a trick made by the Austrian authorities to avoid ethnical separation and any autonomist or unionist claims, all Croats and Serbs were simply Slavs as some Slavic language speakers, not as Slavs by etnicity!
Page 342 (Italian speakers in Dalmatia):
1865 - 55.020 - 12,5%
1869 - 44.880 - 10,8%
1880 - 27.305 - 5,8%
1890 - 16.000 - 3,1%
1900 - 15.279 - 2,6%
1910 - 18.028 - 2,8%
However an author (concentrated on ethnical background of the story) doesn't give 100% relevance to all results, for example in this case those for 1865, 1869 (numbers too large) and 1900 (number too small).
There was no massive outflow of Italians recorded between 1869 an 1880 or some special inflow between 1900 and 1910!
When 2 facts are kept in mind:
1) how these censi were conducted (language spoken) in a province with Italian language (of a minority which was in the same time percieved as cultural elite) as administrative one;
2) decrease of 5-7% concerning the speakers of Italian in period 1869-80 (in the same period People's party won Dalmatian assembly and changed the role of Croatian language in the province);
it's obvious that at least these 5-7% were not Italians per ethnicity. Zenanarh (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also there was an additional decrease of about 3% between 1880 and 1890. In this case it can be both: outflow of Italians or recover of Croatian in usage after winning majority in assembly. However there was outflow of Italians recorded in that period, it's the fact. Italians or pro-Italians were leaving Dalmatia or moving to Zadar - censi only for Zadar (Italian speakers) show it without any doubt (there was increase of Italians, unlike the rest of Dalmatia):
1880 - 6676
1890 - 7840
1900 - 9135 Zenanarh (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The census of languages spoken in public aren't "a trick made by the Austrian authorities to avoid ethnical separation and any autonomist or unionist claims". The reality is more and more simply: all the satistics don't know how to count populations of different ethnic affiliation. The spoken language was the method chosen in the "International Statistics Congress" of 1876 (St Petersburg).--151.48.47.96 (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And an additional motive for the decrease of the Italian-speaking was the closure of all the Italian popular schools in Dalmatia from 1860 to 1880, except the Italian schools of Zadar/Zara.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Hey, just like the closing of Slavic schools in Istria and Zadar from 1924 to 1945!) Look, if the schools were closed, that doesn't prove the population decreased because of it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The closing of Slavic schools in Istria and Zadar was a crime. But the closing of the Italian schools in Dalmatia of course was a real good thing, don't you think so? I wrote that the closing of all the Italian popular schools can explane the decrease of Italian-speaking in Dalmatia. It's normal if you think those people linguistically mixed.--151.48.47.96 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how Italian language became official in Dalmatia? Austrian government replaced Italian administrators from the lost Italian provinces to Dalmatia. In 1815, Vienna ordered that "administration must use the language which is usually used in the country courts" which was Croatian language in Dalmatia. However Italian administrators in Dalmatia didn't follow it, they used regulation which was valid in Lombardo-Venetian territorial unit, by making little changes in the document: they simply changed words "language which is usually used" to "idioma italiano". The central government didn't react. The result was that even in 1843 there was 0 popular schools with Croatian language. Reformation in the schools started around 1846.

Page 350:

It's known that in 1843 Croats made a huge majority of overall population, but in the same time they didn't have any popular school with their language...

In 1850 there were 127 popular bilingual schools, 18 exclusively Italian and only 12 exclusively Croatian...

In 1860 in Zadar Gymnasium there were all together 146 students, only 10 of them were Italians; in Dubrovnik Gymnasium there were 143 students, only 2 of them were Italians. Same situation was in Split too, but education in these gymnasiums was only by Italian language and it was forbidden to use Croatian. In 70's Split Gymnasium had over 80 students, only 2 of them were Italians, Zadar Gymnasium had ~20 Croats and Serbs and 8 Italians...

In the school year 1881/1882 the language used in Split Gymnasium was predominantly Croatian...

Page 351:

In the school year 1874/1875 in all Dalmatia there were 8809 students in 141 popular schools with Croatian language and 776 students in 13 popular schools with Italian...

Already in 1879/1880 in the popular schools of Zadar district there were 3429 students; 1865 of them were "Slavs", 528 Italians and 38 Germans. Additionally in the school year 1881/82 it was similar, while in 1884/85 there were 329 popular schools in Dalmatia and only 3 used Italian language for education (1 in Zadar and 2 in Split)...

By the end of 19th century only one public school used Italian language and it was one in Zadar. And in 1910 in overall province there were 435 public schools; only that one in Zadar had Italian language.

This the story about how 85%-95% of population fought for using their mother language in their mother land for almost all century. Now compare it to the number of "Italians" in the censi. Zenanarh (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Istro-romenians, with significant presence in inner Istria, were accounted as Croatians by the Austrians although they were an autonomous indigenous ethnic group, nearer to Italians, being both of them of Latin origin. Still now there are some villages in Istria with a name KATUN, a Romanian name.--Deguef (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to argue about this. If the Austrian census was on the spoken language, then we will simply write that. Marmont is going away, unfortunately, no sources. The school information needs to be added as well. IP 151..., your information must be included, can you please write up, in detail, the names of the sources you have and the census they refer to. Something like this:
  • "census info XY1" - "Source: YXA"
  • "census info XY2" - "Source: YXB"
I'm hoping to fix this article up and it would help if I had an organized way to get sourced data for inclusion. Thanks. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Irredentism does not overlap with nationalism[edit]

  • In fact Italian irredentists supported claims for Trentino, Trieste, most of Istria and a part of Dalmatia, but not for most of South Tirol and parts of the Balkans. They were also against Italian expansionism in Africa (Libia, Tunisia, Horn of Africa) and in the East Mediterranean (see Alceo Riosa, Milano in guerra 1914-1918, Milano, Unicopli 1998).--Deguef (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another damn exile article[edit]

This article has been transformed from an account of Italian expansionism into yet another "ode to the poor exiles" on enWiki. "The Allies bombed the hell out of Zadar, but don't blame the good Allies, it must have been The Devil [i.e. Tito] that made them do it." This is just an example. Fake unprofessional "exile sources" moaning about how the poor fascistoid oppressors that lorded over the South Slavs of Dalmatia and Istria for centuries were "ethnically cleansed" by the brutish Slavic hordes. Either that, or they left to escape the Eastern Bloc, communism, and the Slavic state, which is an "unheard-of" phenomenon. What utter nonsense.

This article needs attention once more. Offensive POV conspiracy theories cannot be added into enWiki articles without a metric TON of sources. Save your ethnic hatred for itWiki, its a dump anyway with regard to neutrality in this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NCGN. Use English names. This is the English Wikipedia. It is offensive in that it looks like you're pushing your culture and language on others.
  • The current article text is completely controlled by the Italian point of view. Listing unsourced conspiracy theories, biased Italian links, and Italian newspaper articles to utterly demolish the neutrality of this article.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-war period, cultural ethnocide, crimes against humanity and World War II[edit]

A few things that irritate me:

Why is there no mention of the violent cultural ethnocide and Fascist Italianization that the Fascists systematically carried out during the inter-war period against non-Italians (most severely against Slovenes and Croats)?

And why is there no mention of Fascist crimes against humanity during World War II against Yugoslavs and Greeks? And of the crimes against humanity against Libyans (started already in 1928) and against Ethiopians (started already in 1935)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.131.54 (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The paragraph "supposed irredentism today" seems an Original Research doing by cherry picking references taken out of their contexts. The title is very significant of this: "supposed" Italian irredentism today. The paragraph clearly states that Italy doesn't support irredentism and it deals with mere opinions of few people, a lot of which, as the resources demonstrates - and the paragraph says -, were object of mere mistranslation by croatian-slovene newspapers and politicians. So this articles isn't about irredentism but about fake scandals. So this paragraph is abput absolutely nothing. It should be deleted.AndreaFox Knock here... 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaFox (talk • contribs)

Considerig no one opposed to my statement, I'm going to delete this section. Fell free to discuss it here if you disagree. AndreaFox Knock here... 12:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaFox (talk • contribs)

Italianist ideology vs the notion of an 'Italian' people[edit]

I think the confusion between Italianist ideology as a political movement and the modern concept of an 'Italian' people needs to be discussed in this article. This is important because the notion of Italian irredentism concerns the idea of 'the unredeemed lands of 'Italian' peoples. It is therefore important to discuss the issue of who exactly are the 'Italian' people. Historically this question is absolutely clear, prior to the creation of Italy by Garibaldi in the 1860's, there was no such thing as an 'Italian' people. In fact, the Italian peninsula happens to be one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse regions in Europe. It was only after the creation of the state of Italy in the 1860's that the notion of an 'Italian' people came into existance. Therefore, the term 'Italian' is in reality simply a reference to a persons nationality or chosen identity. Being 'Italian' is a choice, a persons ethnicity is not. Calling oneself an 'Italian' is akin to a person from the old Soviet Union calling themselves a 'Soviet' etc. Ironically, although many people from Italy have accepted the Italianist ideology and now self identify as 'Italian', many of the peoples of todays Italy also have not. This is clearly evident from the great number of ethnic groups within Italy today from Padania, Venetia and Sardinia in the north all the way down to Calabria and Sicily calling for autonomy or outright independence from the Italian state.

Considering this, as far as the notion of 'Italian irredentism' is concerned, one must therefore ask who exactly are these 'Italian' peoples they are talking about? Factually, this can only mean one of three things etc:

01. The descendants of settlers who originated from regions that now form part of the Italian state such as Venetian, Genoese etc.

02. Local indigenous peoples in the areas claimed such as Croatians and Slovenians who have choosen to adopt Italianist ideology and now identify as being 'Italian' irrespective of their real ethnic origins etc.

03. Local indigenous peoples in the areas claimed such as Croatians and Slovenians who were forced at gunpoint to adopt Italianist ideology and learn the Tuscan ('Italian') language during the Italian fascist occupation during WWII.

Whichever is the case, the fact is that there is no legitimate reasons for claiming the lands that Italian irredentists do. Therefore, it is important the article should clearly point out that 'Italian irredentism' is a racist and extreme nationalist ideology that has no basis in historical fact. The idea of a single 'racially pure' 'Italian' people stretching all the way back to Roman times who are now living both within and without the modern Italian state is a concept that should have died with Mussolini and his black shirted racial bigots in the 1940s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.86.19 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The idea of an Italian nation goes far back to the IX century and before. There were wars which were fought "for Italy and Italians" and you can find clues on Italian identity in books and legal papers. Try and read the latin "Peace of Venetia" (1177) or the sixth canto of the Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso (1300-1321) by Dante. You can read prose/poetry about Italian self-identity in Boccaccio and Petrarca, to name the most famous ones. Surely we have a great history of political divisions but the differences aren't more of the similarities... and it is only natural for a state to have different dialects and tradition whatever you go. What it is importat is that there are also a common language and commo traditions, believes, hystory,... Reasoning like you do will delegitimaze every states on Earth. By the way there is a difference between Italin identity and Italian nationalism. Nationalistic movements are things created only from XIX century. And by the way irredentism is a thing very different from racism.And by the way irredentism is a thing very different from racism. If there is a region in Europe that surely is the "most ethnically and culturally diverse regions in Europe" is ex-Iugoslavia and it saddened me to see all those people give credit to racist and nationalistic thoughts about who is the original settler of that region, who has the right to live in that place, who is a memeber of a "real" nation and who isn't, and bullshit like this, which led and are still leading to war and etnic cleasings.AndreaFox Knock here... 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs clear explanation of outcome[edit]

This article could use an explicit list or chart of which territories ended up being part of Italy, and which didn't. It's rather unclear from reading the intro and the map, and there is no subsection in the TOC which logically has this information. -- Beland (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Italian irredentism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Italian irredentism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in "19th century" section[edit]

A couple of those paragraphs are taken word for word from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica (the cited source), and other paragraphs are nearly identical to the original. WritingMan (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrol is misunderstood[edit]

The whole irredentism movement has always been about the unification and freedom of the italian peoples. In particular of those lving in the austro-hungarian empire. Italians in fact did live in the modern day region of Firuli-venezia-giulia and the province of Trento, but falied to do so in Bolzano/Bozen province (aka South Tyrol). The closest thing to italians are the ladin people. These, however, cannot be considered as italian, and actually never were. Not even by romans, as the region was populated by the people of Raetia, not tecnically romans. Thus, irredentism never actually seeked to annex the province of Bolzano to Italy, at least not for cultural reasons, but rather purely because of strategic reasons. This is just marginally mentioned in the introduction of the article, while it has been a major concern for both the fascist government and the republican one, and results in the modern situation of a region (unsurprisingly called Trentino-Alto Adige) made up by two provinces almost independent to each other, which is unique in Italy, even in so called "regioni a statuto speciale".

This misunderstanding of the term terre irredente, which is widespread also in the italian population, has had many important consequences. one of which is the impact on Austro-Italian relations up until the late 80's- early 90's, where finally austria renounced to its claims, although requiring great protection of german-speaking people's rights in the province (this also allowed the Austrians to finally enter the EU). Last but not least, there has arguably been a rise in tensions between the governemnts of Bolzano, Vienna and Rome: in december 2017 the newly appointed austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz proposed to give the german and ladin population in south tyrol a double citizenship, with far-right italian leader Giorgia Meloni warning the austrian about attacking Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.27.15 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we defeated you in WW1 and will defeat you again if you try something. 174.92.105.60 (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irredentism today: FDI, Meloni's 2014 Facebook comment about Istria and Dalmatia and Tajani's 2019 chant "Long live Italian Istria and Dalmatia!"[edit]

In 2014 Meloni called Istria and Dalmatia to be returned to Italy: https://www.telegram.hr/politika-kriminal/buduca-talijanska-premijerka-svojata-dijelove-hrvatske-bila-je-zgrozena-nasim-ulaskom-u-eu/ In the article there is a link to the Facebook post in question, and in the comment wall of the post the comment in which the return of Istria and Dalmatia to Italy is suggested is the top comment of the post.

I think that the comments made by signora Meloni and signore Tajani are noteworthy and merit mention in the article, in its section on irredentism since World War II, because of the then and especially now important positions of these two. RickyRr (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tajani's remarks are discussed here: https://www.sanmarinortv.sm/news/attualita-c4/foibe-si-riaccende-polemica-tra-italia-slovenia-croazia-san-marino-glissa-commemorazione-a51745 RickyRr (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OVERLINKED[edit]

Overlinked in the Italian irredentism by region paragraph. JackkBrown (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where would the overlinking be? It seems to me that the section is normally linked. --LukeWiller (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@LukeWiller: no, for example the wikilink "Italy" in this paragraph is repeated many times (I counted four, but it could be more). JackkBrown (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JackkBrown: Yes, but the paragraph is not long: superfluous links can be easily removed without tags. --LukeWiller (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeWiller: I've just solved the problem, now I will check that something isn't missing. JackkBrown (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeWiller: If you want, check if everything is OK or if other repetitive wikilinks need to be removed. JackkBrown (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JackkBrown: Okay, I'll take a look at the paragraph in the next few days. --LukeWiller (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_irredentism&oldid=1207756237"