Talk:Battles of Bergisel

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

The Tyrol and its Tyrolese[edit]

"Tyrolean", or less commonly "Tyrolian", is an adjective meaning "of or relating to the Tyrol" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). "Tyrolese" means 1. "of or relating to the Austrian state of Tyrol or its inhabitants" or "2. a native or inhabitant of Tyrol" (Collins Dictionary). Notice, too, that that Merriam-Webster uses "the Tyrol". It's like we often say "the Styria" when referring to that part of Austria. See also the two-volume Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders English-German dictionary which also translates Tirol as "(the) Tyrol". Of course, the inhabitants are also referred to as "Tyroleans" as well as "Tyrolese", but the latter is definitely correct and it aid clarity to be able to distinguish the Tyrolese from the rest of their Tyrolean culture. I hope that helps. Bermicourt (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me - a Tyrolean living in Tyrol - that we're supposed to use the archaic "Tyrolese", which no one from here uses and that we're supposed to use archaic "the Tyrol", which is not used since the time times of Franz Josef II? For example look at google news "Tyrolese" 132 results, "Tyrolean" 17,600 results. Likewise "the Tyrol" 1,740 results (and I am being generous here - because only on the first page out of 10 results we have: "the Tyrol area", "the Tyrol Insurance Agency", "the Tyrol Restaurant", "the Tyrol region", "the Tyrol province") and Tyrol 65,000 results. Language has evolved and we're not Jacob Rees-Mogg. It's "Tyrol" and "Tyroleans" - google "Tyrolese" and you only get: encyclopedic entries written a 100 years ago and articles from 1876, from 1946, books from 1841, 1824, poems from 1815, songbooks from 1830, paintings from 1915, and so on... also a limited liability company of that name registered in London. Please restore my edit and if you come across any use of "Tyrolese" on wikipedia - correct it. noclador (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised by your choleric reaction; all the Tyrolese I have met have been warm, friendly and understanding people which is why we go on holiday there each year! Let's just look at those stats. Of course, we should expect the word "Tyrolean" to be far more common that "Tyrolese", since the former just means "of the Tyrol" and can apply to everything from districts and dialects to mountains and hats. Nevertheless, we should be wary of just using WP:GOOGLEHITS. If you search Google Books, however, and plug in e.g. 21st century, you'll see plenty that modern English literature still refers to "the Tyrol" e.g. Motta's The Italian Military Governorship in South Tyrol, Minahan's Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations, von Schlachta's From the Tyrol to North America, Gill's Thunder on the Danube and the European Union's The Courier. And 21st century publications using "Tyrolese" include Wolff's Disputed Territories, Tajfel's Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Gall's Worldmark Encyclopedia of Cultures and Daily Life, and Sobczynski's Historical Regions Divided by the Borders. Even German authors use these terms in English works. So it's clearly not wrong to use "the Tyrol" or "Tyrolese" in English, even though I fully understand that you don't really like it. BTW do you know anything about traditional Tyrolean card games? Bermicourt (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You, an Englean from the England is telling me, a Tyrolean from Tyrol, that you know better what we call ourselves, because you holiday in our region??? Seriously? In short: "Tyrolese" and "the Tyrol" are both wrong and insulting to the people, who live here. I have reverted you. If you wish to take it up with the arbitration committee, feel free to do so. I, and all the other editors from Tyrol, will not tolerate the erroneous and insulting terms you push. EOD. noclador (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noclador I have noticed before that you're very committed to specific terminology in reference to Tyrol and its people. I would kindly advise you begin an overall request to implement a rule on this matter, backed by substantial discussion based upon WP:RELIABLE sources, not all necessarily in English. A project page would also assist in gather WP:THIRD opinions; while WT:ITALY is quite inactive, WT:FRANCE is "nearby", active, and might present a vaguely neutral forum. Kind regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noclador. I'm afraid your response is an Aunt Sally i.e. you're arguing against something I didn't say. My argument is not based on personal experience but on authoritative sources which is what we are supposed to follow on Wikipedia. If you want your view to prevail you need to seek consensus as Buckshot06 suggests. Bermicourt (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this discussion, I would like to assume, that various independent tourism sites (I worked for 1 of them addmittingly) show best how Tyrolean people want be referred to inf oreign languages (most read pages). And especially "the Tyrol" you find nowhere (1, 2, here is an e4xample of Tyrolean: 3). But the problem I c here is, which phrase becomes more powerful, because Wiki has this power. Further translators might reference to Wikipedia start using the wrong phrase. The sound in my ears tells me Tyrolean and Tyrol sounds more fitting, in fact we are no Chinese (sry no racism) and we dont say the Austria or the Germany or the North Rhine-Westphalia which would be a district like Tyrol. So I think about the the' together with Tyrol there should be no debatte. In terms of Tyrolese and Tyrolean I guess my foreign english ears just have grown on it. It is not americanese, africanese or south koreanese, it is south korean, why should it not be Tyrolean then? --Yung (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tourist sites are valuable, but not as authoritative as book sources, including leading American, British and German dictionaries. What one person wants to be called in another language is not relevant. Even if an entire nation wanted to be called "Fooleans", Wikipedia would not adopt it exclusively unless the overwhelming majority of English sources used the term. And what other nations are called is also irrelevant. There are just certain countries, states or regions that are often preceded by "the" in English e.g. the Styria, the Tyrol, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Balkans, the Alps, the Crimea and the Ukraine, to name but a few. Language is like that. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt, if you go to Ukraine and tell a Ukrainian "the Ukraine", he will beat you to pulp. Your lack of knowledge in these matters is astounding. That "the Ukraine" must not be used has been litigated extensively by the last three Ukrainian presidents: "Ukraine" is the name of the country - "the Ukraine" was the Russian construct to denigrate the country to mere geographical area of the Russian Empire. Using "the Ukraine" is incredible offensive to Ukrainians - and I DO KNOW THAT, because I worked in Ukraine for 7 years as a journalist. Russian nationalists say "на Украине" (in the Ukraine), Ukrainians say "в Украине" (in Ukraine). And it's also not "the Crimea" for the same reasons. Crimea was Khanate that the Russian tried to erase from history by reducing it to "the Crimea". And if you look at the list of examples you provide: "the Balkans" is a geographic area, "the Alps" are a mountain range; Tyrol and Styria are neither a geographic area, nor a landscape - they are both political entities founded in the high middle ages: Tyrol in 1140 as County of Tyrol, and from 1493 as Princely County of Tyrol. Styria in 1056 as Margraviate of Styria, and from 1180 as Dukedom of Styria. Your line of argument is incredibly outdated, imperialistic, and rude to peoples you clearly know nothing about - nothing about their history and nothing about their culture. Correct names are:

  • Styria
  • Tyrol
  • the Netherlands ("the" because of the adjective "Nether")
  • the United Kingdom ("the" because of the adjective "United")
  • the United States ("the" because of the adjective "United")
  • the Balkans (because it is a geographic area)
  • the Alps (because it is a landscape)
  • Crimea
  • Ukraine

And below you have a ton of examples that it is "Tyroleans" and not "Tyrolese". I think we're done here. Unless you want to embarrass yourself even more. noclador (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News Media[edit]

I will be brief. English-language news outlets using "Tyroleans":

English-language news outlets using "Tyrolese":

The fact remains that "Tyrolese" is an outdated term. "Tyroleans" is the correct term, as the English-speaking press almost unanimously agrees. noclador (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the Ukrainians would never be so petty and intolerant of guests to their country, but it must be testing for them when they officially drop the definite article and, years later people like President Obama are still calling it "the Ukraine" and books are still being published about "the Ukraine". So I wasn't saying that's right or wrong, I'm just illustrating how our English language commonly uses these expressions with little rhyme or reason and Wikipedia follows common usage including using two or more alternatives if they are in general use. Regarding this particular topic, a recent BBC article says ""as far as the countries are concerned, there are all kinds of situations where [the name is preceded with "the..."]. Deutschland is German Land, so there's nothing wrong in saying the article but there is no reason why Deutschland has no article and the Netherlands has the article. Sometimes the answer is more or less clear and sometimes not at all, just a tribute to a tradition of long standing." :) Bermicourt (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you two kindly take this to WT:FRANCE? I have no expertise to referee this dispute. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth battle of Mount Isel[edit]

In this book (https://www.amazon.com/EMPERORS-LAST-VICTORY-Napoleon-Battle/dp/0297846728/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1572294312&sr=8-2) it is claimed there were five battles of Mount Isel. The fifth is identical to the articles fourth battle of mount Isel while the fourth was allegedly fought and lost by 10.000 Frenchmen under Lefebvre. Could someone take a look at this? Dorromikhal (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The literature seems divided between four and five battles of Bergisel; I suspect both are 'right' but just account for them in a different way e.g. maybe one of the battles took place over more than one day and some authors treat them as 2 separate battles. Or maybe one was a minor affair that is discounted as a battle by some authors. As far as I can tell the majority refer to 4 battles. A good source might be the Tyrolean Panorama Museum on the Bergisel. Bermicourt (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book says it involved a 10.000 strong French/Bavarian army under Lefebvre, which was defeated, giving rebels control of much of Tyrol and allowing them to create a provisional government. It reportedly took place in October, no other major engagement seems to have taken place nearby around the same time. Perhaps there is a disagreement on whether it should be counted as a battle of Bergisel or should receive some other name, that is the most logical explanation I can come up with at least. Dorromikhal (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Bergisel&oldid=1199655734"