Talk:Steinerner Steg

Italian bridge name

That's what O'Connor says verbatim on the subject: "Meran lies further east, on the western approach of the Brenner Pass to Austria. A medieval bridge here retains the name, the Ponte Romano sul Passirio (Gazzola, 1963b, no. 281). Similarly at Franzenfeste (or Fortezza) the Ponte Ladricio is reputed to be Roman (Gazzola, 1963b, no. 128)." (Colin O'Connor, Roman Bridges, Cambridge Univ. Press (1994) ISBN 0-521-39326-4, p.95)
--> O'Connor does not state as a fact that the bridge is Roman. Throughout his book, he is closely following Gazzola's compilation of Roman bridges and often makes it clear that he does not endorse his views, nor refutes them, but simply presents them for an English-speaking audience. This means in my view, if there is a respectable source saying otherwise, it should be included in the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to stop Noclador from adding his non-cited ramblings on here. He states that he knows this because he is from Merano. That may be the case, but without a citation it can not be included. It is original research, and I don't know why an article about a bridge needs to be so inflamatory. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've brought this issue up with an Admin, this behavior has to stop. Noclador puts a bunch of political stuff on this page about a bridge, and then references a website that claims nothing he writes. Then he, for no reason, takes out O'Connor's citation because he thinks it isn't good enough. This is completely against Wikipedia policy and he is pushing Original Research. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Not to mention that never in history was there an "Austrian province of South Tyrol". BIZARRE! LOL 192.45.72.26 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

official document by the city of Meran. signed by the mayor: answer 20:

"Nel punto in cui oggi si trova il ponte in questione vi era in origine un acquedotto in legno che attraversava il torrente Passirio. Quando questa struttura divenne pericolante, fu deciso nel 1615 di demolirla e di costruire al suo posto una passerella. Nel 1616 fu stipulato un contratto con l’architetto Andrä Tanner di Bressanone e fu dato il via ai lavori. Poco dopo una piena del Passirio distrusse la passerella appena completata, così Andrä Tanner dovette costruire un nuovo ponte. I lavori furono portati a termine nel 1617. Il nome “Steinerner Steg” è tramandato da quell’epoca e compare in questa forma in tutte le pubblicazioni ufficiali. In seguito all’italianizzazione degli anni ’20, per la precisione il 2 dicembre del 1927, fece la sua comparsa nello stradario del Comune di Merano la traduzione italiana “Ponte Romano”, che evidentemente si basa su una stima errata dell’età del ponte. Il suo gentile suggerimento di rivedere questa traduzione “errata” andrebbe quindi riformulato: è semmai il nome italiano del ponte che andrebbe cambiato, cosa che tuttavia per il momento non si prevede di fare. Per informazioni più dettagliate sulla costruzione del ponte può fare riferimento all’opera “Geschichte von Meran, der alten Hauptstadt des Landes Tirol” di Padre Cölestin Stampfer (Innsbruck 1889, pag. 118). Per concludere ricordo che è tra l’altro compito dell’Amministrazione comunale mantenere le denominazioni originali dei luoghi sulla base di documenti storici. Il Sindaco, Dr. Günther Januth"

a short translation: bride built in 1616/1617 by architect Andrä Tanner from Brixen; from this time on all official documents referred to bridge only as “Steinerner Steg”; during the Italianization in the 20ties to be exact on December 2nd, 1927 the name “Ponte Romano” appeared for the first time. (official document by the mayors office can be found here (answer nr. 20)

so much for the IPs claim of "non-cited ramblings" and by the way South Tyrol was a county of Austria for 556 years... EOD. --noclador (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about. "South Tyrol" was never a county nor province, ever. TYROL was a County of Austria, and it was not for 556 years. Austria has not existed for 556 years, it has been a patchwork of different monarchies throughout the centuries. Furthermore, you were simply not providing proper citations. I don't know what makes the people in your province so aggressive. Is it so boring in Merano?? 192.45.72.26 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• and furthermore, you have no justification to remove that author's work, just because you don't agree with it. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem on issues like this is that the English names were not used, and the name has changed. There are centralized venues where you can take these things; I'll try to find the best one. Meantime, please remain civil, don't get into edit warring, and I am sure it can all be sorted out without any more problems. --John (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only hope that those who edit the page do not only have an interest in naming policy, but also in the structure itself. I have because I created the article and shot all the pics (took me two hours, damn). I have written more on bridges in Italy in Wikipedia than most Italians have. So give me a break. Article 116 of the Italian constitution recognizes since 2001 officially both the names Südtirol and Alto Adige. In my understanding this double validity of German and Italian names refers by deduction to all structures, towns, mountains etc. in South Tyrol. So what's the problem? I am also the only one who has read O'Connor here. So I am going to reintroduce the reference, but it needs to be put into context by what the council of Meran says. Hope this suffices and we can all move on. Grazie, danke, thanks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartidly agree with you Gun Powder Ma. I'm sorry John if I lost my cool with the user Noclador, but if you look at what he was doing with the edits, it was really childish. 192.45.72.26 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Umm, guys, on Wikipedia the book by Colin O'Connor and the words of Günther Januth have the same validity. I'd put more credence in a published book than a politicians paragraph, but still, just based on Noclador's knowledge we can't use one to overrule the other. That is OR. I'm going to reformat the article to simply state what each citation tells us. That is what our job is here on Wikipedia. :-) Icsunonove (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Günther Januth is the mayor of the city of Meran. He signed an offical document as an answer to a city councilor - this is a legally binding document, as it would be a crime to lie to a written question by a city councilor. The book is wrong and the city of Meran has much more credence when it comes to its history than a book published in Cambridge. --noclador (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Noclador, relax my friend. Listen, one is an academic, the other is a politician. It doesn't matter where O'Connor's book was published. :) They are both entitled to make their statement, and Wikipedia must treat them equally. I'm definitely not inferring that Januth (or O'Connor) is lying, I'm sure each is stating the best they know of the history. I don't think anyone is accusing Januth of a crime!! hah! Look, I re-wrote the article to simply convey what those citiations tell us. It is not up to us to say which has more credence, and which "must be wrong". You know what noclador, they could possibly both be RIGHT! Now look at the edits I made, and see what you think. Icsunonove (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, so I spent time today to try and summarize these three references as they are posed to us as Wikipedia editors. Gun Powder Ma then instantly reverted them. Mr/Mrs Ma, please explain? :] Before blindly reverting, please come here and discuss my most recent edits. If there are issues we can't overcome, we can get an admin to help us with how Wikipedia articles should be written. But, I still feel we can not interject our personal opinions into the articles. As I said to Noclador, both O'Connor and Januth could very well be correct in both their statements (or both could be wrong). But that still has no place in the article, we merely summarize the information. There is no way you can take O'Connor's work and just state it as "Contrary to a sometimes voiced belief [1]" and then state no, the truth is. We can only present the two opinions! yeesh :) Icsunonove (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First, it is wrong to claim that O'Connor came to any conclusion regarding the true nature of the bridge. I am the only one here who read the whole book and therefore I know best how he meant it (in fact, I made List of Roman bridges and many other articles on Roman bridges based on his book): rather, he simply reproduces an Italian author who saw evidence of a Roman bridge merely in the name ("A medieval bridge here retains the name"), a name which is in fact though a 20th century invention, as the document of the mayor of Meran reveals. Second, why such a long winded phrasing for such a short article? We do not need to name every source in the text, since these are already given for the readers 5-10 cm below. It is not as if readers have to scroll down half a minute. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, I don't have the book, and was going by what was in the article before under good faith. Noclador filled me in with what he said. So, I've updated that. Just reverting edits in good faith is really flat out wrong. I've tried to re-arrange the article, see what you think. You don't have to make statements like "long-winded", thank you very much... Icsunonove (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• AND, can someone help me with the citations, so it doesn't show that one reference Noclador brought us -- twice? thanks.. Icsunonove (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

the latest version by User:Icsunonove is still unacceptable. Again he tries to insinuate that the city is wrong- which isn't the case: if we know a fact we write clear sentences: i.e. It was built in 1616 by the architect Andrä Tanner from Brixen (Bressanone). if you want to discredit a source you write as Icsunonove does: "according to" "further provides" "the mayor suggests". Unacceptable. O'Connor was wrong the city has the facts Gun Powder Mas version is a correct and the acceptable one, as it states the facts as as stated by the city itself and as known by the people in the city. --noclador (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Noclador, I appreciate your insinuations and accusations, I really do. Icsunonove (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I changed "suggests" to "states". I hope this makes you feel more comfortable dear Noclador. In English, my native language and obviously not yours, it is quite common to cite references by saying, "according to" or that an author "further provides". This is definitely not a way to discredit anyone. I'm quite experienced in researching since I have completed a dissertation for a doctorate. How about you? I had respected you as an editor and as a relaxed individual -- and not as one of the "ultras" with regard to this topic. I must assume you have changed, and are acting in a hypersensitive and indeed insecure manner over the issue of Italian and German in BZ. I have done my best to make a nice article, and I've made corrections as they were pointed out to me. All you've done is accuse me of POV and vandalism mimicking the childish behavior that it seems many people in Bolzano-Bozen seem to spend the majority of their life brewing over. That is pretty darn sad. Icsunonove (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your phrasing leaves wanting: How can you claim that OConnor "came to the conclusion" that is was a Roman bridge when, in fact, he only went on the record saying that the bridge "retains the name", and another bridge is "similarly...reputed to be Roman", all the while quoting another author from 1963. It is evident from his one-liner that he almost knew nothing of the history of the bridge, because when he does, he spends half a page or more on them. So while it is still reasonable to include OCOnnor as a source, it should not come across as stating a matter of fact. In fact, the other source, the mayor of Meran, gives much more precise information on the bridge, in a document taken to be seriously. So, until further proofs comes up to the contrary, this should be the main proposition with which we go. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Reverting my edits and continuously calling them "vandalism" is disgusting and a slap in the face of Wikipedia's sense of good faith edits. I feel at this point I'm getting myself dirty playing with the pigs in the pen. You guys make this page exactly as you see fit, because obviously only your way is correct. You can make all the stupid accusations you want, I was trying to make the page neutral and in proper Wikipedia format. Your fears and insecurities are something you need to deal with off this encyclopedia. Icsunonove (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)