Talk:Julian March

Maps all the same!
There are 5 maps on this page, all of which show the exact same geographic area. Can someone post a map that places this location in a larger context, so that it is easy to identify where in the world Julian March is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.102.165 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Iffy
is it correct to say it was ceaded from Yugoslavia to Italy in 1922, when infact it was taken from the disgregation of the austrian-hungarian empire?

Very iffy on the "ruled by Venice" bit - for 3 years? Occupied, surely? Can I change this?

"Julian March," not "Venezia Giulia"
The English name is Julian March, while the Italian name deserves to be primary, it still must go in the brackets I'm afraid. This is Wiki Policy, just like Istria, for example, must be called "Istria" and not "Istra," as is the local name. I remind you this is the English Wikipedia, I will go to the Admins if necessary on this. DIREKTOR ( TALK ) 20:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Venetia Iulia" is the translation in Latin of the term "Venezia Giulia", created by the Italian glottologist. He used both terms, and the Latin term is used even by English authors in English books. In the English wikipedia can be used both: Julian March and Venetia Iulia. And -of course- the Italian term "Venezia Giulia" must go in the brackets I'm afraid, as you wrote. I don't see any reason to go to the admins for this. Direktor, sometimes you remember me a bit my nephiew Marko (who lives in Cherso and calls himself a "Croat of Dalmatian Italian ethnicity"): he is always worried of not irritating the nationalistic Croats around him, while he always defends his Dalmatian Italians roots. But "it is very hard the job of being in the middle", he says. --Cherso (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the job is hard, but I defend my Slavic roots not out of fear, but out of affection. Also, Latin cannot be used in article names, only English. The exact origin of the name is fully irrelevant. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What?
What are you doing? This article is AGREED UPON by Italian, Slovenian and Croatian editors. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Names
Check Google for English pages with Venetia iulia and Venezia Giulia , Venetia Euganea and Venezia Euganea , Venetia Tridentina and Venezia Tridentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.238.146 (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC) The Roman Empire never used the terms Venetia iulia, Venetia Euganea, Venetia Tridentina, only Venetia et Histria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.238.146 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Ascoli invented the names, they were never used before « Noi diremo "Venezia propria" il territorio rinchiuso negli attuali confini amministrativi delle province venete; diremo "Venezia Tridentina" o "Retica" (meglio "Tridentina") quello che pende dalle Alpi Tridentine e può avere Trento per sua capitale; e "Venezia Giulia" ci sarà la provincia che tra la Venezia propria e le Alpi Giulie ed il mare rinserrà Gorizia, Trieste e l'Istria." (Graziadio Isaia Ascoli, "Le Venezie", 1863) "We will call "Venezia proper" the land closed in the present borders of the venetian provinces; we will call "Venezia Tridentina" or "Retica" (better "Tridentina") the one which lays on the Tridentine Alps and can have Trento as its capital; and "Venezia Giulia" will be the province between Venezia proper and the Julian Alps and the sea will enclose Gorizia, Trieste and Istria." 79.17.238.146 (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to explain this to you in simpler terms: the section you are editing is called "History", and the part of the text you are editing deals with the time of the Roman Empire. Now, the official language of the Roman Empire was Latin, not Italian, and Wikipedia policy demands that contemporary names be used when describing history. The contemporary names were in Latin, therefore they must remain in Latin, the Google test is not important here. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I imagined that you had not understood. The Roman Empire never called this lands Venetia Iulia, Venetia Euganea, Venetia Tridentina. Ascoli wanted to create new names for these lands. if I remember well, the main reason was to have Italian names for the Italian zones of the Austrian Empire, the Adriatischen Kustenland (he called it Venezia Giulia) and the Welschtirol (he called it Venezia Tridentina). You know, if they had to be considered Italian, they had to have Italian names. So he created the names referring to the only time when these lands were considered an administrative part of Italy, during the Roman Empire. A region comprising, more or less, Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Istria formed the region "Venetia et Histria", so he used the Italian word for Venetia, "Venezia" to form the new names. Now, the name "Venezia Euganea" had less fortune (the region had already an Italian name, Veneto), the other two entered into use (Venezia Tridentina later fell out of use). Now, if you check Google, you'll see that the Italian forms are more used in English. Venezia Giulia is a case apart, because it's a part of the modern name Friuli Venezia Giulia, but the other too are more used, too, even if they are very rare, probably because they are only historical names. If you look here you'll see the third link is to Encyclopædia Brittanica. I think you can consider it a reliable source. I repeat, It does not care that the language of the Roman Empire was Latin, because these names were not Latin, they were not used at the time, they were created in 1863. 82.60.157.175 (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see, my mistake. You appear to be correct, my apologies. The text was written very badly, and if you had my experience with IP accounts I expect your reaction would be the same (just today one began rewriting WW2 songs into fascist versions). Also, Wikipedia is positively teeming with all sorts of biased irredentist editors, trying to depict various areas such as Istria, Dalmatia and Rijeka as "rightfully Italian". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry ;) 87.15.237.46 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision
Reverted senseless removal of info by IP editor/editors. This encyclopedia is not your own personal "frustration vent". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ' Venezia Giulia is not "G M", is part of present day Italy. Be educate, and do not be offensive, tx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.158.216 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I question you Dir.? Why that offensive comment?--217.202.158.216 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Split
Ven. Giulia and G. M. are 2 different thigs, they need two different articles. I read that south Slavic authors often mix the concepts, but the present day V.G, is not the Slavic Giulian March. In many ways it was the same before WWII. --217.202.158.216 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Julian March is not a Slavic region, it is a region that encompasses both Italy, Slovenia, and Croatia. You made edits trying to present it as entirely Italian, which is simply untrue. Its just plain stupid to create a separate article only about the Italian part of this same region.
 * For example: it would be ridiculous to create an article called "Istra" only about the Croatian part of Istria, when another (Istria) already exists. This is not Wikipedia practice.


 * Concerning your edits: stop reverting, discuss, and for now include only the images. Do not force me to call in an administrator to protect this article from "educated" people such as yourself.
 * -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not reverted, I "restored" what you reverted. I've simply realized several errors and it is not possible that I was wrong everywhere... so why you restored ALL the previous version? BTW "mark" is just the translation of ths Slavic therm "kraijna". Starting from the mid 1800, Yugoslavs used the term "Julian Mark", in opposition of "Venezia Giulia". To be more precise,I will re-read ASA the Slovenian historian Novak. "Venezia Giulia" is the current official name of a part of the Italian Republic, no need to impose the Slavic therm "Giulian Mark", that was never in official use. Despite this shilly dispute,the most of my edits were OK. No need to restore previous claims, prividing no sources. Contact a moderator if you want, I did nothing of wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.173.107 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The term Julian March is the propper term in the English language for the region. It was coined in 1945 as the translation of the Slovenian and Croatian "Julijska krajina" and adopted by the Western Allies as the official name for the region disputed between Italy and Yugoslavia, precisely because it was considered as more neutral than the Italian term "Venezia Giulia" which implies a connection with North-Western Italy. Julian March is however not a "Slavic term", as it has been suggested by our unsigned friend above. In fact, the Yugoslavs always referred to the territory descriptively, either ennumerating all the region (such as in TIGR: Trieste-Istria-Gorizia-Rijeka) or more simply as "Istria and Slovenian Littoral". The term Julian March was only used for official purposes, as the most propper name for the whole territory disputed between Italy and Yugoslavia. Viator slovenicus (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool! So, now in Italy, we have thr region "Friuli-Julian March"!!!:-) I already wrote that this article shall be split. The two concepts do not coincide (or just partially coincide). This article appears to be on "Venezia Giulia" and NOT about "Julian March". Start a new article, if you like. Stop to revert my edits, even the undiscussed ones, under the pretest of the "wrong name".217.202.102.156 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please check out the article on the Italian wp on which a wide consensus has been reached: the Julian March is treated as a historical region, created as a consequence the Treaty of Rapallo (with a prehistory, of course), of which a small part is nowadays part of Italy. The only difference is that the English name of Venezia Giulia is Julian March. It is however true that this term is usually not used when referring to the name of the region Friuli-Venezia Giulia (which can be mentioned in the article). Splitting would just create unnecessary confusion. Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(Totally agree with Viator Slovenicus. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC))


 * You (both) appear to be involved in a sort of club, which want to impose its point of view in several Yugoslavia-related articles. That the reason (I shall suppose) of you arrogance and your offensive comments. Nevertheless, your opinion does not seem to be so evident as you claim (see next point). But for you, to impose your own power, seems more important of a neutral conclusion.--217.202.111.51 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I know who you are. Not everyone makes the same grammatical mistakes, and I certainly hope noone else says "Cool!" at the start of his/her sentences so often. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename
A Google-research "Julian March" give thousands of false resUlts. So I tried, "Julian March" AND (Trieste OR Pola OR Gorizia)

. Still no real results.

"Venezia Giulia" NAND "Friuli" gives several results. Those are significative.

CONCLUSIONS
It seems that "Julian March", referred to a land, does not exist in the Net. "Venezia Giulia" is used today as it was used in historical contests. The article shall be renamed "Venezia Giulia".--217.202.111.51 (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Italian wikipedia seems to think otherwise. And not just the Italian wikipedia: please bring any reliable source according to which Venezia Giulia is another entity than the Julian March. In reality, Julian March is nothing but the most used English name for an Italian region that was divided in 1947 and of which only a small strip remains in Italy. The request for move is completely unsustained. Viator slovenicus (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop to cheat: in the Italian W. there is neither dicussion nor sources, for your claim. It is on you to provide sources --217.201.202.217 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Viator, I suggest you stop discussing with this guy, as he is obviously heavily POV and does not take rational arguments into account. Should he try to vandalize further the article or its name, I'll call in an admin to sort the problem out. See you around :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Can we take out the Fiulan version? There really is no need at all to have it in friulan, I think someone is jesting. DIREKTOR please comment as you seem to be top dog here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.82.57.134 (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would we take out another version of the name? Friuli is close by... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sock posts
Please read WP:EN. "Venezia Giulia" is Italian, and is listed in the article. Nobody removed it, It was merely set it aside all other foreign language names. (Caution: this may well be a sock IP.) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "julian March" ("Carsia Iulia") is derived from the Julian Alps and existed long before Yugoslavia was even formed (or Italy for that matter). The Italian name for the region, "Venezia Giulia", was invented as late as 1863 by the linguist Graziadio Isaia Ascoli from Gorizia, as an attempt to "claim" Austro-Hungarian territory (i.e. it is an irredentist term and is being used as such even today). I also seriously doubt the diplomats at the Paris peace talks concerned themselves with inventing names for various regions. You were obviously subjected to falsehoods, and suspiciously biased falsehoods too.
 * In short: WP:EN. Its an Italian term and it should not receive special treatment alongside other foreign language terms (esp. since Croatian and Slovene language speakers predominantly populate the region). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think one or two anon editors here should read WP:NCGN, which states as point no. 1 that "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Thus this article cannot be anything other than the Julian March. That's all. Debate over. No further points need be put here, despite what a couple of IP editors from a particular country think. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't quite follow you. It seems English is not your first language. Allow me to repeat the quote with added emphasis for clarity: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". End of debate, my friend. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Al, be sure to ignore the posts by our old IP buddy here (not you, 78.13). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources for what??? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, remember all that time ago when I suggested it might perhaps be a good idea to invest in some evening classes? At the time, I was thinking history and geography might be appropriate. Now it seems English classes might help too. Careful reading will reveal to you that nowhere, but nowhere, have I ever claimed that '"Julian March" is the "most used" name in English'. Or apparently it may be your memory that is faulty, as you seem to have forgotten that you are banned. My final comment to you on this is to refer you once again to WP:NCGN and from there to a search engine of your choice, perhaps Google books might be a good place to start, where you will notice straightaway that indeed Julian March is a "widely used" term in English. Those are the sources you demand. Either way, as much fun as it is discussing things with you again after all this time, I will deny myself the pleasure and refrain from answering your blatherings anymore. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Giovanni! Long time no read, no wonder I didn't think of you. Al, WP:SPI the IP and if its positive just delete all his previous posts and edits and revert all future ones. If this is GG, and you're trying to reason with him... :P -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as I said, those were my last words to him - but I did rather enjoy writing the message, which is essentially the only reason I did it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted a WP:SPI report . -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Giovanni, I am deeply insulted that you consider me so stupid. Every word you write here makes it perfectly clear ("oh baby", the incorrect usage of the word "funny", "play with me") who i am dealing with. I'll say this: you will no alter this article in the slightest. Rest assured. ;) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, you're not my grandma - you're User:Giovanni Giove. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Al, check it out: me and GG :) --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you're wondering, GG, that's the famous "opera actor" Boris Dvornik in a scene from Velo Misto. That would be Split's Fruitmarket Square, where you'll find the statue of Marko Marulić. How's your behind? :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it is the unforgettable Boris Dvornik in the immortal masterpiece "Velo Misto". My question was... what the hell of charcter was Boris supposed to play?--78.13.166.63 (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Al, my friend, what is the meaning of the words "widely accepted" (WP:NCGN)? Let's speak seriously. PS Who is GG, here?--151.21.249.36 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits of DancingPhilosopher
Good Morning, I find the recent edits of DancingPhilospher 1 problematic. Without going in detail, my opinion is the introduction uses the wrong tense, since the term "Venezia Giulia" in Italy is widely established and used until now, so the past tense should be avoided. Moreover, I find that the map showing the territorial changes in the region should be reinstated, since gives a synthetic view of the modern history of the region. Thamks for your comments. Alex2006 (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (responding to invite) Hello, Alessandro57.


 * When in doubt, check policy. The question that needs to be raised here is whether "Venezia Giulia" is a term used at all in English-language sources. I've been searching for a while now and I can't find any kind of significant usage of the term other than in referring specifically to Friuli-Venezia Giulia (the regione). It probably should not be in bold at all unless shown otherwise. That's probably the origin of the confusion regarding "Venezia Giulia was this or that".


 * As regards the map, which one are you referring to, specifically? The article definitely needs to cut down on the images. -- Director  ( talk )  17:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've reworked the lede somewhat. Your thoughts? -- Director  ( talk )  18:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the recent edit by DancingPhilospher. This is not a neutral intro, while the previous one was. I would also ask him to restrain from futher unilateral edits, without consulting other editors in the talk page. On the matter of the term, I believe we already had this discussion once, long ago. I think both terms are used, but the term Julian March is more used in historical literature, and it's also more neutral, and the one which had made it in official diplomatic vocabulary (between 1945-1954). I would thus insist in keeping the term, while pointing out that it is a synonymous of "Venezia Giulia". I think, again, that the previous intro was much better (not only because I wrote it :), but because it presented the matter in a much more balanced, neutral way). This one is distorting the issue towards a Slovene (nationalist) bias. I would also like to point out that the article should be about the whole region, not only about Italianization of the Slavic minorities/majorities, their resistance etc. Of course, this should be fixed by adding material, not by purging valuable information. Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look, and I think it's more or less ok, except the intro (again, I suggest we revert to the old one). I have no problems with images, all of them seem valuable to me (maybe we don't need two on ethnic-linguistic distribution in western Istria, one is enough I think). I'll also add a reference to the unsourced statement on Friulian speakers in the Languages section (it should not be too difficult finding a proper one). Viator slovenicus (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've done quite a bit of searching and all I practically got were either Italian-language sources or references to the regione. Can we see some sources using it before we have "Venezia Giulia" up there in bold as an English-language alternative name? -- Director  ( talk )  21:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand now. That means you did research on the term Venezia Giulia or Julian March? As for historical works in English, I haven't yet come across any that would use "Venezia Giulia" consistently instead of Julian March. http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/anthropological_quarterly/v078/78.4neyzi.pdf; http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-itam&month=0502&week=a&msg=2/7hER8nZ9UrYedx/LHpPQ&user=&pw=. But also several official (Italian) institutions use the term (despite the general tendecy in Italy to put preference of the name Venezia Giulia in English, too): http://www.ictp.it/visit-ictp/about-trieste/info-point-switchboard-office/more-on-history-of-trieste.aspx But sure, I see no problem if the name Venezia Giulia is put in bold as an alternative English name; I would just strongly recommend to keep the name of the article and to use the name Julian March consistently throughout the article. Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Alex2006 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What about my suggestions of reverting to the old intro? Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a (little :-)) problem with the term "historical". This expression in Italy still is very vital, but only regarding the city of Trieste and its immediate surroundings. I will tell a short anecdote: one of my cousins was born there, and because of ignorance I told him that he was "friulano". I have been almost killed :-) angrily he answered that the Triestini are not "friulani", but "Giuliani". Well, personally I think that Trieste is what is keeping alive this geographical definition. Alex2006 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of discussion. Of course, as we know, the term officially still exits (in the name of the region), but its exact referent is dubious. Of course, you should not make the mistake of calling people from Trieste "friulani" (it's tantamount to an offence :)), but how many would consider themselves "giuliani" is another issue. Furthermore, historically the Province of Gorizia should also be considered Venezia Giulia, but nowadays this affiliation is very weak. And in any case, if one writes "historical region", this doesn't necessarily imply that it doesn't exist any more, or that the identification with it has been completely lost. What it does imply is, that it used to be a well-defined region some time in history, and that nowadays its unity and separate administrative status have been either lost or diminished. Viator slovenicus (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::I think that you are right. So, no problem for me to come back to the old introduction. BTW, I have a very nice book of 1848, named "Geografia dell'Italia", What there was considered "Italian" east of Friuli were only the County of Gorizia, the city of Trieste and the "Venetian Istria", that is the west coast of Istria. The common denomination of these regions was "Parte Italiana del Regno Illirico". Considering that, the invention of Ascoli has not been very happy... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there exists here a fundamental misapprehension regarding what constitutes a "historical region". A historical region is a region basically defined through historical association (such as Dalmatia e.g.), and not for example through official decree. Calling something a "historical region" actually means that the region still exists, but is defined through common history and tradition, and possibly through common culture as well. The typical "historical region" is exactly that which you describe, Alessandro57: a region that no longer officially exists, but is still in existence through tradition and colloquial usage. Also, the term "historical region" appears to be sourced?

I see two possibilities: 1) if "Venezia Giulia", as a term still used in Italy, refers to the entire region - then perhaps this article is justified and we can call this a "historical region" (but it must be made clear it is such only from the Italian perspective). 2) If "Venezia Giulia" refers primarily to the official region of Italy itself (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), or a part of that official region, - then this article probably isn't justified at all, and should be merged into the Friuli-Venezia Giulia article.

As things stand now, it appears that "Julian March" ("Venezia Giulia") is a mere historical term, rather than a real, actual historical region that exists today. In my opinion, this should all be stripped of unsourced emotional nonsense and merged into the "History" section of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia article. But lets first try and find out what the term means in Italy? -- Director  ( talk )  07:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can follow you reasoning. As a matter of fact, there has been a period when the region existed with this name under Italy. This could justify an article about the history of the region between 1919 and 1947 (or 1954). Right now, as I wrote above, in Italy the term is generally used to define the small region around Trieste. I think that there is still vital, but otherwise is fading. Alex2006 (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Director: Merging the article with the Friuli-Venzia Giulia makes no sense. Friuli and the Julian March (Venezia Giulia) were first merged after World War Two (1947/1954). The history of the Julian March, as a whole, has virtually nothing to do with the history of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (as a matter of fact, there is no history of FVG prior to 1947). Furthermore, the term Julian March refers to a very clearly defined region that existed as a political-administrative entity during a time in history, and its name has survived to these days. Whether this qualifies or not for the description of "historical region" is of secondary importance. If we agree it doesn't, we can change the definition in the intro. But I fail to see how this petty issue of definition could change the fact that the article describes a very clearly defined reality, about the meaning of which there is no dispute. Whether it exists to this day or not, it's, for me, another secondary issue. And btw, I'm also skeptical with your definition of "historical region". I understand it, I think it's valuable, but it doesn't apply to all cases. Who identifies with Carniola nowadays? Nobody. Where is the name officially used nowadays? Nowhere. Yet, who could deny the fact that it is a historical region. Viator slovenicus (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Tertium non datur
We can then view this subject in two ways:
 * A) If Venezia Giulia is just an (unofficial) part of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, then it should be merged there.
 * B) If Venezia Giulia was an official historical subdivision of the Kingdom of Italy 1919-47 (was it?) - then it might warrant its own article, but we should treat it as a historical province.

What we should definitely not do then, is present it as a historical region. It appears that it really isn't one, and hence the outbursts provoked by misleading allegations to the contrary. -- Director  ( talk )  08:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, DIREKTOR,
 * Thank you for clarifying the issue at hand. As you have written: if A) is the case, then we should say goodbye to the article and merge its content to Friuli-Venezia Giulia. On the other hand, if B) is the case, then the past tense in the lede is to be used. The region, in which the Kingdom of Italy included not only partially, but also exclusively ethnic Slovene areas, because someone came up with this crazy (or maybe just what Italians like to call being "furbo", read here http://italychronicles.com/interesting-italian-word-furbo/ how this is viewed by English-speaking world) idea to unify what was last time unified thousands years ago under the ancient Roman empire, has always been an imaginary region (cf imaginary friend) which was forced into existence by the Treaty of Rapallo (and forced Italianization). It is as outrageous (definition here http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/outrageous ) as if a Slovene linguist, say Jernej Kopitar, have had come up with an idea to invent imaginary Caranthanian March, arguing that back in the Middle Ages existed a region called Caranthania. The Austrians would be even more upset by such an idea then I am by Italians being "furbo" on their neighbours' expense. DancingPhilosopher my talk 17:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Before the Constitution of 1946 Italy was not officially divided into regions. Nevertheless, the newly acquired eastern borderlands (which were not only a random collections of territories, but were in fact a historical region, as they corresponded, to a large extent, to the former Austrian Littoral) were officially called Venezia Giulia (in English, Julian March). Up to 1947, this was a clearly defined region, after 1947/1954 it was split, with one part retaining that name, the other losing it. Now, whether this fits your understanding of the meaning "historical region", I don't know. Honestly, I find this problem largely irrelevant (because it's a nominalistic problem: it depends on how you define "historical region"; and you simply cannot define historical categories with univocal, fixed categories). Whether you call it historical region or historical province is the same for me. Viator slovenicus (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then its simple. We need to write this article as one on an official subdivision (or something?) of the Kingdom of Italy. We can then give it its 1) origins (as being part of the irredentist claim), and 2) the moden-day context, in that today the term is used only colloquially in referring to a part of the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region.


 * All we basically need is a source on what exactly "Venezia Giulia" was 1919-47. Mind you, if there aren't any, and it wasn't anything other than a colloquial term even then, we should consider a merge imo. -- Director  ( talk )  04:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It was many things: 1) a region, in the meaning in which it was used then (historical-geographical sense); 2) an official term for referring to all the "continental" newly acquired eastern provinces (i.e., without Dalmatia), 1918-1920; 3) a temporary province/ administrative unit for all the newly acquired territories after WWI, 1918-1919; 4) an administrative term for referring to the provinces of Trieste, Fiume (after 1924), and Gorizia (except for the period 1923-1927), and Pola/Istria; 5) a journalistic and political term to refer to these areas, used not only in Italy, but also in Yugoslavia (especially in Slovenia) and elsewhere. Limiting the Julian March to an administrative area of the Kingdom of Italy is not correct. The term was widely used in the period 1945-1947 as the common denomination for the disputed areas between Italy and Yugoslavia: both colloquially, in journalistic texts and officially on many levels (diplomatic, administrative, etc.) by all parts (i.e., Yugoslavs, Italians, Anglo-Americans and Soviets). Between 1945-1947, the Julian March was a divided region, but recognized as a whole under that name (Zone A and Zone B of the Julian March!). And mind you, that after 1946, there was no Kingdom of Italy any more, and already since 1943, the Julian March had not been under Italian administration. Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All the meanings of the term that are mentioned above by Viator slovenicus, would not exist without the "original sin" of unifying what was last time unified MORE THAN thousands years ago. It is an example of a myth that became - because it was repeated over 20 years during Italianization period - first a political, and then all other kinds of - reality, or in yet other words it was an example of self-fulfilling prophecy. DancingPhilosopher my talk 18:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would again point out that (beyond the discussion over the term "historical region", which I find of secondary importance - after exposing my arguments I'm not going to argue any more for either keeping or removing it; I leave the decision entirely to other editors) the lead is still not neutral enough. The article cannot be an implicit polemics against Italian irredentism, it should present the facts in e neutral and balanced way. The lead should start with the description of what the Julian March is and was, both as a real political-geographical entity (whose existence was not put into question by anyone) AND a political term to refer to these territories (which was initially politically charged, but eventually lost much of its connotation, to the extent that it was used also by the opponents of Italian rule, in a modified form). I would like to reach a consensus about the lead here before changing it (again). Viator slovenicus (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * About the term: regions in the Italian Kingdom did not exist, only provinces were officially defined. The regions had only a descriptive and statistical meaning. What DancingPhilosopher writes is also not correct: the boundary of the Augustean "Venetia et Histria" run west respect to the italo-jugoslavian border of 1919: the only reason why Italy got this border, disregarding the fact that the population outside the istrian west coast was exclusively Slavic, was (exactly like for south-Tyrol) purely geographic, i.e. strategic: Italians wanted to get possession of the internal slope of the Alps. Said that, I agree with Viator: we have to give a neutral description of the happenings: this means that we have to tell what happened, trying to explain why it happened. That's why I support the restoration of the original lead. Alex2006 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede
I did not want to get into this, DancingPhilosopher, but your edits are obviously biased and slanted. And badly written grammar-wise, to boot. Pointless lists of Slovene counties about the Treaty of London have no place whatsoever in the lede of an article. And as for removing "Croatian" from the lede, let me say that I have no idea what you consider to be "Slovene lands", but as far as actual borders are concerned Croatian-populated areas constitute the majority of those lands actually granted to Italy. -- Director  ( talk )  15:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That the majority of those lands actually granted to Italy were Croatian is irrelevant - what is relevant is the answer to the next question: Did the Croats "loose" 1/4 of Croatian entire population and 1/3 of the entire Croat territory? This is all I want to know! DancingPhilosopher my talk 15:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC) The list of "lost" Slovene counties is pointless only to you! Don't you try to divert the attention from the point made to some irrelevant grammar/typo/etc issues, I mind you Drekotor!
 * Its painfully obvious you're here as a POV crusader. Your additions to the lede do not have consensus. Further nationalist POV-pushing and revert-warring will be brought up on the appropriate noticeboard (please take heed of WP:ARBMAC). Please insert the list into the main body of the article, it is not for the lede. Nor is it acceptable for you to add unwarranted emphasis on your country's losses, while removing mention of other nationalities altogether. Your personal perceptions of "importance" and "relevance" concern noone but yourself. -- Director  ( talk )  16:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal c)
If the existing version of the lede is b), and the previous one was a), let me propose the third one, c). The version I propose would go as follows: The Julian March (Croatian, Slovene: Julijska krajina; Julisch Venetien; Venesia Julia; Vignesie Julie; Carsia Julia), or in Italian, Venezia Giulia, is a term applied to an area of southeastern Europe, created as a region by the Kingdom of Italy that consisted of the present-day Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Croatian region of Istria, and present-day region of Slovenian Littoral, believed by the originator of the term, Italian linguist Graziadio Isaia Ascoli to be all within the historical borders of the ancient Roman province of Italia which he was unaware did include Emona, as well, as it was only recently discovered (see this). The term was endorsed by Italian irredentists, who sought the annexation of the Austrian Littoral, the Trentino, Rijeka, and Dalmatia. These areas were to be granted to Italy by the United Kingdom in exchange for joining the Allied Powers in World War I. The secret Treaty of London granted Italy rights on partially, but also exclusively ethnic Croatian and Slovene areas. With the exception of most of Dalmatia, these areas were indeed mostly granted to Italy by the Treaty of Versailles. The newly created region was subjected to forced Italianization. DancingPhilosopher my talk 15:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we first need a source that will show what exactly this was when it officially existed 1919-46. Imo we can reorganize the article around that. -- Director  ( talk )

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Julian March. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130807105008/http://www1.pucminas.br/mini-onu/6_edicao/arquivos/update_ppc.doc to http://www1.pucminas.br/mini-onu/6_edicao/arquivos/update_ppc.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julian March. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111164234/http://razor.arnes.si/~mkralj/istra-history/e-periodtotal.html to http://razor.arnes.si/~mkralj/istra-history/e-periodtotal.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julian March. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409010948/http://7499thgroupreunions.com/ELINT.aspx to http://7499thgroupreunions.com/ELINT.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319050927/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/6/40/00011990.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/6/40/00011990.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

History of the region before 1918
I added a chapter on history region before 1918, as I felt it is useful to understand the peculiar strcuture of this area. It is largely based on information already available on Wikipedia, and could also be seen as a collection of links to more detailed sections. I added a couple of references. Regards Vbrm (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Graziadio Ascoli and "Origin of the name"
I updated the article on the "Origin of the name" by citing a very relevant reference book which also happens to be available as a Google book. My main points:
 * the term "amateur geographer", which is not supported by any quotation, seems utterly unjustified in the case of Ascoli. Ascoli was a prominent linguist, with international scientific connections, awarded with the highest honors throughout Europe.  The term "amateur" is unapplicable in this case.
 * by reading this part of the article one could get the idea that Ascoli was an "irredentist", i.e. a nationalist with the political goal to make all of Triveneto part of Kingdom of Italy; this is not the case. This is not to deny the Italian nationalism of that time and their usage of Venezia Giulia term; simply, Ascoli himself had different goals.

I also found it useful to state explicitly at the beginning that Julian March is the translation of Venezia Giulia; it may seems obvious but I believe it helps reading. More details of how the english term was born would be useful, I'm however not aware of them right now. Vbrm (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julian March. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425044410/http://www.giulianinelmondo.it/upload/history.pdf to http://www.giulianinelmondo.it/upload/history.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Spoken "languages"

 * The Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian was spoken around Buzet in north-central Istria

I think this is severely misleading. Kajkavian is considered a "Serbo-Croatian" (or "Croatian") dialect only because its speakers consider themselves Croats. The Buzet dialect has some features of so-called Northwestern Čakavian and some features of dialects in Slovenia; it's a typical South Slavic dialect which is hard to classify into some discrete national boxes (various textbooks classify it in different ways). What matters here is that is is Slavic, compared to various Romance dialects (Italian, Venetian, etc.) and this finally made speakers consider themselves Croats. dnik ► 15:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Serenissima.svg