Jump to content

Talk:Free Territory of Trieste

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

Treaty of Osimo

[edit]

Free Territory of Trieste was indeed dissolved in 1954, when zone A was annexed by Italy and zone B by Yugoslavia, but Treaty of Osimo, which settled the border between Italy and Yugoslavia was only signed on November 10, 1975. --Peterlin 11:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the treaty that dissolved FTT in 1954 was actually signed in London

Treaty of Osimo is a bilateral treaty and cannot redefine the multilateral (international) treaty of Peace, signed in 1947. So, why has Materialscientist reverted my edits to the old, incorrect version? --Dorje77 09.20, 25 Jan 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 08:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Memorandum of Understandings is not a treaty (it's called memorandum for a reason) and the Osimo Treaty goes against the Vienna convention of Treaties regarding multilateral treaty amendment. Moreover the 16th UN resolution is still in place and has not been rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.144.84 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Neither the Memorandum of London nor the Treaty of Osimo say anything about dissolving the FTT, so it still exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manne 88 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add this phrase in "Dissolution" section, at the end: "The Treaty has been ratified only by the italian parliament, 2 years later[1]".Dorje77 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- People who say the Free Territory of Trieste was dissolved in 1954 did never read the 1954 Memorandum of Understanding. To this day, Italian laws about the Free Territory of Trieste are in force, including the law establishing Region Friuli Venezia Giulia; at article 70 that implements and executes the obligations of the Italian Government as for the administration of the Free Territory of Trieste, regardless to the Treaty of Osimo, because again, that involved two States (with no authority over Trieste) while the Memorandum was signed by their Governments.

The ultimate evidence is that Italian Constitutional Law 1/1963 of Italy, establishing Region Friuli Venezia Giulia and, at article 70, transfers the powers of the "Commissario generale del Governo per il territorio di Trieste" (established by a Decree of the President of the Republic of Italy on 27 October 1954 to implement the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding of London as for the administration of the Free Territory - not its annexation) to a new Commissioner in the Region. See: http://www.normattiva.it/atto/caricaDettaglioAtto?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=1963-02-01&atto.codiceRedazionale=063C0001&currentPage=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.0.153.28 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitutional Law on the Italian official gazzette: http://www.normattiva.it/atto/caricaDettaglioAtto?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=1963-02-01&atto.codiceRedazionale=063C0001&currentPage=1

The 1983 UNSC letter PO 210 PI declaring that the appointment of the Governor can be resumed at initiative of any UN Member State (therefore the question of the FTT is not closed with Osimo): https://postimg.org/image/ex357ojth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.0.153.28 (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in Yugoslavia

[edit]

At the same time, ethnic Italians and Germans living in Yugoslavia complained of discrimination and persecution and many of them also emigrated.

Could anyone give some historical sources confirming this, please? Boraczek 08:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a useful article at http://www.genealogienetz.de/reg/ESE/dshist.txt that covers the history of the Danube Germans, Aincluding those who lived in Slavonia. Towards the end there is mention of their fate after 1945. My mother-in-law is ethnically German from Slavonia, although her father was hung by the Germans during WWII. Interestingly, when Tito was presenting figures of Jugoslav losses in support of reparations after 1945, the reduction in population caused by the deported Volksdeutsch was made to appear as a loss to Jugoslavia meriting additional support! PeterDRG 16:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The German minority in Yugoslavia which largely supported the German occupiers during WWII, did not "emmigrate". A large part left with German army in 1945, and the rest were interned after the war and expelled to Germany, following the pattern in the rest of eastern Europe. An exception was made for those that actively supported the resistance, and thousands of ethnic Germans stayed.
The situation of Italians was very much different. In Italy, there was internal communist resistance to the fascist regime and especially Germans after 1943, which was friendly with Yugoslav partisans. Very many of Istrian and other Italians were communists or at least anti-fascists. After the capitulation of Italy, there were whole Italian units in Yugoslavia which switched sides and continued to fight with partisans against Germans. That's why Italians which were not individually prosecuted for war crimes were not treated summarily. They were given a choice, in the Territory's Constitution, to either stay in the Free Territory and become its citizens or be asked to move to Italy. It's very much likely that some Italian Istrians were intimidated or forced into leaving, but there is also no doubt that there were many which prefered to stay and live in the socialist Yugoslavia. Also, let's not forget that many of the people who left Istria at the time were Slovenes or Croats.
To cut the long story short, Germans were expelled according to ethnic criteria (they were presumed to be collaborators, unless they could prove otherwise), while Italians left and were sometimes forced to leave according to individual political and ideological criteria. Not really comparable. Zocky | picture popups 13:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said italians were not treated summarily. But excuse me, if appears the choise: to leave or to stay for peoples, no matter what their ethnicity or nationality is, who lived in the same place from generation to generation - it is clear discrimination and persecution.--Vulpes vulpes 12:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[edit]

The numbers we are presenting don't add up: we say that there were about 30,000 Italians in zone B, 14.000 of whom remained there, so about 16.000 emigrated. We alos say that 40.000 people emigrated, mostly Italians. How is 16.000 out of 40.000 "mostly"? Zocky | picture popups 06:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the largest single ethnic group -- though not a majority. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German name?

[edit]

Any particular reason for including the German name in the opening of the article? There wasn't a significant German population in the territory. --Jfruh (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main reason would probably be that it was in Austria-Hungary for few centuries... Other than that, none I think. Martin 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Free Territory of Trieste was never in Austria-Hungary (that having stopped existing 27 years before FTT was formed). Not that Austria-Hungary itself existed for centuries... The only reason why we would need the German name is a source that says that German was an official language in FTT. In absence of that, I'll remove the German name for now. Zocky | picture popups 02:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recent history does not wipe out 550 years of Austrian (German) ownership and occupation. While the "Free Territory" of Trieste is a recent (artificial) post-war construction -- Trieste itself is a city with 550 years of Austrian rule. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Official languages

[edit]

To my knowledge Croatian was not an official language of the FTT. So i am removing it untill a source for that is provided. Regards 89.212.188.64 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article 7 of the Permanent Statute: The official languages of the Free Territory shall be Italian and Slovene. The Constitution shall determine in what circumstances Croat may be used as a third official language. Of course, the Constitution was never enacted, but Croat clearly was a de facto official language in the portion of Zone B south of the Dragonja river, and obviously the prevailing language there (particularly in the hinterland). I would therefore propose to mention Croatian again, particularly given the fact that the table does not speak of official language(s) or state language(s), but simply of language(s). --Alib (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that Croatian should be included in the lead on the basis of its modern-day status, at the time it was absorbed into the Serbo-Croatian language. The territory of Zone B was (and is) populated by a majority of Croats, who at the time used Serbo-Croatian. On the basis of these facts, I believe it would be an oversight not to include a Serbo-Croatian entry in the lead. Thoughts? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An opinion: According to the Serbo-Croatian language#History of linguistic issues and the Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language, the unification of the Croatian and Serbian language was essentially a political act in the second Yugoslavia that happened after 1954 and was viewed by Croats as an attempt at Serbianisation. For the record, in 1944, AVNOJ declared Croatian, Serbian, Slovene, and Macedonian to be equal in the entire territory of Yugoslavia, the decision was re-published in 1945. Also, the official documents of the FTT use the name Croatian. Therefore, I can't agree that Croatian was absorbed into the Serbo-Croatian language in the FTT and can't see the exclusion of the Serbo-Croatian entry from the lead as an oversight. --Eleassar my talk 16:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "political act" argument goes both ways. I've come across a significant number of sources that refer to the 1990s split into four languages (all based on Neo-shtokavian) as a "political act" caused by the recent wars and ethnic conflicts. We can go source-hunting but I hope you believe me that the majority of English sources refer to the contemporary (1950s) language of Yugoslavia spoken by Croats (and Serbs, Montenegrins, and Muslims) as Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian is even used today in a modern context, let alone in the context of a period when it was official.
I agree however, that if the official documents used "Croatian" we should go with that. The FTT is not Yugoslavia. Can you provide a source pls? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Treaty of Peace with Italy (Paris, 10 February 1947) speaks about Croat not Serbo-Croatian language.[1][2] We should stick with the terminology used by the reliable sources that deal specifically with the FTT. --Eleassar my talk 07:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Istria was under Austria after the defeat of Napoleon

[edit]

January 1, 1957

[edit]

I recall reading in a Rand McNally atlas from about 1958 a list of then recent international border changes, and one of those was the official incorporation of Trieste A into Italy and Triest B into Yugoslavia. I recall specifically it was the same date as the Saarland was incorporated into West Germany. Is there any historical significance to January 1, 1957 in Trieste?  Randall Bart   Talk  02:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article and comments are correct -- 1954 was an annexation, not necessarily a fully recognized one. And the multi-level treaty that created the free state (1947) was not amended by the 1954 unofficial annexations or the 1975 bilateral treaties. Nobody seems to care in 2022 -- but this is another example of a zombie territory that has not been officially reconciled by proper multi-level treaty action. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Porto Libero Trieste" Movement

[edit]

There should be section about Movement for renewal of Free Territory of Trieste: www.triestfreeport.org and also there's Movement for Istria, which is related region: Republic of Istria on Facebook 91.226.242.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Coat of arms

[edit]

It is mentioned in the text, that there existed two different types of coat of arms according to the two different zones. Therefore, I propose to delete the coat of arms. --ChryZ MUC 16:00, 27 Oct 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChryZ MUC (talk • contribs)

Geography Relative to Today

[edit]

Can someone with expertise on this matter edit in a brief descriptions of what modern-day states the territory of Trieste overlapped with? That's pretty important basic information for an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asasa64 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


use of the past tense

[edit]

On a practical level a state can be said to exist if it controls at least some territory and has at least some level of ongoing international recognition. While there are some grey areas the Free Territory of Trieste has neither and thus should be considered a former state for the time being.©Geni 20:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A UN resolution and a Peace Treaty mean international recognition. EU and UN replies never mention any cancellation. Please notice that other countries have only administrative rights over it, no sovereignty. Which means that the Free Territory of Trieste is sovereign, yet administered. Neither cancelled, nor "unexistent". Your doubts are understandable, after decades of cold war and so on, but the facts are pretty clear. Aarska (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are that it has no government, no territory and no diplomats. UN resolutions only have significance in so far as those who have the strength to enforce them chose to to do so. So far France hasn't chosen to invade Italy over the issue.©Geni 21:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Territory of Trieste is only under administration of Italy,Slovenia and Croatia. No one have cancelled the state or the Peace Treaty;the FTT is mentioned the last time by a internetional commision of the UE the 22nd january 2013 in Bruxelles, by On.Victor Boştinaru. So the FTT still exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusdg (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to cancel states. You simply have to prevent them from having any territory while making sure that no one of significance complains.©Geni

What about Tibet? Tibet IS or Tibet WAS? Poland did not existed from 1939 to 1945? Estonia did not existed from 1953 to 1992? So, about FTT: the nation does exist, even if under temporary italian administration. Franco.t (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet is a plateau region. Tibet was a country. Poland had significant diplomatic recognition between 1939 and 1945 as did Estonia between 1953 and 1992. The free Territory of Trieste doesn't have that kind of diplomatic recognition.©Geni 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tibet is not only a "plateau region", but it's all of these: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tibet_(disambiguation) and this one: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate
For FTT: being actually administrated by foreign countries, FTT's diplomatic functions are (badly) developed by these countries. It's nearly the same as for Somalia in 1950-1960 (it was a United Nations Trusteeship, administrated by Italy; http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Trust_Territory_of_Somalia). In Somalia Italy acted correctly, leading to Somalia's independence in a short time; for FTT, the problem is it's not a few thousands kms of distance from his administrator countries, so no effort was made by these to lead to his independence: the problem of FTT's independence and own government stopped in 1954. Being so complex the problem, maybe it would be better to make a page about FTT's sovereignity problem Franco.t (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't fool readers: sources are ridiculously self-referencing, the supposed debate is limited to a very strict circle of so-called "committees for TLT".--Vituzzu (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Markusdg (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC) the italian law and constitution aboaut de FTT: Article 21, paragraph 2 of Legislative Decree no. 1430, 28th November 1947 declare that: "The Italian sovereignty over the area constituting the Free Territory of Trieste, as it is defined above will cease with the entry into force of this Treaty."(Treaty of Paris, 1947)[reply]

In addition, the Legislative Decree 28th November 1947, n. 1430, ratified by Law no. 3054 of 25 November 1952: "The present law, with the seal of the State, shall be included in the official collection of laws and decrees of the Italian Republic. And oblige to respect and enforce it as law of the State. " Law no. 3054 of November 25th 1952 became enforceable by publication in the Official Gazette no. 10 of 01.14.1953, and is currently in force as law of the Italian Republic.

Constant vandalization

[edit]

Any content should not be removed randomly, the editing (actually, mosly vandalizing) on this page is getting hysterical. I'd ask everyone to start ADDING informations and sources, instead of acting like vandals. Aarska (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing SPI case about you and the other users adding a nNPOV original research about the supposed independence of Trieste. Please stop vandalising this page, frankly, since these vandalisms has gone crosswiki, I'm about to make many global locks. --Vituzzu (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being an italian administrator, it seems clear that you've been bringing a HUGE national POV over the whole matter with you :( unfortunately, if you just read the sources, including official UN and EU replies, you'd realize that the edits were all but POV-driven. As new informations on the matter arose, they've been added (together with many more features which have been removed as well by your POV-driven administration). The sources confirmed that the matter is all but settled, like it or not as an italian. In any case, many other parts of the page have been removed, which makes your actions... actual vandalizing, wasting others' effort. Not really a "free" behaviour... Aarska (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC) That shame will spread across the web, I promise you. Wikipedia should be a free encyclopedia and should have the Truth inside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.94.229 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try fooling, it's not a nationalistic affair, you know. It's a matter of canvassing and of the original researches you're going on adding here since the only secondary sources (mis)interpreting primary source are related to these weird committees for "a free Trieste". --Vituzzu (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if editors would bring evidence and sources to the talk page as to the current status of the Free Territory. Consider opening an WP:RFC if the situation is confusing. If consensus is reached here, it would be reasonable to unprotect the article. Then anyone who reverts against the consensus could be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said is simply a pov-pushing and vandalism affair but ok, let's pretend it's not, so: which third-party reliable sources does claim the TLT still exist? --Vituzzu (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
for example, in GATT/WTO, in the most recent edition (1994) you can find special commercial provisioning about the commerce with FTT: "Advantages accorded to the trade with the Free Territory of Trieste by countries contiguous to that territory, provided that such advantages are not in conflict with the Treaties of Peace arising out of the Second World War." (pag. 791, http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/gatt_ai_e/art24_e.doc )Franco.t (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
another example: "3. USE OF THE ADJECTIVE "FORMER" TO MODIFY THE PHRASE "FREE TERRITORY OF TRIESTE" SHOULD BE AVOIDED. BEGIN FYI PERMANENT LEGAL REGIME FOR GOVERNANCE OF FREE TERRITORY OF TRIESTE CONTEMPLATED BY 1947 TREATY OF PEACE WITH ITALY WAS NEVER FULLY IMPLEMENTED. HOWEVER, 1954 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US, UK, ITALY AND YUGOSLAVIA DID NOT TERMINATE JURIDICAL STATUS OF FREE TERRITORY. 1954 MEMORANDUM PROVIDED FOR TERMINATION OF US-UK MILITARY GOVERNMENT OF ZONE A AND SUBSTITUTION OF ITALIAN CIVIL ADMINISTRATION, AND SIMILAR TERMINATION OF YUGOSLAV MILITARY GOVERNMENT AND SUBSTITUTION OF YUGOSLAV CIVIL ADMINISTRATION IN ZONE B. CONTINUING LEGAL CHARACTER OF FREE TERRITORY OF TRIESTE WAS NOT RPT NOT AFFECTED. END FYI." https://web.archive.org/web/20130901133310if_/http://aad.archives.gov/aad/createpdf?dt=2474&rid=61012&dl=1345 Franco.t (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that similar vandalization occurs in the Spanish version too! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.240.13 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Markusdg (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Various contents will be removed without a reason, overall contents with sources like UN council. The contents are changed (or removed) with personal opinions,in the english and spanish versions.[reply]

These are primary sources which cannot be used for supporting the misinterpretation which has been added by you. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"primary sources which cannot be used" is an oxymoron. Can you pls specify what are the removed sources, in order to let anyone evaluate them on his own? Franco.t (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY. Oxymora got into policy! --Vituzzu (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
for example: the "assisted" migration of 20.000 (or more) triestini to Austrialia, Canada and Argentina is a historical fact:

http://www.ammer-fvg.org/_Data/Contenuti/Allegati/eng/francescofait.pdf chapter about triestini); a source like a australian book deleted(."Trieste goes to Australia", Cresciani Gianfranco, ISBN 10: 0646556312 / 0-646-55631-2 ISBN 13: 9780646556314) .This is a clear example of vandalism--189.195.128.121 --Markusdg (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source about Italian citizens migration from Trieste to Australia, so nothing related to the alleged current existence of TLT. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a source about a "assisted" emigration of triestini(20.000 or more citizens 10% of the total poblation) was deleted; these triestini was "not so italian" or indipendentist, similar to ethnic cleaning. And is part of the history of TLT and is part of the vandalism on this page. --Markusdg (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Markusdg (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC) the italian law and constitution about de FTT: Article 21, paragraph 2 of Legislative Decree no. 1430, 28th November 1947 declare that: "The Italian sovereignty over the area constituting the Free Territory of Trieste, as it is defined above will cease with the entry into force of this Treaty."(Treaty of Paris, 1947)[reply]

In addition, the Legislative Decree 28th November 1947, n. 1430, ratified by Law no. 3054 of 25 November 1952: "The present law, with the seal of the State, shall be included in the official collection of laws and decrees of the Italian Republic. And oblige to respect and enforce it as law of the State. " Law no. 3054 of November 25th 1952 became enforceable by publication in the Official Gazette no. 10 of 01.14.1953, and is currently in force as law of the Italian Republic. Or this law dont exist? Or Italy is still in war agains USA, Great Britain and the allies powers?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusdg (talk • contribs)

Primary (misinterpreted) sources, again? --Vituzzu (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an italian law; we have not to "interprete" it, we can only read it. And the literal meaning is obvious. A law is valid until another law delete it. If you can find another italian law which modified or canceled law n. 3054 11/25/52, I'll read it with great interest. But I didn't succeded in finding it...
What about the telegram of the USA State Dpt. I cite few rows above? "primary misinterpred sources" too? Franco.t (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "definitely"? Definitely WHAT?!Franco.t (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Markusdg (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Primary misinterpreted sources? is really clear!like these[reply]

Parliamentary questions 7 August 2012 E-006217/2012 Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission 1. Annex VIII to the Treaty of peace with Italy of 10 February 1947 stipulates in its Article 1 that the port of Trieste shall be a customs free port. Article 5(2) of Annex VIII provides that in connection with importation into or exportation from or transit through the Free Port, the authorities of the Free Territory shall not levy on such goods customs duties or charges other than those levied for services rendered. Under Union law, this position is assured through the operation of the port as a Free Zone in accordance with the EC law provisions referred to below.

2. The Free Zone of Trieste is operated as a free zone of control type I. In accordance with Article 166 of the Community Customs Code it is a part of the customs territory of the Community in which non-Union goods are not subject to customs duties.

All operations which may be carried out in the Free Zone of Trieste must be in line with the customs provisions.


By virtue of Articles 156 and 160 of the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006(1) Member States can through their national legislation and under their responsibility regarding correct application, exempt from VAT the supply of goods which are intended to be placed under free zones and the supply of goods or services carried out therein. (1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, OJ L 347, 11.12.2006. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-006217&language=EN

"the authorities of the Free Territory shall"(...) the european parliament speack about authorities of the FTT.if it dont exist,how is possible?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusdg (talk • contribs)

Actually this sentence is quite misinterpreted too, but I won't deal with it because we are not a secondary source. Is definitely not up to us state if the TLT still exists, Wikipedia is not an international court. You'll be able to write anything you want about current existence of TLT when customs will be set up between TLT and its neighbouring Countries or when there will be high quality secondary sources. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/Franco.t, Special:Contributions/Markusdg, Special:Contributions/Aarska, Special:Contributions/Dorje77 = Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, that's the point. Their POV is evident and falls into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. For sample Markusdg mixed up the Free Port of Trieste with TLT, but at present they are different things, as evident in a judgment that is beloved by the political lobby they refer to: D’altra parte, lo stesso Allegato VIII al Trattato di Pace del 1947 ha ammesso che il Territorio Libero di Trieste (cui è subentrato lo Stato italiano in conseguenza del Memorandum di Londra del 1954) => "On the other hand, the same Annex VIII to the Peace Treaty of 1947 acknowledged that the Free Territory of Trieste (which was replaced by the Italian government as a result of the London Memorandum of 1954)". But they see only what they want to see, because they decided time ago that a dead (or an unborn, see Cammarata's theory) thing is still alive; did you know the anecdote about a man who believed he was dead and his psychiatrist? --Shivanarayana (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS this edit make statements about its existance and consequences of treaties which could be referenced only by POV sources (belonging to "Movimento Trieste Libera" or similar local political movements), their intentionally misinterpretation of primary sources is glaring. A clear example about the actual policy of UE institutions is here, between The Commission considers that the province of Trieste as referred to by the petitioner is part of Italian territory and It has been implicitly confirmed by the 1975 Treaty of Osimo, so what are we talking about? --Shivanarayana (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Markusdg (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)you are right Shivanarayana; when someone censure historical fact like this"20,000 Triestini , or 10 per cent of the population, left their city and the majority (more than 90 per cent) headed to Australia, mainly Melbourne and Sydney.[citation needed] This mass migration was also enforced by the new Italian administration: for years anyone who was not considered "Italian enough" was at risk of persecution.1."Trieste goes to Australia", Cresciani Gianfranco, ISBN 10: 0646556312 / 0-646-55631-2" is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account; is change the history to show only the italian nationalist version[reply]

Shivanarayana: the link you've posted confirms that Italy has only civil administration to TLT ("Italy has extended its civil administration to it"). There's no mentioned any kind of sovereignty at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje77 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QED, an example of negative conclusion from affirmative premises. The petition was about tax collection, a civil matter, not about sovereignty. The fact that the document does not mention sovereignty doesn't mean "has only civil administration", it should be obvious. This is an intentional misinterpretation, as stated above, and it's the only way to support a claim that is contrary to all historical evidence: to the Commission's knowledge, the legitimacy of this situation has not been called into question by any State, including any party to the 1947 Peace Treaty, ever since. It has been implicitly confirmed by the 1975 Treaty of Osimo. BTW, about sovereignty, you know very well the TLT governor was never appointed, so TLT never exercised sovereignty (a point that led Cammarata to argue that Italy had never lost its sovereignty over these territories). Any matter involving the Free Port of Trieste and UE take for granted Italian sovereignty on it, except in the interpretations of local autonomists. You have not to submit here official sources that does NOT say this, or that, or the other thing, but official sources that say clearly that TLT exists at present as an autonomous entity (and no, this doesn't say it, it just mentions the origin of port's status, as it precedes Treaty of Rome. Are you able to find TLT in the list of member states?). Good luck. --Shivanarayana (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivanarayana (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The official Source that says clearly that FTT exists is the Threaty Of Pace of the 1947. No other official document claims any kind of "annection" to Italy (or you can find it?). If you can, please forward that document to the people of FTT, so that they can surrender to this sad evidence. :)Dorje77 (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
QED (about SPA) 2nd part: some answers, e.g. The Commission considers that the province of Trieste as referred to by the petitioner is part of Italian territory, were already cited above. You don't like the way it happened? You can. You like to call yourself "Citizen of Free Territory of Trieste"? You can. It's not my business if you don't want to face facts (i.e. what happened after 1947, international treaties included). It's the same if you call yourself "Citizen of Hittite Empire", in both cases no one can give you a proof of citizenship at present. My business is to preserve neutrality and to avoid errors in verb tenses on Wikipedia: FTT was, because so sources not related to the local autonomist movement I've outlined say.
Hope User:EdJohnston and others have been convinced of the evidence (there's no possible dispute on current existence of FTT according to WP:RS), otherwise I'd like to know what point is not clear to them. PS anyhow I think the relation between The Free Port of Trieste and FTT should be present, it's not even mentioned in Port of Trieste, which exhibits a {{Pov}} --Shivanarayana (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i hope that User:EdJohnston note that vituzzu and friends delete various information and send to black list site that they dont like, a intent to change the reality (for example:forced migration of more of the 10% of the population[2]= some citizens)--Markusdg (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.normattiva.it/atto/caricaDettaglioAtto?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=1977-03-21&atto.codiceRedazionale=077U0073
  2. ^ http://books.google.com.mx/books/about/Trieste_Goes_to_Australia.html?id=GhsgKQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
We can deal separately with the issues, Istrian exodus is an historical fact, but it's no good reason to accept edits like this, which pretends autonomists POV claims (the existence of FTT as an autonomous political entity nowadays) that have no support in third-party sources to be real facts --Shivanarayana (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i say again: the vandalization by some useras and administrators delete historical facts or change it...like the triestin forced migration, that is NOT the istrian exodus.--Markusdg (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there's nothing (no treaty or other official document) that gives to Italy (and Yugoslavia) more than civil administration to FTT, after 1947 (and you have no linked any), even the Treaty of Osimo. But OK, the other point is: vituzzu didn't edit only the present tense (was instead is), he has deleted a lot of informations... Why?Dorje77 (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're looking for a recognition of your supposed state by Wikipedia's users, I'm sorry but regardless of anything we can say you'll go on paying Italian VAT, IRPEF, IRES, IMU, IRAP, IMU, TARSU, passo carrabile, bollo automobilistico and much more. It's definitely time to say Wikipedia is not a forum. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's about neutrality. :) You know: I can understand that going against the mainstream thinking can be considered "not neutral". And I can understand that we can not have the same thinking about "FTT is" or "FTT was". But I think that wikipedia was build around the spirit of sharing knowledge and I think that an article like this can contain also our version. We can discuss on the correct form to spread informations, but I don't think that this kind of cuttings help wikipedia in any way. I feel it like some kind of censorship. And.... we are not vandals! If we are not welcome here, I think we can leave this talk and this article. :) Dorje77 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About your version: WP:WEIGHT. Personally I think we can mention autonomists theories (they seem to me encyclopedic enough, as evidenced by the existence of List for Trieste) but other users may have different opinions. Anyway they have to be exposed for what they are according to third-party sources.--Shivanarayana (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We all know it's not about neutrality but it's simply the web side of an ongoing political activity in Trieste. Being a popular encyclopedia Wikipedia lays, by definition, upon mainstream. Being quite generous the relevancy, in terms of IF in historical literature, of such these theories justifies no more than 20 words about them. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20 words. :) Ok, nevermind. Have a nice day and - if you need something, you know where to find me. :) Dorje77 (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation about the 1910 census

[edit]

In the section "History", where it is written:

"Italian-speakers have been predominant in most urban settlements and in the coast with strong minorities of Slovenes and Croats, especially in Trieste/Trst district where Slovenes represented a third of the population by the end of World War I.[citation needed]"

I would like that the following sites (or at least the first one) would be added at the end as citation:

http://www.kozina.com/premik/1910-02.pdf

http://www.kozina.com/premik/1910.htm

The first site represents a scanned document of the 1910 census.

Thanks and best regards.

151.51.234.105 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks! Jguy TalkDone 00:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

[edit]

First of all, its the alphabetical order. Second, Croatian (= Serbo-Croatian) was the primary official language of Yugoslavia and was the language used by the administration authorities in Zone B (the vast majority of which indeed ended-up in NR Croatia). It was spoken by the (non-Slovene) administrators themselves. Croatia was granted the largest single chunk of the Free Territory after dissolution. -- Director (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why alphabetical order? Any source? Why are you so used to ask sources just for edits which go against your POV-pushing? Finally why the "numerical relevance" criterion should be excluded only by your will? Here another source about ethnic percentages but I think you'll go on asking for a source stating 20% > 5% until you'll finally get a topic-ban. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should immediately report these offensive personal attacks. Please explain why anyone should care about your own contemporary "numerical relevance criterion", as opposed to official languages and/or modern-day territory situation (the largest part of this territory is modern-day Croatia). Or indeed why you're badmouthing fellow users over a silly language order, with the article having sported a modern country infobox for months?? Thank goodness the "numerical relevance criterion" was maintained, though.. -- Director (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not reverse the timeline of what did happen here, it's who started sort of an edit-war based on your POV and now it's probably up to me to solve this affair, as I already did with your counterpart Brunodam. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Solve the affair"?? :) My good man, I don't even know who you are, and I can't imagine what "affair" you're talking about. I think I remember "Brunodam" though.. wasn't he that guy who got banned five years ago for creating like fifty sockpuppets? I'm afraid that, as far as I know, he was "solved" by my old friend Al, not you.
While we wait for you to "purge the encyclopedia of the likes of me", would you please oblige me and explain why your language order, apparently based on historical population percentages, is the one we must go with. "It was there first" is no rationale. And can you please do so with a minimum of comedic threats? -- Director (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brunodam was the guy who had been globally locked by me because of his continuous pov-pushing in Istria-related pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good buddy, Brunodam was community banned from this project on 29 July 2008 by MaxSem for sockpuppeteering, on report by AlasdairGreen27, an ole Wikifriend of mine. Here's the thread. I supported the move myself as well, as you can see. You had nothing to do with it.
So I say again, would you please oblige me and explain why your language order, apparently based on historical population percentages, is the one we must go with? "It was there first" is a no rationale whatsoever. I hope edit-warring and threats are not the limit of your interest here? -- Director (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make reference to the BDA's case by mistake, he tries to push his pov as you're pushing yours the difference is a simple sign (in a mathematical sense) and, as I did as steward with him, it definitely needs a deeper investigation. For instance, this page had a simple list of language versions of an historical name, basing on your nationalistic view you changed it and then you started shifting the burden from you to me. :::::::So here the original question: why did you change the order of languages?
Furthermore, you edited the whole page so you had already read it states Croatians were the smaller national group in TLT, so why did you use this edit summary to justify your revert? If you truly believed it was a false claim why didn't you fix it in the lower sections too? --Vituzzu (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Begging your pardon, but kindly shut up about me - or get reported. I've had my full, thank you. You know as much about me as you do of how old Bruno was banned.
I changed the order of foreign language names on the basis that the lede translations are not based on historical (as in "what would be relevant in 1950"), but modern-day significance. And today, the largest chunk of the Free Territory is in Croatia. That's it. I will not be "interrogated" by you; besides, deductive logic is wanting if it is concluded that one "must" have read the entire article if he edited the infobox :). The silly, modern-country infobox. -- Director (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you say you were imposing an alphabetical order while you're now dealing with a "current geography"-order? Again you're escaping from the main point: your nationalistic-driven strong POV and the way you fool the system to impose it. Don't try to fool even deductive logic, you didn't edit the sole infobox so why did you asked a false rhetorical question? Way the historical order, dealing with a former state, lack of significance? Finally you were already involved in the same issue and that's quite interesting. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the order is accurate both alphabetically and in terms of modern-day territorial significance. And, yes, I edited the infobox and the first sentence. Clearly, I'm a lying bastard.
If my behavior is the supposed "main point", perhaps we should transfer this conversation over to an admin noticeboard? There you can continue to write as many barely-intelligible personal attacks as you like (this is an article talk page). Do you agree? -- Director (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about moving anything by yourself, it's up to me though the issue seems to be global rather than simply local. You're probably confusing the lack of local admins willing to deal with these nationalistic matters with a supposed impunity. Anyway I didn't read "I'm afraid that, as far as I know, he was "solved" by my old friend Al, not you.", actually your nationalistic editing gave him the way to find some "allies" so I had to do so many locks. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Free Territory of Trieste/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
==November 2012==

Assessment as a part of 2012 WP:CRO drive, performed on 11 November 2012:

  • B1 (referencing) - criterion not met: The article has significant shortcomings in terms of referencing. There are substantial parts of prose without any references. It is absolutely necessary that each paragraph contains at least one reference to a WP:RS, hence the criterion is not met. Even though {{cite web}} and similar appropriate referencing templates are not required I'd recommend applying the templates if GA or better quality is aimed at. At present the article employs a mix of the citation templates and bare-url references - which is not an obstacle for B-class in itself.
  • B2 (comprehensiveness and accuracy) - criterion not met: Several major aspects of the topic are not covered comprehensively (or at all). The gaps include: economy (separate currencies were in circulation, Port of Trieste was surely affected by new borders, etc), public services (at least postal service existed), VUJNA is given a passing mention in an image caption only and it should be discussed briefly. Since the VUJNA issued its own stamps and the Zone B had a separate currency, were there any other Zone-B-specific documents (identity papers etc).
  • B3 (article structure) - criterion (currently) met but further sections will be needed to accommodate material missing per B2 above.
  • B4 (reasonably well-written prose) - criterion met. Not good enough for GA or better though.
  • B5 (supporting materials) - criterion largely met - except for occasional sandwiching of text between images which should be avoided.
  • B6 (appropriately understandable presentation) - criterion met - however there are several awkward structures used in the prose which require clarification - those are tagged now.
A lot of work went into this article, but it still falls short of the B-class considerably. Consequently downgraded to C-class.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 15:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute

[edit]

I am no expert on this matter. However, it appears to me that the consensus position (both amongst this article's previous editors and the international community) is that the Treaty of Osimo formally dissolved the Free Territory. The assertion that the UNSC still has responsibility for Trieste under UNSCR 16, let alone that it still exists as a sovereign state, appears to be a fringe theory that should at most be confined to a few sentences. It seems to be reliant on a hatch-patch of documents mostly taken out of context. I find it extremely unlikely that any international actor regards the Free Territory to still exist. If Wikipedia is to assert that the Free Territory still exists as a sovereign state, much wider consensus would need to be established than a single editor asserting it. I've flagged this issue in several of WikiProjects. Portwalrus (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider simply reading the article and comments -- it seems that the world community ACTS as if the bilateral 1975 treaty ended the free state, but (per the way these things are supposed to be handled) it did not. Thus a revision of the original 1947 international treaty would be needed. It has not occurred. Thus the free state might be seen as a dead issue...but legally one can argue it has de jure existence (but not defacto existence). Nobody in the international community seems to care -- rather like the current situation win Spanish Sahara under (permanent??) Morocco occupation. The Great Powers seem satisfied with the status quo. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free Territory of Trieste. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free Territory of Trieste. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free Territory of Trieste. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alarming lack of viewpoints

[edit]

This article does not currently take into account the fact that several thousands of Triestines, as well as world-reknowned experts, do not agree with the POV that the Treaty of Osimo dissolved the Free Territory of Trieste. As admitted in earlier discussions even by contrarian (Italian) admins, this perspective needs to be clearly represented here. During the next few days, this perspective will be expanded by us (as, in all honesty, we are some of the most expert in this matter) in the article. It will be done in a clear, source-based and as balanced as possible manner, as well as with utmost respect for all viewpoints, of course. Any recommendation will be welcome. It is important, in any case, that admins do not just randomly delete all additions. Triest-ngo

Annexed from Austria-Hungary in 1921 ?

[edit]

Wonder if this was possible, since Austria-Hungary ceased to exist in fall of 1918, splitting in several parts. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes -- given that various peace treaties with the spin-offs and/or rump state remainder had to be signed. Italy and Austria were opponents in WW1 -- what over government could Italy have annexed the territory from? Chesspride@aol.com 216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Example
Treaty of Trianon, (1920), treaty concluding World War I and signed by representatives of Hungary on one side and the Allied Powers on the other. It was signed on June 4, 1920, at the Trianon Palace at Versailles, France. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another Example -- Austria as the primary government, ceding territories that other powers eventually annexed. The territories were not in limbo for two years.
Treaty of Saint-Germain, (1919), treaty concluding World War I and signed by representatives of Austria on one side and the Allied Powers on the other. It was signed at Saint-Germain-en-Laye, near Paris, on September 10, 1919, and came into force on July 16, 1920.
The treaty officially registered the breakup of the Habsburg empire, recognizing the independence of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) and ceding eastern Galicia, Trento, southern Tirol, Trieste, and Istria Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And The Treaty of Rapallo 1920 -- which ceded Austrian Trieste and Istria to Italy. Chesspride216.144.161.51 (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free Territory Sign

[edit]

Quite near the centre of Trieste there's a sign above a shop that says "FREE TERRITORY OF TRIESTE: USA & UK COME BACK!". Judging by Google Street View it seems to have come into being in prototype form somewhen between 2012 and 2014. Is it just the whim of a local eccentric, or is there an organisation behind it? It's quite nice that at least one person likes the USA and UK. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_Territory_of_Trieste&oldid=1254752094"