Talk:Italian unification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Italian unification as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German,  Portuguese or Spanish language Wikipedias.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

The article contains a couple non-neutral statements. It's mostly fine, but a little editing would only help.

It contained quite a few non-neutral statements. I've cleaned up some, but it wants more work. It's been listed on Articles Needing Cleanup since August 2004. --Jim Henry 18:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Different view of unification

"Others saw the unification movement as cover for the expansionist ambitions of the House of Savoy." Please cite your sources. At the best of my knowledge, the number of people suspecting a cover is rather low. Consider that the main purpose was to unifiy Italy: people discussed if united Italy was to be a republic (Mazzini), a confederation under the Pope (Gioberti), or a monarchy (Cavour), but nonetheless the aim was unification.
My chief source for my revisions to this article is the several chapters in E.E.Y. Hales' The Catholic Church in the Modern World (1958) dealing with the loss of the Papal States. I am in the process of reading the same author's Pio Nono and will probably revise this and related articles further after I finish it. I may have misunderstood some of Hales' statements for want of sufficient background in Italian history. --Jim Henry 15:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that Hales supposes that it was a cover? If this is the case, please rewrite the sentence, since you say "Italian unification was percieved...", then you cite Metternich, thus listing point of views of those who lived the period, while "Others saw..." is referred to a contemporary historian, without citing his name of the fact that he lived 100 years later. And even if you plan to add a reference to Hales, it is very likely that he meant that Savoy saw the opportunity to unify Italy under their rule, but this doesn't mean that they were the only one to work for unification (also other governments tried to unify the country). --Panairjdde 17:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, after re-reading the relevant chapter in Hales, I see I partly misunderstood or misremembered what he had said. This is my fault. I'll quote some relevant bits here:
  • "To an Italian movement of this kind there was no particular reason why the Pope, relgiously speaking, should find himself in opposition, always provieded that he was not expected to send an army from the Papal States to fight for it. He had shown, both in 1847 and in 1848, that he was ready to consider movements for closer co-operation between the different Italian states, even perhaps for their confederation. ..... He had appealed to the Austrian Emperor to recognise frankly that Austrian rule was powerless for good in the peninsula, and had urged him voluntarily to withdraw his troops from Lombardy and Venetia. ..... He saw, as he had begun to suspect in 1848, that the Piedmontese government was really interested in expanding its own power in northern Italy, and he saw no reason why he should help to promote what seemed to be merely an upsetting of the traditional balance of power in the peninsula."
  • [snip discussion of the secularist, anticlerical qualities of Victor Emmanuel's government and leaders like Cavour, Garibaldi, and Mazzini] "..... Later, it became clear that the unification of Italy must involve the liquidation of the Papal States, so that a further cause for the Pope's hostility was added. But this had by no means been clear at first. The current schemes of 1847 and 1848 were for a federation of the Italian states under the presidency of the Pope, and even as late as 1860 it was a scheme of this kind that Napoleon III and many of the Italian moderates favoured. But those in power at Turin were determined upon something different. ....."
  • [On Pius IX's reasons for wanting to remain a temporal sovereign in spite of the drawbacks] ".....If he yielded any of his states, either to the Mazzinian republicans, or to the government of Turin, it meant yielding up his subjects to a regime under which the religious orders would be persecuted, and the rest of the secularist programme would be put into effect. ....." (Hales, 1958, chapter 9)
Probably I should reprhase some of my recent changes to quote appropriate brief passages from Hales (not anywhere near as much as I quoted above, of course; I quoted that much here on the talk page to get your feedback about what might be the appropriate text to quote). Maybe something like: "English historian E.E.Y Hales points out that ...". Also, we shoudl say more in the article about the alternate schemes for unification (the federation under the Pope mentioned above) that did not ultimately go anywhere. --Jim Henry 17:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think that a summary of all the considerations you reported on the evolution of Pius IX point-of-view can be useful to the article. Far more of the cryptic and inaccurate "Others saw the unification movement as cover for the expansionist ambitions of the House of Savoy"! :-) --Panairjdde 09:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted that misleading sentence and added two paragraphs summarizing our discussion. Let me know what you think. --Jim Henry 16:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's ok with me, but I think you (or whoever) shoud (1) remove the similar sentence at the end of the following paragraph, and (2) explain the persecution of religious orders. --Panairjdde 16:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On (2), see the new section below on Freedom of religion in Piedmont and united Italy. --Jim Henry 23:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"(Pope Pius IX would apparently not have objected to a confederation that left the individual states some autonomy, but this was not a viable option.)" Pius IX rejected the confederation (after initial acceptance) because of complaints of Catholic Austrian-Ungarian Empire.--Panairjdde 09:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's say that then. We should add a bibliography. I'll include the two books by Hales but we need other sources as well. --Jim Henry 15:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, my sources are Italian schoolbooks.--Panairjdde 17:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No reason not to list them as well, at least until we come up with alternate sources for the nationalist viewpoint. --Jim Henry 17:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I understand you are referring as nationalist viewpoint to the official history as it is taught in Italian schools, right? Which other viewpoints exist on the matter, however? And furthermore, would someone please let me know (even in my talk) which parts of this article are non-NPOV. Thanks!--Panairjdde 16:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for thinking the article is/was non-NPOV

By "nationalist viewpoint" I mean the POV that the unification of Italy was an unqualified good thing, and that those who opposed it (or opposed the way it was being done) were the bad guys. Another viewpoint (Hales', and more or less mine) is that although the loss of the Papal states was probably a good thing in the long term, Pius IX had understandable good reasons for thinking it would be a bad thing at least in the short term, and good reasons for opposing the particular form of unification that Garibaldi and Cavour were implementing at the expense of not just the temporal sovereignty of the pope, but the free exercise of the Catholic faith. There are probably other viewpoints as well; I expect if you dig around, you can find some traditionalist Catholics who would go even farther than Hales or I in saying that the loss of the Papal states was an entirely bad thing. Then your typical libertarian would say a pox on all their houses... Use your imagination. --Jim Henry 21:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I agree that by some points of view, Italian unification was a bad event: this is mostly true for those who were gaining from the division (all pre-unitarian states, Austria-Hungary, France and UK), and lost something from unification. However, the same can be said for US birth (for England it was a bad thing, they fought a war), German birth (Prussia unified Germany at the expenses of the other German states), and many other events. But I don't see any criticism to US independence or German unification, this only holds true for Italy. Why? I read no complains for Grand Duchy of Tuscany fall, but only for Popes' temporal authority, and explained citing a Catholic and English historian, while current pope seems to have no issues with Italian unification.
A better analogy might be the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in the U.S., after we had already gained our independence from Britain. Some people at the time objected to it, and one can't dismiss their motives as venal or self-interested. Some people even now (a tiny minority, admittedly) think it was partly a bad thing. I haven't done any work on the relevant Wikipedia articles so I can't answer for what they say or how, but given unlimited time I would like to see them neutral with respect to whether that change was an entirely good thing. But my reading in that period of history is not very recent, so I have no business editing those articles right now. --Jim Henry 18:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see your point, believe me I do, but my response in terms of your example is that the AoC had clearly become untenable as a governance structure. It isn't really POV to say that -- it may be POV to say that the Constitution was the only solution! Back to Italy, it's clear that the day of nationalism and cultural unification had come; a similar process was taking place in Germany. (And why those nations ended up as the Axis a few generations later would be interesting to suss out.) I don't think we need bend over backwards so as not to offend a no-longer-extant theocracy. I especially don't think we need to worry about hacking away at this awfully wordy and Garibaldi-worshiping 19th-century account (1911 encyclopedia? did anyone figure out where it came from?). By anybody's standards it's over the top. But the overall idea that unification was inevitable and those standing in its way were basically self-interested meddlers with a natural popular movement isn't highly POV as I see it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As regards "Pius IX had (...) good reasons for opposing the particular form of unification (...) at the expense of (...) the free exercise of the Catholic faith...", which looks like the main complain to Italian unification, there were no obstacles to "free exercise of the Catholic faith", neither in Piedmont nor in Kingdom of Italy. The Statuto Albertino (Piedmont and later Italy constitution, issued in 1848) considered, in its first article Roman Catholic the official religion of the state (the kings were Catholic, Italians were and are Catholic, mostly); it allowed, however, any other religion that was not in contrast with the laws. Cavour, who was the political mind behind unification, supported a Free (Roman) Church in a free (Italian) State policy, why should he act against the free exercise of the Catholic faith?
If you sum up the bad reasons against Italian unification are complaints by those who lost power. If you agree with me, could express this concept more clearly in the article?
I am going to comment on some non-NPOV claims.
--Panairjdde 09:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Text moved here from Wikipedia:Cleanup/August

Italian unification needs to have a heap of purple prose removed and to be made more encyclopaedic and checked for NPOV. Rho

I've fixed some sections; it still needs more work. I've added the {{NPOV}} tag. --Jim Henry 18:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't speak for exactly what Rho had in mind, but when I read the article, I saw things that struck me as purple and/or NPOV. Example of "purple prose": the article had this,
After that era, "union" became the watchword of the revolutionaries and patriots, who felt that the only hope of giving Italy a position of dignity and honour among nations lay in making it one country under one ruler.
I changed it to this - still not quite encylopedic style, but better:
After the fall of Napoleon, groups in in several Italian states started a movement toward unification, seeing it as the only hope of giving Italy a position of dignity and honour among nations.
I agree the second version is more correct --Panairjdde 09:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Example of both NPOV and purpleness: the irrelevant quote from the modern Italian national anthem. Also,
I disagree with this comment. The modern Italian national anthem is, actually, a 1847 poem, written by a guy who fought and died for Italian unification (Goffredo Mameli), and which experienced a great success at the time, because it expressed a pervasive feeling in a part of Italian society. I would reintroduce the citation. --Panairjdde 09:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, the cite from the national anthem would be very relevant if you include the history of its origin. Please do. --Jim Henry 18:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"The history of the nineteenth century in Italy is a story of their successful struggle for unification."
Maybe you can't agree with the prose, but that Italian unification was a successful process that lasted from 1796 to 1918 is a matter of fact. --Panairjdde 09:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also changed this
Mazzini, Garibaldi and all the leading patriots were members of this powerful organization, which was daring enough to condemn Napoleon III to death for failing to live up to his obligations and almost succeed in his assassination.
to this:
Mazzini, Garibaldi and most leaders of the unification movement were members of this organization. The Carbonari condemned Napoleon III to death for failing to live up to his obligations and almost succeed in his assassination.
I agree--Panairjdde 09:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This seems to refer to these patriots as though those who opposed them were non-patriotic. It seemed to me a matter of reading history backward; Italy is a single nation today, ergo those who sought to unify Italy by more or less the means that eventually succeeded were patriots, those who opposed them were not patriots - however much they might love the particular state of which they were citizens. Apologies if I misconstrued you (or whoever wrote the above).
Some stuff in sections I haven't gotten around to revising, which seems to me purple and/or non-NPOV include these passages:
But his father's tyranny had filled the land with secret societies, and fortunately at this time the Swiss mercenaries were recalled home, leaving to Francis only his unsafe native troops.
This event had tremendous consequences, for it showed the utter hollowness of the Neapolitan government, while Garibaldi's fame was everywhere spread abroad. The glowing fancy of the Italians beheld in him the national hero before whom every enemy would bite the dust. This idea seemed to extend even to the Neapolitan court itself, where all was doubt, confusion and dismay.
The arrival of Garibaldi in Naples was enough to set ablaze all the combustible materials in that state.
I agree with you about the quality of the text, and its pompousness. It is a matter of fact that 1000 soldiers defeated (with the support of the local populations) Two Sicilies kingdom. You have to explain this somehow.--Panairjdde 09:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not contesting the facts here, only the tone (what Rho called "purple prose" and you "pompousness"). --Jim Henry 18:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's enough for now. As I said earlier, I'm reading a book on Pius IX's pontificate and some other sources and will probably come back and revise these sections (and add details on the persecution of religious orders in Piedmont) after I have a firmer grasp on the sequence of events. I don't want to make, through haste, the same kind of mistake I made with the "Others saw..." missatement. --Jim Henry 21:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I will reply to your other comments (about freedom of religion in Piedmont/Sardinia and the unified kingdom) after doing more research. --Jim Henry 18:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vague statements need clarification

An ordinance was passed, condemning anyone who attended a meeting of the Carbonari to capital punishment.

...In what state was this ordinance passed? Probably Naples, from the context, but maybe not.

The Carbonari condemned Napoleon III to death for failing to live up to his obligations and almost succeed in his assassination.

...Seems disconnected from the surrounding text; needs more detail and context. --Jim Henry 18:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content

1)What did Russia have to do with Italy? (Holy Alliance Statement)

(Please sign your discussion entries.) Short answer is that the Holy Alliance was attempting to forestall revolutionary movements in Europe. Long answer is that the Tsars asserted residual primacy as Christian leaders and "descent" from the Eastern Roman Empire, and this was sort of a contemporary version of the Holy Roman Empire, but it didn't last long. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2)That Mazzini was so important, in my opinion, is not quite NPOV

non-NPOV?? I understand you could doubt it is untrue (but it is true, instead) but are you seriously saying it is non-NPOV? --Panairjdde 16:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Assuming he means it's neutral to say that Mazzini was important, I agree. If he means Mazzini wasn't that important, I disagree. I'm not sure this poster is using the NPOV/POV terms correctly, though (I had trouble with them at first, myself). Reminder: POV==bad; NPOV==good. Anyway, this article (in original form) is such a flowery fluff piece there's flatly ridiculous things all through it. Eventually we'll tease them out. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom of religion in Piedmont and united Italy

I've found a couple of quotations relating to the persecution of the religious orders mentioned in Hales 1958, and the "free church in a free state"; still need to do more research, though. --Jim Henry 23:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"In Piedmont the Concordat of 1841 was set aside, the tithes were abolished, education was laicized, monasteries were suppressed, church property was confiscated, religious orders were expelled, and the bishops who opposed this anti-ecclesiastical legislation were imprisoned or banished. In vain did Pius IX protest against such outrages in his allocutions of 1850, 1852, 1853, and finally in 1855 by publishing to the world the numerous injustices which the Piedmontese government had committed against the Church and her representatives." [1]
"The famous formula of Cavour, "A free church in a free state", which is a truth in the United States of America, in Italy is [as of 1908] applied only to the domestic concerns of the Church; in all else the Church, in civil and in parliamentary matters, is subject to the State through a jus singulare, which places it in a worse condition than a private citizen in regard to property rights." [2]

I'm not sure what "education was laicized" means here. Were the church schools taken over by the state, the teachers (priests and/or members of religious orders) fired and lay teachers hired? Or did the state just set up secular schools while leaving the church schools alone? Based on the similar legislation in France, Germany, Belgium etc. during this period, I suspect the first, but I don't know yet. --Jim Henry 23:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section levels

I know the usual convention for section levels, but I am claiming that it does not put in evidence the differences between the subsections: it looks like, in fact, that Carbonari insurrections and Two sicilies insurrection are on the same level, while the latter is a subsection of the former. Would be possible to remove a level from all the sections? --Panairjdde 10:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you mean that the display of, for example,

[edit] third level section heading

isn't visibly different from

[edit] fourth level section heading

that is somewhat dependent on browser and (if logged in) your Wikipedia skin. I agree there should be a greater differentiation, but it's what we're stuck with for now. That said, I think the entire article needs a better organization, especially with the tremendously relevant section you just added. It veers from specifics back to generalities and doesn't state its structure up front (I'm not happy with the opening text that was lost, and intend to restore at least some of it in some fashion). We've made great progress so far, of course! But whenever big chunks are added it tends to throw things off a bit, and this article never had a great structure to begin with, the way it began as a sort of psychological analysis of Garibaldi. --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please check the Italian version

Italian point of view on the facts here told, is quite different. Reference should be made to "I mille" in the Italian version or to "Risorgimento".

Generally today the unification of Italy is seen as a conquest of the rich south from the poor north, due to economic reasons. Refererence is made to Italian books (Zitara is an example) but also to Denis Mack Smith. Truman Burbank from it.wikipedia

You are free to support your ideas in wikipedia, but, please, do not present as widely accepted theories those that are not. It is true that economical reasons were important, but not fundamental. I do not think that people as Ciro Menotti and Santorre di Santarosa, or Mazzini or Garibaldi, were interested in conquering the rich South more than unifying Italy. Furthermore, you should quote your sources in the right way: Mack Smith tells about the quality of the sources after 1861, the unification process starts (roughly) around 1815. --Panairjdde 07:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all, it seems here that only one point of view is reported, the traditional rethoric view. My experience in Italy is today that a different point of view is spread around. It is only needed to enter a bookshop to find books espressing the (strange?) theory that Risorgimento is a sequence of wars, made for economical reasons. Sure, also ideas matter, but many groups pressed and spent money to get their interest, including probably the United Kingdom. Maybe this point of view is not widely accepted, especially in UK, but I think it should be considered. It seems you can read Italian, I could give additional references. Regarding the quoting of sources it seems you understood correctly, Mack Smith speaks after 1861 and you are free to think that before 1861 all sources were correct.

Truman Burbank from it.wikipedia

1) You are free to add your POV, provided it is documented; 2) You claimed Generally today the unification of Italy is seen as a conquest of the rich south from the poor north, due to economic reasons, and it is the generally that I am against. It could be true that Kingdom of Sardinia was poorer than Two Sicilies and that it had economical reasons to conquer the remaining parts of Italy, but it would be unfair to tell that Generally today the unification of Italy is seen as a conquest of the rich south from the poor north, when I showed you there were many people supporting unification without major economical interests; 3) If you are interested into collectively building a better article, in opposition to adding another POV, than please, list the traditional rethoric views that are currently in the article, and we'll settle them out. If you prefer, you can list them in my talk page; 4) the meaning of Mac Smith sentence is that after 1861, documents issued by Italian Government (including schoolbooks) adhered to the official POV of the Government, that is the previous Kingdom of Sardinia. You are free to think they modified all the sources issued before 1861 to uniform them to the (then) current POV. --Panairjdde 14:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We are adding bibliography to the Italian version. Regarding POV points: "Garibaldi [...] displayed the greatest heroism in the contest against the Neapolitan and French invaders"??? Why invaders? Rome remained to the Pope.
The Roman Republic was actually invaded by French and Neapolitan troops: none of them were Roman or Papal troops, even if they were called by the pope. The Roman troops fought for the Republic. So I think this sentence is clearly NPOV.--Panairjdde 07:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mazzini and others were invaders of the State of the Church, while the Pope, head of state, used Neapolitan and French troops to restore order. This is clearly NPOV as your sentence.--Truman Burbank 13:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's talk about facts. On 15 November 1848 Pellegrino Rossi, papal minister is killed; the following day the Romans (not Mazzini, neither those you call others) uprise, asking for social reformations, war against Austria, democratic government (not all the requests were made by the whole people). Pius IX allows the formation of a liberal government (lead by archibishop Carlo Emanuele Muzzarelli), but leaves Rome for Gaeta (Kingdom of Naples!), as form of protest. The new government issues some liberal reforms, but Pius IX (from his voluntary exile in Gaeta) rejects them and issues a new government, established in Gaeta (that means outside the Papal States!). Without a local government in Rome, popular assemblies decides to issue universal elections on next 21 January 1849: since the Pope forbade to Catholics to vote at those elections, the resulting constitutional assembly has republican inclination (note that in every and each part of the Papal States more than 50% of the potential voters expressed their vote). The Constitutional Assembly proclaimed the Roman Republic and elected the Triumvirate, formed by Carlo Armellini (Roman), Mattia Montecchi (Roman) and Aurelio Saliceti (from Teramo, Papal States), and a government, led by Muzzarelli and composed also by Aurelio Saffi (from Forlì, Papal States). The Pope (in voluntary exile in Naples) asks for help from Catholic countries. Saliceti and Montecchi leave the Triumvirate, substituted by Saffi and Mazzini (who, being born in Genoa, is the only coming from "abroad"). French troops arrive in Italy (under French command) and attack Rome; Neapolitan troops (under Neapolitan commanders) enter in Roman Republic territory.
So, to sum up everything, we have:
  1. A Pope going in voluntary exile abroad;
  2. No government in Rome, nor in the Papal States
  3. Regular elections
  4. Rightful government, composed by Papal States citizens
  5. Foreign troops, under foreign command, entering the Roman Republic territory.
I think that facts say that French and Neapolitan troops were invaders. Ah, and that sentence is not mine, as you can check in article history --Panairjdde 17:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Francis II, the son and successor of the infamous "King Bomba" of the Two Sicilies, had a well-organized army of 150,000 men. But his father's tyranny": absolutely POV.--Truman Burbank 16:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not really understand your position. Ferdinand II of the Two Sicilies was actually called King Bomba, because he ordered to suppress an independentis rise in Sicily bombarding Sicilian cities (1849). After that episode, and his rule in general, the Two Sicilies people started to dislike the Neapolitan rule: in fact, while the Neapolitan people supported their king in 1799 against the Neapolitan Republic, they mostly deserted his son against Garibaldi's invasion. Where is the POV here?--Panairjdde 07:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but it seems you actually do not understand any position different from yours. The use of offensive nicknames and offensive adjectives for people in a historic text is absolutely POV. You should only give facts to the readers. Facts say that public order was not a trouble in the south till 1860. After this a lot of people decided to live outside the law. In this stage the so-called "king of Italy" killed thousands of people in the south. But this is another story.--Truman Burbank 13:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll drop the personal. Facts say that: (1) Calabrian uprising (1848) and (2) Sicilian uprising (1849) were suppressed in the blood by Ferdinand II (can we call it "public order in trouble"?), who was called at hit times "King Bomba", and (3) 1,000 men defeated an entire army because Southern populations helped them. How do you explain these facts with your position?--Panairjdde 17:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait, did people really say a conquest of the rich south by the poor north? I mean, seriously? Where the hell is this coming from. It is often seen as a near-colonial conquest of the backwards south by the more advanced north. But that is not the same thing at all. No wonder this article is so terrible. john k 01:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you do not know that in the early 19th century the Southern part of Italy was well developed. Just as a hint, it was there that the first Italian railway was built. Piedmont/Sardinia was economically inferior to other parts of Italy, even if Cavour reformations helped a lot.--Panairjdde 08:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit needed

I have moved the copyedit category notice to the actual article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pope and Napoleon III

I moved the two paragraphs on how "the position of Pope Pius had become serious", etc., and the involvement of the Emperor of the French, from the Third Independence War up into the Second. --Smack (talk) 04:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Hi all. I just wanted to let anybody who's watching this article know that it's been placed on my desk to clean up as part of my association with the Cleanup Taskforce, because of how long it had been on the cleanup page before. I'm a political junkie, but I don't know anything about the Italian unification, so I'm sure I'll make some missteps. I just ask everyone's patience and to let me know if there's something you disagree with (whatever it might be, it wasn't done maliciously). I hopefully will be getting started here today. · Katefan0(scribble) 13:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm editing by sections. I've completed the intro and background sections. Since this article is rather long, I'll be searching for information that can be safely merged with other articles on Wikipedia -- like the list of the peninsula broken up by the Congress of Vienna, which I merged into that article. Somebody please tell me if I edited a mistake in there somewhere in trying to interpret the information already in the article. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Edited insurrections section. I think this could still stand some pruning and extra context. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I edited the remaining sections. I've added a few questions throughout also, for anyone who cares to answer them. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to make sure I made myself clear in the edit summary -- Panairjdde, I removed the word "Mazzini" that you added back in because first, it's the first place in the article where he is referenced, so it's not enough to just use his last name. Second, I don't think it's the appropriate place to introduce him fully. I think it's enough to use a generic reference to revolutionaries in that place, but if you feel strongly about it I would like to hear you out. · Katefan0(scribble) 13:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is incredibly imbalanced

This seems to be a heroic Risorgimento narrative, although I've not read it closely enough to tell. But the account of the 1859 war and its aftermath is genuinely horrible, and really a disgrace. The 1859 war seems to be presented entirely in context of Garibaldi's participation in it. It's actual results are not mentioned, nor is the way that Piedmont managed to annex the rest of north-central Italy after its end. The article also incorrectly declares that the Kingdom of Italy was established after Piedmont's annexation of those places, when in fact it wasn't established until after the annexation of Naples. Given the length and detail gone into here, this is just a dreadful article. john k 01:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

By all means, improve the article as you see fit; if there are inaccuracies they should be fixed. But please remember that the current product, however flawed, was the result of good faith efforts by folks who might not appreciate being told that their time working on it produced something "dreadful." · Katefan0(scribble) 01:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was a bit harsh, I'm sorry. But there's just so much that's bad here - and so much inaccuracy in such a long article is especially disheartening. john k 03:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
No worries. We're all in this together! · Katefan0(scribble) 16:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
If you go back six months [3], the original article actually was a heroic Risorgimento narrative, taken from a 19th century source, florid language, Big Man theory of history and all. I think it's been tremendously improved since then (some of the earliest work was my own, just trying to clean things up and glean something that at least sounded NPOV). I didn't have research resources at hand to keep up with most of the changes made recently, though. It may be that some of what bothers you has just never been really brought up to date. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite possibly. That being said, the article still says that the Kingdom of Italy was established in 1860, before Garibaldi's expedition to Sicily...I tend to think that in instances like this, building up from a short, stubby article that does not contain florid nineteenth century great man conceptions of history is probably better than having a detailed, but very flawed article. john k 17:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
You know, I was just saying to myself that what we really need to motivate us to improve this article is a good dose of dripping condescension. --Dhartung | Talk 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I wish you had walked in the door with a little more of Wikipedia:Assume good faith in your pocket, but I'd like to thank you for your contributions regardless. It's good that you removed the accuracy dispute tag; as far as I know, there was nobody who actually disputed the facts, we're all just trying to get the timeline and details correct here. For my part, I think it's fascinating even if it remains an imperfect article that needs a lot of work. --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought I was being condescending in my last comment - I didn't intend to be, although my earlier comments were certainly condescending - I was not meaning to offend in those cases, though, just expressing my frustration. I know it can be hard when you have a very long article on front of you that is deeply flawed. It's both psychologically difficult, and probably against wikipedia policy, to just say "screw it," and start from scratch, if one even has the knowledge to be able to do so, which one often does not. I know many articles I see and just run screaming from (Church of God in Christ, for instance...) because I can tell they're awful, but I have no idea where to start to improve them. My last comment was just meant to be a musing on the fact that often these extremely detailed, but extremely flawed, contributions are really difficult to deal with. Again, I'm sorry if I gave offense - I was just expressing my own frustration with the article, and not meaning to demean the work that those of you who have partially cleaned it up have done. BTW, there were at least a couple of genuine mistakes that led me to put up the accuracy tag. Notably, the claim that the Kingdom of Italy was founded in 1860. I thought perhaps there were more, but it seems like the main problems are a) that the article is full of archaic POV that doesn't take into account the modern historiography at all; and b) that the article is extremely focused on the actions of Mazzini and Garibaldi, to the detriment of a large-scale narrative that explains broader issues. At any rate, I'm genuinely sorry if I came off as a dick in my earlier comments - such was really not my intention. john k 03:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alessandro Manzoni and anti-Austrian sentiment

May I ask what part of Manzoni novel is anti-Austrians? Please notice that it is the editor that adds a claim that must prove it, not the one that removes it.--Panairjdde 09:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been looked at as an allegory; did you even bother to check out the Wikipedia entry on the novel (The_Betrothed)? Frankly, that wasn't my main point; the main point is that it was consciously written in an artifical language, based on Tuscan dialect, that was meant to be a language that all Italians could speak. The idea that Italian nationalism was purely a political sentiment among a rarefied echelon of European nobility isn't accurate; there was wide-ranging popular support, and literary and artistic expressions of it deserve mention.

I'll moderate the part about it being anti-Austrian, because I don't think it's very important, but you should probably direct your efforts to the Wikipedia page about the novel itself. -Ikkyu2 21:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New cleanup tag edit

To copy from my talk page:

Hi. You added a cleanup tag to Italian unification. It is customary to explain why you think this is needed in the talk page. Will you, please?--Panairjdde 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that, but it was just my attempt to make "***THIS PAGE NEEDS A MAJOR CLEANUP***", which admittedly might just be drive-by trolling, look more NPOV. I didn't really have an opinion about the article's quality. I don't mind if that tag is removed -- I was just trying a compromise with what I thought was a harmless disclaimer. -- Omicronpersei8 15:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hope I didn't cause too much trouble. I suppose I was rather quick in my attempt to neutralize the tone of the previous editor's addition. -- Omicronpersei8 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The forgotten battle of Macerone (1860)

The name of this war should be "Unification War" or "Italian Civil War". Turin broke the diplomatic relationships with Naples on October 6, 1860. The Piedmontese Army crossed the border (Tronto Creek) on October 15. The advance of the Piedmontese Army towards Teano wasn`unopposed. There was a battle close Macerone (October 20, 1860) between the "North" (General Cialdini) and the "South" (General Douglas Scotti). The Italian Civil War saw other battles between North and South: the siege of Capua, the battle of the Garigliano River (October 29), the siege of Messina, the siege of Civitella del Tronto, and -of course- the siege of Gaeta. The capitulation of the South was signed at Mola di Gaeta in the Villa Caposele: the Italian "Appomattox Court House"!

[edit] Rome was already Italian before 1870!

It is ridicolous when historians write: "The Italians took Rome in 1870." Rome was the capital of an Italian State also before 1870. We read in every book that in 1815 there were in Italy 9 indipendent States, among them the Papal States. So the truth is following: Porta Pia was a new civil war and the "Royal" troops took Rome. Not the "Italian" troops!

Has anyone stated that Rome was not Italian or not the papal capital before 1870? Rome was taken by the "Regio Esercito" or Royal Army, but the nationality of these troops was Italian. The papal army was made up almost exclusively of foreign Zouaves. Rome had been declared Capital of Italy in March 1861, when the first Italian parliament met in Turin. The monument at the Porta Pia breach contains a plaque stating "Per questa breccia L'Italia rientrò in Roma" (through this breach Italy reentered Rome). Another plaque states that the Italian Army entered Rome to assure Italy the possession of its Capital ("assicurando all'Italia il possesso della sua Capitale"). Italus 30 October 2006

The half of the Papal Army (13,500 men) was made up by Italians (Romans) and the Papal States were considered an Italian State. So it was a civil war. The plaque is propaganda only. The Burlamacchi-family of Lucca published a "noble protest" to show not all Italians were for the violent solution of the King.

You are confusing "Italian" in the political sense with "Italian" in the geographical sense. And it was not a civil war, since they were two different states.--BlaiseMuhaddib 14:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I consider "Italian" in a national sense. As a patriot I consider the way Vittorio Emanuele II unified Italy a way "to divide" because division is often the consequence of a violent way. The guerrilla in the South (1861-65) and the splitting with the Italian Catholics (which lasted until 1904) were the consequence of this violent way called "Risorgimento".

From a political POV, "The Italians took Rome in 1870" makes perfectly sense, as it is referring to the Kingdom of Italy.
As a patriot, I consider the way Vittorio Emanuele II unified Italy the only way unification could be practically achieved: the "guerrilla in the South" was resistance put up by people who had done (almost) nothing for unification, the splitting of Catholics was provoked by the Pope, and the Risorgimento was not "violence".--BlaiseMuhaddib 15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


The sense of Wikipedia is to present different points of view which are each other incompatible.

The reason why they say that Italians took Rome in 1870 was because the Pope and the French troops had resisted them, and finally in 1870 they stormed the city, and Rome was declared the capital in 1871 I believe.

Rome had been declared Capital of Italy in March 1861, when the first Italian Parliament met in Turin. User:Italus, 5 December 2006

[edit] Oudinot in Rome

Hey, just checked and the wikipedia article for the Gen. Oudinot (who is in this article credited with leading the french forces to Rome to throw out Garibaldi and the revolutionaries) which states he died early in 1847. Obviously, something is amiss. I don't have my copy of Jasper Ridley's book with me at the moment, otherwise i would fix this. Could someone please look up the facts of the case and make the needed corrections? this could also be a problem with which "Oudinot" the link leads to.... MahbubAli88 19:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)MahbubAli88

Different Oudinots, as you might expect. john k 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect quotations

Charles Albert was quoted with saying that "Italy will make itself" which was a quote (Italia Fore Se), but it was Mazzini who said it, no Charles Albert. I'm not entirely sure what to do with the rest of that section as it's far too brief to be of much use to someone actually trying to study Italy (I'm an A level student and found practically nothing of this article useful for the essays we have to write, so i'll probably compliment it with my notes when i get the time to.)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/t/a/Talk%7EItalian_unification_555b.html"