Talk:Italians/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Indigenous Italians?

Can someone tell me who the indigenous people of Italy are? Siberians are indigenous to Russia, Basque people are indigenous to France and Spain, but what about Italy? Are Sicilians indigenous people? Judging by their appearance, they certainly look a lot like Basque people and they are not considered as "white". Media Research 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just can't believe the crap on the this talk page. People trying defend or repudiate whether Italians are white, Black or something else. It makes me absolutely sick. I want to throw up. I can't understand why if you hate Italians in general, why would you come here to this page? I come here because I want to learn something I didn't know about Italians or Italy, my own personal heritage. I wish you people would just go away and worry about yourselves. What's the matter, nothing to do? Italians don't care what you think though I admit it bugs me. But I met quite a few who don't care. And you know what? I don't blame them. You can keep your cold and cloudy skies and revel in your superiority which is being eroded by Asian powerhouses at this very moment. Then one day someone will say to your ancestors, the english didn't build the british empire. The British did! You can insert whatever country you wish to put in there. One last thing, I see Miskin is still alive, unfortunately. God has not answered my prayers, but there is time. Your dear Friend, Miskin, HADRIAN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.96.85 (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

ANother POV Article/Talk Page

I wrote some stuff under Moors with pictures as proof and words as proof about the blackness of Italians and Northern Africans. Just like in another article about Europeans peoples who have African blood in them, my FACTS were deleted from the talk page. If you don't like it, let the readers decide and comment on it. If your only goal was to keep your BS lies and not want the truth out there, then you are sad. However, it won't change the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.94.254 (talk) 03:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

oK but u need 2 stop talkin junk becuz Italians do it best and you kno it so get over ur self!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.100.34 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OH YEAH WHAT A BLACKNESS, ITALIANS DON'T LOOK LIKE EDDIE MURPHY! EVEN ANCIENT ITALIANS WERE WHITE (JUST LOOK AT PICS)..AND IF YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT MOORS WHY DON'T YOU GO INTO THE "SPANISH PEOPLE" PAGE, SINCE SPAIN AND PORTUGAL WERE UNDER THE MOORS FOR 8 CENTURIES??? YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO LOVES TO MESS UP EUROPEAN HISTORY_Sabrina_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.105.236 (talk) 16:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Moorish influence

Did the Moors not impact the ethnic bloodlines directly, or is the Moorish influence due solely to the occupancy of the Iberian people? Relir 22:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Moors only slightly affected but the smallest amount of bloodlines in certain parts of Southern Italy and in Sicily and only occupied such lands for about three centuries before being evicted by the Normans, descendants of Scandinavian Vikings from the region of Normandy in France. They had a more significant impact in southern Spain, which they controlled for nearly 800 years. Epf 01:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There were Moors in Southern Italy and Italians in North Africa. In Sardinia you can today find the Maureddos, folks coming from the ancient Moors that mingled with the local islanders over 3,000 year ago. Jimmy 01:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In Sicily and southernmost parts of Italy, the Saracens, Arabs and Moors, practicing Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East, invaded and briefly occupied from the 8th to 12th centuries AD (until the Normans took over in the 1100's). Arabs, Moors or Saracens blended in the local Catholic Christian population to slowly become Italians in culture, and their descendants can be found throughout southern Italy. There are intense controversies of the "Negroid" African racial/ethnological origins of the Moors or Saracens from Tunisia, but their unique genes said to introduced prototypical "dark-looking" traits make up a very small proportion of the Mediteranean (esp. southern Italian and southern Spanish) populations. + 63.3.14.129 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why Sicily is always associated to the moor invasion. Sicily and Calabria are more close to Greek culture with a lot of Normans (=Scandinavian) infuence.

71.235.81.39. you're obviously an american obssessed with the black myth over the moors. Moors weren't as black as central african people, they were just dark caucasian. Also what this has to do with Italy is a big mystery to me, since Italy never was a muslim colony (and you wrote :"you can't change hystory!!). Spain and Portugal were under the muslim for over 8 century (al-Andalus). When in Spain they used to spoke in arab and castilian with muslim religion, in italy they spoken latin and vulgar languages that created italian language. All this muslim influence in Italy (with a little exception in Sicily island) is a pure invention. Italy always had germans and normans invasion, because unlike you've wrote Italy (expecially north) is right next to France and Germany. -Sabrina- 1 June 2007.

Moor is derived from Moros, the Spanish term for Muslim. It has no ethnic designation. Berbers widely vary from north to south and their culture is not sub-Saharan, but rather Mediterranean, neither close Northern Europe or sub-Saharan Africa, which seems to tinge American perceptions and misperceptions of the Andalusian Muslims and North Africa. In addition, one sees, for example, other variances as with Tunisia where there is a high incidence of Phoenician ancestry that is reduced elsewhere. The main ethnic affiliation is that of ARab-Berber. Moor is itself archaic, though still in common usage in the West. Just some things to consider here. Lastly, as sub-Saharan ancestry is in the minority in North Africa, it is most likely even more reduced in Southern Europe, but this does not preclude that some people have some partial African ancestry. How this is to be presented is another story. Tombseye 17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually my foolishly 'educated' friend, Berber's culture is not 'sub-Saharan' African are you wrote, BUT it is AFRICAN. Trying to fool readers by saying 'sub-Saharan' does not mean it is not black and African! Now tell me what in the hell a "Mediterranean" culture is? There are too many European accounts of Moors as black primarily, and as they converted and mixed with Europeans, the word Moor (towards the end of their power) meant Muslims.--71.235.81.39 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Even to this day the majority population in N. Africa is Arabic or Berber. Look at what is going on in Sudan...Arabic tribes are waging war with the Black African tribes! check out N. African demographics on wikipedia and look at ancient coins and sculptures of N. African citizens and you will clearly see that N. Africans then and now are Arabic people. Prior to the Moors and Saracens, N. Africa was ruled by Greeks, Libyans, Egyptians and Carthiginians who were Phoenicians(modern day Lebenese). N. African is predominately a Berber and Arabic Society. I wish people could understand that Mediterreanean people are going to have a darker complexion and look somewhat similiar from Spanish, Italians, Sicilians, to the Greeks, Turks, Lebenese, Jews, Palestianians and N. African Berbers & Arabs. This does not mean our cultures are the same nor that one race mixed with another, it is the result of thousands of years of living in the Equator....Not even Americans can deny the fact that even today N.Africans are Arabic.

...that could be a major probably for majority of Americans though since A)They believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and B)They make up history as they fill fits there propaganda.--Giovanni

My dear, not the whole Africa is black! Berber are not black, only central african people are really black. This culture has to do with the desert (there are a beautiful maghrebine litterature wrote in French devoted to those themes -nomadism-) and is a completely different culture from cental african ones. -Sabrina- 02/06/07

Get educated and get the facts before you pop off your ignorant, uneducated, uncultured, barbaric mouth...Quit being brainwashed to early 20th century propaganda by White Protestants who hate Italian Catholics immigrants(and still do to this day!!) and wanted to disgrace their culture. You watch some crap on media and you buy it hook line and sinker...you truly are pathetic...I guess the Persians were all deformed & monsters since it was in "300"...it has to be true since it was in a movie?! and open your eyes to the real world! Save your anti-Italian rhetoric for your little Nazi hate group!

"I don't get why Sicily is always associated to the moor invasion. "

because many english language speakers have seen the misinformed movie "True Romance", sadly lazy people try to look for education in pop culture movies and think this makes them experts on geneology of regions. you almost never heard the same thing been said about Spain on the level that it is with Sicily, and the moors were in Spain for far, far longer than Sicily and why? because that wasn't in some dumbed down american movie. - SalvoCalcio 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

They were only under Arabic rule for 200 years while Spain was under it for 800?? So why all the anti-Italian bashing?? It was easy for hate groups to say Africans mixed with Sicilians & Italians...N. Africa was and is still to this day Arabic majority.

How ignorant and uneducated americans are???????

Curiosity question, why is speculating that Italians may have substantial Black ancestry considered "anti-Italian" ? Do you not like black people?

My answer to your question: It's not about like or dislike "black people", It's about HOW italian history/culture appears COMPLETELY distorted by american propaganda. That's really annoying since history in Italy is sacred. Italian people are aware of their past, it's all written in their archaeological finds: the black (sub-saharian) influece has never been remarkable nor in Italy nor in Spain and american people should more aware of it. _Sabrina August 2007_

Can you give me some examples of this distortion and US propaganda? Have you ever been to the USA?

Well the distortion clearly appears in this page: someone asked if italians are 1/2 black!?!! The first time i read i thought: is this a joke or is this for real?? If it was true italians would be look like Halle Berry or Prince, instead they are not different than any others european people. Some of them are brunettes, others are blond or redhead with a variety of complexions. I thought: maybe in the US they consider the Moors black, but again this is another misconception. The Moors were just darker caucasian, predominantly of berber descent and they never settle down in Italy, not the whole territory. They conquerred Sicily island only for 160 years and later they were absorbed by Normans, a nordic tribe. The Moors settle down in Spain and Portugal, but they were expelled after 1492. Don't get me wrong: i like USA, i've been there 1 time in a wonderful coast-to-coast trip, i've had two american professor and i've studied some american culture. But i really don't get this "american way" of thinking: the moors "black" or the moors in italy, when in reality they never had colonized italian peninsula. Italy have had more connections with France,Germans, Celts and ancient Greek people._Sabrina_

About the French

Fertuno said:

"You just have to know a bit of history of Italy to infer that no people is closer to Italians as far as culture, tradition and history is concerned than French. In Italy they call them their "cousins". Maybe they don't deserve it, I know."

Why do they not deserve it? What makes you so better than them? Miskin 23:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess sarcasm hasn't made it to your area yet. I was just referring to those French that seem to be ashamed of being related to Italians and have persistently deleted all mentions to this relation from the article. As you can read, now according to the article Italians have nothing to do with French. In my opinion that's just ridiculous, but so it is and maybe now they are pleased with this. --Fertuno 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm. In any case there's no French editing the article, and there's nobody being ashamed of anybody, I don't know how you're coming up with such ideas. Best thing would be to remove any references of "X related to Y", they're all personal opinions anyway, not abiding to any fixed criteria. Miskin 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

___ First to add to Carlo's comment above saying that much of the people living near the borders in Italy are not Italian is utterly ridiculous. In fact a lot of land in France such as Corsica, Provence-Alps Cote d'Azur, Savoie (Savoy in Rhone Alps) which contain more than 10 percent of France's 60 million, of which many are Italian or have partial Italian heritage. Italy lost those territories during the Napeolonic Age, and during the Risorgimento, but the populations continue to be Italian. Many still bear Italian last names and city names, though they were tranlsated into French (e.g. Italian surname Rossi, changed to Rosse in France; happens to be one of France's most common surnames), (Corsica was changed to Corse, Nizza was changed to Nice, Savoia was changed to Savoie); Even the nation of Monaco speak a language mixed with French and Italian called Monegasque even though Monaco is surrounded entirely by France. Also Languedoc-Roussillon is ethnically Catalan (a Spanish people), a region of France with 4.7 million people (which the most common last name in that region happens to be Garcia), so your statement above is ridiculous. I also cant believe that you still want to debate about the population of blondes in Italy. So blondes make up 15% of Italy's population. I thought we moved on from that debate. Should we argue about the large frequencies of redheads in Sicily as well???

I dont think that reference relations to ethnicities are an opinion. There are so many sources on the Spanish People article page that shows that the Italians are most related to the French, Spanish, and the Portuguese. Besides, my last name comes from the Gauls who invaded a part of Italy, a part of Italy that my father happen to be from, so clearly there is some Gaulish/Norman French blood in me.

History tells us (http://roangelo.net/valente/conquest.html), that the southern half of Italy and Sicily had more than 400 years of French colonisation initiated by Christianised Vikings from northern France when the Italian city states were weak. They helped build southern Italy into a prosperous and rich area. Sicily was one of the richest nation's in Europe at the time due to extensive trade with other territories due to French kings and colonists. People who want to deny important French contributions in Italy are ridiculous. In fact, Italian contributions to France are even greater. - Galati (November 5th, 2006)

Dear Galati, I was referring to Val d'Aosta and Alto Adige/South Tyrol. Those regions are not inhabitated by italians. So my stantment was not "ridicolous". Maybe your answer is. If you want precision monegasque/monegasco isn't a mixture of italian and french. It is an italian dialect without anything of french (as well as Corse/Corso and Niçoise/Nizzardo). Maybe I'm really not able to make me understand in english... I don't want at all to debate about the population of blondes in Italy! I just want to say that there isn't any racial difference between Italians from the north and Italians from the south as the article says (referring to a source that just denied this thesis)! About the relation between Italians and French I agree with you. As just Fertuno said before me we call French "cugini doltr'Alpe" (cousins from across the Alps) and french culture is the most similar to our culture.

Well I guess you dont happen to know that the chief ethnic base of Aostans are Ligurians, like those of Liguria. it was colonised by the Celts, Franks, Romans, and Lombards just like everywhere else in northern italy, so how are you going to tell me that they are not Italian. Again, with South Tyrol, its history is just like everywhere else in North Italy. The people are a mixture of an ethnic Celtic, Lombard, and Roman base. Just because they speak French and German does not make their ethnic composition any different from Italians. Also because you believe that there is no difference between southern and northern Italians, they definitely are Italian, just like the people living in Corsica, Nice (in Cote d'Azur), and Savoy, because despite the fact that they live in France and speak France, they are of Italian origin.

Monegasque is a language related to the Genoese dialect but it is influenced by Provencal, and Occitan. Provencal and Occitan are languages centred in France so therefore, there is French influence in Monegasque. Just ask them to say their alphabet, and it sounds a lot like French letters too (along with Italian).

Personally, I dont believe that there is a drastic racial difference between southern and northern Italians, but I have to admit after going there, that the past Germanic, and Frankish influence in northern Italy is more profound than the south, as they had a lot more Greek colonisation whereas, the north was not that influened by Greeks as much, though the south did have some Germanic and Frankish colonisation. I also believe that basic ethnic composition of all Italians is Roman. I will continue to hold my stance on the fact that many French people living in Corsica, Nice, Marsielles (in Cote d'Azur), and Savoy are Italian or have a partial Italian ethnic base (Italian (Rossi, Rosse) and Spanish (Garcia) last names are among the top 20 most populated last names in France). The Italian people and the French people are very much related ethnically, culturally, and of course religiously. - Galati (November 7th, 2006)

Really don't you know about south Tyrol? Do you know why it is called this way? Because it is the southern part of a land called Tyrol (the northern part is in Austria). Tyrol is inhabitated by tyrolese people. They are tyrolese and not Italian (If you think tyrolese people are italian people you have to think also north Tyrol is inhabitated by italians...but it isn't). Maybe you forgot that the borders of a state may be not also the borders of an ethnic groups. Tyrolese people in fact speak a german language and have a german culture. The reason Italy annexed south tyrol afther the great war was simply strategic and, as happened very simply during a war, didn't care about the population of Tyrol. There is also an article in wikipedia about Tyrol. In this article we have to speak about Italian people so, I think, about people of Italian culture. Not about people who have an italian cityzenship but have a german culture. About Aosta. People of Val d'Aosta speak Franco-Provençal and have a Franco-Provençal culture. They are Franco-Provençal (or, as they prefer, Arpitans) and not Italian. (If you think Arpitans are italian you again have to think the whole Arpitania is inhabitated by Italians, but again it isn't so). Germans and Arpitans are minority ethnic groups of italy now defended by the costitution. Call them ethnic Italians it is a violence to their identity. It really seem that you have a great confusion between "ethnicity" and "race" (that, if you aren't Nazi, are two very different things). Your talk about "ethnic basis" may seems ridicolous.

And it really seems you have a great confusion between "ethnicity" and "mother tongue". So according to your vision French-speaking, German-speaking and Italian-speaking Swiss are not Swiss, they are French, German or Italian, and Switzerland wouldn't even exist? Congratulations. --Fertuno 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We are writing about ethnic group. Switzerland is a state and it exists :D of course but "swiss" is not an ethnicity. "Switzerland wouldn't even exist" is just your strange conclusion, not mine. Italian-Speaking Swiss are ethnic italians (as they are recognised also by swiss constitution) and so German-speakers, Arpitans-speakers and Romansh-speakers are ethnic germans, ethnic arpitans, ethnic romansh. This is not MY vision, as you write, is the vision of almost every european constitution. What's the matter Fertuno? It's a problem for you that exists a country in which poeple of different ethnicity live together without troubles?

Again about precision: Provençal is a veriety of Occitan (so writing Provençal and Occitan is a nonsense). Occitan is a language centred in France. But IT ISN'T French. (so there isn't any french influence on Monegasco). I also think (I spent all my holydays in Nice since I was a child) that also the Influence of Provençal on Monegesco and Nizzardo is extrimely little if it exist. Borders of a state may not be the same that a border of an ethnic group, as I have just wrote before, and so Corsica, Nizza and the coast between Nizza and the Italian border are French territory inhabitated by Italians (and they don't speak french as their native language, they speak italian dialects). And Val d'Aosta and south Tyrol are Italian territories inhabitated by Arpitans and south Germans. Savoy has never been inhabitated by italian people. Savoy is inhabitated by Arpitans. The region of Languedoc is inhabitated by Occitans. Only one department of this region (Perpignano, the one on the spanish border) is inhabitated by Catalans. And Marseille is not in Cote d'Azur. Cote d'Azur Is the coast between Ventimiglia and Cannes.

About the relation between Italian and French people I again agree with you.

No, I dont think that I am confused about the difference of "race" and "ethnicity". For example, the Germans, and Italians are a different ethnicity, but part of the Caucasian Race, ya, I thnik I get it. Oh, and I like your reference to me being a Nazi, even though I agreed that there was not much of a racial difference between northern and southern Italians. But what the hec, I mixed race (Italian, Jamaican, Native Jamaican Amerindian, and Irish), but sure I would make the perfect Nazi, because I am part Black!!!!! - Galati (08/11/06

I was not saying you are Nazi, I'm sorry. In Italy we say "se tu.." (if you) also for sentences which are not referred to the person we are talken to but are just general and impersonal. I wrote "you" but I was wrong, I had to wrote <if someone is not Nazi, "ethnicity" and "race" are two very different things>. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, due to my bad knowledge of english- signed by anon ip

The French and to add Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian and Greek peoples, owe their cultural legacy to Latin...not modern-day Italian culture (it's true the Romans are an Italic people from the peninsula). The peoples of what we call "Mediteranean" or southern Europe were influenced by the Roman Empire. But, I disagree on the concept of calling the French "cousins" of Italians, or to include French people (their namesake originated from Franks or the Frankish tribes from Germany in the 6th to 10th centuries AD) in the Italic peoples and Italic languages is too early to call it academic or reliable. I may consider a proposal whether or not to include Italians in the Celtic and Germanic peoples articles, a major theme in the "Padania" and "Lombard league" movements to call for the Northern regions (I mean a third to a half of the country) to become an independent country from Rome. The current regional and provincial feelings in Italy are in a comeback and this made me skeptical on whether there will be an Italian nation-state in the 21st century, but Italy is a member of the European Union and might be a state of the future proposed "United European States" if it goes on this way. + 63.3.14.129 04:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of your comments are unfounded. Firstly, Italians are not homogeneous- and culturally and ethnically there is absolutely no doubt that northern italy (especially the north-east) is very, very similar to France (especially to the south half). Italians routinely refer to the French as their "cousins", given the similar culture and often blended history. Also, there was a huge Angevin and Norman influence in Southern Italy. South italian culture is less similar to French culture (but similar nonetheless!), with some aspects of the culture more closely resembling Greek culture. Second, your rant about separation of the northern regions is not quite true. There is no "comeback" of significance, as this has been a very small element since Bossi's heyday. Those who wish to separate, wish to do so based on economic and political separation from Rome- Not on racial and "Celtic/Germanic" roots as you imply. Many of the residents of northern Italy have "southern" roots, both historically and due to the migrations of the last 150 years. Finally, open your eyes and embrace the common european culture and love the regional differences within it! There is no room for political nationalism in today's world. 66.183.217.31 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no distinctive difference between an Italian and a Frenchmen from Nice, Marseilles, and Savoy. They call each other cousins on the basis of ties to the Catholic faith, a similar culture, and to a lesser extent, their European heritage. I lived in France for quite some time and the French do not make distinctions between themselves and Italians...or the Spanish and Portuguese for that matter!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.222.112.155 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the last two posters!- Sabrina- 1 June 2007

About the German invaders

I'd like to add my words. Having studied medieval history at the Univ. I let you know that the "Barbarian" tribes (Goths, Visigoths etc.) that according to some writers "invaded and destroyed" the Roman Empire, were not Germans. They were ROMAN-GERMANS, that's mercenaries belonging to the Roman Empire. It is wrong to paint these folks as foreigners or as German invaders. Those tribes respected the Roman laws, such as the Leges (e.g. Fragmenta, etc. while their Lex Romana Visigotorum, for example, includes no German law!) So we cannot consider them as a "German army" consisting of "German soldiers." Also, there was no barbarian invasion in those days, but a local rebellion among Romans that took place inside the same Roman Empire because of the disagreement of two competitors, Oreste the Roman patrician and Odoacre the Roman-German. Both of them were killed, and because of the lack of a king the Roman Empire felt in the year 476. Try reading Prof. Cortese's writings, one of the best writers about this topic. Nick 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IS EVERY AMERICAN STUPID!!?? oh wait I forgot there is a movement in the U.S. where over 50 million people believe that the earth was created only 6,000 years ago and Adam & Eve rode bareback on T-Rex's!! HAHAHAHA how can any body take Americans, especially the Barbaric, Uncouth WASP EVANGELICAL idiots serious???? The Germanic tribes where not Roman-Germans, they were Allied troops who fought under the name of Rome. SO if Allied troops in Iraq turn on American soldiers, and kill them, it is Okay? Since they are not truly Iraqi's but American-Iraqi's since they are fighting with us....based on your idiotic theory, honestly how dumb and racist are you??????????

It is true that these Germans were not necessarily invaders, but they contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire. For example, Germanic people began to spread into the frontiers of the Roman Empire for more than 200 years before its decline. They were more immigrants than invaders who basically adopted Roman tradition, religion, and custom.

It is said that around 410 CE, there were some 60 million people in the Roman Empire; until this time Germanic people were a minority. The corrupt beauracracies of Rome began to damage the strength of the Roman Empire. Soon the number of Roman soldiers began to decrease due to raised tax levels in certain provinces and places like France, Spain, and Italy (particularily in the north) began to become succeptable to Germanic penetration (Mass influxes of Germanic migrants into many Roman provinces including northern Italy.

The Visigoths, were a major Germanic group to enter the Italian peninsula. They were pressured by the Huns who began to overrun the Levant, and then enter Eastern Europe. The Visigoths began to enter Italy in sizeable numbers, and invaded Rome, the heart of the Roman Empire, and then from there invaded southern Italy. German tribes like the Vandals, and Ostrogoths spread through other European nations like Spain and France. So in the beginning, before the politics of Rome became disastrous to the empire, the Germanic peoples were absorbed and integrated migrants, who later was joined by Germanic invaders (Visigoths, Vandals etc). A very interesting and well put together read: http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/dp/customer-reviews/0195159543 - Galati

Everybody was Roman-something at the time. In late Antiquity the term "Roman" has lost its ethnic meaning, therefore those people remain Germanic. Miskin 11:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: expand see also list

I wanted to include and promote new articles on other communities of the Italian people/diaspora. I want to get started on Italians in France, the Netherlands and Sweden, Italians in Argentina and Chile, and Italian (mostly Corsican) migration to Puerto Rico, and even Italians in South Africa. These countries have quite a lot of Italian communities and descendants contributed to their home countries. What can I do to get started, other than reliable sources and research to comply with Wikipedia standards? + 63.3.14.1 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Examples of proposed pages/articles:

Italians in Austria
Italians in Belgium
Italians in France
Italians in Greece
Italians in Luxembourg
Italians in the Netherlands
Italians in South Africa
Italians in Spain
Italians in Sweden
Itaians in Czech Republic

Are Italians 1/2 Black?

I saw this film where the guy told an Italian gangerter he was 1/2 negro. I also heard other Italians call each other African. Is this true? We should include it.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The film you are talking about is True Romance, where Dennis Hopper (playing Clifford Worley) tells Christopher Walken (playing Vincenzo Coccotti, a Sicilian gangster) that Siclians are half-black due to the historic presence of the Moors in the territory. He does so in order to insult and force Coccotti to kill him. This is a film, a piece of fiction, where a character uses racist stereotypes in order to attack another character, it has no credebility as a proper historic source or other and it confuses the North African Moors with Sub-Saharan African Blacks, exagerating their impact on Sicilians. The Ogre 17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, throughout the History of N. Africa and even to this day the majority population are Arabic & Berbers. Look at what is going on in Sudan...African Arabic tribes are waging war with the Black African tribes. Check out N. African demographics on wikipedia and also look at ancient coins, statues and sculptures or read some books of N. African history and the people in ancient times and you will clearly see that N. Africans then and now are Arabic people. Prior to the Arabic Moors and Saracens, N. Africa was ruled by Greeks, Libyans, Egyptians, Berbers and Carthiginians who were Phoenicians(modern day Lebanese). N. African is predominately a Berber and Arabic Society, these are the demographic and historical facts.

I wish people could understand that Mediterreanean people are going to have a darker complexion and look somewhat similiar from Spanish, Italians, Sicilians, Greeks, Lebenese, Jews, Palestianians and N. African Berbers & Arabs due to our Geographical proximity around the Mediterrean basin. There is nothing odd or bad about this. This does not mean our cultures are the same nor that one race mixed with another or any other crazy stereotypes, it is the result of thousands and thousands of years of living in the Equator

Actually, Italians are pretty homogenous in terms of European. Just becuase Italians have curly hair means nothing. I know Irish and Scandinavian people with curly hair. Please Read: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/16421/page2/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.222.112.185 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I can't believe you guys are having this conversation under this heading... Most Italians dont have curly hair by the way, but of course none of u guys have ever been to Italy. --Burgas00 21:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been to Italy, and most Italian people dont have curly hair. In fact a lot of people are light hair as well even in Sicily! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.26.204 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

MOORS BELONGS TO CAUCASIAN RACE! MOST OF THEM WERE FAIR BERBER OR SLAVS CONVERTED TO ISLAM, THEY CONQUERRED 3/4 OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL, BUT NOT THE WHOLE ITALIAN PENINSULA (JUST 160 YEARS IN SICILY ISLAND!). So there is no black blood in Italy: repass history!!!!!!!

The guy above brings up a good point with Sicily. I'm Italian and I've been to Italy. I want to clarify that I am Sicilian (if you are Sicilian and/or Italian, you know that yes, that does matter). Not that that race/places visited should matter on a site that attempts to deal in facts, but the argument seemed to have turned in part to observable facts about the people, so whatever. Anyways... It is VERY probable that if you're Sicilian, you have blood from any race. As for every Italian or even Sicilian being 50% black, well, that's just ridiculous. Sicily has probably been conquered by every race that's ever been in the Mediterranean Sea. As an island it was tossed back and forth between many nations, and most of those nations didn't really care about it, as Sicily has pretty much always just been poor farm territory that got dumped on by everyone in the Mediterranean. I did not look this up, so some of these may not be correct, and I may be missing some, but it's just to give you a general idea. Sicily has probably been occupied by the Romans/Italians, Greece, the Turks, arabs, moors, any number of Middle Eastern countries, Egypt, any number of other African countries, Spain, and possibly France. Granted, what goes for Sicily can eventually be transferred to Italy as well, but I feel the main-land Italians are slightly less diversified. Wow, that was longer than I thought. Basically, I don't think we can deny that we probably do have some black/african blood, but 50% is absurd (I'd say even 10% would be absurd though too). Icehcky8 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect....Middle Eastern countries, Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africans did not conquer Sicily, the Saracen Arabs did. Around 900-800 BC Sicily was under control in the East and coastlines(Syracuse, Agrigento) by the Greeks and the West by the Carthaginians(aka Lebanese), then it was under Roman rule from 241 BC to 450 AD. It was then in the hands of the Germanic Vandals. This was taken over by the Greek Byzantines until the Saracen Muslim Arabs invaded the Island for over 200 years on the request of a Byzantine who wanted to expell a rival. The Arab mercenaries decided to stay and cultivated Sicily, but did not colonize it in significant numbers. The Pope sent a mercenary army of Christian Normans(Northmen aka Scandanavians) who expelled the Saracens and ruled for 200 years until it passed through the hands of Holy Roman Empire, The Spanish, the Bourbons, the French and then incorporated in modern day Italy in 1861 by Giuseppe Garibaldi. It is sad that in America with over 16 million Italians there is nothing...not even footnotes on modern Italy in any american textbooks after the Romans...such a shame....

as i said above in regards to this comments.

"I don't get why Sicily is always associated to the moor invasion. "

it is rather sad that people look to american movies for "education", it wouldn't surprise me if people start asking if fish can really talk because they saw it in finding nemo.-- SalvoCalcio 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

English are much more "black" than italians. Britain had great nubers of african slaves, and genetic tests show, that in Europe englishmen have the geatest amount of sub-saharan african lineages. Alsou english culture and mentality is very african influenced. Probably some half of moors was assimilated locals.

Physical Characteristics and stupid debates

Reading parts of this article and talk page really makes me feel sorry for Italians who have to put up with all this garbage. I don't know what is wrong with Americans and why they have developed all these racial myths about Italians, debating even their skin tone and color of their hair etc... This obsessive questioning of racial purity seems to be conveyed in American movies and media as well. Quite frankly it is not only a load of crap but quite embarassing and not fit for a supposedly serious encyclopedic project like wikipedia. There is a large Italian-American community in the US (no doubt the largest southern European population) and I can only assume that this is the reason for which they are targeted in such a way.

Population genetics and history is very interesting but it can be discussed seriously and without constantly bringing up recycled myths which reflect unresolved issues in American society.

Why are the "physical characteristics" of Italians discussed in the article? Whether northern italians are fairer or southern italians are darker... Which other "people" article discusses these things? This should be erased. --Burgas00 23:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree! The Ogre 00:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should be racist? Have you ever been in Italy? Northern Italians look very different from Southern Italians. This is a fact and was subject of many reputable anthropological studies (e.g. those of Luca Cavalli-Sforza or Renato Biasutti): try here. Why should be racist to write that? This is just a problem for people who think that having different skin colours means something more than just look different. Is maybe also racist to write that people in Congo have darker skin and hair than people in Sweden? --Fertuno 10:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you guys know nothing about Italy!!!! I agree with the original poster. There is no big difference between Sothern/Northern italians (and what about CENTRAL Italy??? why seems that everyone forget central Italy??????). You can find natural blond o fair people in the South. My best friend is a natural redhead with deep blue eyes and she is from Foggia, Apulia. Fertuno your comment about Sweden/Congo IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICOLOUS: You've talked about 2 different countries, one in the extreme north of Europe while the second in the deep central Africa!!! This has nothing to do with South/North Italy (SAME COUNTRY SAME RACE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD). And that anthropological studies are dated 1951!!!!!!! They are out-of-date for describing Italy in 2007. Loads of people from South emigrated into North and viceversa.

Let's end this pointless discussion once and for all. Except for a few posters that seem to be on some sort of mission, we all agree that italians are not a homogeneous people and, as a result, there is no discernable, clear-cut difference between northern and southern Italians- only the frequency of certain physical characteristics tend to change from one end to the other (and from east to west in the north!). The "reputable" studies by Cavalli-Sforza are greatly flawed and, in any event, do not point to the conclusions implied by Fertuno above. Many in the north have classic "Mediterranean" features and complexions. It is also true that many in the south have classic "Germanic" or "Slavic" features and complexions. The same can be said for almost any south and/or western European country. Mariokempes 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Really seems that you, burgas and miskin are the only reasonable people here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.1.6.60 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Much too much is made of skin tones. Many non-Europeans would be surprised at the range of skin tones in Europeans - and that has little to do with non-European interventions. If a people live in a place of strong sun for 10000 or 30000 years plus (as in Iberia) it is unsurprising they will more often than not be dark or tan easily and deeply! Away with simplistic and obsolete 19th century notions of skin colour! - today's genetic studies just dont support them - but parochial American politics (due to the influx of Mexicans and the consternation caused by the fear of blacks in the family tree) keeps these notions alive. By the way, in the 19th century many English didn't even regard the Irish as "white".Provocateur 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, maybe I missed something... are you guys really trying to tell me there's not a general difference between the north and the south? The northern Italians tend to be slightly fairer, while the southern Italians tend to be slightly darker. That statement is NOT saying, in any way, shape, or form, that every person in the north is lighter and every person in the south is darker. But it IS saying that that tends to be the common theme. Also, I don't know what that guy is talking about saying there's been a mass movement and mixture over the last 50 years. Economically speaking, the north is better off than the south. It's been like that for longer than 50 years. There has not been a mass migration and mixation. Yes, people move, but if you've ever met an Italian, they are proud of their specific (state defined) regions, as well as their geographic (northern, southern, and Sicily) region. The government has recently been trying to provide more support for the south, but progress has been slow. As with any economic gap, there is a slight amount of tension between the upper class and lower class. I'll use the region of Sicily as an example, as it has usually been one of the poorer regions and that's where my family is from. You do not see many northerns jumping at the chance to move to Sicily. At the same time, not many of the islanders can afford to move to the north. Stating general facts does not make someone ignorant. Saying that people in China look Asian is a pretty common assumption, right? Are you be racist against any Europeans, Africans, etc. living there? Not at all. It's assumed that there are exceptions and slight mixing everywhere. That does not mean that generalities don't exist and/or can't be discussed. Icehcky8 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea is that no one really cares. Just as no one cares whether there are more blondes in eastern or western Ukraine. Its just stupid and not worthy of being discussed. --Burgas00 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Icehcky8, you are correct in that this a "general" statement of fact. However, I don't know if you have followed or read past posts on this topic- but it is absolutely astonishing how many people seem to think there is a dividing line between the "fair" people of the north and the "dark" people of the south. As ridiculous and trivial as this sounds, it has been, perhaps, the major theme in the posts I have followed over the last 8 months or so. As I am sure you will agree with Burgas (I certainly do!), this is not worth discussing any longer.

As for migration patterns, it is not quite as you state. There HAS been tremendous mixation from antiquity right to this day. Many, many southerners (yes, including Sicilians) have moved to the north to seek opportunity, especially over the last 100 years (remember, modern Italy has only been in existence since the 1860s). While it is true the majority of the internal migration (since early 20C to this day, anyways) has been mostly from the less affluent south to the "industrial" areas of the north, the strongest pattern of the last 100 years has been from the rural to the urban. This too, is much more complex however... Over the last century, a significant number of northerners have settled most recently in larger numbers in the area around Rome (yes, Rome is "south" if not "central") and, previous to that, in smaller numbers, in the areas around Naples, Puglia and elsewhere. Of note, many from the agricultural parts of the north (especially the Veneto) moved to the industrial cities of the north, as well as to Rome. This pattern has only slowed in the last 20 years or so with the increased prosperity in that region. On a lesser scale, bureaucrats and military personnel have typically been posted in regions other than their home- so, for example, one would typically find northern federal employees in the south and vice-versa. Many "took root". Finally, I think the economic difference between the south and north today is much less pronounced than, say, between some southern US states and richer states such as California. Since the 1970s, even the south's GDP has grown to the point where, except for isolated areas, it can be considered on par with the EU median. Mariokempes 00:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in Emilia-Romagna (north), at least 50% of people i know is from southern italian origin (from Puglia, Calabria, Basilicata, Campania and Sicily island). Very often you can find people with one parent from north and one from south. One of my best friend has sicilian father and venetian mother. My ex- boyfrend is half calabrese, half emilian. Chiara - 1st June 2007

Related groups

I removed "Greek" for the time being because the Italians mostly identify ethnicly with other Roman-descent groups, or Italiante peoples who speak related languages (also with line of descent in Rome). Greeks themselves have not on their article identified with anyone as closely related. Their outward image of a single unified people comes from everyone who speaks a related language in Greece or Cyprus calling themselves Hellenic, helped by Greece's governments refusal to recognise expelled Muslims as Greek (then what converted in Ottoman days), and also from forced assimilations by non-Hellenics from within, or Hellenics once wishing to be something else. I remember learning Italian history in schooldays, I know that Greeks and Italy's ancestors did come into indirect contact when Greeks traded with Etruscans on the peninsula, taking their alphabet to them. When Rome was assimilated by Estruscans, mixed with Greeks - modern Italians have in their history descent from Estrusca, and Greece for that reason. But I have never known the Italians to identify as a Greek-related people. Balkantropolis 06:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I respect your knowledge and the degree of diplomacy you are demonstrating by saying "I have never known the Italians to identify as a Greek-related people.", but southern Italy has an enormously Greek heritage through pre-Roman Greek settlements and late Byzantine Christian Greek settlements. This is evident in the many place names of Greek origin that exist in the Mezzogiorno to this day, and the existence of the residual Greek dialect, Griko, found in some parts of Calabria, Puglia, and some Sicily. Also, numerous genetic studies conclude the genetic relatedness of southern Italians with modern Greeks (although I will be the first to concede that such tests are not always reliable), a fact that transcends any nationalistic sentiments that would perhaps perpetuate a notion of a "non-relatedness" between the two peoples.([1]) Sicilianmandolin 07:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You certainly know your facts I see. I don't dispute a single one of them. It's just that I don't think that "Related people" is appropriate here. For those southern Italian residents who have maintained a Greek dialect as a first language, I suppose they can claim Greek descent with no questions asked. If they declare themselves Greek in the census whilst non-Greek speaking Sicilians etc. choose "Italian", it still leaves the region with two ethnic communities: Greek and Italian, seperate, in much the way that in the former Yugoslavia, Italians and Croats are two disctict groups in Istria. The autochtonous Italianate people of Istria are a remnant from the overlords from the days of Venice's republic. The Slavic people of the region (variously called Croats, Slovenes, even Istrians) are a remnant of another autochtonous population. They exist side by side but have different histories. But genetically, the Istrian Croats are no closer related to me personally (from Dubrovnik hundreds of km away), than Venetian Italians are related to Sicilians. But surely mixed marriages and two-way assimilation will mean that whilst an Istrian Croat and an Istrian Italian (since before the post-war War I transfers) identify as different nationals, they may probably be closer related than they think. It's probably the same everywhere: Finland, Sweden, Russia, and Austria, Hungary, Italy (borderzones). The process is simple, an Greek boy marries an Italian girl, they have a child - the child chooses Italian and largely forgets Greek even though half his relations are believed to be Greek. He grows up, Italian in mentality, character and consciousness - unknown to be half-Greek by anyone who he doesn't tell. He also marries a fully Greek girl with whom they talk Italian, they raise a child who is now three quarters Greek but even further from being characteristic of Greek than his father. He grows up, marries another Greek girl with whom they speak only in Italian and so on for generations to come. Eventually, if the Greeks decided to assimilate every time they got together with Italians, the genetic legacy of a once thriving Greek existence will be scattered all over the region, slowly moving away as every southerner moves north. Then it will spread north because the unsuspecting northerns simply thought they were marrying "Southern Italians"! In truth though, without that consciousness and continuation of a Greek spirit, the Southern Italians are wasting their time looking back to ancestors who themselves relinquished their identity. Yes, there are surviving phenomena in place names and customs, but you could have adopted all of that anyway with a strong Greek population still living in parts of Italy! As you said, there still is a Greek population there. Those Greeks are no doubt as Italianized as near-by Italians are Hellenisized. Now take me, most of my family say they Croat (I don't, that's my choice). Our history is unclear. Croats today are a Slavic subgroup, then they cut off and divide themselves into communities. Most historians reckon that historically, Croats were an Iranian people who Slavisized when getting mixed up with them. I say, that's possible, but if we are speaking a Slavic languuage, we have no more affiliation to the Iranian people. Look at Related groups in Croats and you'll see we are related to our Slavic neighbours, not non-Slavic neighbours and certainly not middle-easterners where our cousins ought to be! Either way, it's one or the other, we can be related to Serbs or Kurds, not both - because Serbs and Kurds don't claim affiliation. Just as Iranians don't speak of a tribe of castaways disguised as Slavs down the eastern Adriatic! :) (that's us). Genetics are interesting but they are more a bit of fun than anything else, and as I 100% agree with you, unreliable. I am actually over 2 metres in height, it seems tall, but many people from the southern Dinaric Alps are extremely tall, but this includes Albanians from the north of their country. Some say that this is the legacy of the Illyrian, certainly not the Slav. Either way, I'm not about to start rumours that I am a relation of the Albanians and not the Zagreb Croats who are mostly small, but it might just be true that I am. Are they us? or are we them? I hope you can see now why I feel that "Greeks" and "Italians" don't go. Balkantropolis 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow...both you have good well-founded arguments...I think the "Greekness" of Italians is overdone. Greek people are only related to a minority of Italians to begin with, particularily southern Italians as northern Italy was never extensively colonised by the Greeks. The Greek element is influential in southern Italy but not necessarily dominant in modern day southern Italians. In fact, according to The American Journal of Human Genetics, the distribution of Y chromosones from Greece to southern Italy is estimated at 7-20% by admixture analysis, so around 15 per cent if we average it out.

So sure, it was the first migration to southern Italy yes and it was big at the time, considering that Calabria was sparsely settled. However, it was only to be augmented by many other migrations not to mention the already established Brutti who were the indigenous tribes in the regions, which indiginous tribes like the Oscans conquered the Greeks in the 5th century and ultimately led to the decline of Calabrian cities, not to mention the fact that plagues such as malaria, natural disasters such as earthquakes killed massive portions of the populations. Romans, Oscans, Normans, Lombards, Greek Byzantines, French, and Spaniards, and a massive massive wave of Albanian/Illyrians for two centuries in a row (in the 15th and 16th centuries, tens of thousands migrated to southern Italy, and set up countless villages in Calabria, Puglia, Campania etc; now known as Aberesche) augmented the populations of Calabria further. Calabrians and other southern Italians are in effect a combination of Greek, Roman, Norman, French, Catalan and Albanian/Illyrian, rather than the huge Greek element everyone seems to believe! - Galati

Citing from The American Journal of Human Genetics is bold; I would like to see a reference to that claim. In any case, a 15% similarity between any two genetically distinct populations is extremely significant, especially given the admixture of such a variety of different populations that has occurred in southern Italy. In fact, a 15% link would likely suggest that it is more dominant than any other. I am by no means asserting that it is, without evidence, nor am I saying that the Greeks are identical to modern southern Italians, but their relatedness is a historical fact confirmed by numerous anthropological studies, genetic studies, etc. (one need only search Wikipedia, of all places) and should therefore be included in this article, especially if we're not going to challenge the accuracy of including such populations as the Romanians and Portuguese whose relatedness to the Italians is by no means as historically verifiable. Sicilianmandolin 21:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like those "related ethnic groups" sections at all, how related does one ethnic group have to be? Does genetics (which is a very shady area to begin with and is based on the racist and dubious assumption that ethnic groups are "pure" before any admixtures) suffice? Do linguistic influence, religion (in the way Bosnian Muslims and Albanians are Muslims today having received that religion from the Turks) or cohabitation suffice? Regarding the Greeks, the "related ethnic groups" section has been taken out, although arguably Albanians, Bulgarians, Italians, Serbs and Turks would all not be out of place there; Italians because Italians once held territories which are part of present-day Greece and the Greeks in those territories were subject to Italian influence. It has to be sourced though, and unless there is a reliable source saying "ethnic group X is related to ethnic group Y" for each ethnic group, the opinions of individual Wikipedians should not be filling the void. The "related ethnic groups" section should be scrapped from all articles.--Domitius 21:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Domitius. As long as it's there, I'll get caught up in it (regardless of its accuracy), but ultimately, what real purpose does it serve? It doesn't, really. You are right. Have you brought this to a vote? You can count on my vote to remove it from the templates. Sicilianmandolin 22:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source: [2]. It is located in the first highlighted paragraph. Sicilianmandolin...I dont know if I agree with you. You stated: "In any case, a 15% similarity between any two genetically distinct populations is extremely significant." That is not ture. African Americans contain a white/European admixture of 22%[3] and no one is ready to link their Europeanness. Even if the 15% Greek element in southern Italians is the largest element, there is still 85% to take into account, which would contain the elements I mentioned above, and as for related ethnic groups, this source[4] states that Italians are genetically similar to Spaniards, Portuguese, and the French. - Galati

Galati, the African-American analogy is invalid. The history between African-Americans and European-Americans is one of great racial controversy. African-Americans and European-Americans are equally unwillingly to concede that their lineages may include ancestors of the other "race", and societal pressure in general makes it difficult to accept, despite the truth behind it. Whether or not you choose to believe that 15% percent is a significant amount is your choice, but the truth remains that it is when taking into account the sheer number of different ethnic groups that comprise the remaining 85% percent. I have never come across a study suggesting anything lower than about 10%, but I have seen studies suggesting as high as a 30% Greek contribution. In any case, I am familiar with the way you debate and have always been skeptical of your motivations. For that reason, I will not engage with you in this matter. The source you provided that purports the relatedness of Italians to the Spaniards, Portuguese, and French seems solid enough, and I hope you can see the value in the many sources that suggest the relatedness between Greeks and southern Italians as well. Sicilianmandolin 04:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Skeptical of my motivations"...in what, just to let you know, I am of Italian, Jamaican, Native Jamaican Indian, and British descent...hardly a supremacist of any race. I was not trying to discredit the Greekness of southern Italians, I was merely bringing out that it is not a great in percentage as many believe...I really dont know what kind of motive I would be promoting...rather, I am just encourageing the fact that southern Italians are very diverse made up from the groups I stated above!!! I dont care whether Black and White Americans discredit the fact that they are interbred due to societal pressures because the point is (as you very well stated yourself) that their admixtues of each other is true...they are just in self-denial really...however, I was for the second time, not trying to undermine the value of Greek contribution to southern Italy just because I showed a source that says it hovers around 15 percent!!! There is a reason why I complimented you above for your well-established views of Greek contribution to southern Italy, I "see the value in the many sources that suggest the relatedness between Greeks and southern Italians as well"...but I guess according to you, in some way, my motivations are supposedly bias. - Galati

I'm also in favour of removing the "related ethnic groups" section from all ethnic articles. So far it has has only served as the subject of POV-pushing. The criteria used for that field are completely subjective and they're almost never based on cultural issues. The field was left blank in Greeks for that very reason, i.e. to avoid POV-pushing and edit-warring over silly questions. Miskin 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should they be removed. This link [5] proves the fact Italians are related to the Portuguese, Spaniards, and the French. If there is solid proof of this relation, why should it be removed; its not based on point of view, but fact! Why cant people just except the fact the Italians are related to them and forget about it; people who argue who Italy is or is not related to is just ignorant unless they have proof. - Galati

I agree it should be removed. It is inherently POV. One could relate any people to anybody in some way or another. --Burgas00 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true, and like Domitius pointed out, there are numerous qualifiers that could be used to "relate" one ethnic group to another, such as through language, religion, etc. I'm in favor of removing the "related ethnic groups" not only for the aforementioned reasons, but because the underlying purpose of it is inherently unclear. How do we get a vote started on the matter? Sicilianmandolin 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We have an absolute majority preference, I think we can call it a consensus. Miskin 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure going forward and omitting the "Related ethnic groups" subsection without a proper vote would be a catalyst for much contention. Sicilianmandolin 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this from another angle, you do have a point about the populations who inhabited Italy which are the modern people's ancestors. There are lots of them, just as history has seen people going FROM Italy into other regions. We say that the Italians are related to Spanish and Romanians and French because of the language. Of course, if one speaks Greek, it doesn't mean he has any Greek ancestry! His parents may be Turks who live in Greece and he may have never learnt Turkish living in that environment. When if an entire community is identifying as a nation who are all using a certain language, from which the "nation's name" is not derived, then it is clear that there is some ancestry in those who spoke the language, and people from great distances can claim affiliation (like Hungarians and Estonians). I have to surrended to the fact that I use the Balkan/ex-Yugoslav vision when rendering a nation and all its belongings, including its purpose and its history. History can easily be manipulated. Down here, being genetically the same as your neighbour who is another religion is enough for the pair of you to claim a seperate ethnic group. There's not much else quite like this in Europe, but never the less, attitudes are different as to what constitutes a race of people. Two centuries ago, Pan-Slavism wasn't as widespread as it would be fifty years later. As national consciousness was arising, my great-greats lived among people who believed that they were "Illyrian" on the grounds of "who occupied their territory". Then they settled for being Slavs on linguistic grounds, and the ethnogenesis tests more recently showed that our descent (that is Dinaric people, whatever their ethnicity) is very much from that what we originally thought. Italy's unification had much in common with Yugoslavia's creation. The big difference is, that gradually over the century and a half, people are slowly coming together - dropping their old Romance languages, bringing their dialects closer to standard Italian, the pressure from the northern league is waning - Italy is uniting "nationally". The term "Italian" is embraced by majorities from north down to south. And that is what the article is all about! Those who embrace the Italian identity. So I don't say "wipe out Greek and Romanian", I say we should approach this in a way that all Wiki articles should do, it is right that you shouldn't have "Italians are relatives of Greeks, but Greeks are related to nobody" as according to Greeks. It needs two sections: 1) Ancestors of todays people: in this bit you start with Romans/Latins, for ultimately it was their language and presence who you continue, then all other groupings who came to the island and lost their identity (even though they left their mark) to Roman Italians, including those who Roman Italians dissimilated (like Etruscans). Then section 2) present nations with ethnic affiliation: this is where you can say French and Portuguese etc. So we don't need to lose information, we don't need to wipe anything, we can just put Greeks and Spanish in two different groups of related people. Balkantropolis 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat what I said in my first post in this section. Using genetics for prove or disprove ethnicity is a very shady area and is based on the racist and dubious assumption that ethnic groups are "pure" before any admixtures. In your example with the Greek-speaker of Turkish ancestry not being Greek, let me ask you one question: what guarantee or proof is there that his "Turkish" ancestors were pure Turks? What if his parents had some Albanian or Kurdish ancestry? How far back does one have to go? Ancestry which does not affect how others objectively perceive a person is not relevant to ethnicity. To be a particular member of an ethnic group, one has to a) consider himself a member, and b) be considered a member by other members of that ethnic group. Language may be relevant, and it may not. The same goes for religion. Serbo-Croatian speakers divide themselves into ethnic groups on religious lines (Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs), whereas Albanians, who share the same religious divisions, put language first. Greeks are ready to accept the Turkish-speaking Karamanlides or Tatar-speaking Urums as Greeks based on their religion alone, yet reject the Greek-speaking Yanyalis and Giritlis as Turks. What makes two ethnic groups related is mutual influence at all levels. Modern Greek culture is full of Turkish influence, in cookery, music, loanwords, peoples' names and placenames; this makes the Turks a related ethnic group regardless of intermixing. Greeks influenced the western European intelligentsia with a rich scientific vocabulary, yet, as it does not affect the popular culture, it does not make Greeks a related ethnic group on this basis alone. In a nutshell: far back ancestry which does not affect ones appearance, linguistic capabilities, religion, or anything else visible does not affect ones ethnicity. The reason for this is that no one knows about it so it can't affect ones perception of oneself or other people's perception of him. As for this article, I strongly support removing all unsourced "related ethnic groups" claims.--Domitius 14:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, you wrote: "As for this article, I strongly support removing all unsourced "related ethnic groups" claims". Okay, but I have a source here that show that Italians are related to the French, Portuguese, and Spaniards. So considering that we have a definite article proving that these 3 populations (Spaniards, Portuguese, and French) are related, exactly what kind of racial agenda would one be trying to prove.[6] - Galati

Galati, there are many genetic studies and one could find one to relate Italians to every ethnic group in Europe and the Mediterranean. Just let go, its presence inherently creates useless argument and POV pushing. --Burgas00 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish minority which exists in Greece, although bilingual in Greek and Turkish, is considered as ethnic Turkish, therefore you cannot label them Greek. Earlier than that in the Ottoman Empire, conversion from Muslim (Turkish) to Orthodox (Greek) was punishable by death, while the opposite was highly enforced. Therefore many Turks may have Greek, Albanian or Slavic origin, but no Greeks or Slavs are likely to have Turkish origin, unless they are the descendants of Ottoman lover boys who converted in secret. Nonetheless, the "related ethnic groups" field was omitted in Greeks in order to avoid the silly comments that this article has to endure. It doesn't mean to imply that Greeks have "no related ethnic groups" Balkanopolis. But since the "related ethnic groups" has no fixed criteria, anyone could claim whatever they wanted. So in any case your argumentation is irrational. To stick to the point, the "related ethnic grouops" field has to go from this article too, I don't think that any serious editor would ever care to restore it. Miskin 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing that field from the infobox. Two things: (1) to Galati: I have no doubt there are some studies that show that X are related to Y in some way. The problem is that there are many different, independent ways people can be related to each other (biologically, linguistically, culturally...) and many different grades of relationship in each of these senses. The problem is not whether we can source a claim on any single one of these criteria, the problem is to select which of these criteria are going to count as more relevant than others. That makes the decision to include or not to include a specific group inherently OR. (2) Wikipedia is currently overusing the infobox format. These things have proliferated too much. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of tabular factsheets. The natural medium of an encyclopedia is prose text. And that is precisely because prose text allows us to weigh, discuss, hedge, put in context, attribute, in ways that an infobox table won't. It is a fallacy to try and fit as much information as possible into these coloured boxes that have sprung up everywhere. Only information that is absolutely straightforward and uncontroversial and not in need of any annotation or discussion should ever go into infoboxes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I give up...the info box looks good now with the flags!!! - Galati

Thanks, it took longer than I thought it would. Sicilianmandolin 04:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The new look is great, but it needs to be modified. The populations in Croatia, Switzerland and much of France are historic and not part of the diaspora. Also, where is San Marino? 66.183.217.31 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been changed... much better. 64.180.167.172 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

HELP on the image

The image, which doesnt feature Da-Vinci and Bruna is not ok! I made a new one that does feature them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Famoita1.JPG) but someone started an Edit War against me and on porpouse deletes everything i do, so please help me to keep the new photo. Thank you. M.V.E.i.

MVE, no one started an edit war with you; it takes two to do that. If you want to modify the image you've created so that it does not completely disrupt the width margins of the infobox, be my guest. Until then, the current collection of portraits is far more forgiving on the eyes and does a good job of retaining a suitable width. Furthermore, what is not ok is changing an image without consensus, a problem, judging by your contribution history, you seem to have. Sicilianmandolin 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How about that one? I havent streched the photos or anything, but i broke the 6-people-in-one-line in a two-line-of-three-people. The six people i chose are the most influencial Italians on the cultore world. The previous photo was fine, But you cant make an Italian people photo without Da Vinci and Bruno. Id even my new version is not ok offcaurse you can make somthing different, just make shure we won't forget people who the list can't just do without.

M.V.E.i.

Bravo, MVE. That looks much better. I have one suggestion: The Michelangelo portrait is of rather low quality. I would recommend swapping it for the other, more recognizable one. Sicilianmandolin 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Un momento :-) M.V.E.i.

Sorry it will take me a few minutes to find one, i'll check the Hebrew and Russian wikipedia.

M.V.E.i.

There it is. I took this one from the Russian Wikipedia, i think its a wery nice and clear quality.

What about Mexico

If you search chipilo youll see that theres a city full of italians in mexico. - 12.227.136.185

You're right, but as it is mentioned in the article Italian Mexicans, the Italian population is unknown because the census doesn't record data from any specific ethnicity, like in other countries. -- Lancini87 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical Background

The history section is much too long, given a main article exists on the History of Italy. I will work on reducing it- if no one objects. Mariokempes 23:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Contributions to humanity

See the English people article. It has such a section. I am not Italian, but honestly believe that the contribution to humanity of the Italian people is unique in the world, from the pre-Roman past to the Romans and the Renaissance in modern times. This section should be introduced. Jan. Probably in famous talian pictures should be put some romans, like Cezar.

Italians came from Romans, no doubt, but the article is about modern Italians, so Cesar doesnt fit here. I wrote such a section to the Russians article. The English have it, and i think the Chinese have it (if they dont, they should), and i belive it's not fair that Italians dont have it, no doubt they deserve it. M.V.E.i. 22:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just contributed to this section only because it was there and it seemed in need of attention. I'm not sure it actually needs to exist, given the wealth of information in other sections. I'm not going to remove it, but I think it suffices to state the significance of Italian contributions to humanity in the main body of the article without this separate section. Mariokempes 23:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the original section, your edits and add-ons are exelent. It has place to be because it shows the contributing role the nation played. And again, nice edits! M.V.E.i. 10:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

About Pictures

How about some pictures of modern day Italians. Like Nancy Pelosi, Kelly Ripa, Gwen Stefani, etc.

Those are Italian-Americans, not Italians. Sicilianmandolin 04:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

When doing the image i chose those who represent the nation, it's most obvious sons. Adding people from the pop-world turns the image into somthing cheap. I dont think that Stefani could replace Da-Vinci, and so i think on any other exemple. Russians, Italians and Armenians are probablly the only articles that have normal not-pinky-politisized images. I'm not Italian, my father is Russian and mother is Jewish, but Italians are one of my favorite nations, for being so contributing to humanity, and i chose those who brought Italians the pride of being one of the most important nations and brought so much respect to it. M.V.E.i. 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Added some much needed dates and information

On the "history of Italian people" and also "Origins of Italian people"...I mostly went into more information during the Roman and Renaissance times. These were two of the defining periods in Italian history and they were barely mentioned. This added much needed clarification and depth without taking any thing away or distracting from the article.

JMG 8/4

"Regions with significant populations" list

Just a comment for thought... After reading through the list of "significant populations", I feel compelled to note that it is not really a clear, valid representation of Italian people and, apart from the fact that many are only "part" Italian, it ignores many historical and recent factors.
One example... it indicates there are some 90,000 Italians in Spain. I suspect many are actually originally from Argentina. I know of many Argentines that have "returned" to Europe in the last couple of decades, and have used European citizenship as means of entry. Many Italian argentines have relocated back to Italy, but given many are newer generations fluent in the Spanish language, I am sure many have used the EU open policy to move to Spain as "Italians".
Another point is the not so clear historic migrations. There has been much intermingling within Europe and, in particular, the Mediterranean basin. For example, many Catalans have at least some Genoese roots that go back centuries (they must number in the tens of thousands). Are they Italian according to this list? In addition, much of France has a native, historic Italian population, and many of the "French" people have some Italian roots that go back centuries (I've read as much as 20% of the French people have some Italian ancestry). These examples do not fit the "immigrant" populations of the diaspora of the late 19th and early 20th century that primarily compose the list. How does this list purport to "draw the line" accurately? I guess that my concern is that, in spite of the limitations, this list comes across as definitive and clear-cut... something it cannot be. Mariokempes 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Repitition

The Historical Background and the Origins of the Italian People seem to overlap greatly. Is there any way in which we can bring them together?? Also there seems to be many punctation and grammatical errors on the information Galati 04:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Galati

Weasel Words

Quoted from the article, Origins section: "Most Italians are descended from the Romans". These are weasel words, please edit. Anno del Dragone 09:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Anno del Dragone, September the 6th, 2007.

Actually, this is true. Italians are Romans+other ethnic groups that "visited" Italy. All Italians have Roman blood, the difference is that every region in Italy had it's own "guests", thats why Italians from different regions have different dialects. M.V.E.i. 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that italians are romans is as true as saying that spanish are romans. Do you even know that the romans conquered a lot of peoples already in the italian peninsula (let alone the rest of europe and beyond), and that Rome itself was a cosmopolitan settlement of emigrants from neighboring peoples. After the fall of the Roman Empire the italian peninsula has been subsequently invaded by many barbarian peoples which settled (not "visited") there and mixed with the population, and not uniformely in the whole peninsula. For example the Normans only occupied Sicily and south Italy, and you can still see their linage in the many blond-haired/blue eyed people in South Italy. Are they "romans"? Ultimately, both your statement ("Actually, this is true") and the wiki article are weasel words, your own opinions, unless you can show parental trees of a number of random italian families which shows how the great majority of them has roots in Rome. I think that the existance of UFOs is more probable, so unless you bring proofs to statements my objection stays (the very wiki article has a "citation needed" mark, which says much on the authenticity of the statement). Anno del Dragone, 15 November 2007.

the romans were blond and blue eyed too... the 90% of the italians with blond hair and blue eyes have roman descendants not BARBARIANS!!!! have you evere read the life of twelve caesar for example?? Almost all the Roman Emperor were blond!!! The Roman were probably more fair than modern day italians!

Americans?

I am stunned there are people here who debate on idiot things which only American are interested in. WASP are rubbish and Americans are the most ignorant people on Earth (without offence), it's well known to everybody. SO WHY are you going on talking with this people about nonsense idiocies and lies? EVERYBODY IS FED UP WITH THIS OLD SKIN-STUFF and other crap. According to you is there any hope a people who take for granted the crap of an old idiot movie can ever be vaguely educated? And they have the courage to write it like a reliable source!!! According to you is there any hope this people can reason in a normal way considering they "educate" themselves by hearing bullshits from a B-movie? And they firmly believe it!!!! "True Romance"???? WOW! A true scholar source. What high sources they can boast about their education... Obviously (as chance would have it) they are receptives ONLY when talking about invented stereotypes and in what they want to believe, because if in that movie the character said the contrary nobody would have cared about it. If he said Sicily was Norman and Vicking for a long time (which is moreover true) I bet that speech of him wouldn't have had that resonance nor it would have became so "famous". Guys, only an indisputable proof: see how American movies have always depicted Italians and Italy and the mountains of crap they reversed on them (a privilege which is not given to any other people on the planet), it's something umbelievable!! I think in 2007 even an idiot cannot believe in those pathetic invented stereotypes (excepts the majority of Americans audience). It's something so false that all the rest of the world laugh at. Look in what way they want absolutely to depict the features of an Italian. When it comes to show Italy it's something a normal person burst with laugh. Another proof? there ISN'T ANY OTHER PEOPLE PAGE on wikipedia that has the "features" article. They are obsessed by this "African" bullshit but even in the Spaniard page there is not a single word about "features" or similar, considering Spain was Arabic for centuries...just an example. They have the brain stuffed by stereotypes, clichés and the rest is.... empty. I do not want to offend anybody but proofs seem to me very clear. Let they think whatever they want because in my opinion they have no hope. Think about it. And stop this idiot thread because it is weary and it became truly boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.62.54 (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Famous Italians

Currently, the info box for this article is made up of six Italians, all of them male. It would make sense to have at least two women in there instead. JdeJ 08:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I had been thinking similarly. Sicilianmandolin 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We have no one we can pull out of there. NEVERTHELESS, i can easily turn it into an 8 people image and add 2 women by that. But not female pop-stars and all that ugly things which turn images into cheap (unless it's Madonna, i dont like her music since i like only rock music but she is recognizable and considered to be the most important femail pop singer in America. But i doubt you will find a free image of her). Give a list of women who are famous and contributing and we could get two that fit. But remember, the trick is to have images without license problems, or an administrator will remove it. It already happend many times on Wikipedia, and thats why i made a long description page with links and license types on the image page.

The new design will look like that:

Row 1: Galileo, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Alessandro Volta. Row 2: Guglielmo Marconi, Women 1, Women 2, Giordano Bruno.

This is an exelent design and it will look amaizing. So... propose women to enter here. M.V.E.i. 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a great idea and I support it 100%. I never wanted to remove any of the existing images, all six of them are truly famous Italians who deserve to be in here. As you said, the trick is to find two famous Italian women with free images. I'll think about it and come with suggestions, I hope others do likewise! Cheers JdeJ 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Exelent :-) I will regulary check this talk page to see what people propose. M.V.E.i. 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Madonna is Italian-American, not Italian. Thus, she does not qualify. I'm thinking Maria Gaetana Agnesi and Barbara Strozzi. Maybe Maria Montessori. Sicilianmandolin 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Italian ethnicity not citizenship. Madonna is ethnical Italian, so she fits. NEVERTHELESS, you proposed something much more interesting. Maria Gaetana Agnesi, a scientist, contributed to mathematics, represents women in science, perfect. Barbara Strozzi, represents Italian music (because it's absurd we didn't have a musical representer in the Italians image, and she will cover up for that. Plus she's both Singer and Composer, it's "two in one" and that's just amaizing!). Great suggestion, i support it! Lets see what JdeJ will say (so we will have a full concensus), and if he wont object we could consider it a concensus and i will create the new version. M.V.E.i.

20:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sicilianmandolin- Madonna is not a good candidate (plus she is part french canadian). I like all three suggested by Sicilianmandolin, although Montessori is probably the most recognizable of the bunch. Maria De' Medici or the infamous Lucrezia Borgia perhaps? If we want to go more contemporary, Oriana Fallaci or Laura Pausini might be a good choice. Mariokempes 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of your choice i like Oriana Fallaci (Maria De' Medici and Lucrezia Borgia have nothing unique, and Laura Pausini is only "one out of a million" as i say), but we have only two places and i really liked Sicilianmandolin's suggestion for Maria Gaetana Agnesi and Barbara Strozzi. Oriana Fallaci was a great suggestion (an amaizing woman), the problem with Oriana Fallaci, is that her image is not free. The trick is to use free/public domain images, otherwise some administrator will remove it. M.V.E.i. 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Found it! A public domain photo of her here. M.V.E.i. 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys,vote. Barbara Strozzi we need for shure, she represents music. The question is:

Maria Gaetana Agnesi (who represents women in science) or Oriana Fallaci (who represents Italian literature and Italian resistence to Fashism)? Thank you. M.V.E.i. 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A third candidate was suggested, Maria Montessori. So now we have thre candidates. M.V.E.i. 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In order to win a candidate needs to collect at least 50% of the votes. If no one passes the 50%, then we will have another vote beetwen the two leading candidates.

We have 3 candidates, no more will be accepted due to the fact it might complicate the elections, so please choose one of the three.

note: we have free public domain images of both of those women, so any choice wont create license problems

So i vote first. Oriana Fallaci. A strong woman who fought against the Facist regime of Mussolini, who was a great writer, and she can represent the Italian literature. M.V.E.i. 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of them would be good choices, but I vote for Oriana Fallaci as she is more contemporary and, perhaps because of that, also more well known internationally. JdeJ 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've re-thought the Fallaci candidacy... while she was a remarkable woman, she did stir tremendous controversy in her latter life that may be best avoided. We're not here to stir up perpetual stupid debates (there are enough of them on Wikipedia). Apart from that, I don't have strong opinions about who to choose- I think any one of them is a good choice. Nonetheless, here are my comments: To be honest, I don't think Strozzi is famous enough. I would go with Montessori just for the name recognition. I used to live on a via Agnesi, so I vote for her as well (how's that for a basis for decision?!). Mariokempes 21:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Fallaci's contoversies are beutiful and are part of her strong charecter :-) But Thats your right to chose who to vote for. You propose a third candidate, Maria Montessori. She has a public domain image here. M.V.E.i. 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I entered her as a third candidate. M.V.E.i. 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok for now the score is: Oriana Fallaci - 2, Maria Gaetana Agnesi - 0, Maria Montessori - 1. But we need more people to vote. M.V.E.i. 22:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to stir the pot here, but Strozzi by default? Where is the consensus in that? I think it should be four candidates with the top two going in. Mariokempes 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Four will be to much. 2 is the best, but i entered 3. With three it gows like this if no one gets the minimum 50% of the votes we make a second vote beetwen the 2 leading candidates, and that's how we reach the closest to a concensus. Can you imagine the mess we get if we have 4 candidates?? Making 4 candidates can make it a messy discussion. M.V.E.i. 22:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but why is Strozzi automatically in? Mariokempes 22:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Italian classic music is famous. It needs to be represented. We didnt have place to enter Vivaldi or Pavaroti. BUT inserting her we enter a woman, a composer, and a singer. 3 in one. M.V.E.i. 22:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Agnesi and Montessori. I don't like the idea of including more contemporary individuals. Time has given justification to the importance of women like Agnesi and Montessori, less so circumstance. Sicilianmandolin 01:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So now it's Oriana Fallaci - 3, Maria Gaetana Agnesi - 0, Maria Montessori - 2. Ok guys. So i enter Fallaci and Montessori, since many said they dont want Barbara Strozzi. M.V.E.i. 10:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where'd you get that count? It's Fallaci - 2 (Mariokampes withdrew his), Agnesi - 1 (I voted for her), and Montessori - 2 (her as well). There have no yet been enough people voting to come to a conclusion. If we're going to draw a vote in the first place, it's going to need to include more than 4 people, I'm afraid. Not to mention, we haven't even established voting guidelines, such as how many candidates a single person is allowed to vote for. Sicilianmandolin 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys, the new version was uploaded. Looks really good :-) No license problems. M.V.E.i. 10:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You overhauled the votes. I don't care anyway. It's a silly thing to draw a vote over. Sicilianmandolin 20:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Whats "overhauled"? I dont know that word. M.V.E.i. 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From dictionary.com: "to gain upon, catch up with, or overtake, as in a race." In the context of the vote, it would refer to the mistaken addition of a vote to Fallaci's vote count, although the word "overhaul" used as it was would normally imply it having been intentional. Sicilianmandolin 21:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't really "overhaul" it. At least, probably not intentionally, anyway. I mean to say that you miscounted and therefore concluded the vote on inaccurate information. As it stands, given the lack of voters, the outcome probably would have remained the same anyway. Which brings me to my above point that if we're going to create a vote, we should involve more people and lay out some more guidelines. Personally, the image looks fine now. I don't really care, either way. Sicilianmandolin 21:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that a fast vote would be perfered due to the fact that the changes will be done quickly. I just already saw votes on Wikipedia that took a long time, infact, so long that no one have actually done what the vote decided. But, you have a point, and if there will a big number of people opposing to what is the image now offcourse i'll not ignore the fact and re-open the topic. M.V.E.i. 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly contrary to your choice of Oriana Fallaci. She's not a representative of Italian people, but she was only a writer and journalist, in my opinion a mediocre one. She was racist. She hasn't titles to be an italian icon! Choose Cavour, De Gasperi, Garibaldi! Fallaci? Are you kidding? So why not Mussolni or Provenzano?

--Conte di Cavour 18:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

She was not racist or facist, i remind you she fought against facists as a partisan. About her opinions, saying the truth about Islam doesn't make her racist. She said the the groth of Islam is dangerous, well, isn't it?? As a smart man i once read said: "yes, maybe not all the muslims are terrorists, but somehow all the terrorists are muslim". Stop with the polit-correctness. Islam is dengerous, it's a fact, the Islamic leaders scream about occuping the world. There's nothing racist in saying the truth, what we see, what really happens. M.V.E.i. 21:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. She recived many awards and sold millions of her books,so your personal opinion about her as a writer doesnt count. M.V.E.i. 21:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Having been to a predominantly Islamic country, meeting Muslims first hand, and having the tenets of Islam explained to me by genuine Muslims, I strongly disagree with that statement. Nevertheless, I'm going to avoid a meaningless political-religious debate and advocate the replacement of Fallaci by a female less contentious, such as Agnesi. Sicilianmandolin 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you meet a muslim and he smiles to you and doesn't stabb you that doesn't mean he won't do it to another man tommorow. I live in Israel, and unfortinatily, we have to many muslims. There were so many cases that a muslim killed a Jew as part of the Jihad, though he and that Jew were friends for years. That's what happens when the man takes "the word of god" to seriously. And when the number of such people grows, the more dangerous it gets. The more people fll under influence of Islam, many newcomers will try to prove themselves to be muslims more then those who were born muslims by promoting that Jihad. Same thing about any idiot who belives he get dozens of vergins if he killes not-muslims. The more fall under trhe efect of islam, the more people like that will be. And thats dangerous. M.V.E.i. 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MVEi, please mind your tone. I too disagree completely with your statements and, may I point out, this is exactly why I wanted to withdraw Fallaci's candidacy. This is not a forum for such stupid comments and debates... and I cannot believe it is you feuling it! Please revert your edits before this gets out of hand and let's focus on positive criticism. Mariokempes 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My tone is normal, i wasn't the one starting this debate. When i entered Falaci i havent even though about the muslim thing. She's a great, famous writer, she fought against the facists, she has a strong character, that's all i thought about. I wasn't the one starting this discussion, i stated my opinion and thats all (and i dont fell i need to revert myself, i only stated my opinion). M.V.E.i. 21:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming desire for someone more neutral is clear, so I've taken the initiative of replacing Fallaci with Agnesi. Sicilianmandolin 22:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, scratch that. It's been reverted. Sicilianmandolin 22:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agnesi is not as famous and representetive. Cmmon, the woman stated her opinion, nothing wrong with that. M.V.E.i. 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, i wasn't thinking politics when entering her here. I was thinking about her being an amaizing and recognized writer, i thought of the fact she was a partisan, i thought of her strong true character. She has an opinion, well? Everybody has it. M.V.E.i. 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should go with your original choice of Madonna:) Mariokempes 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cant we stay objective and keep Fallaci because of the resons she was puted in in the first place? And i dont think you could find a free image of Madonna. M.V.E.i. 22:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't see Richard Wagner amongst the German people article's ethnicity template for a reason. At this point, you're the only one actively advocating for Fallaci, yet you continue to revert. Clearly, the majority of us feel that neutrality has been breeched (yet you continue to revert), so it would seem that this is more about the perceived authority of your own opinions than anyone else's, Fallaci's and about 3 other people involved in this discussion, included. Sicilianmandolin 22:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted only one time and that's because i wanted to hear more people. I see my efforts are useless so, feel free to revert. M.V.E.i. 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would you need to revert the edit in order to hear more people? The consensus was that Fallaci should be removed, so I removed her, and replaced her with Agnesi. In no way would that close the debate. If you're still troubled over everything, then feel free to call a vote. Until then, I think the Agnesi version should remedy. Sicilianmandolin 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that move of replacing Fallaci, but anyway, since you've all decided, there's nothing i can do. Nevertheless, i already created a license-dicription page for the new version you uploaded. You can see it here. M.V.E.i. 22:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for producing the license information. Sicilianmandolin 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) Anytime you need help with that when you create an image you can call me. M.V.E.i. 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have voted for Queen Margherita of Savoy, Matron of Arts and Literature and of the most famous Pizza in the world. Anno del Dragone, 15 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anno del Dragone (talk • contribs) 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved page name

I moved the article from Italian people to Italians. I did it due to the fact that most ethnic-group articles, for example Russians, Ukrainians, Armenians... write their name in one word. The only once who dont write it in one word are those who can't (English people cant be said Englishs, French people cant be said Frenchs). M.V.E.i. 18:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Don't worry; no objections here. ;) Sicilianmandolin 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And here on the talk page i added up here a template of the Italy WikiProject (a little beurocracy needed to be done :-)). M.V.E.i. 10:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why two world famous Italian men were replaced with two complete unknow Italian women?

I mean, I perfectly know who Maria Montessori and Maria Gaetana Agnesi are, but could you say the same of most people over here? Are those women the first Italians people think of? Are they more famous than Puccini or Machiavelli or Verdi or Pavarotti or Dante or Federico Fellini?

Let's face the truth, they were added just because it was political uncorrect tho show 8 men and no women. The criterion should be how much they are famed, not if they are men or women, northern Italian or southern Italian, blu eyed or brown eyed, tall or short and whatever... --89.97.35.70 15:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree. But then again this is the (american) english wiki, and americans have this mania of being "politically correct", which brings to such contradictions. However I'm not sure if the criterion should be "how much they are famed" or "how much were they important in History". I mean of course if you studied Literature and the like at the University (at least in Italy) you would know about them, but the average person in Italy and even less around the world would have barely heard their names, on the contrary they would know about Monica Bellucci, ie she is more famed, but definitely not as historically important. Anno del Dragone, 15 November 2007

Actually, if you look at the discussion above- you will see international participation- it is NOT an "american" thing... It is the right thing. This is about Italians, not famous Italians. Bringing some light to two or three women represents the balance of the Italian people. It is not so much political correctness as it is about presenting a true flavour of the people this article represents. Mariokempes 22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Maps Blondism & Pigmentation in Italy

I’m sick and tired of the stupid stereotype about the italians : they are africans...they are dark... they have curly hair... and other idiocy , i hope these maps change your mind

MAP OF HAIR BLONDISM IN ITALY (PURE BLOND NOT LIGHT BROWN) BY R.BIASUTTI

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/38316/2003631590295084685_rs.jpg

MAP OF PIGMENTATION HAIR AND EYES IN EUROPE :

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/39908/2003854802501020027_rs.jpg

This is a study of italians by Carleton S. Coon

    TRAIT       NORTH SOUTH
  Hair Blondism  15%  6%*  
  Brown Hair     40%  48%
  Black Hair     25%  30%
  Eye Blondism  65%  56%  = (Blue,Green,Hazel eyes)
  Brunet Skin  ~50%  >50%  
  Average Height  168 cm  165 cm  (in modern day 176,9 cm 174,8 cm)
  Cephalic Index **  83.5  79

Red and reddish-brown hair shades were observed in an additional 16% of this sample.
- Above 81 is in the Alpine-Dinaric range, and below 76 in the Mediterranean range.

Unfortunately these stereotypes of Italians do exist. If you look at the maps however, the majority of Italian-Americans and Italian-Canadians come from the areas of Italy where the vast vast majority have dark hair, eyes, and brunet skin, which is Sicily and the Calabrian peninsula, where as a very very small minority come from the fairer northern parts of Italy, hence the stereotypes of Italians.

I am a minor historian and study genetics, and Italian people share many physical and genetic characteristics of the French which I find very interesting considering their is no "ethnic" stereotype of them, but it does not really matter. I mean, all European groups in North America are all intermingling, so what is an Italian these days anyway; half German? half Irish? half English? Besides, these stereotypes dont exist in Europe anyway! But I understand what you are saying! Galati (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Galati

Galati: I don't contest your argument, but your facts are not quite right. Agreed most Italo Americans came from agrarian southern Italy (including Naples and Campania, Puglia and Abruzzi- not just Calabria and Sicily). In Canada, Italian immigration was more recent than the US (heaviest 1940s to about 1970) and it is much closer to an even split between northern and southern. I understand the same is true of Australia. Most of the northern Italian Canadians are from the agricultural parts of the Veneto and Friuli which, until the 1960s, were large contributors to the Italian diaspora. The common denominator north or south is origins from rural or semi-rural villages. Mariokempes (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

yes , I live in italy (Umbria-Central Italy) and i Never heard a French or a German call an italian "Africans" !! Only stupid Americans can do this ....Oh...I'm blond and i have green eyes.... i'm African???

Ya, like Galati said, only in America they talk like that. In Latin America stereotypes of Italians dont exist there either. I find this frustrating too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.78.7 (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: (Main) archives