Talk:Italians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Italians article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4


Contents

[edit] 5 million Italians in France

According to the Cambridge Survey of World Migration, an estimated 5 million French nationals are of Italian descent or more than 8 percent of the total French population. Please see: http://books.google.com/books?id=BLo2RqGdv_wC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=5+million+italians+in+france&source=web&ots=FS8QNMYmoq&sig=dDwUB09FSWcdigHxd0PeG5L94vc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC) This should be included in the box, considering that the aucthonnous Italian populations in Switzerland is mentioned but not about France. Also there are 17,235,187 Italians in the United States as of 2005, not 16.6 million! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The French reference refers to Italian citizens in France. There is a note however (which I added some time ago) that states "not including autochthonous population of est. 6 million". It's good to have a reference however. This does open, I think, a very interesting question of where you draw the line and question what value these "ethnic group" articles hold. Besides France, there are significant groups of people with some Italian ancestry in Catalonia, Dalmatia and perhaps elsewhere- yet they are not usually considered "Italian". By the same token, many Italians possess traces of at least some Castilian, Catalonian, Berber, Albanian, etc. etc. etc... So much for stereotypes! Mariokempes (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is very well true. I do know after an archaeological tour of Italy that some Italians, have some ancestry left by certain colonisers and settlers. For example, in the Middle Ages, Livorno was a popular port city that had many English, Dutch, Greeks, and Armenian settlers and where are they now...??? The only thing though is that 5 million Italians in France are a defined group whereas Italians who lived in Catalonia, and Dalmatia were very far back and therefored assimilated ethnically.
However, the Italians in France is a recent story. There are 1.5 million Italian citizens in France, a result of post-war migrations. The other estimated 3.5 million Italians in France are due to land cedations, overlapping and swapping. For example, much of Corsica is mostly a Italic/Roman population rather than French including eastern Rhone-Alps and Cote d'Azur. Parts of those regions were once part of Italy, and then was later ceded to France. Galati (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Galati

Something like 20% of the population in 16th C Rome was born outside Italy (mostly Spain, France, Germany and even England). Like you say, where are they now? As for historic migrations between Italy and France, while the bulk of the "ethnic" shift was due to political re-mapping (as you correctly stated), there was also a significant influx of Italian business people, artisans and courtiers to the heart of France. One needs only to think of the Medici connection to the French monarchy, but more telling were the hundreds of Italian family branches that set out to Paris, Lyon and Flanders. Again, where are they now? Mariokempes (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern/Southern appearance

Why was this paragraph deleted without explanation? I'm going to restore it. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In very general terms, many Northern Italians tend to have fairer complexions, somewhat similar to central Europeans, along with a higher frequency of light-coloured hair and eyes. Most Southern Italians tend to have darker features, similar to other peoples of Southern Europe such as the Spaniards and the Greeks.[1] Due to population movements throughout Italy's history, these physical characteristics are not greatly pronounced.

It was deleted because it is simply irrelevant. Bottom line- who cares! This statement is based on a broad continuum where the frequency of certain characteristics slowly shifts from north to south and, in the north, even west to east (this continuum extends far beyond Italy's borders). It suggests a dividing line that simply does not exist. By the way, citing Cavalli-Sforza is a bold move given how his theories are largely disproved. If you insist on keeping it I won't remove it, but I suggest rewording it so that it is less definite. Mariokempes (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from a previous discussion:

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

This was a study by Carelton Coon: Also this map shows the same:[1] I think it should stay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest getting into a genotype/phenotype discussion, but the figures above are vague (what is north and what is south?), ignore the contiuum (are we comparing Sicily and Trentino?), and- when you look at them closely- do not vary that greatly. Plus similar figures can be drummed up for almost every European country. Again- if users want to leave it in, fine, but I still say it is a pointless stereotypical statement. Mariokempes (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I must say I do agree with adding in the idea of the 'North' and 'South'. This is not a matter of "who cares" MarioKempes, as Wikipedia provides all information that is being relevant to the topic. The southern Italians are part of a genetic group with encompasses southern spain, southern portugal, greece, southern italy, and malta, among various others. The northern Italians come under an ethnic umbrella which contains much of central and alpine europe. Even though the differences are becoming less pronounced, it should still be included. I think that the idea that they are in fact becoming less pronounced should also be mentioned. It is all valuable. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the paragraph to make it clear we are talking about frequency. For better or for worst, I've also given it its own section. Mariokempes (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Coon said :

No country in Europe in which one language and one cultural tradition prevail shows a greater diversity of race between its southern and its northern extremities than does Italy. The binding element which is common to all sections is the Alpine, which has reëmerged from obscure beginnings through a superstructure composed of Dinaric, Nordic, and various kinds of Mediterranean accretions. Italy stands on the fence between the Alpine and Mediterranean worlds.

this is a map of the percentage of blond hair in Italy by Renato Biasutti:

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

Map of the Percentage of Pure Light eyes :blue,green,gray (hazel eyes are not included)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Light_eyes_map.jpg

Hair & Eyes Pigmentation in Europe:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Color.gif

Skin Color Map of Indigenous Populations :

http://www.vitalgraphics.net/ozone/graphics/jpg/04-Skin-color-map_cl.jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.9.193 (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Occitans are not central Europeans! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest the inclusion of some of those maps in the article. Are they allowed to be uploaded to Wiki? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That "skin colour" map looks highly contentious. Just looking at multi-racial countries like South Africa and the United States... there are more black people in one state of the USA than there has ever been throughout the entire history of Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta. Yet that country is coloured a light "white"? Seems highly dubious.
Its irrelevent because in Greece, Southern Italy, Malta, Spain people have different shades... some really light to some who are olive. Just as how there are northern Italians with black hair and tanned skin, Pavarotti anyone? Its irrelevent because you can't make a broad sweeping statement like that and claim to be correct. - Gennarous (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that while there may be some noticeable change in frequency, it is not important enough to merit such attention. I'd like to also point out that it's not just north-south, as the coastal areas of the northwest (Liguria) show more in common with the central and southern regions than the north. Dionix (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution to humanity

Why is there a cleanup tag there? What is there is concise and well written. The lack of citations is not a problem as the statements are backed up in the main articles or are common knowledge. I think the question is whether the section needs to be there at all. Mariokempes (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ??????????????????

"Often considered the most handsome and beautiful in the world, the Italians have made many positive contributions on the world. The United States of America pays a yearly fee to Italy for providing them with such beautiful babies as much of America has been populated with beautiful people." Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.172.194 (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Americans

on the website for Italian Americans from Wikipedia, there are 17.2 million Itlaians in America with sources from American Fact finder! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Italian Ethnic Groups and Irredentism

First, the title is misleading. Second- all references to "Greater Italy" or "Italia irredenta" should be removed- this is a fascist propaganda phrase that will lead to controversy and accusations of revisionism. Third- it is overbearing and if it needs to exist it should be simplified. I made what I thought were neutral improvements, but they have been mostly revereted. On another note- this focus on Italian irredentism is not about Italian people so much as about isolated political philosophy. It shouldn't be in the template at all. Some writers (and I am more than ever convinced it's really only one -or at most two) keep peddling this aspect to the detriment of the article and Italians. Get over it!! Mariokempes (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes, which I believe were a good compromise. Rationale on template Talk page. Mariokempes (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have revereted the changes to the template once again and for my last time. The following is the text I added to Template talk:Italian Ethnic Groups:

While there may be a place for such articles, having a template about "Italians" with dodecanesi, corfiots, lybians, maltese and the like listed is just as politically motivated as putting lombardy and veneto as part of "Greater Austria" or southern Italy as part of "Greater Spain". Complete nonsense!While I supported the inclusion of Istriani, Corsicans, and even italian dalmati, there is a clear difference in that these people have a true historical connection to the ethnic composition of the Italian people.
professor Mary, your template (oops, I mean Pannonicus' template) IS incitement. Your arguments (oops, I did it again- I mean Bruno/ BD and assorted anonimous IP numbers from Colorado's arguments) on related articles- such as Nizzardo Italians or Corsican Italians are political situations not to be confused with the Nizzardo or Corsican populations in general and which are ethnically Italian anyways. You have profitted from Crystalclear's innocent creation of a template based on info you generated (that is, if he is indeed a separate being and not a sockpuppet. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt). I am reverting this one last time. Mariokempes (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to the template to clarify its intent:

  • Italian Diaspora (Italian immigration to non-native lands)
  • native Italian people outside Italy (native populations as opposed to Italian immigrants- but this should be looked at more closely as some classified are colonial situations)
  • Foreigners in Italy (non Italians in Italy)

The template should also be moved to a better place name. Can anyone help? Dionix (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic group

An interesting and often heated debate in Talk:French people has made me re-think the term as it applies to Italians. The French article says: "Legally, the sovereign people of France are composed of all French citizens, regardless of ethnic origins or religious opinions. The "French people" therefore comprise all French citizens, including the French overseas departments and territories. Henceforth, members from any ethnic group can be included in the French people, as long as they have French nationality". As a result, a reputable, scholarly reference pointing to a "French ethnic group" is difficult to come by. I've tried to find one defining an "Italian ethnic group" and, to my surprise, one is equally hard to come by. This makes me question the whole notion of Italians, a group with mixed and varied origins, defined as an ethnic group. Perhaps "Italian People" is a better term? Anybody out there with some insight or that can point to a valid reference? Dionix (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Unlike on French people, this issue has never come up with regards to this article since the modern state of Italy clearly is defined by a fairly homogenous ethnic and cultural group (Italians) that is part of (and almost equated with) its national identity, similar to Germans. This article is also not about the "population of Italy" or its "demographics" like the French people article. This is about the Italian ethnic group and always has been. You may not have found a source but there are many out there. Sources on "French ethnic group" or "Italian ethnic group" may be hard to come by with that specific wording, but try looking for ethnic groups in certain states, including obviously Italy, from various sources. Many groups have "mixed" or varied origins, but are still fairly homogenous. Italians clearly fall under this category and the people are quite homogenous in many respects, especially cultuarlly. Their origins are mainly to the ancient Italic peoples, with notable influences from the Celts in the north, Etruscans in the centre and ancient Greeks in the south. The whole people of Italy were further unified under the Romans and then subsequently under different states (the Republic of Venice in the north for example) until the unification of Italy in 1861 (Risorgimento). The case with the French people article is distinct from this one, and one obvious example is how Italy still grants citizenship Jus sanguinis like many other states, but unlike France which has never really granted in such a manner. Epf (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Epf... nice to see you over here! I don't disagree with your assessment; but why is that terribly different than France? I think you agree it isn't, hence the debates. Nonetheless, there is this issue of finding a valid source and, in addition, I don't think Italians distinguish between a people and an ethnic group ( and one which I lean towards on a personal level anyways). If you look up this article on Italian Wikipedia, it refers to "popolo", which to me seems much more appropriate. By the way, how a country grants citizenship is irrelavent to the question because the definition of ethnic group should be universal, not modified depending on local political interpretations of citizenship. Dionix (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dionix. I was only implying that, in terms of citizenship, Italy included aspects of ethnic identification, hence granting citizenship via "right of blood" in addition to place of birth or residence. The main reason why it is distinct from France is the political factors involved: France is unique in Europe by being one of the few countries that bars any collection of official data on "race" or "ethnicity", only grants citizenship via Jus soli, and essentially only identifies someone as French based on language or French citizenship. Countries like Italy and Germany (like most others in Europe) also went through strong periods of nationalism and specifically ethnic nationalism which unified the people based on common history, culture, language and ancestry in contrast to France which was mainly based on "right of terrirtory" or where one lived (i.e. within the borders of the French Republic)). I think how people are viewed varies everywhere in terms of what aspects of "people" they are referring to: citizenship, nationality, place of birth, ethnicity (which itself can include various linguistic, cultural, religious, historical, behavioural, ancestral, biological, etc. traits), etc. Epf (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Evan...its Adrian :)...you are mostly right except for one thing. France does not always view someone with French citizenship as someone who is French. I remember reading a BBC News article and it stated that "children of Polish and Italian immigrant parents were considered French in comparison to children of North African Arab origins, who despite having citizenship were constantly called "children of immigrant origin" on the news.
When people hear the term "Italian people" they are thinking of ethnic Italians, just as someone who says "German people." When I hear "German people", I think of ethnic Germans rather than ethnic Turks. It is hard for places like France to have ethnic nationalism...the country is ethnically so fragmented.
Central France remains Celtic/Frankish/Italic (Roman) background, but southeastern France once Italian possessions, have many indigenous Italian persons, some 5,000,000 people...that is why in the beginning of this article it says that Italians are ethnic group found primarily in Italy, Swizerland and France. Southwestern France is inhabited by Catalan people, Basque people, and Occitan people. Northwestern France are inhabited by Bretons, abnd northeastern France is population by German/Alsations. That is why people in France are willing to accept people of European origin as "French" because they are made of various European persons... Galati (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Galati

This is all good discussion, although Galati I don't agree with some of your assessments and the number of native "Italians" now in French territory seems inflated. Nevertheless, no one has responded to my initial question: Can anyone source a reputable, scholarly reference pointing to an "Italian ethnic group"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionix (talk • contribs) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

hey Dionix, when I wrote down that there were 5 million native Itlaians in the nation of France those were not my numbers but from a reference: (Look here [2]) This source states that there are 5 million persons in France have at least an Italian grandparent. Whether or not, it is including the hundred of thousands of Italian migrants who entered post-war France, I dont know. The number of Italians in the Savoie, and Provence area is quite high! Galati (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Galati

[edit] Appearance

I am removing the comparisons of skin tones to various ethnic groups within Europe; "such as the Spaniards and the Greeks" and "such as Swiss, Austrians and Germans". These are unnecessary in that 1) they are far too general (there are peoples in Tuscany whose complexions are far darker than the majority of Tuscans, for example), 2) whether or not they are racially motivated, in a racial context this has been extremely controversial within discussions of the Italian ethnic group in particular, and it is not Wikipedia's place to assert anything, and 3) comparisons of skin tone could extend well beyond Europe, so why not include those regions as well? That's where the racial agenda is in greatest suspect. Most people have a good idea of what "a little darker" or what "a little lighter" means be it in a racial, climatic, or any other sense, and if they don't there's plenty of exploration that can be done within this extensive encyclopedia to help them gain their own understanding. Again, it is not in the place of this brief article to assert any position to the reader in regards to something as controversial as that, and the way in which it is worded could lead the reader to draw conclusions of which aren't thoroughly weighed or discussed.

Should my removal of these statements be reverted (by people other than a bunch of anons), a vote will be called. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

there are also Germans with dark skin...so what ?--GaiusCrastinus (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then. When I get back from work I'll be sure to extend the comparison of skin tones to other countries, as well. Maybe Britain, Romania, Hungary, Turkey, Albania, etc. and we'll see just how fast my edits get reverted. They'll be reverted because it infers racial connotations to the reader. There is absolutely no point in drawing any comparison to any specific region in terms of skin tone or physical features within the scope of this short section, if there truly exists any reason at all. This is about appearance (easily the most pointless section in this article), so unless you want to provide citations that explicitly and credibly state that Italians are more exclusive to various other Europeans in terms of skin tone (which is an absolutely absurd notion), or any other characteristic, I will not hesitate to extend the comparison as stated. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It is and it is not relevant. What I mean is that it is not really relevant in today's sense because there has been so much movement among Italians, but before that it was, its proven in maps done by historians like the ones shown above. For example, when I went to Novara in northern Italy, the locals say that up to half of the people there come from Calabria alone. I believe somewhat what a historian said: "No country in Europe in which one language and one cultural tradition prevail shows a greater diversity of race between its southern and its northern extremities than does Italy. " Alpine, which has reëmerged from obscure beginnings through a superstructure composed of Dinaric, Nordic, and various kinds of Mediterranean accretions. Italy stands on the fence between the Alpine and Mediterranean worlds."
Not only is it still inappropriate to include the comparisons of skin tone for 1) they could be extended to a number of ethnic groups of the world and should not be exclusively compared to any one region, such as Central Europeans, for the various racial implications that the reader could infer, and 2) it is in your quote that extends the reasoning that it draws conclusions of which are one-sided and not altogether supported by modern historians (the notion of separate races, for example). Sicilianmandolin (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am very aware the fact that Alpine, Dinaric and Mediterranean are not seperate race...but variations within the Caucasian race...therefore because I know this, I dont advocate calling Italy multi-racial, but there are many variations of Caucasian peoples with the Italian ethnic group due to various migrations and movements! Galati (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Galati
Your own awareness does not make the notion of Caucasoid subgroups a valid one. Many modern geneticist/anthropologists have since discarded that idea in favor of current scientific research. But, I'm not too concerned if the comparisons remain anymore, because I'm going to provide an extensive treatment of the issue within the Appearance section if it is retained. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
And this isn't a shouting match. You don't need to bold your text. You've done that to an excess in just about every discussion you've been in (90% of which I've seen turn sour). I am ignoring anything you bold from now on. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I bolded the text to differentiate it from the surrounding text. Who said this was an arguing match; like alot of other threads I have seen you take a lot of things out of context but thats fine, ignore it! A lot of the threads I discussed in had a lot of references to what I was talking about, but it seems that others like yourself think I am agressive and ignore my well-founded references. Well as you can clearly see above my bolded statement, what I wrote, I bolded the text from a quote that was not my own. or if you look below, my picture reference was bolded. Clearly these are not attempt to fight. I have basically agreed with almost everything you have said...dont assume that I am quarelling with you. Galati (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Galati
I apologize, Galati. I looked over the talk page archives - it seems I had you confused with another user. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The differences between southern and northern Italians can sometimes be seen. It is true that persons in Padova, Vicenza, Verona etc will have higher frequencies of light features that someone from Palermo, Agrigento etc. But Sicilianmandolin is right, there are dark and light populations in virtually every European population. Tom Jones, Sean Connery, for example are dark skinned British, compared to Eva Riccobono (picture here [3]) an Italian from Palermo, Sicily who could easily pass a Swede or Icelander! Galati (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Galati
I completely agree. There are differences in skin pigmentation between northern and southern Italians, be it for racial, climatic, or whatever reasons. My issue lies in comparing these differences to various other peoples; there is absolutely no point nor justification for comparing the skin tone of one group of people to another exclusive group without extending that comparison to all applicable ethnic groups, as racial inferences will undoubtedly be made by the reader, and it is inordinately general in any case. That's why the only practical method in maintaining neutrality is to eliminate the comparisons altogether. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is not if there are dark skinned Northern Italians or blond and pale Southern Italians. Of course there are, as there are swarthy Germans and pale Arabs. The point is how the average looks like, and in this respect there is indeed a difference between North and South Italy, Italy and Spain or Greece, Germany and the Arab world. This is self-evident, and besides it has been proved by a number of sources quoted in the article. It's just like saying any reference to the fact Danish people are richer than Mexican people should be deleted, since there are some Mexicans who are actually richer than some Danes. This is an absolute nonsense. The Italians are amongst the least homogeneous people in Europe as regards their look, they range from fully Central European to deeply Mediterranean. And besides, Southern Italian do look more similar with Greeks and Spaniards, while Northerners look closer to Austrians, Germans and Slovenes, and this is definitely worth a mention. So I'm going to restore that reference: let's discuss it first, THEN remove it. --Fertuno (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly in what respect are northern Italians more similar to Central Europeans in looks, and exactly in what respects are southern Italians more similar to other Mediterranean countries? Is it solely in the pigmentation of features, or is it that Dinaric, Nordic, Alpine separation that's been largely discredited by modern scientific research? Seems it is, every single time. There is nothing wrong with the statement that there is a difference in the basic, self-evident features across the peninsula (skin tone, hair color, to a degree height), in my opinion, but limiting the comparison to other Europeans is nothing but a racially motivated tactic. Your analogy does not stand because 1) Mexico and Denmark are countries of two completely different continents, and 2) that is to assume that the comparison stops between Denmark and Mexico and excludes other countries, and that the issue has not been treated with a balanced explanation as to why that is the case. If we want to include comparisons of other countries not exclusive the ones listed, it's going to be just as pointless as it already is in its generality, but I won't have such a problem with it, provided there's an extensive treatment of possible explanations as to why the difference exists. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I just want to mention that appearance is not simply about skin tone, which for Italians is most commonly the "olive" or "light brown" hue, north or south. Yes there are some Italians who have slightly lighter or darker complexions, but this does not make them identical in skin tone to those of other European ethnic groups. Physical appearancealso involves cranio-facial features, eye colour, hair texture, stature, body frame size, etc. Below is an example of just one website which contains a collection of various anthropological and genetic information on the origins of some ethnic groups. Although the website itself is not a reliable source, the actual sources containted (or mentioned) on the website, are. RACIAL REALITY: ITALIANS Epf (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That is but one (largely discredited, for political correctness or not) perspective amongst many. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Epf, even the website you point to says "The differences between Northern and Southern Italians have also been greatly exaggerated for political reasons". It shows the same cranio-facial features for one "specimen" in Piedmont (north) and one in Sicily (south). As I see it, the differences are not significant and, if you look hard enough, you can find things to make issues out of nothing. This is true for the English (compare those from the east and south-west), the Spanish (like Italy, north and south), the French, etc. The other issue I have, as mentioned by another post above, is that the differences will be greater if you compare a specific area of the deep south with an area somewhere in the Alps. Compare Campania (south) to Liguria (north) and the differences are harder to come by. The point Sicilianmandolin is making is, that while there are some very general differences between the physical appearance of north Italians and south Italians, it really does not deserve more attention than other nationalities' differences. Also, I urge readers to check up on the reference given before claiming there is a valid reference- it doesn't say only what is selected in the article! Dionix (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • People , i live in Italy ..NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN ITALIANS are two completely different races! and who said that most northern italians have olive skin ??? that's completely not true! Southern Italians immigrants in Northern Italy are often call "Not white" or "Arabs" "Terroni" etc..by the Northern also the southern consider themselves different from the Northerns, and RacialReality was made by a sicilian-american who trying to make the southern equals to the Northern ! and about the comparision with Austrians , Spaniards etc.. when Northern italians came to America they were classified as "Celtic white" like Irish,French etc.. Southern Italians were classified as "Mediterraneans" like Spaniards ,Portoguese and Greeks. --84.222.215.251 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm Southern Italian myself, I would like to know what is wrong in stating we do ON AVERAGE look much swarthier than Northerners? What has this to do with Lega Nord propaganda? Or do you maybe feel ashamed by the 'Southern' look? Probably it's you who actually feels very insecure about its physical appearance. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with it. As far as I'm concerned, that has nothing to do with the issue I've raised. I'm simply against making a comparison on the basis of skin tone to a select group of other ethnic groups without due explanation. It's misleading and suggestive, and in the context of the existing appearance, could easily lead a reader to believe it's necessarily race related. It may be an issue of race, it may be an issue of climate, it may be a combination of both, but to neglect to weigh the different viewpoints is inherently biased. It is a contentious issue for many people, and various theories have been proposed. Why not discuss those in a neutral manner as well? That's all I'm seeking to do: stimulate an awareness of this lack of consideration for neutrality so that we can pool together a solution, perhaps in the way of submitting re-written appearance sections to be selected (since deleting the section altogether seems unfavorable to many). Sicilianmandolin (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Northern Italians have North African admixture because when Hannibal and his African army invaded the Italian Peninsula he come over the Alps. However unlike his success in Padania where his army likely bred with many of the women, he couldn't even breach the walls of the city of Naples[4] for example (Neapolitans, been one of the main targets of Lega Nord propaganda) and was forced to retreat from the city never having set foot in it, before being crushed by Romans. So I presume when 84.222.215.251 is saying the two sides are different, he is refering to the African heritige of Northern Italians. - Gennarous (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it's perfectly clear you have some sort of anxiety about the Southern look and you can't stand the fact we Southerners do look darker than Northerners. Southern Italian are clearly closer to Portuguese, Spaniards, Greeks, Turks, North Africans and other people around the Mediterranean. I'm proud of this heritage, since it's probably the region on earth that gave the greatest contribution to humanity, and I don't absolutely want to pass off as closer to Swiss and Austrians. But it seems like you think darker look=bad.--89.97.35.70 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I too am extremely proud of my southern ancestry, but you're missing the point! In addition, Gennarous was reacting to the idiotic statements by 84.222.215.251 not out of "anxiety" (Gen- sorry if I'm speaking out of tune here). Yes, as a general rule southerners look darker than northerners- but only in very general terms. So why make such an issue out of it?? Why do you and others insist on making this bridge bigger than it really is?? Also, where do you put this bridge: In Rome? In Florence? It makes absolutely no sense especially when you consider the differences only become apparent when you compare the Alpine areas to Calabria and Sicily. Everything in between is not clear cut. Dionix (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
89.97.35.70, some Southerners have light Mediterranean skin some are more olive.. one is not worse than the other. Personally I have lighter skin than olive and very dark hair, this doesn't make me think that olive toned southerners are worse than me, or that Swedes are better because their hair is lighter. Lets face it, the Europeans who have done the most in this world are Greeks and Romans! the two peoples Southern Italians are most like, so why should they in anyway feel inferior to central or nordic Europeans?? I agree with you on that completely.
The thing that I find hillarious, and hard to resist answering back to, is when people of northern Italian ancestry like 84.222.215.251 come on here with political insults A) insinuate that all southern Italians look exactly the same B) try to turn Due Sicilians into non-Europeans or saying they're non-White or "Arabs" C) most hillariously of all, trying to pass Northern Italians/"Padanians" off as "Celtic"... I can't help but fall on the floor laughing at that one. My retort with the Hannibal thing was to show the racist 84.222.215.251 that Northerners aren't as so called historically "pure" as he thinks.
The world does not hold a racial different between north and southern Italy outside of the political propaganda held by a few within it. The world doesn't think a Sicilian like Vincenzo Bellini is "Arabic" or "non-European" and the world doesn't think that Leonardo Da Vinci is "Celtic".
By the way I would not say Southerners are close to Portuguese, Turks and North Africans... it is fair to say that Spaniards and Greeks are quite close, because Greeks (" Una Faccia Una Razza") colonised the South and Spaniards ruled it all for decades (Sicily has especially Catalan links)... there is also a little bit of French influence too. - Gennarous (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Gennarous, there is no need to stoop to that idiot's level. Thank god they are in a minority, but I swear it's frustrating to come across these anon pea brains when, for the most part, this has been an intelligent discussion. Let's drop it and move on. Dionix (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance vote - to close 03/26/08

Those in favor of removing all ethnic comparisons of skin tone from the Appearance section:

  1. Sicilianmandolin (talk) - it serves no valuable purpose, as highlighted above.
  2. Dionix (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC) agreed it has no value. The reference does not fully support the statement.
  3. Gennarous (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC) - thinly veiled political propaganda that doesn't belong on Wikipedia and isn't steeped in reality. There is no separate "appearence" for each region of the nation in a regional uniform manner, there are people that range from light to olive complexion in both north and south. Maybe a passing section could belong at Lega Nord#Delusional propaganda or something.
  4. As per above.
  5.  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  12:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Those in favor of retaining ethnic comparisons of skin tone from the Appearance section:

  1. Fertuno (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC) - As long as references are provided, the sentence should stay. Let's the reader judge if it has value or not.
  2. Epf (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC) As long as it is referenced, I do not see a problem.
  3. Galati (talk) There is references for the appearance statement!

Those in favor of removing the Appearance section altogether:

  1. Sicilianmandolin (talk) - no other ethnic article to my knowledge has stooped to this level, and the only meritable mention is the difference of skin tone across the peninsula, and possible height differences, which can be discussed in depth, if need be, across talk pages since there is no consensus regarding the cause and validity of either.
  2. Dionix (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC) I lean towards removing it because it promotes childish stereotyping or somebody's personal POV. I can live with it as long as it clearly shows there is no stereotype or clear division- as stated by Sicilianmandolin, Mario, and Gennarous above. Galati's references below: [3]and[4] could have been developed by anyone and really don't have a source. [5] actually shows how insignificant the range is.
  3. Gennarous (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC) - as per above
  4. As per above.
  5.  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  12:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Those in favor of retaining the Appearance section:

  1. Fertuno (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC) - Same as above.
  2. Epf (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Again, same as above.
  3. Galati (talk) There is references for the appearance statement! [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] good enough for me!

[edit] Plan of Action

The vote was a draw in my eyes, more or less. The last two votes that favor removing the appearance came in late, but they came in nonetheless. In any case, I think a rewrite of that section is in order. So as to avoid reverts and offending people, I propose that we hold a vote on various rewritten versions, being mindful of the above concerns. Anyone have any other ideas? Sicilianmandolin (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If we've concluded that the section remains, that is good enough. I would suggest making any proposed edits directly to the article and let's see how that goes. I'm sure we can discuss aspects without resorting to another vote. Nonetheless, having just perused the "archives" listed above, I'm absolutely amazed that this pointless topic has been the article's main discussion right from day one. Dionix (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I took a stab at a more accurate rewrite. I also removed the red herring reference. What does everyone think? Dionix (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree about the fact North-Eastern Italian have lighter features (I rather think Nort Western Italian are the fairest looking). At least a citation should be provided. Plus there was a reference of a book by Cavalli-Sforza which was deleted. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And besides: "In very general terms, most Italians are a brunet people, similar to other peoples of Southern Europe". I think brunet are the majority in nearl every country in the world, even in Northern Europe (maybe except one or two). --89.97.35.70 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I disagree with you, but that is not relevant as our personal opinions shouldn't impact the article. All maps I've seen point to higher concentrations of light features in the north-eastern sections (Friuli, Veneto, Istria). The north-west seems on par with most of the remaining central parts (see the map on brunet, for example). As for the Cavalli-Sforza reference, it does not at all support the statement it purported to support... in effect a "red herring". If you can cite the exact pages (I couldn't find any), feel free to add whatever it supports back in. Dionix (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That map is clearly a joke. Just check Apulia which has a higher rate than the rest of Northern and Central Italy. According to this map from Biasutti the highest % of light hair is in Aosta --89.97.35.70 (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh! That stupid map again- Do you realize that if you take away the extremes there is only about a 10-15% spread? Do you think that is significant?? Also, if you look at it closely, there are areas in Romagna, Veneto and Liguria that are on par with areas of Campania and Sicily. Milan and Bologna, two of the largest cities in the north, are in areas that are designated the same as Rome (about 10%). Plus, it dates from 80 years ago!! The only thing it proves is that there are pockets in the Alpine areas (such as Aosta, Friuli and Venezia-Giulia) that are the fairest, and by that it means there are 10% more blonds than in Rome and 12.5% more than in Naples. This is hardly the basis for your argument. Dionix (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? I was just challenging your assertion that the highest % of fair hair is in North-East of Italy. Plus I'm afraid you lack the basic knowledge of statistics. If in place A the % of fair hair is 10% and in place B is 20%, place B doesn't have 10% of fair hair more, but 100% more, and that's definitely relevant. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My comment was in reference to the map, not to your challenge. And, no, I'm not lacking basic knowledge of statistics, unfortunately my choice of words was misleading: I'm comparing A and B to the total, not to each other. One out of 10 in one area, and two out of 10 in another area is not a big difference, in spite of the fact thare are twice as many. This is where this map fails. Dionix (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance- Part 2

I feel sorry for Italians who have to deal with all these incredible stereotypes again in 2008!!! People are really fed up to see this “Italian-appearance” s**t which continually comes off from people who must be really stupid and illiterate so I deleted this idiotic “appearance” section. It’s completely useless. There IS NOT any other country on wikipedia with such an idiot section. This says it all. I guess only an American can write all this xxxx to perpetuate things that are not true. You really have a mania about this, come over it. It does not matter how many times this section was deleted: it comes out over and over again. Europeans look like all pretty similar, but this simple concept must unbelievable hard to understand by the standard American. If you have some French, Spanish, Italian, German, English people standing in a line can you recognize their nationality by their features??? You must be insane. In the future I will delete EVERY comment on “physical appearance” or similar idiocies, it’s time to stop seeing them These inventions on the myth about the supposed “Italian appearance” are nauseating in a site that have the ambition to be “serious”. Furthermore if I need to read an (supposed) encyclopedia I don’t care how inhabitants of country x “appear”. Even in the XIX century I can hardly believe they have such an ignorance. I strongly hope you wake up in 2008. In Europe nobody think about it, it’s an American issue. This all-american obsession about this subject has really fed up all people. If you want to write something, write something intelligent. I could have been strong on my comments, but sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes it's the only way. This place was created to share culture and not stereotypes, clichés and lies. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhur (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't know how this Encyclopedy works. You are not entitled at all to delete a whole section which should stay according to most of us. And besides I'm Italian myself. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Robhur, I feel your frustration too and agree 100% that keeping this section is worthless. I also would rather see it erased forever. Nonetheless, there are some editors that feel otherwise and, even though I find most of the support material suspect or of no great significance (such as the map some keep pointing to), there is, unfortunately, enough information to make this worthy of some discussion. I feel inclined, however, to point out to you that the editors involved in this discussion are not only Americans and your comments suggesting it is "their" obsession is just wrong. To suggest it's an American-only obsession is simplistic and, quite frankly, you should know these stereotypes also exist in Europe and within Italy itself. I should probably point out as well that those who support the appearance issue most strongly seem to be in Italy itself (with their own unfounded POV and personal biased agendas). Having said that, I'm not going to "revert" your deletion, but you can be sure it will be back. The goal will be to keep it for what it is: a minor, vague and very general assertion. Hopefully at some point reason will prevail, but until then... Dionix (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have personally nothing against deleting the whole section, actually I don't even think it is worth a whole section, as long as a short reference to differences in appearance between the North and South is kept in the general section. The discussion has turned into a quarrel, but actually it's not really a matter of life and death to me, I just though it was wrong deleting completely that section out of a mistaken feeling of political correctness, or fear of racism, while it surely is a neutral and correct information, and it could be useful for some people. That's all. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Dionix (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt that's going to stick, but I've got my fingers crossed. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally pick the first version of some time ago, which was quite well-balanced IMHO and had a reference of a book by Cavalli-Sforza about the similarities between Northern Italians and other Central Europeans vs. Southern Italians and other Southern Europeans:
In very general terms, the frequency of light-coloured hair and eyes amongst Italians decreases gradually from North to South, with the Southern Italians tending to have the highest incidences of darker features, somewhat similar to other peoples of Southern Europe such as the Spaniards and the Greeks, and Northern Italians tending to have the highest incidences of lighter features, somewhat similar to peoples of central Europe such as the Swiss, Austrians and Germans[1]. Due to the internal migration from the South to the North throughout Italy's fairly recent history, these physical characteristics are less pronounced than in the past.
--89.97.35.70 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I much prefer the current version, but I am surprised it has not be reverted. The problem with making that comparison is 1) the Cavalli-Sforza link can hardly be verified without cross-referencing other sources that use the same text or having the text itself, which is the case for very few. It's also suspect because of its persistent use by what seems to be racially motivated actions by various users that constantly replace Occitans with Germans or Swiss with Occitans, etc. and 2) the comparison is with little merit when comparing the lightness of features between peoples because there are a vast number of various ethnic groups that could be included in addition to the ones listed. From that perspective, why not go ahead and include those? Unless the Cavalli-Sforza reference can be proven credible, why not just eliminate the controversy by eliminating those comparisons altogether? That's why the current version should be favored, in my opinion. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree the reference should be verified. I have nonetheless read that book, and although I don't have it now, it states that Occitans are not genetically closest to Northern Italians, but to Catalans and Apennine Italians the most. On the other hand Northern Italy, especially North-Eastern Italy, comes under a genetic umbrella which contains much of Central and Alpine europe i.e. Austria or Slovenia. In fact they are not that similar to other Southern European. I wonder why is so difficult to state that here... do people really fear Italy can fall apart? --89.97.35.70 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You're seriously comparing Venetians, etc to Slavs in Slovenia?? That might be just a tiny bit, umm how can we say.. controversial. By the way, I'm starting to suspect that you may be a Lombard from Milan, with the constant attempts to say northern Italians are like "Germans" (which is a huge stretch and not realistic today, Austrians might pass). As well as previously attempting to make a comparison between Turks and southern Italians, who have never come into contact with each other, are entirely culturally different and racially (southern Italians are of caucasian stock, while modern Turks are mongol originating people who arrived in Europe from the far east.) - Gennarous (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lets Finish This Once and For All

While I may have voted for it in the beginning, I have come to the conclusion that we must scrap "the look" of the Italian people. The maps of hair and eye blondism were dated from before the world wars, and ever since then, there has been mass migratory movements. The current statement that we have right now: "In general terms, most Italians are a brunet people, similar in appearance to other peoples of Southern Europe. The frequency of blondism and other lighter features amongst Italians decreases somewhat from North to South, with Southern Italians exhibiting greater incidences of dark features than Northern Italians" cant be anymore general. However, it is no longer relevant due to migratory movements.

I am sure we could say the same for the nation of France who in Normandy, would have a higher presence of blondes and blue eyed people compared to persons from Roussillon who would have a lower proportion. The same could for Scotsman, compared to the English, Galicians compared to Andalusians, and many other European nations. So, now I see how pointless this really is. Let people come to their own conclusions of what Italian persons may look like based on the historic migrations and genetic imputs of the Italian people. Galati (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Galati

I am glad you've come to see the light, Galati. :P That was my original point; "Most people have a good idea of what "a little darker" or what "a little lighter" means be it in a racial, climatic, or any other sense, and if they don't then there's plenty of exploration that can be done within this extensive encyclopedia to help them gain their own understanding.", but you've definitely added some clarification as to why it's important for people to come to their own conclusions. So, after everything is said and done, that's essentially a 6 to 2 vote in favor of removing it. I shall remove it, but I imagine it's going to take some real diligence to keep it that way. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No country in Europe in which one language and one cultural tradition prevail shows a greater diversity of race between its southern and its northern extremities than does Italy. [C. Coon]. As you can see, you can't just say it is no different from the rest of Europe without backing it with some source. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Carleton S. Coon died in 1981. The bulk of his work, especially "The Races of Europe" was produced during the WW2 period, and much of it is also said to reflect it. With the unification of Italy not 100 years passed, the racial gap shortened dramatically after World War 2, perhaps more so than an other period in Italian history in light of those facts. It is no longer as pertinent to modern Italy's racial composition, and was probably never as pertinent as stated due to the already outlandish racial theories of the time. In short, that quotation is little more than an artifact of outmoded racial thinking. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well put Galati & Sicilianmandolin. Let's move on. Dionix (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have some up-to-date source which disprove Carleton Coon's work, then provide it. I'm tired of backing my statements with facts and people removing it cause they don't like it without providing anything better. I provided maps from a study by Cavalli Sforza, which is professor emeritus at Stanford and arguabily on of the most reputable living geneticist. Then I provided citations from his works and Carleton Coon's studies. On the other hand you haven't provided a single source to back your statements. You just say Italians aren't any different from other people in Europe, after WWII differences aren't important any longer and that's it. This is becoming really childish. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah? And I'm tired of regurgitating the same references that have been used time and again as to why it's not nearly as pronounced as people like to make it. Peruse the talk pages, and stop reverting edits that have reached consensus or YOU WILL BE BANNED. And you have yet to really prove why that source is even credible in its application to this matter; anyone could stick a reference to any text that's hard to come by and call it credible. You're the one that bears the burden of proof at this point. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You can't ban anyone so please avoid talking about bans, since there isn't any consensus. You are just trying to impose your will regardless of the facts other people are providing to back their statements, without backing YOUR statements yourself. This map made by Renato Biasutti is more than enough. It clearly shows that, for instance, in Veneto % of blond people is from three to seven times higher than in Calabria, and in Tuscany is at least three times higher than in Sardinia. This is definitely relevant. Now of course you will say this map is:
1) old (but you won't provide a newer one)
2) not credible (but you won't provide a more credible map)
3) same difference as other countries (but you won't provide a single source proving that)
Etc.
Try to stick at this map. What is wrong about it? As long as people won't provide sources to back their statements I will consistently restore any reference in the article. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You've just said what's wrong with the map. The onus is definitely on you to support your POV theory- and don't point to the Cavalli-Sforza reference please! Apart from your statement that he is "one of the most reputable living geneticist(s)"- yes, 9 out of 10 Nazis agree on that- he does NOT say what you say he does. The only thing that is true, according to your beloved map, is the very general statement I've restored. Dionix (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There could be a consensus, and pretty quick at that. And I find it rather amusing that you should say "since there isn't any consensus" about banning you when there happens to be a consensus you blatantly ignore about neutralizing/removing the appearance section you are so ardent about keeping. Anyway, I'm not fully supportive of removing the appearance section in any case; if Britannica can find it relevant enough to include in their article about Italy, I would think it fitting to include in here. However, I am not supportive of retaining the comparisons to other countries. That will not be included without a credible, verifiable source, and if it continues to get restored, I will see to it that it goes to arbitration. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution to Humanity

Now we can focus on more important things, like improving and expanding this section. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Photos Please

Take a look at the Irish people page, and see all their photos...while it is not that important to have more than three dozen photos of past and present Italians, we should have more and much more current...there are many famous Italian people in Italy, whose photos could do this page justice. What do you think?? Galati (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Galati

Just my opinion but I'm not a fan of photo galleries, and adding to the existing one will bring little additional value. If one must exist, current representations would be far too arbitrary- better to keep faces that have stood the test of time. Dionix (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian people template

Does anyone know how to access the template near the bottom of the article? I've tried the "v", "d" and "e" links to no avail: it seems to be inaccessible. Dionix (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it its own page a while ago, due to persistent vandalism of its information. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Italian_ethnicity Sicilianmandolin (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Misread. Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Italian_diaspora Sicilianmandolin (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. There's still something strange about the icons tho'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionix (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add Mexico's population of 1.5 million? 76.214.80.111 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not without a source.


I've added some comments to Template talk:Italian people because I feel there is some fishy POV pushing going on. The grouping for "Historic populations" is misleading, and many links are to articles about specific, historical aspirations by a few; not general articles on native or ethnic Italian people as one would expect. Any thoughts? Dionix (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italians in Brazil

I propose and i will conduct myself a new research about the ammount of people with italian descent in brazil, since the data provided is unreliable and exagerated like most data coming from brazil at the time of considering their european roots: according to the argentine government, whithin the period 1895-1946, 1.476.725 italians where registered as inmigrants. Acording to the Brazilian Government, within the same period, the number of italian immigrants in brazil were 906.114. now, according to this article, there's about 5 million more italian descents in brazil than in argentina... does this mean that italians in brazil are more fertile? what do they eat?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.56.2 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

From 1856, to 1876, approximately 500,000 Italians moved to Brazil (see demographics of Brazil). Then from 1876 to 1920 some 1.243.633 Italians moved to Brazil in that time period. After 1920, around 150.000 Italians moved after. Roughly almost 2 million Italians moved to Brazil in this massive time period.
In 1874, Brazil had 10 million people.[8] Clearly, the proportion of Italians were a huge wave of migration, as it was encouraged by "pro-white migration" policies. Now, Brazil has grown to 190 million people. Its not hard to believe that the population of Italians in Brazil could grow 12 fold within this period.
Plus, many Italian-Brazilians are not fully Italian; they have Portuguese, German, Spanish, polish and other origins as well. Galati (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Galati
Agree with Galati. 25m out of 190m is more or less in proportion with the historical immigration figures given. Also, as with most of the numbers listed by country, "part" Italians are included. Dionix (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

still, is just a matter of being in argentina and brazil and finding out how greater is italian influx in argentina than it is in brazil. on top of that, if you count the period from 1856 and over, still more have more italians migrating to argentina than to brazil. (about 2.500.000 million). argentine italians also share other origins at this point (i'm a german-italian descent myself) then you also have a way bigger ammount of argentine-italian citizens than brazilian-italian ones. i just say the number of brazilian-italians is hugely unproportionate and exaggerated. italian community in argentina is regarded as the biggest in the world after germany by the italian government itself. you should check out the votes of italians abroad. there's even argentine-italian citizens on italy's parliament!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.32.56.2 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, there is no prize for countries with the largest Italian population outside of Italy. Can you provide me a link that shows that there are more than 25 million Italians in Argentina? We have a link that shows 25 million Italians in Brazil, and that there are 20 million Italians in Argentina. You wrote: "the italian community in argentina is regarded as the biggest in the world after Germany". Um....there are less than 700,000 Italians in Germany compared to Argentina's 20 million. Galati (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Galati

[edit] This is Interesting

Would'nt this sentence: (They are one of the Latin European peoples, along with Castillians, Catalans, Romanians, Portuguese, and French) equate to the "related ethnic origins" box. I mean this sentence is very true and relevant, yet not to long ago, many members fought against me and others to have this in a box removed; yet it has appeared again...with no hostile response. Galati (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Galati