Talk:Italians/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Number of Italian-Brazilians

I didn't find any official sources saying that 18% of brazilian has italian roots. The http://www.italplanet.it source says 25 million in 2000, or 15% of the brazilian people. The number of italo-brazilians must be, in 2011, around 28 or 30 million, 15% of 192 million brazilian. In http://www.italplanet.it/FilePub/77063604Appunti%20business%20brasile.pdf says that the italian-brazilian are 30 million of 190 million, but it's an estimate. GustoBLSJP (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

→ "Descendentes de italianos" in the Portuguese Wikipedia GustoBLSJP (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Paying with Pasta (?)

I changed this line: "It is believed by many that you can pay most Italians with pasta, and or including pasta sauce." by adding a slash between the "and or" as this is more correct, then noticed the sentence was still of poor structure. I can't correct it as I'm not surely precisely what the sentence is getting at as I'm not familiar with the myth/belief. In fact, I'm not even sure of the tone. It seems too humorous/witty by intrinsic structure. "Believed" should be "joked", perhaps. As a reader, I don't know whether this is the writer's joke, a classic myth, etc, etc... Squish7 (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland is missing

• In fact there are autocthonous ethnic Italians in Ticino and in Grisons/Graubunden.--Deguef (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why does there need to be material on the level of blonde-haired Italians?

It is very unusual why someone keeps adding material on the level of blonde-haired Italians in Italy. I suspect that this inclusion has some racialist motivations to show the level of stereotypical "Nordic traits" of Italians. There is material in a newly added paragraph that describes that there are 5% of "Italians with blonde hair and blue/green eyes" - why is this important? Whether intentional or not, it looks like a review of the Nazis' conception of the so-called "Aryan Race" that claimed that the most "Aryan" people had blonde hair and blue eyes. It appears to be exclusively dedicated to discussing stereotypical Nordic traits - there are many Nordic peoples in Scandinavia who have dark brown hair. Why else would a user include a map focused upon showing people with blonde-hair alone in Italy? Why is hair colour so significant? I fail to see any reason why there should be material in the section on Italians' ethnic origins that exclusively focuses on the level of blonde hair in Italy. What do others think?--R-41 (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Also the map on the level of blonde-haired Italians in the ethnicity section of this article, is from a map issued in 1941 during the Fascist era at a time when Fascist Italy was allied with Nazi Germany that emphasized the Aryan Race theory. This 1941 map has selected a study from a century earlier in the late 19th century of military conscription studies to make its claims - since only men could be conscripted in the 19th century this study completely ignores Italian women. First of all the map is extremely outdated - a 1941 map that is relying on late 19th century sources of exclusively male Italians, secondly genetic research has substantially changed since 1941 and the late 19th century, and thirdly use of a map of blonde-haired Italians produced by Fascist Italy should not be assumed to be a reliable source.--R-41 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree! Plus there is next to no sources regarding the percentages of blondism in Italy. Blondism in Italy is not 5% for one thing, it is quite higher but I dont really see it necessary right now, especially when there are no sources to back to those figures up. It sounds very POV to me. Galati (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Galati

There has been no response from the person who posted this material for weeks. I have provided sound reasons that show how antiquated the source for the map is as well as the fact that it measured only Italian men who enlisted in the military and not women nor men outside of enlistment. Therefore I am removing the source. If the person who added it contests the removal of it, they need to present reasons for why an outdated source on Italian male enlistees into the military is relevant in this article.--R-41 (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to Arab and Berber influence on Sicilians, should Arabs and Berbers be listed as related ethnic groups to Italians?

As said above, it is known that the Arabs and Berbers conquered Sicily and intermixed with the local population there. Since Sicilians have been considered Italians and related to these two peoples, shouldn't Arabs and Berbers be listed as related ethnic groups to Italians? However not all Italians are related to these people, so I need to hear advice. I have addressed this because I do not want to hear that I have "vandalized" the article by someone, also I will not listen to any Arabopbobic nonsense that would be either: (A) an angry or frustrated response there was no Arab influence in Italy whatsoever and a view that discussing such influence is somehow an insult, or (B) exaggeration of Arab influence to cast Arabophobic, Islamophobic, or similar xenophobic views about Italians.--R-41 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You do realise you just answered your own question in your statement above. If Sicilians have 7% North African genetic contribution as they say, why should Sicilians and the Italian people for that matter be related to Arabs due to a 7% figure. Many Italians, particularly in the north have heavy Germanic, Celtic, abd Slavic (particularly northern and north eastern Italy) admixture, so should we start listing Ireland, Germany, and Austria as the same as Italians also (i.e. Manfred Kayser's genetic map of Europe shows that all Europeans are genetically similar, that northern and southern Italians are genetically very similar, and that Italians are most related to the Spaniards, Portuguese, French, Swiss, and Greeks). There is an Arab influence in Sicily that lasted 200 years. So, the ancient Italic tribes, the Greeks and the Romans have had thousands of years on Sicily. Galati (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)(UTC)Galati

"Many Italians, particularly in the north have heavy Germanic, Celtic, abd Slavic (particularly northern and north eastern Italy) admixture, so should we start listing Ireland, Germany, and Austria as the same as Italians" Your comment that there was very minimal influence by Arabs in comparison to other influences is a good point. Since you say there is strong evidence that Italians have heavy Germanic and Celtic heritage then my response is that if there is evidence that they are related specifically to the Germans, the Irish, and Austrians, as you say, then if there is a strong link then those should be included in the infobox.--R-41 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Normans expelled the more consistent part of the arab/berber community from Sicily and settled in the island colonists from northern Italy and southern France, genetically today's Sicily is closer by average to Latium more than other more genetically mediterranean regions of Italy as Calabria and Apulia Cunibertus (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

New Collage / Better Representatives

Rita Levi-Montalcini, being Jewish, should be replaced by a full and more historically prominent Italian woman, such as Gina Lollobrigida or Catherine of Siena. Vittorio Gassman, a German-Jew born in Italy, should also be removed in favor of someone who is at least Italian -- perhaps Amerigo Vespucci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.2.53 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

An Italian of Jewish religion is an Italian too. Gassman is also full Italian because of his life, profession and - above all - culture. Alex2006 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with the anon user's proposal on the Jewish origins issue as somehow discounting Italian ethnic identity. Jewish origins of a person do not discount their being in incorporated into an ethnicity not directly associated with Jewish identity. Ethnicity is not necessarily based on a one line of ancestry of genealogy, ethnic groups have regularly assimilated other ethnic groups into their own; ethnicity involves culture and language. The same discussion was done in an RfC on the Germans article for inclusion of assimilated German Jews as being part of the German ethnicity, it was decided to include assimilated German Jews as part of the German ethnicity because they have integrated into it. Furthermore there have been Italian Jews living in Italy for centuries and they have deeply assimilated into the society. The only possibly valid issue that if the person was a German Jew associated with German culture. I am not familiar with this person, but the issue is assimilation into Italian culture.--R-41 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I agree 100%. Vittorio Gassman is among the greatest Italian actors of last century. Do not consider him as Italian is a joke (or worse). Alex2006 (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of italians in Italy and abroad

The number of Italians in Italy are 56,000,000 since, according to ISTAT (see reference), about 4 millions are foreigners. The 4,000,000 Italians belonging to AIRE do not add up to this number, because they are part of the emigrates. Moreover, your reference says that "oriundi" (?) are between 60 and 80 millions. in general, for these statistics please use only official data (ISTAT), Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I want to understand your opinion, but please try to understand mine. According to ISTAT we have in 2011 nearly 60.5 million people living in Italy; according to official catholic organizations the "autochtonous" Italians are now nearly 57.5 millions (diminished from 58.5 in 1985, when the immigration inside Italy was starting and there were only a few thousands of "foreigners"). There are more than 3.5 million foreigners (plus nearly one million of them illegal) in Italy today, but more than 2 million can be considered "Italians" (not ethnic Italians, of course) because:1)they have double passport,2)they have requested Italian citizenship and soon will get it; 3)they are born in Italy and soon they are going to be legalized. If you add you get 57.5 + 2 = 59.5 millions. Then if you add "special" situations like pensioned people living half year in Italy (summer) and half year living in warm countries (Caribbean, etc..) during winter (there are nearly 350.000 retired Italians, resident abroad but returning for many months in Italy like myself), plus Italian emigrants returning home -for many months every year- for many reasons....well, you get a "ca. 60 millions", that is the number I wrote. Anyway, I don't want to have problems with you...as you can see I don't revert all. Ciao. Rossana — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossanaBianchi (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Rossana, no problem, reverting in Wikipedia is only a way to start a discussion. You should stick to the official statistics, and these are only the ISTAT data. The Catholic church does not have the instruments to compile reliable statistics, and so it is not a reliable source in this respect. ISTAT say that in Italy as of 2011 there are about 56,000,000 Italian citizens + 4,000,000 foreigners. In the 56,000,000 there are also what you call foreigners with Italian passport, since the definition of Italian is a person with Italian pass, period. Forget people which will get... (2), or soon will be (3), etc,. since here we describe the current situation, not an hypothetical future one (WP:CRYSTAL). The same is valid for people moving around: either they have their residence abroad, and then they are emigrants, or they have their residence in Italy. Here we write about statistical data, and statistics is a science. Alex2006 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Why has the Italian population in America been reduced to 15 million when American statistics clearly says due to a census that there are well over 18 million Italians in the United STates? Also, I have a source that shows that more than 20 million Italians live in Argentina. Galati (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Galati

Number of Italians in Uruguay

This article says Uruguay has less than 1.2 million Italian, while the Spanish version of it says the number of Italian people is 1 500 000, Uruguay being at the 5th place, over Canada. Please try to solve this disagreement between both articles. You can use the source used in the Spanish article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.143.240 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Inventions Inaccuracy

Meucci did not invent the Telephone, it has been proven his invention was not an electromagnetic phone as Alexander Graham Bell's was and was impractical, Meucci also claimed it did things that it never even did during the demostration which is why Alexander has the patent & Meucci does not. Marconi also didn't invent the radio, Tesla. Micropocessor? yet another false claim. It was Hoff who designed it anyway, Faggin just built it.

Meucci did invent the first electromagnetic telephone and not Bell: http://www.chezbasilio.org/lecture_meucciday.htm

Marconi created the first engineering complete radio system and Tesla shouldn't even mentioned among those who helped to develop

previous technology: http://earlyradiohistory.us/tesla.htm

The first microprocessor has the initials of Mr. Faggin for some serious reason and not because he was just the "circuit welder" as you describe him. http://allthingsd.com/20111116/federico-faggin-on-the-first-40-years-of-the-microprocessor-and-the-next-40-video/--Magnagr (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Culture section biased

The short section on culture sounds ridiculous, the only thing it tells you is how great someone thinks Italian culture is. Muleattack (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it biased? i saw nothing but facts posted. It is a fact that Italy was the most important geographic location of Europe. No other territory in Europe was at the forefront of Western Civilization for aslong as Italy & the italic peoples were. Every continent has that one country with the richest history, and Italy is it for Europe. Fact is if not for Italy Europe would very much be quite different today. Its not as biased as people over glorifying Germanic & Scandinavian culture, especially those people who have fetishes over Vikings despite Vikings not actually giving much of anything of worth to the world. Infact it was the Germanics who helped cause the dark ages in the first place, setting Europe back and Italy once again was the one to bring the continent back up to speed. There is no denying Italy's great importance or European culture & history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:D7D:8154:3854:45AC (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

More italians in brazil than argentina

Why is Brazil first? Argentina have more italian people than Brazil,and in a lot of wikias (like spanish,italian,etc) Argentina is first Also,another error is there are a lot more Italians in uruguay than chile.. And uruguay isnt in the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.89.155 (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Football players in the infobox?

I suggest we include at least one Italian football player in the infobox collage. At last, Italy is a four-time world champion and is only behind Brazil.

Here are some players to consider:

• Paolo Maldini
• Roberto Baggio
• Paolo Rossi
• Francesco Totti
• Gianluigi Buffon
• Lionel Messi (although an Argentinian, Messi is an Italian by origin)

--Երևանցի ^talk 14:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship and Ancestry

Hello, I am going to uniform the Italian people numbers to those of the other European peoples by dividing them per citizenship (c. 60 million) and ancestry (c. 140 million). I think this will greatly improve the easy of reading this article, especially after reading those of other peoples.--Francotti (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Also added "Italiani" under Italians (above the Italians pictures mosaic) to provide the italian version of the word.--Francotti (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of Italians

Italians/Archive 6

Regions with significant populations
Italy        55,695,126
Brazil	23,047,494
Argentina	16,427,786
United States	15,728,020
France	1,903,890
Canada	1,445,335
Uruguay	1,055,220
Australia	852,418
Germany	695,160
Switzerland	521,146
Belgium	376,091
United Kingdom	255,403
Chile	184,997
Venezuela	126,553
South Africa	77,400
Spain	38,694
Other countries	<20,000

I see that there is an edit war ongoing about the number of italians worldwide. I don't know the exact number, but one thing for me is clear. One cannot mix italians (that means, people speaking italian as mother tongue and living in Italy and other territories historically inhabited by italians) with the italian diaspora, that is people of italian ancestry. Wikipedia articles about other ethnic groups (French, German, etc.) clearly distinguish between these two categories. Alex2006 (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The article about Germans doesn't make this distinction in the infobox ("Total population: German ancestry 150 million"), but for me it's indifferent. The question remains open: Italian citizens are 60 million... the Italian diaspora is 80 or 60 million people? --Enok (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply add up what the sources say, :-) and then write all the related references to the right of the total. Regarding Germans, I did not notice it, sorry, but I still think that an Italian in Italy and a Brazilian with her grandmother coming from the peninsula are different... Alex2006 (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources say 23,047,494 in Brazil (Italian Brazilian), 16,427,786 in Argentina (Italian Argentine), 15,728,020 in USA (Italian American), and so on. The number reported above (c. 119 million) is nothing but the sum of these figures. Now there is an IP user who wants to change this number to 140 million. What to do?--Enok (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Alessandro: Please check the page of the article updated by me in the "history" section, you will notice great improvements.
As I said above I uniformed the article to those of other peoples and also divided Italians per citizenship and ancestry so that everyone can immediately get the information they want. This way the article not only is far more informative but it's even easier to read in my opinion.
Italians are around 60 millions around the world: ~55 inside Italy and ~5 outside Italy.
Italian ancestry reaches around 140 millions: 60 of "proper" Italians (proper stands for those with citizenship) + ~80 millions. 80 millions are made up by everyone with italian roots worldwide (and not included in the previous 60 millions) both total or partials.

- French people article does not make distinctions between "proper" French and those without citizenship (I did not follow this path). In the infobox below they sum the total population of France (around 65 millions) to those with french ancestry around the world to reach ~105 millions as final number (shared path).
- German people article is the one from which I got the model to uniform with and I share both the paths with them.
- English people article follows the "french" way.

I think these are enough examples.
I don't want to continue any kind of war but I really think my version is way better than the current one (which adds no benefits whatsoever compared to mine).
I kindly proposed to start this discussion but you can easily watch on "Enok" talk section how it was rejected.--Francotti (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And not a single source was given that day. As I already suggested you, please read this page to know how Wikipedia works.--Enok (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Francotti: I agree with your method, since I think we should distinguish between Italians and people of Italian ancestry, but where does it come from the total number of 140 millions? Looking at the table on the right, we are far from reaching it. Have you a source for it? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I want to apologize for my contribution to the edit war but I got involved into it because it seemed that a user in particular used to revert all changes in favour to a past version. Now let me explain two things. The first is that Italy is considered also a "nation"; surprisingly one of the source at the beginning is "La Storia d'Italia Einaudi", one of the most important book about Italy, which considers Italians a nation by giving thousands of reasons and explanations. The second one is that there are about 56 million Italians living in Italy (here is the source Istat.it), almost 5 million Italians living abroad (here is the source Infoaire.interno.it) and about 80 million people with Italian ancestry living abroad (here is the source Migrantes.Italiani nel Mondo at page 3 on the right side). Hence the sum is 140 million Italians. We do the same of other related articles who consider also the ancestry as part of the same ethnic group (here are the examples English_people, French People ...). I'm going to add these references to this article. Greetings.--93.32.174.228 (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And not a single source was given in the many days before these improvements, I see how it works.

@ Alessandro: The table on the right, which seems the cause of this weird war, provides old numbers about people with italian ancestry around the world. There are far more than 23 m. of Brazilians (the source is dated 1996) with this ancestry, same apply to Argentines and French. You can find updated numbers by visiting the articles dedicated to "Italian-Brazilians","Italian-Argentines" and so on. Regardless of this, another user seems to have found these longed sources and provided an even more clear version of the article. I am fine to keep the article as it stands now, but I am really surprised of what it took simply to update it.
I hope we all agree to end this conflict now, by my side I actually did not even imagine it could evolve in this way. I have to thank you for being responsive to our requests. --Francotti (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Better standard

I provided a better standard for the article.--EnStat (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Italian people speaking "historically Latin"

I beg to differ with the user "Enok" who's always posting this kind of unnecessary, as well as unsourced, info and who's activity just resulted in an edit war. When people used to speak Latin, before shifting to the actual Romance languages, the concept of both "people" and "nation" was yet to be invented: therefore, I think it'd be a plain anachronism in the first place (just some politically interested groups think otherwise). Many authors such as Giacomo Devoto, writing "Il linguaggio d'Italia" for instance, stated that "Italian" should have been considered the (upper class) people speaking Italian. Beside, I don't see why this should be said of Italians only, as all of Romance-speaking Europe actually did speak Latin once upon a time. So, either we add that to any page regarding European people (speaking a Romanic language, of course), or just revert the edit and leave the page as it is. Dk1919 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The inhabitants of Italy who spoke a corrupted form of Latin were not yet ethnically "Italians". The roman heritage constitutes an important part of Italian identity, but the usage of the Italian language (or one of the many idioms correlated to it) is a necessary condition to be defined ethnically Italian. Alex2006 (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Even though not all the languages spoken in Italy are necessarily related to Italian (that's the case of Sardinian and Catalan, for instance), that's true. Well then, let's wait a couple of days and see how things go, I just raised the issue hoping for this user's reply.Dk1919 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This is clear: "Italian" is the dialect of Florence and surroundings, and became the national language for a number of cultural, political and historical reasons, disregarding whether the other dialects were related or not to it. If Dante, Petrarca & C. would have been born 250 Km west, maybe we all would speak Corsican now. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I beg User:Enok to join this discussion thread, before reinserting for the nth time (n>50?) this info, which has been already criticised sometime ago. Alex2006 (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a sourced information. Your personal opinions are irrelevant. --Enok (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Enok, this article deals with the Italians, as ethnic group and nation. Everyone agrees the in Italy in the V century - as in the whole western part of the empire - most people spoke some variety of (late) Latin, but the Italians as ethnic group were not yet born. The Italian nation was born in the lower middle age. See for example Umberto Cerroni, "L'identità civile degli italiani". This means, this insertion here is an anachronism. Alex2006 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This is in complete contrast to all of the content of the article. Are you saying that before Dante Alighieri, father of the Italian language, there were no Italians? You can't simply ignore 4 sources. --Enok (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Enok. I see that you slowly start to get to the point. We can discuss if the age of Dante can be considered as the birthdate of the Italian People, but one thing is sure: without usage of the italian language (at least by the elites), there are no Italians. Here below how Umberto Eco (who is NOT a children book author as your Betsy Franco) describes the factors defining the Italian people:

"The Roman Heritage, a language spoken, at least at a literary level, both by Cielo d'Alcamo and Bonvesin da la Riva, the presence of the Church, the Alps barrier, a political ideal born with Dante, Petrarca and Machiavelli, 140 years of state unity who spread all over the peninsula a certain homogeneity of behaviour, for the good and for the bad"

— Umberto Eco, 1997

As you can see, the usage of the Italian language by the elites is here one of the central factors in the definition of Italians. The people who inhabited the peninsula before the italian ethnogenesis can be defined "Italians" only in geographical sense (i.e., inhabitants of Italy), but certainly not in an ethnic sense. This is not my personal opinion, but - as Eco says - the core of the concept of "Italian people", what Eco, myself, and all the other italians have been learnig at school since 150 years. Last but not least, this is also what all the users here - except you - seem to think, since apparently you have been reverted n times (with n > 50) on this matter. To finish this story, one word about the Latin language "historically spoken" in the peninsula: about that you can usefully read "Il linguaggio d'Italia" by Giacomo Devoto (nota bene: "Il linguaggio d'Italia", not "Il linguaggio degli Italiani" ). Devoto, as you for sure know, did not write children books either, but is the most important italian linguist of last century, among others the author of the Devoto-Oli vocabulary. In his excursus of the languages spoken in the peninsula in the last 4,000 (!) years, he points out that with the barbarian invasions, the collapse of the roman state and the following interruption of the comunications, the latin language "flew into flinders", (he speaks about "Frantumazione della latinità"), generating thousands of "mini-latins" ("i latini delle pievi") which are the ancestors of our current dialects. He also writes that the people of the peninsula in the early middle ages were under the illusion that they were still speaking Latin, finally understanding that it was not so only when - at the dawn of the ninth century - the Bible was brought back thanks to Alcuin to its original state (the fourth century Vulgata): only then the "Italians" realised that they were speaking something different. At that point, Latin (a dead, crystallised Latin, "the ceremony dress" according to his own words) was used only as language of the church and diplomacy, having lost since long time the contact with the people. Alex2006 (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is called original research on Wikipedia. Please, read the 4 sources and the article itself before continuing the discussion. Umberto Eco is a novelist and his quote has no historical relevance; he mixes geography and politics with his personal opinions. It's just an exercise in style.--Enok (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, this is no Original research at all: what I wrote above are only citations from Eco and Devoto. Umberto Eco is not only a novelist: he is the founder of Semiotics and is considered the most important italian intellectual of the last 30 years. According to wikipedia: "an Italian semiotician, essayist, philosopher, literary critic, and novelist". As you can see, novelist is considered the least important of his activities. So, he is fully entitled to say what he said. And, as I wrote above, Giacomo Devoto, whom you plainly ignore, is the most important Italian linguist of the past century. If you are still not convinced, I can add also the first volume of the "Storia d'Italia" of Einaudi, "I caratteri originali": the chapter about the language, specially the first part, named "Dal Latino al Volgare" repeats what Devoto writes: in the middle age people in Italy spoke no Latin anymore, but thousand fragmented idioms, which evolved into modern dialects and the volgare. About your sources, you can read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The only of the four which complies with this guideline is the second, which says that people in Italy in the ostroghotic age spoke Latin, and I agree with that, since at that time the population was still roman. Roman, NOT Italian. Among the other three, to say the least, none is a linguist and an academic source. Moreover, consider that linguistic is not a specialty of children book authors, and that there have been some advances in this field in the last 200 years. To finish, I repeat together with user Dk1919 Franking and EnStat that there is no consensus about your additions. Alex2006 (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Roman emperors?

I'm no expert on Italian culture. But we should some Roman emperors in here. That's just my opinion though. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Be careful in choosing which Roman emperors - because not all of them were Italians, for instance Trajan was born in Spain and Philip the Arab was born in the Roman province of Arabia. The article already has Julius Caesar, perhaps Augustus could be added.--R-41 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No Roman Emperor was Italian. You are confusing the two concepts of "born in Italy" (the peninsula) and that of "belonging to the Italian people", which started to exist long after the end of the Roman Empire. People living in Italy in the Classical Age were not Italian. Alex2006 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Italians of today are descendants of Romans who lived there 2,000 years ago. By Romans, I mean inhabitants of the city of Rome who had spread out (thinly) to conquer and administer a vast Mediterranean empire by that time. We watch movies in which hordes of barbarians invade, knock down the columns, set things on fire, and carry off the dancing girls. Actually, the population of Italy was in the 10s of millions (while the lombard migrations for instance numbered around 200,000). The Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Arabs, and Normans were each in the 10s of thousands. The descendants of these invaders are still there. But much more numerous are the descendants of the original Italians.

• See also : Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians: Migration, Development and the Birth of Europe. (London: Macmillan, 2009) bye. --Aries no Mur (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I think that I could not explain myself. "Italian" is a purely cultural concept, not racial. Of course Italians derive genetically in great part from the Romans and the other Italics, Etruscans, etc. , which inhabited the peninsula, and the Italian culture has its roots in the classical Age, but the ancient Romans are (were) not Italians. Being descendent of someone is not a sufficient condition to be like this someone. There has been a cultural discontinuity - occurred along several centuries in the middle ages - and this discontinuity has defined two different peoples. Alex2006 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Romans were an Italic people, Italians aren't just descencedants of Romans but every other Italic people to inhabit Italy. Their phenotypes today are no different from the bust of Romans we have on display. Why do people constantly try to deny Italians their heritage? Today Italians are still a majority Italic people. The German invaders did not have a substantial influence on Italian genetics. No matter how many "Nazi" try to claim so. Trying to take away Italian people's heritage is just another way of Anglophiles & Germophiles to spout superiority and undermine the Italic people. It also boggles my mind how people can be so stupid as to think it was impossible for Italic people to have blonde hair. People like this know nothing about antropology or genetics, otherwise they would know that not even all Germanics were blonde & blue eyed. Even in Scandinavia blondes are the minority. Hilariously, Scandinavians can dance around claiming "Viking heritage" without anyone even denying them of that, despite the fact that Vikings were also thousands of years ago as well. So were the Anglo Saxons, yet and still noone denies the English this heritage when they claim it. Again, double standards. People don't want Italians to have this heritage because they know, the Latin world was truly miles ahead of the rest of Europe and stayed that way for hundreds upon hundreds of years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:D7D:8154:3854:45AC (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As Alessandro57 said, "Italian" is a cultural concept, just as "German". "Italian" refers to people speaking the Italian language and having ties to the country of Italy. When there was a Italian language as opposed to latin is the time when the ethnical classification makes sense.--MacX85 (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Italians are not an ethnic group

This voice is clearly biased by an Italian nationalist agenda. Italians are by no means an ethnic group and not even a nation, unless you identify nation with state, of course. How can one define an ethnic group?

- Common origins? In this respect, I would like to know why you mention Celts and Greeks as if they were a negligible part of the heritage of present-day Italians. Celts in fact, were the vast majority of the populations of present-day northern Italy and all the populations of present-day northern Italy were Celtizised. The same holds for Greeks in southern Italy (although, perhaps, Greeks in present-day southern Italy were less numerous than Celts in present-day northern Italy). The people in present-day Italy, prior to late Iron age, were different ehtnic groups and the Italics were settled in the eastern part of present-day central Italy (not even the Etruscans or the Latins, strictly speaking, were Italics). So where are the common origins you dream about? You assume, without references, that the Roman conquest brought to an homogeneization of Italy. This is not true, on genetic and cultural grounds, see below.

- Common genetics? Twenty years ago, Piazza showed (in his words) that the Roman conquest of Italy and Europe left the genetic landscape virtually frozen to pre-Roman times. In his words, Italy, even nowadays, is a mosaic of well distinct ethnic groups. He showed that present-day Italy is divided into four distinct areas. Apart from Sardinia, which is a thing apart from Italy and Europe, the three groups are respectively dominated by the Celto-Ligurian, Etruscan and Greek contributions. Piazza clearly stated that, genetically speaking, nothing defines a supposedly Italian ethnic group. Cavalli Sforza, twenty years ago, backed this view and talked about substantal Celtic and Greek contributions in present-day northern and southern Italy, respectively. The more modern genetic studies are further backing this view. Present-day Italy is the European area which has the largest genetic scatter and the area in which there is less genetical relativeness between the various regions. Where is the homogeneization you are talking about? Surprisingly, present-day northern Italy and Tuscany appear to be genetical islands in Europe and they only reconnect to Europe (not to Italy in particular) if we consider contributions coming from the late Iron Age. When Celts and Etruscans were settling these areas. This shows that the Roman conquer, in both Italy and Europe, involved negligible populations shift, as Piazza clearly stated twenty years ago. Why don't you mention these studies?

-Common anthropometrics? Altough anthropometric studies, besides being politically uncorrect, are nowadays neglected, in favour of genetic studies (rightly or wrongly), they also show a divided Italy. Examine e.g. the map of blondism in present-day Italy and you will see quite a sharp north-south division. With exceptions (dark areas in parts of the Po Valley and light areas in parts of Umbria and near Benevento) that are justified by the pre-Roman and Dark Age population settlement. No homogeneization in this respect, too.

- Common culture? Giardina has shown that Roman Italy never became a nation or a unified culture. It was an administrative division (but August Italy excluded Sardinia, Sicily and parts of the southern Alps, Diocletian Italy included parts of present-day Slovenia, Austria and Hungary, why don't you mention this?) but, if (to a certain extent) Roman Italy enjoyed a common culture, this culture involved all of the Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance there was never a common Italian culture. There were a German Italy, a Byzantine Italy and an Arab Sicily. Later, there were two distinct Italies. Present-day central and northern Italy were the cradle of the Comuni and later the Signorie. This decentralized political model owes much to the Lombard heritage. In the south there was a bright but heavily centralized model, which owed much to the Byzantine and Arab heritage, although the Normans dominated for centuries. Why don't you mention this (sharp) division? There are thousands of books and papers on the north/south divide but you don't bother to mention them. Putnam, twenty years ago, quantified the north/south divide in terms of civicness. His maps (which quantifiy mentality) show nothing like a common Italian culture. They rather show a sharp north/south divide. Why didn't you bother to mention such an important study? Every Italian knows about the north/south divide and the massive south/north migrations led to problems which are very similar to the problems that foreign immigrations are proviking nowadays to the whole of Italy. Why did't you mention this? Not to mention the (sad) fact that southern Italians, in the USA, were initially classified as "not explicitely black" and, anyway, northern and southern Italians were classified as belonging to two different races.

- Common language? When talking about ethnic groups, one should refer to the so called "dialects", rather than to national languages which, almost everywhere, were largely imposed by the modern nation-states. Italian "dialects" are not dialects of standard Italian. They are separate languages. It is enough to consult such sites as the Ethnologue to realize this. Lombard, Piedmontese, Venetian, Sicilian, Neapolitan, central Italian, Tuscan etc. are distinct languages and are well correlated to the genetic map of Italy, as Piazza pointed out twenty years ago. The Cisalpine Gallo-Roman languages in present-day northen Italy even belong to a different lingustic group, as compared to central and southern Italian languages. Surely, from the XIV century the Tuscan languages was adopted by the elites and became a lingua franca in most of present-day Italy (and not only there). But even the elites were only employing Italian as a language for literature, science and official acts: at home, they didn't speak Italian. When Italy was "unified", less than 5% of the people spoke Italian. Does a lingua franca define an ethnic group? In this case, you should say that the Britons are an ethnic group too (and include the Irish in the British ethnic group). But everyone says that the United Kingdom is composed of four nations.

I can supply the references backing all of the statements above and they come from serious scholars, who have no political interest in what they write. On the contrary, they are all backing Italian unity. Anyway, if the fact that Italy officially defines itself as a nation (not an ethnic group) suffices to define it as an ethnic group, you should be impartial and also register the fact that a non-negligible fraction of people in Italy does not agree with this view (including myself, to be fair, but I never cited politically biased sources).

93.36.88.162 (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Stefano Spagocci

A few corrections to the statements above. Southern and northern Italians in the United States were never classified as a seperate race; rather seperated in terms of ethnicity. Big difference. Another thing, it seems it is you who exaggerating the differences between northern and southern Italians. Northern and Southern Germans have been found to be more different than northern and southern Italians. Dutch geneticisit Manfred Kayser has shown in the ethnic map of Europe, two things. The fact the northern and southern Italians are quite similar with some differences, not major differences. And most of all, all Europeans, from the Portuguese to the Polish, Sicilian to the Swiss, all Europeans are very very similar. View the map [1]

You like the few of people in Italy who are so obsessed with the north and south, its you and the Lega Nord. If you watch many Italian television series, there is no difference in phenotype in individuals from Caserta, Milano, Bari, and Genova. The fact that you believe this article has nationalists leanings is ridiculous.

Incipit

"Nation" is a vague and redundant term. It is also incorrect in relation to Italy, which is known to be composed of several national entities (see Venetian or Sardinian for example).--Enok (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As we said in the last discussion, the term "nation" is sourced and it comes from "La Storia d'Italia Einaudi". As you see, you have been already involved in a similar edit war which ended a month ago.--93.32.133.235 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you have not learned yet how to cite sources. Anyway, if we want to add random quotes without criteria, I have this: "Italy is not a nation, but an uneasy aggregate lacking legitimacy" (Davies 1982) or "Italy is merely a geographical expression" (Metternich 1847). I think that people who consider Italy a nation, and those who don't, are both fairly numerous. --Enok (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nation is defined as "a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory" and "a community of people composed of one or more nationalities with its own territory and government". Therefore I believe nation should be included. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Venetians and Sicilians don't have common descent nor history, not even the same language.--Enok (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Afro-Eurasian. La Storia d'Italia Einaudi is an encyclopaedia. The source you take in consideration is a personal opinion from an essay. Actually Metternich didn't say it, it's a popular legend which is unfit for an encyclopaedia like this. Sicilians and Venetians spoke also Italian in the past. Pietro Bembo wrote in Italian and Pirandello wrote in Italian as well.--93.32.133.235 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Particularly interesting is the fact that even in the Italian Wikipedia the term "nation" is not used, and here too people prefer the term "ethnic groups" for categories.--Enok (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Venetians and Sicilians do have a common origin. Both languages are within the Romance branch of Indo-European. For example, the dialects spoken from my ancestral region of Italy may not be the same as that spoken in a different area, and my ancestral tribe may not be the same as that of a nearby tribe, but that doesn't mean we are unrelated (unless it's referring to invading Germanic, Celtic, or Slavic tribes). Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, they are not dialects. Sicilian and Venetian are totally different languages, much older than Italian. Also, Northern ones are Gallo-Italic languages, part of another language group. If being part of the Romance group makes us a nation, Spaniards and French are part of it.--Enok (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said that they were dialects. Also, Gallo-Italic is still a classified as Romance. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In the Italian Wikipedia is different. The term "nazione" is not used for all the ethnic groups. In the English Wikipedia the term "nation" is used (i.e. English people).--93.32.133.235 (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's because "English people" are a nation, while "British people" not. Saying "Italian" is exactly like saying "British". The articles about German people and Spanish people don't use the term nation.--Enok (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As I told you, Italy is different from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is composed by four Constituent Nations (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) while Italy is a nation and Sicily, Veneto, Lombardy ... are not nations; they are "subdivisions" called regions.--93.32.133.235 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I know the administrative divisions of my country. But they don't reflect the different peoples of Italy.--Enok (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You are free to have your personal point of view on this issue. But in reality they are regions and this is what counts in an encyclopaedia.--93.32.133.235 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Finally, can we add again also the term "nation" like other articles (such as English People)? Recently, I have also noticed that at the beginning of the article you put in brackets the term "Italiani" and removed the capital letter? Why did you do that? In the other articles, the original name is not in brackets and starts with the capital letter.--93.32.133.235 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime I was waiting for an answer, I found three interesting and different sources that explain why Italians must be considered a nation as well as an ethnic group; They can be used as source even though there was already a similar source (La Storia d'Italia Einaudi) in this article. They are not original works and are impartial. Here are the links: Treccani.it - Miti e simboli della rivoluzione nazionale (Italian); Department of Political Science, Stanford University: Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country, James D. Fearon; Wordology.com - Italy/Italians: Development of a Nation How Italy became Italy, and how the Italians became Italians..--93.32.133.235 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you think? I'm waiting for an answer because I'm going to edit the incipit by using these valid sources.--93.32.133.235 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Great! Go ahead and add the sources, I've already restored the content. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources added--93.32.133.235 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Italians are a Nation since 1861. Venetians, Sardinians ecc. are not Nations since they don't have any longer a political system to support them. Those are ethnic groups, Italic Peoples not Nations. Italian is not the equivalent of British. Great Britain is not a Nation but rather a geographical place, Italy is not a geographical place but rather a Nation.--Francotti (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am quite doubtful about Italians being an ethnic group instead, I don't think so. Italians are political entities created with their Nation (Italy). As I said above the ethnic groups who populated and still inhabit inside the Italian Peninsula are Ligurians, Sicilians, Sardinians ecc. which I would call Italic Peoples Instead of Italian Peoples. The Italian People is one and only one in my opinion.--Francotti (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of scholars studied and study the meanings of the word "ethnicity", this is the reason why your doubt is right. Most of the sociologists believes that Italians are an ethnic group because they share a relatively common origin, history and religion. The fact that the Italian language spreads throughout Italy and the islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica) centuries before the unification only as cultural language along with Latin, is considered an important sign linked to the ethnicity. This becomes relevant when all the Italian states before the unification used Italian as official language along with Latin. Another variable taken by the sociologists is the Roman catholicism shared by the almost totality of Italians. Other relevant variables are the main features that characterised the Italian people such as the importance of cuisine, clothes and family in the everyday life; these features are much less relevant for other people who live few miles outside Italy. An important minority thinks that Italians are not an ethnic group indeed. This thought is based on the fact that the genetics of the Italian people is a lot different from North to South, from West to East (Sicilians, Ligurians, Sardinians ...and so on as you said). This thought is more linked to biology rather than sociology. According to them in Italy there would be tens of ethnic groups. In the same way France and Germany would have different ethnic groups that according to the first theory are considered part of the French and the German people (Occitans, Bretons, Corsicans, Arabs ... in France and Bavarians, Saxons, Turks ... in Germany). As you can see in other articles on the ethnic groups, it seems that Wikipedia gives to the terms "ethnicity" a meaning closely linked to the sociology rather than biology. This is the reason why this article considers Italians as an ethnic group. --EnStat (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about leaving the term with this meaning, especially to compare Italians to other international entities such as Germans or French (giving two different meanings at the same term simply by switching articles would just bring confusion). The relatively common origins and features are most probably due to the peculiar shape of the Peninsula (which has clustered its peoples relatively together and has partially isolated them from deep cultural mutations by foreign peoples) rather than due to a biological common root though. But, as you said, we are leaving the field of sociology for biology in this case. Well, many thanks for your explanation.--Francotti (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told, Italian was first introduced on the island of Sardinia only in 1760.--Dk1919 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Italian Nation was born in the low midlle ages. At least, this is what we learned at school in Italy. :-) About being or not an ethnic group, well, this depends only on the definition of ethnic group. Alex2006 (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Two incorrect things in this article

First of all, Italians were numbered as 78.807 in the last census of 2011 in Croatia, and then there is a serious error in this article that mentions Marko Polo as "Italian" when in reality everyone knows that he was Croatian, based on solid research.

Prove it. As far as I am concerned it stays in this article. Marco Polo was Venetian. Get over it.

About Italian in Croatia, I ask you to find a source and to put it together with this info. About the origin of Polo, you can usefully read this article: The curious case of Marco Polo from Korčula: An example of invented tradition, written by Olga Orlić (Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia), article that seems to have put an end to this controversy. Last but not least, please sign your comments here. Alex2006 (talk) 06:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but after researching this, I don't believe that Marco Polo was Croatian. Firstly, lets just say he was born in Korcula. This island at the time of Marco Polo was colonized and settled by Venetians, not Croats. Every reputable encyclopaedia that I have looked on this topic states he was born in the city of Venice, of the Venetian republic (Korcula) was a Venetian place, not Croatian. It is like the bringing up the notion that Garibaldi is somehow French because he was born in what is now Nice, which is formerly Nizza. He is an Italian. Just like Marco Polo. "Everybody knows he's Croatian?" Based on which encyclopaedias? The fact that each and every one of them states he was Venetian. Its very rich, that a Croatian researcher would of course claim Marco Polo as Croatian, but when I read unbiased and neutral sources, the claims are that he is Venetian. And that is why it stays in the article.

Presumably, you wrote the first paragraph here without signing in yourself. Galati (talk)Galati

Romans

I noticed that the Romans were removed from the picture of famous Italians. Why?68.151.54.38 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Romans

I wasn't going to say anything, but a quck look through the Archives show that the Romans were removed. Why?68.151.54.38 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Because not all Italians were Romans and not all Romans were Italians, Italians are a nation and ethnicity, being Roman was a way of life, it was being a citizen of that empire and not all were Italians. Guy355 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a clear distinction made between the Italians and the provincials. Yes, by the Edict of Caracalla Roman citizenship was extended beyond the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula, but that was fairly late in Roman history.68.151.54.38 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In the archives there is enough material about it. And, if you know Italian, on wiki:it there is a giant discussion which took place last year about this topic. Alex2006 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well. I'm not Italian, but if ancients aren't being used why are ancient greeks, arabs and chinese depicted on their respedtive pages?68.151.54.38 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Because ancient Greeks, Arabs and Chinese were exclusively Greeks, Arabs and Chinese. Alessandro, long before the edict of Carcalla, Roman citizenship was granted to Auxiliaries serving in the Roman army, and don't forget, the Roman empire went on to exist until 1453, and by that time, there were almost no Italians within its borders. Guy355 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Many of the Romans we know were from the Italian peninsula though. Julius Caesar, Scipio Africanus, Sulla, Pompey... all of Italian stock. They were definitely from Italy in the Republican period and for a good part of the Imperial period too. "May Italian courage make the Roman nation strong." - Virgil There was aRoman identity and it was Italian and recognized as such since Ancient times. Having citizenship is one thing, but the Romans themselves recognized that they were an Italian people group. You're correct that the "Roman" Empire went on for a thousand years after the fall of the west, but it was more Greek than anything. The language was Greek. The religion was Greek. The people were Greek. The culture was Greek. Funnily enough, Rome wasn't a part of that Roman Empire. China has gone through periods of balkanization too and that's what happened to the Roman Empire. As far as language and ethnicity goes, it's the Italians even if the Eastern Roman Empire can claim to be the rightful heir to the Roman Empire politically.68.151.54.38 (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I repeat: read the archives or, better, read some good book about the genesis of the Italian ethnos, like the first volume of the "Storia d'Italia" Einaudi ("I caratteri originali") which took place in the middle ages. Alex2006 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to Italian Romans such as Caesar or Scipio Africanus being added here, just like Hadrian is in the Spanish article. Guy355 (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Caesar and Scipio Africanus were Romans, not Italians, and according to the scholars, Romans and Italians are two different peoples. If you want to add any Roman to this article, you must first find reliable sources that affirm that Romans and Italians are the same people. This discussion already took place here in the past, and there is no reason to start it again and again without bringing new elements (elements which don't exist, since there is consensus in the academia about this). About Hadrian, read the article and you will understand the reason why it is there. It is the definition of Spanish People, which is purely territorial (Spanish is someone who live/lived in Spain) which allows to do that. The reason why this definition is adopted is that Spain is inhabited since millennia by several peoples which does not share much, except the fact that they live/lived on the same piece of land. Alex2006 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

What scholars? Yes. They were Italians. What you're saying is like saying Pericles wasn't Greek, he was Athenian. I've already given evidence from an Ancient source that the Romans identified themselves as Italians. There's a multitude of evidence that Italy was a special place and seperate from the provinces.

This is Italy, land sacred to the Gods. Pliny the Elder , Naturalis Historia, Book III, sec. 46. The whole of Italy swore allegiance to me. Augustus , Res Gestae Divi Augusti, XXV, lines 3-4.

I am pious Aeneas, who carries my Penates, snatched from the enemy, in my fleet with me, known by my fame above the ether. I seek my fatherland, Italy, and a race from highest Jove Virgil , Aeneid, Book I, lines 378-380.

Ungrateful Florence! Dante sleeps afar, Like Scipio, buried by the upbraiding shore. Lord Byron

Italy is, after France and perhaps in the same degree, the land in which love of country has the deepest roots in the hearts of its inhabitants. The fact is that perhaps nowhere else has nature been so prodigal with its enchantments and seductions. Therefore, although Italy has been, since the fall of the Caesars, the object of European covetousness, the eternal battlefield of powerful neighbors, and the theatre of the fiercest and most prolonged civil wars, her children have always refused to leave her. Save for some commercial colonies hastily thrown upon the shores of Asia by Genoa and Venice, history has not, in fact, recorded in Italy any important outward movement of population. Alfred Legoyt (1861) cited in: Richard N. Juliani (June 2005). Building Little Italy. Penn State Press. pp. 184–. ISBN 978-0-271-02864-4.

Then there was the time Winston Churchill said the Italians were the heirs of Rome. So we know that the Romans considered themselves an Italian people, that Italy was sacred and separate from the provinces and that later writers, politicians and historians saw the Romans as an Italian people. 68.151.54.38 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with you Alessandro, being Roman wasn't about ethnicity or nation, Romans were multi-ethnic/racial. Guy355 (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If a Chinese man moved to Germany, would that make him German? The answer is yes and no. They'd have citizenship, but it wouldn't change the fact that Caesar, Ooctavian, Virgil and the rest of them saw themselves as an Italian people. Look into Jus Italicum. 68.151.54.38 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same, Athens wasn't multicultural, it didn't control a multicultural empire. Your second point is also different, the idea of Roman isn't an ethnicity at all, it's more like being American or Australian, from the very beginning, Rome welcomed the outcasts, those who didn't belong, one of the first mythical kings of Rome, Tarquin, was of Greek and Etruscan background. Octavian and Caesar had every right to see themselves as Italians, they were Italians, but as the empire grew larger and more diverse, citizenship was being granted not based on one's Italian blood, but on his loyalty to Rome. Germany is also not an example as they clearly see themselves not as a population of immigrants. According to Roman mythology the stage was set when people from Troy came and mixed with the Latins. Guy355 (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It is exactly the same. Yes. Eventually, everyone got Roman citizenship. That doesn't mean that Ex Post Factopeople like Julius Caesar had no ethnicty. They recognized themselves as an Italian people. But as for that, China, Persia and Alexander and the Diadochi controlled multiethnic and large multicultural Empires. Does that mean Cyrus wasn't Persian, that Alexander wasn't Greek and that Ying Zheng wasn't Chinese? Yes. Roman wasn't an ethnicity any more than Athenian or Spartan was. The ethnic group did exist though. Make no mistake of that. The Romans, the Samnites, the Etruscans and all the rest acknowledged that they were an Italian people. That's irrelevant. I'm not saying that every one with Roman citizenship qulified as Italians. I'm saying that many of them did. Certainly the leading figures in the Republican period and forthe first half of the Empire (or quarter if we're counting the Eastern Roman Empire). But since you brought up Aeneas being a Trojan, you do know that the Greeks claimed descent from Egyptians and Aethiopians, right? Does that mean they weren't Greek? They also believed that Cadmus and Europa came from Phoenicia. 68.151.54.38 (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Rome's population under Justinian & Augustus

I find two claims in the first paragraph of the "The Middle Ages" section to be rather dubious. First being that Rome under Augustus was the "first "one million inhabitants" city" in the world. Can it be substantiated that Rome's pupulation hit one million under Augustus, and can it also be substantiated that Rome was the first city in history to hit one million in population? Furtermore, is there such a title as a ""one million inhabitants" city", or was the sentence just poorly-worded?

The second claim I want to dispute is that Rome's population "was reduced to a small village of just one thousand inhabitants" after Justinian I expelled the Ostrogoths, because I've come across figures from historians and other sources ranging from 10 thousand to 100 thousand, most agreeing on a number closer to the latter.

I would like to suggest that a "citation needed" tag be inserted after both claims, however I don't want to do it myself though since I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's editing rules. 74.102.3.14 (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Alex2006 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

COLLAGE IMPROVEMENTS, DO WHAT I AM SAYING

User:Alessandro57 e altri sentite un po'. User:Enok has created a fine college, but it has to improved. "Enrico Fermi", "Rita Levi-Montalcini", "Giacomo Leopardi were great persons, but they don't deserve to be labelled in the first line for many reasons. GALILEO GALILEI must be placed before Volta. I'm SHOCKED THAT LEGENDS LIKE LEONARDO FIBONACCI (one of the greatest mathematician of all time), LUCA PACIOLI (the founder of Accounting), and FILIPPO BRUNELLESCHI are not included here. They MUST BE LABELLED in the first line following GALILEO and VOLTA. Therefore some less notables that them should be removed, especially those from 21th century. Whatever I've said so far, must be done, because these are improvements. Now I want to mention about other things, if there is enough space, then try to add Giotto and Renzo Piano, but these are not compulsory, I'm just saying. If someone, then feel free to make a new collage. Also, it would be fine a 6x6 collage. Thanks.--2.96.179.22 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing

Fibonacci and Cardano are missing on the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swagsevokeoip (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

They will be added soon.--115ash^→(☏) 13:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)