Talk:Italians/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

New collage 2

The new one is created chronologically. It appears to be better than the previous one, although there are still many images from it. It doesn't look fine to comprehend Enrico Fermi in the first row. I added some notable Italians who deserve to be labelled. Ip 2.96.... have given a good idea. This collage contains some of the most influential people in the history. --115ash^→(☏) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

please explain yourself better. What does chronological mean? It is not chronological at all. Why doesn`t look fine to have Fermi in the first row? Why is the collage filled with mathematicians (although is missing the most important Italian mathematician of all times)? And why there is an italian-american wrestler, a sport that in Italy is unknown? Alex2006 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears more chronological than the former one. Fermi of the 20th century, despite of its notability, couldnt' be pasted in the first row seen that he doesn't not seem enough famous (as those categorized by me), and have a look at other articles like the German and French ones as well, in which there haven't been included persons of the Contemporary Age. In fact the inclusion of Fermi on the first row and others have spoilt the entire collage. As regards mathematicians, which important one are you talking about? Leonardo Pisano, known as Fibonacci, would be the the most important Italian mathematician in the history as well as the greatest Western one of the middle ages. Others like Giuseppe Peano, Bonaventura Cavalieri, Jacopo Riccati and Gerolamo Cardano aren't essential as much as Fibonacci. Wrestling is NOT unknown at all in Italy. It is followed by many. Notable Italian commentators of WWE are Giacomo Valenti, Christian Recalcati, Michele Posa and Luca Franchini. Bruno Sammartino holds the biggest record of the WWE Championship and he can speak Italian fluently, although sometimes he makes few mistakes in grammar. However, he will be removed from the collage. All in all, the new collage is a major improvement. --115ash^→(☏) 09:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear 115ash, the present collage has been built via consensus, is pretty stable, and is widely used on the other wikipedias. This means that, in order to change it, one need arguments, and these must be solid, not coffee shop chats, as we say in Italy. I agree with you that using a chronological order would be better, but affirming that your collage is better because it is more chronological than the old one does not mean anything. Others, as the German one, use the chronological order, and I approve it. Moreover, you did not explain why on your collage there is an abundance of mathematicians: maybe do you belong to this club? :-) I consider the insertion of the italo-american wrestler (who "sometime speaks Italian with a few mistakes") a nice "April Scherz" with one month of delay. If it were not so, one could think about trolling, but I am sure that this is not the case. :-) Anyway, back to the collage: I think that the only way to change it is a bottom-up process. This means that the community should first decide how many places assign to the different categories of notables: how many poets, artists, heroes, saints... (I hope that here you recognize the source :-)) After that, one can decide (always through consensus) how to fill each box. Each other procedure (above all the top-down one, which you used) is bound to fail, as you could notice also on wiki:it, where you have been brutally reverted without comment after a couple of minutes. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Those mathematicians are very notable. Pacioli and Galilei can't be considered just as mathematicians. Others like Fibonacci, Agnesi shouldn't be removed. With regard to the present collage, when has it been built through consensus? Could you send me the link, as I can't find it. --115ash^→(☏) 08:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear 115ash, please read again above what I wrote about the method which should be used for assemblying a new collage. This can be done only through consensus (which at the moment is not here) and a bottom up procedure. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

We can't go ahead with the current collage, which seems to spoiling the entire article. German and french ones have been built chronologically, whereas this hasn't. Also, in my opinion this includes numerous people who don't deserve any image here. My mosaic will be deleted and I don't care anymore to update that. I believe that we need to make a new consensus, which will start from now. Me and you Alex would be enough. We should call other users. Nick and Cavarrone are welcome. --115ash^→(☏) 09:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I admit that my collage is not the best but it is certainly much better that the former one. It is still missing many other notable Italians and I should remove Malfatti, Manzoni, Magnani e Sammartino. But there is no point to made this changes (for now). Unluckily none is leaving any comments here. A newly made ratification is required. --115ash^→(☏) 08:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for my grammar: I'm not anglophone. I restore the previous collage, which had a consensus, while this one still has to get a consensus. If this collage get a consensus, we'll restore it.

But the most important thing is that threads of this kind will continue indefinitely until we find a general criterion for all mosaic of peoples. Then I move this discussion to the bar.--Memnone di Rodi (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

None is replying. Therefore I am going to replace that image.--115ash^→(☏) 10:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

At now, two utents have replied, and refuse your collage: so, it has no consensus and can't stay on the page till it get consensus.--Memnone di Rodi (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, my collage can be ignored. But we need to another one. Shall we start a ratification? --115ash^→(☏) 13:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that we necessarily "need" another collage, but I agree with Memnone that would be better to have a general criterion to define a mosaic. Alex2006 (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Pope Francis

I reinstated the picture of Francis since he is an italo-argentinian who belongs to the italian diaspora, and then is a good example for this section. Pope Urbanus VIII, 100% Italian, is here out of scope. Alex2006 (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Then Lady Gaga can be an option.--115ash^→(☏) 13:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

For me no problem at all. It is only important that he/she was not born in Italy but has italian ancestry. Alex2006 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Alex, will you be able to expand this?. I can't improve the entire article alone. --115ash^→(☏) 13:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Roman Family

I removed the portrait of a Roman Family from the gallery (and the gallery itself, since this was the only picture). Altough this portrait could find its place in the ethnogenesis section, I think that it is out of place elsewhere, since it gives the impression that Romans and Italians are the same people. Alex2006 (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Romans certainly seemed to think that they were Italian. "The long smouldering fires of an Italian war were now fanned into flame by the death of Drusus. One hundred and twenty years ago,47 in the consulship of Lucius Caesar and Publius Rutilius, all Italy took up arms against the Romans. The rebellion began with the people of Asculum, who had put to death the praetor Servilius and Fonteius, his deputy; it was then taken up by the Marsi, and from them it made its ways into all the districts of Italy. The fortune of the Italians was as cruel as their cause was just; for they were seeking citizenship in the state whose power they were defending by their arms; every year and in every war they were furnishing a double number of men, both of cavalry and of infantry, and yet were not admitted to the rights of citizens in the state which, through their efforts, had reached so high a position that it could look down upon men of the same race and blood as foreigners and aliens." - Velleius Paterculus I don't know why this is important to you Alex, but an Italian identity has existed since Roman times and even before that. The ancients knew it and said as much multiple times. 68.151.54.38 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ancients should be added

Cicero, Julius Caesar, Augustus and the like should be added. An Italian Identity has existed for well over 2,000 years.68.151.54.38 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC) I'm going to create a new one.

It would be better for you not to lose time. As repeated ′′ad nauseam′′ on these pages, the overwhelming opinion in the academia is that the Italian ethnos and the Roman one are two different things. Due to the aforementioned lack of sources (it cannot be consider reliable a translated primary source where ″Italicus″ has been rendered as ″Italian″) and of previous consensus, each attempt to modify the template inserting without consensus Romans in place of Italians will be considered disruptive editing, and you will be reported. Last but not least, please sign your comments. Alex2006 (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Any mosaic is POV, without it would be better--->it:Italiani :-p --Kirk39 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Anyway, one thing is being POV, another thing going out of scope... Alex2006 (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

People before the 2nd millennium shouldn't be added. --115ash^→(☏) 09:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Alex2006 and 115ash, can you tell that to the Greeks and to the Spanish People? :D

I mean, their pictures include Homer and Trajan , but at the same time this article cant include Julius Caesar or other Romans..it is weird..just saying. I just want to know why. Barjimoa (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I have noticed that they have removed Trajan. Barjimoa (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Barjimoa: it is quite easy: we don't invent anything, but just report RS: and the academia says unanimously (and correctly, according to me) that Romans and Italians are two different peoples. Now you want to know why this difference with Greeks and Spaniards: I am not a specialist, but think that these are the reasons: in the case of the Greeks, when they started the war of independence against the Turks, they needed a foundation myth: they found Classic Greece, although the cultural distance between Perikles and a Greek Bandit of the 1800s is possibly larger that that between Caesar and a peasant of Lazio of the same age. They could have chosen another one, the Byzantine Empire, which would have made more sense, but Classical Greece was chosen. In the case of the Spaniards, because of the multiple ethnicities which live in the peninsula, the only "unifying" factor was the residence there: Spaniards are those who lived or live in Spain, independently from his/her culture/language, etc. That's why on the Spanish collage there is place for everyone, from Trajan to the Arab kings. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, a montage for Greeks is needed. --115ash^→(☏) 09:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Flag

@Alex6 and @Denisarona, as the consues has been built, please from now on revert all these kind of edits. Thanks.--115ash^→(☏) 08:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Much better. Denisarona (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not keep the collage and a decent amount (there are too many) of images in sections, like for Germans? If two thirds of Italians don't even live in Italy, the flag is not a good representation. --130.126.255.198 (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

All these kind of edits without consensus will be reverted.--115ash^→(☏) 09:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Strange comment - two thirds of Italians don't live in Italy - where is the source?? Denisarona (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the Ip referred to those Italian Americans.--115ash^→(☏) 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New collage 3

Just created this one. It is made chronologically, similar to German, French others. --115ash^→(☏) 09:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As already pointed out here and on wiki:it, there is no consensus about this collage. Please discuss it on the talk page, as you proposed above on 19 June, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is en wiki. Some people agree with my one. Let the Italian to be concluded, then we can see what can be done. --115ash^→(☏) 10:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus, as I say, and there was no discussion. Because of WP:BRD, please revert it to the last stable version, then we can start a discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We can't allow that collage to be pasted here. It was ruining the whole article. In the meantime my one must be labelled. Also I've tried to improve and expand the article, while you're not doing anything. --115ash^→(☏) 10:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Most likely you mean well, but right from the start, I see a major problem with your collage: There is not a single person in the collage from south of Rome. Not a single Southern Italian or Insular Italian. I'm going to assume this was not done on purpose. But you can see where this is problematic, I would hope. Madreterra (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

South of Rome? Do we need to include people from each city? I've just comprised notable people. If you have any other recommendation feel free to post it. --115ash^→(☏) 11:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that this collage, made by 115ash, is better than the one currently used. Each person in this collage have contributed to make Italy greater, morevoer the cronological order makes the image clearer and more attractive. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The chronological order is a big plus, but there are several people who according to me does not deserve to stay there. Alex2006 (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I also suggest to insert people like Machiavelli, Verdi, Garibaldi and Marconi. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about all of them. Alex2006 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Only Machiaveli and Verdi deserve. I'll remove beccaria and Segré. Does anyone like a 6x6 one?--115ash^→(☏) 14:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In this collage according to me there are several problems:

• There are too many people: I think that 24 (like by the Germans) would be the right number;
• The following are according to my opinion not notable enough to be representative here: Luca Pacioli (please read what the Enciclopedia Italiana writes about him), Luigi Galvani, Laura Bassi, (same as Pacioli) Emilio G. Segrè, Francesco Redi, Laura Pausini. Valentino Rossi can stay here only if we adopt the German model, where the last row is devoted to "famous", not notable, people of today. Who could be a candidate to substitute the ones not notable enough? Among the artists, Raphael, Bernini, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Ariosto, Monteverdi, Verdi, Puccini, De Sica; about the scientists, Lagrange; politicians: Innocent III, Mazzarino, Lorenzo de Medici, Cavour. Intellectuals: Machiavelli, Guicciardini, Bruno, Pasolini, Croce; and so on...

In general, each collage has a certain degree of POV, so the best solution could be to keep only those notables where there is consensus. Otherwise, there will be always danger of reverts and edit wars. Another solution, which has been adopted at wiki:it, is to remove the collage. Alex2006 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sincerly I have no preferences about that. All the people mentioned by Alex could be good and, honestly, in my personal view, people like Petrarch, Raphael, Boccaccio and Verdi, are far more famous than Pacioli, Redi or Sergrè. Anyway I repeat, I have no preferences, but we should insert people who had contributed to make Italy greater and better. Morevoer, in the German one, there are also politicians like Bismark and Adenauer, in my view we should insert Cavour or De Gasperi. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

If the criterion is the notability, we should put the people which are considered the most notable, and to them belong also politicians. Some months ago, I proposed as preliminary step to define how many places each category (scientists, politicians, etc.) should have in the collage. The proposal is always valid although, also in this case, there will be always a POV element also there. Alex2006 (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We can't include more than 2 painters. Yes, people like Pacioli and others are not that well-known, but their contributions are outstanding. Redi should stay here. Also we should give some spaces for women. Anyway, take a precise and quick decision. --115ash^→(☏) 08:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Pacioli, as states the Enciclopedia Italiana was basically a vulgarizer:

Colto, in relazione con i maggiori ingegni e artisti dei suoi tempi, influenzato dal neoplatonismo ficiniano, grande divulgatore delle scienze matematiche in tutte le declinazioni (cogliendone anche gli aspetti esoterici), Pacioli riunì nelle sue opere la summa del sapere matematico occidentale. Come nessun altro seppe sfruttare le possibilità della stampa che, oltre a procurargli fama, diffuse i suoi scritti che diventarono, così, il punto di partenza per le ricerche successive

As you can read, the above judgement does not allow to consider him one of the really great Italians.

"Only two painters". The contribution of Italy to world art is exceptional, so I think that should also be represented in a corresponding way.

"Some space for women": an encyclopedia should not be politically correct. In a catholic society like Italy was, in the past was extremely hard for women to emerge. This means that, with some exception (Santa Chiara) women that can be chosen here come only from the XIX-XX centuries (Montessori, Montalcini).

"take a precise and quick decision" Wikipedia works with consensus, and building consensus take its time. Alex2006 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

. Of course, it takes time. But the consensus began since May, when you ignored it.--115ash^→(☏) 11:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So, any response? What have you decided? --115ash^→(☏) 09:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Decided what? From above it is clear what according to me is not good in the collage:

• There are too many people;
• There is a lot of people who are not enough notable to stay there: Pacioli, Bassi, Bruni, Galvani, Segrè.
• Three naturalists (Redi, Malpighi, Spallanzani) are too many;
• Too many scientists, not enough artists (Raphael and Bernini, among others, are missing);
• Notable politicians, like Cavour and Garibaldi, are missing;
• Pausini and Rossi are out of place.

So, there is no consensus, as there was also no consensus some months ago. moreover, if this collage would be adopted, it would be reverted in a couple of weeks by some other user, as already happened in the past.

At this point, there are following possibilities:

• Wait for the meaning of other users;
• Disregarding all the people which refused the collage in the past, since at the moment only two of us expressed here their meaning (the other one is here because of Canvassing), you can go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard;
• Insert a reduced collage, containing only the people where there is consensus;
• Remove the collage altogether, as it has been done at wiki:it;

Alex2006 (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not make a larger collage and put it at the end of the article? Denisarona (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Still larger? Look at the dimensions of the collages of the other nations: they are all smaller. A larger collage would imply that Italians have more "smart" people then the other nations, which is not. And then, why should we hide it? The problems of this collage are apparent to everyone who has some knowledge of the Italian civilization, and are summarized above. We should address these problems here. Alex2006 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

My idea was to include e.g. Garibaldi, Raphael, etc. in a gallery type collage near the end of the article, maybe near See also or References. I agree that the likes of Redi, Malpighi, Spallanzani, etc. are a bit excessive for a collage at the top of the article. Regards Denisarona (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Denis, I did not understand well what you meant. Anyway, I agree with you that a gallery at the end would make less harm then a collage at the top. Still less harm could be done creating dedicated sections (for example "Notable female Italians") and inserting there related pictures. In this context also second or third rank notables like Bassi and Agnesi could find their place. Alex2006 (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That also works well for me. Denisarona (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead with this ratification. Again Alessá, I did not built it based merely on notability but also on outstanding work. --115ash^→(☏) 09:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but, notability in this case derives necessarily from the accomplished work. And I don't think that, only to cite an example, the works of Laura Bassi are more outstanding then those of Lagrange. If it is not so, please show it. Alex2006 (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In effect I said about both notability and significant contributions. Bassi is very influential as a woman while many of Lagrange's were done outside Italy. Then it was you Alé to tell to don't add more than one mathematicians. Certainly Lagrange is not more remarkable than Fibonacci and Cardano.--115ash^→(☏) 10:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

" Bassi is very influential as a woman". Please explain. Alex2006 (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No. I won't. There is no need of an explanation. Have a look to her article. So you mean that Bassi would be rubbish and should be threw out. Isn'it? --115ash^→(☏) 10:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is need to explain (the ipse dixit does not work here, and the burden of proof lies upon you), since until now many of the people coming to this thread does not understand this insertion, like the others which I mentioned above. And to inform myself I didn't read the article of Wikipedia (Wikipedia cannot be the source of itself), but that on the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, that maybe you could also usefully read. Here some citation:

Questa attività appare tuttavia di ampiezza limitata e d'interesse modesto

and

Così limitato l'orizzonte della sua attività scientifica, rimane però valida l'opera di brillante e appassionata divulgatrice della Bassi

If you read this article, you understand that she was basically a vulgarizer, with little original contribution to science. Her figure is historically important since she was one of the first women to reach an academic position, but this is not enough to bring her into our collage, since politically correctness is not (yet) a guideline here. As written before, Montalcini and Montessori deserve to stay here, Bassi not. You can maybe read also the corresponding article about Lagrange (who, by the way, reached fully notability while was still in Italy), so you can understand the difference between the two. Alex2006 (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, she'll be removed. Agnesi and Piscopia should be added. We need to give some spaces to women.--115ash^→(☏) 11:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

No, these two have the same problem, they not enough notable. As I wrote above, this is not the place to be politically correct. This means that if you want to add notable women, you have to look at sectors where they reached full notability, and this is neither science nor the figurative arts, which have been until recent male monopoly. Where else? for sure one notable woman is Clare of Assisi. You can find some others among opera singers and actresses (for example, Eleonora Duse and/or Loren). If, as I said, one reserves the last row to famous people of our times (like in the German article), one can add famous women there. Alex2006 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! How these are not ENOUGH NOTABLE???? Not sure when this consensus will be end. --115ash^→(☏) 12:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You can usefully read the Dizionario Biografico and the Enciclopedia italiana about them: same story as for Bassi. About the works of Piscopia:

Sono opere di circostanza, o di esibizione erudita e artificiosa piuttosto faticose e farraginose anche quando sono ispirate, come l'ode al Crocifisso, da una, genuina sensibilità religiosa, "Scarsissimo o nullo è il valore di tutta cotesta letteratura ascetica e rimeria spirituale": così ne scrisse il Croce, prendendola ad esempio di tutto un filone letterario minore del Seicento, e ci sembra che il suo giudizio possa difficilmente esser soggetto a revisioni.

I leave to you as (easy) homework the task to find analogue quotes by Agnesi. :-)

About consensus, I agree: continuing to bring people like them, I see the reaching of consensus a very difficult task. Alex2006 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are looking for famous Italian women why not add Lucrezia Borgia? Denisarona (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Also Matilde di Canossa or Isabella d'Este would be good choices. Alex2006 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Grazia Deledda should be included imho. She was the first Italian woman to win the Nobel prize: a remarkable event I think. I totally agree with adding Maria Gaetana Agnesi, probably one of the most known Italian women in the world. Adding some statesmen like Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour or Alcide De Gasperi is not bad, in particular the first one is frequently taken as example of political realism (usually along with Bismarck). Some actors widely known such as Marcello Mastroianni or Totò. In my opinion Luigi Pirandello should be kept because he is widely studied abroad and in Italy his works are considered fundamental in all the Italian literature courses. In my opinion the Italians who had the deepest influence in the Western culture (Leonardo Fibonacci, Marco Polo, Luca Pacioli, Cristoforo Colombo, Galileo Galilei, Alessandro Volta, Guglielmo Marconi) should be included as well. I hope my advices will be useful.--93.32.113.14 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

" Maria Gaetana Agnesi, probably one of the most known Italian women in the world.". Who says that? Why should she be famous? Please explain, possibly bringing some reputable sources. About Pacioli, please read above what the Enciclopedia Italiana writes about him. Alex2006 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mine are only advices. Luca Pacioli created the bases for the financial accounting. Agnesi among the Italian women is the most known in terms of academic works and one of the most important female mathematicians in the history. http://math-blog.com/2008/09/28/10-remarkable-female-mathematicians/. Anyway, Montalcini or Montessori are two other "female giants", so no problem if we want to add both or one of them. But honestly, I took part at this talk because I saw some users want to change the collage. The current collage isn't that bad, but in case you want to change it I would like to give some adivices, just this.--93.32.113.14 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Pacioli did not create anything, he just collected the accounting methods which have been in use since centuries by the Italian merchants.

For Agnesi is valid what I said above for Bassi: she was a vulgarizer, but her contributions to mathematics was negligible (the curve that goes under her name had been already discovered by Grandi, and she described it only in her manual). She is historically important since she was one of the first female mathematicians, period.

In particolare, andarono sotto il nome di "curva" o "versiera" di A. curve diverse, sebbene analoghe alla cubica piana razionale di equazione x2y eq. a2(a - y), già nota a P. Fermat (Oeuvres de F., I, Paris 1891, pp. 279-280; III, ibid. 1896, pp. 233-234), studiata e denominata più tardi da G. Grandi (Nota al trattato del Galileo sul moto naturalmente accelerato, in G. Galilei, Opere, III, Firenze 1718, p. 393) e che l'A. divulgò nella sua opera (Instituzioni analitiche, I, pp. 380-381, 391-393).

A last advice: at Wikipedia we should use reliable sources (all the quotes above come from the Enciclopedia italiana, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, which is online), and not blogs. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I partially agree with the IP. The female scientists that I mentioned were unforgettable women. Anyway, I believe that a consensus like won't resolve anything. We need to start a ratification.--115ash^→(☏) 10:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What is a ratification?Alex2006 (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It is based on vote. Where every users put their opinion, such as this. This doesn't make any problem, but the only negative thing is the there many be some people who give their vote to wrong persons. What do you think?--115ash^→(☏) 09:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that voting on Wikipedia is simply not contemplated: please see WP:DEMOCRACY about that. Wikipedia is based on debate and reached consensus, not polling. Alex2006 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I already discussed it on it.wiki. This doesn't regard WP:DEMOCRACY at all. This is another type of vote, which is permitted on Wikipedia. See other collages. But what you want to do?--115ash^→(☏) 10:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is your opinion, and I am not going to discuss it here. If you will start a "poll" here, I will go to a board (possibly ANI) and ask an admin to study the question. My opinion, supported by the above mentioned guideline, is that polling on Wikipedia is not allowed. Concerning this debate, I think that this is a clear case of WP:IDONTHEAR (please read it). You proposed this collage here twice (the second with minor changes) and once on wiki:it. In all cases, it has been rebutted by other users (on wiki:it quite rudely), always with the same reason: many of the "notables" proposed are not notable enough to deserve a place in the collage. Incidentally, these are more or less the same notables on whose articles some months ago you introduced peacock terms (and if I remember well, you have been blocked for this behavior). For many of them, I brought a reliable and important source (the Enciclopedia Italiana) which confirms the notability problem. Moreover, I proposed twice, some months and a couple of weeks ago, several ways to go forward, and last but not least, myself and another user have brought alternative notables as suitable candidates. All this led to nothing, because of your refusal to get the point. Bye Alex2006 (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Then I just go ahead by labelling my collage.--115ash^→(☏) 11:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The only problem is that you possibly do not have the necessary consensus. Denisarona (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Denis. if "labelling" means putting the collage in the article, this means going against consensus, and this would lead for sure to a call to ANI or another board. What I can advise, instead, is to devote yourself to edit more articles, and study better the sources: for example, the "dizionario biografico degli Italiani" is a superb work, written by the best Italian specialists of the different fields, and can help you to understand the contributions of each "notable" to the Italian culture. Alex2006 (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Even the current one wasn't made through consensus. I've created 2 collages so far. The recent one has been built chronologically. Therefore we go with no collage in the article.--115ash^→(☏) 11:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The removal of the old collage is one of the suggestions which I gave you, and is perfectly acceptable. So we reached the state of wiki:it, where all the collages have been removed. Considering that these collages are source of discussions and edit wars, and that a part of them is necessarily POV (I don't think that none would object to put there Dante or Galileo :-)), this is a good solution, at least for the moment. Alex2006 (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like the American one. --115ash^→(☏) 14:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

As you see, we are not alone :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There wouldn't be any Americans without Italians. Dunno why we didn't do this before. This will be having much more respect.--115ash^→(☏) 14:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree: "La bandiera dei tre colori è sempre stata la piu' bella" always applies! :-)

BTW, in a while I will create the section for figurative arts (painting and sculpture) which until now is missing. Alex2006 (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright! But you have to admit that I have improved a lot the article, by adding all those sections as well as images. Now I will try to add a section for JURISTS.--115ash^→(☏) 14:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Ash, I can be only pleased when you do a good job, like here in the article! A section for jurists is a good idea: after all, Italy is also defined as the homeland of the Law. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Homeland of the law! Really? Why? Because of all the laws made during the Roman Empire? Can you provide a source for it? I'll create it as soon as I will have free time. I already asked you before if you can enlarge the architecture and engineering section. --115ash^→(☏) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually Italy "fatherland of the law" is like Rome "caput mundi". I think that you can find a lot of sources also on the web about that. Of course the definition comes from the large amount of Roman and Italian jurists. Alex2006 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Ash about one of his statements!!! - There wouldn't be any Americans without Italians (Totally unsourced, haha). Regards Denisarona (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! @Denisarona, maybe you've taken it seriously. Isn'it? Just to say 2 names, Colombus and Vespucci. Thanks. ;)--115ash^→(☏) 08:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, can I give you some alternatives - the Vikings, St. Brendan (and anyway Colombus was working for the Spanish!!!!!) Enjoy. Denisarona (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd be right. Still both Colombus and Vespucci were Italian. Most of the white people living in the USA and Canada have Italian descent. Americans demonstrated their power through the nuclear weapon, which were created by 3 Italians, comprising the main one, Enrico Fermi. Take this! :-)--115ash^→(☏) 14:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in this issue, but I cannot refrain from stating that it is not true that "[m]ost of the white people living in the USA and Canada have Italian descent". In fact, many more Americans have either a German or an Irish ancestry or both of the two (just look at File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg). --Checco (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Vekkió, that is a census showing those from the 20th century. Certainly all Italians brought from Colombo weren't included? Or even those South Italians of the 18th century. --115ash^→(☏) 08:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Very few Italian immigrants (virtually none) went to the United States in the 18th century, and their descendants are definitely included in those figuers (and they are disproportionately included whether compared with the original English settlers). Btw, Columbus travelled to the current United States. --Checco (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)