Talk:Sardinian people

Genetics

the origin of a population is done with the study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups, not with HLA that is based on human immune system, morover, properly, due to the genetic isolament of sardinian population, some auto autoimmune disorders, as multiple sclerosis, are very spread among sardinians. th level of admixture with foreign populations among sardinians is the lowest among the europeans, together the basques and the Sami people, the recent studies of Dienekes confirm it: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/10/continuity-between-neolithic-bronze-age.html http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UOHFTxL-bOA/TOYpHMIrsVI/AAAAAAAAAOE/on63ho681uI/s1600/ADMIXTURE10.jpeg

There isn't any genetic relation with multiple sclerosis, the high incidence of this disesase in Sardinia is realted to the "Sardinia's Project" the first world massive experimental project to eradication of malaria with the use of DDT at the end of 1940's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.241.76 (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Rollback original research

This fictional "ethnic group" is inexistent in all relevant articles: eg here, here, here, here, here and here. There is no legal recognition, it's not in common use, there's any consensus about this definition, status and composition. In Italy there are hundreds of romance languages ​​and dialects, none of which creates an "ethnic group". The proper category is Italian people, like any other population composed only by Italian citizens, who all live in Italy, born and raised here.

Moreover the Law 482/1999 protects only two (and different) languages ​​spoken in Sardinia (Catalan and Sardinian), not Ligurian and Corsican (Sassarese and Gallurese), and of course many Sardinians speak only Italian. So the claim of linguistic minority for all sardinians is simply invented. --Felisopus (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fictional probably only for you. Is your (well known) agenda direct to deny that sardinians are an ethnic group due to the fact that you are born in Sardinia by not sardinian parents? Regional laws recognise all minority languages in Sardinia. The link that you are shown is showing only a national law. ~ ~ ~

The Info Box

1. The pictures shows Sardinians and their costumes from all over Sardinia and has little to do with "notables" and the POV that comes along with it; The image is thus a proper represntation of Sardinians;
2. On what is related "ethnic groups" based on? is it culture (i.e. language), historic ties or is it blood i.e. genetic ties (which actually mirror the true historic evolutionary ties); For in the latter case Sardinians are archaic and isolated - closest only to Neolithic farmers and that overwhelmingly so; Admixture analysis however revealed that the Neolithic component is identical to the modern-day "South_European" component thus making Sardinians most related to all other "South Europeans" and strongly associated to the Caucasoid Mediterranid race in general; I think someone poosted a 'BLOG link' above years ago (but thats just a BLOG ref), for proper academic data - just rquest;
3. I didnt get the Corsican edit-war, The link in question is of course just an abstract (for pay one can access the entire study) but it is upmost clear from the abstract alone that it is speciifically about Corsicans and to add from the abstract : Compared to the other Mediterranean populations, Corsica also appears to be greatly differentiated from the populations of regions such as France and Tuscany ..... The Mediterranean population most comparable to Corsica is Sardinia. so French is somewhat false and misleading given that ref. attached: Agilulf2007 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No. People from Corsica are really diverse and not comparable to the people from Sardinia just because an abstract by using an irrelevant sample talks about genetic relations--93.32.127.27 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

First and foremost your comment is riddled with POV; What you describe as an "irrelevant sample" are in fact 1,164 Corsicans tested from five different regions of Corsica! Your fixation about the link being a mere Abstract is complete nonsense altogether: 1. This abstarct is based on a proper Academic study and 2. it is the sum-up of the results obtained in that acadermic study; i.e. this one:
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002%2Fajhb.10133?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1&purchase_referrer=onlinelibrary.wiley.com&purchase_site_license=LICENSE_DENIED_NO_CUSTOMER
published in the 'American Journal of Human Biology' (2003) readily available for 6$ (48h view) 38$ (complete); But for all i care the duiscussion on which specific groups are closest to Sardinians can continue - though i already highlighted the genetic reality in my first post (Basques, Greeks, North Italians, Central Italians, Albanians and Corsicans); But what is most def. an absolute and undisputed scientific fact (based on numerous genetic analysis) is that Neolithic farmers are the closest group to modern-day Sardinians and overwhelmingly so - all academic data at request; Agilulf2007 (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Agilulf! I'm going to reply point by point.

1)As for me, I'm fine with the dressed-in-costume people image. I removed another one that depicted a collage about the "notable people" which is entirely POV instead, for obvious reasons (like I said, there's no criteria to determine who's actually "notable"; besides, the mosaic included people that were mainland Italians of Sardinian descent rather than Sardinians, like Goffredo Mameli!). As a Sardinian, I think the costume image may be a little bit misleading, though: since the advent of globalization, Sardinians don't dress in costume anymore unless they're celebrating some local feasts. 2)Ethnic affinities are based on historical ties (politically Sardinia's an autonomous island that belongs to the Italian boot, now) as well as cultural (we share plenty of things with Spain and Catalonia, including surnames originated on the Iberian peninsula; we Algherese also used to speak a remote dialect of Catalan!) and genetic (Sardinians and Corsicans share a common bond in that regard). I'm personally fine with the "Neolithic peoples" thing, but I removed it nonetheless in fear of that being considered controversial: sorry, but you may want to provide sources for that statement, in order to keep that piece of info. 3)Finally someone got my point. Look, in my humble opinion there would even be no need to discuss about that, since *I* included that related and legitimate scientific paper, which I also read. The only reason I made that replacement is because *that* anonymous user is always wreaking havoc in every page related to Sardinia, Sardinians and Sardinian language, pursuing edit warring and disrupting editing with POV comments and even personal attacks. I frankly don't know how to deal with him, because he's always changing his IP, so I decided to make reply on my talk page in hopes that he may want to create (or use) an actual account. I believe he's aware of his behaviour, unfortunately. Anyway, I replaced Corsicans with French due to their political affiliation and because of the fact that the anonymous user kept reverting; I released the source along with an abstract of it, so that the reader may want to give a look at that and make an idea about it (that's what every abstract does, in fact); it's obvious that one should then read the available scientific paper in its entirety, if he wants to get past the superficial level. Sorry for my not so good English, but I'm really writing in a hurry.--Dk1919 (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, Dk1919 Franking

Yes, i got a little confused by all the edits (especially the many diff. IPs) so i just made a general comment on this talk-page; And you are correct, it is very odd that so many diff. IPs all have the same opinion and that at the same time as well, so i really dont and didnt understand what his problem or problems are; The reason i favor the 'costume image' is because its historic and it shows (in the truest sense of the word) sardinian people; for i absolutely agree that notables are mostly POV and never fully representative to begin with; As for point 2: The way i see it is that nation-states are mostly a modern invention for example Italy 1861 or Germany 1871, not to mention all the changes after WWI or what happend to Yugoslavia just 20 years ago or the dev. of the EU within the last 20 years, thus political borders mean very little today especially with the reality of globalization, but maybe its is also recent genetic insights that make political borders mean absolutely nothing (at least to me); For example:
Ralph and Coop 2013 -
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555
"However, the rate of IBD sharing within the [Iberian] peninsula is much higher than within Italy — during the last 1,500 years the Iberian peninsula shares fewer than two genetic common ancestors with other populations, compared to roughly 30 per pair within the peninsula; Italians share on average only about eight with each other during this period."

This means that the Portuguese and Spaniards (though politically divided) are more related to each other (3x as much) than Italians are to each other despite being a political unit; A recent study (nov.2015 Fiorito et al) also revealed (what also DiGaetano et al 2012 revealed) that Italains are genetically diverse from each other and form distinct clusters
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2015233x2.jpg
sar=sardinia/cal=calabria/sic=sicialian/bas=basilicata/lat=latium/tus=tuscany/lom=lombardy/pie=piedmont/emr=emilia-romagna/aos=aosta-valley
I do understand that of course Alghero is Catalan (Arragonese period) and the Gallura strongly tied to Corsica (also Tuscany by rule of Maritime Pisa), that has to be highlighted absolutely; i fully agree that these are important/fundamental historic and cultural ties; Agilulf2007 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the Neolithic-link to modern-day Sards; There is nothing controversial about it, in fact by now it is an upmost bullet-proof genetic fact; all started with the sequencing of Ötzi the Iceman (in 2011 Keller et al) the first pre-historic remain to be sequenced and the Sardinians stood out in as being extremely similar to 5300 year old Ötzi; Skoglund et al (2012) than tested Neolithic farmers from Gökhem (funnel-beaker) and Neolithic hunter-gatherers from Gotland (Ajvide) and revealed that farmers and hunter-gatherers were two diff. stocks of people, and the farmers being of the same stock as Ötzi; In the last years there was an aDNA hyper-testing, by now several dozens of farmers and hunter-gatherers from all over Europe have been tested and the results were always the same i.e. manifesting that farmers all belonged to one stock and modern-day sardinians are still so close to them that they can be considered the last Neolithic remnants in Europe;

Mathieson et al 2015:
"Both the Tyrolean Iceman and a Funnel Beaker individual from Sweden (both ~5,000 years old) were at the southern edge of present-day European genetic variation, resembling living Sardinians, rather than the present day populations of the Alps or Scandinavia. The Stuttgart female (~7,500 years ago) was an early European farmer (EEF) from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture of central Europe and shared this affinity to Sardinians, documenting a relatively homogeneous population of early farmers since the Early Neolithic. The EEF traced part of their ancestry to the Near East but there issubstantial uncertainty about the proportion due to a lack of an appropriate reference population"

Omrak et al 2016: (most recent study) tested a Neolithic farmer (Kum6) from Kumtepe in Anatolia
"Kum6 shows a strong population continuity with present-day Sardinia ..... We show that this individual displays genetic similarities to the early European Neolithic gene pool and modern-day Sardinians, as well as a genetic affinity to modern-day populations from the Near East and the Caucasus. Furthermore, modern-day Anatolians carry signatures of several admixture events from different populations that have diluted this early Neolithic farmer component, explaining why modern-day Sardinian populations, instead of modern-day Anatolian populations, are genetically more similar to the people that drove the Neolithic expansion into Europe."

Haak et al 2015: {supp. p.120}
"Sardinians are the population that is closest to early European farmers with an estimated ~90% descent from them"

Gamba et al 2014: {farmers from the Carpathian-basin/Hungarian-plain (7 Neolithic / 1 Chalcolithic i.e post-Neolithic)
"Our Neolithic genomes all cluster with affinity to Southern Mediterranean individuals, particularly Sardinians, echoing the results of previous direct analyses of European Neolithic and post-Neolithic genomes"

In dec.2015 a study was published where an Irish Neolithic woman (Ballynahatty) was tested - same result closest affinity to Sards and Basques; Günther et al (2015) tested Chalcolithic remains in Spain (El Portalon) same result closest to Basques and Sards; And Altentoft et al (2015) tested amongst others 3 burials from the Remedello culture (Chalcolthic) and also here same result closest to Sards; Trust me when i tell you that these are just the most recent studies and a modest selection; It simply is a manifested fact that sards are extremely archaic and also isolated from other modern pops., and are only close to (genetic admixture) and only cluster close with (PCA-plots) Neolithic folks; Before the extensive aDNA results, Sardinia already stood out as an oddity - an island in the middle of the Medit. sea but with a high frequency (38% n=1189 Francalacci et al 2013) of Y-chromosome haplogroup I2 (I2a-M26); I2 being the oldest Haplogroup in Europe and today very scarce apart from Sardinia and Bosnia;Agilulf2007 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You managed to explain everything and, as a Sardinian, I also definitely agree with you. But that's not enough - my opinion *does* matter only to a certain extent - you need to insert every source you've patiently posted here in the infobox. You mentioned several scholars, for instance - it'd be terrific if you provide the books and/or websites where you found these info (I'd like to take this opportunity and congratulate you for drawing our attention to these elements, by the way, you seem to be quite knowledgeable in regard to genetics). As for the anonymous, don't mind him. I fear our Italian edit warrior may be politically biased, and he shows when picking on Sardinians. Maybe he's someone from the Italian wikipedia who hides under several IPs in order to get away with admonitions and keep pushing POV with his revert wars, hoping to wear the others out in the process. A pity, indeed, but he'll move on eventually (I hope). Tchüss!--Dk1919 (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I wil post the links to the studies and supp. infos here and than linkthem as refs.;

Keller at al 2011 - http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n2/full/ncomms1701.html
Mathieson et al 2015 - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7583/full/nature16152.html
supp. info (p.16): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v528/n7583/extref/nature16152-s1.pdf
Olalde et al 2015 - http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/12/3132.full.pdf+html
Gamba et al 2014 - http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html
Omrak et al 2016 - http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901516-X --- (complete study under: Full_Text)
Haak et al 2015 - http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/nature14317.pdf
supp. info (p.120) - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14317-s1.pdf
A BLOG-post with a similar summary (sources/studies attached) - http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2015/11/neolithic-farmers-from-greece-and.html
I will now try to ref. this links into the info-box (maybe tomorrow), and pos change to Neolithic 'farmers'; Agilulf2007 (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Any new consensus' on Neolithic Europeans vs Neolithic Farmers ? or on the closest modern related ethnic groups ? my take is [Basques, Corse, Catalan, Mediterranid, North Italians, Tuscans (also Albanians and Greeks)].
Thank you Dk1919, for adding all the refs. - i tried and failed, (didnt work in "show preview"). thank you for doing it. Agilulf2007 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as there are sources, I'm all for it. :) The Italian edit warrior, on the other hand, may once again show up and undo the whole thing... And that would be really a pain, unfortunately.--Dk1919 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

IMO "Related ethnic groups =neolithic europeans" is wrong, while is true that sardinians (or at least those 27 sardinians tested) share genetic similarities with neolitic europeans, modern sardinians have nothing to do with the neolithic...no linguistically and no culturally.--Xoil (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Also in the Haak study cited Sardinians score 7.1% Yamna while neolithic europeans have 0% of this component (Figure S9.25)...so even Sards have some IE genes possibly brought by Beakers-Poladians (?)--Xoil (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Modern day Sardinians are the closest relatives to Neolithic (as well as {descending) Chalcolithic) farmers; The agricultural revolution was a 'physical migration' from the levant/anatolia to scandinavia/NW Europe(Ireland/ballynahatty); This is an established genetic fact - and the Sards today are their closest relatives with over (Haak et al) 90% identicality - Günther et al (2015) revealed that the Chalcolithic Iberians (el portalon) are closest to modern Basques and Sardinians - and Olalde et al confirmed that Neolithic Iberians (Cardium-complex) were of the same stock as Neolithic Germans(central europeans) LBK-complex and all find there closest modern relatives in modern day SouthEuropeans - especially Sardinians. Agilulf2007 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Who said otherwise? in the genetic section of the article, wrote by me, you can already find these infos..still modern Sardinians don't speake a neolithic language nor they worship the mother goddess anymore...an ethnic group is not distinguished only by genetic...also, is the image in the infobox necessary? it has been removed in all the other similar articles, see greeks, british people, spaniards etc. P.S. i have nothing to do with those IP users--Xoil (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apart the Neolithic European Farmers i think we can add Italians (Sardinians are italians after all and they mostly speak italian), Corsicans (a lot of northern Sardinians have corsican ancestry), Spaniards/Catalans (400 years of common history)..what do you think? Also like Sardinians they are all mostly "neolithic"...--Xoil (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There were in fact also these other peoples in the info box a while ago, before that annoying Italian edit warrior (whish you could block IPs, sometimes...) removed them all. Moreover, I'd already provided the proper and most up-to-date source backing up my claims about the Corsicans being (genetically wise) the closest people of all to Sardinians.--Dk1919 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok i've re-added them..IMO the image in the infobox is superfluous, there are tons of pictures of men and women with the traditional dress in the gallery section --Xoil (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I reinserted the source. As for the people-in-costume image, I'm ok with removing it too (considering there's no picture in the other pages regarding ethnic groups).--Dk1919 (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xoil

I agree with all that, in fact i addressed all that in my beginning posts of The Info Box, also there i always supported Franking's link {Vona et al 2003) concerning Corsicans, but the situation is/was that multiple "anonymous" IPs kept deleting it. The header image (in my opinion) is a good and authentic representation of 'sardinian people' given that it displays the folklore elements of numerous regions. just my two sestertii. Agilulf2007 (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

There seems to be no clear justification for the removal of sourced info from this page. Please stop removing this material. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alghero Catalans, Ligurians and indigenous Sards

I need to point out that this is an ethnic group article. If you wish to have an article about Algherese Catalans, then by all means create one, but this article is about the indigenous Sards. Sards are a highly genetically and culturally distinct ethnic group. Their Sardinian language is the original, indigenous language of Sardinia for thousands of years, and is completely different from all other Romance languages. This language also includes ancient, aboriginal Sardinian vocabulary from the Paleo-Sardinian language and Nuragic civilization of Neolithic and Bronze Age Sardinia. This is cherished by indigenous Sards as a major part of their culture, and they do not consider Catalan, Gallurese or Ligurian to be part of indigenous Sardinian culture. All of those languages were brought by foreign immigrants and settlers in fairly recent times, since the late Middle Ages. They are not indigenous to Sardinia, even if a very few Sards may also speak some of those languages. Even if some Catalan speakers in Alghero or Ligurian speakers in Isola di San Pietro have some indigenous Sard ancestry, they also have Catalan ancestry and Ligurian ancestry respectively, which indigenous Sards do not have any of.

Those languages and communities should be mentioned as historical ethnicities of Sardinia, but it also should be mentioned that they are ethnic communities distinct from the indigenous Sards, who are the original inhabitants of the island and whose ethnic language is Sardinian, while Algherese Catalans, San Pietro Ligurians, and Gallurese have degrees of Catalan, Ligurian and Corsican descent respectively. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"The village (Alghero) was conquered by force by the Kingdom of Aragon, at the behest of Peter IV d'Aragona, who later colonized the town and the surrounding area, sending in place numerous families from different counties and provinces of the then Kingdom of Aragon, including Valencia, Majorca, Catalonia and Aragon precisely. These were granted enticing privileges, and in fact replaced the original population and the indigenous inhabitants were sent to Spain and Mallorca as slaves." [1] 173.238.79.44 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to understand that Modern Algherese are NOT the direct descendants of the Catalan settlers! Already in the XVI century less than 15% of the Alghero inhabitants were of catalan ancestry while the vast majority were Sardinians, with Italian and French minorities. See Antonio Budruni - Da vila a ciutat: aspetti di vita sociale in Alghero, nei secoli XVI e XVII --Xoil (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Carloforte and Gallura, it's seems that you believe that the inhabitants of these places live in apartheid from the rest of Sardinians, this is not true at all..in Gallura sardinian language is very widespread especially in the major town, Olbia and a good part of the population of Carloforte is of sardinian ancestry--Xoil (talk) 08:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between the people and the location of an area. Alghero is a town, but it doesn't mean everyone in the town is of the same ethnicity. Catalan speakers only make up around 20 % of the population today, but that is because of a significant immigration of native Sardinians, as well as of Italians, to Alghero in recent decades. This doesn't mean that the Sards and Italians in Alghero speak Catalan as a native language like the Catalans do, and for the most part they do not because it is a minority language in the city. Many of the Catalan speaking community in Alghero indeed are of Catalan ancestry, either partially or fully, because the town was significantly settled with Catalan colonists in the 14th and 15th centuries:

"Thereafter, the population of the town was swelled by the arrival of Catalan-speaking colonists, with the result that until recently the dominant language of the town was Alguerese, a variety of Catalan. However, since the end of World War II, the immigration of Sardinian-speakers from other parts of the island and the omnipresence of Italian in the education system and media have meant that increasingly Alguerese families are not transmitting Catalan to their children." [2]

So yes, many Algherese today are native Sardinians, and they speak Sassarese or Italian usually, but they are distinct from the Catalan minority in Alghero, who have Catalan ancestry and speak Catalan as a native language. Even the official flag of Alghero is the same as that as the other Catalan Countries which include Alghero. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

With regards to the Tabarchino Ligurians of Isola di San Pietro and Sant'Antioco, both islands were isolated and only settled by the Ligurians (Genoese) fairly recently, in the 18th century, and both islands were essentially uninhabited prior to the Ligurians being granted them by the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. This is why to this day, Tabarchino remains the predominant language spoken by the people on both islands, in Carloforte and Calasetta. Since they are recent arrivals, and because those islands are isolated, they are still mostly of Ligurian (Genoese) ancestry. Even if a few have mixed with local Sards, they still have mostly Ligurian ancestry, while the indigenous Sards do not but instead have mostly Neolithic/Nuragic ancestry. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the study that i have cited ? the Catalan colonists were soon (already in the XVI century) demographicaly overwhelmed by Sards who adopted catalan (catalan was spoken everywhere in Sardinia anyway). Today virtually no one is of full or partial catalan ancestry in Alghero. case closed--Xoil (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Neolithic ancestry? and so? Even Ligurians are mostly Neolithic Europeans, they are not Estonians..--Xoil (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I provided another source which refuted your claim, and I doubt your source supports what you said. Alghero remained predominantly Catalan speaking until after World War II, and it only changed largely because of immigration of local Sards to Alghero from surrounding areas, as well as of Italians from the mainland. The Catalan minority in the town today remains largely of Catalan descent, which is expected from an ethnic minority in an enclave which has maintained its distinct ethnic identity apart from the local Sards. Just because local Sards migrated in to Alghero does not mean they adopted Catalan. The Catalan community always remained distinct from them to a degree, and they indeed are of significant Catalan ancestry. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As for the Neolithic ancestry of Sards, a plethora of genetic studies have shown that indigenous Sards (Sardinian speakers) are a genetic isolate, and are highly distinct genetically from other groups in Sardinia, and from other Europeans in general. They are the closest people genetically to a branch of Neolithic Mediterranean farmers, and the vast majority of their descent is from the original Neolithic inhabitants of Sardinia of 8,000 years ago. Sardinians are extremely distinct from other people in Italy - genetically, culturally and linguistically. Ligurians have significantly less Neolithic and Mesolithic ancestry and, by contrast, have significant Italic and Celtic (Indo-European) ancestry, like other northern Italians, which the Sardinians do not share.

For example, unlike in mainland Italy, Sardinia was highly isolated and shielded from the Indo-European migrations and settlements which affected mainland Italy. Indo-European speakers arrived in Italy starting in the Bronze Age, with the Italic speakers. Later, Celts (Gauls) settled in the far north of Italy (Liguria, Piedmont, Lombardy) while Greeks heavily colonized the south (Sicily, Calabria, Puglia, Campania). In Sardinia, none of these groups settled to any lasting degree, and the native Sards remained highly isolated, especially in the interior. In fact, Indo-European language did not reach the indigenous Sards until the Romans arrived, and even during Romans times, the interior remained largely unconquered. This means that no Indo-European language arrived in Sardinia until some 2,000 years after it had already spread to the rest of Europe. This is why Sardinian language today is still completely distinct from all other Romance languages, as it contains significant non-Indo-European vocabulary from the Paleo-Sardinian language. The only other people in western Europe to remain so isolated, for so long, from the Indo-European migrations (Italic, Celts, Germanics, Greeks) are the Basques, who still managed to not lose their pre-Indo-European language, even during the Roman period.

Indigenous Sards are an extremely distinct ethnicity in their culture, language and genetics, and it is important to science. For example, studies have shown that Sards, on average, have the highest number of centenarians in the world, along with the Ryukyuan people of Japan. Thus, I am strongly interested in discussing and preserving the unique ethnic features of the Sards.

Polidori MC, Mariani E, Baggio G, et al. (Jul 2007). "Different antioxidant profiles in Italian centenarians: the Sardinian peculiarity". Eur J Clin Nutr. 61 (7): 922–4. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the latest genetic studies and even North Italians are mostly Neolithic Europeans (less than 30% Yamna). Who told you that Sardinia was not settled by Indo-Europeans ? Actually the highest concentration of Bell Beaker sites in Italy is in Sardinia and in the Haak 2015 paper Sardinians score 7% Yamna and 16% LN/BA Central Europeans (Bell Beaker, Corded Ware) also the Paleo-Sardinian language include many Ligurian (Paleo-Indo-European) loanwords. As for the Alghero question, seriously read the study of Antonio Budruni - Da vila a ciutat: aspetti di vita sociale in Alghero, nei secoli XVI e XVII..Google it!--Xoil (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are aware of all the studies if you think "North Italians" are some singular group. Northwest Italians (Piedmont, Lombardy, Liguria) have been found to be distinct genetically from Veneto in northeast Italy. The Ladins and Friulians together from another cluster. In any case, none of them are "mostly Neolithic European" at all, at least not in the way Sards are, who are almost entirely Neolithic European with some Mesolithic ancestry. Northwestern Italians like Ligurians and Emilia-Romagna have significant "Yamna" ancestry, with by far the highest frequencies of R1b subclades in Italy. Sardinia wasn't settled by any Indo-Europeans until the arrival of the Romans. Unlike most of the rest of western Europe, except Aquitania (Basque Country), no Indo-European languages were established on Sardinia until the Romans arrived. The percentage of Yamna ancestry in Sardinian is negligible, less than 10 %, and guess what parts of the island it reaches its highest percentages ? The northeast Gallura, which as you know has Corsican, Tuscan (Pisan) and Genoese settlement and is not purely indigenous Sard. The other region with some minor Italic ancestry (R1b) is around Cagliari, which was the chief Roman centre on the island. Indigenous Sards in the centre of the island are absent of these markers. Thus, any Indo-European ancestry in Sardinians is tiny, and mostly confined to the Gallurese who are mixed Corsican-Sardinian, while almost absent from the indigenous Sards. As for thePaleo-Sardinian language, it was a language of Neolithic/Nuragic origin, and it in fact only contained a few loanwords from Etruscan, which is itself non-Indo-European, not from Ligurian. The Etruscans were the ones who had a significant presence in Corsica, and some trade links with Sardinia, not the ancient Ligures. The Nuragic civilization in Bronze Age Sardinia was of native Neolithic origin, and developed some cultural features from trade with Etruscans and others in Corsica and mainland Italy. These were the ancestors of the indigenous Sards, and the civilization continued even into Roman times, in the isolated interior known as Barbagia.

Yours are just personal theories without proofs! R1b is widespread all over the island even in Desulo or Sorgono (25% circa)[3], there weren't extensive roman settlements in Sardinia (only one colony of roman veterans in Porto Torres) and you are also denying the massive presence of the Bell Beakers and finally it's NOT TRUE that the nuragic civilization was of neolithic origin, it was a mix of the indigenous cultures and new cultural elements brought by new peoples coming from mainland Europe (Bell Beaker, Polada). No offence, but your knownledge of the history of Sardinia is pretty poor--Xoil (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Refer to this collection of studies: [4]. Sards have 37.5 % of their Y-DNA from Haplogroup I2 (Y-DNA); North Italy has 1%. The Indo-European markers are R1b (Italic) and R1a (Germanic in this case): Sardinia only has 18.5 % R1b (specifically the Italic subclade, from the Romans) and 1% R1a, while North Italy has 49.5% (both the Italic and Celtic subclades) and 4.5% R1a; Tuscany has 52.5% R1b. Sards also have 0% of I1, while North Italy has 7%.

With regards to the Alghero Catalans, I already have read a summary of several sources on the subject [5]. They all state specifically that the town was extensively colonized with Catalan settlers in the 14th and 15th centuries, after the Crown of Aragon cleared out the native Sards from the vicinity. Your source doesn't state anywhere that the Catalans in Alghero are not of Catalan ancestry, which is blatantly false. I told you already that migration into the city by local Sards, especially after World War II, didn't mean the Catalan community disappeared. They maintained a distinctive identity, just as did the Ligurians in Carloforte and Calasetta, or the Corsicans in La Maddalena. The fact that the percent of Catalan-speakers in the city decreased from over 90% of its population in pre-World War II to only around 20% today, after massive immigration into the city by local Sards, shows that the Sards did not adopt the Catalan language, and that they continued to speak Sassarese, Sardinian or switched to Italian. The Alghero Catalans very much have significant Catalan ancestry, and are distinct in many respects from the Sassarese or other local Sards. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Your percentages are false, the study that i have mentioned give precise statistics about the ethnic composition of Alghero in the 16th-17th century. From the paper: Un documento redatto con intenti fiscali nel 1665 fornisce un quadro molto preciso della nuova composizione della popolazione algherese: cognomi sardi 71,2 % cognomi catalani 7,9 % cognomi italiani 12,9 % altro 6,9 %.[6] Period --Xoil (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You clearly did not fully understand the content from your own source. Your source itself states that in the 17th century, 71.2% of surnames are Catalan. The fact that there were and are other ethnic groups in Alghero is not disputed, but those other people in the city are not Alghero Catalans, but are Sards and Italians. A city or location does not mean everyone in it is the same ethnicity. There are other ethnic groups, like Sards and Italians, in Alghero today. But only the 20 - 30 % or so who speak Catalan natively are mostly Catalan descent, from the Catalan colonists of the 15th - 16th centuries. The other people in Alghero today are Sards, speaking Sassarese or Sardinian, Italians, and other immigrants. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you joking ? Do you understand italian ? if yes then you're clearly a troll, i have not more time to waste arguing with you --Xoil (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Even in this study by Haak, et. al [7], centred on autosomal DNA and Y-DNA (says "genome-wide", although not accurate at some loci of mtDNA and some atDNA), both the northern Italy sample at Bergamo (around 20 %) and the Tuscany (25 %) sample have significantly higher Indo-European (Yamna) ancestry than Sards, who are by contrast almost 85% Neolithic Mediterranean farmer.. This coincides with other studies I cited above showing the massively higher Indo-European Y-DNA in northern Italy and Tuscany compared to Sards. This also corroborates conclusively that there was no Indo-European presence of any real significance in Sardinia until the Roman period. While Indo-European Italic speakers had been present throughout Italy since the Bronze Age, followed by Celts and Greeks, none of them made it to Sardinia, which is why the language of the Nuragic civilization was non-Indo-European. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

See, i was right, Bergamo sample is still 80% Neolithic Europeans or Not-Indoeuropeans....No one know for sure if the Nuragic language was Pre-indoeuropean or not, there are various theories. Goodbye--Xoil (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you are not right at all. The Bergamo sample is only about 60 % Neolithic Europeam farmer, 23 % Yamna (Indo-European) and 17 % Mesolithic HG. [8] They are as much Indo-European and Mesolithic HG as they are Neolithic farmer. The Sards are the only population in Europe which is almost wholly Neolithic farmer. The Sards are about 88 % Neolithic farmer, about 9 % Mesolithic hunter-gatherer and only 3% Yamna. Every study says they are a unique genetic isolate, distinct from and somewhat unrelated to other Mediterraneans and other Europeans. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I include WHG in the Neolithic Europeans because in the Middle neolithic WHG and EEF were already mixed...it's clear that you like to distort data, first the Sardinians were 5% Yamna, now 3%..the real percentage is 7.1% (Figure S9.25 c)--Xoil (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The amount of WHG in Neolithic Europeans varied between regions, but the WHG component is distinct from the Neolithic component. The Sards are the only people in Europe who are almost wholly of the Neolithic farmer component. Furthermore, the study by Haak itself states this, and that Sards have 90% of their ancestry from the Neolithic farmers of Sardinia. Haak et al., and every other study on this subject, also state that indigenous Sards are genetically distinct from Italians, and other Europeans in general. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No one is denying that Sards are the closest to the neolithic Europeans, i've just reported the REAL percentage of Yamna and LN/BA directly from the paper! Differently from you i don't manipulate data--Xoil (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not "manipulate data", and never have. The study by Haak et al. itself specifically states: "Sardinians are the population that is closest to early European farmers with an estimated ~90% descent from them". (p.119) [9] ItaloCelt84 (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please also see this study [10]. "In this study we have established the frequencies of the DRB1-DQA1-DQB1 haplotypes in a large cohort of Sardinian new-borns and found that the most frequent haplotypes were detected at frequencies unique to the Sardinians. Other haplotypes, common in other Caucasian populations, are rare or absent across the island...the Sardinians clearly emerged as the major outlier among the various European populations considered in this study." ItaloCelt84 (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes you did, you've erased the exact % of LN/BA (16%) from the page replacing it with this falsity: The remaining roughly 10% of ancestry derives from Late Neolithic/Bronze age Central Europeans originally from the steppe in eastern Europe etc. --Xoil (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the percentages you entered because they were partially false, and they were not stated by the study. You misinterpreted the data by only taking percentages from one data plot which did not include all the genetic components analyzed by the study. The study itself specifically stated 90 % comes from the early Neolithic farmers of Sardinia. The only remaining material analyzed, and the main focus of the study, was the Yamna/Indo-European ancestry, and the study quite clearly shows the remaining ~10% was Yamna. It did not state anywhere the Sards had "16 %" Yamna ancestry, and you mistakenly entered this incorrect figure by ignoring the Mesolithic WHG component in the other data plots. The specific breakdown from all components was 84 % strict Neolithic farmer, around 5 % WHG (which was deduced to be also from Neolithic farmers in the study; hence the 90% figure), while the remaining 10 - 11 % (i.e. ~ 10 %) was from the only other genetic component found for Sards, which is is the Yamna component. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize that you're a making a mess for nothing? Who ever said that Sards are 16% Yamna, LN/BA is only about 40-50% Yamna...please re-read carefully the whole paper before edit Wikipedia...you should also apologize with me for accusing me to be a sockpuppet--Xoil (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have read that paper, completely, several times. The Yamna element is stated specifically to be from a combination of an eastern Neolithic element and EHG (eastern hunter-gatherer) on the steppe. The study does not state anywhere the Sards are "16% LN/BA". It also doesn't state that the 84 % is EN/WHG, which you had falsely entered, but is only EN (Neolithic farmer.) I am not apologizing to you just yet, because I still think there is a strong possibility you are the sockpuppet of those IP's, given the current evidence. No other editor has been involved in these disputes apart from me and you. You also are the only other editor who questioned the edits and sources I had entered like the IP's did, in an almost identical manner and edit summary comments. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you denying these facts? *1) EN, Neolithic Europeans were a composite population of Basal Eurasians + WHG *2) LN/BA were a composite population of Neolithic Europeans + Yamna, see Figure S9.25 *3) Sardinians are 16% LN/BA see Figure S9.23 p.118 --Xoil (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Contrary from the IP user, I accept you're other edits on the page, they are not particulary wrong, but these regarding genetics need to be corrected --Xoil (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The EN component is specifically the strictly Neolithic component, and is distinguished from the WHG component. The Neolithic farmers were strictly Neolithic but accumulated WHG admixture after arriving and settling in western and southern Europe. The amount of WHG accumulated differed between regions. The study says specifically that the Neolithic farmers in Sardinia had a minor WHG component from this admixture, relative to other locations. This admixture became the 90% of Neolithic farmer ancestry from whom the Sards descend, and most of that 90% (84 %) is strictly Neolithic farmer (EN). The study also says that the Neolithic farmers of Sardinia originated from those that spread across the coastal Mediterranean, and were distinct from, yet also related to, the farmer group who migrated up the Danube instead to settle in Central Europe. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Neolithic farmers aquired WHG already in Anatolia (or Greece), before spreading in the rest of Europe (where they aquired additional WHG genes) and yes that 84% is mostly Neolithic Euros, so is the 16% LN/BA which is only about half Yamna, ok?--Xoil (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to reinsert the previous phrase, any objections?--Xoil (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Which phrase? Could you specify here? Thanks.--93.36.9.146 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This phrase : A 2015 study estimated that roughly 84% of the Sardinian ancestry derives from the Neolithic Europeans (a hybrid population of Mesolithic Europeans and Anatolian farmers) while the remaining 16% derives from Late Neolithic/Bronze age Central Europeans (Neolithic Europeans mixed with steppe pastoralists).Haak et al 2015, Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (see Figure S9.23 p.118)--Xoil (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

To me it is okay. It comes clearly from a reliable research from Harvard. Nothing nationalist or sensationalist about Sardinia. So to me it is perfectly in line with Wikipedia.--93.36.9.146 (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

For this part "Neolithic Europeans (a hybrid population of Mesolithic Europeans and Anatolian farmers)" see page 69 :"Early European farmers had WHG-related ancestry13"--Xoil (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I note there are two IPs quarreling with each other over some sourced info the first one has posted. On the other hand, judging by his/her own POV, the second one that tries to remove those pieces seem to be the same person that's been wreaking havoc in any page regarding Sardinians and Corsicans, ranging from the language to this one. Disruptive editing (especially over such a long amount of time) is not allowed by Wikipedia's policies. The best thing you two guys could do is creating an account of your own and reaching a compromise while leaving aside the absolute judgements and keeping the sourced info, unless proven otherwise, or I will be forced (once again) to call in an administrator and protect the page for a while.--Dk1919 (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree! this page need to be protected for a long time--Xoil (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The person making the edits is curiously using more than one IP address, yet making the same exact edits in the same exact manner. I suspect this to be sock puppetry, which is not permitted by Wikipedia. Furthermore, there may even be a link to the above editor, Xoil, as his edits are similar in nature and style to the two IP accounts making the same exact edits.173.238.79.44 (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You're very wrong, as always--Xoil (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Every edit I have made has to do with sources in this article, or based on sources I added. The plethora of sources on this article refer to specifically the Sardinian ethnic group, who are indigenous to Sardinia, not to all peoples and ethnic groups on the island. That article would be about the demographics of Sardinia as a whole, rather than a single ethnic group, and would need to include the dozens of languages and ethnicities who live on the island, from recent migrants to historical migrants in the past few decades like Italians, or te past 300-400 years, like Catalans, Corsicans, and Ligurians.

Indigenous Sards are a distinct ethnic group from others on the island, as the sources in the introductory paragraph, and all the genetic and anthropological studies listed, quite clearly state. They have their own highly distinct language - Sardinian - as well as culture, ancestry, history and identity. Some of them also speak Sassarese, a blended Corsican-Sardinian lect, and Gallurese. Most today also speak Italian, to varying degrees, as it is the official language propagated and enforced by the Italian government. This is not the language of ethnic identity though for the Sardinian people. Sardinians, however, are quite clearly differentiated from ethnic groups on the island who are immigrants or historical immigrant communities of recent decades or centuries. Italians, Catalans, Ligurians, Corsicans, French, English, Ukrainians, Romanians, Somalis, Senegalese, Arabs, Berbers (Moroccan, Algerian, Libyan, etc.), Spanish, etc. can all be found living in Sardinia today, but those peoples are obviously different ethnic groups from Sards. If the other editor wants to discuss all the people living in Sardinia, then he can refer to or create an article about the Demographic of Sardinia, such as that which is already included in the Sardinia article. However, this is an ethnic group article, and thus is not about all people living or resident in an area, but about specifically one group of people from one specific ethnic identity (Sards). 173.238.79.44 (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have decided to finally create a user account. I have reported the anonymous edits from 93.36.9.45 and 93.36.6.165 for suspected sockpuppetry, likely so they could avoid violating WP:3RR. They are clearly pushing an anti-Sardinian, and possibly Italian nationalist, POV agenda, and are just re-verting and removing whatever they wish without any citations, sources or explanations. There may be a possible link to Xoil as well, but there is less evidence for such. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who on earth may be behind those IPs, all having the same opinion on the same subjects, but yes, one can assume he/she was/is pursuing a clear Italian nationalist agenda. This very guy is the one that was telling people that Sardinian would be an Italian "dialect" a while ago (here and here). Something that needs no comment on a serious encyclopedia.--Dk1919 (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I've checked that IP, he's from Lombardy according to https://www.iplocation.net/ --Xoil (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I know, I often tracked down the IPs in order to find out where they could possibly come from by linking them to their ISP. That's the reason I didn't have the slightest suspect of you being that IP troll in the first place. Surely he/she's another guy. At any rate, since it's already been proven the activity of the bloke behind all those IPs is plain vandalism, the page shall be reverted to the original state where it says that Sardinians are an ethnic group like all the others once it'll be unprotected once again. Then, you and ItaloCelt may keep arguing about genetics and the likes (hopefully without accusing each other) while I'll be entering the discussion on the matter of the (not so) "Catalan" Algherese in Sardinia. Cheers! :) --Dk1919 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologized to Xoil about him possibily linked to the vandalizing IPs. As for the Alghero Catalans, I already demonstrated above the 23 % of people in Alghero who are native Catalan speakers very much have significant ancestry to the Catalan settlers of the 15th to 17th centuries, and they remained a distinct ethnic enclave restricted to the area of Alghero. The Algherese Catalans to this day still call their part of the city ‘Barceloneta’ – "little Barcelona", and they have strong ties and support from the government in Catalonia, as well as the Catalan language institute. [11] [12] [13] [14] ItaloCelt84 (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, nice of you to apologize to Xoil. It's not the guy we seek, and Xoil has been always a kind user contributing very much to the page and Sardinia in general with spot-on comments. Now that this matter is settled, I'd gladly engage in conversation with you on the Algherese (and Gallurese as well) topic, being Algherese myself, but I'd much rather do it once the thing regarding the vandal operating under a plethora of IPs, which have unnecessarily poisoned the debate, will be definitely over. Cheers! --Dk1919 (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Since those two IPs which were inexplicably re-verting my edits, and removing cited material, have been found to be sockpuppets, and may possibly have a connection to User:Xoil, the article will be re-verted to its original form with citations once the page has been unprotected. As explained in the section above, this article is an ethnic group article, with the ethnic group infobox, and is thus specifically about the ethnic groups known as Sards, indigenous to Sardinia, as outlined in the sources in the article. This is not about simply residents and inhabitants in Sardinia of various ethnic groups, but specifically about one ethnic group - the Sards or Sardinians. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First off, thank you for creating an account of your own, ItaloCelt. Whether the IP(s) were really linked to the user you had a disagreement with or not, the one behind them was really a *pest* I have been dealing with for at least two years (I'm not joking). And whenever I tried to get in contact with him on his/her talk page, it just happens that another IP was already edit warring once again. Whoever it is, since you have no proof it was the user you mentioned, it can be safely argued that, no matter his/her own personal POV, he/she was acting in quite a bad faith. By the way, I also agree with you on the point you make about this page regarding only the Sardinians as an ethnic group rather than the demographic situation on the island, which is already covered on other pages. In any case, thanks again. I hope the page stays protected for a *really* long time.--Dk1919 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. I am fairly confident that both IPs are connected to User:Xoil, based on the fact the user suddenly stopped editing on November 1st, right before the IPs showed up editing in the same fashion. I submitted the case for suspected sock puppetry to the administrators, so we will see what they decide. I am taking a break from this article for a while, at least until it is unprotected. The IPs would not even engage in a discussion about the issue, but continue ignoring the plethora of citations in this article from cultural, historical, linguistic and genetics articles which clearly state the Sards are a distinct ethnic group, In any case, not much can be done here for now until the page is unprotected. Cheers, ItaloCelt84 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You're suspects are very wrong, i'm always logged in when i edit wikipedia, i'm sorry for you--Xoil (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading the discussion and the edits for a while (unfortunately I'm not often at home, those days, so I didn't realize what was happening before), and I want to thank you as well, ItaloCelt84, for asking for the page to be protected, and also to thank all of the users that helped reverting the vandalism for their great work. About the topic: Sardinians are a distinct ethnic group, and the article has always been about that. The idea that it should be about the inhabitants of the island is ridiculous, since the "Demographics" section of Sardinia exists for this reason, having included in it the links to the articles about all of the other main groups. Please leave it protected, maybe just add the "indigenous ethnic group" part again, like Dk1919 said. --L2212 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The matter is settled then. All the identified users, apart from the anonymous troll vandalizing the page under different IPs, agree at least on the basic point that Sardinians are an ethnic group (this shouldn't even be a matter of debate, since the infobox is clear enough on that regard, but whatever).--Dk1919 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, since you are not able to bring how many Italians and how many Sardinians live in the Region. @Dk1919 Franking you spend your time in Wikipedia by modifying pages through your clear nationalism and you always wait the right moment to make your changes by using sources and sources absolutely not reliable and partial, totally unfit for the wikipedia policy.--93.36.0.91 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

First off, the fact that Italy does not keep an ethnic census does not imply Sardinians are not a distinct ethnic group, which they are unless proven otherwise on any field we've taken into consideration. Saying otherwise is a logical fallacy: at best, your reasoning could *only* disprove a hypotetical argument (which no one has made, by the way) claming Sardinians are the only ethnic group living on the island. Quoting the anonymous IP, later to be revealed as the identified user ItaloCelt, "the plethora of sources on this article refer to specifically the Sardinian ethnic group, who are indigenous to Sardinia, not to all peoples and ethnic groups on the island. That article would be about the demographics of Sardinia as a whole, rather than a single ethnic group, and would need to include the dozens of languages and ethnicities who live on the island." That is, if you want to talk about all the peoples living on the island, you'd best create the proper page regarding the demographics of Sardinia, without edit warring on this one that *specifically* refers to the Sardinians as an ethnic group. As I and the other folks said, if it were not for you sistematically showing up out of the blue in every page regarding Sardinia and vandalizing it (for removing things without other people's consent, deliberately operating under a plethora of IPs for years - despite the people telling you to create an account of your own - to avoid violating the three-revert rule *is* considered trolling and, worst case scenario, outright vandalism) this basic thing would be not even a matter of debate, since the infobox and the sources are clear enough on the matter. Not only is the first line of your reasoning flawed, there's another logical fallacy to boot in the second one: attacking the person who made a specific argument (on which everyone but you, complaining about you all over the talk page, agreed), while dodging the argument does not ever disprove the argument, it only speaks loudly about the person making the attack and what little has to offer to back up his/her own POV-riddled argument. Not to mention that what you say about me, but it'd be not your business to be blunt, is false, given that I also created some other pages (like this one and this, but me thinks there'd be others) and I made edits on many more pages, even regarding videogames, which are certainly not meant to pursue a supposed Sardinian nationalist agenda. To sum it up, everyone but you agreed on a simple point that will be introduced (and remain for a long time) once the page will get unprotected. Of course, if you ever persist reverting things to your liking without other people's consent, it won't take long before I'll call in an administrator once again to protect the page.--Dk1919 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dk1919 Franking, wikipedia is not your personal encyclopaedia where you put 1,000,000 meaningless sources from populist newspapers and magazines and your political and nationalistic statements got sourced... here we use reliable sources. You often use nationalistic sources, and more than once you want Sardinia really unified linguistically when actually it is not. This is not a political page, and many users already told you this. I don't see distinctions between Sardinians and Italians... so if we take the linguistic point of view Sasssarese, Gallurese , Algherese are not Sardinian.--93.36.9.146 (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The only user who told me I'm pursuing a supposed political agenda has been you, so far, operating under different IPs. Also, "unreliable sources" according to whom? You alone? Most are academical ones and have been found to be widely acceptable by the other users on the page: if they were really coming from "populist newspapers and magazines" (which you don't directly cite), like you said they do, they would have been long removed by someone who is *not* a Sardinian nationalist (basically all the others supposing I am a nationalist, which I am not: I don't know how many times I have to tell you this). Unless you imply that everyone here is playing a supposed nationalist card (I hope you don't really thik that). Repetita iuvant: nationality is one thing (Sardinians are Italians by nationality), ethnicity (which is *not* based on a linguistic point alone, and I suggest you read something about Anthony D. Smith's ethnosymbolism as proof, even if it would suffice: asserting that Sardinians speak more than one language does *not* disprove that Sardinians are an ethnic group, it's not the only one in the planet being multilingual, you know) is another one. An ethnic group might, as well as might not (like in this case), be also a nation (a quite recent political invention): therefore, asserting a fact (on the fields we've taken into consideration so far, Sardinians *are* a distinct ethnic group) does not mean promoting a political view. Basically, your argument remains quite weak when compared to the other one supported by all the identified users. PS: it just happens that I *am* an Algherese, and a Algherese-speaker as well. On the point that we'd be part of the Catalan, rather than Sardinian, group, I already said I (and Xoil as well) don't agree with the user ItaloCelt saying this. But the "ethnic group" thing is a different matter, a matter of simple facts to be more precise, please stay on topic and don't shift the argument to others you're more comfortable with.--Dk1919 (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Tried reinstating the changes as emerged from the outcome on this talk page, but the anonymous IPs guy has reverted once again, saying that "we still need to talk about". As I already said (again) on his/her talk page, this small edit is more about facts, starting off with the infobox that says "ethnic group infobox" and the sources provided, than opinions. Not to mention that the anonymous is really the only one left strongly disagreeing on this point, on which all the other people agreed, for reasons that seem more related to his/her own political POV on the subject than anything else: I don't know if this could possibly "calm him/her down", but the ethnicity profile is a different concept than nationality.--Dk1919 (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No, linguistic and ethnicity are separate things: so according to your point of view as seen there is a Sardinian language (only in South and Center Sardinia) let's say that all are Sardinian when in the north they don't speak Sardinian but Corsican (Gallurese) and Sassarese, so are they separate ethnic groups? And what about the rest? I mean Italians and other ethnicities? In Sardinian there is a really relevant number of people who does speak only Italian, so what about that?--93.36.9.146 (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you are really paying attention to what I and the other people have been telling you all over the time. *Linguistic and ethnicity are indeed different things*. That's because, rather than being directly and exclusevly linked to ethnicity, it's just a single aspect among the criteria defining an ethnic group (I already suggested you may read something from the etnosymbolist Anthony Smith, for example, but there'd be others). An ethnic group may speak his indigenous language, like most Sardinians do, as well as switch to another one or even more than one as a result of governmental policies (like Italian) or interaction/merging with other populations: that does not take anything away from the fact that they are still an ethnic group, for the already mentioned reasons. If you want to refer to the Sardinians as just "the residents living in Sardinia" (therefore comprising all the peoples of the island, including the recent migrants and their own languages), which is quite a reductionist view as I and the others have pointed out, this is not the place to discuss such a thing and, as the users ItaloCelt, L22 and me have told you, you'd better create a single page dedicated to the Demographics of the island, for this page regards only a specific indigenous people whose existence is well and long attested.--Dk1919 (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is probably a communication problem between us. Could you provide numbers? So according to what you stated we have different ethnic groups in Sardinia: Sardinian, Italian, Sassarese, Corsican and Algherese (Catalan)... so could you provide numbers? About the language, Sardinia is probably the most divided one among Italian regions, with 4 different regional languages plus Italian; Sardinian has two very different varieties. Moreover Sardinians in big cities and towns are often totally unable to speak the respective regional language, so saying that most of Sardinian speak their own indigenous language is really an exaggeration. Please again, stop talking about the language in Sardinia, although your constant attempts to put in the spotlight only Sardinian in Wikipedia, in reality things are still different.--93.36.9.146 (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dk1919 Franking your attempt to modify this page is getting cyclical https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sardinian_people&diff=574798357&oldid=574604251, and already and Admin reverted your changes after talks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sardinian_people&diff=575409757&oldid=575361143 and you said that to you it was okay https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sardinian_people&diff=575647105&oldid=575409757; It seems that you wait and after you make attempts again for imposing your sensationalist and impartial view of Sardinia.--93.36.9.146 (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is getting interesting. First off, the user you mentioned (Felisopus, someone who entered into politics some time ago if I'm not mistaken) has never been an Administrator on the English Wikipedia (judging by his English, at least), just on the (not very reliable, to put it bluntly) local Italian one if I am not mistaken, where the page regarding the Sardinians has been utterly removed... Moreover, for reasons related more to the will of a few users (I recall there had beeen in fact consensus to apply some edits to the page, rather than banning the topic entirely like they did) than anything else... With the result being that Sardinians are present on 18 Wikipedias in different languages bar the Italian one. A pity, indeed. Thank you for bringing that up, anyway: it also seems your edits and those by this Felisopus are also very similar, almost the same I daresay, even the writing style and the way you write in English. Also the fact that you refer to the guy as a system admin, while he was and just for a few time on the Italian wikipedia (something a normal user, and an anonymous one to boot, is not likely to get to know, since you'd want to search on the [Archives]) is very suspicious. You know, something leads me to believe you *might* just be that guy; of course I am not accusing you since I'm not 100% sure of it, but were that really the case, please use your own account, employing a sockpuppet to escape the three revert rule is severely prohibited on Wikipedia. As for the rest, not really anything to comment on: the first edit involving you and me, the second an anonymous guy and the user Felisopus, the third Felisopus and me (I don't know where you read a single word of me being "ok" to anything, by the way, since I made just some edits concerning a Savoyard governmental policy on the island, not really anything proving your - or Felisopus' - point on the thing we've been discussing until now). Now, getting back to the first comment, yeah, it seems there's probably a "communication problem", though it doesn't seem to be my fault. That is, you just said (again) "So according to what you stated we have different ethnic groups in Sardinia: Sardinian, Italian, Sassarese, Corsican and Algherese (Catalan)", whereas I've been trying to tell you all over the time that "language and ethnicity are different things", that language is just one of the aspects defining an ethnic group according to ethnology, since an ethnic group might as well as not be also multilingual, etc. That's why, even ignoring your huge POV about Sardinia being "the most divided region in Italy" (something that doesn't make much sense being phrased like that in English, by the way), I am not talking about language, unlike you. Here is the part where the thing gets cyclical, and annoyingly so, for if you don't read my comments (or deliberately ignore parts to suit your rethorical needs), there could be no such thing as discussion, which requires at least two collaborative parties. Also, your POV is keeping you blind from the fact that, as I said, I am Algherese and I have no interest whatsoever in the things (that is, splitting the Sards into different cathegories) you're always putting in my mouth. I just want to make it clear that this is an ethnic group article and it has always been (again: the infobox itself reads "ethnic group infobox") about a people known as Sardinians or Sards, and that nowhere has it ever been said that the article regards just the people legally (or not) resident on the island, like you want to paint it to be. You seem to be allergic to acknowledging this basic fact, which is not meant to "impose a sensationalist and impartial view" (?). That being said, since you don't like "ethnic group", I shall try to reach a basic compromise with you: were you to refuse, we'll have to solve this through other means. I propose to add "native" to the noun "people", so the intro will read like that: "The Sardinians, or also the Sards, (Italian and Sassarese: Sardi; Sardinian: Sardos or Sardus; Gallurese: Saldi) are the native people from whom Sardinia, a western Mediterranean island and autonomous region of Italy, derives its name". That's something that'll get acroos the message and avoid the "ethnic group" dispute. What do you think (please, comment with your own account if you're really that guy, at least this time)?--Dk1919 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dk1919 I will just skip your accusations and useless observations that you made on me cause you get clearly upset by someone who mentioned some of your "little" impartial and cyclic edits on Wikipedia. The current intro is okay and does not need further changes, it is really clear. Moreover "native people" implies by definition ethnic groups whose origins are even more linked to their land for centuries while actually Sardinians are nowadays also largely composed by individuals originally coming from Corsica and Italian mainland (including not only the ones from Genoa or Tuscany or Piedmont but also the one coming from the Istrian exodus). This time your strategy of using an (arrogant) IP https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sardinian_people&diff=prev&oldid=746683794 to trigger an edit war and after pretending with your wikipedia username to be the moderate one just for reaching a "compromise" to get closer to your impartial and impositive point of view, this time it is not working.--93.36.0.205 (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not upset, it's just very suspicious for someone using IPs, something which is generally associated with new comers on Wikipedia who don't know a thing about it, to know very specific things from years past about an identified user whose tone, writing style, opinions are also the same as yours. Never mind. As for the other IP, nope, were it me I'd be acting a little bit contradictory even by your reasoning, since you basically keep repeating that I am a Sardinian nationalist, whereas according to the same IP you mention I'd be 100% Catalan, not even ethnic Sardinian. And yes, Sardinians are actually a historically attested people, whose presence is stable since the Paleolitich and Neolitich era (see Genetics), whose origins couldn't be more linked to the island they've been living on for thousands of years with a couple of later influx from other populations (as it could be expected from an island), be they from Spain, Italy, Africa. Asserting there would be no such thing as Sardinians as a distinct people because of later arrivals dating back to the Fascist era defeats the point of every ethnic group article: would the French not be an ethnic group any longer because of a significant number of people moving to France from Algeria? Would not the Corsicans be an ethnic group any longer, because of the fact that a large part of the Corsican population hails from the French mainland, Italy and Portugal? The same goes for Italians themselves, that would not even exist when adopting this particular standard. Besides, let's suppose for the sake of the argument that we really should consider Sardinians as just the people being resident on the island (like you want to make the page out to be, unlike others who intervened on the talk page): in that case, mentioning the people from the Italian mainland would not suffice, since it would greatly discriminate against other people who also legally live on the island coming from a number of other countries, like Romania, China, Nigeria etc. Therefore, to be really complete, we should also say that a great number of Sardinians (sic) speak Romanian, Chinese, etc. as their mother tongue... Which is, in my opinion, pretty ridiculous.--Dk1919 (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, let's stop with this discussion. Sardinians are an ethnicity, and trying to negate that for political motivations (like you, anonymous user, are trying to do) is absurd. The Sardinian people have their own specific language, culture and history, with an uninterrupted presence since the Paleolithic, like Dk1919 said. And you not liking that will not change it. You are accusing him of making "nationalistic" edits while the only one here pushing an agenda against reality itself is you, on this article and on other ones as well. Stop with your ultra-nationalistic (to use an euphemism) vandalisms and start using a nickname and taking responsability for your actions. Otherwise please leave Wikipedia and never come back.--L2212 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, user L2212. The thing is, the edit, God forbid, ain't nothing "revolutionary", even if the anonymous one tries to paint it that way. Besides, given that everyone else bar the fellow using IPs are in favour of the edit, I don't see why a single guy alone should feel empowered to challenge the will of the majority of people who have expressed themselves on the topic by reverting like there is no tomorrow (and breaking several Wikipedian rules in the process), refusing also any compromise (something on which the entire Wikipedia is built to solve such issues), especially when the points backing up his/her own opinion on the subject have been some weak fallacies so far. Now you see, I bet it the guy will accuse you too, as well as the others, of being another covert Sardinian nationalist promoting a secret agenda against poor Italy via sensationalist sources and yada yada yada. *Yawn* This thing has been going on for years, if the situation were to deteriorate and the anonymous won't change his/her manners (I doubt he/she'll be using a real account anytime soon, I'm afraid), we're going to end it through other means.--Dk1919 (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh such a coincidence @Dk1919 a new user with few edits agrees with you. We are still talking about. I suspect you are using multiple fake accounts, cause what happened seems a ridiculous coincidence.--93.36.1.183 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Says you, the nameless and ever-IP-changing guy. :D Ironical of you to say we are still "talking about" (by the way, the verb requires an object). Ever since you started, the arguments proving your own point have been some logical fallacies I debunked here, to which you have not replied, and a couple of easily dismissable ad hominem, like this one. Come on, go ahead, if you really think I'm using another account report the thing to an Administrator that will investigate on it, I've got naught to hide anyway. Did it never cross your mind that someone else (without considering the others...) being interested on Sardinia might have noticed this sterile discussion and edit warring of yours that's been going on for years and not just on this page, on anything possibly regarding Sardinia? Now that I told you that my personal suggestion to report your suspicions of an evil plot to an administrator stay in place (sigh), stop edit warring and give a meaningful contribute to the discussion as to why you think that the page should be so broad as to regard all the people being residents on the island, rather than the Sardinians as a specific group (possibly not a loop of what you said earlier).--Dk1919 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

AHAHAHAH!!!!! Well, that's a new one! Do you still have the audacity to talk, after being proven wrong and using IPs instead of a name? I'm a real user, thank you very much, I've few edits here because I mainly worked on Wikipedia in other languages. Nice try. And stop with the reverts, we are not talking about anything anymore, you have no arguments and your edits are acts of vandalism and nothing else. Again, please get out and find yourself another hobby, very far away from Wikipedia. Nobody is interested in your anti-Sardinian political agenda, facts are more important than the feelings you clearly seem to have against minorities.--L2212 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Your arrogance is totally the opposite of what wikipedia needs. Again only accusations from you, when actually you are the nationalist ones which are trying to manipulate info. I already told you that this page is about the people living in Sardinia. I explained my suggestions above, if you avoid ignoring them would be better.--93.36.0.224 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, what you think the page should be about (the people living in Sardinia, that is the residents) is far from being an accepted point, something not to be imposed "as it is" without being called into question, but to be talked over with others and not to others. Therefore, no such thing applies as "I already told you that it is like I want it to be!", especially when you are in a position of minority needing some consensus-building from the other users, rather than attacks like "you bloody nationalists, I'm the only one who's impartial!" (if anything, such attitude shows arrogance from you as well, at best, and trolling at worst). But let's get to the point, proceeding with enough caution so as not to spur any further flame. The page, as from the incipit, is about "the people from whom Sardinia, a western Mediterranean island and autonomous region of Italy, derives its name" rather than just "the people living in Sardinia": a very important specifying clause already revealing the people being referred to are the one that gave the island its definitive name; that is, a name linking the island to a specific ethnic group going by a specific ethnonym (Sardinians or Sards), and not to a peculiar characteristic of the land itself like the rest of the (mostly forgotten) ancient names of Sardinia such as Sandalion, Ichnussa, Argirofleps etc. A specific and historically documented people with a common name establishing a myth of common ancestry, whether it came from a woman hailing from Sardis or a Lybian hero, a set of traditions (e.g. the myth of the so called "acabbadora", widespread from the Southernmost tip of the island to the Gallurese one), some historical, linguistic and even genetic traits, a well defined territory the people identify with through a series of widely accepted symbols (e.g. the flag of the four Moors, with which the Sardinians identify so fiercely they often carry it on every occasion they have to wave it in front of the masses), a body of literature on such people, related ties to other populations (see the infobox) and so on. All these are differentiating elements the ethnology studies have agreed on to define an ethnic group, which the Sardinians match to a T. Even the sources on the subject tell the same thing, like Encyclopedia of World Cultures (1996) asserting that (directly quoting as it is) "Sardinians see themselves as a distinct ethnic group while being Italian by nationality". The fact that the page is about a specific group and *not* just about the people who inhabit the island, regardless of ethnicity, is also the reason why some sections (like "Genetics", "Flag", etc. you name it) were not discarded and also the one why some sections (like "Languages") lack elements already added on the proper page about the island, like the languages spoken by foreign populations, and some others (like "average life expectancy") have elements involving things like genetic ties instead (the article about the island itself doesn't have such things, because it is rightfully focused on all the peoples living on the island, to whom the aforementioned elements do not apply, rather than a specific one or ethnic group). So, if it really were like you said it is (but it isn't), nearly every content on the page, on which there is already consensus, would need to be rethought. Also, you've been told a countless number of times that "ethnicity" (an anthropological concept) is a different thing than "nation" (a political concept). Most ethnic groups on the planet are in fact not also nations. So, your evident fixation about the people in favour of the edit being supposedly "nationalist" is not only a fictional point altogether, it also speaks a lot of the way you're projecting your own political claims on the others without even realizing it, since you clearly cannot differentiate two very basic and distinct concepts like "ethnicity" and "nation" (a thing common only to people who have strong politically motivated opinions based on a branch of nationalism, that is, ethnonationalism: in your case, Italian ethnonationalism). To sum everything up, there is no rational reason as to why anyone should not be in favour of the edit (in fact, anyone has been complaining about your disruptive activity all over the talk page), at least by scrutinizing the arguments you yourself put on the table, which have been already disproved. You'd better follow the rules and be a little bit collaborative. :) --Dk1919 (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Like Dk1919 said, nationalism and ethnicity are two different things (and talking about that demonstrates how you are the only one trying to ignore reality for a political agenda), the sources themselves talk about Sardinians as an ethnic group, and there are other pages that include all the other groups on the island. You can't talk about "arrogance" after making accusations without proofs, replacing arguments with "ad hominem" fallacies, and refusing to take responsibility for your actions (using an account to edit). You can't say there is a "deep talk" going on if all of your arguments have been disproved and all you are trying to do is to extend it forever to block the edits you don't like. My tone derived from the absurdity of your idea of anyone on Wikipedia not having the same opinion as yourself being the same person, and accusing Dk1919 of sockpuppetry (and me of being a sockpuppet) while changing IP every day. And after that you accused me of nationalist POV as well, again without any proof. Nobody here is ignoring anything from you, it's just that your "suggestions" are not valid, and what you are doing here could be at this point considered as politically-driven vandalism or trolling.--L2212 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with L2212. There can't be any sort of meaningful discussion (which you've proven already you don't want since you are not in favour of any compromise, which I have proposed, in spite of being in the minority: in fact, you're barely participating in the discussion...) to speak of if youre only points have been so far some fallacies that have been already disproved, including argumenta ad hominem.--Dk1919 (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This page has been vandalised before, by your edits, without consensus. There is no compromise when a Single-Purpose user tries to impose its point of view.--93.36.4.155 (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No it hasn't, and yes consensus has already been found on the edit (the topic has been in fact thoroughly discussed ad nauseam). In the meantime, I just let you know your activity has been found out to be by a real Administrator as the perfect image of disruptive editing. The fact that you believe you have a particular point does not, by any means, give you the right to act as though it must be accepted at any cost when you've already been told by a number of other editors on this talk page that it is not, especially when you try to enforce it by reverting via multiple IPs (which, abiding by Wikipedia rules, is like using multiple accounts to circumvent any possible sanctions!) and back it up with unsubstantial arguments like fallacies and personal attacks against other users, breaking almost every rule of civility in the process to scare the other people away (*unacceptable* by Wikipedia standards). Also, thank you for finally revealing you couldn't care less of the content dispute on the talk page in the first place, just using it as a platform to inflame the debate and keep other people away from making edits you didn't like. Again, all of this is prohibited by the rules. As for the lack of will to find any compromise, let's say I am not surprised, this "black and white reasoning" (that is, another fallacy) of yours is also typical of intolerant people with extremist point of views on a particular subject (in this case, without you even realizing it, you gave away your political motivations - Italian ethnonationalism - for your reverting activity by projecting them onto other people on an already sourced anthropological debate that was not, is not, and won't ever be about politics!). If you feel angry and bittered about that, I can't help it, sorry. If you are not willing to accept any community input and engage in consensus-building, something on which Wikipedia is built and geared, then this hobby is clearly not for you.--Dk1919 (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Related groups

Althought there were migrations to Sardinia in the last 3000 years, modern Sardinians are still considerably isolated genetically (Sardinian samples are far away in the PCAs from other European and Mediterranean populations) and even culturally, the language and folk traditions are pretty unique. So imo the related group section in the infobox should be left blank, especcialy if the informations are unsourced Xóil (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

i would add only Corsicans because northern Sardinians speak Corsican languages and many have distant ancestry from Corsica. Xóil (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

...and maybe Italians because Sardinia Is part of Italy, the most used language in Sardinia is Italian and because many Sardinians, especcialy in the coastal cities (ex. Cagliari, Carbonia etc.), have partial mainland Italian ancestry. Stop.

what do you think? Xóil (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

on the other hand an old Sardinian from Barbagia who speak Sardinian as first language is unrelared from both Corsica and Italy IMO. Xóil (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)