Talk:Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit]

Italian euro coins

I think it is not appropriate to state that Italian Euro coins is a currency in Italy. If we do so - in order to be consequent - we have to put in all other national variants of the Euro coins as well (since those are "legal tender" in Italy as well). Additionally there is a difference between currency and legal tender, thus the Euro is the sole currency of Italy.143.224.66.243 16:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

coat of arms

there is an error: Italy, like France, doesn't have a coat of arms. the symbol claimed as coa is in reality the 'NATIONAL EMBLEM' that figures on public documents and passports. should correct this user:Aytharn

[edit]

Weird categories

Beautiful Women? Beautiful Men? Is that really a necessary category? Danny

Hi Gianfranco, I'm not looking for a flame war with anybody, but Wikipedia articles have to be broadly acceptable to some broad conensus of opinion at least. My point about translations was that too many overload an article and disrupt its reading: they should be placed in the first sentence of the article on each specific topic. As a general introductory survey, the article didn't need to single out Fascism for an assessment which was indeed controversial to some of us: no other political movement was discussed. I personally think that "beautiful" (above) is a subjective judgment which should be left out: and I don't think most of the people named there rate a link from the main country page (while the companies should be linked from "Economy"): had I wanted conflict I'd have removed those lists in their entirety, but I didn't. User:David Parker.

(sorry for late answer)
I am glad to hear that it is only a matter of consensus. The sentence used in the summary sounded quite more direct.
However, I regret that the assessment was controversial; I agree instead that the less we talk about fascism, the less we risk to wander in the smoke of a fire that was extinguished too little ago, not enough time ago. It doesn't happen casually, I believe, that in Italy we still continuously have public debates on fascism: let's say that just for TV, we have an average of a serious debate or an important documentary movie, more or less every 10-20 days, in prime time. We are nevertheless in our society, with sufference but with intention, trying to solve some "controversial" points, here where the civil war actually was run after the fascism, and we are nearly forgetting those times (maybe still 30-20 years ago) in which only propaganda, from both fascists and communists, was the sole content of any political debate, a time we lived in which we could not easily obtain from historians an unbiased support. The terms "Fascist" or "communist", are now in decreasing frequency being used as insults; still they are not compliments yet, but we hear them every day less. I wish our grandsons will be able to look at 20th century with serenity.
BTW, just to close the point, it was somehow difficult to discuss about other political movements, since the fascist party was the only one, as in every "respectable" dictatorship. Being the fascist one a state-party (partito-stato, a movement whose events coincided with the political life of its country), it would also be hard to make a comparison with other political entities of prior or later times. It could perhaps be useful to compare fascism with nazism or communism, but I have seen that this has not been made in better appropriated (and deep) articles. Or, maybe the best approach, we could compare italian history to what happened in other countries, but this would require a complex work and any concise synthesis might result controversial.
I also agree that italian names are better recalled when in appropriate articles, but I found them already in the page when I read it the first time, it's not a "creation" of mine. And I agree that italian firms seem to deserve a better destination than the main country page; rather than for a listing in the economical page, where they could be excessive, I would dare propose something related to "Made in Italy", if some consensus can eventually be found on the reflection that italian economy is peculiarly composed by a huge number of small firms, resulting in a particular working tradition, which is now a commercial quality too.
About beauty... well, it could also be a strange list, indeed; might I remember, however, that in Wikipedia there are pages about Sex symbols, which could regard similarly subjective judgements, based on even more subjective factors, but in a more explicit sense. We don't necessarily link beauty to sex, in this strange country, even if we deeply love both. :-) - Gianfranco
[edit]

Campione d'Italia offical currency is the Swiss franc?

removed the following footnote from the table: "In the enclave town of Campione D'Italia surrounded by Switzerland is the only place where the Swiss Franc is also legal tender". A similar controversy in the Germany wiki is being disccusse talk:Germany (Büsingen am Hochrein and Swiss francs). These are the reason to remove Campione d'Italia:

  1. One have to distinguish between currency, legal tender and just the general acceptance of money without a legal basis

.

        1. The only currency in whole of Italy is the euro?
        2. Legal tender are Euro banknotes and Eurocoins of all countries, which are authorised to mint them.

TheWikipedian

[edit]

Official language

I think Slovene is NOT an official language in Italy. It's only officially recognized and allowed to be used in contacts with public administration etc. See [http://www.uniud.it/cip/min_lr4735_2000.htm LEGGE 23 febbraio 2001, n. 38 "Norme a tutela della minoranza linguistica slovena della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia"], art. 8 and 9.

Actually, I guess Italian is the only official language in Italy. Other languages are given special privilege, but they are not established as official languages. Boraczek 09:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I learned that French and German are co-official in some regions too. But that's all. Slovene, Ladin and Friulian are not official languages. Boraczek 09:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Elf-friend wrote: German and French are regional languages and NOT OFFICIAL languages of Italy.

I believe German is an official language in South Tyrol (even if it is not an official language of Italy). Please confer Statuto speciale per il Trentino-Alto Adige, art. 99-101 [1].

I also believe French is an official language in the Aosta Valley. Please confer Statuto speciale per la Valle d'Aosta, art. 38 [2] Boraczek 10:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These languages may have some special or co-official status in some of the regions of Italy, but they are not official languages of the whole of Italy, and putting information like this in this section of the taxobox is potentially misleading and confusing to more uninformed readers. If you want to note some special or co-official status of these languages, may I suggest that you put a "footer" in the taxobox, similar to the one in the Denmark article?

I did not mean to be too "sharp" in my edit summary comment or deletion of the info, but I sometimes get the feeling that there is some sort of "campaign" to add German as an official language to countries where it has no or a lesser official status - for example, I've had to revert the Namibia article several times in order to remove the faulty information that it is an official language there. Thanks for your positive approach to this issue.

Regards, Elf-friend 11:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

German used to be one of the official languages of Namibia until recently, so these editors probably just didn't know that it is no longer the case. -- Naive cynic 12:26, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
German was never an official language of Namibia (who changed it from Afrikaans and English to just English when they achieved independence), nor even of its predecessor, South-West Africa. I think you'll have to go back to the start of the previous century when it was still German South-West Africa in order to find any official status for it at all. Elf-friend 08:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Afrikaans: "Prior to [Namibian] independence, Afrikaans, along with German, had equal status as an official language." -- Naive cynic 09:30, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think what you suggest is a good idea. Thank you for your contribution. Boraczek 11:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad we could resolve this amicably. :-) Elf-friend 12:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Flag of Italy

I see that the flag depicted in the article has a rather grayer color instead of white. Clicking on it to go to the image's page, the guy says that this is a new flag by Berlusconi.

Has there an official change *truly* been made to the flag? If not, have the old flag show that the Flag of Italy page also depicts. Aris Katsaris 07:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The official website of the Italian presidency doesn't mention anything about a change. Furthermore Image:Italy new flag.png states that white changed to ivory white, but the image itself shows some sort of grey and not ivory white which is slightly yellowish. I think we should revert the change in the article and delete the image. Gugganij 20:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverted the page. Aris Katsaris 23:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

currency

I removed Italian euro coins for the following reason: The only and sole currency in Italy is the Euro. Italian euro coins together with banknotes and all other "national" euro coins are legal tender (which is something different than a currency). kr 143.50.221.5 21:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's true, but you removed a link to a valid page for no valid reason. RickK 22:02, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I removed Italian euro coins from the table, since they are not the currency in Italy. Why shouldn't this be a valid reason? Gugganij 17:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • It's not a valid reason, because Italian euro coins are still the type of Euro coins that are being *minted* in Italy. Even though all Euro coins are legal currency, why does it hurt you if a link is included where we can see those Euro coins that are specifically Italian? If you don't want it to be in the cell itself, perhaps we can add a footnote, but that might be a bit messy given how a footnote for that cell already exists. Aris Katsaris 18:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, I thought the table ought to give a concise overview of the country's main features. If someone would like to dig deeper, he just has to click on Euro. By the way, I think the UK has one pound coins from England, Scotland and Wales as well (which can be easily distinguished from each other - like the "national" euro coins) - one might regard this as a similar case. None of them are mentioned in the tables of the respective articles (see Scotland and England)
[edit]

Provincial nomenclature

After dinking a bit with Cuneo and Province of Cuneo, it seems to me that we need to be more consistent about the distinction between city and province. Not only do we have mixed-up links, but some names are listed in multiple categories, and it will look pretty weird to have both city and province tables in the same article. Finally, the interwiki links can't be made to work right if we have one article and the Italians and Germans have two. To be consistent with other languages, I suggest putting the city at "Name" and the province at "Province of Name", which is more of a literal translation, although "Name Province" would be OK too. "Name (province)" seems less desirable, because lots of text will want to include "Province" so as to make things clearer for readers. Stan 00:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Anthem

"Fratelli d'Italia" is the first verse of the Anthem, not its name: the real name is name of the poem composed by Goffredo Mameli, "Il Canto degli Italiani". I think that should be corrected.

  • Be bold on Wikipedia - You can edit it yourself! However, I will do it this time, just to make sure it doesn't get forgotten. --Golbez 16:00, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, hold that - You need to definitely edit Fratelli d'Italia first, since that states it's the anthem. Since I don't know more about the subject, I leave this to those who do. --Golbez 16:01, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I know I can change it! ;-) I am not knew to wiki-like tools, it's only that I wanted to discuss that change before actually applying it.

OK, just making sure :) And it was a good idea, since we have a whole article on Fratelli d'Italia that states it's the national anthem. --Golbez 13:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

National Motto

Perhaps it would be better to entirely remove "National Motto" as there is none to prevent further vandalism. Jcr2 10:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Infobox

Moved to template:Italy infobox.--Jerryseinfeld 17:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why? Gzornenplatz 17:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
United States uses one and I find it rather neat and convenient. Do you disagree with its use there? --Golbez 19:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Most country articles do not use a template for the infobox, and I don't see what's convenient about having to edit the box separately from the rest of the article. Either you would need to have an ugly edit link within the article window to edit the template, or if not, you'd have to type in "Template:Italy infobox" by hand into your browser address bar. Surely it's easier just to be able to click on "Edit this page" to edit all parts of the page, including the infobox. Templates are for things that are to be used in several different articles, which is never the case for a country infobox. The only justification may be if a country article gets too long, but this is not the case here either. Gzornenplatz 20:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough; I'll agree mostly on the "size" grounds. In fact, now that you mention it, that negates a lot of templates I've seen lately ({Politics of Antigua and Barbuda}?), perhaps this objection should be brought up on the pump if it already hasn't been. I guess at 39k without the infobox, United States is big enough to justify it. --Golbez 20:54, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Right. And Template:Politics of Antigua and Barbuda is used in several different articles, so it's justifiable too. Gzornenplatz 21:05, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Have you noticed how you can click on the "[edit]" text on top and to the right of a "section" to edit a "section" by itself? Perhaps you want to disable that to?--Jerryseinfeld 21:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Have you noticed that that is a preferences option? I already have disabled that for me. Gzornenplatz 22:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Really? Oh, boy.--Jerryseinfeld 23:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I just saw Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, arbitration, ouch.--Jerryseinfeld 00:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What's your point? That has nothing to do with this conversation. Are you going to be confrontational about this, or civil? --Golbez 01:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have no particular interest in any of these issues, but it does seem to me that Jerryseinfeld is right to be concerned given Gzornenplatz's explicit refusal to obey the basic Wikipedia guidelines. If anyone is not being civil, it is Gzornenplatz, not Jerryseinfeld. Oh, boy, indeed! And ouch, too! Deleting Unnecessary Words 00:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
He has done his time, and your input here is unncessary - just like your name. --Golbez 03:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
And yet a revert war is developing on the page, without the issues being properly hashed out here. Oh, boy! Ouch!! Deleting Unnecessary Words 00:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Italy-geo-stub, and Europe map

Three items:

  1. Within the next half-hopur, there will be a new template available - Template:Italy-geo-stub, for any Italian geography related stubs.
  2. I note that the European "Location of italy" map near the top of this article seems to incude Istria and Rijeka as part of Italy., I think that should probably be fixed!
  3. Finally - I hope no-one minds, but I did a quick edit of the equals signs on this page so that the ToC reads correctly! Grutness|hello? 03:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

History incomplete w/o colonial and military occupation episodes

Colonnial and WWII occupation episodes are essential and indisputable facts of Italian history. Should be in this article if only as pointers to more detailed treatment. Judging by space ... more important than the king's exile! MGTom 11:18, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

It is true that Italian history is incomplete without colonial and military occupation episodes, but I strongly believe these should be moved to History of Italy. This section should be rewritten to a quick walkthrough of Italian history, from pre-Roman age to modern times. What do you think about? --Panairjdde 15:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore: writing massive war crimes requires far more documentation that the three links present in Italian war crimes.--Panairjdde 16:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(IMHO) let us say, one may want to take a look at the whole structure of the Italy Wiki. And consider how to organise the network of articles. I can agree that the general introductory article should contain the basic statements that give the first impression about the subject to one that sees it first and a essentially (one of) the lists of pointers to more in-dept material. What the cover article need not to be is a showcase only of positive characteristics of the subject. It is not a commercial leaflet. An encyclopedia "sells" not (only) beauty but interesting topics. Wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopedia, and it "sells" also new dimensions of discourse. There, in the discourse, you find this: "in social sciences a discourse is considered to be an institutionalized way of thinking, a social boundary defining what can be said about a specific topic. Discourses are seen to affect our views on all things; in other words, it is not possible to escape discourse" (I bolded a part of the quote from WIki.

Alternative way through the maze of knowledge in Wikipedia (amazing!) is through the Categories. The problem that I see in Italy complex is the dominance of a deep-branching. Down from "Italy" to "war crimes of WWII" you would have to step through 4 levels. That is more or less a matter of taste and how you want to work. There should be a systematic branching, but also shortcuts through lists that are not so much branched, (no more than two levels, longer lists of articles in each). More on the "Italy" wish list in another section, where I confirm the interest of having many (esential) facets of the charming Italy in the top-level list/article also. MGTom 11:44, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

I am just commenting that highlighting episodes which happened in 2/3 years (war crimes or king exile or whatelse) is far from a correct approach, if you are telling the history of a country that lasts more than 30 centuries. And I keep on supporting the argument that History part should be rewritten. As regards the distance between Italy and Italian war crimes, note that it is natural (IMO) a break Italy -> history -> wars -> war crimes, with all episodes from different wars listed in a single page. If you think war crimes should go into first page, this first page should contain such a large collection of information it would be unreadable. --Panairjdde 12:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Italia - beautiful in diversity

Before making any edits in that direction, I would like to check the opinion that really a subject, especially such an amazing one as Italy, is defined equaly by its core as its expanse in diversity. To my opinion the following items would deserve attention in the introductory article also:
(on history)

  • 800 (?) years of different history between the North and the South.
It deserves a mention. Just few words. --Panairjdde 13:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • 5 of the 6 traditional captials (Torino, Milano, Venezia, Firenze, Roma, Napoli) lost their position at unification.
Not necessary, but implicit --Panairjdde 13:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Italy of Fascism and the (second?)strongest Resistance movement
Already present. I do not know of relative strenght of resistance movements, however. --Panairjdde 13:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


not to forget also anecdotal issues

  • two traditions in the quisine: the olive and the butter
To include only if there's a cuisine section --Panairjdde 13:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


In any case, the history of Italy as a state starts with the unification, so that the diversity (not only unity and "Italy as the only name?" cf.: Magna Grecia, the Appeninian Peninsula, various kingdoms ...) may be in place.
Italy contributes a lot to the divesity of Europe, now it is European history! + more

For further Wikipedic explanation of the desire see please general comment in #History incomplete w/o colonial and military occupation episodes MGTom 12:32, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
[edit]

On some difficult subjects

Here is a copy of part of discussion previouslu in the "Beutiful in diversity" section

[edit]

on "furbi e fessi"

  • the Italy of "furbi" and "fessi" and their (percentual) relations
Useless and difficult matter. To avoid, IMO --Panairjdde 13:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
May be taken up in a different approach ... diversity of European oppinions, or something, if we find a good sociological reference. This has to do with relations to the government (taxes), how peple percieve solidarity. Significant differences with e.g. Scandinavia! MGTom 14:26, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean, please write down some text. --Panairjdde 11:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Proposed Giuseppe Prezzolini entry

Giuseppe Prezzolini is an author that should be taken note of & extracted. Of course this is in the "alternate route to Italy". Sources such as: [http://www.geocities.com/cnalin21205/filosofiitaliani/prezzolini.htm Actual popular lore has it as [3]: ... contesto che è.... quello della società italiana; ebbene più di qualcuno ne ha analizzato pregi e difetti a cominciare da Giuseppe Prezzolini il quale già nel 1917 scriveva che gli italiani si dividono in FURBI e FESSI e delineava le caratteristiche degli uni e degli altri:
1) il furbo è sempre in un posto che si è meritato non per le sue capacità, ma per la sua abilità a fingere di averle,
2) colui che sa è un fesso; colui che riesce senza sapere è un furbo,
3) i fessi hanno dei principi; i furbi soltanto dei fini,
4) non bisogna distinguere il furbo con l'intelligente: l'intelligente è spesso un fesso anche lui.
E così via.
Automatic translation:
"a wider context that is that one of the Italian society; well more than someone it has analyzed some pregi and defects to begin from Giuseppe Prezzolini which already in 1917 it wrote that the Italians divide themselves in CLEVER and CLEAVED and it delineated the characteristics of the uni and the others:

1) the clever one is always in a place that has been deserved not for its abilities, but for its ability to pretend to have them,

2) $R-he who knows is cleaving; $R-he who succeeds without knowledge is a clever one,

3) the cleaved ones has of the principles; the clever ones only of the ends,

4) it does not have to distinguish the clever one with the intelligent one: the intelligent one is often cleaved also he.

And therefore via."

The automatic translator has it as: furbi: clever, fessi: cleaved ... does it go as a good translation?

It seems that Prezzolini himself was not amply translated to English, but he has some remarkable and probably correct (in his historic context) observations. MGTom 14:26, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

I don't really think this quote from an obscure philosopher is important in Italy main page. Just write down, if you want, a page on Prezzolini, and categorize it. --Panairjdde 09:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Italy - Name

I have added the etymology of the word Italia. please consider keeping this as it has been accpted by many historians. before deleting, please discuss here. I tried to include only basic FACTS and mot much speculation. espo111jun 2, 2005


(material dated before Feb. 24. 05 on Italy - name moved here.

Dispute on name started from a note, which was rather one of "economy of space", the paragraph on the name being a relatively long one.MGTom
Well it is true that the name was the same for longest time (Magna Graecia was a name for a part of Italy, never heard of Appenninian Peninsula). --Panairjdde 13:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at the reference for the Italy name claim! It is a Saturday journal short note, unsigned, from 1827 (sic!).
Italia is in any case an ancient name, but until maybe 1500 used mostly for the central parts of the penninsula. In Roman times (Italic tribes were their early enemies!), North was Galia Cisalta and also later regional names were dominant, inclusing of course Etruria and the islands. Interesting cases are also of the Friuli & the Friulan, which is considered to be a Rhetian (Alpine group) of Romance languages than Italic, and also Venetian, presumably more related to the Catalan and even French than Italian.
I am sure that on a global scale the case of the longevity of name Italy is not very exceptional. On the other hand, the details that I mention make an Encyclopedia interesting for the inquisitive mind! Unity in diversity! MGTom 14:26, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
Take a look at [4], for the motto ... (a vandalism that should be corrected)
and the appelation, which is the one of two European that I know do not derive from "Italia". In Hungarian it is Olaszorszag, in Polish it is: Wlochy [5]. For at least these relatively near neighbours Italia was historically not relevant?! (ASCII characters used in Hu and Pl names!!)MGTom 14:41, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
First of all, I am not defending that reference. If you want to remove it because of the source, be bold and remove it. I am just saying it is correct. As regards the name Italia, the name was used initially to indicate the zone from Tuscany to Calabria – apart the Italic peoples you referred, also the Greeks living in the peninsula were called italòs by those living in Sicily. This is not against the sentence we are writing of, since it simply says that the name was used for this part of country for more than 25 centuries. Will you admit that this is true, at least? (just as side node, indent your text, it is easier to read the 'thread'). As regards Hungarian and Polish names: your point would be interesting, if supported with etimologies of those words, otherwise it is impossible to judge. --Panairjdde 11:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is not much to disagree about ... we came close. Please - everybody - improve the text that I bolded to write.MGTom 23:49, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
[edit]

Expanding the article

I know there's a lot of capable writers out there and my concern is addressed to those writers interested in expanding this article. I think Italy's Wikipedia entry, in comparison to other countries, is unrepresentative of it's greatness and historical significance. I am no history buff, but I know there's plenty of information and media that can be added to this entry. I encourage anyone who can add more detail to this article to proceed.

Thank you.

[edit]

"Tourism in Italy"

That small article is not worth a helluva lot, and should prolly be folded in here. The links there for example are a vehicle for some arbitrarily picked places, and most of them don't deal with tourism in Italy, merely championing various destinations. Similarly, the rest of the article is not mostly about tourism, but about Italy, and very arbitrary in its choices and vague in its statements. Bill 16:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Link removed

I've just removed a link to a photographic site, that has some pictures of Italy, on the grounds that there are, very literally, thousands of personal sites that do, and this one (a) has relatively few such photos; (b) is not centered on Italy; (c) provides no information on what is shown, just the barest of captions; and finally, (d) is in fact commercial link spam. Before anyone gets too upset, note that my own site with over 1300 photos and a thousand or so actual pages of text on Italy, including at least 5 books, is a far better Italian resource, on all 4 grounds (including that I have no commercial interest) — yet I wouldn't dream of adding it to the links on this page, because it doesn't cover all of Italy. Bill 15:18, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

i would not object to having your link in the page, as you said no commercial interest. but are your photos and books in the public domain? if not then i would leave out the link, however if public -- no objection here. User:Espo111
Hi Frank; my prose is not the clearest, and, as very often happens, I get misunderstood. I'm not seeking to add a link to my site here: I'm pointing out that I myself would actually object to anyone putting such a link on the Italy page, because my site is not comprehensive enough — let alone some site with two or three slight pages! On the Umbria page, for example, I have no such qualms, since my Umbria site is comprehensive. (And no, the photos taken by me on my site are emphatically not public domain, neither is the original material; the non-original material, yes, is clearly marked as public domain. See each individual page. I don't tolerate copyvio on my own site any more than on Wikipedia.) Don't forget to sign your comments, by the way. Bill 19:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

new map of Italy

I am creating a new map of Italy. if anyone has an objection to the current map please make your objection known

You should tell us what are you going to change, in comparison with the current map.--Panairjdde 06:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


well i would like to put either a province map or a region map, that is political division within the country.

how should i do it?

It already exists, see Image:Italy Regions Latium 220px.png, for an example of regional division. Provincial division is more problematic, since there are more than 110 provinces, and they are in the process to add others. However, I do not think that adopting a region-based image would be better than the current image. Please, sign your posts, it's the second from right button.--Panairjdde 08:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i see now. ok no region map.--espo111 05:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Another link removed

It's with some regret that I just removed a link to a photosite. This one was far better than the one above (Talk:Italy#Link_removed), in that (a) there are more photos, 546 of them plus a few of Mont Blanc; and (b) the subsite is centered on Italy; but it still (c) provides very little information about Italy, many of the photos being tourist shots of flowers etc., and with just the barest captions (occasionally wrong) and (d) remains a commercial site which in fact is not primarily about Italy, but designed to sell photographs. Some of the photographs are beautiful, though. Maybe Wikipedia should have a separate article logging the better Italy sites? Bill 18:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i would really like to create a site, or find one, that has public domain pictures of italy, and only italy. i have a lot of photos, many not "touristy." any ideas?

--espo111 21:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Frank (this is no longer exactly Wikistuff, but no reason for me not to help!!), most people who take good photographs, myself included, don't give away our rights to them, so you'll find precious few sites that put the pix in the public domain; I won't say you won't find any at all, but in 10 years online, I can't remember ever seeing one. As for creating such a site yourself, well it would be very generous of you; it's also a terrific amount of hard work, that part I speak about from experience. The problem lies only in part in scanning decent photos: a photograph is really not worth too much without good explanations, which goes far beyond the level of just some caption. "Façade of the cathedral of Orvieto", for example, though a start, is really not that useful or informative. So on my own site, I find that an average page, with 3 or 4 photos, takes a full day to put up, of which the scanning accounts for less than 20% of the time: the rest is writing intelligent text. And at the beginning, until you settle into a pattern, you'll have a longish start-up curve, setting the look-and-feel of your site. I'll be glad to discuss, or even conceivably, depending on exactly what you're trying to do, host stuff; we can continue this by e‑mail — Best, Bill 23:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Question

By the time of emperor Augustus approximately, current territory of Italy was included in Italia as the central unit of the Empire; Cisalpine Gaul, the Upper Po valley, for example was appended in 42 B.C. Ever since, "Italy" or "Italian" was the collective name for diverse states appearing on the peninsula and their overseas properties.

Can someone explain the meaning of the last sentence of this paragraph, because I'm not sure I understand it. Has the name "Italians" been used since 42BC to describe what exactly? The diverse states of Italy? What states? The Western Roman Empire falls 5 centuries after the given date so I don't know how the medieval Italian states have any connection to 42BC. I get the impression that this abstract POV statement tries to promote the nationalistic myth that Roman Empire == Italy and ancient Romans == Italians. Miskin 14:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not very clear, but (apart for "overseas properties") doesn't seem to promote anything. I'll rewrite it. Bill 15:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Baldassare Castiglione vs. Baldassarre Castiglione

Both are correct, or at least the name Baldassare/Baldassarre has been routinely spelled both ways for centuries. Wikipedia chose the former spelling, though; so the change to the latter just winds up redirecting; I reverted merely to avoid a redirect. Bill 12:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Separatism

I've noticed that there's no mention in this article about the small sort of racial conflict between Northern Italians and Southern Italians. Because some Northern Italians feel superior over the Southern Italians. Those tiny groups of Northern Italians want to create their own idependent state and name it Padania I believe. I was wondering, does anybody know how to put and integrate all of this information into the article?--Gramaic 3 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)

For starters, Mezzogiorno has some material, and the political consequences under Padania for example. Bill 9 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)
I removed the part about "separatist Northern Italian political party that views Southern Italians, particularly the Mezzogiorno region in Southern Italy, to be inferior to Northern Italians". If someone wants to put back the text, should provide evidence for that.--Panairjdde 13:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It looks like Gramaic wants to start and edit war about this point. I will not remove his statement now, but I think that he has to support with evidence his claims, both about separatism and racism of Lega Nord. If he does not present any support, I will remove the text. Furthermore, note that the text is in the wrong part, since it should be under "Politcs", not under "History".--Panairjdde 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
While the separatism and racism etc. are real minority viewpoints and therefore problems, short of a systematic section on Problems Facing Modern Italy, which would include a number of other more serious problems (Mafia, terrorism, immigration, integration into the European Union, the stifling effects of bureaucracy, the unresolved questions of national identity, some of them relating to the rôle of the Catholic Church, etc. But a simple assertion of the separatism question, especially in the way in which it has been sketched out, is merely bad manners and invidious, and definitely not NPOV. Those interested, and who read Italian, may read a long-standing previous version of the Italian Wikipedia article Stati Uniti d'America, in which, under "Contraddizioni" I think it was, a long vagary on racism and the death penalty was inserted — Europeans of a certain stripe are much given to pontificating on those two items; but to their credit over at I‑Wiki, they removed that, on much the same grounds. Bill 18:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I just removed the paragraph from the section until I provide some reliable sources. I never meant to have anyone think that I intended to start an edit war with anyone. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 04:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Improvement Drive

The article Culture of Italy has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Another link removed

Today's link addition (Italy Pictures by Eric Burritt) was 90 photos of Rimini, 10 of Florence, 8 of Rome, and 6 of Venice. That's not good enough coverage of Italy to qualify as a resource for all of Italy. (For Rimini, OK.) Bill 20:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

And today's was 219 photos, alright: but almost all of Liguria, the Alps, and Genoa, with a smattering of almost random shots of Milan, Udine, Rome, and Tuscany. This is neither representative nor adequate coverage — all of it except Rome in N Italy, and even there, no Venice, for example. Bill 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And today's ("KubFoto") was 7 regions (out of 20); as a spot check, Lombardy was covered by a total of 15 photos of three cities; Tuscany by only two cities (Florence and Livorno), not really adequate; and all these photos uncaptioned. No dice.... Bill 20:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Geography & Italian peninsula

I think there should be add in the geography section or maybe in an article on its own, the difference between the Italian state and the Italian peninsula. Accordind to geographers AFAIK, Italian peninsula is composed of the territories of the ITalian state plus the area of Nice (Nizza), the Italian speaking Switzerland (Ticino Canton + some valleys of Grisons) and Istria (belonging to Slovenia and Croatia). Some territories (Livingo) are part of the Italian state but not of the peninsula.

What to do you think?? User:128.178.155.76 (who forgot to sign)

A peninsula is a term of geographical relief, and as such the language spoken doesn't enter into the matter. The relief boundaries of Italy do not include the formerly Italian areas of France nor (most of) those of Istria, since the Alps in the former, the mountains along the Isonzo in the latter case, delimit the peninsula quite clearly. Extending an "Italian peninsula" to areas beyond the relief boundaries starts leaning toward supporting a backdoor NPOV Italian claim to territories once Italy's but that are not now, a little bit like calling Louisiana a French peninsula. . . . Bill 15:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The italian peninsula is generally defined by the bounderies of the Alps and mediterrenean sea. (not understand at all why the Isonzo should be the limit.. why this river and not other one? I did not find support for this) That's mean that for sure canton Ticino is part of the italian peninsula (they are south of the alps, in fact the central swiss call them "transalpines") and the county of Nice. For Istria, I was not sure, but I checked on my Atlas and it says so. We don't have to be conditioned by politics, discussing a geographical post, that's completely silly. To be politically corrected we could say "some consider also ... as geographically part of the italian peninsula"-

[edit]

Link (kept!)

The UltimateItaly link is not exactly representative of the whole country, but says so; the selection is fairly wide, the material is fairly good, the site is nonprofit. As a site covering Italy it's still marginal — but marginal it is, and all I did was move it to after the official sites. Bill 10:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

ItalianVisits added

I have added ItalianVisits.com because, even though it is a marginally commercial site, it is one of the most comprehensive sites about Italy, including information and photographs for all regions, their capital cities, and dozens of other locales in Italy. We have made a significant effort to refer readers to Wikipedia articles for additional information. We are adding pages and photos for other places throughout Italy, so that each regional section is as complete say, as the section on Calabria.

I understand this addition might be controversial, so I am very happy to discuss this. ---JVian 16:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Links, continued

I removed the currency site; on inspection, it turned out to be mostly "in construction": experience shows that this means an unfinished site: most of such sites never get finished at all. In its present state some bizarre currencies (not even the mainstream bills) don't merit a link here.

I also removed the most recent photogallery, which is, more or less, an idiosyncratic collection of tourist snapshots on a few places someone recently visited: lots of pix of a dog in the street, etc.; by no means representative of the country as a whole. I've added the Alberobello page of that site to our own Alberobello page, though: at a smaller-scale level, some of these sites are useful. With the addition of the two marginal sites now more or less accepted on this page (UltimateItaly and ItalianVisits), we can expect the floodgates to open for this kind of thing. There are literally many hundreds, probably thousands, of tourist sites of this type, none of which are worth encumbering the pages of an encyclopedia with; I'll continue to delete them, else we'll be swimming in this stuff. Bill 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

We are willing to surrender on the ItalianVisits.com link for the greater good because we do not want to see the floodgates to which you allude open with the inevitable undermining of Wikipedia's purposes. However, I would only want to do this if UltimateItaly also agrees because while they are a so-called "non-commercial" site, they are not as complete as ItalianVisits.com which is, as I said, marginally commercial (to pay some bills). A compromise might be to use the link to the Travel Guide to Italy pages, and then let those of us with travel sites - including UltimateItaly - add our links there.
By "Travel Guide to Italy", I presume you mean Wikitravel? Please understand that this site is under independent management and their policy also does not allow "other travel guides". And yes, to me the obvious 'compromise' seems to be to delete both UltimateItaly and ItalianVisits. Jpatokal 17:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
As the apparent curmudgeon who started all this, I should make it quite clear that, from my own standpoint, the only "marginal" point about UltimateItaly and ItalianVisits is that Italy is a big place, and therefore requires a large, representative site. IV is starting to get a certain critical mass, and UI constructs a fairly valid representative site in part by stating explicitly it's going after only the most famous stuff. . . . At any rate, both are OK by me, if not really topnotch (yet); and I don't think we shoot shoot our foot to cut off our nose: after all, the idea of the links is to send people off to some few good sites. I'm just watching like a hawk the addition of "My vacation to see the Pope" and "Mariella and my Dog at the beach in Capri" sites. . . . A site though that has, to take some of the above as examples, 90 photos of Rimini or a well-constructed section on Alberobello, well, they make very good additions to Wiki's pages on Rimini or Alberobello. Bill 19:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

Official Languges of Italy

Dose anyone know all the minority languages of Italy and were they have minority status? I’m trying to find out for the list of official languages by state page. – Zntrip 03:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Links, continued

I removed TerraGalleria. The photos are quite nice, and there are a fair number of them, but they don't cover the country at all well: of the 20 regions, only 7 (Piemonte, Liguria, Veneto, Tuscany, Umbria, Lazio, Campania) and even there for example Umbria is merely some shots of Orvieto, and Piemonte of Mont Blanc. Not representative, then; on the other hand, at one level lower, those links are useful, and I'll add some of the subpages to Cinque Terre, etc. Bill 14:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

"See also" list, removed=

Today's addition was the drop of water needed to make this camel's back overflow: I removed all of them. Some of them, maybe even most of them, are handled by the Category system: Category:Italy includes Communications in Italy, Italian language, etc. The Category system in fact handles some items far better: Italian food consists of far more than 4 items, for example. Other items are arcane and quite pointless here, since someone consulting a general article on Italy is exceedingly unlikely to want Veronese Riddle, for example.

My main objection, however, is the usual one (see my recent edits in this sense to Rome and United States Military Academy): little by little, one person adds a link or two to their particular da-da, another adds another, and before you know it, you have a long silly-looking list that adds no information to the article, is not comprehensive, merely reflecting the quirks of whoever happened to edit, and is disproportionately long. OUT. Bill 17:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit]

Italy - Wilktravel article

I made a couple of minor edits in the Italy - Wilktravel article in regards to meals. I changed "primi" and "secondi" to "primo" and "secondo". In Italian, primo/prima and secondo/seconda refers to first and second respectively and as far as I know there is no "primi" or "secondi" (Italian speakers can set me straight if I'm wrong). As an aside as a member of the Canadian military I was stationed in Naples, Italy from '99 - '03 and got to travel throughout most of Italy, plus other parts of Europe and North Africa. When I get a chance I plan on adding more info to the Italy -Wilkpedia article based on my personal experiences and some tourist stuff I brought back from Italy. L.J.Brooks 22:19, 2005 Oct 20 (UTC)

[edit]

External links: removed Venezia.Net

The site is excellent — but doesn't cover all of Italy. It belongs under Venice; and in fact that's where you'll find it. Bill 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Italy"
Personal tools