Talk:Ancient peoples of Italy

Do the Italiotes actually belong in this list? I had thought the list was about the native peoples, while the Italiotes were the Greek colonists. -- Jonel | Speak 01:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the definition of the article. Alexander 007 04:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Etruscans
I am surprized to see here Etruscans too. They were not italic. They were even not indoeuropean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eray (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The topic is not Indo-Europeans or Italics. Read the title again.Dave (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Siculi, Sicani, Elimi...
I'm also not sure that these groups can be considered Italic. At very best their origins are debatable, if not explicitly non-Italic. As Italic means of or from Italy, the Sicani, thought to be from the Iberian peninsula, and the Elimi, thought to be from Asia Minor, cannot be included in this group. I suggest they be removed and added to a group more generally described as Mediterranean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.108.226 (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

…It good that this is only a refrence colunm for my research today dealt with many ancient history properties and my memory this afternoon is short,though i think a read that wile Italy was just a placee of living and not yet perhaps a place in wich called italy it was a place in wich many had went to became a type or sort of kingship and or ruling ordeal,though about a certain period the ruling of just one over many and wich inlisted types as of lords whom were scattered about the erea to guide it and oversee it these persons were left to do so perhaps even through a generation or so for this happened when the single ruler did not have another to take his place ,may be a refrence as like the Lombards well after a while the forming and very large erea was at a jungle type degree many came and went and soon anough it was all over again through the capabilities of these warlords kept there place and the erea was still ruled by them,thus perhaps now who comes the native.

sometime history the way it mentioned and or paregraphed is so on tapt that nothing else matters ,nothing being the most important thing in the world would perhaps be search a bit more perhaps ,even as me for instance i know a little though reading my efforts are'nt as quite the forfillment as other's for the penmenship in all cases will continue to conquer even that word is question to it's spelling,well i'll continue to try till next time 3:18 p.m.e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unification would be appropriate
The article grew from a much smaller one; however, the topic is a large one and changed significantly over the decades. Since books from 4 to 5 centuries old are now readable on the Internet we are likely to get almost any point of view in here, and do. It needs unification with a modern slant. One major problem I notice is that the ghost of Kossinna's Law haunts the article. He has to go except in very qualified circumstances. Thus the Terremare Culture is not in any way the best candidate for the Italics. I will attempt some unification. Once again, the problems really stem from not following WP policy on references. We all get carried away by the temptation to give our own opinions, myself included. If you are going to make a major assertion someone alse has to have published it and you have to say who, when and where. You will be seeing big changes here.Dave (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

IE and pre-IE
The article presumes that first Italy was occupied by pre-IE in the sense of non-IE peoples. Then the IE peoples entered. No such presumption is warranted. When I get to it I'm changing pre-IE to non-IE. While we are at it, the identification of various historical ethnicities with archaeological cultures is strictly editor opinion and has to go. I am sure, editor, you had great fun working this up. In a sense you remind me of me. What you don't realize is that a lot of people have been working on this topic for a long time. The difference between you and them is experience, that's all. More investigation, more reading. Check out your opinions. It's the only way, really. But, thanks for putting the topic up. We can gradually fix it. Just take it in stride. We are all entitled to blush at our first efforts. How else can we learn? We don't spring educated into the midst of society like Athena from the head of Zeus, etc. It will take a while to fix all this. Please forgive yourself swiftly. Best.Dave (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Split suggestion
Whoever set this up obviously intended the list to be a list article. As clean-up proceeds it will become obvious that it need to be done. I expect some expansion especially after we start adding the missing references. If you have an opinion let's have it.Dave (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Splitting the article in two, but related, with a second as a simple list List of Ancient peoples of Italy could be an opportune decision, IMO
 * I split it. Needs much clean-up, both articles.Dave (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sicani and Sicels
reverted edit User:Z as the matter is extremely disputed and not admitted outside albanian nationalist groups. Different academical sources admint a possible proto-illyrian origin for the Enotrians but not for Sicani and Sicels. see google (Enotri+Illyrians) and works by italian leading academician Giacomo Devoto Cunibertus (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Indo-Europeans
Regrettably, the caveats at top of the article ar too true. Nobody in fact can prove, when and from where Indo-European languages intruded to Italy. Of course, I have my own hypothesis (see www.hjholm.de), but it is just a hypothesis. HJJHolm (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

sardinia
the punic extension in sardinia is exaggerated, they where present only on the southern coast in trading post and never colonized that far in the interior — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.98.95 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)