Talk:Italians/Archive 10

Images
I feel as though a lot of the images need removing from this article. While notable, there isn't really much need to have so many images of individuals at the end of each section – surely just one or two would do. Does anybody agree/disagree? Vesuvio14 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree too. Moreover, there is another - bigger - problem: the presence of the Romans in the article. It is clear that Italian identity is based (also) on the heritage of Rome, but the Italians are NOT the Romans. On this there is a very broad consensus among the sources. Now, I find the inclusion of a section on Rome in the article problematic enough, but the images of the illustrious Romans are definitely out of place, especially since they might suggest that Cicero, Caesar, etc. are Italian. I therefore think they should be removed. is anyone against this? Alex2006 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This issue is quite similar with the Egyptians promoting the ancient Egyptian identity.Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is no objection to removing personal photo templates.Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be a very sensitive topic that is not so easily dismissed and where neither nationalist views of the past nor revisionist views of the present should be imposed. While it is true that there is no complete equivalence between Romans and Italians, and this is especially true for imperial times when Rome becomes an empire and the Roman one is only a citizenship and no longer an ethnicity, it is equally true that there is also no complete discontinuity, starting with the language, Italian, which is descended from Latin, and moving on to the process of formation of the Italian ethnicity that goes back to Middle Ages, much older than the unification process, and which from the beginning also includes the Roman heritage. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many editors now or who join Wikipedia go to the past, especially those who see that the old nation is better than the current one. Sources are brought from here and there and they search for any evidence to link the current nation with the old one. When discussing ancient peoples who lived in a particular country, it is important to acknowledge their existence, but it is not necessary to establish a close connection between them unless there are commonalities such as language and culture. It is important to have a thorough discussion on topics related to ancient peoples and genetics on Wikipedia. Many articles suggest that ancient peoples are identical to current populations, and they use genetic sources to support their claims, even though these genes are widespread across different regions of the world, including Europe and the Middle East. These genes are related to geographical ancestry rather than specific groups of people. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Length
At over 16k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the article is not too long. The topic is really very complex and multifaceted, and a detailed article is needed to have a complete treatment. --LukeWiller (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC).


 * I appreciate that that might be your opinion, but that doesn't outweigh WP:TOOBIG. Complex and multifaceted topics are meant to be – and in many cases are – covered by summary style articles with more detailed child articles expanding on subtopics. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)