Talk:Italians/Archive 2

Minor Edit
I edited the part were America was divided in two parts because it made no sense ok? BTW, i think it should be mention that Argentina is the country with the highest percentage of Italians over half of their population!!!

Accusasion by Katieh5584: Reverted edits by 72.91.137.200 to last version by Relir
I've never edited that page, and that's not my IP Address.

Here's a link to the differences

I would appreciate an apology.

Relir 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC) u don't deserve an apology!!!!!!!

false or meaningless information
hi everyone, my name is Carlo. there are some thigs in the text that are false or that lay misunderstandings. "the Italians have some eclectic origins, due to Italy's history of invasions and migrations." what does this sentence means? maybe the writer give too much important to the ethnic impact of the invasions (that have generally no importance), but what about the migration? what migration the text is talking about? If it refers to the indoeuropean migration the sentence is meaningless, because italians (like oll indoeuropean people) are the result of the influence of indoeuropean people on european indigenous, but that's all. And in Italy (as in almost oll southern europe) the indoeuropean influence was linguistic and cultural but it had not the same importance in ethnic balance.

The Celtic invasion of north of Italy regardet no more than 10.000 to 50.000 people; just less than the indigenous people who lived there (Liguri, Etrurians, Rethi) and and ethnically insignificant while the population of the Rome Repubblic was in that period abut 5 or 7 million. And the same can be said about the Germanic invasion. They had the same ethnic importance of the british invasion of India. And the text return on this point a lot of times, as it have to say every 5 words that italians are not an ethnic group, that they are not an unic population, that north italians are differen than south italians and not for the littery influence of France, but for the blood itself. This is ridicolous. Genetically there is no statistic difference between italians of different regions, while the text says "There is a notable physical difference in complexion between the upper northern third of Italy and the southern part of the country" which is totally false.

Call Emiliano-Romagnolo (that are two different dialects), Napolitan, Ligurian, Piedmontese, Sicilian, Lombard (that doesn't exist, there are many very different dialects in Lombardia), Venetian Languages is ridicolous. These are dialects. And they are mutually intellegible.

the text also say that Italy had never been unified before 1860. This is false. During the Ostrogoth period, the Longobard period, under Carlo Magno (who had been crowned as king of Italy), under Giustiniano (Empereor of Bisanzio) and then under the Germanic Empire almost the whole Italy was under the same rule. The division began after 1200ad whit the increase of the power of the cities; the period we call Età Comunale (but the cities were still, officially, under the empereor power).

i wouldn't give him an apology u didn't do any thing wrong

Meaningless Information Rebuttle
While, I would not call the origins of Italians as eclectic (they are just as eclectic as the Brits, French, and Germans which is just Indo-European), Italians do have various origins. What many people dont realise is that northern Italy has a huge Celtic and Germanic history. They were assimilated by the Romans, and then northern Italy again experienced massive invasions of Germanic peoples again, collapsing the Roman Empire. In fact, part of the Celtic homeland includes Italian territory north of the Po.

I am partially Italian, and I found out that my last name has descended from the Gauls, a French/Viking tribe who invaded Italy, and spreaded themselves southward. The Celtic and Germanic people have contributed a lot to Italian history, and it just seems to be overlooked in this article. (http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac52)

I have re-read wy wrote and I can say that I have to improve my English....

I am Italian and I effectively don't realize that Italians have various origins. I live in Rome, I have been a long time in Milan and in Sicily; I visited almost oll the important cities af Italy and I can assure you that there is no fisical (ethnical? genetic?) difference that can make an observer able to divided Italians from the north and Italians from the south. Outside of Italy (also because of the ridicolous work of Madison Grant) maybe people think that northern italians are blonde, blue eyed and pale; while southern ones are black haired and eyed and have dark skin. I can assure you that it isn't. People who live near a seaside (and like the sun) have dark skin, the others are pale. My father was blond and blue eyed. And he was Sicilian.

Celtic people of northern Italy (also call Celto-Liguri because of their mixture to the numerically predominant indigeus substrate) have been totally assimilate (ethnically and culturally) to the Latins. When the Romans conquired northern Italy they send there a lot of colonisers who inabitated cities and countries. The cultural influence of Celtic culture on modern Italian culture is insignificant (if it exist).

Of course Germanic Invasion had a Great Influence on Italian culture. But in the north as well as in the south. Ostrogoth power, as well as Lombard power, was extended from the Alps to Mar Jonio. Many Italian names (Carlo x exemplum), surname (espetially Aristocratical ones), toponimous, legal terms have a Germanic origin. And this is normal because German kings ruled the whole Italy for centuries. But just nobels and army officers had german origin at that time, and they where just a very few part of the population. Seems that at the time of the invasion, they were no more than 130.000. While latin people of the peninsula were 7.000.000.

Greater Germanic cultural influence on Italian culture in northern Italy is due to the Asburgic domination of Lombardia, Veneto, Friuli, etc. during the 18th and 19th centuries. (For some cities, like Trento and Trieste it ended in 1918)

About your surname we call the population you refer "Normanni" (from north-men in their language) that, moving from Norway, conquired England, Normandia in France and the whole south of Italy. Their trace can be seen espetially in Sicily (many castles and churches all over the island). So may be you are part Sicilian like me :)

If you want to see some maps of Italy during the barbarian invasions look at this site: www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/italy/haxitaly.html (I find it just now looking for immages on google; it is nothing extraordinary)

Goodbye and see you soon. (or, better, Ciao)

It's me again; i'm going to remove the sentence "There is a notable physical difference in complexion between the upper northern third of Italy and the southern part of the country. Due to regular population movements, the differences are not stark or pronounced, but do exist and may correspond to the ancient Italo-Celtic and Greco-Etruscan settlements rather than the various later invasions of Germanic tribes" because, as I axplained just before, it's false.


 * Who are you, first of all? Please sign and date your post, or otherwise we are unable to see where and when you explained anything. In the second place, I completely disagree with you. Saying do exist differences in physical appearance between northern and southern Italians is a self-evidence every Italian will admit, and it's quite funny to deny that. Let's think about any survey of the mean height of conscript drafted from the different regions : all regions north of Latium, none excepted, are above average, while all region south of it, none excepted, being below. People from Lombardy are four centimetres taller than people from Sardinia; people from Friuli almost six centimetres taller than people from Sicily. These are just facts: as all facts they are not racist. And they are worth a mention in every reputable encyclopedia. --Fertuno 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Racial categorization of Italians is subjective, stupid and anachronistic. This division between northern italians and southern italians is more a product of the imagination of Americans than anything else. It has also been fomented by the extreme right and separatist organisations of northern Italy. Also I would like to point out that mean hights tend to be more the product of economic development than anything else. In less developed areas (the south) where people have had poorer diets during growth, it is normal that average height is lower than in the richer north. You only have to compare the mean height of Italians today with 45 years ago. Or compare the mean height of Korean-Americans with Koreans for that matter. Btw I am not the same user as the guy above. --Burgas00 16:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can easily compare the mean today with that of 45 years ago, or even 110 years ago if you prefer, in the data I supplied. You can notice how northern italian's mean height is constantly few centimetres higher than that of southern ones, even in periods in wich economic differences between North and South were not marked (that is when were both not developed). Physical differences obviously doesn't restricts to this, and every Italian can suppose in many case if one of his fellow-countryman is a northener or a southener just from his physical appearance, almost dispelling all doubt as soon as he opens his mouth. Cultural, historical and social differences between Northern and Southern Italy are neither stupid and anachronistic nor something ough to be ashamed of, but are instead one of the greatness of this country. Admitting it doesn't means someone is better than someother: it just means we are not identical. And just to avoid element of ambiguity, I'm from Northern Italy, of southern Italian ancestry, I live in Central Italy and I don't have any particular reason to blame one or the other. --Fertuno 17:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well having travelled to Italy I have never noticed this difference. I have 4 close southern Italian friends and 3 out of them are tall, blonde and blue eyed. In any case who is interested in the complexion of a person? Does it add any valuable information to an encyclopedia? Does anyone care? This is not a neonazi website. The differences between Northern and Southern Italians, as between northern and southern French or northern and southern Rumanians, if it exists, is imperceptible and of know consequence whatsoever. It certainly doesnt add to the "greatness" of any of these 3 countries:D --Burgas00 17:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't compare a culturally unique country like Italy to others to back your theories. It's quite hard to find another country in wich coexist such different cultures and backgrounds in such a small area, being at the same time so united and so proud of itself. Admitting some differences in physical appearance between northern and southern italians do exist, in my opinion is suitable in a page about Italian people, and it doesn't mean to defame one or the other. I'm not talking of genetics, or worse: just about physical appearance. After decades of struggle now in Italy it's finally possible to use dialects, with nobody still fearing that speaking the language of one's ancestor undermine national unity nor it is racist! Now, why admitting a truth obvious to most of Italians has to be a taboo? I'd like to know the opinion of my fellow-countrymen. --Fertuno 23:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence I deleted said that the physical difference is NOTABLE, but (if it still exist) is not notable. I never noticed it. And the same sentence said that this "notable" difference is due to germanic invasions. And this is ridicolous. This is the reason I deleted the sentence. Because it was false. Seems written by Madison Grant the same. Ciao e alla prossima :) Carlo 12/Oct/06 11:03

I'm sorry...
mmm. ok, I'm Carlo, from Rome. I'm the one of "False or meaningless information", I'm the one who re-read his wrote after the rebuttle and I'm the one just before you. I'm new on Wikipedia and I forgot to sign. I'm really sorry....

Today people from Sicily are as tall as people from Friuli or Lombardia.
 * This is only your opinion. Please provide data supporting it, as I provided data supporting mine. --Fertuno 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Untill 10 years ago there was the 6cm difference you are talking about, but it was not due to something genetic; it was due to the poor conditions of the people living in south. Many children were in fact to poor to have a complete alimentation and so their growth was compromised. You can see this also in today poor countries; where people from upper class are 10cm taller from people from the lower class. In the 19th century Veneto was one of the poorest regions of Italy and its inhabitants were shorter than people from Lombardia, Piemonte, etc. Berlusconi come from Milan but, at my eyes, he doesn't seems so tall... :)
 * In the 19th century Veneto was one of the poorest regions of Italy and its inhabitants were still taller than people from Lombardy and Piedmont. Look it up in the data I posted. Is this a fact or not? Is this a prove that Italians are not physically identical each other or not? Is that worth a mention in a page about Italian people or not? --Fertuno 18:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The data you posted refers to 20th and not 19th century, and adfirm just what I adfirm; with the improvment of economic contidion in southern Italy has been noticed a growth of the population height. My encyclopedia (Treccani) agree with me. Of coure Italians are different each other :D I'think maybe I'm very diffent from you. And we live in the same area. What I mean is that there is not a physical difference between Northern and Soutern but between person and person in the North as well as in the South.  12/Oct/06 10:41

You say that "is a self evidence that every italian will admit" but I'm italian and I don't. I travelled a lot all over Italy and I never noticed a "notable physical difference". Just people who vote Lega Nord can agree with you. And they are 4% of Italians at last elections. You cited a web site, and also this site adfirm that Italian from the south are growing (statistically) and it refers to 1998.

Of course exist a difference between Italians from different regions but it is just cultural and due to economic condition; in souther Italy many people in past times were too poor to have a good education and some of them, still in the beginning of the 20th century, were not able to read and write, so there was more superstition, "bigottism" and conservatism. But it is a difference that is going to despare with old generation. Another difference, beetween people from Lombardia, Veneto, Friuli, Venezia Giulia and people from the rest of Italy is due to the Asburgic domination and it can be seen in Architecture and litterary production of 18th century. But also this difference is going to disappear because those works are now studied in all schools of Italy and they will influence the litterary production of the whole Italy.

Of course we have to report facts. But if we report facts of the past maybe we have to not use the present form. Today the "fact" (NOTABLE difference in physical appearance) is not a fact but a false information. And if the connection between two fatcs is false (Germanic invasion, difference of height from north and south in the past century) we have to not report it.

If you think I'm quite funny is good, I was thinking I'm boring :)  See you and sorry again (also for my english)                      Carlo from Roma, Italia; 11/oct/06, 19:56

Scientific sources stating do exist genetic differences between northern and southern italians.
Its seems quite a common behaviour in Wikipedia refusing to admit that differences between northern and southern italians do exist, maybe fearing that admitting it would be racist or nazist. Well, things are not in this way. Admitting we are different (scientists have already done it for decades) doesn't mean to blame one or the other, it just mean we are not alike. It mean to exploit one's own peculiarity rather than standardize all to a reassuring falsehood. Few countries show as great a contrast between regions - in terms of culture, traditions, history and more-widely anthropology - as that found in Italy between the North and the South. Attempts to minimize these differences in order to feel better it's quite offensive for both, and nonetheless the differences remain.

Carleton Coon, in his 1965 book The Living Races, concludes his chapter on Italy by stating <> (TRoE, p. 559).

In his History and Geography of Human Genes, Cavalli-Sforza, professor emeritus at Stanford University, one of the five greatest genetists of 20th Century, confirms that <<the first synthetic map shows a clear gradient from north to south. One pole of the first axis is in the extreme south, in the eastern part of Sicily and the southern part of Calabria, which are separated by the narrow strait of Messina. The opposite pole includes all the north and center. Between Rome -which is centrally located on the peninsula- and the South, there is a progressive gradient of the PC. This corresponds to the well-known differences in physical type (especially pigmentation and general size) between northern and north-central Italians on one side and southern Italians on the other (Livi 1896-1905). Northern Italians are more similar to central Europeans, whereas southern Italians are closer to other Mediterranean people, being darker and smaller. (277-278) While the "extreme western portion of Sicily" may be more similar to northern Italy (perhaps owing to the Normans), this doesn't change the fact that most of southern Italy is very distinct from northern Italy>>.

And I also ask you to check again this survey of mean height of conscripts drafted from the different regions, which cleary show how northern italians, especially north-eastern, are during a century always three or four centimetres taller than southern italians. This is true also for the 1896 Veneto, then one of the poorest region of Italy, which had the highest mean height of the whole country and retains it today.

And again: <>. Guess what is this? Well, it's 1997 edition's Encyclopedia Britannica, an encyclopedia which I suppose is far more reliable than this.

All this is just also about anthropology, which is a solid, respected and well-founded science. Luckily nobody here is a fan of Nazis or belive than having a particular genetical character rather than another can be a pride, but this not means we are all identical, sharing exactly the same heritage. Accordingly to this, I'll lift up the old paragraph about differences between Italians (not written by me, BTW), wich I think is very reasonable and unbiased, and states that

<>

supplying it with the additional informations I mentioned above. I'm sure someone will disagree with me. In this case, it would be rather a nice thing to back one own's theories with scientific data like these ones rather than lay down the law with personal feelings and unexplained opinions. --Fertuno 00:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The basic point you are missing Fertuno, is that there is no more physical diversity in Italy than in any other large European country and that nobody really gives a damn about what percentage of blonde blue eyed people, or what average height there is in each province of Italy. You can also present sources with the figures for people who are paralyzed by road accidents or the incidence o lung cancer, or the average penis size of Italians, and I will still oppose putting them in the article. --Burgas00 09:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way I have just noticed you have cited a neo-nazi website. Just for that gaffe I am reverting your edits once more.--Burgas00 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Stating there is no more physical diversity in Italy than in any other large European country is just your opinion, not an universal law. I have another one and everything would be fine. The point is that I backed mine with well-founded sources. Yes, that neo-nazi site is a gaffe, and I removed it (after all you aren't a terrorist just because you have a beard, isn't it?). But Cavalli-Sforza and Coon are not: they are among the greatest genetists of the past century, and they both explained how Italy genetic and anthropological diversity has no comparision with any other european country. This is a fact, accepted by all scientists. Is this worth a three-lines paragraph in a page about the Italians? It's hard to say no. In the page about Spaniards you can read that <>, so why not in the page about the most genetically-diverse people in Europe?
 * <>. What's wrong? Why is it insulting to say a scientific truth like this? It's like to say climate in North Italy is almost continental while going south it becomes more and more mediterrean. So what? Is it a recent custom out there to consider outrageous what was already published on world's most prestigious scientific publications?
 * Is it possibile to have a vote about this issue?
 * Fertuno 12:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against discussing the genetic make up of Italians and their ancestry in a proffessional way. Carletoon Coon was not a genecitist and his field of Anthropometrics has long been discredited. Discussing who is or is not dark skinned is ridiculous and offensive. If you want to discuss ancestry ask someone who knows about population genetics or read up on it and then a proper section can be made on it. --Burgas00 15:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you are really interested in pigmentation of people, read this article http://backintyme.com/essay021215.htm. As you can see Italy has no more diversity than any other Mediterranean country, and secondly, pigmentation has less to do with genetics and race than is commonly thought.

--Burgas00 15:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph I resumed doesn't talk about genetic differences, just about physical appearance. Northern Italian generally look lighter than southern, the first being more similar to other Central europeans while the latter to other Mediterreans. Also the site you posted shows it unequivocally, for instance in this map, in this one and in this other. You can easly see Southern Italians being in the same group as Spaniards and Greeks, while Northern Italians in the same group as French and some Eastern europeans. And there is nothing wrong with writing it in an article about Italian people: it's exactly like talking about climate in an article about Italy. And nobody seems to be offendend by stating Northern Italy is colder than Southern one. --Fertuno 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

___________ I agree with both Fertuno and Burgas00. There is a few things that I agree with Burgass00. It is futile to try to categorise Italians because of the way they look. A lot of North America's view on Italians are based on early 19th century stereotypes which are'nt necessarily true. (Note that I wrote "are'nt necessarily true"). First of all, I am from Canada, and Italians make up almost 5 percent of the total population. I was very surprised to read in a high school encyclopaedia, the description of Italian people. It stated that northern Italians tended to be fairer in skin, hair, and eyes, while the southerner mostly had darker features. I have many Italian friends "straight from the boat" who are pale with brown/blonde hair, and blue/green and even grey eyes who are form the south. However, either way, blondism in Italy is still the minority, just more of a sizeable minority in the north.

Personally I went to Italy myself, me being partially Italian. I went to Calabria (south), Lazio (centre), and Veneto (north). I did notice a difference in the population. When I was in Calabria, I barely saw a blonde. I saw about 4 blondes in my two weeks there besides my cousins (interesting fact; my cousins in southern Italy were natural blondes and redheads). When I went to Treviso, Rovigo, and Venice, blondes were almost equally represented among brunettes. Take a look at a Blondism Map I have of Italy conducted by an Italian researcher R. Biasutti. (http://tinypic.com/6p9ut2.jpg) Blondes can number up to 20 percent and more in the north to almost 8 percent in Sicily (which is quite a bit for Sicily), and as high as 7.5% to 15% in Campania, another region in the south.


 * I can't believe you went to Italy in order to count people's hair colour. That's rather disturbing. Miskin 10:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont want to continue arguing about this, but the last point I would like to bring out is that there is a difference in the look of Italians as you go north. The map proves that itself. I also think that that thought is encyclopaedia material. However, its description is quite tacky to just say that southern Italians are "Mediterranean" as well as "dark and short". I mean, the definition of Mediterranean is so massive, and simply meaningless when it comes to determining what someone should look like. Obviously northern and southern Italians are not sooooo different as to say that there is a huge racial difference, though I do believe that there are significant differences as northern Italy did recieve more Germanic/Lombard/Celtic invasions than the south. They still remain largely Roman, something that binds Italians together today. - Galati

I guess the main question to ask is why are some people interested in this issue? What is the deal as to whether a part of Italy has 20% of blondes or 8%? I just dont get it... This must correspond to some outdated anglosaxon racial categorisation of Mediterranean peoples which has no place on a modern Encyclopedia. The saddest thing is that some (a small minority) of Italians fall for this external steortypisation of their country and people.--Burgas00 10:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Burgas, I think you start from a wrong assumption. Being lighter and taller is not better than being darker and smaller. Nobody said this, and maybe the only outdated anglosaxon racial categorisation is in implying this. Being lighter and taller is just not like than being darker and smaller. And in an article about history, culture and traditions of the Italians is worth a mention. --Fertuno 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never made such an assumption. Im saying that its irrelevant and worthless pseudo information. In France, people from Britanny are on average much blonder than people from Marseille or Corsica, but no one considers this of any importance. What relevance does it have? What does it have to do with "the history, culture and traditions" of France? Why are you bent on including this stuff on supposed "racial-types" especially when such steorotypes have been used in such a negative way in the past both in the US and in Italy (by the extreme right)? --Burgas00 20:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

____I was doing a little reading in the ethnic groups of Europe in Wikipedia. The Portuguese people article gives a description of what Portuguese people look like. Personally, I dont care, because there really is no such thing as an Italian look, to me anyway because Italians can look like any type of European people. While I agree with many aspects of Burgas00, I do agree a description of Italian people, not based on Nordicists opinion on trying to prove the blondism of Italy, but trying to disspell past stereotypes of Italians today, not that many people really care. Actually, all anyone has to do is look at the Italians of Hollywood, and see that these stereotypes are all based on past anglo-saxon ignorance. - Galati

As an Italian, I am very in touch of my roman and trojan ancestry, I do not appreciate the belittling of my great cultures by self-loathing barbarians of the north, nor the "italian" american traitors. Thank you. Let's all keep good NPOV here! :)

"As an Italian, I am very in touch of my roman and trojan ancestry" Well since you're being as realistic, how come you didn't mention the ancestry from Zeus via Dardanus? Maybe we should add those Trojan and Olympian genes in the article. Miskin 10:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Italians are MEDITERRANEAN first and foremost, I hate the EU, I don't care for european nations, anglo barbarians are the people that ruined our Empire, no? Also christianity, weaked our great people, then traitor Constantine abandoned the eternal flame!

I laugh at these fools talking about blondes and blue eyed like it's an honorable thing, we aren't northern europe, we are of mediterranean culture, they just like to claim it as their own to make up for their adequacy, also to supress our culture, this is mostly done by self-loathing infidels as stated above. I will scan this page and will ask for sources for incorrect information from now on, I am new here, but I *will* not tolerate europeans belitting mediterranean cultures, and if you're a self loathing "italian", don't say you're italian then, we don't need you. Crud3w4re 06:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm having difficulties as well to understand some people's way of thinking when I see them trying so hard to convince us that their nation is in reality blond. It's like saying "hey, look at me I'm Aryan! No, really I am! The rest is just stereotypes! I'm also part of Hitler's superior race program!" - this is just a shameful, narrow-minded and ignorant behaviour. I once tried to remove all pseudo-science reference about physical appearence and genetics and replace it with historical information, but people insist on adding it back. Miskin 10:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's so clear that those anxious about blond hair, pale skin and blue eyes are just you that maybe all this agitation neither deserve an answer. Between Northern and Southern Italians do exists some differences, even in physical appearance, even if they aren't stark. This difference was the subject of many reputable ethnographic and anthropological studies, accepted by the whole scientific community. So pointing out this little difference in a three-line-statement, whitout giving it too much weight, doesn't mean having blonde hair is better than having black hair. I'm woundering why you have this fear. It just mean having blonde hair is not like having black hair. You all are starting from the assumption that pointing out Northern Italians have an higher incidence of blondism means a glorification of blondism and nordic race and other nazi rubbish. This is not true: it's just pointing out a fact. As far as you are concerned, I've brown hair and eyes, and a truly mediterrean appearance, like many other Italians. But yet I don't get why would be outrageous for me stating in the North complexion and hairs are generally lighter. --Fertuno 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

???????
I have been away just a week and this page now looks like a circus... Fertuno, write whatever you want. I'll not delete it. I hope people who will read the page will also read the discussion and your contribution, espetially the map you reported. This way they will be able to see that in northern Italy blond people are less than 15% of population (so a little minority). The same map show the Sicily have 5% blond and Lombardia 7,5% (not a great difference I think.. but this is the map YOU reported). I just think it's a bit strange to so strong subline for a whole paragraf this difference (5% to 7,5%) and define it as NOTABLE. If you think this is the way to write an encyclopedia without creating misunderstandigs, ok. Carlo from Rome 20/Oct/06 13:34

PS: there are other things to say about the article

1)"Part of the north was invaded by Germanic tribes" the whole Italy had been ivaded by Germans people. The same article just the following line tell of Lombards of Benevento (in the south); maybe an encyclopedia have not to contradict itself.

2)"while the south was colonized by Mediterranean peoples" maybe it refers to the 5th or 6th century b.c. so before and not after the Roman power.

3)"Italians have historically been more loyal to their local regions than to the state" what does this sentence mean?

4)"isolation of the kingdoms" As art history teach there were more comunication and cultural and litterary exchange between Italian cities than between French or English or German cities. This is the reason Rennaisance started in Italy and arrived in those other countries 2 centuries later.

5) In may opinion the article stress too much upon the differences between various local italian cultures. They still remain part of an Italian culture much differt from foreign ones.


 * I see a lot of blonde people—especially women—in northern Italy. Along with a lot of discarded bottles. But not enough bottles to account for all of the blondes. So in that respect Italy seems to be like most places. —Ian Spackman 12:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If I can tell you a secret, my girlfriend every mounth dyes her hair to have it blond :) Carlo


 * Anyway the edits concerning 1) and 2) were based on the Britannica - 2006 article "Italy", so you must cite a source to have a valid content dispute. Miskin 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah dear miskin, I know very little english and maybe I am not able to be understood. The article Just contradict itself :D :D Benevento is in southern Italy :D


 * "This is the reason Rennaisance started in Italy and arrived in those other countries 2 centuries later."

Really? Most sources say that it started there due to the influx of Greek intellectuals in Florence, Venice and Rome, following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. That was when the Latins "re-discovered" ancient Greek philosophy - the heart of the Italian rennaisance. Miskin 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no hard to understand that the diffussion of rennaisance all over Italy is due to communication not to a miracle. Without communication there is no cultural development.

Ethnicity
An ethnicity is: "A sense of being different than other groups because of cultural tradition, ancestry, national origin, history, or religion." This is exactly what Italians are, they are different from european nations, the only real nation I see alot of similarities with Italy is Greece, no other nation. I actually see more resemblance in culture with North Africans than I do with Viking Scandanavians, no Roman ever looked like a Viking, I don't know why people are so ashamed of being Italian, why must we be categorized so much? If you can't accept that Italians have their own history and their own culture, then why even come to Italy? Just pay attention to your own bloodline! Italians are historically *not* of anglo-saxon descent, I do believe the Romans fought them? I do believe that they thought of them as barbarians? I also believe they created buffer zones to isolate themselves from the barbarian tribes? Why did they want to get into Italian territory so bad, was it too foggy and cold where they originate?

What about Corsica? Majorily Italian, yet it's French territory. So you can't go on what a people are based on the territory they possess. You can't say Britains are of African ancestry just because they have some African territories LOL You have to analyze the people, not the foreignors, the actual people that comprise of the ethnic makeup of the people as a whole.
 * I am a Briton and I absolutely insist on my African ancestry. It’s not that I am proud of being a human being rather than a wombat—quite the reverse: fewer humans and more wombats would make the world better. Still, I am a Briton and as such I am human and an African. To describe me as Austrolasian would be fantastically weird. —Ian Spackman 13:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We are Italians, furthermore we are human beings, shouldn't that be enough? Let us concentrate on more important topics with this page, I think it looks great so far. Crud3w4re 19:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, people are going to cite sources that are as fallacious or debatable as the next, and do so unfailingly. In the end, I really hope that something good comes out of all this petty quibbling about ethnic origins, such as an increase of attention brought to more important matters in regards to the improvement of this decrepit article. Sicilianmandolin 00:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why some people are eager to hide the fact that there's a rich cultural diversity within the Italian nation (north vs south being a mere example). This is something to be proud of rather than the opposite. Nobody claimed that Italy is like Belgium or switzerland, but localism does exist and is an important part of Italian history which deserves to be mentioned - and it by no means degrades the unity of the modern nation. Physical differences between peoples of the same state (North-south, east-west, mountainers-islanders) exist in every single state in the world, and it's pointless trying to deny it. In Italy and Greece, and probably also in Gaul (France) and Iberia (Spain), people's physical appearence varied from region to region since ancient times. Miskin 01:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Objection. "The Italians are a Southern European ethnic group" I'd prefer "The Italians are an ethnic group from the Mediterranean region of southern europe". [] Crud3w4re 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 15 percent or 1 in 7 Italians are naturally blonde. Thats like the humungous Hispanic population in the United States. Thats no small minority. Stop kidding yourselves.

Stop the Bashing
Personally, as a Canadian of partial Italian origin, I cant stand understand the bashing of all European peoples on this page. Why are we calling northern Europeans barbarians, or picking fun at others European groups who have all left their genetic imprint on Italy no matter what we may think. Italy has a great culture and we should appreciate all, from northern germanic barbarians who plundered Italy to the Greek settlers. Heck without them, some of us would not even be around, as some of us are blonde or brunette who bear testimony to these invasions.

I recently found out that my last name comes from the Gauls, an indeginous people of northern Europe who invaded Italy. Other parts of my family's last name comes from Spain when the Aragonese took over. I appreciate, the barbarian to the coloniser.

There are blondes, brunettes, redheads, and black hair, all equal, all important, and all testimony to Italy rich and important history. So lets stop trashing each others cultures and origins, because Italians are everything European. If you guys want to stop pointing out your impressions of what Italians should look like, or want to look like, turn on the TV, and watch people of the Italian media (http://www.jumpy.mediaset.it/Canali_J/Maria_De_Filippi/Maria_De_Filippi_CCC.shtml) to seek your answers to what Italians resemble on there, and not past stereotypes.

The funny thing is that us North Americans are always debating as to what Italians look like or should look like, while Europeans consider everyone form Europe as just fellow European. What is our problem!!!! - Galati   21/10/06

Your problem is that you are a society obsessed with race. --Burgas00 12:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

---Clearly it is North America who is obsessed about race or else we would not be having this conversation at all. It was North Americans who decided on what southern Europeans should look like not southern Europeans themselves. Clearly you dont think when you speak Burgas. I suspect your from the United States, clearly a backward society still grappling with race relations Brazil got rid of hundreds of years ago. So is it the Italians, or other Europeans obssessed with race, no it is North America. Europe is obsessed with culture, somethin that North America does not have.

Yes I was referring to the North Americans as well:-)--Burgas00 00:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

-If 15 percent of Italians are naturally blonde (not that it really makes a difference) that would mean 8,700,000 blondes out of a population of 58,000,000. That is definitely a huge population.


 * Yeah, congratulations for this great achievement! Miskin 10:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is getting really embarrassing.--Burgas00 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC) ___

This debate has really got to stop. While we all have varying viewpoints, all of us are right to a certain extent. We have to respect each others viewpoints. The objective of this article is not to put a percentage of blondes, brunettes, blacks and reds in Italy. The objective of the article is to describe the origins of the Italian people, which everyone seems to be forgetting. - Galati 22/10/06
 * It’s been a pretty Catholic country for a while (with important Jewish, Muslim and Protestant minorities) so how about having the article read:
 * “Italian people are mostly self-described as descending directly from Adam and Eve. (But some of them are redheads.)”
 * Snappier that what we have now. Or not? —Ian Spackman 22:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The "French" revert war
Whats up with the French? Why remove it? They are a western European people who are culturally and ethnically similar to the Italians. There is no distinctive difference between northern and southern French (a part from minor cultural differences) Italians are no closer to the Greeks than they are to the French who are also Latin, catholic and who share string ethnic, historical and cultural ties with the Italians.

As for the statement that the French are not a "Mediterranean people", well what does Mediterranean people mean a part from people who happen to live on the shores of the Mediterranean? I mean Egyptians or Turks are Mediterranean but the Italians are clearly much closer to the French than to the latter... --Burgas00 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. The article states that Italians are related to some other people "around the Mediterranean". That is a purely geographical specification: as long as France is bordered by the Mediterrean Sea, it is one of the country "around the Mediterranean". It doesn't mean that French are a "Mediterranean people", which of course would be a meaningless sentence also if referred to Maltese. --Fertuno 13:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, France is not an official Mediterranean country. As far as the Turkish go, they are probably closer to Italians than the French are. And I'm saying this as an Italian, not some observer.

Yeah there's no distinctive difference between northern and southern french, except the south is Arabic. Miskin 22:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding (partly), but the French of the south are different from the ones of the North in all aspects, and they're altogether different to Italians. I think you should remove all links to other ethnic groups in order to avoid POV-pushing and edit-warring. After all, those claims are based on OR and POV, as are yours. Miskin 22:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

PS:France is not a true mediterranean country, i.e. it's not particularly hot, it doesn't produce good olive oil, it's not fond of sea food and mediterranean cuisine in general (or any other aspect of med. culture), and most importantly, it takes the name of a Germanic people. It's a continental european country with a mediterranean element, that is all. Of course this is also a POV. Miskin 22:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. How are the French a Mediterranean people at all? Besides the Southern minority, the majority of France is non-Mediterranean. They are not even considered part of Southern Europe. Yes, there are some similarities (probably anthropology-wise as well) between the people in Southern France with some Italians, but the majority of France is of Germanic or Celtic descent. Meaning that they are not related to most Italians. Meaning they should not be specifically referred to in the "Origins of Italian People" article.


 * You maybe have to know that it doesn't exist anything close to a "Mediterranean culture", "Mediterranean people", "official Mediterranean country" and "Mediterranean anything". Please define what is a "Mediterranean culture". Countries around the Mediterranean show so deep differences in history and culture that it makes no sense at all to give them such a definition. On the contrary "countries around the Mediterranean" just refer to countries which border the Mediterranean Sea and nothing else. Belive it or not, France is one of these. Italy too.
 * As regards climate, a third of Italy doesn't have a Mediterranean climate. Actually, an half of the countries around the Mediterranean doesn't have a Mediterranean climate at all. Anthropologically, Northern Italians are similar to continental French, while Southern French are more similar to Central Italians. You can easly check the sources in the article. As regards naming, four Italian regions (Liguria, Lombardy, Veneto and Marche - that is a third of the Italian population) and many placenames take their name from a German or Celtic root, while many regions and placenames in France, like Provence and Aquitaine, take their name from a Latin root. Actually the second city of France takes its name from a Greek root while the second city of Italy from a Celtic one. Very strange, isn't it? World doesn't split as sharply as you belive.
 * Just a second. Milano come from Mediolanum, a latin name, not a celtic one; and it has been founded by Etruscans not by Celts.
 * Hallo, Mediolanum is the latinisation of the celtic name Medhelan. The city has been founded by the Celts: the Etruscans founded Melpum. Alex2006 11:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And as regards the ties between Italy and France, it's simply ridiculous be forced to explaining them for anyone which doesn't ignore the last three millennium of human history. I just would like to remind you that Northern Italy was part of Gaul for centuries. --Fertuno 00:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, the Turks were a Turkic people, clearly something that Italy is not. Italy is indeed close to French particularily in the central and southern regions of France considering that much of the southeastern French territory including Corsica (and I am sure Corsica is no different from the Italian island of Sardegna) were Italian before they were ceded to the French. Sure, northern France has a very Germanic/Celtic influence, but so has northern Italy, not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of years that Sicily was under Norman domination after they ousted the Arabs, so Italy actually shares a huge history with France, culturally and ethnically. - 26 October 2006, Galati 26/10/06


 * This does not even matter. If you consider the French "Mediterranean", then they are included in the phrase "others around the Mediterranean." To specifically name them is unnecessarily confusing, as the majority of France is not considered Mediterranean nor related to Italy. Personally, I don't think the majority of Italy (With the exception of the Germanic North) have any relation with the majority of France, whereas Central and Southern Italy are more related to the Greeks and Iberians.


 * And the Norman influence on Sicily is vastly overplayed. Regardless of which group occupied Sicily the longest, the Sicilians have more Arabic than Norman influences. - Callmarcus


 * I'll repeat it for the last time. The phrase "around the Mediterranean" has only a geographical sense: as long as 100 meters of French territory will border the Mediterranean see, France will be a Mediterranean country. Brazil and Iceland are two country "around the Atlantic", but again only in a geographical sense: it means nothing more that these two country have a shore on the same sea. --Fertuno 18:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What you say is irrelevant. Britain in geographically in europe but it's not culturally similar to a continental european country like France and Germany (where the anglo-saxons originate). Magna Graecia (Southern Italy and Sicily) was under Byzantine rule for 5 centuries, and it was a Greek-speaking place from 8th century BC until at least the 11th century AD. Central and Northern Italy was under Frankish rule for couple of centuries too. However today this - the modern age of nationalism - this is of little importance; what is important in an individual's personal national self-identification. I don't care what happened 1000 years ago, you can trust me when I say that France has no mediterranean culture, there's no such notion as the unity of family which exists in Italy. If you go 50 km north of Marseilles you'll meet people who have never tasted olive oil in their lives. Also, in my default definition of 'mediterranean', I don't include the non-european countries. Miskin 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what is vastly overplayed is the Arabic influence in Sicily. 160 years is not a long time and even the French language has more Arabic influence than Sicilian. I also think you exaggerate (Miskin, that is) the absence of Mediterranean culture in France. I am not French btw, although I know the country well.--161.73.31.51 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then don't say anything

When someone refers to "Mediterranean people(s)," which is what the paragraph in question is about, the French are not included in that grouping. It refers to the people of Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, North Africa - people who in general have darker skin and hair, for example, and who are more likely to carry certain genetic characteristics (such as lactose intolerance, found in about 50% of people of Mediterranean descent). There are cultural similarities to that region as well, such as the high use of olive oil in their cuisines, that the French do not share. To those who are arguing for inclusion of a statement that Italian people are anthropologically similar to French people, then provide a citation and we can include the statement. Without a citation, though, the claim is dubious. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Maybe you have to do a tour of France and Italy dear Darcy, or maybe you prefer citations than experiences ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.208.239 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 27 October 2006
 * This is just your personal definiton of "Mediterranean people". And anyway, the paragraph doesn't refers to any "Mediterranean people", just to other peoples whose country happens to have a shore on the Mediterranean sea which are closely related to Italians. French are definitely one of these, Turks and Israelis are not. Iceland and Brazil both have a shore on the Atlantic sea, but this doesn't mean they are related in some way. As long as France would share a border with the Mediterranean sea, it would be a country "around the Mediterranean". This doesn't imply any ethnic or cultural judgemen simply because there isn't anything close to a "Mediterranean anything". On the Mediterranean you have Latin culture, Arab culture, Slavic culture and so on, but you doesn't have any "Mediterranean culture" at all! You cleary have a stereotypical vision of what are Italians and Mediterranean people in general. Giving ethnic definitions according to the use of olive oil is simply ridiculous, but you all seem to love it, and maybe nobody of you know that olive oil is unknow in the whole Northern Italy, which makes almost an half of Italian population. Again, as regard complexion and hair, this map shows that northern and central Italians share the same complexion with French and other continental Europeans, while southern Italians are in the same group of Spaniards, Greeks and Turks. But I think it's quite offensive for all to put the matter in this way.
 * You just have to know a bit of history of Italy to infer that no people is closer to Italians as far as culture, tradition and history is concerned than French. In Italy they call them their "cousins". Maybe they don't deserve it, I know. --Fertuno 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * maybe nobody of you know that olive oil is unknow in the whole Northern Italy This is patently false; olive oil has been a major part of Ligurian cuisine for ages (Liguria is in northwest Italy, running up to the border with France; it's also where my family comes from, and I've visited it numerous times). The issue is whether French people are anthropologically similar to Italian people or not. If someone can provide a citation to support that argument, it should go in the article. I asked for a cite, and I still don't see one. If we can't provide a source to verify that claim, it doesn't belong in the article. I think that's pretty clear under Wikipedia's policies. And frankly, that applies to the whole article, which is mostly original research at this point.| Mr. Darcy talk 04:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is my personal definition, but in case you haven't noticed I'm not making any edits in the article. My opinion is that all "ethnic relations" from X to Y should be removed. They're all POVs anyway, let's stick to linguistic ones. And that goes for all articles, not just this one. Miskin 22:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way I think your map refers to antiquity. Check the colouring in Australia, Southern and Northern Africa, India and the Arabian Peninsula. Miskin 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Fertuno wrote above. As I have stated earlier, there is no such thing as Mediterranean culture or people because it is to broad as it encompasses both Europeans (yes, the French, Italian, Spaniard, Porutguese, south-slavs) and non-Europeans (Arabs, Israelis). We cant lump southern slavs, latins, and north african Arab/berbers because their differences are great, especially in culture. I have noticed as well that a lot of people base their reasonings of Italians and other southern Europeans based on early 19th century stereotypes, without any scientific evidence. It makes me wonder whether you guys have actually ever met an Italian because your definition of Italians and southern Europeans for the matter contradicts mine on many occaisions. Fair skin, hair, and light eyes does not stop at the French border. Race is never that stark, especially in Europe. - Galati

Didn't you forget Greeks? Miskin 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can someone point to the references to verify these facts being placed in the article. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a verifiable source I've removed the contentious statement according to official Wikipedia policy. Feel free to produce a reference any time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot help but giggle to myself in reading these comments above!!! What world do Mishkin and MrDarcy he live in?? This seems to be more about how thin you can slice the layers of this moronic debate than any real discussion. Have these people actually travelled abroad? Italians are not homogeneous- and culturally and ethnically there is absolutely no doubt that northern italy is very, very similar to France. Southern italy is less similar (but similar nonetheless!), with some aspects of the culture more closely aligned with Greece. To a martian looking down on earth (there are no borders when looking from space), there are no clean lines. And just to rebut some idiotic and unsubstantiated comments above (I cannot help myself)- the family in France is just as strong as it is in Italy if you compare rural vs. rural (and Paris vs. Milan)/ would you say Parisiens are more similar to Londoners or to Milanesi?/ Would you say Marseilles is more like Naples or Hamburg?/ Do they grow more olives in Provence or in Lombardy?/ Is the traditional cuisine of southern France more like that of North-eastern Italy or Flanders?/ Does Corsica have more in common with Sardinia or Normandy?/ and (to sum up only, since this list can go on forever) the French and Italians (as well as Spaniards) love their wine and eat their salads last! The point is we are all Europeans and the degrees of cultural and ethnic variations do not follow borders. If we must generalize: linguistically, ethnically, and culturally the Italian people are most like the French and Spaniards.

About history
Some time ago I wrote

1)"Part of the north was invaded by Germanic tribes" the whole Italy had been ivaded by Germans people. The same article just the following line tell of Lombards of Benevento (in the south); maybe an encyclopedia have not to contradict itself.

2)"while the south was colonized by Mediterranean peoples" maybe it refers to the 5th or 6th century b.c. so before and not after the Roman power.

3)"Italians have historically been more loyal to their local regions than to the state" what does this sentence mean?

4)"isolation of the kingdoms" As art history teach there were more comunication and cultural and litterary exchange between Italian cities than between French or English or German cities. This is the reason Rennaisance started in Italy and arrived in those other countries 2 centuries later.

And Miskin aswerd me "Anyway the edits concerning 1) and 2) were based on the Britannica - 2006 article "Italy", so you must cite a source to have a valid content dispute. Miskin 10:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)"

About 1: Benevento is in Southern Italy, near Napoli (If you want a source you have to see a map of Italy) and it was (as Britannica saiys) a Lombard reign. So where is the dispute? The article just contradict itself. It's very funny that you don't realize it.

About 2: I agree with your Britannica about the greek invasion of southern coasts (but I prefer my encyclopedia Treccani, espetially about italian things). And the Britannica of course agree with me they took place in the 6th and 5th centuries b.c. (So before and not after Roman power). So they have to be not described as they took place in the same age of germanic invasions (which took place inn the 5th century A.D. as you can see on Britannica)

About 3: The sentence is meaningless. While the region was a state itself why is strange Italian have been more loyal to their Lord than to a state which didn't existed jet? Or If it refers to post unit period is simply false, as you can see in our 19th century litterature.

About 4: It's no hard to understand that without communication there is no cultural development. And in Italy developped Rennaisance, Barocco and Rococcò. Until the 19th century Italy has always been at the top in art and science. In your opinion without communication between cities. Very strange. Do you in Italy, during the whole middleage, there were more roads (builted by the romans) than in the whole rest of Europe (if you want sources you have to see an italian map with roads and read the names of our main roads)? May this have a little importance in communication or not?

(PS Fertuno, what are you doing? The last map you are reporting is the one write by Medison Grant. Don't make me laught, that map is ridicolous and Madison Grant thesis have been confutated just in 1933 as Treccani says)

About 1). It's true that Germanic tribes invaded the entire of Italy upon the sack of Rome. However, upon Justinian's reconquest of the West those tribes were submitted. The Lombards reconquered the North of Italy anew, but as Britannica states the south remained under Byzantine domination for 5 centuries, until the Normand conquests of Italy and Sicily. So even if the Lombards had a foothold in the south, it's not accurate to state the Germanic tribes settled all over the peninsula, let alone that the numbers of those tribes (not to mention armies) is rather exaggerated. About 2); the migration of mediterranean peoples refers I suppose to Byzantine Greek rule and migrations in southern Italy, as well as the Saracen conquest of Sicily. Miskin 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Miskin, just a note: you must have misread Britannica, because the Lombards didn't only conquer the north, but also parts of central (Tuscany, Abruzzi, much of Umbria) and a majority of southern Italy (Basilicata, northern Puglia, almost all Campania, but not Naples or Amalfi).--Aldux 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"With some exceptions, the north was penetrated by Germanic tribes crossing the Alps, while the south was colonized by Mediterranean peoples arriving by sea. The Byzantines were dominant in the south for five centuries, coinciding with the supremacy of the Lombards (a Germanic tribe) in Benevento and other parts of the mainland." Hello Aldux. Maybe the anon has a valid point but as you can see I haven't been making any of this up. Miskin 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The lombard reconquired northern Italy? Not exatly; when Byzantine power decreased Lombards restoired their reigns in the north as well as in the south (Benevento); just the islands and the corners of Puglia and Calabria and few cities still remain under Byzantine rule (Venezia, Rimini, Napoli...). I don't think Britannica says that a great migration from greece to southern Italy during Justinian reign took place. Because it is false. There is no trace of any greek document in southern Italy of that time that can make anyone able to say that greek was largely spoken. Of course there was a greek minority. And still is. (my sources? Encyclopedia Treccani, school teaching, trip to Benevento) Carlo 28/oct/06 20:41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.59.175.210 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Britannica doesn't say that, and I'm not sure what it's meant exactly by "mediterranean peoples". Although it's not stated in the article, medieval Greek migrations did take place, and it is attested by both medieval as well as modern sources; and Greek was the predominant language of the southern cities of Italy and Sicily until at least the 11th century BC (this is also viewed in the Graecanic language. I can get you sources for any of the above claims, but since it's not stated in the article we don't have to argue about it. Miskin 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible that Brittannica doesn't say anything about the "Ducato di Benevento". Greek was not the main language of southern Italy, I don't know where this information come from. Sicily was under Byzantine rule as well as Rimini or Venezia or Rome. In your opinion also in Rimini, Venezia or Rome Greek was the main language? Althought Greek was the main language of the Byzantine empire the official language still was latin. So why to impose an unofficial languages to cities which have been latinized 700 years before? If you go to Sicily you will never find greek iscription of any age after the latinization. I don't know what sources you are talking about. The first Italian school of Poetry was the "Scuola Siciliana" (source Dante Alighieri); how is it possible if in your opinion sicilian people spoke a latin language just since few years? Maybe you are right we do not have to argue about it, but if the article do not refer to greek migration (that ovviously took place, but it was not great) what "mediterranean people" it's talking about? Anyway the article have to be more clear. Maybe (also because I'm not very able to make me understand in english) it seems that I just want claims. It isn't so; wikipedia gave a lot to me, so I just want to give my contribution to wikipedia where I can. If I see an article that (in my opinion) is wrong I have to tell. But be sure I'll not edit anything if other people (like you) don't agree. Carlo 29/oct/06

PS why do you link the Grico page? It never says that it was the main language of anywhere. As I just said before (meybe you didn't read it or I bud wrote) Greek was and still is a minority language of Puglia and Calabria corners.

Well Carlo I don't see any relevance to the article but if you want to discuss this then it's fine by me. I'm not saying that the entire of medieval Southern Italy was Greek or anything like that, but if by "main language" we mean "official language" then you're wrong because Greek had become the official language of Byzantium since the reign of Heraclius. But even during the reign of Justinian, Latin was a dead language in Constantinople, and Justinian himself wrote his constitution in Greek (there's no question on the language of the Church). In fact Latin had never been a spoken language in the Eastern part of the Empire. So even if the southern Italian cities were Latinised, Byzantines would import Greek because it was the language of the Church, education and literature, albeit the only thing they knew. A specialised book "Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries" claims that sporadic migrations of "Byzantine Greeks" took place in the regions of Apuglia and Calabria - only those two were predominantly Greek-speaking in the middle ages (and this is verified by Britannica), and also Sicily, which was never Latinised by the Romans in the first place. It also goes to say that the cities of the "upper" part of southern Italy (namely Naples and Gaeta) had strong Byzantine connection for centuries, and that their populations included "a good many individuals of Byzantine Greek ancestry". Byzantine clergy was installed and local rulers were Hellenised in order to keep their positions, and there was therefore a bi-lingual clergy in Greco-Latin or Greco-Italic, though by the 10th century Latin was predominant. Of course none of this imply a large-scale Greek colonisation a la antiquity, but sporadic Greek influx on certain regions, cities and/or their clergies. And for the parts of southern Italy that were under Byzantine's rule, Greek was the official language, albeit not necessarily the popular. And obviously Britannica does mention that "The duchies of Spoleto and Benevento had, as noted, maintained their independence and their separate political traditions". I linked Graecanic because it is a mixture of Doric and Byzantine Greek, which verifies both ancient and Byzantine Greek presence in the region. I'm not implying that Griko-speakers are/were ethnically Greek or anything as silly, they are as Italian as the Florentines, but their language is an "eye-witness" to the rich culture and history of their region. You should go ahead and make edits to the article, nobody's going to stop you, certainly not me. I'm not really editing this article, I only participate in Talk every now and then. I made some edits some time ago in order to remove some pseudo-science that dealt with racism and genetics, and I replaced it with historical information. I'm only replying to you because you questioned the validity of my older edits, and I wanted to prove that it wasn't stuff that I invented. So you have every right to edit them around, but I would advise you to register a username, it literally takes 10 seconds. Miskin 13:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will register as soon as possible.

If you agree about Ducato of Benevento was a Lombard reign how can you agree with the sentence in the article (PART of the NORTH have been invaded by German tribes)? Maybe it have to be correct into "Italy have been invaded by german tribes". But this sentence is jet in the chapter "History", and if correct this way the sentence have no sense in the chapter "Origin of Italian poeple" because this whole chapter only want to demostrate that Italian from the north and Italian from the south are two different races. So what to do? Correct the sentence? Delete it? Delete the whole chapter? Rewrite it? But what way? If a person do not start thinking Italians are two different races how can be interested? The problem about the misterious mediterranean colonization still remain; are we sure that a colonization which could change ethic composition of Italy took place? I'm not. And there is also the matter of the NOTABLE physical difference between those two "races". I think it is ridicolus, and also the sources this ridicolous sentence refers to just proof that there isn't any ethnic line thet divided north from south, blond people are 7,5% in Milan and 5% in Palermo, the only parts of Italy where blond people are more than 15% are those regions, nears the borders that are not inhabitated by Italians. So why to write a sentence (false) only referring to a source that just DENIED the sentence???? It seems really crazy to me!!! I hope you agree.

Then in the chapter "society and culture" there is a meaningless sentence just at the start. What I have to do? To remove it? The whole chapter just say that Italy is more a rural country than England (true) but what about the society and culture of the title?

It really seems in the whole article that the only important thing to refer about Italian people is not their culture, not their litterature, not their art, not their music, not their way of wearing or cooking or living or whatever you want, but just the thing Italian from the north and Italian from the south are just two different "races" and the reality is that the Italian people of the title don't exist (also referring to an unexisted "isolation of kingdoms").

Maybe, as an Italian, I can see this as a bit offensive (and wrong).

I think that a person who sit in front of a computer seeks an article on wikipedia titled "Italian people" because he is interested in Italian way of life, italian culture and so on. If he is not mentally freak I don't think he should be interested in a (false) demostration of the difference between Italians type A and Italians type B.

However I think your editings (if they are your) in the chapter "origin of Italian people" are correct. Carlo 30/oct/06


 * That section was originally written by me and its purpose was to replace an older section named "Genetics", which aimed to describe Italians in terms of genes, something that to most people was like reading Chinese anyway. So in a way I tried to remove useless and biased references on race, genes and other ridiculous information that don't really fit in a serious encyclopaedia article in the first place. But as you can see it's not easy because most of the editors here care about blondes, brunettes, blood relations to german and french vs spanish and greek etc. For example the last paragraph of the "Origins" section that speaks about genetics was added by someone else. I see your point clearly, I wish the article spoke more of Italian culture but the majority is interested in more shallow topics, while the "culture" section remains extremely poor. And this is not something that is restricted to this article, the majority of ethnic articles deal with similar chauvinism (see the Talk pages in Spanish people and Portuguese people). I think you should go on and make some edits without worrying about the language issue, it will be copyedited by someone. For the time being I'll make a small copyedit on the Origins section. Miskin 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I made some rephrasing. Miskin 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maltese
In what way are the Maltese related to the Italians as an ethnic group?--Burgas00 17:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion? Miskin 23:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look to the phone directory of Malta, for example... alex2006 07:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just did. Some Italian,English, Spanish and German names thrown in (normal considering the size of the place and its history). But most are simply Maltese names...--Burgas00 13:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you have the answer! No - or few - Italian family names, no Italians...
 * Ciao, alex2006 15:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Maltese are somewhat related to the Italians. However, the Maltese have a lot more Carthaginian and Phoenician influence. This is CIA World Fact Book’s definition: “Maltese (descendants of ancient Carthaginians and Phoenicians, with strong elements of Italian and other Mediterranean stock)”. While I hate the broad usage of Mediterranean, we see here they Maltese are a mix of Arab/Berber elements and Italian. From other sources, they also have some French in Germanic influences. Those with English last names are immigrants from Britain, as the UK did own the islands for a while. For the most part many have Latinised surnames. - Galati


 * What you write is correct. Consider also that, up to the thirties of last century, Italian was - together with English - official language in Malta. The irredentistic policy of Mussolini - who wanted to annex Malta - forced the British government to substitute the Italian with the Maltese language, and the Maltese people to search for its own roots. alex2006 06:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ha ha ha! "the Maltese have a lot more Carthaginian and Phoenician influence". Where is the influence? Artcrafts? Bulls! The Maltese comes from Latin. The Romans ruled there, and imposed their language, not the sailors from Lebanon. And about the Phoenicians and Carthaginians: they consisted of Italians too! User: Andrea Dec 2006