Talk:Romanians in Italy

About the article
I don't know the Mutus' citizenship status; probably Romanian only. But if, on the one hand, we mention 1,061,400 Romanians, of whom probably a rather small percentage are Italian citizens, and if, on the other hand, the list of Romanian-Italians is only to include Italian citizens, that can give rise to confusion. Maybe a comment like could be placed after the section heading. Biruitorul 06:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are obviously right. This article was started by a since-banned lobbyist, who thought his job was to profit from any confusion and bloat the number of people on the list (matching his inane edits on the Romanians article). There is an ambiguity in the title, but I did not know how to deal with it. In any case, this article would really fail to be informative if we were not to make clear the distinction (I did not know whether this meant dropping all info about non-citizens or "by the way"-ing it to some info -that we currently lack- on actual citizens). Plus, Mutu is an Italian-Romanian only in the same way he was a British-Romanian before being fired from that nationality ;). Dahn 06:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me; let's try and come up with some more definite criteria at some point (this can even wait until after the New Year, when EU accession will be out of the way and residency/citizenship matters will be more stable, barring a Becalist coup d'état in the interim). And indeed, Mutu is a fairly transitory Italian, though he probably has an easier time speaking the language, when not using cocaine, and his wife/sex partner (I forgot if they remarried) was married to an Italian. Anyway, our friend NorbertArthur is merely blocked, not banned, though for quite some time. Biruitorul 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, his [ex?] wife might actually be an Italian, but... who wants to look into it? And, more important: who's ever going to turn the link blue? [O_o] Anyways, I apologize to our friend for thinking ahead: I'll wait patiently for six months for him to do something of the same caliber and get himself banned for real. Dahn 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Who indeed? I remember reading an article in a magazine about her once, though admittedly I paid more attention to the photographs than to her insights. April 4 is the de-blocking day...I'm waiting... Incidentally, I've been musing on the would-be Becalist coup: there would be a definite upside in that it would provide massive opportunities for writing new articles. The Thais had a coup recently and the article on that event stands at 108 kb, plus numerous child articles.
 * "On November 17, 2006, Romanians awoke to the sound of martial music on their radios as tanks rolled through the streets of Bucharest, the road to Otopeni airport barred by a massive convoy. Their new leader, clownish football mogul Gigi Becali, was on television praying before a large icon of the Virgin Mary. President Băsescu's whereabouts remain a mystery..."
 * Anyway, in all seriousness, I wonder if some people do secretly wish for disasters/wars/what have you just so they can write articles on them. It's a definite possibility. Biruitorul 06:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider the speed with which 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake became a featured article... it would seem that there are indeed some enthusiastic disasterologist wikipedians on call. On the other hand, the real wiki disaster after a Becalist coup would be the spillover of the soccer-minded contributors into articles on Romanian politics. Yes, it is eerily quiet... but who can forget the season of "let's change x Wallachian ruler's name to something more idiotic" (I cannot recall if you had joined wikipedia in time to witness that). Dahn 08:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've dabbled in articles like Steaua Bucureşti but it's a pretty big task, especially with all the fans there. When Statul Naţional Fotbalist comes along, the whole Romanian wikiverse might get destabilised... I think I do recall that phase - my account dates to May, but I've been editing since late 2003. I probably should have registered sooner; anyway, that's what accounts for my seeming to be a "fully-formed" editor from the beginning - I'd already had 2½ years under my belt. Biruitorul 09:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Steaua article is pretty ok compared to this WRECK of an article. I'd burn the latter and start it anew; note the fantasy involved in creating it. Seeing edits like that and like Roller of Galaţi (not about a certain communist historian) make me want to say to those people: "have a look at a featured article, any featured article, before you consider writing something" (although, I have to tell you, the general aspect of the one for Hungarian Rev. of 1956 is a bit disappointing, chaotic as it looks).

I'm glad I found your secret... Truth be told, I had come in as an IP myself for some months before the baptism of fire (I cannot even remotely place the moment in time, but it couldn't have beeen that long ago - sometime in 2005). Dahn 09:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, we have eleven Romanian pigeon breed articles to create! And yes, the Hungarian article needs work. I've been trying to get this information included, but no luck yet. Also, 132 footnotes might be overdoing it a little, though I do see the need for proper documentation. Biruitorul 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My pet peeve with the article (and others) concerns format: I can perhaps get over the various and irrelevant coloured rectangles that take up space here and there, but I cannot, for the love of me, understand the need for so many and so small pictures. I would place many of them in a gallery, and get rid of those merely portraing some leaders (can you oicture anyone thinking that a portrait of Krushchev or a picture of dead Stalin adds quality to a text on events in Budapest? There are so many other ways to use the extra space: for one, enlarge the small-sized actually relevant pictures). It is symptomatic for this forsaken part of the world that we have to list leaders, martyrs and whatnot with meaningless portraits that add noting to the events described. This is especially annoying when the very merit of wikipedia is that it is not paper: people who want to see portraits can just click links. I say "use them with discrimination", and "prioritize things that are relevant for the subject". I've been trying to get people to understand that the competing jingoist pantheons pictured in the article Transylvania can be replaced with neutral and generic landscapes or depictions of events (History of Transylvania could do with at least this improvement to begin with - the article is horrific!)... Dahn 18:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do see your point. But to get through a FAC, I guess you pretty much need a flashy presentation. I disagree with that, of course, but I'm not making the rules here. One exception might be today's FA, which has no statues, corpses, tanks, or speeches associated with the subject. As for the History of Transylvania article: I agree to an extent. It's got two deleted images and I can see right away that the Ottomans are barely touched upon. And 1867-1916 is glossed over, which is clearly a bad idea. However, there are child articles for some themes, like Transylvanian Saxons, which makes sense with such a broad topic. Anyway, it does need work (and has but one reference).
 * On a vaguely-related theme (not that we're discussing Italian-Romanians here), is this worth translating, or should I wait for individual articles on all three revolutions? Biruitorul 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer your second point: no, it should not be translated. It shouldn't even have been created. Thanking Joe for introducing the term in my vocabulary, it is Whig history. There should have been three distinct articles, and all would have plenty of content to suit them. There were actual connections between them, but:
 * a. all of the connections are bound to take up little space.
 * b. most of the content on the connections can be explained when dealing with particular events, and especially with the Wallachian revolution (the only one to actually be a revolution).
 * c. an overlook will fit perfectly at a revamped National awakening of Romania, where we could actually begin to write some information (and not some wikipedian's frustrations).
 * d. Transylvania, Banat, and Bukovina are not to be centered on the state the regions are part of nowadays, but somewhere on Revolutions of 1848 in the Habsburg areas (it's not like they were fighting Bibescu as well).
 * e. an article like that would favour the connections, while automatically ignoring the discrepancies: the creator of the article should really sit down and think about whether Avram Iancu, who wanted the Habsburgs back, and Bălcescu, who wanted to fight the Russians, really have much in common outside of Ceauşist rhetoric or generic ignorance.

On your first point: I think that keeping and properly sizing nly the relevant photos and speeches on the Hung Rev article was feasible and desirable. They currently have pics the size of postage stamps, many of which add nothing. They could have kept the, corpses, tanks and the Time cover, and all the photos of the actual revolution, but who needs the portraits? Then again, I was really spechless when I saw an article like Trench warfare being an FA! Dahn 00:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The creator or the 1848 article is, er, interesting: ro:Utilizator:Dacodava. Mă numesc Dacus Diurpaneus! Biruitorul 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You gave me a shock with the "Mă numesc Dacus Diurpaneus" part. Initially, I thought it was a personal statement :). You might want to check out another sample of his creations: this "NPOV" list (btw, the inclusion of Rădăceanu is a fantasy only shared by the Simists and the Adelaide Institute - the man was, to the best of my knowledge, German, and it would take a heluvalot for a Jew to hold hands with the Wehrmacht, as Rădăceanu was said to have been doing). Such contributions involuntarily give yet another reason to burn down ro:wiki and start anew. Dahn 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have yet to find out my "true" Dacian name, but I will put it on my user page when I do. Meanwhile: I agree that much of the content in ro.wiki is problematic at best; I'm always amused/amazed by their Iron Guard article: "după război, comuniştii evrei se aflau la conducerea ţării", "bandele lui Armand Calinescu si Gavrila Marinescu il asasineaza miseleste pe Corneliu Codreanu", "Afirmaţiile evreului Lenin...", etc. Biruitorul 01:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mine is Rubobostes. For the rest, just thinking about the cabal makes my nose bleed. No matter what one's political opinions are, a minimal level of education should have given one the instruments to phrase a neutral sentence. I feel sorry for those people. Dahn 01:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was Moved. — V = I * R  (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Italians of Romanian descent → Romanians in Italy &mdash; move to reflect article content. This article and its sources discuss Romanian migrants in Italy, hundreds of thousands of people of whom few are naturalised. No good reason to restrict the scope of this article to "Italian citizens with Romanian ancestors", a narrow topic which has far fewer non-trivial, reliable sources. cab (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Someone with an Italian citizenship is an Italian though their descent can vary. This includes naturalised adult migrants and children of migrants. I would say "Romanians in Italy" is more restrictive as it pertains only to those individuals who either are still citizens of Romania or who self-identify as Romanians, located in Italy for whatever reason. I say this without involving myself in any previous discussion. / PerEdman  21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, do you know of any scholarly studies which discuss former Romanians who have naturalised into Italian citizenship and no longer identify as Romanians but only as Italians? Because such studies certainly aren't cited by this article right now. cab (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I can't decide if this is a good proposal or not. The references don't help, since they never use any actual term (the English news sources just work in Romanan and Italian/Italy into the prose in various ways). There is a Category:Italians of Romanian descent, but there's also a larger Category:Romanian diaspora, and in that category there are similar pages that use "Romanians ("in" is used twice, and omitted once) ", so based on that I'll give this Weak Support. I don't really see the need, to be honest, but since it's being asked for you've received my opinion on the subject. — V = I * R  (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stats cited for demographics
Istat estimates appear to have usurped census figures for 2011. Please note that the same issue has cropped up on the Romanians article here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)