User talk:Raffaeleserafini


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.  --noclador (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.  --noclador (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Food bigoli.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Food bigoli.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Venetian arena verona.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Venetian arena verona.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Food vicentina-baccala.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Food vicentina-baccala.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Food polenta sol panaro.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Food polenta sol panaro.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Food sopresa.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Food sopresa.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Venetia bassano.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Venetia bassano.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Venetia rotondaPalladio.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Venetia rotondaPalladio.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Venetian dolomites.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Venetian dolomites.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Venetia San Marco's square.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Venetia San Marco's square.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Venetian flag.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Venetian flag.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Venetian oldest document.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Venetian oldest document.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DFS454 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Venetian diaspora
I have nominated Venetian diaspora, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Venetian diaspora. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. dougweller (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Compact_sa_no_li_xe_mati_no_li_volemo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Compact_sa_no_li_xe_mati_no_li_volemo.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 17:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

3rr
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. NJGW (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page formatting
Hi, you should read TP, which explains about how to format your talk page discussions better. Also, don't forget to sign your comments so they don't get confusing. NJGW (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit on Talk:Venetian People
Hopefully you did not mean to imply that an editor is a Nazi, but I have asked you on the article's talk page to make it clear that that was not what you meant. dougweller (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

of course I did not mean it, I know wikipedian are not racist and they are able to admit and think that italian discriminate and oppress and commite ethnocide against Venetians.

AfD nomination of Veneto-Brazilian
I have nominated Veneto-Brazilian, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Veneto-Brazilian. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. dougweller (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Venetian Somatic.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Venetian Somatic.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Venetia San Marco's square.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Venetia San Marco's square.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. dougweller (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. and failure to adhere to a neutral point of view dougweller (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Ridimensiona diLanguage identifier.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ridimensiona diLanguage identifier.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Venetian
Compliments for your work about the Venetian people. Are you a Venetian? If yes you can put in your userpage some of the templates you can see at Category:Venetian Wikipedians, and especially Template:User is Venetian, and join the category! --Checco (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''You have also been asked to read our policies and guidelines on reliable sources, verifiability and original research at WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:Verify You have been warned about this several times. You also need to read WP:NPOV as you have been making a number of edits that breach our policy there.'' dougweller (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. --noclador (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --noclador (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --noclador (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Germany, Italy was a country long before it was a unified state. This issue has been discussed many times before and the consensus is to describe pre-unification Italians as Italian, while mentioning Venice as well. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''As above - please stop this if you do not want to be blocked. You can take it to the talk pages of articles if you wish, but if you continue to make such changes against consensus you will be blocked'' Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Having looked into this further, I see a more or less equal number of books and journals referring to him as Italian or Venetian, so I'm striking the above formal warning although I still see this as evidence of pov editing which must stop. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop all this (again)! We have been through it all before several times. There is no objection to adding, if there is not already one, a formula that includes both Italian and Venetian, but no flags in artist's infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Venetian nationality
I've just seen your last edits. If you claim there is a Venetian nationality you have to discuss the subject in a proper place. Don't change the single articles. Qui no ti xé a un radun de venetisti.--Rosso Veneziano (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I happened to notice your edit at Giacomo Casanova. I agree that it's more proper to call him Venetian rather than Italian as no Italian nationality existed at the time. However, I suppose some kind of Italian regional identity must have existed, and this should allow us to refer to Italy for the benefit of our international (in fact intercontinental) readership. Currently this is done nicely through the words "Italian adventurer and author from the Republic of Venice", going from the general to the specific. Just changing "Italian" to "Venetian" creates a strange repetition that would have to be fixed by removing "from the Republic of Venice". But after that, another place would have to be found to unobtrusively make it clear to the general reader where Venice is located. We might even arrive at "Republic of Venice, Italy", as if there had been two such republics, and sounding almost like a place in the US. Hans Adler 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not an expert wikipedist so my vision of history cab be banned easily by "experts". Italy did not exist 150 years ago, there was an italian peninsula and the inhabitants could be hardly called "italic". A political concept is different from a geographical concept. Casanova, Polo, Canaletto, Canova, Vivaldi, Palladio .....were citizens of the republic of Venice. They were inhabitants of the Republic of Venice which was a state much before Usa and many others. These people were citizens of the Venetian Republic and they carried documents of this Republic. There were ambassies all over the world! These citizens of the Venetian Republic were called: " Venetians" and not italians, period. There is abundant literature about it, no need to lie. Now, after the invasion of the Repubblic of Venice, after the colonization of the Venetian People in 1866 under the italian rule, the name of people were changed (italianized), the name of road and towns changed, the Venetian language and identity was forbidden, their literature, their history, deportation was carried on and genocide in small scale accomplished. This is history. But if you study Venetian history in the italian books, no trace of it will be found and you will think I am a lier. I am not a Venetist, I am first of all somebody who wants to be precise in analisys. I do not want to support the false history italians are writing about us (Venetians). Check in Turkish literature any trace of the Armenian genocide. Would you deny any Armenian genocide? I wanted to honestly cooperate to inbetter wikipedia, I understand that some people use it to impose their nationalistic view and make propaganda. The search of truth is an option for many so called wikipedist. I do not want to fight with those who cultivate dishonesty. i will devote my efforts somewhere else. regards Raffaele Serafini


 * You're back again, I notice. See the essay Beware of the tigers, which perfectly applies to your actions here. If you continue to make these sorts of contentious edits, you will be blocked. Graham 87 14:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Mr Serafini, I recently engaged in this same dispute with another editor regarding the ethnicity of Giovanni Battista Pittoni. I think the same principles of that debate apply at least to the Bellini and some of the other artists you keep insisting that they are Venetian not Italian. I think your are nitpicking a point, but losing the bigger picture. I add my mildly altered commentary from that discussion below to apply to Bellini. I remain one of those who will also disagree with changing the leads from Italian to Venetian for all the artists you continue to change.


 * Discussion

I did some searching on Wikipedia, and as expected, found that this is not an infrequently litigated area. It has been unsucessfully litigated for Petrarch, for example, here []. The writer stubbornly remains as an Italian icon, although one could argue, he had strong links to an written Italian language, while the language of painting is a far more oily field. I could also find similar discussions (Florentine versus Italian) when speaking of Giovanni da Verazzano [] or Leonardo Da Vinci []. In all, or at least most, the preponderant decision is to define them as Italian, even while recognizing some anachronism to the term.

One objection cited is to object to the use of Italian is found in the words of WP:OPENPARA:, but right after the section cited by objectors, the guidelines use an example of Petrarch as Italian, the very same label opposed by those saying Petrarch is a Florentine.

I would recommend you to the following guideline on categorization of articles at, wherein a states that

''A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio.''

(Again notice that the example is Caravaggio as Italian, not Lombard, not Milanese, not Caravaggian, etc.)

Thus again, I can quote as a reliable sources in SJ Freedburg, who wrote major reviews of painters of the time and place of Bellini and Bellini himself, and cited him as Italian. Of course I can find you a book on, Venetian painters alone, such as Michael Levey, but I favor in this regard, the assignments with more encyclopedic notability. Freedburg assigns Pittoni to Italian painting; Luigi Lanzi assigns a section on the School of Venice in his massive nineteenth century opus The History of Painting in Italy: The school of Venice. Federico Zeri and Elizabeth Gardner published a monograph on the paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art of the Venetian School, titled Italian Paintings: Venetian School. Again it is these assertions that fortify assignment of Bellini, and so many others, under the Italian label: "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having this characteristic—such as nationality''.

There may come the future, when Italy disappears, as ethnicity, nation, and language, and then your call for renaming their ethnicities will make more sense. But, alas, not today. Yes, you are correct on one level, but you are wrong in another more fundamental level, in that you ignore what reliable sources commonly and consistently define these painters. How many of sources can you find that reliably state that these Venetian painters are not Italian. If so, quote them? Are you certain that you are not expressing some nationalistic bias in favor of distinguishing Venice from Italy?

Ultimately, in Wikipedia, as of now, Petrarch is Italian, Caravaggio is Italian, Leonardo da Vinci is Italian, Verrazzano is Italian, and Bellini is Italian. Unless you can convince me there is a consensus to change all these, I decline to revert this state. I just wanted to add to the voices that will push back on these changes.

Rococo1700 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Rococo1700 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that there is only the intention to transform Venetians into italians for nationalistic reasons. You are making politics and not history. What you suppose is not what history is! My question is: WAS JESUS AN ISRAELI? Analogically, were Marco Polo or Casanova or Vivaldi italians? Was Caesar italian? What about Archimedes or Pitagora? Palladio was Venetian born in Vicenza, but he was Venetian because he was a citizen of the Republic of Venice. The Republic of Venice had ambassies all over the known world! Venetian People still speak Venetian language, and today italians and filo italians are doing anything to change our story, to forbid our language which we are not allowed to write in any official document since the italian invasion in 1867. Please study history and be honest. Why don't you define all Venetians citizens of the Republic of Venice italians. Why Marcantonio Bragadin is not italian? Why all the Doges (the presidents of the Repubblic of Venice) are not defined italians? Why only the major artists? Why to insist to call italians such world's famous artists and explorers? National modern states build fake history to justify their existance and that is why we arrived to such blasphemies as to define Marco Polo, Palaldio, Archimedes, Pitagora, etc... italians. National modern history is retroactive! Wikipedia is supporting this and carries on lies. Let a lie run for years and it will become an historical truth. The intent of Wikipedia is to delete the words: "Venetians" and "Venetian People". Are they so uncomfortable? Catalans, Basque, Scottish People and Venetian People are very uncomfortable for the modern nationalistic vision of history. In the world there are more than 6000 languages, but only 200 states. Wikipedia forces the description of history to justify such 200 states, and it does retroactively, this is the big lie.

All the historians you mention and who use the word "Italians" referring to Venetian artists, are born after the italian annexation and invasion of the Venetian republic. I make you an example: Can we find any text written by the Turks and friends after 1917 who admit that some of the artists and monuments in modern Turky were Armenians? Do you know what ethnocide means? The winners change history, change definitions, change names........ Finf me any document contemporary of Marco Polo that defines him an italian? Please.

About Canova nationality
You may be interested in the following discussion. --Robertiki (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

VENETIAN PEOPLE OR VENETIANS
Peoples of the world, Tom Stacey, 1966, London It is an anthropological encyclopedy that describes the Venetian People. There is a Venetian language recognized by Ethnologue, Unesco, Library of Congress. There are around 10 millions speakers of Venetian Language. Why does Wikipedia continues to censor the words Venetians/Venetian People? What is the political problem that all those artists, and scholars who were born in the Republic of Venice (when italy did not exist) are defined "italians" and any word referring to them as "Venetians" is banned? Who is manipulating Wikipedia, is there any political wikipedist team who works to build a faked interpretation of history and use wikipedia as a stage?

Deletion discussion about Venetian people
Hello, Raffaeleserafini,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Venetian people should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Venetian people.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Serafart (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Venetian people


A tag has been placed on Venetian people, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ansh 666 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

On continuing to assert the Venetian label
I stated above that you fail to meet the criteria established for this encyclopedia in changing ethnicity from Venetian to Italian:

"A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc."

Again in the case of Bernardo Belloto, there will be sources that mention him as Venetian, or Italian and Venetian, but the pre-eminent sources, but pre-eminent sources such as Rudolf Wittkower and Luigi Lanzi, separated by centuries, include him in encyclopedic overviews of Italian art of the period. Again, I have challenged you before, and I challenge you again to dispute this.

Do not tell me that if I call Belloto, Italian, then I must call Jesus, an Israeli; or Caesar, an Italian. Hogwash. Nonsense. My logic does not require that, because there are no "reliable sources that consistently" call these folk that, so I would not call them this. It is that simple. The general consensus has been for over one hundred years by major scholars in the field, that Belloto falls into the "Venetian school of Italian painting". He is therefore called an "Italian painter". Of course, he did not have a then non-existent Italian passport, but he is engaged in a sphere of art known for being in the geographic or cultural sphere of Italy. Also it is not enough to get one scholar today to call him a Venetian, it has to be consistently used by scholars for many years. From the inspection of recent exhibitions of vedutisti, that has not happened. Again, refer to the issue at hand:

"A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject"

For example, the following statements, may be true, but have no bearing on this issue: 1) The Republic of Venice had embassies all over the known world! 2) Venetian People still speak Venetian language. 3) Italians and filo italians are doing anything to change our story, to forbid our language. 4) National modern states build fake history to justify their existance and that is why we arrived to such blasphemies...

The exception is that you are defining this as a "fake history" and a "blasphemy". My sense is that if SJ Freedberg and Luigi Lanzi had to listen to you, they would roll their eyes back in their head, sigh, drink four cups of wine, and challenge you to the following. Find me any painting prior to the eighteenth century form outside the Italian sphere of painters, and try to pass it as an "Italian" painting. I am fairly certain that reliable sources like these would be able to identify a painting as either Italian or non-Italian with over 95%, perhaps 99%, certainty. This is what they reliably and consistently identify as an Italian school. No blasphemy involved. No fake history.

You ask why are not Doges defined as Italians? The answer may be that the "pre-eminent if not predominant sources on the subject may consistently refer to them as Venetians". It is possible, under the guidance for Wikipedia, for a Doge and a painter, born in the same year, in the same town, could have different labels (Italian versus Venetian). Again this is not dependent on my opinion, but on what "reliable sources consistently" state. Rococo1700 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I will not go on discussing with somebody who is not looking for truth but just wants to win the argument. You are climbing on glass walls and your long explanation tells the tale. Only one honest question: HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE VENETIAN LANGUAGE SPEAKERS? Why in wikipedia for a decade some organized group of people try to censor the word VENETIAN so efficently? What am I speaker of? I cannot even have a definition? I give a straight answer: NO NAME NO RIGHTS In the land I live there are so many nukes and military that, recognizing the existance of a third original ethnic historical group (usa and italian are the first 2)such as autoctons Venetian People, would imply the recognisance of rights..... We are the native people, and Usa and Italy are doing anything to sweep us from the face of history and earth, and this ethnocide begins with the destruction of our history, our names, our pure definition: VENETIAN PEOPLE. regards to all

Love from Sweden
Hello. I just wanted to say that I think that Veneto should be an independent country. I hope to see Veneto become free from italy in my lifetime. Seeing someone who cares so much about Venitian culture makes me so happy. Greetings from Sweden. - VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

== The term "Venetians" indicating a People is completely censored in Wikipedia, me and many scholars wrote and we have been systematically censored. Why the Sicilians can be a People in Wikipedia, but not the Venetians? Censoring words is the way to commit an ethnocide, it is the premise to deny the existance of a People such as the Venetian People. This is the attitude of Wikipedia and people who are paid to manipulate wikipedia politically to deny the existance of Nations and People. The explanation for this wikipedia and wikipedist's attitude in the main english version? The Venetian People live in an area that has become completely occupied by Usa military since end of second world war, on the base of treaties made with italian government. The recognition of the existance and legitimacy of the real inhabitants of this area (the Venetian People, occupied illegally by italian crown in 1866) would invalid such "secret agreements made 80 years ago, and would also force Usa and the world to deal with a new legitimate entity. This is the reason Usa are paying thousands of people to controll search engines, encyclopedia, newspapers etc..... Censorship is total and begins with the deletion of "signifiant".