Talk:Italy

Error

Italy i/ˈɪtəli/ (Italian: Italia [iˈtaːlja]), officially the Italian Republic (Italian: Repubblica italiana[note 1]), is a unitary parliamentary republic in southern [Europe]]

There is a missing bracket. [Europe]] --> [[Europe]]. Please, correct. --Simo94 / ^discuss 17:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why no special section on racism, xenophobia in Italy?

I was wondering why there's no special section on racism and anti-immigration in Italy, especially in light of the violent attacks against immigrants in the past few years, and the recent decision by the Italian government to close all soccer matches to the public due to the enormous level of racism exhibited during soccer matches. I only bring this up because wiki writers seem to believe it's important to mention racism on issues regarding the United States, each of the 50 states, the thousands of US cities, and anything pertaining to US culture. Certainly Italy, and every nation in the world for that matter, deserves equal treatment. Racism in Italy is a huge problem, and I believe there should be a section in this article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSmario (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Image requested

There a number of requests for photographs in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Italy, many created via a bot and quite a few actually now have an image in the article. Due to the number it is difficult to run Free Image Search Tool and Image checker on the list so I have started to move the requests into regions of Italy. Would be good if people could start to work on these lists; for example Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Sicily. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What is Italy?

Hallo

I noticed that in many articles in Wikipedia is used the expression "XXX , in what is now Italy" (where XXX stands for a state ,or city, in the past). Now, it should be clear to everyone, that "Italy" is (as Metternich stated in the early nineteenth century) FIRST OF ALL a geographic expression, which denotes the peninsula bearing the same name. This use began with the Romans, at the end of the first century BCE, and continued until now (if someone is not convinced about that, he/she could take for example the Comedy of Dante (written about in 1300) and count how many times it is used there the word "Italy" there). The proper name of the state which we call "Italy" is "Italian Republic", which - as everyone knows - does not coincides 100% with the Italian peninsula. I have nothing against linking "Italy" to "Italian republic" in Wikipedia, but please refrain from expressions as above, which are senseless. Alex2006 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Italy is an old, offhand expression for a rough geographic area. Just like Spain, or Germany. They've been used as a manner of speech long before the existence of countries with those names. But those are the names the countries chose to be known by, and are popularly known by. If you're hoping to persuade all the schoolchildren of the world to start calling it something else, I am not sure you're going to have much luck. Walrasiad (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You did not get my point, I think that I did not explained myself well. I am saying that the expression "the republic of Florence, in what is now Italy" is wrong, since Italy is a geographic concept which exists since 2 thousand years. I just finished to reread a book of Massimo Pallottino about pre-roman Italy, whose tile is "History of early Italy", not "History of early what-now-is-know-as-Italy". This is not the case with Germany and Spain, which have never been clearly defined geographic concepts. Alex2006 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of Florence is definitely not in modern-day Italy - it no longer exists. But the city of Florence does and is. Your very own argument goes against your proposal. You yourself propose to erroneously allow "Italy" to be linked to the "Italian Republic", and not to the "Italian peninsula" article. As a result, it actually becomes essential to say "modern-day Italy" to ensure people realize you're not referring to geographic Italy, but to the specific modern country. And to say "Florence is in modern-day Italy" is a message to the schoolchildren of the world that the city of Florence is today within the boundaries of the Italian republic.

I understand your poetic point. I write a lot of historical articles, and read & use Italy, Spain & Germany a lot in an offhand manner. But I know I mean it only geographically. When I say the Bishop of Salzburg was the most powerful bishop in "Germany" during the 12th C., I mean the geographic area, not the modern country (Salzburg isn't within the modern country). When I say Ulm is in "modern-day Germany", I specifically mean the Bundesrepublik, not the geographic area. Similarly , when I say the "Almoravid invaded Spain", I mean Spain as the geographic area (that includes Portugal). If I say "They set up their headquarters in Badajoz, in modern-day Spain", I means specifically that Badajoz is within the boundaries of the modern Kingdom of Juan Carlos, and not Portugal. Walrasiad (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point (although the examples are wrong: I would have said "Almoravids invaded the Iberian peninsula", not Spain, and Salzburg was in the roman-German Empire in the middle ages, but not in Germany). Anyway, what is important for me is that "the schoolchildren of the world" (except the Italian, which have clear ideas about this concept, at least I hope so :-) ), don't get the false impression that "Italy" is a word only related to a country which is a couple of hundred years old, as the U.S.. Italy has been existing - geographically and culturally - for many centuries before the birth of the Italian state, and hopefully will exist also after the end of this. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But we do agree, that there might be cases, where a more cautious wording is appropriate? For instance, are Gorizia or Alassio part of the geographic area Italy? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends. The rough (very rough) geographical usage was the ultramontane one - if you had to cross a mountain range, you're in Italy. I've researched the Counts of Goerz before, and it was pretty common to see them referred to as "German counts in Italy" (from their perspective, as their home dominions were in lower Bavaria, Goerz was their "Italian branch"). But that's looking over the mountains from Germany. But from the perspective of the Medieval poets of the Po valley, Gorizia is out there somewhere in never-never land, i.e. the geography is not precise, it is a manner of speech, depending on context and from who's perspective. Walrasiad (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dante puts the northern border of Italy "sopra Tiralli" (Castel Tirolo, near Bozen). I have a beautiful book of 1848, "Geografia dell'Italia", where Gorizia is considered part of Italy (as well as Ticino - l'Italia svizzera - Corsica and Malta), but of course in that time there was also Irredentism at work :-) Anyway, the geographic definition of Italy is the peninsula + all what lies southern of the main Alps ridge. That's the reason why we got South Tyrol in 1919 :-))Alex2006 (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm safe to say that there have been various and quite differing concepts of the geographic area Italy over time. A cautious wording, which acknowledges possible anachronistic misunderstandings, is by no means a flaw. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Treaty of Rome.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Treaty of Rome.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Treaty of Rome.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination?

Any glaringly obvious reasons why this article shouldn't be nominated for GA status? Connolly15 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot! There is a giant work to be done here, before the article can reach a satisfactory quality. Alex2006 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you name a few so maybe I could make a start? It might be helpful to nominate it anyway to get specific suggestions on how it can be improved. I don't think it's particularly far off GA requirements, it's definitely not a "quick fail". Connolly15 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I find above all the History and Culture section poor, with a lot of errors and "holes". I am trying to clean up the former, but I have not much time for it right now. Anyway, I think that your idea is good! Ciao, Alex2006 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The very little I know of GA tells me it can be a tough process, and I agree with Alex that there's much to be done. But I don't think that should be a discouragement. Certainly, 'Italy' would be an excellent topic for GA (and, subsequently, FA too perhaps). One thing that strikes me straight off is the citation gaps: the Middle Ages seem particularly bare, and the subarticle cites only The Penguin History of Europe. So I guess an important step would be to work out what's really needed where. Just 2 old lira, — MistyMorn (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I've nominated the article for a Peer Review rather than Good Article, so that we can hopefully get a list of things to try to improve in the article. I would agree that citations are a bit light in places. I'd also like a sense from a third party editor of how he or she thinks the article could be improved further as well. Connolly15 (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good reasoning, imo. Maybe Tim riley, for instance, could provide some helpful tips, if he can find a little time for ol' Italia... — MistyMorn (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. About citation, this is not a problem. Alex2006 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)