Talk:History of Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"fighting communism"[edit]

I think the quotes in "fighting communism" are necessary because while "fighting communism" was always the ideological justification for CIA / Military Interventions of the United States, the true reason were in many cases economical. Also the word "communism" was used for a wide range of unliked government, from social democrats to authoritarian socialism like Cuba. If someone wants to express this in a different way - I am open for suggestions. i like the way you look Turrican

Factual accuracy notice[edit]

Well VV, proove that what I wrote - the source is William Blum's "Killing Hope" - is wrong or I will again remove the notice.



As regards the "18 transitional and final dispositions": there are both transitional and final dispositions, therefore it would be better not to delete the word final. --Panairjdde 08:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


This article should be split up into an article series and expanded thereafter. --Joy [shallot] 03:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first part is now done. --Joy [shallot] 12:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your basis for the split? (This is not to say it's controversial, just asking.) Are you undertaking to write properly researched articles for the whole series?Dr Zen 06:25, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, as any history page, it started out as an overview, but it has evolved (together with other pages like Italian unification which may have started independently) and became reasonably long. For it to continue growing, it's useful to reorganize it so that each notable period gets its own space. People don't like overly long tables of contents, too, and aren't quite encouraged to edit such pages.
Which reminds me, I need to make a template infobox for the series, and go fix introductions for the remaining ones I haven't looked into. I'll also add more information in general. --Joy [shallot] 12:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I support the split. It was an attempt—doomed from the start—to pacify VeryVerily, who kept bitching that the text on the elections and their aftermath was too long for a general article. Now that it is in an article of much narrower scope, he continues to bitch, of course. I note also that he has contributed absolutely nothing to this article.
Joy should not be saddled with the burden of fleshing out the articles in this series merely because he split them up. Other people can extend them if they wish to. Indeed, that would be a much more productive pursuit for VeryVerily than the destruction of articles that don't match his POV. Shorne 13:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the split is arbitrary. It's quite clear it was done so that you could retain the POV material about the election. I mean, really, Roman times from the 8th century BC! Rome was a village in the eighth century and Italy had a great deal of history in that period before Rome was even important. The Middle Ages and the Renaissance in together? That's madness. Yes, it was an attempt to "pacify" VeryVerily, rather than engage with his actual complaint, which I feel was quite justified, that the material on the election was far too much, and pushed an agenda. Jeez man. Not a word on the Goths and all this stuff about the US fighting Communism! It's just not taking a very broad perspective, is it? I'd like to see the split undone and the material on the election dealt with fairly and accurately. If the history is going to be split, it needs to be done more rationally. I have to say, if you cannot be bothered to find out a couple of pars about the middle ages (which is not a tremendously difficult thing to research) then you just add fuel to the fire that suggests you are pushing a POV and not actually trying to write a decent article.Dr Zen 13:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily's complaint was non-substantive. He has not disputed the material in question, only its context. He wanted it to be moved to a narrower article; it was moved. He got his way. Now you come back and claim that people were pushing a POV. I don't buy it. The material is important, as several of us have said. It must be retained.
As for writing about mediæval Italy, ancient Rome, and all, feel free to do so. I am not going to take on your agenda; I have too many other things to do. My present concern is with preserving well-established and important material on modern Italy that a censor was trying to squelch. Shorne 13:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the post-WWII stuff only triggered the split, you will find that I initially edited this article, noticed that it should be split, and only a few days later noticed the edit war and got involved in it. I had no knowledge of the edit war when I first saw this, and in fact I was commenting on and editing the very version I would later protest against. Also, I cannot be held responsible for not including material about Goths when already it wasn't there before the split. Granted, it weakens the rationale for the action, but only slightly, because on other other hand it's much more obvious now in History of Italy during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance so people will be more likely to notice it and fix it up. --Joy [shallot] 14:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1948 elections[edit]

Judging from page history, VeryVerily seems to be at fault here.

"this information looks pov to me" is not a reason enough to place a *factual accuracy* dispute notice on the page -- a neutrality dispute notice would be okay, though. But then, I don't see any explanation on the talk page, either.

"even if it were all true and not heavily pov, a single election is out of scope for this article" -- that is not true because the post-WWII election is about as important for the history of Italy as the civil war is important for the history of Greece, they determined the country's history for the next half-century as part of Western Europe.

Granted, Turrican could have worded the new section better, and it's possible that it is indeed wrong, but it should definitely not be censored without a modicum of rationale. This just isn't it. --Joy [shallot] 00:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's important and relevant. VeryVerily is deleting the information only because it doesn't meld with his ultra-right-wing opinions. He can't bear to scrap the opinions, so he tries to deny the facts. Shorne 14:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily wrote: "rv - what are you doing?"

What are you doing? Are you somehow unable to communicate on Talk pages and instead only use edit summaries? --Joy [shallot] 14:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
He's just stubborn. Everything that he doesn't like he reverts, over and over again. No wonder there are four active arbitration cases against him. Shorne 14:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, regardless of the arbitration process open against him which deals with the whole thing in general, this particular mindless vandalism has gone on long enough and needs to be stopped. --Joy [shallot] 17:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you in spades. I was only pointing out that this article is in no way the only one. I could easily name three dozen others off the top of my head that he has been vandalising in the same mindless way over the past few weeks. Shorne 17:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to have a conversation, we should do it in the absence of the local troll.

I stand by my claim that in-depth coverage of one election is out of place. Fercrissakes, this article starts from ancient Roman times, 8th century BC! I suppose you want to include every consul election from Republican times on, and every controversy pertaining to them? How about evidence of Etruscan tampering in the succession of kings (e.g., Tarquin)? Even Julius Caesar - who created Europe's modern-day shape - only gets one brief sentence. The decemviri are not mentioned at all. And yet a giant section full of ranting is supposed to notate one election? The absurdity is too evident to need emphasis.

No, this is just more relevant because is fairly recent. The other sections could well be expanded, and they generally are, but in other articles. We have not censored the N pages about Roman emperors etc, we should not censor this, either. --Joy [shallot] 17:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily It was nearly sixty years ago! There have been several elections since. The only reason this one is being put in here is to level accusations against the U.S. This controversy is clearly out of scope. This is not "censorship" anymore than removing Abu Ghraib stories from the Buttermilk article would be censorship.
There have, but none of them were so crucial. If the US got so interested and involved in this one (and I note that this has not been disputed, only the manner in which this has been presented has), surely there was something generally interesting in them? Please think about this before you throw around accusations about disingenuousness. --Joy [shallot] 11:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Turrican just copied some wild allegations out of some throwaway book. You want to drop this whole controversy about a U.S.-centered conspiracy theory in the middle of a sweeping history article?

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a list of facts. I'm sorry if you don't like them, but you can't just protest against them without a decent rationale, remove them completely, and then expect people to let this pass as if nothing happened. --Joy [shallot] 17:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily Sourced on one biased book? And selectively presented?
One book which clearly provides references to other books and sources. If it's selective -- fix it. --Joy [shallot] 11:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried putting a dispute notice up. Turrican's reaction was to vandalize my user page, placing a swastika, an implicit death threat, and obscenities. But I still attempted to find a solution. Now the solution is clear: chuck this horrid mess lock stock barrel. Shorne and Ruy Lopez are only trolling the page because of my involvement. VeryVerily 17:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really don't give a rat's ass if you or anyone else became too emotionally involved with the whole thing to be able to rationally judge whether some piece of information should be included or not. These pieces of information need to be judged on their own merit. --Joy [shallot] 17:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily And have been. And if you're not going to be civil there's not much point in continuing. VeryVerily 00:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Italy wasn't a unified country until fairly recent times. The topics that you mentioned are discussed in considerable detail in other articles; it would be inappropriate to replicate the material here in extenso. There is, however, no other article that discusses this election. The material belongs here; it is not overwhelmingly long. Besides, the fact that you insist on removing every last bit of it reveals the hollowness and dishonesty of your complaint about its relative length. Admit it: you're just trying to suppress information that you don't like to acknowledge.
I strongly disapprove of putting swastikas on other people's pages, to say nothing of making death threats, and I condemn anyone who had a hand in that. Shorne 17:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Joy and Shorne, the information on the 1948 elections is historically important, and should stay. The 1976 elections were historic as well. Ruy Lopez 06:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I entirely disagree. I don't share VeryVerily's politics but his argument is sound. You do not have an indepth discussion of any events from the more distant past; neither would they be appropriate for this article. The only reason this election is covered in detail is to push a particular agenda.Dr Zen 06:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In an article of this scope and length, the 1948 elections should have 1-2 sentences, plus a link to a more in-depth article on the subject. We have articles on seemingly every US and UK election already, surely Italy's elections are just as worthy of their own articles. Stan 07:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Dr Zen and Stan Shebs, for reaffirming reason. Naturally an article on the 1948 election would be appropriate, and would be a much more reasonable place to put in these controversies (although we have good reason to fear that that would be all that article would be, and that it wouldn't be NPOV-compliant, but at least it wouldn't turn this article into a joke). VeryVerily 08:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The importance of the information to the history of modern Italy far outweighs the mere outcome of one election. Shorne 10:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I guess I'll just have to do the work, as usual, and split it up myself. --Joy [shallot] 11:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Done now. I've also restored the censored text into History of Italy as a republic. --Joy [shallot] 12:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've rephrased this stuff further in the new article and moved the extra references out. It should be fairly clean now. --Joy [shallot] 12:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All this just to hold on to Turrican's polemics? It's hard to avoid believing you've ruined the article for the sake of (as Dr Zen put it) pushing an agenda. No other history article is formatted like this. And you can't resist using words like "censored" and "vandalism", can you? VeryVerily 13:11, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
These comments give the lie to VeryVerily's purported concern about the relative emphasis given to this subject. He simply wants to suppress the material altogether because it doesn't put the US in a very attractive light. That's properly called censorship and vandalism. Shorne 10:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually most other history articles that got too long were split up, except that the main article generally retained short overviews too. A counterexample is the History of the Czech lands, though that article seems to be calling for expansion (or removal of excess formatting). In this case, I wasn't sure what to summarize given that the long material is actually reasonably short, too. I'll probably get back to it one of these days and fill more stuff in.
If you actually meant the first sentence, this is not just Turrican's polemics, this is pretty much normal history book material. I remember hearing a bit about it in school, and later I saw it in more detail on a TV documentary. It might be interesting to note that it wasn't actually presented with much of a negative spin, because the end result was Italy's (and Greece's) relative prosperity compared to Communist countries. But it was presented nevertheless.
I don't believe I used the words "censored" and "vandalism" in an inappropriate manner (but correct me if I'm wrong). If you don't like them, try not to do things that can be described that way. --Joy [shallot] 22:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Correct me if I'm wrong" - you're funny. Please review Wikipedia:Civility. VeryVerily 01:12, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Split[edit]

The article was split but no overview article is left so I nominated it for COTW Falphin 15:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I suggest that History of Italy as a monarchy and in the World Wars be merged into this article (History of Italy). History of Italy as a monarchy and in the World Wars details the entire history of the nation-state Italy from it's birth in 1861 to the end of the world war in 1945. History of Italy briefly mentions the birth of the nation-state, and has some text about origins of culture and name, and a small note on the fascist government and current EU membership. The History of Italy article should be more detailed, and this article's existence strikes me as odd. What do you think? --Jobjörn 10:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. History doesn't play out in perfect tandum, so unifing the three articles would serve as a good starting point. Andy f 90 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)andy_f_90 go fart —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i think that italy is the best country of all. i know it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested: Patrician/Patricianship[edit]

Under a proposal made by me, the pages Patrician and Patricianship -- whose names presently are not specific enough -- will be renamed as follows:

(I dropped an earlier proposal for merging the two pages.)

For the rationale for renaming the pages and a couple of associated other changes, as well as the opinions of user:Johnbod, please see the discussion page at Talk:Patricianship.

My question is, do people here support my renaming proposal, or if not support it, at least would not oppose it.

Thanks in advance for all replies--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The features[edit]

The people of italy ued a lot of tools and liked thier towers and sites, they all love their music and acting they invented pizza and pasta an they loved other food aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm making it longer[edit]

I'm making the article longer for the following reasons:

  • It was too short for a topic so vast, especially compared to other nations.
  • Less detail than the Italy history section.
  • Set out badly

--Theologiae (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Early, Mid and Late Middle Ages[edit]

It might seem pedantic, but I changed "Mid" in the above heading to "High". I've never heard of the "mid Middle Ages", it looked silly.Uncle Bunyip (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic sub-section of Foreign domination (1559 to 1814)[edit]

I have removed the following section as it seems to be too muddled to stand. (It turns out that it had been cut and pasted from History of Italy (1559–1814), so I shall remove it from there, too.)

Science and Art[1][edit]

The peninsula was not influenced by the Reformation,[2] but Italy did contribute to the Enlightenment; it produced examples of enlightened absolutism[3] and intellectuals such as Galileo Galilei[4] and Antonio Genovesi[5]. Enlightened despots ruled in the conservative Papal states,[6] and reformist movements existed in conservative Venice.[7]

Following the Renaissance, painting saw Mannerism evolve into Expressionism, with major Italian artists such as Caravaggio.[8]

[1] Most of this section is not about science and art.
[2] Italy was profoundly influenced by the Catholic Reformation, which was in great part a response to the Protestant Reformation.
[3] Examples needed. Are we talking about the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, for instance? And, if so, in what sense did Italy ‘produce’ Leopold II?
[4] Are we suggesting that Galileo was a figure of the Age of Enlightenment?
[5] Did Genovesi make a substantial contribution to the Enlightenment? Anyway he needs a gloss: I will not be the only reader so ignorant as never to have heard of him. (Cesare Beccaria of Milan and his treatise On Crimes and Punishments would seem a more obvious choice of an Italian contribution to the Enlightenment—and could probably be linked to Tuscany being the first state anywhere to abolish the death penalty.)
[6] Obviously Popes ruled the Papal states. Which ones were the enlightened despots?
[7] No doubt that is true, but it is far too rhetorical and uninformative without an example.
[8] What?!

Ian Spackman (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Luwian" place names in Italy[edit] Böri (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


"The Socialist Period was marked by corruption, government instability, poverty, continued depravity in southern Italy, and use of authoritarian measures by the Italian government."

What the heck does "continued depravity" intend to mean? This is really vague and much too subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That entire section seems based on a single source, and it might have an anti-socialist point of view (or the Italian socialists were as bad as we claim; I don't know either way). Anyway, that "depravity" can't be understood; I'll remove it. Huon (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I just started looking at this article, and there still seems to be a lot of subtle, possibly even unconscious, patriotic bias. This begins already with the distribution of weight and attention. The Roman Empire (500 years) gets 1 page. The period of 1861-1945 (84 years) gets a dozen. This article cannot be more than the briefest chronological summary. I don't understand why it should go rambling on along the lines of

Italy became a nation-state belatedly—on 17 March 1861, when most of the states of the peninsula were united under king Victor Emmanuel II of the House of Savoy, which ruled over Piedmont. The architects of Italian unification were Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, the Chief Minister of Victor Emmanuel, and Giuseppe Garibaldi, a general and national hero. In 1866 Prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck offered Victor Emmanuel II an alliance with the Kingdom of Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War. In exchange Prussia would allow Italy to annex Austrian-controlled Venice. King Emmanuel agreed to the alliance and the Third Italian War of Independence began. The victory against Austria allowed Italy to annex Venice. The one major obstacle to Italian unity remained Rome.

Just say Italy was unified in 1861 and link to unification of Italy. If it's possible for the Triumvirate, I don't see why it shouldn't be for the Kingdom of Italy. WP:SS. --dab (𒁳) 17:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mesolithic petroglyph in Valcamonica, Lombardy. The largest collection of prehistoric petroglyphs in the world (10th millennium BC).[edit]

First, the claim of being the largest "collection" isn't backed up by the official website[1] or our article Rock art Natural reserve of Ceto, Cimbergo and Paspardo although Rock Drawings in Valcamonica does say it's one of the largest. The date has no source - dating petroglyphs isn't easy. The glyphs themselves, according to the description at File:Antropomorfi chiamati "Astronauti" - Zurla R 1 - Nadro.jpg, are "recently white coloured (probably plaster)." so do not reflect their original state. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)