Talk:Italophilia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Italy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Original research[edit]

This page needs to be less subjective and live up to wikipedia standards. We provide an objective forum based on proper sources, so let's make sure these standards are lived up to.

Illogical satement[edit]

"Since the end of the Middle Ages the Italian peninsula is admired because of the Renaissance and the Fascism of the twentieth century."

How can Italy have been admired "since the end of the Middle Ages" for something that happened centuries later? --95.89.33.67 (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of Ethnic Slurs in an Article Dedicated to Italiophilia[edit]

Recently, an anonymous editor Paraloco has reverted my deletion of ethnic slurs introduced as “See Also” items. My view is that the use of ethnic slurs is totally incongruous and illogical, given the stated purpose of the article. It would be equivalent to using “Chink” in the Sinophilia article, or “Spic” in the Hispanophilia article (excuse my language, which is used for illustrative purposes only). I believe that doing so would result in very quick deletion, and branded as vandalism.

It seems to me that Paraloco’s very incongruous use of ethnic slurs in an article on Italiophiia is not only non-encyclopedic but, more importantly, contrary to the standard of respect which Wikipedia strongly promotes on the part of editors. Does Paraloco believe that his very unproductive addition to the article is more important than the sensibilities of other editors and readers who would consider the use of ethnic slurs offensive? Perhaps Paraloco can explain his position on this issue. Philantonia (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It is of considerable interest that Paraloco made the following statement in an edit to the Sinophobia article on September 12, 2012, which removed references to Chinese ethnic slurs:
“No other -phobia page includes a section on ethnic slur. It lowers the threshold to use the terms and should be considered hate speech.”
Yet, about 4 months later, on Jan 21, 2013, Paraloco introduced a whole assortment of ethnic slurs into both the Italophilia and Anti-Italianism pages (as a “minor” change in each case). More recently, Paraloco did exactly the same thing again. One can only assume that Paraloco's motive is to vandalize these two articles. However, the Talk page may be used to explain the motivation for these edits, if indeed such an explanation exists. Philantonia (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Italophilia[edit]

A variety of different definitions have been adopted for various Wikipedia “-phile” articles, some of which are given below:

A Francophile (or Gallophile ) is an individual who has a strong positive predisposition or interest toward the government, culture, history, or people of France. This could include France herself and her history, the French language, French cuisine, literature, etc.
A Germanophile or Teutophile ’’’is a person who is fond of German culture, German people, and Germany in general, or even exhibits German nationalism – so to speak – in spite of not being an ethnic German or a German citizen. This love of the German way, called "Germanophilia" or "Teutonophilia", is opposite to Germanophobia.
An Anglophile is a person who is fond of English culture and the culture of the United Kingdom generally
A Sinophile (from sino- meaning Chinese [originating through Persian and Sanskrit from Late Latin Sinæ] and -philos meaning loving is a person who demonstrates a strong interest and love for Chinese culture or its people. It is also commonly used to describe those knowledgeable of Chinese history and culture (such as scholars and students), non-native Chinese language speakers, pro-Chinese politicians, and people perceived as having a strong interest in any of the above.
Hispanophile (Spanish: hispanófilo) is a word with two meanings. The first meaning refers to a person who is fond of Spain, its people, or its cultures, and it can also be the corresponding adjective.The second meaning generalizes the first one to all Spanish-speaking countries.
Philo-Semitism (also spelled philosemitism) or ‘’’Judeophilia’’’ is an interest in, respect for, and appreciation of the Jewish people, their historical significance, and the positive impacts of Judaism on the world, particularly on the part of a gentile.
A Hibernophile is a person who is fond of Irish culture, Irish language and Ireland in general. Its antonym is Hibernophobe. The term is often used in particular for people all over the world (in America especially in areas where a large number of Irish diaspora settled) who ostensibly base their business, political, or social practices on like of or admiration for Irish models
Russophilia is the love of Russia and/or Russians. The term is used in two basic contexts: in international politics and in cultural context. "Russophilia" and "Russophilic" are the terms used to denote pro-Russian sentiments, usually in politics and literature.
Indomania and Indophilia refer to the special interest India has generated in the Western world, and more specifically, the culture and civilisation of the Indian subcontinent. During the initial period of colonialism (during the conquest of Bengal) everything about India had an aspect of novelty, especially in Britain. This enthusiasm created a brand of people who started studying everything possible about India, especially its culture and ancient history.

Clearly, there is a wide variety of different elements that make up the various definitions, and each group has defined their own “philia” based on what they consider relevant and important. Accordingly, I would like to suggest the following as the definition of Italophilia (which incorporates elements found in the other definitions):

Italophilia is the admiration, appreciation or emulation of Italy, its people, its ideals, its civilization or its culture.

This would allow a more expansive treatment of the subject than exists in the present article which, in my opinion, is greatly in need of improvement. Philantonia (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues[edit]

I have tagged this article for lack of in-line references and original research. I cannot even find the word "Italophilia" defined anywhere outside of Wikipedia-sourced internet dictionaries, which causes me to wonder of this article should even exist. Please do not remove the tags without addressing the issues. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. FYI, a Google search on the term "italophile" (as opposed to "italophilia") results in about 130,000 hits. So there can be no question the article has a solid basis in reality. There are a number of other Wikipedia "_philia " articles as well. So, to wonder why the italophilia article exists is somewhat perplexing. I hate to see the article flagged as containing "original research", and will do my best to ferret out such occurrences in future edits. I don't really know what "multiple copies" implies, so maybe you could elaborate on this. Philantonia (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This article is not titled "Italophile". If it were, you would have a point. A Google search for the definition of "Italophilia" turns up only pages that refer to this page or a blog. IOW there is no actual recognized word, it is a construction. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
If you Google "Shakespeare Italophilia", "French Italophilia", "Russian Italophilia" etc. you will get many hits - which, to me, proves the term is real and not a "construction". It also seems to me that the term "italophile" automatically implies "italophilia" - otherwise, it would cease to have any meaning at all. Philantonia (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
We are not in the business of coining words for the sake of essays. I Googled "Shakespeare Italophilia" and got exactly three results, one actual comment using the term, apparently unique, and two references to that comment. And please learn how to cite a reference. A title and "Google Books" is not enough, you need bibliographic information and a page number. See WP:CITE. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you on the one point, so I did make the reference more bibliographic. Google doesn't make a distinction between "italophilia" and "italophile", and either will result in 134,000 hits, many of which have to do with some aspect of italophilia. The Shakespeare reference I used speaks of "Shakespeare's italophilia" on page 1, as though it is a widely known fact, and that italophilia is a widely recognized term. So, the Wikipedia article's use of the term, I believe, is well founded in reality and usage, and is clearly not "coining" a new word. I would be the first to admit that the article can be improved, and I will do my part in the coming weeks to do so. Philantonia (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
A Google search on "Italian influence on Shakespeare" brings up quite a few references. Based on a sampling of these references, I think it could be said he was greatly inspired and influenced by Italian models - without which there would probably be no Shakespeare as we know him today. I believe some of these references may be useful in future Italophilia article revisions. In addition, it seems to me the Wikipedia Shakespeare article might also benefit from a major section entitled: "Italian influence on Shakespeare". Philantonia (talk)
"I believe some of these references may be useful in future Italophilia article revisions." Please review WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a host for original research and essays. And as I wrote when I reverted the Shakespeare article edit, the fact that he used Italian sources does not make him an Italiophobe. He may have hated Italy for all we know. I use an Italian-made coffee maker, but that does not mean that I am an Italiophile. Same with Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean "Italophile" rather than "Italophobe"? The article defines Italophilia as follows: Italophilia is the admiration, general appreciation or love of Italy, its culture, society, arts and/or people. It is often expressed by the emulation of Italy's ideals and civilization. I think this is a reasonable definition for the purpose of the article. From this definition, and from numerous current works, Shakespeare is unquestionably an italophile (i.e., an adherent of italophilia). I will make a number of changes to the article to remove unsourced statements and other shortcomings (finite in number). I will then ask for a consensus from readers for their opinion, and further suggestions for improvement. Because the "multiple issues" designation is disputable, and yet unresolved, I will at that time restore the article to the status quo ante until the matter is resolved (per Wikipedia editing policy). Philantonia (talk)

─────────────────────────"From this definition, and from numerous current works, Shakespeare is unquestionably an italophile (i.e., an adherent of italophilia)."

Sorry, but no, it isn't. Shakespeare used Italian sources while writing his plays. That does not translate into "admiration, general appreciation or love of Italy, its culture, society, arts and/or people". He also used French sources. Does that mean he was a Francophile? And in one case at least he used a source written by a person who harshly criticized him. Does that mean he admired him? I like pizza. Does that make me an Italophile? I despise Mussolini and what he stood for. Does that make me an Italophobe? You need to check your logic, because what you are stating is unprovable. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Philantonia. I think the tag added by Reedy must be erased. BTW, how is it possible that in the article William Shakespeare there it is not one single reference to the possibility that he was from Sicily? All the other "possible substitutes" are named in the article, but no reference at all to the Italian one (like in the it. wiki).....B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.252.126.13 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the ethnicity of Shakespeare has been debated for centuries. His intimate knowledge of Italian culture and customs, together with some uniquely Italian subleties which find their way into his works have been used to suggest he had Italian (or Sicilian) roots. In any case, he was clearly an Italophile (i.e, an adherent of Italophila) Philantonia (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It appears to me that both of you are more interested in pushing Italian chauvinism than building a neutral, accurate encyclopedia. The idea that Shakespeare was an Italian is laughable, and if the possibility is raised in the Italian Wikipedia then it serves only to discredit the accuracy and neutrality of the encyclopedia. I'm not gonna put this article up for deletion; I don't really care that much whether it stays or goes. But it does need to be accurately sourced and to reflect the scholarly consensus, not just pass a vote on the talk page. I strongly suggest you review the Wikipedia guidelines and policies beginning with WP:HOW, and especially learn to cite sources as per WP:CITE. As the article stands, it comes off as a cheer-leading essay, and certainly not of encyclopedic quality. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Shakespeare being of Italian origin is purely speculative. However, the idea just never seems to go away. See the following Guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/apr/25/why-shakespeare-is-italian
You could just as well make the case that Thomas Middleton and Ben Jonson were Italian, using the exact same methodology. I'm not really interested in using the fringe beliefs of a few cranks as a source for Wikipedia articles, nor should you be, except in the case of writing an article about them, and in this particular case I doubt the article would pass WP:N. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing tags[edit]

I have restored the OR and CITE tags. If you want, I can go through each section and tag every statement that is insufficiently sourced and/or original research, but I would rather not. Please do not remove the tag. An edit war is in no one's interest, it will only serve to attract admins, and will most likely not end up in a pleasing manner. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

In the next week or two I will make every effort to provide missing references and eliminate every trace of original research. I'm afraid though it may still seem to you to be a "cheer-leading essay". But consider this, the contributions and cultural influences of Italy in the Western world and beyond are unique and profound, as I am sure you would quickly agree. Therefore, any well researched discussion which attempts to capture this phenomenon will seem to some to be chauvinistic cheerleading. The article could easily be doubled or tripled in size and still be inadequate to even summarize the cultural influence of Italy on the rest of the world (an essence element of italophilia, as defined). Doesn't that merit a Wikipedia article? Philantonia (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Your plan sounds good. I think one point of contention I have with the article is its title, which denotes a love of Italy. I think a more accurate title would be something along the lines of "The cultural influence of Italy", since many things in the modern world can be traced back to Italy, but that does not necessarily imply a love or fondness for the country or things Italian, as in the examples I gave in the above discussion. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have made numerous edits to the article to eliminate occurrences of what might be considered "original research". I would say the article, in its present form, even to a non-historian like myself, consists mainly of "low-hanging fruit" which is pretty standard stuff, and which surely cannot be viewed as original research. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would remove the original research flag, or provide further rationale for why you think it should remain. I will continue with improving the article's referencing shortcomings Philantonia (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
One thing I notice, Philantonia, is that the article doesn't seemed focused. Is this a collection of facts about Italian history and cultures, or is it an article discussing the love of Italian history and culture? Tom Reedy (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Tom for your comments and edits. The intent of the article is to support the thesis that Italy's contributions over the millennia to the West and to the world are significant and noteworthy. The appreciation and/or emulation of this cultural transfer is the basis of Italophilia. I believe in most individual discussions in the article, some reference, implicit or explicit, to that theme is present (or will be). Philantonia (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Another thing is that the entries are just generalized statements, some of them are wrong, and you scant what could be good, substantial examples. For example, Henry VII of England built the first Renaissance building in England, the Savoy Hospital, and the English went through a 150-year craze over things Italian--literature, art, drama, and architecture. But you credit the Hanovers with first importing Italian artists, yet they weren't in England until the 18th century, 250 years later. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to correct what is correctable, to delete what is not correctable, and to enrich the article in any way you see fit. Philantonia (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This should be your goal when you finish revising the article. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tom Reedy for your encouragement to improve the article which, over the past two weeks, I have made a significant effort to do. The article now has 26 entries in the Reference section, and 17 entries in the Bibliography section. In addition the article is linked to approximately 150 other Wikipedia articles for further support of its content. I believe the article, in its present form, does not contain any discernible original research and, for an eight-page article, has sufficient references. I would appreciate it if you would remove the global tags, and insert local tags in the article as appropriate to address what you believe are either original research or referencing issues. Philantonia (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the global OR and CITE tags since, for the past two weeks, I have indeed been "addressing the issues" (via over 100 edits to the article). I would be happy to address any remaining issues which are flagged by means of tags inserted into the body of the article. Philantonia (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)