From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Italy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Suspect statement in History[edit]

It is believed that Latium is the orginal people of the aryan race, a perfect society of beutiful and intelligent people which now populate Punjab. This can be infered based on the similar beard sizes between men of Punjab and Latium. Latium was also where the theory of geographic luck was originated, as Jared Diamond was inspired by the wisdom of the reigning Santia family, that has ruled Latium for over 600 years.

Who put this Mein Kampf nonsense here? I'm removing it for lack of reference (if not taste). If the author really wants it back in, then they should state a good reason for it on this page.

External link[edit]

I removed

since, as can be seen, it's a small and very inferior site: a single page, in fact, the purpose of which is to draw people to "I.V. Tours".

I replaced it by the best site available. The five provinces maintain excellent sites as well, with at least some pages in English; and there are several dozen small sites in English much better than the above. If a site in English is absolutely required, my own site is a possibility, but (unlike the case for Umbria) I'm not suggesting it: despite its 600 pages, it doesn't provide sufficiently broad coverage of the entire region. Bill 23:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone came back a few days later and tried to put it back. That page is still thoroughly sub-par, and not about the Lazio either, just a small page about Rome with a few links; a page that spells "Colloseum", too.... Bill 09:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be informational, not an adverisement platform for the internet. In general I would be suspicious of any link to a site that is trying to sell something as versus offering information on the subject. The exception being the official authorized establishment (ie. a link to the actual Louvre museum for the article on the Louvre). Sorry, Vian- I'm sure your daughter's site is grand, but it's inappropriate to link it to an article on Latium. -anon 5/11/2006

Rebuttal to Bill Thayer[edit]

Bill, I am the "someone" who added links to on the various Italian Regional sites - and I don't think I was commiting "link spam" or engaged in vandalism when I did so. is a serious endeavour being undertaken by my daughter, Jesse Andrews, who for the past 2 years has been living in Praia A Mare, in the northwest region of Calabria. My other daughter, Arianna, is attending university at the University for Foreigners in Perugia, and also contributes to the ItalianVisits website when she can.

If you look at the section on Calabria, you will see how much work and effort has been put into cataloguing towns and villages that are virtually unknown to English-speaking people, whether they are travelers or tourists, or people who have a curiousity about the area. You will note, I hope, the abundance of wonderful photographs that compliment the text, and present our viewers with images that otherwise would not be available. Incidentally, you should also note the link to Wikipedia resources whereever and whenever there is material on Wikidpedia about a region, town or other locale. We are as committed to Wikipedia as you are.

Jesse has created a vessel into which more information is being added every day. I just spent 15 days in Umbria, for instance, and added pages for Perugia, Assisi, Spello, Bevagna, Gubbio and the Regional Park at Colfiorito. Other contributors, like Katherine Lavallee, have added information about other towns in Tuscany. Such contributions are solicited eagerly so that we can fatten the content on the site. is hardly a come-on for selling tour packages, although we are trying to attract people to "unknown" parts of Italy, and in so doing, get some business to those out of the way places for local restauranteurs, hoteliers, and others in the travel business. If you are aware of what is going on in Italy now, you will understand that the economy is depressed, owing largely to various difficulties it has and is facing as it tries to integrate with the EU, and as it attempts to compete in a global economy. So, having information for travelers can not be the sine qua non of "link spam". If you look at all the external links listed in the Umbria section of Wikipedia, a number of them are active promoters of travel to the Region. Even in the Sardegna section where you posted identical comments to the comments you made here there is a link to a site called ActivSardegna which promotes travel. Should all of these be removed? And if so, by whom and under what (hopefully) reasonably well-defined policy?

You can coin or use phrases like "link spam", and "cyber vandalism", or other terms of denigration, but I think you, and others who "worry" about Wikipedia, should be careful not to sit on Wikipedia with a holier than thou attitude, deleting other people's contributions, unless a more thorough investigation is done into the content, and sometimes into the motives and objectives of their creators. Many people spend a lot of time, money and energy trying to do good without much reward beyond the satisfactions it provides. This effort to "do good" is manifest on your site Bill, at least, so far as I can see, and I commend you for it.

I'm a bit more than a little chagrined about what you have done Bill, and about how you have characterized ItalianVisits, but I hope we can discuss this if you think I am making an untenable argument in favour of allowing us to post links to the IV website, without fear of having them removed by the over-zealous.

Regards Vian Andrews Vancouver, BC July 28, 2005

Latins vs. Romans[edit]

I am very confused by the statement "Rome granted all Latins Roman citizenship after the Social War in 90 BC." I thought that the Latins were the ancestors of the Romans. Jarlaxle 00:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It even says in this very article, "The name of the region also survives in the tribal designation of the ancient population of Latins, from whom the Romans originated." Jarlaxle 00:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry, the statement is correct. It's much as if the US were to grant Canadians, Australians and even Britishers US citizenship. The Brits are the "ancestors", so to speak, of the Americans, but the Americans could do this. Bill 00:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for clarifying that. Jarlaxle 00:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


Should Castro be included in the list of notable cities of Latium ? -- PFHLai 06:57, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Probably not. What happens — see Umbria — is that little by little, every place that someone thinks is notable gets added, and you have a big list inside the article. Castro is really very small and though "notable" for archaeological discoveries, so is just about every other place in the Lazio. . . . Bill 10:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought the list was too long, too. Thanks for your insights, Bill. -- PFHLai 10:24, 2005 August 28 (UTC)


This is my first time here...not sure how to comment about spelling of "inhabitted" History of should be "inhabited." minor correction needed....but worthy of notice I think. Meliora 17:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't this article be called Lazio?[edit]

As far as I know, the name of this region is Lazio in modern Italian, and there's no good reason to prefer its Latin name. While this article is stubby, it looks like it's intended to cover the history of the region to the present day. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should, for starters there's the fact that this article is on the Regione Lazio - the Italian administrative unit and not simply the geographical area, and the Regione has never been called Latium. Secondly even going by the rather silly (IMO) 'Common Usage' rule that Wikipedia uses (resulting in an article on the Czech Republic instead of simply Czechia) it should still be Lazio. I have never, ever, ever heard it referred to as 'Latium' except in a _purely_ historical fashion, i.e. if the speaker is talking about Roman or pre-Roman history. Or should we maybe start calling Basilicata, Lucania again? Or move Calabria back to Salento? Seek100 02:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is called lazio so i don't understand what you want changed.--Pendotigers 09:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's because it was moved after those comments were made. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Related: "often known in English as Latium" this is a bizarre statement to include in the introductory paragraph. More bizarre is the citation; a yahoo sports article that erroneously mentions Latium once. Firstly, this article is for the Lazio region, not the historical geographical 'region' Latium (for which there is already an article on). Secondly, the administrative region is never referred to as Latium in English. The only people who do this are the misinformed (perhaps like the reporter of the cited article). This needs to be removed promptly. LegionXVI (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Move (and split). Close call, but after reviewing the discussion (6/4) and briefly the article, the article focuses on modern region. If split (which I welcome), redirect Latium should be replaced with historical contents.Duja 13:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

LatiumLazio – "Lazio" is the modern Italian name for the region; "Latium" is Latin, and hasn't been in common use for a long time. "Lazio" currently redirects to "Latium", so admin assistance is needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support I have been to Rome many times, and all the Italians clearly refer to it as Lazio in usage and in writing, there is even a football team with that name.. Baristarim 15:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Húsönd 18:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I had no idea that this article wasn't at Lazio. --Stemonitis 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as Latium is also the English name. FairHair 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I have never seen the modern-day Italian region referred to in English as Latium. Compare the reasonable number of Google results for Lazio region in the websites of two English newspapers ([1] or [2]) with searches on the same sites for Latium region - in one case no results, in the other one coincidental one ([3][4]). Palmiro | Talk 15:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I agree with this guy. Latium is the english name. Raja Lon Flattery 19:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UE. -  AjaxSmack  07:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support on the basis that, while both words are awkward in English to those of us without a sound education in the classics or modern languages (and therefore WP:UE can’t easily be interpreted), Lazio seems to have become by far the most common usage for the contemporary Italian region: in addition to Palmiro’s citations check out, the 1960s Everyman Encyclopedia, and the English language pages of and —Ian Spackman 10:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gryffindor 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I see most English references using the name Lazio now (yes, maybe even due to the name of the football team). A redirect from Latium should be fine. Taalo 23:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments --Akhilleus (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Re: FairHair's comment above--"Latium" is sometimes used in English, but "Lazio" is also used, and is more common. For instance, the Lonely Planet and Let's Go travel guides call the region "Lazio". --Akhilleus (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have just voted for Lazio, but I would be entirely happy with Latium if I were pointed to sufficient usage of the term to refer to the region in modern English. So far there are no citations in favour of Latium. (What I prefer and what you prefer—at least until there a good few thousand of us voting on each side—is of major unimportance!) —Ian Spackman 10:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ian Spackman. There's also a certain lack of clarity in the article itself; the introduction refers entirely to the modern Italian region, while there is a history section referring entirely to the classical area. I'm not sure myself whether these are really the same thing, and perhaps that's another issue that needs to be sorted out - do we really need two articles rather than one here? Specialists in Classical history and Italian political history are welcome to give their views... Palmiro | Talk 19:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Latium is the name of the ancient region populated by the Latins. Lazio is the name of the regione of modern Italy. The article should be split, they are not even geographically the same. —Centrxtalk • 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I support a split. Centrx overstates things a bit, but is basically correct--the ancient area called Latium is not the same as the modern regione Lazio, and separate articles would be best. I'm a bit uncertain at what date the Latium article should stop and the Lazio article should begin; I suppose the modern administrative region comes into being in 1871, and before that, articles like Papal States and Kingdom of Italy apply. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I also support a split. However I would expect that the Lazio article should cover the pre-history and history of the territory up to the present, at least in outline. Obviously with links to exended coverage in other articles, including the one on Latium. —Ian Spackman 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If the article is split into Latium and Lazio, what is the procedure? I think that Latium should be moved to Lazio, and then a new Latium should be created to handle the ancient history, etc., but I don't know how splits are usually done. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I support a split; there is lots to talk about in ancient history of Latium; there is lots of geography and modern history in Lazio. Carlossuarez46 00:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.


  • I don't understand what needs wikifyingPendotigers 09:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mhh... about blanking and reverting[edit]

I've reverted a blanking of this page by an anon IP that looked like vandalism. If that is not the case please let me know and blank it again. --Legion fi 07:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unecessary requests for citation[edit]

Someone put citation requests on some elemental information at the level of "Massachusetts is a state." We don't need a citation to tell us Massachusetts is a state and we don't need one to tell us the Latins were named from living in Latium. But, in case you did not know that, there is a blue link to the Latins! That article explains or should explain that the Latini lived in Latium and had a mythical king Latinus. Moreover, the connection between Lazio and Latium does not need a citation either. In case you did not know that and were confused, as well might happen in the case of children or if your education was terminated in grade school, or if you missed out on school and learned to read on your own later, the blue link to Latium serves as a reference. We do not need to give a special reference to these connections made in the linked articles, as this information is or should have been elementary knowledge. So, I'm taking them out, after verifying the blue links go where they should. There will be a slight rewording of those sentences to make the points.Dave (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The statistics[edit]

The previous source was ISTAT in Italian. I do not know why you would choose Italian as there is an English version, so I put the English version in. Moreover, that agency updates those figures practically on a month-to-month basis. So, I put in the last available as of this date. And, I do believe the box goes way beyond ISTAT. All I see in ISTAT is a distinction between citizens and foreign residents. This breaking population down by nationality, that is an American idea. And Romanian - why Romanian? Is someone concerned about Romanians in Lazio? We shouldn't be. The Italians do what the Italians do and apparently that does not concern ISTAT at all. And there is no source on that one, so I'm changing it to verifiable information under the headings "Citizens" and "Foreign residents." If you Italian WP editors have issues with that come up with some reliable figures and references, but don't involve us in your issues. Over here the ethnic reporting status is hopeless so no one bothers with it. Some job applications still want to know if you belong to the Caucasian Race. All such requests used to be and ought to be a violation of civil rights. However a subsequent law forces companies to gather data for the census so we have this contradictory situation. I'm waiting for someone to take it to the Supreme Court but no one seems to have the money. Caucasian Race? Shades of the Civil War, Henri Breasted and Carleton Coon. Get back, you shades. I think purgatory for them is located under the Caucasus mountains (joke). In any case let's stick to the figures of the national Italian agencies and not go winging it. However, ISTAT is not sure about the numbers of foreign residents. The last update doubles the previous estimate for the same date, January 1 2009. I got no choice but to use the latest, which indicate there are a lot of foreigners in Lazio, probably in Rome, but you can go to the site to find out. I see no point in singling out Romanians; you would expect such an important city cuturally to have contingents from just about the whole world. If I were going to single out foreigners here I would look for the number of Italians ... (another joke). Of course, here they are only Americans with Italian names, and there are too many to count, I do believe.Dave (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Location box[edit]


This box seems extraneous and in the way. Since it was invented the box you see at the side was invented, which gives a map of the location of Lazio. If you have the map, why do you need the location box? Not only that but the coordinates are a locator also: you click on those and you get quite a variety of detailed maps and photos. The location box does not really fit anywhere and is the wrong size for a banner. Its general inutility is underscored by the fact that no other article linked to the location box has the location box. I had it at the bottom, which is the only place it might fit without disrupting the continuity of the article - you can't just stick things in snywhere - but someone moved it back in the center. So with your permission I'm inclined to take out this obsolete template not used anywhere else. We have boxes and banners a'plenty, as well as maps, no need to clutter the place up with duplicated information arranged confusingly in a template that no longer fits. Thanks.Dave (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)