Jump to content

Talk:List of people from Italy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Antonio da Sangallo

[edit]

Which Italian Antonio da Sangallo are we interested in? Antonio da Sangallo the Elder or Antonio da Sangallo the Younger? Or both? Also, aren't they better served as architects than as artists? --Ricky81682 03:47, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Expanding

[edit]

This list seriously needs to be expanded. I was able to add nearly 20 composers alone. That's my part. Your turn. Antonio Juan Santiago Oneto (b. Chiavari, Italy, abril de 1826 - † Puerto Deseado, junio de 1885), Argentine marine of Italian origin, who contributed to the colonization of the actual province of Chubut and founded the patagonian city of Puerto Deseado.

Thanks.

09:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel this article should include people from the ancient Italian civilizations, currently it only has people who existed in post Roman, Etruscan, Grecian and Latin Italy. This is fairly strange as the article: List of Greeks incorporates ancient, classical figures alongside contemporary figures... Please could everyone start adding and linking Romans, Greeks, Latins, Etruscans etc. that originated or lived in the area of modern Italy to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyaubreydevito (talk • contribs) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Etruscan civilization and Romans. --Davide41 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing

[edit]

This list seriously needs to be shortened. I was able to delete 5 athletes alone. That's my part. Your turn.

Thanks.

--Tom 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Steve Nunno...

[edit]

In his listing, I don't think there need to be quotes around "Renowned Gymnastics Coach". Folks, he actually was a gymnastics coach, and coaching Shannon Miller gave him some renown. The quotes inject some sarcasm into his listing, as though he shouldn't be there. Mahalo. --Coryma 23:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous "others"

[edit]

Why is Savonarola called a "Book burning priest, and ruler of Florence." Wouldn't "influential priest" be a little more appropriate? Also Napoleon was born on Corsica, a French island, so he isn't Italian is he? 67.173.240.92 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A french island because France bought it from Genoa. And when Napoleone was born the island still was under the rule of Genoa. And it was (and still is) inhabitated by an Italian population.

Terrible

[edit]

Errors, vandalisms ... Work in progress. So much work to be done --Davide41 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Napoleone Buonaparte ethnically Italian of Corsican origin

[edit]

This is the list of Italians, not List of people of Italian origin. Should we have Silvester Stallone here? His family is of Italian origin. See Talk:Napoleon I.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

01. " Silvester " but Napoleone originates from the Italian language. Original Italian Napoleone Di Buonaparte

Napoleon himself was Corsican, and as such his mother tongue was the Italian dialect spoken in Corsica. As a teenager he was admitted in a French military school, the other pupils laughed at him because of his heavy Italian accent. His mother tongue was not Corsican because his family, formerly known as Buonaparte, were minor Italian nobility coming from Tuscan stock of Lombard origin set in La Spezia.

In short terms. He was born Italian but later on became a French Emperor. Napoleon Bonaparte is technically Italian. --Davide41 (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Sources:

01. New World Encyclopedia. " Napoleon Bonaparte".

02. World Book Encyclopedia. " Napoleon Bonaparte".

Maybe you are not aware that original reearch is not allowed on WP. Italian ancestry is not enough to qualify for inclusion in this article. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" Respect but not my support ". Napoleon Bonaparte is technically Italian. Absolutely --Davide41 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the guy that brought this up, and I think it's infantile to make the analogy with Italian-Americans as what we have here is a very different scenario. Italy was a divided country at this time and so maybe his links to his ethnic, linguistic and ancestral homeland are not as pronounced as they might be, yet the idea that he was a Frenchman over an Italian seems farcical, ultimately he was a transient european of italian descent, which makes him more italian than anything else. As for the idea that the country you live in is the country of your nationality - that's absolute baloney - Try telling Andy Murray or Catherine Zeta Jones that they're English... 86.1.109.215 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Davide41. Napoleon was Italian not French. Napoleon Bonaparte's real name was Napoleone di Buonaparte. The man was clearly Italian and not French. He learned to speak Italian first and then French. It is said that he was even made fun of in Paris because of his name, the darkness of his skin and his short stature. --93.147.197.38 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon may also be included in the list of Italians

[edit]

Reliable sources.

Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources, so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

The historical journal « Storia In Rete » (whose documentaries are used by broadcasters: RAI and La7) included him in list of the most influential figures in Italian history. Scientific Committee:

  • Taine, Hippolyte. The Modern Regime (Volume II).
    Echo Library, 2006. p. 18. He says:
    "Napoleon, far more Italian than French, Italian by race, instinct, imagination, and souvenirs, considers in his plan the future of Italy, and, on casting up the final account of his reign, we find that the net profit is for Italy and the net loss is to France."
  • Horne, Richard H. The history of Napoleon Bonaparte. G. Routledge and Sons, 1878. Page 1.
    "He also inquired how the Christian name of his son, Napoleone, could be translated into French. At that time Napoleon's father was the representative of Corsica at the Court of France. He sent a reply from Versailles, saying the Republic of Genoa had, two hundred years previously, given to one of his ancestors, Jerome, the title of Egregiitm Hieronium de Buonaparte, and that the article de had been omitted because it was of very little use in Italy; that Napoleone was Italian; and that his family name was "Buonaparte," or "Bonaparte." The Bonapartes are of Tuscan origin. In the middle ages they were eminent as senators of the Republics of Florence, San Miniato, Bologna, Sarzana, and Treviso; and as prelates attached to the Court of Rome. They were allied to the Medici, the Orsini, and Lomellini families."
  • John Holland Rose writes [ Book: Napoleon, a life ] " Napoleon, far more Italian than French. " (Synthesis)
  • World military leaders: a biographical dictionary. Mark Grossman. Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoléon I, Napoleon Buonoparte) (1769–1821) French emperor Ironically, Napoleon Bonaparte was not of French parentage: He was born on 15 August 1769 in Ajaccio, Corsica, an island off the southern French coast, into a family whose real name was Buonaparte. [...]

"Napoleon was of Italian parentage. He ever remained faithful to the souvenirs of his origin. The Italian language was his mother tongue, and the interests of Italy were peculiarly near to his heart. [...] [...] It was one of the fondest dreams of Napoleon's noble ambition to restore Italian independence. He hoped, by his influence, to have been able to unite all these feeble governments in one great kingdom, containing twenty millions of inhabitants." [...]

  • Napoleon was much more an Italian than a Frenchman. His father and mother were Italians, his ancestors were Italian (is essential to remember, had not a drop of French blood in his veins) and Italian was his mother-tongue. His family and Christian names were Italian. Always fluent in his native Italian, Napoleon learned French as a second language, speaking it with a heavy accent and unable to write it grammatically. The spelling of the name was changed from the Corsican-Italian form Buonaparte only in 1796. His manners, gestures, and mode of speech were Italian; he was Italian in his fierce explosions of rage; Italian in his declamatory eloquence [...] This was Napoleon Bonaparte, a man from the island of Corsica, of Italian parentage, but a French citizen, for the island had been forcibly The annexed to France shortly before his birth. He always spoke French with a marked Italian accent.
  • "Napoleon, future emperor of France, spoke Italian and the local Corsu (an Italian dialect). Napoleon was French with not a drop of French blood in his veins. He never spoke French correctly."
This is the list of Italians, not List of people of Italian origin. If you want to create the article and add Napoleon, I won't object, but he doesn't belong here. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Davide41, if you read WP:IG, which is a policy, you will see that this article does not need a gallery. For one, all the pictures you added are already in the relevant articles. Just because another article does not follow the guidelines doesn't give you carte blanche to ruin other articles. Do you want to improve articles or make them substandard? Another reason for not having a gallery is the large size of the article, see Wikipedia:Article size. Do you have a fast connection? Sometimes I don't, and I prefer lists to be lists, not beautified articles. Egg carton (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See:

" Cancellation for no reason " --Davide41 (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Main article: King of Rome

This is simply a list of the seven king of Rome (244 years under seven kings). I see nothing inappropriate about this. " Simply a list "

" A civilization of ancient Italy in the area corresponding roughly to Lazio " --Davide41 (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list is about people, not their official role. So, no King of Rome, President of Italy, Mayor of Venice, Bishop of Verona, etc. type of article should be linked. Mayor of Yurp (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The seven king of Rome are political figures. Fall into this category. --Davide41 (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that they do, but King of Rome is about the role, not strictly about the people that filled that role.Mayor of Yurp (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See:

Etc. --Davide41 (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, all those links illustrate MY point, not yours! Mayor of Yurp (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To sum it up: it is appropriate to link Prime Ministers of France, but not to link Prime Minister of France. Mayor of Yurp (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( ! ) I'm tired of discussing trivial things. I disagree with you. "Do as you please..." --Davide41 (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I have removed the New World Encyclopedia references. This states "The content of these articles is based largely on original Wikipedia articles examined and rewritten... Article writers and editors are solely responsible for article content" (General disclaimer). Thus this work cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia articles. In this case the references are redundant since each entry already has its wikilink. --Mirokado (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Mirokado.The mayor of Yurp (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy problems

[edit]

The notability/inventions attributed to these list members have some real factual accuracy problems. Just spot checking brings up "Niccolò Zucchi - constructing the first reflecting telescope (1616)" (he experimented but RS say he never got it to work)...... "Matteo Campani-Alimenis - Inventor of the Magic lantern" (no such credit given at Magic lantern)..... "Giovanni Battista Grassi - discovered that mosquitoes were responsible for transmitting malaria between humans" (not mentioned at Malaria). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Wikipedia lists are for existing articles (per WP:LIST and WP:WRITEITFIRST) so I have removed these red linked names. This looks like a good set of names for article creation (if the claims are true). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question of Napoleon

[edit]

Hi everyone,

I have been reading ancient discussions and several statements regarding Napoleon nationality/ethnicity/citizenship/origin and whatever. I seriously don't see why it's so hard to understand some provable facts.

Napoleon was born in Corsica, an island off of Italy. At the time subject to the King of France but cultural, linguistic and ethnically belonging to the Italian nation. Furthermore, Italy as we know it geographically, does not comprehend only the Italian peninsula, but also its adjacent islands, therefore Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Italy)

Italian is not just a citizenship but also an ethnicity, which predates the founding of the modern country of Italy. Certainly an ethnic group (such as the Kurds in present-day) can exist without having a country to call its own.

Napoleone Buonaparte, his original name, was ethnically Italian even though he had French citizenship. The same can be said to Catarina de' Medici, Giovanni Battista Lulli and many others young Italians emigrated to France.

If the latters are included (rightly so) as Italians, I don't see why Napoleon is not.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by In Ratio Veritas (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't know there was a pretty involved edit war over this at one time. My edit was based on WP:LIST, list's inclusion criteria, the title of this list states it all, this is a "List of Italians", the place that exists from the Alps to Sicily, from 1861 to the present. Napoléon Bonaparte was born before Italy existed, a Frenchman born in Corsica one year after Corsica became a part of France. A raw search of reference brings up very little for "Napoléon was Italian" and a great deal for "Napoléon was French". I noticed "List of Italians" is missing a lead paragraph adding further definition. Napoléon could be included under a different definition (but that would be a stretch for this list title). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noticed before, this list includes not only Italians citizens, but also ethnic Italians, ethnic Italics and people born within the Italian geographical region. As so, the inclusion of Napoleon can be legitimately claimed. The fact the Napoleon was born one year after Corsica become subject to the King of France doesn't change anything. I can name many illustrious Italians born citizens of France: Giuseppe Verdi, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giuseppe Mazzini... the list is wide. Along its history, France has always been a multi-ethnic country comprising many cultural minorities as the Bretons, Occitans, Basques, Catalans, German, Italians, etc. And Corsica, in Napoleon's time, was surely a Italian land, influenced by Italian language, traditions, culture and most important of all, feelings. Pasquale Paoli, until today regarded as the "Father of Corsica" and venerated by the Buonaparte family, once wrote against the French invaders in his letters in 1768: "We are Corsicans by birth and feelings, but first of all we feel Italian by language, roots, customs, traditions and all the Italians are all brothers for History and for God.... As Corsicans we do not want to be slaves nor "rebels" and as Italians we have the right to be treated like all the other Italian brothers.... Either we'll be free or we'll be nothing.... Either we'll win or we'll die (against the French) with our weapons in our hands.... The war against France is just and holy as the name of God is holy and just, and here on our mountains will appear for all Italy the sun of liberty." This proves to us the Corsica was part of the Italian Nation in the same way as Tuscany, Liguria, Sicily, etc. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the list "includes not only Italians citizens, but also ethnic Italians, ethnic Italics and people born within the Italian geographical region" then it may point to a problem with the list i.e. the included items may (be) contrary to the list title and should be deleted or the list title and/or definition needs to be changed. The difference with Corsica is it was never part of Italy and "Napoléon was Italian" has failed (two ?) consensus discussion already. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the included items may contrary to the list title and should be deleted or the list title and/or definition needs to be changed." Done. "The difference with Corsica is it was never part of Italy" There's no difference at all. Did you forget Giuseppe Garibaldi? The very founding father of Italian unification was a native of Nice. Nice has never been part of Italy (politically speaking). Niccolò Tommaseo, one of the very first Italian irrendentist was born in Dalmatia, in the city of Sebenico, modern-day Sibenik, Croatia. Dalmatia has never been part of Italy either. Pasquale Paoli, Corsican like Napoleon as well, already mentioned above, a mythical hero of the island, was a precursor of the Italian irredentism. Ottavio Missoni, founder of the famous fashion label Missoni, born in Ragusa, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, present-day Dubrovnik, Croatia. Francesco Borromini, baroque architect, born in Bissone, Ticino, modern-day Switzerland. Ticino has never been part of Italy as well. ""Napoléon was Italian" has failed (two ?) consensus discussion already." We haven't reached a consensus because most people are not aware of the concept of Italian. That's the reason and it leads to misleading conclusions and misconceptions. We won't get anywhere if one doesn't acknowledge the fact that the concept of Italian predates in many centuries the unification of modern Italy. Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted this because "Italians are citizens of the Italian Republic" so this list would not go beyond that. "ethnic Italians, ancient Italics and people born within the Italian geographical region that share ingenious culture" would only be included if the list name was changed (I wouldn't do that) or if "List of ethnic Italians, ancient Italics and people born within the Italian geographical region that share ingenious culture" was created (feel free to do that). Claiming someone was Italian because (in your view) there is some ethnic or geographic connection or a perceived similarity with other people's attributions is original thought. You actually have to show a majority of reliable sources that state "Napoléon was Italian". consensus discussion I am talking about are that that and that. If you think all of this is wrong, start another one at Talk:Napoleon, people there should have a handle on this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but it's pretty obvious we're going around circles. I won't extend this discussion anymore because it seems clear to me that many users including yourself are not aware of the concept of Italian, neither the concept of ethnicity. Furthermore, what's the point in arguing with 4 years old discussion? Besides, it's not up to me to decide who should or should not be included as Italians. I'm here just to help Wikipedia, to make it a little more accurate. And if my help is not welcomed, I can leave without problem. Contrary to what you believe (or want to believe?), as I stated before, the concept of Italian go beyond citizenship, it comprises also ethnicity. And again, contrary to what you think, this is not my view. It's a fact very much acknowledged by most historians. If you doubt that, you should delete 80% of the list because 80% concerns ethnic Italians and ancient Italics. Regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually deleting a large part of this list has been discussed before because the content does not seem to meet the basic definition - its title. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Per this edit, Please write the article first. List are list of articles and members have a notability threshold ---> the member has a Wikipedia article. I fixed another similar edit by creating an article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to create it in a few days. Regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put the link back, these seem to fall under good suggestions per WP:Red link. Look forward to the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.In Ratio Veritas (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

Dear Fountains of Bryn Mawr,

I have noticed you have the habit of reverting most of people additions. It would be very kind if you discuss your reasons to do so here in the talk section. Because as long as I know, your thoughts are so important than mine. Thank you. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear In Ratio Veritas, please see the few thousand words written furher up this talk page? Also please comment on content, not on the contributor on this talk page. Thank you - Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fountains of Bryn Mawr, it sounds to me you're very eager to diminish the importance of Vincenzo Tiberio's achievement or, what it's worse, doesn't know what antibiotic means. You reverted my original texting claiming that Tiberio did not discover the antibiotic power before Flemming, but on the other hand, stated that he discovered "the antibacterial power of some extracts of mold" (???). Are you aware that "An antibacterial is an agent that either kills bacteria or inhibits their growth and the term is often used as a synonym for antibiotic."? (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibacterial) If this is not enough, the scientific paper that I put as the main reference pretty states it all: "Now the Italian National Research Council (CNR) has decided to pay tribute to the merits of this scientist, promoting Tiberio's memory in the documentary "Vincenzo Tiberio, the man who discovered antibiotics" (see: http://ijphjournal.it/article/view/5688/5424) Is it ok now? I'll revert your inaccurate move once more again and I sincerely hope this case is closed. Best regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per "His discovery of the power of antibiotics", History of penicillin and Antibacterial list many people who noticed an antibacterial effect, Tiberio should be described (if described at all) as one of many. Wikipedia articles are not for establishing "importance" and should not take a promotional point of view (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOTADVOCATE). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fountains of Bryn Mawr, how about coming up with a single argument to beat the facts presented before reverting someone's statements? Since when Wikipedia articles should be counted as reliable sources? As far as I know, they can be easily edited by people like you who impose an authoritarian attitude. Furthermore, I have never wrote that he was the first to discover the penicilin, as you stated above, but it's pretty much acknowledged by the scientific paper published in 2011, (Again: http://ijphjournal.it/article/view/5688/5424) that he noticed the very same phenomenon as the scot did, coming up with the discovery or rediscovery, more than 30 years before him. All the references you collected in Tiberio's voice reflect this point of view. see: http://www.almanacco.rm.cnr.it/reader/cw_usr_view_recensione?id_articolo=1704&giornale=1679, another one: http://festival2011.festivalscienza.it/site/home/programma-2011/eventi-per-tipo/conferenze/vincenzo-tiberio-vero-scopritore-degli-antibiotici.html. With all due respect, you're not being honest with your efforts. Regards In Ratio Veritas (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been replied to at User talk:In Ratio Veritas since it concerns editorial behavior. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New categories

[edit]

I was thinking of adding some more categories into this list. How about "Lawyers"? Italy has a vast and long tradition in this field. Home of the Roman law, cradle of the civil law in the midle ages. How about "Stylists" or "Fashion designers"? "Industrial Designers"? There are plenty of prestigious Italians in both areas. Another good choice would be "Entrepreneurs". Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking of adding up a "Chefs and gastronomists" topic. Does anyone rebel against it? Here I go. Regards. In Ratio Veritas (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I think it is better if this article contains some images of "Top ones", such as Fibonacci, Pacioli, Vinci, Giotto, Buffon, Rossi etc. --115ash→(☏) 16:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for deleting article altogether

[edit]

Who decides how gets to be on the list? Is there an authoritative list? If not, delete the article.

If I get the energy I am going to recommend deletion, plain and simple. Rococo1700 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lists of other nations as well, why this should be deleted?--MarcusVetus✠ 13:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusVetus (talk • contribs)
The question needs clarification. This list has two requirements: member has to be Italian, member has to have a Wikipedia article. That is what decides who gets to be on the list.
Is the question/problem that this is an incomplete list? Editors are only adding the people they know about and missing everyone else? The list would be way to large if every Wikipedia listed Italian was added? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article should definitely not be deleted... There are lists of people from other nations as well, as Marcus said. And as Fountains said, those are the criteria that allows for someone to be on the list. This is a collaborative website, if you think someone belongs on the list that meets this criteria, add it! This doesn't mean the entire article should be deleted by any means. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list of a nationality is a monstrousity that cannot be killed

[edit]

I wanted a title to raise the hackles on the alopecic. I do not want to look through the many attempts in the past to kill these monsters. The fact that there are other nonsense lists does not mean there should be one here. Nonsense is nonsense whether it be English, French, American or whatever. This article should be definitely be deleted. Also Vaselineeeeee please state in bulleted form who does and who does not belong, I believe about half the people on this list do not meet criteria, can I delete them? Why not call this the List of Italian people who have a Wikipedia article? Rococo1700 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rococo, if an Italian is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, this means they can be on the list of they are Italian. Does that mean all people with Wikipedia articles are notable? Not necessarily, however if they are not speedily deleted it usually means they are notable enough to stay. On other pages about for example "list of people from x city" the guidelines are that the people in the list should have a Wikipedia page, as well as being born in the said city or country or have a significant tie to the location. If you feel some people in the list shouldn't be, remove them and other editors can look at the changes made to see if they agree... Unless you want to remove a large quantity, maybe bring up the names on the talk page. Virtually all nationalities have a list of people page and this shouldn't be any different. This means it is a continuing topic across all nationalities on Wikipedia. Just because you think some people shouldn't be on the list doesn't mean the whole article should be deleted. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that the rationale for the existence of this page, "is that the way things are, is the way things are." I object to any list that is too broad. I object to articles that are too long, or meander into infinity. Can you tell me when this article is complete or nearly complete in covering all important angles of the topic, or are we going to keep on adding thousands of Italians. I have created entries for some 3-4 thousand Italian painters, don't they all belong in your list? What about every single Italian football player? There are likely a few thousand of those.

I prefer to use categories for this purpose. There is a category: Category:Italian people that already fulfills this purpose. Articles should mainly be about subjects with meat. Lists like this are not full of meat, they are mere Velcro, for whatever you want to toss at it. The category of Italian people is far more dimensional, it divides people into time, place, and manner in a much more efficient way. A person can be in many categories, in your list, they are not. There use to be a category of Italian painters, but now it is subdivided into time periods, although one could also search for Italian painters of different styles or different locals. It may be that if the category of 19th-century Italian painters becomes too long, we will break it up into painters active in first half of 19th century, and those in second half. Are you ready to do that with your list when it become hundreds of pages long, and difficult to download, and if so, how will you parse?

This is a dustbin for name-dropping, we should drop it into the dustbin of history. Someone please drive a stake into the heart of this monster. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point. But the lists, especially ones about huge nationalities are often incomplete since there are thousands and thousands of people that can classify being included. I guess your 3-4 thousand painters can be listed as they meet the criteria, just they aren't as "important" as some of the other people. Where I am from, Toronto, Ontario, there are thousands of articles created of people from Toronto that can belong in List of people from Toronto or List of people from Ontario. The latter article is much too short for the amount of people actually from Ontario, this is why there is an "this list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" template at the top of the page. The thing is that if you want this article to be deleted, they all must be. We cannot just have one missing out of thousands. I see what your saying about "that's how things are so they should stay" but we can't just go deleting articles like this that have a connection between other articles of similar fashion. Does this mean all the articles about lists of people of certain nationalities are complete? No. These lists about nationalities tend to be very long, as for the Italians one is very long already. This is just how it is and can't be stopped unless there is a massive discussion about this like there was about removing image galleries from infoboxes. It doesn't mean it's right and it doesn't mean it's wrong, but again, unless a large discussion takes place in favour of deletion, it will stay. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for deleting this list and all others like it. If you think a discussion should take place, then leave the deletion tag at the heading, and let the debate begin. You are the one standing in the way, since you took off the deletion tag. And if it fails let it restart again. Again, I am not a fan of huge articles, period.

You say: "I guess your 3-4 thousand painters can be listed as they meet the criteria, just they aren't as "important" as some of the other people." Tell me again, how do you define important, and then I will use your criteria to determine whether to include it or not. For example, I typically include as criteria for inclusion of painters in Wikipedia, the following: 1) Two independent non-biased annotated sources for their name, existence and activity. or both of the following: A) At least one non-biased annotated source for their name, existence and activity. Note I have worked almost exclusively on non-living painters. Sources have to be either published anthologies, museum or civic documents, monographs held in public libraries, published articles in journals of wide ranging subjects. That is, a cousin's web-page is not enough. B) Independent link to an entry in the Encyclopedia.

So for example, if a city includes biographical information on an artist-X, and there is a biographical sketch on artist-Y in a separate anthology, which just mentions the name of artist-X, and artist Y meets criteria above and has an entry in Wikipedia.

My other requirement is that there should be a limit to the size of the entry. I do not know what it should be, but in my view, encyclopedia articles should not take a reasonable person more than a minute to download with standard internet access. I am certain we might be able to agree on a byte size, or page size, or character size. The problem with this list is that the criteria are just "being here", where here is Wikipedia, but you only want the important Wikipedia articles without giving criteria on how to decide. Let say you were able to come up with criteria for "Italians", then my point is that you would exceed size limit.

Therefore, I believe the entire article, and all such articles in Wikipedia should be deleted, and their function be relegated to categories. I would be willing to have an article that is sort of like a disambiguation article, and subclassifies this list into a repository of lists of 19th-century Italian polo players, and Italian 14th-century mercenaries. But really, if so, then why not relegate this to categories.

Being bold means not only putting in brave comments. Vacating chatter can also be bold.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "important" in questions for the reason that it is debatable on what this means. You must admit that there are some people that are more "important", and when I say this, I mean more notable, than others. Does that mean that all 4 thousand people shouldn't be included? No. But again, you need to propose a a rather large discussion about this. As I see it right now, me and the other two users who responded in your other thread said that in their opinion the article should be kept. That is just the opinion of three. This is why you may want to open a discussion. I also removed the "deletion tag" since I don't think it was the proper one to use... They usually appear as red and with other details at the top of the page. Again, this is a toss up because long lists like this are alive and not only nationalities, also cities, provinces, states, etc etc. the list goes on and on. Is there a better way like you suggest with categories etc? Maybe. But this needs larger discussion. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy, having bumped into you in similar articles like this in the past, what do you think of the situation? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaselineeeeeeee: Unfortunately, I have... umpteen dozen times. In all honesty, there's no way of proscribing them without local consensus to eliminate 'notables' unless they meet particular criteria. While proscribing lists in this manner could be construed as being WP:OR, many of the 'notables' tend to be WP:PROMO bios, or of limited notability, therefore local WP:CON is the only way to manage them per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy, thanks for the response. So you say it is local consensus, which was not my original thought, but you know your stuff surrounding this matter. However, Rococo wants to delete the article as a whole! I understand if it's about a few "notables" like you said, however he is talking about the whole article, and with an article of this size, I don't think the best thing would be to delete it as I've said before it is a continued topic throughout other nationalities. Even if the case Rococo seems to be the only one against this list at the moment with me and two others stating our opposition. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of notables from any ethnic group are spin-offs from the main article when there are enough notables to create a list per WP:NLIST. The only way in which Rococo1700 could proceed would be through WP:AfD having seriously taken WP:BEFORE into account. Frankly, s/he is going to be greeted by WP:SNOW. These lists are encyclopaedic (see Lists of people), and no one in the community would accept WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT as a rationale for deletion. Managing such lists is another proposal altogether. I would certainly !vote against using deletion as a lazy way of managing a valid article/stand alone list. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, thanks for the insight. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From that list you provided, I would specifically point Rococo to Lists of people by nationality. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The list may need to be managed but, given that Wikipedia is an ongoing project, there's nothing wrong with leaving the list as it stands until editors get around to working out how to tidy it up... if it's deemed that it really needs to be tightened up. Such issues don't need to be addressed right now. All editors strive to make articles the best and most salient they can be, but we can't address every issue the moment one editor decides that it's next on their own agenda. Wikipedia is, after all, a collaborative venture. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having added some input I thought I would add a little more. MOS:SAL gives us guidelines on this type of list. Lists should have a selection criteria that an editor understands - this list's criteria is "everybody Italian". Lists should have a lead def that the reader would understand - this list's lead def states it includes "everybody Italian". This list's only other selection criteria right now is WP:OR: somebody sees someone is Italian and adds them to this list.

So I see the problem Rococo1700 is talking about (which I asked the editor to clarify). The idea of resorting to WP:Local consensus is actually not recommended per that policy. This problem seems to crop up other places (just saw it at Wikipedia talk:Days of the year). All in all I don't think this can (or should) be solved here. Something like an WP:RFC should probably be opened up on it for Wikipedia wide policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: No one is claiming that the list doesn't need to be cleaned up. Deletion, however, is not an option. If you wish to start an RfC, please feel free to do so. Note, however, that this is not the only 'ethnic group' list (or, indeed, diasporic 'ethnic group') article weighed down with OR problems. My suggestion would be that nominating a single article for an RfC isn't going to resolve the larger problem, and that WP:ETHNIC would be a far better crossroads venue to host such an RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wasn't proposing deleting this list, more the opposite. It would be pointless to take such an action at this level. It would also be pointless (IMHO) to even take this up at WP:ETHNIC. "Too long lists" (list that, if you filled them out following a clear selection criteria, would contain tens of thousands of entries) is a systemic Wikipedia problem beyond any one type or project. It probably won't be solved until something is done at a policy level. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It can't/won't be done at policy level, but is a potential guideline prospect invoking policies. That, however, would have to be done dependent on the type of list: i.e., for this type of list, levels of WP:N can be proscribed according to WP:LISTPEOPLE. It would be better to have it discussed and elucidated further on the talk page of that guideline article rather than individual list level. Personally, while a lot of these lists drive me batty because of single-instance editors using them as WP:PROMO for their favourite celeb, or for self-promotion, I end up having to check that the person is reliably sourced as having ethnicity X in their background (and it's not my job to do so), there isn't really a valid reason for begrudging them a mention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate gets me dizzy. I stand by what I said: This list of a nationality is a monstrousity that cannot be killed. I don't care if we do it by RfC or by arguing elsewhere or just blanking the page. Nobody has provided a reasonable explanation of how long this article should be. Delenda est!!!Rococo1700 (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to submit it for deletion through the proper channels. Blanking the page for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT reasons is not an option. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put a deletion template on the entry. I explained the reasons why it should be deleted. Vaselineeeeeeee deleted that. But from the esoteric discussion above, it seems no one knows what to do. It is a monstrosity that can't be killed. Help me out what template do you want to put up for deletion. Delenda est!!!Rococo1700 (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rococo1700: The reason Vaselineeeeeeee deleted it because you'd completely mucked up the AfD, so don't blame him for removing a malformed template from an article page. You've done it again, and you still haven't followed the instructions on how to complete an AfD, so please read through the instructions carefully and try again. I'm sorry, but I can't submit on your behalf because it's up you to provide the arguments for deletion. If I submitted on your behalf, it will show up as being as my own submission. This would be ludicrous because I'd also show up as !voting against myself because I can't support a deletion: it may need work and better sourcing, but it is entirely policy and guideline justified to keep this list. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: I couldn't have given a better reasoning for my removal of that malformed deletion tag myself! Also, I think Rococo's now figured it out... here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italians. Voice your opinion :). Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Italians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Italians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 July 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italians → List of people from Italy – Per WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:COATRACK, we cannot commingle "people from Italy" and "people with some Italian ancestry"; the latter isn't an encyclopedic classification anyway. Talk page shows a lot of confusion and dispute about this, and it's caused by an impermissibly confused scope and a misleading title. This should move for WP:CONSISTENCY with almost all of the rest of our "people from X" articles and categories. The remaining "List of Labels" and "List of Label people" pages are being taken one RM at a time, since they vary between labels that are ethnic, national/regional, or both, on a case-by-case basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Basic Description

[edit]

Since this list only refers to people FROM Italy, would it be okay to delete the description that states "This is a list of Italians, who are identified with the Italian nation through residential, legal, historical, or cultural means, grouped by their area of notability. If we go by this definition, then this would mean people such as Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, and possibly even Napoleon Bonaparte could be eligible for being placed onto this list. I used them as examples because Scorsese and De Niro are Italian citizens while Napoleon has cultural ties with Italy and has origins from Italy. Since most people on Wikipedia prefer to make a distinction between so-called Italians and those of Italian origin (even though both are probably by definition are of the same ethnicity), then I believe the definition of who can be on the list is useless and should be removed so that the title can speak for itself. --Scarslayer01 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they have citizenship, they should be on this list - legal means. Cultural refers to the Culture of Italy, not culture as in ethnicity. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I would agree with you on that statement; we also need to acknowledge the fact that being from Italy and having citizenship there are two different things. I would assume people like Scorsese and De Niro would just have Italian origins and could not (in technical terms) be identified as "Italians." Their citizenship was based on blood (Scorsese) and by just being an influential actor regarding the Italian identity (De Niro). Most people would not consider these men as being from Italy, but having connections with the country (that do not seem to make them eligible as being "true Italians"). Topics like these are very controversial and interesting at the same time. However, I agree that Italian citizens should be on this list, but some of them can be just second and third generation Italian emigrants who were born and raised in foreign countries and therefore could not qualify them as being what is called "Italian." Thank you for responding and for making this page seem much more clearer for me. :D --Scarslayer01 (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is controversial and there have been many discussions about it before, but being from somewhere also has legal connotations as they would be able to vote and buy property as a citizen, etc in the country they hold citizenship. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For another question, what does the description mean when it refers to one having a "historical" connection with Italy? --Scarslayer01 (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a figure influential in Italian history, not necessarily born there, or maybe someone born in Italy, having historical connections, but having moved some place else. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_from_Italy&oldid=1247203400"