Talk:Italy

Article too big

I see tag removed again. We will be by this page in a few weeks. Moxy- 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At 140kB, the entire page is grossly overlength. Splits need considering. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Cuts in the led a bit exaggerated

Taking a look at the summary made by the last editors here, I notice a bit of exaggeration, Italy is undoubtedly a country with an immense history and culture, and this summary claiming that the led is too long summarized this story in a few sentences. Other articles from European countries like Spain have a led practically 3 times larger than this article, explaining the history of the country in detail (without any warning that the led is too big). Now this last removal of talking about the Roman empire out of the blue is just ridiculous. Pretounud (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And another thing, users keep comparing the led of the Italy article with that of the United Kingdom, which, as I see it, does not mention anything about the history of that country, such as the importance of the Romans in those lands and the invasions of the Vikings, which were the two essential things to the formation of that country also makes no sense. As I said, other European countries (Spain and France) have leds much larger and much better explained than that of Italy currently.Pretounud (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

History is excessively covered in many country page leads. The lead is meant to summarize the article in a fair and balanced manner, but despite only being 1/4 of most country pages often become 1/2 of their leads. Bearing in mind that every country has a separate "History of X" where the detailed history is displayed, there really is not much need for detailed history in most country page leads - readers have come to the country page, not the history of the country page. The UK page quite sensibly dispenses with this and starts where the modern country can meaningfully construed to have its beginnings. Italy's modern period could reasonably be construed as beginning with its unification. All of the earlier, ancient history is hard to remove because it is emotive, but in reality it is undue and country pages leads are more to the point and more useful to the readers when they are more minimalist still on history. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with this, after all, Italy, as a country, was not the Roman Empire. Venezia Friulano (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, now exaggeration in the opposite direction.Barjimoa (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree Venezia Friulano (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree Denisarona (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I just gave a little better context to the Romans, who were previously quoted completely out of context in the led. And realizing that currently the point is to speak of Italy only as a unified nation, I also mentioned the first time that this happened (and the only one before 1860). I also removed the claims about the territory of the Romans in the Mediterranean, since it was incomplete information, their rule went far beyond the mediterranean basin. As I mentioned, the article is being edited (according to the current editors) because it is only to cite facts about the Italian peninsula as a unified entity.Pretounud (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

As we can see on here, everyone agrees with my point of view. The user who started these information cuts is closer to vandalizing the article than fixing anything.Pretounud (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Now blocked for vandalism.Barjimoa (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Causes of missing unification in the lead

The failure to create an Italian nation-state in parallel with other Italian nation states (England, France, Spain...) is one of the most important factors (if not the most important) in post-Roman Italian national history. So explaining the causes in the lead is not an unnecessary detail. The italian intelligentsia began to deal with this problem with Machiavelli and Guicciardini, and it continues to this day. Since the causes do not belong to a specific period, but have remained the same for centuries, and because of their intrinsic importance, it is important to mention them in the lead. I am open to discussing where to put them in the lead, and having them in the unification section is a very good idea. Alex2006 (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising this discussion thread. I don't entirely understand the framing of the proposed changes, which seems to carry the underlying presumption that an entity encompassing "Italy" somehow should exist (like some sort of natural state), and that the absence of unification then somehow means that this is being prevented. This specific language, more than anything else, seems artificial, and I cannot see any of other mention on the page of the "prevention of unification", nor specifically on the sourced you added (though that could be google translate). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to say three things, becase I disagree with Alex on one thing but agree with him on two.

-the idea that Italy did not unify because of the Papal States is old scolarship; (it comes from a wrong 19th century interpretation of a passage in Machiavelli and has been criticised by Gramsci and ever since). In fact the Papacy was the leading Italian force until the rise of Piedmont, if not until the failure of the neo-guelph movement. Popes like Julius II or Gregory XIII or many others would have unified Italy (that is to say, annex all the others) had they had the material strength to do it (the Popes were the greatest power of Italy in terms of soft power, but in the terms of hard power they were on par with the other Italian states). This is valid for everyone, Papacy, Venice etc. It's not so much about nationalism, it's about why no one conquered the others like Castile did in Spain or Paris did in France.

-Scolarship now generally stresses that the reason Italy did not unify is simply because there was a balance of power between the various states and no one could absorb all the others (that is, until Piedmont). In this, Alex2006 is right to me.

-In a previous comment Alex2006 mentioned that the fact that the Catholic Church/Papal States were based in Italy deserve a mention intro as much as the ancient roman empire. I totally agree with him on that (just not on that particular way to introduce their presence).Barjimoa (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Answer to Iskandar: what does 'predestination for (re)unification' mean in this case? Clearly the historical necessity does not exist, but the starting conditions were there, and were certainly much more favorable than in the case of states such as France.

• First of all the peninsula's geographical conformation, defended to the north by the alps, and surrounded by the sea on the other three sides.
• Secondly, Italy was the first region in Europe to be permanently unified politically, linguistically and culturally thanks to Rome.
• Thirdly, the population professed the same religion, Catholicism, and thanks to this the peninsula was almost immune to the heresies and the religious fights that spread to other parts of Europe in the Middle Ages.

Regarding the meaning of 'prevent', here it means 'impede'. The forces that prevented unification were:

• first the church (read about it what Dante and Machiavelli say about it), because it did not want to renounce its temporal power. Of course the church, if it had had the necessary strength, would have unified the peninsula, but the powerful states were others (Naples, Milan, Florence, Venice), so the popes were content to block their hegemonic attempts. Then we must not forget the harmful influence of the counter-reform and the inquisition, a real cancer for the Italian society of the modern age.
• secondly the balance of power among the Italian regional states, which prevented hegemonic attempts by one state by the coalition of the other ones;
• and then from the end of the 15th century the interventions in the peninsula of those national states (Spain, France, later the Empire/Austria) that after reaching unification began to pursue an European policy and saw Italy, economically and culturally rich but politically weak, as an easy prey.

I do not agree with your assertion that there were no attempts at unification before the 19th century: from Liutprand to the Hoenstaufen, from Gian Galeazzo Visconti to early 16th century Venice, there have always been attempts to gain hegemony over Italy (clearly we are not talking about unification on a 'national' basis as in the 19th century), but they have always been crushed, almost always thanks to the political efforts of the church. If you want to read something about this subject, you are spoilt for choice: I recommend you an essay by Ernesto Galli della Loggia: 'L'identità italiana'. (Il Mulino, Bologna, 1998), a book that is not long (190 pages), but dense with information and concepts. BTW, the points which I wrote above correspond almost one to one with the first chapters of the book. Alex2006 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Again I agree with all your points, but (so sorry to stress this but as I said I agree with you on the rest) not the part on the Church and the supposedly "cancerous" influence on Italy, because that is a black legend abandoned by historiography; the Papacy actually wanted hegemony and prosperity in Italy just like every other Italian state (and just like every Italian state it did not want to be annexed by the others). The idea that the popes were actively working to disrupt Italian unification per se before the nationalist liberal movement is an anachronism of 19th century scolarship, at best of 18th century enlightenment. Italy being the seat of the papacy was actually a benefit to Italians until the late modern period. Or rather: when the Church arose Italy arose, when the Church declined Italy declined. Think of the Medieval communes rising against the German emperor and supported by the Popes, or of the crisis in which Italy fell during the Avignon period (with the chief Italians of the day, from Petrarch to Catherine of Siena asking the Pope to come back) or of the Renaissance and the Baroque movements, of Lepanto etc. etc. On all the other points I agree, it's just that specific point which is an anachronism for the Medieval and Early Modern history of Italy. Barjimoa (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments and ideas mentioned here, so I think wanting to explain the reason for the lack of unification in detail here in the article, even more so in the lead, would become just assumptions, since in fact there were several factors that contributed to this , in particular that no Italian state would agree (having the power to do so) to be subjugated by another. So I think it's a very complex argument and very full of assumptions to want to be treated here in the article.Pretounud (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

All of this is interesting, but it also emphasizes how this is vastly too much information to include in the lead (as you note, it fills a whole book chapter). It needs to be remembered that this is the article about the modern country of Italy, not specifically its history; the long form page for Italian history content is History of Italy (this is forgotten extremely frequently on country pages, not just on this one). The pre-19th century material on this page is all preamble to the late modern history and all of the other information on the modern country. As an aside, I'm not sure which source says 'predestination', but whichever it is, it sounds rather far removed from modern scholarship, which does not usually speak in terms of fate and destiny. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Religion (2023)

Christianity: 61% No religion: 28% Prefer not to say: 2% Islam: 1% Other: 1%

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-05/Ipsos%20Global%20Advisor%20-%20Religion%202023%20Report%20-%2026%20countries.pdf p.5 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Should stick with census data. The sample size is ridiculously low. Moxy- 11:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the sample size of the current source (in the wikiarticle)? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I am serious I cannot access the source used in the current wikipedia article. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

In the introductory section pertaining the history of Italy in WW2 there's a section which is not clear:

"During World War II, Italy was first part of the Axis until it surrendered to the Allied powers and was occupied by Nazi Germany with fascist collaboration (1940-1943) and then a co-belligerent of the Allies during the Italian resistance and the liberation of Italy (1943-1945)."

should be changed to:

"During World War II, Italy was first part of the Axis until it surrendered to the Allied powers in 1943 and as part of its territory was occupied by Nazi Germany with fascist collaboration it became a co-belligerent of the Allies during the Italian resistance and the liberation of Italy (1943-1945)."

In the original sentence it is not clear that (1940-1943) Italy was entirely fighting alongside with the Axis and (1943-1945) it was split in two parts: one fighting for the liberation of Italy and one occupied by Nazi Germany with fascist collaboration. 94.33.221.212 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

The Roma community is one of the largest ethnic minorities in Italy. The country has a growing foreign population, amounting to more than 5.1 million registered inhabitants. This includes include Romanians 1,190,100, Albanians 440,500, Moroccans 416,500, Ukrainians 237,000, Chinese 290,700, Philippinos 167,900 and Indians 151,800. The largest linguistic minorities in Italy include Sardu-speakers 1 million, Tyrolese German-speakers 350,000, Albanians 70,000 – 100,000, Slovenes 60,000, Franco-Provençal-speakers 50,000 – 70,000, Occitans 20,000 – 40,000, Ladins 30,000, Catalans 15,000, Greek-speakers 12,000 and Croatians 3,000. Add this information to the demographics section.

Source: https://minorityrights.org/country/italy/ 103.164.138.55 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Where in the demographics section should it be added? Should it be its own section? Should it fall under immigration? Should it be somewhere else?

--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See also the response by MtPenguinMonster. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request

@Locke Cole: it's fine to warn me on my discussion page (although you could have omitted mentioning the possibility of being banned, that wasn't nice of you at all), but you should, before adding a warning on my discussion page, at least try to explain (properly) why Italy has this template (which I removed) and the United States doesn't (it's undeniable that Italy's history and culture are more important and extensive than those of the U.S. (the U.S.A. has existed for not even 400 years...). JackkBrown (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The US article is 12k words of readable prose; this article is nearly double that at 22k. This one would benefit much more significantly from condensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: I don't care about this article. I don't care about the tag you wanted to place on United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). What I do care about is you being disruptive and violating WP:POINT. You appear bound and determined to double down on that by pinging me to conversations I do not care about. If you want to keep being disruptive an administrator can help you along with finding other things to do with your time. Or you can use the talk page here, which I see you've finally done. As to the tag about being too long, you apparently have a number of other editors here who disagree with you. Obviously @Nikkimaria disagrees with you, but so do @Moxy and @Iskandar323 above in #Article too big. Adding the too-long tag to United States is both wrong (it's not too long) and WP:POINTy, and your reason for doing so is.. apparently, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't give two shits about this article. I hope someone who does give a shit about this article can help you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Page infested by socks of User:Venezia Friulano/ User:JamesOredan

How do we solve this? This is a permanently blocked user who has pushed his non-sense agenda for years with dozens and dozens of socks. Barjimoa (talk)

This guy wages edit war and while he does it he has the nerve to message me and say "haha you cant stop me". My God. Barjimoa (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to thank the administrators for their quick action. Barjimoa (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have requested Extended confirmed protection for this article to avoid further nonsense from these sockpuppet accounts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Intro

Italy is certainly not "Located in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea". It's is a peninsula which extends southward from continental Europe toward the center of the Mediterranean Sea. Willit63 (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox official name

In English, the official name of Italy is Republic of Italy.[1]

Similar to Turkey situation, it should be changed accordingly.

Italian Republic shouldn't be on the lead, since there is another example Republic of Cyprus, while its Greek name is Cypriot Republic. So it should be something like Italy, officially the Republic of Italy (Template:Lang-it). Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone want to reply? Beshogur (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup all there in lead and a redirect Republic of Italy. Moxy- 22:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur @Moxy Disagree. The Italian name in English ("Italian Republic") is used in official sources. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Even in the CIA World Factbook the conventional long form is Italian Republic:

"conventional long form: Italian Republic"

"conventional short form: Italy"

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/italy/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, Italy changed its name. [2] See UN. Beshogur (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The translated form is Italian Republic: the country didn't change its name. This is because such name is established constitutionally, and an action by the cabinet wouldn't be sufficient to alter that. To anyone familiar with the Italian legal system, it would appear absurd to have the Constitution superseded by an act of the cabinet.

An official sanction of the proposed name is non-existent. The exact same documents presented bring to the conclusion about their scope: namely, the adoption of the name as a reference to the country at the UN. This means in no way an official position for the name, exactly like "China" is not the translation of the official name of the country, despite being used at the UN.

The instrument of action is the definition itself of the nature of the text: a message destined to the UN, as a document for the UN. There is no law establishing that wrong name: such diplomatic correspondence has no legal enforcement, and is not source of law. This means the document is outside the legislative system of the country. This means it is a non-binding form of action by the cabinet.

It appears to me, that the proposed denomination stems from a good faith misunderstanding of the Italian legal system, probably caused by unfamiliarity with it by foreign editors. Greetings. Foghe (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

See the discussion at Turkey. The name registered in the UN is official. The parliaments are not busy with its countries' English names. Beshogur (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Disagree, per Foghe and 93.45.229.98. The Italian Republic is correct and should be restored for the reasons previously stated. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"Italian Republic" is a noun (if it is used), not an official name (in English) anymore. Similarly "Turkish Republic" is not the official name of Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall. The article is about Italy, not Turkey. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No it is same exact discussion regarding official names and the UN. Beshogur (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

According to this document, the French Republic should be the Republic of France. That does not make it correct or mean that we should change the Wikipedia article. The Official Names of the United Nations Membership is only one source. The constitution is more reliable. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting find, I wonder what the story is there. The most recent UNGEGN list (2017) (the same one Beshogur linked above) uses "French Republic (the)", as does the online version (25 April 2019). Both use "Republic of Italy", although the 2019 version includes "the" as a full part of the name. On the other hand, government websites do seem to use "Italian Republic" (eg. parliament website). This English language constitution, apparently provided by the Constitutional Court and now hosted on the Ministry of the Interior website has both ("CONSTITUTION OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC...The Constitution of the Republic of Italy..."). Perhaps an enterprising citizen/reporter could ask the government and/or constitutional court if there is an official stance on this, or if both are interchangeable. CMD (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

French Republic is the official name of France. That's not what I'm disputing. Regarding the consitution, you can also find Constituion of the Turkish Republic. That's what I mean. It's rather a noun. We should take what is admitted to the UN (that's the reason why I'm citing Turkey/Türkiye discussion. @Chipmunkdavis: Beshogur (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Another prominent example is Lebanese Republic -> Republic of Lebanon. Beshogur (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Why should we? Because you say so? This is meant to be a discussion and you do not have a consensus. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So we should listen an IP with less than 10 edits. There is a consensus on official names regarding countries. Beshogur (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's how Wikipedia works (and I've been around a lot longer than you). 109.180.140.175 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

So use your own account not some random ip. Beshogur (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

And there is a consensus on official names as I mentioned, Turkey/Türkiye discussion is a precedent. Beshogur (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing there applies here. Meanwhile:

• The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use
• CONSOLIDATED TEXTS OF THE EU TREATIES AS AMENDED BY THE TREATY OF LISBON
• Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Italian Republic concerning the Protection of Classified Information
• Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Italian Republic on Mutual Recognition of Driving Licences for the Purposes of Exchange
• Change of Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Italian Republic: Edward Llewellyn
• Implementing decision 2018/593 - Authorisation of Italy to derogate from Articles 218 and 232 of the VAT Directive
• STATUS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION WITH REGARD TO INTERNATIONAL AIR LAW INSTRUMENTS
• Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic Case C- 217/ 06 4 October 2007
• Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 November 2011
• Italian Republic v, European Commission, Case C-566/10, CJEU (Grand Chamber), 27 November 2012
• ECJ 26 March 2019, case C-621/16 P (Commission / Italy), discrimination, other forms of discrimination
• ECJ – Customs – C-63/19 – European Commission against Italian republic – EC does not demonstrate that Italy is lowering excise rates by means of a compensation scheme
• Council Decision (EU) 2023/1204 of 20 June 2023 appointing a member, proposed by the Italian Republic, of the European Economic and Social Committee
• Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No.030 - European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ETS No. 030)
• ITALIAN REPUBLIC EARLY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 25 September 2022 ODIHR Election Assessment Mission Final Report
• The Permanent Representation of the Italian Republic to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
• The Permanent Delegation of the Italian Republic to the North Atlantic Council
• THE 64TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC
• NATO Secretary General to visit the Italian Republic
• JOINT DECLARATION by UKRAINE and ITALY
• Treaty of Friendship, Partnership, and Cooperation between the Italian Republic and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• FILM CO-PRODUCTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL
• PARTNERSHIP AND CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THEIR MEMBER STATES, AND UKRAINE
• AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN ON THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ON TAX MATTERS
• AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
• AGREEMENT ON SCIENTIFIC, TECHNOLOGICAL AND INNOVATION COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC
• MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC AND THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA ON COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF HEALTHCARE
• Church of England signs Treaty with Italian Republic
• The Quirinal Treaty enters into force (1 February 2023)
• JOINT DECLARATION ON ESTABLISHING STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC AND THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN

109.180.140.175 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an old habit. However according to UN; Italian Republic, last entry 2011, Republic of Italy, last entry November 2023. I think we should add that Italian Republic is sometimes used in an official capacity; eg. Republic of Azerbaijan / Azerbaijan Republic. Beshogur (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope, that is not acceptable. The weight of evidence is in favour of Italian Republic. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it works. UN refers to as "Republic of Italy". Beshogur (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that is exactly how it works. You do not have a consensus. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You're repeating same arguments over and over. We discussed on Talk:Turkey several times regarding official names of the countries. There is another example like Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. It is what UN says, not what you favor. Beshogur (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to where it says that? 109.180.140.175 (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What exactly? Beshogur (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That the UN is the only acceptable source. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? See whole Talk:Turkey/Archive_36#RfC_on_the_official_name_of_the_country_in_the_lede_(2) discussion. If that wasn't the case, Republic of Côte d'Ivoire was still Republic of Ivory Coast, Republic of Türkiye was still Republic of Turkey, Eswatini was still Swaziland. Another example International Organization for Standardization [3] uses also "Republic of Italy". Beshogur (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That other stuff exists is not an argument. I am talking about policy. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not other stuff. It's a precedent. Beshogur (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can open a rfc for this. See what other users think. Beshogur (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it is other stuff and it does not apply here. You need to build a consensus, which you do not have. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Fine, but in the meantime we can change it back to what it was. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No I disagree. UN says "Republic of Italy". It should be about whether Italian Republic should be added as well. Beshogur (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I’ll ask again, where does it say that the UN is the only acceptable source? 109.180.140.175 (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Although inactive, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (countries) gives a good example: The ISO standards set by the International Organization for Standardization are widely accepted around the world. This standard is used by the United Nations. "Republic of Italy" is the ISO standard, "Italian Republic" is not. However, since you showed it's still in use, I added in bold. Beshogur (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (countries) referred to short form names so it is not relevant here. You need a consensus or to point to where it says that the UN is the only acceptable source. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The UN is not the ultimate source here, outside of rare instances the names are from national governments which are conveyed to the UN. For example, on 1 June 2022 Turkey changed its name at the UN to Türkiye. The question this raises is why the Italian government has told the UN that its official name is Republic of Italy. CMD (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

We can only speculate on that. However, more recent examples above clearly demonstrate continued use of Italian Republic. It is also reproduced in the Italian passport. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What kind of example is this? No one denis it's "Italian Republic" in Italian. "Republic of Cyprus" is also "Cypriot Republic" in Greek. Beshogur (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources provided by IP 109 are overwhelming and confirm what I already believed: Italian Republic is preferable and more common than Republic of Italy. The official English translation of the Italian constitution, the text of the EU Treaties and the site of the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use are sufficient evidence to prove the point. Also on my Italian passport I read "Italian Republic". I have no idea why at UN level Republic of Italy is more common, but I guess it reflects some linguistic practice of Italian diplomacy rather than wider usage. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Even that translation of the constitution has "Every citizen shall be free to leave and enter the territory of the Republic of Italy, save for obligations set forth by law", and the version I linked above has it a few more times where "Italian Republic" is used in this one. There may be a lean, but certainly nothing here is "overwhelming". CMD (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus for change. 93.45.229.98, Foghe, Gitz and myself (four editors) have all made compelling cases against. Even you have conceded there is "a lean" (five?). Only Beshogur and Moxy (two) have expressed firm support.

You pick on one mention in the translation of the constitution published by the Constitutional Court of the Italian Republic, but remain silent on the Consolidated Texts of the EU Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (2008), the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use (updated 26 October 2023) and the Italian passport (updated 27 September 2023). This is an error that does not appear in the translation published by the Senate of the Republic, which states: "Every citizen shall be free to leave the territory of the Republic and return to it, notwithstanding any legal obligations", an accurate translation of the Italian: Ogni cittadino è libero di uscire dal territorio della Repubblica e di rientrarvi, salvo gli obblighi di legge. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying I "remain silent" is a strange assertion, everyone in the discussion has seen all the sources. So far we do not have a secondary one, and no source has said any one particular style is in error. CMD (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, you pick on one small point, but ignore the thrust of my argument: There is no consensus and your example is a translation error. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 13:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not clear what you mean by: "So far we do not have a secondary one". There are a number of secondary sources above. Can you please clarify. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

See UN and ISO standards. It uses "Republic of Italy", not "Italian Republic", however I agree that the latter is also used, like "Azerbaijan Republic" sometimes instead of "Republic of Azerbaijan". Beshogur (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It has already been agreed that the UN is not the only acceptable source. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You wrote the same thing 4 times. Agreed by whom? Beshogur (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I should have said established, not agreed. You were unable to point to a policy and CMD stated: "The UN is not the ultimate source here". 109.180.140.175 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Isn't the country's official name in English; the Italian Republic? If it HAS changed, I don't need to edit the page. Josh0108 (alt) (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Yes, the name has been changed in 2003. See the two sources cited in the lead section. Liu1126 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The name has not changed and should be reverted. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Source "trust me"? Beshogur (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few (from the United Nations):

• Agreement between the Government of the Hellenic Republic and the Italian Republic on the Delimitation of their Respective Maritime Zones, 9 June 2020 (entry into force: 8 November 2021; registration #: 57024; registration date: 13 December 2021
• Communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Italian Republic to the Embassy of the Republic of Malta in Rome dated 16 February 2023
• Communication from the Embassy of the Republic of Malta in Rome to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Italian Republic dated 28 March 2023
• Communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Italian Republic to the Embassy of the Republic of Malta in Rome dated 26 April 2023

109.180.140.175 (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Please change Republic of Italy to Italian Republic. 109.180.140.175 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. looks like ongoing discussion above, deactivating template Cannolis (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Pecorino_Sardo#Capitalisation

Hi, there is a very interesting discussion regarding the "pecorino sardo" page; some users argue that it is correct to write "sardo" of "pecorino sardo" with a capital letter (on en.wiki); if you want to participate, enter here: Talk:Pecorino_Sardo#Capitalisation (the English and the Americans (not all) think that "sardo" means "Sardinia", which explains why the English and the Americans write "Sardo" (with a capital "S"); the Italians laugh at these grammatical errors, because for us all it is normal to have a lowercase. The English and the Americans also think (not all) that "americano" of "ragazzo americano" (example) is written with a capital "A"; according to Italian grammar, it's heresy to make such an error). JackkBrown (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

When you want to guide people to a discussion, please link to it, as I have done here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to warn you (you in the plural) that if you see me inactive from now on, it is because until an agreement is reached on this problem, I will no longer contribute to "en.wiki", except for a few edits per week. JackkBrown (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good choice for you. Inconsistency of italics appears to be causing you significant distress. Thank you for the ping, and for the above message. Grazie. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)