Talk:Italians/Archive 1

You forget indo-european immigration: Romans (Latins and the most part of the italic people came to Italy from north or east. About Etruscan origin there are three possibility: indigenous, from east (today Turkey) and a third I cannot remember now. And they were not indo-european. 84.253.136.132 9 July 2005 02:16 (UTC)

---

How come there are 62 million Italians in Italy if the latter's population is about 58 million people? Leslie ^Msg 19:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Physical appearance of Italians

Is it just me who finds the section on Italian's physical appearance seriously wierd?? I am from Europe and I think that this steorotype of Italians "being tanned and having dark complexions" is just a US thing. In any case it dosent seem like a serious thing to be tackled in an encyclopedia...--Burgas00 12:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the physical appearence of Italians as an ethnic group is important. It's not completely necessary, but may be worth mentioning. This is not just a US thing. I am from Europe as well (Southern Italian), and it seems to me the whole "olive-skin" thing is just as popular there as in the US. And rightfully so. Some Italians are indeed dark. I'm dark. Now, if you are talking about the nationality known as Italian, that is a whole different subject.- Unsigned

I agree with that second guy, in a sense. As a Southern Italian, I must say, many Southern Italians are dark. However, you can still consider yourself an 'Italian' and not be an ethnic Italian. Italian is a nationality as well as a people. So perhaps the light 'Italians' you know are not ethnic Italians, simply people from Italy. Lombardo people, for example, are northern "Italians" who are ethnic Germans with light Germanic skin. But they consider themselves "Italian" because they live in the country of Italy. In other words, Americans call themselves Americans, but most American citizens are not Native American.-- I AM HERE 23 February 2006

"Pure ethnic Italians"?!?! Do you know how many times Italy has been invaded in the last two millenia? Which would have been these mythical "pure ethnic Italians"? During which historical period they inhabited alone the Italian peninsula? This is an article about the Italian people, that means about the people who share an Italian culture. An Italian ethnicity have never existed (like a Spanish ethnicity, a French ethnicity and so on).

I never said ethnic Italians weren't a mixture of different groups. Ethnic Italians may have black, white, Greek, and different Indo-European blood somewhere along the line. But they all share these mixtures. All modern races are mixtures, including Africans, Asians, and other groups you call races. You have to draw the line somewhere. -- I AM HERE 25 Feb 2006

To the fourth comment, not the previous comment---Who are you to claim Italians were never an ethnicity? As an Italian, I find that offensive. An Italian ethnicity does indeed exist. People think they can just classify other people, but you do not have that authority. Who are you to tell people who is black, or white, or whether there is not an Italian ethnicity inhabiting the Italian peninsula? I agree with the previous person in that way.

I wrote the fourth comment. I simply think that being Italian cannot be considered in any way a genetical matter, although, of course, you can describe the Genetic placement of Italian people (good section). I consider absurd saying that an Italian blonde person must be an ethnic German who lives in Italy. Don't find that offensive, I'm Italian, too.

Sure Italy has been invaded many times in the last two millenia. But don't you suppose race riots would have broke out and prevented them from mingling with the Latins (Italian people)? It is scary to to think this article is completely accurate. Most people believe we are a mixture of the Italic peoples and the Etruscans. But saying the invaders succeded in destroying our ancient ancestors' language, culture, and then our national racial pride is demeaning. We are Mediterranean 100%, Germanic/Nordic 0%.- Unsigned

I identify myself as Mediterranean as well.- I AM HERE

To the fourth comment- I guess there is no ethnic Korean peopel beacuse they have been invaded so many times, using that twisted logic. Its already bad enough the WASPs and nordic supremasists opress everyone else, now they jsut flat out deney other groups exist?--68.192.188.142 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Who are they to tell us we don't exist? - I AM HERE

Vandalism?

24.226.10.99 is a repeated vandals, who has edited this page. He/she changed the amount of Italians in South America from 45m to 48m. While this may, be true, I've reverted just to be safe, as an other edit this guy does is copyvio or nonsense. -- user:zanimum

Immigration

"Because of the fact that Italians had to defeat and drive out these people in the past, there is a feeling of contempt toward them in modern Italian culture, which is not found in the more northern countries of Europe, which were isolated from Muslim invasion." I am italian and I think this is bull**** - please correct me if wrong. Conflicts are probably due to the lack of jobs for immigrants and the choice for most of them to survive out of crime. Immigrants are probably a bit more integrated on the north because it is where italy is more developed; but even on the north they are less and less wellcome for the same reasons.

I agree, these steorotypes are very damaging and have no basis in fact.I read on a recent US survey that the most tolerant people in Europe towards muslim immigrants are 1st the Spaniards and 2nd the British. The Brits have never suffered any menace from the Muslim world whereas as Spain was part of the Islamic world for 8 centuries. I think that these "people"pages are very damaging as they attract all kinds of recycled beliefs which are generally held by foreigners (e.g. French people are dirty, Germans racist etc...) --83.42.145.199 14:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

@Khoikhoi The information that jewish "settlements" existed in the roman republic is nonsense. The Jews that lived in the Roman Empire were not granted citizenship until 245 AD. Till than they had no rights and were segregated and put in ghettos across the empire. There was only 1 small Jewish ghetto (made up of merchants) in italy till 310 AD. And that was in Ostia. So this information that there were settlements is falls. There were only few jewish ghettos in italy till 1678.

About Italy's Population and Diaspora

CIA World Fact Book tells us that Italy has 58.1 million Italians in Italy, probably 56 million if you count ethnic Italians, so therefore 62 million Italians is false. Also, there are 25 million Italians in Brazil, 18 million Italians in Argentina (those who have mixed Spanish/Italian ancestry included as well), 3 million Italians in Venezuela, 2 million in Chile (Though this is debated) and 1.8 million Italians in Uruguay. If I am not mistaken that amounts to 49.8 million people, so despite the fact that I did not put the number at 48 million, it should be higher, so how is that vandalism?

As well as the immigration part, Italians are hostile towards Muslims especially is because Italians know that they have a low fertility rate while those who are Muslim tend to have slightly higher ones.

About Vandalism

There was new changes as someone added that there was 750,000 Italians in Switzerland, not 550,000. If you look at World Fact book on Switzerland, it will provie that this is right. The new changes are clearer and is more readily understood. I dont see hoe people consider this as vandalism. People have to do their research more propoerly and see that these changes are better than what was previously wrote.

Italians are a Latin Ethnic Group

Italians are linguistically Latins, not ethnically. There was the rise of the Latins in central Italy but they were not even a populated people.

Correction:Italians are not only linguistically Latins, they are also culturally and ethnically Latins. The original Latins originating from the Province of Latium (now Lazio) in Italy eventually mixed with the Romans and other Italian groups.

Being Latin is not related to ethnicity anyway. All the Italians are Latins because of the Latin language they spoke and the new Latin version ,the Italian, they speak,their Roman Christian Religion and the Roman/Latin Laws and Culture that they have inherited.

The Spaniards, the Portugueses,the French and the Romanians are also considered Latins because of the same reasons.

Italians are Latin because their language, culture, religion comes from the Latins, also called the Romans, or the Latin/Romans. Besides, the Italians are also Mediterranean for the most part. The Mediterranean is a race that is spread around the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Most civilizations have been Mediterranean: The Summerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian, Persian, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Iberian, Tartessian, Hebrew, Arab, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, Roman, Christian, Western... civilizations. No other race comes even close to it in terms of creating great civilizations.

I agree with the above comment. Ethnic Italians are in fact Latin.

I do agree that the Italians are Latin.

Couple of things

1. No Italians in UK?
2. I Propose "Language: Italian and several local dialects." Not sure if we want to list all the dialects in Italy, and certainly listing only three is grossly inaccurate.

PizzaMargherita 18:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No Italians in UK? This is not recorded by the UK census or any large-scale UK surveys. There may be some other smaller verifiable sources somewhere. Good luck finding them :) zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Ladin and Friulan are really nearer to French and Catalan than they are to Italian; and also Sardinian is considered not a dialect, but a distinct language. As for Italians in the UK, there hase never been any big scale immigration, even if at a point this source alleged that their were 240.000 Italians in Great Britain; hiding where, that's a mistery ;-) Aldux 21:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

complete misconceptions

dove sono i italiani per questo articolo?

"part of a race known as meditarranean", what the..? i've never heard of a meditarranean race, i've heard of indo-european, mongoloid and negroid as general race classification origins..there is simply no such thing..given the fact that the meditarranean race would have to also include the germans and scandinavians too as they have all mixed in the italian peninsula..

"with dark features"..yes some of us have darker, not dark features but certainly that is not a marker of italian ethnicity as this american would mislead..so if i'm blonde, blue eyes and as pale as milk am i not italian, which so many are..

i agree that its ridiculous for a wikipedia article to state physical or skin appearence..does the british people page talk of their white complexions to identify their origin?

it should be taken down.

"Italians are hostile towards Muslims especially is because Italians know that they have a low fertility rate while those who are Muslim tend to have slightly higher ones."...this is too far, this is just a joke, what planet are you from...

firstly i dont really see this immense hostility, if it is so it wont be for any other than reasons we see all over europe and the us now, the stereotypical portrayal of muslims in the west and maybe general dislike of a foreign culture...which makes italians just as hostile to the french or british as they could be to 'muslims'...but the fertility rate idea is incredible, you are insane...

so if an italian is prejudice against a muslim you're saying he's thinking ahh you have more kids than me so i'll hate you..cmon..italians dont have a lesser fertile population, they choose to have fewer kids, a cultural shift which happened across the whole western world progressively..

there are no dialects of italy in the sense you claim, most are infact languages like Sicilian, Napolitan etc..upon italian unifcation only 2.5% approx spoke tuscan dialect which later was used as a national standard and called 'italian'...whereas in spain catalan, gallego and castellano are now all recognised as different languages.. in italy unforunately due to politics and zero tolerance against anything away from one italy one people our rich linguistic diversity has been overlooked and termed dialects.

unesco book of languages states that sicilian is a seperate language which it is..its fare more diverse than catalan is to spanish..than to italian.

in the uk there are indeed many many italians but it would be hard to track them down exactly as they did not arrive in mass numbers similar to the america's..for example an italian could come to the uk live there for years but still be officially classed as part of italy's population..

like me..

ciao

I agree. I think the section on physical appearance is very disquieting. I wouldnt take it if I was Italian. I think it has something to do with the W.A.S.P perception of Italians in the US, a very racialized society. Americans of Northern european extraction had to find or imagine racial characteristics to distinguish themselves and make themselves feel superior to these new immigrants. As someone said further up, no other mediterranean population on wiki has ANY reference to physical appearance, be it the Greeks, Portuguese, Spanish or Turks. These peoples have in common that none of them immigrated in a major way to the US and thereby have not been subject to racial profiling in the way the Italians have. This is why I said this is a "US thing" and the section should be deleted.--Burgas00 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The comment about Indoeuropean as a race is absolutely wrong. Indoeuropean is a linguistic group, not a racial one. Mediterrean is a scientific definition of a race, the same as Nordic. Of course these races and others have mixed with others, but still there are countries that are predominantly Mediterranean and others Nordic, like Italy or Sweden.

He probably meant caucasian race. In any case, what is the Mediterranean race ? How can there be a race in the region of the world which has seen the most mixture and contacts between peoples. Surely the Mediterranean is the region of the world where the concept of race makes least sense.--83.33.230.192 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Indoeuropean and Caucasian are not the same either, although nowadays the most accepted theory is that the Indoeuropeans originated in the Caucasus region. As to the Mediterranean race see: http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/texts/coonmed/

In relation to mixture, all the peoples that have met in Italy were maily Mediterranean. There has also been some Nordic and especially Alpine influence, but the Mediterraneans are still dominant.

about complete misconceptions

I think that some of misconceptions stated above are ridiculous. However, it is necessary to write the fact that many people have these misconceptions regarding the Italian look as being dark because some do. It is true that many consider Italians to be white, but some have a firm grasp on the "olive skin." Their misconceptions need to be brought out much like this article does.

Many Italians do have pale skin. On an article I read on the internet, the blond hair ratio in Italy is 1 in 5 people (most common in the north, 6 per cent presence in the south). I have been to Italy, and the number of redheads are large especially in Italy. Also Italians know that Muslims (North Africans) have higher birth rates. I dont believe that their hostile because of that, but because the North African population is increasing vastly in number.

And Italians are less fertile than Muslim immigrants. That is why the Italian population in Italy is ageing while the Muslims population increase. If an average Italian women bears 1.2 children and a Muslim woman in italy bears 1.8 children, they have a higher fertility rate than Italians. It makes much sense.

A.G. February 20th, 2006

This comment above reflects the ignorance of a lot of people in some countries when they speak about race, especially the United States: "It is true that many consider Italians to be white, but some have a firm grasp on the "olive skin"". This guy seems to confuse the white race, or properly speaking the Caucasian race, with being blond or albino, or having a Nordic pale skin. Of course most Italians have a darker complexion than Northern Europeans, because they are Mediterranean, and they are probably whiter (more caucasian of course, not paler)than Northern Europeans(according to recent DNA analysis there has been a significant Mongoloid gene flow in Northern Europe for thousands of years -Nobody misinterpret this. Mongols are a great race like any other. This is just to clarify a few things-". By the way, the term Caucasian comes from the Caucasus, a region inhabited by dark haired, dark eyed people. And to finish, it is even funnier to see how these misconceptions of race come mainly from the United States, where the so-called "whites" have about a four per cent of Native American genes and one per cent of African-American genes, according to recent DNA analysis. So, according to their own racist one-drop theory there are virtually no whites in that country anymore. In Italy, almost the entire populaton is white, according to the same rule. If someone wants the citations to support my point, just tell me.

What is this discussion about? It sounds like we are in the 1930s. There is no such thing as the alpine race, nordic race or mediterranean race. These are all pre WW2 concepts which are not taken seriously now. Ok you can talk about physical appearance but please dont talk about it in terms of race! Btw, redheads are very common in North Africa aswell. --Burgas00 11:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this article has comments that need a reply. About the question of race, we are speaking here about a People. Maybe those references to race should not be here. Anyway, I can understand the position of people who deny the existence of races because these theories about them have often been used to advance political agendas, myths and superstition, regarding the superiority of this or that race. Races do exist, in Europe and in the world. But, of course, this issue must be dealt with a lot a caution because there are a lot of ill-intentioned people out there.

I dont think anyone is trying to promote the fact that being White means you have to be albino or Nordic skin. I think that the person who wrote: "but some have a firm grasp on the "olive skin", is something he/she feels is a common misconception. It is true, as Burgas mentioned above that some Italians do have darker complexions than Nordic people, but I think what the person who wrote the words "but some have a firm grasp on the "olive skin", was trying to say is that many people think Italians EXCLUSIVELY have Olive skin, and that blonde hair blue eyed people in Italy dont exist, which that is clearly a misconception.

So by bringing out the fact the blondes and redheads exist in Italy in this article, it is telling the readers that not everyone is brown haired and brown eyed with tanned complexions as everyone thinks. So redheads are in North Africa. Think of it this way. If only 4 per cent of North Americans are redheads (http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/mef/redhead/), how less common in North Africa, and it is obvious that it was due to Viking invasions of southern Europe, and then expanded into the Mediteranean.

Actually the reason there are Redheads in North Africa is because it is a common trait among the original berber population. Nothing to do with Vikings. Red curly haired, green eyed people are common throughout the North african coast but especially among Berber populations in the Rif or in the Kabylie region of Algeria. Being red haired dosent imply any nordic origin. Anyways, what I was trying to say is that no one thinks Italians are mostly dark haired/brown skinned except perhaps very ignorant people in the US who have never been to Italy. So its not normal spending half the article on the Italian people explaining what Italians really look like. Apart from the fact that no one really cares....--Burgas00 19:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Berbers did not come from the Caucasus or from Europe. Berbers exist in Northern Africa since Prehistoric times. On the contrary, many genetic studies have proven that proto-Berbers colonised the northern shores of the mediterranean after the Ice Age. The Tartessian civilization in SW Iberia, for example, is thought to have been founded by proto-berbers. In any case we all come from Africa originally. The term Caucasian has no basis in scientific fact but was an imagined term to group what were considered to be "white" people together. So there is no point trying to claim that all modern day Europeans comes from the Caucusus region (that is modern day Chechnyaa, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan). They clearly dont.--Cassius80 22:13, 21 Fe

Redoing the article

I made some changes including redoing the history section and replacing they physical appearance section with a more interesting genetic analysis. Hopefully, this version will be better received than the last. Tombseye 20:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an excellent one. godd job.

Your section on genetics is sketchy at best and I really argue against its validity. I altered some of your statements which appeared far too conclusive. Population genetics is scuh an early and conflicting science that has ignored so many aspects of human genetic lineage. Most tests on peoples have been controversial in many ways and have only involved one or two small areas of human DNA (MtDNA and/or Y-chromosome generally). Studies on autosomal DNA and the more important X-chromosome either have not or currently can not be carried out which leads one to question the validity of so many of the claims from current studies. It is also well known that many studies on the same populations have had very conflicting and almost opposite results which has caused much speculation on the neutrality of the studies. Epf 08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, your quoted genetic studies have not even been carried out within Italy and they also easily could have political and biased implications (i.e. the Lebanese study). The implication that Italians are "very similar" to Iberians and that northern Italians are more similar to people of central europe while southern Italians more similar to Greeks is also over-emphasized. This is to a link from an amateur yet reliable site which has compiled credible physical anthropolgical and genetic data thats aim is to largely refute the over-stated "racial" differences between northern and southern Italians. It should also be noted that there is a significant difference between Italians [1] and Spaniards [2]. Epf 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think mainly the problem was my presentation rather than the data as Italy is amongst the most tested areas in the world and their placement as a largely Mediterranean people most similar to the Iberians is pretty universal. I agree that I may have overstated the north-south divide though as the similarities outweigh the variations in Italy, although the people there still cling to the belief in a north-south divide. Otherwise though, I think the genetic studies are very useful if put in better context. Your arguments are good and their inclusion in the article should help though. Tombseye 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although the mediteranean types in Italy are quite different than those in Iberia because of heavy prevalence of Alpine or Dinaric elements which are small or even absent in the Iberian populations. I want to add the data from the links I posted above once I find the links/sources to the info from that web site. Ciao, Epf 05:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Epf, I think no more references should be made to the "Racial Reality" page as it does not look like a reliable source.It clearly has a political agenda, using information in a more or less tendentious way to prove a point. It is not, in any case, a neutral article. Its aim, as awhole, is to prove that southern Europeans are as "white" or "whiter" than northern europeans. Many of its claims may be correct (some of them are not) but the nature of the article in itself invalidates it as a reliable source. The issue on genetic influx from north africa in Spaniards is an example of this. Multiple sources (from scientific journals) have been added to the "spanish people" page by wiki users which conclude that there has been a considerable influx. All the articles quoted by the racial reality site minimise or deny this influx. I dont know which position is correct since I am not an expert on the issue, but the latter position is, for the moment, suspect due to the political agenda clearly stated on the source used. The section on Italian people is similar, its aims to prove that the divide between Northern and Southern Italians is minimal. It probably is, I have never been to Italy myself, but the writer of the article is clearly being political, making use of genetics to combat the sense of superiority held by northern italians. The use of "random pictures" on the sight is also clearly manipulative. (It was noted earlier that all the pictures of "spanish crowds" came from the strongly celtic northwestern region of Galicia.) In any case, it is silly, in my opinion to combat racism using racism and quite pathetic to use the "But we ARE white" argument. As if it mattered! Anyways this is not the reason I oppose the use of the source. I oppose it simply on the grounds of its lack of neutrality.--84.101.86.170 22:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe you oppose it because it does not suit you.

I think the last contribution is pretty confused. To claim that Galicians are any different from the rest of Spaniards shows little knowledge of the Spanish. In fact Spain and Portugal are very homogeneous countries. As far as how people look, it is impossible to tell any difference between a bunch of people from Galicia or any other Spanish region, or from Portugal. It would be also extremely difficult to distinguish the Spanish from the Italians in any crowd. So, this is a fact based on simple observation. Besides, various DNA studies are actually showing that these populations are closely related, which is no surprise to anyone.

• Yes, I know the "racial reality" page may not be completely neutral although its aim is to refute the various ends of arguments and polticial ideologies on the issue of genetics and race/ethnicity, not suppoprt one point of view (and its goal is definintely not to show people are "whiter" in any way and that term itself has no relevance in anthropology or ethnology). I am still trying to locate all the source infromation quoted on that web site. The recent info shown on the Spaniards Wikipedia article on the influx of North Africans is minimal and can be considered as biased as the info from the Racil Reality page. Most published population genetics studies have some sort of ideological bias anyway and the science is very early in development. From the info. on the racial reality site, my own research and other web sites, I have come to the conclusion the indluence of the Arab-Berbers in Spain was very minimal compared to the predominant native Iberian Mediterranean population there. If you look into the complete studies on the racial reality site as well as others, the evidence is large how limited the Berber influence is in Spain. However, like I said, genetic studies are very limited and questoinable but racial reality, in my opinon, has one of the best allocations of data as it combines genetics, physical anthropology and other information in its search for truth on the matter (it is not "racist" and don't use that term so easily as many people do incorrectly in most cases). As a source itself, however, you are correct and the site can't be used, but the numerous well-documented sources it does use to support its mainly truthful claims can and will. Epf 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• It should also be noted in response to the person commenting on Galicians and such, that most modern studies are conflicting and limited and although Italians and Iberians are shown to be related, there are also significant differences. Spanish and Portuguese indeed do not have obvious differences, but Italians and Spaniards are different enough for many people to somewhat decipher from in a crowd, including myself. The peoples being "Closely related" is ambiguous and again only based on limited controversial tests on very small portions of our DNA inheritance. It is not surprising they are somewhat related, but it would be very surprising and false to say that they didnt have some significant differences. Epf 21:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to this comment, I can only say that I cannot tell them apart. Maybe you can. It is a question of perception.

• It is indeed a matter of perception but according to physical anthropologists and genetics studies, you can tell the difference if you are knowledgable about such physical characteristics. Being of partial Italian origin and having Italian family, I could easily point out the differences between an Italian and a Spaniard, although it would be much more difficult for me with a Sardinian and a Spaniard. Epf 03:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What are these differences ? What traits do Spaniards share that makes them so identifiable? Have you seen the pictures of football players from the Spanish national team on the "Spanish people page"? What traits do Raul, Reyes and Salgado share? --Ismael76 11:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I could go into detail if you and I were looking at a photo of each but it would take a while. If you really wish to do so, then we should on your user discussion page or mine. What I mainly am saying is that I could definintely distinguish them (since all three Im pretty sure are of whole or primarily Iberian stock) from Italians. We could compare them three with say Luca Toni (Sicilia), Gigi Buffon (Toscana) or Francesco Totti (Roma). Not every ethnic Spaniard will have the same number of Iberian traits but almost all will share at least some.Epf 10:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The HLA study quoted from Phoenicia.org should be removed. Its methods and conclusions are not valid according to Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues (see [3]). Most research shows some genetic differentiation in the Mediterranean basin, with the sea barrier dividing European from North African and Arab populations (I can provide citations). The main thrust of this section should be that Italians are part of Europe's genetic landscape, with northerners a bit closer to the Spanish and French, and southerners related to Greeks. This position reflects the scientific as well as historical consensus. Also, references to insignificant "Nordic" elements and the newness of population genetics as a field seem unnecessary.

Agreed with that completely, especially considering none of the genetic studies cite the term "Nordic" anywhere in their reports. Epf 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

--

It is true that the main aspect of the article should be about Italians as part of the European genetic landscape. I believe that mentions of physical appearance of Italians should be said as well. Also, I have references that show that Italy has a 5 per cent Nordic admixture that should be included if you are going to mention the genentic closeness with surrounding European nations.

There is a small percentage of those with remaining "Nordic" traits but overall these elements have been mainly absorbed into the rest of the Alpine/Dinaric-Mediterranean population. One must also not forget those who have some degree of Austrian or other ancestry in the far north of Italy. Epf 10:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Section Culture-contribution to humanity.

I have noticed in other articles, like the English people´s article, a section with the contribution to humanity of this people.

I think we should include a section like that here, taking into acount the paramount importance and role of Italians in western culture, including obviously the Romans, a civilization that was born in the present capital of the country, but pointing out other such important contributions like the Renaissace, the birth of Capitalism in Northern Italy, etc.

Something smells rotten in the state of Wikipedia.

After reading many of the people’s articles in Wikipedia I have noticed something that cought my eye. In virtually all of the articles that I have read there is no “Genetic affinities” or similar section, in fact I can enumerate the following:

English people = None

Dutch people = None

Norwegian people = None

Swedish people = None

Danish people = None

Icelanders = None.

German people = None.

And I could go on…

Interestingly, what happens when we go to the two largest nations of Southern Europeans?

Italian people: One section. Space devoted to the section: about 25% of the article.

Spanish people: One section. Space devoted to the section: about 60% of the article.

You draw your own conclusions.

Genetic affinities is banana-scholarship and you have every right to remove it. I've also noticed that many supposedly neutral editors massacre ethnic articles by focusing them on their nazi-like, unscientific POVs. It's ludicrous. Miskin 12:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Not much of a mention that Southern Italians and Sicilians are mixed-race populations with a substatial amount of North African blood in them.

Thas is what you think. It seems clear that you are pretty ignorant. The ignorat type is quite present in these sites or articles about race. Have a look at Cavalli-Sforza's map to get some education. Maybe the one who is mixed is you and do not know it.

Ethnicity 2

Many of you state that southern Italians are and Sicilians are mixed race. First of all, all Europeans are mixed. In Europe, there were Black slaves especially in Portugal, France, and Britain. However, they have been absorbed into local populations. Also, if we look at Nordic and Eastern European countries, many despite their blonde hair, have many Asian elements and it is a genetic fact that there is a sizeable Asian element in them.

Has anyone ever considered that it is North Africans who are mixed. They are mixtures of European elements (from Roman times and Middles Ages), Berber (fair-skinned idiginous peoples), and Arab elements fused into one. That is why many have fair skin, and light hair.

Also, as stated above there is no ethnic Italian group, but those on the Italian peninsula essentially share the same genetic makeup. We know the Celts settled Northern Italy, and the Greeks colonised the south, but when the Romans came (central Italy) they expanded and absorbed these groups. During the decline of the Roman Empire, Germanic invaders plundered and settled northern Italy more extensively, and to a lesser extent, the south. Arabs invaded Sicily. That could possibly be the African element, but the Arabs were driven out of Sicily by the Normans (a French group). So it is not German people in Northern Italy that are the blondes and blue eyes. They are Italians. They just had more Celtic colonising than the south. Many Italians are blondes, and blue eyes in the north, probably the majority, but thats besides the point, because being blonde with blue eyes does make someone white.

I think everyone forgets that the reason why southern Italians are tanned than northerners can be defined in three ways:

-Location: Its just like the United States, and the rednecks of the south; the "rednecks" skin colour is dark due to heat. -Colonisation: Southern Italy recieved far less immigration from the Celtic peoples, but extensive colonisation by Greeks. -Lifestyle: Southern Italy remains predominantly rural, resulting in sun exposure. Sun exposure can actually alter genetics.

---

If fact, Northen Italians are not blond. Blondism occurs in the North in about 12 percent of the cases and in the south in about 7 percent. So, as you can see there is a lot of Myth mixed with crap in all that.

---

Well, thats wierd. if blondism occurs about 12 per cent in the north and 7 per cent in the south, therefore there is a genetic blond trait in italians resulting in natural blondes.

So what, Mediterran populations are not 100% brunets, most of them are brunet but blondism occurs in them at a certain percentage, but they continue to be Mediterraneans. What happens is that a lot of morons try to link Nothern Italians with the Lombards. Genetic evidence speaks otherwise. The number of those people had to be very small, or else, why do you think that they speak Italian? Or were they culturally so inferior that they lost their own language?

This ethnic article is based on the definition of ethnicity by the standards of credible scholarship, not by Mein Kampf's. Are you people serious on the 125 million "ethnic Italians" all over the word (including 25 million in Brasil)? Miskin 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Miskin. As for the number of Italians in Brasil, I can only say I've heard it quite a lot of times in Italy, and under Italian Brazilians it is said that the italian embassy also claims the number. This is not exactly independent, but unfortunately Brazil does not to ancestry census. Obviously it does not account for "pure" Italians in the country; as in Uruguay and Argentina, Italians have intermarriaged a lot, more than in Northern America. On the other side, many of these numbers only account for the possessors of Italian citizenship, while that of France only numbers those who still speak Italian. As for the complete number, it includes also those that have multiple ancestry. It may seem high to non-Italians, but we know to well that no nation has been forced to migrate more than Italians in the last two centuries to eat.--Aldux 11:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aldux would you agree to remove the "Genetic placement of the Italians" section? Assuming that what it says is correct, I still don't see in what exactly it serves. In my opinion it interests nobody except the person who compiled it, and maybe some of the nazi-friendly crowd that has edited the Talk page. Such entries are POV and unscientific, and have no place in wikipedia's ethnic articles. Modern criteria of ethnicity do NOT include genetics nor physical looks as any determinants whatsoever. This section is almost literally using science of the 3rd Reich. If for no good reason, this section should go because it prevents an Italian national of foreign ethnic origin to assimilate in the society and feel himself an Italian. Miskin 12:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have any problems having it removed, even if the section, believe it or not, is already a big progress to the one that was there before ;-) But maybe we should consider speaking to Tombseye, the main author of the section (I think). Anyways, I fully agree with you that genetics are of no importance in the definition of ethnicity.--Aldux 13:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree because genetics help resolve debates on the origins as well as phenotypic/genotypic characteristics of ethnic groups. Anthropology increasingly uses population genetics studies (even if very early in development and unreliable still) as well as data collected on physical appearance or from archaeological and historical sources. At least the "genetics secton" could be supported by references. The section added by Miskin can not and seems to be merely the opinion of users and thats all. Epf 11:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Debate resolution on the origins" as you put it, is far beyond the scope of wikipedia's ethnic group project. If you ever manage to start a specific series on "people's genetics" or "racial purity" (or whatever), you're free to add it there. The 21st century definition of "ethnic group" does not have any affiliation with such edits. Miskin 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what kind of errand will you do for me once I present you my sources? Miskin 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I was originally in favour of erasing all ancestry sections. I have since changed my mind after the huge effort that has put into creating an ancestry section in the spanish people page which is properly sourced and pleasing everyone -except a few wierdos who want to relate Spaniards to eskimoes or the like. If we erase the section on the Italian People page we will have to automatically erase the one on the Spanish people page. This will mean a huge ammount of time and effort wasted by alot of us. Why not try making a proper ancestry section based on the one we have made, using the same method and proper sourcing? It will also take up much less space.I think little or no reference should be made to phenotypic characteristics since this is very much a subjective issue.--Burgas00 11:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish people page is at a very bad state. 70% of the article desperately tries to prove that Spaniards have a european (i.e. "white") background. Such a racial focus almost implies that people of non-white, non-european or mixed-race background are somehow inferior (I don't see any black nation's africans trying to prove their pure sub-saharan origin). If we kept those edits, then what would we write in Latin-American articles? "This section doesn't exist because we're all mixed here" maybe? As you understand (I hope) such edits are politically incorrect. They promote hate, racism and enforce people to make discriminations amongst each other. In a caricature, they unwillingly revive racial theories that were invented and promoted in the 3rd Reich (next step would be to start trashing Jews and homosexuals). And some people would agree that wikipedia's purpose is nowhere near that. Human civilisation is supposed to be advancing, i.e. to go forward not backwards. Miskin 14:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No its not like that at all, although it was like that at one point. Read the page. Now its pretty professional and the ancestry section is relatively small. Although there are still lots of improvements to be made on the article as a whole.--Burgas00 15:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

New ethnicity section

There are some errors that I have tried to correct in this new version.

1. The Portuguese are not other Mediterranean people. They are Iberians.

2. We cannot compare the possible differences between the North and South of Italy with those of the North and South of Spain. It is not a good simile.

I will change that if unless there are reasonable comments.

Well I have to disagree on this.

Portuguese are about the most Mediterranean people there are (even though their territory has no mediterranean shores). Iberians are Mediteraneans and your comment is similar to one saying Italians are not Mediterranean they are Italic". They also have a similar history to other mediterranean countries (Territories with originally mediterranean populations with Phoenician, Greek, Punic colonies, becoming Roman province (Lusitania), long period of Islamic occupation etc...)

In my opinion, the difference between the north-south divisions in Iberia and Italy is that in Iberia, this supposed "difference" has not been historically used by northerners against southerners in the way it has been used in Italy. Perhaps because in Spain, the aim was separation from the Spanish state (an entity which had allegiances in every part of the country) rather than from "the south" - the enemy was only Madrid.

--Burgas00 12:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the point 1, I think you have not understoond. The Portuguese are Mediterraneans, of course, but also Iberians. You cannot say Iberians and then mention the Portuguese under other Mediterraneans.

I agree with this...but i guess it doesnt matter that much...

As to the North and South, no serious anthropologist has ever mentioned those differences about the North and South of Spain, in the same way as it has been done between the North and South of Italy. Some people I think try to elaborate on this idea thinking about the Celts in the same way as they do in Italy, and they are absolutely wrong for several reasons, but the first one is that Celtic settlement in Spain did not follow a North-South divide, it followed a West-East divide, being the West of the country settled by Celts but not most of the East and even some parts of the North.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Celts_800-400BC.PNG

Anyway, the Celts did not alter the basic ethnic composition of the Spanish either, since genetic analysis is showing that most of the population come form people who were in Iberia much before the Celts arrived.

If you want info about ancestry of modern day iberians check out the list of genetic studies on the issue at the end of the "Spanish people" page.--Burgas00 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You people never learn. Please stop filling the talk page with information irrelevant to the article. Miskin 11:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Burgass, we have already have this discussion in the Spanish people page. You seem to have some kind of obsession with the North-South thing. I agree with Miskin, a lot of people are filling these pages with rubbish. What you say is nonsense and banana-scholarship, yet you continue insisting because you want to impose your weird view of the world. According to classical Anthopology and modern research if you are so interested in Norht-South divides and not cherry picking you can go to France, Germany, Scandinavia, United Kingdom, maybe even Italy, but Spain is probably the place in Europe where this argument is most stupid. As I said, I agree with Miskin, but if someone like you is trying to insist on false things in all these articles they need to be confronted. By the way, what about point numer one? On the other hand, who has changed the previous version in the article without discussing it before? Besides, with this kind of things you are introducing inconsistencies in the articles. Read the concensus version in the Spanish article and then tell me if the adjective "notable" fits in. I guess you know what notable means.

Wow! I have no interest whatsoever in the "north-south" thing. In fact, I was actually saying that, in my opinion, it has more to do with (now obsolete) politics than reality. With regards to "spanish people" I only involved myself in that argument (check the discussion page) because I was sick of reading people argue endlessly. I tried to help find some common ground and in the end we came up with an ok consensus (not concensus) version which we all agreed to. It dosent seem you agree with Miskin since you continue to talk about iberians on the "italian people" discussion page. Notable?? What is u talkin about, man?? --Burgas00 14:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, read well. How can you say that ¨notable´is not there. On the other hand I continue to talk about Iberians here because they are mentioned here. And I do agree with Miskin. I think that these genetic sections are not proper in any case but especially when they concentrate on some countries but not on others, but since no one is going to allow me to erase them I at least try that they do not say stupid things.

Where is notable man? cant find it!

See in the Italin article: Like the Iberians, there is a notable physical difference between the upper northern third of Italy... I have tried to correct it but someone continues to put it back. The same as with the Portuguese, a minor mistake but still a mistake. and I think that these genetic approach, that has racial overtones is absolutely wrong. It may make people think that they are not Italian or Spanish enough if they are not old Italians or Spaniards and so on. It is the result of the harmful Anglosaxon and American influence in this field. I prefer the Spanish or Frech view on the subject.

Ok found it! Yeah well i pretty much agree with you. I dont know why you pick on me. I also thought that it was kind of wrong to have an ancestry section. But if there is going to be one, it should be written in a proper way and not based on (mainly anglosaxon) sterotypes.

Well, excuse me, I have obviously taken you for the wrong person. Sometimes I get a little carried away because I admit that I find these issues a bit irritating. You know who has done this new version and who is putting back those things? In any case I am going to change it again. Let's see if they change it again.

no prob:-)

I think some clarification is required regarding a north-south divide in both Italy and Spain etc. In the case of Spain, genetic tests have linked people in the north to some original larger Atlantic group, possibly of Celtic origin so there is something of a north-south variation, but not necessarily a solid divide. It's more like saying the people of the north tend to be more closely related to the larger group of peoples who have relations with the ancient Celts such as the French, British, Irish etc. In the case of Italy, settlement from northern Europe would probably be more substantial in the extreme north of the country just because of geographic proximity, but does not preclude the overall relationship of Italians in general. Tombseye 21:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tombseye, you are right but still a couple of points nee more clarification.

1. The genetic tests that you refer to in Spain are linked to the Atlantic Y-Chromosome, that is present along the European Atlantic board.

2. That chromosome is present not only in the North of Spain, but all over the Iberian penisula: 89% in the Spanish Basque Country, 79% in the North of Spain, 69% in the South of Spain.

3. That Chromosome is not of Celtic origin. It comes from Iberian peoples that have been present in Iberia since Paleolithic and Neolithic times.

4. The Basques, that show the highest occurence of this Chromosome, have nothing to do with the Celts. Their language is a language isolate and one theory links it to the Iberian language. In any case, they have been there since much before the Celts.

5. As to Italy, there is no special genetic link to Northern Europe. Genetically Northen Italians are linked to France and Spain, while Southern Italians show more affinities with Greece, though due to population movements those differences are not very significant now.

Hmmm. Spaniards look to me more like southern italians than northerners. But then I guess it depends on the region of Spain. I was wondering if writing about this north/south divide might be politically incorrect in Italy?

Well, here we have the expert on looks. Read Cavalli-Sforza and use objective criteria. By the way, my cousin looks like Silvester Stallone, so he must be Italian-American, though he is actually from Poland.

Well, the thing is we don't know if the Iberians or Celts are responsible for some common genes found from Ireland to northern Spain, but it's possible as you say. The article I'm referring to is this one: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v75n4/41464/41464.web.pdf?erFrom=-1580355625998379605Guest

It makes the case that there is a common Celtic ancestry for many peoples from northern Spain to northern Europe. The Basques are a different story though and not part of this study as Galicia was used in regards to northern Spain. Well, we do know that the Celts also settled in northern Italy as their conflicts with Rome are well known and Germanic invaders came later as well. Overall, many studies seem to point to much of the world's people as stemming largely from neolithic populations that absorbed various invaders to varying degrees. Spaniards vary as much as Italians, but genetically seem to be very similar. Tombseye 23:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, all tis discussion was already held in the Spanish people page. I do not think that we need to go over it again. If someone is interested they can read it there.

Italian Jews

To quote my own words:
They [certain edits] promote hate, racism and enforce people to make discriminations amongst each other. In a caricature, they unwillingly revive racial theories that were invented and promoted in the 3rd Reich (next step would be to start trashing Jews and homosexuals).
I guess I wasn't far from truth, some anon is denying the historical existence of Italian Jews as we speak. Miskin 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The source for this is already provided in a comment next to the section, but I bet you didn't even bother to look. This sentence is taken directly from the Britannica article: "Jews arrived in Italy during the Roman Republic, remaining until the present day."
I consider the matter closed and any further unsourced argument you make will be regarded as POV. If you continue reverting I'll report you for edit-warring and POV-pushing. Miskin 13:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that the Jews have anything really do to do with ethnic Italians, but it is true there has been a Jewish population in Italy and especially Rome since ancient Roman times. Epf 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't they have anything to do with ethnic Italians??? They are ethnic Italians. Or is Italian ethnicity defined by Roman Catholicism?

the opposite, jewish ethnicity defined by judaism.

I see no reason in particular not include Italian Jews. Here's at least one link to a group:

Jerusalem Italian Jews Association. Their numbers are tough to verify, but they are pretty small: [4] Tombseye 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Greeks

Burgas, being myself of Italian heirtage on my mom's side (English and Scottish on the father's) and also knowing many Greeks where I live, the physical correlations between Italians and Greeks are much closer than with Iberians. The same can also be said with Albanians, but these correlations in appearance date back to the Bronze Age, Neolithic or perhaps even earlier. These phenotypic traits were at one time (incorrectly) long ago labelled as typologically "dinaric" or "alpine" by people like Carleton Coon basing from cranial measurements displaying high brachycephaly (wide, broad or round-headed). Of course his findings are obsolete and unaccepted, but his analysis of pheontypic traits do in many cases have factual grounding and I can vouch for that from personal experience/research, especially in this case. Ciao, Epf 05:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Great points!!! Kukini 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well please inform me (I am really interested) in what ways Italians look more like Greeks than Iberians. I am truly puzzled. I cannot use my own heritage as an argument (I am of Armenian origin) although I live in Spain and have traveled extensively in Italy and have visited Greece often. Italians are quite similar to Spaniards - in my opinion they look more like Catalans, but that is just an impression. On the other hand, I find Greeks to be a relatively distinct people. It is not for nothing they call themselves a brotherless nation (ethnos anadelfon). The only people who are quite similar to Greeks are the Turks, mainly because many Turks are infact of Greek ancestry. Much of Western Anatolia having been ethnically Greek until the Seljuk and the Oguz conquered the region. In any case I would like to know what the typical Italian looks like and the typical Spaniard looks like, according to you. Here in Spain, people are as diverse as you can get and there are absolutely no physical features they have in common. There are people who are tall, people who are short, people who look like Irish or Germans and people who look North African or even Indian. I sense, by your arguments, that you have never visited Europe or the Old World in general. But I can assure you that phenotypical diversity is not exlusive to the western hemisphere. Still, I would appreciate it if you explained to me how you think Spaniards, Italians and Greeks look like respectively.--Burgas00 17:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Much of Western Anatolia having been ethnically Greek until the Seljuk and the Oguz conquered the region." This is partly true. Many modern Turks are in fact Islamicised Anatolians but those Anatolians in turn were Hellenized during the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods of the region. Most of those people who converted to Islam and became "Turks", were in fact Hellenized or partly-Hellenized Anatolians, and not Greek by descend (except in Urban places). This is when scholars observe that after the loss of central Anatolia, the Byzantine Empire was restricted to the regions of ancient Greek colonisation around the Aegean sea. For the next 1000 years the bulk of Asian Greeks was located in the western coast of Asia minor and Pontus (until it was tranferred to mainland Greece in 1923). Of course ancient Anatolians and Greeks, were probably physically similar. Anyway this has nothing to do with Italians, and I can't really participate in your debate. Personally I cannot distinguish between the average Spaniard, Italian or Greek (except maybe Northern Italians who dress differently). However this is all in vain, since our personal experiences would fall under "original reasearch" and cannot be used as indicators for edits. What does physical resemblance or ancestry matter anyway? It's all hythetical and discriminative. Miskin 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Burgas, I don't know how long you've lived in Spain or in Europe for that matter, but the physical differences between Spaniards or Iberians in general is not as much as between other ethnic groups. Whether or not you personally are aware of the differences isnt in question and you probably arent aware of them since this topic im guessing doesn't predominate in your daily routine. I myself however have long been studying and interested in anthropology, and I have read into and taken more notice of such phenotypic traits between various groups, especially with regards to my own ethnic origins. I have never been to Spain, but that doesnt really matter since so many ethnic Spaniards have emigrated to the new world and the fact that Spaniards are visible in everyday media, especially celebrities and atheletes (anyone from Raul to Antonio Banderas). The fact is that ethnic Spaniards arent simply as phenotypically diverse as you claim in the sense there are ones who look the same as Irish and ones who look North African. There may be a minority who have more northern european or north african features than other Spaniards, but they are obviously still different phenotypically from these other groups. I think the most imporant thing to point out here is that I am speaking of ethnic Spaniards of whole or primary Spanish ethnic origin, not Roma, Moroccans, Arabs, Armenians etc. that are Spanish nationals or citizens. Spaniards and indigenous Iberians as whole clearly do have certain pheontypic traits in common, especially facial traits. Skin pigmentation and stature are much more variable and environmentally influenced in any population than cranio-facial features. I dont know my arguements gave you the "sense that I've never been to Europe" since that has no bearing whatsoever on this. Most of the population where I live is of indigenous European ancestry from varying regions/groups across the continent. In regards to Italians, they do share many features with Spaniards, especially Sardinians, but most other Italians from the North down to Sicily do in fact share more phenotypic traits in common with Greeks and other Balkan peoples to a lesser degree. I can tell you this from first hand experience and research and also from physical anthropological data collected from people such as Coon which I mentioned above. The most noticeable difference between Italians and Spaniards (including Catalans) is the predominance of a very round-head or face among Italians (I for example share this feature with my Italian family but these traits, along with others arents present with my fathers family who are British). Although Greeks, Spaniards and Italians all essentially look "Mediterranean" in the broad sense, Greeks and Italians clealry have very significant other elements (eg. the very high tendency to brachycephaly or a round-head/face). This is expected considering Italy's much closer proximity to the Balkan peninsula and central Europe compared to Iberia as well as Iberia's overall more marginal location within Europe compared to Italy's very central location. Basically different peoples experience different degrees of migrations and influences from other regions and this is expected with many endogamous and tribal commmunities like ethnic groups. If you need any more clarification I'd appreciate it to be on my talk page since this is getting kind of off topic from this article. Ciao, Epf 05:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but Im still not 100% convinced by these studies... I have never heard of them in any case. --Burgas00 10:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fieri

Could someone around here help on expanding the article of Fieri? DrWho42 18:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Related Ethnic Groups

Under Related Ethnic Groups, the French are listed as being related to Italians. It is true that Italians in the north especially share affinities with the French. However, why does someone keep on erasing that Italians are related to the French under the category of origins of the Italian people. Leave it, it should stay there, would'nt it be contradictory without it.

Deletion

Someone deleted the photos of famous southern Europeans in the section above where it is and I would appreciate if you stop. It will be readded shortly. It seems that a lot of people have an agenda to try to prove that Italians and other southern Europeans are not white, but this is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article is to explain what Italian origins are from and not to be baised on single biases or thoughts of what Italians or southern Europeans should look like.

I've deleted the Italian image before (Not recently, though.) The only reason I did it then was because I felt it was unnecessary to show a picture of a certain people. It also does not represent all of the Italian people (Being a dark Southern Italian, this is only my personal opinion. I may be wrong. But sometimes it seems people are trying so hard to not stereotype Italians as dark that they are actually ignoring a large population of Southern Italians.) Also, I know that the one piece of art is actually by an Italian artist, but I don't think it is a portrayal of an Italian person. I might be wrong, but I remember reading otherwise. But hey, leave the image up. Whatever. I just though it was inappropriate, but that's only my opinion. (I actually don't mind the Galileo and Michelangelo picture as much.)

I am half Italian, and I visited Italy under the impression that the people (not so much for northerners) would have dark hair, eyes, and a tanned complexion. Well I was only partially correct. When I went to the south, many Italians had tanned complexions, dark hair and dark eyes. I even burned during many hours in the intense sun (southern italy is still agriculturally based). As we went to the north, I was surprised to see, especially in the Veneto, Peidmont, Tuscan and Friuli regions, many Italians had mil white complexions, light hair and eyes. When i visited my second cousins for the first time, they were REDHEADS, naturally redheads!!!! With green eyes. Only one was a brunette. I was surprised. The only way someone can stereotype Italians, is if they go to Italy and see for themselves what the Italians look like, and a lot of what I have read above about what we think Italians look like or should like is ignorant and wrong. Just look at Hollywood for an American example.