Talk:Latins (Italic tribe)

Move

Is Italic really necessary? How many other tribes of Latins have articles? Move to Latins (tribe)? Apteva (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not persuaded "tribe" is the best socio-political or anthropological designation, either. I'd rather see the article moved to Latini, which is currently a redirect. The article title for other ancient peoples of Italy and Gaul (except Sabines, presumably on the basis of "most common") is the Latin ethnonym. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Response:

"Italic tribe" is necessary in order to distinguish the inhabitants of ancient Latium from other uses of the term "Latins": this could refer to (a) the inhabitants of "Latin colonies" in later Republican Roman history; (b) the inhabitants of the Roman empire who held "Latin rights" (a kind of halfway house to full Roman citizenship) in the Roman Principate; (c) the Crusaders who conquered and ruled the Byzantine empire after the Fourth crusade (the so-called "Latin empire"); (d) generally, modern speakers of Romance languages in Europe and South America. In addition, there is an article Italic tribes, so the term refers readers to it.

Using the ethnonym is fine, unless there is commonly-used English equivalent. Thus the Germanic tribe Quadi is only known in English as such (not as the "Quads"!). But Latins is the normal term for Latini in English and readers will enter that if they want to consult the article, just as they will enter "Sarmatians and not Sarmatae or Sauromatae EraNavigator (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Latins (Italic tribe) → Latins – As per the corresponding entry on Wikidata. Krakkos (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This is not how to fix an issue/link with a Wikidata entry (in fact, there is no issue/link problem): the purpose of a Wikidata entry is to group all articles together that refer to the same topic. In Wikidata, the fact that article "X" in the English Wikipedia talks about subject "A" & article "Y" in the Spanish Wikipedia talk about subject "A" as well ... is correct! One does not change the name of an article just to match the rest of the titles of the articles in the other Wikipedias. The reason why Wikidata might have different article names on it for the same topic on different Wikipedias ... is because it is supposed (and allowed) to be that way. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, given the edit history of Latins, it would appear that the initial request to get this process started is in the wrong forum. It looks more like the first step would either be starting an Articles for Deletion request for Latins, or starting a merge discussion for Latins to be merged into Latins (Italic tribe) (and I say a merge discussion as opposed to just boldly merging the articles due to the fact that the edit histories prove that would be controversial.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose English Wikipedia should not be dictated to by WikiData, indeed, WikiData has many many things wrong with their lists, and we should not export their errors onto English Wikipedia, just for the sake of matching WikiData. It's not at all clear what each WikiData listing represents, since some of them are very confused. -- 70.24.251.36 (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Unnecessary dismabiguation

The above is quite a surprise—Wikipedia does not disambiguate unless there is another existing article to disambiguate from (not potential or imaginary ones). There is no other article called "Latins", and Latins redirects here. The RM result above should be considered invalid. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Latins does not redirect here. Check again. Psychotic Spartan 123 00:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. Skimming the content of both, though, I have to wonder why they are separate articles. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the two should be merged. Perfectly good content on both pages. Psychotic Spartan 123 02:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. withdrawn by Krakkos, see below. (non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Latins (Italic tribe) → Latins – Latins redirects to Latins (Italic tribe). Title should be concise. Krakkos (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Krakkos (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose firstly the target is an article which the nom has moved to Latins (term) then blanked, secondly per @Steel1943: in 2013 unless there has been a series of rewrites this is still controversial. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest we close this requested move now. The only workable way to move the page now would be to close this requested move, open a requested merge, get consensus for a merge, complete the merge, and then once everyone is happy with that try another requested move. With Latins (term) either at it's existing location or at Latins the disambiguation is needed and this move will not happen. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm inclined towards oppose. The nominator has performed a series of unilateral merges of content, including merging article content into Latin (disambiguation) with complete disregard for WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. There are certainly many issues with the cluster of articles related to this term that need to be addressed, but this move seems capricious and ill-considered. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Withrawn. @Frayae: The term Latin can have many meanings, as illustrated at Latin (disambiguation). To avoid confusion and unnecessary edit-warring, it is therefore beneficial to have it specifically emphasized in the title what the article is about, namely an Italic tribe. The title should stay as it is. Krakkos (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Genetic studies: disruptive editing

The paragraph that makes a comparison between Iron age population and modern populations in the frequency of snps related to light skin pigmentation and blue eye color is completely inaccurate and it's based on a personal interpretation of who made the edits. The Stanford 2019 study shows in the supp info only a graphic figure with the allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance (the alleles examined are 8), without drawing any conclusions and making no comparison between ancient and modern populations. Nowhere the study states that "Iron Age population had a much lower frequencies of SNPs associated with both light skin and eye pigmentation compared to modern Italians, who instead are similar to other modern Europeans (British, Finnish and Spanish), althoug the authours are cautious about these results". Furthmore, there is no sample of modern Italians in this specific analysis (there are samples called "Medieval & Early Modern" ranging from 700 CE-1800 CE), and present-day populations are represented by some samples of Finns, British and Spanish, who also get different results (Spanish have less SNPs associated with light eye than Finnish and British). Among the examined alleles, there are three that regulate the skin pigmentation, and two out of three are connected with the light skin pigmentation, the third is connected with the ability to tan. The first snps connected with light skin pigmentation has its peak in the Iron Age population, and the second in the present-day populations (specifically in British and Finnish). Hence it is really a stretch the whole paragraph, which is good to remember: it isn't written anywhere in the study.--Tursclan (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact the authours don't comment those results, doesn't make them false. The cline is clear: Iron Age populations had much less of those light skin/eyes SNPs compared to the modern population, who instead resemble other Europeans. You can cry all the day, it won't change the reality of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LambdofGod (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I"ve removed the sentence referencing S29. That figure is not in our article so it's not acceptable to refer to it. I've looked at S29 and I'm guessing that this is LamdofGod's interpretation of it, but if I'm wrong, [[re|LamdofGod}} please quote what they say. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

You are kidding me? The wikipedia statement talks about interpretation, but I'm just stating a fact, not my personal interpretation. On fig29 there is clearly a steadly change in the frequencies of certain SNPs. That's a SCIENTIFIC FACT. You may not like it, but science is science. Or are you calling the authours liars?

As I've said before if you delete my edit, you have also to delete 70-80% of Wikipedia material about genetics and science in general. Especially all those tables of haplogroups, admixtures and SNPs.

Just one example (I could post thousands)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_admixture_in_Europe LambdofGod (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Monte Cavo Visto da castel gandolfo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)