Talk:Southern Italy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Mezzogiorno vs. Southern Italy

I think this article, as it stands today, confuses what the Mezzogiorno is... The Mezzogiorno, or il meridione as it is sometimes called, is synonymous with Southern Italy (thus including Sicily, Sardinia, Abruzzo, and Molise). It is a region roughly coextensive with the historic Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The more restrictive definition in the article is unsourced and, I must admit, I never heard of it described in this way. It may have something to do with the administration of the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno implemented just after the second world war, but that is not what this article is about. Mariokempes 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the article and removed reference to the "at least four" regions. The map should probably be updated as well. Mariokempes 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mariokempes 03:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mezzogiorno, Southern Italy

Mezzogiorno is indeed synonymous with Meridioneor Southern Italy though Lazio's exclusion and Abruzzo's inclusion show tha something more than geography is at play. As Garabaldi used the term, the Mezzzogiorno encompassed South Central Italy, that portion of Italy south of Rome as well as Abruzzi, though all of Abruzzi's major cities lay to the north of Rome. But for his inclusion of southern Lazio, the boundaries of the Mezzogiorno would fit those of Spanish dominion. But there is disagreement among as to just what the Mezzogiorno consists of. [[1]] With the split of Abruzzi into two regions in the early 60s, the Italian census chose to describe Abruzzo (the northern portion of Abruzzi) as part of the Mezzogiorno, though in terms of latitude it is defintely not in Southern Italy. What Abruzzo shared with Southern Italy was poverty, neglect from central government, and the out migration of inhabitants. However, including Abruzzo in programs to relieve Southern Italy's poverty was economically advantageous to that region. Mapmakers such as Michelin include Tuscany, Umbria, Marche, Lazio, and Abruzzo in Central Italy. (See, for instance, Michelin Italy Central Map No. 430.) However, Istat lists Abruzzo as in Southern Italy and Lazio as in Central Italy though Abruzzo and Lazio are at comparable latitudes. This may stem from the fact that Lazio was part of the Papal States and Abruzzi was part of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. However, cultural prejudice also may play a role in what is and isn't included in the Mezzogiorno by ignoring both culture (the dialects or accents of much of Abruzzo are closer to Umbria and Rome than Naples) and geographical position.

Among other things, I removed the reference to the French word midi. The Italian can stand on its own. User:MGerety

I can live with the description as it stands now but, in spite of the name, the term Mezzogiorno never really fit the geographical description. It is irrelavant that Abruzzo is north of Rome- its history, culture and political position have made it part of the Mezzogiorno. There is no need to harp on its geographical location in the article. Nevertheless, this is really a moot point to a question that exists only so long as there are "three" Italys- North, Central and South. To many, there are only two- north and south... Then the question of division becomes whether to include Tuscany as north or south, and the term Mezzogiorno becomes irrelevant. Mariokempes 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. I believe it is a bit more complex than you think. Even Romans tend to think Rome is north of l'Aquila. Besides meaning the South, Mezzogiorno historically meant poverty -- though parts of the Mezzogiorno are now quite wealty (e.g. the Amalfi coast or L'Aquila). The term is fraught with all sorts of cultural biases. For instance the dialects or regional accents of Southern Lazio are closer to those of Naples than Rome, while those of the northern half of Abruzzo are of Umbrian and Tuscan origin. But Istat calls all of Lazio Central Italy and all of Abruzzo Southern Italy -- thus ignoring both geography and culture. (By the way Tuscans and Umbrians definitely view themselves as being part of Central Italy, not the North and definitely not the South.)

Peace. MGerety —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGerety (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is far more complex- but I think we are saying the same thing, really. As for your comments about central Italy that is never clear. It really depends on the situation and context: Perugini and Romani often contrast themselves with the "north" (and thus align with the south when it comes to that aspect). Romanesco dialect, along with Tuscan or standard Italian, is closer to Neapolitan than to northern dialects. "Padania" is often used as a derogatory term by Romans and Sicilians alike. And, equally important, most northerners think of everthing south of Florence as "southern". I'm not trying to spark a north-south debate here (even though I think this is thankfully mellowing in recent years), but simply illustrate that Mezzogiorno=former Kingdom of Naples (and yes, former poverty) and south can mean different things depending on criteria (ISTAT, Italian perception, geography, etc.). In this article, it seems ISTAT's regional divisions are used, so south includes all of Abruzzo but none of Lazio (but we throw in Sicily because of historical/ cultural ties). I think all of this is explained, so it is safe to consider south=Mezzogiorno for the purposes of this article. Mariokempes 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image

I notice my old pink map has been replaced. One benefit my map had was that it included the southern two parts of Lazio. I can try to either change the current map to include them, or change my older map to include the rest of Italy, which I presume was the cause for changing it. Thoughts?--Patrick 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the map because it was misleading, implying that only the darker areas are usually part of the mezzogiorno (not true). The replacement map is accurate other than the historical inclusion of Lazio south of Rome (which is mentioned in the text). Mariokempes 22:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So I was getting around to the map, and I had a second inquiry: were the two colors a problem? The text still discusses the provinces which are sometime, but not always, included, and I wanted to also show that in the map.--Patrick Ѻ 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What I like about the current map is that it shows all of Italy and a reader gets a sense of the geographical extent. Also, it is standardized with all other regional maps of Italy. HAving said that, I have no problem with two colours- as long as teh map is clear and not misleading like your earlier map. Mariokempes 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Former ecclesiastical province?

"The name is also applied to a former ecclesiastical province of the Eastern Orthodox Church"... I cannot find support for this comment. Does anyone know if this is true or shall this phrase be removed? In the meantime, I will add a fact tag. Mariokempes 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mafia?

I can't see anything about Mafia, although each italian knows that it is a typical and (theorically) exclusive Southern Italy problem. I'm wondering why. "Mafia" is in fact a sicilian term. The historical place of origin of Mafia is Sicily. The other italian "Mafias", as Camorra from Neaples or 'Ndrengheta from Calabria, are from southern Italy, too. So, on one hand Mafia is doubtless Southern, on the other hand it has no association with Northern Italy. This is a drastic difference beetwen North and South. I don't think we should leave Mafia out of this page only to not offend Southern Italians, even if the 90% of Italians immigrated in english-speaking countries (and reading this page), are from Southern Italy. (also because mafia is obviously not linked with southern people "tout-court", but only with criminals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.25.66.5 (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Caro autore ignoto: agreed the "mafia" problem is a large problem in parts of southern Italy... and it IS already referred to in the article as "organized crime" where it appears under "History" and "North-South divide". There are several articles that stem from this to cover the mafia, 'ndrangheta, camorra, etc. and I don't think there is a need to elaborate on it here. Your comment about "has no association with Northern Italy" however, really makes me wonder how much you know about this problem. You delude yourself to think this is an exclusive problem to southern Italy! In fact, not only is the mafia alive and well in northern Italy, it is alive and well throughout much of the western world. Organized crime is no stranger to northern Italy... Shall we talk about the very serious drug/ prostitution rings in the Veneto? Did you forget "tangentopoli" was not centred in Rome but in Milan? Let's cut this damaging stereotyping and move on. Mariokempes 18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Suditalia: Sicilia e Sardegna?

Sicily and Sardinia are more frequently referred to as 'the islands' and not Southern Italy. Actual Italians call this entire area "the Mezzogiorno" to some degree, but Sicilians and Sardinians gasp at the idea. Sardinia and Sicily are not southern anything. They're not part of the continental European mainland. They're free-standing islands, that were Sicilian and Sardinian long before Italian unification, and will likely always be Sicilian and Sardinian in the future (should Italy ever devolve).

Further, Sicily is the only region of Italy whose name is used as an adjective, since it's known officially as "La Regione Siciliana" for this reason alone. It's an autonomous region, and its name pays homage to the region and the people which are Sicilian first. It's similar to the "Repubblica Italiana." But no other region of Italy is officially named this way. All other regions of Italy are named "Regione Puglia", "Regione Campania", "Regione Lazio", "Regione Calabria" versus Pugliese, Campano, Laziale, Calabrese. In fact, the Sicilian Special Statute was written, and the Sicilian Region was created before Italy and the Italian Constitution after World War II. Sicily was the first regione freed by the Allies and was given its own special government to keep it from becoming independent, and therefore, controlled by the Mafia. The CIA didn't want this, so it gave Sicilians as much of their own power as was safe, but with Big Brother in Rome to watch over, as soon as the Allies freed were able to free Rome.

Sardinia, like Sicily and the border regions of northern Italy that were never ever quite Italian, also has a Special Statute or autonomy. In fact, Sardinia is officially known as "Regione Autonoma della Sardegna." It's not called "Regione Sardegna" it's "Regione della Sardegna" which pays homage to the fact that also Sardinia is an island regione with its own people, culture, and language. In fact, Sardinian is one of the official langagues in Sardinia now, with the same prestige and protection as Italian.

Both Sicily and Sardinia were always Sicily and Sardinia, and always will be. Whether they're part of Spain, Greece, the Arab Empire, France, or today Italy, these two island regions are free-standing. Even in Italy, they're officially known as the island regions. They're not even officially considered southern Italy by the Italian government!

Compare: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_insulare (Sicily and Sardinia) with http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezzogiorno (Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, Basilicata, Puglia, Calabria)

It doesn't make any sense for the English version of Wikipedia to do things on their own. If this is how Italy officially groups its regions, and if this is how the Italian Wikapedia is written, how can the English version play by its own rules. Where is the official documentation or sources that can be cited?

I'm not denying that some people refer to Sicily and Sardinia as "the South." But a Sicilian or Sardinian would never do this, they're always Sicilian or Sardinian first. That's just their nature due to reasons from geography to history to culture. Further, Sicilians and Sardinians refer to Italy as 'the continent', something of which they don't feel a part.

To prove that my argument is not pie in the sky, here's a contemporary source: il Sud e la Sicilia "the South and Sicily"

If it were the same thing, this political group wouldn't make the differentiation. I don't disagree that Sicily and Sardinia are different from southern Italy in terms of economic hardship, backwater isolationism, and some culture/history. But this is from a northern, elitist perspective, and it doesn't conform to the way in which Sicilians or Sardinians view themselves; or the way in which the national government organizes statistical information.

To conclude, I'd suggest following the official Italian government method of classifying regions. Further, I'd also suggest following the Italian wikipedia, for the purpose of remaining congruent. I can't see any reason why the English version of Wikipedia is doing its own thing, and without even citing resources as to why they're adding Sicily and Sardinia into this group. This is very dangerous for an encyclopedic entry. Please consider my argument. Regards / Ciao --Salvuzzo (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Sardinia is not southern Italy, historically or currently. I disagree with you on Sicily though, despite there been a Sicilian independentist movement, the island has ancient historical ties with the southern mainland and has been described as part of the geographical region "Two Sicilies" since the time of the Aragons. - Gennarous (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancient historical ties? This doesn't make Sicily part of southern Italy. Sicily also had historical ties with Carthage, Spain, Greece, and the Middle East. So does that make Sicily North African, Spanish, Greek, and Middle Eastern? No, it doesn't. Just because Sicily had ties with southern Italy doesn't mean it is the same thing. Everyone knows the Due Sicilie was just a name. This didn't make southern Italy or Naples Sicilian. Nor did it make Sicily southern Italian. If you put a donkey and a pig in the same barn, do they become the same animal? No! The Kingdom of Sicily joined with the Kingdom of Naples did not mean the two territories became the same. Geographically, historically, and ethnically, they were always different. Different original inhabitants (Sicani, Elimi, Siculi). Different geography (Sicily is an island that broke away from the African shelf). Different history of settlers (Phoenician settlement, Sicilian Emirate, Sicilian Vespers). You nonchalantly mention a Sicilian independentist movement. Did you forget about the rest of them? 1282, 1820, 1848, 1866, 1894, 1944? It is (and always was) the Italian mentality to treat Sicily as some sort of trophy prize. In order to keep it, they have to stretch some of the truth, hide some of the truth, and then burn or bury the rest of it. Keeping Sicilians ignorant and uneducated of their real history allows the Italians to do and say as they please, thereby keeping their tropy prize. Ma la viritati canuscemu bonu e ni stamu susennu accura picciottu! You seem to be from Naples or southern Italy. Is this true? I believe you have a strongly biased point of view because it shows in your assessment of the facts; not just in this article but in many others found on Wikipedia. Facciamo un patto. Dovremmo rispettarci nella nostra diversità senza provare evitare la verità. Cordiali saluti! --Nocontinental (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Mezzogiorno is not really a correct or acceptable term, since its a Garibaldian linked term for "kill and steal from people in areas where the Bourbons are supported". Rather than an actual geographical entity. - Gennarous (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although Sardinia was included in the Cassa of the 1950s and 60s. Some note of this aspect should be noted. Nonetheless, can someone update the map to exclude Sardinia? Dionix (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Italian Regions According To Area, Culture, Politcs, Language Etc ...

The way the states are mentioned are wrong. There is only 2 Italy's which is divided between north and south, the central parts are also divided into north and south. Northern Italy Includes:

Aosta Valley Emilia-Romagna Friuli-Venezia Giulia Liguria Lombardy Piedmont Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol Veneto

Central Northern Italy (Which Are Also Included As Northern States):

Marches Tuscany Umbria

Central Southern Italy (Which Are Also Included As Southern States):

Abruzzo Lazio Molice

Southern Italy Includes:

Apulia Basilicata Calabria Campania Sardinia Sicily

North - 11 Regions South - 9 Regions

This is the correct way in seperating the regions according to area etc.

1. If you look on the map you will see that the half way point would be between Tuscany and Lazio. Therefore separating anything Tuscany and further north as north, and anything Lazio and further south as south.

2. Politically - The northern regions are more left leaning and the southern regions are more right leaning.

3. Language - All the northern regions have similar dialects, which is another reason why lazio should not be included as a northern/central state. Lazio have the dialects romanesco and ciociaria which is closest to Neapolitan dialect.

4. Culture - The culture of Lazio is very southern, and if u trace it back far enough you will notice the similarities between Romani and Neapolitani, similar language, similar people, culture etc

5. Kingdom Of 2 Sicily's - It is wrong to suggest that only those regions in the kingdom of the 2 Sicily's should be included as the south. The reason Lazio wasn't in that kingdom was because it was being controlled by the papal states and remained neutral as it held the nations capital.

If you were to go to Lazio or meet with people from that area you will find that culturally among other things they are southerners. To suggest that it is a northern/central state would offend many and is just plain incorrect.

What I'm asking is if this can be fixed and if the regions i listed in the category above can be in those sections. The states in the central part would also be included in either the north or south, as Italy is viewed as north and south rather than north central and south. If you can do this, as well as change the maps to highlight the correct area's within each category that would be much appreciated and you would be doing every Italian on here a huge favour.

Thanks :) Ciao —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj Azzurri (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In very simple terms you are correct, more or less, in that may people see Italy as North-South. In that scenario Rome is most definitely a "southern" city; however, where to draw the border is not so clear. Having said that, I completely disagree with that assessment:

ISTAT sees five regions, North-east; North-West; Central, South and Insular. Most scholars see three Italies- North, Central and South. That is how, generally, the WP articles are organized and how most reputable references are sourced.
The cultural influences (Greek, Byzantine, Arab, Norman) and history of southern Italy is essentially that of the Two Sicilies/ Kindom of Naples. This does not include the areas of the Papal States (which by the way included Romagna- a "northern" region). Please have a look at the history of Rome prior to unification- there is very little to support what you said.
This article is about the part of Italy synonymous with the term mezzogiorno- that does not include Rome or Lazio.
In terms of language, you are completely off mark. Tuscan is truly an intermediary between northern and southern dialects (see La Spezia-Rimini line) but is closer to Romanesco and Neapolitan than you state. Umbro is very close to Romanesco.

As a side bar, if you must split Italy in two rather than three, I would say Tuscany and Umbria are more south than north. The language, cuisine, general lifestyle, etc. has more in common with Lazio than Veneto. So, dear Dj Azzurri, even though your statement about Rome is correct, I'm afraid you are missing the big picture. Dionix (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ciao dionix, i clearly understand what you have written but there is one thing that you have to understand. There was once a famous italian, and you do have his quote somewhere on the mezzogiorno page, and he said "Anything south of rome was classified as the mezzogiorno" now this is the person that came up with the term :the mezzogiorno" in the 1st place. Anything south of rome would have to include the provinces of Latina and Frosinone in the southern half of Lazio. The southern half of lazio has always been classified as belonging to the south as it was under the rule of the kingdom of the 2 sicilies. You have even stated that some classify the southern part of lazio to be included in the mezzogiorno, this is correct. My dads side of the family is from the southern part so i clearly no the difference between his family and others from the north which do include tuscany etc that has always been considered the north to everyday italians. My dads side is very southern and is very similar to napolitano's and abruzzese when it comes to culture, language etc. One other thing you have to understand is that Romanesco is not the only Roman dialect. Romanesco is a dialect of Rome and perhaps it may be close to umbro as u suggested but you have failed to mention the other dialect called "Ciociaria" this dialect here is only used in the southern part of Lazio in the provinces of frosinone and latina, and is very close to napolitano. With this seperate language of the south of lazio plus the culture differences of the south of lazio with the city of rome plus also the reference of anything under rome is mezzogiorno, and suggesting that many consider southern lazio to be mezzogiorno i think this should be changed. At least you can higlight the bottom half of Lazio in brown on the map as it was part of the kingdom of the 2 Sicilies and from what ive mentioned above and from the quote of the famous italian it is clearly part of the mezzogiorno, ask any italian from the south of lazio and he will tell u the same thing. I hope this makes sense what i wrote

thanks ciao —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj Azzurri (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello DJ. The article already states that some (including both of us, it seems) consider the southern part of Lazio as "mezzogiorno" (Latina, Gaeta, etc.- but not Rome itself). There is no dispute there, except that ISTAT classifies "southern Italy" without the region of Lazio as it is today (I guess we can thank Mussolini for that). This is all in the article already. Historically, southern Lazio was a part of the K of Naples- that is shown on the map in the history section. As for changing the main map- I'm not the author nor do I have the skills to do it. Perhaps someone else is willing to "hatch" it in? As for your statement that many consider Tuscany as "north"- again, this a common view which can be disputed based on language, culture, cuisine and history. In my mind, Tuscany is as removed from Lombardy as it is from Campania- so it can only be "central", along with (northern and central) Lazio, Marche and Umbria. There are truly at least three general parts to Italy, not two. Dionix (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello to everybody, it's the first time I send a comment to Wikipedia please forgive me if I did it the wrong way. I am italian (mother from Veneto father from Abruzzo) I like this "voice" very much but I think it could be better concerning one paragraph: Concerning the paragraph: "North-Sud Divide" I am astonished to discover that our South was a kind of Eden before the unification, yes it is written "according to some historians" but it is not reported what MOST of the historian said. The fact is that after the rise of "Lega Nord" (Italian secessionist party) some historians try to underline the "superiority" of the South before the unification in contrast with "Lega Nord" that used to promote the opposite (a rich North slowed by a poor south), personaly I believe the south was not as bad as the "unification propaganda" suggested but probably not that good either, as suggested in this paragraph, otherwise the big support given to Garibaldi by the southern population (expecially in Sicily) have no explanations. Thank you for reading ! Corrado PS Just for Mariokempes (nice nickname!) I agreed with you we must get rid of stereotypes but in my job I have to travel all over Italy (and Europe as well) and believe me Mafia is a real brake for the economy in south of Italy. We can ignore this if we want people to understand the reasons of poorness in this area. It is like discussing the problem of Palestinian without mention Israel because it could lead people in antisemitic discussions. Criminal organization like Mafia exist all over the world it is true (and in some country are even legal) but what happen in South Italy has nothing to do with "Tangentopoli" (which was "just" a corruption scandal/trial)or with prostitution ring in Veneto.It has to do with the everyday life and economy so big is the influence of this criminal organization. People that want to create their own business activity have to fight harder than in the rest of Italy/world and sometimes risk their own life if they don't want to mess with them.A lot of people give up or decide to emigrate. 83.181.168.90 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"and Abruzzo, which is sometimes considered central Italy" but Abruzzo IS central Italy! and also Sardinia (latu sensu = in the broadest sense).

--Antioco79 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And about Emilia-Romagna it must be said, Emilia is more North Italy instead Romagna + Bologna and its provincia is more Centre-North.

--Antioco79 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sicily is not (OFFICIALLY) southern Italy

I disagree with anyone classifying Sicily as part of southern Italy.

1. Italy already has a way of defining geographic regions and Sicily (with Sardinia) is considered Insular Italy, NOT Southern Italy.

2. Sicily is south of Italy but it is NOT southern Italy. Italy historically refers to the Italian peninsula and mainland on the European continent. Sicily is only Italian by national territory. It is not geographically Italian . In fact, Sicily was once joined to the African continent, not Europe or Italy!

3. Would you call Corsica southern France? Is Puerto Rico southern United States? Hawaii western United States? No, islands cannot be included in another geographic area, an island is free-standing, it cannot be east, west, south or north.

4. Why do you English-speakers take it upon yourselves to create new regions and change the classifications already made by Italy? Shouldn't we just follow the classifications already used by Italians? Or do we know better than them? There would be none geographic questions in this discussion page if we followed what the Italian Wikipedia does. It's fare more objective that way.

Wouldn't you all agree? I propose this (and any related) article is organized in unison with the Italian Wikipedia articles which follow official Italian government regional classifications. This is the only logical and objective way of doing things. Shall we vote on this, or should I go ahead and change things? --Nocontinental (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've thought for a while that this article needs some work. I think the problem is that there isn't a good idea of the scope, so the title means different things to different people. Certainly, if you want to change it, then feel free to give it a go, that is one of the points of Wikipedia. Bear some things in mind though. #1 many pages link to this one. If you're going to change it radically then some will end up linking to the wrong page. #2 If you want to improve the article, then you probably want to avoid an edit war, so you might consider the language you use. Approach the article like you approach a talk page and you can bet your life someone will revert it - whether it's correct or not. #3 Certamente, parla inglesi migliori di parlo italiano. But...English is not your first language. Be careful, otherwise you'll make some key mistakes.

To go through your points one by one.

Italy already has a way of defining geographic regions and Sicily (with Sardinia) is considered Insular Italy, NOT Southern Italy.

Absolutely true and a change that needs making. However, they are only regions for statistical and electoral purposes. Nobody in Italy (or anywhere else) has any emotional attachment to a NUTS 1 grouping, and that grouping could freely be redefined by the Italian government without reference to geography, history, language or culture.

Sicily is south of Italy but it is NOT southern Italy. Italy historically refers to the Italian peninsula and mainland on the European continent. Sicily is only Italian by national territory. It is not geographically Italian . In fact, Sicily was once joined to the African continent, not Europe or Italy!

Wrong. Sicily is part of Italy and it is found to the south. It is therefore southern Italy. What it may not be is Southern Italy. With a capital letter we are taking about a well defined named area. Without it's a more general term. Also, yes Sicily was once joined to Africa. At the time, it wasn't called Sicily, because Sicily didn't exist, Italy didn't exist, language didn't exist...Geographically Sicily is part of Italy, even if geologically, culturally and psychologically it isn't.

Would you call Corsica southern France?

Yes. Though probably not Southern France.

No, islands cannot be included in another geographic area, an island is free-standing, it cannot be east, west, south or north.

Yes they can. Rathlin Island is part of Northern Ireland and the Isle of Wight is in South East England.

Why do you English-speakers take it upon yourselves to create new regions and change the classifications already made by Italy?

We don't. Southern (or at least southern) Italy has a lot of meanings and we just aren't very interested in a statistical grouping.

Shouldn't we just follow the classifications already used by Italians? Or do we know better than them?

It depends on the context. If the page is solely about the modern regions, then yes. If it has a historical element and is linked to from Basil II and Pope Adrian IV, then the Italian classification is only part of the story.

There would be none geographic questions in this discussion page if we followed what the Italian Wikipedia does. It's fare more objective that way.

That's also not true. There are discussions on this page about whether Abruzzo is south or central, Tuscany north or central...

I would suggest the following.

That pages are created for each of the regions recognised by ISTAT, in the same way that they have been for the parliamentary constituencies (see Southern Italy (European Parliament constituency)); that they have titles which reflect the fact that they are statistical groupings of regions; that they have correct maps.
That a separate article discusses the terms southern Italy/Mezzogiorno in a cultural and historical context.
That a whole load of links are looked at quite carefully.

Meddlin' Pedant (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your claims are truly ludicrous Nocontinental (nomen omen), especially given that hotheaded attitude of yours for a statement that wouldn't raise a single eyebrow in Sicily. Sicily is universally considered part of Southern Italy in this country, by everyone. There's just no debate about it. Give us a break. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

References excluding and/or differentiating Sicily from S. Italy/Mezzogiorno...

PALERMO - "Comincia a dare i suoi frutti la battaglia degli autonomisti per il Mezzogiorno e la Sicilia. L'impegno assunto oggi a Roma con l'ok dato ai tre ordini del giorno degli autonomisti siciliani rappresenta una solida base di partenza che premia la nostra costanza ed il nostro impegno". [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontinental (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sicily and Sardinia (part 2)

I've updated the article somewhat to elaborate the fact that Sicily is sometimes not included as "southern Italy" or "Mezzogiorno". It would be wrong, however, to remove it entirely since most do consider it part of the south. Sardinia, on the other hand, is a different story and I agree with the conversations above on this matter. As such, I've removed references to it in the article. Can someone update the map to exclude Sardinia? Dionix (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sardinia???

Sardinia is included in Mezzogiorno, not in South Italy. i have read a great mistake in this article, someone have written that exist cultural and historical connections between sardinia and south Italy, there isn't anything of totally false!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.211.50 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Southern Italy and Mezzogiorno are perfectly synonymous terms. I'm starting wondering if people writing here have any clue of what they are talking about. --93.45.223.129 (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mezzogiorno and Southern italy aren't synonimus terms, are you italian to say it?

why in the italian wikipedia Sardinia isn't included in Southern Italy? explain me! http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_meridionale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Because, the Italian wiki is a total mess...."Italia Meridionale" (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia_meridionale) is the non administrative, nor cultural, statistical EU level 1 NUTS, that encompasses just the continental part of Southern italy, but not the islands, that constitute a distinct NUTS. But "Italia Mediionale" is also the literal transaltion of "Southern Italy" in Italian. So, some genius thought that it was cool, to avoid 2 pages with the same name, to poshly call "Mezzogiorno" (Midday, or, in French, Midi) the page referring to the wider geo-historical-cultural area that in this English wiki is rightly called "Southern Italy". In my opinion, and I'm Italian, in the Italian wiki they should call "Italia Meridionale" the analogous page of that one I'm writing into, and "Sud Italia" (South Italy) the NUTS, or vice versa, avoiding the expression "Mezzogiorno", in order to eventually eliminate this kind of ambiguities. But I don't even think about change something down there, the last time I was banned for much more less. Italian wiki is, and always will be, a total mess managed by arrogant incompetents.

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am Italian, and I can say there is much confusion even amongst Italians. In some cases the "south" and "mezzogiorno" are synonomous, but to be correct, they are really two different meanings. Some would even exclude Sicily from "south", but never from mezzogiorno. By the way, it.wiki has a separate article on the mezzogiorno. See here. Mariokempes (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

History and Culture

Sincerely i don't understand because it's included Sardinia in this page (Sardinia is part of Insular Italy not South Italy), and because there is written the history of the kingdom of Two Sicilies and cultures of the southern italy, except Sardinia that had got a different history and has got pecular cultures, it's totally a contradiction !

Because there should be two articles: one southern Italy and one mezzogiorno! (see above comment or see it.wiki here. Mariokempes (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

i agree with you, Sardinia was part of Kingdom of Sardinia and Piedmont which fought against the kingdom of Two sicilies, during the unification of italy, it's a contradiction includes sardinia in this page! i don't understand because not italian people have to impose non-existent italian macro-regions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.232.249 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sardinia position

I completely disagree with including Sardinia in South Italy. Anyway, obtorto collo, can you amend the entry of the article about Sardinia "that is considered as part of Southern Italy more for historical and socio-economic reasons than for its geographic position" in that way "that is considered as part of Southern Italy more for socio-economic rather than for either historically or geographic reasons". As Italian and more specifically Southern Italian, I confirm there are a lot of common ties between Sicily and southern mainland Italy (just think about the common rule during Normans-Anjoux-Aragonese-Spanish-Bourbon era) whilst Sardinia has its own history, languages and traditions. Sardinia shares with us the economic unrest. Only during European election Sardinia is associated with Sicily because a Nut including both south Italy and the two major islands of Mediterranean sea would be deemed as excessively populated. De facto, during the European polls the pair Island and South Italy is just (maybe for parochial reasons due to for South-North rivalry ) the counterpart of North West - North Est administrative units. Rougly, because the Sardinian culture, languages are so distinctive, a Northern Italian could mistook a Calabrian for a Sicilian but never a Sardinian for a Neapolitan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.92.153.12 (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but, I strongly disagree with your statements, and by the way, I'm Italian too. In my opinion, we could say the same for every region, province or commune of Italy (that "has its own history, languages and traditions"). This is obviously true for Sardinia, that has developed an incredible own culture. But this hardly could be a good reason to deny that Sardinia has always been, and it is, considered part of Southern Italy, in every book of history, culture, statistics, economy or whatever. Regarding in particular history, sorry but I'm forced to contradict your argument: Sardinia, with the rest of Southern Italy, was part of Aragon (and later Spain) from the 13th century until the 18th century, when it was separated from the rest of the South and given to Piedmont. So, it was Part of Piedmont for only ~100 years, while for the previous 500 years it stayed under Spain with all the rest of Southern Italy. For this reason (among many others), I think that we could reasonably state that Sardinia is historically part of Southern Italy. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

dear probably your knowledge about sardinia should be improved before to write enormous bullshits. first of all history of sardinia is not limited to crown of aragon, sardinia was not part of kingdom of two sicilies, as southern italy, but part of spanish empire, and not an indipendent country, sardinia was ruled by a spanish viceroyalty, spanish remained official language for centuries. tradition and cultures are totally different from south italy, the language is unique, and the few languages influenced by italy spoken in sardinia are ligurian or corso tuscans languages sardinia was for century under rule of republic of genoa and pisa, and part of kingdom of sardinia together, Piedmont. well according to those maps holland is spanish culturally and historically?!?! LOL

from economic point of view sardinia is very different from southern italy, first of all socio-economic conditions are better, and economy is influenced by its geographical position, insularity and isolation. this is the economic classification of sardinia by EUROSTAT: convergence and competitiveness and EU's objectives for the 2007-2013 period.The goal is to have all regions in light blue by 2013. http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1285/europa4l.jpg

gdp per capita according to EUROSTAT (SArdinia is different from southern italy): http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/a/a7/GDP_per_inhabitant,_in_PPS,_by_NUTS_2_regions,_2006.PNG

income per capita in italy in 2010(sardinia gets higher income per capita of abruzzo and molise that are central italian regions): http://imagesdotcom.ilsole24ore.com/images2010/SoleOnLine5/_Oggetti_Correlati/Grafici_Statici/Notizie/2011/03/geografia-reddito.jpg

sardinians are not southern italians also from a genetic and ethnic point of view: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5010/europew.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TPBJmmJLScI/AAAAAAAAC7Y/RezgY2l49Vg/s1600/ADMIXTURE_10.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.230.35 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

LISTEN I brought you historical arguments that contradicted your previous statements, you just insulted me and brought personal opinions or old figures. Sardinia is better of what? The most recent figures about unemployment (at 13.7%) and so on are aligned with the rest of the South (http://dati.istat.it/). You spoke about regional differences, language, traditions......in Italy every province have its own. This is something that can't delete the fact that Sardinia is universally considered part of Southern Italy. Or do you believe that Sardinia is North? People from Triest are very different from the people of Aosta and have very different stories, but this does not prevent us to classify them as part of Northern Italy. Eventually we understood that you don't like Southern Italy and the Southerners because you believe that Sardinians are somehow superior, isn't it? You are just a racist. I'm very tired of people like you that have to start a flame in every article for their jingoist feelings. You must learn to respect other people's opinion and stop starting stupid flames without a reason. And by the way Abruzzo and Molise are SOUTH. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

i have no insulted anyone, and i'm not a racist. say that sardinia isn't historically and culturally part of southern italy doesn't mean to be racist, but it means to say the true. from an economic point of view sardinia is totally different from south italy, sardinia suffered a handicap called insularity, and its economy unlike south italy is not under threat of organised crimes, that is the main obstacle for economic development of southern italy. bytheway it's not the once that you write wrong things about sardinia, once you have totally distort the article about sardinia, writing absurdities about economy, as minings inactive by more than a century , and erased without any valid reason part of history's paragraph. moreover i read that here everyone, except you, agree with me with the fact that sardinia is not south italy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.245.216 (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nooo...You're not insulting.......you just said that I say "bullshits" because I brought you historical and statistical data from Istat, while you brought me just your opinions! You said that Sardinia is not South because there isn't organized crime...that is like to say that South is South because of the organized crime! Sardinia was under the same kingdom from Middle Ages to 1700s when it was given to Piedmont. Sardinia has more or less the same unemployment and GPD for capita of the rest of the South, check the statistics that I brought you before writing 100 times the same things. Cagliari has the same latitude of Catanzaro. All the rest of the world except you think that Sardinia is Southern Italy. Why are you so much against the South? I'm curious, where is Sardinia for you, in the North? I'm not saying that Sardinia has a wonderful culture, but every Italian region has a wonderful culture, and Sardinia is in the South.

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

you are only generalizing saying that all the regions located south of Rome are the same culturally, historically, etc. bytheway you were that wrote that sardinia is not south from a geographic point of view, not me! you are contradicting yourself! this is new for me so why do not include also slovenia or czech republic in southern italy? they have an economic situation comparable to south italy! why do not include also spain? unemployment rate is similar!

sardinia is included in Mezzogiorno, only because benefit the "mezzogiorno bank", but it is not Southern Italy, it's bad that an italian ignores the difference about these two terms! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.39.118.244 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What you call Mezzogiorno bank has been abolished in 1984.

I repeat my question: if not South, what is it? What? Answer

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sardinia and Southern Italy

Must Sardinia be considered to be part of Southern Italy? If so, I'm sorry but I beg to differ: apart from the actual economic unrest and the long period in which Sardinia, along with the southern half of Italy and Sicily, was ruled by the Crown of Aragon, we really don't share a thing with both of them (nor with Italy in general to speak the truth, but let us try not to change the conversation...) by the historical point of view, not to speak about the geographical and cultural one; prove is that both Sicily and Southern Italy are a (relatively) culturally homogeneous area, whilst Sardinia just can't be associated with it regard to one and more cultural traits (even by the language one can easily realize that!). But, even if we grant for the sake of the argument that Sardinia should be part of Southern Italy, what about the history section, which does NOT even mention a word about Sardinia? Please... I just think all of the page should be rethought. Sorry for intruding in such a bad manner, but things must be said (even if they are never heard?). Saludos. Dk1919 Franking (talk)

I agree with you. Sardinia, historically and culturally, has little or nothing to share with Southern Italy. I think it was included because some sources, probably for economic and statistical reasons, associate Sardinia to the Mezzogiorno, but it is wrong. Feel free to remove Sardinia from the article. If someone doesn't agree, he can always undo your changes.--Enok (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it has been me the one who raised the issue, it's pretty obvious I agree with you for what concerns the supposed relationship between Sardinia and Southern Italy/Sicily; but, as long as no one is going to remove that statement through discussion and you just remove what little has been made so as to avoid any misunderstandings in question (I mean your recent revert on this article...), and since Sardinia, whether I/we like it or not, is considered to be part of that macroregion that goes by the name of "Mezzogiorno", I'm forced to use rollback as well, for that "copy and past from various articles about Sardinia" up to now has been the only compromise we could have reached thus far.--Dk1919 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, don't copy the contents of other articles within this one.--Enok (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as no one is going to replace that with a new piece of article that expresses the same meaning, I can. You'd better not revert anything without getting any consensus, instead, that's not how Wikipedia works.--Dk1919 (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I remind you that contributions to Wikipedia are released under license. You can not just copy other articles without assigning authorship. Moreover, it is quite unnecessary to write the same thing twice in the same encyclopedia.--Enok (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to solve the problem in question right now by putting a template on top of the article. I can't do more than what I've already done.--Dk1919 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem can be solved in two ways: writing something about Sardinia (without copy-pasting), or removing it from the article. I am for the latter solution.--Enok (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

After a week and no other comments, I removed Sardinia from the article.--Enok (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No. After a week without comments, you do not turn the article into an original research, ignoring all the sources about the definition of Mezzogiorno. --Felisopus (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Even the article says "Mezzogiorno was a term invented by Garibaldi during the unification process". Garibaldi landed on Sicily and conquered Southern Italy, not Sardinia. --87.17.231.171 (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Overall, I daresay this article is an authentic mess. Either we remove Sardinia from a notion the island has nothing to see with in any case, or we'll have to rewrite thoroughly this article in order to have it corrected.--Dk1919 (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If you "Sardinia-is-not-Southern-Italy party" devoted just 1/10th of your effort to contribute to the article instead of crusading against the inclusion of Sardinia in Southern Italy, it would be a featured one! But some people is here just to criticize. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not crusading, rather feeling it was my duty to point out what is just, at present, incorrect (to put it mildly). Sardinia may be included in Southern Italy for statistical and administrative purposes, but this page, as it is, gives the user the false impression that it is for historical, cultural and linguistical reasons Sardinia would supposedly share with the Southern half of the Italian peninsula and Sicily.--Dk1919 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Turism???

I don't understand the meaning of the list of presumed turistic spots...I read even Pizzo, well Pizzo is an unknown village in Calabria, absolutely not a famous turistic center. And in my opinion it's dispersive to list randomless turistic towns and villages as Alberobello or Tropea and omit turist districts where those holiday resorts belong, as for example Salento and Sorrento Coast. And in particular it's incomprehensible that there is nothing about Sardinia, the region of assumed "Southern Italy" with the strongest turistic system, and famous for high class turistic flows...areas as Emerald coast in Sardinia are well known as some of the most exclusive seaside resorts in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.152.219 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer needed

I think the page needs a disclaimer, since the "history" and "culture" sections of this article still fail to mention Sardinia. Otherwise, one may get the wrong impression that what happened in the southern half of the Italian boot and Sicily also occurred in Sardinia.--Dk1919 (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dk1919 wrote: "Sardinia is therefore not included in much of this article; the user may read the "history" and "culture" sections in the page focussing on the island." It is already written that Sardinia is often included only for statistical purposes. Sardinia is also talked about quite a bit in regards to the Kingdom of Sardinia. Some parts of Lazio, as stated in the lead, are considered Southern Italy, however, are not talked about much in the article. The disclaimer you added also is not written encyclopedically and if the user really wants to read more about Sardinia, they can just click the country's link. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

"Narrow" vs. "Broad" definition?

The image File:Mezzogiorno.png illustrates a "narrow" (not including Abruzzo, Molise, Sardinia, or Sicily) vs. "broad" (including those plus Lazio) definition of Mezzogiorno, but it's not cited, and the article itself doesn't address this completely. It does talk about the inclusion/exclusion of the islands and Lazio, but I don't know why Abruzzo and Molise are in the "sometimes" group. I've never seen a definition of Mezzogiorno with those two regions excluded. Can someone shed some light? ... discospinster _talk 19:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this above in 2007. I think we should go back to this image. It is also used on the Italian wiki.

Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Discospinster: ? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I like that idea. ... discospinster _talk 17:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you discospinster, indeed there are some Italians that don't like their homeplace to be included in the South even if everybody does it. Italian campanilism and regional/provincial parochial rivalries and antagonisms have been one of the biggest plagues of Wikipedia and a major cause of edit wars since the beginning of time.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)