Talk:Racism in Italy

Early Middle Ages

Mainly we talked about the Early Middle Ages, because from that moment there was the territorial division of Italy until 1860. The Italian kingdom definitively lost the characteristic of including the entire peninsula. This conclusion should have been placed in the section regarding the Early Middle Ages. But unfortunately here there are the usual idiots who do not let you finish an article or give a conclusion. Furthermore, there are aspects such as the value of a Germanic slave was greater than a Roman one, and other reflections on these discriminations that needed to be explored in depth. In addition to the resentment and hatred towards the Saracens who in this period invaded and plundered the coastal cities committing brutalities. Since these topics are complex, they require a minimum of in-depth study before writing, but then the section is deleted considering it useless. Then it cuts to the classical period and does not expand into the Medieval and Late Medieval periods.

Feel free to add the relevant information :) --cyclopia^speak! 09:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Middle Ages

The part on the Middle Ages and subsequent eras is very small and does not delve into anything in depth and is totally inadequate and undocumented.

The comment by Silvio Berlusconi on President Obama

This comment has very little to do with racism, but of course it was very difficult to be understood by a non-Italian. In Italy in fact, to be sun tanned is a plus even for an handsome man. In other parts of the world, however, tanned skin is seen suspiciously, as a result of mixing of races. I am sure 100% that Berlusconi was thinking to a positive aspect of President Obama, the Italian way of thinking on this matter. His comment was directed to underline the glamour of President Obama, not to laugh at his African origin. In fact Mr. Berlusconi has many faults, but certainly is not a racist. Among his friends there are people from all Europe, Northern Africa and South America --Deguef (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Racism in Roman Empire?

Ancient Romans (of the Empire), differently from other peoples of ancient times, were not at all racist. In fact emperors and generals of the Roman empire had different origin (Spain, Gaul, Balcans, Middle East, Africa). It did not happen for other states, kingdoms and empires (Egypt, Greece, Israel, Persia, Gaul. Germany, etc.). Therefore this sentence is wrong.--Deguef (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is true. The old Roman and Fascist empires are also not to be confused with the modern nation-state of Italy. 174.93.177.37 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Alien foreigners

Hallo Cyclopia
no, is not irrelevant, since in this subject there are lately a lot of partial and distorting information coming out. Question: is this info cited in the book in object? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as I told you a couple of times in the edit summaries. It is exactly quoted there. Just click the link in the source and look. I think it is quite a reliable source, being published by Oxford Handbooks, which is a section of Oxford University Press, as far as I can see. If you have better sources (and if you want to help me fixing the terrible state of this article!) be my guest, but I am unsure of what "clarification" is needed. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Cyclopia, no, I explained myself wrongly: I am interested in knowing if there is a note in the book which refers to this term. The reason is the following: some months ago I started to read a book about this subject by an author cited here, Aaron Gillette. Unfortunately for him, a couple of years ago I have been reading the "Storia degli ebrei italiani sotto il fascismo" by De Felice, and I found out that Gillette had "forgotten" about 50% of the info about a particular subject (the alleged antisemitism of the young Mussolini) in order to demonstrate that he was antisemitic during the war years. This partiality has been confirmed by an interview to a French historian which I found on the web,where he is defined "extremely partial". That's why after that I mistrust these sources. Since I see that you are Italian, I advise you warmly to read the book of De Felice, who could as first use the Archive of the Jewish community in Rome. This book was commissioned (and praised) by the Unione delle comunità israelitiche italiane. De Felice was an historian, and this means - among others - that if he cites something, he tells always in a note where he found it. This I wanted to know from you. I read maybe hundred Italian books about fascism, including primary sources like the diaries of Ciano and Bottai, and I never heard this expression, while I read quite often another one: alloglotti, which means "alien speakers": so were defined the minorities by the fascists, who never could think to define "Alien foreigner" an Italian citizen. For the fascists, someone born and living in the kingdom was Italian, independently from language and custom, period. Defining him/her as a "foreigner" would have been the worst "autogoal" for them. I suspect that these authors mixed up one word for another. Ciao, Alex2006 (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point, I acknowledge I am not as acquainted with the subject. Given that the quote is not essential, I can leave it out. That said, I suppose it is extremly hard to disentangle the various views of historicians on these subjects, and I wouldn't go ahead to say who is partial and who is not (De Felice, while extremly respected, has also been criticized a lot, as far as I know). I am working now with what I'm finding online but once at home for the summer holidays, I'll go through my mother's bookshelves -she is an history teacher and has a huge library, including De Felice books. Meanwhile, if you have trustworthy sources with stuff to add, by all means please add. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a very "hot" subject: 20 years ago Italians were described as brava gente, nowadays as evil as the Nazi. Both views are partially true (about Italian war crimes you can read for example "Italiani brava gente?" by Angelo del Boca, and people like Preziosi were as evil as Himmler): unfortunately often Anglo-Saxons love to see the world with black-or-white glasses  :-) but reality is always more complex. About De Felice, he has been attacked by the left, because in the seventies he - a former communist - was the first one who dared to challenge the "official history of Fascism" given by the PCI, but now he is considered as the most important Italian historian about fascism and the most important biographer of Mussolini worldwide. In don't think that anyone who attacked him read a single page of his "Mussolini": the figure of the dictator comes out annihilated by this biography, but this occurs telling his history, not doing propaganda. Ciao and keep the good work, Alex2006 (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'm more or less aware of what you said (especially on De Felice), but not being myself an expert I'm always unsure of what to think about all of this. I've heard about Italiani brava gente, it's a while I want to put my hands on it. I invite you again to help filling in this article. Ciao e stammi bene, grazie dell'input! :) -- cyclopia^speak! 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Grazie a te e saluti da Roma! Alex2006 (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh hey

Your figures seem to be, as always, false. This article

http://news.panorama.it/esteri/razzismo-classifica-ricerca-Hong-Kong-razzisti-intolleranza-immigrazione

Shows that actually only between 5-9,9% of Italians wouldn't want a foreigner neighbors. As such, Italy is ranked as a non-racist Country (unlike many NON-WHITE Countries... Like India and Hong Kong, hmmm).

The article is in Italian, the map legend and caption are in English. So it's accessible. I ask this information take the place of the fake and biased one in the article opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.92.163 (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sending head of pig to israeli embassy by Italians

I do not see anything on the fact of anti-Semitism. rudeness to send the pig's head.Rey.regno 14:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reza luke (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to add this to the article, provided it is backed up by reliable sources. --cyclopia^speak! 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request received to merge Anti-Roma sentiment in Italy to Racism in Italy; date=November 25, 2015. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 04:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support, either summarized into 21st century-section or given its own section.--Zoupan 08:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. If there's is no objection, I will merge into its own section in this article next week. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see little in the Anti-Roma sentiment in Italy article that could be incorporated into this article. In fact, Anti-Roma sentiment in Italy could be a candidate for deletion under WP:synth: its content seems to consist entirely of incidents that took place in 2007-2008. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lede

The opening line "

"Racism in Italy has been present throughout the country's history" is a bit vague. Italy was founded officially in 1861, and the first example of racism in the lede is of Mussolini. The first instance in the body is from a work by Cesare Lombroso in the 19th century. Is there maybe a better way to word the opening line or point to the first citation as opposed to jumping to Fascist Italy 70 years later?Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bad Dryer: I see you reversed/undid my citation of Lombroso being Jewish saying "we don't do that for obvious reasons". What are these obvious reasons? Since Lombroso was Jewish and the "Italian racism" is later cited as anti-Jewish, I would argue Lombroso is not in fact a case of Italian racism (which is a very real phenomenon...not denying that) but of Jewish racism, also a very real phenomenon (see racism in Israel). Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Lombroso was an Italian. Thus his racism is a case of Italian racism. We don't call out people's religion unless reliable sources do so. The obvious reason, if I need to spell it out for you, is that what you wrote smacks of antisemitism, which I assume was not your intention. Bad Dryer (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Cesare Lombroso? His own biography/article on Wikipedia states he is Jewish. That is not in dispute. Citing someone being Jewish in the context of anti-Jewish laws in that same country is relevant. And I've been editing for awhile, so I couldn't care less if anyone thinks an edit "smacks of antisemitism". Anytime you edit something someone dislikes, it is often immediately branded as "anti" something. In this case my edit is factual and indisputable. You might want to ask yourself why you are making a big deal of this fact. Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Citing someone's religion in an attempt to make that a prominent feature in some unpleasant aspect of his life is something we don't do on Wikipedia. Bad Dryer (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, his biography article mentions he is Jewish. Restating it once here is not making it a "prominent feature". It is a statement of fact.Trinacrialucente (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is appropriate in his biography, not in a random article where he is mentioned. Do you see the religion of any of the other proponents of Italian scientific racism called out in this article? That should tell you something. You are editing inappropriately. Bad Dryer (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion was requested. The biography of Cesare Lombroso does not state that he was Jewish. It states that he was born to a wealthy Jewish family. His biography also states that he was an atheist. It is true that being Jewish can be defined either as a culture or as a religion. Since his own biography does not state that he was Jewish, I see no point in making that comment in this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I just came across several other sources which state he is Jewish, as well as his own writings on the subject in which he self-identifies as Jewish. Also, he wrote for two Jewish Italian publications. All of these are now cited.Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Except it's still irrelevant to this topic, which is about scientific racism. The sources merely support that he had a Jewish background, which is fine for his own article, but has no place here. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how you can make that opinion when he wrote about anti-semitism in Italy as a Jew...which is a form of racism.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

He can voice that opinion because (a) he is correct, the sources only say he was Jewish, but not that this is relevant to this writings on racism ; (b) it is established Wikipedia policy that we don't call out a person's background - be it racial, religious or ethnic or other - unless it is pertinent to the topic as evidenced by reliable sources making that connection; and (c) this is the consensus on this page - 3 editors have told you that what you are proposing is not acceptable, it is time for you to stop edit warring it back into the article. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lombroso writing in Jewish Publications

I VERY CLEARLY cited AND translated the title of Lombroso's book "L'ANTISEMITISMO E LE SCIENZE MODERNE" ("antisemitism and the modern sciences". I also cited the various JEWISH periodical publications he often wrote for. In the case of "La parlata degli ebrei di Venezia e le parlate giudeo-italiane", Lombroso writes about his own Jewish upbringing, saying on pg 39 in the cited book/link provided "the relationship the common Jewish language has between its with its genesis and characteristics stemming from a bad life". . As cited/shown, Lombroso wrote about and contributed to Jewish life and publications frequently and he is very known for this throughout italian historical literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinacrialucente (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

See, the problem is that you still haven't shown how this doesn't violate WP:SYNTH, in fact now ti seems clear that it does. You do not have a single source saying "While on the one hand he was racist against non-Europeans, but he also wrote about anti-semitism and published work in Jewish publications". You have different sources, many of them primary, that you are trying to use to "prove" your point. Your combining of those sources to reach your own conclusions is what violates synthesis (i.e. you are synthesizing information from different sources which is not allowed). Trying to add your own collection and analysis of his work is original research, and is against policy. I think the problem may be a basic misunderstanding of how the policies work, please review them carefully so that you can see how this very clearly violates them and you can avoid this kind of thing in the future. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No...YOU see: you are clueless as to what WP:SYNTH means and are trying to use it (baselessly). I have sources that support a) Lombroso was racist against non-Europeans and b) he publicly self-identified as a Jew and wrote about it in Jewish publications. Stating the obvious then backing it up with citations is NOT WP:SYNTH. I suggest you read it again. However, as you have shown to be completely biased here, I will break up the sentences so there is absolutely no possible way you can use that argument.Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite your needlessly aggressive attitude, with the removal of the synthesis we are now getting closer to a working solution. Please try to maintain a bit more civility, as your attitude is very off putting and makes it hard to conduct a logical discussion and reach an agreeable conclusion, which I think we are all capable of.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not "needless" since I resent the fact that I have to deal with WP:POV pushers like yourself who are desperately trying to cover up the fact that Lombroso was Jewish and coming at racism from a Jewish angle...not Italian. As I stated, Italian racism is a very real phenomenon, but Lombroso is a product of Jewish racism, which you are now very well aware of as I cited it repeatedly.Trinacrialucente (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are the one who seems to be pushing a POV. If you really cared about neutrality, you would maintain the same standards for all figures on this page, but I don't see you jumping at the bit to add "Sicilian Catholic" to the first sentence about Julius Evola even though that is also true. I am trying to maintain equal treatment, you are the one trying to push your own POV of what is "Important" and what is not, rather than following consensus and established practices.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You are bordering into idiocy, since Catholicism is indeed the majority religion in Italy (certainly at the time of Lombroso), ergo it is a presupposition that the writers in question would have a Catholic upbringing unless specified. Evola like Mussolini was an atheist, but brought up Catholic. I would not mind this being quoted or cited. But since Lombroso was Jewish, wrote about Jewish subjects/topics/life/linguistics in Italy AND commented on the anti-semitism of the country it IS noteworthy that he is Jewish given his stance on racism was not the "norm" of Italy. I seriously do not understand why you feel you are qualified to speak or opine on this topic since you cannot even read the body of work in the language it is written.Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, despite you losing all credibility on this topic by (mis)characterizing Evola as a "Sicilian Catholic" (a statement that proved your absolute ignorance on this topic) I have added his beliefs as well as those of Mussolini to this article per your above-stated challenge. I also added a citation where several authors are quoted as identifying Lombroso as a "jewish thinker" and practitioner of Jewish sociology, so...check and mate.Trinacrialucente (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Still WP:UNDUE, and I agree with UnequivocalAmbivalence above. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Please read WP:NOTBATTLE and WP:CIVIL and understand that your aggressive, confrontational, and insulting attitude is at odds with core Wikipedia policies. I have repeatedly requested that you communicate with me in a respectful manner, a request you have repeatedly ignored. I am willing to participate in calm, respectful discussions, but I will not submit myself to constant abuse by you. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Anti-Sicilian in lead

I think that the inclusion of anti-Sicilian alongside anti-Semitic in the lead is a bit WP:UNDUE. As per MOS:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.[...]The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." There is only one very vague mention of anti-Sicilian laws in the article, and I could not find much in the way of reliable sources that indicate the anti-Sicilian laws were as notable as the widely discussed anti-Semitic ones. As my removal of the term in the lead was reverted, I have brought the matter here so that the editor who reverted me can provide evidence of equal importance in reliable sources. I would, however, politely ask that the editor adhere to WP:CIVIL, and refrain from comments such as "take it to the talk page as you so annoyingly say" as I have repeatedly requested. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

given your utter lack of knowledge on this topic (as demonstrated by your "Sicilian catholic" comment), unwillingness to accept mountains of supporting evidence and inability to read the material in their original language, I have brought this matter to mediation. So, you'll just have to be patient and wait this process out now.Trinacrialucente (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, please discontinue your abusive language and battlefield mentality. Also, I think that you misunderstand the policies at play here. Even if mediation is accepted, which is highly doubtful given your conduct here and the fact that it fails several of the prerequisites, Wikipedia policy is to exclude disputed material until consensus is formed for its inclusion, so your assertion that your contentious material should be included, while you provide no evidence to support your position and refuse to participate in discussions, is completely baseless. You also seem to misunderstand the basis of the issue I raised, the debate is not whether anti-Sicilian laws were passed, or whether they should be mentioned in the body of the article but whether those anti-Sicilian laws are of equal notability to the anti-Semitic ones, by virtue of being equally covered in both reliable sources and the body of the article, and thus deserving of equal mention in the lead. The fact is that they are not, as much more text in the body of the article is devoted to Antisemitism, and it is much more widely reported on by reliable sources. Also, I think you should read up on what constitutes a reliable source, as many of the sources you provide are not up to the standards set out in WP:RS.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Good morning, I would like to give my point of view about these "anti-siclian" racism additions, which I saw casually today:

• The last two sources which have been added do not deal with racism, but with the fight of Mussolini against Mafia through the Prefetto Mori, so they are out of scope.
• The other source, which is in place since a couple of weeks ("Meridionews"), does not support the text: in fact, the author says that the decision of Mussolini to remove all the Sicilian functionaries can be explained with the necessity of fighting the Sicilian autonomism. The later sentence, that this decision has "aspects of racism" is the opinion of the author, and is apodictic.
• After that, I must say that anti-meridional (NOT exclusively anti-Sicilian) racism in Italy existed, and still exists until now, is a big problem, and for sure deserves a place in the article, but it should be supported by reliable sources, not articles of newspaper partially out of scope and cherry picked via google. I also agree with the necessity of using a civil tone during the discussion. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Regarding This edit would it be possible to get the actual quote provided from the book? Because the English version does not contain it anywhere, and the Italian version is not accessible to me. Thanks! UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You won't find that exact quote in English since I translated it myself from the original Italian. This underscores ONCE AGAIN that you are NOT qualified to discuss this topic and I am seriously at a loss as to why you persist here. @Alessandro57: sono d'accordo che le citazioni/fonti non sono tip-top, ma quell'editore mi diede ben poco tempo per trovar l'informazione (5 ore, come vedi...e manco mi trovavo a casa!). Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

E scusa @Alessandro57:, un altro punto; se ci rivolgiamo un po' alla voce in italiano qui https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razzismo_in_Italia#Tra_il_XIX_e_il_XX_secolo si vede che se ne parla nel dettaglio. Io vorrei tradurlo in inglese e poi aggiungere piu' informazione sul fenomeno contemporaneo della lega Nord, Padania, Bossi/Salvini ecc. Leggendo questa voce attuale in inglese secondo me non ci da un panorama completto della Lega Nord (solo dice che alcune azioni sono "criticized as xenophobic or racist" quando sapiamo bene che il FONDAMENTO e' basato sul razzismo anti-meridionale). Che ne dici?Trinacrialucente (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The other problem in the lead is the use of the Economist's ref. to the effect that 'Using data from 2005-07, the World Values Survey found 11.1% of Italians saying they did not want neighbours of a different race, against 4.9% in Britain.' This works out in the lead as 'found Italy to be among the least racially tolerant countries in Western Europe'. This kind of sourcing is selective and meaningless, since the latter figure can easily be controverted (here)and (here) for example. I know several modern countries where the 'I don't want them next door' rockets up to the 40s and 50s, and making 89% of the Italians wear the blame for the prejudices of a loud mouthed league seems inappropriate. (Okay, as a foreigner, I think people who think Italians are racially prejudiced have never experienced what real racism is)Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I have always found your edits to be unbiased and measured, so thank you for commenting on this topic. While I agree with you that the degree of Italian racism is "mild" when put next to societies where individuals were physically assaulted, murdered etc for their race, it is still a definitely real phenomenon which is why this article exists. Unfortunately, the same WP:POV pushers you have come across in other articles found their way here due to one particular historic point of Italian racism, a key example being the "Lombroso" discussion above. Any/all edits and opinions you can contribute here would be most appreciated.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente: Your aggressive attitude and constant insults must stop. It is highly inappropriate and unnecessarily abusive. I have requested time and time again that you act in accordance to the civility policy, and yet you are still throwing insults at me even when I am communicating with other editors. This must stop. Now, on to the issue that has just come to the forefront. WP:NONENG states "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.". There is an english language translation of this source, which makes it the preferred version. It does not contain the quote you have provided. You are not a qualified translator to the extent that would make your personal translation ("You won't find that exact quote in English since I translated it myself from the original Italian.") somehow more valid than the actual English translation of the book. If you can find that quote in the English version, then by all means cite it and re-add it, but until then your personal translation is nothing more than original research. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Good Morning @UnequivocalAmbivalence:, the "Diario" of Ciano is a work written originally in Italian, and the book which I used is the most recent Italian edition, edited by Renzo De Felice, the most important Italian historian of Fascism, and published by Rizzoli, one of the most important Italian publishers, so I would exclude a mistake on this side. I don't understand why this citation is missing from the english translation, but I can imagine only two reasons: 1) you looked at the wrong page 2) there is a mistake in the English translation, or this shows only an excerpt of the diary. If 2) applies, we can exclude that this edition is of the same quality and relevance as the Italian original. About the translation of TrinacriaLucente, we can check what the original recites:"La situazione interna - che fa acqua in molti posti - diviene grave in Sicilia." Then there are 9 more lines, including the declaration of Massi, a Sicilian civil servant whose parents came from Genoa and from Sicily. Because of that, he points out that if he would have had a Jewish parent instead of a Sicilian one he could have been "arianized", concluding dramatically: "Essere Siciliani è dunque peggio che essere ebrei?". As you see, this excerpt does not show any difficulty of translation.

Two remarks to @Trinacrialucente:: 1) please use only English to communicate at wikipedia, since most of the editors here don't understand Italian; 2) Since you are a new editor, please read carefully WP:CANVASSING. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: I think you are mistaken, as I do not speak Italian, have not communicated in Italian, nor have violated WP:CANVASSING. I think you are confusing me with Trinacrialucente, and would appreciate it if you redirected your comments towards that editor. If you indeed mean me, please direct me to where this behavior can be observed, thanks. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry @UnequivocalAmbivalence:, of course I meant him, because of his comments in Italian! It was a copy paste mistake from my side. Alex2006 (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, totally understandable! Thank you for clearing it up so quickly! And thank you for providing the additional quotes and translations I requested, the English version must just use different wording/phrasing so when I searched through the text it didn't ping back any hits, although I do think that skipping so much contextual dialogue (9 lines you say?) in the middle of the quote muddles it a bit, as it leaves out any indication of why it could potentially be as bad or worse to be Sicilian than Jewish, and I think that the comparison being made is less important to the article than the specifics of the discrimination which are being left out, considering that specifics of the discrimination faced by Sicilians in Italy are not covered in the article in nearly the depth which they should be and could use expansion. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hallo @UnequivocalAmbivalence:, I agree, but I was in a hurry, and had no time to add the other lines, and I hoped that you could find it in the english translation, under 4 October 1941. :-) I agree that put in this way the quote is a little out of context. Moreover, there is another problem: it is true that Mussolini ordered the removal of the Sicilian servants from Sicily, but it is far from clear that the reason was his alleged racism against Sicilians. The "Duce" was not a racist (the most important woman in his life after Rachele and Claretta was a jew, Margherita Sarfatti) and there is consensus that the Racial Laws have been mainly a consequence of his alliance with Hitler. In other words, what Ciano writes is important to point out that this decision took place, but tells us nothing about the reason behind it. In one source that was removed because of its lack of reliability , the author says that Mussolini acted in this way because his secret service told him that several Sicilians sympathized with the autonomist movement. This is possible, but we need a RS about the reason: Ciano himself writes that he does not know the reason behind it. Said that, and forgetting for a moment Mussolini, I repeat that anti-southern Racism (where "south" starts from and with Rome southwards) was (and to some extent still is) present in Italy, and deserves its place in the article and in the lead. Alex2006 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)