Talk:Etruria

message: I have a few questions about this article on Eturia. In the first paragraph it is referred to both as a country and an "important city state" and I'm not sure it was either one -- maybe "confederation of city states" would be better.
In the third paragraph the word "conquered" is particularly misleading. The founding of Rome seems to have been a synthesis of Latin and Etruscan cultures and not a conquest. Also, the claims of the fourth paragraph about the importation of Greek culture are in need of support. 24.174.170.84 18:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: "See also" should be back , it is hard to find link on bottom of the article . Article is really poor somenoe should expend it or make it more cleaned up .
I removed the "see also" section, which is usually, as it was here, a sign of a poor article. Specifically: the language-related items (both the inscriptions and the related languages) properly belong as links under Etruscan language; Cortona was one of fifteen or so major Etruscan cities (I know, supposed to be 12, but in fact there is no general agreement on which 12), so why just this one? Either none or all. Finally the Etruscan civilization link should have appeared, and now does, in the body of the article itself.
The article leaves the impression that Etruria was the land's common name in Antiquity; it was not, neither in Greek nor in Latin, I supplied the customary term. Etruria certainly was not a "Roman province", so I removed that erroneous category. These two small fixes are OK as far as they go, but there's still a whiff of not-quite-right about the article in that respect.
Napoleon's Etruria appeared at the end of the article in a confusingly sudden way; that's fixed. The misstatement was made that most Greek stuff in Rome came via Etruria. By the time of Augustus, to say nothing of later, this was emphatically not true: that was easily fixed by adding "republican".
Properly, Etruria should redirect to Etruscan civilization, since that's where the Wikigods are currently decreeing the main info resides. An attentive reading of the article Etruria, even as fixed, shows that very little of it relates to the land of Etruria, and almost all of it to the civilization. Bill 18:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial revamp, Dec 05

message: Didn't the Lega Nord propose dividing Italy into three states?  The North was called Padania, the middle Etruria, and the sough something else.  I don't want to add this because I'm not sure, but if someone else remembers this it might be usefull.67.165.197.109 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Context 

message: ''
----
Everyone can understand but do they know? I'm looking forward to Etruria's end!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.212.225 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etruria's information's statement 

message: Etruscan expansion on this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etruscan_civilization_map.png
see also http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/northern.html  Böri (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Padan Etruria 

message: indo-aryan. et(modern russian, meaning-this) ruri( a village in india)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.240.193 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: proto-slavic etruria

message: Evidently there is a semi-new discovery that they had pyramids. Some are being excavated. If any energetic persons wish to include this information in the article, the sources are here(Foxnews) and here (Discovery news). MagnoliaSouth (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramids