Talk:Umbria

message: As they now stand, they're in roughly descending order of officialness, quality, and coverage: the most useful sites are at the top. This morning I removed "Abitare in Umbria", which, when I included it a while back, had lots of good information on the region, but has now retrenched to their core business of renting and selling property; and moved AboutUmbria.Com down a few notches, since the site by no means covers all of Umbria, just a few of the main places. Bill 07:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I have re-added ItalianVisits.com because a) it features every major Umbrian city and town; b) considerable care has been taken to create articles that deal with these towns from an historical perpsective, as well as itemizing most of their architectural and monumental treasures; and c) because each article includes a photogallery.  All articles in IV also provide links back to Wikipedia to enlarge the audience for this wonderful resource.  Collectively, the Umbria section of this website, offers a great deal to Wikipedia users.  In addition, we are contributing new articles to Wikipedia, such as that on Amelia and Castiglione del Lago.
Before IV is removed again, I would appreciate hearing reasons why. JVian 23:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And while I'm flattered (really!) that mine was one of the rare sites not pruned out of the list; that list as it was, FWIW, met with my own approval — yet as Vian and others can attest, I've been sedulous in removing garbage. Many of the sites you've removed, Ian, are both very good, reasonably complete to near-exhaustive, and have met the test of online permanence (relative though that be!). I dislike revert wars and the attendant fighting, so won't do anything quite now, but I strongly urge you to reconsider. Bill 01:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  having seen the note from Jvian and other discussions, I readded the ItalianVisits.com links (see also User_talk:Jvian). Many pages I watch have been plagued by affiliate / SEO spam recently, and I thought I'd stumbled onto a little nest of such, though I now appreciate you and others are watching over them, so I'll leave that to your better judgement and stay away from the Italian pages. My apologies for the disruption. Ianb 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I removed a link to not very good map. For other articles where there is no link to a map, that same site's OK, but it's really commercial spam; and in this case there are several maps among the other links. Bill 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links, continued

message: I added a short article for the town of Acquasparta that others may wish to review.  It was written using information gleaned from the Internet and therefore can not be said to be very reliable.  Feel free to correct and supplement the article.JVian 01:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Acquasparta

message: I added an article about Carsulae, containing a list of monuments and a site diagram.  Again, the information in the article was synthesized from readily available materials on the Internet and should therefore be treated with care.JVian 01:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carsulae

message: Now that the furore has died down about how awful all those sites were, and how commercial they were; that the interlopers have left who couldn't be bothered with keeping an eye on the page (so that a few true junky commercial sites and scant collections of tourist pix did start to slither in) — I'm restoring the careful list of good informational sites..... Bill 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Return to the useful links

message: Who here was actually born and raised in an Umbrian town?
just sign your name under the proper statement.
MCMLXXI 23:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick Poll

message: So someone out there believes, bless them, that only Umbrians can say anything about the (non-)relationship of the Etruscan language to Umbrian dialects, about the history of Umbria, about bad grammar, folk etymology, archaeological evidence as to the early inhabitants of Italy, the source of popular beliefs, Pliny the Elder, the fame of Umbria as to X or Y? (For this last, a reminder that "fame", by definition, means that lots of people know something; if lots of people don't, then there is no fame).
Your objection, 1971, to the deletion of the garbage section was that it should be it should be built on rather than blanket-deleted. And yet, did you build on it? No, you blanket-restored it; you didn't correct  even the obvious and irrefutable errors of grammar and style, or even the typos. The reason I didn't do so myself, of course, is that I believe the section, as garbage, cannot be built on, and should not be "improved." It is beyond that. A more obvious tissue of falsehoods would be hard to write, even on Wackypedia. And weaseling just dilutes it: instead of the initial bucket of urine, you're suggesting we add water to the stuff....Bill 23:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not sign this kind of poll, too. More positive towards one for deciding whether this section should be kept, reworked, or deleted. Just let me say that one of the humanities' scientists wich studied in depth umbrian language and customs, before they were partially swept and milded by industrialization (up to 1940, Umbrians were 90% peasants) and emigration, was a german one, Paul Scheuermeier , definitely neither umbrian nor italian. --Cantalamessa 00:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S.: I know una speccia d'aglio.
Amici umbri, perché non avete inserito queste bugie nella voce Italiana? No, sure enough, you guys haven't dumped this stuff in the Italian article: you know it would be laughed out of court there, by Italians.... Nor would the nonsense about serene and blessed Umbria hold up there for a minute: the history section of the Italian article, small as it is, is almost all taken up by references to the battles between Lombards, Ostrogoths, Byzantines. Bill 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Poll"

message: Due to the recent mini-war on the People of Umbria section, I think we can give a great help to this article by writing down the history of the region. It can be retrieved for example from the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 edition,  here and here (Volume V27, pp. 576-577). This is the OCR-ed version, which I provide for further editing. (Many errors are present, but please note the statement rejecting Pliny's idea about the antiqueness of umbrian people, and the detailed report on Etruscan invasion.)
UMBRIA (Όμβρική), the name of an ancient and a modern district of Italy.
1. The ancient district was bounded in the period of the Roman supremacy by the Ager Gallicus (in a line with Ravenna) on the north, by Etruria (the Tiber) on the west, by the Sabine territory on the South and by Picenum on the east. The Via Flaminia passed up through it from Ocriculum to Ariminum; along it lay the important towns of Narnia (Narni), Carsulae, Mevania (Bevagna), Forum Flaminii, Nuceria Camellaria (Nocera Umbra) and Forum Sempronii; and on the Adriatic coast Fanum Fortunae (Fano) and Pisaurum (Pesaro). To the east lay Interamna (Terni), Spoletium (Spoleto), Fulginium (Foligno, on a branch of the Via Flaminia which left the main road at Varina and rejoined it at Forum Flaminii) and the important town of Camerinum on the side of the Apennines towards Picenum. On the side towards Etruria lay Ameria (Amelia) and Tuder (Todi), both on the direct road from Rome to Perusia, Iguvium, which occupied a very advantageous position close to the main pass through the Apennines, and Hispellum (Spello). Not far off was Assisium (Assisi), whilst far to the north in the mountains lay Sarsina. Under the empire it formed the sixth region of Italy. In earlier times it embraced a far larger area. Herodotus (iv. 49) describes it as extending to the Alps, and the περίοδος ascribed to Scylax (a treatise which embodies material of the 4th century B.C. or earlier) makes Umbria conterminous with Samnium. Furthermore, place names of undoubted Umbrian origin abound in Etruria and are also found in the Po valley. Thus in the early days of Italian history Umbria may be taken as having extended over the greater part of northern and central Italy.
The name Umbria is derived from the Umbri, one of the chief constituent stocks of the Italian nation. The origin and ethnic affinities of the Umbrians are still in some degree a matter of dispute, but their language proven them to have been an Aryan people closely allied with the Oscans and in a remoter degree with the Latins. Archaeological considerations further show with approximate certainty that the Umbri are to be identified with the creators of the Terramara (q.v.), and probably also of the Villanova (q.v.) culture in northern and central Italy, who at the beginning of the Bronze Age displaced the original Ligurian population by an invasion from the north-east. From the time and starting point of their migrations, as well as from their type of culture, it may be provisionally inferred that the Umbrians were cognate with the Achaeans of prehistoric Greece. Pliny’s statement (iii. 13, 19) that they were the most ancient race of Italy may certainly be rejected.
The process by which the Umbrians were deprived of their predominance in upper and central Italy and restricted to their confines of historic times cannot be traced in any detail. A tradition declares that their easternmost territory in the region of Ancona was wrested from them by the Picen(t)es, a branch of the Sabine stock. It may also be conjectured that they were partly displaced in the valley of the Po by the Gaulish tribes which began to pour across the Alps from about 500 B.C. But their chief enemies were undoubtedly the Etruscans. These invaders, whose encroachments can be determined by archaeological evidence as proceeding from the western seaboard towards the north and east, and as lasting from about 700 to 500 B.C., eventually drove the Umbrians into that upland tract athwart the Apennines to which the name of Umbria belonged in historical times. In the course of this struggle the Etruscans are said to have captured 300 Umbrian towns. Nevertheless the Umbrian element of population does not seem to have been eradicated in the conquered districts. Strabo records a tradition that the Umbrians recovered their ground in the plain of the Po at the expense of the Etruscans, and states that the colonies subsequently founded in this region by the Romans contained large Umbrian contingents. In Etruria proper the persistence of the Umbrian stock is indicated by the survival of numerous Umbrian place names, and by the record of Umbrian soldiers taking part in Etruscan enterprises, e.g. the attack on Cumae in 524 B.C. Indeed it is not unlikely that the bulk of the population in Etruria continued to be of Umbrian origin, and that the Romanization of this country was facilitated by the partial absorption of the Etruscan conquerors into the Umbrian multitude.
Against the Romans the Umbrians never fought any wars of importance, a fact which may be explained partly by the remoteness of their position, but chiefly by the common hostility of the two nations to the Etruscans. After the downfall of the Etruscan power they made a related attempt to aid their Samnite kinsmen in their decisive struggle against Rome (308 B.C.); but their communications with Samnium were impeded by the foundation of a Roman fortress at Narnia (298 B.C.), and at the great battle of Sentinum (295 B.C.), which was fought in their own territory, the Umbrians are not reported to have lent the Samnites any substantial help. It is perhaps on account of this defection that in 200 B.C. they received from the Romans a portion of the Ager Gallicus reconquered from the Senonian Gauls. They offered no opposition to the construction of the Via Flaminia through the heart of their country, and in the Second Punic War withheld all assistance from Hannibal. In the Social War (90—89 A.C.), they joined the rebels tardily and were among the first to make their peace with Rome. Henceforth the Umbrians no longer played an independent part in Italian history.
The material prosperity of Umbria, in spite of its unfavourable position for commercial intercourse, was relatively great, owing to the fertility of the numerous small valleys which intersect the Apennine system in this region. The chief products of the soil were olives, vines and spelt; the uplands harboured the choicest boars of Italy. In Pliny’s time there still existed in Umbria 49 independent communities, and the abundance of inscriptions and the high proportion of recruits furnished to the imperial army attest its continued populousness. Among its most famous natives were the poets Plautus (b. at Sarsina) and Propertius (b. at Assisi).
Of the Umbrians’ political and municipal organization little is known. In addition to the city (tota) they seem to have had larger territorial division in the tribus (trifu, acc.) as we gather from Livy (xxxi. 2, "per Umbriam quam tribum Sapiniam vocant"; cf. xxxiii. 37) and from the Eugubine Tables ("trifor Tarsinates," vi. B. 54). Ancient authors describe the Umbrians as leading effeminate lives, and as closely resembling their Etruscan enemies in their habits (Theopompus, Fragm. 142; Pseudo-Scymnus, 366—368). It is almost certain that each race influenced and modified the other to a large extent. There is conclusive proof of strong Etruscan influences in Umbria. For instance, they undoubtedly borrowed their alphabet and the art of writing from the Etruscans. Their writing ran from right to left. The alphabet consisted of nineteen letters. It had no separate symbols for O, G, Q; the aspirates and X were wanting; on the other hand, it possessed forms for Z and V, and had likewise the Etruscan f (8). It also had a symbol peculiar to itself for expressing the sound of palatal k when followed by either e or i. The fact that it is only in towns on the side next Etruria, e.g. Tuder and Iguvium, that a coinage is found indicates that they borrowed the art of minting from that quarter. The Umbrians counted their day from noon to noon. But whether they borrowed this likewise from the Etruscans we do not know (Pliny ii. 77). In their measuring of land they employed the vorsus, a measure common to them and the Oscans (Frontinus, De Limit. p. 30), 3⅓ of which went to the Roman jugerum.
Sec Strabo bk. v.; T. E. Peet, The Stone and Bros Ages of Ilaly and Sicily (Oxford, 1909), pp. 492—510; B. V. Head, Historia numorum (Oxford, 1887); B. Nissen, Ilalische Landeskunde; B9cheler, Umbrica (1883); R. S. Conway, Italic Dialects. (M. O. B. C.)
2. The modern territorial division is situated in the middie of the peninsula, between Tuscany and the Ma.rches on the N. and E., and Rome and the Abruzzi on the S. and W., and com prising the one province of Perugia, with an area of 3748 sq. m.; pop. (r9oI), 675,352. Umbria and the two provincesofAncona and Pesaro and Urbino taken together form n area siightly
more extensive than that of the sixth region of Augustus. The surface is mountainous, but affords good pasture, and there are nurnerous fertile valleys. Many treasures of art and architec ture are preserved, and Umbria is in this respect one of the most interesting regions of Italy (sec PERUGIA). !vlodern Umbria formed down to i86o a part of the States of the Church.
Two main lines of railway run through the territory. That from Florence to Rome skirts the borders of the province on the west, running north and south, while the Rome-Ancona runs across the province from north-east to south-west. The cross communication is given by three branch lines. In the north a narrow gauge line from Arezzo to Fossato passes through Gubbio. Perugia, the capital of the province, stands on the line from Terontola to Foligno, while on the extreme south a line passing through Rieti and Aquila, and ultimately reaching Sulmona, starts from Terni on the Rome Ancona line.	(T. As.)
As you can see, this is a lot of stuff we can use for building up the true history of this region. Cantalamessa 23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to save anyone reinventing the wheel, the Britannica article, proofread against the print copy (and therefore free of the mindless scanning errors picked up by the other online versions) is already online, at the link on my site that I gave earlier, and with the links to the texts too; but here it is again. Bill 23:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Umbria 

message: Just to note that the kept umbria.org is more commercial (association of industry owners) than the removed umbria2000.it (official tourism portal of the Region). --Cantalamessa 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the confusion and pious hypocrisy of the general policy is underscored these days — as rather often — by the large banner greeting every reader of these pages, asking for money and announcing that several hundred thousand dollars have been raised: Wikipedia is a commercial site. We all have to earn money to live; what is obnoxious and not a good link, is a site trying to sell us bathing suits by dangling some nominal info, say, on Spoleto (cribbed from other websites) — but both Umbria2000 ("noncommercial", by government) and  Umbria.Org ("commercial", by a major cross-industry group in the area) are good. The aim ought to be to provide a few solid links to the reader who might want further investigation. Imagine running a bibliography this way, and eliminating all books written for money! Bill 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links, again 

message: After one and a half month, our few-words user Caligula has reinserted the disputed section on Umbrian people. I am afraid that he will not discuss his/her ideas and will simply keep reverting back, if we delete the section (I have left in his/her discussion page a message -> no answer). Thus, for the moment, the "disputed" template is in my opinion the preferred way to signal this problem; if I understand his/her mind, he/she will not be satisfied and will try to delete the template, but this is more difficult to justify. --Cantalamessa 17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went back and looked carefully, and found that though it was asserted (20 Nov 06) that "per Admin request" the section was to be reinstated, and that editing was OK, blanket deletion was not — in fact, this seems to be just that: a bald assertion. There is no evidence that anyone other than the editor who so stated requested anything at all. Blanket deletion of falsehood is not somehow prohibited. Nor is impersonating a mythical admin a proper tactic. The fact remains that the section is garbage. Bill 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute on "The people of Umbria" section 

message: Ok, let's say that I want to get some money from my work on wikipedia: then, I can build up a website where I share my photos and opinions with the world, put some links to amazon or expedia, and advertise it on all the wiki pages. If this is absolutely legal, I don't think that we want this to happen. Because if I can do this, then even John, Bob and Alice may do that. And, of course, I am not speaking of Bill Thaier's website, which is a little treasure for us and for Umbria: it is evident that in that case there is much work, study, structure, and commitment behind. --Cantalamessa (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to paradoxplace 

message: Bill, you seem to generate emotion wherever you go. That is what you call charisma although I am sure it makes you cringe. Don't cringe. What I notice about this discussion is this. First, the initial criticisms of Bill's removal of links are standard stuff. The author just copied that section and placed it in the discussions of every single article of this type Bill worked on. I answered it once somewhere along the line. I'm not going to bother again. The link is out. No advertising please. Sorry, them's the rules. Second, someone copied over the entire EB 1911 article here. What was that for? Don't you know how to put such articles in Wikisource? They get accessed from WP by a small notice produced by a template. Frankly even WP admits in the help that EB1911 is only a stopgap measure. Most of the articles are far out of date, although there is good material in there no doubt. Don't waste your time on it. Either put it in Wikisource or link to it externally but don't inflict it on us. Now for the article. Format generally good. Content a mixture of good and bad. For one thing, it is still muchly redundant. Bill is right, once a thing is said in the upper article to the right, let's not have it over and over again. So, I'm cutting out redundant stuff. This will leave the article a bit sparse looking in places. That's your job, to fill it out. We don't need any padding here. If there is really no article, there is really no article. It is what it is. Trying to hide that is not going to help. I notice the history section starts out with some questionable material. What do we need this for? We have a WHOLE ARTICLE on Roman Umbria. I'm going through here with a pole axe. Sorry. If you don't like it, do it better. This isn't tea time here. This article is now on my list. Changes won't be dramatic at first but will be persistent. Ciao.Dave (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Less discussion, more article

message: "The river course is changeable and thus few towns have been built on it: the Tiber itself is not a major factor in the history and human geography of Umbria."
Is there any such thing as a river whose course is not changeable? Since when was changeability a reason for not building a town? This is not encyclopedic, it is shallow padding by the editor. As for the Tiber not being a factor, again, this is just a bunch offhand opinions thrown in by the editor to mark time. Let's have some real information, please.Dave (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The changeable river etc

message: ", treasured as a beauty spot — is to a certain extent appropriate since the modern administrative region is the only one to have neither a coast nor a border with a foreign country, and, except for August and September, is famously green."
I removed this as unencyclopedic. If it called the green heart exaggerating the poet then it is called the green heart, but we don't particularly care whether you think it is justified. And as for your speculations, out they go - but is this seriously encyclopedic? Why do you think you have to explain why the green heart is the green heart? Do you think we have some kind of deficit in grasping figures of speech, the understanding of which is reserved to you and you alone?Dave (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The green heart, etc

message: Don't be bothered by this; no one is meant here. No one we know wrote it. This is from the EB 1911 and it is the worst bunch of bull (excuse me) I ever saw. Scarcely a sentence in there has not been disputed over the last 99 years. It was written in the youth of archaeology. Kossinna had not yet even formulated his law and here they all were practicing settlement archaeology, and with such gusto and utter conviction! They were so sure, you see. The student didn't stand much of a chance in those days. The teacher told you the way it was in exactly this language and whacked your little hands if you dared to question or else bounced you out of your fellowship. I used to meet some of those characters in my youth. I'd certainly rather not have. If you want to know why the Russian revolution happened take a good read. It is there, between the lines. But, what do we do now? This is totally unsuitable for a modern article on modern Umbria. I am really not sure of what do do. It will have to go, but what is to be put in its place? Most of the history will be covered in other articles, such as Roman Umbria. The archaeology should go under the archaeological articles. These are mainly on or are going to be on my list. As far as I'm concerned - and others may make other efforts - it will take some time to get this right. Meanwhile I have put this tag on here to alert the public. I will work on it.Dave (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed section

message: Thayer has numerous websites. It can't be just him anymore, of course. No one can personally do thousands of pages. For our purposes, like any other website, it has to be in cite web format; no editorial descriptions instead of titles. Is that a gazeteer? I don't think so. It looks like a travellogue to me. I don't know whether this is encyclopedic or not. On the negative side is the personalized, conversational style, which is the hallmark of Thayer. Not only that but his icons often lead to commercialized sites. We aren't allowed either the style or the sites. On the positive side, it contains maps, photos. I notice that (at least for today anyway) on each page Bill himself does not get commercial; he is not selling us hotels, food, transportation and the like. Not yet anyway. So, for this sanity check I am going to keep the external link. It might not survive another, but another is another.Dave (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Thayer's website

message: I just received a message from Thayer assuring me with some irritation that except for three pages he has personally created all those thousands of pages himself. Bill is not on WP anymore. He is far too creative to work under the limitations imposed by WP, I think. Thayer performs an invaluable service to public education and my having to be chided by him is a matter of some chagrin to me. I apologize, Bill. Thayers' sites, which are non-commercial, are a valuable source of information for WP. Many editors use them, including me. Please understand, Bill does these himself. He taught himself Latin and to a large extent Greek and knows a few other languages besides. In addition, he is affiliated with the U. of Chicago and works with other scholarly sites used as sources by WP editors. There Bill, I hope this notice will serve as public remedy for my misconception.Dave (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Thayer's website update

message: The map here is frustrating.  It does not show any internal features.  Cities? Rivers? Mountains?  Just a solid color is not very informative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: map

message: It sounds comforting, but what "peaceful hills" mean?Kdammers (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  peaceful hills 

message: Substituted at 09:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment