Talk:Il Canto degli Italiani

english translation?

Maybe it would be interesting to add an english translation. Muriel Gottrop

I was just going to say how much more welcoming that would be. Some brief notes would keep this from being a pure text dump. "Elmo di Scipio" for example... Wetman 19:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) And who's the author, anyway?

I added the complete english translation of the anthem. --Itaguy 14:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

• This anthem is most frequently known as "Inno di Mameli" (26,300) or "Fratelli d'Italia" (12,600), although the official title is "Il Canto degli Italiani" (439). The present title, "La Canzone degli Italiani" (6), is a garbled version of the latter. (The numbers in brackets refer to Italian Google hits). I would like to move to "Inno di Mameli" (as in the Italian Wikipedia), but there are conflicting re-directs at present. -- Picapica 22:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose: the official name of the anthem is the name of the poem. We already have a redirect from Inno di Mameli. --Panairjdde 08:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See discussion -- Picapica 12:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Something bad happened. The moving request was rejected, yet a moving happened. I hope the mover would explain this, even if he/she had not even the dignity to announce the moving. I also hope this will not start a moving war, so explain your position, whoever you are.--Panairjdde 14:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"Something bad happened" -- that is your view, P., and you are entitled to it. But what on earth does "who ever I am" have to do with anything? See also User talk:Picapica -- Picapica 17:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The "whoever you are" was caused by the fact that I did not know if it were you (who explained your position in the 'Discussion' section) or someone else who agreed with you and acted ignoring the negative result of the moving request, or someone else who just moved the page without reading the Talk page. --Panairjdde 10:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Quote (Panairjdde): the official name of the anthem is the name of the poem. The official name is, however not "La Canzone degli Italiani" but "Il Canto degli Italiani" (also, and more frequently, known as "l'Inno di Mameli"). As I understand Wikipedia policy, it is to employ as the title of the main article the most commonly used nomenclature (which may or may not correspond to an "official name"). I would, however, be prepared to accept "Il Canto degli Italiani", as being at least not an inaccuracy (which the present title is) -- Picapica 12:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 17:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Translation

In the chorus, shouldn't it be Italy has called rather than hailed? User:TheCyrus

Could you elaborate? How do you interpret "hailed"? Gennaro Prota 03:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I found myslef asking the same question. Hailed makes no sense, especially since the word used is definitely called. Unless anyone objects I will change this within a few days. TSO1D 19:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change it now. But it's the latest problem this article has (have you seen "stringiamoci"? :-(). I was working, off-line, on a much expanded version but I had to stop for lack of time. Hoping to resume it at the end of the next week… —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed hailed to called. Good luck on the rest. TSO1D 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Stringiamoci" or "stringiamci"?

In the first external link, in the lyrics it says "stringiamci" not "stringiamoci," which is it? Rmpfu89 00:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked this myself too. In written documents I have found both forms, but in sung executions it is always "stringiamci". I tried reading the original manuscripts here: http://www.radiomarconi.com/marconi/fratell.html but the images are definitely too small... I'll try investigating further. --Gennaro Prota 01:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Internet doesn't allow an easy resolution of the problem. I think the only reliable way to go is asking someone in Turin to check against the manuscript preserved in Museo del Risorgimento. Anyway, it must be said that "stringiamoci", which is one syllable more than "stringiamci", would break metrics, so it is IMHO unlikely. Based on that observation, and while waiting for a definite answer, I think it's better having "stringiamci" in the article. Thanks for raising the issue. --Gennaro Prota 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

See [[1]] Both ways are used. But stringiamoci makes more gramatical sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oui222 (talk • contribs)

Hi, if you are Italian please take a look at this: [2] and/or do a little search about senary verses. I'm working offline on a major update to the article that has the *exact* text of the manuscript that Mameli sent to Novaro (you might be surprised to know that there are lot of errors on the Quirinale site too :-(. And not even the site linked to above gets it right). Eventually I'll add a paragraph with a metric analysis. --Gennaro Prota 04:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi I`m from Italy, stringiamci is an old form which is not used anymore, but it is the word of the original song, when we sing it anyway we read it as "stringiamoci", the A has a sound and the sound of "coorte" is shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.135.26 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated twice...

It says that the official version is the first verse + chorus repeated twice. However the chorus is displayed twice, so one thing has to be changed - User:Rmpfu89

I believe the text should read the first verse repeated twice plus the chorus. When the anthem is performed, the first part is repeated twice (with a different melody each time), and then the chorus is sung. TSO1D 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The chorus is not repeated twice, the WHOLE chorus is just that. The article is correct, because it saids the chorus as it should be.86.163.88.124 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving "Il canto degli Italiani" to "Fratelli d'Italia"

After more than I year, I think it's time to open a new debate about moving this page to a more proper place. In fact, nobody in Italy calls their national anthem this way, although this is its official title. Neither it does the official website of the Italian President. The common de facto title is Fratelli d'Italia. The same goes for the Swedish national anthem, whose official title is 'Sång till Norden' but it's everywhere know as 'Du Gamla du Fria', including here on Wikipedia. --Fertuno 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While we're at it, let's also move Star Spangled Banner to That baseball song. --NEMT 05:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what are you talkin about. Nobody call the Italian national anthem "Il canto degli Italiani" in Italy. They just call it "Fratelli d'Italia", so the article should definitely be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.35.70 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Last

Mercenary swords, they're feeble reeds. The Austrian eagle Has already lost its plumes. The blood of Italy and the Polish blood Was drank, along with the Cossack, But it burned her heart.

And the lyrics, far from being universal, refer to some very specific episodes in Italian history that may have less meaning to some in the present age.

How is that last strofe being part of Italy's history? Apart from the Austrian perhaps. Mallerd 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Austria do not use mercenary in that time. Polish soldiers fight in Italy with the Italians against the Austrian: in Polish Anthem there is a passage about this.--Vu Duc Thang (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)--Vu Duc Thang (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Controversy section?

The controversy section has no sources? Who says the music is poor? Is there any actual activist movement to change the anthem? If not, then perhaps this section should be deleted altogether. Inkan1969 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No one has defended the Controversy section yet. Then if no one cares, I'm going to delete this section, as it cites no sources. Inkan1969 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghepeu, why did you restore this session without posting anything in the discussion? In the history, you say that you still have no sources but "you know it's true". Can that really be good enough for wikipedia? Inkan1969 (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. There're things that are well known: in Italy everybody (or at least everybody with a little interest in the history of the Republic) knows that the Inno di Mameli was initially adopted temporarily, I remember personally that in the 80s and in the first half of the 90s nobody really liked it and it was played essentially before the football matches. I remember a number of substitution proposals, I remember that ten years ago nobody knew the lyrics and a number of newspapers editorials complained about this and in a occasion (Republic Day?) someone distributed leaflets with the lyrics to help people sing it. It's just that these are not things that you can easily find with a quick search with google. But they're true nonetheless. GhePeU (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't live in Italy, so I wouldn't know about this. en.wikipedia.org is not just for Italian residents ( actually, it might not even be for Italian residents in the first place as it.wikipedia.org is the Italian language version ). So a non-Italian who wanted to learn about the anthem would read that paragraph and go "What are they talking about?", since the paragraph has no hard facts or context. The paragraph reads like a personal opinion to someone not intimate with Italian culture. I really think this paragraph needs to be rewritten in a more fact based manner. Is there anyone out there from Italy who can back up Ghepeu's assertions at least? Inkan1969 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your new citation until now. Thanks, Ghepeu. Inkan1969 (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ghepeu, there were a lot a law proposals to change the anthem (many of them with Va, pensiero). None of them went through though. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section appears to be a simple rewording of relevant text from http://www.nationalanthems.info/it.htm. 75.182.112.44 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am old enough, and raised in Italy, to know a lot about the controversy; a quick google search retrieved these two links (in Italian): https://books.google.ca/books?id=3YR8BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=portobello+inno+nazionale&source=bl&ots=1JngOa3Kum&sig=rfsSGfGY7i1oPFsJhhumLj1jYrY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC0Mil37fbAhUD9YMKHVGJAXMQ6AEIQTAE#v=onepage&q=portobello%20inno%20nazionale&f=false and http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/leterno-duello-col-verdiano-va-pensiero-1462903.html. In the early 80ies, there was a popular movement to replace the anthem, which included a proposal during a famous Italian TV show Portobello, where people could call in to express their vote. Interestingly, I remember a poll saying that Italians are split 50-50: 100% of women want to keep the current anthem, and 100% of men want to replace it. It should not be difficult to find because it was the Italian institute of statistics that published that. 24.212.128.6 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguity of "Fix"

"The second manuscript is the copy that Mameli sent to Novaro for setting it to music. It shows a much steadier handwriting, fixes misspellings and has a significant modification: the incipit is "Fratelli d'Italia". This copy is in Museo del Risorgimento in Turin."

There is the danger that some English speakers will understand "fix" to mean "repair, mend, correct" rather than "make immovable, preserve" Honest Bern (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2016

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request Number 57 20:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• Il Canto degli Italiani → Fratelli d'Italia
• Fratelli d'Italia → Fratelli d'Italia (disambiguation)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME, the national anthem should be Fratelli d'Italia, as very few reliable sources use the official name, Il Canto degli Italiani. Il Canto degli Italiani produces 407k Google hits, whereas Fratelli d'Italia produces 27.1m Google hits. Also, the national anthem is the clear primary topic for Fratelli d'Italia, and so the disambiguation page should be moved accordingly. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. sst✈ 04:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Il Canto degli Italiani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104230449/http://progettocentocin.altervista.org/il-canto-degli-italiani.html to http://progettocentocin.altervista.org/il-canto-degli-italiani.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bothersome editor

An anonymous user (variously recorded as 5.170.17.171, 5.170.47.92, 5.170.47.12 and 5.170.47.154) has removed syntactic gemination I added in bevé, col cosacco just because there is a comma there. The point is, of course it does not occur when there is a pause, but while a pause always occurs in regular speech prosody, things work differently for poetry, where the occurrence of syntactic doubling depends on whether a certain pause is realized or not while reciting. Since I’m not going to engage in this edit war again, please someone solve this. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 12:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it is a hopping IP, you could always request page protection at WP:RFPP. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

So it was protected for a couple days. The IPs messaged me: The page about "syntactic gemination" in the section Exceptions: it does not occur ifa pause is on the boundary of word in question (A Typology of Spreading, Insertion and Deletion or What You Weren’t Told About Raddoppiamento Sintattico in Italian); it even makes an example where there is a pause even if there is no comma, while in the case of "bevé, col cosacco" there is the comma clearly indicating a mandatory pause. If you want to hear the song, search "FRATELLI D'ITALIA - National Anthem of Italy (complete)" on YouTube and go to 3:35. Tell me if you hear [beˈvekkol koˈzakko] or [beˈve:kol koˈzakko]. By the way, I am not "hopping IPs", I have a dynamic IP and I am using an Internet key, so every time i turn it off I change it, but I have not used this to bypass rules or to hide myself, I have always been recognisable." It is still a hopping IP as it the IP changes. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well let’s just ignore (s)he did not even come message me, but another user. First, I have trouble opening the page (s)he used as a reference. Second thing, even listening to the video (s)he was referring to, I can easily encounter similar things such as [ˌdʒa ˈlaːkwila] in place of [ˌdʒa lˈlaːkwila]. That’s because Italians are usually not trained in regards to syntactic gemination; also, that is operatic singing, in which as far as I know consonant length is not dogmatically respected. Indeed, I can hear [fraˈtɛːli] and [viˈtɔːrja], too. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 16:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I told you. It is useless. He "is" right, always and everywhere, period. When I point out that the phonetic transcription does not coincide with the text, he says that when it is sung there is the syntactic gemination. When I point out that even the singers do not use the syntactic gemination there, he says that they are wrong not to make the syntactic gemination. Where I come from, we call this "hypocrisy" (and the person involved, in Italian, "paraculo"). There is nothing else to discuss about but this: do we want to use the phonetic transcription of the text or of the song? If we choose the song, we have to write [be've kol ko'zakko] and [dʒa 'la:kwila]. If we choose the text, we have to write [be've kol ko'zakko] and [dʒa l'la:kwila]. There is absolutely NO reason to write [be've kkol ko'zakko]. All the sources are against that. Do you know which is the only "source" justifying a syntactic gemination at that point? IvanScrooge98's edit summary "this comma is generally not read**". An indisputable source, no doubt about that! I do not know if I have to laugh or cry. If we want to keep the phonetic transcription as it is now, we have to change the text and remove that comma, or it will be wrong as it would be the text "2+2X2=8" instead of "2+2X2=6" or "(2+2)X2=8"... 5.170.47.49 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

You know what? What is pointless is all of this. Do as like, in a couple of days the protection is expiring and I am tired of trying to convince you of something I cannot find proper sources about, neither in favor nor against. Bye. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 17:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, right at the minute the page became unprotected he edited it. I saw at the Italian wiki they use a comma and source can be found here. As for the IPA, I'm not familiar with this case. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it is spelled with a comma, but I was trying to tell them a different thing. Anyway as I already said, it is stupid and useless to carry this on because I’m not the only one who “will not listen”. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 15:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Colours

Hi, just wanted to say the colours in the lyric section are maybe not very encyclopedic but they are very nice I think so I would like to thank the wikipedian responsible for it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.112.75 (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Proper translation

Hi. Buon giorno. Just changed "The Song of Italians" to "The Song of the Italians" - proper translation.

Grazie mille. Thhings6sz (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

More accurate translation

The following sentence: "Siamo pronti alla morte", "Morte" is "Death" and not the verb "Die". I think that "We are ready for death" is the correct therm, instead of "We are ready to die".--Mhorg (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that while your translation is word for word correct, the expression in English is we are ready to die. Many times translating word for word is not the best way. Denisarona (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong date!

It became the official national anthem on 17th November 2005.

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/101986

https://www.onthisday.com/music/day/november/17

http://www.inhistorytoday.com/163834 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.85.42 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

it:Il Canto degli Italiani#L'ufficializzazione come inno nazionale italiano: "The proposal was not followed up due to the expiry of the legislature, even if an erroneous communication was made which reported the fact that a decree-law dated 17 November had been approved. This erroneous information was later reported also by authoritative sources." · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Anthem, best version?

Please note this discussion at Talk:Italy as it applies also to this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Public events paragraph is hard to parse

Hello. I am an american and I'm not sure if this paragraph is missing obvious context I don't have or if it's just written confusing, so I am asking if someone can rephrase it or add context:

In 1970, the obligation, however, to perform the "Ode to Joy" of Ludwig van Beethoven, that is the official anthem of Europe, whenever "Il Canto degli Italiani" is played, remained almost always unfulfilled.

I think this paragraph means to say (but I'm not sure, which is why I am asking)

Starting in 1970 there was an obligation to perform Ode to Joy, then the official anthem of Europe, in addition to the national anthem at all events where the national anthem is appropriate. [Is this true? I never heard of this before.] However, this has almost never taken place.

Is this the correct understanding? Also that idea that the anthem of Europe HAD to be played is surprising, and without more context I would remain skeptical. Also, is that still the anthem? I thought the anthem of Europe was a quirky idea that was tried and dropped? Thanks for your thoughts. 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC) 87.10.6.230 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)