Wikipedia

Talk:Italians/Archive 8

< Talk:Italians
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Iryna Harpy in topic Genetics for ethnic groups RfC
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Need a mosaic.

Latest comment: 8 years ago60 comments10 people in discussion

I believe that this article necessitates a mosaic like Swiss people. The most 10 important Italians ever to have existed can be added in the inbox, rather than the flag. Famous individuals like Leonardo, Galileo, Cristoforo, Tommaso, Volta and more can be easily added. Treklilacilmejodisempre (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your idea is generally fine and can be taken. We might create a collage which comprises five or as a maximum twelve persons. Nevertheless, the flag of Italy would be better, as there could be even some issues with this small collage.--115ash→(☏) 09:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree with putting a flag of Italy instead of the collage that was there. Placing a flag of Italy instead of the collage adds nothing important to the article, it actually reduces the value of the article. This is an article about the people of Italy. If you have a problem with the mosaic then why don't you discuss a better one and find consensus in the talk page before taking the one that is currently there, which is perfectly fine. The mosaic could be replaced for another mosaic (even though I do not see the reason behind this), but a flag of Italy makes no sense.Tataplast (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Why must there be a collage? Is there a rule stating that these types of articles must have a collage. There are already 57 different photos of famous Italians in the article. Who decides which photos go into a collage? Previous collages have been changed and changed and changed. Who are the ten most important Italians ever? - try to get consensus on that question! Continually editing and reverting will not solve the problem. Denisarona (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Well as far as I can see all the pages about people of a country have these mosaics. The real question is: why does the Italian page not have to have it. The german page, the scottish page, the french page, the australian page, the spaniards page, the italian-american page etc etc. has a box like this. Its a page about people..I think it just seems logical. Additionally, I don't see any consensus on changing a mosaic, I have seen many different people trying to change back the to the mosaic. The initial decision on changing the mosaic seems quite odd, a flag instead of people doesnt make sense. The pictures have been there for years.. the rest of pictures in the article were added very recently. and it is not a wikipedia article about the ten most famous italians, it is about italians. All of those people are Italian.Tataplast (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I have seen this discussion now, I agree that this page is not about a flag. I can see I am like the fifth person trying to put the mosaic back , and there is only one person trying to change it back. where is the consensus? Walnut77 (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No, there is another editor reverting (me). This was instigated per WP:BRD, and discussions about 'other' articles on ethnic groups, or that it is a long-standing 'convention' are irrelevant and immaterial. As has been discussed on 'other' articles (which no longer feature galleries - see Romanians and Russians as an example), there has never been a parameter for a gallery in the 'ethnic group' infobox. The fact that someone thought it was a good idea at some point in the past, and that it was picked up on and perpetuated by multiple articles doesn't make it any more than WP:OR and WP:CHERRY. Considering that 'Italy' per se did not exist until the second half of the 19th century, a few of the 'Italians' in the collage makes it WP:SYNTH. How do you define 'an Italian'?
In general, these galleries (or substitute collages as the single image for the 'image=' parameter) end up as being the most time consuming aspect of ethnic group articles and initiate edit warring more than any development of the content itself. Given that editors volunteer their time and energy, why should there be so much time sunk into spurious concepts? How, exactly, does it enhance the content per WP:PERTINENCE? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
There is not just one person trying to change it as, as stated by Walnut77. Read this talk page. This use or non-use of a collage has been going on for years. Why should there be a collage? The current pictures/photos are bigger, clearer and in the relevant sections. If there is to be a collage, who decides whose photos to include? There should be consensus before reverting. Denisarona (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion if it isn't being done on every other page of this type, then I don't see why it should be done here. You mentioned two special cases, but what about the majority that do have it. I think the mosaic is important, if I am going to look for an article about Italians, the first thing I want to see is: Italians... I think it is quite reasonable that the first thing you see is some of the names and the people that make up the country. Italians are the people born in the land that is called Italy today. Why aren't you asking the same questions in the German page? Parts of modern Germany belonged to different empires in the 19th century (Austrian etc). Italians are Italians because they have all shared a very common history and a common fate. Italy was divided into smaller provinces before garibaldi re-united the country but they were still part of the same geographical region. If you start going down that path then you might as well just say that there are no countries and everyone is from planet Earth. now that we discovered water on Mars, maybe we will start adding Martians to the mix of planet nations. Officialy, by the laws of Italy, the nation that controls that region of the world, those people are Italians. whether they were there before or after Italy was unified, that is just an official declaration, nothing more. Walnut77 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel like this discussion is not very interesting, I actually consider it quite trivial. I just wanted to add a particular example that goes against the things you are mentioning: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is displayed in the page for Austrians.. I personally --do-- consider Mozart to be Austrian. But if we were going to apply the rules you are describing for all of these important figures, then Mozart should be displayed under people of the Archbishopric of Salzburg in the Holy Roman Empire. I think we all see what the problem with this would be.Walnut77 (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I've mentioned before, why don't copy something like the Swiss one by putting the most important ones?Treklilacilmejodisempre (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is much more complete if it has a mosaic. I have seen the two articles mentioned above where these figures were removed, and honestly that has made the article bothersome to look through. In order for me to find names or images of significant figures from that country I have to read through a lot of text. I think most people on the internet like to look at information in ways that stand out. The mosaic achieves this the moment you open the page. I am not advocating for one or another figure. What does not make sense to me is that if people have not decided on another possible mosaic, why should the one that has been there for years, which basically means it has generally been accepted, be removed before that issue is resolved? Completely unjustified. Walnut77 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Here we go again with WP:WALLOFTEXT arguments for WP:PPOV reasons as to why there needs to be a gallery, and who is Italian (Austrian, or any other nationality you have a personal opinion about). Let's bring in a few more editors who have different personal ideas as to who should be portrayed, and why... and you've just started another edit war over trivia. Could someone provide me with a WP:RS list of who "the most important Italians" are? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
One point I would like to make is that this article is not only about the famous people who are in the figure. If you are going to read an article about Italians, I doubt you would just stop at that picture. That is just a preview of some people from Italy. I don't see what the problem is. Who should be represented in that figure who is not represented already? da Vinci, Galileo, Volta, Dante, Columbus, Machiavelli, Lorenzo de Medici, Vivaldi, these are all represented there, there are additional ones as well, I don't see how it affects anything negatively. I don't think there is any place on the internet that displays a list of absolutely every single famous person from a country, so I doubt that this article will ever be complete in that sense anyways. If the community had felt that the box is missing someone extremely important, or influential, then this would have been added long ago. I don't think this is the case. I'm pretty sure that if a person is capable of turning on a computer and getting on the internet he/she can also figure out that Italy is more than just those 30 famous people. I really don't see the point of discussing this. The mosaic is just an addition to the article and it is nice to have something to look at in pages like these. Walnut77 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Walnut77, can't understand how an experienced user like you is acting like that. Even if you disagree with the flag, just post your opinion here, but don't revert edits which have been made through consensus. There are 4 users who agree with the adjunction of the flag, and you are the only who disagrees (excluding the sockpuppet). Even I have created two collages, but I think the flag is the best solution, just like the American one. See also Denisarona's comment. We might create another montage, nevertheless this brings always negative issues.--115ash→(☏) 08:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about people, not a flag. I also don't see the validity of the claims above. The montage was the lead image in 2014, 2013, 2012. --ELEKHHT 12:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@ELEKHH, read the entire talk page and don't engage in an edit war. --115ash→(☏) 12:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Say something meaningful, instead of edit warring. --ELEKHHT 12:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This also applies for Americans and British people. Aren't those galleries labelled on the bottom enough? Even at it.wiki the collage has been removed. Let's wait for Alessandro57, and then see what could be done. @Iryna Harpy, regarding your question, there isn't any precise answer. Generally, the top 3 Italians are Colombus, Galilei and Da Vinci.--115ash→(☏) 12:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not an argument to represent people with a flag. --ELEKHHT 13:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Elekhh: I'm sorry, but WP:NOR trumps any local consensus as we're dealing with policy. What is under discussion is a collage of WP:PPOV-selected 'representatives' for the ethnic group known as 'Italians'. I'm going to remove the collage as WP:OR. It's irrelevant how long it stood prior the removal as it shouldn't have been used in the first instance. I honestly don't have any interest in being a warrior, but the fact is that the collage has been called into question for this article, therefore it is being dealt with on a case by case basis. Invoking what takes place on other articles is immaterial. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree that discussion should be about this article. I disagree about this having anything to do with WP:OR. In Wikipedia we have infoboxes that aim to provide a "quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject". They are never complete summaries, and most of the time they include a lead image selected through editorial consensus. If editors cannot agree on which people are part of the sample displayed in the infobox, than don't have any image. But as this is an article about people, a flag is not a key fact about them, and misleads the readers about the content of the article. --ELEKHHT 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: further to the above: you could have waited a bit more than 3 minutes for my answer before proceeding with a revert. Also you should know that such an edit is never considered minor. --ELEKHHT 22:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Elekhh: My apologies for marking it as being minor. I'm constantly working on other articles and have gone into autopilot with the check box. As regards the use of a flag (contemporary or other), I also think it inappropriate for an ethnic group that spans centuries. If it is deemed that WP:ITSIMPORTANT to have a gallery of famous Italians (sorry, but I don't think it is important in an article boasting numerous galleries where most of those in the infobox gallery are duplications), criteria for inclusion, as well as consensus as to who constitutes being ITSIMPORTANT enough to be depicted and wikilinked in the infobox. My own take is that the "image=" is not a mandatory field, therefore there is no need to use it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I disagree that this article should be treated completely isolated of all other articles of the same class. Consistency across classes articles makes the most sense. If you are going to override something in the format, then provide a valid reason. The galleries in the bottom could show other pictures and information about the figures. It is not redundant. If this change is going to be accepted it should be seen on all articles like this one. You have not made any valid point as to why this page should be treated exceptionally. This format is universal. I am waiting to hear a good reason from you to make this one the exception. So far you have provided none. Walnut77 (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@115ash: The British people page doesn't have it, but the English people, Scottish people etc. do have it. As far as I can see, Italy would basically be the only country in Europe that wouldn't have this format. Based on some of the sections on this talk page, it looked like all of you were trying to decide on who to put in the box. Then why don't you continue to discuss that. I have been paying attention to this page for a while now, and I don't see any interest whatsoever from you people, you are just changing the page without providing anything constructive to the discussion. Why should you then be able to make this drastic change. Your edit is the one being discussed here, not the addition of the infobox that was there for years. Walnut77 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this is just childish. this page should have a mosaic, maybe not the same one, maybe an updated one or whatever. Clearly, I am not the only one advocating for this, so I am still quite shocked as to what consensus meant to you. Pages like this have been displayed with mosaics because it just makes sense, the community chose to do it like this, it has been done for years. A person who all of a sudden doesn't want to display the pictures for whatever personal issue should be the one working to justify the change (and for consistency, attempt to convince all other editors across all wikipedia pages of this type, to do the same) I think that's impossible. logical and fair ideas are the ones that spread without need for force. Those supporting the status quo should not be the ones accused of reverting 'agreed-upon' edits and be forced to look for consensus, where is the logic in that? People should speak up when things are not being done right, like now. FYI: Italians are not the same as Italian-Americans.the latter have descended from the former to some extent, as well as from other populations, but not the other way around, and that is why they are in two different articles. Also worth noting is how you have been discussing additional pictures to the mosaic in the Italian-American article, and not doing the same in this article. this is nothing more than arbitrary censorship. Walnut77 (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want a new mosaic of people then discuss a new one without replacing it with a boring flag. I mentioned some people, even though most were already there, with some additional ones: da Vinci, Galileo, Volta, Dante, Machiavelli, Lorenzo de Medici, Vivaldi, Filippo Brunelleschi, Fibonacci, Avogadro. I say these are the ones that have had the largest, direct influence in several different scientific and artistic fields and thus, the greatest legacy. Influence and not fame should be the condition you query against if you are going to decide on Italians to put there, even though I said this article is not about the famous Italians that are in this box anyways (and again without any justification you still took down the pictures). At least provide something meaningful to the discussion like Elekhh has said.Walnut77 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@115ash I am clearly not the only one trying to change it back. So please don't ignore the facts. And the it.wiki page did -not- have the collage to begin with, it was not taken down like you said. Pages in the en.wiki use this format almost universally. For consistency, I think this one should to. I would also like to know your definition of consensus.Walnut77 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy stop changing the page. This page was stable before you started to change it. Your edit is not stable and I am not the only one saying this. This is a discussion right now. Either provide useful and constructive opinions or don't bother viewing the page. You are clearly not interested enough in the topic to spend time discussing it, so I don't see why you should be making these big changes to a page. Walnut77 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy I have been waiting to hear from all of you and instead all you do is change the page without providing any meaningful comments. If we are going to keep these articles consistent, then keep the pictures. We could decide on a different group of relevant Italians if you want, but the format seems to be the right one. Walnut77 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Walnut77: There's no small irony in the fact that you're calling the removal of the collage childish, yet are posting comment after comment, only to end up demanding that other editors get back to you because you're waiting. If you haven't noticed, you've left a trail of tl;dr on this talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: Hi Iryna, I was expecting a response more relevant to the topic. Nevertheless, to answer your comment: You are right, it was childish on both our parts. But I continued writing because you did not reply before or after you made the edit. This happened before with 115ash as well. This is the reason these comments have been stacking up. You have continued to make your edit without any contributions to this page. I don't think it is fair that I have to wait 24 hours to hear back from you.. or even not hear back from you and see you edit the page again. That just suggests you are not interested in any kind of discussion. You are the ones that should be justifying your changes. Not me. Walnut77 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Walnut77: By no means did I intend to ignore you, so I apologise if you've understood the lack of a prompt response on my behalf as an intentional slight (and can fully appreciate how you could be justified in interpreting it as such). The fact is that I work on multiple articles, and most particularly in contentious areas of Wikipedia under WP:ARB sanctions. There's always edit warring and issues in need of attention, therefore I tend to prioritise by level of dispute. As I don't consider this to be urgent, or compromising the integrity of the article, I'm fine with letting the collage stand while discussions proceed and a genuine consensus (even if it involves a simple compromise) is formed in a collegial manner.

A similar discussion took place recently on the Greeks article when an editor started changing around what had been a consensus gallery. As I've already acknowledged, my preference for no galleries or collages in the infobox is purely that: my preference. The outcome of the discussion was that long term regular editors did prefer to retain a gallery as it had stood, thus reaffirming that there was no desire to add additional 'representative' Greeks to the proscribed list, and that the challenge per WP:CCC had made it clear that there is no desire to review the issue for at least a couple of years (if at all).

If I don't answer immediately, it means that I'm not available to answer. I know the same applies to 115ash. You'll have to bear with me because I'm currently stuck trying to mediate 5 distinct POV attacks on articles. Such are the personal rewards of being a volunteer editor. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Hello Iryna, I understand it's not easy. Every one has their own opinions. I really don't like heated discussions like this. This did not seem like a source of so much contention before the removal was made. My opinion is that the page should follow the same format that appears to be followed by every other page of the same class. Therefore, I think it keeps things consistent if an infobox is shown. Walnut77 (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Walnut77: Cheers. Again, I'm content to let the current collage stand while discussions proceed, but we still need to wait on other editors involved to continue with discussions if they're still interested in making changes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Walnut77:, you mught be right, but can't undo an edit which have been made via consensus. Just take this entire conversation on ANI. --115ash→(☏) 10:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
One minute, why did you revert my other edits?--115ash→(☏) 10:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@115ash: I wrote a lot of stuff that went unanswered. I was criticizing the entire removal of the box. Like I said, if you look at pages like this for other countries, they are formatted this way. I don't see why Italians should be an exception to that. Walnut77 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For me, it's not important if there is a collage or not. However, if there is NO collage then the article is NOT an exception, e.g. see Americans, Russians, Romanians, etc. From a visual point, the slightly larger photos in the individual sections of the article are clearer and easier "on the eye" than the small photos in the collage. Denisarona (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Walnut77:, don't see why Italians should be an exception to that. Let me repeat, have you seen the American? Italians are the Fathers of the Western world, historically, politically, scientifically etc. --115ash→(☏) 09:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's wait for ALEX. I'm sure that he will disagree with these collages, if not made through consensus.--115ash→(☏) 09:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, considering that Alex hasn't responded here for some time, and that I don't see the alternative collage as being a compromise (nor do I consider the contemporary Italian flag to be a viable alternative), would anyone be prepared to compromise by removing any form of image in the infobox? I can only see Walnut77 as being adamant about there being a collage (with Elekhh expressing that the Italian flag is not appropriate). At this point, unless there are further arguments in favour of an alternative collage or image, the prominent consensus lies with no image. Reinstating a gallery is not difficult, but retaining it because discussions have ground to a halt is not in the spirit of consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Alex is probably in holiday. There is nothing wrong with the galleries at all.--115ash→(☏) 08:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@115ash: Apologies for the confusion over the nomenclature. I meant the collage in the infobox. I'm just used to them being set up as galleries in the infobox rather than a collage. So, no, I have no objection to the use of galleries in the relevant subheaders... but it's certainly a strong argument for the collage as being redundant (as has been argued before). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I particularly disagree with 115ash's assertion that "Italians are the Fathers of the Western world, historically, politically, scientifically etc." Greeks and Romans were, and definitely Romans ≠ Italians. Moreover, what this article considers as a people is very diverse one. We should have articles on the Sicilian people, the Piedmontese people, the Tuscan people, the Venetian people, etc. too as we aleady have Sardinian people, Bavarians, Catalans, Basques, etc. Having a mosaic for this article is a quite controversial issue; as of today we have no consensus. --Checco (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
One very good variant is mosaic like in Germans or English people - with 24 persons in 4x6. It doesn't looks overweighted and is easy to see the face and read who is this person. Another variant is national flag to replace the mosaic and to stop all conflicts about this problem, like in Americans.--Kargoncium (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hallo all. ALEX was in holiday, (and disconnected :-)) but he is back, and would like to give his opinion:
I totally agree with @Iryna Harpy that the existence of a collage provokes a great consumption of time (and nerves), since each collage is intrinsically POV: each of us as a different opinion about the rank of notability about the important people in an ethnic group, and there is no objective way to define it. Moreover, if in the mosaic are inserted people who are not notable (or notable enough) the mosaic can become disruptive, since it gives a distorted image of the people. Because of these reasons on wiki:it it was decided to remove all the mosaics of the ethnic groups, and there I welcomed this decision. Summarizing my thoughts, I think that the mosaic is not a bad thing per se, but it is very difficult to implement. Anyway, if we want to insert a new mosaic (for the old one, which is currently on display, there was no consensus, for the reasons that you can read above in another thread), I think that the only way to create it is to show in it the uncontested notables: for example, I think that none would object that Dante, Columbus or Galileo deserve a place in the mosaic. Each of us can propose notables, and those where there is a consensus can land in the new mosaic. Anyway, this should be small, since the larger is the list, the more probable is that discussions would arise in the future. I think that this is the only way to create something stable, otherwise it is much better to have no collage at all. Alex2006 (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, IRINA, I misunderstood you. KEKKO, it doesn't matter whether you disagree or agree, truth can't be hided. That sentence can be easily added on the article as well.--115ash→(☏) 12:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That sentence was purely POV and quite nationalistic/imperialistic too. --Checco (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@115ash: This is not a matter of hiding the WP:TRUTH. Unless you have reliable secondary sources to back any such sweeping assertion up, it's WP:PEACOCK. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource, not WP:POV WP:EDITORIALIZING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with ALEX. @Kargoncium, we need a mosaic of 12 or 16 individuals in 4x3 or 6x4, which is probably the best option. Thanks.--115ash→(☏) 12:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy:, obviously that seems peacock, that was just an opinion posted HERE on the TALK PAGE. Don't tell me that you seriously thought that I had the intention to include that on the article.--115ash→(☏) 10:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  Facepalm Um, I was going back and forth between this and some articles undergoing some serious edit warring, and I forgot the context in which it was framed here, 115ash. If I whistle and point at something unexeptional to distract everyone, do you think they might not notice that my brain fell out? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that after a week it is time to make some proposal for the new "light" mosaic. Alex2006 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll step back from the discussion as I don't agree that it is necessary. It would be useful, however, if other editors involved in this discussion join in at this point as interest appears to have gone stale. There was certainly consensus for a change, and I'd agree that a 'light' mosaic would be the best compromise. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hallo @Iryna Harpy:, thanks for commenting! As you write, for sure there was no consensus regarding the present mosaic, since I showed above citing RS (the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani) that several of the "notables" shown there were not enough notable (to use an euphemism). If I don't hear anything in the next day, I will remove the present mosaic, hoping that a discussion about a new, stable one can start. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
If no discussions ensues, I'd suggest that you have ample cause to go WP:BRD with a new mosaic. If you need any assistance with the creation of a new image, I have years of photoshop experience and would be happy to lend a hand. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I Agree. I think that if you are creating a new mosaic it should contain 12 - 16 (max) clear pictures/photos. I also think that the other images throughout the article should be kept as they are clearer and bigger than mosaic images. Regards Denisarona (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Iryna Harpy:, I gladly accept your offer! @Denisarona:, no problem in keeping the pictures along the article too. I will open a new thread below for the new compact mosaic. Alex2006 (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Italians in Switzerland, France and Australia

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

Only 545,274??? If we consider all Italian speakers, Italian citizens and people with Italian origins they are much more than 1 million. Also data for France and Australia seem underestimated.--Pascar (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Don't forget to sign.--115ash→(☏) 14:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Pascar (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Is this article on the citizens of the Italian Republic or on Italophones? --Checco (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There are numerous articles on diasporic Italians. Also, being up to numerous generations down the line, it doesn't automatically mean that those in the diasporic communities are Italophones (unless being able to speak as much Italian as do I means that they speak Italian). As for the figure for Australia, if you care to check my user page, I can fairly much vouch for the fact that those stats would be correct. Given that the last major migration was in the 1960's, the death rate, and intermarriage in Australia, community figures for those who self-identify, or have any active ties with the community... we're talking about a fast-dwindling population. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is about "a nation and ethnic group native to Italy who share a common Italian culture, ancestry and speak the Italian language as a mother tongue." So not about Italophone people (in fact in Brazil there aren't more than 23 milion people speaking Italian). So we have to consider people with Italian culture, language or "just" origins/ethnicity. In Switzerland they are more than 1 million. Also for Australia we have to consider the same criterion used for Brazil, USA and Argentina: so all residents in Australia with Italian culture, language or at least an ancestor. And they are much more than 916,121!--Pascar (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This is correct. Anyway, I would still distinguish between autochtonous Italians (in the Swiss case, Ticinesi and Italian Bündner) and immigrants.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro57 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
For Australia alone, where do you propose to get such figures without reliable sources? The majority of descendants would be of mixed ethnicity and would not even necessarily aware of anything other than that one lot of great-grandparents, grandparents (or further back) were from Italy. If you were to parse their ethnicity they could be equally of Scottish, Irish, Polish, Aboriginal, Chinese, Greek and Vietnamese, or predominantly more of a different ethnicity, and self-identify as something altogether outside of any of these. Where would you propose to get such information outside of WP:OR? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I still don't understand whether this article is about Italian citizens or people speaking Italian as their first language. I would actually prefer this article to cover only Italian citizens because that would a clear criterion for including someone in this article. Of course, there are Italian citizens who don't consider themselves Italians (some German-speaking South Tyroleans, some Sardinians, some Venetians including me, etc.), but they are Italian citizens and can be easily classified as Italians (it does not matter whether I like it or not!). It is quite more difficult to classify as Italians people who live in different countries from Italy or have lived in one of the pre-unitary states of the Italian peninsula. In fact, some of the people that are included in this article would not have accepted the Italian label. The only way to refrain from everyone's POV (including mine) is to talk only about Italian citizens. --Checco (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, I don't agree. The term "Italian" means "related to Italy, so to Italian culture or language or origins/ethnicity". Dante Alighieri cannot be considered "not Italian" because he wasn't Italian citizen! He is considered the major Italian poet!!! So I agree with the definition "a nation and ethnic group native to Italy who share a common Italian culture, ancestry and speak the Italian language as a mother tongue", reported in this article. So you, Checco, are both Venetian and Italian, you cannot change what you are and belong to, historically, culturally etc. My point is another one: in the list of the countries the numbers of Italians are counted according to different criteria: for Brazil, Argentina and the USA the definition is respected, for other countries (Switzerland) absolutely not. We should uniform the list according the same criterion, i.e. the definition reported in the article.--Pascar (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

After being offended like this, I think I will leave the discussion. I'm not interested in Italian culture, indeed. :) --Checco (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Aha! Here you were thinking that you have the individual right to self-identify... and you were wrong! (Although WP:BLPVIO would have something altogether different to say on that matter.)
Levity aside, however, this article deals with the ethnic group which is not proscribed to citizens of current day Italy. Take a look at Jews, Romani people, Tagalog people, Romanians, etc. These name space articles deal with the history, culture and related subject matter surrounding specific ethnic groups. They all come with the inherent problem of finding a balanced and neutral method of presenting content. What it means is that WP:NOR is at the heart of presentation. Adding the Ticinesi or any other group of peoples is original research unless there are secondary sources backing up any WP:PPOV assertions. No original research also means no WP:SYNTH in adding WP:CALC figures in order to bolster figures of diasporic Italians because editors are convinced that the numbers couldn't possibly reflect the number of people with Italian ancestry. We're not conducting a 'match who you think you are with what your DNA tells us' test here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy, the confusion arises because the word "Italian" has two meanings:
a) A citizen of the Italian republic;
b) Someone having Italian culture;
Today's Ticinesi are (predominantly) Italian according to the b) definition, since they are Lombard. They are NOT Italian in the a) sense, of course, and don't want to have anything to do with Italy politically. You can read for example here (a Swiss source) about that. The same is valid for the Romands, culturally French, politically Swiss. Alex2006 (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
--@Checco, when have you been offended by Pascar? Boh! So you want Marco Polo to be removed from my collage, isn't it?--115ash→(☏) 10:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It has been clear for years by just checking the edits of Checco that he uses wikipedia mainly for promoting the independentist cause of Veneto. If you take a look of articles about Veneto on wikipedia.en, it will be clear soon that the emphasis he puts on Veneto independentism is too much high and it doesn't match with the reality.--93.32.160.77 (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter at all if he promotes Veneto. He's free to do anything. But the actual problem was that he made the issues himself. Dear IP, when will you be deciding to create an account?--115ash→(☏) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the article's lead section, it is about Italians as an ethnic group, not (only) about the citizens of Italy. Ethnicity is above all a social construct, defined not only by objective features like language and culture, but also (and even more importantly) by identity. If two groups identify as ethnically different, they have to be considered as different ethnic groups, even though their language and culture may objectively overlap or even be indistinguishable. Conversely, people who identify as one ethnic group, are to be considered as one, even if there are significant cultural and linguistic differences. Therefore, Italian-speaking Swiss are not ethnic Italians, because they do not identify as Italians, no matter how close their language and culture may be to their Lombard neighbours. On the other hand, Italian Lombards and, say, Sicilians, are considered ethnic Italians, because they (at least, most of them) share a common Italian identity, no matter how wide the linguistic and cultural differences may be. Same issue with German-speaking and French-speaking Swiss. German-speaking Swiss may speak nearly the same dialect as Alemanni on the German side of the border and may be culturally much closer to them than the latter are to Northern Germans, but they do not identify as Germans, and therefore they are not. Therefore, Italian-speaking Swiss should not be treated and counted as Italians in this article, just like French-speaking Swiss should not be counted as French and German-speaking Swiss not as Germans.

The case of Italians in Slovenia and Croatia is different, because they identify as ethnic Italians, even if they are citizens of Slovenia or Croatia. Also, there is no problem with including Italians who lived before the creation of the Italian nation-state, because an Italian ethnic identity existed long before the Italian nation-state. However, the purported numbers of "Italians" in Brazil, US, Argentina, etc. are much to high. Not everyone who has one or more Italian ancestors is an Italian. Again: ethnicity is a social construct, not a feature that can be determined by objective criteria. After some generations, decendants of emigrants usually do not identify as members of the ethnic group of their ancestors any longer; even if they are aware (and perhaps proud) of their heritage. Saying "I have Italian ancestors" or "I'm of (mostly) Italian descent" is not the same as "I am Italian." Moreover, most Americans, Brazilians etc. are of mixed ancestry. You cannot equal having some Italian ancestors (but also some Irish, German, ...) with being Italian. Ethnicity in New World societies that mostly consist of immigrants and their descendants, is always a complicated issue. --RJFF (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote, except the Swiss :-) issue. A Swiss ethnicity does not exist, period. The Swiss identity is a "political identity" (Peter Maurer, State secretary of the Confederation, 2013). Switzerland is a "Willensnation": 4 different ethnicities decided to live together and found a nation, since they had common interests, but the single ethnicities remain. As the Swiss Germans say, Switzerland is a "Sonderfall", a special case. About the Ticinesi, you are falling in a common mistake, considering the ethnical Italians as coinciding with the inhabitants of the republic. This is wrong: they are a only a subset of the Italians, maybe a subset which contain 99% of the total population, but still a subset. And again, "Italian" was in origin a purely cultural concept, which only later became political. About the Ticinesi, due to their history they have remained outside the national state, choosing to join modern Switzerland, and don't identify themselves politically with the Italians of the republic, but nevertheless they feel themselves culturally as Italian. The whole intelligentsia in the Italian Switzerland feels deeply its cultural "italianità": Mario Botta (he defines himself as an "architetto Lombardo"), Piero Bianconi , Giovanni Orelli, etc. When I arrived in Switzerland, long time ago, I was astonished about this dichotomy, but then I learned to accept it. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on WP:Verifiability and we don't do original research. Most reliable sources consciously avoid identifying Italian-speaking Swiss as "Italians" (just like they would not identify German-speaking Swiss as "Germans" and French-speaking as "French"), so it is not up to us to make this assessment according to personal observations or anecdotal evidence. This does not mean that Swiss were one ethnic group (there are different concepts of ethnicity, see ethnic group: ethno-racial, ethno-religious, ethno-linguistic, ethno-national, ethno-regional). They are indeed a "special case". Reality is complicated: You cannot neatly assign each of 7 billion humans to a clear-cut and mutually exclusive ethnic group. --RJFF (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but citing what Swiss say about themselves is not original research, is just citing sources. And if they define themselves culturally as Italians, I think that they deserve their place on this article. Back to the sources, I think that the Enciclopedia Italiana and the historical dictionary of Switzerland can be considered enough reliable sources concerning the ethnicity of the Ticinesi: [1] "I Ticinesi sono etnicamente italiani, e la loro lingua materna è l'italiano" and [2], section "Italianità e cultura" ("...definisce la sua identità anche attraverso una costante tensione tra l'appartenenza politica alla Svizzera e la matrice culturale italiana"). One should notice that one of the authors of the Enciclopedia Italiana article (Bianconi) is Ticinese (the other two are from Milano), while the second source is purely swiss. Alex2006 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"what Swiss say about themselves" is original research as long as it is anecdotal (statements of some individuals, not about Italian-speaking Swiss in general) and/or based on your own conversations and not published. If Mario Botta refers to himself as an "architetto Lombardo" he (a) does not identify as "Italian" but as "Lombard" which is not the same and I guess he has a reason to chose the latter and not the first and (b) "Lombard" is an adjunct of "architect", so he might just identify his architectural style as "Lombard", not his ethnic identifcation. The Enciclopedia Italiana is honestly the first source ever I have read to identify Ticinese as "ethnically Italian". I doubt that it is representative as all other sources I know meticulously avoid refer to Italian-speaking Swiss as "Italians" and always treat them as a linguistic group and not an ethnic group. The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland that you cite, treats Italian-speaking Swiss as a linguistic (not ethnic!) minority and describes the identity of Ticino as a "tension" between affiliations with Switzerland and Italy. Exactly! So their identity is neither clearly Swiss not clearly Italian, but a bit of both. Again: we do not get around the Sonderfall. It is wrong to simply treat them as ethnic Italians. Moreover: what about Italian-speaking Grisons? Even if we follow the Enciclopedia Italiana (of which I am not convinced), we would still not have a source that identifies all Italian-speaking Swiss as "ethnically Italian". That the E.I. identifies Ticinese as "ethnically Italian" does not automatically mean that Italian-speakers of Grisons are, too. --RJFF (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Italians

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Italians's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "guardian.co.uk":

  • From Mario Monicelli: "Mario Monicelli obituary". guardian.co.uk. London. 30 November 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-29.
  • From Antonio Meucci: Carroll, Rory (17 June 2002). "Bell did not invent telephone, US rules". The Guardian. London, UK.
  • From Crime in Italy: Tom Kington in Rome (2009-10-01). "Mafia's influence hovers over 13m Italians, says report | World news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-07-10.
  • From Alexander Graham Bell: Rory Carroll (June 17, 2002). "Bell did not invent telephone, US rules". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Compact Mosaic

Latest comment: 8 years ago25 comments12 people in discussion

OK, the idea is to choose 16 notables to put in a new mosaic. To start with a neutral criterium, I write down all the notables that the Italian republic honoured with a banknote before the introduction of the Euro.

As one can see, they are 18: 2 travelers, 2 writers, 7 artists, 3 scientists, 2 composers and 2 social scientists. We can start the discussion from these ones, eliminating two of them. Or, if someone does not agree with some name, we can substitute some of them with others equivalent. Alex2006 (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Only one woman? I am not in favor of fixed female quotas, but there are enough notable Italian women to include. I instantly have to think of either Sofia Loren or Gina Lollobrigida; La Gioconda is of course one of the most-pictured and most-recognised Italians; Rita Levi-Montalcini is one of the most well-known Italian Nobel prize laureates; Anna Maria Tarantola is probably one of the most powerful Italian women (there are no economists or business figures on the list so far).
Moreover the list is quite imbalanced in terms of historical periods: it looks like an Italian has to be long-dead to be notable. 12 out of 18 have died before 1700. None of them has lived after 1952! (the list includes 2 medieval figures, 7 renaissance, 3 of 16th/17th century, 4 of 18th/19th century, 2 of late 19th/early 20th century). Renzo Piano and Giorgio Armani are among the most well-known living Italians. The list does not include an actor or athlete so far.
Marco Polo, Dante, Columbus, Leonardo, Macchiavelli, Michelangelo and Galileo are definitely "must-haves". I would cancel Antonello, as painters and Renaissance artists are over-represented and he is probably the most unknown of those listed. Then, cancel Volta. He is notable without doubt, but scientists are a bit over-represented too (especially if we decide to include Levi-Montalcini). Somewhat reluctantly I would also cancel Titian, because there still is an over-representation of Renaissance artists. If we have to, I would cancel Bellini next, as he is not excessively famous on a global level, and we still have Verdi who is a composer of a similar period and is much more well-known. --RJFF (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for answering! Well, living people for me are not necessarily notable, they are just "famous". For them it lacks the historic perspective, the only one which can tell us whether one was really great or not. Do you know for example Emma Gramatica or Silvio Piola? 80 years ago they were among the most famous italians, nowadays only specialists remember them. But this is not a problem, since other mosaics (for example the German one, which I consider very well done) have in their lower area famous people of these last years. To introduce them, we could either add a line of "famous contemporary people", or introduce them sacrifying some notable. Summarizing, the original list now looks so:


Proposed new entries for you are

Personally, as 20th century representative, I would like to add also
  • Enrico Fermi who has been for many the second most important scientist after Galileo in Italy: maybe he could substitute Marconi. I think also that we would need a representative of risorgimento, for example:
Let's wait now for other opinions. Alex2006 (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is my proposal:

--93.32.134.109 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal! As I wrote above, we should restrain us to 16 notables. In order to include contemporary people, we could also add a last line of "famous" people (like in the Germans mosaic). There could find place people like Armani, some sportsman and actor. We could have 4 rows of 4 notables each, and a last row with 4 "famous". Any comments? Alex2006 (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome, but why not 24 as in the Germans one? It is almost impossible to restrain the Mosaic to 16 spots...--93.32.165.27 (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Because the larger is the mosaic, the more is the POV which flows in it. The current mosaic, for which there is no consensus (and I don't know why it resurfaced on the page in the first page) is an extreme example of this problem (in one of its first versions there was displayed also a wrestler :-(). The idea (maybe naive) is that is we limit the number of the notables, we can find an agreement about them, and avoid to put there people who are hardly notable. Alex2006 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, 93.32.165.27. Could you please read through the lengthy discussion on this talk page in order to help you to understand why a smaller mosaic has been decided on as a reasonable compromise. It will assist you in understanding what the issues are. Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The new mosaic must comprise Copernicus. He was raised up and educated in Italy. He was probably the first Italian scientist. 194.126.72.93 (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@IP 194.126.72.93, LOL!--115ash→(☏) 09:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. I hope that all of you're fine. Alex and Ip, why haven’t you included any mathematicians (especially Fibonacci) and architect like Brunelleschi. Still, I believe that the flag has been a better solution. Even if we create a new montage through consensus, there will be always new users coming on Wikipedia and disagreeing with that. Anyway, as there is no article who possess fantastic galleries like this article, instead of copying the American one (the flag), the Swiss one (a small collage), the Romanian one (no image at all) etc., why don’t we build something special? For instance, a 5x1 montage, or a montage which include notable persons of each period, or if any of you have a better idea. Kindest regards. --115ash→(☏) 09:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hallo ash, what is a montage? You are welcome to make your proposal! Architects there are three, a mathematician is missing, you are right. Alex2006 (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


OK. We have amazing galleries. Don't need to make a big collage. Let's make it simple, 20 figures. See the following proposal. @Alex2006, @Denisarona, @Iryna Harpy, @RJFF, @Elekhh, @Walnut77, Ips and others, let's start.

Compulsory figures

1) MIDDLE AGES:

2) RENAISSANCE

3) ENLIGHTENMENT

4) 20th century


IN ADDITION

1) MATHEMATICS:

2) MUSIC:

3) OTHER ENLIGHTENMENT FIGURES

4) OTHER 20th century FIGURES

Sportsmen, fashion designers, businessmen, more artists and more women might be included. (Only 2) --115ash→(☏) 09:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, I don't actually want to involve myself with the selection process. Nevertheless, I'm predisposed to including Fellini (or, perhaps, Lina Wertmüller in order to incorperate more women). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Strongly recommend Andrea Palladio, Luigi Pirandello, Marco Polo, Guglielmo Marconi, Tintoretto.--93.32.153.133 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ip, those you have stated have been already included in the galleries. We can't all of these people on the mosaic. As I said before, we'll make it simple. One architect, a poet, a traveller, an inventor, a painter, should be enough. --115ash→(☏) 10:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that the list of ash is good: the only remarks are 1) that a whole age, the baroque one, when the Italians gave great contributions, is not covered: that's why I would put someone like Gian Lorenzo Bernini. 2) We need at least a figure of Risorgimento (Garibaldi or Cavour). And then, of course, there is the general remark that we should have 16 peoples... Alex2006 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I am coming late in this discussion, but I am rather surprised that none of the names included so far are from the House of Medici. They are one of the most famous dynasties in Italian history and notable members include four Popes (Pope Leo X (1513–1521), Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), Pope Pius IV (1559–1565), and Pope Leo XI (1605)) and two Regent Queens of France (Catherine de' Medici and Marie de' Medici). Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the Medicis were a remarkable family: among them, I think that a place in the mosaic would be deserved above all by Lorenzo il Magnifico, one of the most skilled politicians and patrons of the arts that Italy ever had. Alex2006 (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that Lorenzo De Medici was the only one that has been forgotten to add. Founding fathers can't be added. Bernini is very influential, but as a architect I believe that only Brunelleschi deserves the place. As stated before, there are still two other figures that can be added, such as Cavour. --115ash→(☏) 15:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I have to note that this mosaic that replaced the old mosaic includes only ONE person from Southern Italy: Tommaso d'Aquino. Only one person! The previous mosaic included a vast array of Italians from throughout the peninsula and from the islands. While I believe that Maria Montessori should have been on the old mosaic, this new mosaic is a little too focused on Northern Italy especially. I feel that's more than a little inappropriate. Luigi Pirandello, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Salvatore Quasimodo, Grazia Deledda were all great choices in the older mosaic. Also, no Pier Paolo Pasolini? What's up with that? --Madreterra (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

We're trying to create a new one. You can join the discussion.--115ash→(☏) 09:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I personally think the collage has a good assortment of Italians as it is. Ones that I'd nominate for a new collage that haven't been mentioned yet are Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giacomo Leopardi, and one football player, such as Giuseppe Meazza, Paolo Maldini, or Roberto Baggio. --Steverci (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Steverci. There should be at least one footballer if there is a collage. However, why does there even need to be a collage? If you take a look at Canadians or Americans, they don't display collages, just the national flag. This is mostly because of the disputes editors will have over who is more notable to go into the collage. Since Italy like Canada or America, etc. is a big country with many notable people, there are far too many deserving of a place in a limited collage. I don't really see the need for one at all. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I removed the mosaic according to the following RfC. N.B. This decision does not affect the galleries in the article. Feel free to substitute the mosaic with a flag or another suitable symbol. Alex2006 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

San Marino

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What about this small country? Are the people of San Marino considered ethnically Italians? Because the article San Marino says "ethnic goups: Italians". 89.138.165.213 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are.--MarcusVetus✠ 18:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Eliminating doubtful estimates and facts not supported by consensus among scholars

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is no consensus among scholars about the ethnic identity of Adriatic Veneti, Camunni, Rhaetians and Ligures, so you are just inventing the stuff. Moreover there is no way to know the correct number of individuals of these ancient ethnic groups like Goths or Gauls, and every scholar has his own estimates. For example estimates of Lombards in Italy varies from 100.000 to 500.000. So you either post all them or none at all. On the other hand we have precise records of medieval migrations of French, Albanians, Germans... into Italy.

We should delete doubtful estimates which are not based on partial or complete historical records.

87.3.154.75 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I am perplex about the insertion of Camunni, Leponti and Rhaetians among the Etruscans. Where are the sources? About the numeric estimates, it should be task of the editor who is removing the estimate to insert the other sources, and write that "estimates for people X range from y to z". Alex2006 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Argentina has more Italian descendants of the United States

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

They must remove those numbers that Argentina has, since the descent are 16 million are between 20 and 30 million, which is sure the US has no more descendant of Italian and Italian Argentina. Here 'direct sources of ARGENTINA, and more original than some invent [3] [4][5][6] [7][8] [9]

--Derekitou (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italians. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italians/Archive_8&oldid=1073772545"