Talk:Italy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Romanians in 2007/2008

I think now that Romanians are the largest minority in Italy, someone should add this fact from this year.Sambure (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can give a reliable source that says this, go ahead and add it (including a reference to the source). However merely "thinking" that it's true is not a reliable source. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From BBC, The number of Romanians in Italy is estimated at more than 550,000, about 1% of the total population. Romanians are the largest community in Italy after Italians. Around 500,000 Romanians are officially registered as living in Italy, but unofficial estimates put the actual number at double that figure or perhaps even more. --Sambure (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt Romanians make up a large part of the population in Italy today- they are commonly found even in the smaller cities. I think it is very difficult to put a number to them, however, since they are not exactly a "visible" minority and with open EU borders it is impossible to say how many are there at any given time. Unfortunately, because of their large numbers, in Italy as elsewhere in Europe, there are many vagrant Romanians and there is somewhat of a backlash directed towards them these days. On another note, many Romanians have completely integrated into Italian society, mostly thanks to the similar language. I agree this "confirmed" info should be added to the article, especially with the BBC source. Mariokempes (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

it's true, thanks for the input. It's so easy for a Romanian that after only 2 weeks one can speak almost perfect italian. Just a slight accent can tell he's a romanian.Sambure (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I updated the table based on these sources. Mariokempes (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mario!--Sambure (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I actually resisted making the change because of the source's main content. If you could find a different or, better still, the original source for these figures it would be better... the articles cited do not present a good light on the Romanian situation! Mariokempes (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

True. I will look further. I know the situation of Romanians is not the best one right now..Italy president: „Expelling 200,000 Romanians would be the same thing as a deportation”. To be honest all Romanians like and simply love Italy. Romanians consider Italy and Italians as the second mother country and our brothers. I asked myself what was the trigger to all of this? was it only the Mailat case? Sambure ^talk 20:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

From International Herlad Tribune The association of Romanians in Italy says the actual number of Romanians is closer to 1.5 million, not including Romanian Gypsies. --Sambure ^talk 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Italy as a regional power

I think we should state in the introduction that Italy is generally considered one of the five European regional powers, along with France, the UK, Germany and Russia. --Fertuno 15:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of Italy

The demographics of Italy is far too large. All these charts are unnecessary; just the very written words is good enough; much like Germany's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, how are there 58.9 million ethnic Italians in Italy. There are only 59.2 million persons in Italy in which migrant account for almost 3 million persons. The chart is now invalid. Galati (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Galati

I'm the author of the demographic section (I made it a couple of years ago) You are right Galati, ethcnic Italians are about 56 million! I fixed the mistake...I don't know who changes datas without appropriate knowledge. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention the German speaking population of South Tyrol, which is considerably larger than some of the ethnic groups listed. Have these all become ethnic Italians?70.105.21.122 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect map

The Regions, provinces, and municipalities section shows a map of Italy with it's administrative divisions, however it only shows 4 provinces on Sardinia when there are 8. (BigTurnip (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

i second the motion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.68.187 (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This map has been incorrect for 2 years, since Sardinia changed to 8 provinces from 4, I don't possess the technical know how to change the map, but perhaps somebody else does. BigTurnip (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

mafia 7% gdp

Point 24 says that 7% italian gdp is done by Mafia - that's from NYT article: The annual report was released by the Confesercenti, an association of small businesses. It says that through various activities — extortion, usury, contraband, robberies, gambling and Internet piracy — organized crime accounts for 7 percent of Italy’s gross domestic product. I would say that whose do extortion, usury, robberies, and so on don't declare this type of 'incomings' on tax declaration - so that incomes aren't computed in GDP- that is measured on earnings declaration. Also that's a bad translation of Confesercenti, that said that Mafia earning is the same as 7% italian gdp. You could verify on: http://www.jugo.it/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6752 or differents mirror that reports original news. The same sentence, the same examples, but misunderstanding of word 'pari' that means 'the same as'. So, my english is not so good, but also isn't italian of New York Times . And also it's quite offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.13.123 (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an italian guy too! In Italy mafia is very powerful, if you want to have right informations about Italy and italian mafia go to: [1]

Regia Aeronautica

Regia Aeronautica means Royal Air Force. I dont understand the citation needed tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDRaKKaR (talk • contribs) 11:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Girl Scout or Girl Guides

What are the Girl Scouts called in your country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.17.6 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know they're called "coccinelle" (that is "ladybugs").--Gspinoza (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Guides. Coccinelle is used for 8 to 12 years only, and in some not all scout organisations. In the largest one, AGESCI, within the 13-17 years old branch, females are called "Guide" that is guides; males are "esploratori" that is explorers. All collectively are called "scouts" using the english word more often than "guide" or "esploratori". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.34.69 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Resignation of Romano Prodi

Romano Prodi has resigned from his role as Prime Minister of Italy![2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galati (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Food

Italians enjoy many types of food. One of Italians favorites are the famous Pizza, Spaggetti, Lasagna, and many others. Pizza is not like the pizza in the U.S. Italian pizza is very small. Usually Italians eat their main meal around noon and sleep through the afternoon. Italians also enjoy many types of desserts like ice cream. Ice cream is not called ice cream in Italy. In Italy ice cream is called gelato. Italians did not have proper refrigeration so the gelato was very soft. There are many flavors of gelato. One of the most popular flavors is pistachio. Pistachios are very popular nuts in Italy. Other flavors of gelato include orange, vannila, chocolate and lemon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.198.75 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have probably only heard about Italy: spaghetti (not spaggetti) is a kind of pasta and IMHO it's the sauce that create a spaghetti dish. Same for lasagne (not lasana) but in this case could be a kind of pasta and a dish. Personally I don't know a single adult Italian that sleeps in the afternoon, and it's the first time I've heard about ice cream consistency related to improper refrigeration. Industrial ice cream is quite different from "hand made" ice cream (gelato artigianale). In Italy pistachio (pistacchio) is a niche cultivation, majority is imported from Turkey, California and Iran. Finally it's vaniglia not vannila. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.156.145 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen anybody but my granmother sleeping around noon but she was 80.. this is not correct. Pizza changes between north and south pretty much. In NY I had a pizza very similar to the one you can have in Sicily e.g. In my opinion the key in Italian food is wather, air, quality of ingredients. Culture comes later itself. Whoever try to have a "prosciutto di sandaniele" only 30 Km far from there just would fail. I mean, it could also better but .. for sure different. When people make it for 100 years only who produce the best will go ahead .. a kind of Darwin selection for food . The same happens with wines. :) Untill 1950 Italy has been very slow and people didn't move from theyr placebirth a lot so that traditions have been refining in generations more than in other places. I would add also wars as a reason why people had to cook the better with penury of ingredients. During the end of 1800 in Veneto region and a lot of people leterally died for grinding poverty (see the six brother of Pacelli Pope he never knew, the Belgium mines etc..). therefore .. fagioli (beans, cheep at that time..), polenta and all other popular dishes wich to me are the ones that more closelly represents italian cookery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.245.163 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

MODA (fashion)

MILANO (Milan) and ROMA (Rome) are very famous for fashion design in all over the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.104.198.73 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Italian Design

Well, what a pity that you need a Condoleeza Rice's photo to show here in this page! That shows many things! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.209.10 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo

I'm resuming with the inclusion of independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that recognise it. Bardhylius (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Italy/Archive 3! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

article bias

Wikipedia should remain free of bias from any side. "tragedy of the First World War", under the history section, should be replaced by the simpler "First World War" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.99.143 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

View of Americans?

I'm doing a project, and need to know what Italians think of Americans. I've looked just about everythere. and foung NOTHING.

can someone please help?

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.177.23 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's really not something that can be found an encyclopedia. Of course you'll also realize that many people will have many different opinions, don't you? --Lo'oris (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New cabinet

This is more of a question. Does anyone know when will Berlusconi will assume office, and does anyone have a list of who his cabinet members are??? Like Minister of family, or minister of the interior? Any info would help! Galati (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Galati

D'Alema is the former Foreign Affairs minister

The picture with d'Alema and Rice should say: D'Alema former minister... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyfresco (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in Population Ranking

Tagged the page as contradictory - info box at top ranks population as 23rd largest in the world, article says 22nd. I don't know which is correct, merely that 22!=23. Could someone who might know fix this? Madmonk325 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (it's the 23rd) --Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

locator map; orange or green

• 
• 

I am an editor busy on the Germany article. There, we recently had the discussion on whether to use the orange or the green map. Most contributors simply like the style of the orange version more and so it will (for the time being) remain our type of locator map. However, to me it was very surprising to find out that more EU countries (the ratio is 2:1) actually use the green version. So, I was wondering whether this is done on purpose, because you prefer the green version? Or would you like to change? Tomeasy_talk 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments at all? What if I propose to change it...Tomeasy_talk 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment, the article says that the dark green and light green is Europe Continent. The Balkans is part of Europe, I'm not sure why this map does not include Kosova, Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, etc. Also the green map is better. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The caption under the map says that the dark gray and light green are Europe. The light green is the European Union, so that's probably why they're not included in the light green (but they are included as Europe). What in particular do you like about the green map vs. the orange one? I don't have a strong preference, but I do find the green/grey colors to be a little drab. Kman543210 (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object a change? I just find the orange map looks much better. It shows the borders clearly and the contrast is not dull as with the green map. I think it can make Wikipedia look slightly more professional. Any reasons against a change? Tomeasy_talk 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The green looks much better...the orange shows the land topography which is not appropriate for an introductory map photo. The green and grey just look neat and professional compared to the orange.

User: galati, who did not care taking part in this discussion, reverted my change to reinstall the green map. From the above comments, I conclude that there is some support here for either version. So, remaining with the green version is certainly an option as long as new proponents of the orange version do not pop up. However, I would appreciate if people who are going to simply revert edits that have been discussed, to first join this discussion and voice there opinion. Tomeasy_talk 11:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User Tomeasy over here decides that he will revert the original colour of green/grey to orange in his desperate attempts, completely ignoring the fact that two thirds of European Union countries have this map. He definitely does not agree with his own page where he states that he is against personal attacks seeing as he has just done so. He should take his discussion elsewhere. I would appreciate that someone not revert maps that people are already happy with. Thanks! Galati (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Galati

What are you talking about? You reinstalled the green map on 4 July and since then it stands, even though I do not find it fair, because you could have taken part in this discussion already earlier. Anyway, I did not revert anything ahead of your above post on 7 July. And what do yo mean by personal attack? To me it appears more of a personal attack that you accuse me of a revert that did not happen. However, if you have personal problems with me bring them to my talk page or, better, drop them and focus on the issue.

Two thirds of the EU are using a green map. Why is this an argument at all? Or, why do you look at EU countries only and not at all European countries? I think people should just decide which map they prefer. There we have apparently different views, but that's all there is and no reason to get personal. Do you have other arguments than the two third thing? Tomeasy_talk 13:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your joking right? This green and grey version of the Italy map has been up since May. I only just reverted it July 4th because someone switched it back to orange. The fact that there shouldbe a discussion regarding the maps is irrelevant considering that the green version has been up for a very long time. I did take part of the discussion but i did not sign in when I was part of it and I put full-fledged support for the green one. i wrote: "The green looks much better...the orange shows the land topography which is not appropriate for an introductory map photo. The green and grey just look neat and professional compared to the orange."

I dont have a personal problem with you, but i have a problem with people reverting a perfectly good map into orange. Dont think that I dont read other country discussions. You are always bringing this map issue up in different countries which is pointless. I have argued constantly that this map has been part of European union pages for a very long time and they dont need to be changed. That is totally unnecessary. You and I know very well after reading the other country discussions, that some Eastern European nations dont have the green map made yet. You asked whether we would like to change one or you would change it to orange. The very reason why you recieved limited responses is because everyone like the green one to begin with.

I have not personally attacked you. I have only given my statement saying that I preferred the green and you snipe back saying: ":User: galati, who did not care taking part in this discussion, reverted my change to reinstall the green map." This hereby proves my point. You made a personal attack and you did revert the green map into the orange one. Galati (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Galati

I was not joking. "I only just reverted it July 4th because someone switched it back to orange." That someone was I and I had proposed to do so on this page before hand. After your action on 4 July the green map stands, so your personal accusation on 7 July (see above) is pointless.

If you already forget to sign in before joining a discussion, then please try to remember to at least sign your comment with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~), so that an IP number and the date shows up. Anything else simply confuses the discussion. How did you expect me to know that the anonymous comment above was yours?

This way you should understand my comment posted on 4 July ":User: galati, who did not care [...]". It perfectly makes sense, if you consider the information that you had provided, or better, failed to provide.

I have started this map request at France, Spain, and Italy, after we have had this discussion on Germany, where I am actively contributing. I was just wondering why so many countries still use the older and IMHO less attractive map. I do not see any problem with this, do you?

So mush about the personal stuff, which we should have better discussed on our personal pages. So, if you still have a need for that, post it there. Let's have it here and now about the map:

————

Even long standing information might be changed from time to time to keep track with the technical and intellectual evolution. That is a core principle of Wikipedia. Or would you still go with the graphics of the early years. The green map replace another type of map once and it was good that it happened. Therefore, a map may be changed even if it was stable for some months. Provided that we, the editors, find that it is an improvement.

There was not much response apart from your actions here. You interpret these lacking contributions as support for the green map. I might equally interpret it the other way around, a silent consent to my proposition. Probably, it just shows that not many people care much about the question. In any case, an unexpressed opinion simply does not count on Wikipedia. We will have to see where the stronger arguments are.

Which brings me back to the question of my previous post. Do you have any arguments for the green map apart from the two third thing?

Does anyone else have arguments for or against the proposed versions? Tomeasy_talk 17:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You clearly did not read my first comment during the discussion. I stated that the orange map showed the topography of the country which is not appropriate for an introductory picture. Also, the map is very distorted making other nations look bigger than they actually are compared to the green map which shows the nations appropriately. I think the misrepresentation of the orange map is reason enough. Articles of other countries have topography maps in their geogrpahy section which is appropriate.

I was not expecting you to know that I contributed to the discussion. I only just said that I did just now. Its not about the fact the 2 out of 3 European Union nations have this map, its about the fact that the green and grey is neat and represents proper proportions of the various European nations. You say that things need to change from time to time which is absolutely true. But this is a map for Christ's sake. Its perfectly fine for the year 2008. You wrote: " We will have to see where the stronger arguments are." Its seems that you are out for a fight with words. I'm am not here for that. I am simply a person of partial Italian descent, contributing and defending information on this Italy page.

Besides your POV, what makes the orange map so much more appropriate than the green one? Galati (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Galati

A must-be-fix

Where is the description of the unification? The section of the unification lacks almost everything, it just assumes we already know the history of the unification. Victor Emanuel who? Garribaldi who? Why? Did they partake in the unification? (Don't answer here, answer in the article - I'm just acting stupid in order to provoke someone knowledgeable to improve that section). Said: Rursus ☻ 09:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cagliari and Venice?

I would add two photos:

Cagliari (Sardinia) and Venice (Veneto) with the other photos of famous italian cities. I think that we should put them ;-)

Cagliari

Venice

in recent years they have less population but are principal and important cities for culture, monuments, buildings... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.89.23 (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Catholic Church still play a role in the nation's political affairs.

I removed that sentence, which is quite misleading and actually doesn't make much sense.

Italy doesn't have an established church, the Catholic Church has no political role in the Italian Republic, nor any power over the democratic institutions of the country. Then yes, of course many if not most of the Italians are Catholic and act accordingly to the Catholic Church precepts, but that's a completely different matter. --Fertuno (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you--93.149.140.57 (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, but our governement looks at Catholic Church very kindly. For example, churchs do not pay a building's tax (ICI) and very frequently our leaders go to meet Pope. But yes, Italy is formally a neutral state.--Domyinik (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Marina Militare contradiction

The page on the Marina Militare states that: "Today's Marina Militare is considered as the 6°navy of the world", whereas this article states "The Marina Militare is considered the fourth strongest navy of the world." Does anyone know what it ranks, or alternatively, in what way it may be possible to assess its rank? I know that there is a discussion on the Talk:Marina_Militare page on the issue, but I just wanted to bring up the point here as well, so that the contradiction is solved. Cheers Radarino (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:LaDolceVita.jpg

The image Image:LaDolceVita.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

I propose to indefinitely semi-protect the article on basis of WP:SEMI. anyone who is in doubt just screen the history of the article. 90% of the edits are either reverts or reverted. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

GDP rank problem

The GDP(PPP) Total rank for Italy appears to be inconsistent with the page (List of countries by GDP(PPP)-Wikipedia) it links to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.105.190 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

italy is the 7 largest gdp and the 6 industrial power of g8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.4.10 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

the GDP figures mentioned in article say trillion, whereas the figures need be in billion $. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaghzi (talk • contribs) 06:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New Demographics for Italy

Ciao a tutti! There are new demographics up for Italy just released so I put them up. Please dont delete them as they are all government (ISTAT) backed! Galati (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Galati

The Presidente del Consiglio

I read "Executive power is exercised collectively by the Council of Ministers, which is led by a President, in jargon referred to as "il Premier", "il primo ministro" or "the Prime Minister" in English."
Referred to as "the Prime Minister" in English?! It is completely false.. In Italy we call the Presidente of the Council Presidente del Consiglio or Primo Ministro. Moreover in Italy the English language is not widespread. We at least need a citation for this, it it exists of course..--TheDRaKKaR (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right, yet wrong. It is true that English is not widespread in Italy, but it is also true that the President of the Council of Ministers is referred to in English as the "Prime Minister" (after all, they are equivalent). Just open any British, American, etc., newspaper and you will find that they do not refer to the Italian head of government as the "President of the Council", in the same way as the German Kanzler is referred to as "Chancellor", and so on. Radarino (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose TheDRaKKaR meant that the phrasing he was referring to could be understood as meaning that in Italy people use the English phrase "Prime Minister". I have reworded the sentence as to avoid this ambiguity. Goochelaar (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Goochelar, I meant so. Thanks and sorry for my poor english.--TheDRaKKaR (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hadn't thought it that way. Good re-wording! Ciao! Radarino (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The proper use of the English articles {a, an, the} in composition: it should be noted that the articles {a, an, the} are important in English and should be used - contrary to what some Europeans, including British, might think. This article needs to be carefully proofread for the. The example that I first noted is that air forces do not "buy F-35", but rather, they "buy the F-35". In English, the word "the" usually implies "one and only", but "a" implies any example of several or many. For example, in the USA, we have "a Congressman" and "an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court", but we have "the President" and "the Chief Justice" and "the House of Representatives". Also, The "one and only" Georgia Institute of Technology, and the "one and only" Department of Defense. Now, I will relax and get myself a bottle of Italian wine! (I hope that it is not the bottle of Italian wine.)

There are some idiomatic exceptions in the use of {a, an, the}, but I have covered the general situation.74.249.77.72 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you get yourself "a bottle of the Italian wine"?

The proper use of articles is a complex issue that can, as far as I have experienced, not be put in a simple rule as you've just outlined. Never mind the differences in British and American vernaculars. Cheers! Tomeasy _{T C} 10:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Government and politics

The last paragraph of Goverment and politics contains a repetition that should be fixed:

"As of 15 May 2006, there are seven life senators of whom three are former Presidents. Both houses are elected for a maximum of five years, but they may be dissolved before the expiration of their normal term" and after a few lines: "As of 15 May 2006 there are seven life senators (of which three are former Presidents). Both houses are elected for a maximum of five years, but both may be dissolved by the President before the expiration of their normal term if the Parliament is unable to elect a stable government." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.19.115 (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Italy#Etymology

I commented out a reference to Mars that didn't make sense. If someone knows what it was doing there, please help me make sense of it. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OTHER NUKES

President of Republic Francesco Cossiga recently declared that in Italy there are ( in italian basis) nukes built in UK and France,not only Us nukes leasing. We're talking of declaretions of an Italian President of Republic (Rai news). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.129 (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

More respect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More respect!I respected former President that i admire. So what are you writing?

Israel–Italy relations

I think this article needs to be removed. It has more links than actual content, and less information than most stud articles. Colonel Marksman (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Population density

In the ===Population=== section, "196.1 persons per kilometre" should be stated "196.1 persons per square kilometre"

tc (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Mindmatrix 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian Parliament

Hello. I am italian and I have seen that you have write in the table that in Italy there is an upper change and a lower change. It isn't true. In fact, from 1945 our constitution's fathers decided not to attribute to a room more powers than the other. This because our country came out from twenty years of fascism, a dictatorship. So, the writers of Constitution to avoid the danger of an other attack to democracy decided to make each house equal to the other. I have seen that in many other pages (upper house for example) you continue to say that we have got an imperfect bicameralism. If you want a confirmation, someone who understand italian can read the italian page about "bicameralismo perfetto". There, you can see that we haven't an upper house and a lower one. Thank you for having borne my english (not very correct!).--Domyinik (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Upper houses can exist in perfect bicameralism systems. Our article on the subject makes generalisms about upper houses, but they are only in general terms. I can't really see that it's much of a problem - probably created through the infobox system used. I am concerned at your statement that Wikipedia states that the Italian system is imperfect - I have read the Italian page you describe an it makes it quite clear that you are correct in saying the system is perfect. Do you have anby examples (I can't find any in Upper house, bearing in mind the above). (This stems from this RefDesk question.) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

THE TABLE ON IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC GROUPS IS WRONG AND OBSOLETE

In fact the first column should be "Citizenship or Nationality" instead of "Ethnic Groups". For instance most Ukranian citizens in Italy belong to romanian ethnic group because they come from Bukovina or Basarabia, for them it is easier to speak Italian. On the other hand, in Italy there are Romanian citizens belonging to Hungarian or Roma ethnic groups. Also immigrants from former Yugolavia are classified according to citizenship and not according to ethnicity, lot of gypsies come from from Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosova. thanks professor Arnaldo Mauri —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri (talk • contribs) 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For me the table is ok

What should be "wrong and obsolete"? Sorry but using the "ethnic group" category in my opinion is much more simple if you want to build an easy consultable table. It can be not very precise, ok, but in this way you can avoid things like putting "citizenship" in a column with "Asian" under it. Or do you prefer to explain to me what the "Asian citizenship" should be? I simply used the model of the UK page. We Italians are unlacky becasue our statistical office did not yet elaborate a model to classify the migration question (becasue it is a recent issue in our country). So we have to use other models even if they are not thpought for our case approximating ourselves to the truth, because it is always better to use at every cost models more precise in their categorization but full of other kinds of bugs (like North African citizenship). I hope that you'll understand my position. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The table is obsolete because the figures do not reflect present situation: it is necessary to update.. For instance Romenians citizen are now over 1 million. Second: ethnic group is wrong because also immigrants from Kosovo are ethnically Albanians and most of immigrants from Moldova and some from Ukraine are ethnically Romanians. Forthermore Roma people, that are now a problem for Italy, are not mentioned as ethnic group. In South Tirol there is a strong German ethnic group but they are Italian citizens. So far there are not statistical figures on ethnical groups among foreign citizens in Italy. Official figures on immigration in Italy are only based on citizenship. Asian citizen means citizen of Asian countries except China. It is very easy to understand.--Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but this is NOT obsolete at all. The datas that I brought are the most recent desponsable (12-2007) and from both Eurostat and Istat releases, and you can easily verify this fact checking the footnotes that I put. Instead the figure about 1 million of Romanians are not official. If you can bring a more authoritative and recent estimate, please do (with "authoritative" I mean: not from Romanian newspapers or charities).

Regarding your squabble about the term "ethnic group", I perfectly understand your position but in my opinion "ethnic group" is the more summarizing term and I took this term from the UK page. But if you want to be SO precise I think that is better to write only "origin" or "provenance" because "citizenship" is wrong for the same reasons of the term "ethnic group" if we want to build a table that can show the ethnic composition of Italian population (because we should calculate how many immigrants have obtained the Italian citizenship during the last 10-20 years etc.).

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your are right. In fact Italy is today a multiethnic country. Once immigrants become Italian citizen they keep however their ethnicity. Romanian ethnic group is now bigger than what appears in statistical figures. In fact, most of immigrants from Moldova and a substantial share of immigrants from Ukraine (Nothern Bukovina, Transcarpathia and district of Hertza) belong to Romanian ethnic group. Furthermore some Romanians through marriage have obtained Italian citizenship --Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Migration

Surprising, that in this section no information is given about migration of autochtones from this country to other countries. Nontheles this seems to be a subject of considerable significance?!--VKing (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Some 25 milion emigrated! (And not one word about it in this article).[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by VKing (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right.--Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ragusa- Dubrovnik- has never been in Italy!

This article's statement in the part of "Maratime Republics" claiming that Ragusa was in Italy and therefore implying that it was an Italian republic is clearly a mistake. One just needs to go into the Sponza palace, the Ragusian state archive in Dubrovnik and see any of the official documents. The laws regarding inner policy are clearly stated in Croatian: Those regarding foreign policy are written both in Croatian and Italian. All of the ruling families of Ragusa from Sorkocevic to Gucetic to Restic etc were Croatian. The greatest Ragusian poet and writer Ivan Gundulic, an aristocrat and one of the rulers, famous for his book "Suze sina razmetnoga", was one of the greatest Croatian nationalists. Source: "Dubrovnik, a history", written by Robin Harris 2006. According to the Robert Harris book Malta was independent until 1808 when Napoleon annexed it. According to Harris Dubrovnik with it's fleet of 700.000 tons (surpassing Venice in 1660) was the main hated rival of Venice in the Adriatic and always resisted the invasion plans of Venice. The last Venitian rector was sent home packing- politely but firmly- in 1351. According to Harris the recto packed his belongings in a hurry.

Ragusa/Dubrovnik. Some reflections on this issue are necessary

First, it is necessary a reflection on the very concepts of Nation and State as these two terms are commonly considered near-synonyms and therefore used interchangeably. They have, instead different meanings. The term Italy refers to booth meanings. Italy as State was born in XIX cent, but Italy as Natiom is much older. Almost true, Ragusa never belonged to Italy-State except the Napoleon's Kingdom of Italy (1808-1809), but was seen for some centuries a part of Italy-Nation in the beginning of its birth process. Today Ragusa/Dubrovink, as well as Split and other Dalmatian towns, are out of Italy-State and out of Italy-Nation as well, they belong both to Croatia-Nation and to Croatia-State. On the other hand Lugano (Switzerland) and San Marino (independent republic) are out of Italy-State and still part of Italy-Nation. I suggest the book: L. TOMAZ, "Il confine d'Italia in Istria e Dalmazia. Duemila anni di storia" and the SSRN working paper: ARNALDO MAURI, Historical, Geopolitical and Economic Factors affecting State and Nation Boundaries: Foreword on Italy's Borders in Istria and Dalmatia., Of course, Ragusa as port city had a multiethnic population: besides Italians also Croats, Vlachs, Serbs, Albanians. Similar situations could be found in Istanbul, Alexandria, Izmir, Odessa. To be the birthplace of poets or outstanding men is insignificant. Tommaseo was born in Dalmatia, as many other great Italians, Garibaldi and Massena were born in Nice, the Greek poet Kavafis in Alexandria. Venice was rival of Ragusa, but was also rival of Genoa on the sea and of Milan on the mainland; also this point is insignificant to the discussion on Ragusa belonging to Italy-Nation in past centuries. On my view, given the historical period, Ragusa should be mentioned in any case--87.9.19.187 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to confuse personal opinions with verifiable facts. The facts here is that Ragusa was an independent, Slavic-speaking state. It was not part of the Italian state and it was not Italian in culture.JdeJ (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You ignore the difference between State and Nation and confuse the present situation with middle age. In that time Ragusa was part of the Italian Nation although being an independent State as well as Genoa, Venice, Milan and so on. Smyrna at that time was a part of the Greek Nation. The present is different. Be quiet, nobody would reasonably contend today that Dubrovnik should be Italian and Izmir Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo Mauri (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not ignore the difference between state and nation; I do think, however, that you are not aware of how to use the terms. In the Middle Ages, Ragusa was an independent state that was a Slavic nation. Its people was Slavic and its language was Slavic. The comparison with Smyrna just shows your lack of knowledge about this topic: Smyrna is Turkish today but used to be Greek in population and language. Dubrovnik is Croatian today and has been since the early middle ages. Its language prior to Croatian (or Slavic) was a form of Dalmatian, not Italian.JdeJ (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Right, but Dalmatian was a Romance language, near to Italian and not at all Slavic.--deguef (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Huge error!

"...Italy strongly supported Franco in the Spanish civil war and Hitler's annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland."

Aghhh! No! Italy was very, very, very much opposed the annexation of Austria. Honestly, who is writing this stuff? --Npovshark (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Npovshark.In 1934 Italy risked to attack Germany to defend austrian independence.It's a HUGE mistake.EU 100% (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1934, Mussolini opposed Hitler, but as far as I'm aware he would have been pro-German by the time of Anschluss in 1938. Bit unclear though. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am changing it, because while I don't have a source in my hand, I know it is wrong. Italy never supported the Anschluss, though they didn't act to prevent it (who could? and who would?) It was a you-shoot-first, I-shoot-second ordeal. If Germany would have attacked Austria, I'm sure Mussolini would not have stood there. Likewise, Italy was not going to be the one to initiate a conflict and invade Austria while it peacefully unites with Germany. After the Anschluss, the allies lost interest in Italy, and Italy felt the allies could not be counted on for anything...Italy was drawn more closely to Hitler.--Npovshark (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Italy's intervention against Anschluss would have open war against Germany. Nobody would come to help Italy. The war would have been lost and Germany would take, besides Austria, also South Tirols, Trentino, Gorizia, Trieste and Istria. As far as concerns Franco, we well understand that England did not move seriously to stop Franco's landing in Spain. Franco as Tito later justified ex post the British realpolitik choices (abandoning of Republicans and of Mihailovic). Franco did not join Axis in the WWII and Tito did not join Stalin during the cold war. --deguef (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling errors

Sorry, haven't read the whole page. The section on economy however has countless spelling errors. Someone should edit it because it's looking quite bad right now. Thanks, Misha

How right you are, Misha! I've corrected about 20 errors (wrong spellings, and grammatical and phrasing faults). Thanks for letting us know - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian GDP is wrong

{{editsemiprotected}} It says it's over 1,000 trillions of dollars. That's way too large. I think it's supposed to be billions probably.

Done Welcome and thanks for improving the accuracy of this article. Celestra (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Official languages

Greek? In a generic "southern Italy"? ROTFLMAO. I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK there cannot be any official language other than Italian except in the five special regions (Regioni a statuto speciale), i.e. Val d'Aosta, Trentino-Alto Adige, Friuli Venezia-Giulia, Sardegna and Sicilia.

AFAIK French is co-official in Val d'Aosta and German in Alto Adige (i.e. in the province of Bolzano/Bozen, I don't think it's official in the province of Trento).

What i see written in the table...

French is co-official in the Aosta Valley; German and Ladin are co-official in the province of Bolzano-Bozen. Sardinian, Catalan and Corsican in Sardinia, Albanian and Greek in Southern Italy, Occitan in Piedmont, Ladin in the Province of Belluno, and Friulan and Slovenian in Friuli-Venezia Giulia are also officially recognized at different degrees.

...sounds very much like random bullshit.

Now, I'm removing that, and anybody who isn't actually an Italian lawyer should not add anything like that.

--Lo'oris (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it odd to you that different regions may recognize regional languages? For example, in Slovenia, Italian is official in some regions. --KevinBas (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I'm Italian and I've never heard of such a thing, maybe? --Lo'oris (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

According to our article Occitan language

Italy adopted in 1999 a Linguistic Minorities Protection Law, or "Law 482"

I’d guess that the list of languages from Sardinian to Slovenian might have been derived from that. Anyway, it could be worth following up. —Ian Spackman (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmmh intresting, I'll do some research --Lo'oris (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Here it is. Article 1, comma 1

1. La lingua ufficiale della Repubblica è l'italiano.

"The official language of the Republic is Italian."

Then it talks about allowing the use of some other languages in some cities or areas, but this doesn't make them official, as stated in the first article. --Lo'oris (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No the regional costitution of Valle d'Aosta says that french is also official language of the region. Also in Trentino Altro Adige region german is official languages. In that regions the official act of italian nation are written in french and german.--93.149.140.57 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

==

Hello to you all Look this at: http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/99482l.htm

Art. 1.

1. La lingua ufficiale della Repubblica é l'italiano. 2. La Repubblica, che valorizza il patrimonio linguistico e culturale della lingua italiana, promuove altresí la valorizzazione delle lingue e delle culture tutelate dalla presente legge.

Art. 2.

1. In attuazione dell'articolo 6 della Costituzione e in armonia con i princípi generali stabiliti dagli organismi europei e internazionali, la Repubblica tutela la lingua e la cultura delle popolazioni albanesi, catalane, germaniche, greche, slovene e croate e di quelle parlanti il francese, il franco-provenzale, il friulano, il ladino, l'occitano e il sardo.

• Sorry. I dont know any area in Italy where French is spoken at home as first language. In Aosta Valley French is just a cultural language officially recognized by the regional government as it is Italian, but the people speak at home Franco-provencal and make use mostly of Italian. In some areas of western Piedmont Occitan is spoken at home as well as Italian. --Deguef (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation: ---> This means that: 1-Italian is the official language. 2-Cultures and LANGUAGES of ALBANIAN, CATALAN, GERMAN, GREEK, SLOVENIAN, CROATIAN and also FRENCH, FRANCO-PROVENçAL, FRIULAN, LADIN, OCCITAN and SARDINIAN people are PROTECTED ("tutelate").

I do think that it should be written on the Wiki page. Greetings, Marco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.7.193.239 (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe somewhere in the article, but definitly not in the "official languages" paragraph. --Lo'oris (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Racism in Italy

Now Italy is a racist country with huge xenophoby (given by mass media bombing), why do not write it? see the ONU racism report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.80.169.208 (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION GIVE E LOOK TO A DICTIONARY! RACISM IS SOMETHING ELSE THAN XENOPHOBIA

In Italy there is xenophobia, but much less racism than in other European countries. Today Italians are mostly concerned with gypsies, a people coming from India and of pure Indo-European stock and not with South Sahara or Filipino immigrants. Racists would think the opposit. Speaking of Romanians, we have to remember that Italians and Romanians have links in blood and language. Furthermore at the beginning of the Romanian national anthem we can hear that in the veins of Romanians flows Roman blood. No racism is therefore possible against Romanians. --Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, man! Be careful when you speak about italians. I am italian, and i can tell you that we aren't truely racist. Yes, there is a party (Lega Nord) which wants to eliminate all the immigrants in Italy, but most of italians lives whit immigrants very easyly. Talking about americans (I suppose you're american, if you are british, sorry me), didn't they have rules against black men, japaneses during WW2 or, finally, versus Italians? Don't you call us "mafiosi", "mandolino" or "spaghetti"? So, don't be so bad whit a country. You can say that there are some racists, but you can't absolutely say that every italian is racist! Last thing: is my english good?--Domyinik (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Domyinik, you are wrong. The anonymous user wrote from Ivrea. I am Italian too, and would find relevant a UNO report on racism (a real problem) in our country. --Erinaceus (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading above, I would suggest to avoid the use of the term "racism" simply because - as Arnaldo pointed out - it is quite wrong from the point of view of "definitions". As a matter of fact, "racism" concerns the concept of "race". Instead, "xenophobia" is diverse and widespread. Therefore I end up with the idea that in 2009 Italy should not be regarded as "overcome by racism" but "as a country culturally influenced by growing xenophobic standpoints. Their spreading is due to the claims of some political parties which had an increasing role in national policies". In this way I totally agree to give the info of what in Italy we call "razzismo" (racism), but we put it in words that are intelligible by English speakers - following wikipedia's distinction between racism and xenophobia. I'm indeed worried by recent declarations and I'm totally against Lega, but wikipedia is not a good arena to express opinions, but rather a place to reach neutral point of views - so please avoid discussing about Berlusconi's sunbaths... Even if it angers me! :D (writing from Pavia) 82.184.39.201 (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"a country culturally influenced by growing xenophobic standpoints. Their spreading is due to the claims of some political parties which had an increasing role in national policies"

I'm sorry but the cause/effect is tecnically inverted "some political parties had an increasing role because italians became more xenophibic as they prevoiusly where". A party can say whatever thing, but "to increase its role" it needs consensus. Why this happened, it's not "because of the existence of the party" but because of some other sociological aspects that make more and more people more confident in those parties respect to others. May be the reson is the excessive attention oppositons parties do to Berlusconi sunbaths rather than to provide adequate answers to this sociological problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.96.3.242 (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The truth

• Milan (second municipality for population and first metropolitan area in italy, her metropolitan area include all the province and also other: her density is very hight...)
• Naples (third municipally for population and second metropolitan area of italy, her metropolitan area include all the province and also other: her density is very very hight, first density (in absolutely) in Italy and one of the most densely populated in europe)
• Rome (first municipally of italy for population and third metropolitan area, her metropolitan area not include all the province, absolutely not; for extension is the bigger (3.089, 24 km²) but her density is very very low! summarizing, the metropolitan area of Rome is not very important if comparated with Milan e Naples and it's the third metropolitan area... only source Ocde indicate who the second, only that!! Please.

Yes, thank you for honesty: i believe that for an encyclopaedia it's very important to be honesty and correct!--Focak (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuke sharing vs. hosting

{{editsemiprotected}} The initial paragraph mentions that Italy 'shares' NATO nukes. That sentence looks misleading to me. More accurately, it MAY (no official statement is available to this effect AFAIK) host US nuclear warheads which COULD, under the double-key set-up be released for delivery by Italian aircraft. I also think that the whole paragraph is somewhat self-aggrandizing; Italy has lots to boast of without waving a very dubious nuke capability around. I say this as an Italian and former member of the armed forces.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramillies (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Italy's immigrants and gdp per capita

Immigrants in italy are 4 milions regolars and near 1 milion illegals = 5 milions, almost 8% of total population. http://www.repubblica.it/2008/10/sezioni/cronaca/immigrati/immigrati/immigrati.html

italy per capita is 35 000 $, not 29 000 $, and is pathetic and ridiculs spain has highest per capita than italy and france on wikipedia.

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13381964

hopes someone changes these wrongs dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiacboy (talk • contribs) 13:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

CIVIL LAW SYSTEM

Italy is the birthplace of the civil law system (the most widespread law system in the world), which originated and was codified during the roman empire. Is it possible to add that to the first paragraph (where it list the vitruvian man and opera as things that originated in Italy)? I believe it's a slightly more relevant contribution to human knowledge than "opera" and "pizza", could it be mentioned RIGHT AWAY please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobone (talk • contribs) 07:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Italian population to update

Italy has reached 60.017.677 people in November 2008, the page must be updated.

Here's the source http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_aprile_27/istat_italiani_60_milioni_ee92c4e6-330b-11de-b34f-00144f02aabc.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.155.164 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Graph over pop is wrong (says millions instead of thousands in legend) but I do not have authority to change this.

/Verita —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verita77 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

about Regions and Autonomous Regions

Actually all Regions in Italy may "enact legislation on some of their local matters", the difference with autonomous ones is that they can regulate more matters and, more important, they have some fiscal privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.213.114 (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Art treasures

Italy is the country with the higher concentration of art treasures in the world. Why nobody write that? Are these people jealouses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.104.52 (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

-I guess the Holy See would make us even more jealouses. Get real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.16.79.178 (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Science

Fermi wasn't the head of the Manhattan Project (Oppenheimer was). Fermi was the leader of the project that built the first nuclear reactor though. Nighthealer (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC) i like cheese and so do italians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.72.30 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC) There has been an update of the population in 2009, 60,145,000 people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.148.89 (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Theres a spelling error in the science section, its "gave birth" and not "give birth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.60.165 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GDP (In the fast fact section???)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the GDP on the info section towards the top of the page is wrong. It says something around 1.8 billion. I checked just The Bahamas(GDP) and it was way more than Italy's which is impossible. So unless its in the thousands of billions, I think then it should be changed too the correct amount. Also if it is in the thousands of billions, I would just like too say that many people might think it isn't in the thousands of billions and mistake Italy's GDP to be way less than it is. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskardashian (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's 1.8 "trillion" (1 trillion = 1,000 billion), not "billion".

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And maybe not everyone (like myself) would know this. :) Chriskardashian 16:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Romanians

Romanians are at least 2% of Italy's population. --Poiu mado (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Italy

Italy is cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.34.94 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FRIUL

I am not sure how to make correction in Wiki and this is also a semi protected page. So I kindly ask who is in charge to insert (in the apposite section) the fact that Friulan is also co official language in FRIULI region. Corrado —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.135.255 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Since I can't edit the page unregistered, I thought I'd point out the spelling mistake under Population: Demographics. (should be transformed)

After World War II, Italy enjoyed a prolonged economic boom which caused a major rural exodus to the cities, and at the same time transormed the nation from a massive emigration country to a net immigrant-receiving country.

71.191.59.200 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mindmatrix 23:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sardinian Language

Also the sardinian language is recognized as co-official language, by the italian state, from 1999 (law n.482/1999) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Images

Can we please avoid adding any more images to the article? The efforts are appreciated, but too many images make the article cluttered. It might be best to remove a few of the less necessary ones. Hayden120 (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some pointless images in the politics section have been removed. The article is good as it is now, with an equal balance, and pictures should only be added if an extensive new section of writing is added.--Theologiae (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Immigrant population increased

According to news reports (English, Italian), the immigrant population of Italy has increased to 7.2 percent. Perhaps someone with more time on their hands could update the article.--Chaser2 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added info

By the way, I've added some vital info to religion in Italy, to spice up the article, which is verifiable.--Theologiae (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OVER THE TOP

Parts of the opening section are written in a promotional style unsuited to an encyclopaedia and contain exaggerated statements, e.g. “it is actually believed that over 70% of the world's art, culture and literature are found in Italy[6].” Surely people who would believe that would believe anything? The reference given is a statement in what looks like a tourist blog. It’s true you find similar figures (40%, 50%, 70% etc.) sometimes given by journalists in the Italian press, but it seems to be a factoid or urban myth. Why not put, “Italy is rich in art, culture, literature from many different periods” or some such unexceptionable phrase?Ettormo (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not an urban myth that Italy contains over 70% of the world's culture. It is written in many books by scholars, and is not just some junk written by the Italian press. Yes, newspapers and tourist blogs do exaggerate these phrases, yet it is not a factoid, as research by many scholars has proven so. It is not just found in blogs, guides or newspapers. And anyway, the intro is not promontional as all the facts are accurate, true, verifiable, valid and not promotional. All the intros of other nations are just like that, so it is perfectly encyclopedic and the sentences are not exaggerated.

If one writes 'Italy is the most beautiful and interesting country in the world', that would be un-encyclopedic and biased.

However, if one writes 'Italy contains a broad variety of museums and cultures, cuisines and it is actually believed that over 70% of the world's art is found in Italy', giving references, it is perfectly encyclopedic. --Theologiae (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then please supply details of the scholarly research that makes such claims. Frankly, the claim is bogus, and the current citation is worthless. I'm removing it. Mindmatrix 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the Italian Wikipedia and I see it offers a more rational treatment of these points. I’ve translated the relevant bit below, slightly altered. I’m not sure the reference to UNESCO Heritage Sites makes much sense. (It’s a competition?) Anyway I suggest using the translation (or something like it) to replace the whole passage. Ettormo (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC) "With such attractions as the Greek temples of Magna Graecia, medieval cities, Roman baths and eighteenth-century villas, the great outdoor museum of the peninsula is one of the world’s leading tourist destinations. Italy possesses over 60,000 national monuments and is currently the country with the largest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites (44). As no general inventory of artworks exists, it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of its immense national patrimony of art, which continues to suffer from extensive theft and dispersal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ettormo (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's so not true. Italy does contain 44 (the greatest number) of world heritage sites, and that's a fact. Even wikipedia states it, and I can go out and find you thousands of sources agreeing to so. I personally think that the Italy-related articles are written poorly. Italy is one of the world's greatest countries, and compared to other, even less influential nations, Italy's articles are under-written, lack info and are far too short. So, I will not allow anyone to take away the UNESCO world heritage sites, as it is verifiable, and anyone who does so will have his or her work reverted.

--Theologiae (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy about putting in the verifiable fact that it has 44 UNESCO heritage sites: in fact I include it in the translated passage. What I meant was it’s a strangely competitive vision of the UNESCO project, but this point is probably too subtle so I won’t labour it. Anyway, I suggest replacing the current substandard passage (70% etc.) with the quote as it stands. I lack the skills to insert it in the text with hyperlinks etc. If other wikipedians agree with the change could someone do it?Ettormo (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I could do that. Anyway, the 70% fact has been erased, so there is nothing to worry about. I think the article is ok as it is now. There is nothing which is not verifiable or grossed, and all info is valid.--Theologiae (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's a bit fragmentary still, but it will take a lot of time and no doubt other people will be contributing.Ettormo (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway Ettormo, what do you mean by fragmentary?--Theologiae (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

‘70% of the world's art, culture and literature are found in Italy’ is a blatantly silly statement. Is the art being measured by square metres of verifiably artistic canvas and kg of appropriately sculpted marble? What on earth could 70% of the world’s culture mean? As to literature we might as easily say that ‘less than one per cent of the world’s classic nineteenth-century novels [i.e. I Promessi Sposi] hail from Italy’.

Perhaps we could just make a reference to the Grand tour to identify the high cultural status which the country established and to Stendhal's syndrome as a health warning to tourists? Ian Spackman (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, the article is fine. The 70% has been taken away, and I'll work on improving info on Italy's culture. Okay? Period, end of discussion. --Theologiae (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A reference to the grand tour would certainly be relevant (it’s surprising it isn’t already in there) and I like the idea of mentioning the Stendhal syndrome as a way of evoking the country’s cultural richness and its influence. I agree, we’re interested in quality rather than quantity.Ettormo (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ettormo (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we'll write that. Things on wiki take time, so don't expect it to appear on the Italy article by the end of today, but we'll work on it. I think it's best if we leave the intro as it is (to not make it too or too little factual, just possibly adding a few things), and include a lot more info on Italy's cultural and artistic richness to make this article stand up against other articles, such as France and Spain. I think we should include some info on Rome, Italy's capital, Sicilian culture, the Grand Tour, Stendhal's Syndrome, and a more detailed section on Italy's artisic richness and wealth. I will do some research to verify my claims. Yes, I think that the 70% claim is a bit overblown and a factoid, yet whoever on the top wrote about Italy containing 'less than one per cent of the world’s classic nineteenth-century novels' is silly, as Italy's literature is amongst the most influential and highly-regarded in the world, with famous writers such as Manzoni, Petrarch, Dante, Bocaccio and so much more.

So, how does that sound to you?

--Theologiae (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds promising. I think the point about the 1% was exctly that it was meant to be silly, I mean a reductio ad absurdam, because these things can't really be quantified. Buon lavoro!Ettormo (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

CRICKET in Italy?

three lines on cricket is disporportionate,to say the least. If any sport should be mentioned for gaining popularity, that is rugby. I do not have statistics readily available, but I would be very much surprised if cricket was one of the top 50 sports in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.134.11 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Cricket is gaining popularity in Italy, and a brief section on Rugby has now been included to balance this.--Theologiae (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Section on Cities

I have added a section on Italy's main cities, with a brief so that people seeing this page can roughly understand what Italy's main cities are, where and what their key points are.--Theologiae (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

All the reasons why my edits are vital

Someone has deleted the main cities section and other things, giving little and poor description for deleting 13,000 bytes of info which is needed. Here are all the reasons why it is vital:

• Firstly a person who sees wiki can immediately understand briefly how Italy's main cities are, and where they are located. It is not 'too long' and rather appropriate.

• Secondly, it adds some images to the article, which before had too little. Anyone thinking that the number of images is too great can just begin by going on Spain, and they'll realise.

• Thirdly, deleting info just because 'no other article has it' is not an intelligent and encyclopedic way of thinking and reasoning. For example, France has a section on law (which Italy does not have) and a section on Marianne, Spain has a section on schools and universities, and so on. Bearing in mind that I do not see anything scandalous in adding some helpful and not overly long and boring info, I see no reason why to do such a thing.

• Fourthly, the Italy article still needs drastic improvement, and by deleting 13,000 bytes of info, it will not help.

• Fifthly, it is reliable, accurate and encyclopedic.

So, I have all the right reasons to keep this info on the page. Of course, anyone is free to edit it, but just blanking it is not acceptable.

--Theologiae (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For extra pictures

Please, do not delete the extra pictures. They do not make the article look clunky. Also, I think that it is vitall that in the transport section there is a picture on Italy's motorways, since they indicate the transport routes. I will not add too many pics, as I know wiki is not an image repository, yet, I always think that a good, relevant picture can spice up and make an article more enjoyable.--Theologiae (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

1)Italy overtaken uk gdp and is 6th economy in the world and third in europe ---->http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6418344/UK-economy-overtaken-by-Italy.html 2) immigrants are 7,2% of population = 4,5 milions. 3) change italy gdp that must be better than uk if italy overtaken uk...

bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiacboy (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good

I have added some info to make Italy's history and culture more detailed for these reasons:

There was suprisingly no section on Italy's renaissance (one of Italy's most important parts in history)

Fascism is one of Italian hisory's most important parts

There was no section on society (which germany and brazil have)

Italian architecture is amongst the most important in the world, and russia has a section on it.

And the page is not much longer than before, and still not as big as russia and brazil

--Theologiae (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Government and Politics

In the 3rd paragraph of the Government and Politics section Berlusconi is listed as the "head of state." Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Italian Prime Minister the head of government not the head of state? Additionally, is it really appropriate to quote President Obama's opinion of President Napolitano in a section meant to give an overview of Italian government? Wouldn't the quote be better placed on President Napolitano's biography page? ClixTrek (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I corrected head of government.

I would agree that Obama's quote is not suitable here. Let's see what others think before we delete it.

The Forbes reference does not contain the claim that Berusconi is the richest whatever head. So, this might be removed as well if nobody finds a source to support this. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he's the richest Western head of state (all others are from Eastern and Asian countries). You can see that on the Richest Heads of State page to make sure. Or you can just say 'one of the richest heads of states, owning numerous companies'.--Theologiae (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the source, here or directly in the article. Changing the wording to the blur statement you propose should be avoided if we have sources that allow us to state clear facts. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Architecture section

Although architecture is something Italy is notable for, the same could be said for a few other countries, and most European country articles I have observed place architecture as a subsection of the Culture section. I like this approach because architecture is largely a reflection of cultural thought/tastes, and because it helps to keep the amount of information within the section at a reasonable size relative to the article as a whole. If no one objects, I will begin to condense the Architecture section into a subsection of Culture. Further than that, I am debating whether it would be smart to further divide Visual arts to encompass painting, sculpture, and architecture (what else am I missing? It's late...) as tertiary subsections, each with a couple paragraphs. That would make the Visual arts section noticeable larger than the other culture sections, but Italy has arguably more culture invested in those mediums than any others. Perhaps fashion would have a place in there as well? Opinions?Sicilianmandolin (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I endorse to bring architecture into Culture, but I would not subdived visual arts further. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Would that mean to keep the same amount of info, but just move it into the Culture section? I know that other countries (such as France) have renowned architectures, but I think the architecture and art are Italy's strongest cultural elements. So taking away info I will object, but not moving it into culture.--Theologiae (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph I deleted

"Italy has a global influence in politics, culture, science, education, fashion, art, archaeology, religion, cuisine, business, healthcare, sport, architecture, design, cinema, finance and music. Many regard Milan, Italy's centre of finance and industry, as the world's fashion capital, according to the 2009 Global Language Monitor. Italy also receives the fifth highest number of tourists every year, and Rome is the EU's third most visited city, and is commonly regarded as one of the most beautiful ancient cities in the world. Venice is also considered the most beautiful city in the world, according to the New York Times, which describe the city as "undoubtedly the most beautiful city built by man". The country also has 2009's sixth best international reputation."

Before anyone goes wild and reverts, I deleted the above paragraph for the following reasons:

1. First statement too broad, unsourced. 2. Most of the remaining content deals with city-specific facts, and especially opinions/perceptions about cities. This is not necessary for an intro paragraph about the country, and may be more suitable for the "Italy in popular culture" section. I would add it but I don't like the section anyway. 3. This isn't the "Good Italy" article, nor are we beginning with the "Good Italy" or "Wonderful Italy" intro. Perhaps just as pertinent a statement could be made about how Italy is perceived as one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/gov_cor-government-corruption). The introduction to this article is one-sided enough as is, maybe I should go ahead and add that anyway? Sicilianmandolin (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sicilianmandolin I totally agree with you! This kind of nationalist propaganda is exatly that I was stigmatizing about Theologiae. It's a pity that a lot of users didn't understand this. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I concur. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

Let's discuss what to delete (there's a lot). As I said before, I'm not a big fan of the "Italy in Popular culture" section. Aside from the fact it does not appear in any of the country articles that have attained featured status that I've seen, such as Canada, Japan, and Israel (all of which I use for inspiration, a strategy I think could prove helpful for others, too), it also:

1. repeats information that is available throughout the article (what it doesn't could be integrated); 2. currently sounds propagandistic; 3. is in its very nature quite self-evident; and, 4. is less helpful, if at all helpful, than many other sections which are already contributing enough to the unwieldy size of this article.

Please bear in the mind that it's late and I'm tired; therefore, my arguments are probably not as numerous as they could be. :) Opinions?

The section isn’t really about depictions of Italy in popular culture, which might make an entertaining and conceivably illuminating article in its own right: Nero fiddling, Christians facing lions in the Colloseum, Galvani’s experiments with frogs legs inspiring Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Superman in a fit of despair straightening the leaning tower of Pisa just to annoy people. What we have seems to be a list of famous things and people which really ought somehow to be mentioned in an article on Italy: do Petrarch or Montessori really belong under popular culture? I’d suggest checking that everything mentioned here which is fairly central to an article on Italy is covered elsewhere in the article and then deleting the section. Ian Spackman (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Anyway, the deed has been done. I took all original and pertinent information (yielded a whole 2 small edits) and added it to their respective sections. Most of the information in that section was repeat, so we should be safe. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You could have made better and faster approving my reversion purposal, don't you? XD--Conte di Cavour (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Main cities section unecessary?

Just a suggestion but don't you think that we could just have a list of the main cities which redirects to the relevant pages? I mean this might cut down the length of the article and we all know that is too long anyway. Please say your opinions. --Atlantispy09 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Atlantispy09, you have been blocked for being a confirmed sockpuppet account. Please stop editing. -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been debating this one. I've come to the conclusion that, although a case could be made for the inclusion of the Main cities section, I believe there's a balance of form, organization, reasonable length, and accessibility with quantity of content, and that this balance has been compromised by the length of this article. As well, most of the information within this section is copy-paste from the cities' pages. I think we should make sure that whatever original information about the cities is preserved and transferred to their respective articles, and the section deleted. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Imho it's totally unecessary and useless in a single state page; it looks like a cehap tourist guide. I would like to delete it but I really wouldn't generate some new edit war.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Topics of Deletion

We dont need breakdowns of various faiths in Italy. I think we should have a summarised version. Under the religion of Italy section we can have links to Islam in Italy, Christianity in Italy, Judaism in Italy etc... We really do not need the breakdowns and explanations when we already have seperate pages for them; so why not just refer them to those. Galati (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Galati

I have abbreviated the religion section. I changed the breakdown of non-Christian faiths to "Other Religions." This way, there is not a huge bulky Religion Section and there is still is some work to be done. Galati (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Galati

Looks great. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Geographical locations where Italian is spoken

I have deleted this section—or rather list—in its entirety on the basis that, although obviously relevant to the topic Italian language from which it must have been copied, it is too peripheral for the topic Italy. (The analogous part of the section on German in the article on Germany is simply: ‘Around the world, German is spoken by approximately 100 million native speakers and also about 80 million non-native speakers.’ We already say quite a bit more than that in the first part of the section on the Italian language.) Ian Spackman (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree everytime that someone works on making this article shorter, becasue it's really too long and full of useless parts.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)