Talk:Italy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

History and economy paragraphs ridicolously long

I really wolud not like to generate edit wars, but it's crystal clear that history and economy paragraphs are too long. If the majority of us want to keep Theologiae's contributions, we should AT LEAST summarize and check the graphic look. And, please, let's delete that paragraph on major cities.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree Marek.69 ^talk 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It has all been done--Theologiae (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New revision

Since my last edit and after having my account unblocked and cleared form the sock puppet accusation, I would like to rejoin the discussion. Having read the comments from many of you, I have created a sandbox version of the page, which, I believe, takes into account most of the suggestions made in the last few days. To see it, click here:[1]

• History and economy have been slightly shortened (I still believe that the old version was far too short);

• Architecture has been shortened and merged with culture;

• Main cities has been removed and replaced by a very short summary;

• Some pictures have been removed or improved (even though I don’t get some people’s hatred for pictures, since a good number supports very well the content of the article and make it more enjoyable to read);

• The paragraph on (Obama) has been removed;

• Since Italy contains the world’s largest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, I have created a short section which lists them.

Unless there are major objections, I would be happy to make these changes to the current version.

With regard the latest comments from Conte di Cavour, I would like to say that no one is interested in any edit wars and never will there be if we keep this discussion polite and we are considerate of other’s opinions. Reverting someone else work should be used as a last resort and anyway after having discussed it with the other editors.--Theologiae (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The objective of this article is to present key information on the country in an accessible manner. The present length of this article is more comparable to a short book, in my opinion, than a standard encyclopedia article. Every effort should be made to shorten the length of this article, because that is its biggest problem right now. For example, most readers are not going to find use in the fact that one of Italy's best known combat vehicles is the Dardo infantry fighting vehicle. This is one small example of the kind of peripheral information that is scattered throughout this article, and should be removed and left to be covered in its respective article. With that said, I think the above modifications are going in the right direction, with the exception of the UNESCO sites list. Make a link to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Europe#Italy_.2844.29, and put it somewhere in context. Also, the architecture section should be reduced to a paragraph. The current information is needlessly detailed and specific. I will hopefully get to this on the weekend.

Further than that, I will reiterate for the third time that I think it's a good idea to look to articles such as Canada, Japan, and Israel as templates when editing. They will not fit the uniqueness of Italy's information entirely, but should give a good idea of what we should be aspiring to. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your ideas, Sicilianmandolin. I'm really happy now to help this article. Just a few points I wanted to mention. I fully realise that this article needs shortening, however, it seems that it is the only thing people are talking about now. What I think is best is to remove the irrelivant bits and condense this overly-long page, but I think quality is more important than word count, and I'd rather have a long, but well-written passage rather than a short, boring and bland page. Also, regarding your point on taking inspiration from other featured country articles, I see your point, but remember Italy isn't Japan, as Canada isn't Israel. Each nation has very different aspects, and even if you see these articles, they are all so different, so it's hard to take inspiration from all of them. I would, with some care, take inspiration from the Italian wikipedia page Italia. Even though it's a bit too long and overblown, it's featured, it's wikipedia and it's the same country. I'd also take slight inspiration from the Encyclopaedia Britannica online version of the page, since it's written by scholars. Even that is far too long for this page, but some info it contains is relevant and accurate. Anyway, here's the link to both pages (by the way, in the britannica article you have to go on the full version, otherwise it's only a small page):[2][3]

Anyway, I'll work hard to improve this article, and hopefully shorten it to around 145-150,000 bytes. I'm really happy with the new contribs. and I'm more than willing to join any projects, even though I am a bit busy.--Theologiae (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"What I think is best is to remove the irrelevant bits and condense this overly-long page, but I think quality is more important than word count, and I'd rather have a long, but well-written passage rather than a short, boring and bland page." Yes, quality is very important, and quality will be improved when the peripheral information I was talking about is removed and sections are summarized. Once this is achieved, we can give closer scrutiny to the finer content and adjust as needed. If you pick at the little things first, nothing's going to get done. I've been watching this article for a long time, and that tendency has been part of what plagues it. We need to concentrate on the bigger issue, the article's size, right now. And I never said this article should be short, only shorter.

"I see your point, but remember Italy isn't Japan, as Canada isn't Israel. Each nation has very different aspects, and even if you see these articles, they are all so different, so it's hard to take inspiration from all of them." The differences between these articles is what gives us the liberty to retain some of the differences between the Italy article and other country articles. If you can be mindful of that point, it should not be hard to use those articles as inspiration for the quality and cohesiveness of content we are trying to achieve. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen some of the most recent additions today, and yes, some of them are good points, but know I think we're going a bit too far in the other direction. I mean, in economy, I get that most info is copied and pasted, but all other countries have longer economy sections. I realise that our main aim now is to reduce the article, but don't you think it's going slighty too far the opposite, and soon we might end up having too short an article. Now I agree with many of the new contribs. and that economy was too long, but now that the page is at 149,000 bytes, I think we have now reached a sufficient point of deletion, and that except deleting some info in history we have to be careful about too many deletions. Also, to the people who dislike pictures, yes, adding too many of them is not good, but don't you agree that we don't want a horrible article with no pictures. As it is now, there are barely any pics of Italian cities. If you go on any other country, there are about 5 pics about cities, so with all deletions now, it's appreciated that people are making this once stuffy article far shorter, but now let's not make it too short. Any suggestions?--Theologiae (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Page reverted to 2009-10-17 version

I've reverted this page to 2009-10-17 version, reverting all the edits by user Theologiae for the following motivations:

• non neutral edits (jingoism)
• no sense of graphics
• useless contents
• too long
• bad grammatics

In my opinion, these edits could properly be classified as vandalism.

I think that, in case of complaints, it cuold be appropriate to make a poll on this issue.

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I

Agree with the revert, the article was getting too long, and there's no point in repeating here what is said in other articles. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting the page won't do any good, I'll get the poll of 0other people, total vandalism, you don't just revert 110,0000 bytes of text for silly reasons, work on article instead.--Theologiae (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not important the amount of bytes, all the more so if the quality is extremely low! You made only nationalist propaganda with a lot of pictures, without considering the graphics of this page! You built a kind of low-quality, loquacious tourist guide! You destroyed a two years-long work! This is too much!

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You are a harsh person. It took me ages to help this article out, and since as Sicilianmandolin said, the old version was in need, you have reverted hours' work. You could have improved my version, whilst the page now is terrible. My edits did not delete work, and as a matter of fact, you deleted a month-long project that I was working with other editors. Just correct the grammatical mistakes! You're excuse, in my opininon, is totally unconstructive, especially to an article which me myself and other editors said needed hepl. My version too wasn't fantastic, but I, as others noticed, improved the article, and I asked other editors to help, not delete.

As I believe, justice will prevail, and let's see which point of view gains a greater consenus.--Theologiae (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both views. It was quite long. There were a few things that were not necessary such as the breakdown of each large Italian city for economic and tourist descriptions, and the religion section and introduction was over stretched. But I also agree with user Theologiae; there was a lot of excellent information on there too like the quality of Italy's healthcare, education and other things. Oh yes and Theologiae did an excellent and balanced writing of the Italian Economy section, whereas this current makes Italy's economy sound almost third world without even mentioning the pluses of Italy's economy. I thoroughly enjoyed a lot of the new contributions and he is right...why on earth would you delete when you could just modify it and work with it...its totally unfair and a lot of his contributions should be re-instated. Galati (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Galati

I agree with Galati. While Theologiae's contributions aren't perfect, and I do not concur with some of them, I think they provide a basis to build on, to be edited, amended, modified, where necessary. Goochelaar (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that both of you should just start getting along and working together on this page rather than act like a bunch of 12 year olds! Also I think that your claims of propoganda are wrong and you should take that back both of you are doing fine so just get along.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.213.103 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Conte di Cavour, I would like to start by stating that I would like to remain neutral in what appears to be essentially a 'content dispute'

As I understand it, it is your proposal to revert the article back to the version of 2009-10-17 version, because you disagree with user Theologiae's edits/additions.

However one thing concerns me, since the 2009-10-17 version, I have counted no less than 40 individual users (not counting yourself and user Theologiae) who have made edits to the article.

Do you intend to restore and keep these edits, or are they also in your opinion 'unconstructive'?

Do these 40 users have a say in your reversion back to 2009-10-17, i.e. do you intend to contact them and notify of this discussion?

If it is your intention to simply revert back to the 2009-10-17 version, discarding these users edits, then, while being neutral in the content dispute, I would be forced, for this reason, to object to your actions and oppose the action.

For your convenience I have compiled a list of all users who have edited the Italy article since 17 October 2009:

Charlir91 ElSaxo Rror Daygum Mindmatrix Hayden120 Paine Ellsworth Goochelar Debresser Sicilianmandolin

AnomieBOT Lfh Galloramenu Jusdafax Arpingstone Wikilaurent Tobby72 SSZ Cadsuane Melaidhrin Vegaswikian

Brutaldeluxe FoxBot VolkovBot Rjwilmsi Marek69 PrincessofLlyr SieBot JEN9841 Bambuway Nightkey

Cunibertus Cocoaguy JaGa Xqbot Human Rights Believer Clarkcj12 Zscout370 Tomeasy Blocci Sicilianmandolin

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the article produced by Theologiae explained everything needed, there was no point in deleting his article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Go-Cod-MW2 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly for this idiot (80.47.213.103) who forgot to sign in...the whole purpose of Italy Talk page is for us to rant to better improve the article thanks...its not about reverting the whole article Theologiae had Conti di Cavour; rather its adding very important and useful information Theologiae contributed especially towards the economy and health sections. Plus a little more photos never hurt. I dont think that everything he wrote or the article he wrote be fully reinstated; rather I disagree with your deletion of his work. We could tweek his work a bit and put it up to scratch and implement it in the article. I have contact him in efforts that we can reinstate his work to compliment this article. It seems that it is common concensus on this discussion so far that at least some of his work have the chance of being seen and read in the article...I never knew that Italy had the worlds third best healthcare system...but i guess with your revert, useful information like that wont be seen.

So I for one would like to see, some of his work put back...how about you collaborate with him in order to keep the fluidity of this amazing country's page! Galati (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Galati

I don’t see any propaganda in theologiae’s edits. Actually I found most of the additions made quite interesting to read, balanced and surely worth to be kept. I also agree with Galati. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Good stuff has been added into this article which surely can be improved, not deleted and I hope it will be reverted back. Theologiae, I enjoyed reading your additions. In particular I liked the way you have expanded the History chapter and I agree with you that Italy deserved much more info on culture, art, and architecture than the old version. As for the pictures, I loved them and I believe that they go very well with the content of the article. Conte di Cavour, are you the person in charge of this article? Shouldn’t you have discussed your view before deleting someone else’s work? Your attitude surely does not encourage others to make their contribution to Wikipedia. Maybe vandalism is what you just did rather than these edits. --Seurope (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see some interesting developments. I do agree with some points Conte di Cavour has made; the article does sound like somewhat of a glorified tourist guide to me, an issue I have brought up with Theologiae before, and still feel needs addressing. For example, there are some instances where a wealth of positive information is included, but few to no negative points are presented for balance and perspective (e.g. in the intro). However, I have seen his edits yield some relevant content, and I do not wholly agree with the comment that "there's no point in repeating here what is said in other articles", excepting the act of mere copying and pasting text. I think the main objective of this article should be to bring out the most relevant information from more specialized articles, such as "Economy of Italy", and summarizing them, adding more information when relevant if the said articles are lacking themselves. And I think that, in the least, we can use the edits he has made as templates for further consolidation and reworking (see the Architecture example above this conversation) because they do add valuable information.

I propose that we keep the unreverted version, work to balance, rework, and condense where needed, and ask that Theologiae be cooperative and ease his grip while we do this, because he does seem to be quite authoritarian over this article at times. Furthermore, I propose that we look to country articles that have achieved Featured status, such as Germany, as loose examples.

Sicilianmandolin (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Those in favor of restoring the longer post-Theologiae version, observing the above conditions:

1.Sicilianmandolin (talk)

2.Theologiae (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Atlantispy (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet account

Aslordofd (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet account

3.Goochelaar (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

--Seurope (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet account

4.Galati

5.Go-Cod-MW2

Those in favor of retaining the current, pre-Theologiae version:

Now that we have established that it is worth to restore the longer post Theologiae version can anyone revert to the old version so that we can edit in line with the reccomendation made in this discussion page. Theologiae, please cooperate to achive what suggested by Sicilianmandolin.--Seurope (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed Theologiae (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

• Seurope (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Atlantispy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aslordofd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

User(s) blocked. indefinitely. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Go-Cod-MW2 (talk · contribs) could be a sock, but I am not sure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the above users that I listed are contributors to this discussion. The blocked ones are all being controlled by the same person, so you should take that into account when assessing consensus. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for running a check, J. I had my suspicions. I still think we ought to count his one vote. As for Go-Cod-MW2, we can't be sure, and have to assume good faith. Nonetheless, the consensus is still clear. I will revert the current page and leave the poll open for some time. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

After two weeks of investigation, it has finally been proved that the user accounts Seurope and Theologiae were not controlled by the same persons and the accounts have now been unblocked. I am pleased to see that since that day, improvements have been made in the article and I am willing to give my contribution to improve it even more as I hope Theologiae will do the same.--Seurope (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What he said. ^ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I still find it unfair that Seurope and Theologiae were unblocked when I haven't been. I would not complain if I was in fact Seurope or Theologiae and I'm still telling you that I'm a different person. --Atlantispy09 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete?

Over the centuries, Italy has boasted numerous people of excellence in many fields,[139] including some of the most renowned geniuses, architects, actors, polymaths, artists and politicians of all time. Examples include Julius Caesar, Petrarch, Marco Polo, Dante, Botticelli, Machiavelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Palladio, Michelangelo, Raphael, Bernini, Canaletto, Vivaldi, Garibaldi, Cavour, Mazzini, Verdi, Puccini, Maria Montessori, Salvatore Ferragamo, Federico Fellini, Federico Faggin, De Chirico, Aldo Moro and Pavarotti, to name a few.

I advocate deleting/modifying this paragraph for the following reasons:

1. One-sided. Where's Mussolini and the other questionable figures? This is about Italian people, not just good Italian people.

2. Most of these names receive mention somewhere in the article, and is therefore rather inferred.

3. Reference is questionable at best. Author has absolutely no evident background in subject. (http://www.buzzle.com/authors.asp?author=12032)

Instead of editing the paragraph myself, I thought I'd say something here because I don't want to touch it.

Aside from this, I would like to say that your edits (Theologiae) seem to be going in the right direction. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask, Sicilianmandolin, what you aim to reach in this article, and what your objective is now (I'm a little bit confused at where we want to get to). The paragraph on Italian people can be edited to include some bad figures. It was a mistake and I forgot to include some. I only know Mussolini, can you give me some other negative figures. I don't think we should deleted the paragraph, just improve it. Can I also know what you want to add, change etc. Anyway, good work!--Theologiae (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate the efforts of Theologiae (and I said so, when the complete reversion was discussed), here it seems to me that condensing in a single sentence representative people from millennia of history, artists, writers, statesmen, and whatnot is kind of futile. Almost every country has had in its history lots of remarkable people; for all its uniqueness, this is not something which characterises Italy. Some or most of these people can be mentioned, if it is useful to do so, in other sections. And we always have several categories and lists for articles about Italian people. Perhaps more work could be put in them. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my aim should be unclear because I don't want to edit or perhaps even retain a paragraph that I think is rather useless and was not written by me. Like I said, and like Goochelaar echoed, these names have already been mentioned, and as Goochelaar also pointed out, this is not something unique to Italy; many countries have a great number of notable figures. I'm just not convinced of the utility in starting a section named "Italian people" with such a list, nor of the appropriateness; such a list represents a certain type of people that are in the minority (as with any country), and do not represent Italian people in the broader perspective. I think that's what the section should be about. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Could I just know Sicilianmandolin what your aim is for this article now, just to see what your ideas are?--Theologiae (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Italy is also known for its PERFECTLY AWSOME mansions. so rock on!!! by them they are REALLY big and really cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.178.200 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

“High Charitability” Can we cut these two words. The use of the source quoted is grotesque, its whole drift is the opposite. It notes Italy has a low volume of real aid and a medium volume of “phantom aid”. Italy's poor aid performance is confirmed by many recent comments in the press. See “Corriere della Sera” 28.6.2009: “Italy in September 2008 cut 56 per cent of its funds for foreign aid … when already with 0.20 per cento of GDP it was last of the fifteen European countries together with Greece.Ettormo (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Ettormo

Good catch. It does seem that the article confirms Italy's relatively low charitability for a "global" country, as most of it is "phantom". Besides, Wikipedia's own article seems to say that Italy's total aid expenditures are only medium for a country its size, and as a percentage of its GNI, rather low for Europe. If we could get a statistic that factors religious charitability, it might be different. Until then, I'm taking the statement out. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Education

I've noticed that the entirety of the Education section, except for the opening paragraph, is solely dedicated to ranking Italy's universities. This has little informational value. I will be modifying this section in the coming days. Anyone interested in helping me balance the section and add some information of more value is more than welcome. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You know how you (Sicilianmandolin) deleted the info on how Italy's school system works? Maybe you should replace that with the univesity rankings. Since Spain and some other articles do contain info on its univesities, so what I'd do is reduce the uni section (just have a paragraph briefly describing Italy's top unis) and restore the info on Italy's school system.--Theologiae (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I do have some ideas. I think I'm going to reduce the university comparisons to a paragraph (like you suggested), maybe include a brief overview of the general workings of the educational system, and add some information regarding Italy's educational system's comparative performance. Thanks for the thoughts. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why has not been mentioned the role of Italy on the development of banking?

Finance and modern banking techniques originated in Italy, it seems quite strange that this aspect has not been highlighted with a special paragraph... --Magnagr (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian Population Discrepancy

UN: Jan 1, 2009; 59,870,000
World Bank: Jan 1, 2008; 59,850,000
IMF: Dec 31st 2009; 59,779,000
CIA Factbook: Jul 2009; 58,126,000
US-CB: Jan 1 2010; 58,091,000

Look at all of these credible sources used in tens of thousands of articles across all of Wikipedia. Then istat comes up with a number not even CLOSE to what these credible organizations have. We should reconsider using it as a source. Slaja (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

music wrong

in its music section it says that Italy was where the violin was originally made and this is incorrect, while the violin started being majorly produced and made in Italy it was not made there, nor discorverd there, no one is sure where the first violin was made, but the middle east is suspected of its orignial creation. If you are going to say that it5aly made it than at least say the major Luithers of it like Amati, stradivari, maggini.... come on!!! == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.40.21 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is totally incorrect. The classical violin as we know it was invented in Italy. Yes, it is true that some sort of form of violin was made in the Middle East but it was not the violin as we think of it. The true classical violin played by orchestras etc. was made in Cremona by Stradivarius, and it is an accepted fact--Theologiae (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic Status between north and south italy

i read: "The country is divided into a developed industrial north dominated by large private companies and a primarily agricultural, state-assisted south" primarily agricultural???? where??? can you explain in which officially datas (for example ISTAT) is written that economy in south italy is primarily based on agriculture, and not about tertiary and industry, as it is in the reality???

percentage of primary sector (agriculture and fishing too) on the economy of these southern italy (by ISTAT, italian official statistics agency): Molise 3,32% sardinia 3,09% campania 2,42% sicily 3,52% calabria 4,13% abruzzo 2,48%

probably who has written the article get problems in mathematics, or probably he is stopped in the italy of 100 years ago! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.223.189 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to help

I am from Italy. Let me know if I can help with this page. Thanks. --SamantaGhezzi (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinema of Italy

This section requires expansion. Wikipedia largely underestimates the importance of Italian cinema after II World war. Where are Rossellini, Visconti, Ferreri, Bertolucci, Olmi, Bellocchio, Risi, Moretti, Tornatore, etc? Where are the many Academy awards, Palme d'or awards, Golden Lion, European Awards (etc) won by italians? Where are cult movies of recent years such as "Cinema paradiso", "The son's Room", "Gomorrah", "Il Divo", etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.54.10 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tourism

I have slightly increased and added a tourist section for the following reasons:

• Italy is the world's fifth top tourist reciever and fourth top earner, so even a small subsection on the topic seems appropriate (considering that other important tourist nations such as France, Russia and Greece also have subsections on the topic).

• Since tourism is possibly, along with design, cars and fashion, Italy's most successful and thriving economy sector, it was surprising that it was so small in comparison to other details of the Italian economy.

• It is good, because one can see the top visited sights and cities in Italy, with relatively recent (2008) rankings of the Euromonitor.

--Theologiae (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the map of "The Real Italia"?

"The Real Italia" = southern part of Bruttium(Calabria)... In the past, on this article(or maybe on Calabria article!)there was a map showing Bruttium(Calabria) & writing Italia on it... What happened to this map? Böri (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Italy

Italy is a country! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.158.129 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Correction

I would like to add that the Rome municipality is the largest for the fanaticism of Mussolini! The true largest italian cities are Milan and Naples: their municipality is small beacause they refer to the historic administrative border (yet)! If we want to talk about the true border of the modern cities of Milan or Naples, we must include all the metropolitan area (the true extension of the modern cities, so).. ok? So, after "largest city", should be "largest metropolitan area" = Milan and Naples or only Milan. Please! For Italy this correction is a must! Italy is very complicated :)!--Focak (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Also in the french wikipedia's page! Italie --Focak (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Italy is awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.136.174 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Is the introduction to this article too long? Five paragraphs seems a bit much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.129.92 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A small mistake: Italy is the fifth (and not the sixth) most populous country in Europe, and the fourth in the European Union. (Ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population)

Could someone please fix this? Thanks.

Marcoderrico (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is sixth, because it comes after Russia, Germany, Turkey, France and the UK, making it sixth.--Theologiae (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare

There is nothing just good-faithy of the healthcare statistics. These are the healthcare statistics, and virtually each one I've been on says the same thing. You cannot disprove it. This is the WHO, the most well-known healthcare organization in the world, not some dodgy made-up results. As for now, since I can't find any reason why not to, I'm putting it back in.--Theologiae (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rome is not largest city! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.34.160 (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Milan, not Rome

Rome is not largest city! Rome is largest municipality (city proper), Milan and Naples are small municipality, but very big (largest) metropolitan area! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.34.160 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Economy

Italy is the sixth most industrialized country in the world according to OCSE surpassing Uk in 2009, search the "secondo sorpasso" please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.170.103 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I did (although you didn't specify where the search should be conducted, or the name of the paper to find) and got one unrelated document. Do you have better details, or a link, so that we can verify your claim? Mindmatrix 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... ok, there are several financial papers, but I prefer The Daily Telegraph, here is the link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/6418344/UK-economy-overtaken-by-Italy.html

Another thing, why do you talk about italy as the sick man of europe (Italy has often been referred the sick man of Europe)? According to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sick_man_of_Europe in 2008 the nickname was given to Italy by The Daily Telegraph, the same Daily Telegraph that now has stated "Italy overtakes London", and so, who is the sick man of europe now? - Alex64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.170.103 (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I haven't said or written anything about Italy as "the sick man of Europe"; don't attribute to me what you read in WP articles. Second, what the media does isn't Wikipedia's concern; we're only documenting things, not taking promotional or editorial positions. If the media has called Italy "the sick man of Europe", and there are valid references for it, then there's no issue in stating it in an article. As you'll note at Sick man of Europe, the label has been applied to many countries on a rotating basis. (Frankly, I think it's a meaningless term, as every economy has its own dysfunction.) You're more than welcome to update the articles to reflect the current situation. Mindmatrix 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't attributed anything to you, and I do my apologies if my words seem too harsh, somehow; in any case, OCSE data is not a "promotional thing", that page of Daily Telegraph is about OCSE data - Alex64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.170.103 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't update the article because Im not a registered user - Alex64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.170.103 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ECONOMY

Economy of southern italy is not based mainly on agriculture, stop to write bullshits!!! tertiary and industry are the main economic resources of Southern Italy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Giorgio Napolitano

Giorgio Napolitano is not from PD! correct it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.97.223 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing topics

Two very important topics are missing: Environment (recycling, waste disposal, environmental disasters [Vajont, Seveso], renewable energy) and Crime (the Mafia, Camorra, Ndrangheta, Sacra Corona Unita, petty crime, violent crime, murder rate, excessive length of trials, corruption, collusion, fraud etc.). The second list is rather long and surely deserves a mention. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Metropolitan area

Source wrong

Yes, I've seen, but, the metropolitan area of Rome is not the second of italy!!! it's wrong and parochial!! multiple (many many many) sources indicate it's the third of italy, after Milan and Naples, by population, please!!! you can see here: Naples!! also in italian wikipedia page, franch, Spanish, etc..!! please, I believe that this source must be controlled.... not fanaticism please!!! you must write that multiple of sources say metropolitan area of Naples is the second!! how you can well see!!

Site address of Italian railways

The address of Italian State Railways http://www.trenitalia.it/en/index.html is not correct. The right one is http://www.ferroviedellostato.it/homepage_en.html

Peninsula??

Is Italy, in your opinion, only a peninsula? Some northern separatist could agree with this oddy statement but the reality is different: at least 1/3 of the country is totally continental. Please correct this statement (See italian Wiki) , thanks Franjklogos (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the peninsula starts where the Alps begin descending towards the sea, same as the Indian subcontinent. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You correctly refer to India as a subcontinent of Asia and I agree with you. But Italy has never been considered a sub continental part of Europe (I admit the difference is subtile) and a peninsula starts where the land leaves the main coast line.No inhabitant of the Po Valley says he lives in a peninsula. My best regards. Franjklogos (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Franjklogos. Even if the peninsula would start where Alps begin, "italian peninsula" is a geographical term and it does not coincide with the repubblic. For instance the peninsula does not include Sicily and Sardinia, wich are islands. I would take off all occurrences of "Italian peninsula" in this article, just because it is not the same as "Italy" as a state. Italian Peninsula has a different entry. Marco151.21.197.154 (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, I disagree with this sentence: "Italy is a country located partly on the European Continent and partly on the Italian Peninsula in Southern Europe...". A peninsula is part of the continent. See Continental Europe. Marco 151.21.197.154 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is correct as it stands, see the Topography section: not all of Italy is in the peninsula, some parts are located outside the drainage basin of the Alps.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The topography section is correct. In several other parts it is referred to Italy as "the peninsula" or "the Italian peninsula". Since this is not a entry on the geographic Italian peninsula, it would be more correct to call it simply "Italy", or "the repubblic", or even "the Italian repubblic", or (if referring to the territory) "Italian territory". It is correct to leave peninsula only when it is actually referring to the geographical peninsular area. Marco 151.21.197.154 (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I found another place: "Although the country occupies the Italian peninsula and the whole of the southern Alpine basin, some of Italy's territory extends beyond the Alpine basin and the Eurasian continental shelf." This is not correct, as said before. Marco 151.21.197.154 (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is your proposal for a rephrasing?Brutal Deluxe (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would just take off the citation of Eurasian continental shielf. The eurasian continental shielf does not begin at the Alps. So the sentence would be "Although the country occupies the Italian peninsula and the whole of the southern Alpine basin, some of Italy's territory extends beyond the Alpine basin.". Marco151.21.197.154 (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the section to make it more clear.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the same Marco that wrote before, with a different IP (I will make an accout here soon). Thank you for your modification, I think it's correct. Please note also my observation on the "peninsula" term I made above. Marco 83.103.117.254 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I translated the passage in question from Italian Wiki.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, as you can see I have an account now. The Italian wiki has partially changed since you translated it, so that I cannot see all the wrong occurrences of "penisola" there are here. Anyway you are right, also in Italian wiki sometimes "penisola" is still used improperly! I just made my observations also there. In the meanwhile if you agree I can modify few "peninsula" here that I think are wrong. Mad Toad (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

St Peter's Basilica

In the collage of Italian churches, I fully acknowledge the fact that St Peter's Basilica isn't technically part of Italy, but I've restored the collage under these measures (I have made it clear that the basilica is not legally part of the country):

• The image of St Peter's Basilica appears in most travel books and guides of Italy.
• It was part of the country until 1929
• It is geographically part of Italy
• It is in Rome, Italy's capital
• Italian is widely spoken
• It is culturally nearly identical to Italy
• Yet most importantly, it was built by Italian architects. If you go on culture of Denmark, you'll see a pic of the Sydney operahouse, which is not technically in Denmark, yet was built by Danish architects, and is considered a Danish work of art. St Peter's Basilica is an Italian work, yet is not found in Italy any longer. It's like saying the Mona Lisa is should not be shown on an Italy-related page just because it's no longer found in Italy.

--Theologiae (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a travel guide, the article is about the Italian republic.
• So was Istria
• So is Corsica
• So is the Order of Malta
• Just like in Lugano
• British roads were tarmaced by Italians, let's have a picture of a British road.

Instead of buildings, why not go for Italian clergymen? Don Bosco, Don Benzi and what about Bishop Richard Williamson? He must have been in Italy at some point.

First of all, I'm not talking about travel guides, but travel books. There's a difference. Travel guides are meant to promote holiday destinations. Travel books are books which describe how countries are in a far more accurate and less promotional way than guides. Secondly, the comparisons you have made are not valid. This section is on religion, not British roads. Thirdly, this article is about the Italian republic all right, and I acknowledge that, yet, it was made clear in the blurb that St Peter's Basilica is not legally part of Italy. I find your idea about clergymen to be not relevant. This is about religion, not people. Thank you.--Theologiae (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sport

The part on cricket are a bit too harsh. There are about three sports more famous than cricket in Italy and, of course, more succesful: volleyball, male and female, basket and baseball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmignola (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that more sports have been added, as suggested above. However I still find POV the part "Cricket is also slowly gaining popularity...", since cricket is absolutely not popular in Italy. The result of 27th in the world is not remarkable at all. Should we make a comment also on all other sports more popular than cricket? Mad Toad (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cricket is certainly gaining more players, as it is popular among the south Asian immigrants. As these people gain citizenship, its popularity rises among Italian citizens. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

well, I live in Italy. I do not know anybody that even know the rules. I've never seen a match broadcasted by any television channel in my life. I even defy you to find one single article on cricket in any Italian sport newspaper, like the most popular: http://www.gazzetta.it. I don't think the majority of south Asian immigrants play cricket, anyway the South Asian immigrants are not the most numerous foraign communities in Italy, as the most numerous are south American, north African and Est European. For sure there are several more popular sport than cricket not mentioned here: all athletics, table tennis, billards, sail and lot more. I'm going to delete at least the comment on cricket, but I really think it should not be mentioned at all. Please show some evidence on popularity of cricket if you really think it worth a comment. Mad Toad (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I distinctly remember reading the cricket results at the back of La gazzetta dello sport, but that paper really is a bad example as the focus on soccer smothers everything else.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Australia where cricket is the main summer sport, and Italy is a non-entity in cricket although hopefully it becomes more popular. 27th in the world is nothing as only 8 countries play properly. Afghanistan is now 11th in the world and they have no stadium or organisation, just a bunch of refugees based outside the country. Simlarly the other countries ranked 10-15 are 90% comprised of South Asians who have dual citizenship, UK/Aus expatriates who live in Netherlands, USA, Hong Kong etc who play socially on the weekend while working in banking on weekdays. Many of the players don't ever even come their "country" and are living in Aus etc but qualify base on ethnic lineage. As for the 27th in the world, to put this in perspective, Uganda was about #15 a few years ago, and some of their players ran away after playing a tournament in Australia. They now play in C Grade in Adelaide (1.1 million people). Imagine C-level competition in Genoa (1.4m in metro). Swimming, rowing, even rugby are much stronger YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture Mislabelled

For the picture of the flora and fauna of Italy, the caption says that the names go clockwise, but in that case the bluethroat and the praying mantis are switched around. Either the picture needs to be changed accordingly or (more likely) the caption should be amended to accurately represent the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.223.45 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.Mad Toad (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

These are all pre-digested under one or a few words and are arranged in a scheme. I appreciate that approach and have used it myself. In this case however the links do not always correspond to the scheme, some are dead, some have become pay sites or general sites. Links are the most transitory part of an article. I think it will be better off with the traditional cite web, etc. The logical organization would do better in the article itelf and no doubt many of these links can be turned into notes. So, I'm going to start putting the links in traditional format and evaluating them as to their utility to the article. It's not an article of sources, it's an article to which sources are brought in for verification and support. Ciao.Dave (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The power, the power

I had a discussion with some persons in the Rome article who wanted to throw around the word power in a subjective sense - powerful this, powerful that etc. There it was peacock language. This use of power is not the same - the editor cites definitions, sources and other WP articles. So, I wouldn't even think of viewing that as peacock language. What the editor means is basically strategic power, the ability of a state or population to make war. Regretfully not enough attention has been paid to the formats of the references and the availablilty and suitability of those references. I notice a link there to Google Books in general! Also the theme of strategic power might be developed a little. I'll be helping out in this area shortly, formatting and checking sources, and maybe quoting a few definitions in the second set of notes - the notes notes. I thought I would let you know in advance that this seems to be a legitimately encyclopedic use of "power" so there will not be a problem with me. The same would not apply to Rome. It is not a sovereign state and whatever strategic power it has gets lumped in with that of Italy, the sovereign state. I have a suggestion for you powerists - the linked WP articles on power are nearly all tagged, mainly for sources - I suggest you go over there and round those out. They were the first clicks I made on reading about the power of Italy here.Dave (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Improving the quality

• Further to the below: the Daily Life and Leisure section is of little value, especially as it contends 'most' Italians are not interested in sports or books, in spite of other sections detailing Italian contributions to both sport and literature. Do we need to know that Italians like listening to the radio and socialising with friends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahiffe (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Article is too long, one way of improving this is to leave one picture per section and eliminate the tedious lists of statistics from the main body (see WP:NOT#STATS).

• Some edits are not taking into account that the article is already of a reasonable quality, see Wikipedia:Defending article quality

• There seems to be no criterium as to which companies are mentioned in the article, I view this as a type of advertising, and do not welcome it. Commercial enterprises should only be mentioned to support a point, if at all, in a country article.

• The style is inconsistent, and some things are mentioned more than once (e.g. Renzo Piano mentioned twice in Architecture), several times infact for others.

• The article has a very promotional tone in places (Italy the top producer of Kiwis?), and lacks NPOV. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I respond in these ways:

• Firstly: article may be slightly long, but really, if you take away all the refs, the article would be only about 150,000 bytes, a reasonable page size. The huge number of refs makes the page appear to be really long in bytes.

• Secondly, there's no problem in mentioning people twice in articles.

• Thirdly, yes, Italy is the top producer of kiwis. There's a difference between "promotional" stuff and "the truth". If the sentence said "Italy is an amazingly great agricultural producer" then that would be promotional, but a simple fact isn't.

• Have you seen how many negative points there are in the economy section? This article contains many good and bad points, something every article should have.

• If you think the Italy page is "one of a kind", then see Russia, UK or Hungary. These are overly tedious and long pages, not Italy. As I said, the main thing which makes Italy look overly long is the 200 or what references. If those were taken away, you'd see the article is far shorter than it really is. As it's standing, I think all editors have done a great job in helping this artice's quality, and I think, as it is now, if a few parts are mended, it could reach at least good article status.--Theologiae (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice to get the article to A class, but I wasn't referring to the size in kb, but in visible text. Theologiae, how do you justify giving the names of companies as examples? What is your criterium? Why these companies and not others? Why not mention others that give you a discount if you promise to put their name in Wikipedia? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be a list of all of Italy's companies, more rather the very famous ones. It's just so a reader of the page can know briefly a few of the very top companies of the country, not any form of advertisement of promotional statements.--Theologiae (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Why is there a need to provide examples of companies? Why those companies? The section is just as useful without them. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Another point: the "fact" that Italy and "especially Rome" have an "important role in worldwide organisations" was supported by a link to the FAO job page. Whoever was responsible for that should take a long and hard look at themselves. Theologiae, I've been trying to understand what "attribution of old version of this page" means, but I have absolutely no clue. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This means that, since I heard that you had to attribute information that you take from wikipedia, (I heard) that you have to do so even with an old version of the page (I may be wrong, but I didn't want to make the mistake).--Theologiae (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean reference? Are you referring to the fact that you cannot use other wiki articles as a source? Write it in Italian if it's easier. I will translate for other users' benefit. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean attribution as in copying within wikipedia. I heard this, so I'm not 100% sure, but I heard that if you copy-paste any info from any revision, old or new, of a wikipedia page, you have to attribute it (as in for the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).--Theologiae (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, or seen it done. I'm sure it's not a problem if you don't do it, as long as the edit summary makes sense.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Map

Apparently, Italy is not part of the European Continent, according to the map in the top right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.161.235 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

climate

Humid subtropical climate is not a continental climate. Edit of the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.104.11 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Most of the inland northern regions of Italy, for example Piedmont, Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna, have a humid subtropical (Köppen climate classification Cfa)." Subtropical is nonsense. I propose to alter to "temperate climate typical of the middle latitudes."Campolongo (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have long thought that calling the climate of the Po valley subtropical was a bit barmy—are other sub-tropical regions subject to such bitter winters?—but had always put it down to my ignorance of climate science. Certainly I would encourage you to make the change. If experts revert you, on the basis of their expertise, then so be it: don’t take it personally;-) Ian Spackman (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the "humid subtropical" business has spread like a rash across a lot of entries dealing with northern Italy - see the entries Milan, Bologna, Verona etc. The corresponding Italian articles are luckily immune to it. They also mention the Koppen classification but add descriptions like "continental" or "temperate". I will insert it when I work out how to add a footnote Campolongo (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not correct

Rome is not also the greatest city. It's Milan and Naples. Roma is country's largest and most populated municipality (central area). The agglomerations of Milan and Naples are most important: Milan e Naples have a little municipality (administrative limits largely unchanged since Fascism), but a big and important metropolitan area. For example like Paris.--79.26.11.221 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the article did you have a problem with, all the mentions of Rome see reasonable. I cant see where it claims Rome is the greatest city. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Where? In the template: "capital: Rome", and under this "largest city: Rome". It's not correct, I would like to delete this information. The question is most complicated. Paris, Milan, Naples have a little municipality, only administrative limits, but a great and important metropolitan area: for population, density, etc. Rome has a big municipality (for the crazyness of Mussolini, because he wanted to reconstitute also urbanisticcaly the imperial Rome "the largest municipality of Europe" (but the agglomeration of Rome is not very important - this is the truth). Example: New York 800 kmq with 8.3 inhabitants, Greater London 1400 kmq with 7.3 inhabitants... You can recognize the crazyness of Mussolini: Rome is 1285 kmq with 2.8 inhabitants, and the density is very low. --79.26.91.19 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The largest city is Milan. The agglomeration of Milan is: 7.400.000.--79.26.91.19 (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Nature

Why have Nature and Vulcanism been removed (last shown here) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italy&oldid=379385663#Nature Art Literature etc are intact so why not Environment. I note the Wiki is not National Geographic comment but it is not Arts Review either. Italy is a very important biodiversity hotspot and the volcanoes are world renowned.Can someone explain I'm puzzled Notafly (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I merged vulcanism with topography, but I don't know what happened to nature, perhaps Conte di Cavour knows. This page is rather large and is isn't the easiest to navigate, both factors affect accessibility, so I'm in favour of reducing the numbers of headers and I agree that there is too much coverage of the fine arts. This article should cover the country, not tell us just about its finest achievements. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought Brutal’s merging of vulcanism into topography was a very sensible move. It was vulcanism which made the key point which underlies Italian geography as a whole: the interaction between the African and Eurasian tectonic plates. It would be good if somebody who understands these things expanded that section on the genesis of the Alps and the peninsula rather extensively. As for nature, yes that should be restored, and probably expanded. (Though there would be no harm in losing the See also: List of Italian birds, List of mammals of Italy, List of reptiles of Italy, List of amphibians of Italy, List of the butterflies of Italy, List of non-marine molluscs of Italy, and List of extinct and endangered species of Italy, and the picture of a very barren looking bit of the Val d’Orcia. Ian Spackman (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's quite flattering. I'd suggest merging nature with the environment section.

The very long list of see alsos was introduced by a user who loved that kind of thing and also introduced a lot of bad citations, which is another issue that needs addressing. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Included propaganda untruth ridiculizes the Italia article.

Article currently says: "It has been ranked the world's eighteenth most-developed country[5] and its Quality-of-Life Index has been ranked in the top ten in the world."

Pretty please, Italiy Q-o-L in the top 10, this is ridiculous! Churchill said the only stat he believes is the one he falsified personally... So many italian people are well-known to be poor, especially the southern parts, further, the country suffers from mafia crime, frequent labour strikes, forever political turmoil, north-south unegality and national un-unity movements, alarmingly record low birth rates as well as exorbitant housing prices trapping young generation with parents.

It is objectively impossible for Italy to be in the Top10 Quality-of-Life index, until dozens of undeniably "more perfect" countries like Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore exist. It is a matter of fact there are no sizable number of needy people in those countries mentioned, while more than 10 million italians literally struggle day to day! Legions of people in Sicily and Naples have no running water for 3 days per week, streets drown in uncollected waste, etc.

Italy's economic success was celebrated with much trumpeting as getting on 1-to-1 GDP par with Great Britain in 1987, yet today it is just 65%, a tremendous relative decline in the last 25 years. Without the "it's the economic, stupid!" aspect fulfilled, how can Italy have top quality of life index?

In the name of objectiveness, Wikipedia encyclopedia shall not publish blantantly untrue statements about Italy, even if there are some doctored stats available to say so. Unless Quality of Life is calculated like 10% materialistic content and 90% subjectively picturesque landscape, Bella Italia just cannot be in the Top10, period. Please correct! 87.97.99.78 (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You want to let the Economist know what you think, not WP, I'm sure they'll review their quality-of-life index according to your insight. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Brutal Deluxe; moreover, UK's GDP in 2009 was $2.183 trillion, while Italy's $2.118 trillion, a value fare above 65% of the Britsh one...as for the rest, I think that the Economy section highlights the strength and the weakness points of Italian economy in a balanced way.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Peninsula

Italy is divided in two parts: one continental, one peninsular. Franjklogos (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet is is fairly obvious that the peninsular is part of the continental. If Italy is not part of continental Europe, where is continental Europe? See article: Continental Europe. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 10:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

There seems to be a lot of unimportant details in the introduction. At the same time the EU dimension was deliberately left out. I added the info about the monetary union. I also added the crucial info (a map) about the Eurozone in Economy. This seems to be a standard information in all Eurozone country articles. Italiano111 (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

SECTION ABOUT CRIME IN ITALY ???!!! OMG

Guys I'm very tempted to say that is a subtle form of RACISM, but I will limit myself to say that is not only incredible and inconceivable, but also completely useless this CRIME dedicated section on this page. Italy is not a failed state in the hands of mafia, not more than USA, Russia, China and so on, so we don't need a special section that points up it. In case put something in the Economy section but I think that something is already there. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the section says that Italy is "a failed state in the hands of mafia", that is your opinion. The section uses neutral language and facts, it's for the reader to derive a conclusion. I feel it would be dishonest (and a form of censorship) to only include touristy-type information when anyone who has ever watched a bit of TV knows where the Mafia are from and what they do. WP is not here to promote Italy, but to inform. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not for the style, but just for the fact that only Italy has a main section entirely dedicated to Crime. This is absurd and so I've merged it with Economy cause it's the right thing to link it to its issues and not just emphasize it with no reasons. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you moved crime informations on economy section. This is ok, but much things has also been deleted. These were true facts with references. I think it is right to keep these information. I copy below the former "crime" section, maybe something can be written in a beter way but I don't think it is right to delete it all: --Mad Toad (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mafia originates from Sicily and its influence is widespread in Italian society, directly affecting 22% of Italians and 14.6% of Italy's GDP, while even Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has long been accused of links with organised crime. The fight against the Mafia has cost the lives of many, including the high profile assassinations of judges Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino. - - There are four separate Mafias controlling territory and business activities in four Southern Italian regions: Cosa Nostra in Sicily, Camorra in Campania, 'Ndrangheta in Calabria and Sacra Corona Unita in Puglia, exerting influence over 13 million Italians. Their business involvement reaches European and global scale. - - Businesses, enterpreneurs, shopkeepers and craftsmen in these regions are expected to pay a "pizzo", or protection money, to crime syndicates controlling their area. There rarely is possibility of escaping payment, and persons not complying find their business premises and their lives at risk. Those not able to meet demands might find their business partly or completely taken over by organised crime. - - At 0.013 per 1,000 people, Italy has the 47th highest murder rate in the world, in a sample of 63 countries. It also has the 43th highest number of rapes/1.000 people in the world, in a sample of 65 countries.

Correct --Davide41 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Davide41, for your insightful contribution. I'd support bringing that information back. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the contribution was mine ;) Anyway, I would like the information to be even more complete. I would write that Giulio Andreotti (one of the most important political of the past years, three times prime minister and now senator for life) has been prooved to be collusive with mafia at least until 1980.. In Italian parlament there are other three members convicted for mafia: Marcello Dell'Utri, Salvatore Cuffaro, Renato Schifani (references can be found in the related entries). Please somebody could put it in a good English, since I am not mother tongue?--Mad Toad (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC) 

New Topography Map

I'd like to add a newly created map (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_Topography_Map.jpg) to the Topography section of the Italy article. How do I get editing permissions at this semi-protected article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by W34org (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign relations and armed forces

These two parts do not belong together in politics. Every cabinet in the western governments have seperate ministries of either defense or Foreign relations. It makes also sense putting these parts under politics. Both, military and FR are directly controlled by the government. These are not independent arms or institutions. Italiano111 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all! In all the sate-related pages, there is a "Foreign relations and armed forces" section, and it makes a lot of sense. What does it mean "these are not independent arms or institutions"? This page is written by subjects, not institutional/legal principles. So, please, stop. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Watch France, Poland, Spain, Russia, Turkey (to name the big ones only) ! Germany which is FA quality has separated as well FR and Military. These 2 parts do not belong together. Italiano111 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support keeping them together: less crowded contents list. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In both the good rated pages of UK and US, it's setted as I done. Spain, Poland, France etc. aren't good examples. But beyond this, it would make more sense in any case.

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Religion

There seems to be a contradiction or simply typo regarding the number of Italians who believe in God. If the statement is true that "Most Italians believe in God, or a form of a spiritual life force,"--as well as other statistics regarding the percentages of the population associated with various religions, including 91% being identified as Christians--then the statement which follows, indicating that 4% of Italians believe in God and 16% believe in a spiritual life force (i.e., totalling only 20%), is incorrect. I assume the discrepancy is simply the result of a typographical error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.183 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked it up; the number ought to be 74% of Italians believing in God, not 4. I can't fix it, because it's semi-locked or whatever. The right number is on page 9 of the report which the article quotes for this bit. 192.75.139.251 (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Nathan

I have changed it back to 74% again. Robster1983 (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fifth or sixth most populous?

Is Italy the fifth or sixth most populous state in Europe? Russia has some 142 million inhabitants, Germany has some 82 million inhabitants, Turkey has some 78 million inhabitants, France has some 66 million inhabitants (63 million in metropolitan France), the UK has some 62 million inhabitants, and thén you have Italy, with some 61 million inhabitants (the numbers used are all provided by the relating Wikipedia article). A simple calculation shows that Italy is the 6th most populous country in Europe. There are always people not willing to include Turkey, for they consider Turkey to be an Asian country. I need to remind them that Turkey is a transcontinental country, as is e.g. Russia. So to exclude Turkey, but to include Russia seems rather arbitrary, wouldn't you agree? And Cyprus and Malta are almost always considered part of Europe, but in fact, they aren't.

So, unless Italy can whip up another one million inhabitants within a short amount of time, I reckon it only fair to leave it like this. The moment Italy has surpassed the UK in terms of population, then, of course, it can (and should) be changed again. Robster1983 (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

About the oldest university in Italy

University of Bologna is rightly considered the oldest private university in the world but Italy also hosts the oldest state university in the world: the University of Naples Federico II, established in 1224. You might want to add this piece of information to the article. Liviacolare (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mistake.

Italy ,allowed by Italian Prime Minister,didn't guest Pershing rockets but Cruise rockets in Sigonella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.117.139 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Italy tried to colonize Ethiopia but it did not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.91.135 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note 1

What is the connection between Repubblica Italiana and note 1?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It gives the translations of ‘Repubblica italiana’ into other languages spoken in the country. At least, that’s how I read the footnote. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would be a sensible and useful thing for it to do, certainly. But what I am seeing is this text: "According to Mitrica, an October 2005 Romanian report estimates that 1,061,400 Romanians are living in Italy, constituting 37.2% of 2.8 million immigrants in that country[186] but it is unclear how the estimate was made, and therefore whether it should be taken seriously." Maybe I'm dumb, but I just can't see the relevance.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Highest point

"The Apennine Mountains form the peninsula's backbone and the Alps form its northern boundary, where Italy's highest point is located on Mont Blanc (4,810 m/15,782 ft)."

No. Mont Blanc is in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.105.104 (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Mont Blanc is shared between Italy and France. In Italy it's called "Monte Bianco". --Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Crime

I disagree with the latest attempts to whitewash over crime's role in the Italian economy. The Guardian ref should definitely be kept, as it mentions Censis data and is more recent than the Confesercenti one from the NYT. Violent crime affects the economy of all countries. I feel there is also space for a mention of the high rates of insurance fraud and tax evasion. Mayor of Yurp (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times source is reliable. If counts 7% of GDP, affects less than 13 million people. I think is important to show that Italy has the 47th highest Homicide Rate in a group of 62 countries. If you count the 200 countries in the World, Italy will be in the group of 50 countries with less homicides. GustoBLSJP (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The 13 million figure is indeed true, as evidenced by the more recent paper "Condizionamento delle mafie sull'economia, sulla società e sulle istituzioni del Mezzogiorno", a more recent source than the one given by the NYT. see this page (in Italian) Mayor of Yurp (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will cite that Italy has the 47th highest Homicide Rate in a group of 62 countries, and the the 43th highest number of rapes in a group of 65 countries. Ok? GustoBLSJP (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I found this source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6957240/Italy-claims-finally-defeating-the-mafia.html, from the Telegraph UK. Here it says 9% of the GDP. GustoBLSJP (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This PDF http://www.confesercenti.it/documenti/allegati/2008sosimp.pdf (Italian) GustoBLSJP (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK if you want to include the fact that "Italy has the 47th highest Homicide Rate in a group of 62 countries, and the 43th highest number of rapes in a group of 65 countries", as long as you don't delete anything else. As for the story by The Telegraph, it is a bit of a non-news, as the article then goes on to describe how the claim is aimed to distract attention from Mr Berlusconi's troubles (while also mentioning his alleged involvement in the mafia). It also doesn't mention the source of the 9% claim. The pdf by Confesercenti is still more dated than the Censis report, and also makes the point that (page 2) by 2008 the mafia was taking 160.000 Euros a minute from honest shopkeepers. Mayor of Yurp (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think is better specify in the article that the Mafia controls between 7.0[Source1] and 14.6[Source2] % of the GDP, with the two sources. It looks fair. GustoBLSJP (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the data about murders and rapes, from "Economy" to "Demographics". GustoBLSJP (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. It would be fine to state the different figures, but they all seem to be estimated using different criteria.

• 6% of GDP directly going to organised crime, not just the mafia, but only in their commercial branch (not including trafficking etc.)
• 14.6% of GDP is produced in 610 comuni controlled by the mafia, where 22% of Italians live
• 9% of GDP earned by the mafia from arms and drug trafficking, extortion, prostitution, embezzled EU funds and illegal waste dumping

With just these sources the text would have to be:

"6% of GDP is directly earned by organised crime in commercial operations, with a further 3% of GDP derived from illegal activities such as arms and drug trafficking, extortion, prostitution, embezzled EU funds and illegal waste dumping. In total, 14.6% of the GDP is produced in 610 comuni controlled by the mafia, exerting control over 13 million Italians."

I think that's quite neutral and balanced. Let me know what you (or anyone else) think. Mayor of Yurp (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The data must be compressed. The Mafia directly controls 9%[Source] of Italy's GDP, with commercial operations and the illegal activities. In total, 14.6% of the GDP is produced in 610 comuni with strong presence of the Mafia, where lives 13 million Italians.

The Mafia doesn't control 13 million Italians or 14.6% of the GDP. That's the number of people who lives in cities with strong presence of the Mafia, and the GDP produced. They coexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustoBLSJP (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

According to http://www.antimafiaduemila.com/content/view/20052/78/, the Mafia does not control 13 million people or 15% of the country's GDP. That's the number of Italians who lives in cities with strong presence of the Mafia (not control), and the total produced by these cities. It's reasonable to informe this on the article. GustoBLSJP (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. The antimafiaduemila article mentions that the 610 comuni "hanno un clan o un bene confiscato, o ancora sono stati sciolti negli ultimi tre anni", that is, "they [town councils] either have a clan or a confiscated property [due to being operated or owned by the mafia] or have been dissolved [due to infiltration by the mafia]. So we could reasonably say that the lives of 13 millions Italians are affected by the mafia. 201 councils have been dissolved for this reason since 1991, and that's just the ones that have been found out.

So, the text I propose is this:

"6% of GDP is directly earned by organised crime in commercial operations, with the percentage rising to 9% with the inclusion of proceeds from illegal activities such as arms and drug trafficking, extortion, prostitution, embezzled EU funds and illegal waste dumping. In total, 14.6% of the GDP is produced in 610 comuni with a strong mafia presence, with 13 million Italians living alongside organised crime."

Mayor of Yurp (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Prehistory and Roman Empire error?

"Excavations throughout Italy reveal a modern human presence dating back to the Palaeolithic period, some 200,000 years ago.[28]"

How can this be? I am no expert, but modern humans did not inhabit Europe at all until ~35,000 years ago (or so several sources tell us [see wikipedia pages on human evolution, homo sapiens, anatomically modern humans, and cro-magnon]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirTankalot (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

itaaly rooles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.13.164 (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

relpubic

Italy is a "republic" not a "relpubic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.29.135 (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Human rights

Well, we now have a section on "Human Rights". While this material is all sourced, I think there must be a better place to put it than here. I also have concerns at the motivations of the editor who wants to insert it, as they've been touting it round the project; this is something like the fifth attempt to place it. Anyway, what do others think? --John (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Many countries seem to have a "Human rights in [country]" article, but maybe they need it more than Italy does. There doesn't seem to be enough material here at the moment to justify that. Personally I'd say leave it, and would not myself worry too much about motivation or the apparent slight bias, as others will soon edit it into shape. And I can't think of a better place for it.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting it back in that case. It's pretty uncivil for John to have removed it without even notifying me. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the WP:COATRACK assessment. I've removed it per that and WP:UNDUE weight. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would Italy not merit a section on human rights, given that it accounts for by far the largest percentage of cases sent to the ECHR? This is just censorship of fully sourced material which could be viewed as unfavourable to Italy. Another day of suppressing the truth on Wikipedia. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable scholarly sources for the significance of this material, or is it just your own opinion? --John (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The reader can make their own mind up as to the material. What's important is that it is sourced and belongs in a section on human rights in Italy. the sources are respected organisations such as Amnesty International. I'm seeking further advice on this matter as i have not heard any convincing reason why the Wiki entry on Italy should not have a section on human rights. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The first two sentences are problematic. The proposed content begins: "In 2011, issues with press freedom in Italy were raised. On 19th April 2011, the Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, sent a letter to the Italian government and EU and US officials complaining of violence and intimidation used by the Perugia authorities to silence journalists who disagreed with them." Considering that this is an article about the country, to refer to one incident that happened in one town and then state (without attribution to a reliable source) in the first sentence that "issues with press freedom in Italy were raised" would seem to be in violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, since that broad conclusion is not documented in sources. Furthermore, the second sentence is questionable with a mind to WP:UNDUE (again, since this is not the Perugia article). However, the rest of it seems to be fine. SuperMarioMan 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SMM, that's a constructive comment. I'll rework the section omitting the initial section you have a problem with. I'll resubmit a new version some time tomorrow. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Develop. Aid

According to Eurostat Regional Policy at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.cfm, the countries that receive Development Aid are: UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and others. These countries have "Convergence Zones", regions with GDP below the EU average. Here is a map: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/atlas/index_en.htm GustoBLSJP (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Corporations

I add the sentence about the Po Valley and the GDP sector composition, based on List of countries by GDP sector composition.GustoBLSJP (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What you've written it's true...but it lacks sources! Search for some and add please! Especailly on the Po Valley, I wanted to write something about its economy on the dedicated page, but is very difficult to find some book on the web.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try to find the sources. GustoBLSJP (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of the text i stated on "Corporation" was taken from the article Po Valley. The citation for the "other areas of intense economic ativity" i get from the list of the 10 biggest italian cities by population + Cagliari (regional capital). In the "Po Valley" article is stated "The major settlements therefore are also in that zone, which has become the center of economic development and industry in Italy, and now is an almost continuous megalopolis strahing from Turin to Trieste." GustoBLSJP (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Some sources to "Northern Italy", equivalent to the Po Valley are:

http://www.shearman.com/offices/detail.aspx?office=6b8bec0f-696f-4d81-9bfd-45c2baeb7195

http://www.geog.ucla.edu/faculty/shinm/files/milan.pdf "With a population of 1,400,000 in an urban region of 5.8 million, Milan is in the middle of a great “spider’s web” of smaller cities and urban sprawl on the Lombard Plain to the north of the river Po and to the south of the pre-Alpine Belt of mountains and lakes along the Italian border with Switzerland (Bartaletti 1996, 175)."

GustoBLSJP (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)