Talk:Italy

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Improving the quality

• 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)

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)

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)