Talk:Italy

Article too big

I see tag removed again. We will be by this page in a few weeks. Moxy- 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At 140kB, the entire page is grossly overlength. Splits need considering. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Cuts in the led a bit exaggerated

Taking a look at the summary made by the last editors here, I notice a bit of exaggeration, Italy is undoubtedly a country with an immense history and culture, and this summary claiming that the led is too long summarized this story in a few sentences. Other articles from European countries like Spain have a led practically 3 times larger than this article, explaining the history of the country in detail (without any warning that the led is too big). Now this last removal of talking about the Roman empire out of the blue is just ridiculous. Pretounud (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And another thing, users keep comparing the led of the Italy article with that of the United Kingdom, which, as I see it, does not mention anything about the history of that country, such as the importance of the Romans in those lands and the invasions of the Vikings, which were the two essential things to the formation of that country also makes no sense. As I said, other European countries (Spain and France) have leds much larger and much better explained than that of Italy currently.Pretounud (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

History is excessively covered in many country page leads. The lead is meant to summarize the article in a fair and balanced manner, but despite only being 1/4 of most country pages often become 1/2 of their leads. Bearing in mind that every country has a separate "History of X" where the detailed history is displayed, there really is not much need for detailed history in most country page leads - readers have come to the country page, not the history of the country page. The UK page quite sensibly dispenses with this and starts where the modern country can meaningfully construed to have its beginnings. Italy's modern period could reasonably be construed as beginning with its unification. All of the earlier, ancient history is hard to remove because it is emotive, but in reality it is undue and country pages leads are more to the point and more useful to the readers when they are more minimalist still on history. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with this, after all, Italy, as a country, was not the Roman Empire. Venezia Friulano (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, now exaggeration in the opposite direction.Barjimoa (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree Venezia Friulano (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree Denisarona (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I just gave a little better context to the Romans, who were previously quoted completely out of context in the led. And realizing that currently the point is to speak of Italy only as a unified nation, I also mentioned the first time that this happened (and the only one before 1860). I also removed the claims about the territory of the Romans in the Mediterranean, since it was incomplete information, their rule went far beyond the mediterranean basin. As I mentioned, the article is being edited (according to the current editors) because it is only to cite facts about the Italian peninsula as a unified entity.Pretounud (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

As we can see on here, everyone agrees with my point of view. The user who started these information cuts is closer to vandalizing the article than fixing anything.Pretounud (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Now blocked for vandalism.Barjimoa (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Causes of missing unification in the lead

The failure to create an Italian nation-state in parallel with other Italian nation states (England, France, Spain...) is one of the most important factors (if not the most important) in post-Roman Italian national history. So explaining the causes in the lead is not an unnecessary detail. The italian intelligentsia began to deal with this problem with Machiavelli and Guicciardini, and it continues to this day. Since the causes do not belong to a specific period, but have remained the same for centuries, and because of their intrinsic importance, it is important to mention them in the lead. I am open to discussing where to put them in the lead, and having them in the unification section is a very good idea. Alex2006 (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising this discussion thread. I don't entirely understand the framing of the proposed changes, which seems to carry the underlying presumption that an entity encompassing "Italy" somehow should exist (like some sort of natural state), and that the absence of unification then somehow means that this is being prevented. This specific language, more than anything else, seems artificial, and I cannot see any of other mention on the page of the "prevention of unification", nor specifically on the sourced you added (though that could be google translate). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to say three things, becase I disagree with Alex on one thing but agree with him on two.

-the idea that Italy did not unify because of the Papal States is old scolarship; (it comes from a wrong 19th century interpretation of a passage in Machiavelli and has been criticised by Gramsci and ever since). In fact the Papacy was the leading Italian force until the rise of Piedmont, if not until the failure of the neo-guelph movement. Popes like Julius II or Gregory XIII or many others would have unified Italy (that is to say, annex all the others) had they had the material strength to do it (the Popes were the greatest power of Italy in terms of soft power, but in the terms of hard power they were on par with the other Italian states). This is valid for everyone, Papacy, Venice etc. It's not so much about nationalism, it's about why no one conquered the others like Castile did in Spain or Paris did in France.

-Scolarship now generally stresses that the reason Italy did not unify is simply because there was a balance of power between the various states and no one could absorb all the others (that is, until Piedmont). In this, Alex2006 is right to me.

-In a previous comment Alex2006 mentioned that the fact that the Catholic Church/Papal States were based in Italy deserve a mention intro as much as the ancient roman empire. I totally agree with him on that (just not on that particular way to introduce their presence).Barjimoa (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Answer to Iskandar: what does 'predestination for (re)unification' mean in this case? Clearly the historical necessity does not exist, but the starting conditions were there, and were certainly much more favorable than in the case of states such as France.

• First of all the peninsula's geographical conformation, defended to the north by the alps, and surrounded by the sea on the other three sides.
• Secondly, Italy was the first region in Europe to be permanently unified politically, linguistically and culturally thanks to Rome.
• Thirdly, the population professed the same religion, Catholicism, and thanks to this the peninsula was almost immune to the heresies and the religious fights that spread to other parts of Europe in the Middle Ages.

Regarding the meaning of 'prevent', here it means 'impede'. The forces that prevented unification were:

• first the church (read about it what Dante and Machiavelli say about it), because it did not want to renounce its temporal power. Of course the church, if it had had the necessary strength, would have unified the peninsula, but the powerful states were others (Naples, Milan, Florence, Venice), so the popes were content to block their hegemonic attempts. Then we must not forget the harmful influence of the counter-reform and the inquisition, a real cancer for the Italian society of the modern age.
• secondly the balance of power among the Italian regional states, which prevented hegemonic attempts by one state by the coalition of the other ones;
• and then from the end of the 15th century the interventions in the peninsula of those national states (Spain, France, later the Empire/Austria) that after reaching unification began to pursue an European policy and saw Italy, economically and culturally rich but politically weak, as an easy prey.

I do not agree with your assertion that there were no attempts at unification before the 19th century: from Liutprand to the Hoenstaufen, from Gian Galeazzo Visconti to early 16th century Venice, there have always been attempts to gain hegemony over Italy (clearly we are not talking about unification on a 'national' basis as in the 19th century), but they have always been crushed, almost always thanks to the political efforts of the church. If you want to read something about this subject, you are spoilt for choice: I recommend you an essay by Ernesto Galli della Loggia: 'L'identità italiana'. (Il Mulino, Bologna, 1998), a book that is not long (190 pages), but dense with information and concepts. BTW, the points which I wrote above correspond almost one to one with the first chapters of the book. Alex2006 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Again I agree with all your points, but (so sorry to stress this but as I said I agree with you on the rest) not the part on the Church and the supposedly "cancerous" influence on Italy, because that is a black legend abandoned by historiography; the Papacy actually wanted hegemony and prosperity in Italy just like every other Italian state (and just like every Italian state it did not want to be annexed by the others). The idea that the popes were actively working to disrupt Italian unification per se before the nationalist liberal movement is an anachronism of 19th century scolarship, at best of 18th century enlightenment. Italy being the seat of the papacy was actually a benefit to Italians until the late modern period. Or rather: when the Church arose Italy arose, when the Church declined Italy declined. Think of the Medieval communes rising against the German emperor and supported by the Popes, or of the crisis in which Italy fell during the Avignon period (with the chief Italians of the day, from Petrarch to Catherine of Siena asking the Pope to come back) or of the Renaissance and the Baroque movements, of Lepanto etc. etc. On all the other points I agree, it's just that specific point which is an anachronism for the Medieval and Early Modern history of Italy. Barjimoa (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments and ideas mentioned here, so I think wanting to explain the reason for the lack of unification in detail here in the article, even more so in the lead, would become just assumptions, since in fact there were several factors that contributed to this , in particular that no Italian state would agree (having the power to do so) to be subjugated by another. So I think it's a very complex argument and very full of assumptions to want to be treated here in the article.Pretounud (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

All of this is interesting, but it also emphasizes how this is vastly too much information to include in the lead (as you note, it fills a whole book chapter). It needs to be remembered that this is the article about the modern country of Italy, not specifically its history; the long form page for Italian history content is History of Italy (this is forgotten extremely frequently on country pages, not just on this one). The pre-19th century material on this page is all preamble to the late modern history and all of the other information on the modern country. As an aside, I'm not sure which source says 'predestination', but whichever it is, it sounds rather far removed from modern scholarship, which does not usually speak in terms of fate and destiny. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Religion (2023)

Christianity: 61% No religion: 28% Prefer not to say: 2% Islam: 1% Other: 1%

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-05/Ipsos%20Global%20Advisor%20-%20Religion%202023%20Report%20-%2026%20countries.pdf p.5 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Should stick with census data. The sample size is ridiculously low. Moxy- 11:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the sample size of the current source (in the wikiarticle)? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

p.s. I am serious I cannot access the source used in the current wikipedia article. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2023

In the introductory section pertaining the history of Italy in WW2 there's a section which is not clear:

"During World War II, Italy was first part of the Axis until it surrendered to the Allied powers and was occupied by Nazi Germany with fascist collaboration (1940-1943) and then a co-belligerent of the Allies during the Italian resistance and the liberation of Italy (1943-1945)."

should be changed to:

"During World War II, Italy was first part of the Axis until it surrendered to the Allied powers in 1943 and as part of its territory was occupied by Nazi Germany with fascist collaboration it became a co-belligerent of the Allies during the Italian resistance and the liberation of Italy (1943-1945)."

In the original sentence it is not clear that (1940-1943) Italy was entirely fighting alongside with the Axis and (1943-1945) it was split in two parts: one fighting for the liberation of Italy and one occupied by Nazi Germany with fascist collaboration. 94.33.221.212 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

The Roma community is one of the largest ethnic minorities in Italy. The country has a growing foreign population, amounting to more than 5.1 million registered inhabitants. This includes include Romanians 1,190,100, Albanians 440,500, Moroccans 416,500, Ukrainians 237,000, Chinese 290,700, Philippinos 167,900 and Indians 151,800. The largest linguistic minorities in Italy include Sardu-speakers 1 million, Tyrolese German-speakers 350,000, Albanians 70,000 – 100,000, Slovenes 60,000, Franco-Provençal-speakers 50,000 – 70,000, Occitans 20,000 – 40,000, Ladins 30,000, Catalans 15,000, Greek-speakers 12,000 and Croatians 3,000. Add this information to the demographics section.

Source: https://minorityrights.org/country/italy/ 103.164.138.55 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Where in the demographics section should it be added? Should it be its own section? Should it fall under immigration? Should it be somewhere else?

--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See also the response by MtPenguinMonster. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Clarification request

@Locke Cole: it's fine to warn me on my discussion page (although you could have omitted mentioning the possibility of being banned, that wasn't nice of you at all), but you should, before adding a warning on my discussion page, at least try to explain (properly) why Italy has this template (which I removed) and the United States doesn't (it's undeniable that Italy's history and culture are more important and extensive than those of the U.S. (the U.S.A. has existed for not even 400 years...). JackkBrown (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The US article is 12k words of readable prose; this article is nearly double that at 22k. This one would benefit much more significantly from condensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@JackkBrown: I don't care about this article. I don't care about the tag you wanted to place on United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). What I do care about is you being disruptive and violating WP:POINT. You appear bound and determined to double down on that by pinging me to conversations I do not care about. If you want to keep being disruptive an administrator can help you along with finding other things to do with your time. Or you can use the talk page here, which I see you've finally done. As to the tag about being too long, you apparently have a number of other editors here who disagree with you. Obviously @Nikkimaria disagrees with you, but so do @Moxy and @Iskandar323 above in #Article too big. Adding the too-long tag to United States is both wrong (it's not too long) and WP:POINTy, and your reason for doing so is.. apparently, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't give two shits about this article. I hope someone who does give a shit about this article can help you. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Page infested by socks of User:Venezia Friulano/ User:JamesOredan

How do we solve this? This is a permanently blocked user who has pushed his non-sense agenda for years with dozens and dozens of socks. Barjimoa (talk)

This guy wages edit war and while he does it he has the nerve to message me and say "haha you cant stop me". My God. Barjimoa (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to thank the administrators for their quick action. Barjimoa (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have requested Extended confirmed protection for this article to avoid further nonsense from these sockpuppet accounts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Intro

Italy is certainly not "Located in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea". It's is a peninsula which extends southward from continental Europe toward the center of the Mediterranean Sea. Willit63 (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox official name

In English, the official name of Italy is Republic of Italy.[1]

Similar to Turkey situation, it should be changed accordingly.

Italian Republic shouldn't be on the lead, since there is another example Republic of Cyprus, while its Greek name is Cypriot Republic. So it should be something like Italy, officially the Republic of Italy (Italian: Repubblica Italiana, lit. 'Italian Republic'). Beshogur (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone want to reply? Beshogur (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup all there in lead and a redirect Republic of Italy. Moxy- 22:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Beshogur @Moxy Disagree. The Italian name in English ("Italian Republic") is used in official sources. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Even in the CIA World Factbook the conventional long form is Italian Republic:

"conventional long form: Italian Republic"

"conventional short form: Italy"

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/italy/ 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No, Italy changed its name. [2] See UN. Beshogur (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The translated form is Italian Republic: the country didn't change its name. This is because such name is established constitutionally, and an action by the cabinet wouldn't be sufficient to alter that. To anyone familiar with the Italian legal system, it would appear absurd to have the Constitution superseded by an act of the cabinet.

An official sanction of the proposed name is non-existent. The exact same documents presented bring to the conclusion about their scope: namely, the adoption of the name as a reference to the country at the UN. This means in no way an official position for the name, exactly like "China" is not the translation of the official name of the country, despite being used at the UN.

The instrument of action is the definition itself of the nature of the text: a message destined to the UN, as a document for the UN. There is no law establishing that wrong name: such diplomatic correspondence has no legal enforcement, and is not source of law. This means the document is outside the legislative system of the country. This means it is a non-binding form of action by the cabinet.

It appears to me, that the proposed denomination stems from a good faith misunderstanding of the Italian legal system, probably caused by unfamiliarity with it by foreign editors. Greetings. Foghe (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)