Talk:Italians/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Why does it happen?

"Because of a wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, approximately 60 million people of Italian ancestry live outside of Italy, predominantly in other parts of Europe, in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and Australia."

Predominatly in other parts of Europe and in USA firstly?

That's not what the sources say, they say the most people of Italian background live in Brazil and Argentina: If you sum all the Italian descendents in European countries, that would be just 2,125.653... In USA, there are 18 m, but in Argentina and Brazil have more than 20 millions each. You also put Canada and Australia but omited Uruguay and Venezuela... Ok, it's probably (not always, there are people of Italian descent just) that in these countries, most of that people has also African, Indigenous, Asian, German, Polish, Spanish, Portuguese, Ukrainian, but they still are of Italian descent.

What happens is that even Latins of European blood are secondary for American people... They simply think that, for being Latin, they couldn't be European descendents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.126.40 (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's just that this is an English language website, so it chiefly attracts people from anglophone countries. There's no reason to come up with these conspiracies.--93.45.77.5 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I take no sense out of that logic. Because this is site is designed from Anglophones? Although it's an American site, there is quite a bit of lingual diversity in Wiki. You're reminded of it every time you come on this site and look on the left hand. Even if that were true though, it wouldn't be an excuse for revising history. Facts are facts no matter what language they're in. This would be like the equivalent of saying an American car magazine should lie and say American cars collect more revenue annually just because it's an Ameircan magazine. You also contradict yourself in the statement saying that this is an English language website, because most of the European continent is not Anglophone. Similarly, some of Canada is not either. If you take an intellectual side of this too, you'd actually realize that Italian's living in South America have been able to influence Brazilian and Argentine culture so much more intimately since they're Catholic, speak similar languages, make up much larger percentages of those societies and most of the European population's in those countries are of Mediterranean lineage. The cultural similarities are so much more obvious too. For example, similarly to Latin Europeans, Brazilians and Argentines talk with their hands and kiss each other on the cheek apart of saying hello. You don't see American's or Anglophones doing this so much. The English language and Protestants are not particularly relevent to Italian culture though. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC). TomNyj0127 (talk) TomNyj0127 (talk)

If there are nearly 60 million Italian descendants living overseas, than 3/4 alone are just in Brazil and Argentina, not even counting Venezuela, Uruguay or other South American countries. The Italian people are not Italian American. Italian-American's are a division within Italian's. If there is an argument about this, please solely base it on fact and evidence. TomNyj0127 (talk)

So now you took my quote and fixed it up? I guess this is progress. But you didn't write why? Aren't you supposed to provide an explanation. You're telling a blatant lie. Your quote is most significantly living in other parts of Europe. Most significantly (or formerly predominantly) means X amount of mean. There are 7.2~ million Italian descendants living throughout Europe. It might be true that the most Italian citizens live in other EU countries more than other countries. This article is not about Italian citizenship though. It's about ethnic Italians. If you are saying 7.2~ million people are most significant, in comparison to 25 million in Brazil, 20 million in Argentina and 15.6 or 17.8 million in the United States, you're telling a lie. All of these numbers are cited. There's nothing you do to deny it other than bite your tongue. As I've said, I'll continue to correct with proper descriptiveness.

I'm not sure what your rationale for how you made the ordering of those countries are. However, it's numerically insignificant. I'm going to guess you chose to put Argentina ahead of Brazil because there's a larger percentage of Italian ancestry? If the question or article were based on which country has the highest amounts of Italians, Argentina would be correct. That's not what this is about though. The article is on Italian people. It's about numbers. The wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora came out of Italy. Even if it's because Brazil has much more people than Argentina, more Italian people physically emigrated there. I have no clue why you ranked Australia ahead of Brazil. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC).

Fixing wording on opening statement regarding places of Italian ancestry

Because of a wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, approximately 60 million people of Italian ancestry live outside of Italy, predominantly in other parts of Europe, in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and Australia.

I feel it'd be more appropriate to mention the places with larger Italian descended populations (outside of Italy) from first to last. When it says predominantly, that's strictly refer to numbers. Brazil is the largest country in terms of descendants of Italians outside of Italy. Than Argentina. The U.S. would be third. The rest of Europe only has about 7.2 million. There are 3 1/2 X more Italians alone in Brazil. Uruguay and Venezuela have higher Italian populations than Australia, so perhaps it'd be appropriate to make a broadening statement regarded that South America was the most popular destination of those in the Italian diaspora. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

The Brazil number is obviously rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miz1976 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave a well explained description of why I changed the wording. I addressed everyone in an educated respectful manner. I'd appreciate the same. It's very rude, obnoxious and lazy to not provide an explanation for why it was changed back. I'll continue changing it back too. This is a site people use as if it is factual (regardless of where it is or not). This site is not about favoritism. Nor especially to Anglophones. If it is, please provide me citation from the Wikipedia site that shows that. My rationale for changing it is simple. I'm open minded to discussion on this. And if it continues to get changed back - especially without explanation, I'll keep changing it back. The fact you won't respond shows stubborness. Luckily for you, I'm stubborn too. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

It's actually a 100% lie to say they live predominantly in Europe if only 7.2~ million live throughout the rest of Europe, meanwhile so much more live in South America and North America. This site isn't about lies. The only time lies slip through the cracks is when there's no sources or people are too lazy to check it. Sorry for the stumbling along. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

So now you took my quote and fixed it up? I guess this is progress. But you didn't write why? Aren't you supposed to provide an explanation. You're telling a blatant lie. Your quote is most significantly living in other parts of Europe. Most significantly (or formerly predominantly) means X amount of mean. There are 7.2~ million Italian descendants living throughout Europe. It might be true that the most Italian citizens live in other EU countries more than other countries. This article is not about Italian citizenship though. It's about ethnic Italians. If you are saying 7.2~ million people are most significant, in comparison to 25 million in Brazil, 20 million in Argentina and 15.6 or 17.8 million in the United States, you're telling a lie. All of these numbers are cited. There's nothing you do to deny it other than bite your tongue. As I've said, I'll continue to correct with proper descriptiveness.

I'm not sure what your rationale for how you made the ordering of those countries are. However, it's numerically insignificant. I'm going to guess you chose to put Argentina ahead of Brazil because there's a larger percentage of Italian ancestry? If the question or article were based on which country has the highest amounts of Italians, Argentina would be correct. That's not what this is about though. The article is on Italian people. It's about numbers. The wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora came out of Italy. Even if it's because Brazil has much more people than Argentina, more Italian people physically emigrated there. I have no clue why you ranked Australia ahead of Brazil. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC).

I think you are indirectly talking to me and this edit. If you read the summary, you'll see it's clear what I did... first Europe, then alphabetical. No ranking. No magic. Just simplicity for an opening paragraph. The detail comes later.

Personally, I don't care that much, but I think you are making a major issue out of "numbers" when that, in itself, can be uninformative, misleading and far from "absolute". For example, look at the following facts:

Although the influence of Italian immigrants on a nation's culture is very strong in Argentina, Uruguay and parts of Brazil (stronger than it is in, say, the United States), 100 years later I would say Italian-Argentines are not Italians, but rather Argentines of some Italian descent (or Brazilians, Uruguayans, Americans, etc.). There are Italians in those countries, but they are in the minority.
This example is clearer when you factor in that many (if not most) Italian Argentines are only partly of Italian descent (yes, 60% are of some Italian descent, but 60% are also of some Spanish descent. Then there are the French, Welsh, English, Lebanese, etc., etc. In absolute numbers, I think we may be speaking of 25-30% Italian). This analysis is true for most "Italians" in the Americas, especially Brazil.
The greatest concentrations of the most recent immigrants (mostly 1950s-1970s) are likely to be found in other parts of Europe, Canada and Australia, and not in South America or the US; therefore, you are more likely to find actual Italian people in Australia or Germany than you are in Brazil or Argentina. They maintain a stronger direct connexion to Italy, are more likely to speak the language, and are more likely to be citizens.

So... how do we rank this? Why even bother? Duomodimilano (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are indirectly talking to me and this edit. If you read the summary, you'll see it's clear what I did... first Europe, then alphabetical. No ranking.

If you left out the word most significantly or predominantly in other parts of Europe, you'd have a better argument. However, that's not the case. You said predominantly - even while acknowledging that only 7.2 million out of 70+ million Italians living outside of the country of Italian. That by no means constituted the wording predominantly. I and many others personally wouldn't care if alphabetizing was your rationale. I'd agree that it's not bias, it still isn't sensible. Alphabetizing is appropriate when each thing (or country in this case) holds equal weight (like a letter in the alphabet). When one country has 25 million Italian's (Brazil) and the next has 852,000 (Australia), and they're ranked in backward order, it's not right.

Personally, I don't care that much, but I think you are making a major issue out of "numbers" when that, in itself, can be uninformative, misleading and far from "absolute". For example, look at the following facts.

I find it ironic that the person changing the simple wording of an opening paragraph is the one assuming another is making a major issue out of it. I provided a well understandable rationale even conveniently with Wikipedia's citations as sourcing. When someone says predominantly or significantly, they're referring to numbers. It's that simple. For example, Canadians eat at Burger King. But they're country has 1/10 the population as much and probably even lesser of the ratio of the amount of chains. It wouldn't be appropriate to say the presence of Burger King would predominantly be in Canada, nor would it be appropriate to rank their presence ahead of the United States. TomNyj0127 (talk)

Although the influence of Italian immigrants on a nation's culture is very strong in Argentina, Uruguay and parts of Brazil (stronger than it is in, say, the United States), 100 years later I would say Italian-Argentines are not Italians, but rather Argentines of some Italian descent (or Brazilians, Uruguayans, Americans, etc.). There are Italians in those countries, but they are in the minority.

That is your opinion. I respect your opinion. But your opinion is not fact. Regardless of how someone identifies, it doesn't change their ethnic ancestry. It doesn't change their surname. It doesn't change their descendants experience.

The truth is Italian ancestry is less common in the U.S., Canada and Australia. It doesn't exactly camouflage English/Anglo culture. However, the majority of Italian-Americans (especially the younger and middle-aged generations) are mixed. The difference between the U.S. and Brazil is Italian's would have mixed out with anyone in Brazil. There's two reasons why. One, Brazil is a mostly Catholic country (especially back in the late 1800s/early-1900s). Blacks are equally likely to be Catholic (unlike in the U.S.). Two, there was less racial stigmatizing against interracial marriages in Brazil. The way I look at it is it made both the Italian people and culture more intimate with the Brazilian culture than it did with the American culture. If each person is or has family members who are of Italian ancestry throughout the entire twentieth century, the culture is so much more integrated into them.

Keep in mind too that unlike in America, many Italian's immigrated to rural places in Brazil. They did so because when slavery was dying down, they needed a labor force on the coffee plantations. They lived in the same areas with the Afro-Brazilians which inevitably led to massive intermixing. In the U.S., most black's were living in the south during the peak of Italian immigration and segregation the racial American tensions isolated then from not just Italian-Americans, but most European-Americans. So black's in Brazil are much more influenced by Italian culture than in the U.S.

That is what I meant when I said that the Italian culture is more ingrained into Brazilian and Argentine culture. The language is also so much similar. You can hear the Italian influences in San Paolo, much of Brazil and most of Argentina. The English language doesn't sound anything like the Italian language. They're impact on accents and dialects were so much less. It would have also been more maintainable for Italian-Brazilians to maintain knowing how to speak the Italian language since you're like half way to knowing it just being a Lusophone.

Obviously, there was less to culturally adapt to for Italians too. It was the same religion. They were much more welcomed to Brazil than the U.S. largely for that reason prior to 1890. The Portuguese language is also very similar to the Italian language. Also, a Portuguese first name with an Italian last name rolls together so much more smooth than an English first name with an Italian last name. I'm actually an American of partial Italian ancestry (with an Italian surname) telling you that. TomNyj0127 (talk)

This example is clearer when you factor in that many (if not most) Italian Argentines are only partly of Italian descent (yes, 60% are of some Italian descent, but 60% are also of some Spanish descent. Then there are the French, Welsh, English, Lebanese, etc., etc. In absolute numbers, I think we may be speaking of 25-30% Italian). This analysis is true for most "Italians" in the Americas, especially Brazil.

It's the same case in both the U.S. and Brazilian Census. You can be mixed with Italian and be demographically recorded as Italian in the U.S. Not as part Italian, but as full Italian. That's why you so commonly see tally charts going above 100% in our Census. In Brazil, the way they gather the estimation for the Italian descended population is via surnames of white's and Pardo's (mulattos).

The greatest concentrations of the most recent immigrants (mostly 1950s-1970s) are likely to be found in other parts of Europe, Canada and Australia, and not in South America or the US; therefore, you are more likely to find actual Italian people in Australia or Germany than you are in Brazil or Argentina. They maintain a stronger direct connexion to Italy, are more likely to speak the language, and are more likely to be citizens.

You're right. This article is not about Italian citizens or most recent Italian immigrants though. You don't need to be a citizen of Italy to be an actual ethnic Italian person. What you're saying would be more appropriate for an article on Italy. Someone's connection to Italy would be relevant in that sense. Similarly, I'm sure the places where most Germans and French are living overseas are other European countries (ex. Italy). People are not regarding Italy, England or Spain as the most ethnic German or French countries outside of their respective countries though.I'd actually disagree that a second or third generation Italian in Germany or Australia would be more likely to speak Italian than an Argentine or Brazilian because the German and English language are not Latin languages like Spanish or Portuguese. For what it's worth too, many Italian-Argentines are descendants of those who came during WWII (mainly in the 1930's) which is later than the U.S. and Brazil. Canada tends to be more a mix of pre-WWI and post-WWII. I'd imagine that Italian descendants in Quebec have a natural advantage over non-Francophone Canadian's in learning the Italian language though. TomNyj0127 (talk) TomNyj0127 (talk)

Because of a wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, approximately 60 million people of some Italian ancestry live outside of Italy, most significantly in the Americas (primarily in Argentina, Brazil, Canada and the United States), other parts of Europe (primarily France, Germany and Switzerland), and Australia.

The problem with the wording on this statement is it undermines Italian immigration to South America. If there was equal Italian immigration to North America as there were South America, it'd be more appropriate. That's not the case though. Out of the approximate 73 million ethnic Italian living outside of Italy, 45 million alone are in Brazil and Argentina + another 3 million in Uruguay, Venezuela and Peru. Over 2/3 of Italian's outside of Italy live there. Similarly, although less than Brazil and Argentina, the U.S. has close numbers too. Canada simply doesn't though. The reason why is it's a much smaller country. There's actually a similar percentage of Italians in Canada as the U.S. (although much less than Brazil & Argentina), but when we're speaking about Italian people and where they physically live via physically moving from point A to point B, it has to be about numbers. That's why I wrote Brazil ahead of Argentina. It's obvious there's more Italian ancestry in Argentina, but there's 5 million less in terms of numbers.

This statement sounds like it's attempting to say the North American continent has as much Italian immigration as South America, which is not appropriate. All of us who have knowledge on this issue know that not to be true. The average person googling Italian and clicking on this article might not know that. I know it sounds insulting. But you have to assume the people who are reading this site are not articulative and are lazily reading or skimming the article. That's most of who reads this site. That's why you have to be as explicit as possible when it comes to defining facts. Making broad statements can distort the truth. Tom~~

I also think it'd be peculiar to have claim on this like that while 56 million live in Italy & 129 millions live all around the world, there's only 60 million living all around the world outside of Italy. There'd be 74,529,600 million living around the world. Either say approximately 74.5 million live outside of Italy, 116 million live in the world (if you're recognizing the 60 million estimation). The number is actual slightly over 74.5 million if you add up every number on that chart. I'm going to guess it wasn't changed from 129 to 131.5 million (or more) because the rise from 15.6 to 17.8 million Italian's according to the Census wasn't incorporated yet. Don't say 56 + 60 = 129 because it makes this article not look reputable. I'm going to revise it to say 73 million since it's cited that 129 million Italians are estimated to live globally. I'll also change the top part from 129 to 131.5 million. I'm going to round off numbers to keep it clean looking.

I'm revising the entire quote to this:

Because of wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, approximately 74.5 million people of Italian ancestry live outside of Italy, with 48 million living in South America (primarily Brazil and Argentina), 19 million living in North America (United States and Canada), 7 million living in other parts of Europe (primarily France, Germany and Switzerland) and 850,000 in Australia. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

This is an irremediably flawed argument, as you didn't cosider that while statistics for the Americas and Australia consider ancestry, European ones do not. How can there be 7 million people of Italian ancestry in Europe when duomodimilano himself proved there are five just in France, where Italian immigrant communities are far smaller than in Germany or England? I'm reverting back to what it read previously, the current version is just an example bad practice in the field of original research.--93.45.124.128 (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an irremediably flawed argument, as you didn't cosider that while statistics for the Americas and Australia consider ancestry, European ones do not. How can there be 7 million people of Italian ancestry in Europe when duomodimilano himself proved there are five just in France, where Italian immigrant communities are far smaller than in Germany or England? I'm reverting back to what it read previously, the current version is just an example bad practice in the field of original research.--93.45.124.128 (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

I've written it several different ways. All we can base on are facts. If the European Censuses do not thoroughly look to distinguish European ethnicity, than we can not use them as reference. However, you could find articles or government reports on Italian immigration to European countries such as France or Germany. I don't dispute that Italian citizens live in these countries. They're all apart of the EU. Living and traveling amongst EU states would be like legally doing so from one state to another in the U.S. Just because we don't have ethnic breakdowns on European Censuses doesn't mean that Italian immigration was higher to those places. It simply wasn't. Most European descendants - whether it be from Germany, England, Italy or Spain, have much more descendants off the European continent as opposed to other European countries (not counting themselves).

My estimation was simply explicitly all European countries on that map shown to be added up. I do understand what you're saying in the bad practice of the original research. I don't particularly think the source on France is all that reliable. Nor am I convinced that there are more Italian citizens or descendants in France than other European countries. I will revise the quote to read that it's undetermined how many Italians there are in other European countries.

Because of wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, approximately 74.5 million people of Italian ancestry live outside of Italy, with 48 million living in South America (primarily Brazil and Argentina), 19 million living in North America (United States and Canada), 850,000 in Australia and estimated millions of other Italians living in other parts of Europe (primarily France, Germany and Switzerland). TomNyj0127 (talk)

Tom, your comments and opinions are welcome on the Talk page, as are any sincere comments and opinions. Nonetheless, you seem to have a US-centric view of what an "Italian" is, along with a US cultural bias for "ethnicity" as something akin to "race". The main sentence in this paragraph is the result of months of consensus amongst WP editors (just read previous discussions and the archives): The Italian people (Italian: italiani) are an ethnic group, in the sense of sharing a common Italian culture, descent, and speaking the Italian language as a mother tongue. The vast majority of the 75 million people you are talking about share only descent- and only some descent, I may add. Argentine-Italians or American-Italians are not Italians. To add everybody up with some historical connexion to Italy and lump them together with Italians does not make them Italian, European or anything else other than a subgroup of their own nationality. The fact that you yourself are of "part" Italian descent does not make you "Italian", other than as a label mis-used in your country.

Nonetheless, I have digressed from my original point. Let the figures speak for themselves. This level of detail is unnecessary for an opening section, not to mention it gives undue weight to people that are not Italians.

As for your comment regarding the 5 million people in France of Italian descent, again you seem to lack an appreciation for the complexity of European society and the "evolution" of European nations based on the identity of a people (really a 19th C ideal). First, the figure comes from a Cambridge University study, so if that is not reputable for you I don't know what is. Second, the figures go back only four generations, so in reality it is even higher if one analyses it in the same sense as the other nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duomodimilano (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with duomodimilano. If you stretch the definition the way you do for South America, there are tens of millions of what you would call Italians in Europe. The current version is factually wrong and backed by nothing but fried air (a real Italian would have no trouble understanding that :P).

I suggest changing it to:

Because of wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, millions of people of Italian ancestry live outside of Italy, predominantly in other parts of Europe, in Brazil, Argentina, the United States, Canada and Australia.

--93.45.123.211 (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom, your comments and opinions are welcome on the Talk page, as are any sincere comments and opinions. Nonetheless, you seem to have a US-centric view of what an "Italian" is, along with a US cultural bias for "ethnicity" as something akin to "race".

The vast majority of the 75 million people you are talking about share only descent- and only some descent, I may add. Argentine-Italians or American-Italians are not Italians.

The Italian people (Italian: italiani) are an ethnic group, in the sense of sharing a common Italian culture, descent, and speaking the Italian language as a mother tongue.

I wouldn't regard myself as bias. However, I know that If that were true, than why would have I been bothered by the United States being sequentially ranked ahead of South America? Perhaps I have emphasized one part of that definition (descent) over the other two. I would in no way consider an Italian descendant living outside of Italy to be as culturally Italian as a native of Italy who's ancestors aren't ethnic Italian. Going back to what someone said before about Anglophone's using this site. Wikipedia is an American company and U.S. is the largest Anglophone country. That unfortunately means that in English context, you need to write in simplistic enough terms for the average American to understand. That obviously doesn't make that right though. I mean that in no way to be insulting towards Americans, but the intellect and articulation skills (not necessarily education or wealth) of the average citizen seems to be much slower than that of others in the developed or developing world. That is why I try to be as explicit and discrete as I can when adding information on the main page.

I'm very open to compromising a paragraph that recognizes the cultural, lingual and lineal significance of all. I do feel the current paragraph is missing some of that.

The vast majority of the 75 million people you are talking about share only descent- and only some descent, I may add.

In regards to only some descent, that'd be the same for any country outside of Italy - whether that be Brazil, the U.S., Argentina or Canada. It wouldn't shock me if the overwhelming majority of Italian descendants in those countries were mixed. In Brazil (especially some parts - ex. San Paolo) and especially Argentina's case, the Italian culture has been well diffused and into those cultures. It has (but to much lesser degrees) in North America. The similar language, religion and Latin culture made much more smooth diffusion. To disregard all that wouldn't be right. You can go to Buenos Aries today and see more Italian restaurants than Spanish restaurants.

To add everybody up with some historical connexion to Italy and lump them together with Italians does not make them Italian, European or anything else other than a subgroup of their own nationality.

What ever paragraph it is we decide to agree recognizes all three aspects as mentioned would be most appropriate. I will revise the statement to make it more discrete, yet informative.

The fact that you yourself are of "part" Italian descent does not make you "Italian", other than as a label mis-used in your country.

I'd agree with that too. I wouldn't culturally regard myself as an Italian. Both of my parents, all of my grandparents and all but one of my great-grandparents were born in the U.S. I don't speak Italian. Some phrases and foods have been contained throughout generations. What ever contributions my descendants have made on my present day culture is minor though. I do see the irony in this statement pertaining to American culture which is so pressing about political correctness in statements and labels.

As for your comment regarding the 5 million people in France of Italian descent, again you seem to lack an appreciation for the complexity of European society and the "evolution" of European nations based on the identity of a people (really a 19th C ideal).

I respect your criticism. I will keep a more open mind. I know that many parts of modern day France (ex. Corsica) are arguably more Italian culturally than they are French. Likewise to the U.S. and other parts of the world, some people move from one parts of France, Italy or the EU, which really would take integrity out of basing a culture or identity based on ethnic homogenity of a specific region in a nation. I never said the statistic wasn't correct. I just believe it may be misleading for some to recognize Italian cultural presence in France, rather than other countries, based on historical influences (rather than modern day migration), just because we don't necessarily have the same figures (in that context) for others nations. The way how many U.S. citizens (likely the majority of readers of this page) will interpret it as it's literally written (5 million of 60 million French). This may mislead them into believing that the Italian diaspora led into France as significantly as the western hemisphere. Europeans know their own history, so it wouldn't require the same description.

Because of wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, millions of people of Italian ancestry live outside of Italy, predominantly in other parts of Europe, in Brazil, Argentina, the United States, Canada and Australia.

The problem is you're emphasizing ancestry over ethnicity in this context. The definition of ancestry is more simple.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/ancestry

Ancestry:

1. Ancestral descent or lineage.

Those who are culturally Italian (actual Italian citizens or child of) live in other parts of Europe. This would make them have more of a lingual and cultural Italian identity. When speaking in terms of actual lineal and descent though, millions of Italians via immigration live in South America and throughout the western hemisphere. The key word that is a problem is predominantly. That speaks in numbers (which are not predominant in Europe compared to other parts of the world - especially South America). TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an American company and U.S. is the largest Anglophone country. That unfortunately means that in English context, you need to write in simplistic enough terms for the average American to understand. That obviously doesn't make that right though. I mean that in no way to be insulting towards Americans, but the intellect and articulation skills (not necessarily education or wealth) of the average citizen seems to be much slower than that of others in the developed or developing world.

Tom, you may want to take a look at WP:CIVILITY. I suggest you to avoid this kind of obnoxious remarks in the future, or you'll find yourself blocked in no time.--93.45.129.124 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to be ironic, but as I've stated before, I am American. You have no problem with an indirect insinuation made from another that American's don't know the definition of the word ethnicity? Yet you have a problem with my quote? I hope you see the irony in that one. One thing I'm not sure I explained (maybe briefly) on here is that political correctness is highly emphasized in American culture. When it comes to posting material on the main page, I'm as conscious as possible of that. In fact, if you look at my Wiki history, you'd notice how many questionable non-cited statements I've deleted from a variety of subjects. This discussion part of the site is meant to be a drawing board. In order to express ideas, people should be able to speak freely. As long as the person is not vulgar or making personal attacks, it should all be fair game. I have always been respectful. I've went out of my way to even say it wasn't to be insulting. I've always expressed open minded nature. What I stated was an opinion. I never said it was fact. But I'd guarantee I'm not the only person who've felt that way. It was a harmless quote that likely drew more smirk than anguish. Someone who knows what fried air is would know exactly what I'm talking about when I say that.

I apologize if you were bothered or insulted by what I've said. That wasn't my goal. I never said I had a problem with Americans. I love them as much as I love anyone else. I'm encouraging to anyone who is willing to stimulate their minds. However, if you understand the impact of the U.S. media and the high praise of materialism, than perhaps you understand where I am coming from with that comment. I'm 20 years old too. I go to a community college and work part time. So what do you think I'm seeing first hand every day? I'm sorry if you don't appreciate a sarcastic nature.

In regards to the revision of the quote, I've explained that explicit nature is important. It is important to write a quote that covers the entire picture. Before I've recently began revising this quote, it previously said most Italians due to diaspora live predominantly in Europe. The word diaspora in the context it was used would have followed this definition:

A dispersion of a people from their original homeland.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Diaspora

The diction of that word emphasizes a dispersion which is tied into math. It wouldn't be appropriate nor correct to say Italians predominantly in that context live in other parts of Europe. It would be exaggerating and painting an unclear and non-cited statistical picture to claim Italians had a wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora to other European countries. I'm aware there are several ways this can be interpreted though. In that regard though, I'm happy that quote was revised. I still believe it is important to revise and be more clear in the second paragraph.

I actually agree with every word in the second paragraph in the introduction of this site. It's well written and explained. I do not see what the purpose of changing the other paragraph was though. When it comes to the Italian diaspora, it is important to properly recognize which country received the most Italian immigrants. This would be most indicative on Italian cultural impact on the countries to which they moved. South America is continent with more countries than North America and Australia, so it undermines the credit of Brazil and Argentina.

Because of wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, about 4 million Italian citizens and over 70 million people of full or part Italian ancestry live outside of Italy, most notably in South America, North America, Australia and other parts of Europe.

Because of wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, over 70 million people of Italian or part Italian ancestry live outside of Italy. Nearly two-thirds of Italian descendants outside of Italy live in South America (primarily Brazil and Argentina). Approximately 19 million live in North America and 850,000 in Australia. Most with Italian ancestry on the western hemisphere trace several generations back. With that being said, they've assimilated into their respective national cultural identities. Most do not speak the Italian language. Most Italians living in other parts of Europe and to a lesser degree in Australia are Italian nationals. Therefore, in contrast to those on the western hemisphere, most speak the Italian language and maintain an Italian cultural identity. TomNyj0127 (talk)

Opening Statement (Part 2)

Tom (sorry, I think I called you "Tony" before), I still don't see the need for such detail; however, WP is a collaborative project so I will respect your input- there is nothing wrong with what you are saying (for the most part, the Europe part is a bit WP:OR). I have taken the liberty to streamline it a bit, and to remove the OR part:

Because of wide-ranging and long-lasting diaspora, over 70 million people of Italian or part Italian ancestry live outside of Italy. Nearly two-thirds of Italian descendants live in South America (primarily Brazil and Argentina). About 20 million live in North America and nearly 1 million live in Oceania. In the Americas, most descendants' origins go back several generations and they have assimilated into their respective national identities. Most do not speak the Italian language.

Hopefully you can live with this.

On another note, to respond to some of your incidental points, articles should be written at an enhanced level of information, and should not be "dumbed down" (Simple English WP is for that). As for your impression that English WP is an "American" venture, I think you are again mistaken- at least when it comes to topics like this one. This is especially true when it comes to people editing topics about their own nation and/or culture (like me). English is the world's latest lingua franca, and you will find people from all over on this site. I, and millions of others, would not be here if that were not the case. Duomodimilano (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. I am perfectly fine with this opening statement. I understand the rounding off of numbers. I understand that the part regarding Europe may be confusing. I feel that this paragraph is a proper way of explaining the lineal part separate from language, culture and Italian citizenship. I appreciate your cooperation.

In response to what you about dumbing down, I understand what you're saying. I even agree with you. Unfortunately, is it a very wide-spread tactic in American culture (especially television, newspapers or any media sources). I've spoken to foreigners who've told me watching television in our country feels like they're being spoken to like a child.

Wikipedia should not conform to this. But it is catch 22. Many Wikipedia readers will not understand writing that they believe is overwhelming or complicated. I'm sure we're all aware that Wikipedia has earned a reputation of not being reliable (especially in academia) due to a lack of citations. With that being said, many people who use Wikipedia as a source of information don't realize that. Many use it as a quick way of obtaining knowledge. You are right though that many people internationally use this link. TomNyj0127 (talk)

The Italian people (Italian: italiani) are an ethnic group, in the sense of sharing a common Italian culture, descent, and speaking the Italian language as a mother tongue.

If so, there certainly aren't 25 million "Italians" in Brazil. There aren't 25 million people in Brazil "sharing a common Italian culture", much less "speaking the Italian language as a mother tongue". In fact, probably no more than 500,000 Brazilians speak anything similar to Italian - and even in the case of those who do, it isn't "the Italian language", but Talian - a variant of Venetian. 201.86.161.10 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In that context, the only people who would be Italians are those from Italy or Italian speakers in Europe or spread throughout the world. You are right that those are who is generally regarded as Italian. Like I've said before, people tend to be superficial with that sort of thing in the U.S. They don't speak the language, have nevered traveled to Italy, nor do they have any family they know of there, yet you'll still see people putting cheap stickers on bumpers. Or constantly insisting they are Italian because of something irrelevant like being loud or having a big family which seems to be the I need to think of something quick to say here. Most people of Italian origin thankfully don't do this in the U.S. (they usually happen to live in specific areas in Northeastern cities/metro areas).

People tend not to fight the rhetoric when speaking on ethnic French or ethnic English. This non-sense isn't carried on in South America because they are simply more proud of their national identities. Some Americans feel they have to compensate for something. Most people internationally had to have thought it was purely embarrassing or perplexing to see Americans waving an Italian flag during the World Cup rather than rooting for their own country. This is why it is difficult for Americans who hold the If it's your lineage, it's your ethnicity theory to have a clue of what the interpretation of the wording is. Tom173.61.36.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC).

You are not reading the article. There are 25 million people of Italian or part Italian ancestry in Brazil, not "Italians". The "Talians" cannot be considered Italian either, even with retention of elements of the Venetian language. Duomodimilano (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. I'd agree. They are not Italians. They are obviously not from Italy. What should be said is they are of Italian descent or ancestry. Ethnic identity encompasses language which Italian-Brazilians and Italian-Americans don't have. The only group who does are Venetians (who although are related to Italians, are not). These people should not be written as Italians and the entire name of this article (Italian People) may mislead some. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC).

This topic needs to be renamed

Recently, the Mario Balotelli article was unlinked from this article. It made no sense to me until I found out that "Italian People" in this article referred to the ethnicity. I'd like to suggest "Italian people" be differentiated from "Italian ethnicity", where "Italian people" would refer to nationals of Italy, while "Italian ethnicity" refer to the ethnic group. Does that sound reasonable? BabyJonas (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the standard way of naming all similar articles - English people, Ethiopian people, etc. Please note the hatnote at the top of this article:

For a specific analysis of the population of Italy, see Demographics of Italy. For an analysis on the nationality, see Italian nationality law.

Dancarney (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering then, if Balotelli eats, drinks, sleeps, walks, talks like an Italian, but is of African ethnicity, he is not one of the Italian people? BabyJonas (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course Balotelli is Italian. This will always be a potential issue where an ethnic group and nationality share the same name, particularly for a group with a large and disperse diaspora. The ambiguity is addressed by the Demographics of Italy article that is pointed to in the hatnote. This individual's case does, though, have to be treated carefully as he has appallingly racially abused at recent Serie A games. If you're still not happy about this, perhaps you should start a discussion at the WP:village pump, probably with the intention of changing the titles of all of Fooian people articles, for consistency. Dancarney (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's something I'm thinking about. My reasoning is when someone says "the American people", the image that springs to mind is certainly not that of a single ethnic group or culture, but rather a melting pot (usually featuring at least one Salma Hayek-lookalike in scrubs, but I digress...). I'll wait a while, I think. Thanks for engaging me on this. BabyJonas (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

140 mln italians!!!!!????

Please correct this number as by mother tongue it should be 50-60 mln italians and much lesser by genitic origin.

Humanbyrace (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Italians in Brazil

As of now, this article states that there are 25 million Italians in Brazil. This is blatantly false. The figure (which is, by the way, a gross overestimate) refers to Brazilians of Italian descent. This can, and often does, mean people who don't know a word of Italian and have absolutely no connections to Italy; people who just happen to have a grand-grand-grandparent who emigrated to Brazil a century or more ago. The actual number of Italians in Brazil is much lower; in fact, the total number of foreigners (of any country) in Brazil, as of 2000, was less than 700,000. Ninguém (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your reasoning of why there is less than 25 million Italians is not right. It is true that there are people in the Americas who have no connection to Italy, but that does not make them less Italian in terms of genetic origin. Say an Italian was born in Rome but was adopted by an Irish Australian couple. The boy grew up knowing nothing about Italy or the language or history but was just told he was of Italian background. Well much like these Brazilians, they know they have Italian background but have little connection to it...but that does not make them diluted or less Italian in terms of genetics. Galati (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Galati

÷″this crap is dumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.67.194.2 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you'd be right. It'd depend on the definition though. Regardless of where Italian ancestry seems to exist on the western hemisphere (perhaps Canada being an exclusion), people with Italian descent have several generations in those countries. I guess the one thing that could remind them if their surname. That is quite popular in Brazil (especially Sao Paolo) and Argentina. I'm not sure where your citation of the 700,000 sum total of all foreigners is. I would have thought Brazil would have a larger percentage of immigrants than less than one percent so I'm skeptical of that statistic. You are right that people from Italy or second-generation seldom exist in Brazil (and all of South America and the U.S. too).

Now I kind of dispute what Galati said. He said having no connection to Italy doesn't make one less Italian. Although you didn't say it, you likely meant distant from the culture as well. Without the Italian language, the Italian culture doesn't exist. The same could be said to any country's respective culture. It dominates the landscape. Although Brazilians are better at speaking multiple languages, most still don't know Italian (same with the U.S.). The ancestry is so distant in both countries that people who speak the language are likely linguists, priests or well educated people.

When someone says Italian people there can be different interpretations of that. Being of a genetic ancestry is not relevant to culture. For that matter too, Italians are a genetically diverse people. It still is not a naturally defined country with several sub-ethnic distinctions and you could date back other ethnic groups consolidating the genetics less than a thousand years ago. What can be said is the Italian people had more cultural impact on Brazil (you can hear in the dialect in Sao Paolo). It makes sense being a Latin tongue. The main contribution Italians gave to the U.S. was food (which was extremely Americanized postwar) and seldom dialect. I think to define a people by your literal lineage is sort of menial. It is a common American thought. It really is moot to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.36.179 (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a strange discussion. The definition of who qualifies as Italian and who doesn't nowhere relies on "genetic" criteria alone, nor on exclusively "cultural" ones. The problem is, if the same yardsticks are applied for the different countries of the Italian diaspora, the number for Brazil is hugely exaggerated. The same, by the way, is true for Lebanese-Brazilian and other descendants of immigrant groups in Brazil, the numbers of which always appear hugely inflated on wikipedia. Someone should sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miz1976 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Skeptical of this quote

Italian American words and lingo are sometimes spoken by the characters. Although many do not speak Italian fluently (over 1 million speak Italian at home according to the 2000 US Census)[40] an Italian-influenced English dialect of sorts has arisen among Italian Americans, particularly in the urban Northeast, often popularized in film and television.

I'd like to first discuss that statistic of 1 million being claimed to speak Italian at home. First, I feel the wording is poor. It'll confuse readers to say 1 million Italian-Americans speak the Italian language at home directly after saying many do not speak Italian fluently. A home language is perceived to be a native tongue or a tongue that holds equal weight to their native tongue. It would require fluency in order to hold equal weight.

I do not dispute that the 2000 U.S. Census states this. I am extremely skeptical of this stat though because it seems very untrue. The claim is 1 million out of 15.6 million (6.4%) of Italian-Americans can speak the Italian language.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/continuing/articles/2005/03/06/breaking_the_language_barrier/

Let's compare this to national data for those who able to speak more than one language. According to the Boston Globe article I show above, 9.3 percent of U.S. citizens speak more than one language. The reality of this statistic is that about 11% of residents in the United States are foreign born. About 1/2 of those people are now citizens. Virtually nearly all immigrants to the U.S. (excluding most West Indians) are not native English speakers.

That'd mean only about ~4-5 percent of the rest of the 89 percent of Americans can fluently speak a second language. The reality of this is that a good chunk of that are the children of immigrants. Italians are not a recent immigrant group to this country. Those who came postwar are a very small percentage compared to all Italian-Americans. Italian-Americans (like German-Americans or other white ethnic groups) likely have 2%~ of their populations that are fluent. I wouldn't imagine broken being much higher either.

To claim 6%+ speak Italian would seem exaggerated. As a native of Staten Island, NY, which has a population that is about 38% Italian ancestry, I could honestly tell you very few can speak the Italian language. I myself am partly of the background. My grandmother can not speak the Italian language despite her father being from Italy and her mother speaking it fluently. The few people who I came across who could read, write or speak Italian were actually Italian-American. They were native Spanish speakers who studied it or priests (who were commonly the same people). I'd have it hard to believe that ~2.5 percent of the population speaks Italian at home. It'd be lovely. It is not reality.

I do have some understanding why the stats can be exaggerated. I've spoken to at least a dozen people who think it sounds cool to say they can speak Italian. Or there are people out there who actually believe they can speak it because they know a couple of curses and expressions. They lie to the Census. Of course it is a white lie and can't be proven. It nonetheless shows the bloated number. TomNyj0127 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not dispute the Census being a reputable source (even if the sources they get their information aren't as reliable). The part of the quote I will be revising is an Italian-influenced English dialect of sorts has arisen among Italian Americans, particularly in the urban Northeast, often popularized in film and television.

This quote has no citation and is not true. Some people have a way of confusing that being of one background and speaking the dialect of a city or state doesn't mean your background was the main contributor. The stereotypical mafia accent is a toughened up New York accent. The mafia movies you see made in cities such as Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago never give them a local accent. It always is the New York one. I never understood why they do that. I guess that is why movies are never reality.

In reality, Italians seldom influenced the accent of the places they immigrated too. They are places you can see from Staten Island across to Perth Amboy that historically and still have comparably high Italian-American populations that have two very different accents. Italian-Americans sound like the locals in each city and region they went to. Whether that be Providence, Scranton, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee or where ever. All of these cities have distinctively different accents.

The stereotypical New York dialect sounds absolutely nothing like the way someone from Italy would when they speak English. The most distinctive feature of an Italian accent (in what ever language they speak it seems) is their grave tone. That doesn't exist in the New York dialect. Italians pronounce r's with a thrill and everything is fluid. As a person with a New York accent, I can tell you that our accent does not roll like that. Many people describe it as pitchy and even callose.

Until citation is provided to that quote, I will delete it. TomNyj0127 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

mexico and ecuador italians??

I doubt theres 50.000 italians descendants in Mexico. The only trustable info. that I could find about italians in Mexico is from this link http://www.migranti.torino.it/Documenti%20%20PDF/italianial%20ster05.pdf and it only mentions 15.000. Regarding the Ecuador italians the link provided doesn't seem to work. To be honest I am very skeptical of the existence of 15 thousand italian decendents in Ecuador. I think the first one about Mexico should be modified and the latter removed all together. But I don't know tell me what you guys think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezer08 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes. I wasn't able to find the number of italian descendants given in neither of the references previously provided. I Referenced a legitimate source that does provide an estimate of the amount of Italian descendants in Mexico, so i modified the previous information. I also removed Ecuador because I couldn't find the number provided in the source given, nor I was able to find a trustworthy article that would provide a solid number.--Weezer08 (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar wasn't italian.....maybe italic......... please remove his picture from the images which show important italian person.--FrankVonPedro (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Caesar was Italian. The name "Italic" is just a convention used by the historians to distinguish the ancient inhabitants speaking one of the so called "Italic" languages. Deleting the picture of Caesar from the pictures of various Italians is just like deleting the picture of Alexander the Greek from the article titled "Greek people". Romans of peninsular origin had a perfect consciousness of being Italian as it is shown in Virgil. The Italians, the inhabitants of the peninsula (also the "Latini" of course) had a prestigious and unique jusridical status: see the Jus Italicum for example. During the Roman Republic and during a long part of the Empire as well, Romans made a clear juridical and cultural distinction between the Italians and the "Provincials". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vittuone (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing Article

I have come to realise with SOME editors of the Italian People page that for some strange reason, a discussion of native ethnic groups on the Italian peninsula is a cause of controvery. However if one looks at the Bulgarian people page, or the Macedonian people pages, and trust me, many other articles of various European populations, there is a discussion on the ethnogenesis of the native populations, genetic contributions and closely related ethnic groups. In fact, Dutch professor conducted a study on the genetics of the Italian population and saw them closely related to the French, Spanish, and Portuguese populations. I have many articles and many can be found online by reputable geneticists and professors discussing the ethnogenesis and origins of the Italian people.

There is too much focus on the Italian diaspora and culture and while that is all important they only need be brief since there are all seperate articles on those topics. It is common knowledge that 7 percent of the Italian population now has either full or partial non-Italian origins and deserve some attention, but we cannot ignore the history of the peopling (i.e. Italic peoples, Romans, Normans etc.) of Italy that have created what we have today. ~~Galati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.33.146 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mussolini was famous alright…

…but I don't see any Adolph Hitler in Austrian people, add the concerns expressed above about the presence of people from the classical era and I'm reverting this to the tidier earlier version.--TheSandBoxMan (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, that collage was awful to say the least. Dante, Petrarch, Michelangelo, Fellini, Sophia Loren, Verdi, Pavarotti, the most famous Italians, where are they? This page is about Italian people from all eras not just the classical era. Go on French people, and you'll see Charles de Gaulle and Edith Piaf, modern people. If this page were called ancient Italian people, then I'd understand, but it's about all Italian people, even those who were born today. Anyway, I have to be honest, in comparison to French or Spanish people, this page is very poor in quality - too short, lacking in info, irrelivant and not what one would expect about the very diverse heritages of the Italians!--Theologiae (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The collage was a bit lacking, but to add a ton of images to the infobox makes it messy and unwieldy. The collages at French people and English people seem pretty good, and the kind of thing that the Italian people article should use. Dancarney (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

[Answer to Theologiae] Are you comparing De Gaulle to Mussolini? No way mate, I won't have one of the most famous fascist among the Italians to be celebrated, it's foolish and offensive to the rest of us Italians. I don't see much use for a new collage, but if you want to create a new one that badly, make sure it's a single image (as opposed to the current thumbnail madness), and that Italians of all regions, sexes and ages are fairly represented (ideally). The current one's a no-no and I'm reverting.--TheSandBoxMan (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're just saying that you're not going to put a pic of Mussolini in just 'cause Italians don't like him. That's ridiculous! I don't think many people, like me, are huge fans of Mussolini, but he's arguably one of the most famous Italians in all history, whether good or bad. This page is of Italian people, not good Italian people. Regarding the gender, yes, I might add a few female pictures, but with all respect to women (I believe in total equal rights), there aren't as many famous Italian women as men, since they were given less of an education chance until the late 1800s. I might add an image of Elena Piscopia, the world's first ever female laureate, but apart from Sophia Loren, Elena Piscopia, Maria Montessori and Maria Gaetana Agnesi, I can't think of any other very famous Italian women. If you can think of some, which are famous, then please tell me. As for now, Italian American uses the thumbnail style, and since the collage is too short and missing out in some of Italy's most famous people, I'm reverting.--Theologiae (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Italians, I didn't know Napoleon was a ~~wop~~ ~~dago~~ Italian. I thought he was a Frenchie. If he was an Italian, then why did he build up France instead of building up some Italian country? 192.12.88.49 (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Napoleon was a guappo of sorts, like Mussolini and Julius Caesar (although none of them were presumably mafiosos or in a Camorra). All three were bold men who were stubborn and didn't shy from picking fights. How do you think they all wound up dictators? 192.12.88.49 (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte was born in Corsica, then and almost all time since (the exception being a short-lived Italian occupation of Corsica) French territory. As such he is no more Italian than Mario Cuomo or Andrew Cuomo, Italian-Americans.

Please (this is OT), read more about history of Corsica. Bubu 2011-09-16 CEST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.160.136 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I can think of several who belong in the collage before Mussolini -- Garibaldi, Rossini, Verdi, Puccini, Fellini, Pavarotti, Caruso, Scotto, Tebaldi. The idea is to have famous people -- not infamous people. Mussolini is a disgrace, and having him in such a collage would be objectionable much as would having Charles Manson as an example of an American. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's choose the mosaic personalities ourselves…

As I already wrote to Theologiae, I think we should decide on the personalities to include in the mosaic together, and this time considering a more equal representation of different parts of Italy, and, at least marginally, women. My proposal is to assign 4 personalities to each macroregion of Italy, of which at least one a woman:

My proposal:
For the northwest: Alessandro Volta, Rita Levi-Montalcini, Renzo Piano, Caravaggio
For the northeast: Carlo Goldoni, Martino Martini, Bernardo Bertolucci, Elena Cornaro Piscopia
For the centre: Leonardo da Vinci, Francis of Assisi, Maria Montessori, Galileo Galilei
For the south: Giordano Bruno, Mia Martini, Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Umberto Boccioni
For insular Italy: Grazia Deledda, Luigi Pirandello, Salvatore Fiume, Antonio Gramsci
--TheSandBoxMan (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Good idea. Just one thing. I'd say that rather than Mia Martini for the south, we should do Donatella Versace. She's more famous, the owner of one of the world' biggest fashion houses and is internationally well known. Apart from that, I'll update it now.--Theologiae (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, rather than Martino Martini, Marco Polo is a bit more famous.--Theologiae (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any pics of Bernardo, so I'm replacing him with Titian--Theologiae (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On commons, I couldn't find a pic of Salvatore Fiume, so I'm going to replace him with famous early politician Don Luigi Sturzo--Theologiae (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I continue to say that a collage would be much better. So, so far we have:
NW: Alessandro Volta • Maria Gaetana Agnesi • Giuseppe Verdi •Caravaggio
NE: Carlo Goldoni • Marco Polo • Elena Piscopia • Titian
CE: Leonardo da Vinci • Saint Francis of Assisi • Maria Montessori • Galileo Galilei
SO: Giordano Bruno • Princess Luisa of Naples and Sicily • Gian Lorenzo Bernini • Umberto Boccioni
IN: Grazia Deledda • Luigi Pirandello • Don Luigi Sturzo • Antonio Gramsci

I believe Rita Levi Montalcini is more famous than Agnesi. ~~Also, Renzo Piano would be better than Verdi both because he would be the only Ligurian on the list and the only architect as well.~~ And for pretty much the same reason, I'd favour the less known Martino Martini over Marco Polo, a Trentino and a cartographer who travelled in the Orient. I'd rather have Pasolini to replace Bertolucci, since he's dead we can get a FU pic no probs. Did you change your mind about Donatella Versace? She was a good suggestion. Salvatore Fiume's the same as Pasolini, we can use a FU picture for him.--TheSandBoxMan (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have trouble finding a good pic of Piano. How about Vittorio Gassman instead?--TheSandBoxMan (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually we could upload photos of both Pasolini and Fiume on WP without claiming fair use by using a photo made before 1990 and using Template:PD-Italy.--TheSandBoxMan (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Genetics

That section is very tacky and every link is based on a certain woman's opinion of Italians and not solid facts. This should not be on a Wikipedia page. Galati (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Galati

Agreed. In addition, if you must have a section on genetics, you cannot cite a blog!!! Also, the entire topic of this article seems to have been derailed... it is more about people of Italian origin (and the stereotypes) than about Italians as a people. Copied from the talk archives... "Italians" are 1. citizens and 2. Italian-speaking, non-citizens of adjacent countries. The immigrant populations in other countries are refered to as "comunità di oriundi italiani nel mondo"- that means people of Italian descent- and they are typically not considered Italian in Italy (unless they hold citizenship). The oriundi are given undue weight, especially since many (probably "most") do not self-identify as Italian (as opposed to Italian-Argentines, -Americans, -Brazilians, -Australians, etc) and many are multi-ethnic if you must bring genetics into the picture. Mariokempes (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the genetics section and removed all material (much of it factually incorrect, by the way) citing the unreliable source (a blog!). I also added fact tags to my own edits because they need to be referenced. If we have to live with this section, it needs to be correct. Mariokempes (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We have also to keep a watch on it, apparently there is an anonymous User with some very own POVs about itCunibertus (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Peru

I'm really quite skeptical about the source used (this is a promotional trade site, not an official site by any means); nonetheless, it says says there is a total about 500,000 people of Italian descent, going back 5 generations. 28,000 people are currently Italian citizens and 12,000 have applied for and are awaiting Italian citizenship. These numbers seem quite high to me, but it's what we have. It would be great to source a more reliable reference and put this to rest. Mariokempes (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the article about Italians, and shouldn't the article reflect the number of italians in peru, rather than the number who are descendents of italians? Descent is almost useless, really, I'm a descent of germans, italians, scots and who know who else, and we're all descendents of africans. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This question has come up before (in general, not specifically in Peru)... I think it's very important for the article to distinguish between Italians and people of Italian descent. Just to be clear: The vast majority of Italian-Peruvians, Italian-Americans, Italian-Australians, etc. are not Italians, but a sub-set people of the nationality (Peruvian, American, Australian, etc.) whose ancestors came from Italy (in many cases partial/ mixed Italian). There are separate articles on most of these descendent groups. To be an Italian abroad you must be at least an Italian citizen, since most people in immigrant communities do not meet the "Italian ethnicity" defined in the intro to this article (how can someone who is born and raised in Peru, the USA, or Australia, probably third, fourth or fifth generation, be called an "Italian"? That is absurd.). This would be the minimum threshold, but it is recognised by the Italian government. I think this rationale applies to any article on any ethnic group or people. Nonetheless, if you want to reflect the number of Italians in Peru (i.e. citizens of Italy), then you must do the same for every country. There is a chart at the bottom of the article that attempts to do that, but it needs some attention. Feel free to make changes to reflect this, if you wish, but it must be uniform, clear and consistant at all levels. Mariokempes (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed section

Italy's cuisine is widely regarded as amongst the most popular in the world^[1], and is mainly made up of traditional dishes, meals and deserts, such as pasta, spaghetti, pizza, focaccia, bruschette, arancini, granita, swordfish, lasagna, gelato, risotto, gnocchi, polenta, panettone, pandoro and zampone, to name a few. Basil, mozzarella, pesto, garlic, olive oil, tomatoes and gorgonzola, are examples of ingredients and sauces which are used frequently in Italian cuisine.

Also, Italy exports and produces the highest level of wine^[2]^[3], exporting over 1,793 tonnes. Italy currently is responsible for producing approximately one-fifth of world wine production in 2005^[4]. Some parts of the country are home to some of the oldest wine-producing regions in the world. Etruscans and Greek settlers produced wine in the country long before the Romans started developing their own vineyards in the 2nd century BC. Roman grape-growing and winemaking was prolific and well-organized, pioneering large-scale production and storage techniques like barrel -making and bottling.^[5]

Famous and traditional Italian wines include Barbera, Dolcetto, Corvina, Nero d'Avola, Pinot Grigio^[6], Moscato, Prosecco, and Amarone to name a few.

The reason why I deleted this section from the article is that it is not written in the spirit of the article. This article is not about Italy. If it was about Italy, then it would be relevant to write about the country's food, produce and exports. But it is not about Italy. It is about Italian people.

So what should be said here, in relation to food, wine, and so on?

What can be said is that Italian people eat certain foods and drink wine with meals.

NOTE: Not "these foods are eaten and this wine is drunk." It is about people, not food and drink. So discussion of people's habits is what matter here.

It can also be stated that many Italian people are involved in the wine industry: growing, harvesting, producing, retailing and exporting the product.

The picture is not relevant to the topic Italian people and should go.

Find us a picture of an Italian family at the table, and that will be relevant.

Amandajm (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers in different countries

The numbers relating to the "Italian" population of the various countries outside Italy are blatantly wrong. They are especially exaggerated for Brazil, but also for Argentina. Probably, different countries apply different criteria to establish who qualifies as "Italian", but in an article such as this, it would be important that these criteria are more or less consistent for purposes of comparability. Virtually all "Italian people" in today's Argentina and Brazil are descendants of immigrants who arrived between 1850 and 1950. In the US the large majority are descendants of those who arrived between 1880 and 1930, but compared to South America there are more who arrived more recently, since the 1960s. Between 1850 and 1950, the numbers of net Italian immigrants were roughly 4.5m to the US, 2.5m to Argentina and perhaps 1.8m to Brazil. Birth rates might have been a tiny little bit higher among Italians and their descendants in Argentina and Brazil than in the US, but nowhere nearly as different as to account for the strange figues in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miz1976 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

These supposed strange figures you speak of backed up by official statistics of Brazil. For example in Brazil a nation of 190 million people, the government stated that 15 percent of the population was Italian (see white Brazilian; larger than the Portuguese population) a number which roughly corresponds to 30 million people. I dont understand what criteria a nation has to define Italian besides being of full or partial Italian ancestry. Brazilians in general have always had a higher fertility than the United States though it now seems to be on par as of the last decade.

At a time when the United States sought to reduce immigrant numbers many Italians looked to Argentina considering it is a nation pretty similar to Italy in terms of culture and faith. Also, the impact of Italians in Argentina is profound to the point where it is very credible Italians consitute 50 - 60 percent of the population. The cuisine, architecture, culture and even Spanish dialect is closely Italian to the point where linguists have suggested a Neapolitan Italian rhythm of speach called Rioplatanese Spanish. Italians in America though vastly influential (some of the first Europeans to touch America if not the first) has not affected language and culture so much as the Italians of Latin America have. 24.36.27.10 (talk) 02:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Galati

Yes - I just noticed this. Also, how can there be 60M Italian people in Italy, and 60M people in Italy? Are they really that homogeneous of a country? Or are they defining an Italian person as liberally as they can. Harburg (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There are 56m Italian citizens in Italy. An additional 4m foreigners make the total poulation 60m. An additional 4m Italian citizens live outside Italy. I think this is all clear in the article now. Mariokempes (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Jewish religion practiced in Italy??

Was and have there been jewish religion settled and formed in Italy from the 1930's to now??/Just complete curiousity,being someone had said to me that there parent was from Italy,and was jewish..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.141.55 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Italy. --Muhandes (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a significant Italian Jewish population in Italy, historically throughout the country, but today located primarily in Milan, Pavia and Rome. Most have roots going back centuries, but I suspect many have immigrated into Italy from other European countries since the second world war. Have a look at Jews in Italy. Cheers! Mariokempes (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbers and citations

It's getting tiresome to continuously point this out:

There are 60m people in Italy, but 4m are not Italian citizens (they are foreigners living in Italy). As a result, there are 56m Italians in Italy. Please stop changing it to 60m.
I'm not denying the numbers of "Italians" in Brazil... However, the source cited says 23-25m. Changing it to 30, 33 or whatever millions is just WP:OR. Suggesting this is "old" information is not good enough, you have to point to a reputable source.

Mariokempes (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the others sources in the article (not the one that you use), about "Italians" in Brazil is from the "Ambasciata d'Italia" (Italian Embassy) and it affirms that they are around 18 % of the Brazilian population, so now they are even more than 30-33, around 34.9 millions (it is simple math...they probably were 25 millions when the research was made)--79.16.113.10 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the use of quote marks in "italians" when refering to italians living in Brazil. If not jus sanguinis, what is your criterion for distinction between italians and "italians"? This has also been present throughout the whole article, by the way. We must have some editors with strong identity issues, here! --FelipeBusnello (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Since there is no mention of an Italian ethnicity, I don't think Napoleon should be called ethnically Italian.Pistolpierre (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon was of Corsican origin, an Italic people not living in Italy but Corsica is in the French Republic or France if you will. The definition of who is Italian is murky, it depends on ones' emotional bonds with the "old country" of Italy and multi-generational persons of Italian descent would have assimilated in their land of origin. Italian immigration to Northern/Western Europe (i.e. Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands and smaller numbers to Austria, Sweden and Poland or Prague) is not the same experience like immigration to the Americas (i.e. USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Costa Rica among them). The concept of ethnicity in who is Italian: for example, Marlon Brando of the Godfather and Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi of Jersey Shore are not Italians, Brando is American used "Brando" as a stage name and is of English and French ancestry, and "Snooki" is actually adopted, she was born in Chile. Mike D 26 (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Corsica is culturally/ethnically Italian and Napoleon was born in 1769 by Corsican parents emigrated in France, and his birth happened only one year after Genoa sold Corsica to France... So he was indubitably a French citizen but with more than strong corsican/italian origin, culture and ethnicity (for example he spoke Italian as fluently as French)---kayac71- (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

surely, Naploean was what he himself identified as. I'm not an expert in that matter, but one would think that was French Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

^ http://www.cooking-advices.com/in/78
^ http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor
^ http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=535#ancor
^ Mulligan, Mary Ewing and McCarthy, Ed. Italy: A pasion for wine. , 2006, 62(7), 21-27
^ Wine
^ http://www.majestic.co.uk/find/Grape+Variety-is-Pinot+Grigio

[1] ttp://www.cooking-advices.com/in/78

[2] ttp://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor

[3] ttp://faostat.fao.org/site/535/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=535#ancor

[4] Mulligan, Mary Ewing and McCarthy, Ed. Italy: A pasion for wine. , 2006, 62(7), 21-27

[Wine-5] Wine

[6] ttp://www.majestic.co.uk/find/Grape+Variety-is-Pinot+Grigio

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]