Talk:Italian Americans

Compulsory Relocation Question

"...compulsory relocation of more than 10,000 Italian Americans living on the West Coast..."

The term "Italian American" implies US citizens to me. Of the 10,000+ relocated during the were all or most Italian nationals residing in the USA as opposed to Italian-American citizens? Seki1949 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation with Italianamerican

I'm not sure why this is controversial, but according to WP:DAB, disambiguation is done by a hatnote, not by adding a link to the See also section. The latter is for linking "related or comparable" articles, not articles which merely have a similar name. The hatnote is appropriate to link to articles which may be confused with this one because of a similar name. In this case Italianamerican obviously has a similar name to Italian Americans, so should be linked with a hatnote. CodeTalker (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, the tag Template:Redirect should be used. If Italian American did not redirect here (say, if it were a disambiguation page), then there'd be no need for the link at the top. It's the redirect that makes it necessary, and that's exactly what the Redirect tag is for. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears that a major disagreement exists concerning implementing the Wikipedia disambiguity feature, with two methods being proposed. If the stated purpose (as expressed by Korny O’Near) is to “make it easy to find” the Scorsese film, then the two methods are functionally equivalent and produce exactly the same benefit. The first method uses the cryptic verbiage: “Italian American redirects here”, which probably very few readers would even understand, and provides a link to the Scorsese article. The second method confirms to the reader, via a brief statement which can be inserted that, indeed, he has accessed the searched-for article on Italian Americans while, at the same time, making the reader aware of the existence of the Scorsese article via the same link. The first approach appears to be the only approach acceptable to Korny O’Near , while the second approach appears to be acceptable to both CodeTalker and Philantonia . For a time, the second approach also appeared to be acceptable to Korny O’Near , but this was short lived and Korny O’Near soon reverted my rather simple edit of the second approach based on it being “overly verbose” and, the next day, the second approach was reverted in its entirety and replaced by the first approach. I would say that, based on the edits that have already occurred concerning this issue, a consensus exists. I am therefore reverting the most recent edit made by Korny O’Near. A rationale needs to be put forth that one and only one approach is acceptable to achieving the desired objective because it has some inherent and identifiable advantages. Other editors may also wish to contribute their opinions on this this issue. Philantonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.1.219 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the wording, or existence, of the "Redirect" tag, you should take it up at Template talk:Redirect. As it is, the "Redirect" template is widely used on Wikipedia for disambiguation in cases like this one, and for the record, I've never heard of anyone being confused by it. Regardless of the previous history of edits, the fact remains that this is precisely the right tag to use. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You have totally failed to answer the basic question of what, if any, functional difference exists between the two approaches. In both cases, the reader is made aware of the Scorsese article and can click on that link if desired. The verbiage that precedes this does enable or disable the desired functionality. I used the template identified by Code Talker and only inserted what I thought was relevant and appropriate in the field designated "about". Have you not achieved the desired disambiguation, and made the Scorsese article more visible and accessible? At this point, it would appear that you have the minority opinion on this subject - but I am still open to a basic logical argument about why one and only one approach can guarantee the desired functionality. Philantonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philantonia (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I already answered it, but let me try again: templates like For and Other uses exist when there are one or more articles whose names match the current article, while Redirect is used when there are one or more articles whose names match a redirect to the current article. (That's a rough explanation, anyway.) This current case is in somewhat of a gray area, since "Italian Americans" is not so different from "Italian American" (or from "Italianamerican", for that matter); nonetheless, if that redirect were not there, this disambiguation link would not be needed, and thus "Redirect" seems to be the correct tag to use. Does that make sense? Korny O'Near (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I admire your dedication for precise detail. However, you expressed the concern: "for anyone who thinks the documentary is spelled "Italian American" (with a space), this disambiguation link is essential - otherwise there's no easy way to find it". So, by highlighting the Scorsese article in the Italian Americans article, with many more page views, more people will become aware of it. Therefore, in my view, the desired functionality (and your wish) has been realized. If, in the inner workings of Wikipedia, some other important function is not realized please let me know about this (in simple language), and also why the burden of disambiguation should be on the Italian American article. Philantonia (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but it appears that you don't really grasp the importance of disambiguation - maybe because your editing on Wikipedia has so far been seemingly restricted to just a few articles. A concept like "the burden of disambiguation" doesn't really make any sense - either a disambiguation link is needed or it's not, and the whole idea of cluttering an article with a link at the top (if that's the issue) is just irrelevant. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The one thing I understand very well is the concept of "functionality", which you appear to continually evade. The function of disambiguation appears to have been fully realized. The means by which it is realized appears to be a major issue for you. I believe you have the minority opinion on this issue. Philantonia (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What did I evade? I thought I explained the situation fully. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• La generación del 70.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Length

At over 22k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the article is not too long. The topic is really very complex and multifaceted, and a detailed article is needed to have a complete treatment. --LukeWiller (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC).

I appreciate that that might be your opinion, but that doesn't outweigh WP:TOOBIG. Complex and multifaceted topics are meant to be – and in many cases are – covered by summary style articles with more detailed child articles expanding on subtopics. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I totally agree with you. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The position that this article topic has unique properties that can only be addressed in a length of 25 thousand words is absurd and myopic in the extreme. In no way shape or form is this article on another level of poignancy or complexity above Catholic Church, General relativity, Human history, or Agriculture; to insist otherwise is to admit you didn't try or consider the prospect in good faith. Almost two-thirds of this article probably needs to be cut: serious work to accomplish this is not only possible, it is clearly necessary. You do not have to do it yourself, but you are required to respect consensus (local and per guidelines) and get out of the way to allow others to try addressing obvious problems. Remsense ‥ 论 00:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

And not revert said efforts. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Prior attempts to shorten the article has resulted in significant and unjustified removal of valid content. Creating sub-articles which allow the original content to be preserved is a reasonable solution but just allowing any editor to decide what content to remove opens the door to arbitrary removal in the name of "article shortening". Philantonia (talk) Philantonia (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Splitting the article at 1880

I propose we split the article at 1880. Readers interested in the modern Italian American population will have a more compact article, and everyone will have access to the early adventurers and arrivals. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

OK I'm working on this--and summarizing long sections moved to the new article on Italians in North America before 1880. any comments? Rjensen (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Splitting sections

I attempted to move most of the pre-1945 content in the history section to History of Italian Americans and some of the post-1945 content to more relevant sections of this article, but was reverted. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd support reinstating those edits - not seeing any reason to revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The concept of splitting the article at 1945 does not reflect an historical or cultural breakpoint. It is artificial and makes the article much more difficult to read and understand. Its singular benefit is it reduces the size of the main article. A better, more natural breakpoint would be at the start of the great migration (around 1890). ~~ [[User:Philanton:

A very convincing argument against splitting the article can be made by tracking the pageviews (90-day average) for the main Italian American article and for the spinoff article: "Italians Before 1880". The average daily pageviews for the former is 907 and, for the latter, the daily average is only 21. So, a split can effectively delete some or all of the content that was originally in the main article. A spinoff article that elaborates on the content provided in the main article can, however, provide much of additional interest for the dedicated reader or scholar. The basic concept that the article is too long to comfortably navigate is extremely questionable. All the reader has to do is look at the content index to decide which part(s) of the article is of interest in any given reading session. The selectable-content index can make it very easy to navigate through the article. The real criterion for article size should be the quality of the content and not the amount of content, assuming the content is not overburdening to the average reader, in which case some of the content could be moved to a more specialized spinoff article. I don't believe, however, this is true of the suggested "before 1945" spinoff. Philantonia 22:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Pageviews don't make a convincing argument at all. We don't know what people arrived at this page looking for. We don't know how many people arrived at this page and found it unreadable. We don't know what their opinion might be about content quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, I firmly believe that Pageviews are all important. Consider that the most recent ("Before 1945") sub-article had, during its approximately 2-week history, an average of only 3 views per day, while the main Italian American article had over 900 views per day. It is a reasonable to assume that the daily 3 views were directed from the main "Italian American" article. So, during that period of time, about 900 readers per day (without having some experience and exerting some effort), would have been denied very important information about a major part of Italian-American history. It would have been effectively deleted. This illustrates a basic problem with the emphasis on shortening the article, which can be very counterproductive. The present article is written in an easy-to-understand "executive overview" style. The main factual information is provided without (in most cases) much elaboration. This is augmented by a number of linked sub-articles that provide much more information for the dedicated reader, student or scholar. Finally, I don't believe it is the proper role or responsibility of Wikipedia editors to assume anything about what the reader's "opinion might be about content quality". The old Latin saying "qualitas etas", that is "quality will reveal itself", is applicable here. The daily Pageviews for the Italian American article (average 912) exceeds that for German American article (average 755) and the Irish American article (average 637), which is significant because the two latter groups are much larger than the Italian American. I think this clearly suggests that the Italian American article is well accepted in its current form and does not require drastic shortening or improvements in quality. Philantonia (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not possible to tell from pageviews what the article's perceived quality is - whether a reader is delighted or horrified by what they see on arriving, their arrival counts as a pageview either way. The present article is not close to being an easy-to-understand executive overview. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Tag Removal

The question of whether the Italian-American article needs to be shortened can be addressed solely by subjective arguments or, more convincingly, by referring to verifiable objective facts concerning the content of the article. Consider the following easily verifiable facts.

Wikipedia has given the article a “B” content rating, the same as the German-American article and better than the Irish-American article, which gets a “C” content rating. The B rating is very respectable, with only the following issue being identified: “Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.” The shortcoming identified would suggest broadening the content of the article, rather than condensing it, to achieve a higher rating; that is, make it more “encyclopedic”.

Wikipedia has rated the Italian-American article of “High-importance” in The Ethnic Group category. This certainly reflects on its content and presentation.

The Italian American article gets more page views than any other Euro-American article. Its page views and size have increased essentially in lockstep over the past 10 years, which clearly suggests that readers value a broader treatment of the subject and are not turned off by the more expansive treatment.

The Italian American article is written from an easy-to-follow chronological perspective. It has numerous linked sub-articles, which further benefit the serious student or researcher. It has the most complete set of references on the subject that probably exists anywhere, which provides still another very valuable resource for the scholar or author.

Wikipedia has established guidelines on article size, but does not dictate a fixed size limit. For comparison, the German-American article is a bit smaller in word count, and the African-American article is somewhat larger.

In addition to the above considerations, there are other important reasons for eliminating the tag. It creates what can be interpreted as a mandate, which can lead to some very undesirable consequences. Consider that, most recently, the article was re-structured in a way that effectively deleted 65 years of very important Italian-American history. Other recent shortening edits have resulted in the deletion of large amounts of sourced material.

Based on the above considerations, and on my previous posts. I am removing the tag. Philantonia

At the time that the article was assessed as B-class, the article was 3611 words of readable prose. It is now more than six times that. It is considerably longer than either the German-American or the African-American article. It is also considerably longer than the length at which WP:SIZERULE indicates articles should be divided or trimmed. Then there is the matter of quality. Importance ratings and pageviews tell us nothing about article quality, as discussed above. But looking at the article, it is not easy to follow. It is excessively detailed, going into individual biographies. It does not achieve the goal of being a high-level summary article, per WP:SUMMARY. And, despite its number of citations, its length means that large swathes remain unsourced. Given all this, there is an obvious need for the article to be improved; the tags appropriately reflect that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Looking for help finding an article

I am somewhat new to posting on here so my apologies if I am in the wrong place or if I am out of line. I am looking for a study that was used to write this article called: "Comparative Study of Fifteen Ethnic Groups," University of Chicago Study, 1994 Does anyone know how to find this study? Or how to figure out who wrote that section of the Wikipedia article to ask that person. I am working on a book on Italian Americans. Thank you. Mjcaponiti (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Columbus

He did not land in the usa as the article states 12.216.111.82 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)