Talk:Italy

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

Please change "12 Jun 1946" to "10 Jun 1946" as the date on which the Italian Republic came into being. This was the date on which the Court of Cessation confirmed the results of the institutional referendum. RomeoJA (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Results of the institutional referendum were announced on 10 Jun 1946; see Gazzetta Ufficiale, 20 Jun 1946:

https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/do/gazzetta/downloadPdf?dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=19460620&numeroGazzetta=134&tipoSerie=FO&tipoSupplemento=GU&numeroSupplemento=0&estensione=pdf&edizione=90

The following day, 11 Jun 1946, was proclaimed a public holiday:

https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/atto/serie_generale/caricaDettaglioAtto/originario?atto.dataPubblicazioneGazzetta=1946-06-20&atto.codiceRedazionale=046U0002 RomeoJA (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It doesn't seem quite so clear cut. From what I've looked at, the Court made a preliminary announcement on the 10th, but wasn't affirmed by the Cabinet until the 12th. FULL RULE OF ITALY GIVEN TO PREMIER - HUMBERT SNUBBED – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Biased against Italy

A lot of this is biased against Italy and written to paint a bad image of the country.

Can we remove all the bad points? 2A0A:EF40:E4A:E101:698A:BD05:47AD:E241 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If we removed all the bad points, it would be biased towards Italy. It needs to be an appropriate balance of both the good and the bad. See WP:NPOV. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

take the good with the bad 205.223.223.251 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If it's a perfectly neutral article it's very positive, but if it's even a little biased against Italy it would be a very bad thing. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"A lot of this is biased against Italy and written to paint a bad image of the country." For example? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

Link the word "Europe" in the first sentence to the Europe continent page. Thank you! Cocane mitch (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per MOS:OVERLINK. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2024

Add more information about the ethnic groups indigenous to Italian territory and their languages - both recognised, partially recognised and unrecognised. Lllalll2 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

'Prime ministre is wrong'

Can we remove "prime minister" and use the proper word "president of the council"? Prime minister is just wrong because se it has a completely different meaning 93.44.5.84 (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong. The prime minister is the head of the executive branch which is exactly what a "presidente del consiglio" is. Moreover, I remind you that in Italy the term "primo ministro" is also used. ContiNuziali (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Most heads of governments are styled in English as "Prime Minister". I mean even in formal contexts such as at the UN.Barjimoa (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

{{edit extended-protected|Italy|answered=yes}

Bobbyiscool123 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sentence (important)

I think we should remove the sentence "During the 17th and 18th centuries, Italian economic importance waned significantly." from the first part of the article; why, while the wikilink refers to the whole of Europe, is this sentence only present on the Italy page and not, for example, on the Spain, France, England, and Netherlands pages? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be either removed or rewritten – there was no "Italy" in an economic sense until 1861, and there's apparently no consensus that there ever was a General Crisis (European nations were expanding rapidly in the Americas, Britain, Holland and Portugal were busy taking over control of most of the Far East at about that time and probably all becoming much more powerful as a result); nor do I see that the hypothetical crisis was an economic one. The economic significance of the some of the various regional divisions of the Italian peninsula may or may not have waned at that time, that would need to be researched (I know almost nothing about the history of economics, I wouldn't know). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Cuisine (solved)

Recently, a user has removed a truthful sentence supported by a very reliable source from the Italy page ([1]), claiming that it's MOS:PEACOCK. If this user is right, the sentence "French cuisine is one of the most widely appreciated gastronomies worldwide." should be removed from the France page (section: France#Cuisine), and not just from the Italy page; since both cuisines are, according to people, among the most renowned in the world, it makes no sense to keep the phrase on the France page and not on the Italy page. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

We do not add or keep content in an article because other articles have that content (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). "both cuisines are, according to people, among the most renowned in the world" - you can see the pitfall, you can make that claim about every country, the solutions is not to make subjective proclamations (see MOS:PEACOCK). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Solved; see here. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Cultural superpower

@JacktheBrown, regarding this edit: No, the question of whether a country can be considered a cultural superpower is not a matter of "fact or not", but a mere matter of whether the media describes it as such a type of superpower. That the U.S. has the largest economy by nominal GDP is a fact; however, that it has the "most powerful economy", like you put it, is a personal opinion; a subjective conclusion drawn from this fact. Some would argue that China, despite not having the objectively largest economy nominally, has a more "powerful economy" than the U.S. because of higher exports and manufacturing output, higher PPP-adjusted GDP, larger workforce, more patent applications, etc. Everything that cannot be objectively measured, such as an abstract concept like "power", is not a question of "fact or not", but a matter of whether reliable sources have described something as such or not. Maxeto0910 (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Information on the impact of climate change on Italy

Hi all

Today I added a small paragraph on the impact on climate change on Italy under the section on climate, which LukeWiller added an image to, I have copied the text below, with a graph showing the increase in temperature in Italy I planned to include. Fbergo has since removed the section and in the edit summary called it 'climate change alarmism'. Please can I ask other editors their opinions, what I could do to improve the section.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Climate change

Main article: Climate change in Italy

Temperature change over the last 100 years in Italy showing an increase in the average temperature the last two decades.

The River Trebbia, a tributary of the Po, pictured in summer 2017, is vulnerable to drought

Italy is experiencing widespread impacts of climate change, with an increase in extreme events such as heatwaves, droughts and more frequent flooding eg Venice is facing increasing issues due to sea level rise. Italy faces many challenges adapting to climate change including the economic, social, and environmental impacts that climate change creates, and an increasingly problematic death toll from the health risks that come with climate change. John Cummings (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

References

I came here through a mention on the WikiProjects Climate Change talk page. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Adding_summary_of_climate_change_to_country_articles . I agree with User:John Cummings that some content on climate change, as well as a wikilink to climate change in Italy should be included. The exact wording could be tweaked, e.g. if the wording regarding Venice flooding is not quite right then it should also be adjusted at climate change in Italy. Yes, there are also other causes to flooding of Venice but I thought it's established science that sea level rise is making the problem worse, right? Climate change is also increasing the intensity of droughts and floods (in many regions). Are you, LukeWiller, objecting to any content on climate change to be added, or is it just the specific wording that you objected to? I am not sure exactly which part you would label as "alarmist". We could add better references to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report maybe and also improve the lead of climate change in Italy, from where the content was taken. EMsmile (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S. for a more informed discussion, I am copying here what the edit summary by Fbergo said exactly: "generic alarmist subsection removed. Seasonal flooding in Venice has been occurring for centuries and is not solely caused by human-induced climate change. The rest of the subsection was completely generic climate change alarmism, applicable to any country article by changing Italy to any other country name." --> the sentence in question didn't actually say that flooding is solely caused by climate change but said "more frequent flooding of Venice". I agree that the other sentence could be made more Italy-specific. I think the two images that you removed were indeed Italy specific and should go back in. But I disagree that any of this is overly "alarmist". It's simply stating facts. EMsmile (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

EMsmile No, I just added the image: in my opinion it's a chapter that can be done without. The concept of climate change in Italy is already discussed at the bottom of the article "Climate of Italy", where there is a link to the in-depth article. LukeWiller (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC).

A sentence or two would be more than acceptable in the current section. A subsection on any topic would be a bit undue..... would be like adding a section under biodiversity for endangered species..... simply no need for a new section just Incorporated a few key points with a link to a main article in the existing section. Moxy🍁 23:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy. LukeWiller (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC).

Just going to copy this over to here..... original responded to this query at the wiki project first.."This has come up many times.....best solution thus far is incorporation into current section with a few sentences as seen at Canada#Climate. The problem we come across is a random generic section that regurgitates the same gibberish on page after page....that is... increase flooding, increased drought etc etc. Two or three sentences incorporated throughout an existing section on climate would be the best course of action if it's not just generic text. The country project talks about main article fixation like this at WP:COUNTRYSECTIONS. A section should summarize the main parent article Climate of Italy in an appropriate manner over summarizing every sub article on climate about Italy." Moxy🍁 00:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. My concerns with the subsection, which led me to remove it, are the following: 1) Undue weight and/or irrelevance: Climate change is, supposedly, global. Is Italy among the most affected countries, or is it affected in some peculiar way that distiguishes it from other countries? I don't think so, and the content and sources added do not seem to present such a case. 2) Most country articles are longer than recommended (by WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG), and I think we should avoid expanding such articles with content that is redundant, contentious, or poorly sourced. 3) The section started with "Italy is experiencing widespread impacts...", without a specific time frame, as if it were reporting a current event (WP:CEE?). If such section is added, it needs better wording. 4) Venice does not seem to be a good example: it is both a one-of-a-kind city with its canals, where floodings are expected, and the sea level rise in the region is also affected by tectonic plate movement, a phenomenon that cannot be blamed on human activity. The main article Climate change in Italy certainly could be linked somewhere. As an example, the Brazil article links to its national climate change article in the lead, incorporating it in the natural text flow. Fbergo (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fbergo thank you for your reply, I had a couple of follow up questions to gain clarity on what you mean and what you would like from information about climate change in this article:

1. You say that "climate change is, supposedly, global", I'm not sure what you mean by 'supposedly', could you explain further?
2. You say that we should avoid adding content that is 'redundant, contentious, or poorly sourced', could you explain further? Which of these do you think relates to the information that was added? or are you saying that any information on climate change would be redundant or contentious?
3. In your edit summary you say the information was 'climate change alarmism', could you say more about what you mean by this? Are you making a judgement on the reliability of climate change predictions in general? Or something else?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Fbergo and Moxy made good points - thank you! And I think the lead of climate change in Italy is rather poor. So if we want to take content from there, we should improve on that content first. Giving more Italy-specific examples of the effects of climate change would be good. The more intense drought conditions affecting the river Po is a good example, isn't it? And I think one or both of the removed climate change images should go back in (if it's the one with the river Po, make the caption clearer).

I am not sure I agree with this statement of Moxy: "A section should summarize the main parent article Climate of Italy" because in my opinion climate in Italy might not be the best location where the effects of climate change in Italy should be located. They should in fact be at climate change in Italy. The reason why I think so is because some of the effects go well beyond just "climate". E.g. sea level rise or effects of climate change on human health goes beyond what one would expect at climate in Italy. That's why we have all those "climate change in country X" articles in the first place (but many of them are not yet in great shape). Let me also ping User:sadads to this conversation. EMsmile (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

On the causes of Italian prolonged political division

In the main section, I would remove the line "However, centuries of rivalry and infighting between city-states left the peninsula divided."

This line is in part redundant because of the paragraph that follows. Moreover, it establishes an unsupported causal relation. Indeed, it is perfectly possible that centuries of collaboration and alliances would still have left the peninsula divided. ContiNuziali (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@ContiNuziali: this sentence, I believe, was added to underline the fact that there's a large economic difference, still unresolved, between north and south.

But I might agree with you. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)