Jump to content

Talk:Italian Americans/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Segre vs. Fermi

Fermi was by definition an Italian-American, and as such more notable than Segre (his student);
(Footnote: Fermi is in fact the proto-type Italian-American, for if there would not be any such biographies there would not be any Italian-Americans to begin with) Agilulf2007 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Fermi is an icon in American science, and is recognized by a national laboratory (FermiLab) named in his honor. He is also justifiably recognized as the "father" of nuclear power as a result of his research at the University of Chicago. The fact that he received the Nobel Prize while a citizen of Italy is irrelevant, and does not diminish his contributions to the U.S. (of which he became a citizen). User:Philantonia
I agree Fermi deserves it. The work he did in Chicago was of major national importance in American history-- it's in all the textbooks. Furthermore he was an unusually influential inspiration to all physicists in the United States. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course, Fermi's contributions were absolutely outstanding. However, Segré was not his student, they studied together. Fermi is not generally recognized as American. Even the article states he was an Italian, without mentioning "Italian American". Most of the Segré's works are in USA, and he was very influential. --115ash→(☏) 11:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The definition given for Italian American in the article is "an ethnic group comprised of Americans who have full or partial ancestry from Italy, especially those who identify with that ancestry, along with their cultural characteristics". There is no question that Fermi was Italian American in every sense. His contributions to American science makes him one of the greatest Italian Americans that can possibly be cited as a Notable' Philantonia (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I partially agree with 115ash. Fermi was first and foremost an Italian, lived in the United States for virtually sixteen years and was an American citizen for only ten. I don't care about Segrè (in fact, I would not include him in the infobox either), but surely Fermi is out of place there. My bottom line is: Segré is definitely more "Italian American" than Fermi, but it would be better to find someone else who has lived his/her entire life in the States. --Checco (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Ps: What about re-including Frank Capra, who was excluded without much discussion? Or what about Robert De Niro?
If we are going to include film directors, may I suggest Francis Ford Coppola? He is famous enough in his field. Dimadick (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Capra, Coppola and, in third place, Scorsese (primarily directors and quite successful in that) are definitely more qualified for the infobox gallery than Pacino and De Niro—let alone Fermi and Segré (for different reasons). --Checco (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Emilio Segré should be added, considering his outstanding contributions, including inventions and discoveries. We may add Lady Gaga as well or any wrestlers like John Cena, Hulk Hogan or Sammartino. Nonetheless, Fermi can' be labelled in the infobox. He was fully Italian. That late passport doesn't make him American.--115ash→(☏) 09:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Virtually the same reasoning applies to Segré, even though Segré was an American for more years. --Checco (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but as you can see he is different. He received the Nobel prize when he was American, but Fermi not. it.wiki doesn't contain much info on him, as he was not that influeantial in Italy. Most of Emilio's photographs were donated to the American Institute of Physics.--115ash→(☏) 11:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I know he is different from Fermi, but, still, he was an Italian who became American, while retaining his Italian citizenship (I guess), not an Italian American per se. I personally don't care (and I think we should not care) of it.Wiki and where it.Wikpedians take pictures from. Segré is "more Italian American" than Fermi, but I would include someone else in the infobox. --Checco (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's alright. The focal thing is that Fermi must not be included. I'm going to remove Enrico and add someone else.--115ash→(☏) 14:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read the Wikipedia editing rules, which specifically says that articles under discussion because of a disagreement between editors must stay in the state they were in before the dispute, the status quo ante. If and when a consensus of editors agrees with you, then you can make the change. There is certainly no consensus to remove Fermi. The consensus thus far is to retain him as a Notable. Philantonia (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we make a MONTAGE?--115ash→(☏) 14:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
2 Users agree with the removal of FERMI. --115ash→(☏) 15:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There are three editors who are strongly in favor of retaining Fermi, one editor who is strongly in favor of removing him, and one editor who makes a case for both alternatives. I would say then that the majority are in favor of retaining Fermi Philantonia (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Me and Checco disagree with this, and you two not. We've clearly explained why he should be removed.--115ash→(☏) 09:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm not an expert of the lifes of Fermi and Segre, but in my personal opinion, due to his important studies made in the USA and also for his American citizenship we should mantained Fermi in the collage. To prove my opinion, I think that we should look to other pages of foreign born American, for example, Wernher von Braun, he German-born engineer, is listed in the collage used for German American pelople. Anyway, I repeat, this is only my personal opinion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fermi was both a great Italian and a great Italian American, and can be a source of great pride to both counties. Upon arriving in the U.S. Fermi told his wife: "We just founded the American branch of the Fermi family". So, clearly, Fermi viewed himself and his family as "Italian Americans". His loyalty and efforts on behalf of the U.S., who was at war with Italy, and his choice to be buried in the U.S., also clearly suggest that Fermi thought of himself as an Italian-born naturalized U.S. citizen. So it cannot be argued that he does not qualify on that point. There can also be no question concerning his credentials to be a Notable in the article (as already abundantly made clear by previous comments). He is widely recognized as one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, and the father of nuclear power (based on his work at the University of Chicago, Los Alamos and the patents he received after WWII on controlling the nuclear reaction. Philantonia (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Adding Fermi here is like insulting him. What about Segré? Was he rubbish?--115ash→(☏) 08:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
My intent all along has been to honor Fermi and, thus, to secure his place in the gallery of Notables. We are not involved here in a "zero-sum" situation, so honoring Fermi does nothing to dishonor Segre Philantonia (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

problems

While this article is rich in detail, it is also tedious and repetitious. It repeats itself over and over, word-for-word sometimes. There is no reason for it to be so long and repetitive. I would like it to be reviewed by a qualified editor and trimmed significantly. Thank you! 66.67.32.161 (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised that you found the article "tedious and repetitious". Relative to the tedious aspect, the article conveys a lot of information about the Italian American experience and history that is very useful and valuable (and not readily available elsewhere - certainly not on the Web). One is free to read whatever select portion which is of greatest interest, and bypass everything else. Perhaps you are suggesting a digest, rather than an encyclopedic article. Relative to being repetitious, I am not aware of such occurrences. The article dwells on a number of individual eras, each of which differs substantially from all the others in detail; or in a number of individual aspects of Italian american culture, each of which is substantially independent of all the others. If you can point out occurrences of word-for-word repeats, please do so and the proper modifications will be made Philantonia (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Substitution of Lombardi for Disallowed Image of Mancini

I am substituting Vince Lombardi for Henry Mancini (whose image is not in the public domain). Lombardi is an American sports icon, who is probably the best known of all the Notables in the collage. He is undoubtably extraordinarily well qualified. Philantonia (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Philantonia. The file of Lombardi you added, File:Vince Lombardi.png, is also a non-free image; Therefore, it should not be used in the infobox for the same reasons as the "Henry Mancini" image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Capra for Lombardi

Lombardi's image is also not in the public domain. I am substituting Frank Capra (whose image is in the public domain). There is a rather long discussion of Capra from a while back (June 14th), that doesn't have to be repeated, which justifies Capra as an outstanding Notable selection Philantonia (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Image header

I have chosen to install the iconoclastic imagery of Mulberry str. NYC ~1900; Agilulf2007 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The article covers 5 centuries of Italian American history. Your "iconoclastic" image is in no way representative of that history, or even the specific era of mass Italian immigration to the U.S. It merely portrays a slice of life on the lower East side of New York (which was also home to numerous Jews and other nationalities). Philantonia (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Let us see if we can have a consensus on this subject by discussion. The recent ban on collages was based on these collages representing OR and POV. This clearly applies here also for the reasons stated above. A single photo cannot be used as an icon for the whole Italian American experience that the article deals with. Philantonia (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We can def. have a consensus; for as you know i was never a fan of notable-collages in the firstplace - due to the ongoing POV; However, now it seems to have disappeared altogether; Take a look at the (quick) consensus we reached concerning article:Sardinian_people; But i doubt one can find an image that captures 5 centuries of Italian-Americans; first of all 5 centuries are not even needed given that 2.5 of those centuries the USA didnt even exist, and that is the nation that defines italian-americans and evrything along with it; I agree that 'Mulberry street ~1900' is not the ultimate, but at the very least it is still an image that defines Italian-Americans; because it does fit into the time of mass migration (1890-1914), in fact in the article there is a quote from 1895 which states that 20% of all It-Ams (~0.5 mil. at that time) lived in Manhatten 32% in the entire NYC area - and Mulberry wasnt 'an' but the Italian neighborhood (Little Italy) of the USA; Agilulf2007 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We are dealing here strictly with an OR/POV issue. There is no compelling historical or cultural reason to have the photo be the first thing a reader sees, as though in some way it characterizes 5 centuries of the Italian American experience. Tragically, many of the Italian immigrants who who were forced by economic circumstances to live in the type of enclaves depicted in the photo suffered greatly (from tuberculosis, and other serious diseases, primitive living conditions, and economic exploitation). A significant percentage of the immigrants returned to Italy as a result. Many Italian immigrants of that era (including my own ancestors) were able to avoid such conditions by going directly to other parts of the country. The photo is used in the segment of the article that deals with the period of mass immigration, and it fits that narrative and so is appropriate there.
To return to the main point, I am identifying your edit as violating Wikipedia's OR/POV policy. I would appreciate it if you would remove it until we can get a consensus on the OR/POV issue (reverting does not per se contribute to consensus). Perhaps Rjensen would like to add his thoughts to this discussion. Philantonia (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
what you have written in your first passage is historically inacurate; It is true that health conditions in the crowded tenement-buildings (NYC, Boston, Philadelphia) were appauling, but the Italian immigrant of that era was (as a rule) an illiterate peasant (with NO knowledge of English) whose only occupational chances were in mining, factories and pick & shovel jobs; keeping in mind that conditions in native cities like Naples, Bari and Salerno as well as the native rural areas were far worse (hence seasonal working in the USA); Mulberry, east Harlem, north Boston, south Philadelphia etc. were new homes for immigrants searching for a better future, and that was well achieved i.e. the american dream; The Kingdom of Italy (1861) was a failed state, people from the North fled in masses to South America and people from the South to North America, none had an easy time or luxurious housing, but that is the historic reality and thats why its achievemants are mirrored even greater; So to be clear - Mulbery street (in contrast to your views) is not a shame (far from it) but a landmark for Italian-Americans; And let it be correct, that the only institutiion that integrated Italian immigrants was the US Military and the countless Italians that served in it, WWI (4% of the US pop. Italians sustained 10% of all US casualties in WWI with over 100 distinguiched service cross recipients), WWII (largest single ethnic group in the US Military) and onwards; The 'Italian American Museum' used to be the Banca Stabile (1885) - and knowing its history = knowing Italian immigrant history a liitle bit better, but properly; Agilulf2007 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I used the word "tragically" to convey my interpretation of the conditions some Italian immigrants were forced to endure in the late 1800's and early 1900's in places like Mulberry Street. The word "shame" is yours. I am the son of Italian immigrants, and think I bring a fairly accurate and realistic perspective to the matter. Regardless of what your personal feelings are, Wikipedia has strict editing rules, and I firmly believe your edit is in violation of Wikipedia editing policy (please refer to Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view). I think, in the spirit of trying to get the issue expeditiously and effectively resolved, you should self-revert your edit Philantonia (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "tragically" was not what gave me the impression; And personal stories do not legitimize anything, if i were from Alaska than that sole fact would not make me an authority on anything Alaskan - we all have to go by the facts, nothing else (just saying); The image i chose is neither POV nor OR it is simply a suggestion, an idea to take an iconic photo of a monumental time and make it the representative of the subject - in this case Mulberry Street/1900/Italian-Americans; and judging by the response, other members have no objection or even agree with my suggestion (apart from you - reason unknown!); But as i have already put forward - i am not attached to this particular image it is simply a suggestion and if you have an alternative, be my guest; Agilulf2007 (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the Mulberry Street foto, and would agree that no single illustration could possibly cover every aspect of the history. I do not see anything "tragic" or "shameful" in that photograph-- New York City has always been a crowded place. I have relatives there right now squeezed in very small apartments. :) Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe the article speaks for itself and the Mulberry St. photo is not very important, one way or another. I believe, however, according to the letter of Wikipedia editing policy, the edit is clearly of an OR/POV nature. That is the issue that needs to be addressed, rather than subjective feelings about the photo. Philantonia (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not so many years ago, the European Union Commission in Brussels decided that every country in the EU should be represented by an iconic symbol. For Italy, they chose the pizza (which, justifiably, was greatly protested by Italy). The idea was scrapped, and nothing came of it. However, there is a certain relevance to the subject under discussion. Suppose someone had added a symbol of a pizza as the first thing one would see in the article. Certainly many people make an association of pizza with Italian Americans (and, in fact, would define pizza as their greatest contribution to American society). So, the question is, should this be considered OR/POV. I would definitely say yes, for the following reasons:

1. The editor decided on his own volition that an iconic symbol is needed to introduce a very complex and expansive subject; whereas, no other nationality group has felt the need to do so

2. The chosen icon is purely subjective (since, as we have seen, others just as "iconic" can certainly be defined)

3. The chosen icon cannot be justified by tradition, precedent, or via sourced material.

Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view provide the criteria for OR/POV in an expansive form, but I think the conclusion is the same. I believe that all of the subjective arguments put forth on the present issue are of interest, but the time has come now to focus the discussion entirely on the OR/POV issue. Philantonia (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am restoring the info-box to the status quo ante until the issue I have raised concerning OR/POV is resolved. At this point, I think it would be fair to say that no argument has been advanced that the edit in question is not inherently OR/POV (based on Wikipedia's definition of such). Philantonia (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Why not leave it on until your issue is resolved, given that a consensus has been reached; As for from repetitive accusations that i have already addresssed in my previous posts - Your (1.) describes the standard procedure - change/talk/consensus, your (2.) is subjective in itself, your (3.) its justification is its historic and iconic value (but alternatives are appreciated); Agilulf2007 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Fwiw, I liked it better in the immigration section, where it was directly relevant to the text, rather than up top. As someone pointed out earlier, the top image is the first thing people see, and that image, while perfectly fine for what it is, represents only one part of Italian-American history. Just my two cents. Rosekelleher (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia POV rule is about presentation of all serious interpretations put forward by the reliable sources. Philantonia Has repeatedly stated that the Mulberry Street photograph is POV -- But no explanation whatever has been given for why it meets the POV criteria. The problem with the gallery of famous people is that the choice of this entertainer or that scientists requires selection from multiple conflicting reliable sources. I've seen this Photo in numerous books, and to my knowledge there is no sense that it represents a particular slanted or biased viewpoint. It shows conditions in New York City, which was the main center of Italian immigration. The people represent a full range of Italian Americans and there is no hint that I can see of any controversy all aspect. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, "A neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Now it is clear the the choice of the Mulberry photo in the info-box represents a subjective preference (i.e, an editorial bias) on the part of the originating editor, since other choices are certainly possible (as I have pointed out above). The use of the photo in the info-box certainly does not represent a supportable or compelling "view", either in principle or in actual choice. Further, the edit in question can only be defended by subjective arguments, which strongly suggests it is inherently an arbitrary POV edit, and can be challenged on that basis. I believe that the issue needs to be arbitrated by a Wikipedia authority who can help resolve the issue (especially in view of the recent ban on collages, which were judged to be inherently OR/POV and contentious). Perhaps some reader can help in this regard. Philantonia (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Besides the OR/POV issue which I have raised, an arbitration of the present issue should also consider the reliable source issue (WP: SOURCE). If an edit is made that modifies the content of an article, Wikipedia editing policy requires it be justified by a reliable source. I think is clear that the introduction of the Mulberry photo in the info-box modifies the content of the article by suggesting it is somehow emblematic of the Italian American experience. Unless a source can be found which suggest in a convincing way that the photo is consistent with the prevailing view, the edit is by definition unsourced. All one has to do is avail themselves of a number of standard works on the subject of Italian immigration to be convinced that the Mulberry district was a veritable hell on earth for the immigrants that were forced to live under these conditions. (See, for example, Mangione, Jerre and Ben Morreale, "La Storia – Five Centuries of the Italian American Experience", Chapter 11.) I am unaware of any other major city which replicated the conditions of the Mulberry district of N.Y. in the late 19th and early 20th century. Presently, two contributors to the discussion oppose the change made by the originating editor, and one contributor agrees with the change. Philantonia (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Philantonia argues the question here is not whether conditions in Mulberry Street were bad or good, but whether they were reasonably representative of Italian enclaves in the early 20th century. He then challenges us to find a historical source. OK. #1) Referring specifically to Mulberry Street, LeMay (2015) says "Such conditions were typical of Italian ethnic enclaves in other major cities, such as Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia" Michael C. LeMay (2015). Doctors at the Borders: Immigration and the Rise of Public Health. ABC-CLIO. p. 18. LeMay goes on to explain some of the positive features of the neighborhood. Source #2: ". Dense population, poor housing, poverty, and disease were found in the teeming Italian neighborhoods like Mulberry Street; similar conditions could be found in other cities such as Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia." [Salvatore J. LaGumina, ed. The Italian American Experience:An Encyclopedia. (2000) p. 498.] Source #3: " Mulberry Street became synonymous with America in the minds of many Italians" [Harney & Scarpaci, Little Italies in North America (1981) P 23; Source #4: "In New York City, for example, the area around Mulberry Street, on the Lower East Side, developed into a “Little Italy.” Other cities had their own versions of these Italian neighborhoods." [Burgan & Asher - Italian Immigrants (2009) p 33]; Source $5 "Mulberry Street would become the heart of what is called Little Italy." [Hoobler, The Italian American Family Album 1994 P 65]. Rjensen (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but this isn't an article about Italian immigrants in the olden days, it's an article about Italian Americans in general, past and present. I don't feel that strongly about it (at least it's not a picture of Al Capone, or Vinny Barbarino) but I do think Philantonia makes a good point. Rosekelleher (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't be too quick in dismissing the possibility. If, at some future time, someone replaced Mulberry with their own (reasonable say) concept of an "iconic" image, what objective arguments could the proponents of Mulberry use in reverting the edit? The choice of an iconic image is, by its very nature, subjective and can't be justified by strictly objective arguments. That is precisely why Wikipedia is banning the use of collages in the info-box. The use of an iconic image in the info-box creates a new version of the same problem Philantonia (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
the relevance of an early 20th century picture, is that practically all the Italian-Americans went through that stage and it is embedded in their historical memory. All my relatives would tell stories about how poor they were and how hard it was when they first arrived. That makes the Mulberry Street Photograph representative of the hardships suffered by the group has a whole. Philantonia Said that his position is that a reliable sources needed to indicate that it is representative of the Italian-American experience. I provided a series of sources that make that point, Most explicitly the first one = Michael C. LeMay (2015). Doctors at the Borders: Immigration and the Rise of Public Health. ABC-CLIO. p. 18. Rjensen (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We all have our own family histories. I have relatives who went to Detroit and to San Francisco in that era. Having first-hand knowledge of Detroit, I can attest to the fact that it was vastly better than Mulberry Street, and from what I heard of San Francisco (and California as a whole), it was a veritable paradise for Italians. So, I think it can be said that there was a very great diversity of experiences that applied to Italian immigration. Given that this is true, I don't think the Mulberry Street image can be held up as emblematic of the Italian American experience the article deals with. The article is intended to have broad interest, and was not written exclusively for Italian Americans. What is needed is a source that supports the concept that Mulberry represents the commonly accepted prevailing view of the Italian American experience (the whole 5 centuries of it). In the absence of such, the edit can be viewed as not being reliably sourced. Philantonia (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on published secondary reliable sources. Philantonia asked for them and I provided them. They state that Mulberry Street was representative of majoir cities NY, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia. QED. Philantonia provides no RS and no alternative illustration. Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned my being familiar with Detroit and its Italian immigration history, and how it was totally different than Mulberry street. The following reference is consistent with that view. (https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/9780738539850/Italians-in-Detroit). Also, of interest, the following article about Italian immigrants in California makes Mulberry Street seem in comparison like something out of Dante's Inferno. (http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Museo-ItaloAmericano-Italians-in-California-3280280.php). A very scholarly study on the Italian immigrant experience in Cleveland (http://www.clevelandmemory.org/italians/Partiii.html) clearly dispels the notion that it was in any way similar to Mulberry Street. I think it would be a very fair, accurate and supportable statement that there were numerous other major cities (probably most) in the U.S. besides Detroit, SanFrancisco and Cleveland that were far better for Italian immigrants than Mulberry Street but, conversely, not a single major U.S. city which was worse for Italian immigrants than Mulberry St. I seriously doubt if you can name any. So the question is, why should Mulberry Street be viewed as emblematic of the Italian immigration experience? Also, the article deals with 5 centuries of the Italian American experience, of which the period of mass immigration occupies only about 1/3 century, so the photo is even less relevant to the article as a whole (but included in a later section of the article, where it is relevant). Therefore, to reiterate a previous point, I believe what is needed is a reliable source that supports the concept that Mulberry Street represents the commonly accepted prevailing view in U.S. society of the Italian American experience (the whole 5 centuries of it), and which effectively dispels the notion that including the photo is a strictly subjective point-of-view edit. In the absence of such, the edit can be (and justifiably should be) treated as not being reliably sourced. Philantonia (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The RS explicitly say that Mulberry Street is representative of Italian American immigration in large cities--NY, Chicago, Boston, Phily. That all cited here. No RS explicitly denies it. Philantonia fails to find any city-to-city comparison with NY. He seems unfamiliar with the scholarship and did a quick google that did not support his POV--the Detroit reference does NOT state that conditions were better than NY. Likewise San Francisco ("The first arrivals, flocking to the state from the mid-19th century until shortly before World War II, were driven by poverty and struggle.") As for Cleveland the source does NOT compare it to New York. The comparisons are POV inventions. As for the claim: I think it would be a very fair, accurate and supportable statement --sorry there is no RS that says that conditions in large city X were much better than NY -- On the contrary we have multiple RS that say conditions were comparable. The vast majority of Italian Americans arrived 1880s-1920s and that's where the focus should be. To add some source: Moquin, Documentary history of the Italian-Americans is a national survey, with references to Mulberry Street in six different chapters. Moquin on p 299 states: "Of all America's little Italies, the one around Mulberry Street in lower Manhattan is the archetype." --That puts it in nationwide perspective. As for the "hell" of New York City, why was it attractive one third of all Italians in the US (1.5 million lived in NYC in 1930). John Bodnar says they could easily find jobs in NY. [Bodnar, The Transplanted page 60] As for Dante--well he never knew much about NY and the hellish notion is in my opinion quite misleading. Looking closely at the "hell" in the photograph in question: it appears that everyone is well clothed and well fed--with plenty of fresh food available and jobs for all. Clean laundry is hung out to dry. I don't see anything hellish or disgusting or violent or ugly in this picture. Here is how the NY TIMES described Little Italy/Mulberry neighborhood in May 31, 1896, page 32: "They are laborers; toilers in all grades of manual work; they are artisans, they are junkman, and here, too, dwell the rag pickers....There is a monster colony of Italians who might be termed the commercial or shop keeping community of the Latins. Here are all sorts of stores, pensions, groceries, fruit emporiums, tailors, shoemakers, wine merchants, importers, musical instrument makers....There are notaries, lawyers, doctors, apothecaries, undertakers.... There are more bankers among the Italians than among any other foreigners except the Germans in the city." Rjensen (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. I believe we are dealing with a matter (the use of Mulberry to introduce 5 centuries of IA history) which, by definition, entails almost exclusively point-of-view considerations; but I will yield on the issue. Philantonia (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Internment of Italian-Americans during the war

I provided high quality references for that section, with links to the primary article, may I ask your objection, sir? Paolorausch (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Internment and National Origins Formula

I really think we need to weave these into the history a little more profoundly. I know there is a desire to paint a rosey picture of the Italian-American experience, but these painful elements are the history shouldn't be minimised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula (effectively banned Italian immigration on race grounds) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Italian_Americans (resulted in the internment and harassment of thousands of Italiani)Paolorausch (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not received any feedback here but have had a lot of my edits reverted. In the last months since I originally posted this I have done substantial research on this topic, and have developed a good body of citations. The racist, and discriminatory nature of the National Origins Formula is well documented, and acknowledged as deeply unjust by President Johnson in 1964. The work of the ACIM was essential in it's repeal. I intend to work these citations into the body of this text, and I believe that it is in the best interests of this article that people understand that the immigration laws of the United States actively discriminated against all Non-Northern-Europeans until 1964. I genuinely would like feedback on those either interested in having some of these papers shared with them, or any criticisms that people may have that may help us reach a better consensus. Thanks!Paolorausch (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Italian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitions of whiteness in the United States

There is no currently no text on the subject of Italian-Americans in the article, and subject-matter experts are needed. Coretheapple (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Italian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Italian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Italian Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of vulgar language

Referring to the United States of America as simply "America" is vulgar and typical of uneducated people. Since 1507, America is a continent -not a country. Referring to US citizens as "Americans" is like claiming the word "Asians" for the Chinese exclusively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.144 (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The history of South Phila also had a large Jewish Population that lived here also!

Many Jewish familys lived here also! Had many businesses all along South 7th Street from Pattison Ave all the way to Market Sts then and beyond. Also had many Synagogues Also! Should include Us also in your editorial of South Phila. !



[email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.174.163 (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

While that sounds like a lot of interesting information; I believe it has no relevance for this page in particular. This page refers to "Italian Americans" or more formally, Citizens of the USA who are of at least partial Italian origin. Now if it has anything to do with the Italian Jewish community in the USA, then maybe you have a much better case to add such information. --Scarslayer01 (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is Sicilian mentioned together with the Italian language?

Sicilian is one of the many recognised languages of Italy, together with Neapolitan, Sardinian, Venetian, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Italy#/media/File:Linguistic_map_of_Italy_-_Legend.svg

Why is it then the only language that is mentioned as a separate one, in those sections where the use of the italian language in the USA is discussed? It is incorrect to mention the Sicilian language as a separate entity, otherwise one should mention the most of them.

I am sure that, by writing solely about "italian", one has already achieved his goal.

P.S.: I apologize for my poor english, I'm not a native speaker.

62.99.248.210 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Salv Lot

I plan on adding information and statistics...

In the article “Italian Americas” I plan on adding information and statistics to the “Newspaper” section regarding Italian immigration during the Cold War. This article speaks very little about Italian migration during the Cold War. A lot of thought and detail has gone into the events leading up to the Cold War along with events far after it has ended. However, the Cold War itself seems to lack attention throughout the article. I feel it is important to share information about Italian migration during this period, as life as an Italian immigrant was not easy. The article “The American Committee on Italian Migration, Anti-Communism, and Immigration Reform” written by Danielle Battisti uncovers a vast amount of information regarding Italian migration during the Cold War. Battisti is a reliable and credible author who has incredible knowledge about this topic and has been peer-reviewed by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Press, 2012. I believe the journey of these Italian migrants coming to the United States is of great importance. Many citizens fled Italy as the Cold War began, as their rights in their hometown became minimal and their jobs became scarce. At this time, it was almost impossible to immigrate into the United States, many Italians were denied citizenship due to protecting America from terrorists or foreign invaders. However, the Italian Americans already living in the United States started the Italian American Organization, which helped the immigration process. This made immigrating into the United States much easier for the new coming Italians. After discussing this topic and adding crucial information, I estimate I will have approximately 200-300 words. Italian immigration during the Cold War is an extremely important part of the migration process from Italy into the United States. I encourage other Wikki editors to weigh in on my changes and add new or more information. I look forward to hearing what other Wikki users have to say and what they have learned from my detailed research. If anyone would like to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or my Talk Page. Elaina37 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Trimming the intro

Apologies for being a bit brutal the other day, I have now split my edits up so you can more easily see what I'm up to, and also tried to avoid removing any referenced material. The goal here is purely to make the Intro clear and easy to read, and a fair summary of the body of the article. Snori (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This article needs loads of references. There is an awful lot of unreferenced material.--2603:7000:2143:8500:A8DD:1194:1F88:AF62 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_Americans/Archive_3&oldid=1180660658"