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)

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)

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)