Talk:Italian Americans

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)

The stated goal of Wikipedia is the "democratization of knowledge". The content and quality of the various articles will inevitably vary, and the system allows for this by numerous tools and constraints which editors can employ to assure an acceptable result. However, the tail should never wag the dog – which is I believe is the issue here. You appear to be making technicalities the only rationale for your position, while ignoring or dismissing arguments that identify major concerns with the shortening tag.

Speaking of technicalities, your article-size statement is not correct. Note the following examples: The Italian-American article size is 287,477; the German-American article size is 224,805; the African-American article size is 291,809; and the Asian American article size is 263,773. Only the Italian-America article has a size tag associated with it.

You ignore the fact that the tag can create a false sense of need for article-size reduction, which can (and has) led to edits having a serious impact on article integrity (two of which were originated by you). You also ignore the fact that the system already allows for article reduction by elimination of unsourced, irrelevant, redundant or superfluous content. The tag is really not needed to do this.

You also seem to trivialize the fact that measurable reader response indicates a high level of acceptance of the article, but I believe that is very significant indicator. The article is the product of the efforts of many talented people and satisfies the need of the average reader who wishes to learn more on the subject of Italian Americans and also the needs of scholars and writers who can tap into a very rich body of knowledge.

Based on the above thoughts, and on those previously provided, I am deleting the tag. Philantonia (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The content and quality of the various articles will inevitably vary, and the system allows for this by numerous tools and constraints which editors can employ to assure an acceptable result. Agreed - and tagging is one such tool. Please stop removing the tag.

your article-size statement is not correct. WP:SIZE denotes article size based on words of readable prose. At time of writing, Asian Americans is 9290 words of readable prose; German Americans, 12,798 words; African Americans, 15,023 words. This article is 22,177 words.

You also seem to trivialize the fact that measurable reader response indicates a high level of acceptance of the article. Not a fact. The article's quality rating is a decade and a half and 18,000 words out of date. There is no evidence to suggest the article as it is now satisfies the need of the average reader, and it definitely doesn't satisfy our policies and guidelines.

You ignore the fact that the tag can create a false sense of need for article-size reduction... There is a real need for article-size reduction. You may disagree with the specific approaches that have been taken to try to get it to a more reasonable state, but mass-reverting any and all efforts as you have done only prolongs the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be a thorn in your side, but I am very concerned about the future of this article. The article has been created by many talented and dedicated individuals over many years, and I believe the article reflects these efforts very well. Certainly, every Wikipedia article has some issues, and a certain amount of maintenance will always be necessary to ensure the quality and readability of the article. However, you seem to be taking the position that the article requires an urgent need for a size reduction to reach a “reasonable state”. You further discount the standard way of removing content on a case-by-case basis. You are, in effect, rendering a judgement that only you have the clear insight to recognize the urgent need for article shortening, and only you understand the way this should be achieved.

I would like to pose a few questions for you, as follows:

(a) If there is a strict limit on readable words, then all of the other article cited in your reply (and probably countless others) also exceed the Wikipedia guidelines, which clearly indicates that the limit is not mandatory or strictly enforced by Wikipedia; so, the question for you is: do you have any real justification for making readable-word count a major issue in judging the need for size reduction of the Italian-American article?

(b) Do you believe that an editor’s ability to make wholesale changes to an article can lead to inappropriate edits, and edits that are hard to properly assess and possibly revert? Does this not put too much power in the hands of a single editor? This was a major issue recently when an editor restructured the article in a way that effectively deleted 65 years of Italian American history. You apparently didn’t see any issue with this edit (see earlier posts). Can you explain this position?

(c) Can you identify one or more sections in the article that illustrates your urgent need for article shortening? How would you modify these sections?

(d) What do you consider a reasonable size reduction is for the Italian-American article (5%, 10%, 20%...50%)?

An edit war is difficult for everyone, and I don’t wish to engage in one. I will not remove the tag if you can make a convincing argument that it is justified.

Philantonia (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

You further discount the standard way of removing content on a case-by-case basis. You are, in effect, rendering a judgement that only you have the clear insight to recognize the urgent need for article shortening, and only you understand the way this should be achieved. What standard way are you referring to here? You've reverted several different approaches by different editors; different editors have recognized the need and proposed ways by which this could be achieved.

(a) WP:SIZE presents a spectrum of lengths from too short to too long. Of the sample articles discussed, this one is far off the end of the too-long side of the spectrum.

(b) I do not believe it is possible to make an edit that cannot be properly assessed, nor do I believe that there is an imbalance of power as you propose; if you disagree with an edit or feel it is inappropriate, you always have the opportunity to discuss and reach consensus about it. I do believe that if you feel unable to assess an edit, you should not be reverting it.

(c) The History section is an excellent example - it would benefit from having more of its exceeding level of detail deferred to the relevant subarticles.

(d) I do not have a specific number in mind, though I think the examples of comparator articles are useful in assisting with targeting. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I respect your knowledge of Wikipedia procedure, and your interest and contributions to a great number of Wikipedia articles. Your response appears to be avoiding my most important concerns, which I will state again. First, the readable word count for all of the articles to which I have referred exceed, by a large margin, the Wikipedia guidelines. This is not the case only for the Italian-American article. There are probably many more article as well that greatly exceed the Wikipedia guidelines. So, you cannot use the number of readable words as your justification for retaining the shortening tag. Second, it is easy to demonstrate that considerable potential harm can result from the tag as a permanent fixture that appears at the top of the article, and which clearly suggests that there is an urgent need to shorten the article to improve readability. To demonstrate this potential harm, it is only necessary to review the sub-article created on April 10, that effectively deleted 65 years of Italian American history, and which received only a few views per day during its existence. I reverted this edit because I viewed it as causing major harm to the integrity of the Italian-American article; whereas, you supported it (“I'd support reinstating those edits - not seeing any reason to revert”). Third, you, me and all other editors can remove unsourced content without the tag, so the tag is really not needed to achieve article shortening. In fact, you recently made two shortening edits consisting of about 5500 words. To summarize, I believe that the tag offers nothing of an identifiable substantive nature, but can cause a great deal of (provable) harm to the integrity of the article when improperly acted upon. I believe that your insistence on retaining the tag reflects a subjective point-of-view (POV) rather than a convincing objective point of view. Accordingly, I am removing the tag.

Philantonia (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Philantonia, the fact that there are other articles that exceed the word count guideline does not negate the guideline or mean that all articles can freely ignore the guideline. Rather, it means that all such articles should be brought into compliance. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The tag is clearly proper since this article greatly exceeds the article size guideline.

If editors improperly edit the article, whether based on the existence of the tag or for any other reason, such edits can be reverted. The justification that a tag might be misunderstood could be used to justify removing any tag from any article.

I am restoring the tag. Please do not remove it again unless consensus to do so is achieved in this discussion. CodeTalker (talk) 19:50, 24 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)