Talk:Italian Americans/Archive 1

Racism
(that is, they were not educated or intellectually sophisticated) I removed "intellectually sophisticated" since i think it's pure racism. I'm italian and that just doesn't mean anything. Culture and intelligence are different things. It's like to say that all italian people are stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.244.183 (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevance and facts
Hi, i'm italian. I read the article and is quite well; but i think it deserve more balance in the arguments. The mobster facts are important but i think the article must have a more relevance on good things about what italians did for american society.

another thing is also northern italians come to United States and are settled in west states ( especially Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Arizona). I'll do some research to confirm the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrettyBoy 15:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzo
I have updated both articles to reflect the fact that both persons are of Italian Heritage. I would advise all to keep a watchful eye on this as it seems that the English speaking peoples of Wikipedia are hell bent on dominating the cultural landscape of America through the utilization of informational sources such as Wikipedia. Comparatively many articles will mention someone of Irish heritage but fewer mention Italian heritage where it is relevant. Datus (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Page one
How come Domenici is also listed as the senator of New Mexico? Are these different people?

--Sam

I don't think this list should have been moved. If the main article got too long, the list and the article could have been separated. I'll move it back if no one objects. --Jiang 09:59, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Done --Jiang 06:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm inclined to move this to Italian American, see. --Jiang 06:42, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. Traditional grammar dictates that a person is an Italian American, but they eat Italian-American cuisine for instance.  Since the article starts "An Italian American is an American of Italian descent,"  then grammatically the article title should be the noun form, Italian American.  See also: Hypenated American, which has an extensive discussion of the dropping of the hyphen even in the adjective form because it's seen to indicate mixed nationalities/loyalties.--Laura Scudder | Talk 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the Peter Rodino mentioned here former U.S. Congressman Peter W. Rodino, Jr.? 18.24.0.120 20:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)ˑ

An Italian American is an Italian born in Italy who has moved/ migrated to the  States. An American Italian is one who was born in the States from Italian parentage and is currently living there or in Italy. The country of birth comes first.

No, an X American is an American of X heritage. The first word is the adjective which qualifies the second, which is the "noun," or what the person is. An American Italian is an Italian, just like a "tall Italian" is an Italian who is tall and not a "tall" who is Italian. Your suggestion works if you are speaking Italian because "un Americano Italiano" is an American who is Italian (or Italian American) just as if you might say "un Americano alto" would translate as a tall American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.146.81 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra
It is WRONG that Frank Sinatra is listed as "singer with mob connections" on the list of "Famous Italian Americans." If you click on the link to the article on Frank Sintra, that article says:

''Sinatra was dogged throughout his later career by accusations that he was in the Mafia and that his career was aided behind the scenes by associates in organized crime. J. Edgar Hoover apparently suspected Sinatra over the years, and Sinatra's file at the FBI ended up at 2,403 pages. Sinatra publicly rejected these accusations many times, and was never charged with any crimes in connection with them. The character Johnny Fontane in the book and movie The Godfather is inspired by Frank Sinatra and his alleged connections.''

So the article itself says that Sinatra was "accused" and "apparently suspected" of having "alleged" mob connections, but "was never charged" with any crime. At the very least, the link to the Frank Sinatra article should say "singer with alleged mob ties." I urge Wikipedia to go further and eliminate completely from the list of Famous Italian-Americans the reference to Sinatra's alleged mob ties. Whereas the full article's discussion of these allegations (cited above) is balanced, it is unfair to take these unproven and speculative charges about Sinatra and put them, on the list of Famous Italian-Americans, on par with Sinatra's tremendous career as a singer.

Tom

Even if he did have mob connections, I fail to see how it is at all relevant to this particular article. He should be on there for his qualities as an artist, not for his vices, whatever they may be. -Travis

Arturo Toscanini is simply an Italian, being anti-fascist he lived 15-20 years in the US before WWII, but after the war he returned to Italy.

Sinatra supported Democrat John Fitzgerald Kennedy for President in 1960. After the election Kennedy's brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, began an investigation into Sinatra's alleged Mafia ties. Sinatra, highly offended and feeling double crossed, by 1968 was, and remained, a fairly staunch Republican. Richard David Ramsey 17:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved page
I moved the page because far more pages linked to "Italian-American" than linked to "Italian American", and it is most often spelled with a hyphen. - BSveen 00:29, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Everybody wants to be referred to as Americans
At the begining, it says that Italian-Amercans prefer to be called just Americans. That's true, but other ethnic groups in the United States feel the same way. Arab-Americans, Greek-Americans, Polish-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans, French-Americans, etc., also liked to be reffered to as Americans as well.

i removed this statement because it is a broad statement and not true. there is no way to prove its validity therfore it should not be in the article. if it were true why are there orginizations called italian-american?

Agreed. I don't know of any fellow Italian-American of whom this is true, and I myself am proud to be called an Italian-American. Nightscream 09:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree also. Most Italian-Americans are extremely proud of their Italian heritages and identify themselves as such.  I know I do and most everyone I know does.-66.254.232.219 09:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

As an Italian-American, I have never heard of this either. I know that we are proud to be what is distinctly both Italian and American. Nikki88 08:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I respect the good intent of your message, I think your statement is an exaggeration of reality. I hate to be quite blunt - but it is my nature and gets start to the point. Most Italian-Americans, especially those who are mixed, just like most other white Americans, simply don't ethnically identify. Calling most of the Italian descended population in America Italian-American would be imposing a title on them they don't regularly associate themselves with.

The reality is white American is collectively regarded as an ethnicity. Ethnic identity is something that both an individual and society control and Italian-Americans and other white Americans who've had generations in this country don't ethnically identify themselves in a hyphenated manner. And for the few who do have little cultural integrity since most couldn't even speak the language of that background broken and have no connection to the country. I was born and grew up in Staten Island, NY, where we had many of these people. Many would self-impose obsolete labels on themselves. Virtually no Italian-Americans theremade an effort to learn the Italian language or travel to Italy. They'd identify themselves as white Americans when dealing with most non-white populations too which says a lot about their true ethnic identity. To each is his own. Each person's ancestry means something different to them. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC).

Italian in the United States
Why am I both creating the section Italian in the United States, and sticking a template on it? Having discovered Italian in the United States via Category:Wikipedia articles of dubious importance, I figured the best approach would be to merge/redirect it here, and call for attention of editors here. It's particularly hard to believe Italian-language newspapers haven't existed since the 1950s (see Italian-Canadian for a very vibrant media culture.)

I should also mention User:Vegaswikian, who tagged that article cleanup-importance, suggested on its talk page that it sounds almost like original research.

Anyway, no better people to see what can be made of it than the present company. :) Samaritan 16:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Italian newspapers were present at least into the mid-1990s. For example, America Oggi had a circulaiton of at least 30,000 daily issues. Source: NYT: As Mainstream Papers Cut Back, the Ethnic Press Expands Monday, July 22, 1996 p. D7  .. today that paper is distributed as part of La Republica so I don't know if it would be considered a seperate paper or not.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Chris: It is not true that America Oggi today is distributed as part of La Repubblica: it is the opposite. La Repubblica uses America Oggi's distribution network in order to reach a wider audience in the U.S. So they are in fact separate newspapers --User:O.cappelli (t)

The Italian-Canadian community is much different from the Italian-American community. Canada had much more postwar Italian immigration that carried into the 1970s. Virtually most to all Italian-Americans trace roots to this country that go before the 1920s. The Canadian people are also more bilingual (especially Quebecois) and Montreal has a large Italian-American population which usually speaks 2 languages to some degree already. The French and Italian languages are similar (at least on paper). Many southern and central Italians (most of the region where Italians came from to Canada) speak French as a second language (mainly due to geographical proximity and focus of the Italian education system). The American education system puts less emphasis on foreign language education and immersion programs. This is why the Italian language, as well as others besides Spanish or ones brought by recent immigrants, are dead with nearly all of the population except for soldiers, linguists and priests. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC).

Requested move from Italian-American to Italian American
Italian-American → Italian American – Only adjective form is hyphenated, article title should be noun form. This is consistent with others' recent edits to the article text itself, and similar article like Arab American, African American and others. See:Hyphenated American. &mdash; Laura Scudder | Talk 20:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Titles should be nouns, not adjectives. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 20:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - see also the move request for German-American. Romanian-American and Mexican-American are the only two other exceptions out of all the articles linked on Hyphenated American, and should be moved too. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 13:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Dvyost 18:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani
Perhaps we should add Rudy Giuliani in the list of famous Italian Americans? // CioDu 14:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Nikki88 08:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree... the guy is a moron. I'd rather see Lisa Novak.Santos601 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree his importance as a Federal Prosecutor,His Record as Mayor, September 11th, 2001, and he is the first serious Italian-American Presidential Candidate. I'm sorry Santos but, name-calling is immature and wasteful on a serious discussion board. Saying you disagree and making a suggestion is quite enough to get your point across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza Italia 83 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Santos: I have met him (Giuliani). He's certainly no moron. But even if he were a moron, he should be included because of his prominence and the fact that he has the requisite national background. Besides, every national identity is represented in the set scientifically defined as morons. If your nationality is on earth and is going to fit in with the rest of us and to face alike life's trials and tribulations, you have to have morons. Richard David Ramsey 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian American Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients
The section Italian American Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients already has an article. Should one be removed so that both don't have to be updated? There could be an introduction to what the medal of honor is and a link to the other article. Just a suggestion. -- Kjkolb 11:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Italian Americans
I went ahead and moved this parapaph to the bottom of the first section. I am inclined to remove it completely, as I don't feel it is the way of Italian Americans to focus on our stereotypes. There is so much more to our culture and history in America, that its a disservice to denote a major paragraph in the first section to "stereotypes." I feel it can warrant its own section later on perhaps, but lets not focus on this!
 * It needs to be kept because people come here to refute stereotypes. Rjensen 01:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In the bit about Italian American stereotypes someone spelt Robert DeNiro's name "DiNiro".. not a big deal. I will change it.
 * "Common stereotypes, beginning in the 1880s and continuing to the present, link Italian Americans to the Mafia or organized crime. In 1891, eleven Italian Americans in New Orleans were lynched when they were suspected of being involved in the Mafia..." This doesn't seem to belong in the Religeon section. In addition; "These unflattering images remain staples of movies like The Godfather" begs for NPOV. Maybe the addition of a section on self-hating Italians who deny unsavory portions of their history is needed, but for the moment, removing the term "unflattering" will suffice on the grounds that it is subjective.

The history section as it is now seems to be completely about how Italians have been steteotyped in the US, and has little information on the history of Italian settlements in the US--where people settled when, etc. THe whole section seems to be one person's attempt to debunk this unfair stereotype; while noble the article would be better served just reporting the facts. johnsemlak 12:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Italian Internment During WWII
I would like to see a whole article on Italian Internment. I'll make a request, but I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to write the article itself. Any takers?


 * Yes. I put an article up at Italian internment. Jeffmatt 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that 600,000 Italians in the US were required to carry ID cards in 1942. BUT they were Italian citizens!--born in Italy, moved to the US, and never bothered to become naturalized. What would you expect, given the fact that we were at war with Italy? In 1941, when the US entered WW2, there were 1,100,000 enemy aliens in the country--i.e. citizens of Italy, Germany and Japan. The FBI detained fewer than 7,000 of these people. A larger number were moved out of their homes because of the War Relocation Authority--not the Enemy Alien Act of 1940. The Japanese were treated horrendously--most of the relocated were native-born US citizens! But the Italians had fewer than 2,000 persons held and relocated (most of them were Italian merchant seamen trapped in US ports when the war broke out), and there were only a handful of native-born US citizens caught up in the sweep. Perhaps all this turns on the defintion of "Italian American," but I don't see any evidence--Di Stasi's book to the contrary--that members of the Italian-American community (citizens or not) got a particularly raw deal. Jeffmatt 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, if "Lawrence DiStasi claims that these wartime restrictions and internments contributed more than anything else to the loss of spoken Italian in the United States," then he is wrong. Immigrant languages in the United States have a long history of dying out after a generation. Italian was disappearing even at the time of WW1 when Italy was on our side. Jeffmatt 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Italian-American communities
This section is not even close to being accurate. Italians are not "mostly confined" to the northeastern United States. There are tons of Italians in Chicago, Florida, and other places. Also, those places in California don't really have many Italians, some of those neighborhoods in new york definitely aren't italian anymore either. Also, the wording of the paragraph is weird and awkward. Basically that whole section sucks imo and needs to be reworked(no offense to anyone). if anyone agrees with this, please respond and I will go ahead and revamp it.


 * ok, i made some changes. i removed some cities and neighborhoods that i know for sure are not known for a heavy concentration of italians.  I removed the "confined" language cause that was flat-out not true.  i still don't really understand the obsession with Kansas City, and the person who said that people are moving to San Diego and LA to AVOID high real estate prices obviously is misinformed about how expensive things are in Cali, but I'll leave that in there cause i don't want to change too much at one time.


 * Yeah, the problem is that the "qualifications" for the list are so open-ended that invariably people are going to keep adding questionable things to it based on their own perceptions... instead of just listing random italian american communities, it'd probably be a better idea to be more specific, maybe a list of places w/ high italian american populations via the US census, and a list of historically italian american communities... Passdoubt | Talk 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * in absolute numbers or in percentage of Italian Americans of municipality, county, or state, the northeast, particularly NJ, NY, PA, MA, and RI are still higher by quite a lot than anywhere else in the US. If you doubt, check out this link (thanks to whoever left it); info is from the US Census Bureau. http://www.epodunk.com/ancestry/Italian.html Spettro9 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
There should be at least a couple pictures of some famous Italian-Americans. If we look at the Jewish American sections there are some pictures of famous American Jews, and therefore there should be some pictures of famous Italian Americans. - Galati

Any women that can be added to the pictures? 66.183.217.31 22:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I added two new pictures for 6 (Polish Americans for example has up to 8) I would prefer that they were arranged in 2 rows of 3 but I couldn't figure out how to format that so if anyone could fix that please go ahead. As for my choices, I put Giuliani back up only because the fact that he's one of the most prominent politicians in the country, is running for president and is of Italian heritage is noteworthy. Partisan reasonings aside, I think it's a nice balance with Nancy Pelosi up as well. Fiorello LaGuardia's place is a lot more historical and symbolic. As for Iacocca, I'm open for change but I figured we should feature at least one Italian American that was a major figure in the business world, and Iacocca certainly was one. 72.185.13.214 06:50, 07 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I favor dropping Scorcese (even though I appreciate his work) in favor of a scientist like Enrico Fermi or a jurist like Antonin Scalia. While Italian Americans are frequently recognized as entertainers, they are often overlooked for their scholarly contributions. Fermi is considered one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century, and Scalia is recognized as an outstanding constitutional scholar and a brilliant jurist. Frankly, I'd like to see both pictures added, and LaGuardia removed, as three politicians out of six photos is simply too much. I do agree that Iacocca is a fair choice to represent business leaders.--Ana Nim 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in definite agreement with you concerning putting up a scientist and making the picture list more "well-rounded." Three politicians is, indeed, weighty. It would really open up a heated debate if Giuliani were to be dropped in favor of keeping Pelosi or vice versa; therefore your suggestion to drop LaGuardia is probably the least controversial of the three to be dropped. The only thing is that he's a historical Italian-American political figure and while not huge outside of New York politics was certainly a huge force there. Of course, the same could be said for Mario Cuomo.

As for the scientist suggestion; it would be nice, I think the thing is at the current moment all pictures represent highly known figures. Up until you mentioned him, I had no idea who Enrico Fermi was (but thank you because it's very good to know!) So it all depends on if we want the pictures to represent highly recognized figures or a more diverse representation, including some more "niche" figures who may not be as well-known outside of their fields. I won't change anything though, I guess we should let some others weigh in. (By the way although I finally remembered my wiki account info, I'm the same user as 72.185.13.214) Reflexsilver86 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given this discussion, why are more entertainers being added? Do we really need Stallone? Still not one scientist, inventor (Marconi or Meucci), or Supreme Court justice. Is Stallone or Marciano really more "notable" than Justice Scalia? Only if you erroneously equate notability with pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Nim (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed Al Pacino and replaced him with Samuel Alito. I think being that we have 9 pictures total, 3 of which are still entertainers, 1 being a business leader, 3 being politicians (1 of which has a historical legacy and 2 being current), as suggested by Ana Nim we should in fact include one Italian American who is a member of the Supreme Court (we can debate later over whether it should be Alito or Scalia, but I just preferred Alito in this case)

If people are to make any further edits to the pictures section, I think we should avoid adding any more entertainers, unless it's to replace one with another. 1/3 of the lot being entertainment figures is enough. Reflexsilver86 (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BRAVO!--Ana Nim (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Moved discussion about this article from my talk page to here
Why were my edits to that article immediately reverted?128.164.229.179 14:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that inserting racial and ethnic slurs into encyclopedia articles is vandalism. A gross generality like "Italian Americans are notoriously racist against blacks." is an ethnic slur. Although racism certainly occurs in many American cultures, and discussions of it can be informative, inflammatory, unreferenced contributions like that are disruptive to Wikipedia. It is a goal of all articles to represent a neutral point of view - please see WP:NPOV Thanks Dina 14:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't throw that comment into the article nakedly like that - I pointed out that the phenomenon is oft spoken-of in US culture, and referenced in pop-culture featuring Italian-Americans. Somebody viewing these films and listening to these celebrities would easily notice this re-occuring theme. Why should this article be so silent about it? It be as outrageous as this article never mentioning the mob stereotype, and thus would be obvious evidence of POV influence.128.164.229.179 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then let's work on it. Here's what you wrote:

''Italian Americans are notoriously racist against blacks. This phenomenon is referenced and burlesqued throughout American pop-culture, such as in films and televisions series like The Godfather II, The Sopranos, Do the Right Thing, and Ghost Dog, and through the words of famous Italian American personalities such as radio host Anthony Cumia and voice-over artist John DiMaggio. It also manifests itself in nationally reported news events such as the Yusef Hawkins murder and assasination attempt on Al Sharpton by Michael Riccardi.''

I think your first sentence should be something that doesn't insult all the Italian Americans that aren't racist -- Maybe something like "Italian Americans have often been portrayed by the popular media as racist against African Americans. This phenomenon is referenced and burlesqued throughout American pop-culture, such as in films and televisions series like The Godfather II, The Sopranos, Do the Right Thing, and Ghost Dog, and through the words of famous Italian American personalities such as radio host Anthony Cumia and voice-over artist John DiMaggio. Some notorious acts of racism have also been perpetrated by Italian Americans such as the Yusef Hawkins murder and assasination attempt on Al Sharpton by Michael Riccardi.

However, I also think you should make an effort to find a real source -- an article, study or book that talks about this phenomenon. I mean, you can't really characterize an entire culture based on 4 movies and 2 crimes -- if this were true we could write something completely spurious about any culture. Dina 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Criminality
I just removed the following:
 * "The United States Department of Justice estimates that less than .0025 percent of the estimated 16 to 26 million Americans of Italian descent are involved in criminal activitites. "

Firstly, it is a source wrongly attributed to the USDJ but really derived from someone active in the Order Sons of Italy in America (who doesn't state her source more specifically). Secondly, the numbers are ridiculous, claiming that 400 to 650 (out of 16 to 26 million) Italian Americans have committed a crime. My assumption that the crime rate in this major part of the US population is about national average - so quite a bit higher. - Chincoteague 06:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Need comment at deletion discussion
Please see the discussion here -- this needs more input from editors who actually work in this area. Badagnani 16:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion section
''In some communities Italian American Catholics were discriminated against by Irish and German Catholic leaders and were forced to leave the church and join the Episcopal Church. ''

I don't have time to do the research and writing but this doesn't sound very NPOV and the link provided doesn't seem like the kind of citation needed. I am changing the language about being "forced" because, aside from anything else questionable about that statement, there is no way they were "forced" to join the Episcopal Church. DeSales 23:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation needed tag to the text (edited by me since the above quotation) because I think it needs a better citation than just the link to the New Jersey church website. It says "some communities," not one community, and I'm not at all sure even "felt discriminated against" is the best summary of what happened in the case described on the linked website. I may edit the existing wording further. DeSales 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, and in all fairness, the Roman Catholic Church has apparently in most parishes assimilated the various ethnic, cultural, and historically national backgrounds of communicants. A more-fitting question is the degree to which Italian families have migrated to nonCatholic churches, and the reasons for doing so, in the more religiously diverse environment of America. A further intriguing issue may be whether national background is a consideration in assignment of priests to parishes. Are German-American priests, for example, ever sent to Italian-American congregations or vice-versa so they can keep an eye on each other? Richard David Ramsey 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
See Articles for deletion/List of Italian Americans (2nd nomination). Badagnani 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture Issue
How does Robert DeNiro represent Italians? He is 75% Irish. Though it may be hard to find someone of full Italian origins there are at least people like Kelly Ripa (75% Italian), Lindsay Lohan (50% Italian), Madonna (50%), Gwen Stefani (50%), or Chris Evans (actor) (50% Italian) who would represent the Italian community as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.154.247 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That always bothered me too, I love DeNiro but you've got my vote to switch in somebody else, a 100-percenter would be nice, what about Maria Bartiromo? Anne Bancroft? --CliffC 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, is that I dont know how to switch and who to switch it to! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.222.112.167 (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I switched Robert DeNiro to Madonna; hopefully, she'll be a better representative than RD. — Charity (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
Reading the article, I find it to be very much celebrating the achievements of Italian Americans. In itself this is not a bad thing, but it does seem to be more of a celebration of their culture than an objective, encyclopedic viewpoint.--Lulzislife (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I find the sentence "This particular group of people maintain a sense of pride in their heritage rarely seen throughout America, and indeed, the rest of the world" to be highly suspect. POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.238.17 (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian language in the United States
The last paragraph in this section suggests (without citing a source) that Standard Italian is even more of a departure from the dialect spoken by their ancestors for Americans of Northern Italian descent than it is for those of South Italian descent. I do not think this is true at all: the Sicilian dialect is notorious for its divergence from Standard Italian, and Neapolitan Italian is also different enough to justify Neopolitan/Italian dictionaries. If anything I would say Southern Italian dialects might be the most distant from Standard Italian (with the possible exception of Piemontese, Friulano, Trentino, Sardinian...). I would vote for this paragraph to be deleted altogether or replaced with something like "For Americans of Northern Italian ancestry as well, Standard Italian represents a departure from the language/dialect spoken by their ancestors". Ctamigi (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this. I was struck in Sicily by the fact that the Italian-American words I hear are very close to some in Sicily, while distinctly different from Italian Standard/Northern. Polenta sounds like Bolent in both US and Sicily. Basta Fazul would be understood in Sicily, but it the north the dish is Pasta e Fagiole. Much of it is the accent, the verbal approach, which is hard to render in a written interpretation. Sicilians sound like Italian Americans, Romans do not. I always wondered if there was some influence in Sicilian Language from the Norman conquests of the 13th(?) century. Lday (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The reality is very few people of Italian ancestry in the US can speak the Italian language. Not even broken. I can say this because I am one and have seen hundreds and thousands of people with a similar background and no one was able to speak it. And that was in Staten Island, NY, the highest percentage of Italian Americans in the country. It just goes to show you the statistic the Census provided for the language speakers is a lie. I've actually met people who've admitted lying by telling the Census they spoke Italian because they thought it'd sound cool. Or they know like 5 Anglicized Italian curses that they've chopped the vowels off of.

This is nothing against American of Italian origin though. Few Americans can speak a second language fluently. The only one's who seem to are those who are either foreign-born, parents were or perhaps parents. This would have all been immigrants since WWII and usually later. The only other people I've seen speak a second language were related to the military, linguists, priests, ect. Nothing relate to ethnicity.

So there is no personal dilemma for Italian-Americans to not learn Italian a certain way as opposed to another if they were to ever choose to try to learn it (which so few do because it's barely offered in public education and American interest in foreign language, especially ones other then Spanish, seem to be dead).

They'd be learning Italian just like the rest of everyone else. Standard Italian. What ever scattered words they know weren't even effected by the region of Italy they came from. No one in Italy says galamaad for calamari. In fact, it makes absolutely no sense why anyone would. It seems like almost every word in Italian fluidly ends in a vowel. You'll see a lot of people pronouncing stuff as gots which is also perplexing. Like my grandmother says fugots instead of focaccia. Ironic because most Americans would pronounce it more correctly by just reading and pronouncing it as it is spelled.

Sicilians sound absolutely nothing like Italian-Americans while speaking Italian, English or any language for that matter. By the way, while most Italians are not of Northern/Central Italian ancestry, the majority are also not of Sicilian origin. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Culture
Here I'll explain why I removed "Roman Catholicism" from the sentence. Many Italian-Americans are not Roman Catholic (i.e. some are atheists), even though their ancestors may have been. And the Roman Catholic Church is not an institution for preserving Italian or Italian-American culture and is irrelevant to the Italian-American way of life. Since many Italian-Americans could also be Protestants or Jews, I declare that element null and void. Marcus2 (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is Joe DiMaggio
I noticed off the bat (no pun intended), that no notable sports stars are shown. Might I suggest Joe DiMaggio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 05:01, December 3, 2008


 * I see nothing wrong with that. Even better if you also remove two (male) politicians and/or add another (non-politician) female in the process. SamEV (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll get less static if you just make one straight substitution – I vote for Madonna or Travolta. --CliffC (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Madonna? The infobox needs more females, CliffC. SamEV (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well, so do I, but she's just annoying any more. --CliffC (talk)


 * LOL. SamEV (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

a chatroom and some corrections
is it possible insert a chatroom for learn italian or other italian dialects? I have many friends that want learn italian or a specific italian dialect.

Corrections

1)Italian language in the United States,paragraph Forms of Italian, sentence "Today, the Standard Italian language is used in schools instead of the original dialects." All wrong, we never used dialect in the schools.

2)written by Ctamigi (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Italian language in the United States sentence number 1) the Sicilian dialect is notorious for its divergence from Standard Italian. Notorius? do you speak sicilian maybe? i don t think so sentence number 2) and Neapolitan Italian is also different enough to justify Neopolitan/Italian dictionaries. I need a translator to understain venetian dialect sentence number 3) If anything I would say Southern Italian dialects might be the most distant from Standard Italian (with the possible exception of Piemontese, Friulano, Trentino, Sardinian...). maybe you don t remeber that many words and expressions in the lombard and venetian come from german. do you remember that 100 years ago you were still under the austrian domination? sentence number 4) I would vote for this paragraph to be deleted altogether or replaced with something like "For Americans of Northern Italian ancestry as well, Standard Italian represents a departure from the language/dialect spoken by their ancestors". this say what you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.8.2 (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Category Deletion Discussion -- Italian Americans
Pls note that there is a category deletion discussion re Italian Americans afoot at --Epeefleche (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No citation to senseless and misleading quotes
It is rumored that even Lucky Luciano helped smooth relations between the two communities during World War II.

What is the source to this rumor? Even a rumor in it's own respect doesn't have to be evidence. But it has to be published (and by a reputable source) for it to be recognized. I'm deleting this.

Italian-American service was pivotal during the Allied invasion of Sicily, where United States government troops worked with locals, including Mafiosi, to secure and fortify the newly acquired foothold in Europe.

This quote has three problems. One, there's no evidence that the U.S. government and/or military associated with the mafia. Secondly, it gives off this vibe that the Mafiosi were righteous people. That's not what they were. And there is no evidence to support they were on the side of the Allies or associated themselves to political organizations.

''Numerous historians documented the delicate relations the United States government established with Italian-American organized crime figures in the U.S. and the manner in which these were used to help ensure a successful landing. ''

Without a source, this is a lie. They'd be make believe historians. It's that simple. What benefit was it to the mafia to support the U.S. government? Why would the U.S. government want their support? There is no source to any of this. The fact this slipped through the cracks on this site without anyone reading it is clearly saying the people who work for this site need to be more attentive.

It is rumored that even Lucky Luciano helped smooth relations between the two communities during World War II.

Likewise, no source. This message also contradicts the message the NIAF is trying to send in that no more than a few thousand Italian-Americans have ever had involvement with organized crime. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

 Zogby International survey revealed that 78 percent of teenagers 13 to 18 associated Italian Americans with either criminal activity or blue-collar work.

And where is that Zogby International survey? It's pretty useless to say it without the actual article. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

this represented 7.5% of the 16 million total who served.

While I don't dispute that the statistic may not be realistic nor true, there is no citation. Therefore, it's as good as a made up stat. Please provide source to quotes. Otherwise, keep those type of statements broad (ex. Italian-Americans served in the U.S. military). TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Over time, though, attributes such as goal-setting, close-knit families, adaptability, frugality, education, and hard work have enabled the descendants of Italian immigrants to generally realize the American dream.

There is no citation to this quote. What is often referred to as the American Dream is usually senseless. Each country in their own respect has a dream or a goal. This message also makes it sounds as if Italian immigrants themselves didn't know the American society they were coming into.

It is also important to note that eighty-percent of Italian Americans have Southern Italian ancestry, while the remaining twenty-percent come from the north.

While I do agree and believe it's understood that most know that most Italian-Americans (and Italian descendants on the western hemisphere) are predominantly of southern Italian origins, there is no quote to this citation. It'd be more appropriate to say the majority are. Or not to comment on this without citation. When it comes to something as explicit as percentages, citation is required.

Although most will not speak Italian fluently, a dialect of sorts has arisen among Italian Americans, particularly in the urban Northeast, often popularized in film and television.

This quote is very broad, makes too much assumption and lacks source. Why would this be exclusively to the urban Northeast? Why not Midwestern cities with equally or larger Italian populations? And what are those dialects? The fact that it's saying that it's popularized in film and television leaves a taste that it's being portrayed as a Hollywood depiction.

In the Northeast, however, these stereotypes do not exist owing to the large Italian populations of the area, though stereotypes based on dress and look (i.e. the blowout hair style) exist, even among Italians.

This quote sounds comical and have no source. I'd consider those sources that associate the average American to associate Italian-Americans to organized crime as questionable. Once again, why the Northeast exclusively? The blow out hair style? I'm not sure what the logic is for it there. This hair style certainly is not prevalent - especially in modern day, to be worthy of mentioning in an article (definitely not without citation). By the way, the citation on the Response Analysis Corporation is not a link. It comes up as a search engine with the opinions and habits of Floridian tourists. I'm deleting that link. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

By 1978, 5.3 million Italians had immigrated to the United States; two million arrived between 1900 and 1914.

There's no citation to this quote. I've actually read from other sources that 2 million Italian immigrants arrived just between 1900 and 1910 alone, so the number running through 1914 may be higher. It's not necessary to write 1978 though, because most Italian immigration has ended well before than. Most Italian immigrants arrived in between 1890 through 1914. WWI helped initiate a slow down. Than the U.S. eventually passed the Johnson-Reed act in 1924 which limited the number of Italians (and all southern and eastern Europeans) who would be allowed to arrive. That was in full effect until 1965. By 1965, few Italians (or western Europeans) had interest in moving to the U.S. Most Italians who moved overseas in significant numbers post-WWII did so to Europe, Canada and Australia, where there weren't bias ethnic laws. Italians probably wouldn't have felt too welcome living in a society with laws specifically against them either. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Mother's Day has also traditionally been a big holiday for Italian-Americans, particularly in the Northeast.

No citation. But why this quote? How does this even make sense? Isn't mothers day a big holiday for all Americans? Even if we were to say Italians love their moms (what ethnic group doesn't?), why the Northeast specifically?

Today's Italian American youth no longer take for granted the impressive contributions Italians and Italian Americans have made to Western civilization, especially in the areas of fine art, music, science, philosophy, law, medicine, education, literature, architecture, and cuisine.

There's two problems with this quote. One, it makes the assumption Italian-American youth in previous generations did take this for granted (no source nor sensibility in that remark). This message and much of the paragraphs in this section are giving this vibe that Italian-American culture had died down in previous decades and livened back up. There's no sources supporting such a theory though. Ethnic identities among white Americans have decreased less and less by the generation due to intermixing and the less individualizing characteristics. American culture has a tendency to make everything look the same (ex. suburban housing). There's even been less individual taste and flavor in pizza. Just look at all these franchise chains.

''While most Italian-American families have a Catholic background, there are various groups of Italian-American Christians who have chosen to practice Protestant Christianity for various reasons. In many cases, families may have decided to worship regularly at a local non-Catholic parish with which they and their community identify, but keep with the Catholic tradition in schooling their children at Catholic parochial or private schools, as well as fully participating in Catholic worship when attending Catholic churches for whatever reason.''

This has no source and doesn't make much sense. It'd be understandable to identify as non-denominational, yet claim or practice some Catholic traditions because previous family generations had. There's no explanation of why they'd convert to a Protestant sect, yet still send their children to Catholic parochial schools or participating in Catholic worship. If they left Catholicism, it was either due to intermarriage with a non-Catholic or interest in another denomination. Most Italians immigrated to places with high Catholic populations where Catholicism was accepted. TomNyj0127 (talk)

Despite the pressures of the US government during World War II, now more than ever, children of Italian heritage, especially paternal heritage, are given Italian names, and raised in traditional Italian ways.

There a few problems with this statement. Besides having no citation, it shows a favoritism towards paternal heritage. There is no study supporting that Italian-Americans have began giving their children Italian names in the last generation either. Intermixing between other American ethnic groups has been more and more common every generation. So each person identity is being compromised in one way or another. It also doesn't identify what those traditional Italian ways are.

Over eighty percent of Italian Americans are of Southern Italian origin

Once again, no citation. TomNyj0127 (talk)

''There is, however, a dilemma for Italian Americans who consider re-learning the language of their ancestors. The formal "Italian" that is taught in colleges and universities is generally not the "Italian" with which Italian Americans are acquainted.''

It'd only be a dilemma if they actually spoke the Italian language fluently in some form. If you knew how to speak Acadian French, you could learn the French spoken in France easily. If you speak Afrikaans, it wouldn't be challenging learning Dutch in the Netherlands. Similarly, if you were a fluent Italian speaker of southern Italian or Sicilian dialects, it wouldn't be hard learning the standard educational form. You can learn a dialect without giving up one. You just have to use it separately and in appropriate settings. For example, a news caster who had a southern accent before taking speech classes would still know how to speak with that dialect (ex. with family). This isn't a dilemma for most Italian-American's though because most don't speak it at all. The only way to learn it would be to study it in a university and/or live in Italy. Also, it wouldn't be re-learning it if one never knew to speak it to begin with. This quote really undermines the individualism of one's experience. If you never knew how to speak a language, even if generations have before you, you can't re-learn it. Languages are environmental and cultural, which is obviously all attributed after birth. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

''While most Italian-American families have a Catholic background, there are various groups of Italian-American Christians who have chosen to practice Protestant Christianity for various reasons. In many cases, families may have decided to worship regularly at a local non-Catholic parish with which they and their community identify, but keep with the Catholic tradition in schooling their children at Catholic parochial or private schools, as well as fully participating in Catholic worship when attending Catholic churches for whatever reason.''

This has no source and doesn't make much sense. It'd be understandable to identify as non-denomination, yet claim or practice some Catholic traditions because previous family generations had. There's no explanation of why they'd convert to a Protestant sect, yet still send their children to Catholic parochial schools or participating in Catholic worship. If they left Catholicism, it was either due to intermarriage with a non-Catholic or interest in another denomination. Most Italians immigrated to places with high Catholic populations where Catholicism was accepted. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Observers have noted that they often became more devoutly Catholic in the United States, since their faith was a distinctive characteristic in the U.S.; devout Italian Americans often identified themselves as "Catholics" when talking to coworkers or neighbors.

Who are the observers? There is no citation to this quote. It'd also seem to contradict normal American values. American's are generally very touchy when it comes to discussing religious matters outside of places of worship. The work place is usually seen as one of the worst places for that. It's obvious that Catholicism and a Roman Latin history has done so much to carve the Italian culture. But being Catholic wasn't exactly unique - especially in the place they went. Most cities they had immigrated to were relatively high in percentage of Catholics. To claim they became more devoutly Catholic without an explained rationale (or citation from an author) seems baseless. It'd also be contradicting in the respect that the places with the highest Italian-American populations tend to be the most culturally and religiously liberal in the country. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

''The situation is even more pronounced among Italian Americans whose ancestors came to the United States from Northern Italy. Italian Americans variously of Emilia-Romagna, Lombardian, Genoese, Marchigiano, Piedmontese, Venetian and other Northern Italian heritage are even further away linguistically from the languages of their ancestors through the contemporary standard Italian language.''

Besides lacking citation, this quote doesn't take into account the modern reality of Italian-Americans. Most Italian-Americans don't speak Italian. Similarly, most European-Americans, mixed or not, with at least a few generations in the U.S., don't speak that foreign language. The way most Americans (Italian-American or not) learn the Italian language is educationally (universities) that base on the standard Italian language. Northern Italians generally came even earlier than southern Italians, and in lesser numbers, which gave more time and chance to mix out and lose the language. TomNyj0127 (talk)

Added And Revised Information
I'm adding the following quote under the religion tab:

One reason why Italian-Americans have become more apart of Protestant faiths is due to intermarriage with other ethnic groups that were traditionally Protestant.

I'm surprised no one had written this. It's pretty self explanatory. The same reason could be applied to any newer Catholic nationality - whether it be Irish, Polish, Puerto Ricans, or even in modern day, Mexicans and Filipinos. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

As with Rhode Island being changed from 21.7% to 19.1% via the Census resource (and even the Wiki article on Rhode Island), I've changed Pennsylvania to 12.8% rather than 13.0%. If we were rounding up or down on all the other states, I would have left it. But we weren't. TomNyj0127 (talk)

To this day, Italian Americans are frequently associated with organized crime and New York City in the minds of many Americans, largely due to pervasive media stereotyping, a number of popular gangster movies (such as The Godfather and Goodfellas) and television series such as The Sopranos.

There are a lot of problems with this quote. Besides having no citation, it assumes a belief that most American's naively assume this of Italian-Americans. Most don't actually do this. It also assumes that people associate Italian-Americans with New York City (even though there are plenty of other cities that are much more Italian). There is no literary work supporting the mind of many Americans. There is some degree of Italian ancestry is intermixed into much of the European ancestry throughout most population regions of the U.S. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

Does anyone find this peculiar?
I'm not saying the U.S. Census shouldn't be used as a resource. But I think they should be questioned in how they're collecting their data. In the 2000 Census, it claimed there were 15.6 million Italians and that the U.S. was 5.6% Italian. This was under that the U.S. had roughly 281,400,000 million people. When that survery was done in '06, they were roughly 299,400,000 million. As of 2006, they claim Italian-Americans are now 5.95% of the population and are roughly 17.8 million.

So they're claiming that the U.S. has risen by 2.2 million in Italian-American out of about 18 million in population growth. That'd be saying that 12.2% of the natural American increase was Italian, which was more than double what they can claimed it to be in the 2000 Census. There have been no evidence to source there claims for why they claim it to be such higher. I honestly don't know their methods for acquiring this information. But to anyone person with some articulation skills has to realize how embarrassing this is. The sad thing is most people who work for the Census are like the stereotypical unintellectual American, so they can't see through those lines either. In fact, for all the percentages they do all day, most hadn't even realized it either.

In my opinion, they're doing a shoddy job and just trying to please people. I've read the NIAF say that there were 26 million Italian-Americans. They claimed New York City was 21% Italian. They had no source for either. They were literally promoting ignorance. The Census has a lot of what I'd call Fill in the Gaps when it comes to Italian populations. For example, I live in southern New Jersey. Anyone could tell you that the more Italian part of the state has always been Northern Jersey. There's been no major changes in demographical patterns on the western side of the state. Southwestern New Jersey, where I live, happens to be the place they love filling in the gap on.

Hammonton has historically had a higher Italian population. But it is no where near the most Italian-American town in terms of percentages in the country. I could give you a white pages and prove that to you easily right now. Even sadder, they claim Sicklerville, a suburb with massive growth from within Camden county in the last few decades, is 37% Italian. There's a rather low historical population in that town. Yet there is no explanation for why.

I read an article that said 11 million people said they were Italian-American (or part) to the Census. They assumed for the other 4.6 million. For what ever awkward reason it was, the NIAF got even more greedy and saw the need to ridiculously claim another 10 million beyond that which by no coincidence no one recognizes. America is not getting more Italian demographically. It's getting less. It's getting less European-American as a whole. There is so little Italian immigration to the U.S. it's not statistically significant. And it'd be no where near 5.6% of the population of the U.S. - in order to maintain balance of the Italian-American percentage. Whites as a whole average a 2.0 fertility rate, as opposed to 2.1 national average. The places where Italian-Americans live most are the places that are more culturally liberal, expensive and tend to have lower fertility rates (ex. New York City).

There is obvious corruption and politicking going on in this. But it all gets swept under the table and most people don't care about the subject enough to see through these cracks. And those who too are too blind or lazy to notice this for themselves. Therefore, I feel it's worth mentioning in the article. It is a fact that in between 2000 and 2006, the U.S. Census has said the Italian-American population has risen by 2.2 million, which is a rate of approximately 12.2%. I'm using Wikipedia's citations via the 2000 and 2006 Census data as reference. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

The U.S. Census has provided no explanation for this sudden increase.

This was the previous quote I put up.

The U.S. Census has provided no explanation for this sudden increase despite there obviously being no modern immigration waves.

I revised it to this. I feel it is more informative. It directly shows that there could have been no way the Italian-American population increased since 2000. In fact, since obviously much less than 5.6% of immigrants who've arrived since than were Italian and Italian-Americans likewise to white Americans have a higher than average aging population, it'd mean the population should be decreasing. It is only common sense. This quote will at least help show the incompetence of the United States Census and perhaps encourage them to provide one since it'll likely be viewed by thousands. Tom173.61.36.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC).


 * Incompetence doesn't have to be the only explanation. For example, maybe there was an undercount in 2000—whether or not it was the Census Bureau's fault—which was corrected by 2006.
 * A better possibility could be a rise in South American immigration and the number of Hispanic and Latino Americans and Brazilian Americans who are indicating their ancestry. For example, Italian ancestry is even more common in Argentina and Brazil than in the US, per some figures I've seen. Check out those countries' demographics articles for sources. SamEV (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

''Incompetence doesn't have to be the only explanation. For example, maybe there was an undercount in 2000—whether or not it was the Census Bureau's fault—which was corrected by 2006.''

This wasn't verified though. We receive a more official count by 2010. I'd actually say severely undercounting would be a form of incompetence. Of course the government wouldn't admit that though.

A better possibility could be a rise in South American immigration and the number of Hispanic and Latino Americans and Brazilian Americans who are indicating their ancestry.

This is a possibility. South Americans are generally not very high in terms of numbers of immigrants in the U.S. though. All South Americans combined may not be more than 5.6% or 6.0%. Mexicans compose of 32% of immigrants in the U.S. (not counting undocumented peoples) and Mexicans make up 2/3 of Latinos. Much of the rest of the 16% are central Americans (especially Salvadorans). The most common south American group are Colombians who tend to have the least amount of Italian ancestry in the continent too. Most people who are of Brazilian or a Latin American ancestry identify their cultural background (if not American) as the nationality itself rather than lineage.

For example, Italian ancestry is even more common in Argentina and Brazil than in the US, per some figures I've seen.

Yes, it is. I'm not sure why some people are so skeptical of that too. People are usually more accepting to Argentines. Much more Italian immigrants historically went to South America than North America though. It only makes sense because of climate (since most leaving Italy were from southern regions), the language (Portuguese and Spanish are closely related) and Catholicism (which is overwhelming majority there and a minority here).

I don't know how the Brazilian nor Argentine governments acquired those statistics. I'm skeptical of that too. I can't speak much on their behalf though since I don't know several people who work for their census unlike the U.S. Census. It is believed through surnames though.

How could it be an undercount though? Sicklerville, NJ is not 37% Italian-American! I'll buy you a white pages in that town and than the next town over where they say it is 15% and you wouldn't know the difference via surnames. Like I said, they play plug in the gap. I don't see the value in it. However, the NIAF, sons of Italy and other organizations that'd claim anyone from George W. Bush to Barack Obama as Italian-American will do what ever they can to up their percentages. Pat Cooper once said there were 30 million Italian-Americans! Even the Census isn't that incompetent. He affiliates himself to those organizations. Yet provides no source. You can't trust bias resources for demographics anyway. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC).


 * "Most people who are of Brazilian or a Latin American ancestry identify their cultural background (if not American) as the nationality itself rather than lineage."
 * Everyone is asked the Ancestry question in the census.
 * I doubt that climate had much to do with Italians's migration to South America! Italy is at similar latitude as the US, roughly.
 * I really think the answer might have to do with how the Bureau handles the Ancestry responses of Hispanics/Latinos, and I'm going to try and track it down. SamEV (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreicate your effort regarding that. The Census isn't explicit enough in what they are asking for though. They ask for ethnicity. Obviously, if literal ancestry were the question, there'd be no purpose of asking if someone were Brazilian or Venezuelan (unless it were to define people of indigenous origin which would be in the minority). All the U.S. Census asks from Hispanic/Latinos is ethnicity (which the government created an artificial identity based on language or the descendant of speakers of it) and race. The only way a Hispanic/Latino could mark their ethnic group (from within that country) on Census data is if they did so marking separate from Hispanic/Latino status. It is a manipulative tactic by the Census further feeding into their incompetence. TomNyj0127 (talk)

I don't believe it was a significant reason. The difference between Italian who went to South America, especially Brazil, was that they went to do a variety of work (industrial and farming). Most Italians who left were from the south and were farmers. They were able to adapt quickly. Although some may have, the overwhelming majority of Italian immigrants to the U.S. went for industrial opportunities in the Northeast and Midwest. Brazil, Argentina and other South American countries obviously related to a Latin-speaking Catholic country. I'd guess that'd be the primary reason for Italians choosing this as their primary destination. TomNyj0127 (talk)

With that being said, I don't believe the U.S. government is incorporating Latinos of Italian descent into this. There are no mentionings via the Census. Plus, while not the smallest, South Americans are not that large of a region of immigration. All Italian-South Americans put together is still considerably lower than 6% of the total immigrant population that has arrived since 2000. I am really under the impression the Census could pick out any random numbers they want and feel no pressure to do so because no one cares to point them out on it, the people in the government are too incompetent to realize it and the general population has no clue of it. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

Deletion of Section Because Of Shoddy Source
The source for that article is City-Data. Cita-Data is not a reputable site. With all due respect to Wikipedia, it is the mere equivalent of Wikipedia + message boards. There is no sourcing on that page provided. There is no Census information provided. There are no newspaper articles. There is nothing. Just there guess - which may or may not be right. But it's not our job to play the guessing game. We're here to report facts on reliable information. I know I've cleaned up a lot on this article recently. It'll really improve the quality of the article. You're best off having the most proven and well-backed statements, rather than paragraphs and paragraphs of loose opinions. That's what message boards - like City-Data, are for. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

The pictures image should preferrably shown Italian-Americans who are full and half.
It's not that I don't believe people who are 1/4 Italian-American shouldn't be included. But there are only so many people who can be shown under the pictures. It should be used for those who are full and 1/2 first. It's all about facts too. It doesn't matter if Roberto Deniro's portrayed roles in movies as Italian-American's. That doesn't change his ancestry. I'm changing his picture to Mya Harrison - who is 1/2 Italian-American. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

I have read that Kelly Ripa is mixed too. A full Italian-American (ex. Mike Piazza, Alyssa Milano) may be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyj0127 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How do I change the picture? I'm not sure if that picture above can be edited? TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

Revised statement of regions and WWII
I replaced Chicago with Upstate New York in regions with significant concentrations of Italians. There are far more people in Upstate New York than Chicago. Chicago also has a much lower percentage of Italian-Americans (3.3%, according in Chicago to 2007 U.S. Census survey) compared to the average of the U.S. I also ranked each major city andstate with a high percentage of Italian-Americans in order based on percentage. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

An estimated 1.2 million Italian Americans served in the armed forces during World War II.

There is no source showing how many Italian-Americans served in the U.S. military. Like any other ethnic group in the U.S. during WWII, it is undeniable that they had a presence. Specific statistics require citation though. I'll revise it to say the following.

During World War II, likewise to Japanese Americans and German Americans, despite some Italian Americans being mistreated, manyItalian-Americans served in the U.S. armed forces to fight the Axis Powers. TomNyj0127 (talk)

"Cite error"
There's a "Cite error" message at the bottom of the page. I don't know how to fix it. Someone else try, please. SamEV (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian-American newspapers, please
It would be nice to have a section and an article on the old Italian-American newspapers. Oops, forgot.AMuseo (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, so I added a section. Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete quotes without saying you'll do so
It is a sign of respect. I do not work for the site so I don't even know who did it. Personally, I find it insulting and lazy. I won't delete other's quotes without explaining (and having an open conversation if necessary). I will be putting back up the quote I wrote under the Italian-American demographics. I have evidence sourced on it (the U.S. Census). Anyone who disputes the simple Math I done is more than welcome to check over it as many times as they'd like. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC).

So you respond by shortening up what I said, changing the percentage and leaving out the explanation? That is virtually promoting ignorance. For whom ever is doing this, it is like you don't want the public to have knowledge that the Census hasn't provided an explanation. Is what I not say true? Are you even being tolerable and being willing to discuss this? Please show some integrity and respect. Thank you. Once again, I'll be revising it until you either give me an explanation or prove what I am saying wrong. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC).


 * You invited others to re-do your math if it was inaccurate. It was. I did. The portion removed would be suitable in your personal blog, or a letter to the Census Bureau suggesting they made an error. You provide no sources – reliable, notable or otherwise – to indicate anyone other than you sees an issue here. Personal conspiracy theories or feelings of governmental incompetence are misplaced in encyclopedia articles. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for one thing. I politely asked for an expalantion several times. It took about the fourth time to get a response. Yes, I welcomed you to do the math. Perhaps I did the Math wrong and it was 14% rather than 12.2%. I appreciate your help for that.

How is it suitable for a personal blog? Has the United States Census Bureau provided an explanation for the increase? If they did, show me it. If you owned a home (like public information), and the bank suddenly changed your mortgage payments after documentation was signed (like the 2000 Census), wouldn't you deserve an explanation? All I am asking for is that. In fact, I've come to understand I probably won't get one. So the public has a right to know of this. TomNyj0127 (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not a personal conspiracy theory. This is just a matter of properly demographically recorded statistics. I do not feel it is appropriate to call the United States Census Bureau incompetent in the actual article. That'd be for open discussion. Like any other government organization, there is bound to be errors and loopholes which I understand. TomNyj0127 (talk)

You still haven't answered my question though. Why did it rise by 14%? Answer it was a neutral intelligent human being. Simply ignoring that is ignorance. I was considerate to shorten the statement from a paragraph to a sentence. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

I'm sure you also aware at how many readers there are on Wiki articles daily. You'd be suprised how many Census workers themselves and the general public may actually realize that there has been no explanation provided. Perhaps it'd encourage them to provide one. Wikipedia is about putting as much coherent information together which is what that statement would be encouraging. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC).


 * "Wikipedia is about putting as much coherent information together which is what that statement would be encouraging."


 * This is not exactly accurate. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is about extracting facts from reliable sources, editing those facts into a coherent and NPOV presentation, and presenting those facts without addition of editors' opinions, either directly or by phrasing innuendo. The Census Bureau is considered a reliable source for the data they publish. Since the census forms don't ask where someone lived six or ten years ago, or how they answered questions on the previous census surveys, they would not be in a position to reliably explain changes in the answers received. If you can find some news stories – or even editorials – in, say, The New York Times or The Washington Post, questioning the accuracy of the 2000 or 2006 national origin estimates, the controversy might be appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article. The fact that you personally find the figures suspect, is not.


 * (BTW, I'm pursuing a theory over the next day or two, so I'm leaving your latest addition alone for the time being since even though it still doesn't belong it's rather minimal. If my idea yields anything, I'll add it here.) Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

''This is not exactly accurate. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is about extracting facts from reliable sources, editing those facts into a coherent and NPOV presentation, and presenting those facts without addition of editors' opinions, either directly or by phrasing innuendo.''

My opinion is not involved in neither the paragraph nor the one sentence I put on the page. What does my opinion have to do with the Census not providing an explanation? Or 6.8% of legal immigrants in the U.S. being from South America? Those are facts. My opinion has no value in that.

The Census Bureau is considered a reliable source for the data they publish.

I never said they weren't. It doesn't mean you shouldn't question how they figured their information though.

Since the census forms don't ask where someone lived six or ten years ago, or how they answered questions on the previous census surveys, they would not be in a position to reliably explain changes in the answers received.

That would be more relevant to state or city populations. Not national. It can be said that virtually most American citizens who were living in this country six to ten years ago still do today. Obviously, the Census estimates in years in between the 10 year period (ex. 2006) will not be as thorough. This is why the Census still primarily relies on 2000 data.

If you can find some news stories – or even editorials – in, say, The New York Times or The Washington Post, questioning the accuracy of the 2000 or 2006 national origin estimates, the controversy might be appropriate to include in an encyclopedia article.

I am not saying it is a controversy nor questioning their accuracy. I just want to know how they determined this. We deserve the right to know. We are the public.

The fact that you personally find the figures suspect, is not.

I am not writing about controversy on the article and I am taking much regard for brevity. Perhaps I don't concern as much for brevity on the discussion board, but that is what this is for. I shot possible ideas out there but I know the ideas are not reputable for the article. What I said is not an idea though. It is a one sentence fact.

''BTW, I'm pursuing a theory over the next day or two, so I'm leaving your latest addition alone for the time being since even though it still doesn't belong it's rather minimal. If my idea yields anything, I'll add it here.''

Okay, I appreciate your cooperation too. I will also do more research. We should learn much more with the upcoming Census report. TomNyj0127 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting some of information relating to Wisconsin
Besides the entire section having no citation, some of quotes (particularly regarding the mafia) are out of taste. And the comment regarding pizzerias seems trivial and doesn't specify if that includes franchises. TomNyj0127 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

''Door County Peninsula was a hot spot to go to for Milwaukee and Chicago mobsters. The Milwaukee mafia is run by the Balistieri family and numbers at 15 to 20 made members.''

This leaves a bad taste on the Italian-American community in these towns. Very few Italian-Americans have involvement with the mafia so I don't believe it merits any relevance. That information would be more useful for articles pertaining to the mafia (especially if had citations). TomNyj0127 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The city of Milwaukee has over 70 pizzerias and Milwaukee county has over 120 or so.

The city of Milwaukee and area is a populated area so it is quite normal that there are that many pizzerias in that metropolitan area. It merits no relevance to the Italian-American community if there a bunch of Pizza Huts, Dominos and Papa John's franchises around the city. TomNyj0127 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

West Allis, Wisconsin also has large numbers of Italians, and has about 15 to 20 pizzerias and Italian bars.

Please be specific when you say large numbers (ex. demographical percentages via the Census). I won't be deleting the section. Just cleaning it up a bit. TomNyj0127 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will also be deleting information pertaining to this area in Wisconsin in the later arrival tab because it doesn't seem appropriate. If any areas are to be mention in a section where specific destinations of where Italian immigrants went in the U.S., it'd be more appropriate to mention an area like Providence, Rhode Island, or somewhere in the Northeast. I'd keep place out of that tab though. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

It is also not appropriate to mention the Italian-American percentages of Milwaukee and West Allis on a list where Italian-American percentages are 4X plus. There many places throughout the U.S. (primarily in New York, New Jersey and New England states) that are in the 20 and 30 percentiles that weren't mentioned. Why mention something that is only ~5-6% above national average? TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

http://www.niaf.org/research/2000_census_4.asp

The quote of claiming 11% of the state of Wisconsin is not true. In fact, it isn't even close. According to the map above via the NIAF and Census, it is 3.2%. Granted that would be for the 5.6% statistics, rather than the 6.0% bloat up, but it is still considerably below national average. It is also less than other Midwestern states. Northern Wisconsin, as well as Upper Midwestern states, obviously had larger contributions from Scandinavian immigrants (Norweigens, Swedes, Finnish). And more Germans too (although there are many of German background in southern Wisconsin and the entire Midwest). Milwaukee and the area do have a higher Italian-American percentage than the rest of the state though. TomNyj0127 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting part of quote regarding Little Italys.
Most immigrants lived in "Little Italys" until after 1945, when younger families moved to the suburbs.

This quote will confuse people on what the definition of a Little Italy is. Most Italians immigrated to a variety of Northeastern, Midwestern, as well as Louisianan and western cities and towns. Most of these places were not Little Italys. Just because your town has a population that is 25% Italian-American doesn't make it a Little Italy. The rest of the population that is not of the same ethnic group would still clearly be in the majority. There is usually a business area within these towns that is regarded as a Little Italy that has lots of Italian restaurants and delis. This isn't necessarily where Italian-Americans lived though. I cleaned up the quote to make it more understandable for readers. I also mention that like Italian-Americans, other ethnic enclaves largely changed during and following the 1970s. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC).
 * well not quite. Today "Little Italy" is a restaurant district, but in the pre 1945 era it was a compact city area dominated by Italians. They had a higher concentration pattern than most white ethnics. Rjensen (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the definition of Little Italy may have varied. I am disputing that the majority of Italian-Americans lived in areas that were were predominantly Italian-American prior to WWII though. It was more. But it was not majority or close to it in most places Italian-Americans lived both prior to and postwar. TomNyj0127 (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding new information on state totals and percentages
As I mentioned in the tab above, I found a link via the NIAF and Census that neatly breaks down the total of Italian-Americans in each state. I used 160,000 as a cut off number. TomNyj0127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

I also revised the percentages on specific towns to be exact. The list provided was in the wrong order and gave the wrong percentages for certain towns (ex. North Providence, RI). Frankfort Square was given a percentage that wasn't rounded so it didn't look together. I believe it'd be more valuable to give exact percentages when all of the top are close to each other. I put Harrison, NY villages and town together, since they both 34.9%. I used the top 25 towns as a cut off. TomNyj0127 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

West Allis is only 5.7% Italian American ; Milwaukee is 2.9%
West Allis, Wisconsin, was reported was 5.7% of Italian ancestry in the 2000 Census. This is virtually identical to national average of 5.6%. The entire state of Wisconsin is 3.2% Italian American. Milwaukee is actually less at 2.9%. It would be more appropriate to say West Allis has more people of Italian ancestry than the average place in the state in a Wisconsin article. Perhaps this is what mislead you into believing it has a higher percentage of Italian Americans. I am not sure why you believe such for Milwaukee though. Tom173.61.36.179 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also no citation that Milwaukee has the largest Italian American festival in the nation. Tom173.61.36.179 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Too many pictures
I just checked in on this article and it really struck me how overwhelming the amount of pictures are. We currently have 21 people pictured, which I really think is too much. The maximum I've seen so far for other ethnic groups are German-Americans with 15, French-Americans have 12, and the African-American and Irish-Americans have 12. 21 is way too much.

I personally would like to recommend that we cap it at either 12 or 15. This would allow 3 a row for 4 to 5 rows. This should be more than adequate. I understand that everyone has a favorite celebrity or famous Italian-American they want to include, but there has to be a cut off.

Right now, this is who we have, and I've broken it down by category so we can more clearly see what needs cleaning up:

Entertainment: Madonna, Robert DeNiro, Francis Ford Coppola, Ray Romano, Frank Sinatra, Jay Leno, Jon Bon Jovi, Al Pacino, Kelly Ripa, Martin Scorsese, Chris Botti, Lady Gaga

Politics: Fiorello LaGuardia, Nancy Pelosi, Samuel Alito, Rudy Giuliani, William Paca (?)

Sports: Joe DiMaggio (baseball), Mark Calcavecchia (golf)

Science: Enrico Fermi (physics), Bruno Rossi (physics)

Its safe to say that there are WAY too many entertainers. I understand that some are musicians and some are actors, and some are directors, but this is still way too much.

It's a wonderful testament to the contribution that Italians have made to America that the list can keep going, but if the German page can keep it to 15, I think this one can too.

I'd really appreciate people making suggestions as to who they think should stay. As for my suggestions, if we keep it to 15, we can have a maximum of 5 categories:

Movies/TV: 2/3 Music:        2/3 Politics:     3/4 Sports:       3 Science/Business: 3

If we did this, Entertainment needs to be cut in half. Personally though I think it's fine to have 4 in politics, since we have one famous pioneering Italian politician (LaGuardia), two famous contemporary elected officials from each party (Giuliani and Pelosi) and one member of the judiciary (Alito). I really don't know if I agree with William Paca. First of all, I don't know if 99% of the population even know who he is (I'm a history buff and I only now learned of him) and secondly, if you check his Wikipedia page, it's not even 100% certain if he was of Italian descent. Even if he was, I think he's too obscure a figure. I understand the desire to include an Italian that was here from Revolutionary-era times, but I don't think that's the best choice and I'd nominate him to go since the field is so crowded as is.

I think we can do better for Sports, there are many more Italian-American athletes out there. And there has to be at least ONE businessman who people can accept. I had put up Lee Iacocca in the past because he was pretty notheworthy. There are definitely others out there if needed. Maybe Ghirardelli or Amodeo Giannini (founded what is now Bank of America)

Sorry this was so long, I just wanted to make this an intelligent contribution and I hope people get a chance to see this. --Reflexsilver86 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point. It is excessive to have 21 pictures. The best way of trimming down the list is to hold onto people who are of full Italian ancestry. You can take the pictures of Jon Bon Jovi (part Polish and Irish), Madonna (1/2), Kella Ripa (1/2) and Jay Leno (1/2) off the entertainment one. Also, how do we know William Paca is of Italian ancestry? There is no mentioning of this in his individual Wiki article so it'd seem out of place.

I would say it is appropriate to include Tommy Lasorda or Joe Torre for baseball and Dan Marino or Vince Lobardi since they are well known. Lee Iacocca would be appropriate too. It would also be appropriate to add Antonin Scalia to the politics area. Also, it is not appropriate to leave Enrico Fermi on there. His individual Wiki article even states him as Italian. Just because he worked on the Manhattan project doesn't make him American nor does it negate him from being Italian. Also, Bruno Rossi is a native Italian too. Since we know he became an Italian citizen though, it is understandable. I don't believe Calvaveccia is known enough to be left on there.

I believe 2 is appropriate for music (Sinatra/Botti) and 3 for Movies/TV (Coppola, Scorcese, Pacino). Ray Romano is much less known and shouldn't be on the same list as famous movie directors. Lady Gaga is also fairly knew to the entertainment industry and may come and go. I wouldn't leave her up. This is how it'd look:

Entertainment: Francis Ford Coppola, Frank Sinatra, Al Pacino, Martin Scorsese, Chris Botti

Politics: Fiorello LaGuardia, Nancy Pelosi, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Rudy Giuliani

Sports: Joe DiMaggio (baseball), Tommy Lasorda (baseball), Vince Lombardi (football)

Science: Bruno Rossi

Business: Lee Iacocca

This is a good list of 15 people. Tom97.106.177.128 (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A metropolitan legend ?
"after Italian unification, when the Savoy emptied the treasury of the southern Kingdom and moved the industries from the Naples region to the northwest of the country." These are too really strong statements, but they should also be demonstrated. Who were exactly those "Savoy" who materially emptied the southern coffers ? Where those neapolitan industries materially dismantled and moved towards north ? Why only the industries in the region of Naples and not other southern industries ? Cunibertus (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Italian Language
Modern Italian taught in the US and Italy is most definately not Tuscan Dialect. I learned a good deal of Tuscan when I was in Italy and at its worst it is impenetrable to a non tuscan. As I said Italian is "La lingua Toscana in Boca Romana" This is a common phrase for describing the derivation of Modern TV Italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lday (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

John Frusciante picture
Please, could someone change that old picture with a more recent one where he looks healthy? It's kinda painful to watch as he was a heroin addict back then...thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.163.70 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Italian American
Italian American is just what is referred to Italy or USA (origins e/o citizenship). So, according to me this article is not referred to Italian American people, but to Italian American people of the USA. The definition "An Italian American is an American of Italian ancestry" is only partial, so wrong. Of couse American citizens in Italy or people with American origins in Italy aren't so many such as the opposite... but they are Italian American true and lawful. In Italy very famous people as Mike Bongiorno or the Elkann family are definited Italian American! So Italian American are divided in "I.A. of the USA" and ""I.A. of Italy" and in respect of a right (full, encyclopedical) definition of Italian American we should consider all Italian American people, not just with an American point of view.--Pascar (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the wording can seem to be confusion. It sounds like a manipulation. The words Italian American can equal a citizen of both Italy and the US. There are very few people who hold both citizenships in comparison to Americans of Italian ancestry as a whole though. Also, you make a good point in that the same thing can be said of an American in Italy. Maybe they'd call that an American Italian or a translation in Italian though.

Of couse American citizens in Italy or people with American origins in Italy aren't so many such as the opposite

You'd be right on one point. But either wrong on the other. Or perhaps you already know what I'm talking about regarding that. I just don't want others to be confused though.

You're right that there are many more Americans of Italian origin rather than people in Italy with ties to the US. Even if you included our military bases there.

However, there are probably more citizens of the US living in Italy rather Italian citizens living in the US. And that doesn't even count the military sites (which are technically our soil). It should be noted though that some people do get married to locals and wind up getting local work.

The US has ~310 million. Italy has ~60 million. Although I'm doubtful there may even be Italian citizens proportionally in the US (because our countries have similar wealth and standards of living), it'd hardly compare to the 5X+ ratio of population we'd have.

In reality though, the numbers of Americans in Italy (not military bases) and Italians in the US are very low altogether. I'd be suprised if there were one million added together. Tom65.32.185.72 (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)