Talk:Italy/Archive 5

Economy section rationalization
The section is actually quite a mess, I tried to fix it in the following way (trying to highlight weak and strong points in an organic way), what do you think?--Conte di Cavour (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)



Italy has a capitalist economy with high gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and developed infrastructure. According to the International Monetary Fund, in 2009 Italy was the seventh-largest economy in the world and the fourth-largest in Europe. Italy is member of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations, the European Union and the OECD.

In the post-war period, Italy was transformed from a weak, agricultural based economy which had been severely affected by the consequences of World War II, into one of the world's most industrialized nations, and a leading country in world trade and exports. According to the World Bank, Italy has high levels of freedom for investments, business and trade. Italy is a developed country, and, according to The Economist, has the world's 8th highest quality of life. The country enjoys a very high standard of living. According to the last Eurostat data, Italian per capita GDP at purchasing power parity remains approximately equal to the EU average, while the unemployment rate (8.5%) stands as one of the EU's lowest. Italy owns the world's 4th largest gold reserve. The country is also well-known for its influential and innovative business economic sector, an industrious and competitive agricultural sector (Italy is the world's largest wine producer ), and for its creative and high-quality automobile, industrial, appliance and fashion design.



Despite these important achievements, the country's economy today suffers from many and relevant problems. After a strong GDP growth of 5-6% per year from the 1950s to the early 1970s, and a progressive slowdown in the 1980s and 1990s, the last decade's average annual growth rates poorly performed at 1.23% in comparison to an average EU annual growth rate of 2.28%. The stagnation in economic growth, and the political efforts to revive it with massive government spending from the 1980s onwards, eventually produced a severe rise in public debt. In 2010, the EU's statistics body Eurostat published that Italian public debt standed at 116% of GDP, ranking as the second biggest debt ratio after Greece (with 126.8%). However, the biggest chunk of Italian public debt is owned by national subjects, that is a major difference between Italy and Greece. In addition, Italian living standards have a considerable north-south divide. The average GDP per capita in Northern Italy exceeds by far the EU average, whilst some regions and provinces in Southern Italy are dramatically below. Italy has often been referred the sick man of Europe, characterised by economic stagnation, political instability and problems in pursuing reform programs.



More specifically, Italy suffers from structural weaknesses due to its geographical conformation and the lack of raw materials and energy resources: in 2006 the country imported more than 86% of its total energy consumption (99.7% of the solid fuels, 92.5% of oil, 91.2% of natural gas and 15% of electricity). The Italian economy is weakened by the lack of infrastructure development, market reforms and research investment, and also high public deficit. In the Index of Economic Freedom 2008, the country ranked 64th in the world and 29th in Europe, the lowest rating in the Eurozone. Italy still receives development assistance from the European Union every year. Between 2000 and 2006, Italy received €27.4 billion from the EU. The country has an inefficient state bureaucracy, low property rights protection and high levels of corruption, heavy taxation and public spending that accounts for about half of the national GDP. In addition, the most recent data show that Italy's spending in R&D in 2006 was equal to 1.14% of GDP, below the EU average of 1.84% and the Lisbon Strategy target of devoting 3% of GDP to research and development activities. Organized crime is a contributing factor in Italy's economic weakness. The Mafia directly controls 14.6% of Italy's GDP, and exerts influence over 13 million Italians. However, at 0.013 per 1,000 people, Italy has only the 47th highest murder rate and only the 43th highest number of rapes per 1,000 people in the world. In the latest Corruption Perception Index 2010, Italy is ranked the most corrupt among Western European countries.

At the way you stated, need many fixings. It's harmful to the NPOV. I will explain. The Mafia did not controll 15%. The Mafia receipts can reach 9% of the GDP. The Mafia did not control 13 M. italians. That's the number of people coexisting with Mafia (living in cities with strong influence of the Mafia). Other poin that hurts the impartiality is "Italy is often considered Sick man of Europe". See→http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bill_emmott/article7112208.ece This term was used for the Ottoman Empire in the begin. of 1900, and should not be used nowadays. See my opinion above, on "Crime". The "Economy" section needs a real impartial approach. GustoBLSJP (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Some parts needs reworking, as I did before. The part about Murders and Rapes belongs to "Demographics", and it's already there (I insert), with the ranking/number of countries, to be impartial.

The citation "The Italian economy is weakened by the lack of infrastructure development, market reforms and research investment, and also high public deficit." and "Despite these important achievements, the country's economy today suffers from many and relevant problems. After a strong GDP growth of 5-6% per year from the 1950s to the early (...)" are basically the same. One of the 2 should be deleted. I suggest the "The Italian economy is weakened by the lack of infrastructure development, market reforms and research investment, and also high public deficit."

I had made the edits with clear sources. I'm not trying to "dissimulate" or "make up" the section. When i edit, i kept the citations about Mafia, infrastructure problems, low economic growth, because it has good sources and because is important to be stated. GustoBLSJP (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nooo look, the point is not the % of mafia or other specific data, I didn't put that number, if you have a better source it's very ok...the point (for me) is the general structure of the section that WAS very chaotic and full of repetitions! I tried to fix it, and added your sources on organized crime as well. Anyway please stop doing too many edits without discussing, you have deleted a lot of parts just because you didn't agree with them, but in case of sourced statements you simply can't do it. At least, you should discuss before.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What you present here and add there was an older version of the session, the session before reformulation, that shows many violations to rules of the WP. The way proposed violates: Neutral POV, Partiality, Controversial text, grammar, syntax. The article doesn't belong to anyone, not for you nor for me. It's free to be improved, and that's what i try to do. If i saw discrepancy on the text, i will fix it.

Rationalize the text is adding impartiality and cleanness to it, and this was not shown in the proposition.

GustoBLSJP (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your idea, Conte di Cavour? We can improve the article. The compressing (compacting) of the data and the neutralization (cut the actions from "haters" and insert impartial information) is really necessary. The information about the "Corruption Perception Index" falls better on the "Politics" or in "Economy"? In my country, Brazil, the corruption is heavily concentrated on the Politics, not in the Economy.

We can upgrade this article.

GustoBLSJP (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Listen, I'm Italian myself, so since you're Brazilian, please don't say that the article violates the neutrality, because it's absolutely not true; it is neutral to highlight the many problems and weakness points of my country (and all the problems highlighted here are, sadly but truly, real) along with its strong points (that are many and well shown here). The article, that has been written since many years with the contributions of many, is accomplishing this task. So stop deleting parts just because you don't agree. We can keep your parts about organized crime, because they were well referenced, but you can't delete other parts that are well referenced as well. It is vandalism. And if you complain about the article's grammar and syntax....well, sure it is not perfect, but please, before criticizing the work of many other people, with all due respect, maybe you should firstly check your level of English, that isn't actually very high, as Brutal Deluxe already pointed out.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You are accusing me directly. Did you see the last portion of the "Economy" section? Now is all disorganized, without punctuation and paragraphs (I did not see the last edits list). You can't say that i hurt the neutrality or partiality anytime. The "rationalization" became irrational.

I'm ashamed.

GustoBLSJP (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism when you present reliable sources (see my actions here and on the list of editions). But, let it be. Probably, in a near future, i'll ask a moderator to insert "Cleanup section" or "POV" as templates on "Economy". GustoBLSJP (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

History part too long
The history part, especially Middle Ages, is clearly too long. I tried many times to summarize it, but every time someone complains about some vital detail and here we go again. I think it really needs to be cut. Ideas?--Conte di Cavour (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Italy is an extremely old region. It may be necessary to keep it at the present length. The dedicated History of Italy section is also much longer so there isn't much chance at moving the information over. 08OceanBeach S.D.  00:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the Middle Age part could be summarized without deleting important informations, don't you think so?--Conte di Cavour (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Upon reading it, it would seem that Middle Ages section could be summarized to an extent, though it already seems short and full of information. Perhaps it would be better for you to draft a summary in your sandbox and propose it here. 08OceanBeach S.D.  20:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On "Corporations"
This citation does not have a reference:

"Italy has a smaller number of global multinational corporations than other economies of comparable size, but there is a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, and in the Northern "industrial triangle" (Milan-Turin-Genoa) or the Tuscan industrial triangle (Florence-Prato-Pistoia), where there is an area of intense industrial and machinery production, notably in their several industrial districts, which were for long the backbone of the Italian industry."

The part "which were for long the backbone of the Italian industry" is at Present form, "which is the backbone of the Italian industry", on "Economy of Italy".

I suggest the inclusion of a citation about the Po Valley (Pianura Padana) and the economic activity in other major centers, as Firenze, Rome, Naples and Palermo. Sources are plentiful on the web.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs a citation, as it isn't controversial and is, really, common knowledge to those that know enough about the subject. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

On No original research: The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

It needs sources.

Those unfamiliar with the subject will need the reference.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As you wrote, "Sources are plentiful on the web", so I'll leave it to you to sort out this non existent problem. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the suggestion was made. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be inconvenient, citing the Wikipedia rules, but I had some insertions deleted or reverted. Without a reliable source, it will be challenged by somebody.

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Senate of the Republic
In the "Governement" section, can someone please correct the statement

"the Senate of the Republic (that meets in Palazzo Marino)"

in

"the Senate of the Republic (that meets in Palazzo Madama)"

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.184.86.90 (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, done! --Conte di Cavour (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

italian name
the official name of the italian state is ITALIA, like the first article of the italain bill fo right "costituzione" that it sings:" L'ITALIA è UNA REPUBBLICA...", "THE 'ITALIA' IS A REPUBLIC"; and it does not say "THE 'REPUBBLICA ITALIANA' IS A REPUBLIC"... OK? DO YOU UNDERSTAND? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.137.150 (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Environment - nuclear
This section should be updated following the 2011 referendum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricciov (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011
Bmoq (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This template is too specific for this article. — Bility (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Error in label for population graph in 'Demographics'
Currently, the graph label for population is 'Population 1861–2008. Number of inhabitants in thousands.' However, the graph axis is clearly *not* in thousands (I'm pretty sure Italy doesn't have 62 billion inhabitants!). This needs to be fixed, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.177.85 (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

court of cassation
Cassation isn't an English word so it needs to be translated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cassation --Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Error

 * Italy i/ˈɪtəli/ (Italian: Italia [iˈtaːlja]), officially the Italian Republic (Italian: Repubblica italiana[note 1]), is a unitary parliamentary republic in southern [Europe]]

There is a missing bracket. [Europe]] --> Europe. Please, correct. --Simo94 / discuss 17:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why no special section on racism, xenophobia in Italy?
I was wondering why there's no special section on racism and anti-immigration in Italy, especially in light of the violent attacks against immigrants in the past few years, and the recent decision by the Italian government to close all soccer matches to the public due to the enormous level of racism exhibited during soccer matches. I only bring this up because wiki writers seem to believe it's important to mention racism on issues regarding the United States, each of the 50 states, the thousands of US cities, and anything pertaining to US culture. Certainly Italy, and every nation in the world for that matter, deserves equal treatment. Racism in Italy is a huge problem, and I believe there should be a section in this article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSmario (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Image requested
There a number of requests for photographs in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Italy, many created via a bot and quite a few actually now have an image in the article. Due to the number it is difficult to run Free Image Search Tool and Image checker on the list so I have started to move the requests into regions of Italy. Would be good if people could start to work on these lists; for example Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Sicily. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination?
Any glaringly obvious reasons why this article shouldn't be nominated for GA status? Connolly15 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot! There is a giant work to be done here, before the article can reach a satisfactory quality. Alex2006 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you name a few so maybe I could make a start? It might be helpful to nominate it anyway to get specific suggestions on how it can be improved. I don't think it's particularly far off GA requirements, it's definitely not a "quick fail". Connolly15 (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I find above all the History and Culture section poor, with a lot of errors and "holes". I am trying to clean up the former, but I have not much time for it right now. Anyway, I think that your idea is good! Ciao, Alex2006 (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The very little I know of GA tells me it can be a tough process, and I agree with Alex that there's much to be done. But I don't think that should be a discouragement. Certainly, 'Italy' would be an excellent topic for GA (and, subsequently, FA too perhaps). One thing that strikes me straight off is the citation gaps: the Middle Ages seem particularly bare, and the subarticle cites only The Penguin History of Europe. So I guess an important step would be to work out what's really needed where. Just 2 old lira, — MistyMorn (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on this discussion I've nominated the article for a Peer Review rather than Good Article, so that we can hopefully get a list of things to try to improve in the article. I would agree that citations are a bit light in places. I'd also like a sense from a third party editor of how he or she thinks the article could be improved further as well. Connolly15 (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good reasoning, imo. Maybe Tim riley, for instance, could provide some helpful tips, if he can find a little time for ol' Italia... — MistyMorn (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. About citation, this is not a problem. Alex2006 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

== I can not believe under the Fascist period section there is not a word about the Province of Ljubljana, the Rab concentration camp, and the Gonars concentration camp ==

Haven't you begun to recover from the Cold war-induced amnesia (caused by the British Cold war policy and/or repression of the collective memory of Italian war crimes, yet? See Effie G. H. Pedaliu (2004) Britain and the 'Hand-over' of Italian War Criminals to Yugoslavia, 1945-48. Journal of Contemporary History. Vol. 39, No. 4, Special Issue: Collective Memory, pp. 503-529 (JStor.org preview) DancingPhilosopher my talk 13:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Official name
Both the Italian name given on this page and on the corresponding article on Italian Wikipedia are Repubblica Italiana. Directly translated into English this is "Italian Republic". Otherwise the name would be Repubblica d'Italia. The name of the Republic of Ireland is given on Italian Wikipedia as Repubblica d'Irlanda and not Repubblica irlandese.

The source given for the change of name dates from 2003 but does not appear to have been put into effect. The Lisbon Treaty which was signed in 2007 lists the countries to which it applies as follows:


 * "...the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the

Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia..." (emphasis added)

Article 7 of the same treaty:


 * "This Treaty, referred to as the Treaty of Lisbon, drawn up in a single original in the Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish languages, the texts in each of these languages being equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the Italian Republic, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the governments of the other signatory States." (emphasis added)

The name "Italian republic" is clearly still used by the Italian government. The CIA, the US State Department BBC give "Italian republic" as the long title.

At the least we should use both versions.—Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The name "Republic of Italy" is not the correct translation since in Italian it would be translated as "Repubblica d'Italia" and this as no official status, nor it is commonly used. The correct English translation of "Repubblica italiana" is, therefore, "Italian Republic". Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What is Italy?
Hallo

I noticed that in many articles in Wikipedia is used the expression "XXX, in what is now Italy" (where XXX stands for a state ,or city, in the past). Now, it should be clear to everyone, that "Italy" is (as Metternich stated in the early nineteenth century) FIRST OF ALL a geographic expression, which denotes the peninsula bearing the same name. This use began with the Romans, at the end of the first century BCE, and continued until now (if someone is not convinced about that, he/she could take for example the Comedy of Dante (written about in 1300) and count how many times it is used there the word "Italy" there). The proper name of the state which we call "Italy" is "Italian Republic", which - as everyone knows - does not coincides 100% with the Italian peninsula. I have nothing against linking "Italy" to "Italian republic" in Wikipedia, but please refrain from expressions as above, which are senseless. Alex2006 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2012 (CUT)
 * Yes, Italy is an old, offhand expression for a rough geographic area. Just like Spain, or Germany. They've been used as a manner of speech long before the existence of countries with those names. But those are the names the countries chose to be known by, and are popularly known by. If you're hoping to persuade all the schoolchildren of the world to start calling it something else, I am not sure you're going to have much luck. Walrasiad (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2012 (CUT)
 * You did not get my point, I think that I did not explained myself well. I am saying that the expression "the republic of Florence, in what is now Italy" is wrong, since Italy is a geographic concept which exists since 2 thousand years. I just finished to reread a book of Massimo Pallottino about pre-roman Italy, whose tile is "History of early Italy", not "History of early what-now-is-know-as-Italy". This is not the case with Germany and Spain, which have never been clearly defined geographic concepts. Alex2006 (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2012 (CUT)
 * The Republic of Florence is definitely not in modern-day Italy - it no longer exists. But the city of Florence does and is. Your very own argument goes against your proposal. You yourself propose to erroneously allow "Italy" to be linked to the "Italian Republic", and not to the "Italian peninsula" article. As a result, it actually becomes essential to say "modern-day Italy" to ensure people realize you're not referring to geographic Italy, but to the specific modern country. And to say "Florence is in modern-day Italy" is a message to the schoolchildren of the world that the city of Florence is today within the boundaries of the Italian republic.
 * I understand your poetic point. I write a lot of historical articles, and read & use Italy, Spain & Germany a lot in an offhand manner. But I know I mean it only geographically. When I say the Bishop of Salzburg was the most powerful bishop in "Germany" during the 12th C., I mean the geographic area, not the modern country (Salzburg isn't within the modern country). When I say Ulm is in "modern-day Germany", I specifically mean the Bundesrepublik, not the geographic area. Similarly, when I say the "Almoravid invaded Spain", I mean Spain as the geographic area (that includes Portugal). If I say "They set up their headquarters in Badajoz, in modern-day Spain", I means specifically that Badajoz is within the boundaries of the modern Kingdom of Juan Carlos, and not Portugal. Walrasiad (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2012 (CUT)
 * I understand your point (although the examples are wrong: I would have said "Almoravids invaded the Iberian peninsula", not Spain, and Salzburg was in the roman-German Empire in the middle ages, but not in Germany). Anyway, what is important for me is that "the schoolchildren of the world" (except the Italian, which have clear ideas about this concept, at least I hope so :-) ), don't get the false impression that "Italy" is a word only related to a country which is a couple of hundred years old, as the U.S.. Italy has been existing - geographically and culturally - for many centuries before the birth of the Italian state, and hopefully will exist also after the end of this. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But we do agree, that there might be cases, where a more cautious wording is appropriate? For instance, are Gorizia or Alassio part of the geographic area Italy? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends. The rough (very rough) geographical usage was the ultramontane one - if you had to cross a mountain range, you're in Italy. I've researched the Counts of Goerz before, and it was pretty common to see them referred to as "German counts in Italy" (from their perspective, as their home dominions were in lower Bavaria, Goerz was their "Italian branch"). But that's looking over the mountains from Germany. But from the perspective of the Medieval poets of the Po valley, Gorizia is out there somewhere in never-never land, i.e. the geography is not precise, it is a manner of speech, depending on context and from who's perspective. Walrasiad (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dante puts the northern border of Italy "sopra Tiralli" (Castel Tirolo, near Bozen). I have a beautiful book of 1848, "Geografia dell'Italia", where Gorizia is considered part of Italy (as well as Ticino - l'Italia svizzera - Corsica and Malta), but of course in that time there was also Irredentism at work :-) Anyway, the geographic definition of Italy is the peninsula + all what lies southern of the main Alps ridge. That's the reason why we got South Tyrol in 1919 :-)) Alex2006 (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm safe to say that there have been various and quite differing concepts of the geographic area Italy over time. A cautious wording, which acknowledges possible anachronistic misunderstandings, is by no means a flaw. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Gorizia is now part of Italy.One of the smallest provinces, on the border with Slovenia.Its capture (french would call it rattachement) costed perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties in World War I.Nova Gorica is instead the slovenian part of the city, divided by barbed wire until recently.

Hello, in the "Prehistory and antiquity" section it says "In a slow decline since the late 2th century AD" and should read "In a slow decline since the late 2nd century AD" my account won't let me edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.110.154 (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! Alex2006 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2012
link missing for Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome) on 

Gubp (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopia was not a colony
claim that ethiopia was an italian colony was corrrected the souzrce doesn't state that at all ethiopia was occupied IN PART for 5 years but this doesn't meet the criteria of a colony

the source was misrepresented!!! Mnlk (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The colonisation of Ethiopia by Italy is a notorious historical fact. The source confirms this. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref 135 is broken
Sorry, but in such big articles it's too hard to understand how to edit references. Can someone take care of it? Thanks. Walkabout86 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The oldest bank in the world requesting help
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The oldest bank in the world, Banca Monte Paschi di Siena in Italy asked for the first time in its history of state aid of EUR 2 billion to finance its despair. The bank is founded 1472nd years and is the third force in Italy. 93.137.42.0 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WEO

Western European Union is now EU by Lisbon Treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.78.236 (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is most useful in listing the organizations that Italy is a part of as these organizations will aid immensely in understanding the mindset of the Italian government when making decisions involved with trade and international relations as a whole. What the article is weakest in would be lack of cultural identity. It explains the general thought process of the government by simply stating which organizations Italy has become involved in but lacks the view of the Italian people and thus lacks the possibility of a greater understanding of the Italian trade industry, specifically their goals as a people. The article includes some very brief history on significant events such as the deployment of 2,000 troops into Afghanistan to support the OEF, which is current and useful in terms of foreign relations, but does not delve into the meat of the Italian international relations topic but rather skims the surface. The article is both short and superficial in coverage but would be a good start to any foreign relations based research for Italy if subtopic was being thought over. The article in question, overall, lacks the perspective of Italy as it does not defend any foreign relations move on Italy's part nor does it generally explain each membership or decision.

Adding templates
Add the template,  ,  ,  ,. Mormegil 87.18.29.160 (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Immigration: ethnic group vs citizenship of foreigners

 * Not all Romanians in Italy belong to the Romanian ethnic group (i.e. Roma and Hungarians). On the other side several migrants from other countries belong to the Romanian ethnic group (mostly from Moldavia and Ukraine).--Deguef (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions
I read the article over a couple of weeks. I think it's fairly well-written but it could be expanded. However, some comments need to be done.

1. "Italy has a free market economy characterized by high per capita GDP and low unemployment rates."

The GDP is a completely useless way to measure the wealth of people, at least not in Italy. In fact, most people in Italy have a monthly income that is well below $3000 per month.

The low unemployment rate is generic and inaccurate.

Unemployment in Italy is a serious problem and it's not at all low.

2. "Italian living standards have a considerable north-south divide"

It should probably be added that this is a result of historical, cultural and political reasons. Needless to say, it is also due to the attitude, corruption and the political orientation at a regional level.

3. "Italy has numerous dialects spoken all over the country and some Italians cannot speak Italian at all."

It should probably pointed out that there are not only dialects but also languages and I'm not talking only about German, Slovenian or French. Piedmont alone has 6 languages that are not Italian or dialects of Italian.

4. "Standardisation was further expanded in the 1950s and 1960s thanks to economic growth and the rise of mass media and television"

However, local use of words/expressions, inflection or phonetics are extremely different across the entire country and within regions.

5. In the "Religion" section, the third paragraph is somewhat redundant with the first paragraph.

6. Nobody uses "scuola secondaria di primo grado" or "scuola secondaria di secondo grado" but rather universally "scuola media" and "scuola superiore".

7. I probably wouldn't list Fra Angelico among Michelangelo, Leonardo or Raphael. He is dissonant among the list of geniuses in the "Visual art" section.

8. It's shocking and ridiculous to realize that Mina is listed with Bocelli, Pausini and Ramazzotti as notable musicians. Aside from the first being a legend of the 60s (long time ago), the last three are just a product of marketing. They certainly recorded nice songs but they are no match for true Italian legends like Lucio Battisti, Pooh or Claudio Baglioni.

9. It should probably be pointed out that cinema in Italy was born in Turin.

10. Italy is one of the most corrupted and bureaucratic countries in the world. I'm surprised no section is dedicated to point out that Italians live under the rule of a bunch of politicians who suppresses and controls them psychologically and economically, either through the law system or the medias. The result is an inefficient system where privileges are given to those who work for different branches of the government. Taxation is high, unfair, unbalanced and tax evasion is also very pronounced. The health system is public but inefficient. It should also be pointed out that relocation is very limited throughout the country and that education does not make much of a difference when it comes to career progression or in terms of salary. The wide linguistic diversity is also not mentioned but it really should, possibly with a map of languages (several can be found here: ). It should be explained that people tend to keep one job or a few jobs for the rest of their lives and transitioning from a field to another is practically unheard of. It should be mentioned that the political system revolves around two or three coalitions of parties that win and lose elections alternately without delivering any tangible benefit to the citizens. The article does not mention the euro and the decline in standard of living that the currency brought to Italians since 2002. Investment in technology is rather limited and so is the ability of Italians to start and run successful businesses because the fiscal and bureaucratic system generates countless obstacles that either multiply risks or prevent and limit possibilities.

ICE77 (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 11. "Italy has numerous dialects spoken all over the country and some Italians cannot speak Italian at all."
 * Wrong citation and wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMManuel (talk • contribs) 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, ICE77. However, there are a few things I would like to point out.
 * 1.It is your opinion that GDP is a useless metric. Many people disagree with you. As a result, GDP is a standard figure in country articles, which would be considered incomplete without them. This isn't really the place to debate on how best to quantify a nation's wealth. As you said, "low unemployment" is a generic term. It depends on your perspective. That said, the economic crises has had a noticeable effect. If you think "low unemployment" is inaccurate, find WP:RSes that say otherwise.
 * 2.Everything that happens to a country is a result of historical, cultural and political reasons, but non-vague and cited facts are required for encyclopaedic articles.
 * 3, 4.This is more the scope of Languages of Italy. Italy is the main article; it only provides an overview and attempts to be brief.
 * 5.What do you mean? They look all right to me.
 * 6, 7, 8, 10.Again, citations. Some of what you are saying here can be argued, but it does not matter what any of us editors "know". All that matters is what the reliable sources say.
 * — Sowlos 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm italian and i totally agree with ice77. Everything he wrote is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.239.49.23 (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 May 2013
Hi I would like add my link to your external links Italy- Sicily - pictures

Krisk79 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Why? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Defining Italy
Could the pro-European Union Wikipedia editors calm down a little bit? The European Union is NOT a country; it's just an organization. A country or sovereign state usually has all its member states use the same currency. The United Kingdom has opted out from using the euro, and chances are it will withdraw from that organization soon or later. You can't just define Italy as a "republic within the European Union," though you may explain later that the country is a member of this organization. Therefore I'm changing the definition to "a republic in Southern Europe." --Nosugarcoating (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose to your edit. This is your private opinion. We know, EU is not country (anywhere in Wikipedia does not say that this is country) and this is not "just" organization. EU is a'la supranational entity, similarly to federation, operates on the similarly principle as the country. Topic about UK and euro is not related to this because EU is not country. Could the anty-European Union Wikipedia editors (including you) calm down a little bit? Subtropical-man (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So, you have decided to stalk me by following all my edits. I won't even say anything as I know you're just looking for trouble. Meanwhile, I have to leave this message just in case: (I'm using the UK relevantly as an example because it is also a member of the EU) the UK is a country that is a member of the EU, however the UK isn't defined as "a republic within the European Union." Uniform style is a known style of Wikipedia. It's enough that it is explained later that the countries are members of the EU, but you can't just start the first sentence of the definition as "a republic within the European Union." I also believe the recent Oxford dictionary definition of each European country is accurate (which doesn't say they are republics within the European Union). The EU is also not a federation, no matter how close it looks like or you wish it to be. Have a nice day. Stay away from trouble. It seems I need to inspect all articles that mention the EU to make sure things are presented accurately so as to not deceive the readers. Nice to meet you. I'm a citizen of United Nations confederation. Ha! No, I'm a citizen of the United States, a real federation, a real country with all states using the same currency, and a real superpower :) --Nosugarcoating (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to word it better something like - is a unitary parliamentary republic in Southern Europe and a founding member state of the European Union. ????? -- Moxy (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nosugarcoating, do you know what a republic is? From your comments you don't appear to! Anyway, it is perfectly acceptable to describe Italy as a republic within the European Union, because that is what it is. Italy's political status is defined by both Italy and the EU. May I also remind you that the British Empire and the USSR were both Superpowers in their time, and - like the European Union - were a collection/union of countries! Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ with Moxy. The EU is (at least) a confederation, being a member is extremely relevant. --Felisopus (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This same adit in Talk:France. Again: Nosugarcoating wrote: "can't just start the first sentence...", no, you wrong, one can. United Nations is organisation, mode of action is very different from USA or EU. Nosugarcoating wrote: " I'm a citizen of the United States, a real federation, a real country with all states using the same currency, and a real superpower" - I guessed, had to be a reason for this anti-EU behavior. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is perfect to define Italy the way it's been defined by reputable dictionaries. It's perfect that within the article there's a description that Italy is a founding member of the EU. The article is very okay the way it currently is. Oh and, even though I'm American, I support the EU. I have British relatives in Europe. The UK has its own monarch, so that disqualifies EU's status as confederation or federation. The British Empire had only one emperor or monarch, and none of the member countries had its own separate monarch. The USSR had one centralized Head of Government, and all the member countries adopted and used the same Soviet currency. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "The UK has its own monarch, so that disqualifies EU's status as confederation or federation" - no, does not disqualify. You have very little knowledge of political science. It does not matter. A federation is a political entity characterized by a union of self-governing states. Simple. Your text about British Empire and USSR is littering discussion. You still repeating the same nonsense. Status of UK anyone not interested here. Currency also does not matter: Ecuador, Panama and some other uses United States dollar, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican and some other (non EU states) uses Euro, after all, these are independent countries. Also, for example Gibraltar (part of United Kingdom) uses own currency but this is not independent country. Currency does not matter. European Union not have need to own currency, like as Ecuador, Panama, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican and very many other countries. Again, you have very little knowledge of political science, you need to have a basic knowledge of policies, if you want to further discuss. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nosugarcoating you said: "The British Empire had only one emperor or monarch, and none of the member countries had its own separate monarch." This is not true. Even under British rule, India had its own Princes and Royalty, so too did many of its other colonies. That is why the British Monarch was styled Emperor over some colonies and as King/Queen over others. In the early 1900s many British colonies maintained their own independent armed forces and governments. The British Empire is a perfect example of a superpower derived from a gathering of nations and peoples.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Prehistory
There's no mention about the nuragic civilization and of shardana in Sardinia. A very important part of the italian prehistory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.56.121.13 (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2013
Please change "Italy still receives development assistance from the European Union every year. Between 2000 and 2006, Italy received €27.4 billion from the EU.[111]" to "Italy is the third net contributor to European Budget in 2011 after Germany and France". References: "And despite its recent economic crisis did not receive any bailout program from the EU from any of its financial mechanisms (ESN) while providing its full support to these financial programs."

Giuseppe.di caro (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Alex2006 (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This sentence needs redoing
"Between the late 19th century and the early 1900s, The new Kingdom of Italy quickly industrialized and acquired a vast a colonial empire in Africa."

Presumably should be:

"Between the late 19th century and the early 1900s, the new Kingdom of Italy quickly industrialized and acquired a vast colonial empire in Africa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.198.108 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a redirection from Austrian_Empire to Italy?
When searching for Austrian Empire a choice is presented to Austrian_Empire(Italy) which directs to the page for Italy. This seems out of place. --Skater00 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

European Countries v. USA
Why is it that whenever wiki writers write articles about countries in Europe they read like travel brochures, whereas the article about the United States reads like one long winded political rant from a Soviet propaganda machine?

You are totally right.Not only you noticed all this propaganda.151.40.108.63 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Official name of the Italian state in English
This is a bit strange, but despite common sense, the Italian government [sent a letter to the UN ten years ago] clarifying that it preferred to be known in English as the "Republic of Italy" rather than the "Italian Republic." I have not found any more recent contrary authority, so it would appear that "Republic of Italy" remains the official name of the Italian state in English. It is true that Repubblica italiana ought to translate to "Italian Republic," and "Republic of Italy" more closely tracks Repubblica d'Italia (which is not the name of the Italian state in Italian), but since governmental decisions on the name of the state in a foreign language are essentially definitive, we should not have any problems making the move. Obviously, the name would have to be sourced; I would also recommend including a note within the ref to the effect "Officially; Repubblica italiana literally translates to "Italian Republic."" I would normally do this without asking, but since this is a rather prominent change about which some might get confused I felt it best to see if anyone had any serious objections. Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections, I'm making the change. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the official name: Italian constitution from the official site of the President of the Republic. A government has no authority to change the name and the constitution, moreover with a simple message to a foreign embassy. --Enok (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That may seem at first glance to be true. However, the only official name of the Republic is Repubblica italiana--the name in Italian. What the translation into English (or any other foreign language) is will always be unofficial, albeit one may be preferred by the government. As it is, we have two sources: one which expressly says "the way we like to translate Repubblica italiana into English is as "Republic of Italy," and another one that uses "Italian Republic" but doesn't say that it is preferred (despite being more logical). Considering that the "Republic of Italy" remains the official translation maintained at the United Nations, I see no reason why we should go against the government's preferred translation of the name. Again, and I must emphasize: We are not arguing about the official name of Italy; we are arguing about the preferred translation of the official name of Italy. Lockesdonkey (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to point that the English translation of the state name on all the Italian passports (an official document issued by the foreign minister) is "Italian Republic". Alex2006 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

2 things
Many people write articles or change articles without having idea.Ignorance is in Wikipedia too.What scares me is the acknowldege of controllers. Italy is member of the G7 and the G8 that you removed in the presentation like the word "main" that was before "middle power".Main middle powers can be Germany,Japan (that you even set as great powers),Italy,India ,Brazil or Canada.You can't compare these states to Thailandia or whatelese that is considered middle power.A lot of fantasy in this article.Greetings!!!151.40.7.192 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia english seems to like to hold a "low profile" of Italy  presentation (not only in this article but in other ones of international policy).In other states presentations at the beginning it's always cited if they are member of the G7 or the G8 or better both of them.Please cite them in presentation.In this page you set the main official images (the Italian President ,the Prime Minister,the Italian State symbol,the Anthem ,the Flag and so on) of this State and you must respect its ranking.Not respecting this isn't polite and even offensive.151.40.18.30 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems you forgot another time "main" before than "middle power" (you deleted it) and G7.You even cut other parts like golden reserves and other ones too.Italy compared to other states of its importance or weight in fact has a very small presentation about its today position. We checked other states similar to Italy.They are presented to Great Fanafare when the difference between them isn't so relevant. We remember you that Italy before the WWII was a great power and even now that Wikipedia considers Germany and Japan great powers could claim with Canada that status.Anyway your acting is disruptive vs Italy and not only in this article but in many articles of international policy and economy.May be not too many italian people wrote in Wikipedia english that's why partial articles.It seems you are "playing" in presenting Italy with its image and its Symbols.This isn't a good thing.Anyway when others write in a bad way of your country ,be sure they are afraid of the position or envious of your country,in this case of Italy.In Talk the "Edit request on 3 september" point is just a thing that testifies what we wrote.Even in that moment Italy image was presented in a "low profile".Sorry,but you aren't a trustble site in describing Italy and many other subjects in policy and economy.These are the presentation (at the beginning ) of some states like USA,Japan,Germany,France,UK,Canada,Spain.We could cite others too to show the difference in presenting Italy and these ones.It's really not polite and offensive.Italy has been cited even as the Sick man of Europe  and in  PIIGS  article.We can last with many examples where Italy is presented with a low profile or attacked. As all readers can see just below is considered an article type "C".It talks more than many words. 151.40.18.30 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Italy is the 9th economy on Earth as nominal GDP and the 4th in EU.Italy is member of the G7 (as you reported in the presentation of other states) and it owns the 6th largest net wealth in the world as developed country.It owns the 3rd largest golden reserve in the world too.It's a main middle power.Article in presentation is full of mistakes and lacks in many main things.In the USA article they would have been changed in 3 seconds like in other states articles (in this site many writers with fantasy names of CIA first of all and also similar ones of other countries that care to well present or boost their image(aka PROPAGANDA).Really a "C" article,the level of the same Wikipedia.When nobody answers somebody is guilty.The same fact that you changed the article after our suggests has shown that there was and still there is more than something wrong about it.This article like other ones will be checked and followed costantly for long time at every level. 151.40.108.63 (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This translation, if accurate, does not even come close to sourcing "main" middle power: "Italy is a major industrial power that needs to increase awareness of its role. It is a small country and has great potential for design and industrial growth to become one of the nations driving within Europe. Made in Italy is not a fairy tale but reality." Please provide references to historical analyses, geopolitical papers, etc. -- Neil N  talk to me  20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It lacks in article of ITALY presentation the G7 and the G8
This presentation of Italy  is ADEQUATE.It must be cited in the main beginning presentation (like for other states) that Italy is in the  G7  and the G8  .THe word MAIN before MIDDLE POWER was deleted with a vandalic act based on personal opinions.The level of the ranking of the State MUST be respected .It seems all invented by editors without respect for others.THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN CHANGED IN ITS PRESENTATION SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LAST DAYS:THIS IS NOT SERIOUS.YOU ARE REALLY PLAYING WITH SYMBOLS OF ITALY.That's no good.Thanks.Glc72 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am Italian yet I fail to understand what you want to convey. Can you provide diffs (and improve your English)? -- cyclopia speak! 14:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I answered in your Talk page)Here in Wikipedia not all are in good feith,correct and polite like you.Thanks).Glc72 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopia talking about me used the word wacky in his Talk page.I'm waiting for his explaining  about it.Glc72 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While i'm waiting for him (the patience will end),i'm waiting for changes in the article in the correct way too.Good dinner to everybody.Glc72 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any consensus for your changes (whatever they are as it's hard to tell with all the tangents and opinions) so you may be waiting for a long time. It may go faster if you present references backing up exactly what you want the article to say, instead of resorting to synthesis -- Neil N  talk to me  17:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm wrong, but I am afraid there's little to gain from discussing with this editor. -- cyclopia speak! 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You've to explain me the meaning of that "wacky "referred to my act.Patience of waiting will end.Glc72 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Geez. All this shouting and this to add G7 to the lead? Much more productive to say, "Italy is a member of the G7. Please add that to the list of organizations it belongs to in the intro." or do the edit yourself. -- Neil N  talk to me  20:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don' t like captatio benevolentiae,but i have to thank you because you acted in the correct way towards Italy and Wikipedia.About Cyclopia i'll try to forget that word.Glc72 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want people to do something, it's much better to be polite rather than shouting. Like: Please fix the reference you just added as it goes nowhere. -- Neil N  talk to me  20:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Was that way very good to say?I was new user.Was he welcoming?I know who are referring to.Who writes in those articles isn't the last wagon of the train here in Wikipedia.Those people are the same that opposed to add the article MAIN ,even if they know i'm right about main and great power.It's a childish behaviour that i like to study in the true sense of the word.Glc72 (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2013
Please change " Italy is also the fourth-largest economy on the European Union, third in the Eurozone and NINTH in the world" to " Italy is also the fourth-largest economy on the European Union, third in the Eurozone and EIGHTH in the world" bue cause the only exact list of countries by GDP is the one provided by the United Nations (in which Italy is classified eighth). The IMF and World Bank provide ESTIMATE lists. Infact all the pages about Italy in Wikipedia agree with this argument, the only one that classifies Italy as the Ninth economic power (instead of EIGHTH) is the english page.

2.226.248.132 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The UN figure is for 2011, whereas the others are for 2012. I am not sure enough to make this change (or to deny it). --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The IMF, World Bank and CIA World Factbook all concur on ninth. Unless you want to claim that they are all unreliable sources, then the outdated UN listing isn't superior. —  Reatlas  (talk)  03:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Middle power
Italy is a middle power too as reported in the article Middle power .It' must be written in its presentation.Too much fantasy in the article if you don't write it and use only the term regional power.To be a major regional power in Europe means at least to be a middle power of major importance in the world.Are you an real Encyclopedia ?If you don't know it you must to go to school.151.40.9.139 (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature-the-10-fastest-high-speed-trains-in-europe/feature-the-10-fastest-high-speed-trains-in-europe-1.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Italy GDPs
Italian GDPs must be updated according to the new estimates of IMF in April 2014 like in  USA   article and other main ones.Same criteria for all kinds of articles.The nominal italian GDP is 2,171 trillions $.It's ranked 8th and not 9th as reported.The italian nominal gdp per capita is 36216 $,the italian GDP PPP is 1,808 trillions $ and the GDP ppp per capita is 30803 $.This is valid for  Italy  and  Economy of Italy  articles.2,014 trillions $ was the nominal GDP in 2012 and not in 2013.The 2 articles have many  mistakes about GDP data .There's evidence that these 2 articles are dated compared to the other ones. 89.97.225.68 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing against updating the article with the new data, but - as I wrote you on your talk page - you should also update the source, and not leave the old one. Bye,

Alex2006 (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Italy article should be unlocked to post the new data.You can copy 2014 data them from List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal) .Thanks.89.97.225.68 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

89.97.225.68 is right,even in the EU  article people have updated data to 2014.Italy is ranked 8th as nominal GDP in 2014.Why not this in  Italy  too?79.35.184.74 (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Time to update Italian GDPs. The nominal one is 2,171trillions $ (8th ranked in the world) and the GDP PPP is 1,847 trillions $.Check IMF data of April 2014. Italy article is old about these economic numbers.79.49.188.222 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sport section update request

 * 1) Silver medals in basketball at the Olympics: 1980 and 2004.
 * 2) Fed Cup victories: 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2013.
 * 3) Olympic Medals: 549 at the Summer Olympics, 114 at the Winter Olympics, 663 total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.152.26 (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an article called Sport in Italy. That article will cover that in detail but you can add this to the sport section with rs. A Bartenders Vegs (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

ITALY is 8TH AS NOMINAL GDP in the presentation at the beginng of article.BIG MISTAKE!
Italy in 2014 was 8th and not 9th.See List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal) .Also in 2012 Italy was 8th as you can see in this list.ITALY is 8th as nominal gdp in 2012 and 2014.People  can choose which year to refer to.Why did you rank Italy 9th in 2012?Why all these mistakes?Gladio4772 (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Editors please take note on Gladio4772 is ip hoping hoping ip's and user names on this very topic on Russia's and Italy's GDP. While I want to talk about the GDP, we can't have one editor disrupting the discussion, this list is the contribution used by one editor.

I have reported this matter to the Administrators. The list of one ip is Gladio4772 July 22, 151.40.120.34 July 19, 2014 151.40.123.202 July 19, 2014, 151.40.117.74 July 17, 2014, 151.40.13.161, July 7, 2014 151.40.45.125, March 17, 2014 - 151.40.95.82, April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria, March 2014 - 151.40.24.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.24.9], March 2014 -151.40.7.192, Sept 23, 2013 - 151.40.18.30, Sept 15, 2013 - 151.40.55.125, March 18, 2014 - 151.40.35.236, March 18, 2014 - 151.40.9.149, March 17, 2014 - 151.40.72.141, March 16, 2014 - 151.40.14.179, March 16, 2014 - 151.40.83.17, March 15, 2014 - 151.40.69.199, March 15, 2014 - 151.40.34.218, March 15, 2014 - 151.40.120.19, Feb 4, 2014 - 151.40.63.30, Feb 4, 2014- 151.40.16.167, Dec 28, 2013 - 151.40.107.93, Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.27.25, Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.64.77, Dec 25, 2013 - 151.40.54.32, Dec 23, 2013 - 151.40.41.170, Dec 22, 2013 - 151.40.9.139, Sept 8, 2013 - 151.40.102.200, August 14, 2013 - 151.40.125.50, May 10, 2013 – Mediolanum, Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72, May 21, 2013 - 151.40.11.180, May 14, 2013 -151.40.59.151, May 14, 2013 - 151.40.60.108, May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria
 * Reporting Gladio4772 in for being a sock puppet on this discussion.--64.129.3.150 (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Italy as a great power
Lifeintechnicolors provides two sources for this assertion:
 * 1) NY Times: "...to smash the resistance of the two Great Powers of the Axis, Nazi Germany and Japan." - Nothing about Italy.
 * 2) A dissertation: "Thus, although he treats Austria-Hungary, Italy, and France at length, Kennedy is not clear as to whether or not they are Great Powers in the first half of the twentieth century. There is less confusion in the second half, but all is not clear. He refers to Germany, France, Japan, Italy, and Britain as those former Great Powers..."

There is no indication Italy is considered as a Great Power in recent history. -- Neil N  talk to me  19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Italy is at the TOP of world organizations, in G6, G7 uniting for consensus, the military forces are comparable with the ones of Germany and England. It's the third economic power in the Eurozone. Spain is a middle power not Italy!! I noticed a sort of italophobia in the english page of wikipedia. Anyhow it doesn't matter. Change "middle power" with "undeveloped country", if you feel SATISFIED. i AGREE with the user who wrote that here you are PLAYING with the symbols of italy underestimating its value on the basis of you PERSONAL opinions! Moreover, if there's a decline of Italy as a great power, it concerns also Germany, France and Great Britain.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeintechnicolors (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Lifeintechnicolors. On the contrary, it is your edit history and posts like yours above that constitutes "personal opinions". There are no reliable sources which refer to Italy as a Great Power, accept this fact and it will serve you well. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

First: another user, not me, put the definition of "great power" (with references)in the page about Italy. What make me angry is your aim to minimize italy or italians. You said "there are no reliable sources". Being part of G6 isn't a reliable source? Being leader of a world organization (Uniting for consensus) isn't a reliable source? Having the tenth nominal defence budget isn't a reliable source? I don't find reliable sources about France, or Britain being great powers (above all: what is a reliable source?). On the contrary, you described France and Great Britain as great powers, when our military forces are very similar, our economy is very similar (in 2009 Italy had a nominal GDP greater than Great Britain's), our population and territory are very similar!! So: Spain is a middle power not Italy (that is comparable with France or Great Britain)! Change the status of France or Britain as great powers. Untill that moment i will advice only italophobia in your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeintechnicolors (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding reliable sources, no, they're not. See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." By the way, your Great Power edits:, . -- Neil N  talk to me  13:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My great power edits aimed only to re-introduce the first edit about Italy as a great power (and it was another user NOT ME to put this definition in the page, with references). Anyway, Give me one "reliable" resource to demonstrate that Italy isn't a great power as well as Great Britain or France. I repeat this concept: it doesn't make difference, if you want you can change "leading middle power" (LEADING middle power doesn't make sense!!) with "undeveloped country", i'm trying only to show you how italophobic you are. Italy will be in G7 even if you think it's not an important country, you can change a wiki page not history :) bye Here you are a reliable source mentioning Italy as a power in the post-war history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeintechnicolors (talk • contribs) 15:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Because Italy is a member of the G7 or other international organisations, it doesn't make Italy a Great Power. Editing articles on the basis of international memberships, as well as claiming Italy is comparable to Britain, France or Germany constitutes original research. Furthermore, while Italy is indeed similar in size to Britain, France or Germany, such comparisons are purely arbitrary and cannot accurately portray a nations true influence, status or capabilities. In terms of reliable sources, a good example would be the book entitled Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power" (published 2012) by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (a political scientist, geo-strategist, and former US National Security Advisor). Zbigniew Brzezinski mentions the current Great Powers as China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This a both a reliable and an academic source. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

if Germany and Japan are great powers because of their economic status (on the military point of view Italy is better than them)Italy as developed country with the 5th largest national net wealth according to Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report October 2013 (After USA,Japan,France and Germany-the last 2 ones overtake Italy of very very small %)can be considered a great power in every sense.These posts for istance well support this https://www.ilgiornale.it litalia-grande-potenza-che-non-sa-esserlo.html https://www.eurasia-rivista.org italia-150-anni-di-una-piccola-grande-potenza .Not only the one cited ( Brzezinky that i admire) is a good academic or politician.We  must consider more high level points of view like the Parag Khanna and Tajani ones.Italy is really a great power at every level.Gladio4772 (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)