Talk:Italian Americans

A flurry of edits has occurred recently that I believe are very counterproductive to the integrity of the article. The stated motivation for the edits has been to shorten the article t o make it “more readable”. Readability is a very subjective criterion but, nevertheless, is being used as the criterion to justify the edits of concern (a few examples of which will be illustrated in detail below). The same editor has reverted all efforts to restore the original content, much of which have been in the article for years.

The first illustrative edit example occurred in the section, now labelled Integration into American Society. The original content is as follows:

A New York Times article from 1895 provides a glimpse into the status of Italian immigration at the turn of the century: Of the half million Italians that are in the United States, about 100,000 live in the city, and including those who live in Brooklyn, Jersey City, and the other suburbs the total number in the vicinity is estimated at about 160,000. After learning our ways they become good, industrious citizens.[64]

The New York Times in May 1896 sent its reporters to characterize the Little Italy/Mulberry neighborhood: They are laborers; toilers in all grades of manual work; they are artisans, they are junkmen, and here, too, dwell the rag pickers. . . . There is a monster colony of Italians who might be termed the commercial or shop keeping community of the Latins. Here are all sorts of stores, pensions, groceries, fruit emporiums, tailors, shoemakers, wine merchants, importers, musical instrument makers. . . . There are notaries, lawyers, doctors, apothecaries, undertakers. . . . There are more bankers among the Italians than among any other foreigners except the Germans in the city.[65]

This segment was first edited by removing the last sentence in the first part and deleting the second part in its entirety. After I restored this to its original form, all of the content was deleted by the same editor.

This information is extraordinarily valuable because it is based on actual observations made in the era of mass migration by journalists of the time. So, the natural question is: how does the removal of this information improve readability? Also, this edit reduced the size of the article by only a negligible amount.

A second set of edits, made today, in the section labelled World War II, removed a lot of what can be considered to be very important and useful information. As an example, one of the edits removed the following paragraph in its entirety:

The work of Enrico Fermi was crucial in developing the atom bomb. Fermi, a Nobel Prize laureate nuclear physicist, who immigrated to the United States from Italy in 1938, led a research team at the University of Chicago that achieved the world's first sustained nuclear chain reaction, which clearly demonstrated the feasibility of an atom bomb. Fermi later became a key member of the team at Los Alamos Laboratory that developed the first atom bomb. He was subsequently joined at Los Alamos by Emilio Segrè, one of his colleagues from Italy, who was also destined to receive the Nobel Prize in physics.

In its place, all of Fermi’s work and involvement in WWII was summarized in a single sentence:

The work of Enrico Fermi was crucial in developing the atom bomb.

This was one of the most important developments in WWII and the period leading up to it. Does it not merit the more expansive treatment? How does this improve readability? How much did this edit reduce article size?

Another major edit was made by an apparently new editor (the "1945" edit) that was extremely harmful to the integrity of the Italian American article. I reverted it but Nikkimaria had a different view, as expressed by "...not seeing any reason to revert". How did that "shortening" effort, which effectively eliminated 65 years of Italian American history, help the readability of the article?

To summarize, I believe the following to be true:

(a) Wikipedia provides guidelines for article size, but the matter is left to the editors (not an editor) to decide what the appropriate size is. There is no compelling argument for size reduction that would justify the wholesale removal of sourced and valuable information such as has occurred.

(b) All disputes by well-meaning editors should be resolved via Talk and, until the dispute is resolved, the article should remain in the state that existed prior to the dispute (status quo ante)

(c) Many of the disputed edits in question can be viewed as being very counterproductive to the value of the article; that is, less encyclopedic (which is a quality highly encouraged by Wikipedia)

Philantonia (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The section immediately above this one discusses the changes to the World War II section. While I appreciate you may not agree with the arguments made there, it does appear that at this point the consensus emerging is that those changes were productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the issue is much larger than just the WWII issue. The overall issue needs to be addressed in order to correct what I believe is inappropriate editing of the Italian American article. Please be so kind as to respond to my entire set of concerns. Also, there can never be a consensus that it is acceptable to remove sourced information, and that status quo ante can be ignored. Philantonia (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the general arguments you're putting forward here are generally inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nowhere is that more clear than in the claim that there can never be a consensus that it is acceptable to remove sourced information, and that status quo ante can be ignored; the opposite is true. See the policy WP:VNOT: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

For now I will just address the inclusion of the NY Times quote. The point of the second paragraph of the quote seems to be that Italian immigrants have a wide variety of jobs. That can be stated in a few words, as I have just done. It is completely unnecessary to include the full quote which uses over 100 words to list 19 examples of occupations. That's the point of using references: we summarize the source and provide a reference, so that readers who wish to can see the original source and read the details. The article was crammed full of this kind of unnecessary detail which Nikkimaria's recent work has cleaned up, to the great improvement of the article. CodeTalker (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, CodeTalker, the reversions were made by Nikkimaria and not by you. How would you know what Nikkimaria's motivation was for the reversion? I think it is very important to have Nikkimaris's comments on this. Second, to say that the deleted material was nothing more than a list of "19 examples of occupations" is a clear reflection of the extremely poor understanding you have of the importance of content. The two NY Times articles open a window of time that conveys a great deal of valuable information about the integration progress of Italian immigrants in the New York area during the period of mass immigration. It appears that you have not contributed much to the article, and yet you want to teach the rest of us who have been active for many years what content is important and what is not important. Philantonia (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

If you're solipsistic enough to resort to "it's impossible to deduce what anyone else means by any contribution", then what is the hope in an encyclopedia generally? We're trying to have patience for you, don't cut others off at the pass who are trying their best to establish a shared understanding of what's going on here and how site policy may apply. Remsense ‥ 论 05:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Alas, as you know Wikipedia runs on consensus, not your personal thrilling criteria for judging eighth graders. Your latest edit summary unfortunately just sent my interest in trying to engage with your nonsense to zero. Remsense ‥ 论 15:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been very specific in my discussions about the content that was removed. One prime example is given below, which in the original version is as follows:

In 1896, The New York Times sent its reporters to characterize the Little Italy/Mulberry neighborhood: They are laborers; toilers in all grades of manual work; they are artisans, they are junkmen, and here, too, dwell the rag pickers. . . . There is a monster colony of Italians who might be termed the commercial or shop keeping community of the Latins. Here are all sorts of stores, pensions, groceries, fruit emporiums, tailors, shoemakers, wine merchants, importers, musical instrument makers. . . . There are notaries, lawyers, doctors, apothecaries, undertakers. . . . There are more bankers among the Italians than among any other foreigners except the Germans in the city.[65]

I consider this information to be extraordinarily valuable because it is based on actual observations made in the era of mass migration by journalists of the time and reflects the progress being made by the Italian immigrants in that period.

The response to my concern regarding the deletion was as follows:

"For now, I will just address the inclusion of the NY Times quote. The point of the second paragraph of the quote seems to be that Italian immigrants have a wide variety of jobs. That can be stated in a few words, as I have just done. It is completely unnecessary to include"

That conveys an extraordinary lack of understanding of the significance of the content removed. Does the number of words trump meaningful content. I hope you can answer this question in a simple, convincing manner.

I realized that my "eighth-grade debate" comment was not very "Wikipedish", and I tried to delete in favor of "very unconvincing" but was unsuccessful in removing it.

I welcome open and substantive debate, but it seems like all that is being offered by you and the others is that size and readability trumps content; matter closed. These are both subjective measures and do not provide a convincing argument at all. I welcome having a genuine debate of the real issues and not on a meaningless rehash of how important size and readability are. Do you think you can do that and not take the position that "my interest in trying to engage with your nonsense to zero"? I look forward to hearing from you.Philantonia (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Your statement that the NY Times quote is "extraordinarily valuable" because it is a first person report seems to be arguing that a primary source is more valuable than a secondary source, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Most decisions about what content to include in Wikipedia are subjective. Each editor must weigh how the content aligns with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your arguments seem to me to be more subjective than the ones against it, as the latter have been based on guidelines and policies, while yours are based on your personal feelings that some information is so important that policies can be ignored in order to include it. It's hard to take seriously a statement that an argument based on actual numbers, the size of the article, is "subjective" and should be trumped by your personal opinion that a quote is "valuable". I would suggest that you try to make your arguments based in policy, as others have done.

Also, regarding "the reversions were made by Nikkimaria and not by you. How would you know what Nikkimaria's motivation was for the reversion? I think it is very important to have Nikkimaris's comments on this.", this seems entirely misguided. I did not make any statement about Nikkimaria's motivation. I'm simply looking at the changes that were made and noting that they improved the article. It's not necessary, and is generally improper, to demand that an editor explain their motivations for an edit. CodeTalker (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and not referring to me as solipsistic (ie., egocentric), as Remsense did.  In my profession that quality wouldn’t get me too far.  In reality, and with all due modesty, I am known worldwide for contributions made in my engineering field of specialization.  Engineering, as you no doubt know, is based strictly on objective thinking.  No one gets to make up their own rules without providing the supporting research.

If we go back to the debate analogy, this is what I believe applies to the present disagreement.  The first team consists of four people who use variants of exactly the same subjective argument:  It okay to remove sourced material if it advances “readability”, even though another editor makes a valid case for its retention.  Suppose that this argument is given by all four people on every round of the debate, hardly without variation.  Further suppose a second team, which consists of only one person, provides a rich variety of arguments on every round to illustrates the potential harm to the integrity of the article that can result, and has resulted, from indiscriminate editing. So, should the judges rule that the debate was won by the first team of four or the second team of one?  Does the echoing of one point of view constitute the basis of a debate win, or a “consensus” in the present situation?

I have posed the following question to a number of the participants on your team, and will repeat it again, specifically for you, as follows:  You have previously had very little involvement in the Italian American article; have shown little interest in promoting shortening of any other Wikipedia article; have been ultra-active and vociferous in the tag-removal issue, an also ultra-active and vociferous in supporting the edits being made in this article.  I was very perplexed about this, so I did a little bit of mathematical analysis and found that the probability of that happening randomly, for four independently acting people, is approximately 0.007%. Because I was quite conservative in my analysis, the real number is probably more like 0.00001%.  If you have a math background, you might want to do the same analysis.

To conclude, the concept that a consensus has been reached is ridiculous.     Philantonia (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an established corpus of rules, outlined in its policies and guidelines. In this debate, one "team" has made reference to these rules in supporting their point of view. The other "team" has not, and has in fact put forward arguments that are incompatible with these rules - for example, claiming that there can never be a consensus that it is acceptable to remove sourced information, when policy says the opposite. Such a circumstance would indeed form the basis for a consensus in favour of the first team's position. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria for sharing your thoughts. I believe your response is a perfect example of what your team was doing, and the only argument they advanced, in the illustrative debate analogy. My arguments of the past few weeks, on the other hand, were abundant, very detailed and addressed many issues that are relevant in challenging the edit.

As long as I have your attention, I will ask again: Why were you supportive of the "1945" edit that clearly was very harmful to the integrity of the Italian America article ("I'd support reinstating those edits - not seeing any reason to revert"). Your position on that specific edit says a lot about your thinking concerning the Italian America article, and I think a response is needed from you (and definitely not from a surrogate speaking on your behalf).

Also, if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, there is also a need to justify an edit that removes sourced information if another editor disagrees with the removal. This was clearly reflected in my debate analogy. Philantonia (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

My arguments of the past few weeks, on the other hand, were abundant, very detailed and addressed many issues that are relevant in challenging the edit. Your argumentation has certainly been lengthy, much like the article. But much like the article, length and quality are not correlated.

Why were you supportive of the "1945" edit that clearly was very harmful to the integrity of the Italian America article - because I do not agree with your characterization. In fact, that is broadly true of much of what you've said here, and I don't think continuing this will change that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

To not speak is to speak. You have spoken very clearly. I think a clear and substantive response to the "1945" question is very important and essential because it speaks to your objectivity and knowledge concerning the Italian American article which you appear to have such a high priority in editing. To simply say that you don't agree with my characterization ("very harmful to the integrity of the Italian American article") is clearly avoiding answering a question that an experienced editor like you should no difficulty with. Philantonia (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Your insinuation that there is something nefarious in four editors disagreeing with you is really unacceptable. If more editors join the discussion and also oppose your viewpoint, would you view that as evidence that you may be on the wrong side of the argument, or that your imagined conspiracy is even wider than you thought? Please read WP:AGF.

I first edited this article in June 2022 and since then it has been on my Watchlist, which is how I saw this discussion. I chose to participate in it because I saw the extremely poor arguments you were making and hoped to bring some clarity to the discussion. Your mathematical analysis is nonsense because the participation of editors is not random. I probably won't be participating further, because it's clear that you don't understand Wikipedia policies and have no interest in learning about them, so this kind of rambling argumentation based on subjective opinion without basis in policy is pointless. You might post to a Wikiproject or start an RFC if you want to get more editors involved, but I am quite confident that you won't get the result that you want. CodeTalker (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing nefarious about using a well proven "Operations Research" methodology, used in financial planning, military planning, resource monitoring, energy monitoring. etc., to test the assumption that the participants in this debate have been acting independently. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the probability is essentially zero. The empirical evidence also clearly suggests a lack of independence. I think your assessment that you were just a casual bystander that just happened upon this discussion was not expressed when I posed the following question, especially for you (but applies to everyone else in this discussion):

"I have posed the following question to a number of the participants on your team, and will repeat it again, specifically for you, as follows:  You have previously had very little involvement in the Italian American article; have shown little interest in promoting shortening of any other Wikipedia article; have been ultra-active and vociferous in the tag-removal issue, an also ultra-active and vociferous in supporting the edits being made in this article."

You didn't have a response then and your present response doesn't really provide a complete or comprehensive answer to the question. It's very hard for me to believe that the original condition of the Italian American article was so offensive to the esthetic sensibilities of those participating in the discussion that they would be expending such a great deal of energy promoting the concept that shortening of the Italian American article is an urgent matter.

I think this discussion has run out of steam and so I would like to suggest a reasonable compromise. I think having sub-articles that provide a more expansive treatment of the History of Italian Americans section would be a reasonable approach. The main article could then have less detail. I am not proficient in the mechanics of doing this, but if you would be willing to take this on, I would be happy to share my thoughts on doing this. Philantonia (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

the format groups all already existing images together, no adds or removals, and shortens the article's format with more focus on the text. the 'main article' cited at ' Period of Italian mass immigration (1880–1914)' deals with everything italian abroad since the middle ages, and thus not truly a specific extension of the article's section, i.e. either considering an expansion in the article or the creation of a main artclle fitting said topic. PS: "clutter" seems like a very superficial arguement for a public article. AlexF111 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

i think the following data ought to be incl. into the article; other parts of the article are indeed clutter, specially the repetitive parts. if removed the article gets shorter. AlexF111 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

What data are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

like data from the 1910 census, e.g. major hubs Boston's North End, San Francisco's North Beach or New York's East Harlem; which would pretty much be the zenith of mass migration, or subsequent stats of WW1, i.e. repatriations per draft (italy) in 1915-18 103,269 and corresponding american draft+volunteer of it. immigrants 1917-18 104,358; the implications thereof, i.e. citizenship upon discharge (USA); Thirteenth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1910, Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census; 1913 p.912-13, cf Google Books: 340,765 New York, 45,308 Philadelphia, 45,169 Chicago, 31,308 Boston and 16,918 San Francisco and about as many native borns; data like that otherwise the article is a good deal of name dropping and not specific on the masses in general; AlexF111 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Could someone please format the bibliography section correctly? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with the formatting? CodeTalker (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Punctuation correction, etc.; anyway, minor things. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cartogram of Italian Americans in 2024.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)