Talk:Italian Americans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal to ban user-created montages from Infoboxes

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Infobox_Images_for_Ethnic_Groups. Bulldog123 09:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Context for upwards mobility

I placed the following paragraph under education, to support the contention in the lead that Italian-Americans had "moved up from 1910 to 1970"

"It took Italian Americans six decades from their peak immigration year, to catch up with other groups in educational attainment.(ref)Chavez, Linda (March 25, 2011). "Hispanic population booms". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. pp. 9A.(endref)"

Educational attainment information might be helpful. This was deleted. Doubtless another editor might come across a citation that might be acceptable. This one wasn't. Student7 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the intent of the paragraph was not exactly intuitively obvious. There is a somewhat negative connotation in the phrasing "It took Italian Americans six decades ... to catch up ...", and as mentioned in the edit summary, there was no context provided as to why the statement was meaningful. While a one-liner from an opinion piece in Townhall.com would not be the best source in any circumstance, if the intent was to provide backup for the achievement rather than emphasis on the time lag, a rephrasing to something like "Within six decades of their peak immigration year, Italian Americans had equaled other groups in educational attainment." (possibly appended to the existing paragraph) would have been less likely to catch my eye as being in need of further explanation or extraordinary sourcing. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The authors point (herself a descendant of immigrants) was that it takes time for largely uneducated immigrants to assimilate and to move up. She was addressing persistent criticism of Hispanics who are numerous, have immigrated over varying times and appear (to some people) not to be assimilating. I merely copied her language in saying "it took." I suppose "within" isn't pressing pov much. Feel free to alter the language of otherwise accurate, referenced statements if you feel the language is pov. I try to be npov, even when I have a pov, which is fairly often. My pov here was not anti-Italian but rather reflecting Chavez' indirect disclaimer to give Hispanics "time," and not to get overly excited at observations of non-assimilation. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't completely clear above. The apparent derogatory implication was what drew me to check the content further; had I recognized a clear reason for its addition, and had I considered it to be accurate and well-sourced, I might have merely reworded it to include whatever information it was attempting to convey. But it's usefulness within this article was not immediately obvious, and again, an unsupported single sentence in an op-ed isn't exactly the best of sourcing. As restored, it's fairly innocuous, but it still falls a bit short of being well-cited. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed it here sufficiently. I concede the WP:RELY issue.Student7 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained File:Italian1346.gif

File:Italian1346.gif is illustrating this article. Various areas are given different colors, but there is no explanation as to what these colors mean either in the article nor on the image description page. I would guess it would refer to percentages of some sort, or possible total numbers per county, but if the image is important enough to be in the article, it really should convey information rather than leaving readers to make guesses. (I also note that it says figures are from the 2000 census. Is similar info available for 2010, and if so, is anyone up to making an updated version?) Wondering, Infrogmation (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I would suggest deleting it for the reasons you have mentioned. And for another one. If this is dependent on one editor using unusual graphic methods, we have a "single-point failure" when that editor moves on (which he may have done here). Another somewhat alarming possibility is that it was taken without permission into the public domain. Maybe we shouldn't be using it anyway, with explanations. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Trafficantes in Tampa

Tampa has a long history of mob activity, and the head of the Trafficante family was indeed a prominent citizen in the area, just as well known and respected (in some quarters) as the mayors of Italian decent listed in the same section.

Looking over the talk page, it seems that some editors are extremely sensitive about the mention of organized crime in this article. While I understand this, I don't agree with removing relevant and sourced info, even if doing so would polish my own Italian heritage. Don't know if that's what's going on in this particular case, but I suspect that it might be. Zeng8r (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am removing again the reference to mobsters as "prominent citizens". Even though this "prominency" was "in some quarters", that is not a criteria at all for lumping these people with former mayors or truly prominent people generally recognized in society. There is already a discussion of organized crime in the Stereotyping section, and it serves a useful purpose there. Also the Italian America page is about the dominant Italian American culture - not a subculture. You no doubt would not be challenged if you went to the American Mafia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philantonia (talk • contribs) 00:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Prominent" means "well known", with a connotation of "important". If the word used was "celebrated" or "beloved", then that would be inappropriate. But, like it or not, the Trafficantes were Italian-American, and they were most definitely "prominent" to all of Tampa and beyond. (They were respected "in some quarters"; they were known to all).

It seems that I was correct about your reason for wanting to remove this bit of info. I completely agree that this article should not turn into an issue of "Mob Talk". However, to pretend like no people of Italian decent were involved in organized crime is not only inaccurate but against wikipolicy. The goal is to accurately tell as much of the truth as possible. That being the case, there is no reason in the world not to mention the Trafficantes as "prominent" Italian-Americans in Tampa, especially considering that organized crime factions basically ruled the city from the late 1920s into the 1950s. (Did you actually take a look at the History of Tampa article linked above? Jump right to the 20th Century section if you're in a hurry...) Zeng8r (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Before commenting on your statement, I want to appologize for the last sentence in my previous entry. It was inappropriate. My dictionary defines "prominent" as "well-known or important; distinguished". I think to most people it also carries with it a connotation of "honorable". If you had used "infamous" or "notorious", I would not challenge the statement on a factual basis, but would still have an issue of whether it is appropriate to include. Using your reasoning, it would also be desireable to name Al Capone in the Chicago segment. Actually, he did run soup kitchens in Chicago during the Depression, and was admired by many. John Gotti was also admired by many. The real issue, as I stated, is that the Italian American page is devoted to the dominant culture. When organized crime is relevant to the history and culture of Italian Americans it should not be supressed, but included - as it has been in the Stereoptyping segment. Philantonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philantonia (talk • contribs) 14:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Notables

There is clearly a major issue of who should be included as a “notable” Italian American. There are literally hundreds who could qualify, in some sense, as being “notable”. However, to avoid making this into a popularity contest, I believe an objective standard should be the basis of the selections. Such a set of criteria could consist of the following:

(a) What was their contribution to society in general, and to the Italian American community and/or image in particular?

(b) Is their notability transient, or does it have the potential of lasting beyond the era in which they lived or worked?

(c) Are they in some sense iconic, or represent a “first” in achievement?

I believe the nine notables presently included would all satisfy these criteria. Others proposed clearly would not. The Italian American page can support more notables. Probably 15 (5 rows of 3) would be consistent with the pages of other groups. I would suggest adding 6 more from the following list:

John Basilone (one of the most decorated and famous servicemen in WWII; has a postage stamp dedicated to him; is featured in the HBO “Pacific” series)

Vince Lombardi (iconic and famous coach; Superbowl trophy named after him)

Frank Capra (famous director and 3-time Academy Award winner; directed the much loved classic “It’s a Wonderful Life”)

Mario Lanza (one of the most famous and well known singers of the 20th century - still very well known and loved)

Lee Iaccoca (one of the best known and admired business leaders of the 20th century; was CEO of both Ford and Chrysler; became very well known through his TV commercials)

Anne Bancroft (only Italian American woman to win an Academy Award as best actress; one of the outstanding actresses of the 20th century)

Ella Grosso (the first of only two Italian America women to ever be elected as a governor of a state, and one of the first women to ever be elected to this office)

Joe Paterno (a record setting coach with a career spanning approximately 40 years; one of the best known and respected coaches in the country)

Henry Mancini (one of the most successful and best known song writers and film scorers of the 20th century)

I have not yet mastered the ability to import images into the Italian American entry, and hope that someone with this skill can do so for the suggested notables (if they agree the suggested standard for inclusion is satisfied). Philantonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philantonia (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Capra-portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Capra-portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Image from Wikimedia Commons

File:Hayward High School, Alameda County, California. High School Youth. Typical Italian high school student - NARA - 532218.tif is really good, was recently added to their site, is now categorized. I think it may be of interest to editors of this article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:MurrayHillLittleItalyCleveland.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MurrayHillLittleItalyCleveland.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Speak American WWII.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Speak American WWII.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Lies

"This region was mainly agricultural, overpopulated and economically underdeveloped, and benefitted little from the industry of the North after Italian unification."

Is totally false. The kingdom of two sicily was the most important and rich kingdom in Italy at the time of the unification. See the first line of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Two_Sicilies . Please correct. --151.77.243.93 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This region may have had a lot of wealth, but it was in the hands mainly of the aristocracy. The palace at Caserta is an example of the splendor of the era. However, the Italian contadini lived essentially in poverty as a result of the oppressive rule of the Bourbons. Check out "La Storia", by Mangione and Morreale, Harper, 1992 for a more realistic view of life in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Philantonia (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Philantonia

All part of the Italy was in the hands of the aristocracy in 1860 man... I repeat, the south of Italy was the rich part of Nation at the moment of unification. Check out De Sangro, Michele (2003). I Borboni nel Regno delle Due Sicilie. Lecce: Edizioni Caponi. If you dont speak Italian, looks at this image to do you an idea of the percentages of emigration of region in region. (sorry for my english). --151.77.217.187 (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from "La Storia":

The darkest period for the South began with the rule of the Spanish dynasty (i.e., Bourbons) at the start of the sixteenth century. In the next 200 years the Mezzogiorno was subjected to the tyranny of a long succession of notoriously predatory viceroys. With only a distant monarch in Madrid to answer to, each viceroy made the most of his short tenure, lining his pocket with scudi as rapidly as possible by a variety of iniquitous methods. Heavy taxes burdens were sometimes imposed on the poor for the purpose of appropriating their homes and possessions as soon as they fell behind in their payments

You are correct that almost all of the wealth in Italy was in the hands of the aristocracy. Therefore, to be in a "rich" part of the nation was not very relevant in the life of the average Italian. However, at least in references written in English, the Bourbons are viewed as among the worst and most oppressive foreign occupiers of Italy, and the condition of southern Italians reflected this (which is all that the article is saying). Philantonia (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Philantonia

Page Rating Feature

The page rating feature appears to be malfunctioning. About a week ago, all of the previous numbers disappeared. A few days later the number of ratings re-appeared, but the average rating in each of the four categories dropped to 1.0 (whereas, previously it had been 5.0 in each category). I am not sure how to alert Wikipedia to this problem. Maybe, a more experienced editor can help in this regard. Thanks. Philantonia (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Philantonia

More on Notables

As noted earlier (17 July 2011), there are literally hundreds of Italian Americans who could qualify in some sense as being notable. However, as also noted, an objective standard should be used as the basis of the selections to avoid making it into a popularity contest. More recently, anonymous editor R1990u has made numerous attempts to replace earlier indisputable notables, such as a legendary coach (Vince Lombardi), and a Supreme Court Justice (Samuel Alito) with a heavy-metal artist (Ronnie Dio), and a contemporaneously popular 25-year old pop-culture artist (Lady GaGa). Based on an objective assesment of their relative contributions, and potential for long-lasting recognition by America society in general, it seems obvious that the former notables should be not be displaced in lieu of the latter. Philantonia (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

About Lady Gaga

Lady Gaga's parents are Italian American indeed.
So, Is she Italian American ?
But this article or the list does not mention her ? --111.251.207.56 (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I added her, she most certainly has a place in this article. Currently, she's more known than a majority of the people listed in the article and she has been known in the music industry for the past four years. -ForeignBagel — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeignBagel (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

80% of the Italian immigrants came from Southern Italy

While true that it was largely impoverished, the comment "This was a largely agricultural and overpopulated region, where much of the populace had been impoverished by two centuries of misrule by the Bourbons, a foreign European occupying power" is misleading and probably not true. The Kingdom of Two Sicilies was, in fact, a significant European power and to say the Bourbons were a "foreign occupier" was, by the time when Italy was unified in the 1861, no longer true. The kingdom's role in balancing the Papal State's political aspirations and, to a certain extent its reluctant potential to lead an Italian unification itself, are well documented. It can be said that the House of Savoy was, more so than the Bourbons, a foreign occupier (see this). With unification, industry and wealth were transferred from Naples to Turin and the north. Naples, once a wealthy capital, now became stripped of its political power and its wealth, and it became just one of many cities in a united Italy. Where the the agricultural hinterland once had an "escape valve" to the growing commerce in Naples, Bari and Palermo (not unlike the rest of Europe- just think of the urbanisation of England during the same period), it now found itself in need of seeking escape further afield: Northern Italy (where industry flourished post unification) and the Americas (especially the USA, Argentina and Brazil). That is why the majority of immigration to the US occurred from the 1880s to the 1920s: not because the Bourbons misruled it for two centuries (a debatable statement itself); but because the South did not benefit from Italian unification controlled by and for the Savoy state. Mariokempes (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

we are interested in the immigrants and why they left. By the time they left the south in the 1890s+ the Bourbons were long gone and very few immigrants ever mentioned them. What is true is that "'This was a largely agricultural and overpopulated region, where much of the populace was impoverished with little available employment or long-term optimism." Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I can live with your statement, in place of the current "...much of the populace had been impoverished by two centuries of misrule by the Bourbons, a foreign European occupying power". Nonetheless, you cannot separate "why they left" from the events that led to the "why". Mariokempes (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Still More on Notables

An anonymous editor has recently been promoting Lady Gaga as a Notable. Lady Gaga is a 25-year old singer who has, over the past 5 years or so, achieved great popularity among a certain segment of the population. Whether her popularity will stand the test of time, and what her long-term legacy and mark on American culture will be, remain to be seen. The fact that she is currently well known does not necessarily qualify her as a Notable. Probably 95 out of 100 people would know who Lady Gaga is. Probably 95 out of 100 people would not know who Enrico Fermi is. Yet, there can be no doubt how these two people should be ranked in notability. Similarly, there are literally dozens of Italian Americans named in the article that, on the basis of lifetime achievement, should be included as Notables before Lady Gaga. Because there is a practical limit on how many Notables should be included (the Irish America article has 9 Notables, and the German American article has 12 Notables), it would seem that an objective set of standards should be used to select the limited number of Italian Americans to be identified in the article as “Notable”. Making the selection essentially a popularity contest is, in my opinion, not a workable approach. Philantonia (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of the New World

Maybe it should be told in this page that was an Italian to find the America even if he thought it was India ! Cristoforo Colombo from Genova Liguria and it was Amerigo Vespucci to call America America by his own name !!!!! Maybe these people should be in this page don't you think ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.246.146 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2008‎ (UTC)

Deleting of non-cited quote.

Most immigration from Italy occurred in the late 19th and 20th centuries between 1880 and 1960.

I'm deleting this statement is partly incorrect and can leave a wrong sense of the reality of Italian immigration to the U.S. In 1924, the U.S. initiated the Johnson-Reed act, which limited Italians, as well as southern Europeans, as well as eastern Europeans (some of whom were Jewish). Most Italians who left during the 1920's, and than during WWII, in the 1930's and early-1940's, went to Argentina. Very few came to the U.S. - a country which was an enemy nation during wartime, and a country that ethnically blocked them. This was in effect in the U.S. until 1965. Canada didn't have this postwar. That is why you see many Italian-Canadians with postwar ancestry, even though a large proportion have prewar roots too. Australia's Italian population tends to be newer though.If Italians were restricted on so many levels, you couldn't blame them not to want to come to the U.S. during that era.

There was an evident declining interest for Italians to move to the U.S. even after 1914. The numbers of immigration indicate this. This was before the U.S. requiring documented paperwork in 1921 and the initiation of the Johnson-Reed act. What ever Italian immigration there could have been after 1924 had to have been minimal to the overall Italian-American population. This is no citation indicating the significance of this. TomNyj0127 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009‎ (UTC)

In movies that deal with cultural issues, Italian American words and lingo are sometimes spoken by the characters.

I'm taking this quote out because there is no citation to what those words or lingo actually are. Unfortunately, what most people would recall under this example would be dysfunctional type of words you'd hear in the Sopranos. Most of those words have no meaning in Italy and if you were to use it there, they'd be clueless. I'm not saying there isn't a little lingo of every day Italian Americans, but I want to see citation of examples from a published source before putting that up on here. TomNyj0127 (talk) 04:55, 20 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Adding information under cultural tab

Similarly to Italian descendants in other nations such as Brazil and Argentina, Italian-Americans have assimilated into the mainstream American cultural identity. Italian-Americans trace several generations back in this country. Many have intermixed with other ethnic groups. They are well represented in all lines of work.

I'm adding this under the cultural tab. I feel it helps explain that Italian Americans are Americans culturally. While they do hold some cultural traits from their ancestry, many don't. Food seems to have been the thing that Italians contributed to more than anything else in the U.S. However, the U.S. is very different culturally from Italy. The mannerism, liveliness and languages are very different. Many Italian Americans trace several generations in the country. Many are mixed. So it's hard for many to hold an identity outside the norm of the average American. TomNyj0127 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2009‎ (UTC)

History

Contrary to the impression created in the article, Italian-Americans were an important force in the U.S. before 1880. There were whole regiments of Italian-Americans in the Union Army during the Civil War.

• This is certainly true -- Giuseppe Garibaldi himself lived in NYC during the 1850s -- but the major waves of Italian immigration didn't begin until the 1880s. Zaldax (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gaetano Cianci

I am removing the reference in Contemporary period - for a number of reasons. First, the intent of this section is to provide a retrospective on the Italian American experience (focussing mainly on the 20th Century, except in certain select instances). Second, Dr. Cianci's contribution may be important, but it is not notable to the same degree as the other contributions to medicine cited. The contributor of this entry may wish to start a new section under Culture devoted to "Medical advancements" that could include Dr. Cianci's contribution - together with others occuring in the 21st Century. This issue illustrates that many modern day personalities/achievements need a special treatment, and the most appropriate way would be to start new sections under "Culture" - such as "Sports" and "Entertainment" - and not try to expand the History section to include them. Philantonia 17:46, 3 July 2011‎ (UTC)

Arbitrary Substitution of Notables

Recently an editor (Yerevanci) has been quite intent on changing the previous Notables. Previous Notables like Mario Lanza and Frank Capra were deleted, and Al Capone was added. If any editor could replace previous Notables with his/her preferred Notables at will, shear chaos would certainly result. As previously noted in Talk, an objective set of standards should be applied in choosing Notables. This immediately would rule out Al Capone as a substitute for Mario Lanza, Anne Bancroft, Geraldine Ferraro or Frank Capra - all of whom were deleted by Yerevanci. Perhaps Yerevanci has been overly influenced by American movies and pop culture, and does not have an in depth knowledge or understanding of Italian American culture.Philantonia (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest with you, I don't even watch Hollywood movies and those actors aren't my idols either. I prefer Armenian and European (French, Italian) movies. But, as matter of fact, they are better known than Anne Bancroft, Geraldine Ferraro, Mario Lanza and Frank Capra.

Could you please explain me what do you mean by saying Italian American culture? For example, how has Frank Sinatra contributed to the Italian American culture? Or Joe DiMaggio? There isn't Italian American culture nowadays. Italians are well integrated and mostly assimilated into mainstream American society and there isn't a distinct line between American and Italian American cultures.

And what are your priorities? Scientifically over criminals, and opera singers over pop singers. How do you put one over another?--Yerevanci (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Yerevanci, the definition is as follows: "Italian Americans (Italian: Italoamericani) are the United States citizens of Italian ancestry.". Period. It is a matter of parents, not more. This definition will be valid as long as the U.S. will exist, and is pointless to debate about the existence of an Italian-American Culture. About notability, this is a general problem: also in the article about Italians there is a picture with people which - according to me - do not deserve at all to stay there. Maybe we could use a list, and vote for the single persons, or use google hits, but no system is perfect. About Al Capone, well, I think too that the introduction of Cosa Nostra in the States was historically one of the most important accomplishments :-) of the Italian-Americans, but no Italian-American is happy to remember such things, especially if - as you rightly point out - is now perfectly integrated in the American society. After all, in the corresponding collage on the Italians article Toto' Riina does not appear either. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Alessandro, I, personally, am a great fan of Italian culture and therefore I have nothing against Italians in general and Italian Americans particularly, but it's kind of a bias that, for example, Al Capone, whom even you consider a historic figure, isn't presented there.

I think that voting should be acceptable here. I'll make a list of all candidates and everyone will be able to vote.--Yerevanci (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK Yerevanci, let's make a deal. You put in the corresponding picture of the Austrian people a picture of this guy here (possibly the most notable Austrian in the whole history for his influence in the world history). If it stays there more than 2 days, then you will have my full wholehearted support in putting Al in the italo-american picture. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The problem here isn't Capone. I'm not forcing that he should definitely be there. I'm just saying that there are some significant Italian Americans that aren't there, like Al Pachino or Sylvester Stallone, who aren't negative figures and are definitely notable. Shouldn't they be there? And please vote below.--Yerevanci (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not Al Capone for me either. I am 200% Italian (although I risked to became an Italian-American a couple of decades ago :-)), and I would have no problem in putting there him and/or Lucky Luciano (both much more interesting persons than Lady Gaga). But I understand the problems of the Italian-American in putting such people on the picture... To vote one should organize a list first. Alex2006 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote there? I wrote You are also free to add your own options, so go ahead and add other notables who you think deserve to be there.--Yerevanci (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Yerevanci, I think that I read you early in the morning before I had my (first) coffee. We Italians without coffee work only in stand-by mode :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha, that's alright! Armenians are like that as well.--Yerevanci (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A culture of a people consists of shared beliefs, common experiences, values and pride in their “notables”. Who can deny that Frank Sinatra, Joe DiMaggio, etc. were a source of great pride to the Italian American community, and an inspiration to many. The Italian American singers of the 50’s and 60’s had a musical style that combined both the bel canto style of Italy, and the American style in popular music. Even Italian American food is a hybrid, and not strictly Italian. To say that Italian America culture does not exist denies that fact that now, more than ever, many Italian Americans want to learn more about their history in the USA – and Italy in general. Hopefully, the Wikipedia article helps in this regard. If the Notables were selected on the basis of Google or Wikipedia hits the selection would be very skewed. For example, in the last 30 days the number of viewers of the article on Enrico Fermi was 25,600, while the number of viewers of the article on John Gotti was 96,900. This only reflects the public’s fascination with mob figures, and says nothing about true notability, which should reflect a person’s positive achievements in their lifetime.Philantonia (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I get your point. I don't agree that we should chose notable according to their hits on Wiki or Google, that has really nothing to do with their lifetime achievements as you said. It's like comparing Elvis Presley's song views on YouTube with Justin Bieber's, who has been around for few years only. But don't you think that I and other users have the right to have our says? Who chose those 13 people? --Yerevanci (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is 100% correct (the idea about Google hits was only a provocation). I think that the best way would be to prepare a list and then to discuss it and to vote. Alex2006 (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

(Note) The IP address who constantly uploads the broken Lady Gaga image, you may vote here for your image to be posted, thank you. Also Is there a time when the voting poll is closed/finished? Webclient101 (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't thought about the closing time yet. I think the more users participate, more acceptable the result will be. So let's just wait for now.--Yerevanci (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Vote on notables

OK, here's my idea! To finally settle the problem with notables, let's vote. Top 12 (3x4), 15 (5x3) or 16 (4x4) notables will be featured on the infobox.

Write your username under the Vote column. You can vote for as many people as you want, there's no limit. You are also free to add your own options.--Yerevanci (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea that a small handful of people can dictate who will (or should) be included as Notables is unworkable. Who will the arbitrator of the final choice be, and how can an endless series of reverts and restores be avoided? Let’s suppose that Enrico Fermi, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, got 4 votes and Al Capone, one of the most notorious criminals of the 20th century, got 5 votes. Then, without an objective set of selection standards, Al Capone could make the final list, but Enrico Fermi may not. I believe that would strike most people as being a very strange and inappropriate outcome.

The Italian American article gets around 1000 views a day. So far, to my knowledge, Yeravanci is the only one (in almost 10 years of the article's existence) who seems to be unhappy that Al Capone is not included as a Notable. I believe Yeravanci should respect the sensibilities of Italian Americans, who view Al Capone as a murderous thug, rather than trying to raise him up to the level of a notable, representative in some way of Italian Americans. I would challenge Yeravanci to find an analogy for such an inclusion in any other Wikipedia article devoted to the culture and history of an ethnic group in America. It is interesting that Yeravanci is an active contributor to the Armenian American page, which makes no mention at all of Armenian Power, an organization the FBI identifies as an international organized crime group centered in the Los Angeles area. The existence of such a group seems like a sociological phenomenon important enough be merit some acknowledgement in the Armenian American article, but is not mentioned at all. This appears to reflect a very inconsistent editing/contribution set of standards by Yeravanci.

I believe that the selection of Notables should be based on an objective set of standards that factors in the person’s positive lifetime achievements, which are recognized by America society in general. If the voting included such a rationale, I would fully support it. Philantonia (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I responded to the invitation to vote, and even added a few suggested names to the list, I have to agree with User:Philantonia in general. We're supposed to be putting together a representative list for an encyclopedia here, not choosing the next Italian-American Idol. This vote pretty much exemplifies everything "consensus" on Wikipedia is not supposed to be – a straight up/down vote with no discussion or reasons supporting the individual candidates, with the final number to be chosen not even determined by any sort of discussion and consensus before the votes are cast and tallied. And no time set for the "election" to end.

I think there needs to first be a discussion – hopefully not requiring an RfC – about how many images of notables there should be to adequately represent the group without overwhelming the page. Then, we should use the images that have been in the stable version for a while as a starting point and discuss proposals for specific individual changes. If somebody thinks Lady Gaga is a better choice than Enrico Fermi, propose that change and have it discussed for a week or so, then develop a true Wikipedia consensus. There might also be a preliminary discussion to develop a consensus about guidelines; like personally, I would say something like seven pop singers and eight actors is a bit skewed. As would be 14 men and 2 women, though an exact 50–50 split isn't necessary. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your approach. Give the voting another month or so to bring out as many ideas as possible. Then, I would suggest that a commitee be set up to arrive at a practical number of Notables.

I would further suggest that this commitee consist of the 4 or 5 editors having the greatest number of edits. I believe these editors have proved their dedication to maintaining the accuracy and quality of the Italian American article, and would do the best job possible in arriving at a set of Notables. At the discretion of the commitee, the advice of one or more respected academics in Italian American studies could be solicited.Philantonia (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to point out also the same: it would be good to define first some categories (for example entertainment & sport, science & technology, politics, culture) and to choose then a a fix number of notables (for example 4) for each category. Otherwise the collage could give a biased picture of the Italian-Americans. Alex2006 (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there is a great misunderstanding here. The problem here isn't just Al Capone. I don't care if he makes it to the page or not. I;m not a big fan of him. The problem is the notables have not been chosen by anyone and Philantonia keeps pushing his own version. I'm currently working on the Armenian American article and I am going to mention the Medicaid fraud in the article. It's not a problem for me. I am myself an Armenian currently living in the US. And if you were careful enough you would have noticed that Gourgen Yanikian, an Armenian who assassinated two Turkish diplomats and is considered a terrorist by some, is on the infobox. It's not like I want to hide anybody that has negative influence on Armenians. Kim Kardashian isn't my idol or anything, but she is notable, so I put her image on the infobox. Clear enough? Again, I don't care if Al Capone or anybody else makes it to the page or not. I'm not here to show that Italians were only known for being gangsters. I love Italians and I don't have anything against them. Don't be so paranoid about me forcing his appearance on the infobox. All I want is the most known and the greatest Italian Americans to be there. Is it a problem?

So do you guys think it's right to discuss each person separately? Wouldn't it take a lot of time? I agree that there should be some kind of balance between genders and occupations. Any ideas on how to do that? --Yerevanci (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeravanci, you just don't get it. The very fact that you were the first person to seriously suggest (in almost 10 years) Capone as a suitable Notable is symptomatic of your total lack of understanding of Italian American culture, and respect for the deep feeling of Italian Americans (who, unlike you, have "walked the walk"). You even denied that was such a thing as Italian American culture ("There isn't Italian American culture nowadays" - in your words). What is the Italian American page all about anyway. Didn't you even bother to read the article? To say that you want the "most known and the greatest Italian Americans" to be included as notables leaves the door wide open to include very well known people who achieved that status because they were notorious and infamous. Philantonia (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Why do I even bother trying to discuss something with someone like you? I don't care anymore. I'm tired of people like you. Do whatever you want and whatever you feel like and whatever makes you happy. Arrivederci! --Yerevanci (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Amico Yerevanci. I'm sorry for appearing so critical. I believe your intentions were good.Philantonia (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Name	Vote
Samuel Alito	Fat&Happy Zaldax
Anne Bancroft	Fat&Happy
Ettore Boiardi	Fat&Happy
Marlon Brando	Hot Stop
Francesca S. Cabrini	Fat&Happy
Nicolas Cage
Al Capone	Yerevanci; Webclient101; Hot Stop
Frank Capra	Alessandro57; Fat&Happy; Zaldax
Francis Ford Coppola	Hot Stop
Robert DeNiro	Webclient101; Alessandro57; Hot Stop
Danny DeVito
Leonardo DiCaprio	Hot Stop
Joe DiMaggio	Yerevanci; Alessandro57; Fat&Happy; Hot Stop; Zaldax
Enrico Fermi	Alessandro57; Fat&Happy; Hot Stop; Yerevanci; Zaldax
Geraldine Ferraro	Hot Stop
Riccardo Giacconi	Alessandro57
Amadeo Giannini	Fat&Happy
Rudy Giulani	Zaldax
Lee Iacocca	Fat&Happy
Fiorello La Guardia	Yerevanci; Fat&Happy; Hot Stop; Zaldax
Lady Gaga
Mario Lanza	Fat&Happy
Lucky Luciano	Fat&Happy
Madonna	Yerevanci; Alessandro57; Webclient101; Zaldax
Rocky Marciano	Hot Stop
Dean Martin	Alessandro57; Hot Stop; Zaldax
Thomas Menino
Liza Minnelli
Robert Mondavi	Fat&Happy
Al Pacino	Yerevanci; Webclient101; Hot Stop; Zaldax
Nancy Pelosi	Yerevanci; Webclient101; Zaldax
Rocco Petrone	Alessandro57
Antonin Scalia	Fat&Happy; Zaldax
Martin Scorsese	Hot Stop; Zaldax
Emilio Segrè	Alessandro57
Frank Sinatra	Yerevanci; Alessandro57; Webclient101; Fat&Happy; Hot Stop; Zaldax
Sylvester Stallone	Yerevanci
John Travolta

Still More on Notables

The “vote” on Notables has produced a wide range of suggestions, but few people offered opinions, so a true consensus didn’t really emerge in my opinion. There is also the issue of choosing Notables on the basis of an objective set of criteria for the selections.

The present set of Notables has emerged after about 10 years of history of the article. Some Notables were eliminated because of Wikipedia’s ban on the use of their image (Vince Lombardi, Frank Capra, Lee Iacocca, Antonin Scalia, Rocky Marciano, etc.). In my opinion, each of the present Notables can be well justified based on having been an important part of the Italian-American story, and also having being recognized by the American public in general for their achievements.

The choice of Notables for other major nationality groups can serve as a point of reference for the Italian American article (see German American, Irish America, Polish American, etc.). What you will find is a blend of historical figures, people who have achieved prominence in various fields of endeavor, and some contemporary figures who have achieved notability in the arts, sports, entertainment, etc. The number of Notables range from 9 to 16.

I believe 4 more Notables can be added to the Italian American article without overwhelming it. A four by four matrix would look pleasing to the eye (following Yerevanci’s format). I have some candidates for these new notables, which I believe satisfy the criteria discussed above. They are: Bruce Springstein, Lady Gaga , Dean Martin and Antonio Meucci. I believe Lady Gaga may be destined to become the next Madonna, and is certainly one of the best-known entertainers in the country. She has also, more than anyone else, been advanced as a Notable over the past year or so. Philantonia (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Italian Constitution

"The newly created Italian constitution, drafted after unification in 1861, heavily favored the North" This is not only lacking a quote, but also highly debatable (and debated). I am no experienced editor or the like and I do not want to plainly intervene on the text, but this is completely POV. --Theorigenist (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You all right, I just removed the first sentence, which is plainly wrong, since the only constitution in the history of Italy is the one of 1947. As everyone knows (or should know) the kingdom of Italy adopted no "new constitution", but left in force the "statuto albertino" (that is, the constitution of the kingdom of Sardinia) of 1848. On the other side, as of today is largely accepted that the unification favored the north. Alex2006 (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Max Lucado

The author Max Lucado does not appear to be of Italian descent. He is quoted as saying: “Actually, though there is a strain of Italian Lucado’s, we really trace our ancestry to the French Huguenots and apparently, from what we understand our ancestry came out of the Huguenots revolution, came to England and then came to the US in the late 1700s. It was originally spelled in our case Lucadeaux, so it had a French spelling.” (www.assistnews.net/Stories/2012/s12080147.htm) Philantonia (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Italian American label.

In the section to the right is a fact box with pictures of Italian Americans and it says only Italian American. On most pages of Ethnic groups it lists the label in both the English or language of the specific Wiki article as well as the native language. I put Italo-Americani under Italian Americans because that is the native Italian word for Italian Americans. I looked at many other ethnic groups and saw the same so it should be the same for Italians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkeating5683 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi

From Enrico Fermi's official Nobel Prize Biography (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1938/fermi-bio.html), we read that:

In 1944, Fermi became an American citizen, and at the end of the war (1946) he accepted a professorship at the Institute for Nuclear Studies of the University of Chicago, a position which he held until his untimely death in 1954. Philantonia (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100%, also because one definition does not exclude the other: each "generation 0" Italian American is by definition 100% Italian. When he landed in New York with his family escaping from fascist Italy he told his wife: "We just founded the American branch of the Fermi family". Alex2006 (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable Selection and Replacement

Once again we are faced with having to establish some kind of objective standard for the selection and possible replacement of Notables. I believe the Notables should support the article, in the sense they are important to the Italian American story the article deals with. The Notables, in my opinion, should not be chosen simply because they enjoy a certain (possibly transient) popularity in American culture, or have received a lot of current media coverage. I would suggest that an objective set of standards (consistent with similar articles on other nationality groups) should consist of:

(a) The person has made a noteworthy and positive contribution to American society and/or culture, and is general recognized in American society for this contribution

(b) The person's contribution is significant enough to withstand the test of time

(c) The person should not be controversial, or objectionable to many (especially Italian Americans)

I believe the removal/replacement of a Notable should be treated the same as removing sourced information. They should not be removed without a discussion on the Talk page.

Recently, Rudy Giuliani was replaced in the gallery of Notables by Bill DiBlasio. Giuliani is very well known and respected for his two terms as mayor of New York, and for his leadership after the 911 attack, during which time he was referred to as "America's Mayor". On the other hand, Bill DiBlasio is a new mayor that has already come under a lot of major criticism. What his legacy will be is unclear but, by no objective standard, can he be viewed as "notable". This replacement is a good illustration of how the arbitrary designation of who is a Notable, and who is not, will lead to shear chaos. How long will DiBlasio last if he is retained as a Notable? Philantonia (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Stallone has become almost an American icon because of his immensely popular "Rocky" films. Turturro is far less known and appreciated. Using the criterion that Turturro is 100% Italian versus 50% for Stallone is a meaningless and arbitrary criterion. Philantonia (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

So if we're going by notability then why isn't Ariana Grande included in the page? She's more renowned than some people in the current image box. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The criteria given above for "notability" seem very reasonable to me, but if you have a better concept, or want to enhance it, please share your thoughts. Regardless of what set of criteria is used, the idea that anyone can arbitrarily substitute one person for another is in my opinion fundamentally a bad idea, and would probably lead to a never-ending free-for-all. Philantonia (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously "notability" plays a part here because we can't include any ol' Italian-American who exists, but people of some notability and merit. Sylvester is more renowned than John, but in my opinion John is a much more refined actor and grossly underrated. Sylvester can remain in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Replacement of Lady Gaga as a Notable

Lady Gaga’s act is viewed by many as vulgar, obscene and even pornographic (the term used to characterize her act by protesters in South Korea). Recently, she had another performer vomit on her during an act. She is certainly not anyone who can, by any objective standard, be viewed as “notable”.

Liza Minelli, on the other hand, ranks among the great female entertainers of the second half of the 20th century. She starred in movies (Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role) and Broadway shows, and had a singing voice that was second only to that of her mother, Judy Garland.

I am replacing Gaga by Minelli in the gallery of Notables based on the fact that Gaga is, to say the least, a very controversial choice. Philantonia (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

naughty?? this is a problem for the land of Mussolini and Berlusconi? I think not. Wiki is not in the morals-policing business. Rjensen (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The last time I checked, we are living in the land of America, not the land of Mussolini and Berlusconi. Do you believe that an objective set of standards should be applied in selecting Notables, or should we make it a popularity contest? Philantonia (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, neither Mussolini nor Berlusconi are in the collage of the famous Italians, and also Hitler is not present among the most notable Austrians, so I think that after all in Wikipedia too we are doing some moral policy...I vote for Minelli. Alex2006 (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Mussolini was in fact the big hero to Italian Americans in the 1920s and 1930s. There was a big photo of him in my family's restaurant until the FBI ordered it removed. What I reject is the idea of filtering the article to remove accurate info that partisans find in any way embarrassing. That sort of censorship is antithetical to the spirit & rules here. I think there is little of that in this article, but announcing that the images should be filtered to bolster It-Am images is crossing the line, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Mussolini was the big hero of the Italians all around the world in those years. I understand what you mean, but what I said is that the notability of people appearing on these collages is "filtered" everywhere in Wikipedia. The bad guys, although super-notables, like Hitler in Austria, (or Al Capone here) never win. Alex2006 (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The idea of "filtering the article" via the selection of Notables does not by definition apply if an objective set of standards is used in the process. Then, the element of subjectivity is totally removed. I suggested a set of criteria for the selection of Notables that you may wish to comment on, and possibly improve. One of the standards is the person should not be considered offensive or controversial, which definitely appears to be the unwritten rule in other similar articles. Philantonia (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was trying to explain with my examples above. Alex2006 (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Italian American historical population.

Is there any data about that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.65.229 (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What historical figures should be excluded from the article

An objection has been raised concerning the inclusion of John Cabot (Giovanni Caboto) in the article. It is true that he was never an American (and, strictly speaking, not an Italian American), but this also true of Pulaski, Kosciusco, Von Steuben, etc ... I believe that any historical figure viewed as important to the history of a particular nationality group in the U.S. can (and should be) included. To suggest otherwise is to impose an arbitrary and undesirable restriction. Philantonia (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

DeNiro as a notable

I am substituting for DeNiro, who I believe is a very controversial choice. DeNiro had a principal acting role in “SharkTale”, which generated a lot of major criticism (both in the Italian-American community and in the press) for introducing the mob genre and negative stereotyping into a children’ s movie. He also actively promoted the film through his film studio. I am substituting Anthony Fauci, who is a very well known medical researcher and humanitarian.Philantonia (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Modification to Gallery of Notables

In the gallery of notables, I have substituted for Basilone and Cuomo - who are redundantly pictured and honored elsewhere in the article. I am substituting Arturo Toscanini who, though never becoming an American citizen, was of great importance to American culture in general, and was held in the highest esteem by Italian Americans. I am also substituting Louis Zamperini, who has become somewhat of a folk hero to many Americans.

I am further substituting Perry Como for Al Pacino. While Pacino is a good actor, people associate him with his frequent portrayal of criminals and other low-life characters. For this reason, his very image conjures up a distinct negativity. On the other hand, the image of Perry Como, who was one of the most loved personalities in TV history, conjures up a great positiveness.Philantonia (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am replacing Stallone with Giannini. Stallone is known mainly for his popular Rocky movies, which he both wrote and in which he starred. Aside from that, he has had somewhat of a lackluster career, with few other accomplishments to his credit. On the other hand, Giannini is a giant in Italian American history, whose very significant achievements were highlighted in the recent PBS Italian American series. I believe that Notables should be selected based on their recognized contribution to American society in general, and to Italian American life and culture in particular. Stallone, in my opinion, is definitely in the 2nd rank of possible Italian American notables; whereas, Giannini is clearly in the 1st rank.Philantonia (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Capone

Shouldn't Al Capone be there? If so why not? It says he is fully Italian. The Welsh American article has Jesse James and the British American article has James and Butch Cassidy, Capone was an outlaw too. Plus Bruce Springsteen could be replaced by him, because Springsteen isn't Italian as I understand. I know why he hasn't been featured, because the website House of Names has an article about the Capone last name which says it is English, a variant of Capun? If that was true why did Al's brother change his last name to Hart when he already had an English name?--90.199.50.91 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Al Capone was a notorious criminal. Bruce Springsteen is half Italian, through his mother. The Notables that appear in the article all have something in common, which is that they have made a significant contribution to American society. Capone represents the antithesis of this.Philantonia (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

So why is Jesse James and Butch Cassidy featured as notables on British American article? We can't have an outlaw representing Italians because some of them are worried about the way there portrayed? See how this doesn't make sense, is it so bad the guy got a couple getting married a bottle of wine for their wedding day when the law wouldn't let them have it, he had principle there's no way he would let innocent women and children get hurt. Corrupt cops are much worse than outlaws, but I think you're taking this way too personally if you're Italian or something.--90.210.248.36 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Capone did a lot more than just provide liquor during Prohibition, including murder, prostitution, etc. In absolutely no way can he be view in any kind of a positive sense. Tagliaferro is a largely unknown secondary figure in American history. He is definitely not in the first rank of possible Italian American notables.Philantonia (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

But Tolliver is different than all the other showmen notables shown on there, you have to have diversity. If Capone, in your words can "In absolutely no way can he be view in any kind of a positive sense", then his article notes "Capone made donations to various charities and was viewed by many to be a "modern-day Robin Hood"". As I've said Butch Cassidy (shown on British American article), Jesse James (shown on British American and Welsh American articles), and Billy the Kid (shown on Irish American article) were murders and frequented brothels and slept with prostitutes too, so why are they on there respective pages and he isn't? You keep ignoring this question, I wonder why.--90.210.248.36 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point that Capone didn't just sleep with prostitute, he ran prostitution (in his spare time when he wasn't murdering his rivals and others in Chicago). You also seem to have missed the point that Tagliaferro is an obscure centuries-old personality that few people know (or care about); whereas, Madonna is one of the most famous entertainers of the 20th century. Philantonia (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Tolliver was a confederate army general, I bet some people looking up the article who are interested in Italian-American history didn't even know people of this background fought for the confederate. What you said about him being boring and centuries-old is just ignorant, just because you're only interested in what I and many others call obscure examples of Italian Americans like Madonna doesn't mean people researching this article are. I've read through your entire answer (which you don't seem to be doing with mine) and no answer to my question about the usage of outlaws like Billy the Kid, Butch Cassidy and Jesse James as notables in the British, Welsh and Irish American articles. Do Italian Americans have to be law-abiding people because of the mafia stereotype, while British and Irish Americans can be thieves and outlaws? Your telling me that this in many peoples' minds wouldn't be treating one group differently to another?--90.210.248.36 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. First you substituted Capone for Springsteen because, according to you, Springsteen is not Italian (all you would have had to do is read his Wikipedia article to know you were wrong on this). Then, without acknowledging this, after I corrected you, you reverted my edit and also replaced Madonna with some obscure Civil War General (who, by the way, is acknowledged in the Italian American article). In spite of my giving very specific reasons for retaining the Notables, based on a set of very reasonable criteria, you insist on trying to force the issue. Your comparison of Billy the Kid, etc. with Capone is totally unconvincing, since Capone was in a category all of his own in American history. He is generally viewed in American history as a murderous thugPhilantonia (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Well Springsteen isn't a sound you hear and think Italian, Holland maybe. Al Capone is Italian, he was born in America but he is Italian. I read the article and Tolliver is there, maybe more about his Anglo-Italian family is needed, as they represent the earliest Italian family in North America. I watched the "Mafia: Alive?" episode of Brad Meltzer's Decoded and they weighed up the issue open-mindedly, something Wikipedia editors like yourself should do really. How is Butch Cassidy say any different than Al Capone in terms of criminal status? And why is he representing British American people?--90.209.27.141 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is duly noted in the Wikipedia article (“Early Period”) that the Taliaferro family was one of the first families to settle in Virginia. Capone was a member of organized crime and, as such, had a totally different job description than say Billy the Kid or Butch Cassidy (who didn’t go around murdering people to further their ambitions). Other well known organized-crime figures, such as Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Seigel, etc. are conspicuously absent from the Jewish American article; similarly, Bugs Moran, Whitey Bulger, etc. are conspicuously absent from the Irish American article. I believe every nationality group gives “Notability” status to those people they have a sense of pride in. I believe most people would consider Capone to be a very controversial choice as a Notable, and many others would be truly offended by such a choice. I think a sensitivity to this reality is warranted here. Philantonia (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bugs Moran was of French descent not Irish. I do now see what you mean about Jesse James, Butch Cassidy, Billy the Kid being slightly seperate cases to Capone, so I will not edit him in again. I have thought of three other notables that could be added; Vin Diesel, well known actor, Fast & Furious; Dan Castellaneta, voice of Homer Simpson, in The Simpsons, known to millions worldwide; and Rudolph Valentino, an Italian-American silent movie actor. I don't believe any of them to be controversial. Thank you--90.193.148.10 (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Valentino would make a good Notable. The other two are definitely in the third or fourth rank of potential Notables. Since there are quite a few singers as Notables, Valentino could replace Lanza for more diversity. Philantonia (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Glad to help--90.198.42.65 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You make the substitution, and I will order it chronologically Philantonia (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made the edit, I've noticed how their positions are based on age, so I've put Valentino between Fiorello LaGuardia and Frank Capra. If you want more diversity then Antonio Meucci, who has been confirmed to be the inventor of the telephone was Italian, but I'm not sure whether he had United States citizenship, he could replace a singer, but Sinatra and Martin should stay because they are very famous.--90.198.42.65 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

John Carradine

Im putting John Carradine as a infobox one--94.11.234.50 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Barbera

Joseph Barbera was an Italian(Sicilian)-American; With achievements and a legacy that deserve him a spot on that collage (more than others); Barbera's cartoons and figures are known and loved across the globe (international/worldwide) and were popular and influential for entire generations as well as marks in American culture; i.e. Yogi Bear, Fred Flintstone and Scooby Doo; Agilulf2007 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Vince Lombardi is probably the most famous coach in American professional football history, and an American cultural icon. Barbera, on the other hand, is in the second rank of potential Italian American notables, and by any objective criterion, not a reasonable substitute for Lombardi. Philantonia (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is completely unknown outside the USA and American football (and at that only known amongst those that bother with football history); And he is not a cultural icon; The Cartoon Figures on the other hand, that were created by Hanna-Barbera (most notably Barbera) are true American cultural icons as well as known and loved across the globe; Why dont just plaster Vince Lombardi in the sports section of the article where all great athletes and tacticians belong; But while we are at it, since you seem to be the creator or the guardian of this collage why is Frank Capra in it? and not someone like John Basilone or Frank Petrarca or even a Vince Capodanno two of which are icons of the USMC and were active war heroes i.e. also a Sal Giunta; And what is Madonna doing there? She is only partial Italian and never gave much of a toss about her ancestry, where is Al Pacino or Martin Scorsese? Needs a lot of change; Agilulf2007 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

When there is a "Barbera Trophy" I would maybe agree that Barbera is reasonable substitute for Lombardi. The very fact that you would suggest this to be a good replacement, or that you don't see why Capra is included as a notable, leads me to believe that you don't have an objective set of standards for your Notable choices. To me that is the main issue. I believe that the Notables should be chosen from Italian Americans of the first rank, who are well recognized within American society for their outstanding accomplishments. Without an objective set of standards, the Notable gallery will be in a constant state of flux. Are you prepared to defend your choice of Notables with the same dedication that you appear to have in replacing some present Notables? Someone else may come along tomorrow and replace your choices. Philantonia (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You can wait a long time for something like a "Barbera Trophy" given that Barbera was not involved in sports; But the fact that every person you will ask, will know about Yogi Bear or Fred Flintstone is merit enough; As for sports i opt for Joe Montana (100% Italian American) anyways; I believe that the Notables should be chosen from Italian Americans of the first rank, who are well recognized within American society and if you seriously believe that a John Basilone or Vince Capodanno are behind a Frank Capra (most of his life not even an American) in that regard than you are duly mistaken; I will pitch a Flux; Agilulf2007 (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Earlier in the day, you reverted an edit by someone who questioned the substitution of Barbera for Lombardi, and included the comment of "VANDALISM", possibly because there was no prior discussion on the Talk page; otherwise, how could you justify such an indictment. Yet, without any comment or explanation on the Talk page, you have made wholesale changes to the Notable gallery. Is this in your mind not vandalism as well? I believe, according to the highest standards of Wikipedia editing, the Talk page should be used to try to resolve disagreements. To try to force your opinion by creating an editing war is not the right approach. Philantonia (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree; Agilulf2007 (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You agree that you are vandalizing, or that there is a need for discussion and resolution in Talk? I believe it is only fair and consistent with Wikipedia editorial standards to propose a Notable change, and then cite reasons for the proposed change, so it can be properly debated. So far, I would say the rationale given for some of your proposed changes is very unconvincing. To make wholesale substitutions, without any discussion at all, goes against what I believe is good Wikipedia editing practice. Philantonia (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

a need for discussion and resolution in Talk? Thats what i agree with; And a discussion in Talk has been happening since 14:59, 23 April 2015; And if i am not completely mistaken than my proposals have been accepted, or at least no substantial counter argument was offered; Agilulf2007 (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have given up on having any kind of a productive discussion with you. You seem to: (a) quickly brand anyone who disagrees with your edits as a VANDAL (your emphasis); or (b), dismiss legitimate objections to your edits with spurious illogical arguments lacking in any real substance. You say that there has been a discussion, but fail to mention that you have, it seems, with every reversion, made still more substitutions with no justification given at all. If you had proposed one substitution at a time, and had waited for a consensus, I would say you did the right thing, but obviously you did just the opposite. You are completely mistaken if you think your proposals have been accepted. I notice from your Talk page that others in the past have also noticed your tendency to engage in editing wars, and that action was taken by a Wikipedia administrator. I believe the time has come to have the help of a Wikipedia administrator concerning the current disagreement. I don’t know how to request such help, but maybe someone more experienced than I can assist in making this happen. In the meantime, to save both of us a lot of time, I would suggest that you leave the Notables gallery in its original form until the matter can be resolved with the help of an administrator. Philantonia (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

My format is majority wise accepted; You (as your account and IP) are vandalising on POV reasons a proper format; This is not permitted; Agilulf2007 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

True to form, you accuse anyone who disagrees with your edits as a vandal. Also, astoundingly, you rationalize that the discussion was "proper" when, in fact you introduced five new Notables within a 24-hour period, with no discussion at all on your part for three of the substitutions, and only superficial comments for the other two. You made it virtually impossible to have any kind of a reasoned dialog concerning the changes. In my view that amounts to de-facto vandalism. Maybe there is a Wikipedia rule that says you can't steam-roll edits into an article in such a manner. I believe that your editing approach was definitely not "proper", and should be reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator. I hope someone can assist in this regard. Philantonia (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as i can tell (corrections appreciated), your only argument concerning the Barbera/Lombardi issue was that >no trophy is named after Barbera< - now is that argument convincing or just insane? We can surly agree on many issues, but what exactly is Liza Minelli (only 1/4 Italian and not much notable to begin with) doing there anyways; Agilulf2007 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is only insane if you don’t have a sense of humor. Obviously, I didn’t mean the statement to be taken literally. I really was implying that if Barbera was such an iconic figure in American culture, as Lombardi is, he would have been recognized by something as significant as the “Lombardy Trophy” (say the top prize or award for cartoonists). Also, I started out with the statement that Lombardi is recognized as the most famous coach in professional football history. That statement was dismissed by you via the statement: “Who is completely unknown outside of the USA and American football”, which seems like a strange criterion to use. I also stated what I believe to be an objective criterion for the selection of Notables, via the statement: “I believe that the Notables should be chosen from Italian Americans of the first rank, who are well recognized within American society for their outstanding accomplishments. You subsequently repeated most of that statement word-for-word, as though that was indeed the criterion you were using in your Notable choices, which seems like a major contradiction to me. It appears that your Notable choices are based strictly on your own subjective opinions, and little else. Philantonia (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Saxon

Well Philantonia I'm making a case for it like you said, why shouldn't he be there? Most people haven't even heard of Rudolph Valentino.--94.12.145.57 (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In Italy Rodolfo Valentino is considered one of the most famous actors of the silent film. Alex2006 (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Valentino was born in Italy, achieved fame in the U.S., and subsequently became well known around the world. Presently, Amazon.com offers over 50 books about Valentino's life and career. Philantonia (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I can turn the question around and ask: who ever heard of John Saxon? The important thing is Valentino played a very important role in the Italian America story, as is evident from the recent PBS Italian American series. The Notables in my opinion should be selected on the basis of their importance to the Italian American experience and history, not just because they are someone's popular favorite. Previously, you were pushing John Carradine ( a non-Italian American) as a Notable, and appear to have used three different IP's in the process. Philantonia (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Saxon was American, unlike Valentino who was Italian, Saxon is of Italian descent (a good description of an "Italian American"), but Valentino was just Italian (and of half French descent), whereas Saxon is 100% Italian American.

To sum up:

Valentino = Italian (French descent)

Saxon = American (Italian descent)

Which sounds more like an Italian American to you? It's nothing personal I just care about the condition of the page.--94.12.145.57 (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Valentino, even though only half Italian, is a far more important figure in Italian American history than Saxon. One can use the number of books about Valentino on Amazon (more than 50), as compared to books about Saxon (zero) as a reasonable discriminator. It seems to me that Valentino should definitely not be replaced as a Notable by Saxon, based on an objective analysis of their individual contributions to American culture in general, and Italian American culture in particular (Valentino had applied for American citizenship before he died, and his film career was quintessentially American). Philantonia (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, immigrants from Italy are also considered Italian-american, otherwise we should remove Enrico Fermi from the collage. Alex2006 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Recently the Public Broadcasting System had a series on Italian Americans which devoted about 10 minutes to Valentino. I believe this reflects his importance to the Italian American story, and to Italian Americans (regardless of the specifics of his birth). Philantonia (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

June 10th replacement of Valentino and Madonna

I believe (see the above discussion) Valentino should remain a Notable. His contribution to the Italian American story is very significant, as evidenced by the recent PBS series on Italian Americans. On the other hand, I believe Stallone has had his day in the sun, and will probably never be remembered the same way as Valentino (who is the subject of about 50 current Amazon books).

Madonna is unquestionably one of the great entertainers of the second half of the 20th century, and still has a huge following all around the world. Also, she is one of the few women currently included in the gallery of Notables. Ronnie Dio, who is also a great entertainer may be regarded by many as too controversial a choice as a Notable (for a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, perception is reality).

I believe the originator of the two changes (Emperorofthedaleks) should make a case for the substitutions and, at the same time, clarify what appears to be some editing irregularities, i.e. the use of multiple accounts/IP’s. The recent article-editing profile of Emperorofthedaleks is essentially the same as that of 94.12.145.57, the IP that aggressively pushed John Saxon as a Notable. That same IP, in turn, is identical in its first seven digits to the IP that aggressively pushed John Carradine as a Notable. Emperorofthedaleks should comment on what appears to be some questionable editing practices. Philantonia (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Substitution of Lombardi for Montana

I am proposing that Montana be replaced by Lombardi in the gallery of Notables. Going back in time about a month and a half ago, Montana was included as a Notable, without any discussion or consensus, in a flurry of edits by one individual over a 24-hour period. The same individual removed Lombardi based on the rationale that he “is completely unknown outside the USA and American football”. According to the Wikipedia-prescribed approach of obtaining a consensus, I am offering what I believe are a set of objective considerations to support my proposed change.

First, Lombardi is a virtual icon in American professional football, and he is honored by having football’s most coveted award named after him. He is the subject of over 50 books available on Amazon. The fact he is not universally known (and who can say this with any certainty, since that can only be a subjective opinion) is really not a criterion which should have any relevance at all concerning a Wikipedia article devoted to the Italian-American story and experience.

Second, Montana was a great quarterback, among quite a few other great quarterbacks. He clearly did have an impact on professional football, but not nearly as great as Lombardi. His life and career are the subject of about a dozen books available on Amazon. Lombardi was unique, both as a coach and as a widely recognized motivational figure, and there has never been another professional football coach like him; whereas, Montana has already been eclipsed by Brady and other contemporary quarterbacks. Philantonia (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You get more than 50 results for Books about Joe Montana and his career; So whats your argument; He was an active champion and more recent than a 60s sideliner; As for John Basilone the current picture, one can hardly detect the medal of honor where as in the newer version it is center of attraction; Agilulf2007 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Not so long ago you said: "Why dont just plaster Vince Lombardi in the sports section of the article where all great athletes and tacticians belong". Yet, in your next edit, you install an athlete (Montana) as a notable. That seems inconsistent to me. The real goal here is (according to accepted Wikipedia protocol) to try to reach a consensus. That means you should be putting forward objective arguments to support: (a) the original removal of Lombardi, and (b) the addition of Montana (which you never ever justified). To say, as you did above, "he was an active champion and more recent than a 60s sideliner" seems to me to be nothing more than a subjective value judgement on your part. Philantonia (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No, "Joe Montana being an active champion and a more recent figure in sports than Lombardi" is not a subjective judgment but the reality; I replaced Dean Martin (a drunk entertainer) with Joe Montana (a great Athlete) and Lombardi with Barbera; And i think we both know there was a discussion to that; Agilulf2007 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us try to address the present issue - which is the replacement of Montana with Lombardi. The historical developments are only important to the extent that your past ram-rod approach to editing made it virtually impossible to have any kind of reasoned dialog, so the fallacy of saying: "there was a discussion to that" can be easily refuted by anyone who takes the time to go through the record. The idea that Montana is a more recent figure than Lombardi, and should therefore deserve more consideration, is an extraordinarily poor criterion and, if applied uniformly to the selection of Notables, would rule out many of the present selections. By the way, Joe Montana is not to my knowledge an "active champion", and is probably known to the younger generation primarily for the TV commercials he appears in. So in conclusion (for the present) I am asking you to provide a rational argument against my proposed substitution Philantonia (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Joe Montana was the greatest Italian-American to ever play the sport; Vince Lombardi was a good coach from yesteryear that won the super bowl 2x (as coach), the very first two hence the trophy's name; Joe Montana on the other hand won the super bowl 4x (as a player) whose actions and play was decisive in winning these trophies (being the MVP in 3); In a way Montana winning 4 Lombardi trophies makes him twice the Lombardi Vince was (just a side logic); Other than that this is your proposal and apart from the Book list on Amazon there is not much to it and given the fact that there are plenty of books on Montana and his career as well its a complete null argument; Agilulf2007 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we are getting nowhere fast. I agree Montana was a great quarterback, and I also admire him for being extrordinarily proud of his Italian heritage. But I also think Lombardi has the distinction of not only being the best coach in professional history but, indeed, pioneering professional football as we know it. So, I guess we are faced with an embarrassment of riches regarding Notables. I would like to offer a compromise for you, and others interested in this discussion to consider. My compromise is to substitute Lombardi for Basilone, who is pictured and honored elsewhere in the article (and who you added without any discussion in your recent flurry of whirlwind edits). Philantonia (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is a dilemma concerning the amount of notables and all of them (notables /potential notables) have their merits, that goes without saying; But a John Basilone has to be included for all the obvious reasons; The only change i would suggest is that more females be included; Agilulf2007 (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Et'nolinguistic???

Italian Americans are not an ethnolinguistic group, by the definition of Wikipedia's article on Ethnolinguistics. Most, at this point, have a very limited command of the Italian language. All this being the case, I eliminated the term from the article, and borrowed the definition (almost) word for word fromn the Irish American article. This spurious identification as an 'ethnolinguistic group' was added early in 2014, and nobody objected. That's a long time for something so 'wacked' to hang around. The editor who added this nonsense has only an IP address, and has made 2 edits. Tapered (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to gallery of Notables (June 14)

Recently an individual replaced Frank Capra as a Notable, with the rationale: “most of his life not even a citizen”. The verifiable fact is that Capra received his U.S. citizenship at age 23. The same individual included Al Pacino as a Notable without any discussion at all. Given that these changes were made without proper debate and consensus, I am providing reasons for reversing them, so the matter can be properly debated.

Frank Capra’s films were nominated for 35 Academy awards and won eight, including two for best picture and three for best director. By the time America entered World War II, Capra had become America's most popular director and was president of the Screen Directors Guild. Yet four days after Pearl Harbor he left Hollywood to join the Armed Forces. In 1982 Capra was awarded the American Film Institute’s Life Achievement Award. Concerning the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”, made in 1946, he said it summed up his philosophy of film-making: “To exalt the worth of the individual; to champion man - plead his causes, protest any degradation of his dignity, spirit or divinity” (From Insignis, March 2015, Vol 44, Number 3). Capra, to me, epitomizes all that is good and noble in the human spirit.

Pacino is certainly a good actor but, as noted in his Wikipedia article, is known for his portrayal of mobsters. This being the case, it could be said that Pacino conjures up all that is sordid and bad in the human spirit. Now, clearly, this is not due to any fault of his. But why is it that Pacino, with all of his film and financial successes, never once produced or directed a film portraying Italian Americans with dignity and goodness, rather than in the usual stereotypical manner? It took Angela Jolie to direct “Unbroken”, the story of Louis Zamperini. Pacino certainly benefitted greatly from his role in the Godfather trilogy, and could easily have given something back to the Italian American community in return - but, to this day, never has. Philantonia (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your standards for Pacino are a bit off, he is an Actor not a Producer nor a Director; And as an Actor he is undoubtedly one of the all time greats; As for a positive role there was Serpico; But i have a general question some of the notables (incl. Capra/Pacino), and that is are, or should Sicilians be considered part of Italian-Americans? I ask that because according to this link: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cp-s/cp-s-1-2.pdf from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration BUREAU OF THE CENSUS 1990 which is included in the InfoBox No.[3], Sicilians are listed on their own separate from Italians; And i have noticed that their is also a Wikipedia article about Sicilian-Americans (on their own); Now it is clear that Sicilians i.e. a people from the Island and Italians i.e. a people from the Peninsula have thus a distinction, but the way i understood it was due to both alike coming from an "Italian" state (Kingdom/Republic) were thus grouped together as Italian-Americans; And also the census of 2013 (No.[1] InfoBox) does not in that sense differentiate between Italians and Sicilians; Just to clear that up because it concerns both Capra and Pacino as well as DiMaggio, Barbera and Scalia; Agilulf2007 (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Pacino is known for all sorts of parts. Perhaps you're even more concerned about his portrayal of the Prince of Darkness (as an attorney no less)? Come to think of it DeNiro has also portrayed Louis Cypher! Get real, they're two of America's greatest actors. Pacino's belongs. Tapered (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Besides, Scalia, Alito, and Giuliani are all included. I'm surprised that Pacino's picture didn't self-destruct out of shame about that! Tapered (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Roosevelts

It should be noted in the article that the original Dutch line of the Roosevelt family had a remote Italian ancestor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.24.238 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Italian American. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140419001832/http://www.niaf.org:80/research/contribution.asp to https://www.niaf.org/research/contribution.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091222003039/http://www.osia.org:80/public/pdf/Italian_Lang_Study_2003.pdf to http://www.osia.org/public/pdf/Italian_Lang_Study_2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)