Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
You've to explain me the meaning of that "wacky "referred to my act.Patience of waiting will end.[[User:Glc72|Glc72]] ([[User talk:Glc72|talk]]) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
You've to explain me the meaning of that "wacky "referred to my act.Patience of waiting will end.[[User:Glc72|Glc72]] ([[User talk:Glc72|talk]]) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
||
Geez. All this shouting and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NeilN&curid=2573437&diff=578015800&oldid=577869437 this] to add G7 to the lead? Much more productive to say, "Italy is a member of the [[G7]]. Please add that to the list of organizations it belongs to in the intro." or do the edit yourself. --[[User:NeilN|'''<font color="navy">Neil<font color="red">N</font></font>''']] <sup>''[[User talk:NeilN|<font color="blue">talk to me</font>]]''</sup> 20:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:01, 20 October 2013
Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
European Countries v. USA
Why is it that whenever wiki writers write articles about countries in Europe they read like travel brochures, whereas the article about the United States reads like one long winded political rant from a Soviet propaganda machine?
You are totally right.Not only you noticed all this propaganda.151.40.108.63 (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Defining Italy
Could the pro-European Union Wikipedia editors calm down a little bit? The European Union is NOT a country; it's just an organization. A country or sovereign state usually has all its member states use the same currency. The United Kingdom has opted out from using the euro, and chances are it will withdraw from that organization soon or later. You can't just define Italy as a "republic within the European Union," though you may explain later that the country is a member of this organization. Therefore I'm changing the definition to "a republic in Southern Europe." --Nosugarcoating (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose to your edit. This is your private opinion. We know, EU is not country (anywhere in Wikipedia does not say that this is country) and this is not "just" organization. EU is a'la supranational entity, similarly to federation, operates on the similarly principle as the country. Topic about UK and euro is not related to this because EU is not country. Could the anty-European Union Wikipedia editors (including you) calm down a little bit? Subtropical-man (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
So, you have decided to stalk me by following all my edits. I won't even say anything as I know you're just looking for trouble. Meanwhile, I have to leave this message just in case: (I'm using the UK relevantly as an example because it is also a member of the EU) the UK is a country that is a member of the EU, however the UK isn't defined as "a republic within the European Union." Uniform style is a known style of Wikipedia. It's enough that it is explained later that the countries are members of the EU, but you can't just start the first sentence of the definition as "a republic within the European Union." I also believe the recent Oxford dictionary definition of each European country is accurate (which doesn't say they are republics within the European Union). The EU is also not a federation, no matter how close it looks like or you wish it to be. Have a nice day. Stay away from trouble. It seems I need to inspect all articles that mention the EU to make sure things are presented accurately so as to not deceive the readers. Nice to meet you. I'm a citizen of United Nations confederation. Ha! No, I'm a citizen of the United States, a real federation, a real country with all states using the same currency, and a real superpower :) --Nosugarcoating (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is there a way to word it better something like - is a unitary parliamentary republic in Southern Europe and a founding member state of the European Union. ????? -- Moxy (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nosugarcoating, do you know what a republic is? From your comments you don't appear to! Anyway, it is perfectly acceptable to describe Italy as a republic within the European Union, because that is what it is. Italy's political status is defined by both Italy and the EU. May I also remind you that the British Empire and the USSR were both Superpowers in their time, and - like the European Union - were a collection/union of countries! Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- This same adit in Talk:France#Defining_France. Again: Nosugarcoating wrote: "can't just start the first sentence...", no, you wrong, one can. United Nations is organisation, mode of action is very different from USA or EU. Nosugarcoating wrote: " I'm a citizen of the United States, a real federation, a real country with all states using the same currency, and a real superpower" - I guessed, had to be a reason for this anti-EU behavior. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, it is perfect to define Italy the way it's been defined by reputable dictionaries. It's perfect that within the article there's a description that Italy is a founding member of the EU. The article is very okay the way it currently is. Oh and, even though I'm American, I support the EU. I have British relatives in Europe. The UK has its own monarch, so that disqualifies EU's status as confederation or federation. The British Empire had only one emperor or monarch, and none of the member countries had its own separate monarch. The USSR had one centralized Head of Government, and all the member countries adopted and used the same Soviet currency. --Nosugarcoating (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- You wrote: "The UK has its own monarch, so that disqualifies EU's status as confederation or federation" - no, does not disqualify. You have very little knowledge of political science. It does not matter. A federation is a political entity characterized by a union of self-governing states. Simple. Your text about British Empire and USSR is littering discussion. You still repeating the same nonsense. Status of UK anyone not interested here. Currency also does not matter: Ecuador, Panama and some other uses United States dollar, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican and some other (non EU states) uses Euro, after all, these are independent countries. Also, for example Gibraltar (part of United Kingdom) uses own currency but this is not independent country. Currency does not matter. European Union not have need to own currency, like as Ecuador, Panama, Andorra, Monaco, Vatican and very many other countries. Again, you have very little knowledge of political science, you need to have a basic knowledge of policies, if you want to further discuss. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Nosugarcoating you said: "The British Empire had only one emperor or monarch, and none of the member countries had its own separate monarch." This is not true. Even under British rule, India had its own Princes and Royalty, so too did many of its other colonies. That is why the British Monarch was styled Emperor over some colonies and as King/Queen over others. In the early 1900s many British colonies maintained their own independent armed forces and governments. The British Empire is a perfect example of a superpower derived from a gathering of nations and peoples.Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Official name of the Italian state in English
This is a bit strange, but despite common sense, the Italian government [sent a letter to the UN ten years ago] clarifying that it preferred to be known in English as the "Republic of Italy" rather than the "Italian Republic." I have not found any more recent contrary authority, so it would appear that "Republic of Italy" remains the official name of the Italian state in English. It is true that Repubblica italiana ought to translate to "Italian Republic," and "Republic of Italy" more closely tracks Repubblica d'Italia (which is not the name of the Italian state in Italian), but since governmental decisions on the name of the state in a foreign language are essentially definitive, we should not have any problems making the move. Obviously, the name would have to be sourced; I would also recommend including a note within the ref to the effect "Officially; Repubblica italiana literally translates to "Italian Republic."" I would normally do this without asking, but since this is a rather prominent change about which some might get confused I felt it best to see if anyone had any serious objections. Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing no objections, I'm making the change. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is the official name: Italian constitution from the official site of the President of the Republic. A government has no authority to change the name and the constitution, moreover with a simple message to a foreign embassy. --Enok (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- That may seem at first glance to be true. However, the only official name of the Republic is Repubblica italiana--the name in Italian. What the translation into English (or any other foreign language) is will always be unofficial, albeit one may be preferred by the government. As it is, we have two sources: one which expressly says "the way we like to translate Repubblica italiana into English is as "Republic of Italy," and another one that uses "Italian Republic" but doesn't say that it is preferred (despite being more logical). Considering that the "Republic of Italy" remains the official translation maintained at the United Nations, I see no reason why we should go against the government's preferred translation of the name. Again, and I must emphasize: We are not arguing about the official name of Italy; we are arguing about the preferred translation of the official name of Italy. Lockesdonkey (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Prehistory
There's no mention about the nuragic civilization and of shardana in Sardinia. A very important part of the italian prehistory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.56.121.13 (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 3 September 2013
Please change "Italy still receives development assistance from the European Union every year. Between 2000 and 2006, Italy received €27.4 billion from the EU.[111]" to "Italy is the third net contributor to European Budget in 2011 after Germany and France". References: [1] [2] "And despite its recent economic crisis did not receive any bailout program from the EU from any of its financial mechanisms (ESN) while providing its full support to these financial programs."[3]
Giuseppe.di caro (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This sentence needs redoing
"Between the late 19th century and the early 1900s, The new Kingdom of Italy quickly industrialized and acquired a vast a colonial empire in Africa."
Presumably should be:
"Between the late 19th century and the early 1900s, the new Kingdom of Italy quickly industrialized and acquired a vast colonial empire in Africa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.198.108 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is there a redirection from Austrian_Empire to Italy?
When searching for Austrian Empire a choice is presented to Austrian_Empire(Italy) which directs to the page for Italy. This seems out of place. --Skater00 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
2 things
Many people write articles or change articles without having idea.Ignorance is in Wikipedia too.What scares me is the acknowldege of controllers. Italy is member of the G7 and the G8 that you removed in the presentation like the word "main" that was before "middle power".Main middle powers can be Germany,Japan (that you even set as great powers),Italy,India ,Brazil or Canada.You can't compare these states to Thailandia or whatelese that is considered middle power.A lot of fantasy in this article.Greetings!!!151.40.7.192 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia english seems to like to hold a "low profile" of Italy presentation (not only in this article but in other ones of international policy).In other states presentations at the beginning it's always cited if they are member of the G7 or the G8 or better both of them.Please cite them in presentation.In this page you set the main official images (the Italian President ,the Prime Minister,the Italian State symbol,the Anthem ,the Flag and so on) of this State and you must respect its ranking.Not respecting this isn't polite and even offensive.151.40.18.30 (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems you forgot another time "main" before than "middle power" (you deleted it) and G7.You even cut other parts like golden reserves and other ones too.Italy compared to other states of its importance or weight in fact has a very small presentation about its today position. We checked other states similar to Italy.They are presented to Great Fanafare when the difference between them isn't so relevant. We remember you that Italy before the WWII was a great power and even now that Wikipedia considers Germany and Japan great powers could claim with Canada that status.Anyway your acting is disruptive vs Italy and not only in this article but in many articles of international policy and economy.May be not too many italian people wrote in Wikipedia english that's why partial articles.It seems you are "playing" in presenting Italy with its image and its Symbols.This isn't a good thing.Anyway when others write in a bad way of your country ,be sure they are afraid of the position or envious of your country,in this case of Italy.In Talk the "Edit request on 3 september" point is just a thing that testifies what we wrote.Even in that moment Italy image was presented in a "low profile".Sorry,but you aren't a trustble site in describing Italy and many other subjects in policy and economy.These are the presentation (at the beginning ) of some states like USA,Japan,Germany,France,UK,Canada,Spain.We could cite others too to show the difference in presenting Italy and these ones.It's really not polite and offensive.Italy has been cited even as the Sick man of Europe and in PIIGS article.We can last with many examples where Italy is presented with a low profile or attacked . As all readers can see just below is considered an article type "C".It talks more than many words. 151.40.18.30 (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Italy is the 9th economy on Earth as nominal GDP and the 4th in EU.Italy is member of the G7 (as you reported in the presentation of other states) and it owns the 6th largest net wealth in the world as developed country.It owns the 3rd largest golden reserve in the world too.It's a main middle power.Article in presentation is full of mistakes and lacks in many main things.In the USA article they would have been changed in 3 seconds like in other states articles (in this site many writers with fantasy names of CIA first of all and also similar ones of other countries that care to well present or boost their image(aka PROPAGANDA).Really a "C" article,the level of the same Wikipedia.When nobody answers somebody is guilty.The same fact that you changed the article after our suggests has shown that there was and still there is more than something wrong about it.This article like other ones will be checked and followed costantly for long time at every level. 151.40.108.63 (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It lacks in article of ITALY presentation the G7 and the G8
This presentation of Italy is ADEQUATE.It must be cited in the main beginning presentation (like for other states) that Italy is in the G7 and theG8 .THe word MAIN before MIDDLE POWER was deleted with a vandalic act based on personal opinions.The level of the ranking of the State MUST be respected .It seems all invented by editors without respect for others.THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN CHANGED IN ITS PRESENTATION SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LAST DAYS:THIS IS NOT SERIOUS.YOU ARE REALLY PLAYING WITH SYMBOLS OF ITALY.That's no good.Thanks.Glc72 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am Italian yet I fail to understand what you want to convey. Can you provide diffs (and improve your English)? --cyclopiaspeak! 14:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I answered in your Talk page)Here in Wikipedia not all are in good feith,correct and polite like you.Thanks).Glc72 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Cyclopia talking about me used the word wacky in his Talk page.I'm waiting for his explaining about it.Glc72 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
While i'm waiting for him (the patience will end),i'm waiting for changes in the article in the correct way too.Good dinner to everybody.Glc72 (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any consensus for your changes (whatever they are as it's hard to tell with all the tangents and opinions) so you may be waiting for a long time. It may go faster if you present references backing up exactly what you want the article to say, instead of resorting to synthesis --NeilN talk to me 17:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You've to explain me the meaning of that "wacky "referred to my act.Patience of waiting will end.Glc72 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Geez. All this shouting and this to add G7 to the lead? Much more productive to say, "Italy is a member of the G7. Please add that to the list of organizations it belongs to in the intro." or do the edit yourself. --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)