Talk:Sicily/Archive 1

message: I could not help but notice that Arabs was put in repeatedly instead of Moors.  The section even mentioned "Egyptian Arabs" as if to make sure that African and black did not enter the mind.  Well the Moors took over Sicily and not some arabs(who could be black white and Asian).  Sicily was NOT always an Italian or Roman possession.  It had gone back and forth between Rome and Africa.  I am not sure what people think that they are tryin to pull by trying to lie about their African past/present, but look in the mirro and you shall see the truth.--71.235.94.254 01:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOORS Instead of Arabs 

message: Here's what I suggest: A new topic called sicily in pop culture.  According to 86.140.144.245 , Sicily is another name for the mushroom kingdom.  A quick visit to said guest's history shows that he edited several other pages in order to further expand this knowledge (wether it's false or not, I don't know).  Anyways, adding a Sicily in Pop Culture portion to the article would also give a place to mention The Godfather, other fictional mobsters and anything else in Pop Culture where Sicily comes up.  Like it or not, it is relevant. (for now, I'm reverting the page to how it was before guest changed (vandalized?) it - (17:14, 17 November 2006 Bcnviajero) Baribeau 21:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sicily In Pop Culture 

message: Well, I guess that Don Vito Corleone should not appear on the section about the "Famous Sicilians". He is just a fictional character... What do you think about? --Angelo 01:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don Vito Corleone 

message: I think this section is starting to get a bit silly.  It is factually correct to say that Sicily has long been a "melting pot", and to state the kinds of people that have invaded, and/or migrated to, Sicily over the millennia.  It is even factually correct to say that large numbers of lombards and north italians migrated to parts of central Sicily in the early years of Norman rule and that this is strongly evidenced in their unique dialects (e.g. Piazza Amerina, Sperlinga, Aidone, San Fratello, etc.), but it is fantasy land to suggest that Sicilians with Norman and Spanish blood are found mostly in the north of the island.  After centuries, the island population is fairly homogenous - it is predominantly of Greek and Arab descent, with vestiges of lots of other races, none of which is clearly evident in any part of the island.  Sicilian families are notorious for producing siblings that look nothing like each other precisely because of this genetic make up - it's a bit like a bag of licorice all sorts - anything is possible and it is definitely not dependent on geography.  I also think the expressive eyes bit is starting to get out of hand - I might have blue-green eyes, but I would not describe them as being more expressive than the next bloke! --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sicilian People 

message: We should decide finally what we really mean for a "famous Sicilian", i.e. if this list must just include natives, or also include people who is somehow tied to Sicily, or with Sicilian ancients. I don't think that Frank Sinatra should be considered as Sicilian: he was born in the US, and he grew up and made his fortune there. Even if he is from a Sicilian family emigrated in the US, or we should otherwise include all the mobs of the US mafia, and more and more. Tell me what to do, and, if and when a decision will be taken out, I will finally explain in the related section how to claim a famous  Sicilian. Greetings from a (real) Sicilian guy! --Angelo 15:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Sicilians 

message: I´m writing an essay on Cosa Nostra with an historical (history of ideas) approach. I would be glad if anyone could recommend litterary on history of Sicily that i could connect to the development of the mafia. I would be very grateful!
Ps. Wouldn´t be great if wikipedia gave tips on good litt. for further studies?
 
/jens (Email removed to prevent spam)
* A few years ago a book called "Cosa Nostra" was published (I think by an English journalist, but I can't remember his name).  It is far and away the very best piece of research I have read on the topic, for once, referring to actual documents (court records, government research papers and the like, of the early period) rather than mysterious supposition.  It provides conclusive proof that the genesis of Cosa Nostra was the mayhem and chaos of the political vacuum which occurred immediately after the annexation of Sicily by Piedmont, before the modern Italian state was properly formed, i.e. the period 1861 to 1871.  It has been sustained by federal politicians ever since - it has extremely little to do with Sicilian history and culture and everything to do with political power, greed and opportunism.  What else is there to know?   ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: i don't really think there needs to be a long list of what you call sicilian-americans..i think its like hey look at all these famous people who come from sicily as if you're trying to show off against the mafia stereotype..firstly they are americans, as soon as you start calling them anything otherwise it entails that somehow they represent sicily in some shape or form. i've always hated the fact that growing up so many stereotypes of sicily are not about sicilians, niuatri siciliani but come from 'sicilian-americans' which have nothing to do with sicilians, from sicily.
although the great amount of emigration has to be stressed particulary with regard to the US, there should be a section on this i think, as an island of emigration somewhere..yet thist list of names really should not be included, is this an encyclopaedia article or an entry at the sicilian-american celebrities website?!
the problem is a lot of people who probably write on this article maybe sicilian-americans or australians so for them their 'sicilian' identity is part of such notions and relates to such people however the real sicilian identity of sicily has nothing to do with these people. who cares or recognises joe di miaggio in sicily. its part of your US sicilian culture but not ours. nn centra nenti ccu niautri ccá nta sicilia.
whoever has responsability should take this list off..i don't see a list anywhere for the birtish section or spanish section which has a long list of foreign celebrities.
does anyone agree?
Eus
* Prifirisci ca fùssiru discritti sìmpricimenti comu taliani-miricani? Avemu già na lista longa dî siciliani chi sunnu nati propiu ntâ Sicilia - nun è comu siddu avemu suttaliniati sulamenti chiddi chi eranu figghi d'emigrati.  Nun capisciu picchì ti priòccupi accussì tantu.  E poi tanti voti ssi siculu-miricani o sunnu nati ntâ Sicilia (e si nni jeru quannu èranu giùvani) o nasceru ntê Stati Uniti appena ca cci arrivaru, dunca hannu ritinutu la sò culligamentu câ Sicilia finadora.  L'ùrtima cosa, u fattu è ca cci sunnu tanti siciliani fora dâ Sicilia (o chiossai nenti menu) quantu s'attrovanu ntâ Sicilia - stu fattu nun si pò nijari - e parramu la stissa lingua e nn'avemu lu stissu sangu, no? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a prupòsitu Eus - vistu ca scrivi lu sicilianu bonu bonu, lassati jiri st'artìculu e ni veni attruvari ntâ wikipedia siciliana e ddocu poi scrìviri zoccu voi câ nostra lingua bedda bedda.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sicilian-americans? 

message: my criticism is not that they are not sicilian by blood or anything like its just they really have nothing to do with sicily itself when speaking of relevance to an encyclopaedia article about the island of sicily. 
pippu sacciu semu du stissu sangu, vabbe ppi mia semu tutti du stissu sangu comu éssiri umani...however i intend to speak on the objectivity on the article in this context.
Is wikipedia credible at all as a resource for facts and relevant information if people jsut use it to put their own versions or perceptions of things? I mean would you expect the article on France to state a list of French-Canadian celebrities for example?
I'm sure i'm making myself understood. Although yes maybe it does bother me a little the inclusion of sicilian americans, a big long list of them. I said of course it has to be recognised, it is a huge part of our history that immigration. Just imagine entire towns and cities being emptied of all their people, of all that talent and culture.
Yet maybe a section on sicilian emigration would be better talking of the principal destiantions etc USA, Argentina, Brasil. But please a list of mostly american  celebrities, especially anyone who may have a drop of sicilian blood 'part sicilians' is just ridiculous in an encyclopaedia article...a seperate article on sicilian-americans or sicilians abroad perhaps but not on the entry for sicily itself.
Surely someone sees my point??
anyway scrissi nta wikisiciliana 5/6 articuli na para di misi fa, sugnu Eus, sugnu membru ma mi siddiai a trasiri ccu password e nomu d'utenti..quannu haju tempu scrivu nuatra articulu, sugnu studenti, aju tenti esami ntu stu mumentu ma quannu finisciu fazzu autri articuli.
ni sintemu
Eus.
:I admit that part-Sicilian is starting to push it a little bit - and these may well have been left simply under the  :category:People of Sicilian heritage.  I checked back at scn.wiki, and now I remember you!  I recall being very excited when you joined us because of your command of languages (including Sicilian), we are always extremely happy to have people of your calibre with us - we're a small group - but we punch above our weight!  I really hope you can come back to us soon.  One hint re passwords, I just log on once and never log off, that way every time I go in I am already logged in, it seems to last like that for months.   By the way, are you the same person as Zisa?  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  risposta-sicilian americans 

message: I've removed this paragraph because it is not needed. 
We should not waste space on Wikipedia addressing each 
and every single ridiculous racial theory, whether it
is "afrocentrism" (in this case), or Nazism, or otherwise.
There are people who believe that the Greeks were originally
blond-haired Nordics. Should we waste space in the Greece
article addressing this issue?
There are afrocentrics who believe that the ancient Jews
were black. Should we address that in the Israelites article?
We shouldn't lower the article to address such nonesense.
MYLO 18:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I agree that it is not necessary to have that paragraph included in this article. Encyclopedia entries are for conclusive information, not on-going debates, unless such an article is created for that specific intention. I see nothing wrong with this being address in a separate article, so as long as Wikipedia protocol is being followed. Sicilianmandolin 15:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that there are two equally valid perspectives that tend to propose equally compelling evidence. If we want to mention it as a relevant topic IN QUESTION, and not as a conclusive rebuttal to any one side, then I do not object. But we must avoid POV, and the latest version of that paragraph was heavily POV. There's no doubt in my mind however, having researched this debate for quite some time now, that it is the product of extreme and petty racism, and I would hate to see that kind of drivvle pervade in this fine article. I think a footnote link is reasonable. Sicilianmandolin 15:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I agree. Sicilian-Americans and part-Sicilians, although myself one too, should be excluded from this page and a footnote link should be created to an external list. Unless born in Sicily and immigrated to another country, I do not think it is remotely justifiable to have a "Sicilian-American" or "Part-Sicilian" list on this page when I see no other countries that have such lists. And with the semantic nature of Wikipedia considered, these individuals are not Sicilian as of Sicily, and that should be as far as that goes. Sicilianmandolin
thankyou for finally seeing sense sicilianmandolin..like i said i'm purely talking about the validity of the page as an encyclopaedia article and of course not one other country or area has such a list..could i take it down myself, would anyone mind? --Eus2 14:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not really part of this project. Though, nobody's taking initiative to respond to the issue, so it seems to get it done you're going to have to do it yourself. Do remember to either find another list of "Sicilian-Americans" and/or "part-Sicilians" and create a "See also" link or make one yourself. Sicilianmandolin 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Part black" paragraph intrusive 

message: hi there..i've now taken down the long unnecessary list of sicilian-americans and 'part sicilians' and placed them under the see also link which directs to the sicilian-american category.
i think the article does not need a list of part sicilians etc for reasons i've already discussed. I'm confident that the sicilian-american link is better placed on its own page.
--Eus2 11:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ciau Eus - it looks like someone rolled back your changes - I would write to the guy on User talk:Tawker - to explain your reasoning - and to point out that it had been discussed here - I remain neutral to the idea, so give it a go.  Salutamu.  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sicilian-americans seperate link. 

message: I would like to announce the start of the WikiProject Sicily, to fill in the many gaps that currently exist on the political structures, geography, culture and history of Sicily and related biographies of Sicilians.  Please come to the above project page to register your interest.  There is still a fair bit to translate from Italian and Sicilian (to date I have been copying some lists that provide us with a wealth of potential articles that merely need to be anglicised).  For starters, most of the Sicilian municipalities (comuni or cumuna) need to be done.  Otherwise I would appreciate any input from anyone who knows anything about setting up project pages.  Thanking you in anticipation.  Grazzî assai e salutamu!  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sicily|WikiProject Sicily]] 

message: Is possible that Syracusae, in Sicily, may be the Land of Cyclopes?
Etymologically, there is an identification of Cycl-opes and Sicelians (the ancient Sicels, a non-Greek people of this island).
Note: In ancient times, there were three non-Greek and non-Phoenician peoples lived in Sicily.
# Sicelians (or Sicels or Siceli, lived in eastern Sicelia)
# Sicanians (or Sicani, lived in central Sicelia)
# Elymians (or Elymaeans, or Elymi, lived in western Sicelia)
--IonnKorr 08:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of Sicily and [[Cyclopes]] 

message: 
It would be nice to have a clean map showing the locations of major cities and Mount Etna, perhaps overlaid on the provincial map. -- Beland 12:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map request 

message: ::What does it mean  - Ranked	1st (8.5 %)?
::::Johnbibby 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that Sicily has the largest area of Italian regions and its area represents 8.5% of the whole of Italy. Xanucia 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it mean  - Ranked	1st (8.5 %)? 

message: Are there any taxes imposed on cars for using the national road system or the motorways (autostrade)? I mean like you find in other countries where you get a sticker to glue to your windscreen etc.--Energman 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxes and Autostrade 

message: Our Sicilian regional election, 2006 article refers to a "Regional Assembly". Why is there zero mention of this body in this main article? It seems like fairly elementary information, and its absence is odd. -- Mais oui! 04:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right, I'll add something first opportunity - I've got some good reference materials at home on the subject.  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Assembly 

message: I was intrigued by an intrigued by an article I read on Silician history. That article states
:Under the Byzantines, as under the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Greek language was still widely spoken in Sicily. This was an evolving medieval Greek, not that of the ancients. Vulgar Latin was also spoken, though it was far less prevalent than Greek. Eventually, this Italic language, with Greek, Arabic and Norman French influences, became the medieval Romance language known as Sicilian. Linguistic evolution was a slow process, however, and Greek was still spoken throughout Sicily's Arab and Norman periods into the eleventh century.
This article only lightly touches on the Greek language usage during the Middle Ages. What I'm curious about is this. If it is true that Greek was the predominant language on the island so late into the Middle Ages how is it that the modern language is an Italic language? The Arab conquest doesn't give an obvious answer. The Norman conquest doesn't really explain it either since Silician seems far more similar to other Italian languages than to French. So was this a result of influx from the mainland, conquest by the minority groups on the island, or just some kind of Renaissance discovery of their "Italian" roots?
I don't know the answer but it seems like something worth bringing out in the history.
Also on a separate topic, the article on Sicilian language states that
:...Sicilian is often referred to as a neo-Latin language - it did not descend directly from Latin ...
This article says clearly that Sicilian is a Romance language (which by definition would mean it does descend directly from Latin). The articles should be consistent on this point (I know it is controversial but they should both respresent the majority opinion or else not make an assertion one way or the other).
--Mcorazao 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time of the Norman conquest Sicily was substantially Arabic speaking with a large christian Greek speaking population in the North-Eastern corner (around Messina) and other scattered communities.  The Norman conquest took 30 years, after which the island ends up with 3 largish language communities: Arabic, Greek and vulgar Latin, with Norman French remaining the language of the court and ruling class (not too dissimilar to what happened in England) and thus not all that prevalent.  Nevertheless, adminstrative and court documents are to be found in all four languages during the 120 years odd of Norman rule (say 1071 to 1194).  The vulgar Latin was introduced to a large extent from the Campanians that the Normans used to supplement their own forces (which probably never numbered greater than 5,000 at any one time).  To complicate matters further, with the depopulation of the central parts of the island following the conquest, Western Latins were encouraged to migrate in large numbers, these included Padanians from Northern Italy, and Lombards and Campanians from Southern Italy.  Thus the Latin base of Sicilian is in fact substantially the same vulgar Latin base found in Neapolitan.  However, Sicilian has a far greater Greek and Arabic influence for obvious reasons.  On top of that, gallic influences, in terms of both Norman French, Provencal and Gallo-Italic abound in Sicilian (and did moreso in the very earliest written records we have from the 12th and 13th centuries).  But in the last 8 centuries, Sicilian has received Catalan, Spanish and finally Italian influences - the latter in an inordinately dominant fashion in just the last 60 years with improved education and the influence of the mass media - such that Sicilian has perhaps changed more in the last 60 years than it did for the previous 600 years.  Sicilians themselves can barely differentiate between using Sicilian and Italian, and many confuse the use of Regional Italian with Sicilian when in fact they are two different things.  It is for this reason that many have trouble viewing Sicilian as a separate language when it appears so similar to Italian - that's because usually what they are seeing or hearing is Italian!  πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek language 

message: 1)It forever sealed the fate of Sicily as a western Christian civilization.  Which at the time could have went either way.  This period and time forever changed the future of Sicily's culture and place in history.  
2)The Normans made several large & distinct contributions to art, poetry, architecture, law, governance, customs, etc.
3)This was the epoch era in Sicilian history as the Sicilian empire spread from S.Italy to Malta and Libya and areas in Greece and moder day Albania.  And had the Second largest populated Christain city outside of Constantinople.
4)They treated Arabs as inferior with higher taxes, persecution and displaced them from their lands and farms and eventually expelled every single Arab from Sicily.
5)If anything this should be grouped Norman/Hohenstaufen period!  As these two are far closer related, considering marriage arrangements would seal Sicily's fate With the Habsburgs for centuries.
Some referenced data and excerpts to further proof my point:
On March 9 1161, some barons stormed the royal palace and massacred the unarmed Muslim employees while holding King William prisoner. Rioting in Palermo's strrets, the Chrisitians broke into Muslim-owned businesses, killing the propeitors or driving them out of Palermo. In the countryside they usurped the Muslim Farmlands. The Lombard barons were behaving towards Sicilian Muslims like the Crusaders were behaving toward Muslims on the road to Jerusalem(1) found in chapter 6 titled, "Normans"
Moslems were not violently persecuted by the government but they were regarded as an inferior group, much as Christians had been under teh Arabs, and both Moslems and Jews were discriminated against in tax policy. There is evidence from place names that many moslems emigrated from Sicily and settled elsewhere in the Mediterranean area. They were replace not only by Norman or French settlers but by Italians, notablly from Liguria or Lombardy(2) found in chapter 3,High Middle Ages:Sicily under the Normans and Frederick II(1130-1250)
Slowly but surely the Normans took over the South, eliminating not only Lombard principalities and independent duchies, but also two foreign military powers the Byzantines and Arabs in Sicily:In 1071 Bari, the last Byzantine stronghold in Apulia, fell and in 1072 Palermo, the greatest cirty of Arab Sicily, was captured.
The elimination of the Byzantine and Arab power in Italy was, as it happens, definitive and therefore highly significant, ensuring that all of Italy became a part of Western Christendom(which now identify as Western Europe), speaking a Romance language derived from Latin(not Greek or Arabic) and identifyingwith Western Latin Church, rather than Islam or Greek Orthodoxy.(3)Chapter 2:The Medieval century 400-1250.
Frederick II is famous for his free thinking and his appreciation of Islamic culture: but he savagely repressed a Muslim revolt in Sicily, and deported the survivors to Apulia, where they were concentrated at Lucera and exploited for their tax revenues and services.(4)Chapter 2:The Medieval century 400-1250.
However the famed 'multiculturalism can be exaggerated. The Muslim population of Sicily waned from the late 12th century, and Greeks and Arabs mostly remained peasants(5)Part II:The revival of Europe.
1)S.Benjamin, "Sicily: 3,000 years of human history"(Liberty of Congress Cataloging-in-publication data, 2006)
2)H. Hearder, "Italy: A short history."(Cambridge University press, 1990)
3 & 4)G. Holmes, "The Oxford illustrated history of Italy"(Oxford University Press, 1997)
5)A. Jotischky & C. Hull, "The Penguin Historical Guide of the MEdieval World."(Penguin books, 2005)
***Regardless we will bring in experts to decide this dilemna...(Scipio3000~)
===Why the name "Saracen" should at least be mentioned in Arab section===
The user said, "Saracen means Easterner and it simply refers to the Persians and Syrians in the Hellenic era." And they should not be called that anymore.  I have never heard Persians or Syrians being called Saracens in the Ancient Graeco-Roman world.  If anything they were called the  Medes, Asiatics or more likely Barbarians which is what all outside people were called by the Ancient Greeks and Romans.  The English name for Wales originates from the Germanic word Walha, meaning "stranger" or "foreigner", and the Norse were called by others, North Men or Northerners, so why do we still call these groups by that name?  What is so wrong with this?  I haven't heard any motion for the Welsh or Normans to have there names changed...why not? 
A book on "Sicily" by Dr. Joseph F. Privitera one of america's foremost experts in Sicily, calls them Saracens throughout the book, and this was written in 2002.  So if you want to refute an expert, written less than 5 years ago, please bring some factual evidence.  It is critically important to keep with historical accuracies, this is what they were called at the time and it still needs to be mentioned...at least somewhere in the article..  Just like the early settlers called Native Americans, "Indians".  We still include that fact in history, so why is this different?  In the modern day, we may not call them that anymore, but the early settlers did, so shouldn't we at least make mention of this somewhere in the article??  
The reason we are able to enjoy history today, is because previous generations felt it was imperative to pass down historical facts completely intact and with the fullest integrity regarding historical accuracies, names, dates and events.  It is our duty to continue this trend for all future generations''
***Regardless we will seek out a group consensus and contact experts to review the material.(Scipio3000 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Why the Normans deserve there own section'' 

message: The user said, "Saracen means Easterner and it simply refers to the Persians and Syrians in the Hellenic era." And they should not be called that anymore.  I have never heard Persians or Syrians being called Saracens in the Ancient Graeco-Roman world.  If anything they were called the  Medes, Asiatics or more likely Barbarians which is what all outside people were called by the Ancient Greeks and Romans.  The English name for Wales originates from the Germanic word Walha, meaning "stranger" or "foreigner", and the Norse were called by others, North Men or Northerners, so why do we still call these groups by that name?  What is so wrong with this?  I haven't heard any motion for the Welsh or Normans to have there names changed...why not? 
A book on "Sicily" by Dr. Joseph F. Privitera one of america's foremost experts in Sicily, calls them Saracens throughout the book, and this was written in 2002.  So if you want to refute an expert, written less than 5 years ago, please bring some factual evidence.  It is critically important to keep with historical accuracies, this is what they were called at the time and it still needs to be mentioned...at least somewhere in the article..  Just like the early settlers called Native Americans, "Indians".  We still include that fact in history, so why is this different?  In the modern day, we may not call them that anymore, but the early settlers did, so shouldn't we at least make mention of this somewhere in the article??  
The reason we are able to enjoy history today, is because previous generations felt it was imperative to pass down historical facts completely intact and with the fullest integrity regarding historical accuracies, names, dates and events.  It is our duty to continue this trend for all future generations''
***Regardless we will seek out a group consensus and contact experts to review the material.(Scipio3000 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the name "Saracen" should at least be mentioned in Arab section

message: Can this be considered Neutral POV?:
"Bad periods of rule by the crown of Savoy (1713–1720) and then the Austrian Habsburgs gave way to union (1734) with the Bourbon-ruled kingdom of Naples, first as independent kingdom under personal union, then (1816) as part of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies."
--DerRichter 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: It should be noted for interest sake that the flag of sicily contains two parts.
The first part is the three legs which is already on wikipedia.
The second part is the head of medussa, who was from Sicily, and had snakes, and would turn people to stone.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of sicily... 

message: Why is this section far, far longer than any other part of the article and filled with reels of psychobable, when it represents one of the shortest time periods of Sicilian history? It has 29 paragraphs for god sake, when the Angevin-Aragonese, etc just has 1?? And the periods on Greek Sicilian history (which is far more important because of the likes of Siracusa's place in the Greek world) only has 2?
Sicily has been inhabited for three thousand years, yet a mere 200 years has the most coverage... does the rest not count unless it is mentioned in a crappy US movie? Take a look at the Italian Wikipedia for a better example of an article on Sicily. - Soprani 04:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arab Sicily" 

message: I've kept this as brief in the actual article content based on sources which can support the information, however it may warrant an entire new article devoted to it. This was some of the claims made before, if somebody who knows more about it (ie - has read books devoted to the events) would like a brief idea to start a Palermo revolt of 1866 article...
:Palermo was bombed by the Italian navy, which disembarked on September 22 under the command of Raffaele Cadorna. Italian soldiers summarily executed the civilian insurgents, and regained control of the Sicily.  An extensive guerrilla campaign against the Unionists continued until 1871 throughout southern Italy and Sicily. In reaction, the Italian government imposed martial law. The Italian army summarily executed thousands of people, made tens of thousands prisoners, destroyed villages, and deported people.  
That is all. -- Animagentile (talk)
:This is a potentially good source: . --Angelo (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palermo revolt of 1866