Talk:Kingdom of Sicily

message: I don't think this article does enough to make clear that, from 1282 to 1816, there were in fact two kingdoms known officially as the "Kingdom of Sicily."  This article needs to explicitly justify why it is only talking about the island kingdom - arguably, Kingdom of Sicily should be a disambiguation page, with links to an article on the Kingdom before 1282, to an article on the island kingdom from 1282 to 1816, on the "Kingdom of Naples", and on the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies after 1816.  At any rate, the current intro is quite confusing. john k (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, let's clarify this issue. From 1130 to 1282 there is the Kingdom of Sicily whose parts are both Sicily and Naples, without any judicial, military or religious distinction. In 1282 the Kingdom of Naples was formed. It was a state which had no relation to the Kingdom of Sicily. It's official name was Kingdom of Naples. In 1816 the Kingdom of Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples were unified as the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. However, they were two separate entities, each one with its own parliament, judicial system, and clergy, and official state name. The monarch of the Two Sicilies maintained the titles of both Kingdoms(Sicily and Naples).--Alarichus (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I read carefully your concerns John, and they originate from a mistake you're making. The official name of Naples was Kingdom of Naples, and that is the official name used by modern historians, not Kingdom of Sicily. --Alarichus (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed part of the lead:
*It was sometimes called the regnum Apuliae et Siciliae until 1282. In 1282 a revolt against the Angevin rule, known as the Sicilian Vespers dethroned Charles of Anjou. The Angevin managed to maintain control in the mainland areas of the kingdom, and formed the Kingdom of Naples.</br>
I believe this is clarifying. What do you think?--Alarichus (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not making a mistake.  The official name of the kingdom informally known as the "Kingdom of Naples" was, in fact, "Kingdom of Sicily."  Thus, when that kingdom was merged with the kingdom which constituted the island, you had the "Kingdom of Two Sicilies."  The Angevins did not "form the Kingdom of Naples."  The Angevins continued to rule the mainland (and claim the island) under the title of "King of Sicily," just as they had done previously.  The kingdom became known as the Kingdom of Naples so as people wouldn't be confused about what was meant, but that was never its official name.  Note that the Kings always called themselves "King of Sicily" (as see here).  It is true that the Kingdom of Naples is normally called such by modern historians, and was normally called such by contemoraries.  But the fact that it was officially the "Kingdom of Sicily" needs to at least be acknowledged here.  And we certainly shouldn't say that Charles of Anjou formed a new kingdom on the mainland. john k (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Modern historians refer to it officially as Kingdom of Naples. It was called Kingdom of Naples, by every other state except Kingdom of Naples itself. You made additions to the part of the lead I changed, and I believe that they contain no issues. Collaboration succeeded, review may continue. --Alarichus (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern historians don't get to decide for convenience that a state has a different official name from the one that it actually used for itself.  "Kingdom of Sicily" certainly isn't the common name for the Kingdom of Naples, but it was the official name.  In terms of the good article review, my feeling is that there is very little information on anything after 1266 - and that including the Habsburg and Bourbon periods under the heading "Angevin and Aragonese kingdoms" is problematic.  john k (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute about the Kingdom of Naples was resolved. My goal regarding this article was to get it to GA status for the moment. If you want to expand the article, expand it. --Alarichus (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A good article ought to be comprehensive.  This article is not comprehensive - its history of the period after 1282 is minimal.  There are eleven paragraphs on the first 150 years of the kingdom and five paragraphs on the next 600 years.  It is also misleading in describing the Habsburg and Bourbon periods under a heading called "Angevin and Aragonese kingdoms".  I don't think it qualifies as a good article at the moment. john k (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The society, economy, religion, coinage, demographics are largely about the period after 1282 and the section about malta and the unification refer to the period after 1282, so I would say that you are wrong. Be bold though. If you want to improve the article, improve it. Create a subsection about the Bourbon and Habsbourg period or anything else you regard as improving. --Alarichus (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some confusion 

message: See Talk:Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus. —Srnec (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Kingdom of Sicily's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "stan":
From Sicily: 
From Emirate of Sicily: 
From Malta: 
From History of Sicily: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Kingdom of Sicily]] 

message: The kingdom of Sicily did not possess a Flag; It possessed numerous CoA's and Flags according to its respective rules; Because of the factual correctness: Flag deleted from info box Agilulf2007 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Per WP:CALC:  That is simply not the case here. The population has been calculated as the product of the area and the population density, neither of which is properly sourced. The area seems to be complete WP:OR (it's sourced to Google Maps, which is of course not a WP:Reliable source when it comes to the territorial extent of historical polities), and the population density that is sourced is for Italy, not for the Kingdom of Sicily (one cannot simply assume that they are the same; if one were to assume that India has the same population density as all of Asia, one would underestimate the population of India by a factor of 4). TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to Italy not Sicily's density, the India-Asia comparison is nothing short of absurd, for Italy is a continent. These are population estimates not census numbers, for that purpose using Italy's population density is fine. We know the boundaries of the kingdom thus we know its area size which corresponds to the area of Southern Italy minus Sardinia, I don't have source that proves 123,024-24,090=98,934 but I thought very basic mathematics does not need a source; if your issue is with these numbers perhaps you ought to remove them from said articles for there seems not to be a direct source attributed to them, even if those numbers can be proven with Google maps. Go-Chlodio (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You could just as well compare the population density of the South Island to that of the entirety of New Zealand; the point is that you cannot simply assume uniform population density, which you have implicitly done. That is WP:Original research. That means that you are not performing a routine calculation by multiplying the two numbers together, but coming to new conclusions that the sources do not directly support. That is WP:Synthesis. – I'm not going to take you at your word there, you need to back that up with sources. Looking at the maps I have been able to locate, the borders of the Kingdom of Sicily do not match the boundaries of Southern Italy exactly. For instance, this map of the Kingdom of Sicily includes Gaeta, which is in Lazio, Central Italy – not Southern Italy. So while it is correct that you do not need a source for , you do need a source for the claim you are making, which amounts to "The area of the Kingdom of Sicily was 98 934 km2 in the year 1300." TompaDompa (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: As this part of the infobox is quite large compared to other articles in the infobox, and as several ancient kingdoms do not even contain this part, I suggest that it can be removed from the article, as all these periods mentioned are already well explained in the article, in different sections. He is not adding any "news" or facts that are not already explained extensively in the article itself, in addition to being the object of confusion at times. Liimkna (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to remove the "status" part within the infobox 

message: The statement about the Kingdom’s population being 2.5 million during Hohenstaufen rule is based on older research, itself without reference upon mining further, and is highly suspect for how low the estimate is. This sort of statement, which the reference itself gives precisely no evidence, requires at least another corroborative piece of research. This is lacking at the moment. Stupor26 (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: @Stupor26, The estimate in the source can be traced to Karl Julius Beloch, who estimated the number in vol. 1, page 199/203 of Bevölkerungsgeschichte Italiens. Unless there is a source estimating a different number, I see no reason to change it. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  18:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024