Talk:Sicily/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

MOORS Instead of Arabs

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)

Are you making a historical point or a racial one? Whichever it is, it looks half-arsed to me. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sicily In Pop Culture

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)

Stereotypes etc.

I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO POST A DISCUSSION TOPIC HERE BUT I THINK INCLUDING SICILIAN MAFIA BOSSES IN AN ARTICLE ON THE HISTORY OF SICILY IS JUST AWFUL. WOULD AN ARTICLE ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INCLUDE AMERICAN MAFIA BOSSES? VERY, VERY DOUBTFUL THAT IT WOULD. JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT SOMEWHERE ON HERE WITHOUT RUINING OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK ON THE ARTICLE PAGE. AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE MADE MY ON TOPIC IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE HAD I KNOWN HOW TO USE IT.

You make a decent point. I add two points: 1. At least in the history section, we give a more accurate history of the mafia, dating back to where it belongs (i.e. relatively recently) and dismissing this mythologicla nonsense of it dating back into ancient times. 2. Anytime anyone tries to reduce the weighting offered towards the question of the mafia, someone comes along and accuses the article of trying to water down this aspect or sanitise Sicilian history, etc. That aside, on the question of whether this article needs to have a list of mafia bosses is certainly debatable (has any other article of a nation got a list of notorious crime figures?) - I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I WAS THE ONE WHO MADE THE ABOVE COMMENT AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A VERY WISE DECISION TO JUST INCLUDE A MAFIA LINK FOR LIST OF SICILIAN MAFIA BOSSES TO ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA TOPIC ENTITLED "MAFIA," WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE GONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. ERASING PEOPLE'S HARD WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG. BUT PUTTING IT WHERE IT NEEDED TO BE (IN A MAFIA TOPIC AND NOT IN A TOPIC ON THE HISTORY OF SICILY) WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I THINK IT'S BASICALLY OKAY TO PUT A FEW PARAGRAPHS AS IT IS ON THE MAFIA BECAUSE IT WAS SO MUCH A PART OF SICILY FOR SO LONG BUT THE CRIME-BOSS LIST THING WAS JUST A LITTLE INSULTING TO THE PEOPLE OF SICILY AS A WHOLE. WHOEVER MADE THE CHANGE, GOOD JOB. :-)

HOWEVER, I MUST HAVE OVERLOOKED IT, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TWO MAFIA BOSSES--VITO CASCIOFERRO AND BERNARDO PROVENZANO--IN "THE LIST OF SICILIANS" :-(

Can someone explain this interest in sicily, its places and mafia??? the other topics and regions concerning italy get much less attention here and i notice every time i write sth about the topics they get more text but e.g. topics about south america ecc get much much less interest? well it's positive but... weird Zisa

Bentornata Zisa,

come, niente Marsala? :-(((

Sicily is important for both, what it still contains and what it exported. In the second direction Sicily sent out really many people, that are now in some parts of the planet with the pride of coming from this (is)land and making some delicious work of "propaganda" :-) I am sure that it will be a great pleasure to hear you too, while describing your island. Am I wrong? :-)))

Also, Sicilians are well known in the sites of their emigration maybe in western world very few people never met a Sicilian in their life. Just think of the italian communities abroad, and their percentage.

About mafia, that in practice regards only a "minor minority" of sicilians abroad (and offends the others), it has often been rendered in a spectacular way, i.e. in cinema (isn't there at least one film each year about it?), so perhaps one could expect to find who knows what in this phenomenon. Characteristic aspects, the rural mafia with coppola, the "folkloristic happening" seem to be over. I hope this macabre curiosity is not in Wikipedia's articles. If you find it, just delete it. Help informing, instead.

We shouldn't forget, instead, that it is a marvellous place with plenty of ancient culture, art, history, traditions, a variety of other values that make it a quintessenza of Mediterranean sea.

Why weird? Just because of mafia? I'm sure the interest is not in that element, not at all, and I trust our non-italian friends will confirm us.

Ciao - Gianfranco (who hopes to re-visit Sicily soon)

ok, it's positive. though the people of the (is)land are not just sunshine and the mafia .. never mind. if still using the old streotype every sicilian = mafioso, statistically (mafiosi / inhabitants) it would be far more true to say that all the swedish people are black... no it's not a paradise and well yes there is the sun ... but in the north italy one earns 3 times more. and has water every day. or ok; we could take an othr example of the places from where people emigrate. argentina. a lot of people emigrate back to where their grandparents were from; italy, spain etc. and still no one adds anything on the page of argentina. all the ones of sicilian ancestry are proud to be that, but why i dont see such argentinians..? or if the grandparents were e.g. sicilian or spanish, the person still identifies himself rather with that place than being from argentina. neither an article of astor piazzolla; and he is more famous abroad (italy, us ecc) than in argentina i guess. or then, why the other regions, such as lonbardy, don't get anything ...? ciao Zisa

The map seems wrong, it highlights Sardinia instead of Sicily...

A good corrective of standard history.

It is good to read an article that points to the dark side of Italian unification - the decades of killings, buring of villages, and general terror.

Such things are not usually mentioned in English language history works - which are generally of the "Italian unification, jolly good thing - nice Garabaldi biscuits" variety.

The high taxes and conscription forced on Sicily also deserve a mention.

As for organised crime: As the artcle points out this was given a big boost by the collapse of the economy after Italian unification.

Paul Marks.

Don Vito Corleone

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)

I agree 100% - I'm getting rid of it - there are 100 famous (and real) Sicilians that could be put in its place. --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'coz!) 03:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian People

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)

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

Not only Sicily...also the rest of Italy and probably Europe can produce sibilings that look nothing like each other. Al Europe is like this.

Famous Sicilians

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)

History

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)

Sicilian People II

69.116.35.30 made a lot of significant changes to the People section (and didn't seem to care too much about formatting those URLs). Are the changes valid? (If someone decides to revert to before my change, look for the Joe DiMaggio section and make sure it says he's a baseball player.) -HiFiGuy 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that someone could check all these studies out thoroughly, I am suspicious of any anonymous user whose sole intent is to highlight studies of race. How liberally has s/he interpreted these findings? Is s/he pushing some sort of racial sub-text? Also, I would have expected that the whole of the human race would show sub-saharan markers - that's where we all come from people! Lastly, talk of races is all hogwash in any event, there is greater genetic variation amongst Africans themselves as there is between, say, Europeans and Africans. I repeat, I am highly suspicious of this entry, and if I can find one instance of liberal interpretation, I'm taking it all out. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts:

There's no point in highlighting sub-Saharan African admixture in Sicily because levels are insignificantly low and about the same everywhere in Europe (see [1]).

Sandler et al. (1978) is a VERY old study that uses blood groups, which is not a good method for detecting ancestry (see [2]).

Ghiani et al. doesn't actually show "significant" North African admixture, but only MINOR admixture (see [3]), which is already alluded to by Rickards.

Calo et al. also seems to have problems with its conclusions about admixture (see [4]).

It's true that the issue of divisions within Sicily remains controversial. I'll try to come up with a way to more clearly reflect that. But for now, I'm just restoring the previous version.

It's unfortunate that the history of Sicily here at Wiki is the sole province of this one individual, "Racial Reality," who is well-known amongst forum posters as being very biased against any research that shows admixture. He feels he has the right to discredit all studies he disagrees with, and that everyone should accept his theories as absolute fact. I could just as easily create a website presenting an opposite view and discrediting studies that Racial Reality likes. But I am not that dishonest. My point was to present the other side of the story, while leaving Racial Reality's also valid side there as well; in this way, the reader can draw his or her own conclusions. But the way the article is now is extremely one-sided.

Blood group studies from the 1970's are not incorrect. This method has fallen out of fashion merely because it is less sensitive than the newer DNA method we have access to. This fact doesn't discredit older studies that use blood groups, since the blood groups and blood proteins used are specific to certain populations. Since the decoding of the human genome, we have access to more sensitive methods of determining admixture.

An example of how blood groups studies are valid is the Duffy null marker. The Duffy blood-group types have been known for many decades, as has their usefulness in identifying continent of ancestry. But it has been only within the past decade that we have known that a person's Duffy blood-group type is encoded on the long arm of his/her chromosome #1, about 23.2 centimorgans out from the chromosome's centromere.

In general, you can measure the end-result of a person's genetic makeup by serological analysis (blood group tests), or you can measure the actual genetic makeup itself in the DNA. The latter is more precise since some proteins are produced (or not) only in homozygotes and so are invisible to serological analysis but visible in the DNA. If anything, serological analysis will underestimate true admixture.

There are a few new studies that employ serological analysis. I know of one Cuban one and another on Uruguay. It is not unreliable. In fact, autosomal testing normally supports what we already knew from mtDNA, which supported what we already knew from serological analysis, which supported what we already knew from linguistics and history.

The Ghiani study specifically states that it shows significant admixture. Anyone can see this when reading the abstract. However, what they mean by "significant" is "statistically significant", not that a large portion of Sicilians' DNA is African. Five percent or more is usually considered statistically significant.

The Calo study presents support for the east-west division in Sicily, and shows relatedness between Sicilians and Egyptians. Egyptians were imported to Sicily during the Saracen period as farmers, so the connection between Sicilians and Egyptians is not spurious. The study's use of perfectly valid blood group and mtDNA studies which show sub-Saharan admixture in Sicily were merely to show that other studies found "African" admixture there, regardless of whether it was sub-Saharan or North African. There are other studies which lump the two together. The whole point was to show a relationship with the (diverse) peoples of the continent of Africa.

The Semino study from 1989 which found 4 sub-Saharan haplotypes out of a population of 91 diverse Sicilians is not "problematic," as Racial Reality would have us believe, but is a perfectly valid mtDNA study using restriction enzymes, a method still widely used today, since it is cost-effective and accurate. RFLP's cut the DNA at specified locations, and "indels" (insertion and deletions polymorphisms) are very easy to spot in this way. There are other studies that have found less (or in one case, no) sub-Saharan material in the Sicilian gene pool. This is normal, since all samples are different, and because of this, all tests will yield different results. One certainly can't "refute" or "overrule" the other. The 2001 Vona study (finding no sub-Saharan genes in Sicilians) that referenced the 1989 Semino study did so for comparison purposes only. Furthermore, it tested only 49 Sicilians from the single village of Alia. No reliable conclusions can be reached for the Sicilian population as a whole, in terms of the absence of a certain type of marker, from such a narrow sample. Dr. Ornella Semino, a former colleague of mine, found it both amusing and a bit disturbing when I mentioned to her that certain non-professional forum posters considered her study "outdated" or "overruled" or "refuted" -- all absolute drivel!

Lastly, the person who wrote this...

"Lastly, talk of races is all hogwash in any event..."

...should be aware that the person made the steward of all things Sicilian, the above-mentioned Racial Reality, is a proponent of the existence of races...just look at his handle.

I am a retired geneticist, and I do believe I have something valuable to contribute. Incidentally, I am of partial Sicilian ancestry, and am proud of all who contributed to that great island's melting-pot population. I hope at least some of what I've said will be taken to heart.

Again, blood groups are no longer used in population genetics because they provide little information about ancestry. Prof. David Goldstein has stated so explicitly, and others like Ragusa and Dobzhansky have debunked the specific blood groups used by Sandler in the 70s. Surely you don't expect us to take your word over theirs.

The average reader of this article isn't going to be aware of that distinction, and you know it. The word "significant" clearly implies "a large portion", which is false in this case. You want to deceive readers into believing that admixture levels are higher than they actually are.

The study's use of perfectly valid blood group and mtDNA studies which show sub-Saharan admixture in Sicily were merely to show that other studies found "African" admixture there, regardless of whether it was sub-Saharan or North African.

The problems with Calo's conclusions have been carefully detailed. You can dance around them all you want, but they can't be denied because they're so egregious. Of further concern is that the conclusions contradict Calo's own previous results, which show Sicilians in the same cluster as western Mediterranean Basques ([5]).

There are other studies that have found less (or in one case, no) sub-Saharan material in the Sicilian gene pool. This is normal, since all samples are different, and because of this, all tests will yield different results.

Exactly, so the proper way to deal with that would be to pool all available data -- or at least go with the largest sample size (Romano et al.'s 465) -- not dishonestly quote the one study that shows slightly elevated levels of admixture. As usual, your aim is to exaggerate and deceive.

Unless you want to go to every Wikipedia article about a European ethnicity and mention their low levels of sub-Saharan admixture, we shouldn't bother with that here at all. It's a given that Europeans who traded in African slaves have a drop of black blood.

I am a retired geneticist.... Dr. Ornella Semino, a former colleague of mine....

Last time, you had a "friend" who was a geneticist and claimed to be in e-mail contact with Semino. Now, you yourself are the geneticist (conveniently retired) and Semino is one of your colleagues. You can't even keep your lies straight.

All I can add is that I am suspicious of any anonymous user wanting to talk about race, especicially about Sicily and Sicilians - why should one region of Italy merit so much attention in this area unless there is a hidden (and vicious) agenda. It doesn't actually worry me what the tests show, but I can't understand why a myriad of tests about Sicilians would be quoted ahead of the hundreds upon hundreds of regions in Europe, the near East and North Africa - what is the point exactly? Why would someone bandy the term "significant" around when it is anything but, and roughly on par with most places in Europe - what is the real objective here? I could see the point if it were hinting at the origins of the Siculi, Sicani or Elimi, but it doesn't seem to be doing that. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 14:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The latest amendments to the section on the Sicilian people (9 Feb 06) are quite objective I think. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

sicilian-americans?

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)

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)

risposta-sicilian americans

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)

eus

i've signed in now, no im not zisa..

ni sintemu nta wiki siciliana ntra po..

Historical Monarchy of Sicily

Created section "Historical Monarchy of Sicily" and moved applicable listings under there for organization. Hope no one objects. Sicilianmandolin

"Part black" paragraph intrusive

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)

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)

I agree the paragraph SHOULDN'T be necessary, but that belief has entered popular culture and many people now take it at face value. So we may want to reconsider. If we're leaving it out, then the Footnotes have to be adjusted. I'd keep it in, though.

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)

of course it should not be included, it makes no sense. And genetically not true although there would be no problem if it were.

please take down the part sicilian american list and the american celebrity list as soon as possible too. Did any of you read my point about this, any other opinions?

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)

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)

sicilian-americans seperate link.

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)

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)

i've sent a message on that page pippu, and i'm just about to take them off again.hopefully they'll stay off this time.--Eus2 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Sicily

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)

Etymology of Sicily and Cyclopes

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)

culture

OK, I'm making a bold claim here, but in my opinion Lombardy and Sicily are culturally similar to each other. Egr, 4/7/2006

Not really. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Truthish (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Nowadays Sicily is culturally similar to the rest of Italy. You only recognize a sicilian by the accent.

Map request

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Italy may be able to help!

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) --Baribeau 21:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean - Ranked 1st (8.5 %)?

Johnbibby 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Taxes and Autostrade

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)

Regional Assembly

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)

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)

Greek language

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)

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)

Greek was prevalent in Southern Italy and Sicily until at least the 11th century (end of Byzantine domination). The Romans were never interested in Latinising the Greek urban centres of southern Italy and no part of Sicily, though in my opinion a partial latinisation was inevitable. Greek language lost ground with the barbarian invasions of Italy but was reinforced during and after Justinian I. It must have diminished significantly with the Norman conquest until became a minority language in the the south of Italy and extinct in Sicily. The article mentions that the Romans found a Sicily speaking Greek dialects with Italic elements. Miskin 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the Normans deserve there own section

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))

The Normans have their section its called the Arab Norman period, because thats what it was. The Normans were 5,000Knights who lived among a majority of Sicilian Arabs, Greeks, Berbers, Jews, Slavs and Africans. When the Normans arrived they converted the Sicilians to Christianity. Only a small minority of Muslim Sicilians who refused to convert were exiled to Lucera and an even smaller group escaped persecution to Libya.
Although History is written by the Victor. Arabic and Hebrew remianed the lingue Franca of Sicily during the Norman rule. Today the culture and appearance of Sicilian is closer to that of the Greeks (in East Sicily) and Semitic Arabs and Jews (in West Sicily) As a result of the two biggest migration movements into Sicily.
Finally, you already made your anti-Sicilianist feeling crystal clear by:
- Deleting the Jews, Africans and Berbers from every mention in the article.
- Your enthusastic editing of Other White-History racist (Sicily WHITNESS) related articles.
- Your username itself is related to a Roman who imposed Roman rule upon Sicilians by brutal fashion.
- Among your edits a clear Antisemitic vibe. And relentless attempts to link Sicily to the Germans and Northmen.
- Italianists always treated us as inferiors! What does that mean to you? oh but wait you are a White-Syrian as you claimed yourself, who is trying to reshape our worldwide known Sicilian history.
- Today Sicilians from Syracuse or Palermo can easily be mistaken by a Greek, Lebanese or Israeli more than a North Italian. Yet you insist on insulting many Sicilians who still resemble their Semitic ancestors. (common practice by Italianist who memorize a list of insults for Sicilians especially from Palermo) and you replicated that racism by implying that they were inferior in this talk page! Although the Non-Norman Scilian majority eventually wrested power and absorbed the Norman minority into the bigger Sicilian sphere.
- The article about Sicily is related to Sicily first, despite how Italianists feel about it, once you accept that the article will make more sense to you, and you will not stand out as a racist Vandal.
- Read about Sicily, this our own Website and its considered teh Voice of Sicily [6] --Thesicilianist 07:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Arab and Norman sections of history copied directly from another WP article?

This does not seem like a very good idea at all and is not what WP is about. It is what wikilinks are for. Here these sections seem disproportionately long and far too detailed. Please might it be possible to shorten them, wikilinking to the more detailed history in the History of Sicily? The pictures in the Arab section both refer to edifices from the Norman period; this seems confusing and uninformative. Please look at the pages for countries with an equally complicated past like France, England or Germany (even Italy itself) to see how to prepare a condensed precis of a longer more detailed history, available elsewhere on WP. --Mathsci 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW the italian history section in their WP article on Sicily is very brief, just to add a little perspective:

La storia della Sicilia è stata influenzata dai tanti dominatori che sono passati sul suo suolo. Grazie alla sua posizione geografica, proprio al centro del mar
Mediterraneo, la Sicilia ha avuto un ruolo di una certa importanza negli eventi storici che hanno avuto come protagonisti i popoli del mare nostrum.
La Sicilia ha vissuto nella sua storia periodi nei quali assunse grande importanza nel contesto mediterraneo alternati a fasi anche di forte subalternità. Parte
delle colonie della Magna Grecia e di Cartagine, cercò di diventare regno indipendente con Ducezio ed Euno (che si autoproclamarono re dei Siculi
rispettivamente nel V e nel II secolo a.C.). Conquistata dai romani, divenne la prima provincia romana semplicemente come Sicilia.
Passata dall'impero romano ai barbari e infine ai bizantini, fu il ventitreesimo thema dell'Impero Bizantino con il nome di Sikelia. Il capoluogo non ebbe mai
sede fissa: si passò da Palermo, a Taormina, a Rometta, a Siracusa. Sotto gli arabi godette di una certa autonomia, così come sotto i normanni e gli svevi.
Il dominio aragonese (seguito da quello spagnolo, austriaco, piemontese e borbonico) sancì un iniziale aumento dell'autonomia (con la creazione del Regno di
Trinacria, poi Regno di Sicilia), che poi però si ridusse in un vicereame e infine ritornò ad essere il Regno di Sicilia fino al 1789. Il capoluogo fu sempre
Palermo, ad eccezione di un decennio nel Quattrocento, quando la corte si stabilì a Catania.
Dalla Rivoluzione Francese all'Unità d'Italia, la corona di Sicilia fu unita a quella di Napoli nel Regno delle Due Sicilie. La Sicilia fu così divisa, come
avevano secoli prima fatto per prima gli arabi, in tre reali dominii al di là del Faro: Val di Noto, Val Demone e Val di Mazara. Con l'arrivo di Giuseppe
Garibaldi e l'annessione al Regno del Piemonte, la Sicilia divenne una delle regioni italiane, ottenendo lo statuto speciale nel 1946. L'avvicendarsi di
molteplici civiltà ha arricchito la Sicilia di insediamenti urbani, di monumenti e di vestigia del passato che fanno della regione uno dei luoghi privilegiati
dove la storia può essere rivissuta attraverso le immagini dei segni che il tempo non ha scalfito e ha tramandato sino ai nostri giorni.

--Mathsci 19:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from bad grammar, this sentence doesn't have a whole hell of a lot to do with the matter at hand: "Justinian’s reputation owed perhaps less to his own qualities than those to his empress Theodora, and two generals, Belisarius and Narses." If it does have anything to do with anything, it's in a pretty awkward spot. Not going to touch it, since people are always whining about anonymous edits, but I thought I'd point it out to you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

POV?

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)

Flag of sicily...

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)

"Arab Sicily"

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)

Your point follows on nicely from the one made above by Mathsci. We already have a detailed History of Sicily article, which may need some tweaking, but in any event, there is absolutely no reason to dedicate so much to Sicily's history here, in particular, to a small fraction of that history. I would add, however, that no one should conclude from the relatively short time the Saracens controlled Sicily that their influence was not great. That would be a mistake. One problem I encounter repeatedly in anything relating to Sicily is: 1. on the one hand those that wish to associate Sicily completely with North Africa; and 2. those that wish to associate Sicily completely with continental Europe (in both cases, more often than not, with extreme racial connotations). Both views are simplistic and erroneous and the use of quality references will steer us in a direction that will give a more accurate portrayal of a long and complex history. But first thing's first, I will attempt to reduce this history section to something far more succinct in line with the good points recently made by a few wikipedians. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I do agree with you that lots of debates on the topic always end up being African/Islam vs. European background. But I think we need to take a step back and view the history of Sicily for what it is, although it is undeniable that there was some Saracen rule in Sicily and they did indeed bring new things to the island, it is also only a footnote overall.

If you go back to the earliest evidence of people on Sicily, 10,000 years ago as per the cave drawings found near Palermo[7] and consider only 200 of those years since were under Muslim rule, with the unanimous majority of the rest of the years involving Europeans/non-African, then you get a better idea of what we're dealing with. It is also worth noting that even in those 200 years, there was not even some sort of mass genocide against the Sicilians (Europeans), experts say it was more Muslims ruling over them than a colonisation, the European Sicilians still existed, just under Muslim rule.

The truth of why this whole debate even exists, is politcally motivated; it goes back to the Regno delle Due Sicilie, the risorgimento and North/South divide. In the context of Italianism and to a further extent Europeanism, it is the Neapolitans who the nordists would ideally like to marginalise or try to make out they're some how "different" to other Europeans, but because the Saracens didn't reach Napoli it is very much harder for them to do this (although some racists do still try) and so they turn to Sicilians and use the mere 200 years of history to try and "Africanise" what Sicily really is.

Now in recent times in the English language, we have one movie where the Saracen rule is mentioned in a derogative context and suddenly, people who have never even looked into the history of Europe, let alone Sicily are claiming "Sicilians are black"... its all very underhand, and I can't help but feel this latter part has led to the mess that this article is in, with the majority dedicated to that small time period, rather than a fluid, balanced general overview of the history of this very interesting island. Sorry to rant, but I do not think this kind of situation should exist on Wikipedia, as this project is supposed to be neutral and not-polically motivated propaganda or pop-culture misinterpretations of history. - Soprani 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives | Wikipedia requested maps in Italy