Talk:Sicily

Planned Bridge

I replaced "The bridge" with "The planned bridge" because people skimming this article will think the bridge exists (as I did). Mike Young (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Not from "Iberian peninsula" but from Caucasus

In the "Ancient Tribes" section: Thoukydides (Histories, book VII, 6,2,2) says that Sicani came from Iberia. This Iberia of the classical and byzantine authors is approximately the todays Georgia in Caucasus. Do not confuse it with Iberica which is Spain and Portugal. Original Greek text here http://www.scribd.com/doc/30928260/thucydides6 See also Caucasian Iberia.--Skylax30 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sıkılliye

= Arabic name of Sicily Böri (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

About the most important economic sector of Sicilia...

I'm about to delete the introduction sentence that reads "The Sicilian economy is largely based on agriculture (mainly orange and lemon orchards); this same rural countryside has attracted significant tourism in the modern age" and insert "The Sicilian economy is well diversified. The Agriculture sector is relevant with citrus, olives and olive oil, grapes and wine. Tourism became an important sector for the island." My idea is based in the data from the article, that only 3,52% of the PIB comes from Agriculture, farming, fishing ("Dati Istat – Tavole regionali". Istat.it. http://www.istat.it/dati/dataset/20071004_00).

I'm open to suggestions. GustoBLSJP (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally like your version, but rather than just citrus, it should specify lemons and oranges, as the Sicilian countryside is dotted with these orchards. How about "The Sicilian economy is well diversified. The agriculture sector is significant with citrus fruits (mainly oranges and lemons), olives and olive oil, grapes and wine. Tourism and real estate are important sectors for the island."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright Jeanne, thank you for the tip. Your version is better. I'll await a few days to make the update (with your contribution). GustoBLSJP (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I like Jeanne's sugestion. I think that it touches two important points that were wrong on the existing articol. 1) well diversified 2) agricolture yes but non only citrus. --Sal73x (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

@Hashem sfarim: Per WP:BRD it is common that you explain the reason when adding material, not that I explain myself when reverting. But since you insist. In particular, formulation "Sicily is an autonomous region, ... it constitutes an autonomous region." in the lead is obviously duplicated, and does not flow well. Being an island and being an administrative region are two different and weakly connected notions, which should be in two different sentences.

Actually, per MOS:LEAD, the whole lead is too short for an article of this size, and does not summarize the contents at all.

Generally, per MOS:IMAGE, images should have unspecified size, unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise. What looks good on your monitor does not look good on other people's monitors, which may include cellphones, PDAs and whatnot, so leaving the default size is the best option for everyone. My edit summary "De-hardcode px" had a pretty strong clue about that, and you could have asked instead of reverting with summary "no valid reason". No such user (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with No such user that putting the political nature of Sicily in the second sentence of the lead makes more sense, and provides for a better flow. Consistency is one value, but not the only value. Sicily has, in the human past, not been a part of Italy, but for at least the last 10,000 years or so it has always been the largest island in the Mediterranean Sea. Compare this lead with the lead sentences in the article on Sardinia. --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For completeness, since Hashem sfarim has not yet participated in this discussion on the talk page, I will point out that in making one of the edits to the lead Hashem sfarim wrote is not consistent with how other WP articles generally have other regions of Italy. --Bejnar (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did give reasons, about CONSISTENCY with other WP articles. With Calabria, for example, you see "region of Italy" right in the opening sentence. But for some stupid reason, you have biased editors not doing that with Sicily, with the opening sentence. Just putting idiotically in the first sentence "largest island in Mediterranean" is (again I'll say it) NOT CONSISTENT with other WP articles with opening sentences, in the lede. So simply put, you're both wrong. The point is this though too. NoSuchUser has NO business reverting anything that is accurate, just because "he does not like it." (Or because he may think it's a bit redundant, which is debatable in a sense, but ignores the fact that basically every single other article on regions of Italy, have the words "region of Italy" in the very first sentence.) As to Bejnar's argument about Sicily not always being part of Sicily in the past, that argument is weak, for two reasons. 1) the article is about what it is NOW, and 2) many other sections of Italy were not technically part of "Italy" in the "past" either (if one knows the history). Yet they're still (in WP articles) in the very opening said to be "region of Italy." Putting "region of southern Italy" in the opening line is accurate, valid, sourced, and good-faith. WP policy and recommendation is NOT to revert. If one bothers to read the policy on this matter. And he's just plain wrong when he says that he's not required to give a reason for reverting. Uh, yeah, he does have to give a reason or "explain" according to WP policy and recommendation. But regardless, I DID give an explanation for that, and there's no valid reason to revert, simply because this perhaps biased editor "NoSuchUser" does not like it read that way. He does not own this article, yet in this matter he's acting as if he does. Not cool. Again, saying "region of southern Italy" is simply a fact, and is sourced...and I'll say it again...IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER WP ARTICLES...regarding regions of Italy articles. Case closed. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I find no new arguments in the above comments by Hashem sfarim. Hashem sfarim seems to ignore the fact that the lead needs to be considered as a whole. Here, breaking the first sentence into two, makes it more readable, which is an importnt goal. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well then you're not looking carefully, because the "new argument" (for example) was one in addressing one of yours, about "not always part of Italy in the past". I refuted that argument reminding you that many other regions of Italy were not considered part of a unified whole until recently anyway. Number two, as far as "readability", that's just your opinion that it's not readable in saying it the way it is with "region of southern Italy" in the opening sentence. The point is saying it in the opening as well as "Medit Island" is not so "unreadable". Why should it be? It's accurate and is way more consistent with other regions of Italy is the point. Not that major a deal. But in principle not something that should be rudely reverted (with no explanation) at first, simply because of taste. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

First, consistency is not the reason upon itself, but since you insist on it: Sardinia currently begins with Sardinia [...] is the second-largest island in the Mediterranean Sea [...]. It is an autonomous region of Italy,. Crete begins with Crete [...] is the largest and most populous of the Greek islands, [...] and one of the thirteen administrative regions of Greece.

Second, the difference between Sicily, Sardinia and other regions is that the islands are natural landforms which exist independently of human dwelling, while region borders are mostly arbitrary, man-made and changeable. I argue that it is not the same: Sicily is first and foremost an island. Since it happens to be part of Italy for the last 150 years, it is also an autonomous region of Italy

Semantics and philosophy aside, let's pay attention to the language and text flow, which you don't seem to do (as well as paying attention at edit summaries and talk page: I find your persistent references to "unexplained changes" insulting). You didn't even read the second sentence, so your lede reads "Sicily is an autonomous region, ... it constitutes an autonomous region." The catch is, we need to pack information that a) it's an island, b) makes an autonomous region with the minor islands, and it's difficult to do it in one sentence. So why insisting on one, when two will do the job better? No such user (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I did read the second sentence. A long time ago. And you're presumptuous to think I never did. And it doesn't matter though. And it doesn't really matter about Sardinia, because that's wrong too. And I knew about that already. And that's why I said GENERALLY consistent. Also, as I said before, it doesn't matter about 150 years ago, as it's dealing with what it is NOW. And it doesn't matter that it's an island, because that's not really the main issue as to Sicily being Italian or part of Italy. You know how many ignorant morons are in the world who think that Sicily is a separate country???? Too many. And putting an idiotic lede of only "largest island in Mediterranean", if they don't bother to read the second sentence (which many won't) will only tend to foster that ignoramus idiocy. Sicily is part of Italy, and that should be made clear RIGHT OFF THE BAT. Also, it's MORE consistent with how other regions of Italy are in WP articles. Also, again, you have NO business reverting an edit that is technically accurate and sourced, simply because you don't personally like it or have problems with it. According to WP policy and recommendation. I'm tired of this with you. For real. Hashem sfarim (talk) 13:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just reading the article for the first time, it's not only about Sicily as it is now, more than half of it is perfectly applicable to Sicily 150 years ago or more. I agree with Bejnar and NSU.--GRuban (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dampening Climate

Hi - I'm slightly puzzled by something expressed in the "Flora and Fauna" section: "....the DAMPENING of the climate lead to a decrease in rainfall and drying of rivers...". Surely a dampening of the climate would have the opposite effect...??? Does it perhaps mean "dampening" in the sense of "subduing" the activity of the climate? 82.3.144.140 (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)