Talk:Kingdom of Sicily

Some confusion
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I changed part of the lead:

I believe this is clarifying. What do you think?--Alarichus (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I think its more than "clarifications" that are needed here. This article says that "In 1816 the Kingdom of Sicily merged with Kingdom of Naples into the newly created Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" when the article on the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies claims that "the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies resulted from the reunification of the Kingdom of Sicily with the Kingdom of Naples (called the kingdom of peninsular Sicily), by King Alfonso V of Aragon in 1442". One of the articles is definitely wrong and I suspect it's this one. --Demdem (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Orphaned references in Kingdom of Sicily
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)

Flag
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)

- Support your claim! Vadac (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Population
Per WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. We know the boundaries of the kingdom thus we know its area size which corresponds to the area of Southern Italy minus Sardinia – 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 123,024-24,090=98,934, 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)

Splitting proposal
I propose we split this messy article into the following articles: The reason being that these entities differed more than they shared, meaning that the ruling house was hardly the only thing that changed with them, their religious-and diplomatic policies, administration, military, territorial possessions changed drastically. Go-Chlodio (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Norman Kingdom of Sicily (1130–1194)
 * Swabian Kingdom of Sicily (1194–1266)
 * Angevin Kingdom of Sicily (1266–1442)
 * Kingdom of Trinacria (1276–1816)
 * Support per nom. This is long overdue. Constantine  ✍  14:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this broad concept article should remain, but I am more than happy to see a Norman Kingdom of Sicily article appear. "Angevin Kingdom of Sicily" would be more a split off from Kingdom of Naples than this article. Continuing the Kingdom of Trinacria down to 1816 seems odd given the short articles on the Hautevilles and Staufer. In fact, I think the whole 1130–1266 could be dealt with in a single article if we wanted to. I support the proposal in principle. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd want to do away with this article because I believe it miscommunicated how different these realms were, if we would just create the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, it would be just equivalent to Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty. That works for Byzantine Empire, here I find it just too messy. If we absolutely have to keep one article, we should still split this into united Kingdom of Sicily (1130–1282), and the Kingdom of Trinacria (1282–1816). Sigh... Naples is its own can of worms... Yeah, maybe we should take Angevin Kingdom of Sicily off the table. I did not consider further Trinacrian splits because unlike the differences between the medieval Sicilies, I'm not familiar with the differences between Early Modern Trinacria; I have no idea how much the Trastámara Trinacria and Habsburg Trinacria shared, therefore initially I won't tackle it, but if we can split Trinacria into its own article, somebody can do that eventually. Go-Chlodio (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It does not seem that there is any opposition to your proposal, at least for splitting Norman Kingdom of Sicily and Swabian Kingdom of Sicily off. How do we proceed from here? Constantine  ✍  13:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. By renaming this article into Kingdom of Sicily (disambiguation) 2. By making the Norman Kingdom of Sicily into a proper article instead of a redirect. 3. By creating a new article, Swabian Kingdom of Sicily. 4. By going through everything that leads to the disambiguation and redirecting them accordingly. I'll do, but not just now. Go-Chlodio (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is opposition to your #1, at least as a first step. Better to create the new sub-articles and then decide if a broad-concept article is still worth keeping or not. I have sources, so I can definitely help with writing the articles. Srnec (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If #1 can't be done, I reckon the entire "split" is pointless and I won't take any part in it. Go-Chlodio (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * But how can you create a disambiguation page first when the articles don't exist to point to? There's also plenty of precedent for a broad "long-term" article, see Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of England and Kingdom of France. –Srnec (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This disambiguation page will not just link to Norman and Swabian kingdoms, but also to Habsburgs Sicily and Naples. Furthermore, articles Norman and Swabian Sicilies will be created only minutes after the name change. Every case is different and judged situationally. Comparing the Kingdom of Sicily to the Kingdom of France isn't fair a comparison. Go-Chlodio (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This article can be turned into a dab page without a name change. I assume that is all you mean? But I don't understand why the comparison to other kingdoms is unfair. There were changes of dynasty in 1194 and 1266, but the real turning point in the history of the Sicilian kingdom is 1282, after which it was divided into two kingdoms more or less permanently. So I guess I see the split as more like creating Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty-type sub-articles since Kingdom of Naples is already a separate article. Srnec (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by dab page. The point I'm trying to make is that these weren't just dynasty changes, in Kingdom of France all dynasties were Capetians who inherited the crown upon extinction of the previous branch. In Sicily, not so. Norman Sicily came to an end when Swabians conquered it, they arrested bulk of the leading Italo-Norman nobility and replaced them with Swabians. When Charles of Anjou deposed the Swabians he did the same, replacing Germans with French. As I have already stated, the Byzantine-dynasty division doesn't fit here, doing so would essentially be the equivalent of renaming Ottoman Empire to "Byzantine Empire under the Ottoman dynasty". Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dab page = disambiguation page. I guess our disagreement is pretty fundamental, because the point I'm trying to make is that these were just dynasty changes. Now, every case is different and our treatment probably isn't consistent. I notice that Kingdom of France treats 987 as the start point (which doesn't totally make sense to me), but Kingdom of England does not treat 1066 as anything, when surely 1066 was at least as pivotal in English history as 1194 in south Italian history. Donald Matthew's The Norman Kingdom of Sicily, which is on my shelf, covers the whole period from 1130 to 1266 despite its title. Matthew, p. 281, explicitly compares Sicily to England and 1194 to 1066: because the Normans/Anglo-Saxons built a "viable political entity" it could be "taken over in one piece" by the Swabians/Normans. Louis Mendola has written a history of the whole length of the kingdom, The Kingdom of Sicily, 1130–1860 (Trinacria, 2015). He isn't an academic, but his translations of medieval sources have received positive/decent reviews. Just to be clear: I do not oppose a split. In fact, I positively endorse the idea and am willing to help create sub-articles. Srnec (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd actually be in favor of splitting England in half. Fact that Matthew's included Swabian Kingdom of Sicily doesn't matter when you also have books like John Julius Norwich's The Kingdom in the Sun, 1130 - 1194. Go-Chlodio (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose the split, this would make it even messier, conditional support of WP:SS subpages, provided that somebody puts in the work to develop the subpages as full articles.  --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose Though I agree this article is unwieldy, I oppose particularly the creation of a separate "Swabian Kingdom of Sicily". The Swabian dynasty did not create a new kingdom, they rearranged the succession of the old one. Instead of passing to anyone else, the kingdom simply passed to the Empress Constance, daughter of the Norman king Roger II, the first Norman king, and her husband. Her son, Frederick, was as Sicilian (and arguably, as Norman) as any mediaeval king. He grew up in Sicily, spoke Arabic - the official language of government in the Kingdom - and ruled over a largely (if no longer majority) Muslim island, and was the grandson of the first Norman King of Sicily. Calling him "Swabian" and adding him and his Siculo-Norman mother to a new "Swabian Kingdom of Sicily" - a complete neologism - is gives completely the wrong impression!
 * A search demonstrates that "Swabian Kingdom of Sicily" is not at all a WP:COMMONNAME, and the phrase only seems to appear in an article title preceeded by "The Norman and". Angevin Sicily, by which time the Muslim and Byzantine population had vanished from Sicily and the place was fully Latin and incipiently Italian, came after a significant dynastic, political, and military break and upheaval not limited to just swapping one successor of Roger II for another and certainly deserves an new article, or else be parcelled off as a part of an article on subsequent mediaeval and Renaissance Sicilian kingdom(s). I would not certainly not call it Angevin Sicily or Swabian Sicily, but something like "Kingdom of Sicily during the x period" or "... under the y dynasty" would fit. There has never been anything Swabian about any kingdom of Sicily!
 * I don't know much about the post-Frederick II period but my feeling is that "Swabian Kingdom" is not right and that the natural break point after the Conquest is the Sicilian Vespers. I would not oppose a "Kingdom of Sicily, 1130-1266" or "... 1130-1302". Thereafter there could be separate article for each Kingdom (Naples and Sicily proper) until the Bourbon reunification. As for replacing nobles with other nobles from abroad, that happened numerous times in the Norman kingdom - in the regency of Adelaide, for instance, or whenever a new queen was sent for. The whole period was one of diverse immigration to Sicily from all over the West and waves of nobles of particular nationalities came with each new dynastic marriage.
 * I'm in favour of keeping the long overview article for the whole length of the kingdom on the model of Byzantine Empire and the other major mediaeval kingdoms, and separate main articles under heads like "Kingdom of Sicily under the Angevin dynasty" or simple periodizations by year. There is also the question of the "Norman Conquest of southern Italy" (not a good name), which runs for the whole length of the dynasty! I would divide this information between: "Norman Conquest of Sicily and South Italy", a "Norman Sicily" or "Siculo-Norman Sicily" (dealing with the island from c. 1060 until the Angevins or at least until Frederick II's deportation of the Muslims to Luccera), and a "Kingdom of Sicily under the Norman dynasty", "..under the Angevin dynasty", &c. I oppose "Kingdom of Trinacria" as obscure and obfuscatory: the kingdom of Sicily that occupied Sicily in that time should clearly be called Kingdom of Sicily, Trinacria was applied centuries beforehand and is nothing other than a lyrical Latin name for Sicily anyway. It was also used by sources in the Norman period if I remember right. I would also note that John Julius Norwich is, well, a journalist and not a specialist in the history of anything; more academic work should be consulted.
 * GPinkerton (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

disruptive activity trying to add unsourced and unjustifiable material
Recently I've noticed a user abusing multiple ips (which would already be prohibited according to Wikipedia's rules as sockpuppetry) trying to add false and unjustifiable information to the article, such as saying that Norman-French was an official language of the kingdom, something which is not written anywhere. The Norman kings being originally from Normandy does not mean that this language was official in the kingdom, in addition to the fact that its population did not speak this language. How many medieval kingdoms were ruled by kings with foreign origins and even so, these kingdoms did not have the language of origin of these kings as their official language. Another case is to say that the government was treated as a "Personal Union", the current "status" of the article already clearly explains the situation the kingdom has experienced throughout its history. In the Spanish period, Sicily was governed by viceroys, not by the king directly as was the case with Spain itself (governed by the king himself), so saying that it was a "personal union" gave a FALSE meaning of equality to Spain. And as for other states, such as Aragon, etc., Sicily was governed by different kings who lived on the island itself, such as Peter II, Louis, among others. So please, before wanting to engage in vandalism, study more about the situation in the kingdom. Liimkna (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These are your edits on the article: ; Your changes have no sources. Consequently I have restored the original version of the article (with the contents connected to the cited sources). Your personal views are not a source for wikipedia. Please read the wikipedia guide carefully (wp:CS, wp:DE). Your personal points of view contrast with the information cited and with entire articles created by Wikipedia with as many sources. Consequently your interventions are destructive to this article. You motivated your changes with questionable accusations because the chronologies are viewable (hence the original form of the article).--151.35.105.53 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Very reliable and solid arguments, coming from someone who uses a different IP for each edit made in Wikipedia....Liimkna (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Reread the previous post carefully and then avoid accusing and denigrating others. This community has existed for some time and has established very specific guidelines for participating in this project.--151.37.117.251 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * you are acting more like a troll than a "respectable" user, you add information every day with a different ip (perhaps using a vpn), and everything you are adding does not contain any citations, for example where did you get that Norman-French was an official language of the kingdom?Liimkna (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of you, please stick to discussing the disputed content without attacks and insuations against each other. Is there a source indicating that Norman French was ever an official language of the kingdom? OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually theres no source indicating it, because Norman-French was never an official language, it was spoken by the early kings of Sicily at best, but surely not by the population. The other information that explains the status of the kingdom throughout its history is also fully explained throughout the article, which went through periods of sovereignty until becoming part of the Kingdom of Aragon and the Spanish Empire. Saying that there is a 'personal union' between the kingdom and other states is not included in any source because as I explained previously (when I opened this discussion on the talkg page) it was not in fact areal situation... Liimkna (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The user(Liimkna) opened a discussion entitled "disruptive activity trying to add unsourced and unjustifiable material" with serious accusations "I've noticed a user abusing multiple ips (which would already be prohibited according to Wikipedia's rules as sockpuppetry) trying to add false and unjustifiable information to the article...".Let's proceed in order:
 * 1)The registered user (Liimkna) claims that his version is the original one and that changes have been made without adding sources; BUT the history of the page is viewable to everyone including the changes, so we look at the releases year after year: YEAR 2020 SEE HERE ; YEAR 2021 SEE HERE ; YEAR 2022 SEE HERE ; YEAR 2023 SEE HERE . All versions reported are from registered Wikipedia users. This is the first irrefutable evidence of destructive editing by the registered user (Liimkna). Therefore the subdivision into periods with the historiographical concept of PERSONAL UNION is the original version.
 * 2) Looking at the chronology we notice a worrying situation: From the history it can be seen that new registered users (shown in red) have modified the page without sources; All newly registered users who deal with the same changes to the article. Let's see what it's about: SEE HERE with username:8556as6as6s6as5g ; SEE HERE  with username:Liujmaap; the same changes reported by the new registered user Liimkna SEE HERE . So if there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry it is precisely this. SEE HERE WP:SOCK.
 * 3)In the previous changes I noticed different versions regarding the official languages ​​with various changes and in particular a curious contrast between two registered users: see here username:RIII98 and Liimkna. User Liimkna makes unfounded accusations. The issue has precedents with different motivations.
 * 4)The article has undergone a series of changes without sources. I recently restored edited content added by other users previously. I have always motivated my interventions with the restoration of the previous version due to the lack of sources. User Liimkna began a series of reversals of very questionable changes, both based on the points I listed previously and for questionable reasons with personal attacks. All this can be viewed in the chronology and in its contributions, SEE HERE ; user Liimkna claims that his version is the "NORMAL" (without providing a source to support his ideas). In previous posts in this discussion I tried to clarify the problem by inviting the user to respect Wikipedia guidelines by reporting the links. The user Liimkna has totally trampled on Wikipedia guidelines by continuing to denigrate and make personal attacks.
 * 5)Another irrefutable proof of the destructive activity of the user Liimkna can be found in the text he reported: SEE HERE ; The article has many changes in several topics that user Liimkna does not state in previous posts in this thread. I noticed that these unsourced edits conflict with other Wikipedia articles with sources (also available online) that concern these topics. But let's proceed in order:*


 * 6)The previous text states: "the Norman kingdom founded in 1130 and its successors based on the island of Sicily|similarly named kingdoms|Sicily (disambiguation)#History"; User Liimkna's text reads: "the Norman kingdom founded in 1130 and its successors based on the island of Sicily|the mainland south Italian kingdom after 1282|Kingdom of Naples". The text of the user Liimkna comes into conflict for example with these two articles (Charles I of Anjou and Kingdom of Naples) and their sources: In the articles we talk about two Kingdoms of Sicily and the official nomeclature which for the continental part is Kingdom of Sicily Citra Farum. This is the first destructive text modification based on the personal point of view of the user Liimkna.
 * 7)The previous text states (the infobox section is titled "Preceded by"): "Muslim dynasty"; User Liimkna's text reads: "Zirid dynasty". Again, user Liimkna's text edits conflict with other wiki pages and their sources (Zirid dynasty, Aghlabids, Fatimid Caliphate, Kalbids). The rule of the Zirid emirs opened the way to a period in North African history where political power was held by Berber dynasties such as the Almoravid dynasty, Almohad Caliphate, Zayyanid dynasty, Marinid Sultanate and Hafsid dynasty; the dynasties of Sicily are not part of these because they are not Berber but are Arab. This is the second destructive text modification based on the personal point of view of the user Liimkna.
 * 8)Now let's see the destructive changes made by the Liimkna user which always affect the infobox compared to the original version (see previous points where the various versions of the years 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 are listed). They concern historical periods: the wording "Personal Union" is not a simple written text but a historiographical definition which on Wikipedia has an article complete with sources (Personal union). The user Liimkna has devastated the whole text with personal definitions such as "Part of" or "Direct rule" which are devoid of encyclopedism. But the Liimkna user's devastation of the infobox reaches its peak in the elimination of personal union with the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the reign of the Hounsteufen dynasty. Obviously it can be found everywhere but in particular on dedicated pages such as Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Hohenstaufen, and others and all with sources.The ravages of the Liimkna user conflict with the dedicated pages and complete with cited sources (House of Trastámara, Viceroy, Ferdinand I of Aragon, and others). The Kingdom of Sicily has never been "Part of" of other Kingdoms or "Director rule" of other powers. The title of King of Sicily does not disappear but is inherited by the Spanish Sovereign who holds multiple Kingdoms and governs INDIRECTLY through a viceroy.
 * 9)he icing on the cake is the devastation on the part of the user Liimkna regarding the official language: As already described previously, the user Liimkna has faced this problem with other users (RIII98) previously (this is not my addition (they are unfounded accusations typical of those has no arguments). The user Liimkna declares falsely because, while checking the changes, I notice that the Norman-French language is not simply inserted in the official languages ​​but is followed by the dating "(till the late 12th century)". This deletion conflicts with other articles with sources (Norman language and a dedicated paragraph on the article Sicilian language with lots of sources). Norman French was the language of the palace, the language of the court and of the sovereign, which is why it is included in the official languages ​​but be careful, a distinction is also made with the languages ​​of the bureaucracy.
 * 10) All these changes together with the behaviors of the Liimkna user are generally defined on Wikipedia as "Trolling activities". Currently the situation is chilling because curiously the page is protected with the devastated version of the user Liimkna on display. As can be seen from the previous posts in this discussion, the user Liimkna attempted to mask his destructive activity by accusing others of what he was actually doing. Obviously the Liimkna user's activity is there for all to see.--151.47.222.58 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your behavior seems a little obsessive to me, however the article needs citations, which so far you haven't cited any, if I removed previous allegations it was precisely because there were no citations about them. Instead of obsessing over my edits here on Wikipedia (which is already quite strange) you should want to tidy up the page by adding verified information with citations. I will not continue this discussion, because first of all the article must be edited by people who understand the article, which is clearly not your case, if the page is currently "protected", anyone with a profile that does not looks more like vandalism and doesn't use a different IP every time, could easily edit the article, ALWAYS with citations to prove what is written... without saying that just "because another user added something" means it's true... Liimkna (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and about the article Norman language mentioned, the article itself says in its infobox that in Sicily it was "(used in a limited degree)", so how it can be said here in the Kingdom of Sicily article as a official language?? Well, someone here is either really a troll or has serious problems understanding writing (which would be worrying for someone who wants to be an editor at Wikipedia) Liimkna (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * and about the "status" in the infobox, if there is so much problem to be resolved, and as the article itself already explains each period very clearly, we could reach some consensus about removing this "status" part in the infobox, but clearly the consensus should be among users who seem at least serious about working on wikipedia, not with someone who has so far shown no seriousness and continues to abuse multiple accounts, which is clearly a sign of sockpuppetry. Liimkna (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User Liimkna's activity is destructive and is based on trolling from previous posts (which also feature personal attacks).--2A02:B121:8F07:C67F:AC30:EAB2:6171:4B5 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove the "status" part within the infobox
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)