Jump to content

Talk:Campania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

The link "southern civilization" is linked to the United States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_culture. This must be incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.16.203 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The links at "What links here" give an idea of the range this entry should cover. Anyone ready to make a start? --Wetman 07:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What, no mention of the rampant organized crime and camorra that overruns this region? It might not be pretty, but it's a part of everyday life for many locals and for their sake it deserves a mention, instead of being brushed under the rug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homerkp (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up required

[edit]

As being neapolitan i found this article close to atrocious. What relevance has in a geographic article the football teams of the region? What are m'gliatiegghij' and sammuchij'? The guy who wrote it has a very relative knowledge of neapolitan terms.--Raffaele Megabyte 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a major overhaul! It rambles, is sometimes poorly translated, and many statements are unsourced, PoV or simply not important. I've started to clean up- so far only the intro and demographics. Any assistance would be appreciated. Mariokempes 00:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, after having worked on Sicily's article for a while (still not fully done), this is an article I'd really like to help improve. - Animagentile (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the Camorra?

[edit]

O.K. maybe we'd all sooner pretend they don't exist, but I'm afraid we can't deny that they've had and continue to have a massive impact on their region of origin - Campania. It's strange that they don't even get a single mention. This article isn't supposed to be a rose-tinted public relations exercise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.196.132 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friarielli

[edit]

I wonder whether friarielli is the same as broccoli di rape. Some websites indicate that the term "friarielli" is just a regional term for broccoli di rape. On google images, though, it looks a little different. Any one know?72.78.11.48 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from main article

[edit]

I'm planning to fully overhaul the history section and fully develop it, the current history section devotes 80% to a particularly non notable part of its history and its more of a hindrence than a help in me trying to write this. So I'm moving it here. - Gennarous (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete the redundant parts of the old history from the talk when that part is covered. Noted, I know currently "The Kingdom" section is directly lifted from the Naples article; this will be adapted to fit Campania as a wider base soon, as especially Caserta was important to the Bourbons. - Gennarous (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UT
Goths and the Byzantine Empire struggled for control during the 5th and 6th centuries, followed by the Lombards, who established the Duchy of Benevento. The Normans (Robert Guiscard) conquered and re-unified Campania during the 11th and 12th centuries, seizing southern Italy from the Byzantines, forming the Kingdom of Sicily. After the Hohenstaufen confrontation with the Papacy, the kingdom passed to Charles of Anjou who retained his mainland territories after he lost Sicily (1282) as the Kingdom of Naples, reunited with Sicily by Alfonso V of Aragon (1442) who styled himself the 'King of Two Sicilies', a title that was subsequently revived during the Spanish domination (1504 – 1713) of both kingdoms. The Bourbons succeeded in 1713: prior to the unification of Italy, Campania formed part of the Bourbon Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

Demographics

[edit]

The demographics of section is completely Point of View especially in terms of relations with Greeks. I was the one that earlier added that Greek admixture averaged 15 percent in Campania which is verified by the study that goes with it.

This statement is false "the ethnicities outside of Italy itself some of the people associate with the Greeks, especially due to the Magna Græcia and Greco-Roman cultures; this is exemplified in the saying "una faccia, una razza" which means "one face, one race." Um how do you know this. The article that this was taken from (see here) [[1]] was someones point of view and does not reflect scientific study, not to mention it is very inaccurate. Here is a quote: "Southerly Italia was settled by Greek 2500 months ago." This is horrible grammar and does not represent a credible source for the above statments.

According to a study on northern Campanian populations done by Professor M Kayser shows (see here: [[2]] that they showed a strong relatedness to the Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanians, and near to the French. Greeks were close not as pronounced as this article states it. Campania and Sicily's demographics section should be rewritten. (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Galati[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Campania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Campania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Campania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

I've partially protected this page for a few days to give some respite from the flood of IP edits, and perhaps allow some discussion. I've looked at a small randomly-chosen number of those edits since 9 May, and don't see one single source added. I'm inclined to suggest rolling back to this revision, but I haven't looked at this carefully. Alessandro57, Denisarona, SunDawn, Ritchie92, Funandtrvl, Narky Blert, does that seem to be a good plan or am I way off-target? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this article. My sole recent contribution was this, in which I added a {{dn}} tag - and as it happens, I remember it. Everything I could find out about that picture of hazelnuts suggested that it was generic, with no connection to Campania, and the caption looked like WP:OR. My tag invited cleanup by someone who knew the topic; it isn't unknown for a DABlink to be based on a gross mistake; I recently fixed a link to a footballer called Steve Something whose actual given name turned out to be Kevin (hey, two of the letters are the same, and even in the same order). The picture and caption were added after the version you propose to revert to; so, I have no objection. Narky Blert (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's true that most of what has been recently added to the Economy section is unsourced, however I am not sure that reverting everything to the previous state is the best thing to do. There have been many edits in between which fix errors in other parts of the article which would be a pity to lose. Also, a few maintenance tags have been added to that section, so hopefully some of the issues will be solved: BTW it is in my to-do list to perform a clean-up later on (which will likely result in deleting a large part of the text that has been added), but I was waiting for the IP user to "finish", otherwise my work would have been for nothing. There has already been almost an edit war regarding a "but" and a "low-level". Anyway, I also wanted to note that the same IP user has been creating similar sections (also unsourced) in other articles regarding Italian regions, like Lombardy, Tuscany, Piedmont, Calabria, Lazio, Apulia. Cheers, Ritchie92 (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing something about Campania, I can tell you that most of the additions of the IP are correct or likely to be correct, but unfortunately they are unsourced. I suspect that the author is a typical wiki:it contributor, with a lot of knowledge about a topic but no desire to add references. Maybe we could first add an "unreferenced" banner to the article, hoping that the ip or someone else will add some source. Alex2006 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't revert the edits, but I would mark them with "citations needed", of course. I'll try and cleanup the article, too. I agree with the above comments that some editors just like to add material, but aren't interested in adding sources. It seems to be prevalent, as there are over 157k articles in the "all articles lacking sources" maintenance category. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC

It was my IP address for contribution in Lombardy, Campania, Lazio, Piemont and so on. I tried to add references, but in that moment when I was adding ref to buffalo statistics, my changes disappeared and I can't add nothing anymore. I make article only since 2 months, therefore may be it was wrong way to add at first info and after that references. It is only my hobby and sometime I need to switch immediately to other task. I also tried to remove pictures and improve English. I think that pictures make good imagination, "taste" of land. Probably it was too much. I already register as Alrabt user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.157.7.80 (talk)

@95.157.7.80 and Alrabt: please note that you are editing (also on Lombardy) without being logged in with your new account. Also, please, I am noticing these additions of sources [3] [4] [5] and many others, which really cannot be considered reliable sources. They will be eliminated soon, so please look for good, reliable sources (not blog posts, or weird websites online) to use as reference for the text that is written in that section. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why these 2 links not realiable:

  • [6] There is a special economical theory about "hidden champions" what is more typical for German firms, but SAES Getters is perfect example of Italian "hidden champion". What is wrong in this Link?
  • [7] -- under this link there is a perfect photo of abandoned Innoceti halls. Why it could not be a source?

It seems to me you are not objective to North Italian economical success. Alrabt (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a photo of an abandoned Innocenti hall does not provide a reliable source for the statement that you wrote in the article text: All factories of mass-market automotive manufacturers [...] Innocenti are closed, abandoned or demolished. We need some reliable source explicitly stating that the Innocenti factories have been closed (you can read more in the WP article about reliable sources). An implication such as "there is a picture of an abandoned Innocenti, and therefore Innocenti is closed" constitutes original research, and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Regarding the other link, it is a blog with the opinion of a user of that blog. This is also definitely not a reliable source. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first I put link directly to WIKI article about Innoceti and Autobianchi where described when companies are closed. According to you it was not enough, so WIKI articles also not reliable? After that I add for every additional references, it also not ok, with photos of destroyed production halls. That also not ok. What is ok empty article as it was? Look article is very short, for example completely missing parts about Education, Research. May be it will be nice to improve article, instead to discuss quality of refs? Alfa Romeo, Innoceti and Autobiachi stopped production, that is fact, is not it? If detailed wiki article AND additional refs are not enough for you. May be you found link for that to show me what is reliable source? Alrabt (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, I would not focus on the Innocenti sentence only; many of your additions are currently missing a good reference, so if you have them you should add them. --Ritchie92 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Pompeii and the Cities of Vesuvius

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 12 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Patroklean (article contribs).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campania&oldid=1195085971"