Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I feel slightly confused

Is this the same place as Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica? Is there are reason there are two different articles? I've redirected that article to here; I hope that's geographically correct. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This and related articles have been under siege of late by folks with very special opinions. Certainly no reader of Wikipedia has gotten any help by all of this. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the difference. The basic problem is that, as you know, Italy was divided into dozens of States for centuries. These States were generally a result of casual local or European wars, and they had not a clear geographical or national identity. The consequence was that they generally had not an own specific name (the main exception of this rule was Tuscany), and that they copied the name of their main province (generally the capital province).
This Commons image about the Duchy of Milan (in the year 1402) will make you understand: the image represents Italy in 1402, divided in provinces (by light blue lines) and States (all provinces belonging to the same State have the same color); well, if we want to speak about the sovereign State called Duchy of Milan, we must look at all the green provinces, if we want to speak about the province called Duchy of Milan, we must look at the central, single province where the capital (Milan) is locate.
A contemporary case is similar: as you know, Austria is a sovereign State, but Austria is also a province of this State (now divided between Lower Austria and Upper Austria): this because the Habsburg State in 1400 was composed by many provinces, and the main province gave its name to the State. Another unofficial case is Holland, whose name is sometimes used to speak about the Netherlands.
Well now, here we have a province (the K of Sardinia and Corsica) which was born as an Iberian province, and which became an Austrian province in 1713 and a Savoyard province in 1720. The particularity of this case is that, when this province became part of the Savoyard State, it found itself as the higher-ranked province of all the State (the others ones being duchies or counties). So, it gave its name to all the State (officially from 1723, the State continuing to call itself as K of Sicily during 1720-23 as a form of protestation), very simply. But the fact that the province began to have the same name of the State which owned it, does not allow to merge the page about the province (the island of Sardinia continued to be ruled as a viceroyalty by a Viceroy in Cagliari as it happened during the Spanish era) and the page about the State. The office of the Viceroy continued until 1848 (excluding the 1802-14 parenthesis), when an administrative reform created the three modern provinces of Cagliari, Sassari and Nuoro.--79.54.164.185 (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't care about your POV: show historical references! Are you a famous academic? If not, show references, please.

The IP who vandalize this page every morning must give his sources. Nobody still saw them.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I’ve already seen that dispute on Italian Wikipedia few years ago: [1]

Here it.Wiki decision about: [2] They’ve decided that best solution was to create one explicit page called Kingdom of Sardinia [3] followed by two others pages to explain better the different periods of the kingdom: 1324-1720 [4] and 1720-1861 [5].

Imho, user Jonny Bee Goo (surely Daviboz‘s puppet, together with anonymous IP supporting his POV) few month ago he's started make troubles. He want to force everybody to recognize his POV : [6]

According his point of view, kingdom of Sardinia before 1720 was a ‘’farlocco’’ state (fake State): [7]

After long edit war, Kingdom of Sardinia’s page has been block.

Imho, Jonny Bee Goo is trying to export edit war hoping that on en.Wiki he’ll be able to push his POV, clearly without giving sources. --URBIS (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And it's not going to work. It is not too hard to pick out the nonsense in his arguments (see my talk page). —Srnec (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia ask us sources. Urbis-aka-Xoil version is simply unreferenced, and then unacceptable. So, only the version based on university sources can be allowed. I remember that everybody knows that Sardinia was a Spanish territory before 1713 ( a "Virreinato"); and that Sardinia continued to be a subjected country (it was ruled by a VICEroy!) until 1848.
By yhe way: a user with an edit after three years of silence [8] ? Absolutely stange.... --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The popes, from at least the time of Gregory VII, claimed suzerainty over Sardinia and Corsica. In 1297 (perhaps because of a secret clause of the treaty of Anagni of 1295) Boniface VIII created the regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae out of these islands and bestowed it on James II of Aragon. It thus came into personal union (theoretically) with the Crown of Aragon, but the conquest of the islands did not immediately begin. In the mid sixteenth century Corisica, which had never been strongly controlled by the Crown, was finally ceded to its really controllers, the Republic of Genoa. Thereafter the Kingdom of Sardinia continued to enjoy personal union with the realms that made up Spain (which were still technically more of a personal union than a unified state). Neither in 1707, when Aragon and Valenica were absorbed into Castile, nor in 1716, when the "Nueva Planta" absorbed Catalonia into Spain, was Sardinia's status affected. It was all that was left of the Spanish Bourbons' possessions in Italy at that time, but in 1720, in order to re-acquire Sicily and Naples, the Spanish monarch ceded it to the House of Savoy. The Savoyard state (which was more really a state than the various realms of Spain for much of the preceding century) had gained its independence and sovereignty from the Holy Roman Empire by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. It comprised all the lands ruled by the Savoyard dynasty, including Savoy, Nice and the Piedmont. Now it added Sardinia, which was nonetheless kept distinct legally. In 1847 the Savoyards finally integrated their realms (the so-called "perfect fusion"). The result is more deserving of the name Piedmont–Sardinia, sometimes used for the Savoyard kingdom. It was still called the Kingdom of Sardinia and over the next decade it gradually annexed most Italian states and in 1861 became the Kingdom of Italy. In 1946 the monarchy was removed and it became the Republic of Italy, which is still with us.

Can Jonny Bee Goo point out any error in the above analysis/description? This is hardly "Sardinian nationalist propaganda", as none of the main players were Sardinian. —Srnec (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

II don't have to ask to you a permission when I write on Wikipedia. Usually I'm unlogged and that are my business. About references, present version got the same references that it.wiki voice: [9] That history of the viceroy is a little bit ridicoulus: so, kingdom of Naples or kingdom of Sicily were not a State when ruled by a viceroy? The king of Sardinia was a guest when was going to Cagliari ?--URBIS (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your description, Srnec, is plenty of errors.

1. History has hundreds of exemples of claims. But international law is based on effectivity, not on claims. Japan claims many Kuril Islands, but I think that nodoby can deny that those islands are a Russian territory. Effective situation of Sardinia was to become an Aragonese dependency with the name of "Virreinato de Cerdeña". Personal union, unified state, is a matter of Spanish law. According to international law, Sardinia was a Spanish territory under Spanish sovereignty, this one was the sole relevant fact. Today, Alderney can have the largest autonomies according to the British law: according to the international law, Alderney is a British territory as London is, because it is under British sovereignty. Point.
2. You are a bit confused about the timeline, Srnec. In 1716, at the time of Nueva Planta, Sardinia was no more a Spanish territory from 3 years.
3. You are a bit confused about international treaties, Srnec. Austria, not Spain, ceded Sardinia to Savoy.
4. Your biggest error, Srnec, is your analysis of the perfect fusion. With the perfect fusion, Piedmont integrated Sardinia, not the opposite. Not a single Sardinian law survived to the fusion, while the Piedmontese legal system was expanded to all the Savoyard possessions. Flag, currency, carabinieri, king, Prime minister, capital city, administrative division, laws, all the elements of the Savoyard State around 1850 came from Piedmont, not from Sardinia. Nothing of the medieval Regnum Sardiniae et Corsicae, with the sole exception of the name, survived to the perfect fusion (naturally, if you have evidences of something more than the name survived, you can show it).
5. For Urbis aka Xoil: here we are on English wikipedia. Can you give us ENGLISH sources please? --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your second and third points are valid. My mistake. I was writing from memory. They don't effect my argument, however. Your first and fourth points are incorrect. If it's all about "effectivity" and not "claims", why did the Savoyards call themselves Kings of Sardinia and not Kings of Savoy? Because Sardinia was a kingdom when they acquired it. That's why. My error about 1716 does not effect the truth about 1707, which shows that Sardinia was not just a "part" of Castile/Spain. Further, the virreinato de Cerdeña was alike to the virreinato de Nápoles. Do you deny there was a Kingdom of Naples during this period as well? Does the history of the Two Sicilies begin with Savoy in 1713? International law and concepts of sovereignty developed gradually and your claims are anachronistic. If, as I claim, there was no unified "Spain" before 1707, what then is "Spanish law" in that period?

I did not say that Sardinia integrated Piedmont, so what's your point? I said they were integrated. I agree that nothing save territory (the island!) and name (the kingdom!) survived by 1848 of the regnum Sardiniae, but I also assert, against you, that this is sufficient to speak of a continuous Kingdom of Sardinia that existed from 1297 until 1861/1946. I would not suggest this if the claim had nothing to go along with it and was merely a name (like the title "king of Jerusalem", say). But this claim had something to go along with it: the island of Sardinia. The point is that the Kingdom of Sardinia was not created out of thin air for or by the Savoyards in 1720. It existed before then and was merely transferred to them. (I dispute your interpretation of your sources, by the way, and since you have provided footnotes your version of the article is no better sourced than the original.) Srnec (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User J0nny Bee Goo is coming from Italy and he would like to see english sources. Me too I fell a litle bit confused. Why italian sources should not be valid?? Italians they don't know their history !!? --DaviBuzzz (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet!?! @Srnec: I'll reply to you down. Please continue there our discussion.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm Daviboz, the original one and I don't have any sockpuppet. What URBIS stated is incredible! Jonny Bee Goo is not me! I joined the original discussion in the Italian Wikipedia, but in the last year I was away from Wikipedia. However, I think the opinion of Jonny Bee Goo is right. Here is the definition of Regno di Sardegna in enciclopedia Treccani, one of the most important in Italy: «nome assunto dai domini di Casa Savoia dopo lo scambio fra la Sicilia e la Sardegna avvenuto in forza dei trattati di Londra e dell'Aja del 1718 e 1720» (name taken by territories of Savoy House after the exchange between Sicily and Sardinia according to London and Aja treatises). Everywhere in the Italian history works is normal to refer to the Kingdom of Sardinia as "Kingdom of Piedemont-Sardinia" or simply and more frequently as "Piedmont". Before 1720 Sardinia is universally considered part of Spanish Kingdom. All this mess just becouse few people in the name of Sardinian nationalism want to change the history founding their statements just on the opinion of a single historian, Sardinian as well. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not an original research. --Daviboz (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion on naming

Any thoughts on a second RM to Piedmont-Sardinia? john k (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Anything so that we aren't telling readers that the Kingdom of Sardinia was created in 1720. Srnec (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We can of course do that without a move. john k (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in which case we could start by reverting this article back some months. Srnec (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the definition of Regno di Sardegna in enciclopedia Treccani, one of the most important in Italy: «nome assunto dai domini di Casa Savoia dopo lo scambio fra la Sicilia e la Sardegna avvenuto in forza dei trattati di Londra e dell'Aja del 1718 e 1720» (name taken by territories of Savoy House after the exchange between Sicily and Sardinia according to London and Aja treatises). Everywhere in the Italian history works is normal to refer to the Kingdom of Sardinia as "Kingdom of Piedemont-Sardinia" or simply and more frequently as "Piedmont". Before 1720 Sardinia is universally considered part of Spanish Kingdom. All this mess just becouse few people in the name of Sardinian nationalism want to change the history founding their statements just on the opinion of a single historian, Sardinian as well. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not an original research. --Daviboz (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about!! I’m not at all a Sardinian nationalist and I don’t care about political opinions. Treccani doesn’t say anything new. I’m Italian like you and what you say is not true: officially the kingdom (all the kingdom) was called Kingdom of Sardinia or Sardinia.--Shardan (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody wants to change the official name: the official name is Kingdom of Sardinia. But in the substance when we speak of Kingdom of Sardinia we refer to the Kingdom of Savoyard, i.e. Piedmont with the centre of power in Turin. The old Kingdom of Sardinia was just a flatus vocis, was part of Kingdom of Spain, was just a title useful for dukes of Savoy to become kings. So the ancient Kingdom of Sardinia and the modern one don't have anything in common, with the exception of the name and of the title. It is exactly the same problem of the Kingdom of Italy: on the paper there is a kingdom with that name from the end of Roman Empire until 1946. But in the facts, nobody says that in 1356 or 1615 or 1723 there was really a Kingdom of Italy and you will not find section about it in handbooks of history or enciclopedias. When we speak about Kingdom of Italy we basically refer to the kingdom under Savoyard House btween 1861 and 1946. And in the Italian edition of Wikipedia you will not find just one article dedicated to the Kingdom of Italy from the origins to 1946, but simply a page that helps you to distinguish the different states that in different periods had that name, i.e. the one of Teodorico, the one of Lombards or the one of Napoleon. --Daviboz (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement from the encyclopedia quoted above—nome assunto dai domini di Casa Savoia dopo lo scambio fra la Sicilia e la Sardegna avvenuto in forza dei trattati di Londra e dell'Aja del 1718 e 1720—is highly misleading unless you already know a fair deal of background information. The name "Kingdom of Sardinia" was not "assumed" in either of those years, for reasons I've made clear before. It had already been the name of the island kingdom for centuries before 1720. The medieval kingdom of Sardinia is precisely that which was handed over to the house of Savoy in 1720. It is not just a coincidence of names.

Also, there was no kingdom of Italy on paper continuously from antiquity to 1946, although for most of that time there was (perhaps, sometimes naming being highly informal, as in the Lombard kingdom). But if you want, I'm happy to say there was a kingdom of Italy in fact in 1356 and 1615. Srnec (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Area

A recent infobox asserted that the Kingdom of Sardinia had an area in square thingies, without specifying when. That didn’t make any sense to me, at all. Ian Spackman (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• But that makes no sense, just because we cannot confirm the square area of the country doesn't mean taking down the whole infobox. Just delete the error until we find a source that confirms the claim. --98.89.5.184 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Srnec has removed the whole infobox, either. The infobox also did specify when - 1838. The number, though, seems to be off. Adding up the areas of the Italian regions of Piedmont, Liguria, Valle d'Aosta, Sardinia, and the three French departments of Savoie, Haute-Savoie, and Alpes-Maritimes gives us 72,887 km². Now, Monaco was a bit larger in 1838 than it is now, so that would come out of the number, but you also have to add the majority of the Province of Pavia, so it seems fairly clear that the total must be higher than 70,000 km². john k (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More inventions?

Hi my friends, I'm back after a period of heavy work. Unfortunately I saw that this page was affected again by the inventions of our two Sardinian nationalists, so I had to restore the version according with all other worldwide encyclopedias.

Sardinia never annexed Piedmont, it was the opposite. Sardinia was given to Piedmont in 1720; Sardinian maintained its local automony until 1848, when all its laws were abolished. There's not a single evidence of legal continuity, not a single encyclopedia speaks about a State existing from 1324 to 1861.

By the way, there's not a single law choosing Cagliari as capital.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about any annexations. Who cares whether "a single encyclopedia speaks about a State existing from 1324 to 1861"? When did what other encyclopedias state become our standard? (Answer: never.) I've reverted your Piedmontese nationalist version. Srnec (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must advice you that wikipedia is based upon reliable sources, not upon personal researches. Your position fights against basic wikipedian pillars. I'm unhappy that you do not understand this.
Your version, lacking of any type of sources, can't be approved. However, you have many pages when you can speak about the history of Sardinia and I will never edit there.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Which one is the Kingdom of Sardinia?

What is the topic of this page supposed to be? There are at least two entities that are commonly called the "Kingdom of Sardinia", and in my opinion they are the just same thing at different times. User:Jonny Bee Goo would like this page to deal with only one of them (the more famous one). I believe this is misleading because it appears that more happened in 1720/23 than did. Jonny believes an article covering the entire period is misleading because it suggests that the medieval kingdom of Sardinia annexed Piedmont-Savoy. I think a single article can avoid misleading anybody. This dispute has already happened at the Italian Wiki, where they adopted a three-article solution (one overview article at this title, and two about the two different periods/states). —Srnec (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian wikipedia is obviously hugely affected by Sardinian nationalists )Italian wikipedia is one the the wikis with the major problem of lacking of sources, and in fact it is generally considered unreliable by the Italian press). But their solution is completely isolated in the wikipedian family. An indepedent and sovereign State can't be merged with an administrative division. Belarus existed since 1917, but the start date of the actual State of Belarus is considered 1991 bacause this is the year of the independence of Belarus. Sardinia never had a real government, ministries, foreign policy. Sardinia was ever ruled by a Viceroy as any province of all the States of Europe during those centuries. Sardinia was simply ceded by Spain to Austria in 1713 and by Austria to Piedmont in 1720: these are the historical facts according with all the sources, Britannica, Ohio University, Harvard Press. The title of "kingdom" is only an honorific clausola accorded to many provinces: was the Kingdom of Dalmatia a State? I think the answer is quite obvious.
By the way, I do not deny the right to create a page speaking about the province called "kingdom of Sardinia" which existed from 1294 to 1848 and covered the Sardinian island (but never more). But if all the encyclopedias under the name "Kingdom of Sardinia" speak about the State which was earlier called "Duchy of Savoy" and which changed its name in 1723 (NOT in 1720: coins minted in 1722 speak of "Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Chyprus"), this is the line wikipedia must follow. We have a separate page about the Viceroyalty called "kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica": let's improve it (and let's change the page name, if needed). --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I’m from Sardinia but I’m not a Sardinian nationalist!! And after I don’t understand why Sardinian nationalists, following Jonny Bee Boo opinion, should care so much about Kingdom of Sardinia. As I know they hate it: they lost their independence because of that kingdom. Jonny Bee Goo just say nonsense!! And after is not true that it.Wiki is unreliable: Italian press is use to copy our pages (....without citing us, and that is starting to be a problem). I’m starting to be a little bit fed up about Jonny Bee Goo's vandalism. --Shardan (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your contribution in this talk page lacks of sources as your imaginative version. I don't see a single reason to put wikipedia in contradiction with all other encyclopedias and university sources. You tried (without sources) to create a template with a "succession of States" from 1294 to 1861.... what? Here [10] a map of Europe in 1648: where is your supposed State? Remember: only an independent State can be a successor State of another independent State. A "successor province" is unknown in history and in international law.
Well, I repeat, no problem to improve a page about the province of the viceroyalty. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your reading of history is anachronistic, Jonny. Since you apparently just want to retread ground we've already covered I'm not going to address your individual points. Please leave the stable version in place and allow third parties to enter the discussion. Srnec (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources, my friend, sources. Wikipedia is not a blog where you can write whatever you want. Your version completely lacks of sources, so it can't remain on wikipedia, not even a second. I hope you'll understand that propaganda is unallowed here.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonny Bee Goo must be joking !! I think is laughing at Wikipedia. As italian he knows very well that F.C. Casùla [[11]], one of the most important historians of Italian Middle Age, supports what Srnec has write about the kingdom of S [[12]]. Personally I can’t insert notes because I don’t have, in English language, History of Sardinia, a fundamental Casula’s book. Problably Jonny Bee Goo is an important historian as well. Probably he has written important books about Kingdom of Sardinia and is part of the academic world of historians like Casùla is. If so, as he's not agreed about Casùla view, I encourage him to confute Casùla studies, already aged of thirty years, and to write a book about history of Sardinia so we can report, here on Wikipedia, his thesis about viceroyalties. Otherwise he should simple shut up his face and leave everybody on peace about his little history of vice-royalties. Wikipedia is work in progress and to write about history of Sardinia like Zurita has done, or Risorgimeto historians have done in XIX century, I think is a little bit anachronistic. That's all. By, --Shardan (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The author cited by Shardan is marginal in Italian scholarship, in fact his version is in contradiction with all other Italian sources. But this is not our problem, because this is wikipedia in English. So, if one of the most important English sources (Britannica) and all academical sources in English support one and sole version, this one must be the version accepted by wikipedia. I regret, my friend, wikipedia is not an instrument of your Sardinian nationalist propaganda.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The author cited is a legitimate source, superior, in fact, to the Britannica, which is a tertiary source, far from the "most important". Your version is misleading and I will contniue to revert it. Srnec (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that your Sardinian-nationalists ideas are the sole base of your vandalism. The fact that everyone sees, is that you have not a single English source for your version, and your sole Italian source is a Sardinian-nationalist author which is completely rejected by all Italian historians. I'll continue to defend wikipedia's reliability.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You slipped beneath refutation months ago. Srnec (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Jonny. Once again I tell you that I don’t care about politics. Next time I will take it as a personal attack. But anyway, I’m curious to Know why to affirm Sardinian state born in 1324 means to be a Sardinian nationalist ?!! I don’t really understand the nexus. And after, could you explain me, please, for which reason Sardinian nationalist should care about Sardinian State if that state has destroyed their nation, winning wars against Arborèa? I think Jonny is a little bit confused, even when he says something about Casùla. --Shardan (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The goal of the unreferenced version is clear: to support the idea that Sardinia founded Italy, so to receive public funds for Sardinia during the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of Italy. However, more than unreferenced, this version is ridiculous: for exemple, if Cagliari would be the capital of this kingdom, it would be the first capital of Italy in 1861. But this is clearly false.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just nonsense, Jonny Bee Goo says nonsense. Faculty of Laws’ textbooks state:«The present-day Italian State is none other than the ancient Kingdom of Sardinia, profoundly changed in its political structure and no less changed in its borders..»....and:«All the changes which took place from the ancient Kingdom of Sardinia until the present day were internal changes, as a result of which the pre-existent juridical order did in fact change, and did so in important areas, but in such a way that it never disappeared and never gave way to a new order...» [[13]]. Jonny Bee Goo says nonsense.--151.27.237.192 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We know that the transformation of the kingdom into a constitutional monarchy in 1848 was a big internal change, and the annexation of Lombardy, the duchies, the Papal State and the Two Sicilies profoundly changed the kingdom's border. What is the problem?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

....And was even a big internal change the transformation that the kingdom had in 1720 when from Spanish crown was moved to Savoy house. In that occasion become the most important one between the House of Savoy’ states (as title). The problem is that the ancient kingdom of Sardinia (cite above) was a kingdom an not a virreinato, as you state without any shame. Here the Renunciation of King Philip V of Spain to his claims on formerly Spanish territories, 22 June 1720: «....sino tambien los Reynos de Sicilia y Cerdeña, segun las leyes declaradas en el Tratado, bien entendido, que la Isla y Reyno de Sicilia ha de quedar perpetuamente en lo venidero á su Magestad Cesárea, á y sus herederos, succesores y descendientes, suprimido enteramente todo el derecho de reversion á la Corona de España y que la Isla y Reyno de Cerdeña ha de ser retrocedida y entregada por la misma Cesárea Magestad, despues de tenerla en su poder, al Rey de Cerdeña Duque de Saboya, reservando el derecho de reversion de aquel Reyno á la Corona de España, si en algun tiempo llegase el caso de que la posteridad y agnacion del dicho Serenísimo Rey de Cerdeña llegase á faltar»[14] (The text was included in the Treaty of Vienna of 30 April 1725 between Spain and the Emperor). Kingdom not virreinato, and that Kingdom, with duke of Savoy’s mainland states, become a composite state until 1847, when after Perfect fusion become a unitary state. Kingdom of Sardinia, not duchy of Savoy, had in 1720 summa potestas : the king, not the duke; even thought they were the same person, everything was done in the king name.--151.27.237.192 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I did read the discussion here and it seems clear that the version I have just reverted back to again is the version that's fully referenced (and has the appropriate infobox, which is my main prior connection to the topic). I have requested this page be fully protected given the unconstructive edit war and the violations of WP:3RR. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give your historical opinion? Thanks--93.45.139.70 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I gave my opinion — I agree with all the mainstream references and textbooks, and not with the spurious single reference that seems to have been presented by Srnec and a handful of IP addresses. The version with references and an infobox is the version that was stable for some time before the current edit war. Can I recommend people read the WP:3RR and notes for editors? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I insert references if the page is allways vandalised? And after another infobox with more details has been bloked. You didn't give your opinion about the historcal topic. I'd like to know what do you think about the kingdom of Sardinia and the viceroyaltie of Sardinia. Thanks--93.45.139.70 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is my contention that the sources given by Jonny are not reliable. They are three tertiary sources and a Scandinavian general history. There is no reason to believe the latter is reliable for something like this. The encyclopedias are wrong in the same way Jonny is, and it is not hard to prove. See Talk:Kingdom of Sicily, Jerusalem and Cyprus for instance, where I quote some of Storrs (in the references section of this article, but not footnoted). I could cite many sources (say, T. N. Bisson, The Medieval Crown of Aragon) that talk about the medieval K. of Sardinia, which is basically ignored by the encyclopedias Jonny likes to cite. They're simply not reliable for this kind of stuff. In effect, the "sourced" version is not sourced, because its sources are not reliable (and none are secondary sources). On top of that, its English is crap. (And to call a secondary source, by a distinguished specialist of Sardinian history, "spurious" is absurd. Did you read it?) Srnec (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think your denial of the reliability of highly regarded mainstream sources such as Britannica speaks for itself. If you want to propose your own theories about history, you are perfectly free to do so anywhere else, but don't foist it upon Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia intended to present the mainstream accepted versions. – Bellatores (t.) 11:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Bellatores. For Srnec, dozens of wordwide famous sources must not be accepted, while a single, Sardinian-nationalist source must be the sole source for wikipedia. I hope Srnec will understand that we are at the final wristle of this waste of time, and that he'll begin to improve the page about the Viceroyalty.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Bellatores: Our own policies state that secondary sources are to be predominant. The supposedly sourced version of this article does not use (footnote) any (save one that is not reliable). The fact that you are not familiar with the topic beyond the tertiary sources is no reason to call label real history "my own theory". This is a matter of whether or not we're allowed to be as sloppy as Britannic or whether we could be better.

@ Jonny: What the fuck is a wristle? Srnec (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this vulgar language?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Regardless of the above move discussion, can someone please make the alternative names "Piedmont-Sardinia" and "Sardinia-Piedmont" bold, rather than italicized, in the first sentence of the article? --Kotniski (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally the article is badly in need of some copyediting - perhaps if we all agree not to restart old edit wars, the page could be unprotected so that uncontroversial improvements to the English could be made?--Kotniski (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

{{movereq|Piedmont-Sardinia|The currenty article misleading implies that the term K. of Sardinia applies exclusively to the Savoyard state after 1720, when in fact it refers to a kingdom in existence from 1324. This dispute has been ongoing: read the talk page if you care.}}

Kingdom of Sardinia → Piedmont-Sardinia — The currenty article misleading implies that the term K. of Sardinia applies exclusively to the Savoyard state after 1720, when in fact it refers to a kingdom in existence from 1324. This dispute has been ongoing: read the talk page if you care. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I refer all newcomers to this discussion to the section Talk:Kingdom of Sardinia#@Srnec. It gets to the nub of the issue. Srnec (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSER: This article has been forcibly repurposed since this request was made. The discussion below effectively concerns the title of the article which is now at Piedmont-Sardinia. Those "opposing" presumably support the prior status quo, whereby that article (Piedmont-Sardinia) was titled Kingdom of Sardinia. Those "supporting" presumably support the current situation, i.e. that the article now at Piedmont-Sardinia should remain there. Another proposal is for that article to be renamed Kingdom of Sardinia (1720–1861).

FURTHER NOTE: I've closed the move discussion since the proposed change has been forced through anyway, and no-one seems to be complaining, so there seems no point in having the move request on the backlog. If anyone wants to reopen it, just remove the "tlx|" in the movereq template above.--Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose The subject of this article - a state ruled by the Savoys with the name "Kingdom of Sardinia" - was created in the 1720s, although the Savoys had ruled part of the area (Piedmont) for centuries. "Piedmont-Sardinia" is a made-up name for this entity. Noel S McFerran (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It was not created in the 1720s! That's the problem. That statement is just false. The state ruled by the Savoys was not created in 1720, it was a gradual creation going back to the 11th century. The Savoyard state did not take the name K. of Sardinia in 1720. Referring to the possessions of the Savoys collectively as the Kingdom of Sardinia is just like calling it Piedmont-Sardinia: it's simply convenient. "Piedmont-Sardinia" is a well-used made-up name. Srnec (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree fully with what Mcferran said right above me. Also, I want to point out that user Srnec seem to ignore the fact that there is indeed an article for the ancient realm, at Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica. This can also be found on top of this article as disambiguation. – Bellatores (t.) 11:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The ancient realm and the modern realm are the same realm. Nothing magical occurred in 1713 or 1720. No new state (in the modern sense) was created. That's why this article, as is, is extremely misleading (as, indeed, are the Britannica and Columbia articles). Our two articles are making a false distinction. It's practical, yes, but misleading (as this whole dispute shows). I have supported in the past a three-article solution like they have in the Italian WP. Srnec (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Srnec: please stop. Wikipedia is based on sources, not on personal inventions. Too much time has been wasted. Bellatores invited you to improve the page about the Viceroyalty, if you want to speak about the history of Sardinia. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support The ancient kingdom and the modern kingdom are the same kingdom. Srnec is right; italian sources say like that: [15]....and not just Casùla. The sardinian President Ugo Capellacci, not at all a sardinian nationalist, for the 150th's italian unification says the same things: [16]. Jonny Bee Goo is laughing at Wikipedia.--Shardan (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You perfectly confirm the fact I said: the goal is to receive public funds for Sardinia during the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of Italy. By the way, you should better write like this: "SARDINIAN sources say like that", because nobody in Italy outside that island supports this invention.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Right, 'cause the Italian gov't disposes of its money on the basis of what the English Wikipedia says. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think to talk with you is to lose time. I am not interested in public funds for 150th Italian unification, I don’t simply care and I don’t want to Know how much money the Italian regions received for those celebrations: is not our topic ! About the sources, Sardinian sources are Italian sources, Sardinian historians are Italian historians. Sardinia is an Italian region: perhaps you are forgetting that. And after, which one is the historical invention? Perhaps Boniface VIII didn’t create a new kingdom in 1297? Perhaps there haven’t been any Aragonese invasion of Sardinia in 1324? Nobody in Italy know that? Yes, why not!!, perhaps italians like you !!--Shardan (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Noel S McFerran. FactStraight (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Fact: Kingdom of Sardinia (and Corsica) was created in 1297 by Pope Boniface VIII. Fact: Kingdom of Sardinia started his life in 1324 when James II of Aragon assumed the title of King of Sardinia and in the 1420 the territory of the Kingdom of Sardinia is extended throughout the island. Fact: in the 1718 Savoy received the Kingdom of Sardinia and in 1720 he formally took possession of the island. The medieval Kingdom of Sardinia is the same kingdom that was handed over to the House of Savoy in 1720. These are historical facts. --Felisopus (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC) PS we can't use Kingdom of Sardinia (1720-1861)?
• Support There have been one state with the same name (a part Corsica) from 1324 to 1861 when that state has changed name in Kingdom of Italy and on 1948 to Italian Republic. Italian state born on june 1324, not on march 1861. There are plenty of historical sources to confirm these statements.--URBIS (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • An old sockpuppet returns in an attempt to increase the number of "supports" it seems. Your claim that the Italian state was born in Sardinia in 1324 just serves as proof of your fringe historic revisionism. – Bellatores (t.) 18:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Go to study Italian history instead to say nonsense. I'm not telling you are a sockpuppet and I'm respecting you: you should do the same with me.--URBIS (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as the 1720 to 1861 kingdom was named Sardina. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support . The Kingdom of Sardinia of 1324-1720 is the same Kingdom of 1720-1861 , the only thing that changed was the ruling dinasty ; also "Piedmont-Sardinia" is an imaginary denomination invented by some modern historians (from mainland Italy)...--Xoil (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Xoil is confused. He has just voted "Support" for a move to "an imaginary denomination invented by some modern historians". Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose . The renaming proposal is against the official name.--Cusio (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think I gave a lot of reasons in this talk page.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Logically this would seem to be about whether the post-1720 state is the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia". I.e. the present title is justifiable if the post-1720 state is felt to be a separate entity from the pre-1720 one and the later entity is the one most readers are going to be expecting to find if they type in "Kingdom of Sardinia". Otherwise we would seem to need disambiguation, either by using an alternative but unambiguous name like "Piedmont-Sardinia", or by adding the dates of the kingdom in parentheses. --Kotniski (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Srnec solution is the best, I mean one overview article named Kingdom of Sardinia (with infobox), and two about the two different periods: the aragonese-spanish one (Kingdom of Sardinia 1324-1720) and the Savoyard one (Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861) without infobox. The state has always been the same.--Shardan (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not seeing much meaningful continuity between the two entities: one was a Spanish dependency, the other was a Savoyan state. The second, in spite of the shared name (and formal title, presumably) is far more a successor of the Duchy of Savoy than of the "Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica". --Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There is perfect continuity. The problem is that Sardinia pre-1713 was not "a Spanish dependency". It was one of many realms in union with Castile. Spain developed gradually, and really didn't exist under the Habsburgs. Sardinia had its own local laws and customs that were followed down to 1847. The problem is in thinking that Turin (etc.) became a part of Sardinia in 1720. It did not, except in historiographic shorthand. The Savoyard state was a composite state of a kind that doesn't really exist any more, same as Spain. The kingdom of Sardinia was a part of each, the only real difference being that it was an important part of the Savoyard ruler's titulature. In both cases the monarchs usually ruled from afar and appointed viceroys in their stead. I suspect the real problem here is that too few people have a category for "early modern composite state", and it certainly doesn't fit into Wikipedia's "former country" infobox very well. Srnec (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see why making satisfactory infoboxes might be tricky, but as to the title of the article... The difference between the pre- and post-1720 situations seems to be that, before that date, the "Kingdom of Sardinia" was just Sardinia (and we already have articles on Sardinia and History of Sardinia), whereas after that date (or thereabouts) the name "Kingdom of Sardinia" was transferred to the whole state of Savoy. So it seems to me perfectly reasonable to argue that (i) the common name for the Savoyard state after c. 1720 was "Kingdom of Sardinia"; (ii) that state is the PRIMARYTOPIC for the phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia"; and therefore it's quite acceptable for Wikipedia's article about that state to carry that title. If neither of those two premises is being disputed, I'm inclined to support the status quo as far as the title is concerned.--Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no name change in 1720. That's why I call the current situation misleading. The name change is entirely retrospective. We call the Savoyard state, which had no name, the K. of S. after 1720, just like we call it Piedmont or Savoy at other times in its history. That state that you refer to as the primary topic is the same state as the K. of S. pre-1720. That's the problem I have: we're acting like something was destroyed in 1720 and another thing created, when in reality stuff just changed hands. It's like treating 476 as the "fall of Rome". Only retrospectively can it appear that way, in reality change was minimal. (To clarify: the title K. of S. was added to V. Amadeus' titulature, and b/c it was his highest title it is the one that was used most often. So treaties for the whole of V. Amadeus' state were made with [the person of] the K. of S., and all his territories were those of the K. of S., but this does not make them formally a part of a "Kingdom of Sardinia" nor does it mean they took that as a name. I've got no problem with calling them that as a shorthand, but only if we recognise it for what it is.) Srnec (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The House of Savoy states before 1720 (County of Nice, Duchy of Savoy, Ducky of Aosta, Principality of Piedmont…..) all together they were called Savoyard states. The Duchy of Savoy gave to the duke the higher title and these states they had proper customs and laws. After 1720 when the duke became King, he add to Kingdom of Sardinia these states transforming the Kingdom of Sardinia in a composite state, and the Savoyard states became...Sardinian states. Ducky ofSavoy, Principality of Piedmont,County of Nizza etc, were simply called in the international context with the name of Sardinia, but Sardinia was not reported to the island, but to the Kingdom [17].--Shardan (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to call this state by whatever name English-speaking historians refer to it now, rather than what it may have been called, formally or otherwise, at various times in the past. I'm open to persuasion as to what name historians do most commonly use, but if it turns out to be K of S, and this is also the primary usage of K of S, I'm not seeing anything wrong with the current title. (Of course the rather complex facts surrounding this name need to be explained prominetly in the article - with the hatnote, brief information in the lead, and detailed information later on.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What is "this state"? The kingdom of Sardinia is always called the kingdom of Sardinia, and there was only ever one. The problem is not with the title, but with the fact that some editors insist on limiting the scope of this article to the kingdom of Sardinia post-1720. I don't mind if the article focuses on the more-discussed later period of its history, and I don't mind if the article basically covers the entirety of the Savoyard state for that period. I do mind when the lead of the article presents readers with deceptive simplicities and any effort to correct it is reverted, ultimately resulting in page protection. So if the guys with the big sticks are going to get involved (and they certainly spoke softly, that is, not at all on this talk page, before the stick came down...) and enforce the false version, then I would like to see the title more accurately reflect the article's skewed contents: the K. of S. post-1720 only, which is sometimes, for just the reasons that we are having this dispute, called Piedmont-Sardinia. Srnec (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself - you start by saying the k of S is always called the k of S, but finish by saying the K of S is sometimes called P-S. Are you making some point connected with the capitalization of k/Kingdom? But I agree this page should be unprotected so that badly needed copyediting can take place.--Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My point was that there is only one state named the kingdom of Sardinia. The term is also used, unfortunately, as a shorthand for all the territories ruled by its king after 1720, but, for the reason I called this "unfortunate", some historians prefer a term like Piedmont-Sardinia for this entity, which was not a unitary state, or even really a federal state. This has nothing to do with capitalisation, which I have not been careful to be consistent with. The problem is that history doesn't always fit neatly into our categories. If you review the debate that happened several months ago on this talkpage, and if you review the two versions warred over in the article history, you will understand what I think the article should be about, and why the current wording is highly misleading and perpetuates a (founding?) myth. Srnec (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course the current wording needs various improvements, to make many things clearer. But I think it's clear that there has to be an article about the important historical entity that some call Kingdom of Sardinia and some call Piedmont-Sardinia, and given that this is that article (even if some would prefer it to be differently titled), then it would be disruptive to completely rereconstruct the article to be about something else.--Kotniski (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kotniski, the important historical entity got only one name: Kingdom of Sardinia. Until 1861 was never called Piedmont-Sardinia. This name came out after, during the twentieth century, to help children in elementary schools to distinguish the two most important periods of the Kingdom (1324-1720 and 1720-1861).--Shardan (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Srnec, your solution about one overview article named Kingdom of Sardinia (the article that Jonny Bee goo reverts always, with infobox), and after two articles about the two different periods: the aragonese-spanish one (Kingdom of Sardinia 1324-1720) and the Savoyard one (Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861) both of them without infobox, is the best. Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861 is much better otherwise there will be always somebody that will reject that name becouse is not an official name. --Shardan (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi my friends, I'm back. I see our two friends did not realize they lost their match and that their inventions were rejected by our wikipedian community. What was their supposed, invented state before 1720 (or, better, 1713, because their invention needs to forget 7 years od Austrian rule)? A Spanish governor/viceroy, some Spanish lords to rule the country, and some judges appointed by the king of Spain. Is this a State? Don't be silly. Our friends make us loose too much time. The Kingdom of Sardinia, as called after 1720 (factually, 1723) was no more then the ancient Duchy of Savoy which changed its name for honorific purposes, as all historians say us. I think this dispute can be closed here.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't be so condescending/patronising when your English is so bad.

To the rest of you: note that Jonny considers that "no more" occurred in 1720 than that "the ancient Duchy of Savoy ... changed its name for honorific purposes". Apparently the acquisition of the island of Sardinia is completely unimportant.

Jonny: Yes, a viceroy, feudal lords and royal judges do a state make. Thanks for asking. Srnec (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The acquisition of Sardinia was seen unimportant by the House of Savoy, in fact they refused to recognize that fact for 3 years.
At the beginning you were funny, Srnec, now you are very boring. Admit you never studied history nor law, and please stop this waste of time. How old are you?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I know full well that the Savoyards didn't want Sardinia in 1720. They didn't want Sicily in 1713! When did I dispute this? The subjective wishes of the house of Savoy are irrelevant here. As is my age. Bringing up the latter is especially funny coming from somebody with second-grade English comprehension skills. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Repurposing of article

This is getting ridiculous again. You can't just completely change the subject of an article just because you disagree with the prevailing opinion that the present subject is the primary topic for that article's title. The Piedmont-Sardinia state is an important historical entity that must have its own article (under some title or another); if the current decision is that that article should be titled "Kingdom of Sardinia", then live with it, and ensure that people arriving here can find information the other sense of "Kingdom of Sardinia" at the other relevant articles. It's totally out of order to rewrite the article in such a way that the aforementioned important historical entity ends up without an article.--Kotniski (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Piedmont-Sardinia state didn't existed. was existing only Kingdom of Sardinia state and that state was on from 1297/1324 to 1861 when it changed its name to Kingdom of Italy. in 1720 there was not a new state --Shardan (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Utter nonsense as has already been explained at length by many people here. Well, I've had to recreate the article on the Savoyard state at Piedmont-Sardinia. A pretty disgusting display of consensus-busting by two editors here - when the move discussion goes against them, getting the name-change they want anyway by holding the article to ransom. Goodness know how many links are wrong now all over the place, but clearly that doesn't matter to the two Messrs S., as long as they get their way.--Kotniski (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Imho history should not be misleading. What you want to do is misleading. Anyway, from 1720 to 1861 there are a lot of important things to write, certainly not only what you have write. there is the Risorgimento and its wars. I think the right title should be Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861, not Piedmont-Sardinia that officially never existed--Shardan (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't stick to official names (nor do historians). Anyway, the discussion on what the title of the article should be is still open and probably ought to be closed by an intelligent administrator; but if you completely change the topic of the article in the middle of such a discussion, you fairly obviously disrupt the whole process (partly because no-one arriving here now will understand what the discussion was about, or what has to be done to implement the decision).--Kotniski (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The topic of the article is a state called Kingdom of Sardinia. Since the beginning, the discussion was about that state. The discussion show that the state was only one and not two as you want to demonstrate.--Shardan (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Same name" doesn't equal "same thing". I think this has been explained at sufficient length by now that there isn't much more to add. Let's leave things as they are for the time being and wait for the move discussion to be closed, then respect the decision.--Kotniski (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was no longer protected, so I can edit it without problems. I didn't force anything--Shardan (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Kotniski, there were not two (or more) states with the just the same name. There was one kingdom of Sardinia (it doesn't matter whether you want to call it a state or not). The question is how best to present the history of this state. I and Shardan believe (and have argued) that Jonny's attempt to make the kingdom of Sardinia a creation of the house of Savoy in 1720 is misleading (because false). We would prefer that the main article cover the entire history of the state in a way that explains how it changed from a theoretical Papal fief into the modern kingdom of Italy. There would ideally be subarticles on different periods of its history. In fact, I'm working on an article on the confusing period 1700–20 right now.

The move can be closed as "no move" or "no consensus" right now. It is obviously way past due, but as the nominator I feel I shouldn't close it. The move was meant to get the title to better reflect the contents at a time when the contents could not be edited. Hopefully, we can fix the problem by editing now. Srnec (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So if the result is "no move", then (the best semablance of) consensus is that the article that the discussion concerned - the one about the Savoyard "composite state" - should be at the title Kingdom of Sardinia. That means that if you really feel an article on the entire history of the formal "Kingdom of Sardinia" is needed (in addition to the two already overlapping articles History of Sardinia and Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica), then you'll need to disambiguate the title somehow. What you and Shardan have done here is effectively to thwart consensus by usurping this title for an article you want to write.--Kotniski (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What does formal kingdom of Sardinia means? The kingdom was not at all formal. From its beginning until its end was a real kingdom. I now understand your strange changes: you do not understand yet what we are talking about. For you there was a formal kingdom until 1720, and later, a new kingdom ruled by the House of Savoy. I do not know how to explain it. The kingdom has always been one and has always been called the Kingdom of Sardinia. It was called the kingdom of Sardinia when he became a composite state (1720) that when it became a unitary state (i847). Call sub-articles as Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica and Sardinia-Piedmont is tricky and user think of three different entities, when it should be clear that allways we talk of the same kingdom, but describing two different periods of his life: one under spanish and the other one under Savoy House--Shardan (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I mean by "formal" - what you say about there being one kingdom is formally true - but there is also the practical reality of the situation, which is historically far more significant - that from 1720 to 1861 there was a European state which took the name "Kingdom of Sardinia". That state (which despite the name is practically the successor of the Duchy of Savoy, rather than of the pre-existing Kingdom of Sardinia) needs a Wikipedia article, and as I said a long time ago, if it's decided that (1) historians' most usual name for that state is "Kingdom of Sardinia" and (2) that state is the primary topic for the phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia", then it's perfectly in order for that Wikipedia article to take that as its title - meaning that any other articles anyone may wish to write about other entites called "Kingdom of Sardinia" must have their titles disambiguated in some way. I don't have any strong opinion on (1) and (2) (I haven't voted support or oppose in the move discussion), but it seems highly disruptive of you two to see the discussion going against you so just ignoring other people's opinions and getting your way by edit warring.--Kotniski (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was right, you did not understand what is really the problem. The duchy of Savoy and the Kingdom of Sardinia follow different paths and come together only in 1847, in the so called Perfect Fusion, when the state of the Duchy of Savoy disappears (along with other states of Savoy House) and remains only the Kingdom of Sardinia (....that one created in 1297). All states within the crown of Savoy were separated with their own laws and institutions, but among them Kingdom of Sardinia was the one with the highest title, and any action taken by the king (ex-Duke), both internally and internationally, 1720 onwards, was signed as King of Sardinia, not as the Duke of Savoy. Is like if the King had changed his car (the Duchy of Savoy) and from then on was travelling with another car (the kingdom of Sardinia). I hope I explained myself well…but did you read all the discussion page? I know, is very long ..... but you should read it all.--Shardan (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand, and you continue to speak correctly in formal terms - but still Wikipedia readers are entitled to read a decent article about the important historical topic of the Piedmont-Sardinia "state" without being distracted by largely irrelevant detail about the history of the island of Sardinia (though a brief but clear exposition of the pertinent points of that history should certainly appear, as well as - and even more so - the pertinent points of the history of the Duchy of Savoy, of which that "state" is obviously a continuation). And if consensus is that the best title for the article about that "state" is "Kingdom of Sardinia", then consensus should be accepted. Anyway, everyone else has gone quiet, so maybe there isn't any opposition any more and you can have it your way. --Kotniski (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What you call Piedmont-Sardinia State is actually what I call the State of the Kingdom of Sardinia. You say that Piedmont-Sardinia State and Duchy of Savoy State are synonymous. You have not yet focalised that the State of the Duchy of Savoy, when the Duke became king, in the crown of the House of Savoy, had no weight. After 1720 the most important State was the Kingdom of Sardinia. After 1720, through official acts, the Sardinian kings began to harmonize laws and ordinances in every part of the Kingdom. The laws enacted by the King of Sardinia came into effect in all the States of the crown. These laws were Sardinian laws as: Civil Code, Military Code, Commercial Code, Weights and measures, Post Office, ..and so on. The ministers were Sardinian ministers. The subjects were Sardinian subjects. All officials who served the Kingdom of Sardinia were therefore Sardinian officials. After Perfect Fusion, all the Kingdom had the same laws. With the Perfect Fusion, the other States disappeared, remained only the Sardinian state (that one of 1297). Now you tell me again that kingdom of Italy (1861-1948) comes from the Duchy of Savoy and I understand that you still have not understood the problem. The State of the Duchy of Savoy ceased to be important once the Duke became king and its disappeared completely on 1847. The weight of the Kingdom of Sardinia, you insist on wanting to give it to the Duchy of Savoy. These concepts are not mine but are part of modern historiography, particularly the historian Francesco Cesare Casula. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardan (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) --Shardan (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So perhaps everyone actually agrees... you accept that the post-1720 Savoy state was called the Kingdom of Sardinia. Clearly there wasn't a state (in the same sense) called the Kingdom of Sardinia before that; whereas there was (all the time) something called Kingdom (or at least the title of King) of Sardinia. Therefore there are two Wikipedia topics that we would like to call "Kingdom of Sardinia" - we just have to decide which is the primary topic, how to disambiguate the other one, and we'll be done.--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Q = So perhaps everyone actually agrees... you accept that the post-1720 Savoy state was called the Kingdom of Sardinia.

A = The post-1720 Savoy State went on until 1847 and was always called Duchy of Savoy (not Kingdom of Sardinia).

Q = Clearly there wasn't a state (in the same sense) called the Kingdom of Sardinia before that;

A = No, because you are talking about Duchy of Savoy. Clearly there was a state called Duchy of Savoy before 1720.

Q = whereas there was (all the time) something called Kingdom (or at least the title of King) of Sardinia;

A = there has always been (a King +) a Kingdom called Kingdom of Sardinia.

Q = Therefore there are two Wikipedia topics that we would like to call Kingdom of Sardinia.

A = Yes, there are two Wikipedia topics that we would like to call Kingdom of Sardinia: 1st topic proposed by you (and the others), regards the Duchy of Savoy, but your topic already exist and it's the article about Duchy of Savoy (that topic cannot be called Kingdom of Sardinia, because they are two different entities), 2nd topic (me and Srnec) is the Kingdom of Sardinia from the beginning (1297) to 1861. This topic should be divided into 2 sub articles : one article about Spanish rule (Kingdom of Sardinia 1297-1720), and the other about House of Savoy rule (Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861). (Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861 must not be confused with Duchy of Savoy) = Concludendo: the primary topic is about the Kingdom of Sardinia because that article treats about that kingdom from the beginning to the end. The secondary topic doesn't regard us because that article is already there --Shardan (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, I do not accept that a move request can determine content. So, no, I will not take the move request as binding us to an arbitrarily restrictive use of the term "Kingdom of Sardinia".
There was no "European state which took the name 'Kingdom of Sardinia' [from 1720 to 1861]". That's just the oversimplification I want to correct. Looking back on things, we call it that from 1720, but the state itself evolved into a unitary kingdom called the 'Kingdom of Sardinia'. One of the reasons this is confusing is that the head of the house of Savoy usually styled himself and was called by others "King of Sardinia" after 1720, because it was his highest title, but not because his entire realm was a "Kingdom of Sardinia". The problem with your points (1) and (2) is that (1*) historians' most usual name for the medieval and early modern state is "Kingdom of Sardinia" and (2*) there is really only one topic for the phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia", but with more recent epochs being more widely discussed. It would be exactly the same as deciding that because when people say "Roman Empire" they mostly are referring to the early (pre-476) empire, our article should only cover that. I am saying that just as our Roman Empire article places more weight on the period for which the term is commonly used, it does not misleadingly state that the empire ended in 476 or at any time before 1453 (not in the lead and not in the infobox). It even contains a section on the empire in the east from 476 until 1453. That said, I think it has some problems of its own, doubtless caused by the need some feel to force topics into available categories. Neither the Roman Empire nor the kingdom of Sardinia fit easily into any existing model of statehood, certainly not any model of statehood constructed to describe 20th-century states. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So are you claiming that when historians talk about the "Kingdom of Sardinia", they are never referring to the Savoy composite state? You say yourself that "we call it that from 1720" - by "we", do you mean Wikipedia editors rather than reliable sources?--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No and no. I am saying that referring to the Savoyard composite state as the Kingdom of Sardinia is done out of convenience and as a sort of shorthand, like calling the realms of Felipe II "Spain". It is perfectly legitimate, but if it is mistaken for something formal, then false and misleading statements are likely to follow. And the problem grows.

By "we" I meant "20th-century folk", as opposed to contemporaries. As you may have noticed in the links Shardan provided above, even a legal code from 1855, after the Savoyard states were united consitutionally, does not use the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" for the state, but refers to it as "the states of His Majesty the King of Sardinia" (gli stati di Sua Maestà il Re di Sardegna). Usage like this were contemporary, and that's why (in an era when personal sovereignty was still widespread) calling the states ruled by the King of Sardinia the Kingdom of Sardinia made (makes) sense, even though, strictly speaking, only the island was the Kingdom of Sardinia until legislative acts in 1847–48 created a unitary state. We should not belabour the significance of 1847 or 1861, since events of the latter date were as much an internal transformation as those of 1847–48. We should allow this article to describe the kingdom of Sardinia in its entirety and not be arbitrarily restricted to a certain period. Srnec (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, the Code you have seen is the 4th edition (1855) otherwise the first edition was on in 1837/1838. Penal code on 1838; Commerce Code on 1842.....etc etc. After 1847, you will find just kingdom of Sardinia or Sardinia. Anyway you are right about "the states of His Majesty the King of Sardinia": House of Savoy was showing carefully and respect to every State of the Crown. Before 1847 it was a composite state, with the Kingdom of Sardinia used mainly for internally (see weights and measures) and internationally affairs, but slowly House of Savoy was working towards an unitary state on the French model.--Shardan (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You are both talking all the time in formal terms, about what things were officially called and what was formally a successor of something else; which is fine, but it doesn't help people who want to find information about things in the terms that reliable historians (modern ones) use to refer to those things. It needs to be decided (because we've ended up with a complete mess at the moment) what are the topics which ought to be given separate articles, and then how those articles should be titled. By way of answering mainly the first question, I would suggest we want articles on each of the following topics:

1. The history of the island of Sardinia (History of Sardinia, should be fairly clear)
2. The Savoy possessions up to 1713 (Duchy of Savoy)
3. The Savoy possessions 1713-1720 (Kingdom of Sicily (1713–1720) - could be combined with the previous article, but it's currently separate, so let it stay that way
4. The Savoy possessions (composite state) 1720-1861 (was the subject of the move discussion on this talk page; currently at Piedmont-Sardinia)
5. The title "King of Sardinia" and its associated possessions through history (currently here, sort of, but we also have Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica and List of monarchs of Sardinia; I suggest we don't need so many separate articles for what are effectively the same topic combined with duplication of large parts of History of Sardinia.

Thoughts?--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Q: ....which is fine, but it doesn't help people who want to find information about things in the terms that reliable historians (modern ones) use to refer to those things.

A: For people who want to find information about Kingdom of Sardinia, with reliable sources (modern ones), to the beginning until the end of the kingdom, the natural, normal, good sense title should be Kingdom of Sardinia (no Piedmont –Sardinia, no Ducky of Savoy, no kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica because misleading and false). Because the history of that kingdom is very long, I suggest the creation of two extended sub- articles: one for the period 1297-1720, and another for the period 1720-1861, calling the sub-articles Kingdom of Sardinia 1297-1720 and Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861. The history of the Kingdom of Sardinia should be written on the article Kingdom of Sardinia.

The history of the island of Sardinia (History of Sardinia, should be fairly clear) ...From Palaeolithic until now OK

The Savoy possessions up to 1713 (Duchy of Savoy) ... OK

The Savoy possessions 1713-1720 (Kingdom of Sicily (1713–1720) - could be combined with the previous article, but it's currently separate, so let it stay that way.... OK

The Savoy possessions (composite state) 1720-1861 (was the subject of the move discussion on this talk page; currently at Piedmont-Sardinia) ....NO imho Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861 piemont-sardinia never existed.

The title "King of Sardinia" and its associated possessions through history (currently here, sort of, but we also have Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica.... ('NO, misleading and false: Corsica has never been conquered) and List of monarchs of Sardinia (OK) ; I suggest we don't need so many separate articles for what are effectively the same topic combined with duplication of large parts of History of Sardinia. (Why not? OK if are not clones--Shardan (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC))

It's not helpful to say that "Piedmont-Sardinia never existed" when so many historians and reference works tell us it did (though that doesn't have to be the name of our article on it). Anyway, surely we don't need History of Sardinia AND (your version of) Kingdom of Sardinia AND Kingdom of Sardinia 1297-1720 - I can only conceivably see two topics here, not three.--Kotniski (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, if we really want to tighten, the topic is just one: the kingdom of Sardinia. I agree to create sub-articles so that the main article is not too long and heavy. Otherwise, as already mentioned, the topic is just one: the Kingdom of Sardinia. So you're right for the history of Sardinia, has nothing to do here, but also has nothing to do the history of the duchy of Savoy. If you want to expand and improve the article on the Duchy of Savoy, go ahead, for sure I will not tell you anything, but please do not mix the duchy with the kingdom.--Shardan (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian reliability

Again, I had to restore an accordance between wikipedia and all other encyclopedias. Our two Sardinian friends, who think wikipedia is their private garden, begin to annoy us. Wikipedian community affirmed a general disagreement with them in May. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing to see how staunchly they keep going on, for months, trying to push a ridiculous POV. The current protected version of the article is nonsense; if the article was indeed about the entity of a supposed KoS as the same state from 1297 to 1861, then the article should at least not have a "former country infobox", seeing that the entity was only a sovereign state in about its final century. If this article was indeed about the "KoS" from 1297 to 1861, then the article should use a format similar to the article on China, rather than that of the sovereign state of the People's Republic of China. – Bellatores (t.) 21:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"If the article was indeed about ... then the article should at least not have a 'former country infobox'." This is the logic? I've never wanted that infobox. The article needs a lot of work, but it does not need the misleading edits of Jonny Bee Goo. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are the sole user defending your unreferenced version. Your vandalism will be not more accepted: wikipedia MUST be reliable.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

According to you, Bellatores, I restored the usual referenced version of this page. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you two please stop this nonsense? It isn't helping any. What it boils down to is how we title our article on the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, but this type of edit-warring isn't the way to go about it. Jonny, your fallacy is the belief that an entity can only be titled on Wikipedia under its "official" name; Srnec, yours is the belief that the scope of a Wikipedia article must be everything that its title can possibly encompass. (So Jonny would presumably retitle United Kingdom to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", while Srnec would encumber the United Kingdom article with information on all united kingdoms throughout history.) These fallacies aside, neither of your positions is particularly wrong, but clearly the matter isn't going to be solved by back-and-forth edit warring - if you feel strongly about it, start an RfC and bring in some outside voices, and then respect the consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I note that it does seem, however, that everyone's agreed that the former country infobox is out of place in the article as it is at the moment. (Most of the information there is solely about the Piedmont-Sardinia entity.) Would there be any objection to asking an admin to remove it?--Kotniski (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is not out of place. This article is about the sovereign country "Kingdom of Sardinia" that existed from 1720 to 1861, in line with all reliable sources. The other article is about the constituent country from 1297 to 1861. It would be impossible to just "merge" these to articles in a non-infobox article, as we then wouldn't have an article on the sovereign country. Srnec has explained very well on my userpage that he simply does not understand the consept of a sovereign country, and that he in stark contrast to all relibale sources just dismiss 1720 as a year of no significance. Dismiss reliable sources, and you dismiss your own agenda. – Bellatores (t.) 12:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article in the form in which it has been protected for the next two months, you will see that it is not (just) about that sovereign country. For better or worse, the article about that sovereign country is now at Piedmont-Sardinia. Given these circumstances, I think we have to conclude that (for now) the infobox on this page is out of place.--Kotniski (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing is a travesty. It's just become a mess on every level. Sad to see a pov-agenda being successful in distorting Wikipedia. I don't think I want to take part in this and related articles anymore, as it just ruins my enthusiasm for Wikipedia. I'm off the watchlist, and will largely ignore the existence of these articles from now on. I have better things to do, sorry. It has been going on for way too long already. – Bellatores (t.) 12:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty awful, yes. But if reasonable people go away, we're left with the unreasonable ones running the show, as has clearly happened here. Anyway, I hope you'll come back to comment when we have a proper RfC on these matters - but for now, is everyone clear that the infobox on the current protected version of the article doesn't belong there?--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, you must understand that, as Bellatores said, wikipedia is not an anarchic blog, it is an encyclopedia with its own rules. The problem is not the infobox, the problem is the version imposed by Srnec and his few Sardinian-nationalist friends, is COMPLETELY UNREFERENCED. This version is a double problem for wikipedia: because it is not reliable (making wikipedia ridicolous, because a simple search in google or yahoo shows that wiki is actually in opposition with ALL other websites), and because it is not free (because it is blocked). The solution now is solely to follow our wikipillars.
By the way, the page about the United Kingdom is a page about a present-day State, and its title reflects the wiki-guidelines (the page about France is not called French Republic...). What about, indeed, pages about historical States?....--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I partly agree with you, but you must realize that the reason the page is locked is solely the absurd edit-warring that you and Srnec have engaged in. If you have a problem with missing references, you can tag the statements that you want references for. But when you to-and-fro between two completely different versions of the article, the only possible outcome will be that the page gets locked down in some fairly random state, all further improvement is stalled, and the quality of Wikipedia suffers enormously. The same will no doubt happen on the other pages that you two are continually fighting over; and (since admins are paid not to think) no-one can have any idea what versions of these pages Wikipedia will be displaying for the next few weeks, or whether these page versions and their mutual links will be logically compatible with each other. I would suggest the two of you (and your various IP "friends") agree to knock it off and engage in some sort of mediation, otherwise you'll both just end up getting blocked yourselves.--Kotniski (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tried through an RFC and two move requests (as opposed to edit warring) to get this sorted out with a consensus. I reverted Jonny twice in a day when he showed up out of nowhere after the protection had expired. Then I stopped, although he broke the 3RR rule. Anons then came in and fought over it until an admin protected it as it was. It is almost entirely Jonny who has prevented any real work from getting done to improve the article, and has shown an aptitude for making up hsitory as he goes along. For instance, the term "consituent country" is never used of the entities he calls such, and he insists on saying that the Kingdom of Sicily included Piedmont between 1713 and 1718. For a correction, see Kingdom of Sicily (1713–1720).

I'll start another RFC for now. Perhaps we should await the opinions of outsiders. Srnec (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the section was moved from the RFC section below because it was not relevant to that RFC. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi my friends, I'm back. I think we should not waste our time again. Shardan was very clear: according to him, there is a sole man in the world who can speak about the history of Sardinia, and he is called Casula. All other sources, Italian or English ones, present or past ones, are rubbish. Britannica? Completely irrelevant. Ohio University? A mass of ignorant fools. The Treccani (the most relevant Italian encyclopedia)? Only of dusty old book without importance.
This is the preliminary point we have to clarify: we have to follow a single unknown, revisionist non-English writer, or all the universal knowledge about this topic?--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Davidboz (Jonny Bee Goo puppet) what you didn't manage to do on it.Wiki, you would like to impose here on en.Wiki. You're crazy. You cannot write about kingdom of Sardinia ignoring F.C. Casùla. Anyway, here the bibliography that you can find on it.Wiki about Kingdom of Sardinia. As you can see and as you well know, there is not only Casùla.

• MANNO, G., Storia di Sardegna, Torino, 1825-7
• MANNO, G., Storia moderna della Sardegna dal 1793 al 1799, Torino, 1842
• CASALIS, G. - ANGIUS, V., Dizionario geografico, storico, statistico, commerciale degli stati di S. M. il Re di Sardegna, Torino, 1855
• LA MARMORA, A., Itinerario dell'isola di Sardegna, Torino, F.lli Bocca, 1860
• TOLA, P., Codex Diplomaticus Sardiniae, Torino, 1861-8, in Historiae Patriae Monumenta, Tomi X-XII
• BAUDI DI VESME, C., Codex Diplomaticus Ecclesiensis, Torino, Fratelli Bocca, 1877, in Historiae Patriae Monumenta, Tomo XVII
• BOSCOLO, A., Il feudalesimo in Sardegna, Cagliari, 1967
• SORGIA, G., La Sardegna spagnola, Sassari, Chiarella, 1982
• CASULA, F.C., Profilo storico della Sardegna catalano-aragonese, Cagliari, CNR, 1982
• ANATRA B. - DAY J. - SCARAFFIA L., La Sardegna medievale e moderna, Torino, UTET, 1984, in AAVV. (direzione di G. Galasso), Storia d'Italia, 1979-1995, vol. X
• TANGHERONI, M., La città dell'argento. Iglesias dalle origini alla fine del Medioevo, Napoli, Liguori, 1985
• DAY, J., Uomini e terre nella Sardegna coloniale. XII-XVIII secolo, Torino, Einaudi, 1987
• ANATRA, B. - MATTONE, A. - TURTAS, R., L'età moderna. Dagli aragonesi alla fine del dominio spagnolo, Milano, Jaca Book, 1989, III vol. della collana Storia dei sardi e della Sardegna, a cura di Massimo Guidetti
• FOIS, B., Lo stemma dei quattro mori. Breve storia dell'emblema dei sardi, Sassari, G. Delfino, 1990
• TURCHI, D., Maschere, miti e feste della Sardegna, Roma, Newton-Compton, 1990
• CASULA, F.C., La Sardegna aragonese. La corona d'Aragona, Sassari, Chiarella, 1990, vol. 1
• GINATEMPO M. - SANDRI L., L'Italia delle città. Il popolamento urbano tra Medioevo e Rinascimento (secoli XIII-XVI), Firenze, Le Lettere, 1990
• TANGHERONI, M., Medioevo Tirrenico. Sardegna, Toscana e Pisa, Pisa, Pacini, 1992
• MATTONE, A., La cessione del regno di Sardegna. Dal trattato di Utrecht alla presa di possesso sabauda, in “Rivista storica italiana”, 1992, fasc. I, pp. 5-89
• AAVV. (a cura di F. Manconi), La società sarda in età spagnola, Cagliari, Consiglio Regionale della Sardegna, 2 voll., 1992-3
• NOTARIO, P., Il Piemonte sabaudo: dal periodo napoleonico al Risorgimento, Torino, UTET, 1993, in (a cura di G. Galasso) Storia d'Italia, vol. VIII.2
• MERLIN, P.P., Il Piemonte sabaudo: stato e territori in età moderna, Torino UTET, 1994, in (a cura di G. Galasso) Storia d'Italia, vol. VIII.1
• CASULA, F.C., Storia di Sardegna, Sassari-Pisa, C. Delfino-ETS, 1994
• FRANCIONI, F., Vespro sardo: dagli esordi della dominazione piemontese all'insurrezione del 28 aprile 1794, Cagliari, Condaghes, 2001
• BRIGAGLIA, M. - MASTINO, A. - ORTU, G.G., Storia della Sardegna. 1.Dalle origini al Settecento, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2002
• BRIGAGLIA, M. - MASTINO, A. - ORTU, G.G., Storia della Sardegna. 2.Dal Settecento a oggi, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2002
• ZICHI, G., I cattolici sardi e il Risorgimento, Villanova Monteleone, Soter Editrice, 2008 ISBN 978-88-88915-36-4.

I don't have any more words to spend with you.--Shardan (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how these are relevant to the question under discussion here?--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

He can't explain them, Kotnishi, simply because they are not relevant here. They are a simple list about Sardinian history. More, I underline that book by Francioni: "....dagli esordi della dominazione piemontese all'insurrezione....", "....from the beginning of the PIEDMONTESE domination to the insurrection...". Sardinia was under Piedmontese domination. Even Shardan's presumptive sources deny his Sardinian-nationalist theories.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sardinia was under Piedmontese domination. Nobody denies it. What's your point? Srnec (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not the dominated but the dominant rules....--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment of August 2011

Two questions:

1. What is the proper scope of this article?
2. Are any other (sub)articles are necessary?

The articles Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica, Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720) and Piedmont-Sardinia already exist. —Srnec (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I take it that these questions have arisen before. Are there two or three alternative resolutions that have been proposed? If so, can someone sketch the two or three proposed resolutions, so uninvolved editors can assess them? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You can view the article history to see two versions—neither very good (I think that'd be consensus)—that have been warred over off and on for several months, with now and then an uninvolved administrator protecting the page for a length of time. Probably this wouldn't be so ugly if the difference of opinion weren't so stark. Who wants to try and improve any aspect of an article that might be reverted to a completely different version within 24 hours? (The article underwent a complete rewrite over a year ago, but the changes made then that are the cause of the dispute were not noticed for some time.)

There are two basic proposals (this is my take, and I am an involved editor):

1. This article is about the state ruled by the House of Savoy from 1720 until 1861 (when it became Italy), sometimes called Piedmont-Sardinia for clarity. The history of Sardinia, and of any entity called "Kingdom of Sardinia", before this time should be relegated to a different article and mentioned only as background. The Kingdom of Sardinia proper, that is, the sovereign state, was created only in 1720, when Sardinia (the island) passed to Savoy.
2. This article is about a state created in the late Middle Ages that survived into relatively recent times, being transformed first into a unitary state, then into modern Italy. The article should cover its whole history from its creation circa 1297 until the completion of its transformation, i.e. Italian unification in 1861. This state was part of the House of Savoy's possessions from 1720, and it is only by a form of linguistic shorthand that all of Savoy's possessions are collectively known by its name (Kingdom of Sardinia) until 1861.

Proponents of 1 would say there should be no Piedmont-Sardinia article, since that is just an informal term for the Kingdom of Sardinia (KoS hereafter), but that the article Kingdom of Sardinia and Corsica is necessary for the earlier late medieval/early modern manifestation (which is not the same thing as what is commonly called the KoS). Proponents of 2 would say that there should be two or more subarticles (currently there are three) because the history of the KoS is so long. Perhaps, they would say, there should also be a Savoyard state article to cover the domains of the House of Savoy from the the early Middle Ages until the 20th century, or perhaps that can be covered at House of Savoy (although they aren't right now).

It's very hard to understand what is being debated for the uninvolved. In fact, the involved universally think the other side does not understand what is being debated. Perhaps there's a compromise solution, but I can't think of one. There is certainly a better article than either at this moment. Srnec (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems quite a good summary (not very clear to the uninitiated, true, but I don't think I could do much better). Generally I think I tend towards the 1. camp, i.e. that the primary meaning of the term "Kingdom of Sardinia" is the Piedmont-Sardinia entity, and therefore Wikipedia's "Kingdom of Sardinia" page should be either the article about that entity, or a redirect to that article. I think the only (sub)articles that should exist are: (a) History of Sardinia (the island); (b) an article about the Piedmont-Sardinia entity; and (c) an article about the title of King of Sardinia, without too much duplication of the first two articles, and perhaps incorporating List of monarchs of Sardinia.

It seems to me that the first main question should be: what is the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia"? (Another possibility would be that there is no primary topic, i.e. that it should be a disambiguation page, though I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that yet.)--Kotniski (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Srnec for its clarity and its work to clarify the concept of what was the kingdom of Sardinia. Starting from the basics of common sense and logic, IMHO, en.Wiki should have an article that explains to readers what was the kingdom of Sardinia. To do this it must, logically, explaining its history according to those who are the sources available. It seems to me common sense starting from the beginning and then move forward until its transformation into the kingdom of Italy. In the Middle Ages had been a imperfect state (in the sense that it could not stipulate alone international treaties without Crown consensus): in that period, within the crown of Aragon, all the state entities that composed it were imperfect state, but today we can not say that old aragonese state entities were not states. So Sardinian state was a state from its beginning until its end. The desire to minimize or deny the first part of his story is not a good service that we give to the readers of en.Wiki. The final part of its history, characterized by the royal house of Savoy, it should not erase or blur what was the kingdom. So, IMHO, the article about the kingdom of Sardinia should speak of the kingdom in general, from its inception until 1861, and then it should contain two sub-articles that talk in depth of two important periods in its history: the Aragonese and Spanish one, and later the Savoy one. --Shardan (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kotinski, the primary purpose of the article on the kingdom of Sardinia is to speak about the kingdom from its beginning until its end. During the Middle Ages was a real kingdom, and in 1720 there was nothing traumatic happened, only to lead the kingdom changed the ruling dynasty.--Shardan (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is not that anything particularly "traumatic" or "momentous" happened in or around 1720, but that at that time a new entity came into being, which historians are pleased to call (among other things) "Kingdom of Sardinia". If we think that this entity is the primary topic for the phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia", then following our normal practice, we should either title its article Kingdom of Sardinia, or - if we decide we prefer a different title, like Piedmont-Sardinia - make Kingdom of Sardinia redirect to that title. With an appropriate hatnote, or course, enabling readers to quickly find the articles we have on other topics they may be seeking under the name "Kingdom of Sardinia" - and a clear explanation within the article as well of how and why this entity came to be called by that name. On the other hand, we might not think that this entity is the primary topic, and then some other solution can be adopted, like the current setup.--Kotniski (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What you call the new entity is in fact false and misleading and not supported by any credible source. There was no new entity, but only the State that was changing from imperfect to perfect. Before 1720 was imperfetct (it could not stipulate international treaties), after 1720 it became perfect (it could do it); of course these are not my statements, but the teachings of F.C. Casùla , a master in these matters. If your idea of ​​a kingdom of Sardinia is that one that ignores four decades of work of F.C. Casùla, ​​then I understand. But please, can you explain to me why we should ignore decades of work done by F.C. Casùla on the History of Sardinia? thanks.--Shardan (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many other historians besides Signor Casula, who sounds a bit of a maverick (I've never heard mainstream historians talking of "perfect" and "imperfect" states; and surely we can all see, even if Casula can't, that Sardinia was no more "perfect" after 1720 than it was before - it was still subject to an outside ruler, the only difference being that this outside ruler, having no other kingly titles, decided to transfer the name "Kingdom of Sardinia" to the whole of his domains). --Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the personal opinions have no value on wikipedia. What matters are the sources and their credibility. On the history of Sardinia, Casùla is a master [18], [19] ( I hope you know Italian language). Of course if you know the work of a historian who said and wrote that in 1720 born a new entity, is right for you to quote him.--Shardan (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica, for a start?--Kotniski (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem for me, but you have to specify that F.C. Casùla is a secondary source, while Britannica is tertiary source. You can always add that while there is statual continuity for Casùla, for Britannica in 1720 born a new state. :-) --Shardan (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, nobody "decided to transfer the name 'Kingdom of Sardinia' to the whole of his domains" in 1720. That's part of the fallacy I'm trying to avoid propagating. There was no name for the whole of Victor Amadeus II's domains in 1720 or ever. That's part of the problem. Modern historians often use the term "Savoyard state" to describe his domains collectively. Srnec (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

They also use "Piedmont-Sardinia" or "Kingdom of Sardinia" or "Sardinia-Piedmont" or... Far from there being no name for these collective domains, there appear to be many names.--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do, but we have to distinguish between what something is called and what something is called officially. Many countries name themselves (by law or proclamation), but the Savoyard state was not one of them. That was my point. Srnec (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm no expert in Italian history, but I am rational :-) and I'm familiar with WP policies. Let me ask this: Is there general agreement that there could be two articles (ignoring the names for now): (A) an article on the state(s) - in various forms - from middle ages to approx 1861; and (B) an sub-article of A which covers the history of that state(s) from 1720 to 1861? When I say 1720, I'm not endorsing the assertion that a momentous event took place in 1720, I'm merely suggesting that 1720 may be a convenient cut-off date for breaking the larger article (A) into smaller pieces using WP:Content fork process. And (C) there may also be a sub-article Kingdom of Sardinia (1700–1720), but we can come back to that one later. --Noleander (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that at least one user (User:Jonny Bee Goo) would not support "(A) an article on the state(s) - in various forms - from middle ages to approx 1861". Srnec (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The problem is what you might mean by "state". There are two types of entities here which some people have been calling "states": (A) the atomic ones like Sardinia (roughly speaking the island), which was formally a kingdom, although the king was always some foreign ruler; and (B) the composite ones like the Spanish Empire or Piedmont-Sardinia, which perhaps bear most resemblance to today's sovereign countries, in that they were ruled by a single ruler who was effectively independent. This is all a bit of a simplification and there are others who can explain it better and more accurately; but the source of ALL this confusion and disgreement is basically the simple fact that the phrase "Kingdom of Sardinia" has two quite distinct meanings: firstly an "atomic" entity which existed formally from 1297; and secondly a "composite" entity which existed in historical fact from around 1720.

For me, the story of the atomic entity is just (a large part of) the History of Sardinia, and doesn't particularly need an article separate from that one (although it's interesting to consider just the title itself and the people who have held it, as we have at List of rulers of Sardinia); while the composite entity is most definitely interesting in itself (Britannica has an article on it, for example) and must have a Wikipedia article, although that article doesn't have to be called "Kingdom of Sardinia" (it's currently at Piedmont-Sardinia, which is another name applied to that same composite entity). --Kotniski (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would want to note that neither atomic (but dependent) early modern states like the Kingdom of Sardinia proper nor composite (but sovereign) early modern states like the Savoyard possessions as a whole ("Piedmont-Sardinia") are very much like modern states. Similarly, neither the Holy Roman Empire nor the Habsburg Monarchy nor Styria is very much like a modern state. john k (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. What set of articles (titles of articles) does Encyclopedia Britannia use to cover this range of topics? --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a copy to hand, but as I recall from when I checked a couple of weeks ago, there was just Sardinia and Sardinia, kingdom of (the latter being solely about the Piedmont-Sardinia state). Someone will be able to say for sure.--Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the Britannica article appears to be only 167 words, I'm not sure how much a lead it can offer. Srnec (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the primary topic of "Kingdom of Sardinia" may (or may not) be the Savoyard state from 1720 to 1861 isn't dispositive to me, because that is not the only factor to consider. What is the most common name? I would say that, in my experience, Piedmont-Sardinia is used at least as often as Kingdom of Sardinia for that state. The former also has the advantage of being completely unambiguous - it refers to the Savoyard state, and only to the Savoyard state. Kingdom of Sardinia obviously also has other meanings. In addition, as Srnec has pointed out, up until at least 1847 there are no grounds for saying that "Kingdom of Sardinia" is a more formally accurate name for the Savoyard state than "Piedmont-Sardinia." Both are informal short-hands for a composite state that had no official name in the currently understood sense. To the extent that the Savoyard state had an official name, it was something along the lines of "the lands of the King of Sardinia." Because Piedmont and Sardinia were the largest and most important of those lands, "Piedmont-Sardinia" seems like just as acceptable a shorthand as "Kingdom of Sardinia," and has the further advantage of being unambiguous. Thus, it seems to me that the article on the Savoyard state should without question be at Piedmont-Sardinia. Then, what to do with Kingdom of Sardinia? I must admit I'm uncertain. It seems possible to me that the best solution is as follows: Kingdom of Sardinia to be a disambiguation page, Piedmont-Sardinia to refer to the Savoyard state, and the "Kingdom of Sardinia" properly speaking to be discussed in History of Sardinia. On the other hand, I think former states and state-like entities should generally have their own articles, and that there is material that such an article would discuss that would not fit comfortably in an article on the general history of the island (which would obviously have a much broader scope, anyway, dealing with the whole history of the island both before the Aragonese conquest and after the unification of Italy). But I'm not sure what the best title for that article would be. Kingdom of Sardinia doesn't really seem like primary usage. I don't like the idea of an article called Kingdom of Sardinia (1297-1720), because the Kingdom of Sardinia as it existed in 1700 continued to exist in very much the same way in 1730, with the exception that it was now ruled by a Piedmontese viceroy instead of a Spanish one. There is no real break in continuity within Sardinia itself until 1847 or 1848. I would be open to other suggestions as to what the article on the kingdom proper should be called. john k (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - The purpose of an RfC is to get uninvolved editors to render commentary and suggestions. RfCs work best if there is a very specific yes/no question. This RfC contains two questions, and neither is yes/no. I'd really like to help, but the way the RfC is phrased, I don't think anyone will be able help except for black-belts in Italian/European history. Which might be a good thing. If anyone can rephrase the RfC into a single yes/no question, I'd be happy to act as a mediator of sorts to explore the question and try to get all editors to arrive at a consensus. In any case, I'll post a note at the WP History project, and see if I can attract some additional editors to help out. --Noleander (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#RfC_regarding_Kingdom_of_Sardinia. --Noleander (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Noleander for agreeing to mediate this and to John K for his pertinent analysis. My proposal for the yes-no (or nearly yes-no) questions would be:

1. What is the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia": (a) the Piedmont-Sardinia entity; (b) the kingdom proper from 1297; (c) neither (so make a dab page)?
2. How should the article on the Piedmont-Sardinia entity be titled: (a) Kingdom of Sardinia (obviously available only if the answer to question 1. is (a)); (b) Piedmont-Sardinia; (c) something else.

If we want to keep it simple, that's enough for now, but we will also need to answer the questions: do we need an article on the kingdom proper (separate from History of Sardinia and List of monarchs of Sardinia), and (if so) what should the title of that article be?--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone strongly object to using those as starting points? --Noleander (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't really yes/no questions and I don't think they're much better than my original ones (of which, technically, the second is yes/no). My original questions presumed that KoS would not be a DAB page, while Kotniski's new questions presume that we need an article on Piedmont-Sardinia under some title or other; and each rejects the presumption of the other. (I'm not a fan of multiple choice problem-solving at Wikipedia.) If I were to suggest a pair of yes/no questions they would be:

1. Should this article say or imply (as by dates in the infobox) that the Kingdom of Sardinia was created, was new, began, or came into existence in or around 1720?
2. Should this article cover some part of the history of Sardinia before 1720 as part of its main topic, as opposed to background?

What about these? A little complex, maybe, but they are yes/no and I think they get to the nub of the issue. Srnec (talk)

The problem is still: what do you mean by "this article"? If you mean the article (assuming there is one) that ends up under the title "Kingdom of Sardinia", then I think the answers to your questions will follow from the answers to mine, except that you are presupposing that we will have an article under that title, which is not yet certain (John K, for example, seems to be suggesting that we should not).--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

By "this article" I mean the article on whose talk page we're discussing, the one with this title. We will certainly have an article under this title; what you and John K leave open is the option of making it a disambiguation page. Frankly, I don't see how that's really an option. Generally we don't have dab pages for two articles; we just have a redirect and a hatnote. So what three articles could each be titled "Kingdom of Sardinia"? Also, it seems that deciding whether or not there was more than one kingdom of Sardinia would decide the question of how to deal with the time periods. If there was only one, then there should not be a dab page, just a short summary article that links to lengthier main articles on the kingdom in different periods (this solution mirros that of the Italian WP). Srnec (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to overlook the possibility that "Kingdom of Sardinia" will be a redirect (for example, to Piedmont-Sardinia). And it could be a dab page, even if there are only two meanings - if we don't think that either of those two meanings is primary. I don't see any better starting point than deciding what (if any) the primary meaning of "Kingdom of Sardinia" is. For me, the primary meaning is uncontrovertibly the Piedmont-Sardinia entity (that seems to be the only meaning in which standard reference works and anything else I can find on Google Books use the phrase - the only exception being the original text of some treaties, where it may mean the rulership of the island of Sardinia). Though others may have evidence to the contrary.--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving Jonny and Shardan's off-topic comments to the thread above this one. But the RFC seems to have stalled anyways. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I restore the main concept of my previous edit, because Srnec is not allowed to decide what is relevent or not:
"This is the preliminary point we have to clarify: we have to follow a single unknown, revisionist non-English writer, or all the universal knowledge about this topic?"--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's accepted (based on examination of the sources) that Piedmont-Sardinia is the primary topic for "Kingdom of Sardinia", then we can consider the next questions, which can now be considered quite independently of each other: (1) what to call the Piedmont-Sardinia article (Piedmont-Sardinia and Kingdom of Sardinia seem to be the two options); (2) whether we need a separate article on the formal Kingdom of Sardinia (1297-) and what it should be called.--Kotniski (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

About your (2) point, we have an article about the administrative division which existed from 1297 (I would better say: 1314, because previously it was no more than the Jerusalem and Cyprus titles of the 18th century) to 1848. I have not big problems about that article: I would better call it "Viceroyalty of Sardinia" as it was called on Spanish acts, but this is not a decisive point for me.
About your (1) point, I simply repeat: we must use the name that ALL encyclopedias use.--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Kotniski, last time I have inserted secondary sources, which are part of the article on it.Wiki, because not just Casùla wrote about the existence of the Sardinian State and about its organisation during Middle Age. Other historians have done it, and Casùla is not alone. Your statement that was created in 1720 a new entity is to be demonstrated: could you please cite your sources, possibly a secondary source. About the right name, I support the original proposal by Srnec: a single article (named Kingdom of Sardinia), and then two sub-items: one for the medieval period (kingdom of Sardinia 1297-1720) and another one for the Savoyard period (Kingdom of Sardinia 1720-1861). It could be a solution write on main article a paragraph explaining how the facts really are obout names, I mean that is always reported on official documents the name kingdom of Sardinia; then on secondary sources we mostly find kingdom of Sardinia, but also Sardinia, Sardinia-Piedmont and Piedmont as synonyms; then tertiary sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica reported the birth of a new entity in 1720 called Piedmont-Sardinia (and in this case should be correct cite the historian that supports this thesis).--Shardan (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem not to address the question. We are not denying that there was something called the "kingdom of Sardinia" from 1297 onwards; I hope you are not seriously questioning that the entity that thousands of books refer to as Piedmont-Sardinia actually existed, or that it existed from about 1720 onwards, or that it is also called "kingdom of Sardinia" by many historians. All we have to decide is which of these two meanings of "kingdom of Sardinia" (if either) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - if a reader types in the phrase "kingdom of Sardinia", what would he be most likely expect the topic of the resulting article to be? All the evidence I've seen is that books use that phrase in the second meaning, and very rarely in the first meaning, from which we presuambly conclude that it is the second meaning that is the primary one.--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already written enough times, the primary topic is not only the story of the final part of the kingdom, but all that is known of that kingdom. Nothing authorizes you to think that a reader wants to know only the story of his last two centuries. Imho I think that is interested to know the whole history of the kingdom, from beginning to end. It is he who chooses to deepen the period that interests him. There is no historian claims that the birth of a new state-entity in 1720. Impossible: there are no documents that support this birth. If in 1720 was created a new kingdom of Sardinia, means that the previous one became extinct. Where are the sources that provide evidence of disappearance in 1720 of the kingdom of Sardinia, born in 1297? Yours work here is simple misinformation, I can not explain it otherwise. Please cite secondary sources to supports yours bizarre thesis. Please cite historians that spent their life studying this subject, not encyclopaedias for children that about this arguments are decades on late. Yours thesis are simply anachronistic.--Shardan (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No-one is saying the previous one became extinct. There are simply things of two different types, both of which are called kingdom of Sardinia. For a time they co-existed.--Kotniski (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, in 1720, without any doubt, House of savoy was the Kingdom of Sardinia, Duchy of Savoy, Principality of Piedmont, Nice, Duchy of Aosta, Duchy of Monferrato, Vercelli, Asti, and Marquisate of Saluzzo. without any doubt there were not two states both called Kingdom of Sardinia.--Shardan (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if they're well described as "states", but you've just shown that there were two different entities called Kingdom of Sardinia - firstly the component part of the Savoy territories that appears in your list, and secondly the Savoy territories as a whole, which are regularly called "Kingdom of Sardinia" by historians (and apparently by their own rulers).--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You should read again the discussion page [20], we have already talked about that. The most important states were Kingdom of Sardinia and Duchy of Savoy: in 1720 they were two distinct states and Duchy of Savoy will merge itself on Kingdom of Sardinia only on 1847, disappearing.--Shardan (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in a formal sense that's true, but conventional historians appear to use "Kingdom of Sardinia" to refer to that combined effective state as from 1720. I even checked my Polish encyclopedia and it says exactly the same. Given that we're not here to rewrite history, I think we're pretty much constrained to follow the overwhelming majority of the sources on this one.--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski, you must realize what Shardan is: a vandal and a troll. No more. Everybody knows that Sardinia was not a state, but simply a colony ruled by a VICEROY appointed by Turin, as previously by Madrid and, briefly, by Vienna. Every State, even if fully independent as Finland, or federated as Texas, has its own self-appointed government. This is not the case of Sardinia. Never, in all history (or least, never before the creation of the Region after WW2).--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)