Jump to content

Talk:History of Algeria

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

Untitled

[edit]

This can has been made into a series incorporating the public domain text from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/dztoc.html. Please wikify dumped text at will.

--Jiang — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 9 August 2003 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not credible

[edit]

The number of muslim deaths during independance war is nosense.

The french army lost 23 000 deaths. It was war. You write more than 1 millions for muslims !!! How can it be !!! There was no concentration camp if I remember well. But civils in the french army (soldat du contingent). No way to lay a lot to journalists in fact. And you should precise the number of deaths because of conflict between muslims. It is more than 100 000. If it wasn't about war and deaths, I would have laugh a lot.

Sorry but completely dismaying ! --64.208.49.62 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article needs reorganization

[edit]

The structure of this article is very confusing. We should reorganize it into a straightforward Wikipedia article, with each historical period given a short summary and a main article. Now, there's some sort of parallell order of summaries (historical setting plus chapters of the series. I will do this if and when I have time, but anyone who feels like it would be welcome to begin. Arre 05:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genocides_in_history#Algeria

[edit]

There are some discrepancies between the info given here and at Genocides_in_history#Algeria. --tickle me 09:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ţia i s my name and i got it going on

[edit]

I fixed, then commented out, this link on the page because it seemed unrelevant:

  • "Blue Spader 26th Infantry 1st Division Website - Blue Spader Library". The March of the 26th Infantry: Spader Parader. Santa Clara, CA: 26th Infantry Regiment Association. Retrieved 3 December 2010. Wounded in the attack on Hill 609 at El Guettar the following month, Captain Kellett wrote THE BIG RED ONE while hospitalized at Constantine, Algeria.

Peaceray (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

[edit]

Hello,

  • This map [1]is based on a primary source, it must be supplemented by secondary sources. Finally "Algeria" is an anachronism, it is about the regency of Algiers.
  • This map is also wrong [2] and doesn’t correspond to the source. Please provide a cartographic source justifying this map.
    Most of the maps in this article are fanciful, they can not be found anywhere else than on this version of Wikipedia, most are not based on any cartographic reference and are the product of misappropriation of sources / exaggerations
    YusAtlas (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have to be supplemented by anything. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant.
Your claim that "Algeria" is an anachronism is factually incorrect.
The Ifranid map appears to be based on original research (I haven't checked the sources). Tag it if you wish or remove it (if it bothers that much). M.Bitton (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed an anachronism, consult this letter from General Schneider [3], this map is false and is not based on any bibliographical reference and any secondary reference.
The Ifranids map does not correspond at all to the source, it is fanciful. I will remove it since you are ok. The same goes for the Zirids who never ruled Sicily, for example. The most accurate map of the Zirids is the one used on WP in French, it results from several months of discussion and confrontation of resources. YusAtlas (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Your claim that "Algeria" is an anachronism is factually incorrect. No need to repeat what was said previously. M.Bitton (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source that I sent clearly says that it is General Schneider who named Algeria as such. Moreover this map is not based on any bibliographical reference, that's a primary source WP:IDPRIMARY you have to bring secondary sources that justify this map. Worse still, this map is the product of misappropriation of sources, on the source of this map it is written "Morocco" (= Maroc in French) and "Algiers" (= Alger in French) and not "Alaouites" and "Algérie" . The Zirids map is also not valid, they never ruled Sicily, for example. The most accurate map of the Zirids is the one used on WP in French, it results from several months of discussion and confrontation of resources. Yus Atlas (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your irrelevant source mentions the different names that the French used to designate Algeria by (including the name "Algeria") before finally adopting the latter (the shorter one). In other words, this is just a waste of energy that doesn't change a thing about what I said.
Given that I don't feel like repeating myself, especially after dealing with the nonsensical OR that you added to various articles (after pretending to care about the policy), I'll ping Askelaadden and Kabz15 (the concerned map creators) and see what they have to say. M.Bitton (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your irrelevant source mentions the different names that the French used to designate Algeria by (including the name "Algeria") before finally adopting the latter (the shorter one)

it seems that you don’t understand French. Please avoid ad hominem and focus only on my arguments instead of trying to discredit me.
YusAtlas (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello M.Bitton, I am not opposed to replacing the Zirid map with the one currently in use on the main page, however the arguments used by YusAtlas seem to be quite odd and characteristic of biased editing.
“The same goes for the Zirids who never ruled Sicily, for example”: The Zirids did rule Sicily, this can be verified here.
“they can not be found anywhere else than on this version of Wikipedia”: That’s not surprising considering how YusAtlas removed one of the maps that was added by another editor and replaced it.
“The most accurate map of the Zirids is the one used on WP in French”: Clearly stating his opinion as a fact (see WP:YESPOV).
Again, I’m not opposed to replacing the Zirid map with the one in use on the main page I just wanted to point out the flaws in YusAtlas’ baseless arguments.
Regards, Kabz15 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kabz15: Nothing surprising there. Thank you for the reply and for updating the article. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that these issues cannot be raised in a more reasonable manner. That said, please do replace both the Zirid and Hammadid maps with the ones currently used on their respective main pages ([4], [5]), as those have already reached some consensus at Talk:Zirid dynasty and Talk:Hammadid dynasty. As I've explained before in those discussions, the two currently included maps (or related versions of those maps) for these dynasties involve WP:OR and don't reflect reliable scholarly sources, and there's no reason why they would be more acceptable here.

As for the 19th-century map over which there was edit-warring, it may or may not be dubious in its details, but it's based on a clear source. If there's still dispute over it, my recommendation is that you simply make that source more explicit in the caption, and readers can judge for themselves. Otherwise I see no objective problem with it. R Prazeres (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed trim

[edit]

@Simoooix.haddi and M.Bitton: Creating this here for discussion. I haven't examined every paragraph in detail, I agree that some condensation and reorganization is needed, but I don't see wholesale removal of 80% of the text as helpful, especially the references. I'm not particularly active, and so I don't expect anyone to wait for my input, which sometimes occurs sporadically only at intervals of weeks or months, but someone needed to start a section for discussion here so I've done so. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article must return to an earlier version before @Italiancorsair's disruptive edits, there is no need to add sections about Zirids, Almohads, Maghrawa and Zayyanids since all of them are treated well enough in the middle ages section. Also the added content is coppied from other articles with a lot of information that has no place here. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you re-read User_talk:Simoooix.haddi#History_of_Algeria (this time, try to pay attention to what the IP said). I will also ping Italiancorsair and Terrum3 to see what they have to say about your wholesale content removal and baseless accusations of vandalism and disruptive editing. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's advice above (and at the user talk page section M.Bitton linked) is right. As it happens, this is the exact same problem at History of Morocco, where most of the medieval/pre-modern section were copied wholesale from the corresponding articles without any adaptation. I left a comment on the talk page there (this) in the hope that we'll have time to do clean it up eventually, and I think the same sentiment applies here.
I'd echo the IP's suggest here that constructive editors should work through this section by section, with Wikipedia:Summary style in mind. One relatively easy thing to clean up right now, though, would be to at least fix the section headings; currently they're not in the right format. R Prazeres (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it seems there is some kind of misunderstanding, so let me clarify my position, Actually i'm not against adding copied content as long as it is in the right place and makes sense.
Knowing that this article must treat the "History of Algeria" what's the point of mentioning details about the origins of the Almohad movement? and what is the relation between Algeria and the battles of "Alarcos" and "Las Navas de Tolosa"? Simoooix.haddi (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However i don't oppose what @R Prazeres is suggesting about both articles. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that made up standard, there is no relation between Morocco and the battle of Alarcos either. Don't worry though, we'll deal with everything (including the appropriation) in due time. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's your POV. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres: I'm not exactly sure what you meant by the section headings, but you're more than welcome to fix them if you want. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have time to do it earlier, but I'll have a go at it now. R Prazeres (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the headings so they're organized per usual formatting and nesting; see edits here and here. There was a lot of other initial clean up needed, though. Copied infoboxes have been removed here. The non-history sections that were copied from other articles (i.e. auxiliary topics like art, armed forces, healthcare, etc), including some that were literally copied twice, have been removed here and here; I hope it's obvious enough that these particular duplications are excessive and that these kind of subtopics do not appear in standard history overview articles of this kind (e.g. compare with GA article History of Scotland or other large modern-country history articles).

There still seems to be some unnecessary repetition at the beginning of what is currently the "Medieval Muslim Algeria" section, but, aside from that, the rest of the content should be within the scope of a typical article of this kind and just needs to be condensed and sourced. R Prazeres (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres Thank you for what you've done so far. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting POV and bad writing in lead

[edit]

This version of the lead is what was used in the article for years and is a WP:SUMMARY that reflects information that can be easily found in reliable sources and in the article itself. This version is full of obvious POV nonsense, including WP:PUFFERY like "considered to be one of the first cradles of humanity" and unsourced WP:OR, like claiming the Regency of Algiers became a separate state after 1710, the "Republic of Algiers" with "total independence" from the Ottoman Empire, which has no basis in reliable sources and is an obvious attempt to reintroduce the unsourced OR that was recently deleted at this AfD. These nonsensical revert+deletion edits ([6], [7]) don't help either.

If you want to improve the lead, please make an effort to keep to Wikipedia's content policies. If you have new content to add, please do so in the body of the article, not in the lead section: again, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a place to introduce new ideas (see MOS:LEAD). R Prazeres (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editors: Reference 235 is incorrect

[edit]

The reference talks about another subject entirely. It is about French reaction to Algerian uprisings following WW2, not French crimes committed during the colonisation of Algeria. The page referenced also makes no mention of any of the things it's apparently being cited for. For accurate information on the atrocities committed by the French during the colonisation of Algeria, try the chapter on Camus in Said's Culture and Imperialism (1993) or chapter 2 in McDougall's A History of Algeria (2017). Don't really know how to do the editing myself but if anyone does and sees this it'd be great. 5.151.132.98 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Algeria&oldid=1218763207"