Talk:Algiers expedition (1541): Difference between revisions
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:The facts are clear: the sources I have proposed are still considered secondary, they can not be reclassified into tertiary. So from this moment on, it is not possible to pretend that from the moment when there are more recent sources, they are more reliable. Thus, if an historian publishes an alternative theory after another historian, one can not say that one or the other is more right. On the other hand, because we have 10 sources and half of them are opposed, we can not defend one view rather than the other. So just do not put any flag and add a "footnote" to the article of the flags of Algeria to explain. {{ping|Jean-Jacques Georges|Alaspada}} --[[User:Panam2014|Panam2014]] ([[User talk:Panam2014|talk]]) 20:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC) |
:The facts are clear: the sources I have proposed are still considered secondary, they can not be reclassified into tertiary. So from this moment on, it is not possible to pretend that from the moment when there are more recent sources, they are more reliable. Thus, if an historian publishes an alternative theory after another historian, one can not say that one or the other is more right. On the other hand, because we have 10 sources and half of them are opposed, we can not defend one view rather than the other. So just do not put any flag and add a "footnote" to the article of the flags of Algeria to explain. {{ping|Jean-Jacques Georges|Alaspada}} --[[User:Panam2014|Panam2014]] ([[User talk:Panam2014|talk]]) 20:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
::The rule est cristal clear. Once again, according to [[WP:AGE MATTERS]], "'''newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt'''". So please stick to rule. Your personal opinion is charming but we are not interested with personal opinions. This source ==> "Houari Touati, ''Aux origines du drapeau algérien : une histoire symbolique'', Editions Zaytūn, 2014, p. 38" is a recent one, centered on the subject and written by an academic specialist. Best regards. --[[User:Ms10vc|Ms10vc]] ([[User talk:Ms10vc|talk]]) 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
::The rule est cristal clear. Once again, according to [[WP:AGE MATTERS]], "'''newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt'''". So please stick to rule. Your personal opinion is charming but we are not interested with personal opinions. This source ==> "Houari Touati, ''Aux origines du drapeau algérien : une histoire symbolique'', Editions Zaytūn, 2014, p. 38" is a recent one, centered on the subject and written by an academic specialist. Best regards. --[[User:Ms10vc|Ms10vc]] ([[User talk:Ms10vc|talk]]) 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::{{Ping|L3X1}} Can I transfer you the relevant pages of the book of Houari Touati? You can read this article about it ==> [http://imaf.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article786]. Touati is a specialist of the North African Middle Age ==> [http://chsim.ehess.fr/index.php?82]. --[[User:Ms10vc|Ms10vc]] ([[User talk:Ms10vc|talk]]) 07:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:16, 26 July 2017
![]() | A fact from Algiers expedition (1541) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 November 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Algiers expedition (1541). 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090818015845/http://www.neopodia.mobi/20090519-histoire-renaissance-alliance-impie-francois-1er-ier-ottoman-soliman-suleyman-charles-quint-forces-en-presence to http://www.neopodia.mobi/20090519-histoire-renaissance-alliance-impie-francois-1er-ier-ottoman-soliman-suleyman-charles-quint-forces-en-presence
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) 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
RfC
![]() |
|
I launch a Request for comment about the Algiers regency's flag in 1541. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
According to others academic sources, the flag was different:
- Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din. « le déploiement d'un grand drapeau national formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte et jaune, et orné de croissant d'argent » [1]
- Nadir Assari, Alger: des origines à la régence turque. « A l'époque turque, le drapeau d'Alger était formé de trois bandes de soie rouge, verte et jaune. » [2]
- Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va. « Rien n'y manque, pas même la longue hampe où flotta si longtemps l'insolent drapeau de la régence avec ses trois bandes horizontales, jaune en bas, rouge en haut, vert au milieu. » [3]
- Sander Rang,Ferdinand Denis,Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse, « ; c'était du haut de ses vastes terrasses sur lesquelles flottait l'étendard rouge, jaune et vert ». [4]
- Mouloud Gaïd : L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58 : « Le grand drapeau d'Alger, formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte, jaune, se déploya majestueusement au-dessus de la porte »"
--Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
*Support(Summoned by bot)I am fine with the flag being added to the infobox. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- See also my tp. I have decided that having no image and a footnote, as described by Panam2014 below, is better. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Flag_of_the_United_States_%28Pantone%29.svg/220px-Flag_of_the_United_States_%28Pantone%29.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Betsy_Ross_flag.svg/220px-Betsy_Ross_flag.svg.png)
- I'm also fine with the flag being added to the infobox. The majority of the sources cited above must be discarded for two reasons:
- the flag they describe is not the one used in 1541, but the one used later. It's like trying to impose the actual US flag for some thing that happened between 1777 and 1795.
- According to WP:AGE MATTERS, "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt".
Moreover, Mouloud Gaïd has based his work on Algiers expedition on Galibert's work (first published in 1844), so WP:AGE MATTERS applies too in this case. --Ms10vc (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
In a nutshell:
- Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1837) ==> [5]
- Nadir Assari: does not concern the flag used in 1541
- Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1887) ==> [6]
- Sander Rang, Ferdinand Denis, Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1837) ==> [7]
- Mouloud Gaïd, L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58: Uses as a primary reference Léon Galibert's L'Algérie: ancienne et moderne, which is definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (first published in 1844) ==> [8]
--Ms10vc (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- The facts are clear: the sources I have proposed are still considered secondary, they can not be reclassified into tertiary. So from this moment on, it is not possible to pretend that from the moment when there are more recent sources, they are more reliable. Thus, if an historian publishes an alternative theory after another historian, one can not say that one or the other is more right. On the other hand, because we have 10 sources and half of them are opposed, we can not defend one view rather than the other. So just do not put any flag and add a "footnote" to the article of the flags of Algeria to explain. @Jean-Jacques Georges and Alaspada: --Panam2014 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- The rule est cristal clear. Once again, according to WP:AGE MATTERS, "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt". So please stick to rule. Your personal opinion is charming but we are not interested with personal opinions. This source ==> "Houari Touati, Aux origines du drapeau algérien : une histoire symbolique, Editions Zaytūn, 2014, p. 38" is a recent one, centered on the subject and written by an academic specialist. Best regards. --Ms10vc (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- B-Class Ottoman military history articles
- Ottoman military history task force articles
- B-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles
- B-Class early Muslim military history articles
- Early Muslim military history task force articles
- B-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- Unassessed Algeria articles
- Mid-importance Algeria articles
- WikiProject Algeria articles
- Unassessed Spain articles
- Unknown-importance Spain articles
- All WikiProject Spain pages
- Unassessed Malta articles
- Low-importance Malta articles
- WikiProject Malta articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment