Talk:Kahina: Difference between revisions
Koukoumani (talk | contribs) |
→Byzantine Sources: new section |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
Very easy to do, but as someone reading the article I would like to know what is wrong with it. Then if you add tags then there must be a discussion of those tags. Because how do we fix something when someone who is saying something is wrong fails to discuss what is wrong? Add tags-- Add discussion of the issue, or do not tag bomb.--[[Special:Contributions/169.0.4.208|169.0.4.208]] ([[User talk:169.0.4.208|talk]]) 09:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC) |
Very easy to do, but as someone reading the article I would like to know what is wrong with it. Then if you add tags then there must be a discussion of those tags. Because how do we fix something when someone who is saying something is wrong fails to discuss what is wrong? Add tags-- Add discussion of the issue, or do not tag bomb.--[[Special:Contributions/169.0.4.208|169.0.4.208]] ([[User talk:169.0.4.208|talk]]) 09:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
::If one section is offensive, then put a section tag there. Not on the entire article.--[[Special:Contributions/169.0.4.208|169.0.4.208]] ([[User talk:169.0.4.208|talk]]) 09:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC) |
::If one section is offensive, then put a section tag there. Not on the entire article.--[[Special:Contributions/169.0.4.208|169.0.4.208]] ([[User talk:169.0.4.208|talk]]) 09:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Byzantine Sources == |
|||
Given that she engaged in hostilities with the Byzantine empire, is Dihya mentioned in any Byzantine (or, for that matter, contemporary European) sources? --[[User:Iustinus|Iustinus]] ([[User talk:Iustinus|talk]]) 18:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:11, 17 October 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kahina article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
=
The another reason for removing the statements was the inaccuracy, like as "the third child of the tales". Those tales might be western. In North Africa we no such imagination. There was also a confusion about the othe sons; It has been supposed that the Arab captive was the thirth son. This is wrong, because she had three own sons, but the later accounts mentioned only "two sons", this because they didn't speak dirctly on her sons, but what her sons did. The thrid may have been killed against the army of Oeqba ibn Nafi'.
Yet another reason, is: Misplaced. Some stories had nothing to do with her origin. That should be written in another sub-article like as "Her rulership".
I also understand that i changed basically the article. I did that because it was unhistorical, yet more illogical. I would later correct the other subs. I forgot to say that the name of Kahina is dialect should be ignored. If that is true, it would be a very local dialect. If someone doesn't agree with me, i will just put the needed templates. Read3r 14:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand your remarks, but k-h-n is a triconsonantal root which appears in several Semitic languages (cf. Cohen), not just Arabic. AnonMoos 17:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- That is very probable since the Semitic languages would be related to each others (to an extent). But would we confuse all those Semitic languages? If K H N apperas in several Semitic languages, that doesn't mean it is Hebrew, Arabic, Phoenician... Geit is Dutch and goat is English. The roots G T do exist in both lanuages, but that doesn't mean that Geit is English, and Goat is Dutch only because both belong to the Indo-Germanic languages. What i found strange is the attrubition to Punic, Hebrew and Aramic while ignoring Arabic. Furthermore, It is not accurate to categorize Kahina according to a name given by some people. The Arabs had the tradition to give Arabic names to the Berbers. We have another example, not far from Kahina, and that is Kusayla. If you're familiar with Arabic you will surely konw that Kusayla sounds perfectly as an Arabic names. It is the dimunitive form in Arabic on the rythm of Fu'ayla. Does that say any thing about the origin of Kusayla or Ksila. If you still see some unclear comments, feel free to let me know! Read3r 23:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I very much agree with Read3r. There is no evidence from any source that associates the name with Punic or Hebrew, merely speculation. The only actual evidence is from Arabic texts, and "kahinat" is an Arabic word, so there is no need to go looking elsewhere, unless one is interested in Semitic word origins in general. Accordingly I have updated the article and also removed most of the speculation about Jewish origin as that is not the opinion of the majority of historical sources, just left the mention plus a reference to a modern discussion by Mohammed Talbi, a Tunisian scholar of repute. MisterCDE 06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Invalid citations
This article has huge problems, the citations are lacking, it neutrality is disputed and continents original research, moreover, i don't even think it makes it into notability to be considered a encyclopedic entry. In essence the article needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Wanten (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"The citations are lacking"? Maybe you should read the suggested references. "Its neutrality is disputed"? By whom? Maybe you should read the suggested references, rather than the garbled messages on the talk page. "continents original research"? Where? Maybe you should read the suggested references. The only "original research" I can see is in one of the talk blogs above. Doesn't make it into notability? I think you'll find the subject in various encyclopedias ... I agree the text may seem a bit too much like a story, but this is a semi-legendary character, as were many of the famous people of the time. MisterCDE (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly is causing this massive panic anyway? You covered the page with so many tags it's unreadable! the Ogress smash! 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Ibn Khaldun
Too much credence is given to the statements of ibn Khaldun. Here we have only legendary accretion many centuries after the events. It is possible that a Berber female leader did exist at this time, but clear recognition of the legendary quality of the accounts is notably lacking in this article. Perhaps we could have a separate section, K. in legend, and include all the fantasy writing about her? Hostiensis (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Photo
The photo of the statue from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people should likely be added here. 67.87.113.82 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
TAG BOMBING
Very easy to do, but as someone reading the article I would like to know what is wrong with it. Then if you add tags then there must be a discussion of those tags. Because how do we fix something when someone who is saying something is wrong fails to discuss what is wrong? Add tags-- Add discussion of the issue, or do not tag bomb.--169.0.4.208 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- If one section is offensive, then put a section tag there. Not on the entire article.--169.0.4.208 (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Byzantine Sources
Given that she engaged in hostilities with the Byzantine empire, is Dihya mentioned in any Byzantine (or, for that matter, contemporary European) sources? --Iustinus (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (military) articles
- Low-importance biography (military) articles
- Military biography work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- C-Class Berbers articles
- Top-importance Berbers articles
- WikiProject Berbers articles
- C-Class Africa articles
- Top-importance Africa articles
- C-Class Algeria articles
- Top-importance Algeria articles
- WikiProject Algeria articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- C-Class Morocco articles
- Mid-importance Morocco articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles