Talk:History of Tunisia under French rule

History of French-era Tunisia

NO TO PREEMPTIVE TITLE CHANGE.

A definite and strong objection to the title change is made. Given the fact that the change was apparently executed without adequate prior notice, e.g., without a sufficient request for prior discussion or input from prior contributors, the title change to the article appears to be a drastic step. A more moderate and accomodating approach would acknowledge at least pro forma the pre-existing merits of the status quo ante, and seek to come to some prior understanding of purpose and intent before taking such a step.

Also there now exists the suggestion to merge the French-era article with another article of a name nearly identical to the "new title" so executed (F p of T and F P of T). The addition of this double nature makes the title change more problematic, more confusing certainly.

Thus, the title change as executed should be reversed. Elfelix (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

NO TO SUGGESTED MERGER.

The article French Protectorate of Tunisia has a different perspective. This article has been written within the last several months and, although only quickly appraised for this discussion here, it appears to be well done indeed. But it takes a different look at Tunisia than that employed, and to be employed, in the French era Tunisia article. Hence, both articles should exist side by side, each to complement the other handsomely. Numerous interior linkages and a "See also" reference should be made. Perhaps also, a "Main Article" flag might be inserted at the beginning of the French-era Tunisia article, pointing the reader immediately to the French Protectorate of Tunisia article.

Please note: much preparatory work and research for filling out outline of the History of French-era Tunisia has been made, underway for some months. It will begin to be presented in November. Until that time, any such merger will be preemptive, over-reaching, and premature.

As is well known, across the board in Wikipedia with regard to a particular historical subject, there exists several articles which present different views of more or less similar topics. Here as well. Perhaps in the distant future, maybe a little as ten or twenty years down the road, there will naturally emerge a marriage of heterogeneous articles about similar topics. On the other hand, many mature editors may come to realize that in many cases forcing a merger will work only a detrimental result to the merits inherent to different articles on similar topics. Instead, thorough and adequat cross-referencing may prove to be the better solution than an artificial merger. Such decisions will likely be made on a case by case basis. Yet to try to snuff out an neighboring article in midst of demonstrated planning, off-site drafts, and research, is premature.

Such efforts in embryo should be given adequate time to grow, especially when of two articles each expresses a legitimate yet different point of view, of such a depth and subtlety that to merge the two them would be reductionist. A merger would diminish the ability of the reader to view for herself the historical phenomena from multiple perspectives. Merely the fact that the writing of a late-starting article has momentarilly overtaken in length that of an earlier-started one, does not give license for a article "merger". Wikipedia was meant, as I understand it, to look to the long term benefit of everyone and every acceptable view. One of the great benefits of Wikipedia is its rich, textual diversity.

The History of French-era Tunisia is part of a multi-article series on the History of Tunisia. For the period in question it will reference the antecedents. The newer article entitled the French Protectorate of Tunisia is a most welcome addition. It provides an independent and a different (no doubt at points divergent) perspective on the French period in Tunisia. The Wikipedia reader will be enriched and rewarded by having the parallax views available! Wikipedia is a celebration of divergent interests. To attempt a forced harmonization of competing views by some kind of potentially bloody merger, before they at least each enjoy the opportunity to naturally develope, is not advisable.

To such a merger: a definite no! Elfelix (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

NOVEMBER AUGMENTATION

I expect to return latter this week and then to begin posting additions to the text of the article shortly thereafter. Hopefully, this will fulfill my above promise to make substantial augments in November. Salutations. Elfelix (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia's supposed to have parallel views of things. Yes, you have articles that provide different perspectives, articles on WWII in Japan and WWII in China will have huge overlap, granted. But that's because there's enough independent in that facet of the topic to warrant an article, and then you may have to add some repetition to give context. The idea is to established inter-linked and integrated articles that reflect the consensus of the community rather than isolated points of view (although certainly different points of view are valuable, but my point is they should be integrated. When I look for a topic on Wikipedia I look for that to be all of what Wikipedia has to say on that topic, and perhaps just as important when I link to an article on Wikipedia I expect what I link to to be all Wikipedia has to say on that topic. Just from a Wikipedian point of view, if I'm writing an article on a politician during the French protectorate, whose article should I link to? In the end, I'm not going to raise much of a fuss. Since this is in the "History of Tunisia" series, if I have an edit to make on the topic (my editing is usually sporadic inspired by something I read and want to throw in), I'll probably do it here, but then again, maybe I'll do it in the other article, I have no loyalty to either camp after-all.

Jztinfinity (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"It (this article) provides an independent and a different (no doubt at points divergent) perspective on the French period in Tunisia." (!!!) While expressing personal viewpoints and independent perspectives is monnaie courante on the French-language Wikipedia, it is not tolerated on the English-language Wikipedia. That said, this redundant article should be merged with French Protectorate in Tunisia. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Establishment of French Judicial system

'In rural areas the French administration strengthened the local officials (qa'ids) and weakened the independent tribes. Nationwide an additional judicial system was established for Europeans but available generally, set-up without interfering with the existing Sharia courts, available as always for the legal matters of Tunisians.'

I need to say this seems like an iffy assertion. I'd need to look this up to formally dispute this, but my understanding of French colonial law is that, yes the "natives" had their courts (though, I admit this is really speculative, I imagine the French influenced the make-up of the pool of jurists), but especially in the case where a large influx of Europeans came in, when a European and a Tunisian had a dispute didn't it go to French court? This is not a small matter at a period when French economic investment was increasing and previously murky property rights were being A. newly/differently codified and B. changed.

All and all, it's a bit of a iffy claim, maybe I'll try to look something up to qualify it in a sort of manner that includes citations. Jztinfinity (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. In doing the move for French protectorate of Tunisia, I looked at the page histories, including on the talk pages. Bottom line is that there has been some interesting moves and incorrectly documented copy and paste moves, if I'm following the information correctly. Since this is RM, and the consensus appears to be a merge, if anyone wants they can list the article for a merge. I would recommend reading the above discussion about a merge. If a merge is done, I think an admin will need to get involved to do a history merge at the end, so that should be included in any discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

History of French-era Tunisia → History of French Tunisia — I believe the proposed title reads better in English, so is there any reason to retain the term "era"? Is the subject of this article not more easily called "French Tunisia", or are we being clear that this is about Tunisians and not the French in Tunisia? Either way, there are also move requests—just to make sure we've got the best possible titles—at Talk:French Protectorate of Tunisia#Requested_move and Talk:French occupation of Tunisia#Requested_move. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 26 May 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.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I think it's better to merge both articles (French Protectorate of Tunisia and History of French-era Tunisia) into a single article named French protectorate of Tunisia, as these names are two ways to name the same thing. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/tunisia.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

History of Carthage merge

For anyone interested, there is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. There is a new suggestion that material from those articles could be merged into History of Tunisia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of French-era Tunisia. 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/20130816174911/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html

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) 03:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This article should be merged with French Protectorate of Tunisia.

This article should be merged with French Protectorate of Tunisia. Both articles deal with the same thing.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the hatnotes, one is about the social history of Tunisia and the other its political history. The text, at a glance, seems to bear that out. Do you think they should be merged anyway? Or do you think titles that better reflect the scope are in order? Srnec (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote is misleading since this article deals with all sorts of topics : establishment of the French protectorate, economic advance, education reform, French context (!), French settlers position, nationalists, "Art and Culture" (a misery six lines for an article that is supposed to be about the social history of Tunisia!). Then you have a very long section titled "Chronology" that starts with "Versailles 1919" (!!!) and seems to be about the general political history of the country. Like with the rest of the article, there is hardly anything that has to do with the social history of Tunisia. A lot of that stuff is found, generally better written, in the article French Protectorate of Tunisia. To me, this article looks like a somewhat erratic personal blog.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)