Talk:Demographics of Tunisia/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

I had to delete the source from the national geographic and rely on the CIA and Columbia University. I just read the article from the national geographic and no mention is made of the subjects. No numbers are made available, no mention of regional samples, nothing. It is therefore not a source that can be used, I would also like to know who it is that dared to write such a sweeping statement, based on that nothingness? I was surprised as a native to read something that I know to be inaccurate, and when i clicked on the "source" and realized that it had been funded by a billionaire al hariri that is well known for his corruption, and read how ambiguous it was, I understood. I deleted the statement as it antithetical to the 5 wikipedian pillars, namely, it is not "written from a neutral point of view and must include only verifiable information, with no original research." It cites no source, no evidence and MOST IMPORTANTLY, in the absence of these but also from a very common sense EMPIRICAL perspective, it is grossly inaccurate and almost absurd, if not also orientalist in that it denies a country its identity, it underestimates the country by presuming to know the identity of a people despite the fact that in this world, people probably know their identities better than outsiders. This is to me original research without evidence. It provides no evidence, hence it is not VERIFIABLE, hence unusable! Also, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles and policies must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research." It will therefore have to be replaced with the source I provided on the original page. Please let me know what you think, thank you. Mariam83 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've already explained (but you've deleted my comments on your talk page), these sources are not contradictory: one is about current identity, the other about genetic origin. Your claims that the reference you deleted is biased, and was funded by Hariri (actually, your attitude towards that is worrying, along with other comments I've seen you make): well, I didn't notice that, and then even then, so what.. it's a study, with data. You don't seem to understand verifiability. The reference is from a credible source, national gepgraphic, not a blog or a nationalist website. What is in wikipedia can be checked against it. the source is credible. Viola. It can be contrasted with other studies: I would be interested to see the result of others. The more the merrier. And I'll try to account for your concerns in the way I rewrite it. Bouha 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The national geographic is not the most reputable or reliable source, though I understand that people such as yourself and your fellow wikipedians take it as gospel. Besides which, the study itself was privately funded and only later published in the NG, as many rather limited studies are, though I would not call this a study, but rather, an experiment. The study itself is not in anyway encyclopedic, as it provides no numbers, no sources, no explanations. The other study cited, which does, proves my points exactly. Namely that the study is flawed and inapplicable. I realize that I may be a threat to certain afro-centric Berberists or Afro-centrict in most cases non-natives, but I intend to follow through all the way. I will remain vigilant and fight your propaganda to the end! what is more, I am going to involve alot more people. Bouha, do not write to me in Tunisian if you refuse to explain to me why you insist on citing a source that does not in anyway provide numbers or evidence? Mariam83 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to second Bouha's comments, Mariam83's editing storm is quite something, and copying pasting in text from other web sites with her own editorial commentary (viz the Maghreb article) has not in any way improved said articles (indeed the copy/pasting in some instances may be copyright violations, besides introducing partisan views). (collounsbury 18:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I am sorry to disappoint you, I know it's been a rather nonturbulent ride for propagandist contributors like yourself. It must be quite perturbing to you. After reading you usepage though and noting the charged and rather vulgar language that you use to attack anyone who disagrees with you, I am not in the least surprised by your abuse of Wikipedia. Again, Bouha's non-verifiable source contradicts official numbers. It is in no way encyclopedic, it is a private study that does not provide any explanatory evidence. Mariam83 07:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When One Wants to Meet Another Person Instead Of a Hand Shake,they Give Each other a kiss on the cheek.Isnt that Weird!???

Black Tunisians

I cannot see anything on this page about ethnically Black people in Tunisia - but some of Tunisia's most famous people (e.g. footballers Hatem Trabelsi and Radhi Jaïdi) are obviously Black. Anyone with more information on this ethnic group to add to the article? RantingMrP (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of Religions in Tunisia

The CIA World Factbook or other sources presenting these numbers (very imprecise by the way), are not acceptable sources. Indeed their data are themselves from the Tunisian government who never conducted a study or census to obtain them. According to their method, all citizens born from parents considered as muslims are themselves considered as such, which exclude of course agnostics, atheists, converts etc... That are nowadays constitutional rights. In this case, we must reference a serious scholar study about this subject for it to be credible. Instead of giving numbers we do not have, It was planned to replace rates to formulas such as "We consider that the majority". Pinkbeast We had already approved of that on the "Religion en Tunisie" French page, so we started cleaning the errors on the other language's pagesTounsimentounes (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

By all means produce a source to justify your assertions. Seriously. I have no problem at all with you making these edits if they are accurate, and it seems to me like it should be easy to produce sources demonstrating that this sort of thing has gone on - in which case, be my guest. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinkbeast I can't prove what doesn't exist to begin with, that would be a diabolical proof. But I can show you hints that the 99% percentage and its associate numbers are wrong:

- The U.S state department, says that there is no reliable data on the number of practicing muslims in Tunisia http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010/148847.htm

- A census conducted by WIN/Gallup International 2012, where Tunisians were face to face questioned about their religiosity (independently of which religion) showed that only 75% of the population considered themselves as religious, while 22% considered themselves as non-religious. http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf

- There is an unknown number of Tunisians originally muslim that converted to christianity or bahaism (if not other religions) (for bahaism, an estimate gave over 2000 in 2010) http://www.thearda.com/QL2010/QuickList_40.asp

Tounsimentounes (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

... but don't you think you should _use_ these cites in the article? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, not excellent. What does that state.gov link say? It says "The population is 99 percent Muslim and overwhelmingly Sunni. Groups that constitute less than 1 percent of the population include Shi'a Muslims, Baha'is, Jews, and Christians." It does not say that there is no reliable data; in fact, it quotes numbers of members of other religions.

The second does not seem to be from a reliable source (besides being marked "draft version") and quite carefully states that people can identify as "non-religious" without being atheists - in particular, it quotes proportions of Christians, Muslims, etc. who identify as non-religous. It also states that atheists are 0% of the Tunisian population.

The third link suggests that one in 5 thousand people is Baha'i. So what? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, you need to produce sources justifying the edits you wish to make. So far, your sources have in fact supported the 99% figure. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6BRmFRbow?url=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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demographics of 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/20120414212524/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf to http://www.hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)