Talk:Lalla Fatma N'Soumer

Untitled

lalla fatma n'soumer est née en 1830 à ouerja pres de ain el hammam en haute kabylie. heroine de la resistance kabyle elle combatut le general randon.

merci! - Mustafaa 03:59, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name

The picture shown is not her picture. It's a postal card of another woman called "Fatma". Please remove the picture. We only have an illustration of her, not pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E03:E010:B851:8B9A:9534:58EF (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Isn't this copyvio of [1] ? Kappa 17:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If it is, follow the instructions on WP:AFD. Even if it isn't deleted, most of the content should be cleared out so that the article can be properly rebuilt. If it turns out not to be a copyvio, no harm done. --Sigma 7 11:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

I think the proper pronunciation is: Fathma, instead of Fatma. Should this be mentioned? In addition I think we should point out that the name "N'soumer" comes from the words: N' (of?) and the village "soumer" where Lalla Fathma lived.Josef.b

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lalla Fatma N'Soumer. 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/20040821205147/http://www.majliselouma.dz/new_site/ColDefense150903/Biographie2.htm to http://www.majliselouma.dz/new_site/ColDefense150903/Biographie2.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130127002812/http://www.kabyle.com/article.php?id_article=1796 to http://www.kabyle.com/article.php?id_article=1796

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) 05:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

@M.Bitton: I would like to point out that the "stable version" you've reverted to has a "please expand this article with the Italian Wikipedia" tag, that such requests for translations and expansions from other wiki versions are common, and that the vast majority of the changes I made are very unlikely to be incorrect. If someone was taking a GA or FA and throwing in uncited text from another language wiki, it'd be one thing, but you're reverting to a version that has multiple cleanup tags and very patchy sourcing? The heck? Do you know something I don't here? If there's some reason that Everything In The Other Versions is wrong, let's hear it, in detail. I'll add that this was an ongoing process and I was planning on further checking of what few English sources do exist, but we clearly need to resolve this first.

For ethnicity, this is a completely bog-standard thing. Albert Einstein's first sentence says he was German. Boudica's first sentence says she was a Celt. Cicero's first sentence says he was a Roman. I'm aware of no such rule against mentioning it, and as I mentioned in my edit summary, it'd be especially ridiculous to leave it off here because she was leading an ethnicity-based group. It'd be like leaving off that Demetrios Ypsilantis was Greek, when he was a leader in the Greek War of Independence. It's pretty central to his reason for notability! In the same way, N'Soumer's notability is linked to her as a leader of the Kabyle during a French-Kabyle conflict, so this is very strange to want to bury this fact.

I will say that unfortunately, the vast majority of the sources on this topic appear to be in French, and some of the English sources used appear to merely be passing mentions or are from weak sources, so I think that we need to accept that at least some of the sourcing will be from other languages. SnowFire (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

To expand on the above some - the French & Italian articles are also substantially better sourced than the awful English sources. Granted, they rest a little too heavily on old, 1800s sources IMO, but that's way better than the scanty passing mentions in the English article you've reverted to. If you really think there are problems here, revert yourself and specifically tag with citation needed the alleged problem spots. SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that her ethnicity is mentioned in the first sentence of the French wikipedia is not accurate. Having checked the article I can confirm that it's not (the same goes for the Arabic version).

It's the country/nationality that is bog-standard in the lead and not the ethnicity. For the examples that you cited: Einstein is described as a "German-born" and not a German (though the latter wouldn't be an issue since it would still refer to the country); Budica is described as the "queen of the Iceni tribe of Celtic Britons" (how else is she supposed to be described as?); while Cicero is obviously described as Roman (that's his "nationality" and not his ethnicity). The equivalent for N'Soumer is obviously "Algerian" and I see no reason to treat her differently from the other Algerian leaders of the time, including the ones that she was closely associated with, such as Mohammed El-Hachemi, Boubaghla, that we don't describe as Arabs. In terms of relevance, it's her religion (Islam) that would come second to her nationality, given the fact that she was a zawiya leader who used her position to lead a religious based struggle (a Jihad) and not an ethnic one.

Last but not least, you don't restore unsourced content that was removed simply because you didn't receive a response "in a day" (during the weekend to boot). That's not how Wikipedia works. Anyway, I'm too tired now to look into it, but I will check what's available (hopefully on Sunday). M.Bitton (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Good lord. I was literally planning on going to the library to read books myself on this subject myself. Please read Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Then read it again. It is completely bog standard to add content, and adjust it afterward. I was even working on a third edit to import references from the Fr article when you decided to randomly revert. Can you at least wait a very short period of time to allow someone to make improvements? This is insane. And by "short period" I mean more like "a week", since I won't be able to check the library copy of the books on her immediately.

I don't normally play editor-tenure nonsense but since you are insisting on acting as if I'm a clueless newbie, I have to inform you I've been around for over 10 years longer than you, and - this is not a personal attack, but I'm trying to just be factual here - your statements on content policy are simply incorrect. In fact, this makes me greatly worried about the other edits you've made. It sounds like you are insisting on a requirement that all content be a featured article and everything else be deleted. That is not the case. It is, in fact, deeply against the Wikipedia ethos, a place where all articles are under construction, all the time. If you'd been on Wikipedia back in 2006, it would have been especially obvious then. In short, there are different standards depending on the state of an article. For stubs or start class articles, expansion is generally totally fine. Having a list of "general references" is also fine in start-class articles as a "more details here" where everything isn't necessarily directly referenced yet. The important thing is to get an article up, in the early stages. It's basically the wild west, governed by a general stance of improvement = good. Now, to be sure, things like BLP are still an issue, so obviously negative information about living people needs to be sourced from the start. But that doesn't apply here. As an article becomes more and more "complete" and well formatted, the expectations for additions get stricter, so sure, go ahead and be a hardliner on an article in good shape (i.e. GA, A, or FA). Applying hardline standards to start-class articles would result in them all being trimmed to a nub, which is simply not how Wikipedia works. It's funny, I was just defending Wikipedia to a friend earlier this week from a blogpost where an expert complained that their improving edit was reverted without warning because he didn't comply with certain niceities. I defended Wikipedia as this being rare, and besides, that article was fairly complete, so it was understandable. And yet this happens immediately after! Of course.

On wiki translation, you can't use the other wiki article as a source (an old diff to prove I know this), but you can absolutely use their content, and you can also borrow the references from that other article if there's good cause to assume good faith. If you disagree with this, that's fine - you should go make a request to remove all "expand from other language wiki" tags. It will not succeed, as a warning. But that's what you should try; until then, the policy is translations are potentially okay. Expansions from other language wikis are bog standard and are often used as the framework for a good, well-sourced article. For a personal example, Revolt of the Comuneros started off as a translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article, and I eventually changed it to focus more on English-language references, and it's been a GA for a decade+. For a less fancy and more recent example, Ein Jäger aus Kurpfalz is an obscure topic where German sources & English sources were combined to write a decent article that used the de wiki article as a base (and yes, I checked the German sources taken from that de article, since most were thankfully online). Since you are so dead-set on believing that I'm a bad actor here or that nothing good can come of this. No, you cannot use other language wikis as a source, and common sense is required when they include doubtful claims. But you can absolutely, freely use their content when it's good content.

Also, you keep saying the material is unsourced. That isn't true. I've already stated, several times, that the FR & IT articles have substantially deeper sources than the very short English language sources used by the current article (including IMDb, which you reverted to, which is not really allowed as a source - although after I wrote this I see you fixed that, so there's that.). That was what I was working on for my third edit before you rudely reverted me in the middle - porting some of these sources. If you truly think something is doubtful, then yes, you can challenge it, and the WP:ONUS is on the person advocating inclusion of the content to keep it (aka me). Merely reverting everything under an incorrect claim of "unsourced" is insufficient. Go mark the stuff you think is doubtful. (For example, I did not include a reference that Phillopoteaux was the artist of the illustration - but a simple check of the Commons description verifies it is. The fact it's not directly referenced is not a problem because it's too uncontroversial to bother referncing.)

On ethnicity, MOS:ETHNICITY very clearly states that ethnicity is fine in the lede if "it is relevant to the subject's notability." Which it flatly, uncontroversially is here. I agree she was a religious leader as well, and am definitely interested in how modern sources portray the matter for if it was religion first or ethnicity first, but even to the extent she's considered a religious leader first, the ethnicity is obviously part of it too. I guess saying she was French Algerian would technically be correct too, but that's an awkward, modern-facing-backward designation - it's not like everyone magically joined French Algeria in 1834, and it would be rather flame-baity (her supporters would say she was fighting an invasion as an independent group, which doesn't suggest strong ties to being a French Algerian). That's kind of the point of her story, really. She was a Kabyle leader in a region called Kabylia. Ergo her ethnicity is relevant to mention. SnowFire (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

To go into this in a little more detail. An alternate version of Wikipedia could maybe skip the "citation needed" or "more references" tags, right? Just delete all content without a direct reference. Yet we leave uncited content around, and content marked with CN. Sometimes tags stay for 10+ years, waiting for a reference sometimes. This isn't done because bad content is fine, but rather because someone thinks the content is potentially salvageable, and at least hopes it will be useful to whoever does try to source it later. And yes, sometimes there's an unpleasant surprise when it turns out the content was never good, and sometimes the person sourcing needs to cut out half of it or adjust the tone - but having something to work with is often useful. I recently did a top-to-bottom rewrite of a large article and found some fairly concerning inaccuracies in the article when compared to the sources, but that doesn't mean the old article should have been deleted - it was much, much easier to "fix" flawed content while making the better version, than it would have been to write it from scratch. And this is taking you at your word, that there truly is uncited material. The vast majority of this is cited, just in French books that are hard to research easily, and will require waiting on inter library loans and the like. SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Finally, despite the harsh tones above, I will extend the usual offer that if you're interested in researching this as well - i.e. actually checking the good sources, including what's there, removing what isn't - I am happy to work with you on that, and it'd be great if you did so. It seems like Oussedik's book is in my library system so I can check that, at least, which seems promising. "Working with" is hopefully somewhat more collaborative than "blanket revert", though. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no mention (in the above wall of text) of your baseless claim regarding the French Wikipedia. The fact that you made another really makes me wonder about your other claims.

I'm not interested in your essay about stubs as there is nothing in it that absolves you from complying with the [[[WP:VERIFY]] policy, just like everyone else (how long you've been around is irrelevant). You're obviously free to believe what you want, but as far as I'm concerned, it's your interpretation of the policies that is incorrect and not the other way round. Also, had you spent more time sourcing the content instead of edit warring over what's unsourced, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm not really sure why you're mentioning "borrowing the references", since you didn't; and despite what you keep claiming, the content that you added is unsourced. Anyway, as I have no interest in edit warring with you, I will leave it until I go through it (as promised). M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

What's my baseless claim regarding the French Wikipedia? I genuinely don't follow here. Do you mean my statement that the French Wikipedia article has more sources than the (old) English one? Because that seems true... the (old) English article had 4 in-line references, some of which were very weak (e.g. the random dead link to some course notes), while the French Wikipedia article had 20 in-line references. For the later diff of mine you linked (Special:Diff/1104164948), I was merely reflecting your second edit. I wrote the earlier bit off your first edit, so seems perfectly accurate based on that? What was the other baseless claim there?

I entirely agree that I'd rather be improving the article, but I also don't want to edit war, which is why I was explaining my edits in great detail in hope that you would agree that they were improvement. If your suggestion is that I ignore the talk page and just force my edits through with edit warring, I can do that, but I don't think it's good practice. Note that when you interrupted my second attempt with a revert, I'd literally written "part 1" in that edit, and was working on the "part 3" edit before I had to drop it and write the above wall-of-text. I would propose that we wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't just blanket reverted. All you had to do was ping me on the talk page and say "Hey, I don't like taking the French Wikipedia article at its word, I think it's unreliable despite having in-line references for the following reasons, and the following content is problematic." Which you still haven't done, mind you - specific complaints. I'd have been happy to take into account your feedback and our conversation would have been much friendlier.

As a side note, as part of Wikimania last weekend, there was an official Wikimedia Foundation sponsored edit-a-thon and, importantly, a translate-o-thon. Was chatting with some genuine newbies on how to take content into and out of Chinese Wikipedia on some topics. SnowFire (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think I partially understand the problem here based on your second comment. When you say "unsourced", I think you mean literally "there is a reference after that sentence, in this English edition." That is not what I mean when I say "unsourced." The difference is perhaps most obvious in articles with WP:GENREF general references - it's not the best practice, but it's better than nothing, and it's frequently seen in short, start class articles like this one. Content can be sourced, but not inline referenced. When I say the content was "sourced", I mean that the French Wikipedia had sources behind it, and the content was probably usable. Basically, imagine the perfect article on English Wikipedia - every sentence accurately sourced - gets translated to an obscure language, but the translator initially translates just the content, but not the references. That article is still using sourced content, regardless of when the references get ported over - whether text is reliable / correct is independent of whether it has a reference on it right now. The article should be referenced, too, but someone doing that translation of the perfect article should not just be insta-reverted because they didn't simultaneously do the references. (This case is admittedly not identical, because neither the French nor Italian articles are "perfect", but you get my stance, I hope.) SnowFire (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the claim that I mentioned in my first comment. For the second, instead of simply removing the statement that you made after noticing the mistake, you made it look as though I restored the ref after your comment.

If your suggestion is that I ignore the talk page and just force my edits through with edit warring, I can do that I don't really know what to make of this, given the fact that I stated the exact opposite.

Equally, all you have to do was to wait more than 24 hours (during a weekend), but we're passed that I guess.

I think it's unreliable despite having in-line references for the following reasons Why would I say that about content that has no inline references?

the translator initially translates just the content, but not the references Therein lies the problem. The translator does not translate the references, their job is either to find an English-language equivalents or to simply transfer them over with whatever translated content they're supposed to support. If they're not sure about them, they can always tag them and let someone else check them.

That article is still using sourced content, regardless of when the references get ported over For some of it perhaps, but how is someone reviewing the translated article supposed to know what is sourced and what isn't? Why not simply port the sources over at the same time as the content? It's not like it's a difficult task.

I don't know about you, but I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion now that the content has been left. As I stated previously, I will check the sources in the French article as soon as I have time. Hopefully, there won't be an issue, but if there, we'll talk about it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Anti-colonialism leader

She cannot be of a nationality or ethnicity created by the colonialism she fought, that's a nonsense and an anachronism. Sources highlight her fight against colonialism and her ethnicity, it would be wise to contextualize as for all historical facts. 2001:861:4342:86C0:25C5:F47A:4B08:5B89 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You are an obvious sock of "Noname_JR", a disruptive editor who has history of making claims such as yours. The last SPI is there to prove the link between your IP and the usual ethnic based nonsense that you tend to come up with. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)