This template is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria
This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Unjustified edits
I reverted some edits on the template [1] for multiple reasons:
- It is abnormal that the image of a "History of ~" template is the badge of the army ;
- The use of some words like "colonisation" to refer to the period when Algeria was a French department is clearly POV ;
- The Wattasids never ruled Algeria Omar-Toons (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice to use the official "coat of arms" or Emblem_of_Algeria as the picture in any "History of ~" template. It is a well established consensus in wikipedia and not intended as a political statement, so I have changed it to that. BTW "coat of arms" does not quite just mean "badge of the army" አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this was discussed before, and it stayed unchanged until you decided you don't like it. this template is different from other african ones. it gives links to more than 50 articles about tens of thousands of years of history. The COA is Algeria's and Algeria is 50 yo. and thus concerns just the last section of the template. cheers Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/21:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this discussed before? If a true consensus has been reached before, I will leave it alone. However, Wikipedia establishes standards like this so there is some consistency across the whole site. This template is not different from other country's "History of" templates, it is simply better developed and more detailed than others in Africa. The idea behind these boxes is not to detail the history of just the current country but to trace it all the way back through history to the beginning. Here are some examples for you: Template:History_of_France,Template:History_of_Germany, Template:History_of_Nepal, Template:History_of_Mexico. If you are telling me that this template has expanded beyond the History of Algeria, then split it and call it some thing else so a separate infobox for the History of Algeria article can be established. (Remember: Assume good faith) አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Template:History_of_Germany uses Heinrich VI COA, not Germany's. I don't recall where it was discussed, but i assure you it was. But whatever, i don't really care about the picture. Therefore thanks for your interest, and I hope your contribution will be more constructive. There is a lot of African nations with no History infobox. Cheers; Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/23:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Phoenicia(n) rule is a major component of Algerian history"
Hello @Skitash
This seems to be in the register of opinion. It is not a question of major or minor, but of listing correctly categorized articles related to the History of Algeria. Phoenicia (Lebanon) is not related/categorized to algerian history, phoenicien settlements in North Africa can be.
The paradox is also to suppress Getulia, which is categorized and related to the history of Algeria (current Sahrarien Atlas and Algerian Sahara).
Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Phoenicia (Lebanon) is not related/categorized to algerian history" The Phoenicians ruled the western Maghreb for several centuries and established over 300 colonies there.
"The paradox is also to suppress Getulia, which is categorized and related to the history of Algeria" We only include major entities in Algerian history (and not random tribes), just as we don't include groups such as Jarawa or Banu Sulaym in the template. Skitash (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it seems that the figure of 300 colonies is not written in the source, so it is a diversion. but it does not matter because basically a colony = settlement. the article of the Phoenician settlement may be sufficient. it is not marked "ruled the western Maghreb" but specialists agree in speaking of a coastal presence limited to trading posts.
Gétulie is a territorial entity, and not a simple tribe. There is no "Soleimanie" or "Djerawie". For the notoriety of Gétulie, let us note that it has a dedicated article on Britanica (which is a fact independent of my appreciation or yours) or Encylopédie Berbère [2].
The paradox is to artificially maintain a few counters (with analyses WP:OR) and to exclude the Getulia of several thousand square kilometers which has dedicated articles in secondary and tertiary sources. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for any useful purpose I am posting here a map (Berber encyclopedia) where (the immense) Gétulie appears: [3]. Which allows us to realize the geographical importance of this entity, compared to a few Phoenician trading posts spread across all of North Africa and not just present-day Algeria. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems that the figure of 300 colonies is not written in the source, so it is a diversion" Before making such false claims, perhaps you should try rereading the source. It clearly states "According to Strabo, there were no fewer than 300 Phoenician colonies founded in the western Maghreb".
the parameters of the pages that can be viewed change depending on the location, that's why I spoke in the conditional. What does he say next? are these installations permanent? did they "rule" North Africa? ...
So we are talking about the settlements and not about Phoenicia itself...
Britanica «Gaetulia, ancient district of interior North Africa that in Roman times» [4] inhabited by a tribe of the same name. There was never a district/territory called "The Djerawie" or "The Sulaymi".
A Dictionary of the Roman Empire - Page 166 : « GAETULIA Region in AFRICA , just south of Mauretania and Numidia » [5]
It will be necessary to explain why ancient Lebanon (Phoenicia) is integrated into the template of the History of Algeria (while it has no category related to Algeria) and why Gaetulia whose territory is located (at least in large part) in Algeria not? and this while the article Gaetulia is categorized Algeria... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It will be necessary to explain why ancient Lebanon (Phoenicia) is integrated into the template of the History of Algeria" The Phoenicians existed in more places than just modern-day Lebanon (such as the western Maghreb, where they settled and established at least 300 colonies).
"why Gaetulia whose territory is located (at least in large part) in Algeria not?" I repeat: What exactly makes Gaetulia deserving of inclusion while Jarawa and Banu Sulaym (who also had territory located in Algeria) are excluded? Skitash (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments raised are incoherent (still no territory or district called "Souleimania" or "Djerawie", unlike Gaetulia documented by abundant primary, secondary and tertiary sources). No reason to include ancient Lebanon (Phoenicia) when there is a dedicated article on the settlements of the Phoenicians in North Africa. As the discussion is not progressing, I call for mediation.
"still no territory or district called "Souleimania" or "Djerawie"" This argument makes no sense at all. Gaetulia was the Roman name for an area inhabited by a nomadic tribe of the same name. If your criterion for inclusion in this template is having a region named after you, then by that logic, shouldn't Ouled Naïl be included here given that they're also a tribe who have a region (Ouled Naïl Range) named after them?
Thank you for requesting for a third opinion, I hope I can be helpful. It's my opinion that this revision represents the best compromise between the two positions. Linking straight to Phoenicia seems odd geographically, since the geographic center of that article is out of scope, but Phoenician settlement of North Africa seems to address the events in a time period relevant to the history of Algeria. I don't have a strong opinion on whether it is appropriate to include Gaetulia or not, but none of the other links in the same section are links to tribe/people groups, but rather to historical periods, or in a few cases locations. It seems like, as currently developed, the Gaetuli would stand out in the list, but if the template were adjusted to include sub-lists for peoples, locations, etc, rather than being primarily focused on chronology, they'd fit better.
Also, History of Algeria looks like it could use some work, so that really should come first, since otherwise this template can't be shown to be based on reliable sources, and becomes unencyclopedic by default, with only opinion driving the inclusion of links. WP:SIDEBAR makes clear that navboxes/sidebars should follow the content of the main article, rather that driving themselves, so I think further developing that article and exploring the consensus built up there would help clarify this and future issues. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs)20:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thank you very much for giving your opinion.
![[3]](https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/docannexe/image/1520/img-2.png){kind=link}