Talk:Kahina

Content removed

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)

Requested move 4 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. As most common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Dihya → Kahina - it appears that this is the most common name used in reliable sources, eg Google scholar where I see "About 181 results" for the current name, about 133 for Al-Kahina and to my surprise,about 613 for Kahina - Kahina or Al-Kahina is also the most certain name we seem to have. Redirects of course for the rest where reasonable. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support "Kahina", "Kahena" or "al-Kahina" is how she's described in the overwhelming majority of RS. M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support "Kahina" is certainly the better known name. Walrasiad (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Some people don't like "(al-)Kahina" because it's a generic Arabic (not Berber) word meaning "the seeress" or "the priestess". AnonMoos (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@AnonMoos but that's not a reason not to follow our guidelines. Doug Weller talk 20:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If we start removing everything that some people don't like, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia left. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have the slightest curiosity as to why this article was renamed to "Dihya" in the first place, then that's the reason. If you don't give a damn, then I guess that's OK too... AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@AnonMoos besides the evident lack of good faith, you seem to be wrong about this article being renamed. This article was created with the name it has now and I see no evidence that it was ever renamed. So what are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 05:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know what "bad faith" is involved in telling people why the article has the current name that it does, and if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kahina&action=history it says the page was moved in 2016... AnonMoos (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@AnonMoos at the very least you weren't being civil. And you are wrong. See Emerarudo (talk · contribs)'s contributions. On May 30 2016 " N Kahina Emerarudo moved page Kahina to Dihya (Berber Queen)". N means new. There never was an article called Kahina, it's just a redirect. I'm still not clear what "reason" you are referring to and where you found it. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't the N for new means the redirect was created at the old title, and the old article's history was moved to the new title? If you click on the "current log" and "target log" in the lower right of the RM box, you can see the move log. After the unexplained 30 May 2016 move from Kahina, the page was moved from Dihya (Berber Queen) to Dihya as a technical request (likely as unneeded disambiguation). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 But Kahina has no history before its creation as a redirect. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't particularly understand why merely explaining why the article has the name that it currently does stirred up so much antagonism. Did I say anywhere above that I oppose an article rename? No, I did not. But some people still felt it necessary to jump on my case... And it's not worth my while to try to trace back a tangled web of redirects, renames, and possible transfers of other kinds, even if I were fully technically competent to do so, but I definitely remember when this article had another name. I don't know whether the Wikimedia software would consider the article then the "same" article as the article now according to "curid", and I don't much care. AnonMoos (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It honestly saddens me to see Wikipedia's guidelines stand against the native name. THEY-DID-WRITE-LONG-VOWELS (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@THEY-DID-WRITE-LONG-VOWELS what native name? This source [1] says "In fact El Kahina has no name except the signifier of her gift of seeing into the future. There is no agreement on her real name or age. Her ethnic origins are equally contested. The North African historian Ibn Khaldun claimed her tribe had converted to Judaism. Some contemporary authors tried to prove her Jewish origins, just as others asserted her Graeco-Latin or Christian roots. Her geographical origins place her astride a divided space, Algeria and Tunisia. Claimed by three religions, remaining nameless..." Doug Weller talk 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of what Ibn Khaldun claimed about h has been discredited by modern scholars, including her religion, age and name (Dihya) that nobody used before him (centuries after her death). This is all covered in the Encyclopédie berbère (in French, but easily translated). M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Resubstituted {{subst:requested move}} to fix malformed request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

(moved comment down for better threading with subsequent replies) Because that history was moved to Dihya (Berber Queen) and eventually to Dihya. That's how moves work. Please feel free to see for yourself: look at the page history of User:Rotideypoc41352/To-do, move the subpage to User:Rotideypoc41342/To-do pile, and then compare the histories at both titles again. (Apologies to move closer, but I hope you agree the more who understand how a move works, the better.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 I'll admit to confusion. I can't see anything relevant in the history of User:Rotideypoc41352/To-do. I'd love to understand this but what I can't understand is why the history doesn't show up in the current article or the article's move log. I'd love to be able to trace it. It doesn't seem right that this should be so opaque to someone who doesn't do many moves. Thanks for your help. And I still don't see the reason mentioned above. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The only reason that was given is "some don't like it" (which obviously isn't a valid one). If some editors think that there are other reasons we should consider, then now is the perfect time to voice them. M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 thanks, but I can't see the logic here, does it need to be so opaque? I guess the method can't be changed. Doug Weller talk 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It's for attribution. That means that all the text, no matter how the article title changes, has the corresponding history synced to it. Probably what would be better is a better move history UI (or one that is a commonly used userscript or easy-to-find toggle on the preferences or beta tabs). It really shouldn't take two or three tabs, each open to the Special:Log/move, to trace relatively simple move history, and we really can't count on people manually filling in {{old moves}}. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352 I agree with all of that. We need to have a transparent way of tracking such moves. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

To return to the topic at hand: AnonMoos, please feel free to correct me, but I understood your comment to mean: you may or may not agree, but you surmise that perhaps Emerarudo and those who agreed with them feel that the primary topic of Kahina is ambiguous, given it is also a common noun in Arabic meaning priestess or seeress, hence the move in 2016. You presented the information in the hopes that it would be helpful, but if the RM closer feel it is irrelevant or no longer holds up to more recent article title policy, that is no skin off your shoulders. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't opposing an article move, but just explaining why some people hate "(al-)Kahina", which is also the reason why the article has the name that it currently does -- the fact that "(al-)Kahina" is not particularly a name, but is merely a generic title or description in the language of her enemies... AnonMoos (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@AnonMoos thanks for making this clear. But it still isn't a valid argument against not using what reliable sources use. That it's a title/description should be made clear, as should the uncertainty about her name, and maybe if it can be shown to be accurate who called her that. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep responding to me as if I had opposed an article rename, when I DID NOT OPPOSE AN ARTICLE RENAME???? Why, why, why, why???? It's clear that no matter how many times I explain myself, it won't do any good, because you seem to have a mental block on this point... AnonMoos (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@AnonMoos Not a mental block, but carelessness in reading a response of yours, for which I apologise. Thanks for clarifying this again. Of course, you could have just asked me if I'd read that response carefully, that would have been nice. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per the Encyclopédie berbère. Srnec (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

Historical Dictionary of Women in the Middle East and North Africa [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Eloquence_of_Silence/MjZlDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Damya+berber&pg=PT40&printsec=frontcover The Eloquence of Silence Algerian Women in Question] Al-Kahina: The Last Ally of the Roman-Byzantines in the Maghreb Against the Muslim Arab Conquest? (I have this)[2] Also Norman Roth, “The Kahina: Legendary Material in the Accounts of the ‛Jewish Berber Queen’,” The Maghreb Review, vol. 7, no. 5-6 (September – December 1982): 122-125 which can be downloaded. I note Roth says "The title ‘Kahina’ apparently does not mean ‘priestess’ (even Slouschz says that she did not offer sacrifices), but rather a sort, of diviner'ess, which- function was often performed among the Berbers as we known from Ibn Khaldun and from the contemporary- testimoriey of Procopius of Caesaria, a sixth-century Byzantine historian.13 Other women'‘diviners” whd Were also military leaders include A‘isha, wife of the Prophet,. and in more contemporary times one Saiadya bint al-Hkrith ibn Suaid (632)." Doug Weller talk 09:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Kahina in Berber letters

We should add her Name in tifinagh 46.114.111.204 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You could if you want, but "Kahina" is an Arabic word (not Berber), and isn't even really a name -- it's a description of what she did, or an occupational title... AnonMoos (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Why should we turn a blind eye to the obvious original research and anachronism? 1) "Al Kahina" is an Arabic nickname that was given to her by the Arabs. 2) Dihya was invented (centuries after her death) by Ibn Khaldun and written in Arabic ever since. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The myth

The article about her in the Berber encyclopedia explains properly where the Jewish myth comes from (using a multitude of sources), so there is no reason to give credibility to someone who is perpetuating the myth without explaining why or how they got to that conclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but you can’t ignore other academics and reputable reliable sources, as you see we are already showing all the reliable sources we have in the article, both points of views should be covered in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.200.136.31 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We can and we should present as a myth what has been debunked by secondary RS and published in a specialized tertiary source with a proper explanation that anyone can understand. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to seek consensus for the inclusion of the irrelevant content (what someone thought in 1933) and the baseless WP:OR that you injected into it (such as Many modern scholars accept that), but you have to stop edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

to say “debunked” you must provide an academic source saying it, the “encyclopedia of berbere” is not more reliable than the academics cited or a book specialized in history of jews in north africa “The Jews of North Africa: From Dido to De Gaulle” published by a university press of america — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.200.136.31 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I already have (the Berber encyclopedia, the list of scholarly sources cited within it and the proper explanation that goes with it). M.Bitton (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I already have (the Berber encyclopedia, the list of scholarly sources cited, and i too have cited academics and other reliable sources per WP:RS, there is no scholarly agreement about the subject, that means both points of views should be provided in the article as per WP:NPOV

Both points of view are already provided, as well as who started the myth. M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

you can’t call it “point of view” then after it say “myth” and prevent me from adding more information about this point of view because you simply don’t like or believe in it

It's a baseless point of view of those who have been proven wrong by the proper translation of Ibn Khaldun's work. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

you mean that these academics and other reliable sources per WP:RS are baseless and that we shouldn’t follow WP:NPOV because you personally believe in one point of view from them and believe one source over all other reliable sources provided so we should represent the other points of views that you don’t personally believe as myth and don’t add more information and evidence about it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.200.136.31 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What other sources are properly explaining how they reached the conclusion that she was Jewish? M.Bitton (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

the two cited sources , anyone of them would be sufficient

The two sources prove the exact opposite of what you're saying. M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

really ?, so when the source[2] say: The Kahina, a Jewish Berber Queen, was at the center of the final episode of this conquest, it actually means that she was non-jew, i wonder how did you interpret it or reach this fascinating conclusion ?

I tell you what's really fascination: first you cite two sources (Hirschberg and Talbi) that prove the exact opposite of what you're claiming and then you go on about a source that bases its passing claim on Ibn Khaldun (whose work has been misinterpreted, as explained in the encyclopedia and one of the sources that you cited). I tried my best to explain to you, but if you still disagree, you're more than welcome to seek consensus for the inclusion of the debunked material. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah we are done here, i will revert to my contribution since you are clearly violating WP:NPOV policy, i will add an extra reliable source in addition to the current existing reliable sources just to satisfy you, i still have one revert left as per the three reverts policy

I take that response as a promise to willingly violate the WP:3R policy. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

References