Talk:Kahina

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Content removed 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Invalid citations

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ibn Khaldun 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TAG BOMBING 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Byzantine Sources 

message: :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)
replies: text: Dihya →  - 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @AnonMoos at the very least you weren't being civil. And you are wrong. See '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @Rotideypoc41352 But Kahina has no history before its creation as a redirect. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: @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)
replies: text: @THEY-DID-WRITE-LONG-VOWELS what native name? This source  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)

text: 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)

text: Resubstituted  to fix malformed request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

text: @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)
replies: text:  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)

text: @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)
replies: text: 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 . Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: To return to the topic at hand: , 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 July 2022 

message: 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) 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Kahina in Berber letters