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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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)

no, i exactly reverted you three times now including the revert i said in the previous reply, the policy states that I shouldn’t revert anyone MORE than three times, so i am safe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.200.136.31 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:156.200.136.31- Your rationale that "you are safe" is incorrect. Users have been blocked to prevent disruption BEFORE the WP:3RR bright line was reached. As you have stated here that you'll continue the disruptive editing, you indeed, risk a block. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

One more source

That's yet another irrelevant mention in passing (a concept that the IP doesn't seem to understand). I despair! M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

believe it or not, the “Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture.” Specializes in jewish history including north african jews, and “The Jews of North Africa: From Dido to De Gaulle” specializes specifically in north africa jewish history !, all these sources include the jewish berber tribes and figures, some other scholars have another view, it often occurs between scholars, it’s totally fine, both views are from reliable sources, and both should be introduced in the article per WP:NPOV.

Like I said, it's all about understanding a basic concept (something the IP seems to be having extreme difficulties with). M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And for last, here is an academic source citation

Either the IP is incapable of understanding a simple concept or they are pretending not to. I don't know which is worse. Please not that they are also needlessly tagging sourced content that they don't like. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Pinging the last editors who used this talk page. @AnonMoos, Mellohi!, Doug Weller, Paine Ellsworth, and Aloha27: As you can see above, I tried my best to explain to the IP that mentions in passing about her ethnicity cannot contradicts the sources that deal specifically with the subject. I cited the Berber Encyclopedia which explains in details where the Jewish myth comes from (there is also this source in English), but to no avail. When I asked them to provide sources that are focused on the topic of her ethnicity, they cited two that say the exact opposite of what they added to the article (when I pointed out that fact to them, they ignored it). I don't really know what else to say to them, especially given the fact that they are clearly gaming 3R. Your input on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the article in question to (IMO) the last version before the edit warring began AND RPP'd until such time as a consensus can be reached. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  20:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

to sum up the conversation. Mr M.Bitton see that “The Jews of North Africa: From Dido to De Gaulle” which specializes in north African jewish history and figures of north African jews that says The Kahina, a Jewish Berber Queen, was at the center of the final episode of this conquest, actually mean to say that she was not jewish and the source is in fact “saying the opposite”, and that “Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 2” is not actually a specialized source about north African jewish tribes and don’t know enough about north African jews and that the author of that reliable source believe in that “myth” as M.Bitton describe it, and that “Judaism: A Very Short Introduction” published by Oxford university press that have articles on each middle age jewish figure and has an entire article with the title of “kahina Dehya bint thabbit ibn Tifan” is just an “in passing” mention, and apparently, all these reliable sources and their authors believe in that so-called “myth” and only his source and only it’s point of view is the right one, i said it and i will say it again, all points of views should be covered in the article as stated in WP:NPOV, there is abundant amount of reliable sources including academic ones specialized in north African jewish history and jewish figures stating it, you can’t rule this point of view out and discard all these reliable sources because you don’t believe in it and prevent other people from writing more information about this point of view.

You're only summing up your own thoughts and attributing your nonsense to me. The sources that say the opposite of what you want to add to the article are the ones that are focused on the subject of her ethnicity. In any case, everything that has been said is written in black and white, I see no need to keep repeating it. I'm done here (unless pinged by someone other than the IP). M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Sorry to be late to the party, ping me again if needed and I'll try to respond faster. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Will do. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

stop lying

Kahina - Jewish (kohen, daughter of Toviahu daughter of Matityahu

There is not a single mention that she is a Christian.

Why are you lying? For what?

References

She wasn’t ruler of all of Maghreb

Tunisia and Libya were in the Caliphate’s hands. Frontofbattle (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you find reliable sources (about Kahina) that contradict the sourced content that you're removing. M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Language usage

There seems to be an issue that is also apparent on other pages, which I hope we can resolve effectively. This article is about a significant figure in Berber history and culture; however, the translation used relies on Arabic, a foreign language, specifically for Kahina. Additionally, there is no inclusion of any Berber languages, which would follow the LEADLANG guideline. TahaKahi (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in detail above on this page, her Berber name isn't known. Kahina is an Arabic title or job description (not really a name). AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"Also known as Dihya" which is her real name, which translates to "the beautiful gazelle", houldtfollow he WP:LEADLANG guideline. Additionally, Nahum Slouschz suggests that Al-Kahina may be derived from the Kohanim, a priestly Jewish family. This isn’t about determining which interpretation is more factual, but rather about applying the LEADLANG guideline, which should ideally be reflected in the page's side window. If Al-Kahina remains the primary name, the Arabic term should also be displayed in Arabic. TahaKahi (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, but I did some research and here are a few of my findings, which do seem to support that "Kahina" is a job title meaning "prophetess" and her given name was Dihya.

• [3] the Kahina, an Israelite also known as Dihya
• [4] Dihya ruled the Jerawa,
• [5] non-Muslim Dihya (also known as Kahina ) of Berber North Africa
• [6] Berbers did enlist in the Arab armies, but there was also enormous resis- tance during the rest of the seventh century, led by the Jewish queen Dihya Kahina who united Christians, pagans and Jews.
• [7] Dihya or al-Kahina (the prophetess),

Andre🚐 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2024

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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 20:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Kahina → Dihya al-Kahina – Based on my research in the above thread, I think Dihya al-Kahina is a more accurate and precise name, as Dihya appears to have been a Berber given name and Kahina is simply a title or honorific meaning "prophetess." Most sources use both names when referring to her. Andre🚐 09:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The name "Dihya" was rejected in the 4 July 2022 move request which you can read directly above on this page. Do we really have to go through all that again? AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed that request and it seems to largely hinge on the idea that there are more Google Scholar results for "Kahina" but I am offering a different argument. I am also offering a combined name which includes both names (though, again, Kahina seems to be more of a title or ceremonial or honorific appellation) Andre🚐 10:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. Her name is Dihya, while "Kahina" is a title referring to her reputation as a soothsayer. The title "Kahina" is of Arabic origin, and was assigned to her by Arabs, not universally by the Berbers. Dihya is a more historically accurate term, as "Al-Kahina" reflects an external perspective rather than her indigenous identity. Renaming the page to "Dihya al-Kahina" or "Dihya" would offer a fairer representation, as framing her real name as secondary ("also known as Dihya") might overlook important historical and cultural considerations. TahaKahi (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Dihya was invented by the Arabs centuries after her death (see my comment below). M.Bitton (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. For a question of neutrality (WP:NPOV), Kahena (=soothsayer) being the point of view of the Arab conqueror who lent her "magical powers". The article should even be called Dihya. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what NPOV stands for M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Dihya was born under this name, she will not be called Kahena by the Arab conqueror, it is a fact. You have the right to think that only the conqueror's point of view is important but it is not neutral nor WP:NPOV as long as secondary sources attest that her real name is Dihya. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

You have the right to think that only the conqueror's point of view is important That's not fair. I already explained, using a reliable source, that the name Dihya was invented (by an Arab as it happens) centuries after her death. M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Larousse : Dihya, dite al-Kahina [8]
• Bibliothèque nationale de France [9] : Dihya (06..?-0704? ; reine) forme internationale. Forme(s) rejetée(s) : < La Kahena (06..?-0704?) < La Kahina (06..?-0704?) < Kahena (06..?-0704?) < Kahina (06..?-0704?) < Dihia (06..?-0704?)

These two notices, the last of which from the National Library of France, clearly indicate that Kahena was rejected as a form.

Your argument on the posterity of the name is identical for Kahena because this Arabic name was given in written sources centuries later, according to the point of view of the winner who thought that the victories were due to magic... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This does not prove that the name was invented. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between some mentions in passing and the Kahina entry in the Berber encyclopedia. Anyway, none of this changes anything with regard to the WP:COMMONNAME (Kahina). M.Bitton (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The notice from the National Library of France [10] is authoritative for sources in French including the Berber encyclopedia which also has a Dihya co-entry: [11]. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The notice from the National Library of France is authoritative It's not, and besides, it's a simple entry that makes claims that have been dismissed by the scholars.

the Berber encyclopedia which also has a Dihya No, that's a redirect to their Kahina article, in which they dismiss Dihya as a baseless invention by Ibn Khaldun. M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

For example, [12] refers to Dihya al-Kahina Andre🚐 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should treat a passing mention in a source about "Arab American Artists" the same way as we treat the scholarly sources about the subject? Really? M.Bitton (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

What makes that not a scholarly source? It's written by Fayeq Oweis, professor of Arabic Language and Culture at Santa Clara University, who holds a PhD in interdisciplinary studies with focus on Arabic and Islamic arts, and was published by ABC-CLIO. The other 5 JStor links I also posted are published by reputable academic press. Andre🚐 23:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not about the subject and the author is not a historian. Of the ones that you cited only a single one is about the subject and lo and behold, it's named "The Story of the Kahina". M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the text and see the quoted portion? It used the name Dihya, and refers to "the" Kahina because it is a title. WP:TITLESINTITLES can be brought to bear here and is more WP:PRECISE to say "Dihya al-Kahina." Andre🚐 23:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

What source? The one about "Arab American Artists"? Seriously, why would you even pay attention to what they have to say when we have a solid source about the subject? M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the one source you didn't object to, "The Story of the Kahina," the Kahina, an Israelite also known as Dihya Andre🚐 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's an old source (the claim about her being Israelite is baseless), but what's important as far as this RM is concerned is that it's titled "The Story of the Kahina". M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My point is "the" Kahina. Are we ignoring the use of the article? That seems to indicate it is a title. Also, I don't see how 1997 is too old for something from antiquity. As far as the claim of her being an Israelite, it does not seem baseless, the sources are split on that. [13] also refers to her as Jewish. Andre🚐 00:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We're not ignoring anything: al Kahina is the name that was given to her. The Jewish claim is utterly baseless (I suggest you read the Encyclopedie Berbere as it goes into the details of the various claims, using primary and secondary sources). M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Monsieur PatilloBut we don't care about French sources, only English ones. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

1) I do not share your opinion on the sources in French.

2) for the sources in English :

• Victoria R. Williams, Indigenous Peoples: An Encyclopedia of Culture, History [...] Berber warrior princess known as Dihya (or Kahina), which were defending Numidia in 702, Dihya's followers became the first Berbers to embrace Islam. [14]
• Philip Naylor, Historical Dictionary of Algeria : AL-KAHINA ( DIHYA ) ( ? - ? 698 ) . Berber leader [...] [15]
• Mary Ellen Snodgrass, Women Warriors in History: 1,622 Biographies : Kahina Dihya of Numidia (also Damya, ?–705 ce) of the Zenata tribe battered the army and ego of Arab general[...] [16]
• Gérard Chaliand , A Global History of War: From Assyria to the Twenty-First, University California Press : led by the Berber heroine Dihya ( al - Kahina ) in the Aurès Mountains obliged the Arabs to bring in reinforcements [...] [17].

Regards Monsieur Patillo (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

1) They're entitled to their opinion, especially given that WP:COMMONNAME prioritizes using names that are most commonly used in English-language sources.

2) "Dihya" is far less common than "Kahina" in RS (see my comment below). Skitash (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Dihya was born under this name, she will not be called Kahena by the Arab conqueror, it is a fact" This sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The title of an article is determined by the WP:COMMONNAME, not by the supposed birth name. The rule states that Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)". "Kahina" (with 11,900 results on Google Scholar) is far more common in scholarly sources than "Dihya" (with 1,890 results). Google Trends indicates a similar pattern. Skitash (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

please do not give a personal character to the discussion.

@M.Bitton I remain aligned with that of the notice of the National Library of France. Sorry but you truncated the quote from my sentence where I spoke of entrance. I maintain, except that the correct term would be "vedette" (in french) or Lemma (morphology) ? in English. And Dihya is an encyclopedic entry/lemma to the article.

@SkitashThe search for occurrence does not allow to have a correct view of the notoriety of the appellations because it is distorted by fictitious or fictional works like [18] or [19]. You cannot mix academic and non-academic occurrences without discernment. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

"You cannot mix academic and non-academic occurrences without discernment" You cannot dismiss the 10,000-result difference between Kahina and Dihya on Google Scholar by attributing it to "fictional works" or whatever you're suggesting. Skitash (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Monsieur Patillo has a point though. The Google Scholar results are not all reliable. Andre🚐 21:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I remain aligned with that of the notice of the National Library of France you'll notice that the entry in that irrelevant French database is based on one unreliable source "La Kahena / M. Cherbi, T. Deslot ; dessins de T. Bellahcène, 2002" (named Kahina, not Dihya, and written by non specialists). M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

How about these [20][21] [22] [23] [24] Andre🚐 22:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The only one that seems to be about the subject is called "The Story of the Kahina". Am I missing something? M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

They're all about a broader subject relating to this. And all contain description which I quoted the text of in the preceding section. Andre🚐 22:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what that means, but one thing is certain, I see no reason to ignore the fact that a) Kahina is the common name and b) Dihya has been dismissed in the scholarly source (the Berber Encyclopedia) as an invention of Ibn Khaldun (centuries after her death). M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you not agree that "The Kahina" is a title? Andre🚐 22:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a name that was given to her. This has been discussed in the previous RM and is covered in the source that shared. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The BNF takes into account all the entries and rejects the term Kahina. The reasons are not explained but the notice is academic and not literary. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The irrelevant BNF is not a scholarly source. It's not even a reliable source as it cites what it's basing its small, unsigned and irrelevant entries on, which in this case, is a book named "Kahina" and written by non-specialists. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose Kahina is the WP:COMMONNAME (nothing has changed since the previous RM). The name Dihya was given to her by Ibn Khaldun centuries after her death (the invented Dihya name is covered and dismissed in the Encyclopédie berbère). M.Bitton (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I will notify the editors who participated in the previous RM. @Doug Weller, Walrasiad, AnonMoos, Rotideypoc41352, and Srnec: your input would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this notification a bit on the edge of WP:Canvassing ? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose per M.Bitton. We should use the WP:COMMONNAME. See the RM above. Skitash (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. I think it is a good idea to include both, the supposed royal name and the title given to her. Sources are often conflicting on both the origin and the name, since "kahina" is linked both to Arab enemies and to hypothetical Punic roots as noted in the sources. The proposal to include both names seems correct to me since both are used to refer to the same one.Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

We use commonly recognizable names, which in this instance is Kahina. M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the source survey should be run more exhaustively using reliable sources only for Common Names, not a Google search result which can be misleading. See also WP:TITLESINTITLES. Kahina is a title, so really the name should be used - but in this case I think Dihya al-Kahina forms an unambiguous name. Andre🚐 22:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Kahina is the common name and the one that is attested in the scholarly source that I cited and plenty of others that are specifically about the subject and not simply mentions in passing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention that the HCA (High Commission for Amazigh, Algeria) held a conference (2021) where a communication was presented under the title "Queen Dihya (Kahina): Symbol of Amazigh Resistance in North Africa" ​​by academic Karim Ouaras. [25] Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The HCA is a political and cultural association and Karim Ouaras is an sociolinguist, in other words, neither of them is in a position to contradict the historians, least of all with a title that contains a newly invented word (Amazigh). They want to rewrite history, good luck to them in their impossible mission. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

the hca is more of an institution and not an association. The book: Moh Cherbi, Thierry Deslot, La Kahena, reine des Berbères: Dihya, 2002 shows that both names can be used in a title as does the rename proposal. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a political and cultural association and the book (that isn't even written by historians) is named "La Kahena" for a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The HCA is an institution placed under the presidency of the republic and not an association (Le Haut Commissariat à l’Amazighité est une institution placée sous la tutelle de la Présidence de la République. [26]. If you truncate the title of the book (La Kahena, reine des Berbères: Dihya) it's complicated to have an objective basis for discussion... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a cultural association, but really, who cares? As you've been told countless times. we don't care about the French language when it comes to naming an article in English. We simply follow WP:COMMONNAME (Kahina). M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per sources. Panam2014 (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Lean oppose. It is certainly true that Kahina is not a name but a title or nickname. It appears in Ibn Abd al-Hakam, but the name Dihya only appears in Ibn Khaldun a long while later. The article should not present Dihya as her true and certain name, so I don't think the proposed move would be an improvement. Srnec (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Srnec The term Kahina is also an uncertain nickname given by the Arabs. the national library of France retains: dihya (see source above) and the American Historical Review podcast [27] made a podcast entitled "Dihya Al Kahina" which corresponds to the renaming proposal. Regards Monsieur Patillo (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  We can also cite the publications of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History:

  • Fromherz, A. (2018, March 28). The Making of the Maghrib: 600–1060 CE. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. Retrieved 15 Nov. 2024, from [28] : At the same time, there are monuments to his enemies, the Berbers Dihya (Kahina—the Berber Queen) and Kusayla, are still remembered as heroes by North African Muslims.
  • Ait Mous, F., Bendana, K., & Vince, N. (2020, April 30). Women in Northern African History. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. Retrieved 15 Nov. 2024, from [29] : For the period prior to the 20th century, the named women who have a place in the historical record are almost exclusively those from elite families, such as the Berber warrior queen Dihya (Kahina) who led resistance against the Muslim conquest of the Maghrib in the 7th century, the Queen of Tétouan Sayyida al-Hurra (1485–1561), or Lalla Fadma N'Soumer (1830–1863), who waged battle against the French army in the Algerian region of Kabylia.

  In comparison, doing searches for occurrences on Google is misleading because the number of “Kahena” novels deceives the search and gives false notoriety to the name in addition to not being neutral. even on the wp:ar we use the term which combines the two "الكاهنة ديهيا", "Al Kahena Dihya" ... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Like you've been told time and again, the scholarly sources athat are specifically about Kahina (the WP:COMMONNAME) are plentiful, so there really is no need to resort to mentions in passing to try to fit a square into a circle. M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  the national library of France that's just a small, unsigned and irrelevant entry in French database, based on a book named "Kahina" and written by non-specialists.

  the American Historical Review podcast that's just a lawyer talking about a subject that they clearly don't know much about (she can't even pronounce Numidia properly, she call it Numida). M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  that's just a small, unsigned and irrelevant entry in French database, based on a book named "Kahina" and written by non-specialists. you have not read or understood the notice in French, which indicates that Kahena is a rejected form (precisely taking into account novels and literary works). Regards Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't read the part about the small, unsigned and irrelevant French source that is based on a book called "Kahina". M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the English language article, WP:COMMONNAME applies. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  It is against WP:NPOV to take only the conqueror's point of view.

  The term Dihya is authoritative at the National Library of France, and used, or co-employed as suggested by the change of source in at least 4 academic sources in English. See my comments above. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's irrelevant to WP:COMMONNAME and factually incorrect. I suggest you read WP:NPOV before making such assertions about a policy. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton please I spoke with you above and I respect your opinion but I disagree with you. Can I address other contributors without being questioned everywhere? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're literally disagreeing with the WP:TITLE policy and the irrelevant policy that you cited. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  this opinion and accusation is yours alone. The aim of renaming is to respect the title convention, which is not currently the case. We are already exchanging above. I would like this indentation to be reserved for my exchanges with the contributor above (Doug Weller). thank you for your understanding. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Speaking of NPOV, you should probably read WP:POVNAMING, which states that the article title should use a name that's "widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English)... even though some could regard it as biased" (although your assertion that using Kahina violates NPOV is factually incorrect). Skitash (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Dihya being neutral and common (notice from the national library of France, Larousse encyclopedia, and multiple secondary sources in English) it is therefore ideal to be applied, with Kahnia.

  Please also read my request above and not turn the discussion into a forum. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  "Dihya being neutral" What exactly makes it more "neutral" than Kahina? Have you reviewed WP:POVNAMING yet?

  "and common" It's clearly not as common as Kahina, per my comment above. Skitash (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please reread my comment above. thank you. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't addressed any of my questions. Skitash (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  these questions have all been addressed above in the various indentations. I'm not going to repeat myself here and disrupt the discussion. thank you for respecting the interlocutors. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  "these questions have all been addressed above" No they haven't. Your claim that "Kahina" isn't neutral seems based on your personal opinion (I assume you still haven't read WP:POVNAMING). You also haven't clarified how "Dihya" is somehow the common name (despite my comment above). Skitash (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you have not consulted the sources whose authority notice I think this explains your opinion. you should reread WP:POVNAMING also. Thanks. Now I would really like to be able to discuss with the person who expressed an opinion and not repeat the same discussion with you as there was above. please respect WP:Civility Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  for the attention of Doug Weller I add the American Historical Review podcast [30], where the figure of Dihya is aptly named "Dihya Al Kahina" which goes in the direction of renaming the article with a reference in English. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that you're scrapping the barrel further cements what we've been telling you about the WP:COMMONAME (it takes seconds to find solid scholarly sources about Kahina. In fact, there are so many of them, we're not even bothering with citing them). BTW, I listened to that garbage, the "lawyer" calls Numidia... "Numida" (the hilarious sketch, with the middle eastern music background, starts from @10:00). M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  to also take a historiography in Algeria, the country of origin of the character I will cite this source which meets the criterion of notoriety (in this country also).

  Habib-Allah MANSOURI, Doctorant en Histoire Inspecteur de tamazight - Tizi-Ouzou La révolte berbère de 740 : une révolte contre la tyrannie, in Haut Comissariat à l'Amazighité, Maison de la culutre de Biskra, Acte du colloque Tigeldiwin Timazighin di tallit tineslemt : "Les Royaumes amazighes de la période musulmane", 2011, [31]

  Certes les chroniques arabes ont tendance à valoriser l‟action des Arabes au Maghreb jusqu‟à les doter d‟attributs surhumains. Mais ce qui attire notre attention est que ces mêmes chroniques lorsqu‟elles traitent des Berbères ou plus précisément de quelques-uns de leurs personnages les plus importants, à l‟instar de Kussayla et de Dihya-el-Kahina, rien de négatif n‟apparait dans leurs propos. [...] L‟image de Dihya-el-Kahina que les Arabes surnommèrent « Al-Kahina » (prêtresse ou prophétesse) est associée, à tort, à la destruction de l‟Ifriqya, c‟est-à-dire à sa politique de la terre brulée. Il est vrai qu‟il est difficile de vérifier la véracité de ces faits attribués à cette reine berbère, mais nous devons tout au moins relativiser l‟étendue et l‟importance de cette destruction. Les chroniques arabes nous rapportent cet épisode de la guerre de défense menée par les Berbères en nous informant sur les raisons qui ont poussé Dihya-el-Kahina d‟agir de la sorte. There are a total of 14 occurrences in the appellation document. I will not list them all. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's another irrelevant generic French source.

  How many times do we have to say that we follow the WP:COMMONNAME policy? M.Bitton (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't get why you're still citing passing mentions you found in a few non-English sources. What part of WP:COMMONNAME do you not understand? Skitash (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  please do not respond aggressively and keep Wp:Civility. The source in French explains very well what the scope of the different names is, which enriches the debate in English, to understand that Kahina alone is neither notorious (+ English sources to support it like Oxford), nor neutral on the historical meaning (which does not change between English and French). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I once again suggest you read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAMING. Your reasoning for changing the article's title goes against both of these guidelines. Skitash (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I maintain my reading of the conventions Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Block-evading sock of Potymkin

Strong support. The name of this historic character must be plainly mentioned as the title of her wikipedia page for sake of (WP:NPOV), one should not find "Honest abe" as the title for the page of Abraham Lincoln despite it being a common nickname for him in the same way Dihya should be referred to by her name and not by a common nickname, wikipedia strives to be neutral and verifiable and nicknames go directly against wikipedia policies of neutrality and verifiability. Amulthea (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC) — Amulthea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dihya should be referred to by her name and not by a common nickname in other words, you're suggesting we violate the WP:TITLE policy because you don't agree with it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There are other policy arguments to bear here. Number one is that it's not at all clear that "Kahina" is a common name in reliable sources referring to this person, as what we have supporting that is not a source survey, but simply a Google Scholar result which includes unrelated material or fiction or other things, and search engine tests have a number of limitations. Secondly, as a title, it's analogous to saying that "Queen" should be the the title of Elizabeth II, since she is generally referred to as "Queen Elizabeth." COMMONNAME is an important guideline, but in this case, we're not actually violating commonname because the proposed title is Dihya al-Kahina which actually still includes "Kahina," and any google result will also bring up the double usages. I think it's a reasonable compromise between the Berber and Arabic names and in keeping with the reliable academic sources provided. Reasonable people can disagree about wiggle room guidelines. WP:TITLESINTITLES is also a guideline, and in the example of "Queen Elizabeth" vs "Elizabeth II" you can see that there is a need to balance different guidelines. Andre🚐 23:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

it's not at all clear that "Kahina" is a common name I disagree. Its' perfectly clear to anyone who searches for the name.

simply a Google Scholar that's a baseless claim.

Secondly there is no second or third. We go with the common name.

How many articles about the subject (not just mentions in passing, generously assuming you find any) have the name that you're proposing? M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I gave several already. A mention in a reliable work about an overarching subject that encompasses this person, since she is relatively historically obscure, could also be valid to determine the common name. For example, [32] Berber heroine Dihya (al-Kahina), [33] non-Muslim Dihya (also known as Kahina), Andre🚐 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Those are mentions in passing (that don't even support the title what you're proposing). Why should we pay attention to them when we have articles that are dedicated to the subject? M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

COMMONNAME only wants to be determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. It doesn't say anything about a source being dedicated to the subject. Andre🚐 00:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that mentions in passing are more reliable than the sources that are dedicated to the subject? M.Bitton (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I never suggested anything like that. I simply said that we should do a survey of all independent reliable sources, not rely on a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I've given a number of sources that you've dismissed for not being dedicated to the subject, but Encyclopedia berbere isn't dedicated either. A source is reliable and usable for commonname even despite being much broader than the subject. Andre🚐 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedia berbere isn't dedicated either It is.

The key word is reliable. That means, the sources that are dedicated to the subject and not just some irrelevant mentions in passing. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not in any guideline that I know of. A Global History of War: From Assyria to the Twenty-First Century is reliable. Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History, 661–1257. They're about much bigger topics than this person but that doesn't render them unreliable. Andre🚐 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSCONTEXT. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no context because there's no text? And how do you figure that an encyclopedia about all Berber topics is dedicated to this person? Andre🚐 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia (like Wikipedia) and it's the article that is dedicated to the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the entire work is the source. An article in a larger encyclopedia is comparable to a mention in another larger work. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable 1. may not be, 2. the principal topics of the 2 sources given - a history of war, a history of queens in Islamic history - are obviously both related to this person. Andre🚐 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you honestly suggesting that a dedicated article about a subject in an encyclopedia (such as Britannica) is comparable to some irrelevant mention in passing in some source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, an encyclopedia article is a WP:TERTIARY source and less reliable than a reliable scholarly secondary source. Not that it matters because my contention isn't about reliability. They're all reliable enough. I'm talking about naming conventions for the article. My contention is that these are relevant mentions in reliable sources and should be considered for commonness of names as well as whether the name follows the naming conventions. Andre🚐 00:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Tertiary sources establish DUE, not that it matters in this case since there isn't a single secondary RS that supports the title that you're suggesting. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I already gave several. here's another 2. [34] [35] Andre🚐 00:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You keep citing mentions in passing. The only source (dedicated to the subject) that you cited supports the common name Kahina. 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said, nothing in any guideline would make these mentions not count for commonname purposes. That's just a spurious application of non-guideline. And that other source does include Dihya as well, supporting the both names argument. Kahina appears to be an appellation or title, that article uses "the Kahina." Andre🚐 00:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Back to square one: see the comment above starting with "The key word is reliable". M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

related to the principal topics of the publication Andre🚐 01:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The IdRef notice [36] also gives the name Dihya. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Walrasiad (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2024 (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.

Wikiproject Morrocco

@M.Bitton and Monsieur Patillo: She ruled only Ifriqiya. So why WikiProject Morocco is tagged here? Panam2014 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

no idea, from what I know she was queen in the Aures. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Monsieur Patillo: so we should remove Morrocco (we have not added Tunisia nor Libya). And in the main article, she is not categorized as part of history of Morrocco. Panam2014 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It is likely due to its origins, which some sources trace to Mauritania, and the frequent tendency to associate anything related to Mauritania with Morocco. Beyond this, I am not sure of the exact reason. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done I also removed middle eastern and added Tunisia (Libya seems like a stretch). M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)