User talk:Bouha

Welcome!

Hello, Bouha, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —Khoikhoi 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Tunisian identity) imported from user page

sorry, last comment! I don't want to upset you in any way, but that statement seems to be absurd and for a fact inaccurate. I am going to try to get more people involved, particularly journalists and such from Tunisia. Please let me know what you think =) thanks

Okay, I just read that article that makes that sweeping statement and I would like to delete it. Let me point something out to you: 1) that statement, which you may yourself know is inaccurate and also by logic an impossibility, contradicts a second source cited int he article, from the CIA , which i think is more reliable than a study funded by al hariri, a leb, lebs who are notorious for wanting to erase their Arab identity. Are you from Tunisia? If so, you cant possible believe that 98 % are berber, as you very well know they are distinct and an obvious group that is for the most part sadly ostracized. Also, the article is contradictory as it contradicts the actual numbers of berbers in tunisia, 130,000 in a country of 9 million. You cannot possibly tell me that a study of a certain number of people, probably of very humble origins, and hence berber, can be applied to such a diverse and large country?! I think it would be more accurate to use scientific and REPUTABLE sources and that is what I am going to do. Also, no mention is made of the Viking conquerors, and again, I notice a propagandist and non-neutral tone with regard to these articles, mainly written by non-natives, who are eccentric to say the least and down right idiotic. Please let me know what you think.. Mariam83 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bouha, I just read the article from the national geographic and no mention is made of the subjects. No numbers are made available, no mention of regional samples, nothing. It is therefore not a source that can be used, I would also like to know who it is that dared to write such a sweeping statement, based on that nothigness? I am going to have to delete this source and add a more realiable, reputable scientific source. That statement must be deleted as it is antithetical to the 5 wikipedian pillars, namely, it is not "written from a neutral point of view and must include only verifiable information, with no original research." This is to me original research without evidence. It provides no evidence, hence it is not VERIFIABLE, hence unusable! Also, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles and policies must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research." It will therefore have to be replaced with the source I provided on the original page. Please let me know what you think, thank you =)(i am going to rewrite this on the talk page of that page as I am too lazy to rewrite anything lol) it will be my FIRST edit on the tunisian demog page.

Dear Bouha, the article from the national geographic is based on a sampling of 100 or so subjects from the mauritanian, southern moroccan region, not from tunisia or algeria or Libya and as you may know, the region is enormous, more than twice as large as Europe. Thanks for the info, I didnt know about the rules but the berber article is highly inaccurate for the reason i just mentioned. The Kabyle of algeria have nothing in common with the so called berbers of mauritania, a sub-saharan african country. I added the language information and i think it is okay to leave it there. It is important to point these complexities out =) also, I'm not quite sure what you are saying about identity and genetics, but until a study is done on TUNISIAN people, then we cannot use results of mauritanians, who do not in any way resemble tunsiians, and apply them to Tunsiians. I hope you understand that wikipedia's five pillars aim for encyclopedic accuracy and if we were writing about Germany we would not use a study from Greece =) thanks, hope to hear from you on his!Mariam83 12:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to contact you? but the sources again that are being used for Tunisia in fact have no link to Tunisia! please research the source yourself, read in entirely and you will find that no Tunisia or even Algerian subjects were used, even though even if 100 people from the south of Algeria were used, which they were not, that would still not convince me at all =) as i am familiar with my country and the neighboring country and have seen the people and interacted with them and heard about their stories and i know and can see that it is not accurate =) also, i think you are yourself tunsiya? khatir ismak..ow na3rfu illi el mauritaniyeen mush 3arab ow mush kifna =) i hope you look into this and inform your fellow admins or whoever keeps deleting accurate information. Thanks. Mariam83 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns

Hello Bouha, Again, I don't know where you're from, but if you are Tunisian, then you should be familiar with the Viking influence that ought to be acknowledged. If you are at all familiar with Tunisia and Algeria, you should know that there is even a British or Irish influence, as there are, till this very day, families in Algeria and Tunisia with British surnames, such as O'Hara, who have retained their physical characteristics. These facts are no where mentioned in these articles and I have not yet the patience to include them, but I am simply pointing out to you that we should not ignore sundry elements because the "internet" does not directly lead you to them. After all, the region is for the most part Francophone. If you were familiar with our fishermen for instance, you would not have so lightheartedly deleted that. If the Vikings explored the region, it is worth mentioning.As you may be aware, many Germanic trives have also explored and settled in the region :-) I noticed also the pedantic responses of certain contributors..it is true that I am in no way aiming at a coherent exchange, as I do not yet regard this project with much esteem. It just seems to be such an easy target. I am concerned about the deliberate way in which the region's undeniable Arab identity is being denied and overlooked. Again, if you were even to have a cursory look at the region and its people, you would instantaneously understand my frustrations with these seemingly partial and propagandistic contributors. My sole concern is that familiarity guide attempts at covering the region. Sadly, this does not seem to be the case as of now, but hopefully with time, that changes. Thanks and I will get the sources needed and invest time in research. I will also try my best to familiarize myself with all the rules and by the way,I had no idea I was waging an edit war. In fact, I was not even aware that we could revert etc..laughable perhaps but surely acceptable from a newcomer. Mariam83 07:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

please explain what you mean by POV? and that material was removed, however, explain to me why you insist on the use of a map that does not show the Maghreb but rather a new north africa that includes two sub-saharan countries? the maghreb means and has meant historically the three countries listed as well as Spain. Are you deliberately trying to distort facts? Mariam83 10:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet

I believe one has to add the link into the main page. Not sure to be frank. collounsbury 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia Demographics

Bouha, I read the new version. While it is quite an improvement, there are still major flaws. Let me begin with the most obvious.

1) You misinterpet this--> "and/or the limited sub-Saharan genetic influence in this region as compared with other North Africa areas" to mean Sub-saharan. In discussing Tunisian demographics, which this article blurs to mean origins, there is no point in discussing the origins of non-Tunisian sub-saharan Africans that were brough to tunisia, as they were brought to other "Arab" countries, during the slave trade. That would be like mentioning the sub-saharan influence in discussing Italians or the French as large populations of blacks exist in those countries. I don't see other countries mentioning this, as this would belong under immigrantion etc.

2)You still prioritize one article that is not annotated and rather unscietific in nature, as it more resembles a tv series piece, to other annotated scientific articles. This is problematic, as in including this ONE article, in order to present an objective and neutral explanation, we would have to present all the other articles. It is therefore best not to present any at all, and not to "subtly" influence the reader in presenting one particular article or in prioritizing one article.

Also, the section itself is rather muddled. You are including far too many nuances and not focusing solely on Tunisian identity. This I suppose arises from the laxness with which articles pertaining to this "region" though I wouldnt even call it that anymore as its lines and definitons are being blurred and additions being made rather carelessly, have been written. This is one of my main concerns about the Berber article, which includes under Berber all sorts of diff people that do not for a second consider themselves berbers. If you are familiar with the region, you should know that the Kabyles would not in anyway associate themselves with Berbers in morocco or the new addition to the Arab world, mauritania, much less to sub-saharan african groups. The denial of the regions vastness and complexity is seriously prolematic and sad. It is an insult to the region in that it belittles it and simplifies it. Furthermore, I am seriously offended by the attitude certain contributors have, particularly considering how little they know about the region and the obvious fact that they have never even been to the region. Again, being familiar with a country like Morocco does NOT familiarize one with a separate distant country like Tunisia or Libya or even Algeria, as Algeria itself is larger than 4 or 5 European countries combined. I think we should respect Tunisians, including the so called Berbers of Tunisia, and simplify the section. Another problem is the Berber word of Tunisia. As you may know, Tunisia does not recognize Berber as a language nor does it use the Berber language officially. It is therefore wrong and inaccurate to attribute to it a Berber name. In fact, the so called Berbers of Tunisia do not speak Berber, but Arabic, or Tunisian Arabic. Mariam83 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no point in mentioning that the Jewish community is small or much reduced as in fact it is thriving. I feel that this belittles the Tunisian Jewish community that is in many ways indigenous and veritably Tunisian. The article in many ways doesn't pay tribute to this community, which is one of the oldest and most important communities in Tunisia. It is one that has existed from the beginning of time, it is in that sense veritably Tunisian.

The "Berbers" in Tunisia do not speak "Berber" but Tunisian Arabic. The article on wikipedia that claims this does not cite sources, unsurprisingly. Mariam83 17:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best to remove all studies as there are tons. I read the article about Egypt and noticed how simple their section is despite the diversity in Egypt. I think we should do the same with Tunisia, respect Tunisians who claim they are Tunisians while sourcing reliable sources like the CIA. As far as I know, the Berbers in Tunisia speak Tunisians and not Shelba? which lacks a source even on the Shelba?! page. Much like the Jews and Arabs and turks etc. in Tunisia, they speak just plain tunisian. In the south they speak a more classic Tunisian actually, with more fos7a Arabic. There is no point in adding article as we could add hundreds. Considering the various diff origins, it will only lead to confusion to non-natives. Let them visit the country and notice how very uniquely Tunisian all these groups are. There are no movements in Tunisia , no berber movements, no arab movements, no turkish or Phoenician movements, they just consider themselves Tunisians!I also think it is demeaning to CLAIM that they dont know their origins or deny them, as the berber article claims. Also, the paragraph as it was contradicted the numbers and the CIA source. Identify means what exactly? I dont see any other Arabic countries delving sooo deeply into such complicated matters. Mariam83 18:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion warning

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Tunisia, you will be blocked from editing. The particular issue here is deleting paragraphs which have sources, but whose findings you do not like. Do not do this again without the agreement of other editors, me, an editor, and do not for a moment assume that you are the sole editor! What is more, do not misinterpret sources to portray an image that suits your POV, in this case, an afrocentrist mythological vision of North Africa and in particular Tunisia. Mariam83 14:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bouha, wikipedia is a FREE encyclopedia that anyone may edit. Having editied wikipedia does not give you the right to retain a monopoly over its misleading content which you choose to distort to suit your afrocentrist mythological vision! Should you decide to edit the article as though it were your own, you will be blocked! What is more, many other people are going to get involved in this, you will be waging a losing battle! I urge you to open your mind and learn more about the country your misinformation is misrepresenting! Again, wikipedia is not wikibouhidia! You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGH TO REVERT CEASELESSLY! As for changing content that is VERY POORLY WRITTEN, I have every right and I left numerous messages on this talkpage! Reminder:

Wikipedia is a "wiki", which means that everyone can edit pages. You don't need to apply or get special permission to join us. At the top of each page is an "edit" label. Try it for example at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox>

You don't even need to log in to edit, although creating an account gives you more options and helps you keep track of your contributions. You can create an account at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup>

Respect the rules and do not abuse your rights! Mariam83 14:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rather amusing 'warning' from User:Mariam83 who has recently been blocked for WP:3RR, harrassing other editors. Doesn't know how to use warnings, just copied the one I put on his page for deleting sourced paragraphs. I replaced content, not deleted. I believe this might be in response. Still, I enjoy it so much I won't delete as Mariam83 does. Bouha 14:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sub-saharan africa

Bouha, the "formidable" barrier version is not one that I wrote, I however, in view of the formidable barrier that is the Sahara, reverted it to that version. If you do some veritable research, you will find that the Sahara has been referred to as a formidable barrier indeed, in fact, considered by many a greater natural barrier than what separates continents. Your failure arises from your lack of knowledge and your afrocentrism. This is an encyclopedia. If you are so interested in Sub-saharan Africa, I urge you to edit articles pertaining to black africa. Mariam83 14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Bouha, I did not edit or delete sourced material. I edited sourced material that you distorted to suit your vision. I will give you some examples. In the opening paragraph, you write that 98% of Tunisians identify themselves as Arabs and cite the CIA source. However, in the CIA source 98% of Tunisians are labeled Arab. No mention is made of identity. Second, in the source I provided, you twist the sub-saharan comparison with other southern mediterranean countries to mean sub-saharan. This is an instance again of afrocentism, an effort on your part to establish a link with sub-saharan africa. If you really want to focus on this, perhaps you could write about the slave trade and the slaves that were brought to Tunisia. You could also perhaps discuss Ibn Khaldun's role in advocating racism and slavery. This would lead to meaningful analytical discussion. Again, Bouha, you are not the owner of the Tunisia page and you have no right to revert any edit that is made. You cannot always be right. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. You have no right to block anyone for editing so long as the 3rv rule is respected and editors better the article's content, as I have. If you cannot see how muddled your writing is, how uninformed and manipulative, then that is all the more reason for me and people like me to edit. I am also going to get alot more people involved in this, so learn to cooperate and compromise. Your attitude as of now is very unwikipedian and very authoritative and dictatorial. Good luck. Mariam83 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you accuse me of being Afrocentrist. No such agenda, sorry. Ma n3arf chay 3la tunis? Mmala! And let me quote you...

In the opening paragraph, you write that 98% of Tunisians identify themselves as Arabs and cite the CIA source. However, in the CIA source 98% of Tunisians are labeled Arab.

It appears you are accusing me of stuff without reading my edits. Look at Tunisia. It no longer says what you say it says, because I edited it. Actually identify oneself doesn't mean they're wrong, but in case you and other get that inference, I changed it to are. And you did delete sourced material. I also removed references to the 80% being Berber: did you notice that, or do you just want to be angry with the world? Bouha 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bouha, I disagree with your edits. I am going to edit it, as is my right. You misinterpret the sub-saharan mention to mean direct sub-saharan links. The article discusses it in terms of comparison with other north african countries. also, in citing that one article, I could add a hundred. We dont have space to do that, so we should remove it. If you dont agree, I will add other sources and really make the article confusing, because it is a region that is really strange in terms of origins. Also, why do you highlight sub-saharan africa and not europe or Arabs? afrocentric view? if you love black africa so much, why dont you move to mozambique? Mariam83 15:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC) malla 7keya hethi, are you a ka7la or what?[reply]

Warning

This is to remind you that other users, such as myself, have the right to remove unsourced information or information that the sources provided do not substantiate, otherwise known as sneaky vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. After reading the Tunisia article minutely, and reviewing the two sources cited, I have concluded that thess two sentences, "The Berbers primarily speak Berber languages, often called Shelha" and "the rest being from the previous indigenous population and incomers from other areas such as Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa" are not supported by the sources cited. If you are confused as to what the source you cited says, please read a longer version here, [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-6086182_ITM. Try not to draw your own conclusions from the source. Try to comprehend the article in a manner that is impartial, neutral and objective as we are dealing with living people. Do not allow ingrained personal preferences or prejudices to influence your readings of the sources. Another concern of mine is the use of any such studies at all. As I have already pointed out to you, there are numerous studies. In order to be objective and fair, for the sake of Tunisians, not us, we would have to include various other studies, so as to present an objective image. If you disagree, please leave a polite and not a bellicose message on my newly blanked talkpage. Thank you. Mariam83 17:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote

If you are confused as to what the source you cited says, please read a longer version here...

That's a different paper. Interesting: the Berbers invaded Spain. They left more genetic material in the South. Not surprising, but good to be able to show it. It doesn't mention Tunisia. Relevance? But if you find other studies about Tunisia, please feel free to put them in. Once there are too many to handle, we can all talk about summarising. We're not there yet, but if you do that (and thanks for finding that other one: it does have interesting results), then good. And, by the way, I do think that sub-Saharan Africa is a useful term. Some people don't. Both opinions should be in the article. And some of your edits (not all, but I don't have the time to pick them out) to Berber people were fine. The quote you gave about it being a complex area genetically is, in my mind, totally appropriate. Bouha 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]