This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles
The recently added source was removed because it's an old unreliable primary source. Not that it matters in this case, but it also failed verification, as the none of the content that was added was present in the cited page (the next time you cite a source, please make sure you check it first). I replaced it with a better source (one that is secondary, about the topic, more recent and written by a historian) and adjusted the numbers and content accordingly. M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per the source that was originally used (therefore not recently added) :
"La garnison se composait, en outre des canonniers turcs, de cinq cents hommes de la milice et de cinq cents Kabyles ; en tout, trois mille hommes environ, commandés par l'intrépide Ben-Aïssa."(p.217-218)
"Du premier coup d'oeil, le maréchal a vu qu'une telle place, défendue par la nature, par de bonnes murailles et de braves soldats, ne peut se rendre que par un siège ; mais il a vu, en même temps, qu'avec une armée réduite à trois mille combattants, encombrée de malades, sans grosse artillerie, sans vivres et presque sans munitions de guerre, il ne peut ni assiéger Constantine, ni même seulement l'investir."(p.218)
"Chaque jour, en effet, le cercle d'où tous les musulmans rayonnent vers Constantine. Le 23, dès le matin, les cavaliers de la province, au nombre de six mille, conduits par leurs agas, paraissaient sur les derrières du camp français."(p.231)
I wonder who didn't check the source. Certainly not me.
You don't even seem to be able to read your own source according to which a unknown number of voluntaries joined the regular soldiers.
And you also forget the soldiers in the vincinity.
Finally, it's not because it's a primary source that it's an "old unreliable source", especially considering that the source you came up with is not particularly recent (1896) and obviously bases itself on those "old unreliable primary sources".
Whether the source was added or not is irrelevant (though, I must stress that it wasn't there, you added it), what matters is the fact that it's unreliable (written by the son of the king, i.e., a nobody).
There is no wondering: you didn't the check the unreliable source, period. Page 200 doesn't support what you added. Although irrelevant, since the source is unreliable, there is no point in denying it.
The claim that the added source is based on something is also irrelevant (what the historian choose to keep or disregard is their prerogative). Again, what matters is the fact that it's more reliable (as explained above). It also appears to be the source that Bertrand Goujon's book is based (the casualties mentioned in it are the same). M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based on the French article, and the source originally used is this "unreliable" source. Your explanation for what it's unreliable is more than ridiculous, seriously. That "nobody" was literally one of the most important soldiers of the French conquest of Algeria.
I literally quoted the citations just above your comment giving you the right pages. Your behaviour is bad faith at a level never seen. Even more when I actually put the right pages in the citations on my last modification.
Once again, you have strangely forgotten to mention the voluntaries your own source mentions who add to the defense, as well as all the soldiers in the vincinity. Don't engage into an edit war. LaHire07 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The French Wiki is not a reliable source and the so-called soldier (the son of a king) is a nobody as far as reliable sources are concerned. I suggest you read WP:RS.
Your first claim (that you didn't add the source to this article) is obviously baseless. Whether you admit to it or not is another matter.
You cited a page (200) that doesn't support what you added, not just once, but three times. Again, this was just mentioned in passing and not held against you, but you decided to make a big deal out of it.
Your personal attacks have been duly noted.
To move forward, I suggest we stick strictly to what has been published in the recent RS (the last 20 years or so). What do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this article is a literal translation of the French article, which uses this source. The fact that this source is the son of a king doesn't make it unreliable and doesn't prevent him from being considered a soldier as he had a brillant military career and was wounded several times. To say that he is a nobody as far as reliable sources are concerned means that any primary source is unreliable. The problem is that historians don't have a time machine. They base themselves on the primary sources.
The fact that you're claiming that I did it thrice is purely false.
No no, this was not "just mentioned in passing and not held against me". You clearly accused me of not having read the source, and when I modified it and even wrote the quotes on the talk page, you once again pretended : "There is no wondering: you didn't the check the unreliable source, period.", adding that "Page 200 doesn't support what you added", while I had by that time put the right pages.
This is a **personal attack**
Moreover, not citing the right page doesn't mean that I didn't check the source nor that the source doesn't contain such informations. Please keep your a priori for yourself.
To move forward, as my modifications use both sources and are far more complete, I suggest we stick to it. Please, you have engaged an edit war without any valid reason as the information is duly sourced, even if you contested this point, which I clearly proved wrong. If you think it's not the right option, you can still try a dispute resolution. LaHire07 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The French Wiki is not a reliable source (this is a fact).
The diffs are there, so I won't repeat what we said.
Sticking to recent RS is what we're supposed to do (it's no optional). M.Bitton (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly didn't get the point about the French Wiki. I'm not saying it's a source.
Your points have been proven wrong, as everyone can see. Telling me I didn't check the source right after I cited three quotes from the source and that the page didn't support what I added right after I had changed it doesn't correspond to the behaviour wikipedia editors should have.
Sticking to recent RS is not what we are doing right now, as the article after your edit is not the same as the one before mine. LaHire07 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we revert to the stable version? M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One last chance: are you willing to work with me to find recent RS? M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the sophisms and false accusations you have used against me, I don't think you're in a position to tell me "one last chance". My edit uses both sources, is more complete and there is no valid reason to revert it. LaHire07 (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Casting aspersions won't get you anywhere and since you refuse to engage in a decent discussion, you leave me with no choice but to restore the better version (pending the changes once better sources are found). M.Bitton (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
