Talk:History of Tunisia under French rule

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Tunisia under French rule article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Tunisia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. France High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Morocco#Resistance|Morocco]] The anchor (#Resistance) has been deleted by other users before. [[History of Ottoman-era Tunisia#Age of modern reform]] The anchor (#Age of modern reform) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

NO TO PREEMPTIVE TITLE CHANGE.

A definite and strong objection to the title change is made. Given the fact that the change was apparently executed without adequate prior notice, e.g., without a sufficient request for prior discussion or input from prior contributors, the title change to the article appears to be a drastic step. A more moderate and accomodating approach would acknowledge at least pro forma the pre-existing merits of the status quo ante, and seek to come to some prior understanding of purpose and intent before taking such a step.

Also there now exists the suggestion to merge the French-era article with another article of a name nearly identical to the "new title" so executed (F p of T and F P of T). The addition of this double nature makes the title change more problematic, more confusing certainly.

Thus, the title change as executed should be reversed. Elfelix (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO TO SUGGESTED MERGER.

The article

has a different perspective. This article has been written within the last several months and, although only quickly appraised for this discussion here, it appears to be well done indeed. But it takes a different look at Tunisia than that employed, and to be employed, in the French era Tunisia article. Hence, both articles should exist side by side, each to complement the other handsomely. Numerous interior linkages and a "See also" reference should be made. Perhaps also, a "Main Article" flag might be inserted at the beginning of the French-era Tunisia article, pointing the reader immediately to the French Protectorate of Tunisia article.

Please note: much preparatory work and research for filling out outline of the History of French-era Tunisia has been made, underway for some months. It will begin to be presented in November. Until that time, any such merger will be preemptive, over-reaching, and premature.

As is well known, across the board in Wikipedia with regard to a particular historical subject, there exists several articles which present different views of more or less similar topics. Here as well. Perhaps in the distant future, maybe a little as ten or twenty years down the road, there will naturally emerge a marriage of heterogeneous articles about similar topics. On the other hand, many mature editors may come to realize that in many cases forcing a merger will work only a detrimental result to the merits inherent to different articles on similar topics. Instead, thorough and adequat cross-referencing may prove to be the better solution than an artificial merger. Such decisions will likely be made on a case by case basis. Yet to try to snuff out an neighboring article in midst of demonstrated planning, off-site drafts, and research, is premature.

Such efforts in embryo should be given adequate time to grow, especially when of two articles each expresses a legitimate yet different point of view, of such a depth and subtlety that to merge the two them would be reductionist. A merger would diminish the ability of the reader to view for herself the historical phenomena from multiple perspectives. Merely the fact that the writing of a late-starting article has momentarilly overtaken in length that of an earlier-started one, does not give license for a article "merger". Wikipedia was meant, as I understand it, to look to the long term benefit of everyone and every acceptable view. One of the great benefits of Wikipedia is its rich, textual diversity.

The History of French-era Tunisia is part of a multi-article series on the History of Tunisia. For the period in question it will reference the antecedents. The newer article entitled the French Protectorate of Tunisia is a most welcome addition. It provides an independent and a different (no doubt at points divergent) perspective on the French period in Tunisia. The Wikipedia reader will be enriched and rewarded by having the parallax views available! Wikipedia is a celebration of divergent interests. To attempt a forced harmonization of competing views by some kind of potentially bloody merger, before they at least each enjoy the opportunity to naturally develope, is not advisable.

To such a merger: a definite no! Elfelix (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOVEMBER AUGMENTATION

I expect to return latter this week and then to begin posting additions to the text of the article shortly thereafter. Hopefully, this will fulfill my above promise to make substantial augments in November. Salutations. Elfelix (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia's supposed to have parallel views of things. Yes, you have articles that provide different perspectives, articles on WWII in Japan and WWII in China will have huge overlap, granted. But that's because there's enough independent in that facet of the topic to warrant an article, and then you may have to add some repetition to give context. The idea is to established inter-linked and integrated articles that reflect the consensus of the community rather than isolated points of view (although certainly different points of view are valuable, but my point is they should be integrated. When I look for a topic on Wikipedia I look for that to be all of what Wikipedia has to say on that topic, and perhaps just as important when I link to an article on Wikipedia I expect what I link to to be all Wikipedia has to say on that topic. Just from a Wikipedian point of view, if I'm writing an article on a politician during the French protectorate, whose article should I link to? In the end, I'm not going to raise much of a fuss. Since this is in the "History of Tunisia" series, if I have an edit to make on the topic (my editing is usually sporadic inspired by something I read and want to throw in), I'll probably do it here, but then again, maybe I'll do it in the other article, I have no loyalty to either camp after-all.

Jztinfinity (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It (this article) provides an independent and a different (no doubt at points divergent) perspective on the French period in Tunisia." (!!!) While expressing personal viewpoints and independent perspectives is monnaie courante on the French-language Wikipedia, it is not tolerated on the English-language Wikipedia. That said, this redundant article should be merged with French Protectorate in Tunisia. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'In rural areas the French administration strengthened the local officials (qa'ids) and weakened the independent tribes. Nationwide an additional judicial system was established for Europeans but available generally, set-up without interfering with the existing Sharia courts, available as always for the legal matters of Tunisians.'

I need to say this seems like an iffy assertion. I'd need to look this up to formally dispute this, but my understanding of French colonial law is that, yes the "natives" had their courts (though, I admit this is really speculative, I imagine the French influenced the make-up of the pool of jurists), but especially in the case where a large influx of Europeans came in, when a European and a Tunisian had a dispute didn't it go to French court? This is not a small matter at a period when French economic investment was increasing and previously murky property rights were being A. newly/differently codified and B. changed.

All and all, it's a bit of a iffy claim, maybe I'll try to look something up to qualify it in a sort of manner that includes citations. Jztinfinity (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/tunisia.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—

]

History of Carthage merge

For anyone interested, there is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. There is a new suggestion that material from those articles could be merged into History of Tunisia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130816174911/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be merged with French Protectorate of Tunisia. Both articles deal with the same thing.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the hatnotes, one is about the social history of Tunisia and the other its political history. The text, at a glance, seems to bear that out. Do you think they should be merged anyway? Or do you think titles that better reflect the scope are in order? Srnec (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hatnote is misleading since this article deals with all sorts of topics : establishment of the French protectorate, economic advance, education reform, French context (!), French settlers position, nationalists, "Art and Culture" (a misery six lines for an article that is supposed to be about the social history of Tunisia!). Then you have a very long section titled "Chronology" that starts with "Versailles 1919" (!!!) and seems to be about the general political history of the country. Like with the rest of the article, there is hardly anything that has to do with the social history of Tunisia. A lot of that stuff is found, generally better written, in the article French Protectorate of Tunisia. To me, this article looks like a somewhat erratic personal blog.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]