Talk:Demographics of Tunisia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demographics of Tunisia article.
Article policies
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia.
Assessment comments
This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Demographics of Tunisia, or visit the project page for more details.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on its quality.
Demographics of Tunisia is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

I had to delete the source from the national geographic and rely on the CIA and Columbia University. 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 nothingness? I was surprised as a native to read something that I know to be inaccurate, and when i clicked on the "source" and realized that it had been funded by a billionaire al hariri that is well known for his corruption, and read how ambiguous it was, I understood. I deleted the statement as it 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." It cites no source, no evidence and MOST IMPORTANTLY, in the absence of these but also from a very common sense EMPIRICAL perspective, it is grossly inaccurate and almost absurd, if not also orientalist in that it denies a country its identity, it underestimates the country by presuming to know the identity of a people despite the fact that in this world, people probably know their identities better than outsiders. 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. Mariam83 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've already explained (but you've deleted my comments on your talk page), these sources are not contradictory: one is about current identity, the other about genetic origin. Your claims that the reference you deleted is biased, and was funded by Hariri (actually, your attitude towards that is worrying, along with other comments I've seen you make): well, I didn't notice that, and then even then, so what.. it's a study, with data. You don't seem to understand verifiability. The reference is from a credible source, national gepgraphic, not a blog or a nationalist website. What is in wikipedia can be checked against it. the source is credible. Viola. It can be contrasted with other studies: I would be interested to see the result of others. The more the merrier. And I'll try to account for your concerns in the way I rewrite it. Bouha 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The national geographic is not the most reputable or reliable source, though I understand that people such as yourself and your fellow wikipedians take it as gospel. Besides which, the study itself was privately funded and only later published in the NG, as many rather limited studies are, though I would not call this a study, but rather, an experiment. The study itself is not in anyway encyclopedic, as it provides no numbers, no sources, no explanations. The other study cited, which does, proves my points exactly. Namely that the study is flawed and inapplicable. I realize that I may be a threat to certain afro-centric Berberists or Afro-centrict in most cases non-natives, but I intend to follow through all the way. I will remain vigilant and fight your propaganda to the end! what is more, I am going to involve alot more people. Bouha, do not write to me in Tunisian if you refuse to explain to me why you insist on citing a source that does not in anyway provide numbers or evidence? Mariam83 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I have to second Bouha's comments, Mariam83's editing storm is quite something, and copying pasting in text from other web sites with her own editorial commentary (viz the Maghreb article) has not in any way improved said articles (indeed the copy/pasting in some instances may be copyright violations, besides introducing partisan views). (collounsbury 18:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
I am sorry to disappoint you, I know it's been a rather nonturbulent ride for propagandist contributors like yourself. It must be quite perturbing to you. After reading you usepage though and noting the charged and rather vulgar language that you use to attack anyone who disagrees with you, I am not in the least surprised by your abuse of Wikipedia. Again, Bouha's non-verifiable source contradicts official numbers. It is in no way encyclopedic, it is a private study that does not provide any explanatory evidence. Mariam83 07:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] changes

Until you are able to provide annotated evidence that can be verified and studied, this caveat should be included. Reword it if you like, but do not remove it so as to further your propagandistic personal views. Instead, reword it or leave it as is. Mariam83 07:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)