Talk:Battle of Sidi Brahim

	France portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Algeria

	Algeria portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African / European / French

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force

Source

Hello @M.Bitton, here is the source you wanted to verify...

File:Source Sidi Brahim.jpg

LaHire07 (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source, so please don't remove the maintenance tags again. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda

The ridiculous 3000 cavalrymen French claim is a) unsubstantiated and b) it has been cited since the 19th century^[1] (i.e., during the propaganda years that followed the battle). M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share your scepticism, but it's not really enough to simply dismiss the figure of 3,000. We need to come up with a Source for an alternative number, or a discussion (again, backed by Sources) as to why it's wrong. The battle must feature in Algerian historiography, or a biography of Abdelkader. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane, Riad Salih, and Skitash: would you by any chance happen to know of any good Algerian sources (either in Arabic or French) that cover this battle? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found this source.[1] On page 23, it discusses the prelude to the battle on 22 September and notes that Emir Abdelkader commanded an army of 1,000 to 1,200 fighters, giving him only a 3-1 numerical advantage over the French colonial forces. Skitash (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash: that's an excellent source. Thank you very much. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Skitash (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Encyclopaedias (1875). Dictionnaire de la Conversation et de la Lecture. p. 189.

M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

@Robinvp11: I'm editing this in good faith and it would be great if other editors adopted the same approach. I'm investing a lot of effort into updating an extremely poor article, and it would be great if you could contribute something, rather than just removing stuff you don't like. How about you go out and find some Sources? My interest uis purely because I lived in Algeria for six years, what's yours? diff.

Is this some kind of joke? M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: I expect a reply and a proper explanation for what you wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I don't see you've earned the right to anything pal Robinvp11 (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you have the right to cast aspersions? M.Bitton (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see. Asking you to help out is a "joke". You've clearly got a perspective but are unwilling to share it. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not asking, you are casting aspersions. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then there isn't much I can do to help you.

In case you didn't realize, you violated 3R. That aside, why did you remove the maintenance tags? Also, why did you ignore what I said about the purpose of the Infobox? M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for the disputed tag: here's a source that says 600 prisoners.^[1] M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: how about you read the talk page before removing the maintenance tags again, or better still, engage in the discussion? M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wasn't aware we were engaging in a discussion. But ok.

(1) I removed the maintenance tag because it doesn't align with Wikipedia guidelines on the use of "Disputed". I'm sure you've read them too, but for the benefit of others, I'll summarise.

Editors cannot insert "Disputed" just because they don't agree with a figure or Source, but where the Sources used are so controversial, that it undermines the entire article (using David Irving as a primary source on the Holocaust is one such example). Wikipedia specifically restricts its use because "it is frequently controversial, and often sparks edit wars". So its rarely used.

"Disputed - Inline" (which is what's been used here) has to explain not only WHY the Source is unreliable (not simply dismissed as "French propaganda"), but MORE IMPORTANTLY has to be raised in detail on the TP FIRST.

That hasn't happened and tbh, I'm STILL unclear as to what you're disputing - the number of prisoners? where they went? what happened to them? If you feel I've violated the 3R rule, I encourage you to escalate this, because I would welcome the perspective of a third party editor on the proper use of this Maintenance tag.

(2) You can ADD 600 prisoners and the associated Source in the Infobox. However, first please clarify what this figure relates to, ie is it (a) the number captured at Sidi Brahim (in which case, its more than the total strength of the expedition), (b) the number marched into Morocco, or (c) the number later executed.

As you know, this shouldo be discussed in detail within the body of the article FIRST, before it appears in the Infobox. I look forward to reading your input. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I wasn't aware we were engaging in a discussion how is that possible given that I pinged you 3 times from this talk page and left another reminder on your talk page?

be raised in detail on the TP FIRST it was (the link to the discussion that you ignored was added to it).

You can ADD 600 that goes without saying.

However, first please clarify did you clarify any of the numbers that you added to the Infobox? No.

in which case, its more than the total strength now you understand why the figure that you added (from a primary source) is disputed (given that it's contradicted by a secondary source).

this shouldo be discussed in detail within the body of the article FIRST that's not what you did when you added some content to the infobox. In fact, I'm the one who kept reminding you not to do that (a fact that you ignored). M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different discussion, on Algerian strength, which btw I agreed with. This is NOT the same discussion.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So...are you going to? Or are you waiting for me to do it for you?

That's a "No" then.

Have you read the Wikipedia guidelines on "Disputed"? Would you like me to explain them again? Its not the same as having different Sources, which is very common Robinvp11 (talk)

Yeah, its called "irony". And I did comply with the "request" to cover it in the article, so not sure what your problem is. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have a different interpretation of what the word "discussion" means. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different discussion I pinged you from this one and left another reminder on your talk page after I started it.

Have you read.. yes. More important than that (given the above), I read WP:INFOBOXES.

I did comply with the "request" to cover it in the article. you didn't.

We clearly have a different interpretation of what the word "discussion" means We certainly do. We even have a different interpretation of how to use the talk page (please don't inject your comments into the middle of mine). M.Bitton (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Peace treaties and their consequences for the Muslim world". unesdoc.unesco.org. p. 74. Retrieved 2 Jan 2025.

[Encyclopaedias-1] Encyclopaedias (1875). Dictionnaire de la Conversation et de la Lecture. p. 189.

[t887-2] "Peace treaties and their consequences for the Muslim world". unesdoc.unesco.org. p. 74. Retrieved 2 Jan 2025.

[1]

[1]