Talk:Prehistoric Tunisia

Counter proposal: referral to Outlines article
This article 'Prehistoric Tunisia' (which appropriated its information from another article) should become merely a REDIRECT to Outlines of early Tunisia, a reorganized and rewritten article based on the original article. Elfelix (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to proposed merger
This article in its entirety has been used in other articles, i.e., Outlines of early Tunisia, and elsewhere in the History of Tunisia group of articles. Therefore, a REFERRAL should be made accordingly, rather than an appropriation of its information. Elfelix (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

[-]
ok, so this article was called "Early Berber history of Tunisia", but it was neither about Tunisia nor about early history, it was a random conflation of material concerning Berber history in general, and Prehistoric North Africa in general. There should be one article about Berber history, and one article about Prehistoric North Africa, and possibly one about Prehistoric Tunisia specifically, but such an article should make sure it sticks to prehistory proper, and to the territory of Tunisia proper. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Roman period is off-topic, although there may be an argument that archaeology offers more than historical method in researching this period, the Islamic period is definitely off-topic, the material on Berber language also needs to go elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage of inadequate articles which this material would improve: Prehistoric North Africa, North Africa during Antiquity, & no doubt others. When does prehistory stop in such areas? When the Greeks & Romans started writing about them, or they started themselves? The titling with Tunisia, when the actual subject seems often much wider, was a problem with the first version, though the edits, which I have not examined in detail, seem rather drastic. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply no. 3
The core substance of the original article was crafted nearly three years ago, as part of another article subsequently split. At that time awareness of the magnet effect on irresponsible users of the word Berber led me to include here information deemed best 'hidden' within the innocuous but somewhat misleading Early History of Tunisia. The chance (however ugly it was suggested) to rethink the article now (dusting off the scorn) is welcome; yet my schedule does not allow me much time currently--please give me awhile. (As it stands, the retitled 'prehistoric' article seems something of a sham. The original had weathered years as it was, it might have been left standing during 'good faith negotiations'. Some people enjoy human accord, others seem to like ugly.) This anomalous 'first' article of the multi-article History of Tunisia can now be given scrutiny with new distance, acquired from its evolved perspective.

Use in broader articles would not be hidden so well and (as what's here was geared to the early article) its text would have to be adjusted. Yet I now intend to transfer Masinissa and much or all of the tribal section. As the Phoenicians knew the 'Tunisian' Berbers as Libyans, not the Egyptian paragraph. The language section presents multiple issues. The religion section on its own would scarcely be hidden, but perhaps worth the risk. Not in receipt of any hasty apologies yet. I now appreciate the ambush as a form of 'police brutality' Wikipedia style, a worthwhile task somehow gone wrong. With time the wounds heal. I would strongly recommend, however, that the stunt here not be repeated on others. Wikipedia should provide guidelines to administrators, to achieve their goals without unnecessary mischief.

All's well that ends well, say the fools and the wise. Elfelix (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply no. 2, to Mr. Johnbod

 * 1. Well, a very major problem here is the 'drastic' edits, done without notice of any kind. Being surprised by such behavior naturally will create in a fellow constributor feelings concomitant with being roughly disrespected, spited, and a mood of estrangement ensues instead of what should be a common, fair-minded effort at Wikipedia.
 * 2. The 'prehistoric' in the title is not mine, it is simply not my word. As explained in the introduction to the original article (before its being hacked to pieces), it includes both prehistoric and historic periods, the gist of the subject being what happened before the arrival of the Phoenicians.
 * 3. Please be so kind as to familiarize yourself with the 'original article' entitled "Early History of Tunisia" (Feb.27 and prior). [Where do you find it? Alas. Check the edit history. Yet the multiple re-titlings and redirects by Mr. Dbachmann has left me uncertain where most of that edit history now lies.] Also, see the 'Reply' here below of Feb. 28.
 * 4. The 'original article' was part of a tightly organized series on the History of Tunisia; this particular article was for the most part finished a year ago (elements being over three years old). Sunday I changed (my mistake) the title to include the word 'Berber' and I believe within 24 hours the article was torn apart by Mr. Dbachmann, without notice. Prior communication of the merits of his criticism would, of course, have given me some chance to reply in an orderly way, perhaps maybe a fair chance.
 * 5. Why does Mr. Dbachmann concern himself in such an outragious way with the work of other contributors? Does he enjoy some special status that gives him license to destroy their work, without prior notice? I have before requested evidence of such authority.
 * 6. Nonetheless, in an effort to rise above the foolishness: you ask about "titling Tunisia, when the actual subject seems often much wider". You here disregard my reply below of several days ago. Still to overcome, I will nonetheless reply again. In short, the dearth of knowledge specific to Tunisia appears to warrant using circumstantial information gathered from proximous periods and adjacent regions, inhabited by the same or similar peoples. This is not unusual practice. Further, as the article is the lead of a series History of Tunisia, some sections point out the informations relevance to future events (please see 'Reply' below, and the 'original article').
 * 7. Buried somewhere in the ruin left by the ambush of Mr. Dbachmann, is a reasonable point, which will assist somewhat the reconstruction of the article from the ashes. Namely, to be a bit more explicit, to advertise a statement about how the article is built, not being a rigid chronology, but different topics designed to yield paralax views for the reader, and providing circumstantial information. Accordingly, the reader will then have the best opportunity of learning how it was, or how we may best picture it, in pre-Punic Tunisia. Also, to avoid any mischaracterization of the overlap of historic and prehistoric elements, using the title "Early epochs of Tunisia" and then reinsert it in its prior place in the History of Tunisia.
 * 8. Before being challenged again, please be fair enough to respond to my several replies.
 * 9. Accordingly, absent future remarks of merit, it is submitted that the 'original article' of some years duration be reestablished as above mentioned. Elfelix (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to above criticism
The article for about 99.9% of its life was called Early History of Tunisia (see bleow); it included the last millennia before history and the first millenium of history. It addressed the independent culture existent before Punic civilization, thus the people who then predominantly lived in 'Tunisia' (anachronistic--see below) before Carthage, that is, the 'Berbers'. Because of the dearth of information, circumstantial evidence is included for reference, i.e., information about similar people in adjacent regions or proximous eras. Given proper care to clearly distinguish the direct from inferential, one might intelligently 'construct' some contingent understanding, however dim and partial, of the human individuals, families, and tribes involved, and their material culture and views.

The tag "random conflation of material" itself conflates, one suspects without the intent to render praise. The article contains what was deemed the most important information available about the people in the era before Carthage. Hence, (1) important background information about the people, sourced in the obvious disciplines, e.g., historians and anthropologists, archeology and genetics; (2) the earliest accounts of what little was written about the early Berbers (here from Ancient Egypt [not Rome--as the major revision states]), ending with the first well-known Berber, Masinissa, during the Punic-Roman transfer; (3) ancient religious beliefs (see below); (4) tribal organizations, necessarily from a later era, its reliability and worth being criticized; and (5) language history, which locates the Berbers in a very wide cultural context (being a part of a series on Tunisia, the later influx of Arabic is here discussed, which keeps the language history topic tidy and coherent in its totality).

The people here discussed, i.e., during the last millennia before history and the first millenium of history, were not necessarily staying put, but were perhaps repeatedly passing into and out of the region now called Tunisia, as pastorialists often do. The circumstantial material is given for the uncertain light it provides, otherwise the field of knowledge would be opaque (better uncertain circumstancial evidence--accurately described as such--than none at all). Such are perhaps not random, but considered criteria, although standards not subscribed to unanimously. There are people who when defining history eschew the wide-angle lens and take a narrow view of the craft, and there are those for whom history addresses also, with hope and humility, the quest of humanity.

By a quick scan of the major revision, it appears at times to be quite unsympathetic to the original article--either because of its approach or its substance, or both. It appears to tear it apart and scatter its fragments under subtitles not related to the original purpose of shedding circumstantial light on the early period. Perhaps your subjective nature is somehow incompatible with the legitimate gist of the original article.

Of course, I remain disappointed in the major revision, finding that it diminishes the quality and resonance of the original article. The reasons given above to substantiate it are hackneyed and unconvincing. The solution may be for you to write your own article here, and leave this article as you found it (see below).

"There should be one article... ," you seem to pontificate, as if indeed you would command which articles might exist on Wikipedia (re African History?) and which are cast into the fire. Please identify your standing to make such pronouncements. I may not understand properly your authority or its source in the 'Wikipedia hierarchy'. I hope that I misjudge you here, and that you substantiate the basis of your criticism in a way seeking consent and consensus, befitting a free encyclopedia of co-operating contributors. Here, there is room for our strong disagreements, as there is room for several articles from different perspectives, whose variety will provide more intelligent objectivity than a harsh and monotonous uniformity.

Perhaps we will never be able to reach an accord on these issues, or perhaps we can through a series of exchanges come to see the other's point of view. It is with the latter goal in mind that I submit this reply. Elfelix (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Mutuality
I am rather annoyed. Someone here manifestly did not possess the good graces and courtesy to inform the prior contributor of their plans to cut up into pieces and so appropriate what was a very long and well-referenced article. This article as "Early History of Tunisia" had been on Wikipedia for several years. That it is part of a much larger, tightly-organized, multi-article work, I vainly thought, would give pause to potential contributors, who would naturally want to consider others and discuss the issues before launching on any major revisions.

Unfortunately a few days ago I re-titled it "Early Berber History of Tunisia". Today the reversal of the new title was considered. The original title had left out the word "Berber" because, as I remember it, the word "Berber" appears to be a magnet for irresponsible users. Also, I realized that the article's subtitles were composed with the prior title in mind. Again unfortunately, what changes I then found today were surprising and, of course, discomforting.

The article is meant to fit into a History of Tunisia. As the article's introduction states, it includes both history from inscriptions and writing, and prehistory from artifacts and ruins, and otherwise. The style of historical narrative it employes does not always follow a timeline. It does not, e.g., present a history of "ancient Berber religion" but gives information drawn from sources differing widely in era and location, which is clearly documented. As matters stand now, we know relatively little of early Berber religious beliefs and practices. By submitting what we do broadly know, it allows the intelligent reader to form their own ideas. For the unintelligent reader, who can say? That some beliefs seem to persist over time in a variety of cultures is well known.

In regard to Berber religion, the information in this article and the sources cited can be used to start independent research for another Wikipedia article. Yet it would be wrong to pirate the text itself for another article, and destroy the source article in the process. Certainly the worldview of the early Berbers remains somewhat illusive but nonetheless relevant to understanding early Tunisia.

Each section stands alone, and together they provide parallax views on the subject of the early history of Tunisia (the introductory article History of Tunisia discusses the anachronism of using the name 'Tunisia' before the Islamic period). The "Berber language history" section is of a great time depth, yet does provide some clues as to the emergence of the Berbers from unwritten prehistory into recorded history. The section on Berber tribes spans a long period of recorded history and, as the section explains, is meant to provide background and some reference for the unfolding of the history of Tunisia into the Punic era, the Roman era, and then the early Islamic (Fatimid, Zirid, Almohad) period. The worth of such information is itself criticized and the article, of course, is part of a series on Tunisian history.

The best course now would be to return the article to its status prior to the name change. It would be appreciated if the person who did the changes undid them. In any case, several days courtesy time will be allowed to pass before any corrections from this end, if needed, begin.

Please notify and consult with prior contributors before making major revisions. Elfelix (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

First posted at Dbachmann. Elfelix (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)