Jump to content

Talk:Pieds-noirs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pied-noir)
Good articlePieds-noirs has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 25, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 18, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Capitalization

[edit]

For inscrutable reasons based on unknown research someone some years ago decided that it was correct to capitalize not only Pied but also Noir, which is fundamentally wrong twice over. [Larousse https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/rechercher/Pied-Noir] redirects this spelling to the correct "pied-noir". This is about as authoritative as it gets. It seems the logic was that this is an ethnicity not a foot that is black. Um. Ethnicities are never never never capitalized in French. See: français, russe, algérien, chinois, africain. Countries are capitalized, citizenships are not. Ever. This makes my teeth hurt. The first word of a title (as of this article) is capitalized. ONLY. The article title should be Pied-noir.

Since there is prior discussion about this on the talk page, however erroneous, I will stop correcting this pending some input, but right now would need some fairly major evidence to convince me that Larousse is wrong about this. Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: see Talk:Pied-Noir#Lowercase. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell what you are saying. It sounds like you agree with me but think the title cannot be changed. But of course it *could* be. Resistance would be massive to "pied-noir" however, for style reasons. But I don't see why it has to be Pied-Noir. Just WRONG. But I wasn't losing any sleep over it until you reminded me of this. Incidentally, readers of this page may be interested in Regency of Algiers, not that it has anything to do with the question at hand. There were no pieds-noirs until after that period. Elinruby (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: yes, I meant that no one seems to agree to change the title. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to Pieds-noirs. From this discussion, I see a definite consensus that the "n" in "noir" should be lowercase: participants noted that MOS:HYPHENCAPS discourages the capitalization of post-hyphen words unless those words would ordinarily be capitalized in running prose, and furnished evidence showing that lowercase-n spellings are most common. I also see a clear consensus to pluralize the title – virtually every commenter in the RM either supported pluralization outright or was neutral on the topic – and strong evidence was provided to show that "pieds-noirs" is the predominant plural form for the term.
The most contentious issue in this discussion is one that doesn't actually have a direct bearing on the article title: should the initial P be capitalized in running text? Policy-wise, this particular dispute centered on MOS:PEOPLANG (aka WP:RACECAPS), which guide us to capitalize [n]ames for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like. However, editors were divided on whether "pieds-noirs" would be encompassed within this description: some felt that they were a sufficiently distinct cultural group to justify capitalization, whereas others felt that the group was insufficiently ethnic in nature to allow it. It was also shown that, per Ngrams, the lowercase-p spelling is the WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see a consensus as to whether "pieds-noirs" should be considered an ethnonym or not; however, while cleaning up after the move, I will need to introduce one style or the other into the article, and so the COMMONNAME factor leads me to slightly favor lowercasing the P. This is a WP:BARTENDER-ish decision – if any consensus exists on the capitalization of the P, it's an incredibly slim one – so editors should feel free to further discuss the topic of running-text capitalization if they feel that such discussion would be fruitful.
A second question that emerged was whether to use italics for the term, and on this, I see a consensus that italicization is appropriate: most editors who weighed in on the topic observed that italicization was common in RS and felt that English-language sources typically treated "pieds-noirs" as a foreign word. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pied-Noir → Pied-noir – in French "pied-noir" (and the plural form "pieds-noirs") is never written with capital letters (see https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/pied-noir/60796, https://dictionnaire.orthodidacte.com/article/etymologie-pied-noir, https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/pied-noir and http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pieds-noirs). I propose the lowercase; of course, all other pages that maintain capitalisation should also be changed (about this last point, I think I'm one of the very few in this encyclopaedia who cares about consistency between articles; perhaps because it's tedious and time-consuming work). JacktheBrown (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can rather easily be changed but is there a local consensus against it is the question. I don't know that I am willing to die on this hil. But nonetheless [1] is what I have to say about this whole thing ;) Elinruby (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that at some point WikiProject Algeria, if there is or was one, reached a consensus about this at some point. I just took a look at WP:MOS but it does not seem to make any pronouncements at all about Algeria. Which is possibly wise. I know a little about the place, but the little I know is pretty French. Where/When was it decided that the article title should be capitalized? Nobody is speaking up, shrug Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
R_Prazeres or M.Bitton may wish to comment, I am not certain. But one of them may know for sure and it doesn't seem like anyone here bites. Elinruby (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by some English dictionaries & encyclopedias, it seems to be lowercase, just like in French. Also without a hyphen, apparently, and it seems even the first letter is lowercase (when it's not a title or at the beginning of a sentence). E.g.:
  • Collins dictionary lists it and shows it as lowercase ([2]).
  • Several Oxford publications also use it in lowercase, e.g.:
    • The New Oxford American Dictionary (unfortunately behind a paywall, but copy-pasting entry: "noun (plural pieds noirs pronounced same) a person of European origin who lived in Algeria during French rule, especially one who returned to Europe after Algeria was granted independence.")
    • The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World ([3], partly behind paywall but rest of the entry uses it in both all-lowercase and in italic font, pieds noirs).
There are various books that seem to follow the same usage (e.g. "pied noir(s)" in [4] and [5]), but admittedly there are at least some that do it otherwise (e.g. "Pieds-Noir(s)" in this), so there may be some leeway, if desired.
I hope that's helpful, R Prazeres (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, here are[6][7][8] some RS about the subject that use "Pied-Noir". M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm guessing this is a loanword that's rarely used outside of this (relatively) narrow topic and thus there's isn't strong agreement on how to treat it. If easier, it might be worth picking a standard for this article and then adding a brief footnote in the lead about variable capitalization. R Prazeres (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've see the alternate meaning used at, for example, Government of Canada websites. In French, though. The English version says Blackfoot. So this is in at least some level of current use, but for what is clearly a separate group.Elinruby (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you looking at older sources? M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People sometimes read old documents and look at resources like Wikipedia to try to understand them, and Wikipedia tries to include historical information rather than just discussing what is most current and up-to-date. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I am just back from a really deep dive in the English and French MOS. Neither of them address anything at all about the entire continent of Africa, as far as I can tell. So shame on us. However. The Canadian Encyclopedia uses "Pied-Noir" as a translation of the name of indigenous Blackfoot Nation (Note toggle button on the upper right to switch from English to French) My question is: is this a derogatory term? MOS seems to say that if it is derogatory, then it should not have an article at all. I do not think that it is *that* derogatory, but you tell me. Back in the history of the article, somebody deleted the term. I found one dictionary that uses capitals, and it's the Oxford Reference, which we have to count. Oh and I just found an instance of this in the highly respectable Globe and Mail.
Uses of the word in English as lower-case: Oxford English Dictionary, New York Times, Wiktionary (both English and French), Aeon.
The French Wikipedia MOS does not address Algeria at all and neither does the English. The English MOS says that if there is an anglicized loanword we should use it. But there isn't. As to the question about proper nouns: I am not certain who will be responding to this, so I hope it will not sound condescending if I explain this. Speakers of Arabic are quite likely, for example. A proper noun is just a schoolteacher word for a name.
"Wikipedia" is a proper noun. (Un nom propre, in French) But "Wikipedians" is not. Rather, it is a descriptor, like "Algerians" or "Filipinos" or "housecats" or "coin". Anyone reading this is probably a Wikipedian. But is *not* themselves "Wikipedia". BTW, "Pied-noirs" is simply wrong and gives me a headache. Once upon a time I failed spelling tests for this. May I point out that the plural of "Governor-General" fr: gouverneur-général becomes List_of_governors_general_of_Canada and fr:Liste des gouverneurs généraux du Canada? Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)t[reply]
A proper noun is just a schoolteacher word for a name I think it's a bit more complicated than that.[9] M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not really. There is only one Seattle. Even if there are several places named Paris, in each case, "Paris" is the name of the thing, with a greater or lesser precision. Speaking from here on the Pacific coast I might include distant suburbs, I suppose. Or is it "school-teacher" you object to? "Grammarian" is a little more correct, but I was trying not to sound pompous to Americans, who never get taught any formal grammar at all. Elinruby (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But thanks for the link. Probably I should have just gone that route in the first place. I am out. Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not for anything, but there is a significant difference between "name", a broad term, and "proper name", the latter being interchangable with "proper noun". An example would be the "name" of the piece of furniture in which you sit to eat your meal, which is "chair", a "common name". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)o[reply]
Um, no. Your chairs have unique names? I think not. I really don't think so, and I have just spent hours on the standards for diactitical marks so I am pretty much off to seek the sunshine. But many are the ways in which I have been known to misunderstand something, so hey ypu could be right. Could you please provide an example of a chair that has its own unique name? Like Susan or Fred or Microsoft? I will check it out when I come back tonight. Thanks. I just came back to link Pied-Noir as a translation of Blackfoot. Elinruby (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "chair" is the common name of the furniture on which we sit to eat supper. Perhaps there are some who name their chairs, but I'm not one of them. I do know people who have proper names for their automobiles (automobile, auto, car, these are common names for a type of vehicle). One guy named his car "Lizzie", which is a "proper name". Here you go; this explains it. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ever since about 2008, which was when the title and running text were changed to the proper noun phrase, "Pied-Noir", here on the "English" Wikipedia, consensus has been to think of this title as a proper noun phrase. Since there does not seem to be a lot about this in the WP Manual of Style, ("Names for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like are capitalized,) whether or not to continue to think of it that way might be best decided by a local consensus such as in this move request discussion. It probably should stay a proper noun phrase similar to the Blackfoot Confederacy, although to be honest I'm neutral on the subject and would be satisfied either keeping it a proper noun phrase or not. That and whether or not it is considered a derogatory term should be aided by the term's usage in reliable sources. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I please gently suggest that you double-check your link to "proper name"? It redirects to "proper noun", which is exactly my point. So why are you trying to explain this to me again? [10] you also appear to be under the impression that "pied-noir" is an ethnicity, which it is not. "Immigrant" or "settler" is a more analogous term. There is no cultural homogeneity implied, regardless of the hypothetical pnthropomorphism of inanimate mass-produced objects. Elinruby (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And may I please gently suggest that you check the indents? My response above yours was actually to editor M.Bitton, who asked about whether or not the title phrase was an English proper noun. The title phrase has been a proper noun phrase on the English WP for more than 15 years. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so you are again emphasizing that this is the English language Wikipedia. Yes and? I am *quoting* the English-language Wikipedia. Have you not noticed this? It is a quote from the Manual of Style of the English-language Wikipedia, provided as a rationale for the original erroneous redirect for some reason. If you have a problem with the English language Manual of Style, this is not the time or place to debate it. It says that we should, in this case, apply the French capitalization conventions. Quote explicitly. In the rationale for the erroneous redirect you say is 15 years old. Apparently somebody thought "pieds-noirs" was an ethnic group. Apparent you do also. You should probably check that. Because it is not. Elinruby (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have a problem understanding me. I'm just answering questions, and I'm neutral as to the capitalization. I'm not talking about the redirect, as I haven't checked its age. You asked Where/When was it decided that the article title should be capitalized? Nobody is speaking up, shrug, and I answered you that in 2008 with [this edit] the capitalization of both "Pied" and "Noir" in this article title and in running text was begun. Before that, the article had been created in the French style of "Pied-noir" as the title and "pied-noir" in running text. I think it was 2007 when it became "Pied-noir" in running text, and then in 2008 the capitalization of "Pied-Noir" had begun. I just checked the Pieds-Noirs redirect's creation date; it was made in May of 2008 two months after the edit that capitalized "Pied-Noir" in this article. These are not opinions, they are facts found in the editing histories of these pages. I have no opinion and am neutral in regard to how this phrase is capitalized. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either singular or plural. The two most common forms in English books are pied-noir and pieds-noirs, consistently for over a half century. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the erroneous redirect currently on the article title we have the following rationale: If the French expression is untranslated (not a loanword), follow French capitalization practice. For French: some expressions are not capitalized at all (e.g., fin de siècle), others have a capitalization of the first word.If the French expression is untranslated (not a loanword), follow French capitalization practice. For French: some expressions are not capitalized at all (e.g., fin de siècle), others have a capitalization of the first word. Since it is the the title of a Wikipedia article, that should be "Pied-noir". In the article body we should be using "pied-noir" Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
deep breath. As politely as possible I would like to suggest that I do not feel that I need to have anything "explained" to me. I am not linking to Wikipedia articles that prove me wrong; you are. Your confusion about the terminology involved is unhelpful here and is confusing the issue.
What I wanted to know yesterday was whether there had been edit warring on the page. At this point, given the RfC, it no longer matters. I appreciate the thought, though, I guess, but please do not make any more statements such as "consensus has been to think of this as a proper noun phrase" and then claim to be neutral. As you so helpfully "explained" "A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity (Africa; Jupiter; Sarah" Walmart after I had *just* said precisely that! and you dismissed it and "explained" that no, I *really* meant "proper name". "Proper name" is not a thing. It's really annoying, and we have looped through this several times now. Please process that 2!=3 even if somebody once made a mistake in their sums. Pieds-noirs are not a "single entity".
let's let other people talk, shall we? At a minimum this is a formal request that you refrain from "explaining" anything else to me, please and thank you very much.Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me asking another question: is there any reason why "Pied-Noir" shouldn't be considered as a loanword? M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make a difference? Wouldn't we use lowercase either way, since it's way more often lowercase in English-language sources? I'm not following all the discussion above, but I don't think I see anyone arguing for uppercase. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books N'gram Viewer indicates that 'Pied-Noir' is more commonly used than 'Pied-noir. Riad Salih (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lame comparison; the "Pied-noir" usage is only from "pied-noir" in sentence-initial or sentence-case context, or even title-case while avoid caps after hyphen. The real comparison is here, showing "pied-noir" totally dominant in English. Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The real comparison That's a useless comparison given that ngram doesn't distinguish between a noun and an adjective. M.Bitton (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But MOS:HYPHENCAPS would discourage uppercase after a hyphen. This would especially be the case when sources are mixed. (And Ngrams might be getting some uppercase from title-case headlines, which we should discount.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rule doesn't apply to proper names. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, unless you're saying Noir by itself is a proper name, but I don't think you're claiming that. See also WP:Manual of Style/Biography § Hyphenation and compounds and WP:Manual of Style/Titles § Hyphenation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that "Pied-Noir" is a proper name (or at least, I see no reason why it shouldn't considered as such given that it fits the definition). Please see MOS:HYPHENCAPS. M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The effective definition for our purposes is given in MOS:CAPS: "In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence.[a] Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Determining which version is the most commonly used in English sources is no easy task. M.Bitton (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the book n-gram stats are not perfectly compelling? I see no possible ambiguity. Per the criterion at MOS:CAPS, this is clearly not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) What ngram stats are you referring to: the one that you supplied or the ones that were supplied by Riad Salih? 2) What makes it compelling (please elaborate)? M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) how about these stats? and 2) It's compelling because it makes it clear that we're nowhere near the MOS:CAPS criterion of "consistently capitalized" in sources. and 3) are you seriously saying you think this is a proper name, or just trolling? (I see you said on your talk page "Ha ha ha (I'm just playing devil's advocate)" about this). Dicklyon (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same as before, ngram just picks up the words with total disregard about whether they are quoted in French in an English source as nouns or adjectives. It's much better to check how it's spelled in the reliable sources that are about the subject (such as the ones that I quoted above). M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are you seriously saying you think this is a proper name, or just trolling please comment on the content. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of those 3 you linked, the middle one, on the cuisine, mostly uses Pieds-noirs, italicized as if French, though its capitalization is clearly wrong for that, and also has "the pied noirs adopted the name with pride" without italics, that is, lowercase in English with English-like pluralization; plus a bunch of other stuff especially for the cuisine they call La Cuisine Pied Noir. Clearly not a good source for linguistic style. Anyway, I don't see what your point is about the usage as an adjective; we don't downcase proper names used as adjectives (e.g. Algerian cuisine), so how does finding some of them as adjectives matter? Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the others? M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The others use caps as you said. I can list twice that many using lowercase in short order, if that's worth anything. But it's not. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is there any reason why "Pied-Noir" shouldn't be considered as a loanword?, by which I think is meant "a fully assimiliated loanword that we treat as English, like 'rendezvous' and 'taco' and 'parka'"}}: Yes, there are several. It is not a word, in the general sense, but an ethnonym, a name. (That it's derived from everyday words that remain "transparent" to many of us is immaterial; the North American Blackfoot people are not written "blackfoot", and that example is obviously extremely pertient here given what "Pied-noir" means). It has no currency in everyday English. It is very frequently put in italics as a foreignism in English-language publications (and usually given a translation) even in specialist academic material about Algeria, and French demographics, and ethnicities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a noun. Does being an ethnonym prevent it from being a loanword or simply a loan if you prefer (like À la carte)? M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, if you need it, here is the page in French: http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Pieds-noirs. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More n-gram stats without smoothing pied-noir with and without hyphen, pies-noirs with and without hyphen. With the smoothing off, one easily finds that the bulk of the capitalized occurrences in English books is from a couple of 2015 books, and that the forms without the hyphen used to be much more common, but now with the hyphen are about even with them (with lots of fluctuation due to individual books in different years). Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we've been using the term as a proper name since 2008 and I see no reason not to continue to do so, especially given the fact that it fits the definition and is used as such in multiple RS about the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not unusual in Wikipedia for titles to exist "as a proper name" contrary to guidelines for many years. Some of work on finding and fixing such things. The "reason not to continue" "using the term as a proper name" is that this sends a false signal to readers that this is a proper name, and our guidelines specifically say we should not treat things as proper names unless they're capitalized in a substantial majority of English-language sources. So let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to read a single valid argument as to why it shouldn't be considered as a proper name (given that it fits the definition). M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure which theoretical definition you think it fits, but WP's practical definition is "consistently capitalized" in sources, and it certainly doesn't come close to fitting that one. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the definition to which editor M.Bitton alludes might be one I've already linked in this discussion, so here it is again... Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Peoples and their languages, which clearly states: "Names for peoples and cultures, languages and dialects, nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like are capitalized,". It is also clear in this article that the term "Pied-noir " refers to people. That seems to be the Wikipedia style. Again, I'm not taking sides, I'm just pointing out what is in the MoS. Since the term is hyphenated, it is not a noun phrase, it is simply a one-word, hyphenated proper noun, and so it seems that the correct form according to our own MoS is "Pied-noir " both as title of the article and in the article's content. Again, not !voting, just quoting the style guideline. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are again "explaining" wrong, I will no longer refrain from saying you that your misunderstanding is mistaken. It does not fit that definition because the pieds-noirs are not an ethnic group.
And yes, you are voting, since you are pronouncing the definition correct. Correct that definition may be, but it is misapplied in this instance. Elinruby (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the pieds-noirs are not an ethnic group according to whom? M.Bitton (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the demographics of those repatriated from Algeria, spelled out in the article I keep saying you should read. Also, Regency of Algiers (on which I have been doing GA prep sice February) covers the huge role played by North Africa and Algeria in particular as a place of refuge for the Jews of Europe. Then there is the matter of the converted European slaves, who were Danish, Albanian, Corsican, Italian and English. Off the top of my head. A century of colonization would not make all those people "French". Thank you for asking. Elinruby (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish things were that simple, but unfortunately, anyone who dealt with the issue of "ethnic groups" will tell you that it's an extremely complicated subject. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so you're going to assign people to the group whether they like it or not? The section that I think you should read in particular is "Rapatriés d'Algérie et pieds-noirs" which goes into citizenship, birthplace, ethnicity, and nationality. A section just above discusses French government propaganda. Elinruby (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so you're going to assign people to the group whether they like it or not? They've already been assigned to a group. M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
citation required. You might actually know more about this than I do, but right now you are just making assertions. Elinruby (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask for a citation when you made the assertion, but that's fine, I'll look for one. Just one question though: would a citation make you change your mind? M.Bitton (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good one? Yes, absolutely. And you are right about the mutuality of this. I will look also but I am about to be tied up RL for about six to eight hours, so not immediately. Elinruby (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you insist; however that quote from the Manual of Style includes all "groups" of people that have a group name, it also applies to nationalities, religious groups, demonyms, and the like, not just ethnic groups. And since you insist, I...
Was thinking more along the lines of these ngrams. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make a constructive suggestion: the French article discusses the varying definitions of "repatriated" in various time periods at enormous length and the discussion would benefit if some of participants here read it. If anyone needs help running it through Google Translate, let me know. Elinruby (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the list of active participants at WikiProject Linguistics; @Aamri2, Justanotherinternetguy, Warrenmck, and Visioncurve: Elinruby (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shayakraut, InformationvsInjustice, Rashad Ullah, LingLass, and BeKowz: Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nohat, Francis Tyers, Newroderick895, and Geoking66: Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a similar issue on the Hawaiʻi wikiproject, where people take pages like Waikiki and say it's Waikiki in English and Waikīkī in Hawaiian, but that's popular perception and not actually how it works out, and WP:RS can't back that up. My French is rusty but if this:
It's undeniable that in French "pied-noir" (and the plural form "pieds-noirs") is never written with capital letters
is true, and it's not exclusively rendered in English with case caps, then it should be lower case for the second N (and the first we just have to leave as-is due to technical limitations, if I recall). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johndburger, JWB, Ihcoyc, Bignole, Rjanag, and Mahagaja: Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Men, Anypodetos, GPHemsley, Elizium23, and Ffbond: Elinruby (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MacedonianBoy, Swfarnsworth, Mr. Stradivarius, and Irtapil: Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby
Why am I tagged?
Irtapil (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is stuck on the definition of 'loanword" and "proper noun"and this sounds like a linguistics question to me Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i got your name and all these other from the list of active participants anat WikiProject Linguistics Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Codrinb, LWG, Johanna-Hypatia, Fluous, Mattghg, Sasuke Sarutobi, and 0x0077BE:
@Joeystanley: Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise, Mcmisher, Phinumu, and AudiblySilenced: Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the full list but it's approximately the top half, minus somepeople who say they are interested in Elvish and Ancient Egyptian.. My mobile interface is misbehaving, quitting for now. Let's see if that helps. Elinruby (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Warren: it is actually easy to lowercase the first letter of an article title, as in eBay, by use of the {{Lowercase title}} template; however, as I show above, Wikipedia's MoS supports capital "P" both in the title and in running text. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you "show" nada sir, please stop doing that. The fact that you make a claim does not demonstrate it's correctness. The capital p should stay in the article title, is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And will you please cease all responses to me, because the community does not agree with you as shown in the guideline, and frankly your responses to me appear to be too much like BADGERING. Thank you for your consideration! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you both arguing for a capital 'P'? I too support a capital 'P' per MOS:PEOPLELANG: "Names for peoples and cultures, ... nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like are capitalized." SMcCandlish agrees. An ethnonym is a name for an ethnic group. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if I read editor Elinruby correctly, we both agree on the capital "P" in the article title. Our one area of contention appears to be the side issue (which has nothing to do with this title change request) in regard to the use of the capital "P" in the running text of the article's content, which I support but editor Elinruby opposes. Thank you, editor BarrelProof for helping to clarify our differences, which seem to have very little or nothing to do with this move request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see – it was me who was mistaken – I didn't spot the difference in running text descriptions. As for running text, regardless of whether this is really an ethnic group or not, my impression is that it fits within the category of "Names for peoples and cultures, ... nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, demonyms, and the like" (and thus it should use capital 'P'), although I suppose that's not something that needs to be settled in order for the RM to be closed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how. Their origins were extremely diverse and apparently some of the Jews had ancestors from the Levant originally so even "European" is too narrow a term. And I question whether "European" is an ethnic group. If it is not, then MoS says to follow French convention. But we are talking about the title here, and in the title the first letter of the first word should be capitalized according to both French capitalization convention and Wikipedia style. Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
clarifying something: these people were "French" in the sense that they were born in Algeria at a time when the French government considered Algeria to be part of France. 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Corsicans are also "French". M.Bitton (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But "Corsicans" is not the best example, as that is derived from the name of a place – i.e., Corsica. A potentially better example may be Blitz Kids, specifically the capital 'K' of "Kids" (not the capital 'B', since that's derived from the name of an institution). Similarly, New Romantic / New Romantics, which had an RM discussion recorded at New Romantics (song)#Requested move 11 November 2023. I think it doesn't really matter whether it refers to an ethnicity or not – it's the name of a group of people. The guideline refers to "peoples and cultures, ... and the like". If "Pieds-noirs" isn't an ethnic identification, it's still a name for one of the "peoples and cultures, ... and the like". The 'P' should be capped – at least unless it is consistently lowercase in English-language sources (presumably due to the French influence). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)'[reply]
(much later just noting that I have since looked up Blitz Kids and New Romantics and agree that these are good examples of compound terms that refer to distinct groups of people who are not necessarily of the same ethnicity. There is still a common characteristic though. I think the problem here is defining the group and the two-tier system of French citizenship perhaps was a root cause. The French wikipedia article makes a distinction between the pieds noirs and the repatriated. Not everyone in French Algerian was an actual "citizen" as opposed to a "national" and resentment over that is probably the defining characteristic of the group. These were French citizens in a sense of "citizen" that was denied to most of the Algerian population. Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was only used to highlight the fact that being "French" doesn't prevent you from being something else. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree that it doesn't have to be an ethnic group but it seems to me they should still share a common characteristic. Somewhere above I gave Washingtonians and Oregonians as examples. But here we have people who have at least one ancestor from some country in Europe, plus some other people who practice a religion. So the common factor is what exactly? "Forty Niners" -- the gold rush people not the football team -- would be a better example, since I for one don't know what a Blitz Kid is. I don't know if that gets us anywhere though. But in this RM we only have to agree on the title, yanno. Elinruby (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merely calling out the IDHT where I see it. Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did hear, I just don't agree with you. HAND! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pieds-noirs, the linguistically and stylistically most defensible form. Where it needs to be pluralized (and a strong argument can be made to do that in the title, to agree with other ethno-cultural group names – but there are some exceptions that probably need to move, e.g. Melungeon), use Pieds-noirs consistently, following the bulk of the better-quality RS in English; singular (and adjective) Pied-noir. This is not an English word/name, but French, so should not be mangled with English syntax and typographic norms (and "Pied[s]-Noir[s]" with an internally capitalized "N" doesn't even suit universal English-writing norms, but is simply something that particular writers and publishers would do while others would do the opposite; our default rule is to not use capitalization that is not actually necessary). Since "Pied-noirs" is not entirely unheard of, this "Franglais" mish-mash should appear as a MOS:BOLDSYN in the lead. Same goes for the broken-French "Pieds-noir" if it can be reliably sourced, which so far it has not been. But they should not thereafter be used by WP as if proper English or proper French.

    For additional evidence, see this Google Scholar search, and ignore the French-language results, just consider the English ones. What we have (for plural forms), in the order in which they appear (at least for me; Google may monkey with that order on a per-request basis) in the first 20 pages of search results (I don't have all day for this) are: pieds-noirs, Pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds-Noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds-Noirs, PiedsNoirs, Pieds-Noirs, piedsnoirs, pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds-Noirs, Pieds-Noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds-Noirs, pieds-noirs, pieds noirs but pied-noir as an adjective in the same article, Pieds-Noirs but pied-noir as an adjective in the same article, Pieds-Noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds Noirs, pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds Noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds-noirs, Pieds-Noirs, Pieds Noirs, Pieds-Noirs, pieds-noirs, Pied-Noirs, pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, Pieds-Noirs, pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, pieds-noirs, pieds noirs but pied-noir as an adj. in same material. Some skimming examination of this material and the usage within it shows the following patterns: The hyphenation overwhemlmingly dominates. When capitalization is used, capitalizing after the hyphen is optional. (In the rare event of no hyphen, and a capitalized "Pied[s]", then but only then is a capitalized "Noir[s]" actually necessary.) "[P|p]ied-[N|n]oirs" (only one s, at the end) is almost unheard of in professional writing (only occurred once), and "[P|p]ieds-[N|n]oir" (only one s, in the middle) never occurred at all. It is virtually always "[P|p]ieds-[N|n]oirs". When lower-cased, the referent can usually be summarized as "a group of French immigrants to Algeria" or later as "repatriating immigrants from French Algeria back to France, especially particular places like Corsica", or later still as "political separatists or other agitators in Corsica and some other places", and in many cases as "a class of literary and theatrical stereotypes/tropes in modern French fictional works" (especially Camus). But when the meaning is something that could be summed up as "an ethno-cultural group of mixed European, African, and sometimes Jewish ancestry that developed in colonial Algeria; and the diaspora thereof", capitalization is far more likely. However, sometimes the capitalization is avoided in what appears to be an attempt to closely follow French capitalization practice (this is supported further by English writers often putting the term in italics as a foreignism and providing a translation of it). That said, it cannot be entirely ruled out that in a few of these cases there isn't a PoV-pushing dismissive/minimization intent of simply denying them capitalization to imply they are not a real/legit ethno-cultural group. Either way, the rationale for the lower-casing as an ethnic label in English doesn't seem applicable to WP writing. One side point I noticed in skimming past the French-language material is that total lower-casing isn't even universal in French, though it does dominate in that language; while I did see a handful of French "Pieds-noirs", I did not see any French "Pieds-Noirs".

    For these reasons, I have to support Pieds-noirs: It would be (or strongly come off as) an antagonistic PoV exercise to totally lower-case this ethnonym (even if it is largely an exonym) when we do not do this with any other such group (including even other multi-ethnic groups with a French component like the Melungeons, nor ones with other names that are "just words" in one language or another, e.g. the Coloureds of South Africa); the hyphen is virtually required, but a capital after the hyphen is not; and the "Pieds-noirs" form (two ses) is clearly standardized near-unversally, against variants like "Pied-noirs" and "Pieds-noir" (or "Pied-noir" being used as an s-less collective plural, for that matter; rather, it's a singular and an adjective). While a super-strict interpretation of MOS:CAPS could be applied to totally lower-case this, I have to state firmly that ethnonyms are a subject for which we have to apply a common-sense exception (per WP:P&G) to the strictest possible interpretation, otherwise we're going to end with 99.99% of ethnic groups being capitalized with one or two isolates downcased for reasons that to most readers will be indistinguishable from racist hostility by vandals. PS: We already know from a previous RfC that the community has no appetite for forcing lower-case "black" in an ethno-racial sense, and concluded to leave this to consensus on an article-by-article basis as long as it's consistent within an article. So, that is a further strong indication that this should be capitalized, even if we do not need to over-capitalize it as "Pieds-Noirs".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on capitalisation, but certainly should be plural. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is not an ethic group unless "Asian" is an ethnic group. Or in this case "European + Jewish". However it is true that for purposes of the move request it doesn't matter whether it is or isn't, since the Wikipedia style to capitalize the first letter of the article title would over-ride that to my mind.Elinruby (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pieds-noirs as article title but pieds-noirs in running text. Per ngrams and Google Scholar (limited to Enlish language sources), it is clear that the plural form is the usual form in RSs and this would be consistent with WP:PLURAL. The same evidence also tell us that it is far from consistently capped in any variation. Per WP:NCCAPS and the general advice at MOS:CAPS, we should not be capping this at all. Linguistically, there is no difference between French and English as to what is a proper noun. The difference is that French is more rigorous in only capping proper nouns compared with English, which often caps words derived from proper nous but not used as proper nouns. It is not capped in French. This tells us that it is not inherently a proper noun. Per WP:RACECAPS, we would cap the name of a race of people or ethnic group. This is a reflection that these demonyms are derived from proper names for a nation, region, religion etc - eg French, German or Siek. The subject term is not a race or ethnic group in the conventional sense that would invoke WP:RACECAPS but more akin to white or pom, the former being touched upon by WP:RACECAPS. The Collins definition, noting that the term is "often derogatory" would support the similarity with pom, which is also not consistently capitalised. [11][12][13][14] On the matter of hyphenation, ngram results indicate a preference for the hyphenated form, while Google Scholar indicates the converse. Per MOS:HYPHEN, it would appear that the hyphenated form would be required in French but not (necessarily) in English. It is probable that the hyphenation in English is more of a carry-over from the French rather than a need in English. If one applies the principle to use hyphens when necessary for clarity, the mixed usage would tend to favour dispensing with the hyphen. This is a foreign language term that would be italicised except when considered a loan word. The phrase appears in several prominent English language dictionaries. This would indicate a status as a loan word and that it should probably not be italicised. However, if it is italicised, then hypenation would appear to be necessary in order to conform with the French. This would also confirm the absence of capitalisation in running prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pieds-noirs as article title but pieds-noirs in running text. Per previous comment, and per the Ethnonym/people test (which I think I just invented): singularize/adjectivize the term and append people – is that in common use? Yes: might be an ethnonym; No : cannot be an ethnonym. E.g.: Corsicans ⟶ Corsican people; Azerbaijanis ⟶ Azerbaijani people; Coloureds ⟶ Coloured people; Manicheans ⟶ Manichean people (not an ethnonym); Arians ⟶ Arian people (not an ethnonym); Ohioans ⟶ Ohioan people (not an ethnonym); Pieds-noirs ⟶ Pied-noir people (not an ethnonym). (And it's not just a missing redirect; see ngrams). Mathglot (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—downcase, especially after a hyphen. Tony (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem

[edit]

I would also like to point out that this article has problems with the singular and plural forms of the terms "Pied-Noir" (singular form) and "Pieds-Noirs" (plural form); some sentences may require the singular form instead of the plural form, while others may require the plural form instead of the singular form. Several corrections may be necessary. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: I think (with all due respect to other users) I'm one of the bravest users of this encyclopedia, especially after I stopped asking questions at the help desk (now one every two months). I just wanted to report the problem here. JacktheBrown (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've been pretty bold, I agree. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am notorious for rushing in where angels fear to tread and I given the reluctance to read definitions that is in display in this RM I would myself hesitate to correct anything in this article.Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. my big block of source-usage review in the thread above this. The plural is overwhelmingly Pieds-noirs and the singular (and adjective) Pied-noir (capitalization questions aside), with Pied-noirs barely ever attested, and Pieds-noir unattested, across a pretty big number of high-quality (and English-language) sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did see it and thank you for the thoughtful answer.
I read MoS as saying that for words derived from French, a loanword should follow the conventions for English, Otherwise, untranslated French that is not a loanword or a proper noun should follow French-language conventions. Is that right? I note that you are the primary author of that MoS page. If this descriptor does in fact fall under French conventions, then both "pied" and "noir" would absolutely take an s in the plural. Adjectives are modified by their nouns and take on their number and gender. There is simply no question about that. I haven't seen this particular term enough to have strong feelings about whether the hyphenated form is "correct". I myself as a French speaker am inclined to hyphenate it, in order to clarify that we are not talking about actual feet, but I am not maintaining that this is the One True Answer, and did not do so consistently in the discussion above, mostly because I am lazy, usually in a hurry, and grinding my teeth over the capitals not the hyphen. It is clear I am talking about the topic of this discussion on this page. I realize that I am basing these statements on French grammar and not on sources, but I do think it is good to be grammatical, and that we should not necessarily discount the Wikipedia effect on the sources. It is possible that people are capitalizing because they think we know something about this ;) Also, other people here have already looked at sources but it's been quite a long time since I said, further up the page, that iff the question is what the French conventions are, then Larousse = OED pretty much. I hope that helps someone somehow; that's all I've got.
Some people do appear to believe that it is a loanword or a proper noun however. I think that you said that it is not a proper noun (please correct me if I am wrong about that, and tell me what you do in fact think) but I am especially interested in whether you think it is a loanword, if you don't mind explaining that. I have been saying no, because while it's obviously imported from French, it is used in only this one niche context. And the reactions here indicate that many if not most English speakers have never encountered it. But that part I possibly could be wrong about. Similarly, it seems to me that we are talking about a group of people, sure. but not an ethnic group or a group of residents of a particular city as in Washingtonians or Oregonian. I think the definition you gave above for the group is pretty much correct, but I do not claim any particular expertise about them,
What do you think?
Incidentally, I don't think American Blacks are a good analogy, since French speakers would have no expectation of capitalization, nor association of it with personhood the way an English speaker might, but urging caution on that front is a better argument than most as these things go. It is true that the vast majority of French speakers would have some familiarity with the English language, especially any that wind up reading this article. Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French propaganda

[edit]

This article is hopelessly biased in favour of the settlers. It is not written by a native English speaker and makes no mention whatsoever of the Sétif and Guelma massacres (1945) and the general campaign launched by France to terrorize and massacre Algerians, with even the French navy and air force shelling and bombing civilians on what was on paper French territory. This article falsely tells the reader that the violence began with the "first armed operations" of the FLN in 1954 instead of with French organised massacres of Algerians in 1945 as happened in reality. The torture regime of the French also goes without mention, Gen. Massu (a war criminal) is depicted as a man who only tried to maintain public order. Later the OAS is merely "accused" of murders and bombings.How on earth has this a 'good article' rating? 31.20.246.162 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: do you think we should change one or more sentences within this article? I pinged you because we're both interested in this (French) topic. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material just added to the pied-noir article is largely focused on atrocities committed by the French military during the Algerian War of 1954-62. These are covered in detail in several other Wikipedia articles and should not be given prominence in the history of a sizeable civilian community (of French, Spanish, Jewish and Maltese origins) over a period of 130 years. Buistr (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(pinged) It is quite likely that this article was translated from French with its chavinisms intact. It is also possible that the person complaining below about undue may have a point, though it is hard to get other people to see it that point when atrocities are involved. This is not a topic I have exactly studied, but the amount of anger I am hearing does not seem like a good place to start a discussion Elinruby (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I just took a look at the article history and see that I have quite a few edits there. These would have been translation from the French article though, or a huge copyedit -- I am not particularly knowledgeable in this history. I do find it quite plausible from the rest of ehat I know that the French version of events is missing some details, though. Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as for how it for a good article rating, well. Presumably the reviewer didn't know that history was missing. You are allowed to contest that rating, btw. Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new discussion; see: Talk:Pieds-noirs#Removal of the "Good article" template. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the "Good article" template

[edit]

Although this is a good article in terms of structure, it was largely translated from the French language Wikipedia and, no offence (I consider fr.wiki the second best Wikipedia; the first is the English language Wikipedia, en.wiki), the fr.wiki page is quite biased in favour of France. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See instructions here: [15] Elinruby (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

I propose the activation of a bot to change all the "Pied-Noir" and "Pieds-Noirs" terms present in the encyclopedia; from "Pied-Noir" to "pied-noir" and from "Pieds-Noirs" to "pieds-noirs". I honestly don't understand why, almost always, only the terms of the page on which the agreement was reached are changed. By working in this way, unfortunately, the encyclopedia loses value (some users claim that these changes are pointless, superfluous and trivial (absurd...), but when this becomes a habit, the errors become numerous). JacktheBrown (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pieds-noirs&oldid=1238713072"