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
The contents of the Kachabia page were merged into Qashabiya on 8 June 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
@M.Bitton: I assume that the merge itself is uncontroversial as the articles are clear duplicates (based on the same source), but that the name of the merged page may be under contention? Felix QW (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2023 (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.
@Skitash Do you think that undoing all changes is useful for the good information of the article? If you think there is a discrepancy in the text then you should specify which ones. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash @Lord Ruffy98. I can answer you quite simply because the source currently in the "origin" section is misused. You present yourself as a French-speaking reader so you should check that reference n°2 - M. El Moujabber; H. Belhouchette ; M. Belkhodja ; P. Kalaïtzis ; R. Cosentino ; W. Occhialini. "La recherche et l'innovation comme outils pour une agriculture durable, la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle : résumés et articles étendus". www.cjoint.com. Récupéré le 21/01/2024 - affirmer simplement : Le produit issu de cette activité nommée étoffe est très apprécié au niveau national et même au delà des frontières. Il est utilisé dans la confection d’une grande gamme de Qashabiya et Burnous Ouabri. Ces deux habitudes connaissent aujourd’hui une demande importante particulièrement la Qashabiya Ouabri. En plus, le tissu de l'étoffe s'adapte bien à d'autres confections notamment des tenues modernes.
From then on we have a source that supports the fact that the origin of the clothing is Berber, and no source that supports an Arab origin because this last information does not appear in reference n°2. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash, @Monsieur Patillo, apologies for the delayed response, I was busy. Yes, exactly as Monsieur Patillo mentioned, the source cited in the 'Origin' section makes no reference to Arab origins, whereas the ones I added regarding Berber origins do. This isn't the first time my edits have been reverted without being reviewed properly. I also meant to add additional sources, like this one:[1] but I forgot. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SkitashCan you explain your revert and the restoration of source misappropriation. In particular to bring evidence/citations on the restoration of the Arab origin when reference n°2 makes no mention of it? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash: You keep reverting edits that aim to improve the qashabiya article, specifically regarding the origin of the garment. I’m asking again for the citation that supports your claim of Arab origins, as there is nothing in your sources that addresses this. Furthermore, I don’t understand why you continue to delete the sources I and others editors provided, which clearly reference its Berber origins. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are merely passing mentions that lack any detail. For instance, this source that was added includes only a one-sentence footnote in the bottom of the page without elaborating further. Several sources attribute garment's origin to the Arab tribe of Ouled Nail.[1][2][3]Skitash (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Ruffy98 I suggest waiting to see how the admin noticeboard I created progresses. If a decision is made to file a specific report, one can be opened about Skitash, allowing anyone—including you, me, or others who have issues with him—to voice their concerns. The administration can then make a decision about his behavior. This pattern of obstruction should not continue on every topic related to Berbers. TahaKahi (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
proper citation is important for both berber/amazigh culture and Arabic. If you cant verify the origins, either refrain from including it or leave it open ended until a proper citation can be provided. TahaKahi (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 2 and 3 answer aside, the Ouled Naïls are not a purely Arab tribe and they prepare couscous, and they make yennayer[5] that does not make these two cultural elements elements of Arab origin. These sources are a cherry-picking. Since the beginning I have the impression that we have been made fun of, the reverts were made without these sources and now they are released at the last minute to "plaster" a POV-pushing. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, none of those sources appear in your edit, which suggests they were either found later or not chosen for their quality.
Now, addressing the content: the first source is a newspaper from Djelfa, and it’s the only one claiming that the origin is Arabic. No academic sources, books, or other references make the same claim. The other two sources simply discuss where the product is made and its quality, nothing about the theme.
The Djelfa newspaper alone is not a reliable source because, if you had checked, you would have noticed that the site only emphasizes Algeria's Arabic identity, which is incorrect. This source has a conflict of interest and is unreliable due to its lack of objectivity. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skitash practiced cherry-picking. If we did the same thing, we could cite articles from major newspapers like Libération [6]. We could also drown in references from anonymous newspapers like: [7], but this is not editorially serious. It is regrettable that Skitach, having nothing to offer, started to pick up this kind of source. I did not understand which option is supported by @TahaKahi ?
However, I would cite two published sources:
an article sur Research Gate The Challenges of the Moroccan Society — Muhammed Zefzaf’s “Drought” and Morocco Today, "Qashabiya – a type of traditional Amazigh clothing worn in parts of Morocco and Algeria."
a thesis centered on qashabiya : Analyse Sémiotique de la tenue vestimentaire Algérienne - Cas "KACHABIA", University of Msila (Algeria), [8]: Cette tenue fait partie intégrante du patrimoine culturel algérien puisqu’il tire ses origines des berbères tels que les zirides, les Hammaditesou les Almoravides Let us recall that 1) initially Skitash removed the mention of Berber under the pretext of WP:OR, this is not the case 2) He claimed until his last diff that the sources for an Arab origin were already in the article, which is not factual and that he tried to catch up with a late poor quality cherry-picking I therefore propose to restore the version of the Berber origin, commonly accepted in the sources. Note that the mention of a "Berber" kachabia is common in university theses in Algeria, the country of origin of the garment.
