Talk:Qashabiya

	Africa portal 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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Algeria portal This article is supported by WikiProject Algeria.

Merge proposal

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.

No objection to merge. As there has been no discussion on the direction of the merge, the merge was performed into the older page, Qashabiya. Felix QW (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A formal request has been received from Special:Contributions/2603:7000:26F0:74B0:118B:FDBA:CA81:A3B6 to merge Qashabiya into Kachabia. Please discuss below. Reason given by proposer: They appear to be the same garment and there is even a duplicate tag. Felix QW (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

Berber and Arab

@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]

What makes you think this source takes precedence over all the cited sources in Qashabiya#Origin? Skitash (talk) 12:57, 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]

the source you put can be used to source a name, but for the origin you must keep academic sources (like Gaïd for example). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:02, 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]