Sinequonen

Welcome to Wikidata, Sinequonen!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards! --VIGNERON (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Placide

There are 2 Placide : "Placide_(danseur)" and "Alexander_Placide" which are the same and different content. The first one is in french, with a focus in France, and the second one in USA. There are also different wikidata items. At least the first page could have a link to the second page in english, and vice versa. Sinequonen (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of P248

The property stated in (P248) is for a reference to a published work. You are using it to point to a data item, not a reference. Please remove those references, as they are not references. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a mistake, but I see that you delete the value, not only the reference. What do you have against this add ? If you remove all my creations I let you do it. I need good informations for my work and there are some of them which are completly abnormal. Sinequonen (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The reference you added does not support your claim. The article focuses on post-exilic beliefs in Judah, which will not apply to the kingdom of the north, which was destroyed by Assyria and not taken into captivity by Babylon as Judah was. I Kings 16 indicates that Omri was not a follower of Yhwh, but instead followed Jeroboam's lead in promoting worship of the two golden calves. So even biblical accounts disagree with the data you are adding. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If I understand, only the kingdom of Judah had yahwism as the legal religion, and Omri belonged to the kingdom of Israel. Thats means all their kings had canaanite religion. If you agree with that, I'll replace it for Ahab, Jeohahab, Zachariah (maybe one or two more). Are you all right with that ? Sinequonen (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Canaanite religion is probably the best option for rulers of the northern kingdom, yes. One or two of them are harder to place, but that's still likely the best option. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sinequonen (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

Please note that we cant add the country of citizenship to many of the people that lived during Islamic golden age. The idea of citizenship never existed in the Muslim world until 1867 when the Ottoman Empire issued passports and identification papers to its people among the reforms known as Tanzimat. Prior to that no Muslim or Christian or anyone who lived in a Muslim state identified him/her self as: Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Mughal, Mamluk...etc. Rather they identified themselves as of "Damascan" or "Baghdadi" or "Istanbuli"...etc. origin (someone son of someone the Baghdadi). To identify someone as Abbasid or Umayyad means that he belongs to this dynasty, not the state. Hope this clears things. best-- باسم (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a specialist of the muslim people. But for instance, Abū Ḥanīfa lived under the Umayyad Caliphate. The califate, like a kingdom, has a ruler, an army, a justice, etc. All the persons who lived in the land of the califate could be assimilated to citizens of it. If you see the article in Wikipedia, it is considered as an historical country, then with citizens.

For my purpose, I need to have the information of the bios that I'm concerned. Futhermore, even the muslims were invoved in wars, between us or against other countries (spain...). Since the antiquity, the notion of citizenship exists, with the babylonians, egyptians ans so on. Only people who lived in a space like a tribe in the desert and totally alone couldn't be a "citizen". But I'm talking about known people, doctors... who are speaking the langage of the country they belongs ! Sinequonen (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

That does not work with the Islamic countries. Maybe with some countries in antiquity that had an idea of citizenship similar in some ways to our modern days, but the Islamic civilization never took this idea into consideration, as we had our own standards which did not change until 1867 as I told you. Only then there were "Ottoman" citizens, and I believe during the same period the same idea happened in Iran, but prior to that there was no citizenship. The people were considered subjects or parish, and anyone could move and live in any other Islamic country with no limitation, and he would have the same rights and duties dictated by the Islamic law. All this did not change until 1867. Applying the idea of citizenship on historical Islamic countries means that we are applying a modern idea or understanding, on an old political entity that never had it or thought about it-- باسم (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right. There are 4 successive caliphates until 1924. That is to say that a muslim until that time have the citizenship of the time of the caliphate of his life. You can't cancel this idea. When there is a war there are 2 countries (or coalition of) which fight. For exemple, the end of al-Andalous (where there are most of the islamic scholars), was the result between the Spain (more precisly Castilla + Aragon + Leon) and ? The caliphate of this time (Abassid). Even every citizen has the same rights, you'll have to distinguish from another kingdom or republic or empire... of Europ, Asia, Africa which are not you ! Then we could claim that the country of citizenship is the caliphate with the name of the family at that time. It's the same thing for the other countries : there are Gaul, then kingdom of France, french empire and finally the republic of France. Do you agree ? Sinequonen (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

No I don't. You can't say someone holds the citizenship of a country, if that country does not recognize the idea of citizenship itself. Also, in these Muslim countries the idea or religion and "belonging to a certain land" could not be separated. This means: as long as you were a Muslim (by religion or culture) you felt that you belonged to any Muslim country, and you recognize the previous history, of other Islamic political entities, as an extension to you. That is why I told its a different standard than what we believe today, and what the west believed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and even what the ancient Romans and Greeks believed. Its a totally different understanding that cannot be applied to the old Islamic countries prior to 1867-- باسم (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I do. Definition of citizenship : "relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection" (Encyclopedia Britannica). The califate is extended "on a certain land" with the religion (Islam) as a policy. The allegiance is the religion and the caliphate gives the policy (of the islam) for every muslims. It's not because the idea of citizenship is not recognized that this is not the case. The allegiance exists by definition with Islam as a link of all his muslim people - same langage, same leader... - on the land belonged to the caliphate. Outside of it you have lands with the relationship could be the religion, the langage, etc. with habitants who have this common link. Sinequonen (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Unsure birth/death dates

Hi. Could you please explain why you are removing this kind of statement? The sources explicitely doesn't choose between the two dates and IMO we should keep it that way and not dispatch it to support either dates. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. What you did is not false but I think is not well appropriate. For instance, if you don't know at all what century is in the millenium, or maybe the date is between the 2nd and the 8. century, that's ok. But if you choose between 2 or 3 centuries linked (e.g. 2, 3 & 4), it's better to propose the 3 possibilities. There are 3 reasons of that :

1) it's the same : 1 millenium and the period is between the 2 and 4 centuries, and 2, 3, and 4th century

2) but when the infobox (french or spanish...) takes the infos, it's proposed 1. millenium only !!! instead of century 2/3/4 which is more precisly (the detail is not showed)

3) and for my own purpose : I need to have the more precisly dates for all of the bios I'm concerned ; if I ask you what is the date of birth and you answer me 1. millenium it's too vague if I wanted to find the person (like the game who is (s)he).

That's why. Sinequonen (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Ultimately however I think you have the wrong approach, since the problem isn't on Wikidata side but lies in the way infoboxes or other reinterpret the data. The statements shouldn't be adapted to be read by the infoboxes: the infoboxes should be tweaked to correctly reflect the data. For Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (Q250763), I'm not saying he was born on the 2nd millenium, rather that he is born between 1490 and 1507, for which the qualifiers are correctly used (but the only common denominator between 1490 and 1507 is 1..., so 2nd millenium is what is displayed). I grant you that this isn't entirely satisfactory, since it could also implies that every date between those two are valid, but this is the correct way to model an unsure date. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The exemple I've given to you occured today with  : Heliodorus of Emesa (Q313011), and this is exactly what it happened. And I'm sure if I change another time, he'll change again. The problem is that anybody could do anything on every wiki-datas. For exemple someone change daily for Alex Hrdlicka (Q593717) ‎ the property P31 (human) in "Marciano", yersteday "Règles menstruelles"... De toutes façons, tant que la base de donnée ne bloque pas au minimum les ip anonymes, il y aura des soucis. Et même, je suis tombé sur un administrateur qui enlève la citoyenneté des musulmans - sur lesquels il intervient - jusqu'en 1867 !!! L'idéologie arrive jusque dans wikipedia. Et vu que des infobox récupèrent les données (c'est une bonne idée) et bien tout ça sera faux. Il y aurait beaucoup de choses à faire sur wikidata (j'ai vu que vous parliez le français !). Sinequonen (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Bonjour, désolé du délai j'étais occupé ailleurs (et oui ce sera peut-être plus simple en français) ! Je n'ai rien à redire sur beaucoup de vos modifications, quoique je vous encourage à ajouter sur votre common.js la ligne importScript( 'User:Bargioni/UseAsRef.js' ); qui devrait vous simplifier la vie pour l'ajout des références. Je maintiens en revanche ne pas être d'accord avec vos édits sur Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (Q250763) ou Heliodorus of Emesa (Q313011) : le rendu s'affiche peut-être mieux dans les infoboxes, mais on s'éloigne de ce que les sources disent réellement. Dans le cas de la date de naissance du premier par exemple, la situation est assez complexe : deux sources disent 1490, deux autres circa 1490, enfin deux autres circa 1490 ou 1507. Les trois ne sont pas équivalentes et vous ne pouvez pas les rassembler sous la même valeur. On peut discuter si vous le souhaitez de quelle valeur devrait avoir un rang préféré, mais je suis assez certain de la manière dont j'ai modélisé les informations contenues dans les sources. Si vous n'êtes toujours pas d'accord, je vous propose que nous ouvrions une discussion sur Wikidata:Bistro pour recueillir d'autres avis. Vous pouvez aussi jeter un œil à Sappho (Q17892) sur laquelle j'ai aussi travaillé et où j'ai décrit assez finement ce qu'on peut trouver dans les sources. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Justement il est préférable de donner les infos en extension plutôt qu'en compréhension (i.e. mathématiques modernes). Dans le 1er cas on a toutes les valeurs possibles ; dans le 2e cas toutes les valeurs comprises entre les 2 dates : ça en fait beaucoup plus de possibles, et donc certaines ne sont pas bonnes. Mais bon dans mes programmes je ne tiendrai pas compte du millenium, c'est aussi simple que ça. Ca qui m'inquiète plus, et c'est un pb de fond, c'est celui qui enlève les nationalités sous prétexte qu'il est musulman. Un personnage très connu est ottoman et il a enlevé la citoyenneté : donc ça n'apparaît pas dans l'infobox française. Là pour le coup je pense qu'il est nécessaire d'avoir une discussion sur le fond. Sinequonen (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Bonjour. Merci de ne pas continuer à déclarer des provinces romaines comme valeur pour la citoyenneté, ce n'est pas ainsi que cela fonctionnait dans l'Antiquité. Il n'y de correct que country of citizenship (P27)Ancient Rome (Q1747689). Par ailleurs, la citoyenneté romaine est quelque chose de très codifié et s'exprime par les tria nomina (praenomen + nomen + cognomen, éventuellement seulement un de ces éléments est connu). S'ils ne sont pas attesté, déclarer que la personne est citoyenne romaine ne repose sur rien du tout. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

D'abord vous ne pouvez pas mettre valeur inconnue. Soit elle est connue, et il faut mettre quelque chose, soit la personne n'en a pas et il faut mettre no_value. Je me fatigue à essayer de remplir des données que je veux véridiques. La citoyenneté romaine est donnée par le sang ou de façon exceptionnelle (armée...). Donc ils ne sont pas romains, et donc je ne mets pas Ancient Rome (Q1747689). C'est pour ça que je fais la différence. Le fait de mettre la province indique que l'habitant est né dans cette province et qu'il a une sorte de sous-citoyenneté associée à son lieu de naissance. Un vrai citoyen romain envoyé dans une province aurait bien la nationalité Ancient Rome (Q1747689) et non celle de son lieu d'affectation. L'avantage est que ça indique qu'il ou ses ancêtres habitaient là, donc en Égypte Ptolémaique. Ce qui explique son origine (égypto-)grecque. De toutes façons, mettre unknown_value n'a aucun sens. On pourrait dire qu'aux yeux des romains il est "non romains", donc sans nationalité. Je vous ferai remarquer qu'au 3e siècle tous les citoyens de l'empire deviennent romains. Sinequonen (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Valeur inconnue ou sans valeur, ça m'est égal tant qu'on indique pas des choses erronées. On peut être citoyen/ne d'une (ou de plusieurs) cités et/ou citoyen romain. On ne peut pas être citoyen provincial  : la "sous-citoyenneté" dont vous parlez n'a aucun fondement historique. Ce serait comme dire de quelqu'un qu'il est citoyen d'Île de France parce qu'il habite Paris. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Déjà un citoyen provincial existe : en effet certains d'entre eux pouvaient acquérir la nationalité romaine s'ils avaient d'abord la nationalité alexandrine. Par ailleurs, en Égypte, les romains octroyaient des statuts suivant les origines : barbares, Syriens, juifs,..., Égyptiens, Grecs et Romains. Donc à part indiquer la province, qui en l'occurrence peut faire penser à l’Égypte et à la Grèce, je ne vois pas comment on peut faire. La comparaison avec Paris et l'Ile-de-France n'a aucun sens. Il y a 2000 ans d'écart et ça se passe en Afrique ou en Asie. Sinequonen (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Une personne peut être citoyenne d'Alexandrie, mais pas de la province d'Egypte. Je serai curieux de lire de la littérature qui affirmerait le contraire. Les provinces sont (en tout cas sous l'Empire) des divisions administratives de Rome, pas des entités autonomes (comme les régions françaises). De nouveau, si aucune valeur n'est pertinente ou connue, il vaut mieux ne rien indiquer. L'origine "géographico-ethnique" d'une personne n'est pas équivalente à sa citoyenneté. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ce que j'ai voulu dire, c'est qu'à partir du moment où vous avez la citoyenneté d'une ville de province ayant le statut ad hoc, vous êtes un citoyen provincial. Je ne vais pas me battre, je vais mettre ce que je veux dans ma base. Dans tous les cas, mettre unknown_value est aberrant : ça veut dire qu'elle en a une mais que vous la ne connaissez pas. Soit vous mettez leur statut (cf. ci-dessus), et c'est compliqué : mettre Grec, donc la Grèce ? Mais ce n'est pas la Grèce, c'est l'Égypte Ptolémaique (pour les égyptiens, pareil, pour les autres, idem). Sauf qu'à partir de 30 av JC ce pays n'existe plus (wikipedia alerte dessus), alors qu'il accepte bien l’Égypte romaine. La seule solution c'est de mettre no_value à la citoyenneté avec l'ethnicité et non unknown_value comme vous le faites systématiquement. Remarque personnelle : si je veux vous faire deviner HÉRON D'ALEXANDRIE, c'est plus facile pour vous de trouver si je vous répond Égypte Ptolémaique plutôt que sans pays de citoyenneté. Sinequonen (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

William Klein

Bonjour, Merci de bien vouloir oublier les sources désormais obsolètes concernant la date de naissance de William Klein. Toutes les sources contemporaines et récentes à la suite de son décès confirment qu’il est mort à 76 ans et né le 19 avril 1926. Bien à vous, 85.170.148.41 13:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam Czartoryski (Q342889)

Don't remove sourced statement, as here. See help page. Revert this edit. And check your previous edit in this type. Matlin (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

What's the point ? Sinequonen (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)