Talk:Kusaila

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Title

[edit]

So I named this thing "Aksel" 'cause that's how I know him, but if someone thinks Kusayla would be a better title I'm all ears. Brutannica 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nope! He called Aksel .. kusayla is what arab invaders occupying the land of the Maghreb called him! And it's not acceptable. 142.122.59.123 (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no 2600:480A:4A51:9300:4B47:B516:5449:8C86 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The original name is Caecilius also known as aksel or aksil in European sources, before it was Arabised to kusaila (In demeaning sense) please be neutral and move it to original name. thanks in advance. محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Change: Statue of Kusaila from Bouhmama

[edit]

I've updated the image to a modern statue of Kusaila located in Bouhmama, Algeria, taken by Aymen el Bahi and licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0. It represents a more grounded depiction of Kusaila than the previous unsourced fictional drawing. ElijahUHC (Talk) 18:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash Thanks for the revert - I just wanted to clarify that the image I added isn’t random or unsourced. It’s a photograph of a real statue of Kusaila located in Bouhmama, Algeria, taken by Aymen el Bahi and licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 on Wikimedia Commons.
In contrast, the current image appears to be a speculative drawing uploaded by a user with no historical source or citation - basically fictional fanart.
This isn’t about historical accuracy (since no true image of Kusaila exists), but about replacing a fictional, unsourced artwork with a modern, verifiable, and properly licensed representation. The statue is public, acknowledged, and better suited for Wikipedia standards on media use (per WP:IMAGEUSE and WP:V).
Happy to hear your thoughts if you still have concerns, but I’d suggest we restore the image unless there's consensus otherwise.
Thanks! ElijahUHC (Talk) 22:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. While it's true that the long-standing image is unsourced, I think it should remain (or be removed entirely) until a more appropriate image is available. The proposed statue image (aside from being poorly cropped) seems to be a modern fictional interpretation as well. I looked into the statue and found that it was recently erected and removed on the same day in December 2024 due to being unauthorized.[1] Skitash (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response! what you stated however is outdated. The statue was returned earlier this year, and there have been many discussions about it since January-even the French Wikipedia mentions this [2][3] [4]
Regardless, the photograph of a public statue is a concrete and notable representation, erected in honor of a historical figure. Compared to an unsourced drawing created by a Wikipedian, this modern homage-grounded in real-world significance-is far more appropriate for Wikipedia, which aims to reflect notable and verifiable depictions.
Concerns about cropping are valid, but they’re easily solvable-a better-cropped version can always be requested or uploaded. That alone is not a sufficient reason to reject an otherwise clearly superior image.
I see no compelling reason to deny this addition. It’s backed by a real-life, publicly acknowledged monument. And just to be clear: the current image on the article is a fictional drawing by a Wikipedian. What I’m proposing is a verified photograph of a public statue.
But if this is going to be unnecessarily dragged into a wider consensus (which is baffling, since I don't see a reason for it), I'm fine with that too. I'd also be happy to help update the article with a newer and better-quality picture. But again, the earlier image i added is more than enough to replace the wiki drawing. ElijahUHC (Talk) 09:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, here you go - a better version of the statue, taken after the reinstallation.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kusaila_Statue1.jpg ElijahUHC (Talk) 10:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My earlier point still stands. Please don't re-add it without a proper consensus. Skitash (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the original drawing after I pointed out it was unsourced and potentially WP:OR-but that’s not a valid reason for removal either. WP:OR applies to written content, not images, unless they misrepresent facts or sources-which neither image does.
What’s concerning is that you removed that image without consensus (which you asked for?), and then blocked a clearly more appropriate replacement-an actual, licensed photo of a public statue (that is reinstalled)-also without citing policy. That leaves the article with no image at all, which is a step backward.
If both are modern interpretations, only one is verifiable, notable, and properly licensed. It’s hard to justify excluding it based on concerns that apply even more to the previous image.
Consensus is built on applying policy consistently-not selectively enforcing it to maintain a status quo. And please, if you're going to call for consensus on changes like this, the same standard should apply to your own edits. No editor has more editorial authority than anyone else here.
Since we’re clearly not aligned on this, I’ll open an RfC or take it to a noticeboard so others can weigh in. We're here to improve content, not manage it by gatekeeping or inconsistency. ElijahUHC (Talk) 21:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Lead image for Kusaila

[edit]

Should the article on Kusaila include one of the available photographs of the modern (reinstalled) statue located in Bouhmama, Algeria, as the lead image?

There are two freely licensed photographs of the statue:

  • A wider, uncropped version: [5]
  • A more tightly cropped version: [6]

Both are images of a modern public monument commemorating Kusaila, and have been proposed as alternatives to a previously used fictional drawing: [7], which was removed due to sourcing concerns. This RfC seeks input on whether either image should be used, and if so, which version is more appropriate.

(For additional context, see: Talk:Kusaila#c-ElijahUHC-20250602183300-Image_Change:_Statue_of_Kusaila_from_Bouhmama)

ElijahUHC (Talk) 22:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I started this RfC and support adding an image. Both photos show a real, modern statue of Kusaila in Bouhmama, Algeria. They are verifiable, freely licensed, and more appropriate than the previously used wikipedian drawing[8], which lacked sourcing. The statue has been reinstalled[9] and is covered in secondary sources. I prefer the wider version for clarity in the lead, but support using either image over none or speculative artwork.
-- ElijahUHC (Talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The statue is clearly a modern fictional interpretation of Kusaila, as there are no surviving depictions of the figure from the 7th century. It also appears that the statue no longer exists, since it was reportedly removed the day it was erected.[10] I haven't found any RS confirming it's been put back up. Skitash (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if nothing else it demonstrates his significance. French wiki says it was reinstalled January 2025 although that’s unsourced. Many statues in articles aren’t real-life depictions because we don’t have enough information, Kahina and Queen Amina come to mind.
Kowal2701 (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The French wiki is not a reliable source and the claim it's making is not based on any source. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose that statue was removed after it was installed without authorisation. Any claim that it's still there (as in it was reinstalled) would need to be substantiated using RS. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, hopefully someone French speaking can do a search. But on the flipside, does the statue need to have been reinstated for us to use the image? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, otherwise we'll just be promoting something that isn't there. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there is no rule that disallows it. Whether the object currently exists or not, an image can be used as long as its purpose is to represent the subject. Regarding the statue's current existence-yes, it was reinstalled, and this can be confirmed by any source, post, or discussion on social media[11]. But ultimately, that’s not the point. We are not writing about the statue itself, nor are we promoting it. The image is simply used to illustrate the subject of the article. Other Wikipedia articles use images of memorials or statues that no longer exist(and this is not the case here), and there is no rule that disqualifies them. ElijahUHC (Talk) 17:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule is called WP:VERIFIABILITY. I don't see any RS backing what you're claiming about the existence of the so-called public monument commemorating Kusaila. M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VERIFIABILITY applies to article claims, not image inclusion. For images, WP:IMAGEUSE is the relevant policy. A freely licensed photo of a public statue-whether currently standing or not-can be used if it's clearly captioned and not misleading. The statue's prior public installation is documented, and its image serves an illustrative, educational purpose. No rule requires permanent physical existence for image use. and such aligns with the broader purpose of visual illustration in encyclopedic entries.
    lets not argue here and move it up to the earlier talk page opened for this, let us not clog the RFC ElijahUHC (Talk) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. It applies to everything (including the images' captions). Anyway, I said what I needed to say and I suggest you provide some RS that back what you claimed regarding the so-called public monument commemorating Kusaila. Until then, I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely have no idea what you're arguing for. It’s unnecessary for me to even debate this specifically, because the point here is not to confirm the statue’s reinstatement. However, since you seem so keen on it, I found some sources to support my claims here - though that has nothing to do with the image inclusion. Whether the statue exists or not, it can still be added, and should it still be removed (which is not the case), simply stating it under the image is enough, as there is even a book that talks about that moment and the protests that followed [12] PART 1 – Region and Country Reports – Algeria. this would be a good thing to discuss later on for inclusion in the article.
    For the simple sources I found that state its reinstalment, even a TV broadcast that talks of it:
    [13]
    [14]
    Again, to remind you, even if a statue was removed, it can still be used if it serve an encyclopedic purpose , providing you give context beneath it. (es. Statue of ... before ... [source if its controversial]) ElijahUHC (Talk) 18:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The report you provided notes that the statue was installed on 4 December 2024, yet we already know it was subsequently taken down on the very same day.[15] As for the two obscure websites you cited—one citing a YouTube video and the other containing language such as "A battle won by the Chaouis and all Amazigh peoples in a long war against Arab-Islamist regimes that have been fighting the Amazigh identity for 14 centuries"—these are neither neutral nor reliable sources. Skitash (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to my last sentence in earlier comment ElijahUHC (Talk) 19:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if a statue existed temporarily, its removal on the same day due to being unauthorized makes it fundamentally non-notable for inclusion in the infobox. Skitash (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That, sadly, is not part of the image use policy. A simple caption like "Statue of Kusaila, briefly installed on 4 December 2024 before being removed the same day." would work as well, by the way. But let’s stop arguing here and move this discussion up, please - we’ve all, myself included, clogged this up. ElijahUHC (Talk) 19:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, otherwise, anyone can make a statue of anything (don't ask me what I'm thinking of), erect it illegally for a day and then promote "their work" through Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be COI, very different to the context here, and if it improved an article it'd probably be welcome anyway. I really don't understand the "fictitious" point, it's a work of art, we regularly include such images in biographies Kowal2701 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "very different to the context here" How would you know that? The image was uploaded and added to the article on 4 December by the same user,[16][17] on the same day it was erected (and removed). Skitash (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't look like a COI editor, their other uploads are all about Algerian culture and history, and their edits aren't the SPA self-promo type Kowal2701 (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Since the voting is still active, I don't think that the image would fit in the article, since the the statue was removed in the same day, It no longer exists, and it's fictitious. R3YBOl (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Regardless of whether the statue has been reinstated or not (According to this televised report from Echorouk News, it was reinstated), it is still better than the drawing. --Aguzul (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is not a source. Skitash (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s uploaded by an official account so can be used Kowal2701 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skitash, highlight the "Regardless of whether the statue has been reinstated or not" ElijahUHC (Talk) 15:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. The information page states that:

Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability

--Aguzul (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]