Talk:Movement for the Self-Determination of Kabylie

[Untitled]

On August 7th 2014 user 69.70.37.106 changed MAK's political position from "Center-left to left-wing" to "Right to extreme right" without giving any reason for such a drastic alteration. In my opinion it is difficult to classify MAK on the left-right spectrum. They are primarily and party of human rights and indigenous self-determination. I challenge anyone to find a reliable source for MAK being a party of the extreme right. In the absence of such evidence I suggest the 'political position' section is removed.

"The Autonomous Kabylie upholds the respect for human rights, regardless of sex, race, language or religion. Accordingly, the Family Code will be repealed, polygamy will no longer have its purpose and personal status is governed by egalitarian civil laws." -- from the constitution of MAK.

Cdh1984 (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the MAK a political party?

This article is categorized as a political party but I don't see anything here that suggests it is. Charles Essie (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Bias

The neutrality of this article is questionable, i find it odd to rely on an algerian press website. (Source number [3]) especially in this particular article. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Could you explain this revert? What makes you think that the source is reliable? Simoooix.haddi (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have to prove the opposite of your baseless assertion. Please don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

You said that the source is reliable! So you should prove it, otherwise your revert is nothing but a baseless attempt to impose your POV. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Logo officiel du Mouvement pour l'autodétermination de la Kabylie (MAK).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC : removing unreliabely sourced content.

I suggest removing both the biased source and the content associated with it (this one: Djazairess, an Algerian press website). Although the article covers a self-determination movement that opposes the Algerian government, it seems impractical to depend on a biased Algerian source known for promoting Algerian propaganda, particularly for this topic. Thanks. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

• Strong oppose this is nothing more than another attempt at censorship by the OP:

1. First, they falsely claimed that the source is "government press". Then, they claimed that it's unreliable, and now they are trying a different approach (by claiming that it's biased), when in fact, the only biased thing here is the way they formulated their useless RfC.
2. The source is not Djazairess (the news aggregator), it's Ennahar (here's the link to the archived article). The source simply reported a statement of facts (what was said by Idir and reported by others back then, following his resignation from the MAK). Here's also the interview of Idir by another militant (you can hear him confirming what the sources attribute to him from @36m).

There really isn't a lot more that can be said about it or the OP's baseless claims, but if anyone (other than the OP) needs further clarification, please don't hesitate to ping me. M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Opppose (summoned by bot) - Ennahar appears to be a reliable outlet, with an editorial board, record of factual reporting, and wide circulation. There is no reason to doubt their factual reporting, as evinced by the interview also presented by M. Bitton. This also is not a very well-formed RfC, as it does not provide a dispassionate neutral presentation of the circumstances, does not quote the content in question that is supported by the source, and has no set of wide ranging options. I would suggest a speedy close. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)