Jump to content

Talk:Berbers/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Berbers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This could use a thorough assessment. At a quick look, there is a lot of good material here, but also a lot that is being duked out. I'd appreciate if someone with knowledge of the topic would do a comprehensive assessment. - Jmabel Talk 07:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 15:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Berbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Berbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merged text

[edit]

Some text from the History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology article was merged into this article with this edit. Page history for attribution can be found at Talk:History of Carthage/History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3500 ??

[edit]

3500 Berbers in israel ????????!? i thought there were 1 million moroccans in israel, and most moroccans are ethnically berber ! what a nonsense... any advice ? Macadam1 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but at least of of Morrocan Jews are Sephardi but the majority of Algerian Jews and Libyan Jews are Berber Jews as well as a significant amount of Morrocan jews Dahound575 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little over a quarter of the Morrocan Jews are Berber and most Morrocan Jews are a mix of Sephardic Jewish ancestry and Berber ancestry Dahound575 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The figures are wrong

[edit]

There are a lot of wrong figures, i will correct some of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.49.166.177 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The populations are wrong

[edit]

At the turn of the 21st century, there were perhaps 14 million in Morocco, 9 million in Algeria, and much smaller numbers in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Mauretania; in the Sahara of southern Algeria and of Libya, Mali and Niger, the Berber Tuareg number about 1 million. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Berber — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukkani (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The low is for non-arabized Berbers, and the high for non-arabized and arabized Berbers. Soupforone (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the figures, they were removed by an IP user on March 5th Tarook97 (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Soupforone: can you find another source supporting 32 million population of Berbers in Algeria? I am sure there are none and this is an overestimation. Capitals00 (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is ~32 million rather than exactly 32 million. This estimate is 80% of Algeria's population (a common high estimate [1]). Soupforone (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Name"

[edit]

"A history by a Roman consul in Africa" makes no sense. A proconsul? A governor? From Africa? About Africa? And what was his name, what the title of the history, does it survive? I propose deletion. Deipnosophista (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singular or Plural: The easy way

[edit]

To User:Soupforone Consistency is pretty important. ⵉⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵏ / ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ is the Tamazight words for Berbers and Berber respectively. The first one literally reads as Imazighen and the second is Amazigh. You don't even have to be fluent in Berber, you can reasilly look up it's alphabet. Or look up wikitionary or any source in Berber. So in order to be consistent, those two should be the only thing in the info box.

When it comes to the intro, there is no need to add in Amazighen in plural. Yes, there is one source (in French) that implies it is interchangeable with Imazighen. But you won't find much use of the spelling "Amazighen" in English. In fact, ⵉ reads as "I". Any native Berber speaker will easily corroborate what I'm saying. Go ahead and call someone who knows Berber. CaliphoShah (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imazighen is indeed the plural Berber transliteration. Amazighen is a Latinized rendering of the singular Amazigh [2]. Anyway, per Template:Infobox ethnic group, the group infobox parameter defaults to the pagename. The pagename is Berbers (plural). It appears that the native name parameter is for the name in the local language, so that is the parameter for the plural and singular transliterations. Soupforone (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem appropriate to specifically include the rarest way to write Imazighen because one source mentions it. The page name is of course plural but that doesn't mean the singular form in Tamazight cannot be mentioned. In the info box, the singular form is mentioned. So it would make sense to include the more common singular latinized form. No one is questioning the title of the Infobox which would obviously be "Berber". You're doing a strawman argument there.CaliphoShah (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to make the info box more consistent with the changes. "ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ" should be removed as that is just the singular form. CaliphoShah (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia in the infobox is a joke

[edit]

110,000 or >6,589,652? What? Can we please improve this at least some? --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are 2 separate estimations that population is either 110,000 Berbers in Tunisia or 6,589,652 Berbers. Capitals00 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Length

[edit]

The history section is very informative and well-sourced, but also very long. I suggest creating a new article titled History of the Berbers and then converting the existing section into more of a summary. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

In the infobox it says "related ethnic groups...Picts, Iberians, Tartessians"

First of all, all those groups are ancient. Ancient ethnic groups should not be included here, since it's impossible to actually conform what ethnic group they were and the nature of that group. But Picts? seriously? I don't think I need to elaborate here, but the Picts were a celtic people from scotland 1,500 years ago... Tartessians and Iberians were both unidentified peoples from modern Spain and Portugal...thousands of years ago, from before roman conquest... SAMMI?! Thousands of miles away and totally unrelated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.40.128 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for relation to Iberians and Picts comes from a 1956 paper, so I think it would really need a more recent reference to support it. That said, from skimming through the paper, it is arguing that the original population of the British Isles came from Iberia (a claim that I have seen made in a number of sources, and seems to be plausible), and that they in turn came from North Africa. So there may be a germ of truth in the claim. That said, claiming specifically that the Picts, as opposed to the British more generally seems overly specific (and probably wrong, as the idea that the Picts were a pre-Celtic relic population seems to be disproved). And claiming that the British and the Berbers are related on the basis of 3000 year old migrations from Iberia may be correct in one sense, but is hardly useful or meaningful as the same argument would make most groups in Europe, North Africa, or Western Asia related to each other.
The claim about relationship to the Saami, on the other hand, is based on a more recent (2005) mtDNA analysis, so may be more scientific. But this connection would have been about 9000 years ago (from the paper), and if it is meaningful to list a relationship on that basis, then again, presumably many more groups would need listing as well. Iapetus (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


- Edited here: Yes there is a correlation with picts, possibly because of the extent of Trade and previously unthought of trade between North Europe and North Africa. Including trade between Scandinavian regions and North Africa - Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.16.67.82 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are the Amazigh - Berbers also original canaan jews?

[edit]

Clearly during the settlements of cities on North African continent must have mixed and brought the original phoenicians - ie Canaanites into the Region, hence bringing with them Tanit - or Ashtarte and Baal Hammon, basically making some modern day Libyan citizens actually descendants of Original Jews of Lebanon and 'Israel'.... Basically. Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.16.67.82 (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About statistics

[edit]

I hope to stick to the statistics numbers in the references ... This why called a "reference". please open all references and check .I do not see the number 100 million anywhere .The same number conflicts with Infobox Benohamid (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent assertions about Augustine's Berber ancestry - yes, 'unproven', yes

[edit]

I share the first and third opinions of Augustine's Berber ancestry (his mother's name "Monica" indicates that), but will ask that a neutral editor resolve the inconsistency in the article among:

  1. "Some of the best known of the ancient Berbers are the Numidian king Masensen, king Yugerten, the Berber-Roman author Apuleius, Saint Augustine of Hippo, and the Berber-Roman general Lusius Quietus..."
  2. "The Roman era authors Apuleius and St. Augustine were born in the Roman province of Africa; claims that they had Berber ancestry are unproven."
  3. "Scholars generally agree that Augustine and his family were Berbers, an ethnic group indigenous to North Africa,..." [citing: "Augustine was an outsider—a native North African whose family was not Roman but Berber..." from Cantor, Norman (1993), The Civilization of the Middle Ages, Harper, p. 74'.]

A text 'find' on the name Augustine will locate all these. Thanks! – •Raven  .talk 21:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@.Raven: I removed the WP:OR part from the second opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: Thank you for that, and for the added precision (Africa → Numidia); also thanked via click-on-edit. – •Raven  .talk 01:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity or language

[edit]

Does the populations section counts the language speakers or ethnic?, numbers would be a lot higher if it's the later. --LibyaDragoon (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic, in the opening paragraph they imply that there are berbers that do not speak berber by stating the north african population that "still speaks" the language. 2601:401:501:F990:BD2F:9BDD:CE0B:8386 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminologically

[edit]

The native people of north Africa refuse this term and don't recognize it, But they call themselves "The Amazigh people" or simply the Amazighs and their language "Tamazight", As i found the term in old Egypt, Egyptian hieroglyphs: the Amazigh term.

could you check and review in English Wikipedia historically, logically, terminologically, chronologically this term as title.

thanks. محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Md.Boualam» (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they refuse this term, but the majority of sources refer to them as "Berbers" then Berbers is what we should use, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Aṭlas (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The linked guidelines state "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Given that the common English name is rejected by the people themselves, should we not opt for the other common name, their chosen descriptor?2601:401:501:F990:BD2F:9BDD:CE0B:8386 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that they have been termed Berbers in the majority of sources does not validate the known racist connotations and the base rejection of the terminology by the people themselves. This article should be renamed Amazigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2B40:9100:BCBD:262F:FE:6450 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of any "racist connotations" here, but it is clearly cultural imperialism to insist that native English speakers name people or places not with the words they are familiar with but with others which are strange to them. Consider: I would not wish to abuse French people, in speaking to each other in French, for calling countries "Angleterre" or "Pays de Galles" instead of "England" or "Cymru"! Deipnosophista (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a negative connotation. Berber comes from Barbarian.CaliphoShah (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

/* Languages */ dubious-not supported by source given

[edit]

Britannica doesn't say anything about Egyptian branching off of Berber.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tradition was that Berber are Egyptians. Magherbin (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Magherbin: @Kintetsubuffalo: The Berber language and the overwhelming Berber male line is only ~2000 years old. The difference with the Ancient Egyptian language is at least 7000 years old and the branching of the male lines is 24 000 years old. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics And Ethnicity

[edit]

The most proliferious haplogroup among the Berbers is haplogroup E1b1b. E1b1b came from Somalia, where an older version is now the most highly concentrated anywhere. E1b1b is obviously closely related to haplogroup E1b1a, which has it's highest concentration in non-Bantu speaking people in West Africa and the Bantu language family expansion. Berber is a language that is classified with Afro-Asiatic, just like Semitic, Chadic/Hausa, Cushitic and Ancient Egyptian. In other words, there is a strong continuum of haplogroups, subclades of E1b1, across the entire African continent, and Southern Europe. Linguistically, Berber goes back to the expansion of Afro-Asiatic. Genetically, linguistically, the Berbers ancient history is linked to East Africa. So... why are there no images of Black Berbers in this article? https://www.google.com/search?q=black+berbers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidtJ-4vqXfAhURyoUKHdg9Dg0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1278&bih=1288 83.84.100.133 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


First of all here you're only speaking about the Y-Haplogroup E1b1b which is very old you should speak about the specific berber subclades like M81 which is not really present in east africa. There is also the mtdna of berbers why don't you speak about it ? + Here you've a made a mistake to think that languages are necessarily linked with genetics : a lot of people speak arabic but are still not arabs....or a lot of anatolians speak turk but only a minority of them came from central asia. And here some links so you can understand better berbers : https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/ 

                                                                                       https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257290/
                                                                                       https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00493.x


There is a statement in the article that appears spurious. It is related to the Coptic/Ethio-Somali, having diverged from these and other West Eurasian-affiliated components prior to the Holocene - the sources adduced for this statement do not mention anything of the sort, and this appears to be original research that is unsourced, uncorroborated, and misleading. A look at the history of the article shows that the sentence was added by the noted pan-Somali sock puppet Soupforone, whose other entries on articles to do with African populations have been noted for their wild inaccuracy and their bizarre attempts to create non-existent connections between Horn of African populations and non-Africans (while simultaneously minimising the connections between those Horn populations and related non-Cushitic African groups). I suggest speedy deletion of this statement from the article, as it is unsourced and makes a claim that has no genetic or archaeological basis. 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– While the common name in English is "Berber," the term "Berber" is a cognate of "barbarian" and is widely considered derogatory among the Amazigh people, as attested to in these sources among others:

  • this article from Al Jazeera, approximately: "Berbers is a Latin name, meaning "savages" or "primitive savages." The Romans used this name for all foreigners, including the Amazigh people, in their conquest of the communities of the Mediterranean basin."
  • this article in The National (Abu Dhabi): "At the core of their struggle in recent years – amid a long history of colonial suppression – is their stated desire to no longer be referred to as Berbers but as Amazigh, meaning "free people", and for their language to be known as Tamazight."
  • this article in al-Hewar al-Mutamadin [ar], approximately: "The term "Berber" within Greek civilization was transformed into a derogatory concept; the word "Berber"/"Barbarian" refers to foreign cultures of inferiority, whether to Greek civilization or its predecessors. (Similar to the Russians calling the Germans "niemcy": "the incomprehensible people", and the German language "Nemensky Yzek": "the incomprehensible language.") For The Greeks, Greece was the center of civilization (eurocentrism); the Berbers according to the Greeks were all those who did not belong to Greek civilization and did not speak Greek. The term was also used by the Roman Empire to refer to peoples outside its sovereignty, and the term "berber" was used especially to refer to the resistants to Roman colonial presence, whether they were Amazigh, Germanic, Celtic or other. The term referred to the incivility of the resistants to Roman civilization."

Notable publications in English use the term "Amazigh" over "Berber":

in French too:

According to WP:NCET, "Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." From the sources above, there is clearly grounds to avoid the term "Berber" when the word Amazigh is used by English sources Whereas "Imazighen" would be the correct demonym of self-identification, it is far less common in English than the singular "Amazigh," which is quite common in many English sources. I propose the adjectival with "people"—"Amazigh people." I also propose moving other articles containing the word "Berber" to a new title using the term "Amazigh" instead. إيان (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment:TheseusHeLl, M.Bitton, might you have anything to add? إيان (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. One source to establish that the term is derogatory? As Ramzi Rouighi puts it in Inventing the Berbers (2019), Amazigh sets up a new mediation, an anachronistic one at that, which only misdirects historians and directs contemporary politics. Perhaps some articles that are limited to contemporary politics or recent history could be changed, but articles that deal with a broad sweep of history and geography (i.e. Berbers, Berbers and Islam) should not be changed. Srnec (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I provided a quick source just to get the conversation started. I've since fleshed out the move proposal with more sources. As Ramzi Rouighi himself mentions, "Berber" is a cognate of "Barbarian" and many in Amazigh communities take offense to that term. Major sources such as the The New York Times and The Washington Post, as shown above, have preferred "Amazigh" over "Berber." Per WP:NCET, it's better to use a title that isn't perceived as offensive or even racist. Ramzi Rouighi's idea could be mentioned in the name section of the article. إيان (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Berber is the clear common name both in general and scholarly sources. I'm not seeing sources demonstrating that Berber is actually considered derogatory outside of certain identitarian movements which sources don't describe as being widespread. Britannica: but only some of them identify as Amazigh. This source discusses the identitarian movement, uses Berber in prose and only mentions: Some modern-day Amazigh militants take great umbrage not only with the term "Berber" but with "Maghrib" as well. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Þjarkur: I've added more sources above, including major media sources such as the NYT and WaPo which have preferred "Amazigh" over "Berber." Yes "Berber" is the common name, but it's a cognate of "barbarian" and perceived as offensive and per WP:NCET it should be avoided. إيان (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the common English name. Perhaps "Berber" is considered derogatory by some, but until it falls into disuse by reliable English sources we should continue to use it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: I've added more sources above, including NYT and WaPo. Even if "Berber" is the common name, it's offensive and should be avoided per WP:NCET. إيان (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان: I have read the entire guideline you linked to at WP:NCET and nothing in it says that we should avoid using the common name if some people find it offensive. Please quote the section of that guideline that you think applies here. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." إيان (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But that is just a guideline going against our standard article naming policy. In general, I think it's good to try to avoid certain terms deemed derogatory, but in this case the term is so overwhelmingly used in English sources and the alternative is so underused that I don't think it's practical to do in this case. Perhaps English language usage will change over time and this can be brought up again at a later date. Taking a look at the [Google Ngrams], there does seem to be an increasing usage of the alternative, but it's just not used widely enough yet to consider it for the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: The trends are shifting quickly. If not now, when? Major anglophone newspapers of record such as the NYT and WaPo are already opting for "Amazigh" over "Berber." إيان (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when exactly, as I do not have a crystal ball to look into the future. But if the English language usage shifts to the point where "Amazigh" is the most common English name, then we can move the article. Most reliable sources these days are highly sensitive to if a particular term is offensive, so if the offense to the term is truly widespread then I'm sure the usage will shift relatively quickly. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article used Berber in its title and introduced the word Berber before using Amazigh. The WaPo article did not itself use Amazigh, it quoted a speech by the king and the WaPo decided it was necessary to insert "[Berber]" as an explanation in the king's speech. These sources are not opting for Amazigh at all, if you look at this Google search of usage of Berber in NYT and compare it to this one it is quite clear that Berber is widespread and Amazigh is rarely used and usually requiring an "also known as Berber" explanation. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of terms that people can find offensive, it doesn't mean that we don't use it if that's the common name, as Wikipedia is not censored. "Slav" and "slave" are cognates too, so I'm sure there must be some people who find that offensive too. It doesn't mean we should rename the article to something else that most English speakers have never heard of. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. Slav is ultimately derived from an autonym and the word "slave" derived from it independently, and I don't know of any movement among Slavs not to be referred to as "Slavs," whereas "Berber" is not an autonym and there have been prominent, consistent pushes against use of the term which many consider racist. إيان (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:UNCENSORED states: "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies" (such as WP:NCET mentioned above: "Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided.") إيان (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments go far beyond a name change. You are arguing for suppressing the term "Berber" everywhere. This I strongly oppose. Srnec (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: WP:NCET is explicitly a naming guideline for article titles about peoples, ethnicities, and tribes—not suppressing the term everywhere. It's better to use a viable term that isn't perceived as derogatory or racist. The term "Berber" should absolutely be discussed where relevant. There could even be an article on the term "Berber," the way there's an article on the term "Negro," but it shouldn't be used to describe a people who widely consider it offensive. إيان (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we call a medieval people known in our sources as Barbar Amazigh? If our sources (like Rouighi) use Berber, how can we totally ignore them? If it is derogatory in the title, it is derogatory in the body. But what makes it derogatory? It certainly isn't used in a derogatory way in English. "Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question" is far too broad. How many members? Is just one enough? 50%? Almost all? Srnec (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Wikipedia will predictably oppose this, which I get. But opposition is essentially the argument that the victorious and/or predominant party absolutely defines the linguistics of history. If the Wikipedia entry is meant to be as literal as possible, "Amazigh" is indisputably defined. It is also defined by the preeminent source -- historians, linguists, and nations of the people. Additionally, young, modern linguistics naturally follows Arab Spring with nations such as Tunisia being rather young. Berber could easily redirect to Amazigh. Berber may apply historically in many contexts, but Amazigh references both the modern people as well as their historical context. 73.112.75.227 (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)IPonly[reply]
    Since Amazigh is just a replacement for Berber, the "victorious and/or predominant party" are still defining things no matter what word we use. Srnec (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Meatpuppet or sock check? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/73.112.75.227 no previous edits New Jersey IP. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Strong oppose Obvious case of WP:COMMONNAME. Spilia4 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. At home, we call ourselves Imazighen (plural for Amazigh), the language is locally referred to as Tamazight, so we never use anything close to the term "berber". That said, the books of history (mostly written by the winners, here Arabs) often use the latter as it has, in Arabic, the same spelling/meaning of Barbarian. A similar example is the name of the queen and military leader Dihya, often referred to, in history books, as Kahina meaning, in Arabic, sorcerer. As for the use today, more and more references (as illustrated above) avoid the use of the term "berber" and Wikipedia should do the same while of course mentioning the common term for historical backgrounds. --Abdeaitali (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What language are you speaking at home when you're calling yourselves Imazighen? When Deutsche are at home in Deutschland, I know they're calling themselves Deutsche, but they don't cite that as a reason to tell English speakers not to call them Germans from Germany. Largoplazo (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. This is an open-and-shut COMMONNAME case. O.N.R. (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose. Amazigh is an endonym that rarely appears in historical sources. Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. English use is quickly adapting to terms and titles that indigenous groups use to identify themselves and territories with. This is not only socially urgent but more historically accurate. There is no reason not to use the proper name: Amazigh/Imazighen. It can always be noted that Berber was the former common english name. I am seeing Amazigh used much more often now. Fifthcoastbobcat (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is English Wikipedia, and it is "not a dictionary". Foreign words and names do often get incorporated into the language, but until they do, it isn't our job to predict what will become common usage. By the way, when I travelled in the Atlas mountains, the (extremely hospitable) Berbers were always described as such, and they seemed entirely happy with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose, the term is widely used in the bibliography and in scientific studies. In the English language, the expression "Berber" is used much more than "Amazigh" (See Wikipedia:COMMONNAME). In English, the word has no derogatory intent (I'm Berber). --Syphax98 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2020 (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.

The greatest history never told and occulted of "Tanit", Carthage, Libya, North Africa and the Amazigh People/Libyans also known as "Berbers"

[edit]

Ok so first "Berber" has never been used neither by Greeks nor Romans to describe the Amazigh People, Imazighen for the plurial. "Berber" was invented by the Arabs when they invaded the Libyans and the slur was reused by the French invaders. The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans always labelled the Amazigh people "Libyans", in fact Libya in the past was North Africa, not just a country, it was the name for North Africa. The Ancient Libyans have the same skin color "mediterranean" sometimes tanned due to the Sun and they also used the same tattoos as the modern ones, and it seems like the traditions remained. By the way, Africa is the name of the Libyan goddess Africa, Afri, Ifri.

Ibn Khaldun also spoke of the Amazigh people, Imazighen for the plural, Tamazight for the language. We often find the word "Mazigh". According to his theory, they are descended from Canaan, son of Ham, and have for ancestors, son of Temla, son of Mazîgh, son of Canaan, son of Ham, a son of Noah. This is one of his theory.

Tifinagh is a libyc script from the Amazigh people conserved by the Tuaregs but also found in different parts of North Africa. It's a very old script, it looks like a combination of mathematical, geometric symbols.

The Imazighen managed to keep their culture and their gene, they never mixed with Arabs for the most part, they reproduce between them, they have the North African/Libyan gene mostly and they are their own ethnicity. What is sad is that their history has been very occulted by the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, etc, who try to appropriate for example the Carthaginian civilization that is in Ancient Libya (North Africa). In fact the Tanit symbol used for Carthage is Libyc. It’s called Ta-Nit, Ta-Neith, like Ta-mazight, Tafoust, Taqbaylit etc. There is a lot of words with “Ta” at the beginning in the Tamazight language. The Tamazight use “Ta“ at the beginning of a feminine word and “t“ at the end.

Ammon is the name of a Libyan deity and his oracle in the desert. It became famous after Alexander The Great made a detour to consult the god. The modern name is Siwa.

Another example of occultism is Poseidon supposed to be a “greek” God, which is in fact a Libyan God.

".. about this god [Poseidon] the Hellenes learnt from the Libyans, for no people except the Libyans have had the name of Poseidon from the first and have paid honour to this god always." - Herodotus, Book 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noctuark (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you say is said in the article. If it isn't, and it's not too WP:UNDUE to say so, what should be changed? If the common name is "Berbers", that is what we go by. I'm unaware, except from reading the article, of the alternate names for this people. You would do well to suggest some sources that argue your points for you, so we can better examine context and suitability for inclusion, if that is your purpose. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well first, I would like to implement the term "Libyan" to designate the imazighen/amazigh people, to speak about the history of the ancient Libyans with images that show for example the tattoos used in the past and those used in the present by the same people.

Also use the word amazigh more often. Use only the term "Berber" at the beginning of the page but change it all to "amazigh" which is the more fair and less insulting and denigrating name." Berber" is a racist colonial slur still used to dehumanize Amazigh/Libyans. Explain that the word "Berber" is a racist colonial slur.

Talk about Carthage and explain exactly that the goddess Tanit is Amazigh and that unlike inventions, it was mainly an Amazigh/Libyan empire and part Phoenician with Amun who is a Libyan/Amazigh God and Baal Phoenician, Baal Amun. As I have already explained, Tanit, Ta-Nit, Ta-Neith, like Ta-mazight, Tafoust, Taqbaylit etc. There is a lot of words with “Ta” at the beginning in the Tamazight language. The Tamazight use “Ta“ at the beginning of a feminine word and “t“ at the end.

Also to explain about Poseidon that it's a libyan/amazigh God

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noctuark (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please get in the habit of signing your posts with four tildes. Then, I don't feel the term "Berber" as insulting or denigrating. It's a well known historical term and to substitute "amazigh" would confuse our readers. "Libyan" is well known, but is used to refer to the citizens of modern Libya. Your illustrations (I was looking for citations) are of primary sources. Where are the secondary sources, which could explain the habit of tattooing, interpret the mural from Seti's tomb, and give context for the quote from Herodotus? Dhtwiki (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I’m starting on wikipedia. But the term "Berber" has practically nothing historical and in no way represents the Amazigh people, the term "Libyan" was much more often used by Herodotus for example. It’s just an easier term, but like for the dark-skinned Africans, you’re not going to use a derogatory name for them? Even if you "don't feel" as insulting. It would be necessary to do the same. It is often related to "barbarian" as you will have noticed. Many historians explain well that "Berber" is not very appreciated and that it is necessary to use the name "amazigh".

The tattoos of the Amazigh are known all over the world, and the same tattoos that the ancient Libyans had, the same skin color, there is only one race in Africa that uses these tattoos. it is in the book of gates, on google, on youtube, on internet, everywhere. Then for Poseidon the Amazigh/Libyan God, it is in Herodotus Book 2: Euterpe [50], I gave the citations Noctuark (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berber exists as a common term for inhabitants of the Mahgreb. If there is something insulting about using the term, it will take more than the unsourced opinion of one editor to show that that's the case. What historians, specifically, and in what writings, say that the term is "not ... appreciated"? What texts tell of the Amazigh tattoos? You don't have to know WP:CITATION markup to make the case; what authors, book titles, etc.? Herodotus's The Persian Wars is a primary source and we should have modern scholars' interpretation of H's works. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "Berber" is derogatory was thoroughly discussed in the move request of July 25, 2020. إيان (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that, my involvement with the article being recent (as of January this year). I also see a number of opposes that reflect my skepticism of there needing to be a change in nomenclature. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fatuous heading of this section is telling—"The greatest history never told and occulted"—and indicates a certain lack of self-awareness, reading as it does like a notice of a point-of-view agenda. User Noctuark may have a case, but has failed to make it. The discussion of the move request of July 25, 2020 was closed with 3 editors supporting and 9 opposing, so the consensus was clearly against moving the article. Carlstak (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced opinion? I just showed you the sources with the pictures. The known modern name is Amazigh/Imazighen for the plurial, and "Berber" is just a racist colonial slur.

In Ancient history, the Imazighen were known as "Libyans", they were known as "Carthaginians" also, they used to be part of the Roman Empire, and then they were also known as "Numidians" and "Moors". "Berber" is a very recent term, it was first used by some arabs and then reused by the french. This racist slur had an agenda of dehumanization of the Amazigh people during the colonization by the french, never this term was used to describe the Imazighen, not once.

Concerning the Libyans I have already explained everything, and in addition a simple google search makes it possible to find the answers. If you do not agree to say things as they should be, do as you wish, I just wanted to correct the origin of these people, but if you’re not interested, fine. For the term "berber", it’s a racist colonial slur, and it would be nice to change it to really explain things. You can just keep it in the title but explain that it is a racist colonial slur. Noctuark (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, I should not have wasted my time adding information on an invisible people, very little known, whose history is very well hidden and obscured. Noctuark (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Population figure for Libya

[edit]

The cited source for the Libyan population figure in the infobox (Handbook of Bilingualism, p. 860) refers to an appendix table in a book chapter. The table is titled Appendix: Some Data on the Main Religions and Population Groups in the Middle East and North Africa, and for Ethnic Muslim groups on that page the table includes only the following information about Berbers: "Berbers in: Morocco: 80% of population; Algeria: 80%; Tunisia: >60%; Libya: >60%; Egypt: 2%"
Aside from not being a precise number, it also doesn't clarify what it's measuring exactly; it looks too high to be the number of speakers of Berber languages, but might be an estimate of the population classified as of Berber "ethnicity", which would be complicated. The couple of sources at Demographics_of_Libya#Ethnic_and_tribal_groups might help and it's already more nuanced than this. In short, I think a better and more precise source is needed, and a footnote might be needed to contextualize even a reliable number. I hope this helps. R Prazeres (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fight over numbers is as old as the article. The problem is that there has never been any consensus about who exactly is to be called "Berber". If we take the definition of "a person who speaks a Berber language", then quite accurate estimates can be made (and they are at the lower end of the very wide range given in the infobox). Personally, this is the definition I would go for. But the article itself does not adopt this definition, it rather states in the lead: "Historically, Berber nations spoke the Berber languages". 'Historically' might mean that they not necessarily speak them today. But then, why can we say 80% in Morocco? Is there any 20% of people in Morocco who have NO Berber ancestry? No, there isn't. Rather, 99,9% of Moroccans are a blend of different ethnical groups in which Berbers are by far the most important component. I would suggest to adopt a more precise definition of Berbers as "Berber-speaking people" and adjust the figures based on this definition, of course acknowledging that ethnically, there is mostly no difference between Berbers and non-Berbers in the Maghreb - you just can't tell them apart. Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll leave it to editors here to decide, but nothing wrong with picking a definition for which there are reliable numbers and making sure that there's a footnote to explain what the numbers mean. Ethnicity is more than mere genetics anyways, and Berber identity isn't the same thing in every region (and in every period); in some regions (definitely in Morocco for example) language is a central aspect of Amazigh identity, so it's not a marginal measure to start with. R Prazeres (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, the cited source doesn't explicitly support the added content; and since its numbers for the other countries don't make much sense, I personally think it's best to ignore it. I support the "Berber-speaking people" proposal (for Libya at least). M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The total number of Berbers has recently been challenged a number of times. Having looked at the cited sources, it does appear as though that number is off. The "Native Peoples of the World" for instance, makes some bold claims with regard to their numbers in Libya and Tunisia and go on to describe the Berbers as "primarily agriculturalist, pastoralists and hunters" (no comment necessary). Britannica doesn't cite a number. foxnews gives 25-30 million. The last source was discussed discussed above. M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest history never told and occulted of "Tanit", Carthage, Libya, North Africa and the Amazigh People/Libyans also known as "Berbers"

[edit]

Ok so first "Berber" has never been used neither by Greeks nor Romans to describe the Amazigh People, Imazighen for the plurial. "Berber" was invented by the Arabs when they invaded the Libyans and the slur was reused by the French invaders. The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans always labelled the Amazigh people "Libyans", in fact Libya in the past was North Africa, not just a country, it was the name for North Africa. The Ancient Libyans have the same skin color "mediterranean" sometimes tanned due to the Sun and they also used the same tattoos as the modern ones, and it seems like the traditions remained. By the way, Africa is the name of the Libyan goddess Africa, Afri, Ifri.

Ibn Khaldun also spoke of the Amazigh people, Imazighen for the plural, Tamazight for the language. We often find the word "Mazigh". According to his theory, they are descended from Canaan, son of Ham, and have for ancestors, son of Temla, son of Mazîgh, son of Canaan, son of Ham, a son of Noah. This is one of his theory.

Tifinagh is a libyc script from the Amazigh people conserved by the Tuaregs but also found in different parts of North Africa. It's a very old script, it looks like a combination of mathematical, geometric symbols.

The Imazighen managed to keep their culture and their gene, they never mixed with Arabs for the most part, they reproduce between them, they have the North African/Libyan gene mostly and they are their own ethnicity. What is sad is that their history has been very occulted by the Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, etc, who try to appropriate for example the Carthaginian civilization that is in Ancient Libya (North Africa). In fact the Tanit symbol used for Carthage is Libyc. It’s called Ta-Nit, Ta-Neith, like Ta-mazight, Tafoust, Taqbaylit etc. There is a lot of words with “Ta” at the beginning in the Tamazight language. The Tamazight use “Ta“ at the beginning of a feminine word and “t“ at the end.

Ammon is the name of a Libyan deity and his oracle in the desert. It became famous after Alexander The Great made a detour to consult the god. The modern name is Siwa.

Another example of occultism is Poseidon supposed to be a “greek” God, which is in fact a Libyan God.

".. about this god [Poseidon] the Hellenes learnt from the Libyans, for no people except the Libyans have had the name of Poseidon from the first and have paid honour to this god always." - Herodotus, Book 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noctuark (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you say is said in the article. If it isn't, and it's not too WP:UNDUE to say so, what should be changed? If the common name is "Berbers", that is what we go by. I'm unaware, except from reading the article, of the alternate names for this people. You would do well to suggest some sources that argue your points for you, so we can better examine context and suitability for inclusion, if that is your purpose. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well first, I would like to implement the term "Libyan" to designate the imazighen/amazigh people, to speak about the history of the ancient Libyans with images that show for example the tattoos used in the past and those used in the present by the same people.

Also use the word amazigh more often. Use only the term "Berber" at the beginning of the page but change it all to "amazigh" which is the more fair and less insulting and denigrating name." Berber" is a racist colonial slur still used to dehumanize Amazigh/Libyans. Explain that the word "Berber" is a racist colonial slur.

Talk about Carthage and explain exactly that the goddess Tanit is Amazigh and that unlike inventions, it was mainly an Amazigh/Libyan empire and part Phoenician with Amun who is a Libyan/Amazigh God and Baal Phoenician, Baal Amun. As I have already explained, Tanit, Ta-Nit, Ta-Neith, like Ta-mazight, Tafoust, Taqbaylit etc. There is a lot of words with “Ta” at the beginning in the Tamazight language. The Tamazight use “Ta“ at the beginning of a feminine word and “t“ at the end.

Also to explain about Poseidon that it's a libyan/amazigh God

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noctuark (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please get in the habit of signing your posts with four tildes. Then, I don't feel the term "Berber" as insulting or denigrating. It's a well known historical term and to substitute "amazigh" would confuse our readers. "Libyan" is well known, but is used to refer to the citizens of modern Libya. Your illustrations (I was looking for citations) are of primary sources. Where are the secondary sources, which could explain the habit of tattooing, interpret the mural from Seti's tomb, and give context for the quote from Herodotus? Dhtwiki (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I’m starting on wikipedia. But the term "Berber" has practically nothing historical and in no way represents the Amazigh people, the term "Libyan" was much more often used by Herodotus for example. It’s just an easier term, but like for the dark-skinned Africans, you’re not going to use a derogatory name for them? Even if you "don't feel" as insulting. It would be necessary to do the same. It is often related to "barbarian" as you will have noticed. Many historians explain well that "Berber" is not very appreciated and that it is necessary to use the name "amazigh".

The tattoos of the Amazigh are known all over the world, and the same tattoos that the ancient Libyans had, the same skin color, there is only one race in Africa that uses these tattoos. it is in the book of gates, on google, on youtube, on internet, everywhere. Then for Poseidon the Amazigh/Libyan God, it is in Herodotus Book 2: Euterpe [50], I gave the citations Noctuark (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berber exists as a common term for inhabitants of the Mahgreb. If there is something insulting about using the term, it will take more than the unsourced opinion of one editor to show that that's the case. What historians, specifically, and in what writings, say that the term is "not ... appreciated"? What texts tell of the Amazigh tattoos? You don't have to know WP:CITATION markup to make the case; what authors, book titles, etc.? Herodotus's The Persian Wars is a primary source and we should have modern scholars' interpretation of H's works. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "Berber" is derogatory was thoroughly discussed in the move request of July 25, 2020. إيان (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see that, my involvement with the article being recent (as of January this year). I also see a number of opposes that reflect my skepticism of there needing to be a change in nomenclature. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fatuous heading of this section is telling—"The greatest history never told and occulted"—and indicates a certain lack of self-awareness, reading as it does like a notice of a point-of-view agenda. User Noctuark may have a case, but has failed to make it. The discussion of the move request of July 25, 2020 was closed with 3 editors supporting and 9 opposing, so the consensus was clearly against moving the article. Carlstak (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced opinion? I just showed you the sources with the pictures. The known modern name is Amazigh/Imazighen for the plurial, and "Berber" is just a racist colonial slur.

In Ancient history, the Imazighen were known as "Libyans", they were known as "Carthaginians" also, they used to be part of the Roman Empire, and then they were also known as "Numidians" and "Moors". "Berber" is a very recent term, it was first used by some arabs and then reused by the french. This racist slur had an agenda of dehumanization of the Amazigh people during the colonization by the french, never this term was used to describe the Imazighen, not once.

Concerning the Libyans I have already explained everything, and in addition a simple google search makes it possible to find the answers. If you do not agree to say things as they should be, do as you wish, I just wanted to correct the origin of these people, but if you’re not interested, fine. For the term "berber", it’s a racist colonial slur, and it would be nice to change it to really explain things. You can just keep it in the title but explain that it is a racist colonial slur. Noctuark (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, I should not have wasted my time adding information on an invisible people, very little known, whose history is very well hidden and obscured. Noctuark (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Population figure for Libya

[edit]

The cited source for the Libyan population figure in the infobox (Handbook of Bilingualism, p. 860) refers to an appendix table in a book chapter. The table is titled Appendix: Some Data on the Main Religions and Population Groups in the Middle East and North Africa, and for Ethnic Muslim groups on that page the table includes only the following information about Berbers: "Berbers in: Morocco: 80% of population; Algeria: 80%; Tunisia: >60%; Libya: >60%; Egypt: 2%"
Aside from not being a precise number, it also doesn't clarify what it's measuring exactly; it looks too high to be the number of speakers of Berber languages, but might be an estimate of the population classified as of Berber "ethnicity", which would be complicated. The couple of sources at Demographics_of_Libya#Ethnic_and_tribal_groups might help and it's already more nuanced than this. In short, I think a better and more precise source is needed, and a footnote might be needed to contextualize even a reliable number. I hope this helps. R Prazeres (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fight over numbers is as old as the article. The problem is that there has never been any consensus about who exactly is to be called "Berber". If we take the definition of "a person who speaks a Berber language", then quite accurate estimates can be made (and they are at the lower end of the very wide range given in the infobox). Personally, this is the definition I would go for. But the article itself does not adopt this definition, it rather states in the lead: "Historically, Berber nations spoke the Berber languages". 'Historically' might mean that they not necessarily speak them today. But then, why can we say 80% in Morocco? Is there any 20% of people in Morocco who have NO Berber ancestry? No, there isn't. Rather, 99,9% of Moroccans are a blend of different ethnical groups in which Berbers are by far the most important component. I would suggest to adopt a more precise definition of Berbers as "Berber-speaking people" and adjust the figures based on this definition, of course acknowledging that ethnically, there is mostly no difference between Berbers and non-Berbers in the Maghreb - you just can't tell them apart. Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll leave it to editors here to decide, but nothing wrong with picking a definition for which there are reliable numbers and making sure that there's a footnote to explain what the numbers mean. Ethnicity is more than mere genetics anyways, and Berber identity isn't the same thing in every region (and in every period); in some regions (definitely in Morocco for example) language is a central aspect of Amazigh identity, so it's not a marginal measure to start with. R Prazeres (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, the cited source doesn't explicitly support the added content; and since its numbers for the other countries don't make much sense, I personally think it's best to ignore it. I support the "Berber-speaking people" proposal (for Libya at least). M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The total number of Berbers has recently been challenged a number of times. Having looked at the cited sources, it does appear as though that number is off. The "Native Peoples of the World" for instance, makes some bold claims with regard to their numbers in Libya and Tunisia and go on to describe the Berbers as "primarily agriculturalist, pastoralists and hunters" (no comment necessary). Britannica doesn't cite a number. foxnews gives 25-30 million. The last source was discussed discussed above. M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the number

[edit]

If we collected the number of Berbers in Morocco, Algeria and the rest of the countries, their number would be between 25 to 40 million, not 50 to 70 million. Therefore, I hope you will allow me to amend the article. Chezia dfg (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody changed it to 70-100 million,which isn't technically incorrect Takamatbent123 (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

[edit]

@Special:Contributions/2001:4BC9:804:5A9:2C6D:1ED4:9A06:C6CA/64: the genetic studies are covered properly on Genetic history of North Africa. Cherry picking from it or adding what's missing from it here rather than to the main article won't improve either article. M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here we go again

[edit]

If this gets archived, a note to say this refers to the #Requested move 10 May 2022. CapnZapp (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS source-based discussion

[edit]

Am neutral on the whether the time has yet come to make this move. It is evident that (a) some sources indicate that the term Berber offends some Berbers/Amazigh. (b) English language sources have begun to move to the more politically acceptable term Amazigh. See related article Names of the Berber people. However Wikipedia needs to track quality reliable source usage, not preempt or lag. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

Since there was a requested move just days ago, I suggest people cool off for an extended period of time before again bringing up the article name issue. CapnZapp (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and usage for the name of the language needs to be distinguished from that for the people. The former (Berber languages) is likely to change first. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, the MRV has been reopened. See its talk page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are the Amazighs...

[edit]

We are the Amazighs, the original inhabitants of North Africa, and we are not Arabs. We have our civilization, our language, our culture, and even our customs and traditions, so we are Amazigh, not Arabs. 41.254.65.48 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, sigh! Nobody is saying you are Arabs, but it seems many Berbers don't think they are "Amazighs" either, and dislike being described as such. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazigh, not Berber

[edit]
The previous move discussion referred below is found here: Talk:Berbers/Archive_7#Requested_move_25_July_2020. CapnZapp (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not called Berbers, we are Amazigh. Chnage the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazigh repre (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Berber is offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunullas (talk • contribs) 12:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the previous discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I as an amazigh person also agree the name should be changed. We find Berber offensive and it’s continuous use is racist. Mzabi88 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed a year ago & rejected. Amazigh is very little known in English, & until it becomes the WP:COMMONNAME in English the title will not be changed. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background information: The "We find 'Berber' offensive" position, which is now part of certain activist circles, might have originated from a misunderstanding - in Arabic languague, the same word means "Berber" and "barbaric", and of course it's questionable to use the adjective "barbaric" as an ethnic name. But in English, French, German and so on, absolutely nobody makes a connection between both words (even if connected in the ancient Greek etymology) and there is just no reason why "Berber" should be offensive, as nobody who ever used "Berber" in these languages in the last centuries expressed any offensive or racist intention through the use of this word, not more than using "Arab" or "Mongol". Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ilyacadiz, "which is now part of certain activist circles" is unnecessarily pejorative. It is also "part" of academic discussion, and as such is reflected in contemporary scholarship. Please keep it factual. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is part of the academic discussion is the option of using "Amazigh" instead of "Berber". Of course this is a valid option and quite broadly discussed by scholars, although right now it does not seem to be the mainstream option. What is not part of the academic discussion is that "Berber" is "offensive", because there is just no ground to label the word as "offensive" in English or French (as opposed to Arabic). Or did you ever see an academic article explaining why "Berber" can be considered "offensive"? And I never considered "activist" a pejorative label, by the way. Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how Wikipedia works but forcing an entire people to be represented by a derogatory term because 9 editors "felt like it" feels reprehensible. The original proposal for the name change had well sourced arguments from publications like NYT & WaPo and those how opposed it did it based on biased opinions like "They don't think the term is derogatory". Imagine applying this to any other ethnicity. This sounds like an illogical attempt to continue colonial bias towards non white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.203.3 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the now closed move discussion above, it was pointed out that The New York Times and Washington Post do not exclusively use "Amazigh" without equating it to "Berber". In other words, we're not there in terms of people understanding what "Amazigh" refers to without its being defined. Once we get to that place, then there will be a better chance of its being the preferred term in this article. When I Googled both terms, "Berber" got 10 times more hits than "Amazigh"; and when I read one of the first articles pointed to, there, again, "Amazigh" is equated to "Berber", and this being written by a sympathetic author. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this the hill that so many editors here are willing to die on? Who cares that the slur is more well-known when it's clearly offensive? The article for Romani people isn't titled the G-slur, even though that's certainly the more well-known term to millions of people. Likewise, Inuit isn't titled the E-slur. There is an article titled such, but it discusses the slur itself, which collectively has been applied to two distinct groups of indigenous peoples. This is not the case with the Amazigh, in which Amazigh and the current name are fully synonymous. It's unacceptable to claim that a disparity of only 10x popularity is nearly enough to justify continuing to use a word which literally means "barbarian" as an exonym for millions of people. Soweli Rin (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soweli Rin, I'm in total agreement and I support a renewed move to fight for this. إيان (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "renewed" fight is nonense, superficial activist nonsense that is poorly informed.
(1) Berber is widely used among for example Moroccan Berbers themselves, when not using their specific language (e.g. Chleuh / Chilha) - and in fact the other Berber groups like Chleuh or Rif are also known to not particularly like the idea of being labeled as Amazight as that in fact represents one sub-group amongst them, and there is certainly a Chleuh PoV that should not simplistically ignored that Amazight is the name for Amazight speakers and not them. (at not to be exaggerated, as probably one can better characterise popular attitudes towards these activist internal hot-house debates with a big shrug)
(2) There is not evidence outside narrow political activist circles that Berber is actually percevied as offensive at all - which makes sense as the ancient word roots are compeltely gone from any current definition.
This is very much an Offenderati looking for offence subject.
Unless and until substantiation of the asserted "offensiveness" within domestic Berber communities, particularly where there are large ones - notably for example in Morocco where it has been made an official language and now appears on all official buildings, etc.
(for disclosure as it happens I am personally married to a proud Berbere who identifies as either Chilha or Berbere but not Amazight which for her is the specific Amazight people not her people, although it worth saying it's more an annoyance than offensive - this is of course merely anectdote and not data, and merely shared for illustration) collounsbury (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Request prematurely closed as hopelessly uncivil. You can repropose the move request if you'd like, but this request is never ever ever going to be successful at nurturing a consensus when it's begun so rudely. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 16:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berbers → Amazigh people – Can we have an article title that's not racist yet? إيان (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting a move request I made almost two years ago, in the hopes that our sensibilities have evolved.

WP:NCET: "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided."

Also quoting cogent points made by Soweli Rin on this talk page:

Who cares that the slur is more well-known when it's clearly offensive? The article for Romani people isn't titled the G-slur, even though that's certainly the more well-known term to millions of people. Likewise, Inuit isn't titled the E-slur. There is an article titled such, but it discusses the slur itself, which collectively has been applied to two distinct groups of indigenous peoples. This is not the case with the Amazigh, in which Amazigh and the current name are fully synonymous. It's unacceptable to claim that a disparity of only 10x popularity is nearly enough to justify continuing to use a word which literally means "barbarian" as an exonym for millions of people.
— User:Soweli Rin

For convenience I also provide the rationale for the move request made in 2020:

Rationale for 2020 move request
* Berbers → Amazigh people

– While the common name in English is "Berber," the term "Berber" is a cognate of "barbarian" and is widely considered derogatory among the Amazigh people, as attested to in these sources among others:

  • this article from Al Jazeera, approximately: "Berbers is a Latin name, meaning "savages" or "primitive savages." The Romans used this name for all foreigners, including the Amazigh people, in their conquest of the communities of the Mediterranean basin."
  • this article in The National (Abu Dhabi): "At the core of their struggle in recent years – amid a long history of colonial suppression – is their stated desire to no longer be referred to as Berbers but as Amazigh, meaning "free people", and for their language to be known as Tamazight."
  • this article in al-Hewar al-Mutamadin [ar], approximately: "The term "Berber" within Greek civilization was transformed into a derogatory concept; the word "Berber"/"Barbarian" refers to foreign cultures of inferiority, whether to Greek civilization or its predecessors. (Similar to the Russians calling the Germans "niemcy": "the incomprehensible people", and the German language "Nemensky Yzek": "the incomprehensible language.") For The Greeks, Greece was the center of civilization (eurocentrism); the Berbers according to the Greeks were all those who did not belong to Greek civilization and did not speak Greek. The term was also used by the Roman Empire to refer to peoples outside its sovereignty, and the term "berber" was used especially to refer to the resistants to Roman colonial presence, whether they were Amazigh, Germanic, Celtic or other. The term referred to the incivility of the resistants to Roman civilization."

Notable publications in English use the term "Amazigh" over "Berber":

in French too:

According to WP:NCET, "Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." From the sources above, there is clearly grounds to avoid the term "Berber" when the word Amazigh is used by English sources

Whereas "Imazighen" would be the correct demonym of self-identification, it is far less common in English than the singular "Amazigh," which is quite common in many English sources. I propose the adjectival with "people"—"Amazigh people." I also propose moving other articles containing the word "Berber" to a new title using the term "Amazigh" instead. إيان (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
إيان (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2022 (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.

the not in good faith / civility remark seems like a catch-22 to me. people who want to change the name of the article want to change it because they believe the term is racist. if they didn't think it was racist, they wouldn't want to change it. but if they call the term racist in the proposal it gets dismissed as bad faith because they're "suggesting people are racist if they oppose this move" (CapnZapp), etc. if that's the case then it's impossible to ever suggest the move.

responding to In ictu oculi's evidence, compare how the BBC handles "gypsy" vs. "romani": https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=gypsy, https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=romani. it's hard to parse on the site because it returns articles about Romania in the Romani category, so using this search string: "gypsy" site:www.bbc.co.uk, i got 4,720 results, whereas using this search string: "romani" site:www.bbc.co.uk, i got 843 results, using: "irish traveller" site:www.bbc.co.uk, i got 190 results, and using "sinti" site:www.bbc.co.uk, i got 110 results. in this case the BBC is a reliable source the way Brutus is an honourable man, and we don't have to rely on what the media uses to decide whether or not a term is offensive. in this discussion, however, activist demands are being discounted: the claim that "berber" is offensive is "part of certain activist circles" (Ilyacadiz), "superficial activist nonsense", "narrow political activist circles" (collounsbury), "some activists are making a fuss about it" (Johnbod), while Washington Post and the New York Times are taken more seriously (even if the article is "written by a sympathetic author" (Dhtwiki)!). i find this emphasis on news media over advocacy surprising. if activists are advocating that we prefer Amazigh to Berber i'd like to see those sources. are there any Amazigh advocacy organizations who have addressed this, perhaps have an FAQ page on their website, etc.? i'm not personally aware of an organization like that, although when looking i did find an article in The National News (here) which claims that "At the core of their struggle in recent years [...] is their stated desire to no longer be referred to as Berbers but as Amazigh [...] and for their language to be known as Tamazight," but it also says "many in Algeria and Morocco continue to refer themselves as Berbers." i suppose what i'd like to know is: if there is advocacy for a name change, why don't we include that advocacy in the discussion? what kind of sources for this would count as reliable ones? Iesbian (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dedan, son of Raamah

[edit]

The biblical Dedan in Genesis 10 is Raama's son and Sheba's brother. Dthightest (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Names section

[edit]

I think this entire page is way too long, including the Names section. There's a main article for Names of the Berber people, so cited and relevant information could be moved there. (And information that is not cited and/or not relevant could be deleted.) Then the Names section on this page could be shortened so as to just be a summary of the main Names of the Berber people page. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete history

[edit]

https://www.linguisticanthropology.org/blog/2019/09/23/respecting-identity-amazigh-versus-berber/

"I have found that scholars and non-scholars alike still continue to refer to the indigenous peoples and languages of North Africa as “Berber.” For example, when speaking about my research interests, I say, “I’m studying Tamazight, a dialect of the indigenous language of Morocco,” and people tend to respond with “Oh, you mean Berber” or “Oh, is that Berber?” Traditionally, the term “Berber” has been used to refer to the indigenous peoples of North Africa. This term, inherently discriminatory, was coined by Arab conquerors and also used by European colonizers. Barbari, in Arabic, means gibberish, babble, etc., and also means barbaric. Before the Arab conquest, barbaroi, or barbarians, was a term given to peoples who did not speak Greek and therefore, their language was unintelligible. Various other terms had also been used to refer to these groups historically such as “Africans,” “Numidians,” and “Moors.” Bruce Maddy-Weitzman discussed this in his 2011 book. To combat discrimination and to reclaim their identity, the indigenous peoples use the terms: Amazigh (singular), Imazighen (plural), and Tamazight (feminine) to refer to themselves. Furthermore, some Imazighen use the term Tamazgha to refer to the land stretching from the Canary Islands to the Siwa Oasis in Egypt, the lands inhabited by Imazighen. The term “Amazigh” in the Tamazight language means “the free man” and yet, we still continue to subjugate Imazighen by referring to them by the name of their Arab conquerors. We have an obligation to call Imazighen by the name that they want to be called. In the Tamazight language, one would never ask someone “Are you Berber?” Instead, one would say, “Are you Amazigh/Tamazight?” or “Do you know Tamazight?” This is also the case in Arabic." 165.230.225.152 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to death here. See previous discussions. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up nonsens data

[edit]

I just deleted three lines from the article that looked nonsensical: In the infobox, Egypt had two estimations for Berber population - 23,000 or 1,826,580. Such a wide range is a joke. The source for the first figure is Joshua Project, not the best one, but it is in line with the population of Siwa Oasis, where, as we know, Berber is spoken. The second figure is sourced to this, a book about bilingüism which has in fact something about North Africa, but I couldn't find any specific entry for Berbers in Egypt. I don't believe anybody would claim that there are 1,8 million Berber speakers in Egypt nobody ever heard of.

In the Main Berber Groups list further down, somebody had put Benha village in the Nile Delta with the line "There lives a family called Al-Barbary". Another joke.

And I have deleted Canary Islands from the Infobox - the figure said "Unknown", and it's not only unknown, but a hoax. There are no Berbers (except for immigrants, but then Spain should be listed) in Canary Islands. There is a debate about how much Guanche ancestry modern Canary dwellers have, but a genetic Guanche component doesn't make someone Berber - or else you'd have not only many million Berbers in Spain, but also millions of Italians in Britain - didn't the Romans go there?

Next step: we should clearly separate in the Infobox countries with original Berber populations and countries with diaspora, i.e. immigrants. And try to make numbers fit - there cannot be 2.2 million Berber immigrants or descendants in Europe, as the Diaspora section says, and at the same time 2 million in France and half a million in Belgium and Netherland each... and Spain isn't even listed (add at least half a million). I'll try to go step by step. Common sense is needed. Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add here comments to the changes I make on the page. So I just changed the Mauritania figure in the infobox from 2,9 million to 129,000 - the second figure comes from the Joshua Project, which was linked there as source and refers to Tuareg in Mauritania. As I said, Joshua is not a very good source, but as long as we haven't any better, we can stick to it. The other figure is sourced to a book which apparently says that "Moors are 80% of population of 3,460,000", but Moors is how the Arabic ( Hassaniya)-speaking population of Mauritania is called, there is no reason to identify Moors as "Berber", not more than any other Arabic-speaking North African inhabitant. Ilyacadiz (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

The "Middle Ages" section of this article is way too long; over a third of the entire Berbers page is about their place in Middle Age history. The section seems pretty well cited and on topic though; I think it makes the most sense to give it its own article. I couldn't find an existing article that covers the same topic. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support that proposal. The entire History part, in fact, could go as an article on its own, "Berbers in History" might be a more convincing lemma than "Berbers in the Middle Ages". It might be also argued that the biggest part of "Berbes in the Middle Ages" is somewhat just repeating historical events in Al-Andalus, where, apart from a few leaders who claimed Arab ancestry, anyhow everybody was Berber... but let it be - it looks well researched and sourced, and to give it an own article is the easiest way to give the original Berber article a more readable shape. Once done this, we must start a big cleanup on the rest of the article, because it's a terrible mess. I'm just starting (see below). Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy to see your cleanup efforts!
Regarding the history split, my current thought is that it makes sense to go through the history section of the page and do a general rewrite first. Most of the information in the Middle Ages section seems barely relevant for a Wikipedia article; it doesn't make sense to list every single event Berbers were known to be involved in. I will try to get started on this, although I would like to finish my cleanup of the Berber Languages page first.
Once the section is cleaned up, it'll be easier to decide if the split should be for "Berbers in History" or "Berbers in the Middle Ages" (if the split is still necessary at all). Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

[edit]

@Danju87: whatever content you're trying to add to the article won't stick through edit warring and snide comments in the edit summaries. I'm starting this thread to give you the chance to discuss your proposed changes. I also reverted back to David.moreno72's version without leaving a warning on your talk page (even though you crossed the limit of what's acceptable in terms of reverts). Please, let's start afresh. M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton The whole point of the undo change battle is about the origin of the word berber. in my sources the origin of the word Berber comes from Greek (barbaros) and it means foreign people.
since I am berber I live in a berber country and I speak berber language I am confident this source is correct.
the other dudes keep reversing this change to tarnish the reputation of my people, they use the arabic dictionary source to try to say arabs invented the term berber and that the greek source is incorrect and talks about how my people are barbaric according to their arabic source which according to them the arabs made the word berber, they even refused the meaning of the word Amazigh which is in amazigh language means "Free man" because their entire goal is to spread misinformation about my race and my history. once and once again I am morally obliged to fix this infringement upon myself and my ancestors.
i will continue to fix this part of the article that tarnishes my people. Danju87 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danju87: accusing the others of wanting to tarnish the reputation "your people" is not acceptable. 2) by reverting my edit (despite what I said above), you are now leaving me with no other option but to leave a warning of your talk page (I suggest you read what it says). M.Bitton (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danju87 The fact that the term "Berber" means "barbarian" is mentioned in the majority of sources I've seen. Although I'm genuinely sorry you find it offensive, I don't see how it can be reasonably left out of the page, especially since the disagreement over whether to use "Berber" or "Amazigh" comes up very often in discussions around these populations. You should also know that tons of people who have also claimed to be Amazigh (to use their own words), have been upset about the usage of the word "Berber" on the page because they think it "tarnishes their people," specifically because they say it means "barbarian." It's impossible to accommodate everyone's opinions, even within a single group, on what is or is not offensive. Wikipedia's guidelines are therefore based around following what mainstream secondary sources typically say, and most mainstream secondary sources today say, again, that "Berber" means "barbarian."
The Greek etymology of the word is already mentioned in the main article on "Names of the Berber People." I'm not against including it in the "Name" section of this page as well, but your change included other, unacceptable elements:
1) It implied that the term "Berber" in English is taken directly from the Greek word "foreigner", when reliable sources indicate that it is taken from the Arabic word "barbar," which additionally means "barbarian." (Yes, the Greek word came before the Arabic word, but that's not where the English word is loaned from.)
2) It directly stated that the term "Berber" is contested "only in Arabic," when multiple sources indicate it is also a topic of debate in English.
3) The sentences overall are disfluent, inappropriately formatted, and difficult to parse.
Regarding the meaning of the word "Amazigh", that is also in the main article on "Names of the Berber People." This etymology doesn't seem particularly relevant to the Berbers page as it stands, considering "Berber" is used for most of the page instead. If the page ever gets moved to "Amazighs" or something similar, then I would want to include it. That being said, I'm not against including it anyway if other editors think it'd be good to have on the page. I wouldn't have reverted that change if it was made in an understandable and organized manner, but I couldn't actually parse the change you were trying to make.
Hope this makes sense. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

[edit]

Change "called by their self-name" to "called by their endonym." 69.67.89.22 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I removed the misleading statement. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

[edit]

Berber kingdoms were eventually suppressed by the roman conquest of north Africa until the region was later conquered by the Arabs during the Arab conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries this recent change doesn't make any sense:

  • Saying that the Romans conquered North Africa is misleading at best. The linked article says no such thing.
  • There were other Berber kingdoms after that existed before the Muslim (not Arab) conquest. M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the Romans conquered North Africa is misleading at best. The linked article says no such thing.
Jugarthan war ? How do you think north africa became part of the roman empire ? By invitations ? The romans conquered north Africa and annexed it, there was no berber kingdoms in north africa since then as all the already existing one got ended by romans conquering and annexing them, and things remained as such until the beginning of arab conquests, the cited source says in page 42 says “romans conquered numidia”.
There were other Berber kingdoms after that existed before the Muslim (not Arab) conquest.
Then name me a berber kingdom that existed between the roman conquest and annexation of North Africa and early arab conquests. Chafique (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think north africa became part of the roman empire I don't have to think about what I know: "conquered" is a misleading term in this case. Mauretania, for instance, wasn't "conquered" by the Romans.
name me a berber kingdom ... Here's one of them.
early arab conquests bolding the word Arab won't change the title of the Early Muslim conquests. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Unintelligible”??

[edit]

Saying that their language is “unintelligible” hits very wrong. 2603:6081:C000:47:45B2:337C:5C63:AA55 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're leaving out the word mutually. "Mutually unintelligible" is an accurate, commonly used description for such comparisons. See the WP article Mutual intelligibility. Its says, for example, "... British Sign Language (BSL) and American Sign Language (ASL) are quite different and mutually unintelligible, even though the hearing people of the United Kingdom and the United States share the same spoken language." Carlstak (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over the lead section

[edit]

@Skitash: First of all, it has nothing to do in the lead/summary section about an ethnic group. If you want to expand on the subject, do it in the "Languages" section. Secondly, there is literally no source for the statement " Arabic incredibly influenced Berber languages". To claim that Berber languages are incredibly influenced by Arabic is not only false but also propaganda. There a hundreds of Berber languages and dialects, you can't make such a claim and doing a generalization. If so, you also have to talk about how some languages were influenced by Spanish, French and how on the contrary some others got limited exposure to outside influences. If not, it's misleading to people who have no clue about this matter. That's why if you want to include this part you have to do it elsewhere than in the summary section cause it's too complex and too long. Lolamelody123456

@Lolamelody123456: This is completely relevant to the lead section. Every Wikipedia page about demographics or ethnic groups mentions the language associated with that group in the lead section. Take a look at French people or Italians. Language is essential in defining ethnic groups and their identity, and in the case of Berbers, this is the unifying factor among the diverse Berber ethnic groups. I did not specifically say that all Berber languages are influenced by Arabic but generally a significant influence of Arabic can be found in most Berber languages, including the main ones, and I can easily find several sources supporting this. Arabic obviously has a much greater influence on Berber languages than Spanish and French, which had more recent impacts. It is true that this belongs in the Language section but it is necessary to include a summary in the lead section. Skitash (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with Lolamelody123456 (though there's some unnecessary polemic wording here), in that I don't think mentioning Arabic vocabulary influence is necessary to a summary, and new information does indeed belong in the body of the article rather than the lead. Vocabulary borrowing is also only one measure of influence among other, arguably more important grammatical dimensions, and these questions would require some linguistics background that wouldn't fit well in a lead summary.
There is already a relevant and brief intro to Berber languages at the end of the current lead, mentioning the language family. A more useful expansion of the language section might be to mention the different (proposed) branches of the Berber language family, and this in turn could be summarized in the lead, to give a sense of the linguistic diversity, which is what is done in some of the similar articles mentioned by Skitash above. R Prazeres (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your viewpoint. Expanding the language section to mention the different branches of the Berber language family would be a useful addition, although I still believe that foreign influences should be included in the lead. Berber languages indeed show significant influence from Arabic, and therefore this influence is substantial enough to be included in the lead section. As evident in the page about Iraqis, foreign influences on their dialect are mentioned in the lead summary. Skitash (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lolamelody123456, I'm just checking if you have a connection to either of these edits: [3], [4]? R Prazeres (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faced with such massive changes, I made the decision to go back to the version before May 19, to avoid continuing vandalism and an edit war. Such in-depth modifications, especially when they are motivated by political or memorial issues, must be validated by consensus of Wikipedians. AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if this is the way it's going to be, then return to a more stable version. I'm just noting here that I manually restored my edit to the "Languages" section ([5]), as I was replacing unsourced content there and it should be independent of the dispute about the lead, though it occurred at the same time. R Prazeres (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the mass reverts being made are the result of the actions of a long-term vandalizing IP range. Both ranges have been blocked now. [6][7] Skitash (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres @Ponyo Now that the vandalous IP is banned, I would like to inquire if it is permissible for me to restore my edit. It is worth noting that my edit consisted of widely accepted viewpoints supported by multiple credible sources with no intentions of promoting "propaganda". Skitash (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My block of the IP was strictly an admin action. I have no input regarding content in this dispute.-- Ponyobons mots 22:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skitash, I'm fine with you restoring your edits. There may (or may not) be some wording that can be improved to be less provocative, or perhaps things that can be added or moved around for balance, but that can be done after as needed. I don't feel there was any issue with the content itself; indeed, it's mostly things that are well-known in reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Though, like I said earlier, I feel the language "influence" stuff should stay in the Languages section, as I think we had agreed for the moment. R Prazeres (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, thanks for the feedback. Skitash (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some adjustments here. Mostly, I removed a statement that was repeated right below in the "Name" section, which is unnecessary for the lead since it should be a summary. I've also made minor wording adjustments that I think retain the accuracy but diminish any potentially provocative tone. And I've added a brief mention of the present-day movement for Berber identity, which needs to be mentioned both for general context and to balance out the multiple statements about their historical lack of collective identity. R Prazeres (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t me. Lolamelody123456 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable Berbers" section

[edit]

Speaking of the "Notable Berbers" section, is this section as a whole really warranted? I've had a cursory look at various other ethnicity/nationality-type articles and pratically none of them have a similar section. Some of them include a link to a dedicated list article, which we also have here already (List of Berber people). It seems like a futile and arbitrary exercise to try to list "notable" persons that happen to be of Berber origin, not to mention unnecessary to include a short (usually unsourced) bio for each of them. We clearly can't list all of them and it's unclear why some would be mentioned and not others, aside from all the potential verifiability and POV issues. The most important persons are already mentioned, or can be mentioned, in other sections like history, culture, etc. The rest just seems tangential to the article's main topic. Thoughts? R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The sentences in that section are not only brief and unnecessary, but the section is also filled with WP:OR. It seems that no other ethnicity-related page features a notable people section. Skitash (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people, Islamic section

[edit]
Discussion with a sock and a disruptive IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



The Christian section had 3 prominent Christian Berbers so I thought I would even it out by having 3 in the Muslim section, Abd al-Rahman I was half Berber and Averrois was Berber. Informationsort (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of PaullyMatthews)[reply]

Averrois was Berber not without a reliable source saying so. M.Bitton (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He’s included in notable people but didn’t have a picture so why did you remove Abd Al Rahman I? Informationsort (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of PaullyMatthews)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I have now removed the unsourced entry. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In his Wikipedia page it states Abd Al Rahman I is half Berber and I added a source for Averros before there is no reason to remove. Informationsort (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of PaullyMatthews)[reply]

Ibn Rushd is a barbarian??!? 😂😂 Are you laughing at yourselves or at someone? Do you really want to steal the lineage of Ibn Rushd and attribute him to the Berbers? Ibn Rushd is from the family of Arab nobles.
Ibn Rushd is an Arab. He was born in Cordoba, an Arab city in Andalusia. He also grew up in a family ancient in science and literature, and his mother tongue was Arabic.
There is some debate about whether Ibn Rushd belonged to a particular Arab tribe, but this does not negate Ibn Rushd's Arabism. A person's Arabism is not only determined by his tribe, but also by his language and culture.
Ibn Rushd is one of the most important Arab philosophers in history, and his ideas greatly influenced Arab and Islamic thought. Therefore, it is generally taken for granted that he is Arab.
Here is some evidence of Ibn Rushd's Arabism:
He was born in Cordoba, an Arab city in Andalusia.
He grew up in a family ancient in science and literature, and his mother tongue was Arabic.
He wrote in Arabic, and translated many Greek works into Arabic.
He contributed to the revival of Greek philosophy in the Islamic world, a philosophy that originated in the Greco-Roman world, which was part of the Arab world during the era of Ibn Rushd.
Based on this evidence, it can be said that Ibn Rushd is undoubtedly Arab. 109.107.230.171 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant since it's not based on reliable sources. The issue has been thoroughly discussed already at Talk:Averroes and this is not the place for a POV fork one way or the other. Likewise the claim about Abd ar-Rahman I is WP:OR. And even if none of that were the case, you still can't impose your view through edit-warring. R Prazeres (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one has claimed about Abd al-Rahman al-Umayyad. Everyone knows that he is an Arab. The entire Andalus is Arab and an extension of Arab civilization. I am not imposing a point of view, but I am stating a truth that cannot be denied. I saw the hadith in Ibn Rushd’s article, and there is a person who also proved that he is a Arab and with evidence, but they evade it. They are blindly denying, so enough of the childish behavior and the time has come for realism. As I said, Ibn Rushd is an Arab, and all the evidence points to this, and there is not a single thing that says he is a barbarian other than the barbarian claims that are based on a literal inferiority complex and jealousy of the Arabs. 109.107.230.171 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the IP (109.107.230.171), please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. R Prazeres (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admit that you are no better response than this childish method of evasion and response, so do not interfere in what does not concern you.” As I said, I speak with an undeniable truth, which is that the theft of lineages and history is something I will not tolerate. 109.107.230.171 (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. M.Bitton (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop this vulgarity and childish behavior, because it seems that you have wandered too much into delusions and the pink world? 37.220.116.172 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term “Berber”

[edit]

I’m an Amazigh person and I find the predominant use of the word “berber” to describe Amazigh/Imazighen to be offensive, and misleading. Seeing as how the word stems from the french word for barbarians/barbarism. Personally, it makes this page a hard read. Sittingonthecouch (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the posts on this page and in the archives on why "berber" is still in use. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And please, be aware of the fact that your feelings don't represent all Berber people's feelings. The vast majority of Berbers (myself included) don't consider this word offensive. On the contrary the French term "berbère" is widely used colloquially. --Syphax98 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has little to do with my own feelings (although I do find "Berber(s)" preferable to the uneuphonious and irregular "Amazigh"/ "Imazighen"), but with what usage is current in sources dealing with the subject, as the talk discussions should make clear. It is the people coming here to complain about how their feelings are hurt by what is still current usage who are letting their personal feelings dictate what should be in this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to you @Dhtwiki:! Actually I agree with you! I was referring to Sittingonthecouch! --Syphax98 (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You could have made that more obvious by not indenting your post past mine, which implies a reply to what I said (also by using one of several ping templates, as you just did). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your respectable viewpoint that I don't share necessarily, here is why: I think that people should be called primarily as they call themselves in their native language, and then if you want to mention that the roman or french used other words, feel free to do that. Setting the title of the page to the foreign name is just intellectually lazy and far from being faithful to north african aboriginal people. YouvaNB (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — mw (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berbers → Berber peoples – When a group of peoples and the languages they speak have the same name, it is convention to use "name peoples" and "name languages". Here are a few of many examples:

  1. "Germanic peoples" and "Germanic languages"
  2. "Austronesian peoples" and "Austronesian languages"
  3. "Mongolic peoples" and "Mongolic languages"

Move per WP:CONSISTENT. WP:PRECISE also applies because the Berbers are a group of peoples, not a single people. – Treetoes023 (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think "[...] peoples" is a convention so much as it's usually a result of grammar and disambiguation needs. The examples you mentioned (and others like Turkic peoples, Indigenous peoples, Chinese people, etc) involve adjectives rather than nouns (one can't say "Germanics"), so naturally we need "peoples" after. By contrast, Arabs, Kurds, Nubians, Punjabis, etc are all nouns. "Austronesian", like Indo-European, is primarily a term to designate a language family classification, and I don't believe "Austronesian(s)" is used as a noun ([8]). In other cases, Iranian peoples is to differentiate from Persians/Iranians, Mongolic peoples is different from Mongols, etc. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The usage of "peoples" is mostly out of grammar, English doesn't really say Germanics or Mongolics. It's not a rule that's always true. Slavs just like Berbers are a collection of closely related ethnic groups, and yet their wikipedia page isn't "Slavic peoples" but Slavs. Whatever748 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 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.

January 2024

[edit]

@UBA27: There are no official sources regarding ethnic groups in Morocco. The ones that you cited are about the Berber speakers (which, officially, represent 26% of the population or 9.8 million). M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Africanus

[edit]
  • According to Leo Africanus, the term Amazigh meant "free man" did he use the modern term "Amazigh" or is that the author's interpretation? We need to establish this because this is at odds with what we know about the term. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cited source[1] attributes the claim to two sources:
  1. Source 1[2] says: "The term ‘Amazigh’, meaning 'free men' is preferred over 'Berber' by increasing numbers of Berberphones/Tamazightphones, and especially by activists. I use the terms 'Amazigh' and 'Berber' interchangeably in this article". There is no mention of Leo Africanus.
  2. Source 2[3]. Unfortunately, I don't have access to this one. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I managed to access the second source and although it does mention Leo Africanus, it's not clear what "the word" (as used in the source) is supposed to refer to. Luckily, they attribute the claim to the original source[4] (which needs to be checked next). M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be good to check the primary source anyways, but I'm assuming the authors (Brett & Fentress) are referring to the word "mazices" mentioned in the preceding sentence, and/or its apparent cognates.
    Also, I think we can probably cite Brett and Fentress directly for the statement in question (According to Leo Africanus, the term Amazigh meant "free man", with that etymology being disputed). Based on what I see here, it seems like they're the ones who summarized the facts in this particular manner and Stepanova is just repeating it in passing. R Prazeres (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up: I can't access the 1981 edition of Description d'Afrique, but in the 1896 edition, the relevant page is probably p.28 ([9]). Here, Leo Africanus gives the meaning as "noble" rather than "free". Brett & Fentress mention that possible meaning the following sentences but not in reference to Leo Africanus ([10]). To me, this adds to the confusion about etymology on the one hand, but on the other hand it does confirm that Leo Africanus mentioned the term. R Prazeres (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would "Leo Africanus referred to Aqwal Amazigh as meaning 'noble language'" be a fair replacement then? NAADAAN (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would normally say yes, but I'm wary, since Brett & Fentress is a reliable secondary source. If they're saying something slightly different about Leo Africanus', I'm not sure if it's just a minor oversight on their part or if they're looking at more than what I'm seeing? Maybe confirming with the 1981 edition would help, in case that translation was somehow different (unlikely?). R Prazeres (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this paper, the exact language Leo Africanus used was Tutti i cinque popoli [scil.: Sanagia, Musmuda, Zeneta, Aoara et Gumera], i quali sono divisi in centinaia di legnaggi, e in migliaia di migliaia d’abitazioni, insieme si conformano in una lingua: la quale comunemente è da loro detta aquel amarig, che vuol dire lingua nobile; e gli Arabi di Affrica la chiamano lingua barbaresca, che è la lingua africana natia. This is corroberrated by this translation from 1896 and a print from 1550. Early citations of his book refer to aquel amazig instead of aquel amarig so I theorize that it's probably a copyist error from the original manuscript (I am not willing to shell out 140 euros to find out). Per l'Encyclopédie Berbère (44), the "noble man" definition is interpreted from Leo Africanus's definition of aquel amazig [= awal amazigh] which means noble language. NAADAAN (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's probably best to check the 1981 version, though I very much doubt it will be that different.
    With that said, since the word Amarig (that he translated as "noble") was used to refer to the language and not the people that he described as Berbers (el Barbar) while giving the origin of the word "Berber" and rehashing Ibn Khaldun's theory about their origin, wouldn't this mention be more appropriate in the Berber languages article (instead of one about the people)? M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for both of your follow-ups. With all of the above, I agree that "noble" must clearly be the meaning that Leo Africanus gave it, and we can cite the Encyclopédie Berbère as secondary source for further support, in addition to primary source.
    I think it's reasonably relevant in this article, given that it discusses the origins of the word currently being used for the people (it could be mentioned in the language article too, of course). As long as the inline wording here is clear/precise. R Prazeres (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edited things accordingly. Feedback welcome NAADAAN (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stepanova, Anastasia (15 Dec 2018). "Who Conquered Spain? The Role of the Berbers in the Conquest of the Iberian Peninsula". Written Monuments of the Orient. 4 (1). Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences: 78–87. doi:10.17816/wmo35149. ISSN 2410-0145.
  2. ^ Maddy-Weitzman, Bruce (2006). "Ethno-politics and globalisation in North Africa: The berber culture movement*". The Journal of North African Studies. 11 (1): 71–84. doi:10.1080/13629380500409917. ISSN 1362-9387.
  3. ^ Brett, Michael and Fentress, Elizabeth W.B. 1996: The Berbers. Oxford, England; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing
  4. ^ Leo Africanus, Description de l'Afrique (Paris, 1981), p. 15
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berbers/Archive_7&oldid=1254952648"