ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria articles
This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 14–18 January 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Part of the content of the "History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology" article was merged into Berbers on 16 March 2016. That page and its contribution history for attribution purposes is now located here.
On 18 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be
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]
Notable people, Islamic section
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]
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]
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]
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]
Requested move 18 December 2023
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. (
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:
Berbers are a group of peoples, the difference is that Germans, Arabs, etc., are a group of people. The Berbers would probably best be compared to the Sámi peoples. The Berbers are a much more diverse grouping than Germans or Arabs. – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wish things (regarding every single one of them) were that simple. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Usage of the term "Berbers" is common enough. "Berber peoples" is unusual and merely adds awkwardness. Seems like a fix looking for a problem. Walrasiad (talk) 17:31, 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
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]
Oppose per R Prazeres. --Yorkporter (talk) 08:14, 20 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
@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
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:
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.
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 ([2]). 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 ([3]). 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]
