Jump to content

Talk:Berbers

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

Former good articleBerbers was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Amazigh population

[edit]

The population refers to speakers of Tamazight only and is therefore misleading. I'd say we either add that these are just native Tamazight speakers, or we look for better estimates that refer to the actual population. Lots of Imazighen don't speak their native languages anymore. Even if we say that only half of all Maghreb countries (Tuareg and Zenaga in Mali, Mauritania, Niger etc. EXCLUDED) have pred. Amazigh heritage (very conservative estimate given the fact that in countries like Morocco it's at around 80%), we arrive at more than 49 million people. It's widely known that the 38 million number refers to Amazighophones. Tarekelijas (talk) 07:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The population refers to speakers of Tamazight only" No it doesn't. Take another look at the sources.
"I'd say we either add that these are just native Tamazight speakers" That's WP:OR. Nowhere in these sources does it state that these are merely Berber-speaking populations. Skitash (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he population refers to speakers of Tamazight only and is therefore misleading. I'd say we either add that these are just native Tamazight speakers, or we look for better estimates that refer to the actual population. Lots of Imazighen don't speak their native languages anymore. Even if we say that only half of all Maghreb countries (Tuareg and Zenaga in Mali, Mauritania, Niger etc 212.108.150.178 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

response to this: Yes, you are indeed right. Most surveys conducted in Morocco, do not ask about your ethnic origin. If you speak Tamazight, it counts you as one, otherwise, it wouldnt. but for the general population, more people consider themselves Amazigh than what the wiki pages and surveys indicate. However, there is no source to confirm this 'yet,' so it should remain as it is until further proper surveys of the population are conducted. TahaKahi (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English wikipedia but some terms are translated to Arabic ?

[edit]

some terms in this page are translated to Arabic. Like: 

 Berbers (Arabic: بربر)
 Amazigh(Arabic:أمازيغ)

Why translating ? And why translating to Arabic specifically? 102.159.247.23 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder too 😂 37.167.145.166 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't they be? M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple: the Amazighs are not Arabs. If you are going to do this, then why not apply the same standard to any ethnic population that is a minority (which is not even the case in Morocco)? I don’t like to speak much about this, but for any Amazigh person, it feels like they are always categorized as a secondary offshoot of Arabs, with whom they are not even related. If anything, it raises the question of why such things exist in the Amazigh wiki pages in English (specifically), which are, for some reason, tightly moderated by people who are particularly focused on Arabic nationalism. Nonetheless, Amazighs have their own language, history, and ancestry; they shouldn’t have a different language used to describe them when they have their own written language. TahaKahi (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Berber rather than Amazigh

[edit]

Why is Wikipedia "writers" using colonialist nomenclature to refer to the Amazigh people? The Amazigh people find the term "Berber" insulting. The wider world needs to refer to Aboriginal people by their chosen labels rather than ones that were given to them by their oppressors. The term Berber is derogatory. 2001:56A:F548:400:D3BD:27F9:23A3:C04D (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a baseless claim. In any case, this has been discussed and the term "oppressor" is highly inappropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The name Berber derives from the Latin word for barbarian, first being used as "Barbar" or people of "Barbaria" to describe North Africans. The ancient Greeks reportedly called the these people Libyans, The Arabs picked it when they conquered North Africa and started using it to refer to the local Amazighs. TahaKahi (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Berber people

[edit]

I'm planning a complete overhaul of the article "List of Berber people", the main fault of the old version was its lack of sources, which will be fixed. I think it has a certain importance, given that Berber culture is not very well known. In addition, I'll be relying mainly on the French version of the article, on which I've been making changes for several months and which tends to improve it. Samso231 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language inclusion

[edit]

Hello! This is a continuation of a long-standing issue that has been brought up many times, but I wish to ensure it is addressed properly. The issue concerns the inclusion of Tamazight text in the right sidebar of the article, where Neo-Tifinagh script is missing. Additionally, there is the inclusion of Arabic text, which does not align with the approach used for other ethnic groups that also exist in Arabic-majority countries. TahaKahi (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18 November 2024

[edit]

@M.Bitton What exactly is this that you're doing on the page? the common name rule does not matter in this article, And what do you mean by the endonym being a 'Berberist' addition? You make no sense. This article needs an administrative decision at some point if we keep misinterpreting guidelines after the 100th argument over it. TahaKahi (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this has been on the article for months that's not a valid to keep it. It's a baseless claim by some Berberists that was presented as a fact. The Berbers are not an ethnic group and when the different Berber ethnic groups refer to themselves, they refer to their specific ethnic group (Kabyle, Chaoui, Mzabi, Tergui, Rifi, Chelhi, etc). M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They fall under a similar ethnic category, namely "Amazigh"/"Berber." You are entitled to a different opinion, but that is what is widely agreed upon. Please refrain from using labels like "Berberist," regardless of the tone you intend with it. Let’s focus on the larger issue: why have you rearranged words in the sidebars under the "COMMONNAME" guideline? Arabic is not even meant to be the focus of this article, yet you have made it the lead lang. TahaKahi (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic is not even meant to be the focus of this article that's your irrelevant opinion and the root cause of why you keep harassing me. M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please engage in the discussion without making the issue personal? You changed some of my edits and of others, and I am trying to have a conversation to reach a consensus. Let’s keep it civil. Also, please avoid using phrases like "your irrelevant opinion." Thank you. TahaKahi (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Infobox languages.

[edit]

Should the Infobox include Arabic with the ethnic languages, or follow examples like Assyrian people and Copts that exclude it? TahaKahi (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid further misunderstanding, this Rfc statement means:
"Should the parameter |native_name_lang= found in Template:Infobox ethnic group#Parameters in the article include Arabic in the parameter value, or exclude it?"
Please see § Discussion below for a more detailed explanation. TahaKahi (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Include of course, given that the word Berber is Arabic. There are other reasons that aren't worth mentioning (the fact that it's an Arabic word should send this RfC to bed very quickly). I'm surprised that this is even questioned (using some irrelevant comparison). M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the Berber encyclopedia contradicts that the word Berber is of Arabic origin, it is a lexical borrowing from Arabic to Latin... which is quite obvious Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Berber encyclopedia is written in French, so stands to reason for it to arrive to that conclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not give evasive personal opinions Wp:POV.
    It's an academic source, I don't see why attack it on the fact that it's in French. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make it crystal clear for you: 1) Your claim is baseless (that French source is based entirely on Arabic sources). 2) Berber is an Arabic word (a fact that is easily attributed to a raft of RS). 3) This is the English Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) WP:NPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. 2) English or French encyclopedia does not change the fact that the term is of Greco-Latin origin and of the same lexical root for both languages. This makes an academic source in French valid. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Utter nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest everyone moves on from this minor point. The etymology of "Berber", or "Amazigh" for that matter, is not really relevant; if they are used to refer to the people, that's all that's relevant. R Prazeres (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include—Arabic is a major Berber/Amazigh language and has been for about a millennium. إيان (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Not speaking to any of the other issues that might come up about nomenclature, but I see no reason to remove the Arabic, especially per إيان's comment above. The script and language remain in use throughout North African society, including among Amazigh/Berber peoples. +Comment: The names might benefit from some minor re-organizing for visual clarity; e.g. maybe grouping the renditions of "imazighen" on the one hand and renditions of "berber" on the other. The form Imaziɣen, specifically, also looks like a pseudo-IPA transcription(?). If so, then it should be removed, or we could include relevant transliterations/romanizations throughout instead. R Prazeres (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Berberity (or its conscience) is carried by Berberophony according to Salem Chaker. And the Berbers are also often French-speaking, so are we going to put the term in French? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not include of course. There is no justification for including Arabic, as it is not a Berber language, even if it was used during Amazigh reigns while the region was under Arab colonization and afterward (a situation similar to the use of Turkish during the Ottoman period).
P.S. I believe Amazigh written in the Arabic script should be included. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As just a small justification from a massive body of justifications, here's an article (WP:reliable sources cited therein) about a seminal work in Arabic by a Masmuda Berber man named Ibn Tumart, spiritual leader of a movement that would go on to establish the Almohad Caliphate led by the Mu'minids, a major Zenata Berber dynasty. إيان (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR and WP:USEPRIMARY. Berber written in Arabic in the Middle Ages is a different thing from Arabic. The same goes for Persian/Turkish written in Arabic characters but it is no longer so.
Moreover, this Arabic script has never imposed itself (see Berber Encyclopedia, article Writing). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe This is about whether Berbers use Arabic or not. It's about its inclusion in the ethnic naming section of the infobox. While Arabic has been and is used among Berbers, it is not their ethnic language. In my view, only Berber languages utilizing the Arabic script should be included, with Arabic itself mentioned in the spoken languages section. As is the case for almost most articles about ethnicities in Arab-speaking countries. TahaKahi (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, "not their ethnic language" is a meaningless statement. More precisely, this is a written medium so it's the script that's at issue. Comparing to other articles is not a good idea, given that contexts differ, but even so the Arabic script or its variants are present in the same way in many ethnicity or human group articles for the region: Kurds, Persians, Nubians, Armenians in Lebanon, Uzbeks (all of whom speak non-Arabic languages and in some cases also have other historic or contemporary scripts at their disposal), and so on. Since the Arabic script has been used by all the peoples of the region for centuries and still is, the only argument for excluding it is a purely political one, which raises WP:NPOV concerns. R Prazeres (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I didn’t phrase my response properly. You’re presenting articles that use ethnic language written in Arabic script, not Arabic itself. However, in the case of the article "Berbers" it uses the Arabic language itself, not the Amazigh language written in Arabic script. TahaKahi (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges: unlike Berber, those are not Arabic words. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
R.Prazeres Berber encyclopedia state :[1]Il y a donc bien eu, au Moyen Âge, une dynamique d’appropriation de l’écriture arabe par les Berbères, comparable à celle qui s’est produite dans les domaines turc et iranien en Asie mineure et centrale. Mais ce processus n’a manifestement pas abouti : nulle part ne s’est constituée une véritable tradition écrite du berbère en caractères arabes, stabilisée et socialement significative. Et l’essentiel de ce patrimoine scripturaire en alphabet arabe a disparu avec les formations politiques qui l’ont initié. . We must differentiate between Arabic writing and the Arabic language. Just as writing Berber in Latin is neither Latin nor French. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you persistently argue that the overwhelming majority of Maghrebis are Berbers? M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@إيان: I misunderstood the purpose of the RdC initially. Thanks to Mathglot's clarification, I now understand the request and would like to change my vote to support Arabic or better say Darija. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not include . The Arabic language brings nothing here, it have copied the term «barbarian» and the genealogies from the Latin, Christian and Jewish period: "Enfin et surtout, malgré leur diversité et leur originalité apparente, presque tous ces récits, que l’on peut diviser en cinq grands types, sont fondés sur des modèles juifs ou chrétiens, simplement adaptés et enrichis. [...] il introduisait surtout un éponyme fort opportunément inventé pour expliquer le terme générique forgé à leur arrivée par les Arabes (probablement à partir du latin Barbari), Berr ou Berber." as reported in the Berber encyclopedia [2] so the term «Bar-Bar» in Arabic is a simple copy/homynim of the ancient (latin) terms, « Barbari » no more and no less. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without Arabic, the very word "Berber" wouldn't exist. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid Wikipedia:Advocacy. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you on about? M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Britanica : [3] : in its infobox only gives the terms: "Self-name: Amazigh Plural: Imazighen".
    Berber Encylopedia : [4]"Amaziɣ (le/un Berbère)"
    Nothing in Arabic in the article headings or introductions. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Britannica is written in English. The French source is irrelevant (this is the English Wikipedia), it also doesn't cite neo-Tifinagh (that, for some unknown reasons, you're not complaining about). M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include It makes no sense at all to remove Arabic, especially considering that "Berber" is itself an Arabic word. Moreover, the vast majority of Berbers speak Arabic, which serves as the lingua franca for communication among the various Berber groups (who speak mutually unintelligible languages). Skitash (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not include - I've been asked to offer my two cents on the discussion; I will say that other ethnoreligious groups from the Middle East, such as Kurds and Assyrians, don't have Arabic listed as one of their languages, since they come from countries with different official languages. Groups such as Mandaeans, Nubians, and Turkmen have specific dialects of Arabic listed due to their region of origin, but they mention their original language as well. My thoughts are to not include Arabic as a whole, but consider having specific dialects of Arabic native to areas where indigenous Amazigh land lie, like Algeria and Morocco. Otherwise, not include. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surayeproject3: can you clarify what you mean by "I've been asked"? Where or by whom?R Prazeres (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Sidebar discussion moved to § Canvassing inquiry in the § Discussion section below. Survey continues in this section...]
  • Include. Useful, it looks like from this discussion and the article that it's reliably sourced, and it merits some due weight, so I don't see a problem with this. I had a content dispute once on whether to include the hyphenated stylizing of the Disney Channel movie Zombies and we met in the middle by throwing the alternative hyphenated title in a footnote. If we can't come to an agreement on hard inclusion, may I suggest either a footnote or a collapsible section of the infobox? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Let's clarify what this Rfc is about

[edit]

This Rfc is entitled, "RfC on Infobox languages". Let's clarify what this Rfc is about, for those who may be pinged here by Yapperbot (as I was) and may not be familiar with the topic. There is no such thing as Template:Infobox languages. There *is* a Template:Infobox language, but this Rfc is not about that. In fact, this Rfc is about Template:Infobox ethnic group, and the proper use of parameter |languages= in that template. You can find that parameter described in the Table at Template:Infobox ethnic group#Parameters, fourth row from the bottom.

The Rfc question at the top of this section reads, "Should the Infobox include Arabic with the ethnic languages... or exclude it?" What that sentence means, in other words, is this:

"Should the Languages section of the Infobox in this article include Arabic in the list, or exclude it?"

In technical terms, this question is equivalent to this:

"Should parameter |languages= found in template {{Infobox ethnic group}} in the article include Arabic in the parameter value, or exclude it?"

TahaKahi, I am doing a bit of mind-reading here, in an attempt to explain to others what you meant. If this is not what you meant, then you had better explain, and/or reword the Rfc question, as if I misunderstood you, then it is likely others will as well. So, please confirm, or correct my understanding. (edit conflict × 2) Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; I realized that I worded it incorrectly but couldn’t figure out how to fix it. TahaKahi (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think with your confirmation here, there is no need to reword it. If people are confused, we could add a word of explanation just under your Rfc statement linking here, but given that the heading of this section turns up in the Table of Contents, that's probably enough to attract viewers here who need additional clarification. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Thank you for your clarification! I initially thought the issue was related to the use of Arabic in the infobox, specifically where it says بربر, which seems unsuitable as it pertains to Arabic, for me. Based on your explanation, I change my vote to include and I agree that Arabic should remain in the language section, though using the term Darija might be a more accurate choice. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Ruffy98, yvw. Because your unbolded vote change comment above might get overlooked, what I would recommend is that you first have a quick look at WP:REDACT, and then strike out your original, bolded "Not include" !vote of 22:49 yesterday (leaving it bold, but struck out). Then, add your new vote, with a brief explanation and a link to here. For example, you could reply to your own, last message and say something like, "Clarification: my new vote is '''Include'''; see [[#Let's clarify what this Rfc is about|below]]" or similar (plus your sig). (You could instead, if you wish, redact your last message and change it, but reply-to-self is probably easier in this case.) You can do all this in one edit, or two if it's easier. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your update is fine, and will be clear to any closer. Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand anymore if the RFC concerns the infobox? or not (article)? because for me these are two different questions. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, wait, now this is getting more confusing. What I specifically meant was the (بربر Imaziɣen ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖ أمازيغ) part in the infobox at the very top, not the languages the Amazigh people speak. It seems that @Lord Ruffy98 misunderstood; I'm not talking about the 'Languages' section, but rather the languages used at the top of the page. TahaKahi (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rechecking the infobox Parameters, this is for "group". TahaKahi (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TahaKahi, you already confirmed my attempted explanation above; are you now changing that understanding? Because Lord Ruffy98 already changed their vote based on it, and now Monsieur Patillo appears to have had a different understanding than my explanation, *and* a different understanding from your most recent comment. I am starting to fear that this Rfc is fatally tainted, and may not be able to be reasonably closed, if every !vote means something different to every voter. I am not sure if it is possible for it to be saved at this point. It might be better to withdraw this Rfc, let the dust settle, and start another one, with a neutral, and clearly worded Rfc statement, but if you choose that path, I wouldn't do it right away, because I think everyone is exhausted, and it may not get the feedback it deserves. Or, you can let it continue, but I pity the closer's job. Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should let it run its course. Let that be a good lesson for those who start a RfC without WP:RFCBEFORE. 20:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because at first, I thought everyone had cast their vote based on what I perceived from your reply (which is entirely my fault, as I misinterpreted it) that the 'Infobox ethnic group' was what I meant to specify. If you read the previous arguments on this talk page (not the RFC), I was always referring to the group name part in the infobox. By mistake, I did not thoroughly review the template itself and assumed it was correct. My perception was that I hadn't phrased it properly when Ian made his notice about the Copts, which we agreed was a mistake. This whole situation is indeed a mess. I should have phrased it properly from the beginning, but I didn’t know how to, as it was my first time filing an RFC. I believe the proper sentence should be: "Should parameter |native_name_lang= found in template {{Infobox ethnic group}} in the article include Arabic in the parameter value, or exclude it?" TahaKahi (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I !voted for. M.Bitton (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Understood, and I don't doubt your good faith in creating the Rfc, but that is now a third interpretation of the Rfc statement, and it's a pity that wasn't clear at the outset. Don't know what's best at this point, and not my call. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a say in formulating the RfC before it was started, I would have suggested the exclusion of Tifinagh and Latin. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The core of Berber language identity lies in certain fundamental elements, which are likely the only ones that should remain unchanged; latin-script and Tifinagh are one of those. Arabic is different as it's from another culture. That explains a lot. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that Arabic, which Berbers used for about a millennium, is less of a "fundamental element" of Berber culture than the Latin alphabet (introduced to Berbers during French colonial rule) or Neo-Tifinagh (invented by a Paris-based organization in the 1970s)? Skitash (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important for Amazigh history but I do not believe it is part of its core.
  • The Latin script was invented in the colonial period, it is true but I consider it important because it brought the Tamazigh into writing leading to a greater diffusion, in fact today it is the most used of the three which makes it important in my eyes. News, articles are generally written with this system.
  • Some Imazighen worked on the neo-Tifinagh, whether they are from Paris is not relevant in this context, who decided to take up the ancient language that has been preserved by a few tribes until today and to improve it by making it broader. The alphabet of this language is based on what was used before the Arab invasions so I believe it is the closest to the core of the Amazigh identity.
Similar speech for Farsi and to Persians.
However I do not think it is useful to discuss this now since the topic is another. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that! Do you think I should still include a render in my votation? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, but I'm not sure how to proceed with editing the RFC itself. It's pretty obvious that some people interpreted it differently. TahaKahi (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too late. You leave it as it is. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's allowed to, just remove the strikethrough from the text and scratch off the new one until I get confirmation if we should restart the RFC. TahaKahi (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TahaKahi, one thing you could do now, is WP:REDACT your original Rfc statement at the top, as well as my (apparently incorrect) explanation just below it, with strikeout type, and then copy your new Rfc statement from the end of your 20:57, 20 Nov. comment and paste it in underline type just after the old version you just struck out, along with a brief explanation and a link to here. The Rfc is still quite young, and if it continues to attract responses, with future votes based solely on the correct Rfc question, then there is still a chance that this could work out. Let me know if you need help with that redaction, though I have to admit I'm a bit shy of getting it wrong again, and that would probably be just one too many twists and turns and make this Rfc unsalvageable. So if you know how to do the redaction, you should probably do it; but if you don't, I'll make one attempt. Let me know. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking again at your 20:57, 20 Nov. comment, your new Rfc statement based on |native_name_lang= will not work. For the reason why, see Template:Infobox ethnic group#Parameters, and note the Tajiks example there, which also has two languages, with both languages listed in |native_name=, but with |native_name_lang= left blank, according to the Parameter guidance: "... If more than one, use {{lang}} instead." So we would do the same thing here, if there is more than one language in the list, and we would use {{lang}} for each one in the |native_name= param, leaving |native_name_lang= blank. (See also § About param native name below.) So, it seems we still don't have a clear Rfc question, sigh... I'm pretty close to giving up on this; maybe someone else can steward this to a helpful conclusion. Mathglot (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is quite simple, the questions can be formulated as follows:
1 - are you for the inclusion of the name in Arabic, as a native language, in the infobox?
2 - are you for the use in the article of the name in Arabic for demonstration purposes (etymology etc...)? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's even simpler than that given that there no such thing as a single "Berber language" that is representative of every Berber ethnic group. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no more than there is a "single Arabic language" : Modern Standard Arabic, Darija, Classical Arabic ... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are varieties of Arabic. Berber languages on the other hand are mutually unintelligible languages. Skitash (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:PODIUM please. INLACO (Paris) : Les parlers chaoui sont très proches de ceux du reste de l'Algérie du Nord -notamment du kabyle-, avec lesquels l'intercompréhension est presque toujours immédiate. [5].
Algerian Constitution : Tamazight est également langue nationale et officielle. L'Etat œuvre à sa promotion et à son développement dans toutes ses variétés linguistiques en usage sur le territoire national..
So the situation is more complicated than what you are saying. Intercomprehension between Berber speakers exists between groups and to varying degrees depending on the distance.
As in Arabic , a speaker of Hassaniya from Mauritania will not understand a Yemeni and goes through a language called Modern Standard Arabic with 60% neologism (according to Edward Said). The Berber language has always been seen in academic publications as a single language with variants (Salem Chaker, Reflections on Berber Studies during the Colonial Period (Algeria), 1982). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been casting aspersions for a while. Perhaps it was my fault to let them slide, but now it's getting ridiculous. One more time and I will amass all of your so many aspersions (here and on other talk pages) and take them to ANI. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to your WP:OR, Chaoui and Kabyle aren't the only two Berber languages that exist, and the Algerian constitution refers specifically to Standard Algerian Berber.
"The Berber language has always been seen in academic publications as a single language with variants" Since you're asserting that it is a single language, then could you clarify what this standardized, codified variant is called and which writing system it uses? Skitash (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
M.Bitton. I am not slandering (no attack on you, your person), there is no intention to offend you. I am talking about your remarks which must be supported by sources. I answered with links and therefore in a sourced manner.
The debate is not about languages ​​but about the wording of the RFC. I think it is better to return to the subject. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:PODIUM please who was this meant for and what is it supposed to mean? M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monsieur Patillo, it may be simple to you, but what you wrote above is more confusing than it is simple. The phrase "inclusion of the name in Arabic" is ambiguous because you didn't say whether you meant Arabic language or Arabic script. If you meant how Berber speakers who use the Arabic script to write Berber would render the name of their language when writing about it, then it is a transliteration of the word Tamazight : تمازيغت. If you mean how Arabic speakers writing in Arabic (language) would render the name of the language of the Berbers when writing about it, that is typically : البربرية (there are variants) which is transliterated as al-Barbariyya.
It seems that nothing in this topic is simple; everybody knows what they mean in their head when they think about it, but when writing about it, it gets all tied up in knots. It's no wonder that several attempts to write a clear, neutral Rfc statement have failed, and I agree with a previous comment that WP:RFCBEFORE was not carried out, leading to what seems to me to be a waste of multiple editors' time. The silver lining, if there is one, is that hopefully the twists and turns of this attempted Rfc will shine a light on the pain points involved and that next time around, a thorough discussion will lead to an agreement about what the Rfc statement should be, before the Rfc is started. I consider this one in its death throes. Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you are right: I therefore specify that I speak of the Arabic language. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing inquiry

[edit]

@Surayeproject3, M.Bitton, R Prazeres, and إيان:, the inquiry into possible canvassing above is appropriate, but it is ballooning the § Survey section, and would make more sense here. If there is no objection from anyone, I will refactor by moving that part of the discussion here, starting with the comment of 01:25, 20 November 2024 and those that follow up on it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from § Survey
 – section above
@Surayeproject3: can you clarify what you mean by "I've been asked"? Where or by whom?R Prazeres (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surayeproject3: thank you for your honesty. Would you mind me asking who asked you and how? M.Bitton (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton @R Prazeres My apologies for the confusion, I didn't mean to say I was asked to weigh in on the Wikipedia discussion, but rather something more personal. I've been very busy outside of Wikipedia with other projects and school, so my concentration is not the best. Once again, my apologies for the confusion. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surayeproject3: you did say I've been asked to offer my two cents on the discussion.
I'm sorry to insist, but I need to ask this: are you in contact with anyone who is involved in this RfC? M.Bitton (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres @M.Bitton I primarily edit Assyrian-related articles, and I've come across the page for Amazigh in the past since I look into non-Arab SWANA groups on Wikipedia as well. In my experience, Assyrian articles have a problem regarding identity debates within the community that have caused vandalism and have flooded the talk page, and I've been looking at other groups (Maronites, Mandaeans, etc.) to see if they have similar issues on their pages. I saw the RfC and wanted to weigh in my thoughts, but I'm not currently in contact with anyone from the RfC itself. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surayeproject3: here's what you said:
  • I've been asked to offer my two cents on the discussion.
  • I didn't mean to say I was asked to weigh in on the Wikipedia discussion, but rather something more personal
So who asked you the rather something more personal? M.Bitton (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not necessary to keep insisting on this, but remind all editors of policy just in case. R Prazeres (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to insist because the answers don't add up. If there is canvassing (which I have every reason to suspect), then we need to know who did it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean by I didn't mean to say I was asked to weigh in on the Wikipedia discussion, but rather something more personal? I don't really understand. إيان (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will start by saying that contrary to my previous comments, I was asked to take part in the conversation by a user here through a private message from my page, and I sincerely apologize for not being truthful with my previous statements. @TahaKai sent me a message suggesting that I would be good for the conversation based on my previous work on Assyrian articles, since we have historically faced Arabization and they felt that my input would be appropriate. Although it wasn't sent to my talk page, and instead by email, they had only sent me one message and I hadn't edited any articles related to Amazigh at all. This falls under the "Appropriate notification" section of the user guidelines for Canvassing, but falls under the "Inappropriate section" as "Stealth canvassing".
The reason I lied was because I hadn't been aware of the user guidelines for canvassing, or that it was a thing in the first place, and I thought that I had done something that was very inappropriate for the conduct of Wikipedia. While it is true that I was asked to weigh in on something personal, it falls outside of the scope of Wikipedia and is not related to the discussion above. My other statement is also true that I've come across the Amazigh page numerous times before, since I frequent non-Arab SWANA group pages on Wikipedia.
Once again, I would like to sincerely apologize to all editors involved for my conduct and lack of truthfulness. If fitting, please remove my first comment from the discussion on the RfC, and I promise to be more careful in the future. Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surayeproject3, thank you for this.
TahaKahi, do you have anything to add? Aside from Surayeproject3 and myself regarding the notes under the RfC, did you reach out to anyone else with regard to this RfC, whether on Wiki or off? إيان (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I only asked him if he had an opinion on the subject, considering his experience editing pages about a minority in an Arab-majority country. I wanted to understand his perspective on the rule regarding the infobox. However, you're right—I hadn’t noticed that rule, and I apologize for the confusion. TahaKahi (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only asked him if he had an opinion on the subject you asked them to weigh in because supposedly, they too "have historically faced Arabization". The fact that you did so by email speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surayeproject3: thank you. Please feel free to strike through your !vote (once done, we'll collapse it and the replies to it). M.Bitton (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton Can you tell me how I can strike it through khon? I'm not familiar as I've never done it before Surayeproject3 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surayeproject3, edit this page on the source editor, select your all the text of your ǃvote, click on the dropdown menu that says 'Paragraph' at the top, and then click 'Strikethrough' from the menu. If you try and can't figure it out, let me know and I'll do it for you. إيان (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surayeproject3, use the s-tag, <s> like this </s>. Mathglot (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've striked through my vote, hope this helps. Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About param native_name

[edit]

I don't really want to start something because I think this Rfc has jumped the shark, but in the interests of providing the broadest background available for a possible forthcoming Rfc on this topic (or even for this one, if it staggers on somehow), I just wanted to let folks know that the topic of the |native_name= parameter came up recently elsewhere, and generated an interesting discussion in the context of the {{Infobox country}} template. This situation of the two templates are not identical, but there are similarities, and there were some good and thoughtful comments at that discussion that might apply here as well. You can find it at Template talk:Infobox country#What is |native_name= for?. Additional explanation about params |native_name= and |native_name_lang= can be found here. Mathglot (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2024

[edit]

Berbers → Amazigh people – Per precedent of Romani people not being titled Gypsies- when there are multiple WP:COMMONNAMEs for a group of people, it is preferable to use the one which isn't regarded by many as a slur. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support - The term 'Berbers,' as it is, and its continued use are directly considered insulting. Even governments like Morocco have stopped using this naming. However, articles related to Amazigh people still do not receive the same treatment as those of other ethnic groups, despite representing a significant population. TahaKahi (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - The term Amazigh is the real name of this people, the term Berber is a Latin word (barbarus), copied by the Arabs and then the French. Wikipedia recommendations recommend taking most common and the endonym. And it is the one that is in the sources Berber Encyclopedia: Amaziɣ. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Very, very clear WP:COMMONNAME in English-language and other sources. Not generally considered to be pejorative except by people who are looking to be offended (sadly all too common in these situations). The allegation that it comes from the Latin word for Barbarians is almost certainly untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Looking at the relevant articles, it's not clear that Amazigh is how most of these people prefer to be known, or that Berber is regarded by most of them as a slur. In the absence of some good reason to the contrary, we should stick with the common name in English. PatGallacher (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this discussion would be better with more evidence, and discussion of specific evidence. Specifically, evidence about - whether Berber is currently offensive?, and - whether there is a trend towards replacing Berber with Amazigh? I have heard both used (in the 00s), but this isn't about our personal individual experience or preference. Wikipedia guidelines on titles say that the titles should be neutral and not vulgar. It is probable that the word Berber is currently vulgar to some people and not others.
One piece of evidence is the NGram from @M.Bitton above ...
I also note that even if or when the name is changed to Amazigh, the title could still include Berber in some way shape or form, to help people out who are currently unfamiliar with Amazigh.
EE ~~ 2A0A:EF40:95B:D601:C81F:6A3:40D6:E206 (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berbers&oldid=1260433853"