Talk:Berbers/Archive 7

Assessment comment

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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.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)

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311200852/http://www.isabs.hr/PDF/2013/ISABS-2013_book_of_abstracts.pdf to http://www.isabs.hr/PDF/2013/ISABS-2013_book_of_abstracts.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ag.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027062825/http://www.mondeberbere.com/juifs/index-en.htm to http://www.mondeberbere.com/juifs/index-en.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060804154052/http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/berber.html to http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/berber.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

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]

External links modified

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

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 ??

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

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

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"

"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

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

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

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]

I agree, a new Wikipedia article specifically focusing on the history of the Berber peoples is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.114.246 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The existing history section is lengthy and has enough existing citations to justify a content fork and create a viable article. 79.72.251.56 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Per discussion, above. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the "readable prose size" of this article is 84 kB and so falls under the "Probably should be divided" of WP:TOOBIG. And yes: we shouldn't just split the section off, there still needs to be a short summary of Berber history on this page. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RELATED ETHNIC GROUPS? Iberians? Tatessians?! PICTS?!?! SAAMI?!?!?

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?

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

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

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:

"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..."
"The Roman era authors Apuleius and St. Augustine were born in the Roman province of Africa; claims that they had Berber ancestry are unproven."
"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

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

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

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

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

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]

Berbers → Amazigh people
Berber languages → Amazigh languages
Berber Jews → Amazigh Jews
Traditional Berber religion → Traditional Amazigh religion
Berber cuisine → Amazigh cuisine
Berbers and Islam → Amazigh people and Islam
Berberism → Amazighism
Berber flag → Amazigh flag
Arab-Berber → Arab-Amazigh
Arabized Berber → Arabized 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."

I think this is false. The Romans called them Mauri. The Arabs invented the term Berbers. Srnec (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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":

this article in the The Washington Post which uses "Amazigh" over "Berber"
this article in the New York Times which uses "Amazigh" over "Berber"

in French too:

this article in Le Monde which uses "Amazigh" over "Berber"

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]

Oppose per all above and WP SNOW close. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the ancient Greeks considered ALL groups who spoke any language other than Greek to be "barbarian" -- the Greeks did not single out North Africans for any special disdain in that respect. Some might consider the word barbaroi to be as revelatory of ancient Greek "solipsism" (as Nicholas Ostler calls it) as much as it is derogatory... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 25 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://en.wikipedia.org/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"

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

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]