Talk:Berbers

Dispute over the lead section

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

@Lolamelody123456: This is completely relevant to the lead section. Every Wikipedia page about demographics or ethnic groups mentions the language associated with that group in the lead section. Take a look at French people or Italians. Language is essential in defining ethnic groups and their identity, and in the case of Berbers, this is the unifying factor among the diverse Berber ethnic groups. I did not specifically say that all Berber languages are influenced by Arabic but generally a significant influence of Arabic can be found in most Berber languages, including the main ones, and I can easily find several sources supporting this. Arabic obviously has a much greater influence on Berber languages than Spanish and French, which had more recent impacts. It is true that this belongs in the Language section but it is necessary to include a summary in the lead section. Skitash (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I partly agree with Lolamelody123456 (though there's some unnecessary polemic wording here), in that I don't think mentioning Arabic vocabulary influence is necessary to a summary, and new information does indeed belong in the body of the article rather than the lead. Vocabulary borrowing is also only one measure of influence among other, arguably more important grammatical dimensions, and these questions would require some linguistics background that wouldn't fit well in a lead summary.

There is already a relevant and brief intro to Berber languages at the end of the current lead, mentioning the language family. A more useful expansion of the language section might be to mention the different (proposed) branches of the Berber language family, and this in turn could be summarized in the lead, to give a sense of the linguistic diversity, which is what is done in some of the similar articles mentioned by Skitash above. R Prazeres (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your viewpoint. Expanding the language section to mention the different branches of the Berber language family would be a useful addition, although I still believe that foreign influences should be included in the lead. Berber languages indeed show significant influence from Arabic, and therefore this influence is substantial enough to be included in the lead section. As evident in the page about Iraqis, foreign influences on their dialect are mentioned in the lead summary. Skitash (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Lolamelody123456, I'm just checking if you have a connection to either of these edits: [1], [2]? R Prazeres (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Faced with such massive changes, I made the decision to go back to the version before May 19, to avoid continuing vandalism and an edit war. Such in-depth modifications, especially when they are motivated by political or memorial issues, must be validated by consensus of Wikipedians. AgisdeSparte (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, if this is the way it's going to be, then return to a more stable version. I'm just noting here that I manually restored my edit to the "Languages" section ([3]), as I was replacing unsourced content there and it should be independent of the dispute about the lead, though it occurred at the same time. R Prazeres (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the mass reverts being made are the result of the actions of a long-term vandalizing IP range. Both ranges have been blocked now. [4][5] Skitash (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres @Ponyo Now that the vandalous IP is banned, I would like to inquire if it is permissible for me to restore my edit. It is worth noting that my edit consisted of widely accepted viewpoints supported by multiple credible sources with no intentions of promoting "propaganda". Skitash (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

My block of the IP was strictly an admin action. I have no input regarding content in this dispute.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Skitash, I'm fine with you restoring your edits. There may (or may not) be some wording that can be improved to be less provocative, or perhaps things that can be added or moved around for balance, but that can be done after as needed. I don't feel there was any issue with the content itself; indeed, it's mostly things that are well-known in reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: Though, like I said earlier, I feel the language "influence" stuff should stay in the Languages section, as I think we had agreed for the moment. R Prazeres (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Very well, thanks for the feedback. Skitash (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments here. Mostly, I removed a statement that was repeated right below in the "Name" section, which is unnecessary for the lead since it should be a summary. I've also made minor wording adjustments that I think retain the accuracy but diminish any potentially provocative tone. And I've added a brief mention of the present-day movement for Berber identity, which needs to be mentioned both for general context and to balance out the multiple statements about their historical lack of collective identity. R Prazeres (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It wasn’t me. Lolamelody123456 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

“Unintelligible”??

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

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

The term “Berber”

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

See the posts on this page and in the archives on why "berber" is still in use. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

And please, be aware of the fact that your feelings don't represent all Berber people's feelings. The vast majority of Berbers (myself included) don't consider this word offensive. On the contrary the French term "berbère" is widely used colloquially. --Syphax98 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It has little to do with my own feelings (although I do find "Berber(s)" preferable to the uneuphonious and irregular "Amazigh"/ "Imazighen"), but with what usage is current in sources dealing with the subject, as the talk discussions should make clear. It is the people coming here to complain about how their feelings are hurt by what is still current usage who are letting their personal feelings dictate what should be in this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I was not referring to you @Dhtwiki:! Actually I agree with you! I was referring to Sittingonthecouch! --Syphax98 (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. You could have made that more obvious by not indenting your post past mine, which implies a reply to what I said (also by using one of several ping templates, as you just did). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Notable people, Islamic section

Discussion with a sock and a disruptive IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Christian section had 3 prominent Christian Berbers so I thought I would even it out by having 3 in the Muslim section, Abd al-Rahman I was half Berber and Averrois was Berber. Informationsort (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of PaullyMatthews) Averrois was Berber not without a reliable source saying so. M.Bitton (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC) He’s included in notable people but didn’t have a picture so why did you remove Abd Al Rahman I? Informationsort (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of PaullyMatthews) Thank you for the explanation. I have now removed the unsourced entry. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC) In his Wikipedia page it states Abd Al Rahman I is half Berber and I added a source for Averros before there is no reason to remove. Informationsort (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of PaullyMatthews) Ibn Rushd is a barbarian??!? 😂😂 Are you laughing at yourselves or at someone? Do you really want to steal the lineage of Ibn Rushd and attribute him to the Berbers? Ibn Rushd is from the family of Arab nobles. Ibn Rushd is an Arab. He was born in Cordoba, an Arab city in Andalusia. He also grew up in a family ancient in science and literature, and his mother tongue was Arabic. There is some debate about whether Ibn Rushd belonged to a particular Arab tribe, but this does not negate Ibn Rushd's Arabism. A person's Arabism is not only determined by his tribe, but also by his language and culture. Ibn Rushd is one of the most important Arab philosophers in history, and his ideas greatly influenced Arab and Islamic thought. Therefore, it is generally taken for granted that he is Arab. Here is some evidence of Ibn Rushd's Arabism: He was born in Cordoba, an Arab city in Andalusia. He grew up in a family ancient in science and literature, and his mother tongue was Arabic. He wrote in Arabic, and translated many Greek works into Arabic. He contributed to the revival of Greek philosophy in the Islamic world, a philosophy that originated in the Greco-Roman world, which was part of the Arab world during the era of Ibn Rushd. Based on this evidence, it can be said that Ibn Rushd is undoubtedly Arab. 109.107.230.171 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) None of this is relevant since it's not based on reliable sources. The issue has been thoroughly discussed already at Talk:Averroes and this is not the place for a POV fork one way or the other. Likewise the claim about Abd ar-Rahman I is WP:OR. And even if none of that were the case, you still can't impose your view through edit-warring. R Prazeres (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC) No one has claimed about Abd al-Rahman al-Umayyad. Everyone knows that he is an Arab. The entire Andalus is Arab and an extension of Arab civilization. I am not imposing a point of view, but I am stating a truth that cannot be denied. I saw the hadith in Ibn Rushd’s article, and there is a person who also proved that he is a Arab and with evidence, but they evade it. They are blindly denying, so enough of the childish behavior and the time has come for realism. As I said, Ibn Rushd is an Arab, and all the evidence points to this, and there is not a single thing that says he is a barbarian other than the barbarian claims that are based on a literal inferiority complex and jealousy of the Arabs. 109.107.230.171 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC) As for the IP (109.107.230.171), please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. R Prazeres (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Admit that you are no better response than this childish method of evasion and response, so do not interfere in what does not concern you.” As I said, I speak with an undeniable truth, which is that the theft of lineages and history is something I will not tolerate. 109.107.230.171 (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. M.Bitton (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Can you stop this vulgarity and childish behavior, because it seems that you have wandered too much into delusions and the pink world? 37.220.116.172 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"Notable Berbers" section

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

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

Requested move 18 December 2023

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

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

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

• Oppose I don't see why the Berbers should be compared to the Germanic peoples when comparing them to the Germans, the Arabs, the Kurds, the Persians, etc, would make more sense. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Berbers are a group of peoples, the difference is that Germans, Arabs, etc., are a group of people. The Berbers would probably best be compared to the Sámi peoples. The Berbers are a much more diverse grouping than Germans or Arabs. – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

    I wish things (regarding every single one of them) were that simple. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Usage of the term "Berbers" is common enough. "Berber peoples" is unusual and merely adds awkwardness. Seems like a fix looking for a problem. Walrasiad (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think "[...] peoples" is a convention so much as it's usually a result of grammar and disambiguation needs. The examples you mentioned (and others like Turkic peoples, Indigenous peoples, Chinese people, etc) involve adjectives rather than nouns (one can't say "Germanics"), so naturally we need "peoples" after. By contrast, Arabs, Kurds, Nubians, Punjabis, etc are all nouns. "Austronesian", like Indo-European, is primarily a term to designate a language family classification, and I don't believe "Austronesian(s)" is used as a noun ([6]). In other cases, Iranian peoples is to differentiate from Persians/Iranians, Mongolic peoples is different from Mongols, etc. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)