Talk:Kabyle people

Irrelevant links

Links to [Black Spring] point to an irrelevant article. idiotoff 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed links but didn't check accuracy (Zepard (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

== Genetics section == I am kablye my grandfather had blue eyes and my grandmother has red hair both with skin lighter then most europeans

language

i don't think that it's true that 'french' and 'algerian arabic' are kabyle's languages. must i remember you that kabyle people HATE everything how's arab(for political reasons)?And about french i must remember you that it's the language of the old colonial power,ever if a lot of kabyles know it very well.so i don't think that there's a lot of kabyles who agree with the idea that french is their own language. Wikpedia is a incredible source of excellent informations,that's why i want to make it better.i suggest you to put only 'KABYLE' in the section 'language' of the 'kabyle people' article.i'm kabyle and this is the opinion of 99% of kabyles. my best salutation to you, you're doing a INCREDIBLE work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.66.128.22 (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

You are wrong. There are many assimilated kabyles who speak algerian Arabic, especially in the Algiers region. But of course, nobody speaks french at home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.36.72 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of you are wrong. The french language is respected amongst the kabyle people. Most see it as a way to cultivate themselves and ,for a long period of time, to communicate with the rest of the world.(This is of course changing as more of them are starting to speak english) There is a difference between the past french imperialistic government and the french language in itself.

Also, it was wrong to state that kabyle people do not speak french at home as it is not the case. Some families do speak french at home and i believe there are more french words present in the kabyle language than arabic ones. A large majority of kabyles do not speak arabic at all.(they learn formal arabic at school but do not employ it in their daily life) 2602:306:330B:EC0:35CE:3535:C6E6:2777 (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

related groups

and what about the relation between kabyls and greeks? every kabyl and every greek know the similarity of our origins, languages, alphabets(greek alphabet and tifinagh alphabet),culture....but the wikipedia article don't talk about it

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Arredi et al. 2004 HE DID NOT SAY THE PASTORALISTS CAME FROM AFRICA--INTENTIONAL MISQUOTE.

I came here after reading about Zinedine Zidane, and saw what I thought was an honest mistake or some shit... If you include studies in the text they have to be cited so everyone can see the source...

What is in the article now(from Arredi...)

->"The Y chromosome is passed exclusively through the paternal line. The composition of Y Chromozome is: 48% E3b1b (E-M81), 12% E3b* (xE3b1b), 17% R1*(xR1a) and 23% F*(xH, I,J2,K) [1]. According to this study (Arredi et al.2004) the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation (including both E3b and J haplogroups) is largely of Neolithic origin which suggests that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic–speaking pastoralists from Africa."

"...from Africa."

To my understanding the people of N Africa were from the middle east primarily (came out of east africa spreading e3b1), where afro-ASIATIC lanugages came from and were introduced to Africa through the spread of middle easternern farmers/pastoralists during the neolithic. Anybody who has taken an Anth 101 class should know that the pastoralists came from the FERTILE CRESCENT.

I have found Arredis study abstact on google, I will cite it at the bottom.. lets see what Arredi REALLY SAYS:

->"We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East."

"...from the Middle East."

Didt even need to look in depth to see that it was wrong. Its obvious to me that the editor is INTENTIONALLY FALSIFYING INFORMATION AND DIDNT EDIT WITH GOOD INTENTIONS...NO WAY YOU CAN QUOTE IT ALL RIGHT EXCEPT FOR THAT ALL IMPORTANT LITTLE WORD AT THE END. Assume good faith...lol. Who knows what their motivation was, but whoever it is a dumbass peice of crap and this is why wikipedia sux balls and no professor with half a goddamn brain lets you reference wikipedia. -134.121.247.116 (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nazism

The article says (on 2008-12-19) : "It is interesting to note that the Nazi racialists considered the Berbers especially the Kabyle as part of the Aryan race".

Why would that be interesting?

Interesting to whom?

Other racists? (And what is a "racialist"?)

That sentence should be deleted. There really is no need to propagate queer nazist ideology. Erik Rossini (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

--

Why? Because other North Africans don't look white and have Goth blood.

To whom? To those who have noticed this.

Sentence is probably important and relevant, Kabyles mainly noted for being white in appearance, let's not lie to ourselves here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.92.57 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Isabelle Adjani as Marya Zelli in Quartet2.jpg

The image File:Isabelle Adjani as Marya Zelli in Quartet2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Édith Piaf.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Economy

If this section is maintained, I suggest it to be rewritten so it would describe the activity of people and not the the economy of Kabylie which has its own article where the economy can be described in details. (Zepard (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

Religion

Budhism (Budhist), some Roman catholic, protestant athist unrecognized minorities, some suni terrorists.

Here's what we can read in this part. Can someone correct it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.6.177.80 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there any support for the present claim that the Kabyles were traditionally Christian? What is the basis of this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.202.3 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful. Maybe Western Kabyle, but they number only in the thousands. The millions in Algeria are all Muslim, albeit, I hear, practicers are not that common. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "Muslim Communities of Africa" category from the article. While the majority of Kabyle's are Muslim, not all are and it wouldn't make sense to have this page in that category. Plus, historically speaking, Kabyle's were of various religions : Berber, Jewish, Christian and Muslim .. and not to mention atheists.TonyStarks (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, almost no ethnic groups in Africa would qualify for this tag. Obiara (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected misleading assertions in the Religion section, and added references to the Encyclopedia Britannica; I hope that will put an end to all the editing back and forth that's been going on here. Obiara (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

A coming source of Encyclopedia Britannica seems to be insuffisant and little relevanton this controversial subject. I added reliable sources, stemming from specialists' works on the subject. Most of its works are in French, but it's the case of all important sources on north african studies. This region, culturally a french sphere of influence, seems to be rather little known and treated in the English-speaking world. Nabilus junius (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The well-referenced French Wikipedia article on the Kabyle people does not contain assertions like the ones you are making here. I've tried to incorporate your references (without page numbers, to print titles that I cannot verify) into a reasonable and verifiable discussion of the religious question. If you make any further edits, please do not delete my references. Obiara (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And judging by the description of Amar Boulifa's nationalist writings on p. 78-80 of History and the Culture of Nationalism in Algeria by James McDougall (available via Google Books), I don't think he's an appropriate source of factual material for an encyclopedia! Obiara (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your modification does not absolutely include the sources that I brought (I have just added the number of pages) because you assert in introduction the total opposite of what quote these sources. I modified the text by including your (only) source. On the French-speaking page of wikipedia, I indicate you that it seems that it have a conflict of publishing exactly on this religious question. As regards Boulifa, it is about a major author here in Algeria and it's the first time which I hears that he would have been nationalist (moreover, whiche kind of nationalism ?? Algerian or Kabyle??). Boulifa is rather unanimously recognized as a serious and renowned historian, apparently more than M.James McDougall (whose existence I learns). Even though Boulifa would have been nationalist (what, once again, is a new assertion), I don't strictly see which relationship with the religious question.

I don't ignore that a certain number of sources indicates a Moslem large majority within the Kabyle population, but in a non-democratic country like Algeria, where Islam is a state religion and where an anti-Kabyle politicy exists since independence, the influence of the Algerian official propaganda is not to be neglected.

According to the various sources, the number of the Kabyle Christians oscillates between 10 % and 50 %, whereas the number of Muslims oscillates between 30 % and 70 %, what gives very different estimations. In this context, it's in my opinion preferable not to give precise figures, but to insist on the pluri-religious character of the Kabyle society (what is an exception in North Africa, widely Muslim). Best regards. Nabilus junius (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss a little more before I revert your edits again. The French Wikipedia article says the Kabyles are mostly Muslim with a few Christians, and cites the same source I do. When there is a difference of opinion on fact, we should give priority to a current, widely recognized source like Britannica, and then mention that there may be other opinions. If you have any sources for your figures above (preferably authoritative and online, so we can see them), you can put them in the article. Boulifa wrote what he wrote in 1925 as part of the development of the "Kabyle Myth" promoted by the French colonial government, and cannot be cited as a definitive source here. (But I do apologize for deleting the page numbers you added - I didn't notice them at the time.) Obiara (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

M.Obiara, your attitude is for little contemptuous and impolite. For whom do you take yourselves to decree that YOU go to delete my contribution?? I am sorry to indicate you that wikipedia is not your property, and that on no account you have the authority to decide of what is removable or not.

As regards our subject, it’s not a question of "opinions", but of facts. I quoted several diverse sources, you quoted only a single source. Instead of quoting more, you try to compromise mine, nevertheless widely known and recognized. You speak about the " Kabyle myth ". I am anxious to indicate you (what you seem to ignore), that the Kabyle myth is a thesis which has nothing scientific, but political, with both supporters and opponents.

You insist on this assertion: "The majority of Kabyles are Muslim, with a small Christian minority". What do you mean exactly by " majority", what do you mean exactly by" few "? From what percentage of the population can we consider this assertion as exact ? And which precise meaning you give for "Muslim" and "Christian" terms? I have spoken of "nominal muslims " and " nominal christians ". The Kabyle society is widely secular, shows of it the plebiscite that the political parties defending this principle meet in the region. Are all atheistic, deiste, agnostic kabyles, recorded as Muslims or Christians?? Is Matoub Lounes, the famous Kabyle singer (born in a nominal muslim family), recorded as muslim, despite his strong atheistic positions ??

I invite you to respect a little bit more other contributors. Try to discuss a suitable formulation on this question. For my part, I’m not hostile to the fact that the possible Moslem majority is quoted, but on the condition of indicating that there is a debate on the exact figures, and once again to insist more on the pluri-religiosity, which seems to me to be the most important information of this section. But avoid of modify one-sidedly the text, because it result only in a publishing war.Nabilus junius (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to know what “Muslim,” “Christian,” “majority” and “few” mean, you’ll have to ask the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica. I have no opinion on the question; I’m just citing an authoritative, impartial, recent source of information, which is what we’re supposed to do here. Mr. Boulifa is a partisan ideologue who wrote almost a hundred years ago. If you have a current source that says most modern Kabyles are atheist, deist or agnostic, you can cite it as an alternative, less authoritative opinion.

Thank you for conceding that mainstream reference sources refer to a Muslim majority, and that that information should appear in the article. Maybe you would like to add it yourself. Information about the recent growth of other religious communities among the Kabyles could then follow that statement.

Next, let’s discuss your preferred formulation: “The traditional religion of Kabyles is Christianity, including Donatism and Arianism heritage.” More than anything else, that phrase is the reason I started attempting to improve this article. You ask me to respect other contributors, but you have reverted every attempt by other contributors (not just by me) to reword this. (And you did so without discussing the issue here, until I asked you to.) “Including Donatism and Arianism heritage” is not idiomatic English, so that will have to be rephrased. But, more importantly, the expression “traditional religion” is completely misleading and needs to be changed to something else. Christianity is certainly not the traditional religion of the Kabyles in the same way that it is of the Poles or the Portuguese (among whom there are also, no doubt, many atheists, deists and agnostics).

As my attempt to correct this section said, Christianity was present in North Africa in Classical times. Certainly in the Roman cities, and to an unknown extent also perhaps in the Numidian countryside. Thus, some of the Numidian ancestors of the modern Kabyles may or may not have been Christian. Unlike in Egypt or Syria, native Christianity did not survive the Islamic conquest in the Maghreb, so there is no continuity between early North African Christianity and the Kabyle Christian converts of the 19th century and later. Scholars have attempted to identify surviving elements of Christian origin in Berber culture (the use of the cross as a symbol in art, etc.), but these identifications are controversial. And in any case, traditional Kabyle society had no conscious memory of a Christian past. Therefore, “traditional religion” is inappropriate and misleading.

I recognize that claiming a special connection to North Africa’s pre-Islamic, and, perhaps, Christian heritage is an important element of modern Kabyle nationalist ideology – as evidenced by your own user name. It would be appropriate and important to mention that in this article, but the question needs to be explained much more carefully and accurately than it is now. Since you have revised this article more than anyone else and clearly feel protective of its content, can you suggest a reasonable rewrite of this section that would meet Wikipedia’s standards and address my concerns?

Then when we’re done with this we can start working on that “Brief People’s History,” which needs a lot of revision. I’m looking forward to collaborating with you as we continue to improve this article so that readers of English Wikipedia will have access to the accurate, unbiased information about your people that they deserve. Obiara (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Population numbers

What is the source for these given numbers? It seems to me as unreliable as the one about Maghrebim, that has recently been removed due to lack of sources. According to this [1] and this [2], the Kabyle are not that abundant in the West. Not sure how reliable these sources are, but they do disagree with the sources provided here. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Kabylia flag

this flag is not specific to the kabylian region. defense of using it in this article

berber flag

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar2788 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Brief People's History"

This will serve as advance notice to other interested contributors that I intend to delete most of the section entitled "Brief People's History" and replace it with a much shorter section in a more appropriate position in the History section further down. Besides the very large number of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, there are numerous problems with this section, which consists almost entirely of irrelevant, questionable or obviously incorrect information:

• irrelevant geographical and zoological information that belongs in the article on Kabylie e.g. "bears, wild bors, wolfs, monkeys, eagles and even hayens"
• a large amount of historical narrative that belongs in the existing articles on Numidia or the ancient Numidians, not here; it should be replaced by a link to those articles
• the assertion that the Vandals were also called "Geiserics"
• the assertion that the Vandals invaded North Africa as part of a "Vandal-Numidian coalition" not mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia
• an alleged migration of 80000 people to the mountains at some unspecified period in late Antiquity
• polemical POV statements in the final paragraph that have no place in Wikipedia, e.g. "a membership into the Arab League - Source of all Algerian post-colonial ills"

Please post any concerns about this proposed deletion and replacement here. Thank you. Obiara (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandals in North Africa, in this exact region, is all over wikipedia. Not that it matters, as you cannot source wikipedia on wikipedia. Or anywhere else. But yes, that is why these people look Germanic. Obviously.112.198.83.58 (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Disputed

The following issues in this article are disputed:

• whether and how to cite available sources for the relative proportion of Muslims and Christians among the Kabyles (see Religion section above)
• the description of Christianity as the "traditional religion" of the Kabyles (see Religion section above)
• the relevance and accuracy of numerous statements in the "Brief People's History" section, enumerated above
• the accuracy of the population figures given
• the appropriateness of using the proposed "Berber flag" to represent Kabylie, a region within Algeria Obiara (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Any statistic drawn from a book almost 100 years old is surely wrong regarding today's percentages.
2. Moreover, I have just read Amar Boulifa, Le Djurdjura à travers l'histoire depuis l'Antiquité jusqu'en 1830 : organisation et indépendance des Zouaoua (Grande Kabylie), Page 119, 1925, Algiers. and have found no mention of religion on that page, besides that, it is a, for the most part, unsourced book.
3. On the population figures, one can only use that which is cited. Ethnologue, the citation used cites speakers of Kabyle, not ethnic Kabyles. --Bob (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputed changes

Dzlinker, could you explain the deletion of several informations in the article, including:

• Population figures.
• Large elements of the general introduction.
• Changes in language and religion sections.
• Changes in the economic section.

If some informations seems for you to be doubtful, you're invited to precise the need of sources. If you think that some facts are false, than you can give relevant sources indicating clearely the contrary. Anyways, i invite you to discuss all these points here before changing the article.

PS: I also invite you to use polite language, forbidding words like "tmenyik" ("bullshit" in arabic) and generally non-english words. I remember you that we're on ENGLISH SPEAKING version of wikipedia. Nabilus junius (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I find the article very dubious. It should be totally reviewed

40% of the habitants of Algiers. this article says there is about 2 million Kabilians around Algeria. 40% of Algiers is about 2 millions. Officialy there is no ethnic statistics in Algeria, it's not a racist state (nor a racist people), so no one can tell the real percentage off Negroes or Kabylians or Arabs or Turkish people in Algiers or anywhere else in Algeria.

"Since the Berber Spring in 1980, ... recognition of the Berber languages and secularism ("laïcité") in Algeria" obsolete statement, representing a personal PoV.

"and as Kabylie in French" this is English Wikipedia, who cares about it's french name. It is referred as Kabylia in Anglo-Saxon literature link.

About Jughurtha, I asked for some resources on the main page, if you can find some.

about Genetics: the Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) found with important proportions (10%) in Kabylia is Semitic(not Neolithic as the article says)

Pottery isn't more representative than an orientalist painting from a well known painter, and it's more offensive in my opinion.

Dzlinker (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Let us respond point by point:

- It seems that there's a problem with some figures: indeed there is debate on the exact number of the Kabyle population, but this last one is estimated at least at 6 million persons. The figure given in this source is erroneous. The sole wilaya of Béjaia counts approximately 1,5 million inhabitants. When in Algiers, it population overtakes by far 2 millions also (approximately 3,5 millions for the city, and 5 millions for the "algérois", Algiers region).

- About the ethnic statistics, effectively they do not exist in Algeria, unlike in a large number of country: the USA, UK, Canada, Netherlands, Australia... I thus suppose that all these (democratic) countries are horrible racist regimes for you. "nor a racist people"; not an objective data, personal PoV.

- The defense of secularism by civil and political kabyle societies is a fact known and recognized by every objective (and non partisan) observer, sources don't miss on the question. A concrete element is that the 3 sociologically Kabyle parties (RCD, FFS and MAK) are all defending the secular principle (as you can see in their official programs on their official sites). These parties accumulate more than 80 % of votes in the region.

- About the name "Kabylia" or "Kabylie", there's a debate on the question and i don't want to participate in it. The 2 forms meet in the english literature. On the other hand, it seems that the term "kabyles" is more exact and common than " kabylians " that you use.

- About Jugurtha, which is the point exactly that you're talking about ?

- About Genetics's figures, which is your source ?

- About the picture, i agree with you: neither a pottery nor an orientalist painting is representative. We must find a correct picture. Perhaps we can use the berber flag (which is, regardless of its pan-berber origin, widely used and recognised by kabyles as a self-identification banner, playing the role of a Kabyle flag). But the best solution stills the creation of an image representing a list of famous kabyles, like it is done for other peoples's pages (for example [[3]] or [[4]]). Nabilus junius (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You should give more resources about the numbers you'r giving.

English is a very simple and disciplined language, a country called Algeria or Bulgaria or Saudia or Tunisia its inhabitants take an 'n' at the end

Give references about the Numidian history of Kabylia, otherwise it'll be deleted, or marked as suspicious and dubious.

About genetics, just click on the link Haplogroup J (Y-DNA), and y'll see the origins of the J's

I found those infobox pics, you can choose the one you like most. The flag is not a good idea.

• 
• 
• File:Kabylian danse.jpg

Dzlinker (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You can consult the official data of the algerian populations's ressencement of the wilayas of Algiers, Tizi Ouzou, Béjaia, Bouira, Boumerdes (to take only that). Even if these figures are not 100% sure, they nevertheless spread totally the figure of 2 million kabyles.

Kabylia was a part of antique Numidie, that's a fact. Except it, the section "history" tells the Berber history generally speaking, in the measure or Kabylia in that such appeared in history rather late (at about 10th century AD). The story of Jugurtha thus corresponds more to a Kabyle "prehistory". It remains intersting informations that allow the non-specialist reader to understand the roots of the kabyle people, so i disadvice you to delete it.

About genetics, i'm not a specialist and i don't express special interest on the question, so i will not contradict you. Nevertheless, I notice that the "genetic" section of the article is well sourced, and there is no factual incoherence when we look at the distribution of the genes which are presented (when we look at articles in question). I recommend to you, if you wish to add the necessary informations about the Haplogroup J (Y-DNA), to not delete those already present.

For the image, I remain persuaded that the best solution is to create a representation of some famous kabyles. Nevertheless, in the meantime, we can choose the 3rd image ( Kabyle dancer) that seems to be the more appropriate. Nabilus junius (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

About the word "Kabylians", english is not as simple: the people of "Croatia" are the "Croats" and not the "Croatians" [5]. The majority custom remains the term "kabyles", if you wish to change it you need to address the academic authorities of the English language. It's a question larger than you, me and even wikipedia. Nabilus junius (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean any thing leaving in those Wilayas isn't being a Kabylian. Here we are talking about the ethnic group not the cultural group (the black Kabylians are definitely of Maraboutic origins). I'm pretty sure there is not 9 million white kabylian out there. The stats i gave are referenced, you shouldn't take off referenced content. Just add other references. I'm putting it back.

Could you give me the reasons of you undoing my others edits (link)?

Dzlinker (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You make a mistake, we deal with a cultural and not an ethnic group, like that is clearly specified in the introduction. Generally speaking, articles of wikipedia never treat "ethnic" groups, even if the ethnic element is naturally one of the points of definition of a cultural group (another fundamental element being the language, what explains why it's question of the mother tongue of the group and not those that it would may be within it widely spread as Arabic, what explains my deletion of your edits on the question). As for the project Joshua, it there had several discussions about this source in the other similar articles, where it was strongly questioned. The Joshua project is an evangelistic Christian organization very militant in its domain (thus rather little academic), little competent in demographic statics. I do not exclude totally this link, however we must find another sources (and i'm working on the question) before puting figures on the article.

When you talk about "black kabyles" and their supposed maraboutic origin, i'm really suspicious about your real knowledge of the subject which we treat: did you meet a lot of black kabyle in your life? It's a subgroup which indeed exists, but which is extremely marginal on the whole Kabyle population, and counts surely not in millions (besides, this subgroup is of negro-African origin and not maraboutic). And to close this point, I indicate you that these black Kabyles are included in this article.

About your other modifications, they are numerous, varied, and quite totally questionable, except the change of image stemming from a consensus that I put back as you saw. I have already answered about the language, and in my previous messages about history, genetics, and secularism. About the religion, this section aroused a long debate and is at present well sourced. You can naturally add informations, but in accordance with what is already proposed. You also deleted informations on the Kabyle population of Algiers, on economy, and the genetics (you puts a false information which does not correspond to the article which you previously presented me) could I know why?

Finally, I remind you once again that we use the term "kabyles" and not " kabilians ", which for the moment is used only by you. Wikipedia does not have authority to change the English language. You have already failed in your attempt to rename the article. Then once again, send your recommendations to the competent linguistic authorities, but the article cannot be modified before that. Nabilus junius (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Besides figures of the total population, could you make a list of all the points which seem to you dubious, so we can discuss them one by one? Nabilus junius (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say who is making a mistake. The border is very thin between berbers as a cultural and an ethnic group. A berber ethnically, but arab culturally, doesn't count in your census? I agree with you about the joshua pjct.

I'm going back to the last version by me. Please do not revert changes, just make others (take off what you disagree about or add tags (like dubious or citation needed)). Let's be productive. We won't pass a lifetime on this subject. Dzlinker (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Figures stills an important point. I will let (for the moment) the article like it is, but i'm searching credible sources on the subject. I will inform you about it, and i hope you'll do the same. Nabilus junius (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research in religion sections

"The Kabyle people are mainly Muslim with a large Christian community"

I find this additions to be of original research ,Forgery , poorly sourced and strangely worded. That's why I will revert it to : The Kabyle people are mainly Muslims with a few Christians , If you wish to challenged that, I suggest you take your complaint to the reliable sources noticeboard, but I have to tell you, they are obviously going to find it to be reliable.

Original research :

in well-sourced material : if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research (According to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines) . In addition see Extended content:

Extended content

Wikipedia policy state that: Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source(like Encyclopædia Britannica). Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research . Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources(like Encyclopædia Britannica)and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see self-published sources for exceptions. Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic.

on the other hand :

the following should be checked for original research: Recently, there has been a growing Protestant (chiefly evangelical) community.[2] Since the 19th century, there has been a large nominal Sunni Muslim community.[3] Among Kabyle Muslims, the main tradition is maraboutism,[4] a version of heterogeneous Islam mixing Sunni tradition and many Kabyle cultural elements. However, Kabyle society is known for its strong secular tradition. Religious differences play minor roles in political and social life.[citation needed]

Tommy symbol (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Tommy symbol (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Language section

The general table presents basic informations about a given community. More detailed information must be within the article. About the language's section of the table, it must presents the mother tongue of the group, the community. In this case it's kabyle language which is the only mother tongue inside the Kabyle group.

Kabyle individuals who are living outside the Kabyle environnement (either in Algeria or abroad) is another point : their mother tongue is the one of the region in which they evolve (if we follow this way we must add English, spoken by the kabyle-Canadians, Spanish, Russian, Danish, Japanese...ect)

About the fact that Algerian Arabic and French are languages widely spread within the Kabyle population, this returns within the framework of the second and not native languages.

Generally speaking, all these information must be given in the article itself, in the specific section. It's the case here, so it's ok.

PS : Classic Arabic is absolutely not spoken as a native language neither in Kabylia, nor generally in any place in Algeria or North Africa. Nabilus junius (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're totally wrong in your PoV, some Bejaouis Jijlis Braijis Boumerdeses and others are indeed kabyles and in the heart of the region! and yet they speak algerian not kabyle. I think you're trying to make some perso points using this article. Unless you find some references to support your claim, the article will remain as it is. Regards. - Dzlinker (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that unfortunately it's going belong to you to find sources to justify that an ethno-LINGUISTIC group would speak several languages (something rather curious from an academic point of view you will agree on it).

Jijlians are not Kabyles, they don' t possess either the language or the culture and especially not the self-feeling of membership in the Kabyle group, which is doubtless the first vector of kabyle consciousness today.

I thus waits for your sources indicating that arabic-speaking persons would have a Kabyle-identity consciousness and self-identification. I'm also waiting impatiently for sources indicating that some kabyles would speak classic Arabic as a native language (this kind of silly statements discredits you intellectually and make me seriously doubt about your knowledge of our subject). Regards. Nabilus junius (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it. If you want to make changes you should justify it. - Dzlinker (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No mister, YOU have to justify non-sourced informations which YOU added and which contradict all the article's informations on the subject. No one support this assertion except you. Please let us discuss in good terms as serious persons. Regards Nabilus junius (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You want a source that says that Buira, Jijel & Boumerdas guys speak arabic instead of berber! seriously have you ever been to Algeria! - Dzlinker (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dixit the man who was supporting that kabyles speak Classic Arabic as a native language !! Nabilus junius (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Arabic name should figure out there, do not censor it. The famine photo illustrates the reasons behind todays mass conversions. When it says: "newly converted" it is a fact, why censoring? Arabic is natively spoken by many kabylians (you're totally unrelated to the subject if you're still insisting not). Kabyle is french not english! kabylian is. "Spoken in family and in work, on the beach, during campings" is just a stupid phrase (I rephrased). Take the time to make things better and expand the article instead of vandalizing the little there is. - Dzlinker (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You discovered the term " vandalism " which you use in each 2 sentences but your vocabulary remains very poor. Always same tunes and always so few arguments !! You gave no response to the analysis I prensented here.

Because of your attitude I am going to contact an admin to solve the problems which you put on this page. It would be interesting to see what think of the other contributors of the spellings which you invent, and about the very partial arguments which you present on the linguistic and religious subjects. Nabilus junius (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Muslim" community ??

Kabyle people is a multi-religious group. There's no official census about religion in Algeria, but most of statistics give approximately 40 to 50 % of Muslims, for 20/30% of Christians and neighborhood 30/40% of unbelievers. We thus have no Muslim absolute majority. Even though it was the case, does this arbitrary categorization correspond to the will of a majority of kabyles ? Undoubtedly not. The Kabyle nation is widely secular, many Kabyles are just nominally Muslims, and the kabylo-Berber culture is rather foreign to Islam.

I would like to know what an Azeri Islamist living in Germany knows exactly about kabyles and their society ? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but it doesn' dispense of having a minimum of knowledges in the subjects on which we wish to contribute. It is not a game.

Besides, the category " Muslim communities " does not include either Turkish, or Iranian, or even Arab people !!! I recommend you to create a specific article " Kabyle Muslims ", which you could include in this category, and in which you could describe in detail the customs and the specific traditions of the Muslims of Kabyle origin (what could help us to see your large knowledge of the subject). Nabilus junius (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't think it is really important which nation I am, where do I live or what is my political views. I will accept the next such notice as WP:NPA. I WILL provide the documentation in the language available to everyone. Thanks. Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • I can't understand how we could speak about "personal attacks" by evoking data which YOU publish about yourself!!

Contrary to what you say your political-ideological positions (not very moderate, we must say it), have an importance because they directly seem to interfere in your judgment on the question in debate. Nabilus junius (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • • What is considered to be a personal attack? - Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" --- I would like to know what an Azeri Islamist living in Germany knows exactly about kabyles and their society ? --- I was neither pointing out my ideological or political views, nor making propaganda. This category was and is for the ethnic groups that are predominantly Muslim by their culture and religion. If you need a reference I will submit. If I publish my citizenship their it doesn't mean that someone can use it in such way against me. And yes believe me Azeri Islamist living in Germany has quite information about North African countries, their culture and history. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • Great, so you are surely well informed about the fact that Kabylia is culturally distinct from most of the rest of north Africa (including some other Berber speaking regions), that Kabyle culture is NOT predominantly islamic (even if, of course, Islam is an element of Kabyle culture and history), and that most Kabyles, including many Kabyle Muslims, insist on their national heritage which is distinct from a specific religious affiliation (neitheir islamic nor christian).
        • The fact that Islam is an important religion among Kabyle people is absolutly not on debate, but fact of categorizing ALL Kabyles, (because this article talk about Kabyles in general), as "Muslims" is false and problematic. As i said creating an article "Kabyle Muslims" could be a good idea.
        • You also didn't respond to me about the fact that your category don't include peoples like Turks, Iranians or even Arabs. Why ? Regards. Nabilus junius (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Iranian people are not people of Iran (like Persians, Iranian Arabs, Gilaki people, etc.), but people speaking Iranian languages in general, so it shows linguistic group, such as Semitic people, Slavic people, Turkic people and etc. The other groups you said were the reason of the some deletions by some users after which the case had been taken into discussion. Thanks for showing, we didn't notice them.
          • We didn't consider all Kabyle as Muslim, as the category purpose says This category is for articles about communities predominately of Muslims, which are also defined by ethnic, linguistic or regional identities. Note: not everyone in a community must be a Muslim for the community to be included here. The aim is not to claim all the members of this community as Muslims, as one monolith group (no gain from it), but rather to show the Wiki readers how divergent and different group this term describes. Neither I created, nor I added all these people to the group, it became very famous here when an American user started to delete all the names from the group and discussions started over the topic. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kabyle people

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kabyle people's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "S-Coon_RacesOfEurope1":

• From Chaoui people: Coon, Carleton Stevens (1939). "The Mediterranean World". The Races of Europe. New York: The Macmillan Company. p. Plate 30. OCLC 575541610. Retrieved 16 June 2013. Nordics are ancient in Northern Africa as the Egyptian monuments of the Middle Kingdom, and perhaps older. They survive today mostly in the mountains of the Rif, but others are found in the Canary Islands, and the Djurdjura and Aures mountains of Algeria. {{cite book}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
• From Riffian people: Coon, Carleton Stevens (1939). "The Mediterranean World". The Races of Europe. New York: The Macmillan Company. p. Plate 30. OCLC 575541610. Retrieved 16 June 2013. A Riffian from the coastal village of Ajdir, in the tribe of Beni Uriaghel. In pigment, in measurements, and morphologically this Riffian is as perfect a Nordic as one could find in northern Europe. Nordics are ancient in Northern Africa as the Egyptian monuments of the Middle Kingdom, and perhaps older. They survive today mostly in the mountains of the Rif, Aures mountains of Algeria, the Canary Islands and the Djurdjura . {{cite book}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why delete the "Physical anthropolgy" subtitle?!

It was very relevant to the Kabyle people, and well-referenced. I've just put it back.

However, I wasn't able to get the two pictures back for that part. You can choose from those: https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/q71/1378460_1405727639656608_1603671122_n.jpg

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mab3xid9771qgrypy.jpg

http://affability.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/kalashyq6.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p480x480/1383138_186651998185329_1008015506_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/923481_574939725873448_769840794_n.jpg

Please don't delete big paragraphs without consulting.

197.200.27.97 (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Well referenced? References to a books written by 1 man now ascociated with eugenics and scientific racism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon#Posthumous_reputation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electravox (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandals Missing

Why are the Vandals missing from here? Is that not the most important element that should be at the start of this wiki???112.198.83.58 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

All-male race?

I can't believe that there is an all-male race where are the pictures of females under Iqvayliyen? --Fastez (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that all these pictures of individuals should now be removed according to a new Wikipedia policy; see point 4 here and the link to "corresponding discussion": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead Obiara (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Anthropology

None other than Pierre Bourdieu conducted an anthropological study about the Kabyles in the 60s. While, given its age, it might be outdated in itself, I think that it played some role in the development of Bourdieus larger sociological theory. --Mike F (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kabyle people. 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/20060615135402/http://kabylia.info/index.php/Main_Page to http://www.kabylia.info/index.php/Main_Page
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113151627/http://www.north-of-africa.com/ to http://www.north-of-africa.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits

I reverted all the unreferenced information but please to keep a eye out for it. Arsi786 (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2019

Berber/Atlas are messing with the wiki page again. Arsi786 (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2019

December 2020

With regard to this revert:

1. UNPO is not a reliable source. It's financed by its members to promote their POV. The fact that it's showing an incorrect map, giving a baseless area estimate and estimating the Kabyles at one third of the population should tell you something.

2. Wikipedia's content is based on encyclopedic content. That means, the editors are expected to familiarize themselves with WP:COPO and what Wikipedia is not.

3. The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. M.Bitton (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You can't call a source unreliable without proof M.Bitton, removing history or refusing to acknowledge it and pushing your own POV on topics means you're violating WP:NPOV. Your first edit was related to Algeria, and you reverted an edit and noted another of your reverts with "Edit warring", which means you were already familiar with Wiki policies before joining and had and probably used another account. I'm adding the persecution of Kabyle people for the following Reasons:

1) You've failed to provide proof that the UNPO is biased.

2) The Organizational structure and history of the organization doesn't indicate that they are [UNPO].

If you want to fix the neutrality of the text and add more citations and bits that are not available on the original article, feel free to do so. Reverting the edit without first discussing it here, means I would send you an edit warring notice. Regards, BlueLight05 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not another editors job to "fix" the problems with the text you keep reverting to. You have yet to even acknowledge the issues with that edit; (1) much of the text you're adding isn't even mentioned in the source, which directly violates WP:V and WP:NOR; furthermore, (2) the source is essentially a one-sided statement from a representative of the group. If you're going to use that as a source, it needs to be qualified as such; for example: "On their Unrepresented Nations & Peoples Organization profile, members of the group claim that Algeria has denied the political representation and oppressed (etc., etc. etc.)" with a summary of the main points from that source. If you want to avoid getting blocked again, I suggest you first propose a revised edit on this talk page that addresses (1) and (2). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

About the sock puppetry accusation.

This account that I'm using is not affiliated with anyone and the IP's aren't mine. This is my personal. If anyone knows how or wants to check, feel free to do so. Regards, BlueLight05 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Need help with two sections. "War for self determination" and "Persecution".

The topics I'm referring to are the war for independence and self-determination that succeeded Algeria's independence and the subsequent persecution of the Kabylis. If anyone has any addition, please do so. BlueLight05 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Hammadid Dynasty 11th Century.jpg (discussion)
• Kabyle Kingdoms in the Ottoman era at their height .jpg (discussion)
• ZiridDynasty.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

Kabyle means tribesman it's a name giving by the Arabs who invaded north Africa to the aboriginal people (amazigh) of north Africa also called Berbers which refers to barbarian by the Romans who also invaded north Africa. amazigh or imazighen for plural 50.212.164.37 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Kabyle means tribesman it's a name giving by the Arabs who invaded north Africa to the aboriginal people (amazigh) of north Africa also called Berbers which refers to barbarian by the Romans who also invaded north Africa. amazigh or imazighen for plural

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Second language: Which arabic ? Hi, MSA is taught and used; the others arabic dialects is also spoken. The relative source does not specify the variants but encompasses all in Arabic. I agree to do the same. , Tackclean (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC) 1) The infobox parameter is clearly about the languages that are spoken. 2) Algerians speak Algerian Arabic, they don't speak MSA with one another (this is a fact). Whether the cherry picked source specifies or not is irrelevant as there are many others that discuss the Darija. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC) References Sources show that different variants are spoken in Algeria including MSA, Moroccan/Algerian arabic (there are different variant among them), Hassaniya arabic. And all is a part of Arabic language. Specifying which variants are spoken on this article is not wise. To my mind, it would be better to put all in one. Tackclean (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kabylia wildfires in 2021 Hello, there were wildfires in Kabylia in 2021, mostly by arsons, causing death, home destruction and protest marches. To my mind, these informations are as legitimate as the Black spings or the Arouch movement. [6], [7], [8],[9], [10],[11],[12],[13], [14], [15].Talelevel (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

April 2023

@Whatever748 I'm advising you to come use the talk page to avoid an edit war. Accusing me of lying just shows your inability to understand the source. I'll quote it: "As to the lexical item 'Kabyle', it is a distortion of the Arabic word qbail, 'bail or qba'il which had two meanings. The first one refers to the plural of qbela and means 'tribes that live among sedentary populations'. The second meaning derives from the Arabic verb qbel and to signify 'to accept' – following the Arab conquest in the 7th century, invaders used this word for local populations that 'accepted' the Koranic message". In your edit you:

1. Changed qbail to qaba'il which isn't mentioned in the source (Misrepresenting the source).
2. Deleted the second meaning: "'to accept', which Arabs after the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb used for local conquered populations that accepted Islam" but left the other one (Cherrypicking).
3. Added this unsourced original research: "During colonial times, the term Kabyle was used officially by French authorities, and it alongside it's Arabic version (Qaba'il) became the most used term, even becoming integrated into the Kabyle language as "Iqbayliyen" albeit in western Algerian Arabic the term "Zwawa" is still used."
4. Deleted the etymology of the word 'Kabylia' (Vandalism).
5. Used the source that explains the origin of the word Kabylia to back the nonsense you added (Misrepresenting sources again).
6. Didn't include the page number for either of the sources you added backing "Before the French colonization Kabyles were generally referred to as "Zwawas"", probably deliberately.

In your other edit, you removed the content that says Kabyles were assimilated into the Arab culture of Algeria probably because you didn't like it. "Berbers have through the centuries participated actively and fully in the Arabic cultural life of Algeria" is just another way of saying that Kabyles were integrated into Algerian Arab culture, we can rephrase that if it hurts your feelings. Projecting your source misrepresentation and lying on me won't work. Skitash (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about??

1. How is the first misrepresenting a source? There exists different ways to transliterate Arabic. Qaba'il is the most common way to transliterate the Arabic word "القبائل".
2. I didn't delete it, i literally added it as per the source said, instead of your POV-pushing. This is just straight up lying dude. Did you even check the changes?
3. The fact that the term "Zwawa" was the most common term used in pre-colonial times is an accepted etymological fact. Even Ibn Khaldoun referred to them as Zwawa.[16]
4. What? No i didn't, i literally added a whole etymology section.
5. What?
6. It's a google books link.
7. "Berbers throughout the centuries paricipated actively and fully in the Arabic cultural life of Algeria" in no way means that Kabyles were somehow fully assimilated into Arabic culture, it means that they participated in the generally Arabic cultural life of Algeria (big shocker). Kabyles were differentiated even by contemporary Algerian sources, see the section on Kabyles by Hamdan Khodja.[17]
8. I really don't care about your immature personal attacks.

You are grasping at straws here. Using a more common and completely non-consequential transliteration of a word (القبائل) isn't misrepresenting sources. Like it genuinely has nothing to do with that. You lie about me removing the second part from the etymology of Kabyle, which i didn't, i re-added and reworded it to match what the source says like 2 edits ago, literally anyone can check the current version of the article, or even the previous one. I did not delete the etymology of it, again, i have seriously no idea what you are talking about here, and your claims of vandalism are completely out of place. You are just throwing around insults here, and i have better things to do. Let's just end this discussion here.

Whatever748 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"There exists different ways to transliterate Arabic" - This isn't an excuse to misrepresent the source and quote a word that doesn't exist in the book, by doing this you are falsely quoting the writer and misattributing him, yet you hypocritically claim I misrepresented the source. Secondly you did delete the second meaning here [18], and you added it back right after I called you out for your mischievous act. You also deleted the etymology of 'Kabylia' and you are still denying it and lying despite it being clear in the edit history [19].

"Berbers throughout the centuries paricipated actively and fully in the Arabic cultural life of Algeria", replacing the source that backs this (a reliable recent source from 2013) with an unreliable old one from 1832 is not a good idea.

You still failed to address the original research you added "During colonial times, the term Kabyle was used officially by French authorities, and it alongside it's Arabic version (Qaba'il) became the most used term, even becoming integrated into the Kabyle language as "Iqbayliyen" albeit in western Algerian Arabic the term "Zwawa" is still used."

I understand that you're attempting to back out of this argument, but we need to address the issue to find a resolution. Skitash (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Using the more common transliteration of a word is not "misrepresantation of a source", you are just trying to use big words here. The source is represented perfectly, what it said is in the article. Learn what misrepresentation of a source means.

I deleted pretty much everything which you added as it was severely biased, and then after reading over the sources you cited, i changed the article to fit the actual quote, pretty standard Wikipedia procedure.

The year of publishing doesn't matter, it's not what determines a source's reliability. And either way, i don't suggest replacing this. I suggest you not completely changing the quote YOU cited to have a whole other meaning. You are twisting my words so hard it's unbelievable, i never mentioned replacing anything, the main point was that you completely changed what the source was saying into "Kabyles were assimilated into Arab culture". That is misrepresenting a source. Your whole argument here is made up of logical fallacies and putting words in my mouth. This is getting ridicoulous.

Prior to Ottoman colonization, there is in fact no source mentioning Kabyles as Kabyles. Zwawa was used, and i already cited sources on this statement, if needed, you can go read Ibn Khaldoun, during the Ottoman era the term Kabyle gained traction, although it was still used interchangeably with Zwawa, although it also came to refer to a singular tribe, the Igawawen.

As for the source cited in the part for Kabylia, this article is not about Kabylia, and the etymology for Kabylia is irrelevant here. Put it into the article regarding Kabylia. But either way, the source you cited literally says that the terms Kabylia and Kabyle took dominance during the French era.

I'm not trying to "back out of the argument", stop instigating, grow up, i'm trying to end a useless debate. Let's get a compromise on the etymology section, would this work for you, and what would you change?

"The word 'Kabyle' (Kabyle: Iqbayliyen) is an exonym, and a distortion of the Arabic word qaba'il (قبائل), which means "tribes", or 'to accept', which after the Muslim conquest was used for people who accepted the word of the Quran. Before the French colonial era, the endonym Zwawa ('Izwawen' in Kabyle, 'زواوة' in Arabic) was also used for Kabyles, and the term is featured in Ibn Khaldoun's ethnographic works, however, this fell into disuse after the French colonization." Whatever748 (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This source notes on page 27 that colonists in the 1830s got confused due to the "widespread use" of the term Kabyle, so the phrase 'sometimes used' isn't borne out by that source. Also, citations need page numbers. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Whatever748 Yes, qaba'il is the more common transliteration of the word but this doesn't change the fact that it is source misattribution if it changes the original text quoted in the book, or you would have to cite a different source which you didn't do.

My addition was not biased at all as it only explained the two meanings of the word 'Kabyle', "the first one is tribes that live among sedentary populations and the second is 'to accept', which Arabs after the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb used for local conquered populations that accepted Islam" which is completely relevant to the article, neutral in tone and supported by a reliable recent source. You did not change it to "fit the actual quote" and only misattributed it like I said in the first sentence.

I agree with your point of view that the Kabyles were referred to as Zwawa in the past, but I believe that this information should be included in the history section rather than the etymology section, it completely differs from the modern name and its significance is primarily in its historical context. Also Kabyles were called Kabyles since the Arab conquest, and the word could even have a Phoenician root.[20] At least you admitted that you deleted the etymology of Kabylia, although 'Kabylia' derives from 'Kabyle', this is relevant in the etymology section as it shows the evolution of the term.

You should delete the original research you added "During colonial times, the term Kabyle was used officially by French authorities, and it alongside it's Arabic version (Qaba'il) became the most used term, even becoming integrated into the Kabyle language as "Iqbayliyen" albeit in western Algerian Arabic the term "Zwawa" is still used.", restore the etymology of Kabylia, restore the other source about Kabyles fully and actively participating in the Arab culture of Algeria and add that Kabyles were called Kabyles since the Arab conquest. Skitash (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If a 19th century French source refers to them as "Kabailes" would we have to use Kabailes everywhere in the article? No, we don't. And changing the wording to the contemporary most used word is not misrepresentation of a source. Stop your mental gymnastics, seriously, this is getting tiring, and open a dictionairy ffs, what do you mean "misattributed", do you even understand what that means? Stop trying to use serious words, adding the letter a to make "qba'il" (used in a single source) to the more common "qaba'il" is not "misattribution" "misrepresentation" or whatever else, please, i'm tired of your pedantics, you are solely using this to attack me.

No, the historical etymology of the name Kabylia is not relevant to this article, it's relevant to the Kabylia article, use it there. And the explaining of the various names of the people is what the etymology section is for. It's pretty clear that you probably never read a wikipedia article outside of vandalizing them with a probably Arabist agenda. Just take a look at for example the Hungarian people article, you will see that the etymology of both "Hungarian" and the endonym "Magyar" is included, along with literal 13th century names for them like keral. Or for example Ukrainians. Or just any article about an ethnic or cultural group. The etymology of Zwawa, an endonym, and historically the most used name before colonialism featured in the most important ethnographic works of the era, and one that is still persists in western Algeria will absolutely have to be included in this article, i mean the name "Izwawen" is literally in the lead section of the article.

And as for the etymology itself, as @Iskandar323 cleared it up,[21] the word Qaba'il was used throughout Algeria to refer to various hill dwelling tribes, not just Kabyles (whom were referred to as Zwawa when speaking solely about them) and the term Kabyle was only specified on the Kabyle population during French colonization. It's outright specified in your OWN source. As for the Phoenician root, that is an 1854 French source, early ethnographic French works are absolutely unreliable, they outright claimed that Kabyles are a lost Vandalic tribe with no relation to the Arab population of Algeria. The fact that Qaba'il comes from Arabic is nowadays indisputable, you will probably find no reputable sources claiming otherwise.

"restore the other source about Kabyles fully and actively participating in the Arab culture of Algeria" this source you are clearly trying to force for your own agenda, and you are really focusing on this specific line for a reason. The source is meant to say, that Kabyles are to this day participating in the Arabo-Islamic cultural life of Algeria, even if there is a different culture and language. The source even specifies that rigorous French policies to stop this worked very little ("In reality the French-Berber policy had very little importance").[22] Now, somehow, you turned that into "Prior to the creation of the term in the 1840s, Kabyles throughout the centuries were actively and fully assimilated into the Arab culture of Algeria." This right here, is misrepresentation of a source. Kabyles were not assimilated into the Arab culture of Algeria prior to the creation of the term, the source a few lines below that outright specifies that the Kabyle myth changed barely anything in the local culture. That right there is original research, and you probably made it up to push the aforementioned agenda. I really don't mean to be hostile but i'm getting tired here.

"The word 'Kabyle' (Kabyle: Iqbayliyen) is an exonym, and a distortion of the Arabic word qaba'il (قبائل), which means 'tribes', or 'to accept', which after the Muslim conquest was used for people who accepted the word of the Quran. Before colonialism, the term qaba'il was used by various peoples in Algeria to refer to various mountain dwelling tribes.

The term used for Kabyles specifically was 'Zwawa' ('Izwawen' in Kabyle, 'زواوة' in Arabic). The French term for "Zouaves" derives from Zwawa.[23] After the French conquest, the French started using the term to refer solely to the Kabyle people, which is still the most used word nowadays."

Whatever748 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You can fix a lot of this disagreement by making it "Names and etymology". Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We can do that for sure, but that's not the main issue here.

This is not the first time this user has nitpicked, misrepresent, or outright completely changed a source. Here in this article i've explained already what he did, and how he completely reworded and changed what this source was saying into "Before the invention of the term in 1840s, Kabyles throughout the centuries were actively and fully assimilated into the Arab culture of Algeria". This is not the only article he did this to. He also added in this nonsense to the Kabyle myth and the Berberism page. The Berberism page specifically has been heavily "vandalized" by him. All of his edits there were [24] about how Berberism and the Berber identity was created by the French to weaken the great Arab culture and that Berbers were completely assimilated Arabs before the French came.

Other edits of his include:

1. adding in "According to Moritz Wagner, the Arabs formed the great majority of the population of the Regency of Algiers" to the Ottoman Algeria article, which is first and foremost completely unreliable and rather irrelevant, as Moritz Wagner was a mid 19th-century write who claimed stuff like Berbers being Vandals, and yet again, he changed the wording, as Moritz never claimed that they formed "the great majority". He said that Arabs "were the most numerous race" and then went on to say that "Next to the Arabs, Kabyles, or Amazighs as they are called in Morocco and Tibboos and Tuaricks in the desert are the most numerous race", however we can guess why this user has not included this part in the article, instead completely changing the wording of the source.[25]

2. He removed several sources from the Algerian nationalism article which mention Berber, and basically any mention of Berbers and adding basically a whole ton of Arabist stuff. I'm not joking. The dude literally removed any mention of Berbers or Berberism from the article, removed the sources talking about it and replaced it with sections talking about Pan-Arabism, and Arabism.[26]

and many many more, just look through his contribution history. He is clearly not a good faith editor, and he's clearly here on Wikipedia solely to push an agenda.

Whatever748 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is just baseless defamation.

I have not intentionally misinterpreted any information from my sources or changed anything. The additions I made on the Berberism page are purely historic facts and background information about the ideology supported by reliable sources like this one [27]. I added in exactly what the source said, by this logic you are claiming the source itself is pov-pushing and vandalism despite it being published by Routledge, written by experts and supported by tons of primary and secondary sources. I would copy what the source says if it didn't violate copyright. I am assuring you none of this counts as "vandalism" as you claim.

And just because Moritz Wagner "claimed stuff like Berbers being Vandals", this doesn't make his entire book invalid, his work is still a valuable source of information about the history of Algeria. You ironically added a 19th century French source yourself. "Next to the Arabs, Kabyles, or Amazighs as they are called in Morocco and Tibboos and Tuaricks in the desert are the most numerous race" just means that the Arab population was largest, followed by Kabyles, Tubus and Tuareg. If you read the sentence above you would notice that he clearly said "The Arabs form the great majority of the inhabitants of the Regency of Algeria".

And you claim I deleted "any mention of Berbers" in the Algerian nationalism page? I only removed two which were complete nonsense. Believing Algerian nationalism was influenced by Berberism is foolish. None of those two sources next to that sentence support that, but instead Shatzmiller's source says "Algerian nationalism identified itself as essentially Arab and Muslim". I deleted that Bedouins also referred to Arabized Berber nomadic tribes because Bedouins are exclusively Arab. I did not replace anything with Arab nationalism, I wrote a new entire section heavily supported by reliable sources. At this point you clearly want to keep misinformation and remove any reliable sources which oppose your point of view. You even restored the made up and non-existent "Algerianism".

While you accuse me of pushing an agenda and not being of good faith, on the other hand, I can go through your own contributions say the same about you. For example when you made these completely unsourced edits [28][29] or when you removed Ferhat Mehenni's country of origin to push your own agenda [30] or when you edit warred with a user over sources which didn't support your bizarre claim [31]. This shows that you're clearly pushing an agenda.

It's easy to make accusations. Doing this should not be used as a weapon to further one's own biases. I am on Wikipedia to make improvements and contribute to the greater good by providing accurate and sourced information. By working together to ensure accuracy and reliability we can create a better and more trustworthy resource for all users. Skitash (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You are way out of pocket here. The changes made on the Lalla Fadhma n'soumer page were already sourced. Can you give me a single false thing about it? Are you gonna claim that Kabylia is not a region in Northern Algeria? Are you gonna claim that the French conquest didn't mostly advance from major coastal cities like Algiers and move downwards? Are you gonna claim that she never met Sharif Boubaghla? As for the Ottoman Algeria article, are you gonna claim that the Mediterranean Lingua Franca was not a trade language used in Algiers? There are several sources in the article mentioning this fact. Generally every single one of my edits feature a wide variety of sources, you scoured through all of my edits to find one from February where i added a language to the list of languages spoken in the Regency of Algiers, which is already otherwise well sourced fact. Very sad, you are reaching so hard. Ferhat Mehenni is a separatist. To claim that he is "Algerian" is stupid. And to claim that i removed such a simple thing for an agenda is even stupider.

In the Numidian article i organized the languages section and added several sources to every language and explained their local importance and use.

As for the Algerian nationalism article i reverted your edits completely, and then re-added facts from your edits, about the influences of Pan-Arabism and Arab nationalism on Algerian nationalism. I literally reread your edits and then re-added the reliable sources into the defining of the nation part, as the aforementioned ideologies, along with Islam was used to define the nation by the FLN. As i said though, you are clearly here to be hostile, you would obviously never read any of my changes, or purposefully not mention them to paint a picture of me. Literally none of your accusations make sense. I really am done with you. This had turned into shitflinging. If you go on misrepresenting sources like you did here, you will be reported. As for the article itself, i will be implementing the changes i made based on some of your issues, and what the sources said.

Whatever748 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No that entire paragraph you added on the page of Lalla Fatma N'Soumer was unsourced, and you only added more completely unsourced content. I already know this, but what makes you think people will know many Kabyle tribes swore allegiance to the Emirate of Mascara? An unsourced addition you made. By saying this you're choosing to ignore that Wikipedia heavily relies on sources. Same goes for the Mediterranean Lingua Franca which many people probably never heard of. You provided no source at all to support this claim. In the Numidia article you broke the 3 reverts a day rule. Ferhat Mehenni is undoubtedly an Algerian, claiming otherwise would be stupid. You're choosing to keep your head tucked deep in the sand ignoring and avoiding reality. Our argument shouldn't obstruct our ability to cooperate, let's put our differences aside and move forward. Skitash (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Ferhat Mehenni is outright a separatist, he denounces Algeria as a state, and neither does he consider himself Algerian, nor does the Algerian government recognize him as an Algerian, he is outright classified as a terrorist by them. Denis Pushilin of the Donetsk republic isn't a Ukrainian on his wiki page, nor is Brahim Ghali considered Moroccan. Pretty obvious that the leader of a separatist movement isn't listed as a citizen of the mother country. As for the other problems, obvious historical facts which are already mentioned in other citations inside the article don't necessarily need 3 more citation, especially if they aren't disputed by anyone.

As for this wikipedia page, based on the sources and facts listed on this talk page, i've created a new paragraph for the name and etymology section. You didn't reply to my previous draft, so please read over the current version of the article, and reply if you have any problems with it. Whatever748 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes Mehenni is a separatist but he was still born in Algeria, therefore Algerian. I'm not sure about the Donetsk leader but Brahim Ghali wasn't born in Morocco.

The etymology section is acceptable to me but I suggest adding that Kabyle was only used to refer to various mountain dwelling tribes before the French conquest and that colonial authorities used the word Kabyle to refer to all Berber peoples. Skitash (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, i was pre-occupied these past few days. Yeah, sure, they can be added. Whatever748 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, thank you. Skitash (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)