Talk:Berbers

Requested move 18 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — m w  (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

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: 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)
 * 1) "Germanic peoples" and "Germanic languages"
 * 2) "Austronesian peoples" and "Austronesian languages"
 * 3) "Mongolic peoples" and "Mongolic languages"


 * 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 . 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)
 * Oppose. The usage of "peoples" is mostly out of grammar, English doesn't really say Germanics or Mongolics. It's not a rule that's always true. Slavs just like Berbers are a collection of closely related ethnic groups, and yet their wikipedia page isn't "Slavic peoples" but Slavs. Whatever748 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per R Prazeres. --Yorkporter (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
There are no official sources regarding ethnic groups in Morocco. The ones that you cited are about the Berber speakers (which, officially, represent 26% of the population or 9.8 million). M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Leo Africanus

 * According to Leo Africanus, the term Amazigh meant "free man" did he use the modern term "Amazigh" or is that the author's interpretation? We need to establish this because this is at odds with what we know about the term. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The cited source attributes the claim to two sources:
 * 1) Source 1 says: "The term ‘Amazigh’, meaning 'free men' is preferred over 'Berber' by increasing numbers of Berberphones/Tamazightphones, and especially by activists. I use the terms 'Amazigh' and 'Berber' interchangeably in this article". There is no mention of Leo Africanus.
 * 2) Source 2 . Unfortunately, I don't have access to this one. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I managed to access the second source and although it does mention Leo Africanus, it's not clear what "the word" (as used in the source) is supposed to refer to. Luckily, they attribute the claim to the original source (which needs to be checked next). M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be good to check the primary source anyways, but I'm assuming the authors (Brett & Fentress) are referring to the word "mazices" mentioned in the preceding sentence, and/or its apparent cognates.
 * Also, I think we can probably cite Brett and Fentress directly for the statement in question (According to Leo Africanus, the term Amazigh meant "free man", with that etymology being disputed). Based on what I see here, it seems like they're the ones who summarized the facts in this particular manner and Stepanova is just repeating it in passing. R Prazeres (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I can't access the 1981 edition of Description d'Afrique, but in the 1896 edition, the relevant page is probably p.28 . Here, Leo Africanus gives the meaning as "noble" rather than "free". Brett & Fentress mention that possible meaning the following sentences but not in reference to Leo Africanus . To me, this adds to the confusion about etymology on the one hand, but on the other hand it does confirm that Leo Africanus mentioned the term. R Prazeres (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Would "Leo Africanus referred to Aqwal Amazigh as meaning 'noble language'" be a fair replacement then? NAADAAN (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would normally say yes, but I'm wary, since Brett & Fentress is a reliable secondary source. If they're saying something slightly different about Leo Africanus', I'm not sure if it's just a minor oversight on their part or if they're looking at more than what I'm seeing? Maybe confirming with the 1981 edition would help, in case that translation was somehow different (unlikely?). R Prazeres (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per this paper, the exact language Leo Africanus used was Tutti i cinque popoli [scil.: Sanagia, Musmuda, Zeneta, Aoara et Gumera], i quali sono divisi in centinaia di legnaggi, e in migliaia di migliaia d’abitazioni, insieme si conformano in una lingua: la quale comunemente è da loro detta aquel amarig, che vuol dire lingua nobile; e gli Arabi di Affrica la chiamano lingua barbaresca, che è la lingua africana natia. This is corroberrated by this translation from 1896 and a print from 1550. Early citations of his book refer to aquel amazig instead of aquel amarig so I theorize that it's probably a copyist error from the original manuscript (I am not willing to shell out 140 euros to find out). Per l'Encyclopédie Berbère (44), the "noble man" definition is interpreted from Leo Africanus's definition of aquel amazig [&equals; awal amazigh] which means noble language. NAADAAN (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's probably best to check the 1981 version, though I very much doubt it will be that different.
 * With that said, since the word Amarig (that he translated as "noble") was used to refer to the language and not the people that he described as Berbers (el Barbar) while giving the origin of the word "Berber" and rehashing Ibn Khaldun's theory about their origin, wouldn't this mention be more appropriate in the Berber languages article (instead of one about the people)? M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both of your follow-ups. With all of the above, I agree that "noble" must clearly be the meaning that Leo Africanus gave it, and we can cite the Encyclopédie Berbère as secondary source for further support, in addition to primary source.
 * I think it's reasonably relevant in this article, given that it discusses the origins of the word currently being used for the people (it could be mentioned in the language article too, of course). As long as the inline wording here is clear/precise. R Prazeres (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have edited things accordingly. Feedback welcome NAADAAN (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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

English wikipedia but some terms are translated to Arabic ?
some terms in this page are translated to Arabic. Like: Berbers (Arabic: بربر) Amazigh(Arabic:أمازيغ)

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