Talk:Berbers/Archive 6

omar al mukhtar
omar al mukhtar was a arab not berber so I took his image down and Septimus servus was not berber he was a punic punics aren't berbers stop falsying infromantion its propergandaArabAmazigh12 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone stop this guy from spreading propaganda. Go study Punic and Fenecian. And why there is a distinct difference made between them by Romans and other historians.

Ethnic Berbers
I have just made this edit.

Obviously we don't need to make reference to those speakers of Berber because the part deals with the size of the ethnic group particularly with regard to those that no longer speak a Berber tongue. Basically, ethnicity is defined - not by parental or recorded heritage - but by individual identity. The fact is that there many many who identify as Berber or declare a Berber pedigree and these are known from the censa of the relevant countries. As such, my edit clarifies this point. --IHBR-YSA (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What in the world is going on here on the Berbers page? Related ethnic groups: Iberians, Picts, Tartessians, Saami. This is absolutely ridicolous! What kind of pseudo-science is this? Berbers are not related to these groups, only slightly to Iberians, but their big chunk of SSA negligates it. Berbers are predominantly ENF, with significant SSA on top of that. Those are groups have nothing to with that. Berbers has a small amount of WHG, but it is not on the European spectrum. All of them is wrong, has it even crossed your mind that Berbers completely lack ANE? This is a sheet of population genetics, take a look for yourself https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JVGdg2UsN3jYWgaoxAZu-QsAmuCaq3kT7FvqSXwUsAA/pubhtml Justicaro (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicaro (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox needs work
I count only 14 names; there are 16 photos in the mosaic! Click on it, and File:Berbers_Mosaic.jpg doesn't list the names in order but does list 16 source images, from which the right names visually matched. A job for a wikignome with more time than I have at the moment.... --Middle 8 (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a good one up there, until some dipshit decided to change back to this joke they'd call a mosaic. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101


 * The fifth picture is of Abdelkader el Djezairi, a 19th century Algerian nobleman. The other missing description belongs to the tenth photo; that is Kateb Yacine, an Algerian authour. As far as I can tell, both are, in fact, of Berber ethnicity besides being Algerians. The Yacine picture can be checked against his French entry; I'm sure it has credentials there. Wiki_Walker_Texas_ranger (talk) 0:34, 27 April 2014


 * Fixed. I couldn't see anything on Abdelkader's page about being a Berber, but I'll leave that for people that actually understand the subject. 130.216.173.20 (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of celebrities in the infobox are not Berbers, but rather Arabs or Romans; is there someone to correct these mistakes. Teranosor (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Miscapitalization of animism
A contentious user, @Amaruca, keeps miscapping animism. The main article on Wikipedia does not capitalize it, so we do not need to fight that battle here for this pedantic user. The source claimed (Sponsel, L. (2006). Animism. In H. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology. (pp. 81-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952453.n32) is not available freely-"Users without subscription are not able to see the full content on this title." which is an old trick to hide dishonesty. That article, the visible start at least, says itself "The ultimate source of the term animism is the Latin word, anima, meaning spirit, soul, or life force. In contemporary anthropology, animism is the generic term for numerous and diverse religions focused on the belief that nature includes spirits, sacred forces, and similar extraordinary phenomena. This is reflected in the classic minimal definition of religion, a belief in spiritual beings, that was originally formulated by the famous British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor in his 1871 book Primitive Cultures . Tylor viewed animism as the basis of all religions and the earliest stage in the evolution of religion. Animism remains relevant to considerations regarding such elemental conceptual dualities as animal and human, nature and culture, natural and supernatural, inanimate and animate, body and mind, and life and death. In general, animists believe that supernatural forces inhabit animals, plants, rocks, and other objects in nature." Did you count how many times the word animism was lower-cased? I bolded them so you can count. Four times in the lead paragraph. I have no problem with animism, I do have a problem with misusing the English language and using false arguments to support the misuse. I will continue to revert your miscap every time you make it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Kintetsubuffalo's allegation that the journal article is not freely available is false. The article was easy to find and is cited by several other reputable authors. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr=&cites=4017241442379339601 2. If Kintetsubuffalo would like to take this debate up with Professor Snodgrass, I'm sure he would be more than willing.

3. The use of "Animism" is not a "general" term when used to describe the official belief of any people. Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics. Here's the direct quote from Study of Religion, Nature and Culture: "We capitalize Animism in order to bestow on indigenous religions the same dignity as other purported ‘world religions’ such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. We do not capitalize this term in its adjectival and adverbial forms."

4. Kintetsubuffalo's assertion that "supernatural forces inhabit (list inane objects here)" is clear evidence of Kintetsubuffalo's bigotry towards indigenous peoples.--Amaruca (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I asserted no such thing-it's from your claimed source, which you obviously didn't bother to read.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * After careful review of the Journal article (which is available freely) I have found that all occurrences of the term "Animism" are properly capitalized. That will make the third time that I have read the article and yet you continue to make spurious allegations and engage in ad hominem.  The article properly capitalizes the use of "Animist" as well in the formal use.

Quoted from "Indigenous Nature Reverence and Conservation— Seven Ways of Transcending an Unnecessary Dichotomy" (page 6 of the Journal) here for clarification: "Indigenous peoples around the world revere their environment’s trees, rivers, grasses, stones, hills, and forests.Often labeled ‘Animists’, indigenous peoples also personify their environments, treating both their lands and the non-human denizens occupying those lands as persons to be related to as cognizant and communicative subjects rather than as inert or insignificant objects. One would imagine that this reverence and personification of their surroundings would lead indigenous peoples to conscious conservation thought and practice: that they would do everything in their power, logic would seem to dictate, to protect the deities; likewise, that they would strive not to harm plant and animal persons who, in many respects, possess a right to life equal to that of humans." --Amaruca (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I just clicked on http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/anthropology/n32.xml, which was your original claimed source. Nothing has changed, and you're still making up strawmen.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's just get rid of that one so we can deal with the Journal article only. That should take care of your "strawman".

Let's take this up with the society who peer reviewed and published the article in the first place:

The International Society for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture (ISSRNC) is a community of scholars engaged in critical inquiry into the relationships among human beings and their diverse cultures, environments, religious beliefs and practices. The ISSRNC facilitates scholarly collaboration and research, and disseminates research findings through regular conferences and the affiliated Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture. The ISSRNC is affiliated with the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR), which promotes the critical, analytical and cross-cultural study of religion. The IAHR is a member of the Conseil International de la Philosophie et des Sciences Humaines/ The International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies (CIPSH), under the auspices of UNESCO.(UTC) http://www.religionandnature.com/society/index.htm--Amaruca (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And now blanking my text to support your spurious claim... You have now, in addition to POV pushing, changed sources from one that that clearly does not support your claim, to one with no pagelinks or way to access it. I am reporting you for editwarring.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo's allegation that I am "POV pushing" is a frail attempt to obscure an insistence on a bigoted assertion. Not only does Kintetsubuffalo fail to cite sources to defend their position but they engage in name calling and bullying tactics to steamroll their opponents.

Kintetsubuffalo's ad hominem attacks on this subject are persistent and erroneous. Kintetsubuffalo is the edit warring type if I've ever seen one. --Amaruca — Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC) So it appears that Kintetsubuffalo is going to edit war the talk page as well. It's time for arbitration.

http://anthropology.colostate.edu/snodgrass/ I suggest taking up the subject with this gentleman.--Amaruca (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Animist should not be capitalized when you are making edits such as these,, because animism is a belief. Not a religion like you are thinking.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any scholarly references to support your position against the references I have provided above?--Amaruca (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Colonial times
I stumble over a sentence in the lead: "Especially in school, Algerians were forced to speak French instead of their previous mother tongues, which included classical Arabic, the Berber language and all of its dialects. Algerians were required to speak a single language, French". This as nearly (but not quite) accurate quote of the source: "Especially in school, Algerians were forced to speak French instead of their previous mother tongues; this included classical Arabic, the Berber language and all of its dialects, and all regional vernacular Algerian Arabic dialects. Algerians were required to speak a single language, French, (...)". It has one problem, and that is that classical Arabic wasn't the mother tongue of anybody in Algeria not at that time and probably not at any other time. Probably, the author has misread her own source (Derrida) and is somehow lumping together the concept of mother tongue (Berber and Algerian Arabic) and the concept of languages which couldn't be accessed in school (classical Arabic, having been the only language used for teaching in schools before French colonialism). Correct would be: Algerians where forbidden access to any other language in school, this included their mother tongues Berber and Algerian Arabic as well as classical Arabic. Anyhow, I think we don't need that particular quote in an already very long lead. It could well be moved and perhaps better explained to a new section below about what happened to Berber languages during colonial times. There is not one word about it, but something should be written. Also pointing out the rules at French schools in one country of North Africa (it does not apply to other countries) in the lead of an article about Berbers as ethnic group, might be undue weight. A new section would be fine. Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Christians?
Since April 2012, the following sentence has been tagged as "citation lacking":. I've never heard about Christianity being conserved in the Maghreb until the 19th century, and although of course everything is possible, a good source is needed to sustain this claim. I eliminate it for the moment, but leave it here - anybody who can bring a source is welcome to put it back. Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Population
The article currently lists in the infobox an estimated population of +30 million citing two sources. One source "Berberism & Berber Political Movements" does not provide population figures. The other, Fox news from 2012, states There are no official figures for the number of Berbers in North Africa, but estimates for those who speak one of the many Berber languages are around 25-30 million, mainly concentrated in Morocco and Algeria. There must be better sources out there. Could someone help find them? --Bejnar (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no official figures of Berbers population. You can consider removing that whole part from the article.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Caucasian"?
"...Caucasian group of people ethnically indigenous to North Africa..." I find this ambiguous in meaning, and very confusing. There is no ethnic nor genetic connection between North African peoples and peoples of the Caucasus. Did the writer (perhaps not a native English speaker) mean lighter-skinned, as in "Caucasoid"? Anyone want to take a stand and venture an edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah it seems "Caucasoid" was perhaps the gist. It doesn't necessarily mean lighter-skinned, though. Many Berbers like the Tuareg and Siwa are darker-skinned. Similarly, archaeogenetic work in Europe has found that some local populations were still dark-skinned until relatively recently, around 7000-8000 years ago . Soupforone (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Caucasian is classification, not a race. Berbers are caucasoid because of their skull shapes therefore making them caucasian. Akmal94 (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Caucasian ethnic group indigenous to North Africa is a bit unencyclopedic and confusing for the lead. If necessary, Caucasoid would be more appropriate under origins to avoid confusion with the peoples of the Caucasus (also called Caucasians). Soupforone (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As per the dictionnary, Caucasian and Caucasoid are both correct, but Caucasian, of course, has two different meanings and can therefore be confusing, as Soupforone remarks. I think we should not use any of them, as it is not strictly necessary. If you look up Dinka or Tutsi you'll not find a description including they are Negroid. Pictures are included, and a reader will understand into what apparent category they're fitting (there is no such thing as a scientific race category in use today). Maybe we should put a picture of some Berber people (I got some) in a prominent space higher up on the page, before all the historic statuettes and rock paintings, so the reader will get a first and clarifying impression. Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not use the term 'Caucasian' precisely because it is ambiguous; I used 'Caucasoid'. I do not understand OP's objections. Also, since Americans (including Americans of African descent) tend to be quite unfamiliar with North Africa and its people, I think it should be clarified in the lead that Berbers are by and large not of Sub-Saharan descent (Negroid). Africa not being the indigenous home of only Negroid ethnicities is a source of confusion for Americans. Western Europeans tend to not hold this misconception because they typically have had more contact with different North African peoples at home as well as in North Africa (North Africa is a relatively popular holiday destination for Western Europeans — or at least it used to be before the Arab Spring) 2A02:1811:8D05:7100:29C6:E6A3:9AC0:9D04 (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Soupforone using white people in this respective encyclopedia would be very unclassy. Undescribable is All (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent approximative figures edit about Berber people
What about it? DNA tests show that maghrebins are mixed. 105.154.153.19 (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone vandalising the pageNotAlpArslan (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why don't you tell us what specifically you are reporting here? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I showed you in the edit summary where Wikipedia covers inline HTML comments (MOS:COMMENT), and no mention is made of the right to add them being restricted to admin. I'm going to restore the comment, and warn you against removing it again unless you back up your reason for doing so with a reference to a Wikipedia guideline.. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Try not to reply, i don't really discuss. there is a summary.NotAlpArslan (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

someone by name of gotheempsyche is messing the page up
My respects
 * Someone by the name of Gotheempsyche is badly vandalizing the page by adding false info/removing material. Thanks to take necessary measures on him. signed Jan Janszoon van Salé (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your characterization "is badly vandalizing" implies that it's an ongoing problem. In fact, he made one change, two hours before you left your note here; it was immediately reverted by another editor; and, so far, that's been the end of it. He explained his changes, while the editor who reverted them didn't explain his reasoning, and you also not explained why you disagree with 's change. Can you explain why he was wrong (that is, why you think Gaddafi is a Berber and why you disagree with the reasons given why he isn't one), and why Gotheempsycheone's edit would be considered vandalism rather than a difference of opinion or a mistaken impression that can be corrected? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Regards, Hi, all i meant was that i read the article Gaddafi and it reads that he belongs to the Heavily arabized Houara branch of the Berber people. Good evening. signed Jan Janszoon van Salé (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User who removed the pictures from the infobox is the same user who vandalized multiple Libya-related articles.
Hello, a certain user by the name GotheemPsyche has recently vandalized the Berber people article; you can aknowledge that it is the same user who vandalized many articles subjective to Libya, and that by the adding/removal of pictures in the infobox pattern. Regards. Signed    Jan Janszoon van Salé (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only that but also removing sourced material and adding unsourced population numbers to Berbers in France, Algeria and Morocco. Removing the link to Berbers in France. Also, this user continues to add even personalities like Muammar Gaddafi, who had never identified as Berber and even persecuted the Berber minority within Libya. And shows misogynistic views toward the pictures of famous Berber women that are included. We Berbers have to show more openness and modernity towards the issue of women within our Berber society and they deserve to be shown within our page Berbers. BrainlarvAmazigh (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the issue with this vandalism continues. There is really a need to solve this problem. BrainlarvAmazigh (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Celebrities that are not Berbers
Many historic figures in the infobox aren't Berbers like Tertullian, Pope Victor I and Clodius Albinus that were Romans; or Punic as Septimius Severus. Some contemporary personnages like Abd El Kader and Ahmed Ben Bella are even arab nationalists. Could someone correct these mistakes?Teranosor (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Hi. Everything is sourced, the way i mean it is if you go through Tertullian article, you'll find sources he is berber, same with Victor I, Clodius Albinus, Abdelkader etc... so that's wrong. Amir Abd El Kader al ifrani traces its lineage to Ifranid zenata dynasty. ben bella originates from a berber tribal village in the High Atlas mountain chains and same with Gaddafi who belongs to the Gadadfa, a heavily arabized subtribe of the Houara branch. Honnest regards 41.249.11.66 (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The comment I struck above is by a sock of Sockpuppet investigations/Historian19/Archive. Doug Weller (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user keep modifying the global population of the Berbers or deleting it
Some users or anonymous users keep modifying the exact number of berber people around the world by putting false data or deleting data. Tsarisco (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * New World Encyclopedia is not a reliable source as it is sourced from Wikipedia: WP:CIRCULAR.  Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia on the other hand checks out (I was able to verify via Google Books). The information should be retained. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 21:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes but how to prevent other people from modifying this data ? What's the purpose of writing a Wikipedia article if someone come and delete the stuffs that you provided or modify it by putting wrong or old data ? Tsarisco (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the problem persists (by which I mean you have had to revert several times), you can ask for page protection. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again please can you show me an example on where exactly should I submit this request? and also what should I add in {pagelinks}, is it the link of the article ? I only want to protect the first table where there is informations about the number of berber people around the world and by country so no one can come and modify it again. Tsarisco (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I believe the instructions are at: Requests for page protection. It should be posted at the bottom of the section Current requests for increase in protection level, so right now that would be immediately below the entry on Adam Conover. The format for this article would be:

=== Berbers === Your requested protection level and time here: Your reason here. ~ Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 04:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Why when I write this :

Berbers
* Semi-protection Persistent vandalism on the first table that concern the section "Total population" and "Regions with significant populations" by changing or deleting data.Tsarisco (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In the section <>  I check in the section <>but I find out that the format of the writing isn't the same even if I respected the same format of writing of Adam Conover ? Tsarisco (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You had the heading and the bullet point on the same line; I fixed it for you. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 05:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha thanks you're awesome Tsarisco (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw was it you who removed the citation of the berber population in Libya and decreased the number? Tsarisco (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the citation to New World Encyclopedia just now per our discussion above. I didn't change any numbers. Ca. 36 million is still sourced from the Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 08:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a prestigious encyclopedia.
Hi ladies and gentlemen. Some user has been playing with the reputation of this great encyclopedia by adding random numbers and unreliable sources about the berber population. I have provided official sources which naturally, includes official studies (Center of Middle Eastern Studies of Arizona and BBC). Honnest Regards NotAlpArslan (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey yes this is a respectful encyclopedia, indeed and if there is some users playing with numbers it should be only you, you're gonna need to stop changing the true data I didn't put this article on semi-protection, so that persons like you come and put to trash all the hours I spent on searching and providing this data, the sources that I provided are very clear. It's impossible that number of berbers around the world only match 18 million the source that I provided can't be questioned and next time before deleting a source replace by an other, and the berber population  in Morocco can't only match 10 millions I put 5 sources to confirm what I'm saying, and 4 millions on Algeria is just a bullshit just in the region of Kabylie they are 6 million if you keep changing the data I'm going to report you. Tsarisco (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism again by a guy called NotAlpArslan
NotAlpArslan keep vandalizing this article on changing the data related to the number of berbers around the world, by deleting the source that I provided <> that confirm that there's 36 million of berbers around the world. This user also changed the number of berbers in Morocco and Algeria by putting ridiculous and totally absurd numbers without any convincing sources, he also deleted the 7 seven sources that I put that confirm the population of berbers in both countries. Even after I asked this article to be put on << semi-protection >>. Please someone report this disturbing user. Tsarisco (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've full protected this article for a week due to the edit warring. If editors here can reach a consensus then this can be lifted back to semi-protection. If vandalism is being inserted then blocks will be in order but that needs evaluated by the regular editors here.


 * Hi. We really should seek some consensus here. The figures given now in the infobox are really out of reality. "20 million Berbers" in Morocco is just plain ridiculous. Either it's 12-15 million or it's 30 million. That depends on how we define "Berber". If "speakers of Berber languages" is meant, the figure in Morocco is not higher than at most 50% of the population according to all sources, most give around 40%. I can look for this sources, but there is no sense in doing it, as long as it's not sorted out what we refer to. If we don't refer to "Berber speakers" but "speakers of any language, who are supposed to descend from Berbers", of course 98% of Moroccan population is Berber. There is no other significant genetical influx, save some Guinea-African (former slaves). The rest is just negligeable in absolute figures. If we refer to "people who consider themselves Berber as an identity", we can just up and leave, because there is no source or census for "how do you feel?" questions.
 * So please everybody make clear first what kind of definition should be followed for the figures, and then let's source it. I don't know who put the "20 million" figure for Morocco in the infobox but none of the 5 sources given looks too convincing. Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Ilyacadiz I don't really understand why you don't find the sources cited not very convincing, but what is sure is that all the sources cited affirm that the Berber population in Morocco is about 60% which if you do the math will give you a number of 20 million from around the 30 million of the Moroccan population, of course as you said we can not make a conclusion about the exact number of the Berber population just by the number of speakers of the different berber languages because not all the ethnic Berber speak the Berber languages, If you read the first source, you'll see that the author of the article affirm that <>  the second source, it's a book written by Sandy Donovan who state that the Berber population in Morocco reach 60% (which is 20 million if you do the math) in page 42, the third source is from Minorty Right an international organization very well respected  who's goal is to ensure that the different indigenous people around the world can make their voices heart and it is clearly stated in their website that the Berber population is around < > and finally the last source, is an academic article from Université Laval in Québec that estimate the number of Berber between 15 and 20 million  Tsarisco (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The article on Université Laval is the only respectable source, and they refer clearly to Berber speakers. "15 million -20 million" is very open and shows that they have no good source for it (I'd say 15 is the accurate figure). And don't forget that this is not more than a personal blog of a collaborator of that university and cannot be construed as "University study" ("AVIS : Les opinions exprimées dans ce site sont celles de l'auteur et n'engagent en rien ni la CEFAN ni l'Université Laval"). All the rest are just copypasting something they read somewhere without any criteria about what they are speaking about. Minority Rights might be respectable for their work, but they give no information about how they come to their figure, neither do they offer a definiton of what being "Berber" means. So that is worthless. And who is Sandy Donovan? Any clue? (About the newworldencyclopedia you should know that those kind of Wikipedia-copying sites are not allowed as sources).
 * I can search for sources about Berber SPEAKERS, but you seem to be adamant that that is not what we are looking for. And I can only repeat that any, really any figure about "ethnic Berber" in Northafrica is crap. All of the North African population are ethnic Berber, save a few Sephardi or Haratin families. It is utterly ridiculous to pretend there are "40 percent ethnic Non-Berber" in Morocco, and there is absolutely no source about what these 40% should be and how they should be called.
 * It may look great to copypaste figures from some copypasting websites, just to have a nice round "60 %", but if you really want to do a serious encyclopaedic work, you should not copypaste a figure from a site that does not define what exactly these "60 %" are meant to be. Any website there that defines who exactly are "not Berber-speaking ethnic Berber" and who "not ethnic Berber" in North Africa? Ilyacadiz (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You said that << (I'd say 15 is the accurate figure). >> How you can estimate that, you clearly affirm that <> and then you come at the end and tell me <<(I'd say 15 is the accurate figure). >> what a contradiction isn't it ? You come and try to explain me what an encyclopedic work is and then you make an estimation based on what you think ? How can you be sure that the number don't exceed 15 million ? I put some very convincing citations, you don't accept these citations simply because YOU THINK that the number is lower that that it's not very logical and I don't think that this way of working is very < > I put 60 % because most of the sources affirm that the number is 60% the only source that doesn't confirm that is the one from Université Laval who project an estimation between 15 and 20 million. Just cite me one source or one website where it shows you how they give information about how they come to their figure. All the organizations work like that all the writers work like that, all the NGO's work like that, they don't show how they find their informations, they just share the information. It is true that genetically the big majority of Moroccans share a unique Berber gene but don't forget also that Morocco is 12 centuries old and during these centuries a lot of people made Morocco their home we can cite the Gnawa/Haratin (in Sub-Saharan Africa specially on Mali, Niger and specially Western Sahara there are large concentration of Berbers), the Moors (they are mix of Berber and Iberian ancestors), the Bedoin Arabs, and also a lot of Berbers in Morocco have been arabized I think that these 60% are meant for the Berbers that have never been Arabized and who still claim that they are Berbers the rest is the Moors,  the Gnwa/Haratin , and finally the Bedoin Arabs,  this is just an estimation, there is no official census in Morocco about the exact number of Berber population. And I'm going to sum this by telling that having a < > doesn't make you Berber because there are large group of Berbers in Africa, Chlouh, Ruffian, Atlas mountains, Kabyles, Twareg.... The term Berber regroup all these ethnic groups but they are not all exactly the same except the fact that they are the first inhabitants of these lands. Tsarisco (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to read me right, Tsarisco, sorry to say.
 * I don't claim the number is lower. I claim the number is much higher then 60% if you don't use the "Berber-Speakers" definition.
 * I claim 15 million in Morocco is an adequate figure for Speakers of Berber Language as you can read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages#Population where it's sourced. I do not claim it is the correct figure for "ethnical Berbers including people who do not speak Berber".
 * What I ask you for is to bring any source, really any one, about "ethnic composition" of Moroccan population (let's start with Morocco and go later to the rest of North Africa) that explains how do you tell a "not Berber-speaking Berber" from a citizen who is not Berber. If there is no definition about what the difference is, the figure is plain worthless, even if copied a hundred times by people with no clue.
 * You say "these 60% are meant for the Berbers that have never been Arabized and who still claim that they are Berbers"
 * These are two different factors. One is: They have never been Arabized. Then it follows that they still must speak Berber, there is no other option. That would mean it boils down to how many Speakers of Berber Language are there. And that means we have to go to sources that estimate speakers of the language. There we can find common ground.
 * Another factor is "and who still claim that they are Berbers". Of course, all Speakers of Berber would claim that they are Berber, if asked. So the figure would be the same as the "never Arabized Berbers". Plus those who don't speak Berber but Arabic but nonetheless claim to be Berbers. I know some - this is a new wave of recognizing a long-denied identity, but as there has been no census on "how do you identify", we can't know any figure and neither can any of the sources you brought up. Observe that none of those sources actually does say "There are around 5 million people in Morocco who consider themselves to be Berbers without speaking the language". Bring me that source and I'll say, okay.
 * But as long as we don't have that definition, putting the 60% figure for "ethnicity" is downplaying the Berber character of Morocco and suggesting, withouot any source or reason, that arund 40% of the population "has come from somewhere else" which is not reasonable at all. Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Listen I truly believe that the Berber population in Morocco is much higher than 60% like you said, but also of you look back to my previous comment when I talked about 40% I said that they are mainly of Berber ethnicity <> except the Bedoin Arabs who are anyway a very small minority (about 144 000) which is why most of Moroccans are ethnically Berbers. I know what you wrote you said<> you clearly affirmed that the 15 million talk about the ethnic Berber in Morocco NOT the Berber speakers <<15 million in Morocco is an adequate figure for Speakers of Berber Language as you can read here >>. Now if you don't consider these sources convincing and you don't agree with the " Berber speaker definition" (I totally agree with you in that point)then I don't really know what to put, I searched for hours for a source with informations about the ethnic groups in Morocco most of them say that Morocco is "99% Arabs Berber", "60% Berbers 40% Arabs " or " 60% Arabs 40% Berbers ", I don't know what definition should we take I don't know if the " genetic definition" is the most accurate and I don't know if you mean that the "genetic definition" is the one that we should take in consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarisco (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Tsarisco. I don't think that genetic research can be used as a definition for an ethnicity, because one doesn't belong to an ethnic group on genetic grounds. Mainly three factors define ethnic groups: 1) Language 2) Religion 3) Self-Identification (I leave out "Culture" because Culture is normally a mix of these three).
 * In the Berber case, Religion is excluded, as nearly everybody in the Maghreb is Muslim anyhow (and there are both Berber and non-Berber Jews). Self-Identification could be good if there was a census or a poll, but we have none. So the only thing left to use as a definition is Language. Somebody has said "One is Berber if one speaks Berber". Which of course does not mean that Arabic-speaking Maghrebis have any other ancestry than Berber, too. What you said about Gnawa, Haratin, Moor etc is true, but really just negligeable as population influx and anyhow, they do not have a culture and thus a traceable "ethnic identity" different from Berbers.
 * Let me correct by the way: "(in Sub-Saharan Africa specially on Mali, Niger and specially Western Sahara there are large concentration of Berbers)" - this is not true. In Niger and Mali there are Tuareg, yes, but together they'd sum around 1 million. In Western Sahara there are no Berbers. Zero (save for the recently arrived people from Morocco). Sahrawi, even if they are probably also from Berber ancestry, do not consider themselves as Berber and use the word "Chleuh" (commonly used in Morocco to refer to any Berber) for any Moroccan which they consider not-Sahrawi.)
 * As a result I would suggest two options:


 * Either we use the figures for Berber Speakers, underlining the fact that it does not represent "ethnic origin".
 * Or we just don't put any figures, explaining in the article that in absence from any census and in absence of any clear cultural or social separation between Berber and Non-Berber speakers, a figure for "Berber ethnicity" cannot be given - other than the whole population of North West Africa - and readers should go to Berber Languages for detailed figures.Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Remove File:Abd el-Krim khattabi - from Commons.jpg from infobox per. (Files listed at FFD can be removed from articles after 7 days unless there is consensus to the contrary, WP:FFD). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 13:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups
Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

First effort in Wikipedia
I was checking this article out of personal interest, and I noticed that in the section with the photographs (I suppose of notable Berbers), Miltiades is included. Now, the photo of Miltiades used does not seem to have any relation with Miltiades, the ancient Greek general. Also, I believe that Miltiades was not a Berber! (do I really need to use a reference for this claim?), which makes me question the rest of the information in the article. Is this a mistake? Vandalism? Is Miltiades considered a Berber? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.89.157.108 (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Make a consensus already
As if this wiki article hasn't had enough to go through (as in all these vandalisms), where's the consensus? Lock the article.