Talk:Maghreb

Population genetics
Dear user, there is increasing vandalism in relation to the genetic origin of the Maghreb population. There are users who delete scientific expertise (which I had specified) and use inauthentic sources such as books by tourism authors as sources.

Yelendo, 20:23, January 18th 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelendo (talk • contribs)

User:Skitash cites author's books as sources of genetics, not scientific evidence. Here are the non-authentic sources:

https://books.google.dz/books?id=vf4TBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3509799.stm

https://books.google.dz/books?id=_l87ixBRpKIC&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false

This source contradicts the sources above!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552629/

Dear users! Please stop this vandalism and racism. Many Thanks

Yelendo, 00:18, January 20th 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelendo (talk • contribs)

Ethnicity
while you may not agree with the fact that your edit has been reverted by, you cannot keep reinstating it while describing the revert as vandalism (which has a specific meaning that doesn't apply in this case). I'm starting this discussion to give you the opportunity to discuss your changes and seek consensus for them. M.Bitton (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @M.Bitton
 * Thank you for the notification. I don't see it as advantageous to edit versions again and again. However, looking at the history of versions, User Skitash changed the contribution and meaning of the terms (Arab and Berber), not me. I cite sources from scientists who deal with the genetics of peoples and Maghrebs. In contrast to user Skitash, who gives the source as authors and journalists who firstly write travel books and secondly refer to the language and culture. That's why I used the term "Arab Berber".
 * User Skitash denies in all his contributions eg also with Morocco (population) the genetic origin of the North Africans (Berber). Other users have also not denied in the history that North Africans are genetically largely of Berber origin.
 * My compromise is - Arab - Berber but because linguistically and culturally - Arabic and genetic - mostly Berber. But this is always deleted by User Skitash. Please also look up the sources in other language versions of Wikipedia. For example in Arabic and French. A mixture of ethnic groups is always specified. I don't want to cause any problems here. However, I ask that people describe themselves as they describe themselves and where there is also expertise, for example from: National Library of Medicine.
 * Thank you.
 * Yelendo
 * 15:31, 27. Januar 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Yelendo. You need to understand the difference between ethnic groups and genetics because they are not the same thing. I don't know which travel book you are referring to but those sources are reliable and published by authentic authors like CIA, Oxford, Al Jazeera, BBC and they all give accurate ethnic percentages. Like I said, if you want to add genetic sources put them in the right section instead of mixing them with unrelated things. Skitash (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Skitash! I have therefore also chosen the term "Arab-Berber" (which already exists). In fact, ethnicity and genetics is something different. What I am trying to say here is that the population of the Maghreb is largely Arabic, culturally and linguistically. However, the genetics in many parts of the population are Berber or mixed Berber-Arab. But just mentioning this in the genetics section also contradicts things like the Arabic language (which is spoken in the Maghreb, which was influenced by the Amazigh language or cultural customs like Fantasia in Morocco or the Douz Equestrian Festival etc.). So wait a minute, I am using the term "Arab-Berber" as a more appropriate term, as that is the most appropriate description of the population. I am neither a Berberist nor an enemy of the Arabic language. On the contrary, I love the Arabic language. I hope you understand what I want to say. Yelendo 22:58, 16 Mar 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion but this does not really solve the problem. "Arab-Berber" isn't an ethnic group and isn't an accurate term. The Arab-Berber page seems to have no definition and its unclear if it refers to people of mixed Arab and Berber origin or if it just combines both ethnic groups. Sources which use that term say Arab-Berbers make up 99% of the population, and this doesn't show the true ethnic percentages. I believe the best option is to leave the page with the current percentages as supported by many sources. Skitash (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Even genetics confirms that the genetic majority are Arabs in Maghreb, but what is also proven is that the original inhabitants are Berbers, and they were the vast majority before the arrival of the Arabs. 109.107.229.112 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The books I am referring to is:"Libya" by Peter Malcolm and Elizabeth Losleben and "Native Peoples of the World" by Steven L. Danver (historian). As far as I know, none of these are involved in genetics science. Yelendo 23:11, 16 Mar 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of the maghreb into Tamazgha
Hi to all, i wanted to add an information of connection between maghreb and Tamazgha as the first one is incluted in the berber influence territory; what do you think about it? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How many reliable sources connect the two, or to be more precise, how many reliable sources about the Maghreb connect the Maghreb to Tamazgha? M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, i will link some source about this conncection, articles and papers. My intention was to add a sentence to show that the x countries of the maghreb are included into Tamazgha as this inludes morocco,algeria,tunisia,libya,western sahara and mauritania.
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230358515_2
 * https://mespi.org/project/where-is-the-maghreb-theorizing-a-liminal-space/
 * https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/44046
 * https://www.eurasiareview.com/26052022-discovering-the-amazigh-people-and-their-culture-analysis/ Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A quick note: the first source (written by professors of theatre) makes a claim about the ancient world that doesn't make sense as the word Tamazgha was invented in the 1970s. The second source is not an article and the last two are about Tamazgha and what the Berber activists claim (not the Maghreb). M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answear. I don't see why it doesn't make sense as althoug the word Tamazgha is recent the concept of it or at what it refers is ancient and describes the area of influence of the berber tribes.
 * For the second one, i know, it's an interview. For the last two, why activists? The last articles is from a Professor of education science and a political analyst. I wouldn't put everything in a propaganda point of view.
 * This is a piece of the articles:
 * "From around 2000 BC, the Berber languages ​​spread westward from the Nile Valley to the Maghreb, passing through the northern Sahara. In the first millennium BC, their speakers were the native inhabitants of the vast region visited by the Greeks, Carthaginians, and Romans. A series of Berber peoples – Mauri, Masaesyli, Massyli, Musulami, Gaetuli, Garamantes – then gave rise to Berber kingdoms under Carthaginian and Roman influence.....
 * The Berbers claim a presence in the Maghreb that is more than five thousand years old. Their community extends over nearly five million square kilometers, from the Egyptian-Libyan border to the Atlantic and from the Mediterranean coast to Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso...
 * So, do you think it would be useful to add this information? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * md.sakib 103.214.202.10 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Md.sakib 103.214.202.10 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Md.sakib 103.214.202.10 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
MOS:ORDER is quite explicit in what should come first (infoboxes before the lead section). You'll notice that this is how it's done in all articles, so what makes you think that this one should be different? M.Bitton (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX/MOS:ORDER
@M.Bitton per MOS:INFOBOX An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key facts about the page's subject. Infoboxes may also include images or maps. And, as you linked, per MOS:ORDER: On the mobile site, the first paragraph of the lead section is moved above the infobox for the sake of readability.

I don't know from which device you are viewing, but to me while reading from mobile it appears that Infobox is at top of the page. Hence, I moved it below the lead para. There was no reason for you to revert twice. Sutyarashi (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There was no reason for you to revert once your bold edit was reverted (I suggest you read WP:BRD). I'll repeat what I said above (since you appear to have missed it):
 * MOS:ORDER is quite explicit in what should come first (infoboxes before the lead section). You'll notice that this is how it's done in all articles, so what makes you think that this one should be different? M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton Ok, fair enough. The lead para is usually present before the Infobox in other articles while viewing through mobile. The order is same though. For some reason that is not the case with this one. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * there was something (coordinates) that shouldn't be there (now removed). Please test it again. M.Bitton (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton looks good now. Thanks. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for flagging the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)