Talk:Berbers

Berbers and the Islamic conquest

Under the Berbers and the Islamic Conquest section both 'Christian' and 'Jew' are written with lower case letters.

Thanks for telling - I just corrected it. Allow me a suggestion: new sections are better added at the bottom of the page and it's great if you sign your comment with four tildes, like ~ ~ ~ ~ (but with no spaces). Thanks anyhow!--Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate numbers for The Netherlands, Belgium, France

This article lists the number of Berbers in The Netherlands as 120.000. However, there are 300.000+ Moroccans in The Netherlands, 80% of whom are Berber, and 80% of 300.000 is a lot more than 120.000. Same thing goes for Belgium. And France seems especially off to me... there is a huge number of Algerians in France, alongside Moroccans and Tunisians, the majority of those probably being Berber also, so the 100.000 figure is ridiculously low. It would probably be closer to a million factually. ssoass 9:48, 1 July 2007

False, the majority are not Berber. The numbers are accurate. Mariam83 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ssoass is right: "From the late sixties onwards, Rif Berbers migrated in considerable numbers to the Netherlands and Belgium. In the Netherlands the estimated number of speakers of Rif-Berber is 200.000 out of a total of 300.000 Dutch citizens of Moroccan origin." [1]

This is of course the opinion of Leiden who believe that Moroccan imigration represent the Moroccan society. If fact, i would believe that 80% of the Moroccans in the Netherlands are Riffians and the 20 % is to deal between the other berbers (shluh en souss-speaking Berbers) besides the Darija-arbic speaking Moroccans. Read3r 09:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed the number of the Netherlands to 20,000 which is just ridiculous as most Dutch people will tell you.

I revised the number to 250,000 but I really believe it is more since there are 320,000 Moroccans in The Netherlands and the large majority of those are Berbers and identify as such. But for a lack of accurate research 250,000 will do, and again I would say almost all Dutch people in the know would agree with me as would the Moroccans. ssoass 5:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancient history

The word "Berber" is not used by sources from Classical Antiquity. The article should point out which ancient ethnonym (Libyans, Numidians..?) is believed to correspond to the modern Berbers. --91.148.159.4 13:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And it does, right near the top. -- Lonewolf BC 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't, unfortunately, but this is not an encyclopedia. It is basically a disaster, it chronincles ignorance and nonsense. IF you really want to learn anything, forget about "wikipedia" and stick to classic sources. Mariam83 08:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does! It says that the Greeks called them Libyans and the Romans called them Numidians and Mauri. The Romans also called them other names for particular subsets of them, not having a unitary name for the lot, though this detail is not mentioned. -- Lonewolf BC 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I guess I didn't notice it. But Libyans and Numidians are often distinguished in classical sources. I suppose the Numidians could be defined as a "subset" (whereas "Libyan" was pretty general, given that Libya could almost mean "Africa" at the time). --91.148.159.4 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And Afriqiya, as opposed to Africa, at "the time" would not mean Africa of our time. Irrer 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Libya was the country of the Etheopians and the Libyans. Thus, Libyans didn't mean the inhabitants of Libya. But it meant at that time a type of Inhabitant. Thus, the Etheopians were not Libyans, although they inhabited "Libya". Read more: Ancient Libya Read3r 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Libya was never the country of Ethiopians. This is a well-known fact that even a glossing of the evidence conveys. Your problem is the misreading and/or miscomprehension of sources and facts. Irrer 17:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"One thing more also I can add concerning this region, namely, that, so far as our knowledge reaches, four nations, and no more, inhabit it; and two of these nations are indigenous, while two are not. The two indigenous are the Libyans and Ethiopians, who dwell respectively in the north and the south of Libya."[2] Read3r 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Read3r, thank you for providing this illuminating source. To use your source, here is what Herodotus has to say about the Ethiopians:

"The Garamantians have four-horse chariots, in which they chase the Troglodyte Ethiopians, who of all the nations whereof any account has reached our ears are by far the swiftest of foot. The Troglodytes feed on serpents, lizards, and other similar reptiles. Their language is unlike that of any other people; it sounds like the screeching of bats." According to your source, you should edit the wikipedia on Ethiopia in accordance.

Yet another questionable judgment on Herodotu's part:

"For my part I am astonished that men should ever have divided Libya, Asia, and Europe as they have, for they are exceedingly unequal. Europe extends the entire length of the other two, and for breadth will not even (as I think) bear to be compared to them."

We know that Europe is by far the smallest, in fact much smaller. Your source is thus unusable, unsurprisingly. Irrer 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't fully understand you wanted to say (i'm weak in English ;)). However, Herodotus is not the accurate source, but he was simply right that there were ethiopians and libyans. When you read in the works of Gabriel Camps, you will read that "black people" were found in the funeraries of Carthage.

One think that should help is not confusing the modern Libyan with Herodotus's Libya and the ancient Etheopians with the modern etheopians.Read3r 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

he wasn't even right about the size of Europe, in fact, absurdly and grossly wrong, and as he himself says, "he heard " of these things. furthermore, black people were never found in the funeraries of Carthage, as they never existed in Carthage and are not native to North Africa. The confusion must arise from the use of the term "africa" which today means something that it didn't mean in ancient times. I suppose that if the sub-saharan african region were today referred to as Ghandi, that we would be discussing the pakistani (notice the irony) bodies found in Nigeria. This assertion, of course, is substantiated by just about any authoritative source and/or document. The most important perhaps would be Ibn Khaldun's work, as he was born in area. Irrer 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Irrer, which is is that Herodotus, as an ancient Greek scholar, is an excellent source to consult if one wishes to know what terminology the ancient Greeks used, and that according to him they used "Libya" for the landmass we now call Africa (insofar as they knew it), but "Libyan" only for those of its inhabitants we now call Berbers. In this regard, it is true but irrelevant that Herodotus contains plenty of fanciful hearsay about foreign countries, so that not everything he wrote can be taken straight, and true but irrelevant that he was wrong about some things because of the limited knowledge available to him. -- Lonewolf BC 18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, you mistakenly assume that the Ifriqiya of then is the landmass known as AFrica today. We know that Sub-saharan Africa was not explored at the time, not even by the Arabs. However, East Africa, countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia, might be the countries that the ancient world wrote about. To say "the landmass we now call Africa" is inaccurate.Irrer 18:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked or not understood "insofar as they knew it". To clarify: The ancient Greeks called as much of Africa as they knew about "Libya". They also knew that it went on southward beyond the lands they knew or had heard of. I made neither assumtion about, nor even any mention of "Ifriquya". -- Lonewolf BC 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, however, in ancient times, Black people, it is claimed, ruled even in the British Isles and Sweden. Here is an excerpt from literature that you might find interesting: "Any comprehensive account of the Black African presence in early Europe should include England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Scandinavia. The history and legends of Scotland confirm the existence of "purely Black people." We see one of them in the person of Kenneth the Niger. During the tenth century Kenneth the Niger ruled over three provinces in the Scottish Highlands. The historical and literary traditions of Wales reflect similar beliefs. According to Gwyn Jones (perhaps the world's leading authority on the subject), to the Welsh chroniclers, "The Danes coming in by way of England and the Norwegians by way of Ireland were pretty well all black: Black Gentiles, Black Norsemen, Black Host." Pretty interesting stuff. Irrer 18:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some wing-nut's fringe thesis about peoples of northern Europe is quite irrelevant, and "interesting" only as a oddity. We are considereing what the Berbers were called by the ancient Greeks and Romans.-- Lonewolf BC 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Riffians and "Imazighen"

This is mainly for Nochi:

The reason I reverted your adding of "Riffians" to that spot in the article's lead section is two-fold: Firstly, more than two examples of what that bit is about are not needed. Secondly, what that bit is about is the relative prevalence of the use of words other than "Imazighen" for self-identification by Berbers outside Morrocco, as against those within Morrocco. Whereas the Riffians are Berbers within Morrocco, (a) they make a poor example of how Berbers outside Morrocco are less apt to use "Imazighen", even if they do tend not to use it, and (b) in the lack of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to suppose that they are among those Morroccan Berbers who tend to use "Imazighen", making them altogether useless as an example of non-Morroccan Berbers who don't use "Imazighen".

Edit-summaries are meant only for saying what edit you've made and why you've made it. Please don't use them argumentatively or use all-capitals in them, which is generally interpreted as "shouting". In fact, please don't SHOUT, even outside of edit-summaries, and try for a less vehement, more collegial tone. However, the above should have answered the rhetorical questions you asked in your edit-summary.

-- Lonewolf BC 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Maghreb Arabic

Arabic is an "official language" of most of the self-identified Arab régimes not "the Berbers", an important distinction. Putting Arabic in the infobox instead of the more descriptive Maghreb Arabic is a questionable choice, given that literary Arabic plays little part in Berber self-identification, in addition to its highly contentious history vis-à-vis the native cultures (both Berber and Maghreb Arabic). This is also a matter of academic linguistics, not politics, and the claim here [3] rests on no factual ground. No one as a matter of course "speaks" Arabic per se, only one of its varieties, which differ from each other and from Arabic as much as Latin and the Romance languages. Hassaniya [4] for example is an official Arabic language of Mauritania – that does not go without saying. — Zerida 06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This largely hinges on whether Arabic as spoken in the Maghreb is a dialect (or some dialects), or a separate language (or languages). If you can show that scholarly consensus is that it is a separate language (or separate languages), fine. Otherwise, please leave it as the straightforward "Arabic". -- Lonewolf BC 18:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf, there are no clear, objective criteria that break up human speech neatly into "dialects" and "languages". It's mostly a socially defined concept, much like ethnicity itself (see Dialect#"Dialect" or "language"). Linguists don't care much whether Maghreb Arabic is a group of languages or dialects, they describe it as both because this is how it is seen differently by different speakers. Linguists for the most part, however, focus on the study of spoken not written languages. Standard Arabic is not a spoken language. It is neither spoken by the Berbers nor is it an official language of a representative Berber body -- in other words, it is not very discriptive. Definitive remarks about Arabic varieties being languages are made when mutual intelligibility is the factor. This is the criterion used by Ethnologue [5] ("....there are several distinct spoken Arabic languages, but Standard Arabic is generally used in business and media..."). I will include a scholarly reference in the article that treats Standard Arabic and the spoken varieties in this fashion. Please don't revert it. — Zerida 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided evidence of a scholarly consensus that "Maghrebi Arabic" is a separate language, but only given one reference that might support such a view. This could easily be a minority opinion. Indeed, whereas this is the first I've ever heard of such a notion even though I'm fairly well-read on human geography, I have to think that it is not the general opinion. You needn't explain to me the fuzzy character of the distinction between dialect and language. The question is whether most scholars, for most purposes, regard Arabic as used by Berbers as a separate language from "Arabic" in the general sense of that word. You haven't shown that. You've given a reference to one paper by one scholar in which, seemingly, he takes such a view or at least explores the idea. (It is not possible to judge this surely given only the title and your say-so.) Meanwhile, the reference you give in your comment just above notes that Arabic is a single language from some viewpoints and for some purposes.
Please don't keep reintroducing the same edit without first resolving this through the talkpage. -- Lonewolf BC 19:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Your assumption that in order for the infobox to reflect the fact that some Berbers are bilingual in Maghrebi Arabic rests on the notion that Maghrebi is a language is just not correct. At the risk of repeating myself, a scholarly consensus that "Maghrebi Arabic" is a separate language makes no sense on linguistic grounds. Real scholars cannot "come to consensus" on something that functions in different social situations differently, subjectively excluding one definition or possibility in favor of another (unless again intelligibility is a factor, and the Maghrebi varieties of course are not intelligible with other varieties). If there is something you don't understand about this, Lonewolf, it is not a valid reason to delete sourced information. In fact, there is no valid reason at all to delete information referenced by reliable sources.

2. It was you who added Arabic to the infobox fairly recently [6], therefore the burden of evidence is on you to substantiate it.

3. Another one in your long string of incorrect assumptions is that the reference I provided was a "paper". It is a book containing a collection of articles that deal specifically with the topic of Arabic as spoken by ethnic minorities in NA/ME, including Berbers.

4. If another editor provides a reliable academic reference to a claim in the article, it satisfies the inclusion criteria set in WP:V. Removing referenced information is disruptive. If you want to include Standard Arabic in addition to the spoken Arabic variety, you are obviously free to do that if you can provide a reliable reference that Standard Arabic is the language of writing for most Berbers. Whatever clarification you may need, it does not justify your constant inappropriate reversions of my legitimate edits. — Zerida 00:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this issue in abeyance (have already done so, really) while I deal with some other matters. Meanwhile please consider these few things: First, your proper course when an edit of yours is reverted is to resolve the issue through discussion, meanwhile accepting the revert (which is not to say agreeing with it), rather than continually re-making the edit as discussion goes on. (See WP:BRD.) You've ventured to accuse me of disruptiveness for reverting your same-again edits; whatever truth that accusation may hold, what does it say about yourself? You've also implied quite strongly that the problem, here, is some lack of understanding on my part about the nature of linguistic differences and distinctions, a supposition which is simply not so and, I think, lacks reasonable grounds. In any case, it were better that we focussed on the issue, not on supposed personal deficiencies, faults and offences.

Further, your posts suggest to me that you have not rightly understood the reason for my revert; I ask you to re-read my earlier posts, and also the following: This is not, finally, a factual issue of whether and by how much Arabic as spoken in the Maghreb differs from other forms of Arabic, but of whether it makes better editorial sense to use the generic or the specific in the infobox. Thus providing a reference -- and I'm not even sure just what that reference is supposed to prove -- does not play a trump. A fact that does weigh in this, though, is that, its variety notwithstanding, Arabic is generally regarded as but one language (by most educated people, for most purposes), as may be confirmed by consulting ordinary reference works.

Reviewing your remarks, it strikes me once again that they are mostly if not wholly non sequitur. You say this, and you say that, and I'm left thinking, "Tell me something I don't know," and "So what?" For instance, in regard to what languages Berbers use it does not matter that using Arabic is not a characteristic of Berber identity; it matters that it is a language which they commonly use. (Rather like English in relation to the Irish.) You also seem somewhat to be begging the question by construing "Arabic" to mean "standard Arabic", in particular, though perhaps I misunderstand you on that point.

Please consider all of that, and I'll get back to this when I am able. -- Lonewolf BC 03:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, to me it seems to make more sense to put the more informative Maghrebi Arabic in, if Arabic is to be listed at all. It's a significantly different variety (or set of varieties), and the link will be more informative to the reader, who can then also move on to look at the Arabic or Varieties of Arabic articles. Drmaik 07:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think if Arabic is to be listed at all is the key phrase here. I offered Maghrebi Arabic as a compromise since there are bilingual Berbers. Also, two Maghrebi varieties at least, Hassaniya and of course Maltese, are defined as "languages" in the popular sense of the word due to the political identification of their speakers. Considering, however, that the difference between those who identify as "Arab" in the Maghreb and the Berber-speaking populations is usually one of language, Arabic may not even be necessary at all. Come to think of it, I probably would have been justified in deleting Lonewolf's unsubstantiated addition altogether, though this would have been an adoption of your approach, Lonewolf, and I doubt it would have checked your overzealous desire to revert.

If "most educated people" don't know that Arabic is at the very least a diglossic language, then they should familiarize themselves with the topic until they feel comfortable enough making such matter-of-fact claims. I did not introduce non sequiturs into the argument by discussing the dialect-language dichotomy; it was your insistence that I needed to provide evidence of a "scholarly consensus" that Maghrebi Arabic was "a separate language" that precipitated the discussion. Finally, it also matters that there appears to be a revert-first zealousness in your editing approach in general. Perhaps you should consider that. — Zerida 22:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing, it's a matter of Arabic being generally regarded as one language, its variety notwithstanding. Your impressions of my "editing approach in general" are mistaken" and lacking in reasonable basis, but more importantly they are ad hominem, as are phrases such as "revert-first zealousness". Procedurally, though, it was more wrong of you to repeatedly re-make your edit instead of using the talkpage to resolve the matter first, than it was wrong of me to re-revert your edit as many times less one, also without the matter being resolved on the talkpage first. (The first edit and the first revert were both quite okay -- that's "Bold-Revert-Discuss".) As I said before, I can't focus on this issue for the time being. When I'm free to do so, we can discuss it -- collegially and without rancor, I hope. Meanwhile, please don't snipe at me over it. -- Lonewolf BC 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't focus on this issue for the time being I can see that, since you're still responding to my message with nothing to say about the content. Your editing behavior has been the subject of WP:ANI reports, so it is hardly "ad hominem" to point out what is obvious not only to me, but to others. In fact, your tone as we speak is both rude and discourteous, which is one of several things that you might want to work on. Second, it was not "more wrong" (whatever that means) of me to revert your disruptive deletion of the sourced information I provided -- that it was wrong of you to delete it, on the other hand, is a given since it is a matter of policy, just as it was wrong of you to make an unsubstantiated addition to the article, but expect other editors to provide evidence that your addition is not right for the article. That was your job. Just so we're clear though, when you're "free" to discuss it, I have no intention of doing it with your "attitude". I will, however, continue to defend the inclusion of factual, sourced information in the article. — Zerida 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is any reason to overlook the difference between standard arabic and M. arabic, it would be then avoiding the long explanation. both of them are called arabic by natives. But in reality, there is a difference between them, and the proof is that some high schools and universities do teach them seperately like Leiden university in The Netherlands. Anb above all, M. Arabic is not an accurate name, however it is not incorrect.Read3r 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Berber Article?

There are something wrong with this article, it talks about Kabyles and other self termed people as "berber", Berber are only used by Rifi spoken "berbers", Berber are actually compression of other people to make an ethnic group I say lets just use Berber people to refer rifis. Balu2000 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Berber" is the English term for all of the people concerned. That is why the article should have the title it does, and none other. This has nought to do with what the sundry kinds of Berbers call themselves. -- Lonewolf BC 16:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not said that this article should be renamed or moved , but I think this article should be more about Rifi people since other Berber groups got own article except rifis.Balu2000 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the topic of a title is equivalent to changing the title of a topic. Anyhow, the same terminological consideration applies: "Berber", in English, means all of these folks, and Riffis no more or less than the others. -- Lonewolf BC 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If so then i want to request a deletion for [[7]] Balu2000 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no Berbers calling themselves Berbers. The Riffians call them selves Riffians or Imazighen like many other Berber groups.Read3r 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

y chromosome section

much of the links are dead and say the pages do not exist to verify the infomation .if it's not replaced i will have to edited,dna studies must be verified--Mikmik2953 (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the links (most of which still worked, anyhow) and added full citations for the articles referred to. A few out-of-date links are no good cause to delete a whole section of an article, especially when the links are to published scientific papers, which you can be pretty sure really exist even when you find that a link to one is defunct. If you come upon an alike situation again, please just update the links. Deleting the whole section was improper. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

i dont have to find new sources for the article, if i choose not to wolf i did not just go and delete the section.i left a message like a week before in the disscusion page,maybe you should have addressed the issue than not after the deed was done to complain and then state rights and wrongs wolf--Mikmik2953 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right that you would not have been obliged to find new sources to replace ones that had vanished. In this case, though, the reason you did not need to find new sources is that the ones provided were still very much in existence, and all that needed doing was to update the links to their online versions. These are scientific papers, published in established journals; they don't just evaporate when the links to their online versions are changed. Most of the links were still good, anyhow. Further, even if the sources in question had actually disappeared, that would have left only portions of the section unreferenced. Furthermore, a week is not enough time to allow for the addressing of lack of referencing, even were there truly is one, and the right way to do things would have been to put "{{fact}}" tags into the article at the specific points of concern. Merely leaving a note on the talk-page, noting the dead links and saying you "will have to [edit]" if they are "not replaced", but giving no indication that you planned such drastic action as deleting the whole section, was not adequate.
Thus your deleting of the whole section was wholly unjustifiable. Please do things properly from now on. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

'Anthropology' section

This section is composed of two quotes of racial stereotypes from the early 20th century... not really representing what we'd call anthropology these days. I was about to delete the section, but thought I'd mention why it doesn't fit in the article, if anyone else wants to comment. Drmaik 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

i cant say much on the quote about nazi stuff and dont know what that has to do with anything an i have no problem with it being elimnated ,but i would like to comment on the second quote because i indroduced it anthropolgy along with dna is vital in determing population relations the study done was not the crude techniques of the early anthrpology done in the early 20th century. iT was done with more modern techniques the book it is from is a honest study by crediable profesors and acutaly one of the few books done on the berbers. Which was published a scant 10 years ago and the study was done by a renound scientist in the field.There is no dubious source sited in this quote and i strongly beliveve it should stay.Although the study which was quoted is from the 20th century was done in 1994 not 1904--Mikmik2953 (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section on Berber physical anthropology. Anthropology now views race as a cultural construct, and if you look deeper into the research, a painfully colonial one. Coon fell out of favor shortly after he published The Origin or Race in 1962. The anthropological community was already quickly moving away from the concept of a physically definable race at that time. That book proved his downfall. Read the American Anthropological Association statement on race if you have questions about what I've said. It's fairly straightforward. Having this section on the page was akin to claiming that the old concept of bleeding people at a barber shop to get rid of sickness is cutting edge medicine. Walkerinthewaste (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not if the quotes are true or not. What is very interesting is to know what have been said during the 20th centuries by anthropologist even if maybe outdated today. I am french, half berber, and I know the subject quite well. A huge numbers of book have been written about the Berbers by french anthropologist between 1830 and 1962 but most of them have not been translated. I put the word "race" into double quotes to avoid any confusion.--86.219.30.127 (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the respectful response. I still disagree though. The research isn't current, nor is it correct. I question its place on Wikipedia. However, the reworded article is better than the old stuff, and it doesn't claim to be the truth anymore. I'm not sure if it should rightfully be deleted or not, so I'll leave it for someone else who comes along at a later date. I'll settle for registering my objection here.Walkerinthewaste (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

any arabs reverted to berber culture?

hey, I was just wondering if there were any Arabs who have declared themselves to be Berbers...I've been looking into defining arabs, which turns out to be fairly hard(got into this discussion of whether Egyptians were arabs or not...) Just out of curiosity...Has it happened? DomDomsta333 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

that is a good question i dont know the only thing i do know that there are sub saharan africans who had adopted and became berberised because of the increased contact with black africa begining in the 6th century via the arabs through trade routes from north africa into black africa--Mikmik2953 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See Moroccan Sahara, there seem to be instances in the Souss region of Berberized Arab groups, post-Colonial Arabization has muddled this. (collounsbury (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

A propos des origines des nord africains

Hanzukik (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)1dabord est ce que ces chercheurs ont preleve le dna de tous les 11 millions de tunisiens pour pouvoir donner une telle conclusion? 2comment peut on savoir qu un type est du moyent orient par son dna? 3quelle differnce y a til dans le dna entre un arabe un amazigh un hebreux ou un europeen du sud etant donne que ces populations appartiennent tous a la sous race mediterranide(petite stature cheveux du noir jusuq au blond yeux du noir jusqu au plus clair cranes brachycepahles peau de differnts teins du blanc pilosite pas tres abondante largeur moyenne des epaules)? 4comment savoir si un type est arabe par son dna s'il a par exemple un seul ancetre amazigh qui au cours de dizaines de generations s'est brasse avec des dizaines d'individus arabes? ou bien si dans ces ancetres existent des arabes des amazigh des pheniciens des proto-mediterraneens (les populations paleolithique de l'afrique du nord avant la migration des neolithiques amazigh puis les neolithiques arabes)? c'est a dire disons que un type a 20 milles ancetres(depuis l'apparition du premeir homo sapiens habilis qui avait la capacite de parler cad il y a quelques 80-100 milles ans de nos jours) dans ces ancetres l'ecrasante majorite on ne sait pas quelle langue ils parlaient l'infime reste est partage par exemple entre 100 arabes 23 arabophones 47 amaizgh 6 amazigh arabises 3 grecs turquises n X Yises quel est le critere pour etablir son origine linguistique ethnique nationale ou identitaire(ce sont des contextes differents)? aussi comment savoir "la langue ou l ethnie"de ces ancetres au dela de cette periode(cad depuis l apparition du premier homme homo sapiens sapiens erectus habilis il y a quelques 500 milles annees de la? 5aussi quelle est la difference genetique entre les differentes populations semito-hamitiques (amazigh arabes egyptiens beja etc etc)pour pouvoir determiner qui est qui? 6aussi quelle differnce genetique entre les differentes populations semitiques(arabes hebreux canaanites assyriens pheniciens)pour pouvoir dire qui est qui? 7comment considerer les populations paleolithiques presentes en nord de l afrqiue avant l arrivee des migrations neolithiques des amazigh puis des arabes vu que ces populations se sont amazighises en liassant quelques mots dans les different dialectes amazigh d'apres l'article wikipedia sur les origines genetiques des amazigh

Y chromosomes are passed exclusively through the paternal line. Bosch et al. (2001), found little genetic distinction between Arabic-speaking and Berber-speaking populations in North Africa, which they take to support the interpretation of the Arabization and Islamization of northwestern Africa, starting with word-borrowing during the 7th century A.D. and through State Arabic Language Officialisation post independence in 1962, as cultural phenomena without extensive genetic replacement. According to this study the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (M78, M35, and M81), 13% Neolithic (J1-M267 and J2-M172), 4% historic European gene flow and 8% recent sub-Saharan African. They identify the "75% NW African Upper Paleolithic" component as "an Upper Paleolithic colonization that probably had its origin in Eastern Africa." The North-west African population's 75% Y chromosome genetic contribution from East Africa contrasted with a 78% contribution to the Iberian population from western Asia, suggests that the northern rim of the Mediterranean with the Strait of Gibraltar acted as a strong, albeit incomplete, barrier. However this study only analysed a small sample of Moroccan Y lineages.

on voit que 75%"sont des M78 M38 et M81"paleolithiques 13%sont des j1-m267 et des j2-m172"neolithiues et les autres europeens et sub sahariens (sans nous donner les haplogroupes de ces derniers ) alors ma question est qui sont les M78 les M35 les M81 les j1-M267 les j2-M172? et aussi si un male est m78 et sa femme est jem267 alors que seront leurs enfants? aussi comment savoir que les m78 sont paleolithiques et les j sont neolithiques et comment etaienet les haplogroupes de leurs ancetres avant d'entrer dans l ere paleolithique et l ere neolithique? 8aussi on sait que les arabes ont vu le jour en ethiopie (d'apres wikipedia)alors comment savoir si il n y a pas des arabes venus d'afrique? et comment determiner les autres populations venues du moyent orient comme les hebreux les pheniciens les kurdes etc etc? 9autre point disons que le type a un ancetre avec M78 alors si cet ancetre se mariera avec un type M35 ou des J quel haplogroupe dominerait ? 10si le type a des ancetres J et parmi ces ancetres certains se sont croise avec des M alors est ce qu on trouvera toutes ces hybridations de J et de M et de x ou y (s'il y a d'autres melanges autres que ces 2)ou bien quoi? 11dans le meme article de wikipedia sur les amazigh

Archaeology The Neolithic Capsian culture appeared in North Africa around 9,500 BC and lasted until possibly 2700 BC. Linguists and population geneticists alike have identified this culture as a probable period for the spread of an Afro-Asiatic language (ancestral to the modern Berber languages) to the area. The origins of the Capsian culture, however, are archeologically unclear. Some have regarded this culture's population as simply a continuation of the earlier Mesolithic Ibero-Maurusian culture, which appeared around ~22,000 BC, while others argue for a population change; the former view seems to be supported by dental evidence

on dit que la culture neolithique caspienne est apparue a 9,500 jusuq a 2,700 ac et on dit que les chercheurs estiment cette culture comme afro-asiatqiue cad elle peut etre semite amazigh egyptienne beja etc etc ou bien tout simplement proto afro-asiatique or dans l article sur l afro-asiatique on estime que cette famille linguistique a vu le jour soit au yemen soit en ethiopie? 12par les analyses genetiques il s avere que 75%des nord africains ont les fameuses haplogroupes M paleolithique et la on nous dit que la culture amazigh est une culture neolithique qui a vu le jour en periode neolithique alors soit les populations originelles paleolithiques ont ete afro-asiatiquophonise linguistiquement soit cette culture caspienne n'est pas afro-asiatique? 13aussi comment savoir si la culture caspienne est une proto culture amazigh en l absence de vestiges d'ecriture ? 14aussi on nous dit que cette culture est la continuation de la culture mesolithique ibero-maurusienne d'ou quelle est la nature ethnique et linguistique de cette culture? 15dans ce passage du meme article

Arab settlement, on the other, a fusion took place that resulted in a new ethnocultural entity all over the Maghrib[10]. Another study on Haplogroup J (Semino et al. 2004) agrees with Nebel et al.'s suggestion that J1-M267 may have spread to North Africa in historic times (as identified by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22; Algerians 35.0%, Tunisians 30.1%), which they assume to be a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period.[11]. This theory is disputed by Arredi et al. 2004, who argue like Bosch et al. 2001 that the J1-M267 haplogroup (formerly H71) and North African Y-chromosomal diversity indicate a Neolithic-era "demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East."

on nous dit que la majorite des tunsiens et algeriens sont issus de differentes migrations d'afro-asiatiques(amazigh puis berberes)venus du moyent orient or en plus haut ils donnent un taux de 75%d'individus de haplotype paleolithiques? 16aussi on voit qu il y a des amazighophones et des arabophones de race negroide ma question est .est ce qu il est question des memes haplogroupes en question independamment de la race cad quoique on soit caucasoide ou negroides il est tjs question du meme haplogroupe? merci pour l'attention —

A propos du nombre des berberes des photos et de la classification

Hanzukik (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1/la source la plus fiable qui est ethnologue.com nous donne

L'algerie:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=DZ Elle donne 4 millions de berberes pour l algerie et ceci pour la moitie des annees 90 alors si on prend en compte les assimilations linguistiques et les migrations on aura un nombre de 2 a 4 millions Je ne sais pas le cas en kabyle mais a setif dans la region chaoui la totalite parle l'arabe dialectale alors que d'apres wikipedia il y a des locuteurs chaoui a setif d'ou on peut conclure que les berberes de setif ont ete assimile linguistiquement a l'arabe dialectale En tout cas c'est tres loin du nombre de 12 millions avances Surtout que seul tizi-ouzou et bejaia sont des villes a majorite berberophone alors qu'aucune autre ville n'a un caractere purement chaouiphone ce qui confirme bien un nombre de 2-3 millions

Le maroc:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=MA Elle donne 7,5 millions en 1998 d'ou on peut prevoir un nombre actuel de 4-8 millions en tenant en compte l'assimilation linguistique ce qui est trop loin du chiffre de 18 millions avance ici Surtout vu la faible densite et la petite superficie des aires berberophones et qu'a part une petite frange autour de la ville rifophone Al hoceima et la dorsale montagneuse(cad faiblement peuplee)juaqu a la ville mixte agadir qui contient une minorite importante de locuteurs en darja et en hassaniya arabe Quand on voit que les seuls casablanca fes marrakech meknes rabat tanger tetouan sale oujda qui sont des villes arabes ont une population de 15 millions sans compter leurs camapagnes et sans compter les arabes dans les aires berberophones on s'apercoit du total manque du serieux dans les chiffres donnes ce qui confirme bien un chiffre de 5-7 millions de berbers en tenant en compte la population des aires berberes

La tunisie:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=TN meme chose ethnologue nous donne 26milles chilhi que en prenant en compte les assimiles on peut donner un nombre de 10-15 milles c'est fort probable car il n y a que les villages de matmata el qdima ,douiret,ouirsighen,sedouikech,guellala et tamazra ou il y a des personnes chlehaphones alors qu en ajim,taguermas et cheninni tous les chelhophones ont ete assimiles et il n'existe plus de berberes la bas.

La lybie:

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=LY on donne un chiggre de 160 milles connaisseurs de dialectes berberes tout dialecte confondue(naffussi ghames et touareg) d'ou on peut avancer un actuel nombre de 100 milles

France Belgique Hollande et autres:

D'abord on sait que la france interdit tout recensement ethnique et considere tous les habitants de la france comme francais ceci apres avoir francilise les provencaus aquitains alsaciens corses occitans catalans etc etc Alors sachant que les berberes et arabes du maghreb et surtout les berberes tendent vite a s'integrer culturellement et linguistiquement tout en oubliant leur langue maternelle(a la differnce des turcs par exemple qui sont tres attaches a leur valeurs nationales) Et sachant que les berberes d'europe et de tout le monde en general sont de culture francaise(ou flamande en hollande)et meme leurs litteraires publient en francais et genralement les familles berberes n'apprennent pas l'arabe ou le berbere ou l'islam a leurs enfants et se diluent tres bien dans la culture religion langue et coutumes de ces pays d'accueil parfois mieux que des purs francais ou purs hollandais Finalement il se peut qu'une personne connait un dialecte berbere mais se considere arabe et le contraire est valable vu que race (qui est la meme pour les arabes et les berberes cad la race mediterraneene sauf les touaregs negroides)identite ethnie langue maternelle et nation sont des concepts differnts Donc il faut faire un census general et questionner "quelle est ton ethnie?" et pas "quelle est ta langue maternelle?" Comment peut on avoir la moindre raison de penser que ces chiffres refletent un epu la realite?

2/Autre point dans cet article a propos des images

comment pouvez vous affirmer que massinissa et augustine hippo sont berberes alors que les berberes au cours de leur histoire etaient soit des bergers soit des agriculteurs et n'ont bati aucune civilisation ou meme une ville ou meme une culture ou meme une langue evoluee ou meme un alphabet(sachant que le tifinagh est une adaptation de l alphabete phenicien et etait utilise que par les touaregs alors que les chleuhs ecrivaient en alphabet arabe et les kabyles n'ecrivaient pas ou ecrivaient tout droit dans la langue de leurs colonisateurs comme le latin le phenicien puis l'arabe et le francais) Ainsi zinnedine zidane est francais Krim belkacem est suppose algerien arabe a moins qu il s'eut meme declare kabyle et meme s il s'est si dit kabyle alors il est considere kabyle et pas berbere Le Hippo est considere latin de nord de l'afrqiue car on ne connait ni son ethnie ni sa langue maternelle Massinisa est un punique numide de langue maternelle punique cad phenicien semite mais pas berbere chamite

3/pour la classification :

sur quel critere vous vous etes bases pour regrouper ensemble kabyles touaregs et chleuhs ensemble sous l'umbrella name berbers vu que les touaregs sont de race negroide les chleuh ressemblent aux mauritaniens et sahraoui et les kabyles ressemblent aux algerois tlemceni costantinois annabi et bizertins (de tunisie) Aussi sachant que les dialectes berberes sont des dialectes minimalistes avec un faible vocabulaire limite et basique et contenant presque 40%de mots arabes et 20%de mots francais vu que les berberes n'ont jamais developpe une litterature ou une culture en berbere et sachant que les dialectes berberes sont tres varies et souvent non intelligibles entre eux et sachant que les dialectes berberes sont dans la meme famille linguistique que la langue arabe est ce qu on peut estimer que les dialectes arabes utilises de nos jours au nord de l'afrqiue peuvent etre assimiles a une forme evoluee des dialectes berberes

uh this is a english version of wiki please make your post in english--Mikmik2953 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the arabic people not related with berber people

arabic and berber people are classified with chamito semitic people

but Iberians and greeks are classified with indo european http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/AXL/monde/famarabe.htm --Particip (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Table

Source is needed for the data about the numbers of Berber people in Israel. As a citizen of Israel for myself, I don't know about any major concentration of Berber people there (I never met even single one in Israel)-or that one was meaning to the Mizrahi Jews communities whose origins are from north Africa and are consider to be the descendents of many Berber tribes who converted to Judaism (as well as descendents of Jews from Israel)?.--Gilisa (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

Can anyone explain to me how this ever got to be a Good Article? I've been watching the population statistics fluctuate wildly over the past few weeks. The only referenced figure is for Niger. Amazingly, this lack of referencing - in defiance of WP:CITE - has always been the case. Back when the page achieved GA status the total (unreferenced) world population of Berbers was c.23 million. It's now an equally unreferenced total of 45 million. A slight variation there. Nice quality control! --Folantin (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Unfortunately this is how GA works (as of right now). YOU (the readers) are the quality control. It is sad that it took over a year for someone to find it. We are currently hoping to revamp the GA system. Please see the WP:GA talk page if you have any further insights as to ways we can improve. will381796 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing article even for a so-called Berber

This article is really confusing because it is mixing a lot of different groups together, and full of historical loopholes. For example, the reason why the genetics is so confusing is because you are classing unrelated groups together, such as the so called Berbers of the Western Sahara and Mauritania with the so called Berbers of the Mediterranean. Remember, North Africa from Morocco to Egypt is approximately as large as the USA. It is also really confusing because a lot of the studies are using non-North African groups, such as the groups that were brought to the region through slavery, in their studies of Berbers. This is similar to studying Indian populations in England in genetics studies of Celts. It makes no sense, which is why I find this article too confusing, and entirely ignorant. The fact is that many of the groups listed as "Berber" are unrelated. This topic is obviously still in its early stages, which might account for all the confusion. I'm not sure that it is such a good idea to list these different groups under the same label, it would be similar to grouping Kurds, Turks, Indians, SOmalians and Nigerians together. LailaKes (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Eratosthenes

Yesterday, I added Eratosthenes, Alexandrian mathematician, to the beginning of the list which includes St. Augustine as the most famous person. No doubt, E. is a very famous Berber (Cyrenaican, Libyan). Somebody took him out, I'd like to have an explanation stated here why E. would not qualify. hgwb (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because he was born in Cyrene, a Greek colony, and since we don't know whether he sprang from the loins of 'Berbers' or not, we generally identify him by culture? Of course, the person who removed it could answer your -of tremendous importance- question more properly... 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it was unsourced. 3rdAlcove's comments are also relevant here. Incidentally, the identification of Septimius Severus as a Berber is also disputed. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The total population section is starting to look like propaganda

I think that 47 Million berber people around the world is very much exagerated, according to the 2004 Moroccan census, about 34% people have berber as their mother tongue, that make around 10 Million people. I have added this fact, but someone for some reason has decided to remove it, as it dosen't suit his desire. Morocco is the country with biggest Berber population in the world, with Algeria with a population of nearly 8 Millions, the population in France might be 500 000 if you count Algerian and Moroccan Berbers, and maybe 150 000 to 200 000 if Belgium and Holland nearly all of them Moroccans. The population in other countries is negligeable, so I don't see where 47 Millions comes from. Please people add facts here not pure imagination (or whishes). --Khalid hassani (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The population statistics need to be referenced from a reliable source. As far as I can see, this has never been done. People have simply come along and inserted random guesses, varying from 20 to 47 million. I have decided to replace these guesses with "?" and a request for reliable sources. It's perfectly possible these do not exist, given the politically contentious nature of the issue, but until they are forthcoming I suggest we leave the figure blank. --Folantin (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you for sure that there are 320.000 Moroccans in The Netherlands alone, you can search any Dutch government statistics site for this and you will find it.

Now it's the question how many of those identify as Berber, but in all my time I never really known Moroccans in the Netherlands who see themselves as "Arabs", so you could consider all 320.000 as Berber for demographics sake.

In Belgium there are another about 200.000 Moroccans, they surpassed Italians to become the largest immigrant group some years ago.Ssoass (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Berber peopleS

The Berbers are a diverse group of ethnic groups, inhabiting a large amount of area, so we would probably refer to them as the "Berber peopleS" if they hadn't become Arabized. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

the name is wrong

i think the name of this page is wrong, coz this group of people you are talking about are not Berber, they called Tamazight, coz the Berber are different group that related to Arab. this page should be called Tamazight or Maxyes, the word Tamazight is what this group of people call their selves, but the word Maxyes can use in english, this name was given to them by a Greek historian called Herodotus. i hope u check it well. if u make a small search in the Arabic Wikipedia you will find 2 pages, the first one called Berber (North Africa) from Arabian roots, under this page ar:(البربر (شمال أفريقيا: and the second page called Tamazight under this page ar:أمازيغ:. the Tamazight doesnt have a character to their language, also each group of them are using different accents, sometimes the word that they use are totally different, each group of them in different countries are using different characters, for example the Algerian group of Tamazight are using Arabic alphabet to write what they want in Tamazight Language, on the other hand the Morrocan Tamazight are using Tifinagh alphabet, here it's became harder for all the Tamazight People to rise up coz its hard for most of them to learn Tifinagh alphabet, but the group who uses arabic alphabet have no problem to rise up the language coz they already know how to speak and write the arabic alphabet. for more info the biggest groups of Tamazight People are in Algeria and Morroco, the rest of them are less than 5% in each country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Alkendy (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop erasing Pictures in the Infobox

that are a very correct images, reliable with very efficace sources cited in their articles, Im in the Amazigh Institute in Meknes, and I edited the page with some collaborators, so stop please sending me message to tell me they wil be removed thanks [[41.249.102.123 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)|Amaynu]] 41.249.102.123 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Rejections will be posted here Tannemyrt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.102.123 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nordic Race

Does anybody know where the Nordic Race component of the Berber population is the highest, and from where they originate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.243.40 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In north Africa there are large areas with a predominantly Mediterranean population: the whole of the northern edge from Egypt to Morocco, and beyond Morocco a tract along the coast southwards and reaching over to the north-west African islands. The Spaniards have always been astonished at the likeness of their Berber foes in Morocco with themselves [...] Among the Berbers, particularly the Kabyles in the Riff and in the Aures range, a Nordic strain shows itself clearly, and in the Canary Islands there seems to be a strain of the Crô-magnon race. Hans F.K. Günther, The racial elements of european history, 1927

-- fayssal - wiki up^® 18:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, in fact that is known since early historical recorded times that one of the rare Nordic race are Berber, Imazighen, precisely Kabyles and Riffains.41.249.97.61 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The nordic race present among Kabyles with(largerly)R1 haplotype is a remnant of ancient Vandals and other Germanic peoples invasions Humanbyrace (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the spread of white people

Since the migration from the center of the constitution of the modern human molecules and DNA particules, modern Ethiopia, the first hunters-gatherers setlled first permanently in all North Africa, then cames different waves of migration trough different corners of earth where modern white mens live. this is revealed by modern DNA tests that have deteremined that the first who move on from the original molecular place are also who have live in different place, that way they change their dermatologic genes, affected by the chimical elements in North Africa. 41.249.47.16 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC) [Comment originally posted by 41.249.50.17 on 23:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)]

• Please provide verifiable sources to substantiate these views. The references should also be added to the Infobox in the main article. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats is not still a discussion if the modern revelations are contradicted. this is not a view point but the true view who is seen from that thing in question and in fact. 41.249.47.16 (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC) [Comment originally posted by 41.249.50.17 on 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)]

Berber people: Genetics

Since yesterday (6 December 2008), there is huge duplication of material on Berber genetics in the article: under Genetic evidence and under Influence on Europe. The duplication extends even to identical subsection headings in these two sections. Someone needs to decide what to keep and how to merge. --Zlerman (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this are revelant Article on other categorie, the other Article is a proper explanation of his own, so no removing at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.25.245 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)41.249.62.234 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ramses the Great was a Berber?

There is a claim withing the article that Ramses the Great was a Berber? is this true? if yes, can anyone provide us with an authentic reference. --Aaronshavit (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering too. I checked all Wikipedia articles about Ramses the Great and researched more in other books but found no where that he is Berber! Bestofmed (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

this is what i found on this query

Ramses II, according to L. Balout, C. Roubet and C. Desroches-Noblecourt, study titled 'La Momie de Ramsès II: Contribution Scientifique à l'Égyptologie (1985).' Balout and Roubet concluded that the "the anthropological study and the microscopic analysis" of the pharaoh's hair showed that Ramses II was "a fair-skinned man related to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterranean peoples, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa." --Wikiscribe (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So Ramses has to had Berber as mother tongue just because his skin was fair!!!! Very funny

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

NOT! Read my comments below. deeceevoice (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Y-DNA

That section should have more data & less theorizing! Cadenas2008 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a shot at editing it? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Beber DNA R1b

Arredi found 20% R1 Berbers & you only quote the numbers that show big Arab & African DNA. Most R1 Berber DNA is not R1b so its listed as R1. 209.235.225.1 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Racialist Language

I inserted an "original research" tag because that section uses terms like "Mediterranean" (as in "Mediterranean race") and "Nordic". Those are outdated 19th century pseudoscientific race science terms that are not used today by geneticists. Please explain the usage of them in this article. Full Shunyata (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramses a berber!!!!!!??????

Has Ramses had berber as mother tongue so we can consider him as a Berber.

And this is the case for the other personalities(Zidane,Saint Augustine of Hippo • • Tariq ibn

Ziyad • Ibn Battuta Miltiades • Clodius Albinus • Victor I • Publius Terentius Afer

• Arius • Tertullian)

Humanbyrace (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Err... do you have a citation for that? Ogress _smash! 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted Ramses II from the info box and from the text as being a Berber. The claim is specious, at best, based on the mummified remain's relatively straight, red hair. The fact of the matter is that the chemicals used in the embalming process not only could have altered the structure of the hair itself (not addressed at all in the document used to back up such a claim; and also note that indigenous, unmixed, Black Africans of the Horn (Nubians/Somalis) have relatively straight hair; it's not all attributable to some surmised Arab ancestry; it is simply another aspect of Black biodiversity, like epicanthic eyefolds among the San, or straight, and even blond, hair among some Australoid peoples), but the color as well.[8] It is fairly common knowledge that the original Berbers were Black people, with Tamazight being an Afro-Asiatic tongue. But to assume that Ramses was a Berber is really stretching it. If one follows the links, this crap traces back to the website of Nazi/Nordicist Karl Earlson at www.white_history.com. Charitably, it's sheer bunk. deeceevoice (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While a claim of Ramses as Berber seems specious, assertions that "original berbers" were "black people" is meaningless, unsupported by any science, and racialist Afrocentric claptrap. Language families are not races nor ethnicities as such, and regardless, it is fairly clear that Berber languages have some significant time depth in North Africa, Egyptian art depicts Libyans of the period as non-negroids. (collounsbury (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

No time (deadlines), but there's plenty sourced information here[9] to rebut your assertions. The Berbers of the Maghreb are the most Arabized of all Berber populations, with the Tuareg, who also have adopted Arabic, but who remain resistant to complete Arabization, having retained command of Tamazight, the original Berber language, the first written record of which is in Tifinagh, a Tuareg invention (pretty telling, that) -- with the Maghreb Berbers having to learn Tamazight these days as a second language. The important point here is that the ridiculous assertion of Ramses II being a Berber -- having stood since November 8, is now expunged -- again. The anonymous editor at 41.249.57.101 appears hell-bent on edit-warring this bulls*t back into the article with no attempt at justification. He's also likely the person who introduced this disinformation here[10]. His edit history may bear watching, given an apparent affinity for disinformation gleaned from suspect and disreputable sources. Someone else will have to do it. I've got other things to do. deeceevoice (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your cite is utter tripe, a Afrocentrist mythology page. In any case argument about Afrocentrist lunacies with respect to Berbers has no place here (although for your information, Berbers in the Maghreb do not learn "tamazight" or any other of the berber languages (e.g. Tachelhit, etc) as 2nd languages. (collounsbury (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

The French paper does not say that Rameses was a Berber. I don't have access to the original, but the Earlson translation on March of the Titans says "a fair-skinned man, near to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterraneans, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa". Leaving aside the reliability (!) of this source, it is clear that it is simply saying that his looks were comparable to those of Berbers, not that he was a Berber. Even if we accept that he was literally related to Berbers (which of course is perfectly possible), that's completely different from saying that he was one. We wouldn't include Winston Churchill's face in gallery of "American people", just because he was related to Americans through his mother and we wouldn't include George Washington in a gallery of British people because his family orginated in the north of England. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the original French "Ramses II était un 'leucoderme', qui est un homme à peau claire, proche des Mediterranéens préhistorique et de l’antiquitée, ou brievement, des Berbères d’Afrique". Paul B (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information, Paul. In looking at the source information provided by the unnamed editor, it was clear the foundation for his stating definitively in the article that Ramses II was Berber was, at best, tentative/flimsy and largely based on the red (or reddened) hair of the mummy. So, when the (likely same) editor reinserted it, I deleted it again. I think the general consensus is that it is, at best, needlessly argumentative/contentious (I would contend preposterous) and simply doesn't belong in the article. deeceevoice (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ScottishGunner is 41.249.XXX, the unnamed user. So Im. Why is the problem persist after I provide long an mumerous citation about Ramsses II Berber ancestry ? We can name this Immorality and pure Human stupidity. Reply fastly you can; you can't block me even if I add Ramsses II MORE THAN 100 X, thats because I use a manual proxy that can change the IP adress everytim the user want ScottishGunner (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Don't rely on the manual proxies. I've just blocked you indefinitely for block evasion (sock of User:Historian19 already blocked for a week for non-stop copyright violations). Also, some IPs of yours have been used for racist vandalism. So, this story of Ramses II is over. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, this whole ancestry talk is quite useless. Berber is not a specific genetic quality, it is a culture and, above all, a language (among nowadays Berbers in Morocco you can find quite dark people and others who are easily confused with British (no kidding - it happened). Berber is, above all, who speaks a Berber language. The ancient Egyptian language is not considered Berber, although it is part of the Afro-Asiatic group, therefore Ramses can't be considered Berber, not more as, let's say, Naguib Mahfuz is considered Berber, although he might have the very same genetic composition as Ramses or as Mouloud Mammeri.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Figures of Modern-day Berbers

Every time I read the first sentence of the section Modern-day Berbers I feel the impulse to change it. It says: "The Berbers live mainly in Morocco (about 82% of the population) and in Algeria (about 67% of the population), as well as Libya and Tunisia, though exact statistics are unavailable[4]". I added to this sentence a few weeks ago: "The mentioned figures include arabized Berbers, i.e. who don't speak Berber languages nowadays", because if we use the definition of Berber as a person who speaks a Berber language, the figure is far too high; at most 55% in Morocco and 30% in Algeria speak Berber. But if we count also ethnic groups which are close to Berber populations but speak Arabic nowadays, how do we know it's 82% in Morocco?? What's the rest? Arabs? No way. People thrown out of Spain in the 15th/17th century? Africans from Guinea? Anybody did a research and came up with a figure that determinates that after more than 3 centuries you can establish that 18% of Moroccans and 33% of Algerians are not of Berber descent? No source is given and it's very unlikely you'll find any serious source to sustain that claim.

For the sake of logic, I'll change this sentence in a few days time to something like the folllowing: "Most of the population of Morocco and Algeria is of Berber descent, although up to a certain extent interbred with other elements (Arab, Subsaharian, Iberian...), but only about half of the Moroccan population and a third of the Algerian can be clearly identified nowadays as Berber by speaking a Berber language (see there for estimates). Nevertheless, the culture of many Arabic-speaking ethnic groups in these countries is very similar to that of their Berber neighbours and often language may be the only difference between Berbers and so-called "Arabs" in the Maghreb.

I suggest the wording here before putting it into the article, because I know that the subject can arise heavy edit-wars. So please give your opinion here, we can discuss it. Thanks! --Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Scottish People

The article cited under the "Related Ethnic Groups" category for the Scottish People link is not only non-scientific and strictly annecdotal, its total BS to anyone with a basic knowledge of familial languages. There is no established link between Celtic Languages and Berber. Celtic Languages are Indo European where as the Berbers are an Afro-Asiatic language. Ancient Celtic was mutually intelligible with Latin around 200BC, not Berber. I suggest the link be removed and that everyone forget about this non-sensical pseudoscientific article from 1954. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.65 (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Etimology sources

It seems to be widely accepted.

http://phoenicia.org/berber.html

http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/people/Berber.html

If you have a source to deny it, pls offer. Jackiestud (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there is already a referenced etymology in the article if you care to read it. The source is Brett and Fentress The Berbers (Blackwell Publishing, 1996), pretty much the basic work on the people in English. On pages 6 and 7 they say that the Berbers have recently taken to calling themselves Tamazight or Imazighen. This name is taken from Moroccan dialects but probably has an ancient parallel in the Roman name for some of the Berbers, Mazices. According to Leo Africanus, this meant "free men", though this has been disputed because there is no root MZC meaning "free" in Berber. It also has a cognate in the Tuareg word amajegh, meaning "noble". --Folantin (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your first source gives no etymology. Your second source says more or less what I've just written: "The Amazigh which means 'free humans' or 'free men' are known to the world as Berbers." Did you even read them? --Folantin (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Etimology is not only related to the ~words and its strict meaning. Citing WP: Etymology is the study of the roots and history of words; and how their form and meaning have changed over time. Jackiestud (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I know what etymology means. I've just given you the opinion of experts as to what the etymology of "Amazigh" (or its variants) might be. It has nothing to do with "Amazons". --Folantin (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Universiy of Iowa is a reliable source as much as a scholar book. You should offer a source to prove that a matriarchal society such as the Berbers, the musuo and the amazons are not related. Otherwise this is POV. Jackiestud (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Who says that the Berber society is a matriarchal one? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. I can't find any etymology at all of Amazigh given in the Iowa source you linked. --Folantin (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Etimology meaning: the female greek warriors call themselves amazons, right? Iam (and the german scholar also not!) not considering the roots of the word (etimology is alos histpry): http://tribes.tribe.net/amazigh Jackiestud (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What? I don't understand what you are saying. English clearly isn't your first language. You have one German (fringe) scholar making some odd claims about the Berbers, some people from Sumatra and the Amazons (who were mythical) and that's it... That link you've just given isn't a reliable source.--Folantin (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud, phoenician.org is useless, it also has articles proving Atlantis is real. The UIowa page has no sources. Anyone can edit tribe.net -- please read WP:RS and you will see what sources you might use. dougweller (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ama, Mother

No fringe theories, except yrs. Sorry for the typing. Iam gonna repeat it: the amazons, the amazigh, according to the german scholar have the same roots; For the mosuo it means Mother; so she concluded the ama root is related to the amazons and teh amazigh. Jackiestud (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You can repeat it all you like but it's not going in the article. This is complete crankery. --Folantin (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary

ama1

a.ma1

sf (gr ámma, pelo lat amma) 1 Mulher que amamenta filho alheio; nutriz. 2 Aia, criada. 3 Senhora da casa, patroa (em relação aos :criados). 4 Governanta. 5 Reg (Nordeste) Designa criadas em geral. A.-de-clérigo: a que dirige casa de padre. A.-de-leite ou A.-de-:peito: a que amamenta criança alheia. A.-seca: a que trata de criança mas não a amamenta; babá, na linguagem popular.

I know you don´tunderstand portuguese (http://michaelis.uol.com.br/moderno/portugues/index.php?lingua=portugues-portugues&palavra=ama) but this is the portuguese dictionary whihc accounts the amma as a nourishing (no breats, amazons!!!!!!), owner of house. The timology of amazons is not only no breats but WITH BREAST (the one who nourishes) Jackiestud (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand some Portuguese but I don't understand the relevance of this. You clearly understand nothing about basic linguistics. Portuguese is an Indo-European language, Berber is Afro-Asiatic. --Folantin (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Read this then: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2133/whats-up-with-the-amazons. Everyone knows the story of how the Amazons cut off their right breasts so they wouldn't interfere with the use of the bow. Trouble is, the story is a crock--an old crock, but a crock nonetheless. This element of the Amazon myth was invented in the 5th century B.C. The poor Amazons had to start mutilating themselves because some big boob thoughtlessly dabbled in the dark art of etymology without the proper equipment. Hellanicus of Lesbos imagined the name was derived from the Greek prefix a- ("without") and mazos, a variant of mastos ("breast"). He was surely wrong, but his folk etymology is still firmly embedded in the collective consciousness after more than two dozen centuries. There was no hint before his time, either in writing or art, that the Amazons had anything other than usual complement of breasts, so we can safely assume that the one-breasted image we have of them flowed from the (false) etymology and not vice versa. Jackiestud (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(a)The Amazons are mythical; (b) they have nothing to do with the Berbers. Now please go and peddle your nonsense on Blogspot if you really must. --Folantin (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, don´t move around in circles. The etimology on the amazons article is thus wrong.

The etimology of amazons IS NOT "breastless"; as you can read in the artcile this notion of a breastless woman wasn´t even known in teh ancient world --IF it was accepted at all. Jackiestud (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sacred texts

http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/ama/ama08.htm. Amazons and Amazigh.

Philology is also not without its interest in this matter. Mr. J. C. Prichard, quoting M. Venture, says that the Berbers (of unquestioned Asiatic origin) inhabiting the Northern Atlas call their language Amazigh, which has been translated as "the noble language." There have been some authors who trace the word Amazon from this term. However that may be, it is certain that these tribes of Northern Africa have bred many valiant fighting women. When in the seventy-seventh year of Hegira the Moslems under Hossan Ibn Annoman captured Carthage and sent the Imperial troops packing in hot haste to Constantinople, they suddenly... Jackiestud (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should respect the german scholar, the Sacred text. The amazigh were governed by women, so were the amazons, the "mosos" in China (still nowdays), and in Indonesia (Sumatra)...all around the globe, the same story. By the way, the breast feeds the babies, the amazons go to war and feed their people, the mosos women or mothers, or "amas", feed their babies as well. Ama seca is the word used in portuguese language for those women who feed the babies when the biological mother can´t do it for herself. Jackiestud (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.mythinglinks.org/afr~sahara.html

Since Robert Graves and others argue that Medusa and her Gorgon sisters originated in Libya (Neith, one of the earliest Egyptian goddesses, also seems to have come from Libya -- in ancient times, Libyans and the Delta peoples of Egypt seem to have mingled freely), it isn't surprising that Greece's Amazon mythology might draw from northern Africa as well as Turkey. This engrossing site is on African Amazons, the probable ancestors of contemporary Berber (Amazigh, or Free People, is their name for themselves) and Tuareg peoples.

The site is a little difficult to navigate so just click on all hypertext available (including "cap" on the opening page). There's a page full of Amazons as they were portrayed in ancient Greek art; there's another on Tin Hinan, an ancient Tuareg queen so revered that the gold in her tomb was never looted; there's a page on the Berbers, another on the Tuareg, another on ancient language and art from the Sahara. A trial membership to this group is offered -- with it you get free downloads of ancient art as well as translated texts concerning the Amazons. Jackiestud (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.myrine.at/Amazons/libya.html Jackiestud (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some cranky work about the Amazons from 1910 does not constitute cutting edge scholarship. --Folantin (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but, ãll these provided above are enough sources, together with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Hinan / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg. Jackiestud (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sacred texts (one of the world´s most reliable sources), and the german scholar are called cranky work? Who says that? You? Jackiestud (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I´d like you to respect the many sources I pro~vided, including the german scholar: She has a PhD in philosophy form University of Munich (1973)Jackiestud (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is 1910 too far away: Whar abt aecheological sources? Oh, please!! Jackiestud (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by calling the Sacred texts website one of the world's most reliable sources. It's just a web site with a lot of old texts on it, that doesn't make the texts reliable. Guy Cadogan Rothery writes about inglenooks and garden steps as well as Amazons by the way and there is nothing about him that makes him a reliable source for the Amazons. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources. dougweller (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"She has a PhD in philosophy form University of Munich (1973)". So not in North African history or Afro-Asiatic linguistics? --Folantin (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a Phd in something to decide what should be published? SAcred texts cites a philologist (have you moticed that?). Jackiestud (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Sacred Texts website is huge, please be more specific. If you mean Rothery, so what? The point about her PhD is that it gives her no expertise in archaeology, history, linguistics, etc. dougweller (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Do you have any basic comprehension skills at all, Jackie? --Folantin (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Turns out Jackie is referring to an early 19th century obscure person named M. Venture. Absolutely irrelevant. dougweller (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. The Berbers "are of undoubted Asiatic origin". Um, nope. --Folantin (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal offense

Me? No I don´t have any comprehension skill but Iam sure the german acholar, who has a WP bio, has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heide_G%C3%B6ttner-Abendroth

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2133/whats-up-with-the-amazons --Does this guy has any skil at all?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/ama/ama08.htm --This guy might have also some Phd, a philologist...

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazones

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazonen

http://www.whoosh.org/issue12/ruffel3.html --This author, July Ruffell, any skills?

Dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amazon

None of these are reliable sources? Jackiestud (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, the Berbers don't have anything to do with the Amazons. --Folantin (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, do you have any source to prove that? How can you silence all these people? They were both matriarchal societies (isn´t that amazing that the Berbers artcile doesn´t mention that at all --or they weren´t at least matrilineal)? Jackiestud (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I don't find it amazing at all. And it's you who needs to find a reliable source linking the Berbers and the Amazons, because Heide Göttner-Abendroth (whose doctorate is in philosophy not history, linguistics or mythology) and some obscure guy from 1910 don't cut it. --Folantin (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Don´t complicate yr life, free yr spirit from evilness!

1. YOUR article (since you have the ownership of it) doesn´t mention the matriarchal Berbers at all (!!!!)
2. YOUR article doesn´t mention the link to amazons
3. The asiatic origins
4. You ignored Phds, reliable sources, scholarship

Rubbish. This is the very size of yr world, spirit, talent, curiosity --narrowness.

By the way, the article is messy. Jackiestud (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

we can always cite Göttner-Abendroth at the Amazons article, provided we get a straight reference, under "in Feminism" or similar. Göttner-Abendroth is a notable figure in German radical feminism / Goddess movement, and she can always be mentioned within WP:DUE if the topic bears any relevance to feminism. Jackiestud still needs to learn the rules of Wikipedia of course. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And she's entirely irrelevant to this article, which is about the Berbers (it's hardly MY article, by the way. I'm the one who had its Good Article status removed. I'm simply preventing it getting any worse by people adding outright crankery).--Folantin (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You should delete the Berbers, mosous and the like from this WP list http://en.wikipedia.org --but Iam sure those who built this list have no skill right? /wiki/List_of_patriarchal_cultures_that_have_been_claimed_to_be_matriarchal

Jackiestud (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruffell is writing in a web journal dedicated to a fantasy tv character. Hardly a reliable source. I take the point about Göttner-Abendroth, in a feminist section she could be cited, but not an etymology section. Asiatic origins? We cover their origins already. And yes, Jackiestud has a lot to learn about our policies and guidelines. Starting with WP:RS. dougweller (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Light there is!!

Yes, we can cite her. How can you help me with that? Jackiestud (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong talk page for the Amazons. dougweller (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot cite her on this page. She obviously knows nothing about the Berbers. --Folantin (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, the link between Berbers, mosos, suamtras, amazons is offerd by Abendroth. She is a scholar.

1. As for the amazons I offered enough citations to insert the iranian orgins;
2. As for the Berbers the citation is aimed at offering the link with the amaozns, the mosos ans the prefix ama. Jackiestud (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is fringe rubbish. Abendroth has a doctorate in philosophy. She has no expertise in Berber Studies. --Folantin (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

She studies matriarchal societies such as the Berberbs. Isn´t that transparent for you? Jackiestud (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a branch of philosophy, is it? The Berbers aren't matriarchal. One of the Berber sub-groups, the Tuareg, practises a form of matriliny, but that's it. --Folantin (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur completely with Folantin's and Ogress' removal of this material. In addition to issues of Undue weight and questionable sources, I found that the refs provided don't really support the assertions made in the text, giving it the appearance of OR. Furthermore, an Etymology section in an article on Berbers would be used to explain the origin of the term "Berber", not the origin of words unrelated to the article's subject. In short, this material has no place here. Sorry Jackiestud, I know you're trying, but it just doesn't belong. Doc Tropics 13:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reset button

These skillfull people think the Berbers are a matriarchal standard society:

http://www.universitadelledonne.it/english/matriarchy.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

http://www.esto.es/bellydance/english/origins.htm

http://www.bellaromamusic.com/stories/berberwedding/berberwedpage.html

http://www.goddessalive.co.uk/issue10/tanit.html

http://www.awakenedwoman.com/les_matriarch.htm

I will no longer cite scholars since you don´t seem to accept it. Jackiestud (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are now clearly trolling, please stop. dougweller (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Google Books

The book itself:

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=3ioj1w25y5kC&dq=Guy+Cadogan+Rothery&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=yysHa0F29j&sig=nvqqVhlQ4PO5Go8qlBdEEZoCU7M&hl=pt-BR&ei=-zvKSbejK8qDtge3pICTAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

This is no ggod source?? Jackiestud (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/ama/index.htm Jackiestud (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/ama/ama08.htm Jackiestud (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what´s yr opinion on this Google Books source and the dictionary source? Jackiestud (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The author appear to have an extensive bio http://openlibrary.org/a/OL2902057A/Guy-Cadogan-Rothery. Jackiestud (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First, that's not a bio, it's a biblioography. Second, Guy Cadogan Rothery appears to have been primarily an author of Interior Design books; I can find no evidence that he would be considered a Reliable Source for historical data. Furthermore, the specific work you are refering to doesn't appear to be a scholarly peer-reviewed paper, but rather a personal essay. Just because someone writes something and publishes it, does not automatically mean it's reliable material, nor that the author is a reliable source. Doc Tropics 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

With "bio" I meant to include his bibliography. He appears to write abt Music, Art, Shakespeare, Heraldry. Jackiestud (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He is cited as a reliable source here: http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Amazon.htm Jackiestud (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazon-like cultures in history (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Amazon.htm): In the kingdom of Siam in the 19th century, the king had a personal battalion of 400 spear-wielding women. They were chosen from the most beautiful women of the country, and were said to be excellent spear-throwers, though they were regarded as too valuable to be sent to war. Other peoples who had female fighters include the Arabs, Australian Aborigines, Berbers, China, Kurds, Filipinos, Maori, Micronesians, Papua New Guinea and Rajputs.

this is no good source alos? Jackiestud (talk) 14

45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you really don't seem to understand this concept. The link you provide above is nothing but a link to his book. It does not, in any way establish him as a reliable source, it only indicates that he published a book. He is not a scholar in the field of Berbers and their history, therefore not a reliable source. I urge you to review core policies including Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Undue weight before pursuing this further and wasting any more time. Thanks, Doc Tropics 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has a reference to this: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a741636347~db=all Berber/Amazigh. Jackiestud (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Enciclopedia of African history

Thsi enciclopedia uses the words Amazigh and Berbers as synonimous.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ftz_gtO-pngC&pg=PA667&dq=Ibn+Khald%C5%ABn+berbers&ei=jUbKSYD_B6DCzQTmy_WkAg&hl=pt-BR#PPA65,M1 Jackiestud (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Enciclopedia is a good source? Jackiestud (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And this article says "Many Berbers call themselves some variant of the word Imazighen (singular Amazigh)", it's nice they agree. But we already have two better sources, so why bring this up? dougweller (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Berber flag proposed by the Amazigh World Congress (1997)

From the external links of the Berbers WP article: http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/xb.html Jackiestud (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Free people (both for Amazigh and Berber)

The Berber ezza letter is the central character of the word Amazigh, though in Berber only the consonants "M", "Z" and "G" are written; Amazigh means "free man". The Imazighen (plural of are the free men), and this is the way all Berber peoples refer to themselves. http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/xb.html

This is a link provided by the Berber people WP article. Jackiestud (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up? This is the same thing I described in my first comment here (under "Etimology sources"). The article already says "Imazighen" probably means "free men". Do you actually read what other people write?--Folantin (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not, Jackiestud's edits are getting more and more removed from the articles they are supposedly about and in some seem pointless as the article already has the information but better sourced. dougweller (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The same story

1. This author appears to tell us the very same historical event as did our Cadogan: http://books.google.com/books?id=dDqi1AIYunwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=amazigh++matriarchal&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=0_1#PPA85,M1
2. http://www.sacred-texts.com/wmn/ama/ama08.htm
3. And here the berbers are matriarchal: http://books.google.com/books?id=dDqi1AIYunwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=amazigh++matriarchal&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=0_1#PPA85,M1

Are these good sources?? Jackiestud (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. This author appears to tell us the very same historical event as did our Cadogan: http://books.google.com/books?id=dDqi1AIYunwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=amazigh++matriarchal&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=0_1#PPA85,M1 (Fourth paragraph). Jackiestud (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazon and Amzigh as synonimous

http://books.google.com/books?id=tHeoE5iJ1-sC&pg=PR12&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR#PPA22,M1~(page 22) Jackiestud (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The words are synonimous for FIVE AUTHORS!! http://books.google.com/books?id=LerKCvsyE6EC&pg=PA61&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR#PPA61,M1 (page 61) Jackiestud (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud, could you please stop creating new threads over and over when you are just debating the same point(s)? It is really unhelpful for people who may respond or participate. I got your link and I am having a look at it. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Choueiri source and the Berber population

Folantin, the Choueiri reference is not accurate. I know you got it right as it is from A Companion to the History of the Middle East (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005) p.466 but 29,347,000 berbers in Morocco is totally inaccurate. I don't now how his book was reviewed because on page 466, he says ...Algeria and Morocco have the highest concentration of Berbers, with the Berber community amounting to an estimated 37 per cent of the population in Morocco and 25 per cent of the population in Algeria. Well, what he says is right and reasonable but his table 24.1 is wrong because 29,347,000 is almost 94% of the total Moroccan population which is 31,352,000 (2008) or 99% of the total population (2004). What he meant was 29,347,000*0.37 = 10,858,390.

This is the official Moroccan estimate for 2004 (a year before the book was published and which data was based on). At the last page of the report (p.68) you'll read 29,840,273. If the figures of Choueiri's table are true then the whole Moroccan population should be Berber. His Niger and Libya's data are also wrong while Algeria's data is accurate. I haven't done calculations for the rest but it seems the the table is wrong. He just miscalculated data. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Which may leave us with a problem as it may be OR, there was a similar discussion on the NOR board, but I am not positive about the outcome. dougweller (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Fayssal is right. I should have spotted that. The 27 million is definitely a misprint. I'll revert for now. I'd just really like to see someone come along with reliable (or at least plausible) data for Berber demography. On the other hand, having no data is better than wildly inaccurate data. --Folantin (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Footnote: it was Lise Storm who was responsible for the Berber stats; Choueiri was merely the editor. Storm gives two sources for the stats: one from the 1980s and one, more recent, by Amy Pate for the Berbers in Morocco and Algeria. I suppose if we found those we might be able to see where things went wrong).--Folantin (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Numerals used by the Western Arabs

(According to a folk tradition still current in Morocco, Syria, and Egypt, the second of these two series shows how Arabic numerals were invented by a North African.) Universal History of Numbers GEORGES IFRAH --Dukkani (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Images of women in infobox?

There are 11 images of Berber people in the infobox, but they are all men! This is not very representative, because as far as I'm aware, women make up about half the population of many countries with significant Berber populations. I will attempt to find some free/ public domain images of women to add to/ replace some of the images of men. Any comments? --Tom dl (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm never very happy with these "Famous Members of Ethnic Group X" photo-montages. Some of the inclusions are rather dubious. Was the playwright Terence really a Berber? I prefer the kind of general image found at Dutch people, for instance. If you can find one of these for the Berbers (including women), then go ahead. --Folantin (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Berbers in Al Andaluz

I have made a minor alteration to the language in this section to accurately reflect what the cited source actually says. It does not say the estimated percentage of Berbers in "Islamic Spain" was 20%. It offers that figure (which is probably excessively high) in reference to the "occupied territory". There is a significant difference in those terms that anyone familiar with Iberian history would recognize. Islamic Spain as displayed on most contemporary maps is broader than the areas actually occupied by Berber and Arab invaders. Moreover, the occupied areas were host to less than 20% of the population of the entire peninsula, which ranged in estimates from 6 to 8 million, depending on when in history the estimate is made. The actual numbers of Berbers who left north Africa to settle in Spain after 711 AD will never be known with certainty, but they were far fewer than this section of the article would suggest.

Grandcross (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)grandcross

Barbary pirates

I would question the assertion that the Barbary pirates were all (or even largely) Berbers. The Barbary Coast was certainly named after them and the pirates were named after the coast but the vast increase in piracy happened after the Ottomans took over North Africa. AFAIK the majority of the pirates were Ottoman Turks, Arabs and "renegades" (Christian converts to Islam). The most famous Barbary pirate of them all, Barbarossa, was half-Turkish half-Greek. During the period of Ottoman domination in the Maghreb, most Berbers were pushed into the hinterland away from the coast. --Folantin (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've removed the whole section because it looked like a copy-and-paste from our Barbary pirates article. None of the references (which were mostly to general interest magazine articles culled off the Net) mentioned the Berbers in any case. --Folantin (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)