Talk:Berber people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Berber people (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	This article is flagged as needing an independent reassessment or validation of its current rating.

	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Africa Portal

This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.

This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Berber script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Berber script.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Berber).

Archive 1 (April - October 2004)
Archive 2 (November 2004 - October 2005)

"For many centuries the Berbers inhabited the coast of North Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic Ocean. Over time, the coastal regions of North Africa saw a long parade of invaders and colonists including Phoenicians (who founded Carthage), Greeks (mainly in Libya), Romans, Vandals and Alans, Byzantines, Arabs, Ottomans, and the French and Spanish. Most if not all of these invaders have left some imprint upon the modern Berbers as have slaves brought from throughout Europe (some estimates place the number of Europeans brought to North Africa during the Ottoman period as high as 1.25 million)[1] and sub-Saharan Africa have also left impressions upon the local populations." My principal problem with this sentence (apart from its extreme brevity) is the unsupported suggestion that all these guys have left some imprint on the Berbers, whatever that means. Spanish influence was limited to a few regions of northern Morocco; there's no good evidence that the Vandals and Alans had any lasting effects at all; and European slavery was restricted to (mainly non-Berber) coastal towns, while black slavery was widespread in the oases but practically unknown further north. - Mustafaa 21:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I AM ORIGINALLY TUNISIAN AND GROWING UP I RECALL SEEING ONE BLACK PERSON AND FEELING VERY AFRAID. BLACK PEOPLE ARE PRACTICALLY UNKNOWN TO US AND ONLY SERVE AS SLAVES/SERVANTS IN OUR COUNTRY. IN THE SOUTH THERE ARE PERHAPS A FEW MORE, SAY 100, MAINLY MODERN DAY SLAVES. MANY ANDALUSIANS SETTLED IN TUNIS, SO IN THAT SENSE YOU ARE WRONG. THE SPREAD OF FICTITIOUS INFORMATION MUST STOP AND ALL BLACKS MUST STAY AWAY FROM OUR CULTURE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoletta8383 (talk • contribs). 2006-07-25 22:57:22

Sorry Mustafa Bey, but your problem would seem to be misplaced. I agree Spanish influence was fairly limited (although combined Andalousi-Reconquista influences surely count, eh?), and Vandal etc influences are highly speculative, the issue of slavery is substantial. Enslaved Europeans in the medieval period was surely relatively trivial as compared to sub-Saharan influences - although again the backflow from Andalousi had to have some influence (recall the Saqaliba) - 'black slavery' was NOT "practically unknown further north." You need only read Moroccan historians such as Ennaji or medieval chronicalers to be cured of that misapprehension. It is a deep pity Moroccans can't quite be honest about such issues such as yet, bighed annather 3an Moulay Ismael. (Collounsbury 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Berber as a Race?

This article along with Arab and Latino are very misleading. They lean towards making people believe that these groups are a race of people when they are not. One could argue that a true Spaniard would more likely than not be white or white-like in appearance and all other Spanish-speaking peoples are a mix from them. Arabas are just a buch of mixed up people who cannot truly say who or what they are. Berber is very misleading. There is this gross exaggeration about most being white with blond hair and blue eyes. When this is put into people's minds, you are thinking the whitest of the white and nothing to do with any other people.

The truth is, the original inhabitants of North and West Africa of course is the so-called black man ot juse true African. When one thinks of Africa you think of black people, then same as when you think of India. You do'nt think of whites. Common sense tells us that white-skinned people could not survive in a hot desert sun and be white! It just cannot happen. Moreover, I have yet to see a pictue of a blond hair and blue eyed Berber. I have yet to see the pictures of the claimed drawing from the Egytptians of the same described Berbers. We know white groups have settled in Northern Africa here and there. With all of the mixing that had gone on in Northern and western Afirca in particular, to find a white there would not be shocking.

Sure, some do get very white, but that is after all of that history. Even in those Northwest Africans that one has been lead to believe are Berbers by appearance, you can still see the clear characteristics of the black African. Unlike mulatto Afircans in other part of North Africa, some in NW Africa do have actual straight hair. To put it short, if they are white-like and in Northh or NW Africa, they are mixed as there is no real such thing as an arab or Berber. Berber is a trick to make you think that there are no black in North Africa. So-called present-day white Berbers who like to claim the land fro themselves go along with this because they know that they are not native. They just want the land. The same people who say that Berbers are white are the same ones who don't seem to include them as whites when recounting white history do they? These are the same people who will say that a dark-skinned person (ancient Egyptian) IN Africa is NOT black, but a white man in hot Africa is a native! Is all of this confusing? It is and since it is, it is also BS designed to put your mind in cricles, all while NOT thinking of a black man. Their only excuse is that a black man got into North Africa via slavery. A look at ancient NW Africa and of course Egypt will show you otherwise. Even when you see evidence in front of your face, they will stilll lie to you. You know that they are crazy, but they clearly want to make you change what you think a black person or a white person is in the reast of the world versus Africa.

The bottom line is, the white man hates to have to explain how whites of European origins are trapped in NW Africa having another man's religion and culture. If you are suppoed to be supreme by nature, then it would be pretty hard to explain that. Even if the whites came as conquerers, they were forced into another culture and religion. Such is the case when whites came into Northwest Africa and assumed the native culture. If you can find the oh so hard to find ancient busts of NW Africans, you will see clear blackness and clear signs of reac-mixing, which is not too shocking given how close to Europe it is. No, these so-called white Berbers are not "white" from climate, they are white from not being natives!

I know those people will get angry, but the truth is th truth. Even Southern African whites claim the land as theirs and proclaim to be native Africans as opposed to children of invaders. You see the same thing in most countries of the western hemisphere also. Nothing new. Berber and arab is just hard to pinpoint a particular phenotype. No matter what direction you look for arab, you come back to a black and a white. In Berber, you hardly come an actual white. The actual whites in these lands call themselves arabs. In Berbers, you seem to come to a black type and a white/black/Chinese(or African Bushman) type. Either that or they came from Asia during periods long ago... I don't mean middle-eastern Asia either...--71.235.81.39 02:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A long story. Race?! What you say is misleading. Because that implies that all the other people are races excepts "the arabs and the berbers". Would two white or black persons belong to white race?! Berber is an ethnicity, Is it a race?! I don't know and that is not so interesting. Best regards,Read3r 07:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your retort is absolute BS. Arab certainly is no race or ethnicity. If it is an ethnicity, from which group? Arabs (which type has the 'true' look?) are just mixed-raced peoples, even in Arabia. Most peoples today who are called arabs are not even so-called arabs. Berber is a blanket statement used to imply white, but when you really dig into it, the white is an external thing. The one constant in peoples called Berbers are 'chinky eyes' regardless of the mix-down of the races. You know, the black and white peoples. Now since these berbers are of the same type as Nelson Mandela's people, if you consider him black, then you must consider berbers black. Any white ones are just that - white! The white ones are not native Africans, they are peoples who came through invasions or slavery. Even on the berber page, they try to portray these white mixes as the actual berbers. Even on the coin on the page shows a man who is of clear black African with a little mix. The white man and these 'white' berbers are the ones who feeding these lies about a native white man in Africa. WHites in North Africa may go way back, but the berber in Europea goes back even further!--71.235.81.39 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May want to update the pix of the president

Zeroual is no longer head of state. It's Bouteflika now....

But Bouteflika isn't a Berber. --Khoikhoi 05:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Maghrebine context, what's a Berber? Bouteflika is as likely to be of Berber ancestry as Zeroual in the end. (Collounsbury 05:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

Alright, but Bouteflika doesn't identify as a Berber, does he? --Khoikhoi 06:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Does he? Or not? Under what contexts. My very Tachelhit wife's family members ID as Arab and Berber. That proves what? Most Maghrebines are of Berber descent regardless of their modern identity. Tedious whanking on about such identification is politics. (Collounsbury 01:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)).

alot of the ethnicity issues about berber origins appear to be perhaps wrong or unsubstantiated, i am a chleuh berber being able to trace my ancestry through certain lines back to 1500 years- this i can substantiate and i have no subsaharan heritage whatsoever, the only berbers who are of subsaharan origin are the decendants of former slaves of which are of berber decent and african decent but it is wrong to say that the race as a whole has this heritage. Furthermore, it would be impossible to even consider this since most berbers have never come in contact with statisticians .infact although many bebrers have some arabic genes from the people who brought islam namely the 12 children of idris al awal al sharkaoui in the atlas mountains and across the rif and marakech areas amongst other saints, many berbers have never come accross any other race than themselves - these people all having totally european traits and speaking a language which bears striking resemblance to the celtic languages and the nordic languages( which is clear from both the rhythm and vocabulary). I will this week hopefully write more and include all relevant facts and evidence to substantiate these facts...

Well, asserting one has no sub-Saharan ancestry whatsoever (frankly doubtful given the history of the region) and contradicting genetic analyses is another matter. As to the issue of black Berbers being descended of former slaves (never mind some groups seem to be clearly not slave descended), well, they identify as Berbers so unless you want to play Nazi like racist ethnic purity card, they're Berbers, no? Finally, refering to the physically diverse Berbers as a race is dodgey at best. No such thing as "Arab" genes. AS to the assertion of Berber being like Celtic or Nordic languages, that is purely daft and without any support. Berber is an afro-asiatic language and clearly not related to the Indo European language group. I hate to see Berber activists lapping up Euro racist pseudo-science. (Collounsbury 23:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)).

SORRY to disappoint you but the only blacks in North Africa are slaves, servants or their descendants. They are generally only accepted under servile circumstances. Also, I am from the region and the language spoken is full of Italian, spanish and in some cases French words. These have not only just recently come into use, they have been around for quite some time. Looks like you know little of what you write, which explains the waffling.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoletta8383 (talk • contribs). 2006-07-26 02:52:40

Please sign your additions to the talk page by using the four tildes: ~~~~ . Otherwise people have no idea who placed a comment, unless they look back through the history. - BalthCat 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The only Blacks or traces of Blacks in North Africa emerged from slavery. I am from the region and my father's family had a black butler who was NOT allowed to enter our living quarters. Berbers are usually, particularly in Tunisia and Algeria, fair. The region is immense and one cannot enmesh the member countries and the sundry different cultures that inhabit them together. North Africa should distance itself from Negroids. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoletta8383 (talk • contribs). 2006-07-25 23:06:59

[edit] "I have named this family of languages the Berber-Ibero-Basque Complex"

In the "Anthropological" section it states: it is apparent that they speak languages that are related to each other, but not related to the other languages spoken throughout Europe and the Near East. I have named this family of languages the Berber-Ibero-Basque Complex. Who has named this family of languages the "Berber-Ibero-Basque Complex"? Is this original research or has the whole paragraph been copied from somewhere? I don't feel that this should be noted in this way in the article but I don't know enough about the subject to make any changes. AllanHainey 08:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropological Evidence and Language

It may well be that "Physical anthropologists agree that CroMagnon is represented in modern times by the Berber and Tuareg peoples of North Africa, the recently extinct Guanches of the Canary Isles, the Basques of northern Spain, some people living in the Dordogne Valley and in Brittany in France; and, some years ago, those living on the Isle d'Oleron." That I don't know, though I question whether it is so clear-cut. As for the language claims which follow, although there are theories (none of them proven beyond a doubt) that Basque is related to other languages (such as the Georgian family of languages in the Caucasus, or the Berber language family of Africa, or even the Quechua language of Latin America), so far the only thing most experts agree on is that it is in a language family by itself. I have come across the "Berber-Ibero-Basque theory" where claims are made of the Basques being descendents of the survivors of Atlantis, and so I haven't given it much credence. In any event, the last part of the Anthropological paragraph should be reassessed, because it looks as if the writer is making his or her own claims which may not be supported.

[edit] Fictitious Information MUST BE REMOVED

It is even more hilarious how African Americans want to claim North Africa as their own although their only presence in the region emerged through slavery. I am originally from the region and when I read this article I wanted to puke, it is pratically a load of nonsense. The fictitious, wishful thinking of peoples who have never set foot in the region is disgusting and why projects like wikipedia are laughable. First of all, Africa is the largest continent in the world and the Northern region is protected by the Sahara, which serves as a greater barrier than an ocean. Black Africans are not accepted in North African societies, except as slaves. In my country, Tunisia, the only blacks that exist are the descendants of slaves, or butlers. Today, some blacks remain in the south and most are servants. The Berbers of Tunisia and Algeria are caucasian and the Germanic, viking and generally European influence is very apparent. It is sad to see some lunatic African-Americans boasting about Hannibal, a white man, as an "African" leader or posting pictures of what North Africans call "wesfen" or "3abeed" which translate to "Servant, Black, Negroid" and labeling these Blacks as Berbers. It should also be noted that Berber today is being carelessly used to refer to sundry different ethnic groups in the region that most consider indeginous despite the fact that not enough studies have been carried out. Different ethnic groups exist, none of them made up of Blacks except the marauding blacks who transgress our borders and make their way into the Sahara, only to be duly expulsed. The 'studies' that are cited in the article are again laughable and absurd. The subjects used all came from South-Western Morocco near Mauritania, fewer than 40 individuals were used. In that region, on the peripheries of the southern border of Morocco one can expect that most inhabitants will carry the aforementioned genes, however, to apply these findings to caucasian Berbers worlds apart is ridiculous. The fact that some obviously ignorant Blacks insist on claiming a white heritage as their own is sad and maddening. The links on the page are also ridiculous, particularly that madman of a site that I will forever remove. Hope this HELPS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoletta8383 (talk • contribs). 2006-07-25 22:57:22

              -    I think this would qualify as trolling.

There is extensive evidence of ancient mixing in the region. See for example Homo Vol 50/3, pp249-262. It’s also clear that modern coastal Berbers possessive a genetic profile consistent with Negroid affinities. See for example Human Biology V73, Number 5, 675-688. The authors associate the affinities with the obvious fact that in the past the Sahara underwent a humid period bringing populations from the South into the region. Finally, one has to wonder what need there is to label a generally brown population as “white”. “Nicoletta8383” is a funny name for a Tunisian.

It is extremely hilarious how some people tend to think that all Berbers were "white" or "caucasian" when proof disputes this and proves that the term was referred to a very diverse group then there is a biased claim. Who is the one really being biased? In all actuality to claim that Berbers were "White" or "Black" is the problem. They contained various groups of people from Africa. To try to lay claim to Berbers belonging to one specific group is racist and historically wrong. This is the same ignorance that is being applied to the term Moor. If someone has a dispute then just changing the page is not appropriate without first proof as to where this information is coming from. It is amazing how some will just change a page based on their beliefs. It is even more amazing when it is changed without backing it up with proof or sourced material.--Gnosis 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Africa is the largest continent in the world and North Africans have absolutely nothing to do with sub-saharan blacks. Their only relations are based on a master/slave relationship. Blacks were brought as slaves and to this day the few that live in the North are servants and will be expulsed shortly. IGNORAMUS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoletta8383 (talk • contribs). 2006-07-25 22:57:22

There's no mention of 'white' or 'black' as that is an Euro-American perspective. The Berbers shouldn't be categorized or politicized based upon American sensibilities. The sections relate genetic sections, anthropological views connecting them to Cro Magnon man and other views on the matter. Taking European sources to simply say that the ancient Berbers were black and that the modern Berbers are thus not actual Berbers seems a bit biased actually. As for ancient sources, depiction artistry of Moorish Spain shows varies types of Muslims as does Arab period work and Roman statues etc. The Song of Roland relates to various physical types amongst the Muslim armies as well and then there is Ibn Khaldun, the world's first anthropologist who also relates things from a decidedly native perspective. If there are inconsistencies in the article on that matter of race then perhaps they need to go rather than adding what is really just racialist arguments as to the Berbers being brown-skinned etc. Compared to whom and by what barometer is this being rendered? In reality we don't know what the original Berbers looked like so much as what they look like now and for the past 2 millenia or so. It's not relevant and the article is already too long. Tombseye 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bebers are extremely fair, the negroids who have transgressed borders are dark.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoletta8383 (talk • contribs). 2006-07-25 22:57:22

I agree with you and that is why I removed the racial slant to the articles. However the other information is verified by sources. Thank you on the insight as I have made the necessary changes to the article and removed the racial implementations there is no need for a complete revert. My apologies f you misunderstood the intent of the changes. I have been in dispute with an individual who was trying to apply the term Berber as meaning Caucasian and my intent is to dispell the myth of Berber and Moor being on group as it is ofter tried to be unethically applied.--Gnosis 18:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources are not dependable. The subjects used were bedouins from the periphery of southern Morocco near Mauritania, one can expect their genes to be of the aforementioned make-up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoletta8383 (talk • contribs). 2006-07-25 22:57:22

         :The problem will become worse as other people will insert sourced information saying that the Berbers were white instead and that will add more information that is not particularly useful for a group that is alive today and make this article, that is already too long, even more burgeoned and kill any chance it has of being improved to be a future featured article. It's pointless to play this game as we'll never know what many ancient people looked like exactly and it doesn't matter except in Euro-American historical analysis discourse. To the Berbers it's not only irrelevant but insulting to them if some interpret it to mean that they aren't real Berbers which some will no doubt do. Removing racial slant is a good thing and appreciated. Tombseye 18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They are white. Maybe if you visited the region you would notice that the only dark ones are of negroid origins and are slaves, much as is the case in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoletta8383 (talk • contribs). 2006-07-25 22:57:22

             -Most North Africans are brown.  There's an ancient European element in the Berber population, but they are no more Berber than others.  The majority is brown.  Mixed populations and Negroids have been in the region long before the slave trade and form and are an indigenous element of the population.  Also, it's improper to visualize only light Caucasoids as Berber.  Dark Caucasoid types are also of ultimately Berber origin.

I agree totally with the previous posts. Berber is not a color. It is a race of people who are united by many Amazigh languages. Yet, one point must be understood in regards to the terms Caucasion & White. They are not the same. When dna tests say caucasion it does not mean white. The majority of Arabs when taking the dna test are listed as caucasions. The dna of people of the middle east are lumped with all europenes. The differenciation is being labeled Near Eastern (caucasion) and Europene (caucasion). This has confused many about Berber dna because the majority of Berber dna have been Near Eastern (caucasion). So many have been confused thinking caucasion automatically means white. Most Berber dna have been closely matched on a "Dna Map" to Yemen.

[edit] Anthropological section

I have removed the "Anthropological" section as its claims seem very suspicious to me:

Physical anthropologists agree that Cro-Magnon is represented in modern times by the Berber and Tuareg peoples of North Africa, the recently extinct Guanches of the Canary Isles, the Basques of northern Spain, some people living in the Dordogne Valley and in Brittany in France; and, some years ago, those living on the Isle d'Oleron. All have the distinguishing Cro-Magnon skulls (Howells, 1967; Lundman, 1967, et al.). Except for some shrinkage of areas, this is the same distribution pattern for Cro-Magnon as existed in Upper Paleolithic times.

My issues with this are as follows:

I'm not an anthropologist, but I know the term "Cro-Magnon" refers to the first anatomically modern humans in prehistoric Europe. I have never seen it used in a modern context, and that seems very suspicious.
The sources cited are almost forty years old, but the article claims "physical anthropologists agree ...". Surely there has been some movement in this field in the last forty years, especially with the availability of genetic evidence?
Even our our article on the Basques does not make the absolute claim that they definitely are Cro-Magnon descendants. All we know for sure is that they're older than the surrounding populations.

There is potentially useful information in the paragraph I removed, and I'd be up for putting this back in once these issues are resolved. --Saforrest 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the material as written seems questionable, and that it demands more recent and extensive citation than presently offered. I'm not aware of any modern scholars who would recognise 'Cro-Magnon' as a term applicable in contemporary times.--cjllw | TALK 03:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination failed

For these reasons :

The red links should be turned blue even if they are stubs.
It would be nice if the lists were part of the prose.
Many Egyptologists think that... and ...although others posit different origins... should be changed.

Minor ajustments not needed for GA status :

Most if not all of these invaders... should give an estimated number or be rephrased.
Please add the studies/external links cited to the References section.

Lincher 03:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zidane Headbutt?

Is the recent "update" of the berber jpg image at the top quite appropriate? 86.21.0.89 12:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It's been reverted to the original.--cjllw | TALK 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My contribution

I find it very sad when men write that the berbers are called Berbers and this last name is derived from the latin or greek word "Barbarus of barbarois" and then stopping. I tried to trace their name on the basis of my personal knowledge and my sources. But i know that my English is not very ensyclopedical. So, i would be grateful if someone could make it better. If the people here are not interested and that my contribution are too bad, you can delete it. But if you think that my contribution is improvable, bu you despute the content. I'm ready to read and answer the desputed content.Read3r 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The External Links

I think the most external links in the article are niet very useful. I would like to to delete some of them and post another interesting links. Is there any one who agrees or disagrees with me? Until you let me know your opinion, i will change some links. Read3r 18:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"Interesting" is not the point. In what way were the old links not useful? Why did you think you had to replace them all? BalthCat 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, i think "interesting" is the point since i used in the meaning of "useful". I replaced them because the previous links seemed unhabitual and sometimes stupid [in the mening of not interesting]. Someone described a link with a warning. That is stupid. it should only be removed if it is dangerous. Someone posted arabic sites wich are unreadable to the English readers. There were three links about the pictures of the Berbers, that is irrelevant, i assure you there is no difference between the Berbers and the other humans. They are even no typical for one group and a link was untrusted since he described some non-berbers as Berbers. What i did is replacing them with agreable links. I left only one link because i think it is interesting since it is a link-portal of the most berber sites on the net. I added some links who are representing the most remarkable berber sites like as "CMA" and "monde berbere". If you think there is a link that it is mistakenly removed, you can enlighten me. Thanks in advance!Read3r 10:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New topic

Uhmmm, I am completely new to this so I have no idea where I can point out a correction that must be made. When you wikipedia "Moors" and "Berbers", there is some contradicting evidence on either one of the pages. In the description under the "Moors" page, it states that most of the muslims in the Iberian peninsula were actually native inhabitants. In the "Berbers" page, it states that most of the muslim inhabitants were not. This is obviously a contradiction and I would just like to point it out to someone who has more knowledge than me on the subject and could actually clarify this detail.

I apologize if I was not suppose to make said comment above on this portion of the page ;).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marquez85 (talk • contribs).

I knew that the moors is used to refer to the muslims who conquered spain. The name "Moor/maure" was a name of an ancient pre-islamic berber tribe that inhabited North africa and fought against the Romans and gave thier name to the berber kingdom called "Mauritania". The muslims who attacked the iberian perninsula were principally berbers, and their influence their was great. The name "Moor" didn't mean the berbers but it was generated to refer to all the muslims in al-andalus. Read3r 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population figures

There seems to be no reference provided for the figures. I particularly find the one for Spain very arbitrary, as the Instituto Nacional de Estadística (Spain) does not discrimate the total by Ethnic origin but by nationality (see Anuario Estadístico de España 2006). Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 22:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true, there are no references for the figures. But i don't understand your reference to those spanish-speaking articles. We don't understand Spanish.Read3r 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Please go to page 58 or search for "Marruecos" (Morocco, in Spanish). Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles to be expanded

Does this article need to be expanded? I think it is long enough. Maybe, those figures should be removed from this article, to keep place free for another content, especially that those figures are listed on another page. Your opinion !Read3r 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination against the Berbers

Yes, it might be childish to say that the berbers are discriminated but in any case i don't agree to say they are not discriminated. Someone liked to state that discrimination, but it has been reverted because it was not sourced. I do not encourage to put the political statements in the article. Because it shouldn't be polic-based, nevertheless, i don't like seeing it being too optmistic, because there is factually a discriminaion against them. And yes, if they do represent the goals of the local population they get high functions. But that is not because there is no discrimination, but because it has nothing to do with the official strategies. It is the independend voice of the populations who are generally unaware of the sensitive ethnical problems. In any case, here is a source for the discrimination against the berbers in Libya: Committee on Economic , social, and cultural rights Nevertheless, there is no need to put too much political statements in the article. Best regards! Read3r 11:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7.3 Modern-day Berbers

I read in the article in 7.3 .... "the Tuareg and Zenaga of the southern Sahara, however, were nomadic." Another eye-catching Berber group that was nomadic were ofcourse the (Tashelhit/Shleuh speaking?) Sanhaja-Murabiteen of South-Morocco (Oued Noun).S710 13:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yemen Berber

It is stated in the article about Tamazight language under the section called Origin that "Tamazight is a member of the Afro-Asiatic language family (formerly called Hamito-Semitic). Traditional genealogists of tribes claiming Arab origin often claimed that Berbers were Arabs that immigrated from Yemen. Some of them considered Tamazight to derive from Arabic. This view, however, is rejected by linguists, who regard Semitic and Berber as two separate branches of Afro-Asiatic."

These statements are a bit misleading. First some may think those traditional geneologists are of Arab origin while it is actually oral Berber (Amazigh) traditions passed down generation to generation and now well documented. This is not to say Berber are from a certain place. It is up for argument and research but the truth is that many Berber tribes that have always been independent and say Yemen is their origin. Those that state this is due to a direct effect of Arabs actually dont know the complexities of ancient Berber traditions as well as their independence.

Also it is misleading to "Tamazight is a member of the Afro-Asiatic language family (formerly called Hamito-Semitic). Traditional genealogists of tribes claiming Arab origin often claimed that Berbers were Arabs that immigrated from Yemen. Some of them considered Tamazight to derive from Arabic." It is well known Arabic has relatively recently entered some Berber vocabulary but I have never read or heard a scholor say Berber languages were derived from Arabic. Also it is misleading to say these genealogists concider or ever concidered Berbers were Arabs. This has never been brought up by any scholor.

The fact that many scholors & berber traditionalists claim Yemen as their origin does not mean Arab. Yemen does not always equal Arab. According to both Berber & scholars of the Arab world, Yemen was the origin of Arab tribes & other tribes that were not Arab (essencially similar tribes that had different languages). Ancient Yemen was ruled by the tribes that although were a middle eastern type people, did not speak Arabic. Only after thousands of years did the weaker Arab tribes overtake their cousin tribes that spoke the other ancient language.

If we take into concideration the time frame Berber traditionalists speak about it was during the time Yemen was predominantly ruled by non-Arabic speakers. According to Ancient Berber traditions those people of Yemen cut across the Red Sea to conqour what is now Ethiopia and from there set off north-westward to North Africa.

The key is not to prove Berber are from any other place other then North Africa but rather to make certain that the facts are not misleading. Berber geneologists & traditionalists can common tribal peoples modern and ancient claim to have Yemen heritage. Yemen does not equal Arab as Yemen spoke a different language. Many are confused between what is called the first Yemeni wave of immigration and the second. If the first happened when the berber traditionalist claim then it happened "before" Yemen was predominantly Arabic speaking. The second wave happened thousands of years later after the Arabic speaking Yemeni tribes overtook the other linguistic groups to become the majority then after accepting Islam went to north Africa to spread Islam. Only then can we assume those Yemeni tribes were Arab. These are all the methods scholars explain, which is completely clear and not misleading. One of the strangest oddities is the fact that DNA tests have brought Yemen and Berber as being the most close genetically. But don't be confused by the words caucasian in dna tests because rather then giving middle-easterners their own race all are listed under caucasian, this point has confused many Berber into thinking that caucasian automatically means aryan. Much of DNA research on Berber place them with East Africa but where in East Africa? The truth is that DNA research has placed them with Ethiopia & Yemen. That is east Africa & South Arabia. Some dna tests show berber to have the closest afinity with Yemen people. Its a strong case I must say, since hearing from so many berber traditionalists that they are from Yemen. But there is great fear among modernists in mentioning this link because of the fear of Arab history & culture to drown out Berber ethnic individuality, but 2 facts should dispel this fear. 1. that berber culture has always thrived and never has disappeared 2. that remember Yemen had and still has other ancient languages other then Arabic. by Mazighe

[edit] Better article title?

Shouldn't the article title be Amazigh people rather than Berber people to reflect encyclopedic accuracy and correctness? DragonRouge 10:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it there's no objection to moving this article to Amazigh people? DragonRouge 14:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so I've waited a few days and still no one has responded. What I'd like to know is why every article on this ethnic group shows a preference for "Berber" as opposed to "Amazigh". Am I missing something? DragonRouge 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be not accepted, because they believe that the word "amazigh" is not a common known word in English. Personally, I prefer "Berber", easy to write, easy to "read"... Read3r 13:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

This is a very good article. While the citation style is not the most common one on Wikipedia, it is appropriate for the subject, and all potentially contentious subjects seem to be addressed. It is useful and comprehensive. While it could be improved in little ways, I would not hesitate to cite this version for scholarly work because it is cited so well. The Barbaros argument in the lead paragraph may need to be rephrased since text later on at least potentially contradicts it, but this is quite a minor point. There should be some attention to pruning the article somewhat or editing it because of length, but I do not consider this grounds to not list it. Very good work has been done here. +Fenevad 13:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC) ---

[edit] Berber and Amazigh

This section was 360° changed. The logic is not clear to me, like "kabyle is the most applaudisible source of the word" ???; This should firstly be explained, best regards! Read3r 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of the introduction

I removed also the part of the introduction describing the Berbers as heterogenous people sharing the same ...(almost everything excepts the race). It was alos accurate, they don't share the same politic, economy... And not surpring they share the haplogroup E3b. I didn't refer the race, that should be undertaken in the section of "the origin". Read3r 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

'The highlands on the other hand while recording numerous Marabouts are predominantly non-practicing Christians and other historical Judeo-Chritian rituals including Paganism in High Kabyli(e/a).' Paganism is not a part of Judeo-Christian rituals.. you may be talking of Mystical parts like Kabbalah! Does anyone else have any more info? I thought the majority of people in churches were descendants of Pied-Noirs or other Europeans...Domsta333 12:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to clean up the language and links of the first paragraph. The sentence mentioned by Domsta333 above still needs some clarification. To be conservative, I just changed 'including Paganism' to 'as well as Paganism'. Perhaps the original author meant to indicate that they mixed Pagan rituals with Judeo-Chrisitan rituals. I think more research is needed to clarify this sentence. In the second paragraph, I have removed a long run on sentence that mentioned Augustine of Hippo, Augustine of Canterbury, and another Augustine that founded the Celtic church. I see no religious connection between the Berbers and Augustine of Canterbury. The original text mentioned the role of the Numedian Calvary in the formation of Hadrian's Wall. While that fact may be true, it has nothing to do with the religion of the Berber people. I have contributed some information and links regarding Augustine of Hippo and his religious debate with the Donatists to illustrate the role of Berbers and North Africans in the formation of Western Christianity. Timothy Wheeler 10:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

- I am utterly unaware of any modern Christian or non-Muslim religious adherence at all among the Kabyle and I would advise removing the reference, certainly in the present tense as stated "In the highlands on the other hand, while recording numerous Marabouts, are predominantly non-practicing Christians and other historical Judeo-Christian rituals as well as Paganism in High Kabylie." - this is pure fiction. collounsbury 13:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appelation

Although this article has serious issues overall with respect to writing quality, POV, among the first problems that is evident is the opening assertion in the present version (rv by Read3r now twice) "The term Berber does not exist in their language and thus is not used by the Berbers themselves. They refer to themselves as Imazighen to identify themselves ethnically in their native tongue, Libyans[1] in Greek. Numidians[2] in Latin; North Africans geographically as a group or by the name of the region or province of belonging, such as "Kabyle" or "Riffian""

I am unclear as to his issue, as the version I propose is "he term Berber is an exonym, and not native to Berber languages. In native Berber usage, self appelation is typically off of forms based on the Imazighen pattern, such as the Tashelhiyt (or Chleuh) išlḥan (or Ichelhan in French transcription), or commonly by the local Arabic form, such as Chleuh." - the key factual issue is there are a goodly number of Berbers that do not refer to themselves as "Imazighen" (and in fact plenty who refer to themselves as, well, Berber), but rather Ichelhan, etc.

The current version is at once poorly written and factually inaccurate. My suggested revision certainly could use some tightening up usage wise, but is at once factual and conveys range of real usage. collounsbury 23:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for using the talkpage!. If i understood it correct the statement "The term Berber does not exist in their language and thus is not used by the Berbers themselves." is replaceable by "the term Berber is an exonym, and not native to Berber languages". I agree.

The following is unclear to me: "In native Berber usage, self appelation is typically off of forms based on the Imazighen pattern, such as the Tashelhiyt (or Chleuh) išlḥan (or Ichelhan in French transcription), or commonly by the local Arabic form, such as Chleuh.".

You say "Based on the Berber pattern". If i read this i would suggest that it goes about "Tamasheq, tamaheq..." but you say such "tashelhiyt". The last name is the name a Berber dialect/branch/language. You write further "or commonly by the local Arabic form, such as Chleuh.". What do you mean? Because the name Chleuh is used by many maghribians as synonymous for "Berbers", but the name is also used to refer to group of Berbers.

If you mean they have also regional names to refer to themselves, then it has already been taken in the-by-you-cited-introduction: " or by the name of the region or province of belonging, such as "Kabyle" or "Riffian"". Best regards! Read3r 07:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, on the secon line, it should be clearer, fault in my original formulation. What I was indicating was the the Tashelhiyt equivalent of the Imazighan (masculine) form is Ichelhan. The present formulation incorrectly suggests that all Berbers have adopted the Amazight noun as their own generic name. That is not the case, although it seems to me it has gained acceptance among intellectuals. At the moment, clearly many Berbers refer to themselves (and sometimes generically "Berbers") under such forms as Ichelhen - I have amusingly heard a Chleuh call Riffine, northern Ichelhen who speak taryfit, which from his point of view (and usage) was correct.

The second line, the local Arabic form, e.g. Chleuh etc. is also clearly frequently used among Berbers themselves, as well as sometimes among Maghrebines to refer generically to Berbers. An "error" in strict logical sense, but the usage exists, again even among ordinary, less-educated or less-ethnically "conscious" Berbers.

Finally, the last line in the present version is inadequate and doesn't capture the Chleuh appelation - it captures Kabyle and Rif well enough, but not Chleuh which is a linguistic and not strictly regional appelation. I would also add that the overall current formulation, and again I stress this, incorrectly gives the reader the impression that the Imazighen appelation is general, when it is not outside of intellectual circles, and in common usage one hears more frequently other forms (Chleuh, Ichelhan, Rifi, etc). This is not a statement of what is good, what should be, nor I may add just to prevent misunderstanding, a criticism of the intellectual promotion of Amazigh / Imazighen as a generic, which personally I think has a lot say for itself. Merely that current popular usage is clearly complex.

Now, in rereading the formulation I had, it certainly needs polishing, but the current introduction is inadequate and does not, in fact, convey the same information. collounsbury 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

That is not correct. You should give sources supporting your POV's. Amazigh is the name used by the Berbers (Exepts Kabyle (if i recall correctly) [Did you live among the Kabyles?] even if they never knew what a school or ethnicity is. And the Ichelhiyyen appelation for the Irifiyyen (Berbers) has nothing to do with the intro. It is not a self appelation. I do even doubt it. Berbers referring to themselves as "Berbers" in their language, is the most strange to me. So, I hope you give the source where that is based on, before editing the article. That has to be discussed and supported. Best regards Read3r 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Total population?

When adding the popuations by regions, the total population would be 70,805,000 ([2]) Not the 27,000,000 people indicated in the infobox, which would make no sense, as Algeria, with 30,000,000 Berbers, or Morocco, with 28,000,000 would surpass the total population, so I changed the population statistics to "c. 71 million". --escondites 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Of couse, the total population was inaccurate. But It seems that some one changed the number of the berbers in the countries. Therefore, i reverted it to a previous version before editing the numbers of the berbers. Those numbers are absolutely not accurate and they seem to me to be nonsense in some case like the number of berbers in the netherlands and Belgium. Read3r 17:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/r/Talk%7EBerber_people_9700.html"