Talk:Algeria

Add Tamazight name of Algeria

Add Tamazight name of Algeria to Name section.

Reasons:

• Second official language of Algeria.
• It is taught in schools in Algeria.
• Used by Imazighens in Algeria.
• There is a Wikipedia for it , prefixe (zgh).
• Tifinagh is part of Unicode Tifinagh (Unicode block).
• Tifinagh is used by the Algerian government, (e.g. Prime minister official website).
• Tifinagh wide use in articles and Algerian press e.g. Algeria Press Service(part of Federation of Arab News Agencies).
• Preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification of Tifinagh characters is present (International Journal of Computer Vision and Image Processing ISSN: 2155-6997).
• Widely used in other Imazighen countries e.g. Morocco.

105.235.131.146 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please see the previous discussions on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Which previous discussions? All of them are gone.

I don't see any good reason for not including the native Amazigh name when other Amazigh-speaking countries already do this. This is even more baffling considering the fact that non-official and foreign languages like French are included in this English-language version of the article. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is run by non-Algerians who are hellbent on portraying us as a European-adjacent colony with no culture or language of its own. It's not going to happen until these people stop controlling this article.

I did everything to gain consensus, but in the end you have 3 times as many neocolonialists as you have Algerians editing this article, so good and accurate edits will never pass. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

what of expansionist arabs, who might not mind referring to whole of north africa as thoroughly arab, dwn to ancestry, thus rendering local uniqueness null. it is not 'better' than portraying them as 'european', ime, especially considering most european moved out with their colonial regimes,otherwise might've devastated it demographically like arab banu/tribes are alleged to have, if numbers and dispersions are correct.. 12.146.12.2 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm literally advocating for adding Amazigh, the native language of Algeria, to the article and you're bringing up Arabs?

The fact of the matter is that this page is being controlled by people who don't understand Algerian demographics. Including the French name for Algeria (which no one speaks as a native language btw), but not the Amazigh one, which is the native language of 30% of the population, is illogical. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Tamazight is an official and national language of Algeria, as stated in Article 4 of the Constitution. Therefore, including Tamazight in Algeria-related articles is appropriate and valid. Regarding which script to use, despite the lack of a law recommending one script over another, government-affiliated agencies like APS tend to use all three scripts interchangeably. يوسف قناوة (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Indeed, Skitash account opposes the introduction of Tamazight for the official name of the country. even the official language is not spared from pov-pushing. (In addition to the manipulation of sources which aim to make people believe that 85% of the population of Algeria originates from the Arabian Peninsula).

Versions of Wikipedia, such as French or Spanish, have already been the second official language of the country for a while. Only the English version is frozen at the time of the single party...

2) The name in Tamazight is ⵜⴰⴳⴷⵓⴷⴰ ⵜⴰⵣⵣⴰⵢⵔⵉⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⴳⴷⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵖⴻⵔⴼⴰⵏⵜ Source : [ⵜⵉⵔⵣⵉ ⵜⵓⵏⵚⵉⴱⵜ ⵏ ⵓⵙⴻⵍⵡⴰⵢ ⵏ ⵜⴻⴱⴱⵓⵏ ⵖⴻⵔ ⴽⵓⵡⴰⵢⵜ : ⵜⴰⵙⴳⵓⵔⵉ ⵜⵓⵛⵔⵉⴽⵜ (aps.dz)] or [Ministère de l'Énergie | Algérie (energy.gov.dz)]. It is perfectly sourced. The transcription is: Tagduda tazzayrit tamagdayt taɣerfant source :[Aseɣnew n GPRA ila iswi n useddukkel n Tegrawla akked usegrew n umɣiwan aɣelnaw (aps.dz)]. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest not getting lost in the delaying method on the part of the pov-pushers who oppose this writing. example: Tifinagh/Latin, infobox/text... just see what is done on the Morocco page and on the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking versions (use of Tifinagh + transcribed into the adapted Latin alphabet). Get to the point with common sense. We are not going to waste 2 more years transcribing the official language onto the page, the absence of any mention is the worst situation. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It is very important to include the official name of Algeria in Tamazight as adopted by the official agencies of the Algerian state.

I propose that the official name of Algeria in Tamazight (ⵍⵣⵣⴰⵢⴻⵔ) be included in the article, alongside the Arabic and French versions. The inclusion of this information is essential for reflecting the linguistic and cultural diversity of Algeria, particularly given the official recognition of Tamazight as a national and official language in Algeria.

=== Supporting Sources ===

• **Algerian Constitution:** The constitutional amendment of 2016 officially recognized Tamazight as a national and official language of Algeria. The constitution clearly states that "Tamazight is also a national and official language" and that the state works for its promotion and development in all its linguistic varieties.

* Source: [Constitution of Algeria (Article 4)](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2016.pdf)

• **Presidential Decree:** A 2018 Presidential Decree established the Algerian Academy of the Amazigh Language, further institutionalizing the use of Tamazight in official settings.

* Source: [Presidential Decree establishing the Algerian Academy of the Amazigh Language](https://www.joradp.dz/FTP/Jo-Arabe/2018/A2018006.pdf)

• **Law on the Promotion of Tamazight:** The 2018 law promoting the use of Tamazight in public life reinforces its official status and its representation in government documents, including the official name of the country.

* Source: [Law on the Promotion of Tamazight](https://www.joradp.dz/FTP/Jo-Arabe/2018/A2018011.pdf)

Given these official recognitions and legal frameworks, it is both accurate and necessary to include Algeria's official name in Tamazight in the article. This addition would align with Wikipedia’s guidelines on verifiability and the neutral representation of multilingual and multicultural aspects of a country. Potymkin (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you guys. I discussed this also in the discussion section of this page but seems that @M.Bitton and @Skitash have a different opinion about it without any good reason. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal and summary of reviews

To reach a consensus, everyone will decide whether they agree to add the Berber name (official language of the country) in the same format as the Morocco's article. the name used will be that as used in the APS agency (tifinagh and transcription) confirmed on the ministry website.

I summarize below the opinions from the discussion above. (Correct it if this does not reflect your opinion.) Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

summary of other editors' views; this review is this editor's opinion only, and may or may not represent the actual view of the editors in question.

For Agree يوسف قناوة Agree Monsieur Patillo Agree Kurdish Elf Agree 105.235.131.146 talk Agree--Potymkin (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC) Agree--User: Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Against  Disagree Skitash Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC) This sig added as duplicate of sig above to establish authorship; added by Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Section collapsed by Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I only reported the opinions above (this is a common thing to summarize on WP:Fr, sorry if this is not done here). However, I find it disgraceful that my comment was deleted and therefore censored, it would have been simpler to explain to request the correction. I'm putting it back without the reviews. Everyone will express it themselves. @105.235.131.146, Kurdish Elf, يوسف قناوة, and Skitash:. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Monsieur Patillo, your comment has been restored, it is inside the green box, but may have been confusing to some editors because it was not clear enough who wrote what. Please remove the four section headers above, labeled "For," "Against", N"eutral", and "Comments". These all appear *inside* your comment of 11:23, 16 August; and any other editor adding a comment there will unfortunately have to be removed, because it is not allowed for them to add comments inside your comment. Please read WP:THREAD about replying at the *bottom* of a discussion; that is what we all do, and inviting some other editors to reply in the middle of your comment will just lead to chaos. Please remove those four headers, and allow the discussion to continue organically. See WP:THREAD. Mathglot (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot (talk · contribs) Excuse me. is it good like that? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Monsieur Patillo, no problem. Yes, that looks fine, thank you; now the discussion can continue. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that many agreed with the proposal to add Amazigh names but they have not been added yet and I see that the discussion has stopped. What's next? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Just noting the section at ANI related to this discussion for the record, and reminding all editors that ANI is not a court that decides who is right in a content dispute; that is what this page is for. If a content dispute remains, this is the place to talk about it. If this discussion becomes deadlocked or no progress is being made, you can seek the opinion of additional editors by appropriately notifying forums such as related WP:WikiProjects, and ask for more feedback, or look into other methods of dispute resolution, such as WP:Third opinion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but this issue was settled through a RfC and nothing has changed since then. The consensus was to add the other names, including the Tamazight ones (in Arabic, Latin and Tifinagh) to the name section of the article. Some were added right after the RfC and cn tagged. They remained there until they were removed for lack of citation. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good reminder! So, if any of the editors asking why it has not been added, there you have your answer. You may add it back yourself, within the constraints of WP:Verifiability, so be sure to include a citation to a reliable source if you do. Hopefully that will now put this thread to rest. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I just learned of your RFC. However, it was formulated on an erroneous basis that the name in Amazigh has no standardization which is a lie given the existence in the APS and in certain ministries. why don't we have a problem in the French-speaking Wikipedia? Spanish-speaking? Why does this happen in the only English-speaking article where there is a manipulation to make Algerians seem like 85% of the Arab peninsula?

I of course respect the decision as long as another decision is not made. I add the name in the body of the text to comply with the decision but it needs to be reviewed. Tamazight is not "another language" but one of the official languages ​​of the country and must appear in the infobox as is customary for official languages. Thanks. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Added name in berber with sources. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Amazigh has no standardization which is a lie that's not what was said, so please don't accuse others of lying without properly reading what they wrote.

I also adjusted the newly added content (the official name of Algeria is mentioned in the constitution, which is written in Arabic and French only). M.Bitton (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

when I told you that the debate was introduced on fallacious bases during the previous discussion we come to the most emblematic example.The Algerian constitution has been published in Tamazight for quite some time: [La Constitution en version amazighe éditée (aps.dz)].You have the HCA website which published it here : La constitution de 2016 (Tamendawt) (hcamazighite.dz). Those who told you that it only exists in French and Arabic have misled you (or would be better off not imposing their point of view because they do not know enough about the subject). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Please drop the accusations of POV and other nonsense. Has the constitution been published by the Algerian Academy of the Amazigh Language? If no, then there is nothing to talk about and If yes, then why are you using other sources instead of the constitution?

The HCA is not the "Académie algérienne de la langue amazighe". M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone by name, but an atmosphere which requires overjustification of a very simple mention in Tamazight. Who said the Academy had to publish the constitution? The HCA is also the official agency in charge of the Amazigh language in Algeria. The country's official news agency (aps.dz) says that the constitution is published, what more is needed? This is not fake news. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Who said the Academy had to publish the constitution? the constitution, which also stipulates that its role to develop the Tamazight language in order to integrate it as an official language in the future. M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"L’Académie qui s'appuie sur les travaux des experts, est chargée de réunir les conditions de la promotion de Tamazight en vue de concrétiser, à terme, son statut de langue officielle.". The Algerian state does not say in any way that this institution is responsible for drafting the constitution in Tamazight. We are sinking into a legalism which is not the role of a Wikipedian.

Le HCA (hcamazighite.dz) : "The High Commission for Amazighness is an institution placed under the supervision of the Presidency of the Republic. It is headed by a High Commissioner, assisted by a Secretary General. Its mission, its prerogatives, its scope of action and its operation are clearly defined by legal texts in terms of presidential decrees.". This institution is official, dependent on the president and published the Amazigh version of the constitution with the official seal... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this. Here's what the HCA had to say about the Academy (the article was published after the one that you linked to). I also suggest, you read what was discussed previously, because nothing has changed since. M.Bitton (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying the academy is finished. Where I differ is that the constitution does not say that the Academy is expressly the agency responsible for drafting the constitution in Tamazight. This is an interpretation of the text and not a written fact. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Academy is responsible for a) choosing an alphabet (among the three) and b) overseeing its standardization. They still haven't managed the first part (for the reasons that I already explained in the previous discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You do not answer my question: what text states in black and white that this single academy is responsible for providing a constitution or rather an official name in Tamazight? As the question of the alphabet is not entirely resolved the constitution was drawn up in two alphabets: Latin and Tifinagh by the HCA. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Before Tamazight is adopted as a working official language, the academy has to choose an alphabet first and then standardize it. If you still don't get it, then there is nothing more that I can possibly that would make you understand the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You use legalism and personal interpretation to deduce that the constitutional text does not exist. And this without having shown that it was specifically up to the academy to publish this constitutional text. It is all the more foreign as it amounts to denying an official value to the text published by the HCA, and announced by the official press agency in two alphabets. It would be better if other people gave their opinion because we have covered the issue. Overall, the situation on English-speaking Wikipedia is clearly an anomaly compared to others. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I use what the constitution and the reliable sources say about the academy that was created for the sole purpose of choosing an alphabet (among the three) and overseeing its standardization (this all covered in the previous discussion). A document as important as the constitution cannot be officially endorsed (like the Arabic and French versions) in a language that is yet to be standardized. M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You are in the process of cobbling together an unprecedented synthesis by playing the role of an Algerian constitutionalist and linguist. The French language is not even in the constitution yet you brandish the text in French...

Does the text of the Algerian constitution exist in Tamazight yes or no? Is this text official yes or no?

Why not add it to the infobox (even accompanied by the notes you deem necessary). We are not in a linguistically “vacuum” situation in this language. Apart from an ideological opposition to the Amazigh language, your position is untenable in reality.

Please refrain from making personal judgments based on press extracts. Especially since you have not proven, other than through your personal deductions, that the constitution had to be written in a standardized language. This "L’Académie qui s'appuie sur les travaux des experts, est chargée de réunir les conditions de la promotion de Tamazight en vue de concrétiser, à terme, son statut de langue officielle." does not refer to any standardization but to "promotion conditions" (which is vague).

A Wikipedian does not have to interpret but to compile existing data, so you are overstepping your collaborative encyclopedic role. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Apart from an ideological opposition to the Amazigh language, your position is untenable in reality." If you have nothing of value to add to this conversation besides unfounded aspersions, perhaps it's time to stop wasting everyone's time. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated for you to be able to understand, but the Académie algérienne de la langue amazighe is yet to choose a standardized and codified alphabet (out of Latin, Tifinagh, or Arabic). It's not up to you to make that decision or pick one arbitrarily. Skitash (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No indeed, and it is not up to you to interpret algerian legislation either (WP:NOR). I simply note that the constitutional text exists in the language concerned (even though I was told that it was written in Arabic and French only).

Unless we come back to my question of whether you deny the value of the published text ? text which it was claimed did not exist before falling back on an explanation that it was not the right institution which would have published it (deduction based on a WP:NOR).... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is unprecedented on Wikipedia for a country's official name not to be ascribed due to the absence of a legally favored script. Would it be possible to consider including all three scripts as a solution to this issue, given that they are all utilized in some capacity by Algerian media? Alternatively, is it essential to wait for the Algerian government to officially designate a preferred script before making such a decision? يوسف قناوة (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that (this was discussed at length before and during the last RfC). What's being used in some sources can be added to the name section. It's not our job to make that decision: the Algerian Academy of the Amazigh Language (not the government) will designate a script and standardize the language (that's what is was created for). M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on your point? Is the issue of selecting between Latin, Tifinagh, or Abjad forms significant enough to exclude a language that is explicitly recognized as official in a state’s constitution? Additionally, what is the objection to including all three scripts simultaneously? To date, there appears to be no indication that the state is concerned with the matter of 'choosing a script,' given that Tamazight is actively used with its three scripts. يوسف قناوة (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I already have (please read the previous discussion). There is no objection including the various scripts in the name section. Again, that's the responsibility of the Algerian Academy of the Amazigh Language (not the government's). M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The HCA functions as a language regulator, analogous to the role of the Supreme Council of the Arabic language in Algeria. Both bodies are designed to promote Tamazight and Arabic, as stipulated in Articles 3 and 4 of the Algerian Constitution. The HCA is specifically tasked with the promotion, development, and standardization of the Tamazight language across its various dialects.

The issue of what script should be officially selected is not critical enough to warrant the exclusion of Tamazight from Algeria-related articles. The language is already constitutionally recognized and is actively used in various forms across Algerian media, regardless of the script. Therefore, the inclusion of Tamazight in its current multi-script form aligns with its status and usage in Algeria. يوسف قناوة (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the HCA (which was created in 1995) is not tasked with the standardization of Tamazight (that's the job of the Academy which was created in 2018). The issue of what script should be used officially is extremely important to the country and to the future of the language itself (it's not a game: those who haven't been chosen for the task don't have a say in it). M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton. Once again you are not chief lawyer and you make a personal interpretation of the constitution. Nobody says that the constitution, the name of the country etc... must wait for some kind of standardization to exist.

The constitutional text is published in Tamazight with official publication in both alphabets (Latin and Tifinigagh). You have no concern for the Tamazight language, your convolutions just serve to hide it from the article and the infobox. You should not do polite pov-pushing and demand a more official text than the official one. This mind-blowing debate only takes place on the English version.

@User:يوسف قناوة given that the previous call for comments was made with a biased question I propose asking for another one. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not my personal interpretation, it's a fact: before its integration as an official language at some point in the future, Tamazight needs to be developed by the Academy that was created for that very purpose.

the previous call for comments was made with a biased question pure nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Art. 4.2 — Tamazight est également langue nationale et officielle. L'Etat œuvre à sa promotion et à son développement dans toutes ses variétés linguistiques en usage sur le territoire national. Il est créé une Académie algérienne de la Langue Amazighe, placée auprès du Président de la République. L'Académie qui s'appuie sur les travaux des experts, est chargée de réunir les conditions de la promotion de Tamazight en vue de concrétiser, à terme, son statut de langue officielle. Les modalités d'application de cet article sont fixées par une loi organique.

Where do you see the word “standardization”? that nothing can be written or said before this "standardization"? the written constitution in tamazight is a fake?

It makes sense because you posed the problem and twisted things in such a way as to obtain an answer which is an anomaly in Wikipedia compared to other languages. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like we were writing at the same time, so I'll repeat what I said and we'll take it from there. Do you agree that before its integration as an official language at some point in the future, Tamazight needs to be developed by the Academy that was created for that very purpose?

For the standardization, you need to check other sources. There are plenty, but since you seem to agree with what the HCA says, this one should help. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Human Languages do NOT need to be WRITTEN to be languages. If the ILLEGITIMATE REGIME in Algeria were to become legitimate, then you can use it for reference, helas that's yet to be the case. The last on that front is the OUTPOURING OF ALGERIANS into the streets everywhere with one slogan "Regime Out !" The regime enjoys a recognition with its CLIENTS who in return enjoy cheap access to non-renewable sources of energy and other natural ressources. 2604:2D80:9117:CA00:F9B1:E407:154:8055 (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody said it's a non-written language, and mobs on the street in Algeria, are not how we improve articles at Wikipedia. Your point is irrelevant; please stay on-topic. (outdent added at 21:20, 20 Aug.) Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

break

The problem is that you are making an interpretation of the term concretize. To make this concrete, implies standardization (a term absent from the source that you have just published), at the same time you are talking about a future integration. However, no one is saying that it is not already integrated as a language, because texts , and official writings in this language already exist. I come back to your RFC which was conducted on the basis of misleading assumptions. We have the impression that the text of the HCA comes from activists or troublemakers (if you knew that it existed at that time which is not easy to understand reading you). Reading such debates with personal opinions and without knowing the subject, even I would have voted against. This is proof that this RFC must be renewed without misleading the reader with only a publication of sources on the subject and not interpretative comments which imply that the official version of the HCA is the fruit of « activists ». for example :

• M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC) : «The official name of a country is way too important to be left in the hands of amateurs and activists»
• M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC) : « The whole point of the verifiability policy is that anyone can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Right now, anyone (with no knowledge of either Arabic or French can check that the name in those two languages is both easily attributable and correct), but this isn't the case for the recently added Tamazight names »
• M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC) : « This situation will remain unchanged so long as the fundamental problems facing this artificial language haven't been resolved: the choice of which alphabet to adopt and the standardization that will follow. »
• M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC) «As you can imagine, there is a war between the three, with activists on all sides pushing for their chosen alphabet; but the final word rests with the "Académie algérienne de la langue amazighe", which unfortunately (mostly due how complicated the issue is) has been taking its time, leading to some people wanting to take matters into their own hands. »
• CMD (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC) : « None, as the offficial names as actually used by the country (in addition to English) seem to be Arabic. Wikipedia should follow reliable sources, and reflect wp:due usage. This is especially true for infoboxes. The Algerian embassy to the US website uses just Arabic in addition to English. The NY consulate is the same. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses Arabic (with English and French translations for those language versions). The Ministry of Defence only displays in the language used, but has only English, Arabic, and French. The Algerian Presidency Facebook page uses Arabic, as does the 'website'. Other sites use Arabic and French: [16][17]. Arabic is the only common language, with French seemingly used often but not always. »
• 01:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC) « 2) There is no "official Tamazight name", it simply does not exist yet (see my comments above).»

Here we have in bold a series of unsubstantiated assertions that have skewed the RFC. It should also have been brought to the attention of the contributors that the name is inserted on the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking Wikipedia in compliance with verifiability... and without the sky having fallen on their heads Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep commenting on the editors instead of the content. The above cherry picking of what was said in a long discussion serves no purpose.

« This situation will remain unchanged so long as the fundamental problems facing this artificial language haven't been resolved: the choice of which alphabet to adopt and the standardization that will follow. » which part of this do you disagree with?

However, no one is saying that it is not already integrated as a language the constitution is pretty clear on this (it won't be integrated until the Academy has done what it was created for). The reliable sources (including the ones that I cited above) complain about the academy taking its time.

the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking Wikipedia what other projects do or don't do is irrelevant.

I come back to your RFC wrong again, it's not mine (it was started by someone else). The rest of your comment (based on an out of context cherry picked sentence) makes no sense. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

1) First of all, I don't appreciate your intimidating messages on my talk page. I am not a native English speaker, I am sorry if my remarks have a personal twist transposed into English but they are in no way an attack. I try to stick to what you write and I didn't judge you. Also I am not involved in any editing wars, I have tried to comply with the previous decision for the time being in the editorial space (as soon as they were brought to my attention). When other users continue change the article and statu quo in the middle of (other) mediation, you do not notify them in the same way.

2) I can't quote everything from discussions spanning several days, you'll excuse me but it's you who's making accusations of cherry-picking.So I simply gave examples of the presuppositions which influenced the decision even though they are not supported by sourced elements :

- How do you qualify this as artificial language? the problem of the alphabet is non-existent because it is published in two alphabets (example of the constitution itself and the APS press agency).

- (it won't be integrated until the Academy has done what it was created for) This is not correct, the term integrated is not used, we are talking about the much more progressive term of concretization. The language is already integrated as far as possible (written constitution, pediment of public buildings, official website, etc.).. Please no longer use this term of integration which is not in the source (constitution), we will save time.

- This is entirely relevant because it proves that it is possible to have stable and verifiable versions (while you were reporting an activist controversy between different writings?). However, what is done on other projects is not a rule here, I agree. It remains an example of what is possible to do.

- Sorry for the English expressions if they are personal. I mean the one cited by you. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This notion of official (at all costs) is not a prerequisite for the infobox which clearly specifies native language official/defacto language(s)

1 ) In the infobox settings (no notion of official/official but not standardized/official but not official enough...): «Country's name (usually full name) in its native language, hence in italics (double quotemarks). The template should be used with this parameter to automatically italicize the text.»

2 ) In the template: official or de facto (also no notion of standardized/official but not official enough...) : «|native_name = »

This notion of official (at all costs) is not a prerequisite for the infobox which clearly specifies « native language [...] official/defacto language(s)». So even the debate of officiality is beside the point. The only question of eligibility is whether it is a native language and whether a verifiable form of the name exists. The interpretations of article 4 of the Algerian constitution are similar to WP:POINT which aim to experimentally prove a point of view. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I accept your apology. The message wasn't meant to be intimidate you, but rather to remind you to assume good faith.

The term "integrate" is what is used in the English translation of the constitution. I don't see how "concretize" (which you seem to think is a better translation) changes anything to what I said.

This notion of official (at all costs) is not a prerequisite for the infobox which clearly specifies « native language [...] official/defacto language(s)» Tamazight is not a de facto language. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This matter would be best addressed by the intervention of Wikipedia administrators, who are responsible for enforcing Wikipedia's policies and are better equipped to make impartial judgments, free from bias and subjective POV-pushing. يوسف قناوة (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Which (official?) English version are you referring to for the constitution? The term concretization is more progressive, because it can be partially concretized while integration is a yes/no (binary) notion. When you say "Tamazight is not a de facto language." what are you basing this on? Tamazight is recognized as a single language with several variants (exct the same case of Arabic with several registers).

You didn't answer my question? Is the publication of the constitution in Tamazight the work of the Algerian state, therefore official, or the work of activists? De facto, the name in Tamazight exists (ministry, APS agency, constitution translated by an official body, etc.) yes or no? I am not asking for judgements (not standardized enough, not disseminated enough, etc.). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

يوسف قناوة, this matter will not be addressed by the intervention of Wikipedia administrators, who will never step in on a content issue like this one. You will be waiting forever, if you wait for that to happen, because that is not their role. If you have further questions about the role of admins, you can read WP:ADMIN or ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk (or at my Talk page) but please don't ask here as it is off topic. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This article heavily overstates the use of the French language in Algeria.

This sentence: "Algeria's official languages are Arabic and Tamazight; French is used in media, education, and certain administrative matters." is not supported by sources and is debatably wrong. The government conducts zero administrative matters in French, French has been fully phased out of education for over 2 years now, and while French media exists, it is still a tiny part of the media Algerians create and consume. This should be updated asap to accurately represent the linguistic landscape of Algeria.

I suggest removing the second part of the sentence altogether. It is simply unfounded and not supported by sources. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The use of French language in algeria in Public as well as general language and while going to the banks and other institutions is still in heavy use. Algerian websties still offer French and Arabic translations of their official pages and when an Algerian goes to Algérie Poste for instance you are offered a blank check in French and in Arabic, you fill it in either language, indeed your bills are without any question in French and so is you 'addition' when you receive a bill from a restaurant and such.

Its too early to phase out french despite the government beginning to transition in education to english, yet french remains an important aspect of daily life for Algerians.

Thank you very much for this suggestion, my honest opinion is that you can mention where english was phased in with sources for that but phasing out french I think is too early, I hope you will consider my input brother. Potymkin (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Algeria is a dictatorship - Using anything from it as a reference is a dis-service to WP and its users. Dictators are "dictators" because their dicatates are in total disconnect with the reality on the ground. 2604:2D80:9117:CA00:F9B1:E407:154:8055 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Being a dictatorship or not has nothing to do with improving this article. Please stop making irrelevant comments on this page, as you did twice previously, or your comments will be collapsed or removed. See our guideline WP:TALK for what is appropriate at article Talk pages. Mathglot (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It is well sourced in the § Languages section, and briefly summarized in the lead, and with 11–15 million speakers (twice as many as Quebec) there is no reason to deemphasize French in the article. Mathglot (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot thank you for elaborating, that was very informative Potymkin (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Berber, Amazigh, or Tamazight

In this edit, Kurdish Elf made the following change to the Infobox official language list:

−

| official_languages = {{Plainlist| * [[Modern Standard Arabic|Arabic]] * [[Standard Algerian Berber|Berber]] }}

+

| official_languages = {{Plainlist| * [[Modern Standard Arabic|Arabic]] * [[Standard Algerian Berber|Tamazight]] }}

without any sourcing, and with the edit summary, Changed "Berber" to "Tamazight" since Berber is not an official language, but a family of languages that do not necessarily have any official status. In general, no discussion is required to undo an unsourced change (and an inaccurate one) but given that language has repeatedly been the object of dispute in the article and on this page, I thought I'd poll the community first.

I have several problems with this change. First, it is unsourced, and bucks long practice here. Second, the change in the piped link violates WP:ASTONISH, as it doesn't go to where one would expect. Third, this is English Wikipedia, and the Infobox should use terms found in English sources, and Tamazight is a redirect to our article named "Berber languages", and the term Berber (and Berber language) is much better understood in English than Tamazight (and Tamazight language). For example, in 2016, the BBC noted that Berber was named as an official language in the Constitution, using the term Berber seven times in the article, and explaining (once) that is "known locally as Amazigh".^[1]

Additionally, Berber (as KE pointed out) is a family of languages including the one spoken in Algeria, but the term Tamazight also refers to the Moroccan variety, and in some source, primarily the Moroccan variety, although it is used for varieties in both countries. And also, the link target of Standard Algerian Berber refers to "Kabyle" and not just to "Tamazight", so the piping is not only astonishing, it is mistaken.

Finally, I'm not sure how far back "Berber" has been listed in the Infobox as an official language (because wikiblame is down), but it goes back at least eight years. This unilateral, unsourced change to the Infobox language list is problematic for all of the reasons given, and should be reverted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Source: Official Gazette of Algeria & Constitution HERE (Page 6, Article 4).

(Unless you wish to keep interfering with Wikipedia editing POINT, there is nothing more reliable than that.) -- 105.235.133.225 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

IP 105, I am afraid you are very much mistaken, at least with respect to English Wikipedia. You may be 100% right that the official Constitution you linked to, written entirely in French, shows what word would be proper to use in French Wikipedia for the name of the language. (And if you look at the Infobox in the French Wikipedia article fr:Algérie you will see that is exactly what they do.)

But this is not French Wikipedia, this is English Wikipedia, and here we use the most common English name for all languages. That is why the Infobox here says Arabic, and not arabe, al-Arabiya or اَلْعَرَبِيَّةُ, and it is also why one of the foreign languages in the Infobox is listed as French, and not as français, or اللغة الفرنسية. So the official name of the language in this Constitution, written in French, has absolutely nothing to do with what it should be called in the Infobox in this article in English Wikipedia, which depends entirely on what it is called in the majority of reliable sources written in English, and that, imho, is Berber, unless you can provide evidence that a majority of English language sources call it something else.

And finally: the irony of you attempting to use an Algerian Constitution written in French in order to prove a point about an English word, especially given the history of this Talk page, is, well... I lack the words. Mathglot (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, and it's not "may"; I am entirely accurate.

Tamazight is written exactly the same in both French and English. The spelling of Tamazight is identical to that of Arabic.

Articles from Wikipedia should not be cited as sources. WINRS.

Unless you want the Algerian government to draft a constitution in every language, I'm not sure what to tell you.

However, here's an additional source: HERE. 'n' HERE -- 105.235.131.52 (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have missed the point. The question is not, "How do sources in English spell the word Tamazight ?" (And it is certainly not about French.) The question is, "What do English language sources call the language that is the most most widely spoken native language in Algeria after Arabic?" Is that language most often called "Berber", "Amazigh", or "Tamazight" in English sources? That is the only question at issue here.

You can find all three of them in English sources if you search specifically for them, but they skew heavily to "Berber". The words Amazigh and Tamazight are both gaining ground on Berber, but both are far behind, with "Berber" about four times as common as "Amazigh" and 16 times as common as "Tamazight". (You can also try comparing usage in academic journals here, with similar results.) If you wait long enough, it is possible that frequency of use of these terms in English sources will shift over time, and some other word will be most popular, and we can look at this question again then. For the time being, the only possible choice based on actual usage in English is the word Berber, and you are wasting your time listing cherrypicked sources. Mathglot (talk) 06:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

the designation Berber from the origin "Beraberata" an amazigh tribe found inscribed king scorpion's statue in Egypt was used in reference to Berber (Amazigh people) .

Tamazigh is the correct word to refer to Berber speaking people in their native language, many linguists suggest using this variation for its grammatically correct properties to refer to Amazigh People.

the Algerian constitution defines "Amazighness" as "fundemental component" of the algerian identity -refer to the algerian constitution-, and since the publication of the version of the Algerian Constitution in Tamazigh from the University of Bouira both the words Amazigh and Tamazigh can be accepted as an alternate more correct version to the given name berber only concerning algeria however. Potymkin (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is important to understand that the content of the Algerian Constitution and other official documents have no influence on what the languages are called in English Wikipedia; that role is reserved to the most common name in reliable English sources. That this is true, can be seen in these examples:

• our article on the language of France is called "French (language)" (not "Français"), and the official language of France is listed as "French" in the Infobox at France, even though it is not called that in the French Constitution (Article 2), where it is listed as "français";
• our article on the language of Spain is called "Spanish (language)", and the official language of Spain is listed as "Spanish" in the Infobox at Spain, even though it is not called that in the Spanish Constitution (Article 3), where it is listed as "castellano";
• our article on the first language of Finland is called "Finnish (language)", and the official languages of Finland are listed as "Finnish" and "Swedish" in the Infobox at Finland, even though they are not called that in the Finnish Constitution (Section 17), where they are listed as "suomi" and "ruotsi" (and as "finska" and "svenska" in the co-official Swedish version).

That said, it is perfectly all right to list alternate names of the language like Amazigh or Tamazight in the body of the article in a section that goes into detail on local languages, just like the word castellano appears in the #Languages section of the Spain article. (Interestingly, the endonym suomi does not appear in the #Language section of the Finland article, and français does not appear in the #Language section of the France article, either, although they could be.) For example, the last paragraph of your comment, with the addition of citations, could be added to that section. But it is way too long to add to a single Infobox entry, which should remain the way it is, as long as the majority of English sources refer to it that way. Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

First of all don't worry about my time, I spend it as I want as you are spending it as you want so let's stick to the topic and refrain from making any escalations that leads to PA. What aspect of "Tamazight the same in both French and Arabic" is unclear to you? Why does Algeria in French not have the same spelling as al-jazair in Arabic? But is Tamazight the same as Arabic in this regard? This is a POV pushing that is clearly and seriously disruptive, I blame the administrators for not enforcing the policies, not you. Your argument is that the names of the languages in the English Wikipedia are not influenced by the Algerian Constitution or other official documents. This would be the case if the Arabic and French constitutions used different names, such as تمازيغت (Article 4) and Tamazight, respectively. YES, English uses incorrect names, and many nations, like India (That wants to change it to Bharat), are campaigning about it; you are just pushing your point. I've included the precise source, which claims that the term "berber" is used incorrectly, and while it is indeed frequently used, Wikipedia only documents information based on trustworthy sources; The amount of sources does mean anything, and the URL you supplied does not lead to the actual source where one can confirm, therefore you're expecting us to do it for you?. I noticed a lot of consensus in the talk page and archived ones , what gives you the right to disrupt editing this article, because of this, I haven't seen any progress on this article in a very long time. We ask that you kindly stop being disruptive and let users edit we need to assume more faith than it is now, we gave sources you don't agree don't revert, The same rules that govern (this Wikipedia is in English) also govern (this article is about Algeria) If the article is based only on the English language, then why are Arabic and French characters included, get consensus or let's end this with a vote for once and forever, what the community agrees on will be the decision forever until if things changes. -- 105.235.133.65 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

How Algeria is spelled in French or Arabic is immaterial to English Wikipedia. Thank you for your question:

What aspect of "Tamazight the same in both French and Arabic" is unclear to you?

and the answer is: none of it is unclear to me; but it it is irrelevant to English Wikipedia.

Comments about POV-pushing and personal attacks are off-limits here. You also used the word "disruptive" three times about my comments. This page is strictly about how to improve the Algeria article, and you may not make comments like this here, per the purpose of this page. If you have a concern about POV-pushing, disruption, or personal attacks, please raise them at the Talk page of the editor concerned, along with your evidence for it. (Please note that evidence-free accusations are considered a personal attack.)

Regarding your comment that "YES, English uses incorrect names..."; in that case, English Wikipedia policy is very clear on this point: we must also use those names, even if they are "incorrect" in your view. I have said this before, and I will say it one last time for you: articles in English Wikipedia use the terms that are found in the majority of published, reliable sources written in English. You may, if you wish, try to change that policy, but at present we are bound by that. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Negative, I mentioned it twice count again, WP:POINT & WP:BLOCKP. 105.235.133.219 (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, could you simply stop calling policies accusations?

You are taking things too personal, I feel discouraged to continue. Good luck with everything. -- 105.235.133.219 (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I will not discuss this here. I responded to non-content issues at your Talk page at User talk:105.235.133.65. Mathglot (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC on ethnic groups in the infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should be stated in the infobox's Ethnic groups field?

• Option 1: 75–85% Arabs, 15–24% Berbers, 1% others (sources)
• Option 2: 99% Arab-Berber, 1% other (sources here and here)
• Option 3: 70–90% Berbers (sources)
• Option 4: Nothing

See the talk page and DRN discussions.

Provide your answers as Option 1, 2, 3, or 4 with brief explanatory statements in the Survey. Do not reply to the statements of other editors in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion should go in the Discussion section; that's what it's for. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC) [fixed 14:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)]

P.S. I didn't think I needed to explicitly state this, but please only !vote once. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1: I believe the infobox should remain as it is, as it accurately reflects what Algerians identify as ethnically and is well-supported by reliable sources (both in Algeria#Ethnic groups and the footnote in the infobox). The vast majority of sources make it clear that 75 to 85% of the population identifies as ethnically Arab while 15 to 24% identify as ethnically Berber. Option 3, however, appears to rely on a few WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE sources that focus on deep ancestral origins tracing back millennia and genetics, rather than ethnicity (ethnicity revolves around self-identity, language, and culture—not genetics and ancestry, per the definition in ethnicity and the following sources:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]). Additionally, option 3 completely overlooks the existence of Arabs and other ethnic groups in Algeria, focusing solely on the presence of Berbers. Option 2 would be pretty problematic as it would create confusion due to the lack of sources explaining what an "Arab-Berber" precisely means, and the few sources that use this WP:UNDUE term only mention it in passing. It remains unclear whether this 99% Arab-Berber figure combines Arab and Berber populations or represents people of mixed Arab and Berber origins. The Arab-Berber article was ultimately redirected for this very reason. I don't think we should remove the ethnic group parameter, as suggested in option 4. While it's true that FAs and GAs often set good examples, omitting ethnic groups is not a mandatory practice for these articles, many of which do include ethnic data in the infobox. There is no dispute or divergence among reliable sources regarding ethnic identity in Algeria; they consistently indicate a 75–85% Arab and 15–25% Berber range. Skitash (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• I'd say a mix of 1 and 2, so: 99% Arab-Berber (75–85% Arabs, 15–24% Berbers), 1% other. The answer isn't clear cut.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 as we do with or best country articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews.... Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan. Let the body explain in detail MOS:USEPROSE. Clearly a topic that needs more explanation than just a list in the lead as seen by all the debates above.Moxy🍁 21:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. Leave disputed/detailed stats to the body where they can be properly discussed. If the answer isn't clear-cut, it shouldn't be presented as if it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 > Option 2 > Option 3 : I present my choices in order of preference. I deplore misappropriation of sources (from Skitach) is endorsed in the proposal which misleads the reader because they are used to make say what they do not say: Example: the CIA Factbook which states Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1 is thus used to say 85% of Arabs (which it does not say at all is pure speculation). Same for study.com: Officially, 99% of Algerians identify as ethnically Arab-berber. The sources that present 85% Arabs are out of step with quality sources, it is a patchwork of popularization sources (atlas for young people), of works not focused on the ethnic study of Algeria (e.g. a book on feminism), and of cherry-picking. Almost all academic sources say that the Algerian population is descended mainly from Berbers (this is the precise point on which Skitach wants to mislead public opinion): Oxford Business Group, The Report, p.10, Around 99% of the population is Arab-Berber ethnicity, which means that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa. Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities, 2013 : Minority Population: Berbers 7 million, Sahrawi 120,000 Ethnic groups: Arab-Berber (99%) Europeans (less than 1%) René Gallissot, 1986, Maghreb-Algérie, classes et nation : Libération nationale et Guerre d'Algéri : The Arab-Berbers form the Algerian people [...]Matthias Brenzinger, Language diversity Endagered, p.128, More than 70% of North Africans of Amazigh originis speak no Amazigh languages, but Arabic languages ​​only. In Morocco and Algerian, about 80% of the citizen are considered to be of Amazigh origin, as are 60% in Tunisia and Libya.. Moha Ennaji, Multiculturalism and Democracy in North Africa: Aftermath of the Arab Spring, Taylor & Francis: The terms “Arabs” and “Berbers” are misleading and not to be understood in an ethnic sense. [...] Thus, the so called “Arabs” in Morocco and Algeria consist mainly of Arabized Berbers. the total population of Morocco and Algeria, respectively (Chaker 1998:16; Benrabah, this volume) Language Policy and Planning in Algeria: Case Study of Berber Language Planning, ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 59-68, January 2023.yet scholars claim that approximately 80 to 90 per cent of the current population of North Africa remains ethnically Berbers, albeit a large portion of this proportion has been Arabized and has therefore lost their original Berber identity markers (Ilahiane, 2006, p. xxxvi).. By wanting to impose a single version of 85% Arabs (or 75%) Skitach hides the complexity of the concepts, and what is hidden behind the Arabic terms, and especially refuses the majority of sources that say something else (Arab-Berber, ethnically majority Berber etc...). This is a case of civil pov-pushing (WP:CPP), and WP:UNDUE. It is better to let the concepts and the different hypotheses be cited in the section (WP:NPOV) and leave the infobox as is if it is to do a pov-pushing in this infobox. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thus, the so called “Arabs” in Morocco and Algeria consist mainly of Arabized Berbers that's as meaningless as saying that "as Homo Sapiens, all of them share almost 99% of their DNA with chimps." The fact of the matter is that a) almost all Arabs are "Arabized something or another" and b) they don't care as it doesn't prevent them from being ethnically Arabs and identifying as such. This is certainly the case for the majority of Algerians. M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Identity is not about ethnicity, claiming that maghrebi people "lost their berber identity" because some take genetics as the main identity caracteristic is misleading. Bebrer ethnic background is alone a debatable subject. let alone other more important subjects such languages, and others like music, political history, cultural heritage. Same goes for other arab states, we'll just call them assyrians or phoenicians or copts that lost their identity...I join @Skitash in this. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 is the most accurate and balanced reflection of Algeria's ethnic composition, as it acknowledges the current self-identification of the vast majority of Algerians while also being supported by reliable sources. Ethnicity, by definition, is based on how people identify themselves in terms of culture, language, and heritage. In Algeria, most people—between 75-85%—identify as Arab, and this reality is confirmed by numerous demographic studies and academic sources.HanKim20 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 4 > Option 2 > Option 3 by sources. Per Monsieur Patillo. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed sockpuppeteer

I vote for option 4 and choose the following in order of preference : Option 4 > Option 3. Contributors @Moxy @Nikkimaria suggested Option 4 which is serves all parties involved and ends disputes about Algeria country card for good. Option 3 is extremely relevant because of its empirical validity. other successful articles such as country cards like Germany, France, Canada articles refrain from discussing such vague concepts and there isn't such issues there, for some reason this is imposed on the Algeria page necessarily, it should be treated like any other country article, Mr Patillo sources from the university of Algiers and top institutions from the country support the arguments as well as other well-known publications to substantiate the fact, the sources provided by Skitash are very misleading and unreliable. Potymkin (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate votes by 129.45.0.0/16
Option 4 129.45.40.211 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Option 4 certainly. Other options are not suitable. 129.45.98.137 (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Option 4 129.45.96.219 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 It seems there are many ways to divide them. Senorangel (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Of course Option 1 because it talks about the nature of Algeria now and what the people know themselves and from sources, as (Skitash) explained what the ethnic groups are and mentioned many sources

The option 2 is inaccurate and does not help at all

The option 3 is clearly incorrect and the alleged sources are not sources at all and are not based on studies but rather are merely heresies and nationalist tendencies from Berber writers, so it is not right to take them as sources at all.

The option 4 does not solve the problem but rather evades it and reduces the value of the article and its information, and given Algeria's history, ethnic groups should not be removed from the information box.

I want to say something to the officials at Wikipedia. Not every time someone comes and wants to change an article to suit his mood, you go along with him, especially on a topic that is known globally and clear as the sun, and is also known locally, such as the Arabs of Algeria.

Thanks 37.220.114.228 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. There is no requirement nor benefit to representing what seems to be a complicated ethnic breakdown in an infobox. It seems more apt to include a discussion about the Arabization of the population in the body of the article, with sourced statements about their self-identification as Arabs. Per what I've witnessed browsing WP:RSN, if there are quality academic sources which disagree with the CIA World Factbook, then that should be represented in the body of the article. --Brocade River Poems 22:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 since this is content in need of explanation the best course of action is to let the body explain the situation between this.

𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1; as per Skitash, Nourerrahmane. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4. I think that there is no requirement nor benefit to add ethnic theme to the infobox. It's a complicated argument which is better to explain it in a proper way in a specific section where more informations about the Arabization of the population could be added, with sourced statements about their self-identification as Arabs. Since ethnicity is a complicated construct to define and since various studies reach different results with variances between values ​​that cannot be approximated, I would opt to include nothing. --Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Threaded discussion including replies to other editors' comments and other non-survey comments may be added here.

Note to all participants: please avoid editing the comments of other editors, except in rare circumstances such as those allowed by WP:TPO – and even then, such changes, such as moving a comment into proper chronological order, or adjusting threaded indent are best handled by an uninvolved editor. By the same token, please do not edit your own comment if there are replies to it already, or if some other comment refers to an earlier version of your own post, per WP:TPO. For guidance on how to handle a needed change to your own comment, please see WP:REDACT. Mathglot (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've asked the editor for more clarification..... we don't want people mocking about with other people's comments.... nor do we want people's comments misinterpreted. Moxy🍁 01:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• The sources presented are mostly incidental mentions. Are there any high-quality sources that directly discuss the topic of Ethnic groups in Algeria? CMD (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  The problem the debate seems to be having is "no official" sources out there that are new in any way.... .just best guess by different organizations. UK based Minority Rights Group explains all is kinda up in the air. Moxy🍁 17:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  To the subject of sources, I can locate a few.

  • Aïtel, Fazia. We Are Imazighen: The Development of Algerian Berber Identity in Twentieth-Century Literature and Culture. United States, University Press of Florida, 2014. Contains a statement which reads As far as the term Arab is concerned, as Feraoun makes clear in the earlier quote, it was often used broadly to refer to the populations of North Africa, whether they were Arabs or not. 16 Moreover, at various points in history, Berber individuals themselves and even whole tribes sought to present themselves as Arab and trace their genealogies back to Islamic civi- lization in the same way that later on some Berbers claimed Turkish ances- try. Today, a Berber, depending on the circumstances, would either use this umbrella term or would feel the need to specify that he/she is not really Arab, as Feraoun did in his letter to Camus

  The above book looks at the issue of identity in Algerian cultural consciousness mostly.

  • Minorities and the State in the Arab World. United Kingdom, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999.

  This book contains a chapter titled "The Berber Question in Algeria" and notes on page 33 that "25 to 30 percent" of the people in Algeria speak Berber as a language.

  Beyond that,

  • The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge: A Desk Reference for the Curious Mind. United States, St. Martin's Press, 2004.

  The New York Times lists Algeria as being 99% Arab-Berber

  • Arab Countries Economic and Social Development Handbook Volume 1 Arab Funds for Economic Development. United States, International Business Publications, USA, 2013.

  This book also says 99% Arab-Berber

  • Lyons, Amelia H.. The Civilizing Mission in the Metropole: Algerian Families and the French Welfare State During Decolonization. United States, Stanford University Press, 2013.

  Page 31-34 describes the Berbers as a minority population in Algeria in contrast to the Arab majority.

  • Mergent International Manual. United States, Mergent, 2003.

  This from the University of Michigan also lists 99% Arab-Berber.

  This is by no means a comrephensive survey, but yeah. Brocade River Poems 23:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  25 to 30 percent" of the people in Algeria speak Berber as a language. that's impossible given that a) the number of speakers was around 18% in the 1966 census and b) it has been decreasing ever since. If you look at the estimates of the speakers of the various Berber languages, you'll find that their total is closer to 15%. M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to argue with the source, you're more than free to find the author and make a complaint, if you'd like. I don't see how it is relevant to me, though, or to Wikipedia in general. If you have a source feel free to cite it, but do remember that per WP:V: If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.. Brocade River Poems 00:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Give me a break. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can give you more sources, if you want.

  • [13]. Berber speakers are to be found mainly in Morocco (40-45% of the population) and Algeria (25-30%), in Niger, Mali and Burkina-Faso (Tuareg), in Libya, Tunisia and at the extremities of the Berber domain, in Mauritania and Egyp
  • [14] This source cited in Languages of Algeria reads about 73% of the country's population speaks Algerian Arabic while 27% speak Berber
  • [15] Reads . It is noteworthy that up to present, no official and accurate census data regarding the Berbers’ demography are available, yet scholars claim that approximately 80 to 90 per cent of the current population of North Africa remains ethnically Berbers, albeit a large portion of this proportion has been Arabized and has therefore lost their original Berber identity markers (Ilahiane, 2006, p. xxxvi). Following the same line of thought, Chaker (2004) asserts that “the huge majority of current Arabic speakers in the Maghreb are in fact Berbers who were “Arabized” at various times in history”. Chaker (2001) adds that “Algeria and Morocco are by far the countries that count the most significant Berber-speaking population, approximately 25% in Algeria, 35 to 40% in Morocco” (p.136).
  • [16] Tamazight (the Berber word for language) covers a vast geographical area: all of North Africa, the Sahara, and a part of the West African Sahel. But the countries principally concerned are, by order of demographical importance: Morocco (35 to 40% of the total population), Algeria (25% of the population), Niger and Mali (Tuaregs).
  • [17]There are three main language groups in present-day Algeria: Arabophones, Berberophones, and Francophones. The Arabic-speaking community constitutes approximately 70–75% of the total population. Berberophones represent 25–30% and live in communities scattered all over the country

  Brocade River Poems 02:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please note that this RfC concerns ethnic groups rather than languages or ancestry. As for "80 to 90 per cent of the current population of North Africa remains ethnically Berbers", that is a classic Berberist claim that diverges from mainstream sources and lacks solid evidence. Ethnicity is primarily about self-identification. Skitash (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm not engaging in an argument about whether or not they are definitively x, y, or z. Someone asked if there were sources on the matter, and I provided them. I do not care what is a "Berberist claim" or what is, I suppose, an "Arabist" claim, and neither should any editor on Wikipedia. Even if a source is biased, the source being biased is not grounds for exclusion. Likewise, that diverges from mainstream sources and lacks solid evidence is up for the sources to decide. Language is very much related to ethnicity (with an additional reminder here that Wikipedia is not a sufficient source for Wikipedia), but the article you linked even says By way of language shift, intermarriage, acculturation, adoption, and religious conversion, individuals or groups may over time shift from one ethnic group to another. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, however, the word ethnicity means Status in respect of membership of a group regarded as ultimately of common descent, or having a common national or cultural tradition; ethnic character. Emphasis added. Definition per the APA Ethnicity is a characterization of people based on having a shared culture (e.g., language, food, music, dress, values, and beliefs) related to common ancestry and shared history. For comparisons sake, if an indigenous American of the Apache tribe only speaks English and self-identifies as White American after having been conquered and having their language and culture suppressed, they do not cease being an Apache because the world at large still views them as Apache, Native American, indigenous. If I moved to China, adopted Chinese customs, and declared myself Chinese, I do not suddenly cease to be Italian.

  Per this source, Fought, Carmen. Language and Ethnicity. p.1-10., Cambridge University Press, 2006. in modern societies that value self-determination and respect the right of each individual to define himself or herself, it is easy to fall back on the utopian idea that a person's race or ethnicity is whatever he or she says it is. But while this can be true on one level, on another level one cannot be completely free of the views and attitudes of others in the society.

  Likewise, the sources cited in Ethnicity do note that common ancestry is potentially part of the deal. So, while it is completely true that Algerian's might overwhelmingly identify themselves as Arab, it is also equally true that self-identification isn't the sole criteria for ethnicity and ethnic affiliation and that the view of the outside world is still also relevant.

  For the record, though, declaring sources as "Berberist" comes across a bit like WP:NATIONALIST, per the essay, making claims that Ethnic group is or is not the "true" group / Ethnic group does or does not stem from another ethnic group are, generally, a cause for concern.

  And for the record, my vote was to omit the ethnic information from the infobox because it is a more complicated issue and it does not need to be in the infobox.

  Cheers. Brocade River Poems 21:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wondering if we have some sort of outside canvassing going on..... Simply odd to see so many one-edited IPS and accounts here out of the blue.Moxy🍁 00:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

References (rfc)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"... is a country in the Maghreb region of North Africa." - The word Maghreb is in EXCESS and irrelevant, please remove.

Your[WP] sentence locates Algeria geographically, in the region of North Africa. The region in question spans from the Nile to the Atlantic. The Arabic word "Maghreb" is explained in its WP page in terms of geolocation:"The Maghreb is usually defined as encompassing much of the northern part of Africa, including a large portion of the Sahara Desert, but excluding Egypt and the Sudan, which are considered to be located in the Mashriq — the eastern part of the Arab world." - What does the political construct "Arab World" have to do with locating an land area on the continent of Africa? This is a real forcefull POV in a basic information. It's pollution, really. 2604:2D80:9117:CA00:F9B1:E407:154:8055 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If you are objecting to the use of the term Arab world in the article Magreb, then please take your objection to the talk page of that article. If you are objecting to the use of the word Maghreb in this, the Algeria article, that is not going to fly. Algeria is very definitely in the Maghreb; the word is used, appropriately, 29 times in this article, and Algeria is a founding member of the Maghreb Union. Calling use of the term Maghreb "irrelevant" in this article, is just your opinion, and nothing is going to change in this article based on your opinion. On the other hand, if you can come up with a host of reliable sources that show the Algeria is *not* in the Magreb, that is a different story, and then you will have some evidence to support your position and have a discussion about it. Pro tip: do not waste your time—you will not find them. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Population update

If it's not too much trouble please update the population in the infobox from 45,400,000 to 46,700,000 in accordance with the ONS

Sources:

• ALGERIAN DEMOGRAPHY by ONS
• El Watan
• El Moudjahid

From the first source, I quote:

Au 1er janvier 2024, la population résidente totale en Algérie a atteint 46,7 millionsd’habitants.L’année 2023 a été marquée par la poursuite de la baisse de la natalité où onassiste à un effectif des naissances qui reculé pour la première fois, depuis 2010, sousle seuil de 900 000 enregistrements, le recul du volume des décès et celui des mariages.Nous assistons également à une stagnation du taux de mortalité infantile, une baissede la mortinatalité. Par ailleurs, le niveau de l’espérance de vie à la naissance a connuune hausse record après le net recul enregistré au cours de la période 2020-2021.Depuis 2022, l’espérance de vie à la naissance des femmes a dépassé pour la première foisle seuil de 80 ans, atteignant 81 ans en 2023.

Regards. -- 105.235.131.22 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

What exactly is the point of citing every index that has been published by the economist? M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@HapHaxion: I forgot to ping you. M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You stated in your prior edit summary: "I don't think so + WP:OR" so I added sources for my claims to avoid speculation that it was original research. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources that you added don't support the WP:OR that you injected into the article: The Economist's Democracy Index has rated the country as "authoritarian" in every edition since 2006 except 2019. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@HapHaxion: What you did in the name section is plain wrong (I'm referring to the different alphabets). Please self-revert. M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I just went through the PDFs of every report year that I cited, and my claim checks out. Here are the page numbers if you wish to confirm:

• 2006 & 2007 - Page 5
• 2008 & 2010 - Page 7
• 2011 & 2012 - Page 8
• 2013 - Page 7
• 2014 & 2015 - Page 8
• 2016 - Page 12
• 2017 - Page 10
• 2018 - Page 41
• 2019 - Page 14
• 2020 - Page 13
• 2021 - Page 17

Additionally, here is the data for 2022, and here is the data for 2023 for even more sources.

In terms of the language sections, I only adjusted the template type used from {{lang}} with the ber parameter to {{lang-ber}}. Both denote the use of Berber languages, although one includes a label. Nothing else was changed. Please explain to me how this is "wrong" as I am not understanding. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I know what you did: it's the definition of WP:OR (WP:SYNTH to be precise). Frankly. I expect you to know something as basic as this. As for the language section, you changed sourced content (about the different alphabets) to what you mistakenly think is right. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless I am misreading something, nothing I did falls under WP:SYNTH. I am not combining sources to make them say something they don't say or imply anything not stated. I specifically said that in each edition of the report published since that year, Algeria has been labeled/scored as authoritarian, which is true and supported by the sources per the page numbers above. I also did not change any of the sources associated with the languages section. I only changed the templates that were being used to display the characters. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You are mistaken. WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which is what you did.

No, you changed the alphabets (you made it look as though one of them is a transliteration of the other), which is WP:OR (again) and plain wrong.

I also noticed that you keep removing "abbreviated as RADP" without explanation, which at this stage is obviously disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

None of the other names are abbreviated in that section, meaning listing the French version would be giving undue weight. Additionally, the sentence in question is referring to the full official name of the country, so if abbreviations were to go in, they would likely need to go in another sentence. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The others are not abbreviated in RS (do you expect me to explain the difference to you?).

Why not in the name section (which is dedicated for such names and abbreviations)? Which sentence would be more appropriate and according to which wiki rule? M.Bitton (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@HapHaxion: please either provide a valid reason or restore the stable and easily attributable content that you deleted. M.Bitton (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheRichCapitalist: can you please explain the reasons behind your unsourced addition? While you're at it, maybe you'd like to share how would you describe Algeria's neighbours (Morocco and Tunisia)? M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They're in the edit summary. Countries like Uganda, Kazakhstan, Cambodia, etc. have similar labels for similar reasons, and not all countries with this label have a citation (though I'd argue they ideally should). TheRichCapitalist (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Tunisia is a backsliding democracy. This trend has begun recently. Morocco has a combination of a democratically elected parliament and an unelected monarch, thus a hybrid regime.

I also adhere to WP:BOLD. Am I wrong here? If so, can you elaborate how this case is different from other countries labeled as "authoritarian" or "dictatorship"? TheRichCapitalist (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You're wrong in the fact that you seem to be labelling countries according to what you think, instead of what the scholars say. M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

With regard to this change: please read WP:REDACT and don't do again.

There is no such thing as "ideally should". Either they are properly sourced to multiple quality RS or they're not. I have no interest in those countries, but if they are labelled according to what you stated, then that's wrong (this is about as much as I would say about that). M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out.

I added "" for exactly that reason (some countries labeled as "authoritarian" don't even have that indicator). TheRichCapitalist (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

... and some countries are known as "apartheid regimes", yet nobody (on this project) would dare to label them as such. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be a formal list of criteria for when it is appropriate to add "authoritarian" regime/government/dictatorship in the government infobox. Judging by patterns on other countries with it, I'd still argue that Algeria fits, but a larger discussion wouldn't hurt. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, such labels (based on opinions and double standards on who are the good guys and bad guys) are never appropriate for the infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That's also an opinion. Reasonable people can debate the exact criteria. TheRichCapitalist (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The trouble with such criteria is that it cannot be exact because it depends on opinions. For instance, you described Morocco as a "hybrid regime", yet it takes little effort to find RS describing it as an "absolute monarchy." M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Morocco's Wikipedia page describes it as a "Unitary parliamentary semi-constitutional monarchy".

The Economist labels it as a "Hybrid Regime" (this is defined as a score between 4 and 6 out of 10, using 60 standardized criteria to calculate each country's score). Freedom House labels it as "Partly Free". TheRichCapitalist (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You're making my point. It all depends on which source you read. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've struggled to find any reliable sources that currently describe Morocco as an absolute monarchy as you claim. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocking the article (infobox and ethnic group section)

I propose to @Skitash (talk · contribs) to explains its successive reverts. Apparently it is not possible to complete the article which is at the limit of WP:OWN Kind regards, Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The onus is on you to explain why you believe your edits constitute improvements to this article. They don't seem like improvements to me at all. You simply cherry-picked passing mentions from WP:UNDUE sources that support your POV, even going as far as to include genetic ancestry data pertaining to Morocco, Tunisia and Libya, which clearly doesn't belong in this article. Furthermore, this source you cited does not in any way support your claim that Arab-Berber "means that almost all the inhabitants are descended from Berber populations". You've misinterpreted the source and introduced factually incorrect WP:OR. It's interesting to note that your own source distinguishes between origins and ethnic identity, yet you continue to conflate the two as if they were the same. Skitash (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@SkitashThe changes I proposed are important for maintaining accuracy and neutrality in the presentation of information.

I can understand that you have a divergent opinion but I note some inconsistencies in your approach (which I will explain below).

1) As the moderator reminded you in the DRN genetic elements can be included in the section. This is the case in featured articles. ex : Madagascar#Ethnic_groups, Bulgaria#Demographics, Canada#Ethnicity

You then claimed that what bothered you was the insertion in the infobox, but now you are even blocking the section and the text from any addition.

2) You are addressing a new argument which is that of the refusal of ancestry as an ethnic element. This is still a curiosity because sources do not say this:

• Ethnic group, England and Wales: Census 2021 : [18] Ethnicity is multi-dimensional and subjective, with various ways in which a person may choose to define their ethnic group. This may include common ancestry, elements of culture, identity, religion, language and physical appearance. It is generally accepted that ethnic group does include all these aspects, and others, in combination.
• Peuples, fictions ? Ethnicité, identité ethnique et sociétés anciennes, Pascal Ruby : Pour l’essentiel, c’est aussi une définition mixte du groupe ethnique que J. M. Hall retient pour aborder la question de l’ethnicité dans les sociétés helléniques de l’Antiquité. Après avoir envisagé de façon critique les autres critères, Hall, qui adopte une perspective constructiviste de l’ethnicité, définit l’ethnie comme « un groupe social » uni par « la croyance putative en une ascendance commune en association avec une terre natale primordiale » La parenté commune, réelle ou fictive, constitue souvent, de fait, le plus petit commun dénominateur du groupe ethnique retenu par les auteurs. Cette définition, J. M. Hall la voudrait « monothétique » : serait-elle pour autant totalement satisfaisante ?

Moreover, when it comes to adding elements of Arab ancestry such as migrations, you do it without reservation (and without source): for example, in the article there is the sentence: Centuries of Arab migrations to the Maghreb since the seventh century shifted the demographic scope in Algeria. Estimates vary based on different sources. (which is contrary to WP:NPOV and is UNDUE).

3)a)You've misinterpreted the source and introduced factually incorrect WP:OR. Oxford Business Group, The Repport, p.10, Arround 99% of population is Arab-Berber ethnicity, which means that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa.. Nothing has been diverted, your accusations are unfounded.

b)It's interesting to note that your own source distinguishes between origins and ethnic identity, yet you continue to conflate the two as if they were the same. Please do not make any assumptions and tell us which passage you are referring to?

4) What is your proposal based on the sources mentioned in the previous discussions? Are you sticking to the fact that 85% of Algerians are Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula and Arab migrations?

@Nourerrahmane read WP:NOPA. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

1) Out of the articles you presented, Madagascar is the only one that features genetic data in the ethnicity section (which shouldn't be there in the first place), and even then, WP:OTHERCONTENT applies.

2) This is not a new argument but rather common sense. Ethnicity is a social construct based on identity, culture, and language per the vast majority of RS, and that is a fact you can't change.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Your first source uses the word may and does not claim that ancestry is a fundamental requirement or defining feature of ethnicity (unlike identity and language). :::This is the case in Algeria, where people identify based on what language they speak and what culture they practice. Your second source clarifies that ethnicity can be grounded in real or fictitious kinship, meaning it is not inherently linked to genetics, but with self-identity or claimed lineage, which again links back to the definition of ethnicity as a social construct based on identity.

3) You knowingly cited a different source (from 2013) which does not include such information. The fact that other versions of The Report: Algeria omit such information suggests that this information is clearly WP:UNDUE and not a mainstream view. Page 128 in your own source states "Origin and identity does not necessarily match" and "In the latter two countries, few citizens have maintained their Amazigh identity", meaning that only a few identify as being part of that ethnic group, even though the source claims that a higher percentage are supposedly of Berber origins.

4) I propose that we stick to what the vast majority of reliable sources say and that you to stop edit warring and POV-pushing. "Arab" does not mean "from the Arabian Peninsula". Skitash (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

1) Featured articles are exemples. So there is nothing to prevent you from introducing data on genetics in the body of the text (you oppose it in the infobox during mediation, so you are taking an even more extreme position here).

2) You have already produced this block in the mediation with a cherry-picking of sources that go in your direction. You have been contradicted by other sources and by the example of the featured articles cited above.We are not going to repeat the discussion: genetic elements can be cited in the text and the section.

This is the case in Algeria, where people identify based on what language they speak and what culture they practice This is a view that is not shared by all sources. Then you divert the second source that I cited, to retain only what you want (subjectivity) without taking the other part (realistic elements).

3)Please do not make ridiculous accusations. I am only repeating the sources in the DRN that took place. If there was an error it was not intentional. Since you have nothing to say, you accuse the source of making a ... UNDUE.

You cut the passage of Matthias Brenzinger: Origin and identity does not necessarily match. In the latter two countries (note: Tunisia and Libya), few citizens have maintained their Amazigh identity. In contrast, increasing numbers refer to themselves as Amazigh in Algeria and in Morocco. With 11 to 14 million speakers of Amazigh languages ​​in total, only about half of those who currently claim their Amazigh identity still speak an Amazigh language. Obviously, to call a person an Amazigh does no longer require any Amazigh languages ​​competence. This is a most threatening fact for the vitality of Amazigh languages ​​and serious indicator for its endangerment. which contradicts your claim to say where people identify themselves based on the language they speak.Why do you prevent us from enriching the article with these different notions (linguistics, identity, etc.)?

4)if the arabs of Algeria do not come (not all) from the arab peninsula, where do they come from? Why does mentioning arab migration (ancestral link) bother you less than mentioning berber ancestry? Why slip in this assertion without a source that the local demography comes from Arab migrations? The reader is therefore misled. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about editor conduct. Please use the talk page to try to improve the article; if you have an issue with the editor, take that somewhere else. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

And I propose you stop pushing your ancestry obsession on this article. You've been engaging in edit conflict about this matter since last month, despite a recent consensus that concluded on adding nothing to the infobox regarding ancestry. Right now you're venturing in WP:SPA territory, please stop it. This article is more suited for ethnic groups in Algeria and their diverse ancestry. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC) @Nourerrahmane excuse me but I have no obsession I contribute a lot on many subjects. Besides the last time I saw your name is when you were blocked indefinitely on the French Wikipedia for "Disruptive Contributions" ... it is therefore curious that you turn yourself here into a giver of lessons, with personal accusations. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Being blocked in French Wikipedia by someone who owns articles there is irrelevent here (someone who badmouthed you recently in a TP in defense of a banned sock puppet...He also usually ends up facing off a whole consensus by himself and still blocks all improvement to Maghreb history articles, which is a shame. I didn't have this kind of treatement here). So please spare me your provocative comment, which actually is a personnal attack. I have every right to qualify you as an SPA when you're engaged in edit conflict and unfinished back and forth on the same subject in the same article for over a month. If this is not obsession then what is it ? Pov push ? anyways...I have no problem having this kind of of discussion in this article. Algeria is not about what the diffrence is between ancestry and ethnicity. This is off Topic. Regards. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC) It is the administrators who block on French Wikipedia and not a simple contributor. I was not involved in this story, there is no point in taking it out on me. Please read the previous terms of mediation (DRN) about the ethnic section before making irrelevant accusations. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) You seem to misunderstand me…I was not complaining to you, I was stating where such behaviour of yours came from. Which is more of a narrow interpretation of sources or cherry picking, pushing a WP:OR usually without consensus (like when you removed de-facto independent and military republic in the regency article despite multiple sources supporting it) and mixing bludgeoning, WP:PA and casting aspersions when your non constructive additions are challenged let alone edit warring. Your recent edits here make a good demonstration of that. Anyone told you that Wikipedia is about summarizing what WP:RS say ? That you should assume good faith towards other editors when your additions are challenged ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources

@Kovcszaln6 I will propose to summarize some sources. which are largely ignored in the current draft. The article in the current version cherry-picks to say that there are 85% Arabs implying in the current formulation that this is due to the influx of migrations from the Arabian Peninsula and not by the Arabization of the natives. By placing the sentence on migrations before perentage the reader is misled. To say that Arabs or Arab-Berbers are indigenous is a fundamental fact of the ethnic composition of Algeria as indicated by the following sources.

• 1) Moha Ennaji, Multiculturalism and Democracy in North Africa : Aftermath of the Arab Spring, [Multiculturalism and Democracy in North Africa - Google Books], Taylor & Francis: The terms "Arabs" and "Berbers” are misleading and not to be understood in an ethnic sense. The first inhabitants of North Africa were Berbers, and when Islam reached the region, it Islamized the population completely, but did not lead to its full Arabization. Today, it is preferable to refer to the populations in the region as Berberophone and Arabophone. In Morocco and Algeria, there is a linguistic issue, not a racial one, particularly the problematic of the integration of the Amazigh language in all walks of public life. Historically, many Berbers areas became completly arabized, and conversely many Arab zone were Berberized. Thus, the so called "Arabs" in Morocco and Algeria consist mainly of Arabized Berbers. In both countries, almorst everybody's origin is Berber, but only a minority speak Berber, about 40 percent and 15 percent of the total population of Morocco and Algeria, respectively (Chaker 1998:16; Benrabah, this volume).
• 2) Matthias Brenzinger, Language diversity Endagered, p.128, More than 70% of North Africains of Amazigh originis speak no Amazigh languages, but Arabic languages only. In Morocco and Algerian, about 80% of the citizen are considered to be of Amazigh origin, as are 60% in Tunisia and Libya. Origin and identity does not necessarily match. In the latter two countries (note: Tunisia and Libya), few citizens have maintained their Amazigh identity. In contrast, increasing numbers refer to themselves as Amazigh in Algeria and in Morocco. With 11 to 14 million speakers of Amazigh languages ​​in total, only about half of those who currently claim their Amazigh identity still speak an Amazigh language. Obviously, to call a person an Amazigh does no longer require any Amazigh languages ​​competence. This is a most threatening fact for the vitality of Amazigh languages ​​and serious indicator for its endangerment.
• 3) Language Policy and Planning in Algeria: Case Study of Berber Language Planning, [(PDF) Language Policy and Planning in Algeria: Case Study of Berber Language Planning (researchgate.net)], ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 59-68, January 2023. It is noted worthy that up to present, no official and accurate census data regarding the Berbers’ demographics are available, yet scholars claim that approximately 80 to 90 per cent of the current population of North Africa remains ethnically Berbers, albeit a large portion of this proportion has been Arabized and has therefore lost their original Berber identity markers (Ilahiane, 2006, p. xxxvi). Following the same line of thought, Chaker (2004) asserts that “the huge majority of current Arabic speakers in the Maghreb are in fact Berbers who were “Arabized” at various times in history.
• 4) Dmoh Bacha, Algerie Culture Identite, Maghreb : Algerie Maroc Tunisie, [31], p.192-193 :L'idéologie du Panarabisme, progressiste ou conservateur (Islamiste), a épuisé son crédit. Le concept du « Néo-arabisme » fut lancé d'abord par Napoléon III qui envisagea la création d'un « Royaume Arabe » s'étendant d'Alger jusqu'à Bagdad. Ce concept, sur un territoire plus vaste, et sous différente idéologie, fut repris par le mouvement politique « Panarabe », dans les années 1940. Ce mouvement donna le parti Baath et la mouvance Nassérienne. Le Néo-arabisme se consolida avec la formation de la Ligue Arabe, organisation territoriale créée en 1945. Cette ligue comprend 22 pays arabophones. [...] Les tests ADN donnent un rapport génétique Arabe/Berbère au Maghreb, estimé à : « — 65% d’ascendance ethnique berbère — 15% d’ascendance ethnique arabe du côté paternel — 20% d’ascendance diverses, Afrique sub-saharienne, Europe, Asie centrale. (Bekada, 2013) » Le flou identitaire en Algérie persiste sous la mouvance arabo-musulmane, qui veut substituer, religion au patriotisme et par riccocher au nationalisme
• 5)Oxford Business Group, The Repport, p.10, Arround 99% of population is Arab-Berber ethnicity, which means that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa.
• 6) Amirouche Chelli, Rapport aux langues natives et enseignement du français en Algérie, [32]. Quant à la proportion des locuteurs berbérophones ou de la population d’origine berbère, 1l est très difficile de donner une estimation exacte. Il n’y a jamais eu de recensement officiel basé sur les critères de l’origine ou de la pratique linguistique et même s’il y en avait eu, 1l aurait été imprécis en raison de plusieurs facteurs dont la peur d'affirmer son appartenance identitaire, et sans doute aussi manipulé voire falsifié par l'institution administrative initiatrice, elle-même, pour répondre à l’enjeu majeur que constitue ce taux dans l’idéologie nationale et la politique d’arabisation. Chaker (1990) et avant lui Camps (1981) affirment que la majorité des arabophones actuels ne sont que des Berbères arabisés à des dates plus ou moins anciennes. Le mythe du Maghreb arabe exclusif n’existe que dans l’imaginaire des idéologues arabo-musulmans, de leurs disciples et de leurs supplétifs. Pour Chadli Bendjedid, l’ancien président algérien, interviewé récemment par deux chercheurs japonais chez lui à Oran, les Berbères ont été systématiquement arabisés par l’islam qui s’est imposé non pas par la force des épées mais conséquemment à une adhésion harmonieuse et automatique, et que la question de la berbérité qu’il exclut complètement comme faisant partie de la personnalité algérienne, n’est qu’une 1dée néocolonialiste visant à déstabiliser le pays et créer des scissions dans la nation arabo-musulmane maghrébine.
• 7) Robert Laffitte, C'était l'Algérie, 1993 : [33] : Il a été remarqué, depuis longtemps, et affirmé bien des fois, que l’Algérie est peuplée de Berbères, et de Berbères arabisés du point de vue de la langue, mais les gens ayant du sang arabe dans les veines y sont certainement peu nombreux, et surtout ce sang doit être extrêmement dilué. Ils sont arabes au même titre que les antillais qui sont, suivant le cas, de langue française, anglaise ou espagnole, mais dont la couleur de peau atteste sinon l’origine, tout au moins l’origine de leurs aïeux, et ils sont français, anglais ou de nationalité hispanique
• 8) Gilbert Meynier, L’Algérie des origines. De la Préhistoire à l’avènement de l’islam, p. 11, 2007, la conquête islamo-arabe n’a pas déplacé vers le Maghreb des foules démesurées, pas plus que, par exemple en Europe, les invasions germaniques en France et en Espagne. Aujourd’hui, on peut raisonnablement affirmer que, peu ou prou, les Algériens sont très majoritairement des Berbères arabisés
• 9) Paul Balta, Présentation de son ouvrage, "Les particularités de l’islam au Maghreb", [La Bibliothèque en ligne - Les particularités de l’islam au Maghreb - Paul Balta Clio - Voyage Culturel] : À juste titre : bien que largement arabisée, la population du Maghreb, – le nom arabe de l’Occident – appartient dans sa très grande majorité à l’ethnie berbère, les Imazighen – au singulier Amazigh – « les hommes libres ». Une formule lapidaire, qu’on prête à Ibn Khaldoun (1332-1406) mais qui est de l’historien marocain Lahsen el-Youssi, auteur à la fin du XVIIe siècle d’Al Mouhadarât, définit ainsi l’homme berbère et son espace, de la Libye à la Mauritanie : « halq el rouous, akl el couscous, lebs el burnous : crânes rasés, mangeurs de couscous, porteurs de burnous ».

If we take the sources, some of which cited by Skitash:

• Britanica: “Arab invasions in the 8th and 11th centuries brought only limited numbers of new people to the region but resulted in the extensive Arabization and Islamization of the indigenous Amazigh population. »
• CIA Factbook: “although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab”

If we take the sources, some of which cited by Skitash: How arrives at a formulation of the type Centuries of Arab migrations to the Maghreb since the seventh century shifted the demographic scope in Algeria. Estimates vary based on different sources.. Which clearly suggests that the population originates from these migrations, which as it stands is neither more nor less misleading. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

1) Not a single source here pertains to ethnic identity. They're all about ancestral origins, which, as we've debated extensively, are distinct from one another. The vast majority of sources make it clear that those who identify as Arab form a majority. It's ironic that you accuse me of cherrypicking. 2) As for "Centuries of Arab migrations to the Maghreb since the seventh century shifted the demographic scope in Algeria", this is factually correct because the migrations clearly had an impact on the country's demography, i.e. language, culture, and genetics.[34] If that weren't the case, the majority wouldn't speak Arabic or identify as Arab today. Skitash (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

What is difficult to explain is why you maintain the ambiguity on the fact that ethnicity is linked to this migration? It is a form of ancestry, except that this time it is a WP:OR, because no one says that the ethnicity of Algerians/Maghrebis is essentially due to the arrival of migrants from the Arabian peninsula. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you dispute the fact that the Arab migrations were directly correlated with the rapid increase in people speaking Arabic and identifying as Arab? Skitash (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm finding it very hard to follow your logic. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Skitash I am not here to give my opinion. We are trying to define content that synthesizes what is said in the sources. If you have sources that explain the impact of these invasions on Algeria, they can be part of the synthesis, but so can sources that explain that the population remained of indigenous origin for the most part. Knowing whether the population is from North Africa or the Arabian Peninsula is fundamental to the subject. The current wording plays on the ambiguity by positioning Arab ethnicity just after migrations and a discussion on demography. This suggests to the reader that the population comes mainly from these migrations. This is a guiding idea that we find suggested in different articles where you intervene, such as here: Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Demographics. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. The Arab migrations resulted in widespread Arabization (which is covered in the respective Arab migrations to the Maghreb article) which meant that most Berbers, Punics, and all other pre-Arab ethnic groups became Arabs and started speaking Arabic. Their ancestral origins have no bearing on what their contemporary ethnicity is. Skitash (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

which meant that most Berbers, Punics, and all other pre-Arab ethnic groups became Arabs and started speaking Arabic. precisely this is not written in the article and you do not help to remove this ambiguity of Arabization of the first populations and not of their replacement (incidentally the Punics is a WP:UNDUE, based on a diversion of source that I pointed out to you in the article on Arab migrations), otherwise how is the Arab ethnic group formed in Algeria?

Their ancestral origins have no bearing on what their contemporary ethnicity is. You are contradicted on this point by source: 1), 3), 4), 5), 9) and different notions about ethnicity like this one [35]. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

DRN

For information. Due to the blockages and editorial dissent, I filed a request with DRN. Hoping that the procedure is respected. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Demographics -> Religion

Wikipedia is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does the subheading refer to an article about ‘History of Jews in Algeria’, but the subsection itself doesn’t make any reference whatsoever, even codedly or ambiguously, to the history of Jewish demographics in Algeria? This article has existed for many years. Many people have edited it, but apparently not one has seen fit to explain the demographic change in the Jewish population of Algeria. That’s very odd. KronosAlight (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Hello You are free to participate in the improvement of the article on the points you deem necessary based on academic sources. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC) I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Wikipedia editors. The question was rhetorical. KronosAlight (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The opening of the article is different from other Middle Eastern countries.

Hello. First of all, I am sorry I didn't mean to do disruptive edits or personal attack, you misunderstood me, I didn't insult anyone, my edits were sourced and i changed many parts of my edits so they were different edits not the same edit.

Skitash and MrOllie didn't explain why do they think my edit is not improvement? my edits were with sources I changed my edits several times and they still didn't explain why do they think these other new changes are not improvement? Skitash removed my talk section without replying to my point all he wrote in fact it makes no sense? what I mentioned is sourced historical facts, why does he think they don't make sense?

I wanted to add more information with sources about history of Algeria and dynasties and states centered in Algeria because the opening article just mentions ottomans and romans and byzantines....etc even though these empires dominated parts of West Asia and North Africa not just Algeria

The Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine), East Europe, Egypt and Iraq were occupied for centuries by the Greeks, Byzantines, Romans, Persians, Ottomans....etc In addition to these empires, other empires, The Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine) were occupied by the French crusaders for 200 years. Iraq was occupied by the Central Asians (Jalayirid Sultanate, Ilkhanate, Timurids) for 196 years.

however most opening pages of these countries don't mention these empires that occupied these countries or just mention a few of them.

for example, the opening page of Lebanon just mention few of empires who occupied Lebanon but not all of them, it doesn't mention in the opening page most empires that occupied Lebanon.

Same thing with Egypt, no mention of Greeks, Persians and Romans...etc

same thing with the opening page of syria it doesn't mention the empires of french crusaders, romans, byzantines, greeks..... dominating Syria etc.

Skitsh said my first edit is not improvement I thought maybe he thinks information about armies and one certain dynasty based in neighboring region originating from algeria is tangential so I removed information about armies because some people may see it as tangential, I didn't mean to attack him, I just mean that there are some people who makes politically motivated edits on Wikipedia history articles and as we know Wikipedia right now is moderated less than in the past because many Wikipedians left Wikipedia and it made it harder for few moderators to moderate thousands of articles.

I made this the latest edit and it was reverted again without a reason by Skitash

"Algeria has been inhabited since prehistory and was historically known as Numidia, like many other Mediterranean countries it has been at the crossroads of numerous cultures and civilizations, including the Phoenicians, Numidians, Romans, Vandals, and Byzantine Greeks. The territory of modern-day Algeria was the foundation of several states, such as Numidia, the Hammadids, the Zirids, the Regency of Algiers and other states"

I removed too the mentioned of a historical figure (Saint Augustine) because most opening of countries articles don't mention historical figures

I suggest removing "Turks" because regency of algiers was largely independent and because opening pages of Syria don't mention ottoman occupation

and I suggest removing vandals because vandal kingdom was in small part of algeria

I suggest this edit

""Algeria has been inhabited since prehistory and was historically known as Numidia, like many other Mediterranean countries it has been at the crossroads of numerous cultures and civilizations, including the Phoenicians, Romans, and Byzantine Greeks. The territory of modern-day Algeria was the foundation of several states, such as Numidia, the Hammadids, the Zirids, the Regency of Algiers and other states"

Thanks. POTDL (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)