Jump to content

Talk:Berberism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

according to what i've heard, arabs and berbers have extensively interbred.

that would account for people of berber descent speaking arabic.

Gringo300 08:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All genetic studies show that arabs had no or little influence on the ancestry of berbers, subsaharan influence is much greater than the arb one. The same is true for north arican arabs, they are identical to berbers except form some tribes. Toira 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which berber region one has conducted genetic tests, I doubt that tests have been carried out in the more obscure regions where most berbers are siituated. It is true that some berbers are decended from arabs but this is not true for all. Furthermore, the subsaharan influence depends again on the area. Its a tricky subject to consider since not all berbers are of the same race, it is a bit like the pan arabic world whereby it is a people united by a single language/culture. Go to the area zayan and you can clearly see that the people there are of remote relation to arabs!!These people have probably never met arabs apart from on television!

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berberism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Berbers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic neutrality

[edit]

As indicated by the flag on this article, there is a dispute regarding its neutrality. If anyone has a point to discuss, let's do so here, and I will gladly share my opinion once someone engages. TahaKahi (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What dispute? Unless you're able to point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, there really is nothing to discuss. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, gladly. Just read the first part of the Algeria topic, which openly claims that the ideology is anti-Arab in the first sentence and is also uncited. This is the basis for the flagging that the bot applied, which you removed without following the reasoning for its removal. TahaKahi (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
openly claims that the ideology is anti-Arab... and is also uncited it's sourced.
you removed without following the reasoning for its removal. that's big fat lie. The tag was added without explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The flag was made by a bot due to a dispute, requesting that we open a discussion on the talk page and reach a decision regarding its neutrality, as it only criticizes the movement. I'm confident that anyone who reads it can see how one-sided it sounds. The sentence at the top of the Algeria section doesn’t make sense in its position as the opening and summarizing sentence of the article. I would appreciate it if we could keep the discussion respectful—phrases like 'fat lie' and 'really is nothing to discuss' are unprofessional as opening remarks. I'm not interested in an unprofessional discussion. Perhaps we can address the issues one by one? Starting with the first sentence in the Algeria section--how do you see it as appropriate to be there? TahaKahi (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't people to describe your lies as lies, then don't lie. It's as simple as that. This is not a forum, I'm not discussing anything that isn't actionable within the content policies. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if we could keep the focus on the content and avoid personal remarks. I have raised specific, actionable concerns regarding the tone and citation of the article’s opening sentence in the Algeria section. The claim that the ideology is 'anti-Arab' is significant and, in my view, should be better supported and positioned to ensure neutrality aswell as it is properly placed. Please tell me the exact issue you have with how I raised the concern and I will try my best to properly present it next time. TahaKahi (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The claim" It's not simply a claim. It's a fact, supported by a myriad of sources.
"should be better supported" Did you try reading the sources already cited? I've added a few more in case those weren't enough. Skitash (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For quick notice to anyone interested in joining the conversation. I was referring to the first sentence of algeria topic in [[1]], it was removed by M.Bitton, though i still ask for reasoning of his removal to the Flag.
Thank you, Skitash, for adding additional sources. Firstly, the opening statement, "The origins of Berberism go back to the triumph of colonial capitalism in Kabylia during the French colonization of Algeria. Its roots date back to the 'Berber policy' of the French colonial empire, designed to 'pacify' Kabylia," frames it as a full product of French colonial policies, completely overlooking any complex cultural, linguistic, or even historical factors that existed before French rule. While, yes, the French role was significant, it should still emphasize a balanced view and not overbalance it toward one specific issue. Not a single perspective, it needs multiple; otherwise, it’s a one-sided telling of the issue. Also, the sentence, "French colonialists invented several ideologies to divide and rule the Algerian population, such as the Kabyle myth, a racist colonial trope which asserted that the Kabyle people were more predisposed than Arabs to assimilate into 'French civilization,'" implies that the Berber identity is mostly constructed by French ideology, rather than being an agency of defining and preserving their identity, risking framing the Berber identity as a colonial product. Then, the statement, "The Berberist crisis of 1949 led to the formation of the Berber Cultural Movement (MCB). Its agenda was to challenge Arabism and Islamism, and oppose Arabization because of its 'de-frenchifying' objectives and its alleged opposition to democratic and secular ideals," kind of implies that Berberism is solely in opposition to Arab culture, instead of an attempt to increase and preserve Berber culture/autonomy. Again, not the most neutral sentence.
I am not saying what you wrote is inherently wrong or right, but that it's a completely singular perspective. I love that you wrote about this subject not many have much knowledge of it and are capable of explaining it in English, but you only showed one perspective, which, unfortunately, doesn’t really align with Wikipedia's guidelines of neutrality. TahaKahi (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"completely overlooking any complex cultural, linguistic, or even historical factors that existed before French rule" Such as? Do you have any RS and are they WP:DUE? Skitash (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read my replies carefully and try to be open-minded to understand my point. It seems that a user has already made a remark about your contribution to the subject. However, I am against the way they phrased it and turned it into a personal attack. This article does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. TahaKahi (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help you if you're unable to cite RS or answer my questions. Skitash (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the formulation of the RI is devoid of any neutrality WP:NPOV specifically "Prefer nonjudgmental language." and "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" in addition to partially relying on misappropriation of sources or not restoring their nuances.
Example: the latest 10th source on colonization and the 19th century policy of division states An anti-Arab and anti-Islamic campaign was organized by these colons, but serves as a source for these assertions against Berberism (at all times and in all places...) or reference n°9: "Berber militants were charged with spreading hostile and intolerant anti-Arab and even anti-Islamic ideas (sponsored by Zionism and foreign countries!) and with representing nobody but themselves.". here we transform an accusation (pov) of the State into absolute truth...
Nothing is said about the activists, their demands, etc... From the outset, the only accusatory mentions against Berberism were retained in the RI (cherry-picking), to make it an invariable postulate. For example, how can the RI be so categorical on "sponsored by French colonial authorities." when there exists in secondary sources an "anti-colonial Berberism" for example according to Guy de Pervillé [2]. Likewise, how can we suggest that Berberism has always consisted of anti-Arab racism? which implies that legal Berberist parties like the Rally for Culture and Democracy in Algeria are in this racism? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"relative prominence of opposing views" Such as? Do you have any RS, and are they WP:DUE?
"but serves as a source for these assertions against Berberism" The tenth source supports the fact that French colonial authorities promoted anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia, and the Kabyle myth.
"here we transform an accusation (pov) of the State into absolute truth..." What exactly makes militants being charged with crimes a state-centric POV? Where is the "misappropriation of sources" you're alluding to? And why have you ignored all the other sources?
"there exists in secondary sources an "anti-colonial Berberism" for example according to Guy de Pervillé" The source you cited hardly mentions "anti-colonial Berberism" at all and is WP:UNDUE when compared to all the other cited RS (no such thing exists per Google Scholar).
"which implies that legal Berberist parties like the Rally for Culture and Democracy in Algeria are in this racism" This is your own judgement and does not contradict the cited RS. Note how the lead speaks of the origins of Berberism, whereas the RCD was founded in 1989, making your connection irrelevant. Skitash (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we will proceed step by step. For reference no. 9, James N. Sater : [3]
In the meantime, in June 2001, the second follow-up meeting in Bouznika of Moroccan Berber associations failed to get the authorization required. With neighbouring Algeria falling deeper into civil strive, the political dimension of the Berber question was regarded as too sensitive by the Moroccan authorities. Moreover, the possible creation of a Berber political party at a time when Morocco was trying to prevent the foundation of any new political parties (for instance the liberal party of entrepreneurs Forces Citoyennes) ensured major political resistance. Berber militants were charged with spreading hostile and intolerant anti-Arab and even anti-Islamic ideas (sponsored by Zionism and foreign countries!) and with representing nobody but themselves. In addition, they were reminded that associations and political parties based on ethnicity or regions were outlawed by the constitution. Berberism was associated with Islamic extremism, and it was stressed that Mohamed Chafik, the main intellectual figure behind the Berber movement, was a friend of Abdessalam Yassine, the spiritual leader of Al Adl wal Ihssan, Morocco's main Islamic movement. This created a major political impasse, as the rhetoric became increasingly violent, the Algerian example threatening, and Morocco's Amazigh movement increasingly powerful, organized, self-confident (remembering past promises from the late King Hassan II), and intellectually mature. The Moroccan state reacted in a way that it could do best: the banning of its public expression.
  • when you read this extract it is indeed a reported accusation and not the words of the author himself. (nothing to do with the Kabyle myth, colonization and everything you mention in passing.)
Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berberism&oldid=1258439572"