Talk:Maghreb

Population genetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

This source contradicts the sources above!

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

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

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

Ethnicity

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

@M.Bitton

Thank you for the notification. I don't see it as advantageous to edit versions again and again. However, looking at the history of versions, User Skitash changed the contribution and meaning of the terms (Arab and Berber), not me. I cite sources from scientists who deal with the genetics of peoples and Maghrebs. In contrast to user Skitash, who gives the source as authors and journalists who firstly write travel books and secondly refer to the language and culture. That's why I used the term "Arab Berber".

User Skitash denies in all his contributions eg also with Morocco (population) the genetic origin of the North Africans (Berber). Other users have also not denied in the history that North Africans are genetically largely of Berber origin.

My compromise is - Arab - Berber but because linguistically and culturally - Arabic and genetic - mostly Berber. But this is always deleted by User Skitash. Please also look up the sources in other language versions of Wikipedia. For example in Arabic and French. A mixture of ethnic groups is always specified. I don't want to cause any problems here. However, I ask that people describe themselves as they describe themselves and where there is also expertise, for example from: National Library of Medicine.

Thank you.

Yelendo

15:31, 27. Januar 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Yelendo. You need to understand the difference between ethnic groups and genetics because they are not the same thing. I don't know which travel book you are referring to but those sources are reliable and published by authentic authors like CIA, Oxford, Al Jazeera, BBC and they all give accurate ethnic percentages. Like I said, if you want to add genetic sources put them in the right section instead of mixing them with unrelated things. Skitash (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Skitash! I have therefore also chosen the term "Arab-Berber" (which already exists). In fact, ethnicity and genetics is something different. What I am trying to say here is that the population of the Maghreb is largely Arabic, culturally and linguistically. However, the genetics in many parts of the population are Berber or mixed Berber-Arab. But just mentioning this in the genetics section also contradicts things like the Arabic language (which is spoken in the Maghreb, which was influenced by the Amazigh language or cultural customs like Fantasia in Morocco or the Douz Equestrian Festival etc.). So wait a minute, I am using the term "Arab-Berber" as a more appropriate term, as that is the most appropriate description of the population. I am neither a Berberist nor an enemy of the Arabic language. On the contrary, I love the Arabic language. I hope you understand what I want to say. Yelendo 22:58, 16 Mar 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but this does not really solve the problem. "Arab-Berber" isn't an ethnic group and isn't an accurate term. The Arab-Berber page seems to have no definition and its unclear if it refers to people of mixed Arab and Berber origin or if it just combines both ethnic groups. Sources which use that term say Arab-Berbers make up 99% of the population, and this doesn't show the true ethnic percentages. I believe the best option is to leave the page with the current percentages as supported by many sources. Skitash (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Even genetics confirms that the genetic majority are Arabs in Maghreb, but what is also proven is that the original inhabitants are Berbers, and they were the vast majority before the arrival of the Arabs. 109.107.229.112 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

great shame to hear, since there already was a land of arabs (arabia), and maghreb,like other geographies, had its own, indigenous population history. it sounds based on articles on maghreb demographics, that intermarriage was quite 'widespread', and led to the effective ethnic change of a local population, dwn to dna, which is 'creepy' to think of, as in done by 'outsiders', not even neighbouring ones.. then, as mentioned in colossal migrations from arabia, who apparently stayed put amidst local ppl, effectively 'smothering' them, to a pount of many 'eventually' giving in out of fatigue, or something.. 12.146.12.2 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The books I am referring to is:"Libya" by Peter Malcolm and Elizabeth Losleben and "Native Peoples of the World" by Steven L. Danver (historian). As far as I know, none of these are involved in genetics science. Yelendo 23:11, 16 Mar 2023 (UTC) Yelendo (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

June 2024

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

MOS:INFOBOX/MOS:ORDER

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

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

There was no reason for you to revert once your bold edit was reverted (I suggest you read WP:BRD). I'll repeat what I said above (since you appear to have missed it):

MOS:ORDER is quite explicit in what should come first (infoboxes before the lead section). You'll notice that this is how it's done in all articles, so what makes you think that this one should be different? M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Ok, fair enough. The lead para is usually present before the Infobox in other articles while viewing through mobile. The order is same though. For some reason that is not the case with this one. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi: there was something (coordinates) that shouldn't be there (now removed). Please test it again. M.Bitton (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton looks good now. Thanks. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi: thank you for flagging the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

New sub-articles

Leaving a note here that two new related articles have just been created: Central Maghreb and Extreme Maghreb. I'm not convinced that these merit separate articles, given that they are just general geographic terms already explained in this article, while the history of these regions is covered in multiple articles already. This seems like unnecessary splitting and borderline content-forking to me, but I invite other editors to consider whether this is fine or if it would best to merge and direct readers back to this article. (Courtesy ping also to @Monsieur Patillo who created the new articles.) R Prazeres (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for notifying me. I created these articles by a parallelism of form with the article Ifriqiya, also known as Maghreb al-Adna. From then on, the creation of the other two seemed obvious to me, especially since this is what has been done in several projects (Arabic, Spanish, French, Italian). For the article Central Maghreb, it even has a certain potential for development (see: fr:Maghreb Central). I will follow the decision taken, if you do not want these articles the content will be merged elsewhere which will be indicated..

Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I don't see anything wrong with the content of course, just that it unnecessarily creates extra articles about topics covered here or at History of North Africa, or notably at History of Algeria and History of Morocco (which, modern names aside, are very close in scope), and so on. Looking at fr:Maghreb central, for example, which I think you mostly expanded: most of the content there seems to be another history overview.

I think the case of Ifriqiya is different, insofar as the term sees much more regular usage in English references (e.g. [1]) and it had a political definition under the early caliphates aside from merely a geographical one. In fairness though, the Ifriqiya page also contains a lot of material that is potentially redundant in relation to other articles, so some revision is needed there too.

In any case, it's not an urgent problem and I appreciate the constructive contributions, I'm just thinking of what's best in the long-term for readers. I'll let other editors comment and we'll see if any changes are needed. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

One of the main objections is that today's Algeria has a Saharan space that is not that of the Central Maghreb. We also have the same reference in French fr:Algérie pendant le Moyen Âge and fr:Histoire de l'Algérie. Although the subjects are similar, seeing the past through the lens of a current entity is problematic in my opinion, with a high risk of anachronism.

For the occurrences of Central Maghreb, it might be necessary to compare them with that of "Medieval Algeria", or "Algeria during the Middle Ages" etc... because Ifriqiya is indeed a more notorious subject which is also found in the French language in relation to the Central Maghreb (alternated with Maghreb al awsat).

I did not understand on which point of the article fr:Maghreb Central I had expanded it? Your opinion interests me. I remained in the plan of the dynasties cited by the work of Mahfoud Kaddache, and Gilbert Meynier to a lesser extent.

Either way I would be happy to contribute in whatever article format the community finds useful in wp:en. Contents can still be moved and merged, this is not a problem otherwise.

Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with R Prazeres who pretty much summed it all (including the special case of Ifriqiya). M.Bitton (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with R Prazeres as well. Those two new articles are WP:CONTENTFORKs and should be merged into this one. Skitash (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)