From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

Contents 1 Berber as a Race? 2 May want to update the pix of the president 3 "I have named this family of languages the Berber-Ibero-Basque Complex" 4 Anthropological Evidence and Language 5 Fictitious Information MUST BE REMOVED 6 Anthropological section 7 GA nomination failed 8 Zidane Headbutt? 9 My contribution 10 The External Links 11 New topic 12 Population figures 13 Articles to be expanded 14 Discrimination against the Berbers 15 7.3 Modern-day Berbers 16 Yemen Berber 17 Better article title? 18 GA Passed 19 Berber and Amazigh 20 Part of the introduction 21 Religion 22 Appelation 23 Total population? 24 "related groups" info removed from infobox 25 Arabization Section 26 Meshwesh 27 Berber and Amazigh are different, and logic 28 Objections by User:Mariam83 29 Genetic

Berber as a Race?

May want to update the pix of the president

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anthropological Evidence and Language

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

Fictitious Information MUST BE REMOVED

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

              -    I think this would qualify as trolling. 

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

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

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

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

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

              -

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article is a considerable improvement from what it was previously. The Berbers are by all means a Caucasoid race, which itself is very diverse, ranging from the Europeans to the eastern reaches of Central Asia and India. Skin colour has very little to do with race anyway, it is merely an environmental adaptation. But I have to point out, true Berbers are lightly pigmented and some European admixture is present, with light eyes and blondism encountered frequently in Tunisia and Morocco, which I have visited. The sub-Saharan Negro presence is negligible or non-existent. Koalorka (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthropological section

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

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

My issues with this are as follows:

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

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

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

GA nomination failed

For these reasons :

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

Minor ajustments not needed for GA status :

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

Lincher 03:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Zidane Headbutt?

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

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

My contribution

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

---

The External Links

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

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

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

New topic

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

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

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

Population figures

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

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

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

Articles to be expanded

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

Discrimination against the Berbers

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

7.3 Modern-day Berbers

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

Yemen Berber

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better article title?

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

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

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

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

GA Passed

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

Berber and Amazigh

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

---

Part of the introduction

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

Religion

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

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

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

- Having lived in Kabylie as a child, in the region of Azazga, and being of Kabyle descent, thus claiming to be a primary source on this matter, I know that many pagan beliefs and rituals persist in berber (at least kabyle) spirituality. My own grandmother's used to tell me about rituals to spirits of which i have read similar accounts in texts on celtic pagan tradition. -((Ok, so maybe i have primary sources (my grandmothers--setsi, in kabyle), and i myself am a secondary source.))- Moreover, much more extensive and widely available first person accounts of the christian kabyle exist. Read the autobiography by Taous Amirouch, for instance. Actually, there's an interesting french news segment on the modern kabyle christian evangelists on youtube that I strongly recommend. The christian and jewish kabyles are still out there, make no mistake about it.

Appelation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total population?

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

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

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 21:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Arabization Section

The last sentence in this section is very unclear. What is Napolean's project? And what does this really have to do with the Arabization of the Berbers? I would amend it, but I'm not sure how, except to remove it completely.

Meshwesh

It is a Moroccan tribe, called Tamshwesh, located in the suburbs of the town of Taza, belongs to the large tribe Awraba.--Manssour 07:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Berber and Amazigh are different, and logic

i really dont know whats wrong to people who mixed up between Berber and Amazigh, my dear people you have to know that Berber is an arab tribes that come from Yemen, if you will go deep to the language of Berber itself you will find it rich with arabic words maybe i can't understand that very well but because i speak arabic some of arab people showed me the way we can say the words, the different is something like Austrilan english, scotich english, american english, canadian english and Jamaican english, etc.. sometimes you can find the word is different when you listen to it but someway some how it's the same, and every body knows that the Berber are the 1st people who went to this land, plus the Berber are Yemeni people, and i think everyone knows that in Yemen a big problem happend in the past Marib Dam when it distroyed then the Yemeni deployed all around the arabian peninsula till north of africa so they find an empty land of people either the arabian peninsula or the north of africa. anyway it's a historical things. the logic things that i can say, since the Amazigh are only 30% of the population then who are the rest? thanks for reading.

Objections by User:Mariam83

I have deleted the opening paragraph because it is anti-Arab, it denies wholeheartedly the Arab identity of the Western Arab world, and it does not use subtsantial evidence. Further, the source that is cited, which uses around 100 subjects from the mauritanian, southern moroccan region, simply cannot be used NOR referenced to write and interpret a history of a region that is Enormous, more than twice the size of Europe. This violates all wikipedian pillars. The supposition that a people does not know its own identity is curious, downright orientalist, unacceptable and most importantly, inaccurate. While not discounting the immense importance of the Berber populations, the Arab majority must not be dismissed. In the region, it is well known that mauritania is not Arabic per se and that Morocco, particularly Southern Morocco, differs enormously from other countries where so called Berbers are found. Again, this is a term that is not recognized by these various different people. It is therefore more appropriate to list the questionable info that is listed in an exact manner and not in an ambiguous manner by applying results from amazigh to Kabyles, two people that have never had nor probably ever will have any connection with one another. I do hope Mr. Lonewolf that you learn to appreciate the need for precision and certainty in writing a people's history. I will do my best to bring this article to people's attention as I believe very few people from the region use the English version of wikipedia as the majority are francophone. Moreover, I am concerned by the manner in which some articles relating to the Southern Mediterranean, the Arab world, Arabs, and so called Berbers have been edited in a biased, at times absurd, highly subjective, partisan, and inaccurate way. I have attempted to remedy this situation, but have encountered considerable resistance from contributors that appear to have no connection whatsoever with the region, as even a slight connection would have perhaps rendered similar results from others. Again, please respect the pillars of Wikipedia, namely that :

-Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.

-Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.

please let me know what you think and may I suggest acquainting yourself with the sources and doing your research, Mr. Lonewolf, before lightheartedly imposing a flawed interpretation that violates wikipedian pillars. Thank you.. Mariam83 10:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(The two following posts have been moved to here from my talk-page, by me. -- Lonewolf BC 16:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

The evidence from the source, which I have read numerous times, was taken from Mauritania and Morocco. The number of subjects used is less than 200, it is THEREFORE ALMOST NONSENSICAL TO APPLY THESE RESULTS TO A REGION AS VAST AS THE WESTERN ARAB WORLD WHICH IS MORE THAN TWICE AS LARGE AS EUROPE. Also, let me remind you that the word Berber is not recognized the all these different people who have no relation to one another. As a native, I am telling you that this so-called evidence, which was funded privately by a corrupt billionaire, who has been assasinated, is not objective, not is it substantial. You cannot possibly write history based on 100 or so subjects from mauritania and morocco and then apply it to countries that have nothing to do with these two countries. It would be like using Scottish subjects and then applying the results to Russians or Greeks. Do not be absurd. I am going to have to complain about you, for your blatant anti-Arabism, for the non-objectivity of your actions, for you downplaying and outright denial of the region's Arab identity, which is of course symptomatic of a general anti-Arabism, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedic source. Hence, let us be objective and neutral. Mariam83 10:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made some further changes. I have not in anyway deleted anything, however, I have reworded what seemed to me blatant anti-Arabism, and what was blatantly anti-wikipedian. It is not our business to speculate whether one study is debatable or not, in light of the fact that both are studies , and despite the fact that the second study, which might have used subjects from another region in this enormous region as I have repeatedly pointed out, concludes differently. I have therefore removed any play on language, as it is not our acceptable for a wikipedian, most likely one unfamilair with the region, to interpret history and reality. Further, I have pointed out the limited scope of these studies. You say the subjects are not from Mauritania but the asmaharis are bedouins from mauritania. I also mentioned subjects being used from southerm morocco, a country that has had quite an influx of foreigners over the years that is most cases may not be distinguishable to a european, and this study was conducted by Spaniards. However, there are 2 matters of greater concern. Other concerns of mine are as follows:

Firstly, the removal of mention that "probably all North Africans etc." based on around 100 subjects from the region aforementioned. to a native, this is absurd, as it is well known, again, that mauritania and the southern moroccan region are completely dissimilar to distant lands that are nonetheless also part of what is traditionally called north africa. The inclusion of traditionally non-North Africa countries like mauritania, well known to be a sub-saharan country to Arabs, renders the need for precisions even more urgent. Inclusion of this speculation, and one not even remotely based on empirical evidence, is not objective, and indeed it is necessary, if the article is to remain neutral and objective, though even in its current state it is not, for these sorts of amateruish speculations to not be included. As such, its exclusion is factually accurate and important for informative purposes. It is also in keeping with wikipedia standards. Such statements as the ones I have removed, which in no way affect content but rather tone, reflect personal views, not facts, and compromise the neutrality and accuracy of the article. I hope you understand why I have made the minor changes that I have made. Please contact me and let me know what you know :-) Mariam83 11:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. sorry for ranting

Your incoherence makes a detailed response by me difficult. However, whatever flaws the existing material in this article may have (and it is far from perfect, I agree) your edits are clearly point-of-view and "original research" -- your personal opinions drawn from your supposed expertise as "a native", and seemingly affected by your personal biases. You also are stubbornly twisting the content of Bosch et al.: First you claimed that their sample was from Mauritania and now you say that it was from Mauritania and Southern Morrocco, in both versions seeming to claim that the sample was only from that place or (in the your second version) those places. In truth, as is easily seen if one reads the journal article by Bosch and company, their northwest-African samples were of four subsets, one of which was from "southern Moroccan Berbers", and one of which was from "Saharawis", people of Western Sahara. The other two subsets were from "north-central Moroccan Berbers" and from "Moroccan Arabs". There is nought pointing to any sampling from Mauritania. This lack of veracity in your posts, and the supposed grounds for your edits to the WP article, are cause for much concern. Likewise is your bald assertion that the research was "funded privately by a corrupt billionaire, who has been assasinated". In these and other ways, your edits and comments smack of Arab-nationalist bias that is offended by any suggestion of black-African admixture in the Maghreb, or that "Arabs" there are mainly Berber by ancestry (even while undoubtedly Arab by current ethnic distinctions). I suspect that the same will be readily seen by most other editors. In any event, your edits were soon reverted by someone other than me, and have consistently been reverted by several other editors.

Please stop. Persistently making plainly biased edits is considered vandalism. For your own sake, and for the good of Wikipedia, reconsider your course.

-- Lonewolf BC 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, Lonewolf. While wikipedia may be your life, it is only my third day here. I am not yet familiar with all the rules, though it is obvious to me, unfortunately, that I have been bitten by you. Perhaps it is your wolfish exuberance that renders you so hostile and unhelpful, but your comment that "There is nought pointing to any sampling from Mauritania" (chuckles at nought) clearly demonstrates to me how very unfamiliar you are with the material at hand, which perhaps best explains your assault on these articles. Once again, the subjects used in the study are known as a group of nomads of generally sub-saharan african stock. I suppose you will once again and perhaps forever revert this article as well as others, but I strongly urge you to pay attention to the material and not focus solely on your role as a sort of wolfish vanguard. Hint: you may have to look up some unfamiliar Arabic words and labels in that article in order to appreciate my point of view Mariam83 05:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf, I take it your name suits you well. Thank you for proving my point exactly. Yes, the samples used were taken from the Western Saharan, which is not recognized as part of North Africa, and which is demographically a sub-saharan African country. Some samples were also taken from the Moroccan South, I mentioned this in my earlier comments. The reason why my comments are "incoherent" is because you are not worthy of my time and attention. You obviously have a tapeworm's brain. My major point was that the vast region that is North Africa, which again, let me reiterate, is more than twice as large as Europe, differs drastically from the sub-saharan region that this particular study focused on. While Morocco is a north Africa country, its southern region differs greatly from its northern region, as in the south there has been quite an inflow of sub-saharan Africans. What is more, Morocco does not in any way resemble its distant North African neighbors, most especially Algeria and Tunisia. This study did not use subjects from these two countries yet it applies its "findings", derived from a very paltry number of sub-saharan Africans/and a smaller number of Southern Moroccans, to the entire region. Even to a person such as yourself, it ought to be obvious to you that these findings are rather limited in scope. Most importantly however, the removal of any mention and subsequent denial of the region's Arab heritage is not in keeping with wikipedian pillars. The region is inextricably linked and defined by its Arab heritage and your insistence on denying this fact smacks of a general Anti-Arab bias. The fact is, the Berbers of the region are a people apart, quite distinct from the majority, and they do not account for the majority of the population. My sole concern is that articles be written in a neutral and objective manner, and that the sources one cites are properly researched. I am going to report you for Vandalism and for blindly adhering to your prejudices. However, I strongly urge you to analyze the issue that you seemingly know nothing about, rather than acting as a police force, as you are compromising the article's integrity. I hope you think before reverting articles whose subject matter you are unfamiliar with, and I hope you think about them in an impartial manner that reflects common sense, and not in a way that personalizes the impersonal, for I have absolutely no interest in you or any other lone wolves, I am merely trying to point out how incredibly flawed this article and others of its kind are, as they have obviously been hijacked by ignorant and rather uninformed non-natives and non-specialists, which frankly saddens me. Thank you Mariam83 04:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing-my concern here is the idea that it is "okay" to make sweeping judgments based on paltry evidence that is rather suspect in my mind, because we're dealing with a Muslim, Arab region. This seems to me like an instance of orientalism. What makes it deplorable though is that the source is non-scholarly. I also suspect that as the region is largely Francophone, that these articles again have been "hijacked" by crazed non-native afro-centrist contributors who have claimed, rather absurdly, on other articles, that Ancient Egypt was built by blacks, is today populated by blacks and that somehow rather "magically" it's become non-black, while the rest of black Africa has retained its blackness. My point here is that I intend to protect the region's identity, as I am confident even a cursory investigation would convince even the most deluded. And since the Arab world is largely controlled by dictators, and there are hardly any institutions in place to safeguard identity, it is important to distinguish between native populations and non-natives, which for foreigners may be difficult, as it is often difficult for them to distinguish even among Arabs, Indians and Sudanis. Let me remind you, Lonewold, that Wikipedia, unlike you, recognizes that "native" populations are to be regarded with exceptional concern, and I strongly urge you, as you seem to very much enjoy policing rather disdainfully, to observe Wikipedian pillars. Mariam83 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to second Lonewolf's statement. While I have long thought the Berber article is a horribly written and moderately biased against Arab identity, Mariam83's edits are worse than the original (this is true across the range of articles she has been editing, even where she has valid points. Having just spent a rather silly amount of time editing her Maghreb edits -which contained some good material, much copy violation material and odd personal interjections, I am inclined now to merely revert her edits now as vandalism). (collounsbury 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Collounsbury, my mistake was in not taking wikipedia seriously, which I still don't and probably never will. I think most scholars and professors concur with this opinion, and I hope it remains this way. But rather than simply "edit" and correct "incorrigible" lnaguage problems and wasting your time "seconding" lonewolf's comments, why don't you set out, yes! set out to actually remedy the problems that you have noticed?! Mariam83 05:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your mistake is in attempting to impose your particular point of view. I am not even defending this article. What I am defending is lonewolf (and others) reversion of your POV vandalism / editing. (collounsbury 11:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

And compromising the content's integrity in the process? How very unwikipedian! And you don't even realize how problematic this frame of thinking is do you? Sadly, it is people like you who undermine projects like this, and it is your ignorance, manipulation and distortion that I am trying to counter and shall till the end!Mariam83 12:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83, I don't think what you're doing is intended as vandalism, but it is disruptive. I don't know how to characterize your statements, accusations and edits as anything other than a messianic zeal to impose your issues, whatever they might be. What is this edit summary supposed to mean? "08:48, 17 June 2007 Mariam83 (Talk | contribs) (19,177 bytes) (this article has been hijacked by self-hating niggers who want to blackenize the mediterranean)" Twalls 22:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

She/He is presently blocked, but that comment combined with others (e.g. on my talk page using an Arabic slur against black Africans against me) I think amply illustrates the content of her thinking. I would also draw attention to the citation on the 3RV block discussion on her/him (and sockpuppet khalidm) citing a particularly racist screed by a now blocked anon IP user, using similar language re the same issue. (collounsbury 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Genetic

As the evidence cited is rather limited in scope (explanation above), I think it safe not to render what is minuscule as grandiose. I have re-worded the paragraph and expunged any charged, propagandistic, unverifiable or partial material. The word "intruders" is rather charged, and has been replaced with the more neutral word groups, as these groups have been assimilated and figure prominently in the region. Mariam83 06:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided annotated explanatory evidence. The contradictory evidence is now explained with FACTS! As I've pointed out, the vastness of the region is what accounts for its diversity, that was being deliberately ignored by previous contributors whom I suspect sought to twist around the evidence to impose a fictional presentation. As I have tried to explain so many times, the different people of the region in most cases have no connection with one another. I hope now, with the verifiable additions, it is clear to everyone why I found earlier versions inaccurate. Please do not revert to erroneous earlier versions BEFORE researching the sources cited, studying the region, noting the region's size and using common sense. Mariam83 08:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your problems with the genetics article are without basis. I reviewed the article, the sampling used is proper, peer reviewed and covers a wide range of the greater Maghreb/Berber population. Your issues with what defines the area/population are your issues and not well supported. collounsbury 18:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Without Basis? first of all, I didn't remove those sources, I merely added a rather important piece of info, the origins of the subjects used. Since the article makes fantastic claims based on these sources I thought these details worth mentioning. Again:

1)The region is huge, more than twice as large as Europe.

2)The label "Berber" is not recognized by these sundry diff groups.

3)The studies should not therefore in view of these two facts, apply to these DIFFERENT groups of people.

4)If this article wants to discuss the ORIGINS of these different groups of people then I think it should INCLUDE the ORIGINS of the subjects used in the studies.

!!!!!! For the moment, findings based on a study using subjects from the Western Sahara and certain parts of Morocco are being applied to OTHER, UNRELATEd groups of people in distant countries like tunisia, Egypt and even ALGERIA! Remember, algeria alone is larger than 5 European countries combined!!!!!!! What is soooo difficult to understand about this?!?? Mariam83 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, without basis. You vandalised the article based on a misreading of the sources (or rather you don't know how to read the genetics background). As for your whinging on about Berber: Berber is the term used in English to refer to the disperate Berberophone groups. Wtherh they "recognise" a usage in a language most don't even bloody speak is utterly irrelevant. Your ranting on is tiresome and irrational, I have no idea how to have a rational exchange with you. collounsbury 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Again, you are personalizing the impersonal. I did not misread anything, and suggesting that I have again proves how irrational you are. The origins of the donors is pretty clear in those articles, and should be included in discussions pertaining to the origins of the berbers. And the fact that Berbers do nto recognzie this label is very important, as it suggests that they do not consider themselves part of the group that western orientalists find practical to label "berber". It means that we should not enmesh various diff unrelated groups together, if you are still unconvinced then maybe you have a problem>? Also, I did not vandalise anything..Look up vandalism. Before accusing me of vanadalism, prove it. Finally, stop attacking me and focus on the content or better yet, focus on content that you are familiar with as you are obviously not qualified to edit these articles. Mariam83 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing personal here as such. Your criticism of the arty is w/o basis and your edits inserting dismissive language in re West. Sahar. Berber origin pops are not improvements. I am tired of this incoherent round and round and round. collounsbury 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? first of all, what does arty mean? talk about incoherence. Second of all, if you consider facts dismissive, as the above would suggest, then the problem lies with you not me nor the fact. My edits are not without basis. Again, and for the LAST time, in discussing genetics, it is important to mention Origins if we are to discuss genetics in an informed and not in a muddled rather idiotic way. Not sure what "in re west. sahara berber origin pops " means, but I take it you are implying that the mention of the Western Sahara is in some way dismissive? HARDLY. It is merely a fact and as such, ought to be included in an "encyclopedia" that aims to be neutral, objective, and most importantly, accurate and informative. I am going to remind you one last time that wikipedia is open to everyone, which means that I have every right to edit articles, so long as I do so in a proper way. It also means that you do not own these aticles, and should refrain from reverting all edits that add information that you find objectionable. The origins in a genetics section are not only informative but necessary. Mariam83 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Arty" means "article", which is not so hard to puzzle out, if one stops to think for a moment. Likewise is Coullounsbury's telling you that "...your edits inserting dismissive language regarding Western Saharan Berber-origin populations are not improvements." -- Lonewolf BC 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(Moved to here from my talk-page -- LW)

Stop reverting the berber article and doing so simply to spite me, for you are a stranger to me and by doing so compromise the article's accuracy. If you believe that origins of donors are irrelevant in discussing genetics then that is your problem, but there is no point in misleading the entire virtual community. Mariam83 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting your attempts to put in false and misleading information, because they are false, misleading or both. Accusing another editor of acting out of spite is not going to help you. -- Lonewolf BC 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

False? The origin of donors is false eh? loool Awww..evidence troubles you does it? Lonewolf BC I am not surprised that you are having problems grasping such a simple fact, but do try. And trust me, I am going to get many ppl involved in this so enjoy the ride while it lasts. wikipedia's loss, not mine. Mariam83 20:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf BC, could you explain how FACTS are false or misleading? Are they misleading because they mislead the reader away from your POV/personal desire to mislead the reader? Mariam83 20:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't beat my wife at all, and never have. -- Lonewolf BC 21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing alot of research and the Berber article is blatantly POV/non-objective. It deliberately highlights certain studies and completely ignores others! shocking! there are obviously some contributors out there whose aim it is to mislead readers! this problem is far more serious than I thought and I intend to remedy it and bring it to the attention of others. Mariam83 21:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)