Talk:Maghreb/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed merge of Barbary Coast into Maghreb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closed (see rationale below). There is no consensus to merge these articles. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

---

WP:MULTIPLENAMES says that we shouldn't have two articles on the same concept just because it has gone by different names. The Barbary Coast is a historical name for the Maghreb region, or at least a region that overlaps closely enough with the Maghreb that it doesn't make sense for coverage to be split. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose These are two different subjects, each notable in its own right. The fact that the two regions overlap (just like the Maghreb, North Africa and even Africa) is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Different topics, and entirely different periods. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support The Barbary Coast is just the history of the Maghreb region in the Early Modern period - a section that is currently entirely absent from the history section on the Maghreb page. It is an entirely analogous regional designation covering Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Without merging, there is no way of filling in the Early Modern history of the Maghreb region without duplication. The merger is a sensible solution. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support I don't see a reason why it has it's own article when it's just an alternative name for the region, albeit only at a specific period of history. --MWahaiibii (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's not an alternative name for the Maghreb. The Barbary Coast refers only to the coastal region of the north: a historic region which, from the 16th to the 19th century, developed its own specific characteristics (ethnic, cultural, etc.) due to the massive influx of Moriscos, Europeans (renegades and slaves), etc. M.Bitton (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Coastal region is a very broad term that is often construed as encompassing a swathe of inland territory beyond the literal coastline. The entire Maghreb region consists of heavily populated coastal regions and more sparsely populated hinterlands giving way slowly to the largely uninhabited Saharan regions. According to the Barbary Coast article, one example of a constituent state is the Regency of Algiers, which, according to the map on its page, extended well into the African interior right up to the Tuareg controlled regions of the Sahara - that is your working definition of 'coastal' in this context. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  I was obviously referring to the literal coastline, where the corsairing activities took place. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I get you. My point is that the Barbary Coast States, such as the Regency of Algiers, were not purely "littoral" entities. Anyway, I'd just like to see some more voices in the discussion now, but if we can't agree, I hope that you can at least agree that some of this Barbary Coast history should be represented in the currently empty Early Modern section on the Maghreb page. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Not an improvement. Vic Park (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Vic Park Would you care to elaborate? It would be useful to know what your actual thought process was in coming to this conclusion: "Not an improvement" is how one casually dismisses disruptive edits, not how one addresses a proposed merger discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. In reliable sources, the terms are used interchangeably:
  • "The North African coast, called al-Maghreb ('the west') in Arabic, is better known in European history as the Barbary Coast." (published by Taylor & Francis)
  • "At the turn of the nineteenth century, the Maghreb or northern coast of Africa - known to Europeans and Americans as the Barbary Coast - was made up of ..." (published by University of Oklahoma Press)
  • "Barbary, it must be recalled, entered European expressions in the sixteenth century with the 'Barbary Coast' as a reference to what is today's Maghreb, or the middle and western coastal regions of North Africa..." (published by Routledge)
  • "The Ottoman territories of the North African western and central coastlines of present-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, referred to as the Barbary Coast or Maghreb during this era, represented..." (published by Brill publishers)
  • "The Maghreb, or the Barbary Coast as the region was known to some European discourses, was home to Jewish populations..." (published by Palgrave Macmillan)
  • "The Maghreb. Once called the Barbary Coast, North West Africa, is now restrictively known by its Arabic name "al-Maghrib"." (published by De Gruyter)
  • "...from their bases on the what Europeans called the Barbary Coast, the Maghreb region of northwestern Africa." (published by Taylor & Francis)
  • "The 'pirates' (or 'corsairs', named after French privateers) of the Barbary Coast - as the Europeans called the Maghreb coastline - were particularly active..." (published by Cambridge University Press) VR _talk 13:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: Nobody said that the North African coast and the Barbary coast are different, they are indeed more or less the same (though, the Barbary coast is specific to 4 modern countries and exclude Egypt), but as I explained in my previous comment, the coast itself became notable for its activities (that's what this article is about). M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Comment The problem is that leaving this article as is leaves a gaping hole in the Early modern history of the Maghreb where the Barbary Coast should be. The second paragraph of Maghreb even references Barbary Coast in primary definition bold. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton: RS seem to view Barbary Coast as just another term for the Maghreb. If there is to be an article, it should be about the term and its usage. Any content on the history, geography, politics and demography of the Barbary Coast should be at Maghreb, not here.VR _talk 14:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  No they don't and those that don't make a difference between the Barbary States (the Maghreb) and their coast (the Barbary coast) are not RS. The Barbary coast is notable all by itself, what's in the other articles is irrelevant to its existence, though there is nothing stopping us from adding a {{Broader|Barbary coast}} to the Maghreb article. M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have added the publishers on all the sources. Which ones do you think are not RS? VR _talk 14:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Any source, regardless of its publisher, that doesn't make the distinction between the two is simply not RS for the subject. As I explained previously, the Barbary coast became notable for its corsairing activities and ended up developing its own specific characteristics (ethnic, cultural, etc.) due to the massive influx of Moriscos, Europeans (renegades and slaves) that it attracted. M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  @M.Bitton I'm really not quite sure what you're saying here, because it sounds like you're saying that unless a source pushes your particular take on the uniqueness of the Barbary Coast narrative, you'll ignore it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  The Barbary Coast page isn't developed enough to give it any grandiose claims of telling a whole history all unto itself. It is currently four paragraphs of text that could easily be in the Maghreb article. It is also simply a geographical descriptor that is a synonym for the Maghreb in the period in question. If you don't to merger simply because you want to write a separate article about the uniqueness of the pirate activities in the Barbary Coast, just call it Pirating in the Barbary Coast. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Comment I don't need to write a separate article. What I said is clear and doesn't anyone's interpretation. If the closer wants me to elaborate, I'll be more than happy to. M.Bitton (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• WP:DABCONGEO, part of the broad-concept article guideline, states Varying uses for broad geographic terms can be discussed in the context of an article describing the overall agreement of which areas definitely fall within that designation, and which areas are only occasionally described as falling with that designation, for certain purposes. That speaks very directly to the situation here and favors a merge. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Move "Barbary Coast" to "Barbary States" While the Barbary Coast may just be an antiquated term for the Maghreb (though, I will add, antiquated terms, for example Shina, aren't always merged into the article for the modern term) the Barbary States is a term of its own. Barbary States already redirects to Barbary Coast, and Barbary Coast already covers what a Barbary States article would. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what that'd do to reduce redundant content. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: As a Maghrebi myself, I wouldn't include Mauritania and Western Sahara in the Barbary Coast and we're as Maghreb as the rest. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Mauritania and "Western Sahara" were part of Morocco at that time anyways, so they are implicitly included.--Ideophagous (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The two terms refer to overlapping and almost identical regions, but they're not equivalent. They're both notable and there's much to be said about each one in its own right. Namely, each term was used in a different geopolitcal context, and invokes different meanings and connotations.--Ideophagous (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I find that unpersuasive. Per the guidance cited above, it's not enough for there to be slight differences; there needs to be significant ones. A region changing its name and boundaries over time doesn't mean it warrants two separate articles; just cover the historical name in the history section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines are to be used as indication, but the final decision to merge or split articles lies with the community. First of all, following your reasoning, North Africa, Ancient Libya and Tamazgha should also be merged into one article, which in my opinion would just create a complete mess of a page. Second of all, the usage and context of each term is distinct enough to warrant a separate article, especially since there's enough material to write full detailed articles for each. The article for Barbary coast is namely lacking in many aspects, chiefly the fact that it skips mentioning Morocco (except in the intro) and the Republic of Salé entirely in its history section, despite their importance to the subject. I still oppose.--Ideophagous (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)^{Refactored to remove second bolded !vote {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}

• Oppose. Mahgreb is a modern African term of geopolitical significance only. Barbary coast is a 19th century and before cultural term refering to slavers and corsairs threatening everything bad to the countries of Europe. How can you mix the two? If I were from Mahgreb I would not want to be associated with murderous pirates and slavers. I understand you want to change the English language to make Barbary Coast into an innocuous tourist term - see the beauties of Mahgreb - but in the last century that is last thing Europeans wanted to see. We're not changing history here. There is a solution on WP used a large number of times. Keep the section in Mahgreb but have it say main article: Barbary Coast. What's wrong with that? If Zahgreb gets big enough you would want to split it ANYWAY.Botteville (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• I’m closing this, as there is clearly no consensus for a merge (three editors supporting the OP and six opposing), even before considering the arguments. Whether the term 'Barbary Coast' is synonymous with 'Maghreb' or not (arguable), the scope of the former (a history of the West’s dealing with the Barbary states in the early modern era) is different to that of the latter (an overview – geography, economy, peoples, etc – of an entire region). There may be some merit in renaming Barbary Coast to Barbary States, as was suggested, to clarify that point. The Maghreb article is already 59 Kb, which is plenty large enough, and already has several subsidiary articles (Tamazgha, Moors, etc). Reasons to merge are Duplication, Overlap, and Context, none of which apply here (in fact the Maghreb article has nothing at all in its early modern history section: Which isn’t an argument to merge, it’s an argument to write a summary paragraph and add a main article link, as has been suggested) Reasons not to merge are where there are separate (but cross-linked) topics with room to expand, and which are notable in themselves, as we have here. So I have closed the discussion. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Spain

@M.Bitton The Maghreb is a geographical term that is built around the concept of a common cultural base for the region of North-Western Africa. It is not about the countries in it, but focused on their culture, heritage and history.

It is correct that Spain owns territory near Morocco that are in geopgrahical Africa, but that doesn't give Spain a Maghrebi character. Their culture is mainly West-European. For that reason, I don't see the justification to include Spain as a country (not its owned places) as part of the Maghreb.

We also don't say that the European Union is African, South American, Asian and European at the same time just because some of its member states own territory in those continents. For that reason, mentioning that Spain owns territories in the region may be justified, but by including the flag you argue it having a Maghrebi culture making it part of the Maghreb, what is not the case and icorrect.

So, that's why I marked your edit as vandalism, but should have come to Talk:Maghreb before that to explain myself. Keksfresser12 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Though I see that there is no North-Western Africa article. Yet, to own territory in another continent isn't enough to make one African or Asian, so I still think it would be wrong to consider Spain as Maghrebi or France as African (Mayotte, etc).

This may be part of a bigger discussion. Keksfresser12 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Keksfresser12: First of all, the word "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (I suggest you familiarize yourself with it). I get what you're saying, but since the infobox is meant to summarize what's in the article, we cannot just omit the information from it, so one possible solution would be to list Ceuta and Melilla (rather than Spain). 22:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant personally marked it as such and not by Wikipedia definition. Used the wrong word.

Mentioning solely Ceuta and Melilla would be also wrong (see Plazas de soberanía). Additionally, if we go by strict geographical standard, technically the Canary Islands would also have to be included as part of North-Western Africa/Maghreb.

So, this discussion may be more about Maghreb being a substitute for North-West Africa or whatever we talk more about the cultural aspect. I don't know how other articles with similar issues (Mongolia| East Asia) handle this.

Well, if the current version is meant to stay maybe an annotation regarding Spain should be added. Keksfresser12 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

See North Africa for the difference between geopgrahical and geo-cultural term. The latter is more what Maghreb is or rather its article should be about. Keksfresser12 (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Tuareg - not included at all?

Just realized that the Tuareg people have not a single mention in the article despite them having been crucial for the trans-Saharan trade and by that the history of the Maghreb.

Should be added therefore. Keksfresser12 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of the maghreb into Tamazgha

Hi to all, i wanted to add an information of connection between maghreb and Tamazgha as the first one is incluted in the berber influence territory; what do you think about it? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

How many reliable sources connect the two, or to be more precise, how many reliable sources about the Maghreb connect the Maghreb to Tamazgha? M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, i will link some source about this conncection, articles and papers. My intention was to add a sentence to show that the x countries of the maghreb are included into Tamazgha as this inludes morocco,algeria,tunisia,libya,western sahara and mauritania.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230358515_2

https://mespi.org/project/where-is-the-maghreb-theorizing-a-liminal-space/

https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/44046

https://www.eurasiareview.com/26052022-discovering-the-amazigh-people-and-their-culture-analysis/ Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick note: the first source (written by professors of theatre) makes a claim about the ancient world that doesn't make sense as the word Tamazgha was invented in the 1970s. The second source is not an article and the last two are about Tamazgha and what the Berber activists claim (not the Maghreb). M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the answear. I don't see why it doesn't make sense as althoug the word Tamazgha is recent the concept of it or at what it refers is ancient and describes the area of influence of the berber tribes.

For the second one, i know, it's an interview. For the last two, why activists? The last articles is from a Professor of education science and a political analyst. I wouldn't put everything in a propaganda point of view.

This is a piece of the articles:

"From around 2000 BC, the Berber languages ​​spread westward from the Nile Valley to the Maghreb, passing through the northern Sahara. In the first millennium BC, their speakers were the native inhabitants of the vast region visited by the Greeks, Carthaginians, and Romans. A series of Berber peoples – Mauri, Masaesyli, Massyli, Musulami, Gaetuli, Garamantes – then gave rise to Berber kingdoms under Carthaginian and Roman influence.....

The Berbers claim a presence in the Maghreb that is more than five thousand years old. Their community extends over nearly five million square kilometers, from the Egyptian-Libyan border to the Atlantic and from the Mediterranean coast to Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso...

"

So, do you think it would be useful to add this information? Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

md.sakib 103.214.202.10 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Md.sakib 103.214.202.10 (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2024 (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)

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

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)