Talk:Algeria

Anachronism

@Xluvu, You would be wise to avoid edit warring. The Almohad Caliphate was a religious, trans-regional dynastic state, not a territorial or nation-state. Attributing these medieval polities to a modern nation-state is WP:OR and has no basis in reliable historical sources.

The Rustamid dynasty was not the product of an external invasion; it rose to power through the support of local Berber tribes who accepted its leaders as Imams of the Ibadi sect — a movement with no connection to the Persian heartland.

By contrast, the Almohads governed the entire Maghreb in the name of a dynasty that actively sought and received support from various Maghrebi groups, including their own native tribe from modern day Algeria and Arab Bedouins. Your comparison therefore does not stand on solid ground. We won’t overlook the fact that the founder of this dynasty is considered a national hero in Algeria too. So this has to do with more than just “capitals cities.

please seek consensus here first. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we can avoid this entire dispute by simply removing the "Formation" parameter from the infoboxes of both the Morocco and Algeria articles (and Tunisia too, now that I look at it). Claiming, for example, that the Tunisian state was founded with the Carthaginian Empire has no basis. Many prominent country articles also do not have this parameter (e.g. France). But I understand this may be controversial. lankdadank (chat) 17:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Starting formation should begin in the early modern period. we can properly speak of direct territorial ancestor states in this case. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

any sources for the chngaes? Moxy🍁 11:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll be adding them very soon. Had to focus on the body since it was so badly written. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Just slap a URLs or DOI, ISBN, PMID, PMCID,in here .....for more tools like they see {{Editor tools}} Moxy🍁 12:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Moxy I have finished ref. You may remove the tag if possible.

I might make more additions in the post colonial Algerian history but it won’t be that much. Hopefully the history section is more comprehensive this way. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

A few years ago I started at Tclemen, post-Almohad. It's not something that fits easily in an infobox in any situation, but speaking of direct territorial ancestor states goes to about there. CMD (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lankdadank I think that you comparing the Algeria article to the France article is the source of a debate that should not involve the Algeria page.

You are comparing a country such as Algeria with foundation history going back to ancient antiquity with France who's foundation history begins in medieval times.

All articles of countries who's history dates to antiquity site their founding states, examples :

Italy :

Ancient Rome

Roman Italy

753 BC–476 AD

Iran :

Median kingdom

c. 678 BC

Egypt:

• Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt

c. 3150 BC

However instead of treating the France page or any of the other pages you specifically chose Algeria to launch this campaign of removing content from a country that specifically and officially recognizes Numidia as its state foundation. Deceptecon (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not opposed if there is broad consensus, just make sure that any future edit-warring is avoided. The infobox keeps getting changed based on personal views, the main disputes centered on wether Mauretania and the Almohads should be included: , , , , . Also, this is generally not a question of sourcing, but concensus, I think. lankdadank (chat) 15:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I think if the page is actively being vandalized you should follow the Wikipedia:Vandalism instructions if you really care about the article and avoid removing content from this page and justifying that with the actions of the vandalists. Deceptecon (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Please assume WP:GOOD FAITH. I made my edit in good faith, and I'm not a party in this dispute. lankdadank (chat) 15:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Assuming Wikipedia:Assume good faith goes both ways, I am reminding you of wikipedia procedures in case of page vandalism.

You are the original party to the dispute from the moment you removed all the states in the formation panel in the infobox, source this is YOUR edit, your comment for the edit was "This keeps getting edit-warred over" and instead of bringing back the content and following wikipedia procedure on vandalism, you just removed it entirely and now we are here. Deceptecon (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I genuinely don't know why you're so worked up over this. I just said I'm okay with changing it back to Numidia if there's consensus. Please focus on the content and stop making assumptions on my intentions, that doesn't help with anything. lankdadank (chat) 15:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves, I only provided proof of your actions regarding this page and did not state or assume your intentions anywhere. I am also reminding you of responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor in case of Vandalism. I don't know why you are trying to play a victim here. Deceptecon (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

"However instead of treating the France page or any of the other pages you specifically chose Algeria to launch this campaign of removing content from a country"

This is making assumptions about my intentions. This will be my last reply, I honestly couldn't care less about this dispute. lankdadank (chat) 16:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

"However instead of treating the France page or any of the other pages you specifically chose Algeria to launch this campaign of removing content from a country"

This is still a fact and not an assumption on good faith, you saw the french page, you saw the algeria page, you chose to treat the algeria page instead of the france page and removed content that was there from it. Deceptecon (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. I strongly agree that formation should begin in the early modern period for consistency and to avoid anachronism. - - Cipher Nox (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Because it keeps getting edit-warred over, I've gone ahead and edited the infobox formation fields for Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco to avoid anachronism, starting at at least the Islamic period. lankdadank (chat) 11:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Deceptecon, please check this thread before making changes. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the discussion should make a difference between anachronistically describing some states such as Numidia being the modern Algerian state and understanding that it forms part of the history of Algeria.

Reliable historians discuss Numidia in histories of Algeria, and the modern Algerian state itself references Numidia as part of its historical heritage specifically in the Algerian constitution as follows:

"Placée au cœur des grands moments qu’a connus le bassin de la Méditerranée au cours de son histoire, l’Algérie a su trouver dans ses fils, depuis le royaume numide à l’épopée de l’Islam jusqu’aux résistances aux entreprises coloniales, les hérauts de la liberté, de l’unité et du progrès en même temps que les bâtisseurs d’Etats démocratiques et prospères dans les périodes de grandeur et de paix."

Official Algerian government source:

So what we see here is that algerian constitution identifies the Numidian Kingdom as the starting point of Algeria's historical narrative which makes it important to add it to the infobox.

in the "formulation" section, adding Numidia seems both historically accurate and consistent with Wikipedia's requirement to avoid anachronism.

Oppose : I am highly in favor of keeping historical states that the algerian nation identifies with in the infobox. Deceptecon (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Please do not replace a reliably sourced map with primary sourced one without prior consensus. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The change that sets the starting point of Algeria's history at the Zayyanid era lacks sourcing. It even carries ideological undertones, as it aims to erase Algeria's pre-Islamic past.

If the intention was to date the modern state, then it began in its current form on July 5, 1962. If the goal is to date the first state foundation, then Numidia is the right candidate, especially given the link explicitly acknowledged in the Algerian Constitution itself, as well as the view held by many historians that this political entity forms the basis of present-day Algeria's geopolitical history. Starting with the Zianids is not justified by any source—neither under the modern perspective (the current republic) nor the historicist one (Numidia).

As for the map, that is a separate issue. It is not suitable because it relies on a map from the Atlas of Islamic History (Map 40) where it is unclear whether the depiction represents the Regency or the French colonial period. The boundaries extend far too far south to represent the Regency, which was not a unitary or centralized state (many regions, such as Kabylia, the Aurès, and the Sahara, were independent of Ottoman rule). There are other maps that focus much more accurately on the subject, such as the one by Kouzmine or the one by Karim Chaibi . Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

17-19th century's map is a faithful reproduction from a reliable specialised source. Other than your WP:OR comment, your map is based on an older source, contradicted by Chaibi’s map and other written sources that documented the diverse forms of authority Algiers had over those regions (Tribute…etc). If you're questionning the accuracy of this map you can take the thread to the Regency of Algiers article or the file's TP, I don't think Algeria article is suited for this matter. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

A more accurate Chaibi's map, as the previously added one is more focused on events happening in coastal areas. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the map, I created a separate, clearer section below.

I would still like an answer to my question about the infobox: which source traces the history of Algeria back to the Zayyanids?

If the goal is to avoid anachronism, the Republic should be dated from July 5, 1962; if the goal is to find a historical anchor for a state foundation (whether claimed or not), constitution and historians cite Numidia (I can provide examples). However, arbitrarily removing pre-Islamic history to start with a medieval entity that encompassed only a portion of Algerian territory—without citing a source—is not an encyclopedic approach. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

When it comes the first state foundation of Algeria as recognized by the Algerian nation and its constitution is the kingdom of Numidia well sourced by the official Algerian Constitution, in addition, official government of Algeria sources prove without doubt that Numidia is the foundation of algerian statehood, the Algerian ministry of foreign affairs through its embassies shows clearly the following "Algeria was known as the kingdom of Numidia and its people were called NUMIDIANS" proving without any doubt that Algeria sees Numidia as a starting point of its statehood. Algeria does not view the kingdom of Ziyyanids in any way shape or form as the starting point of Algeria, this change in the infobox which puts the foundation of Algeria with the Ziyyanids is not only unsourced but also does not reflect at all the official Algerian state's position on Numidia being the foundation of Algerian statehood, as well as it contradicts historical credibility. Deceptecon (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No opinion on this matter, I'm now looking at other articles and I see Morocco starting since the Idrissids and Tunisia since the Aghlabids. If it's about Islamic entities then Tlemcen isn't the first Islamic state based in modern day Algeria. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Should we just settle this by an RFC poll? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion No, it does not need an RfC this page was vandalized, and it may require full protection in case this form of vandalism occurs extensively. the information is well presented in the article and the country's official recognition of Numidia is well established by Algerian official sources. Deceptecon (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't reply anymore, but I have to remind you again to stop with the accusations. I did not vandalize the article. There was a discussion where three editors (@Nourerrahmane, @Cipher Nox and me) agreed that the formation should start after the Islamic period, so I implemented that change. This is how consensus is built on Wikipedia, not by hurling accusations and treating disagreement as a battleground.

I would be open to an RFC to achieve a lasting consensus, though I probably won't participate in it myself, as I've had enough of this. lankdadank (chat) 17:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I may have missed part of the discussion, but on what basis is it decided that the country must necessarily date the beginning of its history to the Islamic period? What source justifies this idea? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

(UTC)

This is good and well, however, it does not justify repeatedly removing them from the "Formation" section of the Algeria article, you have repeatedly deleted the entire formation section, including Numidia. which is considered Vandalism on Wikipedia so refrain from doing this in pages in the future.

your argument relies on the premise that a historical state can only be associated with one modern state. By the way that is not how Wikipedia treats the historical development of modern states. Historical states can be part of the historical continuity of more than one present-day country where this is supported by reliable sources especially if those sources are official.

Algeria officially recognizes both Numidia and Mauretania as part of its historical continuity and statehood. That is why they appear in discussions of Algeria's historical formation. When you see in the formation tab historical states that doesn't mean those states are owned by a set country, it just means that that country officially recognizes that a state was part of its historical development.

Likewise, Morocco may include Mauretania in its own historical narrative if supported by reliable sources.

Wikipedia does not decide which modern nation "owns" a historical kingdom. Insisting that Mauretania must be removed from Algeria advances a Morocco-centric a view rather than reflecting reliable sources. That conflicts with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (WP), which requires articles to represent significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, rather than privileging one national narrative over another. Deceptecon (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC))

Mauretania corresponds to two distinct states/dynasties : that of the Bocchus, centered on Volubilis; then, following their death without heirs and a period of Roman interregnum, the new Mauretania was assigned to Juba II—formerly King of Numidia—who established his seat in present-day Cherchell. Here is the genealogy provided by the Encyclopédie berbère: Monsieur Patillo (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you did not understand the purpose of the "Formation" parameter.

The formation field does not indicate historical ownership of a kingdom or to state that a modern country directly descends from, it summarizes the historical entities that the modern state officially recognizes as part of its historical development or statehood.

Your response focuses on whether the Kingdom of Mauretania was originally founded in present-day Morocco and where its political center was located. What is actually the case is that Algeria officially recognizes both Numidia and Mauretania as part of its historical continuity with reliable sources supporting that recognition, Wikipedia reflects it. This does not prevent Morocco from also recognizing Mauretania as part of its own historical narrative if reliable sources support that.

Wikipedia does not require that a historical state be associated with only ONE modern country. Many historical polities are relevant to multiple present-day states because their territory, institutions, or historical legacy extended across modern borders.

Your example of Numidia actually illustrates this principle. If reliable sources demonstrate that Tunisia officially recognizes Numidia as part of its historical continuity, then that can certainly be reflected in the Tunisia article as well. The inclusion of Numidia in Algeria does not prevent its inclusion elsewhere.

Repeatedly removing long-standing, sourced material while discussion was still ongoing on the talk page is not constructive editing. Wikipedia's editing process is based on consensus.

If you believe the current wording is inaccurate, please provide reliable sources demonstrating that Algeria does not officially recognize the Kingdom of Mauretania as part of its historical development. Those sources can then be evaluated by the community. Until consensus changes, repeatedly removing sourced content is not consistent with Wikipedia's consensus rules. Deceptecon (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

References

Map

Priority should be given to sources focused on the subject. The *Atlas of Islamic History* does not focus on the Regency of Algiers, but rather on the Muslim world in general; in this context, the cited "Map 40 - Islamic Reform Movements in North and West Africa c.1650–c.1900" conflates Ottoman Algeria with French Algeria. This map is not precise for determining what is Ottoman and what is not. Karim Chaibi authored a book centered on a historical atlas of Algeria, and similarly, Kouzmine’s article focuses on the history and geography of Algeria, particularly the Sahara. What is the basis for your claim that it "is more focused on events happening in coastal areas"? That point is not put forward by the source at all. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane The map must come from a source that focuses on the Regency of Algiers and the map doesn't mention the Regency of Algiers at all nor its surrounding states by name (Tunis, Algiers, Tripoli, Morocco). I suggest we either use a map that reflects the focus on the subject (The regency of Algiers and its surrounding polities) which mentions the regency of Algiers by name or we simply use a historic map as do high-quality wikipedia articles Holy Roman Empire Article Map. Deceptecon (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Map is well sourced. The source itself is pretty reliable, specialized, recent and widely used on Wikipedia. It's also clear as day from the source that the French occupied the former territory of the 17-18th century Regency in the 19th century before expanding southward in early 20th century. Therefore there is no reason to frame Ottoman Algeria (Regency of Alguers)'s map as unclear. We won't replace this with an old tribal map that would mislead readers to beleive it as the overall extent of the regency (which itself is well documented). Cherry picking a 19th century Chaibi's map about the coastal raids to cut the southern extent of the Regency, documented in another more focused map from the same source, isn't going to help either. Autonomous governance is a known fact in the Regency, however this doesn't mean framing it as independent sovereign regions. According to Merouche (pp10):

"Al-jazâ'ir, le nom que prit cette nouvelle entité politique, recouvre pour l'essentiel ce qu'on entendait auparavant par «al-maghrib al-'awsat» qui, selon Ibn Khaldoun, va de la Muluya jusqu'à l'est de Bône où commence 'Ifrîqiya'. En quelques décennies ensuite, le nouveau pouvoir installé à Alger parvient à rassembler sous son autorité un territoire dont les frontières orientales et occidentales n'ont pratiquement pas changé jusqu'à l'heure actuelle. Vers le sud, le contrôle du Sahara s'exerçait soit directement par l'intermédiaire des garnisons établies dans les oasis, soit sous la forme d'une dépendance tributaire ou économique qui liait ces populations au pouvoir d'Alger." Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The colonization of the Sahara began in the mid-19th century—not the 20th—and encompassed towns that had never hosted an Ottoman garrison: Laghouat (1852), Touggourt (1852), Mzab (1882), Ouargla (1853), etc.

There is, therefore, some ambiguity regarding Map 40 (screenshot here: ). It makes no claim to focus on the specifics of Algeria or the extent of the Regency's control over the territory of present-day Algeria; rather, it depicts French raids and, by extension, colonial penetration.

The issue is not whether the map is sourced, but rather what it actually documents and whether a more reliable—or more topic-specific—alternative exists. The fact is that Kouzmine (referring to a 2009 article, not an old map) and Chaibi (2022) don't discuss a map intended to show "coastal raids"; instead, they explicitly refer to a map of "Ottoman Algeria" in its entirety during the early 19th century. We thus have two sources that are better situated in terms of space (Algeria, or specifically its Sahara) and time (without conflating the Ottoman and French periods).

Your final sentence indicates that you are distorting reality through cartography to portray the Regency as a unitary, centralized state—a claim that is false and contradicted by the relevant sources. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR, couldn't care less about your POV when secondary sources are clear about this matter. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

How does this constitute original research (WP:OR) when I am citing two maps (screenshot attached) from two recent secondary sources? Your accusation looks like a delaying tactic.

ok in the absence of reasonable attitude on your part I'm going to ask for a RFC Monsieur Patillo (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Source 92 is Incorrect

Hi not sure how this works, this is my first time using the talk page.

Source 92 links to the 4thE of Naylor's Historical Dictionary of Algeria p.12. There the text does mention privateering but doesn't mention anything else in the list other than agriculture. It strikes me as strange that "manufacturing" was changed to "artisanal production" as well.

Ultimately it isn't a huge deal, the understanding of the Barbary Coast as essentially a latter day Caribbean was not created by this article. I just feel it's strange to attribute to this source the focus on piracy and slavery when it seems to imply a less central position of either in the Regency's economy.

Thanks for reading! ~2026-40407-08 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I also have read the source and I agree entirely with your point, I hope someone is to better rephrase this in the article to represent what the source is saying. Deceptecon (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Arab-Berber

@Deceptecon The source says Arab-Berbers are 99% of the population not 80%. Arab-Berbers is clearly a meaningless label that lumps both Arabs and Berbers together. Why would we use that?

The 80% label is for the Arab population, the people who identify as Arab and do not see themselves as Berbers. There is no shortage of sources that frame it this way and claim that around 80% of the population are Arabs. Mayouhm (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mayouhm thank you for opening this discussion on regarding this topic, it has been brought to our attention by @Monsieur Patillo a few days ago that a concensus on the matter had been reached but was never implemented which exists in wikipedia archived talk Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 248#Algeria, using the term Arab-Berber is merely an implementation of a consenus reached on the page. Deceptecon (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It does not look to me it was closed with a consensus for "Arab-Berber" and points to an RFC where "75–85% Arabs, 15–24% Berbers, 1% others" or nothing is preferred for the infobox.

To me, the fact it says "The majority of the population is of Berber ancestry, though only around 20%–30% identify as Berber" after is enough to clarify that much of the ancestry of Algerian Arabs are ultimately from North Africa Mayouhm (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I highly suggest you wait for @Monsieur Patillo's input on this since he was present when the RfC was engaged to explain to you in detail the reason behind "arabized berbers" and "Arab-Berber" terms used in the article. Deceptecon (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources, except the CIA one, use the term "Arab-Berber", and that source gives 99%, not 80%. The RFC was only about the infobox, and the conclusion was not to include ethnic information there. So, as it stands, I don't see a reason for reverting Mayouhm's edit. The current numbers are unsourced. lankdadank (chat) 17:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

There was an RFC indicating that nothing should be placed in the infobox and that the dedicated section should be developed instead. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, since the revert was not regarding the infobox, I have restored the version by Mayouhm. lankdadank (chat) 21:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I should replace the sources currently used with the ones I listed above too Mayouhm (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! lankdadank (chat) 22:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That is excellent, I have discovered that there is a huge repetition in the demographics section and the ethnicities section which I edited extensively.

-- in the Demographics section it discusses population numbers then ethnicities then back at population numbers in the 20th century then how population is distributed.

• After Editing, now the demographics section discusses population at the onset of the 20th century then population today then how that population is distributed. I have moved the ethnicity part of the population to the ethnicities section without removing sources added by @Mayouhm.

Then I added one source from the United Nations which reflects Algeria's official policy regarding not conducting ethnic and religious census, and also added Peer reviewed scientific publications regarding genetic studies on the algerian population.

@Lankdadank and @Monsieur Patillo may also edit the ethnicities section if they could better improve it's readability.

Let me know what you can do about that. Deceptecon (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

References

https://freedomhouse.org/country/algeria/freedom-world/2025

Political Rights 10 (max 40) Civil Liberties 21 (max 60) --> 31 / 100 points ('not free') ~2026-40523-59 (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2026

Please add a brief note regarding the historical roots of the national symbols:

ADD TO SECTION (Flag / National Symbols): The crescent and star featured on the modern national flag reflect Algeria's historical ties to the Ottoman era, during which the symbol became widespread across the region. While the star and crescent motif possesses deep pre-Islamic roots in the ancient Mediterranean—including its prominent use on the classical coinage of Byzantium—its presence in Algerian vexillology derives from its adoption by successive regional Islamic and Ottoman administrations.

REASONING: Provides important historical background tracing the global and regional evolution of the flag's core imagery without introducing unverified connections.

SOURCES: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_and_crescent 2. https://www.britannica.com/topic/flag-of-Algeria Saghar136 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think on the wikipedia page concerning Algeria we tend to keep it brief and informative using official sources when available such as the Algerian ministry's of foreign affairs explanation for the symbolism behind the algerian national flag . It appears that you are more interested in hypothesis behind the development of the algerian flag which I suggest you can help improve wikipedia by citing the sources that you encountered in Flag of Algeria.

An extra note to help you look deeper into this, is that I have encountered multiple scholarly publications which have noted that the crescent itself has a much older story in North Africa. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that crescent motifs appeared for centuries on Libyco-Berber and Punic funerary stelae and religious monuments, predating the Islamic conquest by many centuries,

UNESCO: Royal Mausoleum of Mauretania:

The funerary monuments of crescents in the Numidian and Mauretanian kingdoms contain decorative programs reflecting indigenous religious beliefs, including astral symbolism.

Encyclopédie berbère discusses astral symbolism in Libyan/Berber religion and funerary art. Several articles note that crescents occur on indigenous monuments long before the Islamic period.

For example, articles dealing with:

• Stèles libyques
• Religion libyque
• Monuments funéraires
• Tanit
• Saturne africain

describe the repeated use of crescent motifs on indigenous North African monuments.

Gabriel Camps, one of the foremost specialists on Berber archaeology, observed that:

"The crescent is among the most frequent astral symbols decorating Libyan funerary stelae."

He treats it as part of indigenous Libyan religious iconography.

I hope these sources would help you take a deep dive into the subject and I would love to see your contributions on this topic in wikipedia, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page for any further discussion on the subject. Deceptecon (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the above response and because the request appears to be AI-generated. Day Creature (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: grammar fix

Please change "Among noted more recent work is" to "Among noted more recent works are" in the Literature section. This fixes subject-verb agreement because the sentence lists multiple works. Tonio Fenech (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2026 (UTC)