Talk:Berberism

Untitled

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

that would account for people of berber descent speaking arabic.

Gringo300 08:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6BTul59wU?url=http://www.mnlamov.net/component/content/article/169-declaration-dindependance-de-lazawad.html to http://www.mnlamov.net/component/content/article/169-declaration-dindependance-de-lazawad.html

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

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

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

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

Move discussion in progress

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

Topic neutrality

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

What dispute? Unless you're able to point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, there really is nothing to discuss. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, gladly. Just read the first part of the Algeria topic, which openly claims that the ideology is anti-Arab in the first sentence and is also uncited. This is the basis for the flagging that the bot applied, which you removed without following the reasoning for its removal. TahaKahi (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

openly claims that the ideology is anti-Arab... and is also uncited it's sourced.

you removed without following the reasoning for its removal. that's big fat lie. The tag was added without explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The flag was made by a bot due to a dispute, requesting that we open a discussion on the talk page and reach a decision regarding its neutrality, as it only criticizes the movement. I'm confident that anyone who reads it can see how one-sided it sounds. The sentence at the top of the Algeria section doesn’t make sense in its position as the opening and summarizing sentence of the article. I would appreciate it if we could keep the discussion respectful—phrases like 'fat lie' and 'really is nothing to discuss' are unprofessional as opening remarks. I'm not interested in an unprofessional discussion. Perhaps we can address the issues one by one? Starting with the first sentence in the Algeria section--how do you see it as appropriate to be there? TahaKahi (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you don't people to describe your lies as lies, then don't lie. It's as simple as that. This is not a forum, I'm not discussing anything that isn't actionable within the content policies. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if we could keep the focus on the content and avoid personal remarks. I have raised specific, actionable concerns regarding the tone and citation of the article’s opening sentence in the Algeria section. The claim that the ideology is 'anti-Arab' is significant and, in my view, should be better supported and positioned to ensure neutrality aswell as it is properly placed. Please tell me the exact issue you have with how I raised the concern and I will try my best to properly present it next time. TahaKahi (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"The claim" It's not simply a claim. It's a fact, supported by a myriad of sources.

"should be better supported" Did you try reading the sources already cited? I've added a few more in case those weren't enough. Skitash (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

For quick notice to anyone interested in joining the conversation. I was referring to the first sentence of algeria topic in [], it was removed by M.Bitton, though i still ask for reasoning of his removal to the Flag.

Thank you, Skitash, for adding additional sources. Firstly, the opening statement, "The origins of Berberism go back to the triumph of colonial capitalism in Kabylia during the French colonization of Algeria. Its roots date back to the 'Berber policy' of the French colonial empire, designed to 'pacify' Kabylia," frames it as a full product of French colonial policies, completely overlooking any complex cultural, linguistic, or even historical factors that existed before French rule. While, yes, the French role was significant, it should still emphasize a balanced view and not overbalance it toward one specific issue. Not a single perspective, it needs multiple; otherwise, it’s a one-sided telling of the issue. Also, the sentence, "French colonialists invented several ideologies to divide and rule the Algerian population, such as the Kabyle myth, a racist colonial trope which asserted that the Kabyle people were more predisposed than Arabs to assimilate into 'French civilization,'" implies that the Berber identity is mostly constructed by French ideology, rather than being an agency of defining and preserving their identity, risking framing the Berber identity as a colonial product. Then, the statement, "The Berberist crisis of 1949 led to the formation of the Berber Cultural Movement (MCB). Its agenda was to challenge Arabism and Islamism, and oppose Arabization because of its 'de-frenchifying' objectives and its alleged opposition to democratic and secular ideals," kind of implies that Berberism is solely in opposition to Arab culture, instead of an attempt to increase and preserve Berber culture/autonomy. Again, not the most neutral sentence.

I am not saying what you wrote is inherently wrong or right, but that it's a completely singular perspective. I love that you wrote about this subject not many have much knowledge of it and are capable of explaining it in English, but you only showed one perspective, which, unfortunately, doesn’t really align with Wikipedia's guidelines of neutrality. TahaKahi (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"completely overlooking any complex cultural, linguistic, or even historical factors that existed before French rule" Such as? Do you have any RS and are they WP:DUE? Skitash (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Read my replies carefully and try to be open-minded to understand my point. It seems that a user has already made a remark about your contribution to the subject. However, I am against the way they phrased it and turned it into a personal attack. This article does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy. TahaKahi (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't help you if you're unable to cite RS or answer my questions. Skitash (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the formulation of the RI is devoid of any neutrality WP:NPOV specifically "Prefer nonjudgmental language." and "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" in addition to partially relying on misappropriation of sources or not restoring their nuances.

Example: the latest 10th source on colonization and the 19th century policy of division states An anti-Arab and anti-Islamic campaign was organized by these colons, but serves as a source for these assertions against Berberism (at all times and in all places...) or reference n°9: "Berber militants were charged with spreading hostile and intolerant anti-Arab and even anti-Islamic ideas (sponsored by Zionism and foreign countries!) and with representing nobody but themselves.". here we transform an accusation (pov) of the State into absolute truth...

Nothing is said about the activists, their demands, etc... From the outset, the only accusatory mentions against Berberism were retained in the RI (cherry-picking), to make it an invariable postulate. For example, how can the RI be so categorical on "sponsored by French colonial authorities." when there exists in secondary sources an "anti-colonial Berberism" for example according to Guy de Pervillé . Likewise, how can we suggest that Berberism has always consisted of anti-Arab racism? which implies that legal Berberist parties like the Rally for Culture and Democracy in Algeria are in this racism? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"relative prominence of opposing views" Such as? Do you have any RS, and are they WP:DUE?

"but serves as a source for these assertions against Berberism" The tenth source supports the fact that French colonial authorities promoted anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia, and the Kabyle myth.

"here we transform an accusation (pov) of the State into absolute truth..." What exactly makes militants being charged with crimes a state-centric POV? Where is the "misappropriation of sources" you're alluding to? And why have you ignored all the other sources?

"there exists in secondary sources an "anti-colonial Berberism" for example according to Guy de Pervillé" The source you cited hardly mentions "anti-colonial Berberism" at all and is WP:UNDUE when compared to all the other cited RS (no such thing exists per Google Scholar).

"which implies that legal Berberist parties like the Rally for Culture and Democracy in Algeria are in this racism" This is your own judgement and does not contradict the cited RS. Note how the lead speaks of the origins of Berberism, whereas the RCD was founded in 1989, making your connection irrelevant. Skitash (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

we will proceed step by step. For reference no. 9, James N. Sater :

In the meantime, in June 2001, the second follow-up meeting in Bouznika of Moroccan Berber associations failed to get the authorization required. With neighbouring Algeria falling deeper into civil strive, the political dimension of the Berber question was regarded as too sensitive by the Moroccan authorities. Moreover, the possible creation of a Berber political party at a time when Morocco was trying to prevent the foundation of any new political parties (for instance the liberal party of entrepreneurs Forces Citoyennes) ensured major political resistance. Berber militants were charged with spreading hostile and intolerant anti-Arab and even anti-Islamic ideas (sponsored by Zionism and foreign countries!) and with representing nobody but themselves. In addition, they were reminded that associations and political parties based on ethnicity or regions were outlawed by the constitution. Berberism was associated with Islamic extremism, and it was stressed that Mohamed Chafik, the main intellectual figure behind the Berber movement, was a friend of Abdessalam Yassine, the spiritual leader of Al Adl wal Ihssan, Morocco's main Islamic movement. This created a major political impasse, as the rhetoric became increasingly violent, the Algerian example threatening, and Morocco's Amazigh movement increasingly powerful, organized, self-confident (remembering past promises from the late King Hassan II), and intellectually mature. The Moroccan state reacted in a way that it could do best: the banning of its public expression.

• when you read this extract it is indeed a reported accusation and not the words of the author himself. (nothing to do with the Kabyle myth, colonization and everything you mention in passing.)

Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Very good article

Great. 37.222.89.224 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

I have some reservations about the way the article is written. Much of it seems like it paints a picture that implies this movement was constructed purely by French colonial forces and that the people themselves have no agency. It also implies that the movement is inherently based in anti-Arab racism and in “Francophilia,” without acknowledging competing views. Overall, the tone is categorical rather than neutral, attributing motives and behaviors to entire ethnic groups, which is bizarre. Of course I do not disagree that much of the movement is tied up in colonial-era policies, and that should be talked about.~2025-37469-08 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you quote a specific example? Andre🚐 23:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the most bafflingly biased article I've ever seen. I don't think the official line of any North African government has ever been this severe. SelketCadmium (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about the article text and cite reliable sources. I am not saying you are wrong here but you need to be more specific. Andre🚐 18:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Regardless of the truth of the allegations alleged the tone is incredibly unencyclopedic, particularly in the opening paragraph. The point of view is entirely from a hard-line Arabist perspective with no attempt to clearly lay out the goals of motivations of Berberists. SelketCadmium (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, but it cites quite a few sources. So you'll need to 1) be specific about the article text, what is wrong with it, and what it should say, 2) cite your own reliable sources Andre🚐 20:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre "French and Spanish colonial policy in North Africa: revisiting the Kabyle and Berber myth", published 2016 in the International Journal of the Sociology of Language:

• Abstract: "The French colonial presence in North Africa gave rise to a view that was founded on attributing certain – supposedly distinctive – qualities to the Kabyle people (Algeria) and the Berber people in general (Algeria and Morocco). This became known as “the Kabyle (or Berber) myth” and was propagated both by North African nationalists and by the academic world in order to validate their accusations against the colonial powers of practicing a “divide and conquer” policy. What’s more, from the outset, the French and Spanish colonial governments, by empowering Arabic as an imperial and dominant language to the detriment of the peripheral and low prestige Berber languages, greatly contributed to the widespread acceptance of a further myth, i. e., North Africa was “Arab and Muslim”. These myths then became a key argument used by the post-colonial governments to deny the distinctiveness of the Kabyle people, and Berbers in general, hence justifying rejecting their demands for linguistic and cultural recognition. In recent years, however, the Berber people have reacted to these myths; we have witnessed the birth of a resistance movement, the uprising in Algeria (Kabylie) and the development of cultural pride and identity. Surprisingly, these events have caused us to reflect anew on the Berber myths of the colonial period."

I have only dipped my toes into this subject, but my impression is that this article offers strong arguments against the framing being presented in wikivoice on both this page and the Kabyle myth. DiodotusNicator (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

POV tag

This article faces similar problems as Tamazgha and Movement for the Self-Determination of Kabylie. The most striking issue is the article's structure and emphasis. The lede is not a neutral summary of what Berberism is. Instead, it dedicates most of its space to a highly specific and negative origin story. There's a lot of loaded language as well: colonial capitalism, divide and conquer policy, etc. The most glaring omission is any presentation of how Berberists see themselves, or at least it's not present in any meaningful or balanced way. There might be a cherry picking of sources at play here too, like there was/is at Tamazgha.

I'm aware of the arbitration case currently open regarding issues with articles regarding the Maghreb, I would appreciate if someone more skilled than me would weigh in with a different viewpoint. Lankdadank (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree with the POV tag. Besides the claims itself, just the tone and language alone used across the article clearly does not seem neutral. It seems heavily focused on a specific Arab Algerian VS Kabyle Algerian dynamic evident from the lead alone. But even as an outside reader of that specific exchange, it is clear the article presents just one side of it.

Berberism is also not one singular all encompassing ideology. The Riffian Independence Movement for example is not Anti- Arab, and venerates Abd el-Krim (an anti-colonial leader and islamic judge). Practically the complete opposite of what the lead of the article would suggest Berberism is. Yet most definitely is considered a Berberist movement. That disparity has to be accounted for. Imteghren (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree with a POV tag on all three articles. NAADAAN (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Allan Nonymous The changes you've made look good. Some other stuff I noticed (not expecting you to deal with these, just pointing them out):

1. The article barely gives Berberists any agency, it mostly talks about how they reacted to colonialism or Arabization instead of how they were active players with their own ideas and goals.

2. The article is disproportionally focused on the history of French colonialism (Kabyle myth, Franco-Berber schools, Berber Dahir), which results in Berberism being portrayed as a colonial invention.

3. The Morocco section treats the Years of Lead like a footnote mentioning it only in passing before going into details of civil liberties granted afterwards. lankdadank (chat) 03:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

agree with all 3, aside from all of this the years of lead article really needs to be revamped -- i will work on that eventually. NAADAAN (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree, all of these need a lot of work. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Addition

@Bananakingler I am skeptical of your new addition. It looks AI-generated (linking to the current article + curly quotation marks). I do not have access to the source you cited, could you provide a quote to verify the claim?

Also, as a minor note, I do not think it belongs in the lead. lankdadank (chat) 14:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It’s not ai generated.

And you do have access to it.

log in here

https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ Bananakingler (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. However, you did not address my specific concerns: the curly quotation marks and the linking. How did that happen? lankdadank (chat) 14:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

In principle, using AI tools to help with wording is not an issue, but I would still be cautious. lankdadank (chat) 14:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Look into the source, the qoutation is just like that in the source. I don’t know what you mean with linking. Bananakingler (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah now I see. Yeah of course I linked to the article so it’s easier for others find it. Is that not typical on Wikipedia? Bananakingler (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You linked to the article for Berberism within the article for Berberism. I have fixed the issues I was referring to for now. In any case, please be more cautious next time.

To be clear, I was not wrong to be suspicious. The phrasing had clear AI-like features, even if it turned out to be a coincidence. That is something to watch out for, especially the curly quoations, which I have noticed you use often. lankdadank (chat) 14:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The quotation marks were copied directly from the article. You can try it for yourself. Bananakingler (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The curly quotes in this case may have come from the source, but you use them consistently, even when not copying: . That is why I was suspicious. It was not an unreasonable assumption. lankdadank (chat) 14:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but it’s wrong. It’s cause I use the German keyboard. Bananakingler (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

That may be true, or it may not. Either way, it does not make my suspicion any less valid and you should recognize that. My suspicion was based on clear signs of AI-generated writing, stop dismissing it. lankdadank (chat) 15:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not dismissing anything or saying that your perspective is invalid. I am explaining to why you see sometimes ‚‘

and I find it pretty disrespectful to accuse me of lying here. Therefore I am disengaging now. Bananakingler (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record, I did not accuse you of lying. I am not even sure what you perceived as an accusation. But if you wish to disengage, I will let it be. lankdadank (chat) 15:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)