Jump to content

Talk:Berbers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iesbian (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 30 July 2022 (→Requested move 10 May 2022). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good articleBerbers was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 7, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Amazigh, not Berber

The previous move discussion referred below is found here: Talk:Berbers/Archive_7#Requested_move_25_July_2020. CapnZapp (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not called Berbers, we are Amazigh. Chnage the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazigh repre (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Berber is offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunullas (talk • contribs) 12:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the previous discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I as an amazigh person also agree the name should be changed. We find Berber offensive and it’s continuous use is racist. Mzabi88 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed a year ago & rejected. Amazigh is very little known in English, & until it becomes the WP:COMMONNAME in English the title will not be changed. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background information: The "We find 'Berber' offensive" position, which is now part of certain activist circles, might have originated from a misunderstanding - in Arabic languague, the same word means "Berber" and "barbaric", and of course it's questionable to use the adjective "barbaric" as an ethnic name. But in English, French, German and so on, absolutely nobody makes a connection between both words (even if connected in the ancient Greek etymology) and there is just no reason why "Berber" should be offensive, as nobody who ever used "Berber" in these languages in the last centuries expressed any offensive or racist intention through the use of this word, not more than using "Arab" or "Mongol". Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ilyacadiz, "which is now part of certain activist circles" is unnecessarily pejorative. It is also "part" of academic discussion, and as such is reflected in contemporary scholarship. Please keep it factual. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is part of the academic discussion is the option of using "Amazigh" instead of "Berber". Of course this is a valid option and quite broadly discussed by scholars, although right now it does not seem to be the mainstream option. What is not part of the academic discussion is that "Berber" is "offensive", because there is just no ground to label the word as "offensive" in English or French (as opposed to Arabic). Or did you ever see an academic article explaining why "Berber" can be considered "offensive"? And I never considered "activist" a pejorative label, by the way. Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how Wikipedia works but forcing an entire people to be represented by a derogatory term because 9 editors "felt like it" feels reprehensible. The original proposal for the name change had well sourced arguments from publications like NYT & WaPo and those how opposed it did it based on biased opinions like "They don't think the term is derogatory". Imagine applying this to any other ethnicity. This sounds like an illogical attempt to continue colonial bias towards non white people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.203.3 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the now closed move discussion above, it was pointed out that The New York Times and Washington Post do not exclusively use "Amazigh" without equating it to "Berber". In other words, we're not there in terms of people understanding what "Amazigh" refers to without its being defined. Once we get to that place, then there will be a better chance of its being the preferred term in this article. When I Googled both terms, "Berber" got 10 times more hits than "Amazigh"; and when I read one of the first articles pointed to, there, again, "Amazigh" is equated to "Berber", and this being written by a sympathetic author. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this the hill that so many editors here are willing to die on? Who cares that the slur is more well-known when it's clearly offensive? The article for Romani people isn't titled the G-slur, even though that's certainly the more well-known term to millions of people. Likewise, Inuit isn't titled the E-slur. There is an article titled such, but it discusses the slur itself, which collectively has been applied to two distinct groups of indigenous peoples. This is not the case with the Amazigh, in which Amazigh and the current name are fully synonymous. It's unacceptable to claim that a disparity of only 10x popularity is nearly enough to justify continuing to use a word which literally means "barbarian" as an exonym for millions of people. Soweli Rin (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soweli Rin, I'm in total agreement and I support a renewed move to fight for this. إيان (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "renewed" fight is nonense, superficial activist nonsense that is poorly informed.
(1) Berber is widely used among for example Moroccan Berbers themselves, when not using their specific language (e.g. Chleuh / Chilha) - and in fact the other Berber groups like Chleuh or Rif are also known to not particularly like the idea of being labeled as Amazight as that in fact represents one sub-group amongst them, and there is certainly a Chleuh PoV that should not simplistically ignored that Amazight is the name for Amazight speakers and not them. (at not to be exaggerated, as probably one can better characterise popular attitudes towards these activist internal hot-house debates with a big shrug)
(2) There is not evidence outside narrow political activist circles that Berber is actually percevied as offensive at all - which makes sense as the ancient word roots are compeltely gone from any current definition.
This is very much an Offenderati looking for offence subject.
Unless and until substantiation of the asserted "offensiveness" within domestic Berber communities, particularly where there are large ones - notably for example in Morocco where it has been made an official language and now appears on all official buildings, etc.
(for disclosure as it happens I am personally married to a proud Berbere who identifies as either Chilha or Berbere but not Amazight which for her is the specific Amazight people not her people, although it worth saying it's more an annoyance than offensive - this is of course merely anectdote and not data, and merely shared for illustration) collounsbury (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here we go again

If this gets archived, a note to say this refers to the #Requested move 10 May 2022. CapnZapp (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Request prematurely closed as hopelessly uncivil. You can repropose the move request if you'd like, but this request is never ever ever going to be successful at nurturing a consensus when it's begun so rudely. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 16:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berbers → Amazigh people – Can we have an article title that's not racist yet? إيان (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting a move request I made almost two years ago, in the hopes that our sensibilities have evolved.

WP:NCET: "How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided."

Also quoting cogent points made by Soweli Rin on this talk page:

Who cares that the slur is more well-known when it's clearly offensive? The article for Romani people isn't titled the G-slur, even though that's certainly the more well-known term to millions of people. Likewise, Inuit isn't titled the E-slur. There is an article titled such, but it discusses the slur itself, which collectively has been applied to two distinct groups of indigenous peoples. This is not the case with the Amazigh, in which Amazigh and the current name are fully synonymous. It's unacceptable to claim that a disparity of only 10x popularity is nearly enough to justify continuing to use a word which literally means "barbarian" as an exonym for millions of people.
— User:Soweli Rin

For convenience I also provide the rationale for the move request made in 2020:

Rationale for 2020 move request
* Berbers → Amazigh people

– While the common name in English is "Berber," the term "Berber" is a cognate of "barbarian" and is widely considered derogatory among the Amazigh people, as attested to in these sources among others:

  • this article from Al Jazeera, approximately: "Berbers is a Latin name, meaning "savages" or "primitive savages." The Romans used this name for all foreigners, including the Amazigh people, in their conquest of the communities of the Mediterranean basin."
  • this article in The National (Abu Dhabi): "At the core of their struggle in recent years – amid a long history of colonial suppression – is their stated desire to no longer be referred to as Berbers but as Amazigh, meaning "free people", and for their language to be known as Tamazight."
  • this article in al-Hewar al-Mutamadin [ar], approximately: "The term "Berber" within Greek civilization was transformed into a derogatory concept; the word "Berber"/"Barbarian" refers to foreign cultures of inferiority, whether to Greek civilization or its predecessors. (Similar to the Russians calling the Germans "niemcy": "the incomprehensible people", and the German language "Nemensky Yzek": "the incomprehensible language.") For The Greeks, Greece was the center of civilization (eurocentrism); the Berbers according to the Greeks were all those who did not belong to Greek civilization and did not speak Greek. The term was also used by the Roman Empire to refer to peoples outside its sovereignty, and the term "berber" was used especially to refer to the resistants to Roman colonial presence, whether they were Amazigh, Germanic, Celtic or other. The term referred to the incivility of the resistants to Roman civilization."

Notable publications in English use the term "Amazigh" over "Berber":

in French too:

According to WP:NCET, "Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided." From the sources above, there is clearly grounds to avoid the term "Berber" when the word Amazigh is used by English sources

Whereas "Imazighen" would be the correct demonym of self-identification, it is far less common in English than the singular "Amazigh," which is quite common in many English sources. I propose the adjectival with "people"—"Amazigh people." I also propose moving other articles containing the word "Berber" to a new title using the term "Amazigh" instead. إيان (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
إيان (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

the not in good faith / civility remark seems like a catch-22 to me. people who want to change the name of the article want to change it because they believe the term is racist. if they didn't think it was racist, they wouldn't want to change it. but if they call the term racist in the proposal it gets dismissed as bad faith because they're "suggesting people are racist if they oppose this move" (CapnZapp), etc. if that's the case then it's impossible to ever suggest the move.

responding to In ictu oculi's evidence, compare how the BBC handles "gypsy" vs. "romani": https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=gypsy, https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=romani. it's hard to parse on the site because it returns articles about Romania in the Romani category, so using this search string: "gypsy" site:www.bbc.co.uk, i got 4,720 results, whereas using this search string: "romani" site:www.bbc.co.uk, i got 843 results, using: "irish traveller" site:www.bbc.co.uk, i got 190 results, and using "sinti" site:www.bbc.co.uk, i got 110 results. in this case the BBC is a reliable source the way Brutus is an honourable man, and we don't have to rely on what the media uses to decide whether or not a term is offensive. in this discussion, however, activist demands are being discounted: the claim that "berber" is offensive is "part of certain activist circles" (Ilyacadiz), "superficial activist nonsense", "narrow political activist circles" (collounsbury), "some activists are making a fuss about it" (Johnbod), while Washington Post and the New York Times are taken more seriously (even if the article is "written by a sympathetic author" (Dhtwiki)!). i find this emphasis on news media over advocacy surprising. if activists are advocating that we prefer Amazigh to Berber i'd like to see those sources. are there any Amazigh advocacy organizations who have addressed this, perhaps have an FAQ page on their website, etc.? i'm not personally aware of an organization like that, although when looking i did find an article in The National News (here) which claims that "At the core of their struggle in recent years [...] is their stated desire to no longer be referred to as Berbers but as Amazigh [...] and for their language to be known as Tamazight," but it also says "many in Algeria and Morocco continue to refer themselves as Berbers." i suppose what i'd like to know is: if there is advocacy for a name change, why don't we include that advocacy in the discussion? what kind of sources for this would count as reliable ones? Iesbian (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS source-based discussion

Am neutral on the whether the time has yet come to make this move. It is evident that (a) some sources indicate that the term Berber offends some Berbers/Amazigh. (b) English language sources have begun to move to the more politically acceptable term Amazigh. See related article Names of the Berber people. However Wikipedia needs to track quality reliable source usage, not preempt or lag. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

Since there was a requested move just days ago, I suggest people cool off for an extended period of time before again bringing up the article name issue. CapnZapp (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and usage for the name of the language needs to be distinguished from that for the people. The former (Berber languages) is likely to change first. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, the MRV has been reopened. See its talk page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 16:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are the Amazighs...

We are the Amazighs, the original inhabitants of North Africa, and we are not Arabs. We have our civilization, our language, our culture, and even our customs and traditions, so we are Amazigh, not Arabs. 41.254.65.48 (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn, sigh! Nobody is saying you are Arabs, but it seems many Berbers don't think they are "Amazighs" either, and dislike being described as such. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Berbers&oldid=1101344890"