Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:43, 4 June 2023

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1962 Algerian crisis has been accepted

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Misplaced Pages! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Guemmar attack moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Guemmar attack, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 12:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Misplaced Pages's content, here or elsewhere, Misplaced Pages's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Misplaced Pages, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from ]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Umayyad rule in North Africa

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Umayyad rule in North Africa, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your work on North Africa

Hi, I love your work, if you are French speaking, could you do the same thing on the French wikipedia? or at least translate the articles you create into French. HanKim20 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your appreciation of my work, I was looking forward to doing so soon. Skitash (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources for the use of Amazigh as an autonym

Jane E. Goodman's works seem to be very much only centered on Kabyles, and Algerian Northern Berbers people at best. The rest of the linguistic groups of Northern Berber aswell as Tuaregs all use the ethnonym Amazigh as shown by the sources I shared. Do you still think Moroccan Berbers and Tuaregs don't use varieties of Tamazight to refer to their language? Taluzet (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's also pretty naive to assume leqbayel is what Kabyles refered to themselves as before Arabic influence, for reasons you know yourself. Taluzet (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you think Jane E. Goodman is referring to when she says "these groups..." after mentioning all Berber populations in Morocco, Algeria, Mali and Niger? Skitash (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

If she's referring to them all then she's wrong. Modern Imazighen all over Morocco and the Tuareg nation use Amazigh as an autonym. I gave you the sources

Here's work from the 17th century where the author refers to his language as Tamazight : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0WDacAW0AUBaPl?format=jpg&name=medium

It's from Awzal, if you wish to verify his works yourself it's available here https://cinumed.mmsh.univ-aix.fr/collection/?search=&sort=_score&perpage=50&page=1&&page=1&refine%5BFonds%5D%5B%5D=Fonds+Ars%C3%A8ne+Roux+%3A+Manuscrits Taluzet (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Tamahaq and Tamajaq are all variants of Tamazight, the same way azul becomes ahul, with the respective sound changes in those dialects Taluzet (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is a screenshot from page 11 of An Introduction to Tarifiyt Berber https://imgur.com/vXQQcce both Tachlhiyt and Tarifiyt are recent coinages of Arabic origin, while Tamazight is the common term in most of the country Taluzet (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You can not use images as sources. I recommend reviewing the guidelines in WP:Source. The screenshot from An Introduction to Tarifiyt Berber says that Tamazight is widely used, referring to modern usage. Skitash (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not using those images as sources in the article, I am showing you personally.

It literally says "the traditional name of the language is tmazixt", and that "tarifiyt as a linguistic term is a new coinage" Taluzet (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that Berbers did not refer to themselves collectively as Berbers/Amazigh. Your source is specific to the Tarifiyt language. Skitash (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It is the point though, you said "Historically, Berbers did not refer to themselves as Berbers/Amazigh but had their own terms to refer to themselves.", when this is false because most berbers refer to themselves as amazigh, and most groups who don't adopted Arabic ethnonyms for themselves, like Kabyles and Chaouis

Tuaregs, Chleuh, and Riffians make up 70% of all Tamazight speakers and all refer to their language as variants of 'tamazight', alongside newer Arabic terms for precision. So you'll have to reword your statement if your point really is what you claim it is Taluzet (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You're only making unsourced claims. Skitash (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, based on each language's[REDACTED] page, you get

~ 10mil Chleuh/Middle Atlas Tamazight speakers

~ 2mil Tarifit speakers

~ 1.2mil Tuareg speakers

13.2 million

~ 3m Kabyle speakers

~ 2.1m Chaoui speakers

~ 600k Eastern Berber

~ 150k Mozabites

5.6mil

Which gets you a rough estimate of 56% of speakers that call their actively call their language Tamazight in the modern day.

But you know what, just avoid the numbers statement, what is wrong about what I said earlier? Taluzet (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are you giving me random statistics? I didn't ask for any of this, and I didn't ask for what they call their language in modern day. Skitash (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

What are you asking me for then? Why is my edit wrong Taluzet (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I should be the one asking you that because I have no idea what you're arguing about. You deleted sourced content and replaced it with outdated unreliable sources from 1986 and 1872. Skitash (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The first source is reliable and why would it being from 1986 be a problem?

If you want I'll replace the 1872 source with this one https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/academie9/kabyle

The other source is a very reliable book from 1997

The last is also very reliable from 2020 Taluzet (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Your source does not prove that Kabyles called themselves Berbers. Skitash (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, it does prove the noun Amazigh was used in the region as evidenced by toponymy, it's hard to know for sure how Kabyles called themselves before adopting the Arabic ethnonym Kabyle. But it doesn't matter, since most groups use it anyway, that was my point, most groups Taluzet (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Also your lone source does not even talk about the word Amazigh, it just says they didn't call themselves Berber and didn't see themselves as one unit, I agree, most didn't even know about the existence of other Berbers, but you can't say they didn't call themselves Amazigh, because I proved they do Taluzet (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It intended to say that Berbers did not have a collective term of self-referral. Skitash (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I gave a source that recorded all people who use and were attested to use "amazigh" as an ethnonym, not just Riffians, but it seems you didn't read my sources well Taluzet (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

All your sources are unreliable and outdated. Skitash (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Which sources are unreliable and outdated? Can you name a few? Taluzet (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)