Talk:Algeria

Add Tamazight name of Algeria

Add Tamazight name of Algeria to Name section.

Reasons:

• Official language of Algeria.
• It is taught in schools in Algeria.
• Used by Imazighens in Algeria.
• There is a Wikipedia for it , prefixe (zgh).
• Tifinagh is part of Unicode Tifinagh (Unicode block).
• Tifinagh is used by the Algerian government, (e.g. Prime minister official website).
• Tifinagh wide use in articles and Algerian press e.g. Algeria Press Service(part of Federation of Arab News Agencies).
• Preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification of Tifinagh characters is present (International Journal of Computer Vision and Image Processing ISSN: 2155-6997).
• Widely used in other Imazighen countries e.g. Morocco.

105.235.131.146 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please see the previous discussions on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Which previous discussions? All of them are gone.

I don't see any good reason for not including the native Amazigh name when other Amazigh-speaking countries already do this. This is even more baffling considering the fact that non-official and foreign languages like French are included in this English-language version of the article. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is run by non-Algerians who are hellbent on portraying us as a European-adjacent colony with no culture or language of its own. It's not going to happen until these people stop controlling this article.

I did everything to gain consensus, but in the end you have 3 times as many neocolonialists as you have Algerians editing this article, so good and accurate edits will never pass. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

what of expansionist arabs, who might not mind referring to whole of north africa as thoroughly arab, dwn to ancestry, thus rendering local uniqueness null. it is not 'better' than portraying them as 'european', ime, especially considering most european moved out with their colonial regimes,otherwise might've devastated it demographically like arab banu/tribes are alleged to have, if numbers and dispersions are correct.. 12.146.12.2 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm literally advocating for adding Amazigh, the native language of Algeria, to the article and you're bringing up Arabs?

The fact of the matter is that this page is being controlled by people who don't understand Algerian demographics. Including the French name for Algeria (which no one speaks as a native language btw), but not the Amazigh one, which is the native language of 30% of the population, is illogical. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Tamazight is an official and national language of Algeria, as stated in Article 4 of the Constitution. Therefore, including Tamazight in Algeria-related articles is appropriate and valid. Regarding which script to use, despite the lack of a law recommending one script over another, government-affiliated agencies like APS tend to use all three scripts interchangeably. يوسف قناوة (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Indeed, Skitash account opposes the introduction of Tamazight for the official name of the country. even the official language is not spared from pov-pushing. (In addition to the manipulation of sources which aim to make people believe that 85% of the population of Algeria originates from the Arabian Peninsula).

Versions of Wikipedia, such as French or Spanish, have already been the second official language of the country for a while. Only the English version is frozen at the time of the single party...

2) The name in Tamazight is ⵜⴰⴳⴷⵓⴷⴰ ⵜⴰⵣⵣⴰⵢⵔⵉⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⴳⴷⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵖⴻⵔⴼⴰⵏⵜ Source : [ⵜⵉⵔⵣⵉ ⵜⵓⵏⵚⵉⴱⵜ ⵏ ⵓⵙⴻⵍⵡⴰⵢ ⵏ ⵜⴻⴱⴱⵓⵏ ⵖⴻⵔ ⴽⵓⵡⴰⵢⵜ : ⵜⴰⵙⴳⵓⵔⵉ ⵜⵓⵛⵔⵉⴽⵜ (aps.dz)] or [Ministère de l'Énergie | Algérie (energy.gov.dz)]. It is perfectly sourced. The transcription is: Tagduda tazzayrit tamagdayt taɣerfant source :[Aseɣnew n GPRA ila iswi n useddukkel n Tegrawla akked usegrew n umɣiwan aɣelnaw (aps.dz)]. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest not getting lost in the delaying method on the part of the pov-pushers who oppose this writing. example: Tifinagh/Latin, infobox/text... just see what is done on the Morocco page and on the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking versions (use of Tifinagh + transcribed into the adapted Latin alphabet). Get to the point with common sense. We are not going to waste 2 more years transcribing the official language onto the page, the absence of any mention is the worst situation. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal and summary of reviews

To reach a consensus, everyone will decide whether they agree to add the Berber name (official language of the country) in the same format as the Morocco's article. the name used will be that as used in the APS agency (tifinagh and transcription) confirmed on the ministry website.

I summarize below the opinions from the discussion above. (Correct it if this does not reflect your opinion.) Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

summary of other editors' views; this review is this editor's opinion only, and may or may not represent the actual view of the editors in question.
For Agree يوسف قناوة Agree Monsieur Patillo Agree Kurdish Elf Agree 105.235.131.146 talk Against  Disagree Skitash Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC) This sig added as duplicate of sig above to establish authorship; added by Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Section collapsed by Mathglot (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I only reported the opinions above (this is a common thing to summarize on WP:Fr, sorry if this is not done here). However, I find it disgraceful that my comment was deleted and therefore censored, it would have been simpler to explain to request the correction. I'm putting it back without the reviews. Everyone will express it themselves. @105.235.131.146, Kurdish Elf, يوسف قناوة, and Skitash:. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Monsieur Patillo, your comment has been restored, it is inside the green box, but may have been confusing to some editors because it was not clear enough who wrote what. Please remove the four section headers above, labeled "For," "Against", N"eutral", and "Comments". These all appear *inside* your comment of 11:23, 16 August; and any other editor adding a comment there will unfortunately have to be removed, because it is not allowed for them to add comments inside your comment. Please read WP:THREAD about replying at the *bottom* of a discussion; that is what we all do, and inviting some other editors to reply in the middle of your comment will just lead to chaos. Please remove those four headers, and allow the discussion to continue organically. See WP:THREAD. Mathglot (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot (talk · contribs) Excuse me. is it good like that? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Monsieur Patillo, no problem. Yes, that looks fine, thank you; now the discussion can continue. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Just noting the section at ANI related to this discussion for the record, and reminding all editors that ANI is not a court that decides who is right in a content dispute; that is what this page is for. If a content dispute remains, this is the place to talk about it. If this discussion becomes deadlocked or no progress is being made, you can seek the opinion of additional editors by appropriately notifying forums such as related WP:WikiProjects, and ask for more feedback, or look into other methods of dispute resolution, such as WP:Third opinion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but this issue was settled through a RfC and nothing has changed since then. The consensus was to add the other names, including the Tamazight ones (in Arabic, Latin and Tifinagh) to the name section of the article. Some were added right after the RfC and cn tagged. They remained there until they were removed for lack of citation. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Good reminder! So, if any of the editors asking why it has not been added, there you have your answer. You may add it back yourself, within the constraints of WP:Verifiability, so be sure to include a citation to a reliable source if you do. Hopefully that will now put this thread to rest. Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I just learned of your RFC. However, it was formulated on an erroneous basis that the name in Amazigh has no standardization which is a lie given the existence in the APS and in certain ministries. why don't we have a problem in the French-speaking Wikipedia? Spanish-speaking? Why does this happen in the only English-speaking article where there is a manipulation to make Algerians seem like 85% of the Arab peninsula?

I of course respect the decision as long as another decision is not made. I add the name in the body of the text to comply with the decision but it needs to be reviewed. Tamazight is not "another language" but one of the official languages ​​of the country and must appear in the infobox as is customary for official languages. Thanks. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Added name in berber with sources. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Amazigh has no standardization which is a lie that's not what was said, so please don't accuse others of lying without properly reading what they wrote.

I also adjusted the newly added content (the official name of Algeria is mentioned in the constitution, which is written in Arabic and French only). M.Bitton (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

when I told you that the debate was introduced on fallacious bases during the previous discussion we come to the most emblematic example.The Algerian constitution has been published in Tamazight for quite some time: [La Constitution en version amazighe éditée (aps.dz)].You have the HCA website which published it here : La constitution de 2016 (Tamendawt) (hcamazighite.dz). Those who told you that it only exists in French and Arabic have misled you (or would be better off not imposing their point of view because they do not know enough about the subject). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Please drop the accusations of POV and other nonsense. Has the constitution been published by the Algerian Academy of the Amazigh Language? If no, then there is nothing to talk about and If yes, then why are you using other sources instead of the constitution?

The HCA is not the "Académie algérienne de la langue amazighe". M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone by name, but an atmosphere which requires overjustification of a very simple mention in Tamazight. Who said the Academy had to publish the constitution? The HCA is also the official agency in charge of the Amazigh language in Algeria. The country's official news agency (aps.dz) says that the constitution is published, what more is needed? This is not fake news. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Who said the Academy had to publish the constitution? the constitution, which also stipulates that its role to develop the Tamazight language in order to integrate it as an official language in the future. M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"L’Académie qui s'appuie sur les travaux des experts, est chargée de réunir les conditions de la promotion de Tamazight en vue de concrétiser, à terme, son statut de langue officielle.". The Algerian state does not say in any way that this institution is responsible for drafting the constitution in Tamazight. We are sinking into a legalism which is not the role of a Wikipedian.

Le HCA (hcamazighite.dz) : "The High Commission for Amazighness is an institution placed under the supervision of the Presidency of the Republic. It is headed by a High Commissioner, assisted by a Secretary General. Its mission, its prerogatives, its scope of action and its operation are clearly defined by legal texts in terms of presidential decrees.". This institution is official, dependent on the president and published the Amazigh version of the constitution with the official seal... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this. Here's what the HCA had to say about the Academy (the article was published after the one that you linked to). I also suggest, you read what was discussed previously, because nothing has changed since. M.Bitton (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying the academy is finished. Where I differ is that the constitution does not say that the Academy is expressly the agency responsible for drafting the constitution in Tamazight. This is an interpretation of the text and not a written fact. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Academy is responsible for a) choosing an alphabet (among the three) and b) overseeing its standardization. They still haven't managed the first part (for the reasons that I already explained in the previous discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You do not answer my question: what text states in black and white that this single academy is responsible for providing a constitution or rather an official name in Tamazight? As the question of the alphabet is not entirely resolved the constitution was drawn up in two alphabets: Latin and Tifinagh by the HCA. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Before Tamazight is adopted as a working official language, the academy has to choose an alphabet first and then standardize it. If you still don't get it, then there is nothing more that I can possibly that would make you understand the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You use legalism and personal interpretation to deduce that the constitutional text does not exist. And this without having shown that it was specifically up to the academy to publish this constitutional text. It is all the more foreign as it amounts to denying an official value to the text published by the HCA, and announced by the official press agency in two alphabets. It would be better if other people gave their opinion because we have covered the issue. Overall, the situation on English-speaking Wikipedia is clearly an anomaly compared to others. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I use what the constitution and the reliable sources say about the academy that was created for the sole purpose of choosing an alphabet (among the three) and overseeing its standardization (this all covered in the previous discussion). A document as important as the constitution cannot be officially endorsed (like the Arabic and French versions) in a language that is yet to be standardized. M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You are in the process of cobbling together an unprecedented synthesis by playing the role of an Algerian constitutionalist and linguist. The French language is not even in the constitution yet you brandish the text in French...

Does the text of the Algerian constitution exist in Tamazight yes or no? Is this text official yes or no?

Why not add it to the infobox (even accompanied by the notes you deem necessary). We are not in a linguistically “vacuum” situation in this language. Apart from an ideological opposition to the Amazigh language, your position is untenable in reality.

Please refrain from making personal judgments based on press extracts. Especially since you have not proven, other than through your personal deductions, that the constitution had to be written in a standardized language. This "L’Académie qui s'appuie sur les travaux des experts, est chargée de réunir les conditions de la promotion de Tamazight en vue de concrétiser, à terme, son statut de langue officielle." does not refer to any standardization but to "promotion conditions" (which is vague).

A Wikipedian does not have to interpret but to compile existing data, so you are overstepping your collaborative encyclopedic role. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Apart from an ideological opposition to the Amazigh language, your position is untenable in reality." If you have nothing of value to add to this conversation besides unfounded aspersions, perhaps it's time to stop wasting everyone's time. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be repeated for you to be able to understand, but the Académie algérienne de la langue amazighe is yet to choose a standardized and codified alphabet (out of Latin, Tifinagh, or Arabic). It's not up to you to make that decision or pick one arbitrarily. Skitash (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No indeed, and it is not up to you to interpret algerian legislation either (WP:NOR). I simply note that the constitutional text exists in the language concerned (even though I was told that it was written in Arabic and French only).

Unless we come back to my question of whether you deny the value of the published text ? text which it was claimed did not exist before falling back on an explanation that it was not the right institution which would have published it (deduction based on a WP:NOR).... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is unprecedented on Wikipedia for a country's official name not to be ascribed due to the absence of a legally favored script. Would it be possible to consider including all three scripts as a solution to this issue, given that they are all utilized in some capacity by Algerian media? Alternatively, is it essential to wait for the Algerian government to officially designate a preferred script before making such a decision? يوسف قناوة (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that (this was discussed at length before and during the last RfC). What's being used in some sources can be added to the name section. It's not our job to make that decision: the Algerian Academy of the Amazigh Language (not the government) will designate a script and standardize the language (that's what is was created for). M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate on your point? Is the issue of selecting between Latin, Tifinagh, or Abjad forms significant enough to exclude a language that is explicitly recognized as official in a state’s constitution? Additionally, what is the objection to including all three scripts simultaneously? To date, there appears to be no indication that the state is concerned with the matter of 'choosing a script,' given that Tamazight is actively used with its three scripts. يوسف قناوة (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I already have (please read the previous discussion). There is no objection including the various scripts in the name section. Again, that's the responsibility of the Algerian Academy of the Amazigh Language (not the government's). M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The HCA functions as a language regulator, analogous to the role of the Supreme Council of the Arabic language in Algeria. Both bodies are designed to promote Tamazight and Arabic, as stipulated in Articles 3 and 4 of the Algerian Constitution. The HCA is specifically tasked with the promotion, development, and standardization of the Tamazight language across its various dialects.

The issue of what script should be officially selected is not critical enough to warrant the exclusion of Tamazight from Algeria-related articles. The language is already constitutionally recognized and is actively used in various forms across Algerian media, regardless of the script. Therefore, the inclusion of Tamazight in its current multi-script form aligns with its status and usage in Algeria. يوسف قناوة (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the HCA (which was created in 1995) is not tasked with the standardization of Tamazight (that's the job of the Academy which was created in 2018). The issue of what script should be used officially is extremely important to the country and to the future of the language itself (it's not a game: those who haven't been chosen for the task don't have a say in it). M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton. Once again you are not chief lawyer and you make a personal interpretation of the constitution. Nobody says that the constitution, the name of the country etc... must wait for some kind of standardization to exist.

The constitutional text is published in Tamazight with official publication in both alphabets (Latin and Tifinigagh). You have no concern for the Tamazight language, your convolutions just serve to hide it from the article and the infobox. You should not do polite pov-pushing and demand a more official text than the official one. This mind-blowing debate only takes place on the English version.

@User:يوسف قناوة given that the previous call for comments was made with a biased question I propose asking for another one. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not my personal interpretation, it's a fact: before its integration as an official language at some point in the future, Tamazight needs to be developed by the Academy that was created for that very purpose.

the previous call for comments was made with a biased question pure nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Art. 4.2 — Tamazight est également langue nationale et officielle. L'Etat œuvre à sa promotion et à son développement dans toutes ses variétés linguistiques en usage sur le territoire national. Il est créé une Académie algérienne de la Langue Amazighe, placée auprès du Président de la République. L'Académie qui s'appuie sur les travaux des experts, est chargée de réunir les conditions de la promotion de Tamazight en vue de concrétiser, à terme, son statut de langue officielle. Les modalités d'application de cet article sont fixées par une loi organique.

Where do you see the word “standardization”? that nothing can be written or said before this "standardization"? the written constitution in tamazight is a fake?

It makes sense because you posed the problem and twisted things in such a way as to obtain an answer which is an anomaly in Wikipedia compared to other languages. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like we were writing at the same time, so I'll repeat what I said and we'll take it from there. Do you agree that before its integration as an official language at some point in the future, Tamazight needs to be developed by the Academy that was created for that very purpose?

For the standardization, you need to check other sources. There are plenty, but since you seem to agree with what the HCA says, this one should help. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

break

The problem is that you are making an interpretation of the term concretize. To make this concrete, implies standardization (a term absent from the source that you have just published), at the same time you are talking about a future integration. However, no one is saying that it is not already integrated as a language, because texts , and official writings in this language already exist. I come back to your RFC which was conducted on the basis of misleading assumptions. We have the impression that the text of the HCA comes from activists or troublemakers (if you knew that it existed at that time which is not easy to understand reading you). Reading such debates with personal opinions and without knowing the subject, even I would have voted against. This is proof that this RFC must be renewed without misleading the reader with only a publication of sources on the subject and not interpretative comments which imply that the official version of the HCA is the fruit of « activists ». for example :

• M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC) : «The official name of a country is way too important to be left in the hands of amateurs and activists»
• M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC) : « The whole point of the verifiability policy is that anyone can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Right now, anyone (with no knowledge of either Arabic or French can check that the name in those two languages is both easily attributable and correct), but this isn't the case for the recently added Tamazight names »
• M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC) : « This situation will remain unchanged so long as the fundamental problems facing this artificial language haven't been resolved: the choice of which alphabet to adopt and the standardization that will follow. »
• M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC) «As you can imagine, there is a war between the three, with activists on all sides pushing for their chosen alphabet; but the final word rests with the "Académie algérienne de la langue amazighe", which unfortunately (mostly due how complicated the issue is) has been taking its time, leading to some people wanting to take matters into their own hands. »
• CMD (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC) : « None, as the offficial names as actually used by the country (in addition to English) seem to be Arabic. Wikipedia should follow reliable sources, and reflect wp:due usage. This is especially true for infoboxes. The Algerian embassy to the US website uses just Arabic in addition to English. The NY consulate is the same. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses Arabic (with English and French translations for those language versions). The Ministry of Defence only displays in the language used, but has only English, Arabic, and French. The Algerian Presidency Facebook page uses Arabic, as does the 'website'. Other sites use Arabic and French: [16][17]. Arabic is the only common language, with French seemingly used often but not always. »
• 01:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC) « 2) There is no "official Tamazight name", it simply does not exist yet (see my comments above).»

Here we have in bold a series of unsubstantiated assertions that have skewed the RFC. It should also have been brought to the attention of the contributors that the name is inserted on the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking Wikipedia in compliance with verifiability... and without the sky having fallen on their heads Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep commenting on the editors instead of the content. The above cherry picking of what was said in a long discussion serves no purpose.

« This situation will remain unchanged so long as the fundamental problems facing this artificial language haven't been resolved: the choice of which alphabet to adopt and the standardization that will follow. » which part of this do you disagree with?

However, no one is saying that it is not already integrated as a language the constitution is pretty clear on this (it won't be integrated until the Academy has done what it was created for). The reliable sources (including the ones that I cited above) complain about the academy taking its time.

the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking Wikipedia what other projects do or don't do is irrelevant.

I come back to your RFC wrong again, it's not mine (it was started by someone else). The rest of your comment (based on an out of context cherry picked sentence) makes no sense. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

1) First of all, I don't appreciate your intimidating messages on my talk page. I am not a native English speaker, I am sorry if my remarks have a personal twist transposed into English but they are in no way an attack. I try to stick to what you write and I didn't judge you. Also I am not involved in any editing wars, I have tried to comply with the previous decision for the time being in the editorial space (as soon as they were brought to my attention). When other users continue change the article and statu quo in the middle of (other) mediation, you do not notify them in the same way.

2) I can't quote everything from discussions spanning several days, you'll excuse me but it's you who's making accusations of cherry-picking.So I simply gave examples of the presuppositions which influenced the decision even though they are not supported by sourced elements :

- How do you qualify this as artificial language? the problem of the alphabet is non-existent because it is published in two alphabets (example of the constitution itself and the APS press agency).

- (it won't be integrated until the Academy has done what it was created for) This is not correct, the term integrated is not used, we are talking about the much more progressive term of concretization. The language is already integrated as far as possible (written constitution, pediment of public buildings, official website, etc.).. Please no longer use this term of integration which is not in the source (constitution), we will save time.

- This is entirely relevant because it proves that it is possible to have stable and verifiable versions (while you were reporting an activist controversy between different writings?). However, what is done on other projects is not a rule here, I agree. It remains an example of what is possible to do.

- Sorry for the English expressions if they are personal. I mean the one cited by you. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This notion of official (at all costs) is not a prerequisite for the infobox which clearly specifies native language official/defacto language(s)

1 ) In the infobox settings (no notion of official/official but not standardized/official but not official enough...): «Country's name (usually full name) in its native language, hence in italics (double quotemarks). The template should be used with this parameter to automatically italicize the text.»

2 ) In the template: official or de facto (also no notion of standardized/official but not official enough...) : «|native_name = »

This notion of official (at all costs) is not a prerequisite for the infobox which clearly specifies « native language [...] official/defacto language(s)». So even the debate of officiality is beside the point. The only question of eligibility is whether it is a native language and whether a verifiable form of the name exists. The interpretations of article 4 of the Algerian constitution are similar to WP:POINT which aim to experimentally prove a point of view. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I accept your apology. The message wasn't meant to be intimidate you, but rather to remind you to assume good faith.

The term "integrate" is what is used in the English translation of the constitution. I don't see how "concretize" (which you seem to think is a better translation) changes anything to what I said.

This notion of official (at all costs) is not a prerequisite for the infobox which clearly specifies « native language [...] official/defacto language(s)» Tamazight is not a de facto language. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Which (official?) English version are you referring to for the constitution? The term concretization is more progressive, because it can be partially concretized while integration is a yes/no (binary) notion. When you say "Tamazight is not a de facto language." what are you basing this on? Tamazight is recognized as a single language with several variants (exct the same case of Arabic with several registers).

You didn't answer my question? Is the publication of the constitution in Tamazight the work of the Algerian state, therefore official, or the work of activists? De facto, the name in Tamazight exists (ministry, APS agency, constitution translated by an official body, etc.) yes or no? I am not asking for judgements (not standardized enough, not disseminated enough, etc.). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting four similar discussions about French usage at other Algeria-related articles

In order to prevent fragmentation and duplication of discussions that already appear on this page, I'm noting for the record the following essentially identical discussions at other Algeria-related articles:

• Talk:Algerian Air Force#Remove French translations from this article.
• Talk:Algerian Civil War#Remove French translation from this article.
• Talk:Republican Guard (Algeria)#Remove French names from the article.
• Talk:Territorial Air Defence Forces#Remove French from this article.

All of them are on the same theme as previously discussed on this page in multiple discussions. Unless there is something essentially unique or different pertaining to any of the articles listed above, imho this discussion should continue in one place, and this page, where the conversation has already started, is the place. (A WikiProject could be an alternate venue, but since there are already several discussions about this here, I see no advantage to moving them.) Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The following is my comment on French language on Algerian military unit: While French is not an official language in Algeria, the documentation for the |native_name= parameter on Template:Infobox military unit specifies that the name of the unit in the local language, not necessarily an official language. Additionally, the presence of a French language version on the official website of the Algerian Air Force (https://www.mdn.dz/site_cfa/accueil_fr.php), Algerian Territorial Air Defence Forces (https://www.mdn.dz/site_cfdat/accueil_fr.php) and Algerian Republican Guard (https://www.mdn.dz/site_cgr/accueil_fr.php) suggests that French is indeed considered a local language in Algeria. Therefore, we have a source for the unit name in French, satisfying the verifiability requirement. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

French is not considered a local language, but rather a foreign language Riad Salih (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the fact that official website have French language version indicate French as local language. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This very article itself lists French as a "foreign language".

Respectfully, foreign language translations in official government websites do not indicate that a language is a "local language". There needs to be a huge logical leap for this statement to make sense. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that does not confirm that French is a "local language". It absolutely isn't a local language and if you had any surface-level knowledge of Algeria, you would know this.

The US government website offers Spanish translations and Spanish is way more spoken in the US than it ever was in Algeria (50 million native Spanish speakers vs < 100,000 native French speakers). If we go by your logic, then every term in the US military article should be translate to Spanish so why don't we do that instead? Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You may suggest to include Spanish into US military article, I cannot stop you to do that but here we are discussing Algeria (esp military article) which happen the official website do have French language version. Btw, as I look up official US military unit website, such US Air Force (https://www.af.mil/), US Army (https://www.army.mil/), US Navy (https://www.navy.mil/), US Space Force (https://www.spaceforce.mil/), and US Coast Guard (https://www.uscg.mil/), none of them have non-English version for the official website. So, the existing fact also do not support your claim that official US website have Spanish version. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.usa.gov/ , https://www.whitehouse.gov/ , https://home.treasury.gov/ , and many other US government websites have Spanish-language versions. Does that mean we should add Spanish translations to articles about the US government? I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous simply based on the fact that Spanish, while very common in the country, has no official status.

To be absolutely clear, foreign language translations in official government websites do not indicate that a language is a "local language". It absolutely isn't in this case and even this very article lists French and English as "foreign languages" in Algeria.

So then, why use the same flawed logic here? The US has way more native Spanish speakers than Algeria has native French speakers (about 500:1 to be precise) yet I don't see people making the case for Spanish in articles about the US. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, our focus in this section is on Military Unit articles, and we are comparing the official military unit websites of Algeria and the US. It's important to note that the US military unit website solely offers an English version, so introducing Spanish language content into the US military unit article isn't applicable as we do not have reference on official website for that. However, this differs for Algerian military unit articles. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This reasoning sounds very arbitrary. Militaries are themselves branches of governments. Military website or not, the US government websites are also clearly available in Spanish. This, as you probably agree, does not mean that US articles should translate key terms in Spanish like they are for French in the articles mentioned above.

Also, the US Army does operate Spanish-language websites. They are just under different domains. See the following: https://www.goarmy.com/espanol.html . Kurdish Elf (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What sounds very arbitrary to me, is any discussion of the United States military and Spanish, neither of which has anything to do with Algeria. What's relevant to this article, are the reliable sources about Algeria, and that's pretty much it. I find comments about whether French is a "local language" or a "foreign language" a little bit like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; who cares what you call it? Call it a "despised colonial imperialist hegemonic oppressor language" if you want (although that would be kind of long for the Infobox)), but nothing will change the fact that millions of people speak it, far more than speak any of the minority native language other than the two majors (and although it's hard to find statistics, estimates I've seen count more speakers of French than Berber). If you want to expunge French totally from the Infobox, put up an argument that is more than just "I don't like it" and get consensus for it; so far I've seen nothing like a policy-based argument for that. Continued comments about the U.S. and Spanish won't get you closer to that goal. Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagreed. There needs to be a level of consistency across country/government/military articles. This is a blatant inconsistency that is not being addressed here and it is a very valid point. If anything, it proves my point about the academic invalidity of including translations in non-native/foreign languages to English-language articles.

Adding on to my point of consistency between articles (or lack thereof), these discussions about how much French is spoken in Algeria make no sense when there are way more native Spanish speakers (50 million) in the US than there ever were native French speakers in Algeria (100,000 in the 90s, likely fewer today). You cannot accurately say that "millions of people" speak it in Algeria because all of those people are second (and third) language speakers. The number of speakers who are actually fluent in the language is much, much lower than what you're thinking. Unfortunately, Algeria's relatively low profile on the global stage makes it hard to find sources that corroborate this fact. We are instead left with Francophonie and other sources that have a vested interest in promoting the French language. *Also, there is no singular language called "Berber". Amazigh (the correct term) is a family of native languages spoken in the country.*

Finally, if you think my argument is "I don't like it", then you are misunderstanding what is being said. The whole reason I am even posting this in the first place *is* to gain consensus. My arguments are (1) French is not an official language and has no status in Algeria, (2) a foreign language being spoken in a country is not a valid reason to include that language in an English-language article about said country, (3) the Algerian government and military do not operate in French and never have since their inception, and (4) Algeria has quite literally been phasing out French in education, the last sector where French was even remotely relevant. I would appreciate if you could respect my arguments and not employ straw mans. Thank you. Kurdish Elf (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no point replying, as this has become circular: it has all been stated before, and now it's just repeating old arguments, which just makes this page longer without getting closer to a resolution, and wasted time when we could all be doing something productive. If the discussion were deadlocked 1 to 1, I'd say try WP:3O, but that won't work when there are four editors who have reverted you. (Did I count that right?)

What you could do, if you still want to invest time in this, is to *neutrally* attract additional editors to the conversation, and try to sway their opinions your way. Don't go looking for people who agree with you, because that is called WP:CANVASSING and can get you in trouble. Read WP:APPNOTE, and apply the directions there to attract some random editors, for example, at some WP:WikiProject whose opinions you can't be sure of one way or the other, and that would not be CANVASSING and is allowed. If after further discussion among a larger number editors the trend is fairly equal for and against but no clear consensus, then you could try an Rfc as a last resort to resolve it, but please check in before you do that, because there are some formalities for setting it up correctly, and getting it wrong just wastes everybody's time for about a month. But that's getting ahead of ourselves; I'd try expanding the discussion via a WikiProject first, and see how that goes. Let me know if you need any help doing that. Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look into these options to gain consensus. For now, Riad Salih (and a few editors from earlier discussions) seem to agree with this change.

I also want to say that I believe I am being unfairly targeted by these reverts. Most of the people who are reverting have not addressed my arguments. One person kind of did but ignored all my subsequent replies addressing their counterarguments. I say this respectfully and hope this isn't counted as a personal attack, because I genuinely want to understand these editors' points of view. Kurdish Elf (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound like a PA, but the reverts are not about you, personally, being targeted; that's the wrong way to think about it. It's about an edit that doesn't appear to be an improvement to the article, in the view of several editors who have looked at it. Removing sourced material from an article is always problematic, and you need a good reason for it. Merely stating your opinion that it doesn't belong is not persuasive, because you can line people up on both sides saying, "I like it!", or, "I don't like it!", but that just devolves into a shouting match and there is no end to it, as some time later, someone else will shout differently. The idea is to improve the article, not based purely on preference but on Wikipedia policies and guidelines; in your case, this would mean to demonstrate how and why removing a French name, say, is an improvement to the article for policy reasons, despite the fact that there is ample reliable support for it. Ask for help from the WP:Help desk if you need it. Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

https://indonesia.go.id/?lang=2

according to your respected personal analysis, English is a local language of Indonesia. Yet, we are unable to find any entry for local language in Indonesia article on Wiki.

I respectfully  Disagree. 105.235.132.223 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The position of Spanish in the US is comparable to that of Berber in Algeria, not that of French. There's also a religious dimension here, with Islamicists wanting a monolingual Arabic-speaking state, and secularists wanting a bilingual Arabic and French–speaking state. The fact is that French is widely used in government, education and business. There is no comparable language in the US. It would be weird to call French a "local" language, but it is a semi-official one. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Local language" is the word used in documentation of Template:Infobox military unit, IMO it's the best definition to be used in documentation, but it generally refer to whatever non-English language commonly used to particular country. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That may be, but I can see why people would object to calling it that. "Local" suggests it's indigenous.

As for "foreign language", where it is now, there are lots of foreign languages in Algeria, such as English. Ethnologue lists Egyptian and several other varieties of Arabic, Hausa, Somali, Spanish and Turkish.

French is a second language. I don't know the best way to word that, but regardless it should definitely be given a prominent place in the info box. — kwami (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

French is not even recognized as an official language and is basically completely phased out from governmental institutions. It's a third language, if even that. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ethnologue lists it as an educational language. They cite Marcoux et al (2022) that there are 15 million L2 users, and the OIF (2007) that 33% can read and write French. 'Taught as subject in primary and secondary schools from grade 3. Used as language of instruction in secondary schools, for advanced courses in math and science. Used as L2 by Kabyle.' IMO that counts as a second language. — kwami (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What does religion have to do with language? and what's that semi official term and should have prominent place in Infobox and should be second language, the Algerian's fought against the french colonialism, gained independence and established laws that clearly states which languages are officials, there are two Arabic and Tamazight according to the Algerian's constitution, there is no second or semi or quarter official language, We believe Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives for intact information based on citations and references, not on personal analysis. With all the respect but the statement about which group wants what language based on religious beliefs can be interpreted as a PA to Algerians, so please kindly discuss about language without hurting the feelings of others who have family members that were martyred please. 105.235.132.199 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Answer: religion has nothing to do with it, and nobody said it did; this comment is a red herring. If you are responding to the word Islamicists in kwami's comment above, they are merely pointing out the non-language based agenda of some groups arguing the point; it is a fact that one of those groups is Islamicists, and there is no ascription of religious reason to why they are pushing their point of view, and it may be anticolonial, or any of a dozen reasons. You are going around in circles, and beating the drum of "official languages" even though it is has been stated over and over and over again that this is not about official languages. You don't have consensus for the changes you want to make at numerous articles about French language; please just drop it now. With respect to your PA claim above: that is non-content related, and I have responded at your (registered) Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Now five discussions: Talk:Djamaa el Kebir#I propose removing the French name for the mosque from the article. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot. I agree with you (the matter has nothing to do with religion). That was not the case with the comment, which I did make a clear remark about because I detected a significant derivation from the issue. The user directly associated Islamicists and Arabic 《Islamists wanting a monolingual Arabic-speaking state, and secularists wanting a bilingual Arabic and French-speaking state.》. Plus, I did not say make a change to the infobox if you want to include all the languages as you may, but please refrain from saying hurtful things in this discussion, such as French should be second and should be that it's not about should be, it's about what it is in reality and based on references and what the Algerians choose in their constitution. As for registered page that is not me Sir, plus why nobody stops making fights in this discussion, just stop it, kindly please, a pretty please? 105.235.132.199 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this section, and the topic of the other five discussions linked at the top, and the topic of previous discussions on this page are all the same: they are about whether to list French in the Infobox as one of the languages used in Algeria (however you wish to label it). The answer, as seen by overwhelming sourcing, and way too much discussion (about one word in an Infobox!!) as well as consensus here is that French should be listed. Removing French from the list because it hurts someone's feelings, or because it is not official (agreed: that is not at issue); or because it is a foreign colonialist language (agreed; not at issue) or because it is not in the Constitution (so what?); or because it is—or is not—connected with religion is irrelevant and not worth discussion. If you have a beef with someone's comment or you find something hurtful this is not the page to raise that issue; please go to their User talk page instead. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no consensus regarding this. You're accusing the same person of having multiple accounts instead of accepting that using French names in an English article about a country that doesn't have French as a first language is simply a logical opinion to have. Multiple people have agreed with the sentiment and you seem to be the only one opposed to the change. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2024

Water percentage was changed from "negligible" to 1.1% with no source. It should either be reverted or the water percentage should be completely removed. The false change came in this commit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algeria&oldid=877577588 99.64.160.215 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

re; centuries of arab migration

shouldn't there be a segment on 'why' arabs kept migrating there in such large numbers, as well as any berber reactions to it, especially if it took centuries for them to become arabized, and even then, not all. it'd seem, based on migration crises of today, that it would've caused unease among various native locals. possibly, also,there was no modern government to manage it all, except the caliphs who're arab themselves, thus, many of the migrants must've moved in among, or displaced natives in the process.12.146.12.2 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

There are various discussions involving the BLP of an Algerian boxer that could do with more input. This discussion and another related one are just a couple of them. M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there no supervision or officials here?

Vague, impersonal attack with no attempt to improve the article.
omg can anyone stop the person who wants to impose his destructive edits on the article 92.241.35.233 (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic groups Algeria

@M.Bitton , @Skitash the source provided on Ethnic groups [4] mentions Arab-Amazigh 99% and European Descent 1%. there is no mention of 85% and 15% numbers. please proceed to fact check this source. then make the appropriate changes Potymkin (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the note under "Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1%"? Skitash (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Note : "although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab, only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population; these people live mostly in the mountainous region of Kabylie east of Algiers and in several other communities; the Amazigh are also Muslim but identify with their Amazigh rather than Arab cultural heritage; some Amazigh have long agitated, sometimes violently, for autonomy; the government is unlikely to grant autonomy but has officially recognized Amazigh languages and introduced them into public schools".

the source mentions that Almost ALL algerians are Amazigh in origin and not arab, the number 85% Arab provided is considered original research by wikipedia.

the Ethnic composition of Algeria should state one of the following :

- Arab-Amazigh (99%) | Primarily Amazigh (15%) | European (less than 1%)

- Arab Amazigh 99%, (of which15% identify as Primarily Amazigh) | European (less than 1%)

the conclusion reached that Algerians are 85% arab is not included in the source provided.

Let me know which version of suggestions you prefer @Skitash & @M.Bitton Potymkin (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If the source groups both Arabs and Berbers into a single 99% figure and specifies that only "about 15%" of those identify as Berber, what do you think the remaining 84% identifies as? Reliable sources consistently indicate that the Arab percentage ranges from 75% to 80% to 85%. Nothing more, nothing less. Skitash (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

do not ignore the part of the source that says "although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab" I think it is not up to you to claim the opposite and make up numbers such as 85%.

please choose one of the revisions from the source. otherwise change the source all together to a more reliable one. Potymkin (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"I think it is not up to you to claim the opposite and make up numbers such as 85%." I think you need to understand what ethnic identity is. Skitash (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

due to the uncivil manner the conversation has come down to, I have taken the necessary wikipedia protocol to open a dispute resolution case on the matter with a third party. you have been informed. Potymkin (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree the source clearly says 99% Arab-Berber 1% Europeans.15% of them actually feel Amazigh.

Everything else is original work (WP:NOR) and personal deduction that the 85% must be Arab. Other sources give different categories (Arabized Berbers) etc... Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

- Arab Amazigh 99%, (of which15% identify as Primarily Amazigh) | European (less than 1%)

is the reproduction of the figures given faithfully and without personnal interpretation Monsieur Patillo (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We need to remove ethnic origins stuff in the lead as with other random stats..... Best to follow the example of our FA and GA articles... WP:COUNTRYLEAD. Will cleanup lead once you guys have figured all this out. Moxy🍁 20:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, We need to remove ethnic origins stuff in the lead as with other random stats. Potymkin (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy I hope when you are able you can immediately proceed to remove the Ethnic stats and other random information for good , this will keep things clean and without issues for all parties involved. this is in fact a great suggestion from your part and you have my absolute vote on this suggestion ! Potymkin (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look ...but in my view it's not just a matter of some removal but a whole rewrite. Let's also ping @Nikkimaria:.....she the master of country lead cleanups and maintains many of our FA and GA country articles. Sorry Nikkimaria.... I'm always calling on you for things of this nature. That said will take a look tomorrow perhaps. Moxy🍁 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy no problem take your time to have a look into the matter, thank you for this great suggestion. Potymkin (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I've asked to lock this page up to prevent more edit wars and subsequent blocks of editors.... revision may have to be done here prior to implementation. Moxy🍁 22:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm agree too with Moxy proposal. and first discuss acceptable sources and writing. apart from the figures, it is also necessary to explain the categories so as not to mislead the reader. For example Britanica explains: « Arab invasions in the 8th and 11th centuries brought only limited numbers of new people to the region but resulted in the extensive Arabization and Islamization of the indigenous Amazigh population. ». Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at reorganizing the lead; generally as Moxy indicates detailed stats should be discussed in the body. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Algeria. Please consider leaving the lead as it is until the discussion is over per WP:STATUSQUO. Skitash (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Thank you for taking steps to further improve the algeria talk page, I hope you get to remove the ethnicity stat and other useless stats from the Algeria article as @Moxy suggested. I greatly appreciate both of your inputs on the matter and your action to further improve wikipedia articles and keep them free of ambiguity. Potymkin (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

All for not...O well. Page editors should realy try to take the advice of longtime FA and GA writers. Moxy🍁 12:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This article heavily overstates the use of the French language in Algeria.

This sentence: "Algeria's official languages are Arabic and Tamazight; French is used in media, education, and certain administrative matters." is not supported by sources and is debatably wrong. The government conducts zero administrative matters in French, French has been fully phased out of education for over 2 years now, and while French media exists, it is still a tiny part of the media Algerians create and consume. This should be updated asap to accurately represent the linguistic landscape of Algeria.

I suggest removing the second part of the sentence altogether. It is simply unfounded and not supported by sources. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The use of French language in algeria in Public as well as general language and while going to the banks and other institutions is still in heavy use. Algerian websties still offer French and Arabic translations of their official pages and when an Algerian goes to Algérie Poste for instance you are offered a blank check in French and in Arabic, you fill it in either language, indeed your bills are without any question in French and so is you 'addition' when you receive a bill from a restaurant and such.

Its too early to phase out french despite the government beginning to transition in education to english, yet french remains an important aspect of daily life for Algerians.

Thank you very much for this suggestion, my honest opinion is that you can mention where english was phased in with sources for that but phasing out french I think is too early, I hope you will consider my input brother. Potymkin (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It is well sourced in the § Languages section, and briefly summarized in the lead, and with 11–15 million speakers (twice as many as Quebec) there is no reason to deemphasize French in the article. Mathglot (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot thank you for elaborating, that was very informative Potymkin (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Berber, Amazigh, or Tamazight

In this edit, Kurdish Elf made the following change to the Infobox official language list:

−

| official_languages = {{Plainlist| * [[Modern Standard Arabic|Arabic]] * [[Standard Algerian Berber|Berber]] }}

+

| official_languages = {{Plainlist| * [[Modern Standard Arabic|Arabic]] * [[Standard Algerian Berber|Tamazight]] }}

without any sourcing, and with the edit summary, Changed "Berber" to "Tamazight" since Berber is not an official language, but a family of languages that do not necessarily have any official status. In general, no discussion is required to undo an unsourced change (and an inaccurate one) but given that language has repeatedly been the object of dispute in the article and on this page, I thought I'd poll the community first.

I have several problems with this change. First, it is unsourced, and bucks long practice here. Second, the change in the piped link violates WP:ASTONISH, as it doesn't go to where one would expect. Third, this is English Wikipedia, and the Infobox should use terms found in English sources, and Tamazight is a redirect to our article named "Berber languages", and the term Berber (and Berber language) is much better understood in English than Tamazight (and Tamazight language). For example, in 2016, the BBC noted that Berber was named as an official language in the Constitution, using the term Berber seven times in the article, and explaining (once) that is "known locally as Amazigh".^[1]

Additionally, Berber (as KE pointed out) is a family of languages including the one spoken in Algeria, but the term Tamazight also refers to the Moroccan variety, and in some source, primarily the Moroccan variety, although it is used for varieties in both countries. And also, the link target of Standard Algerian Berber refers to "Kabyle" and not just to "Tamazight", so the piping is not only astonishing, it is mistaken.

Finally, I'm not sure how far back "Berber" has been listed in the Infobox as an official language (because wikiblame is down), but it goes back at least eight years. This unilateral, unsourced change to the Infobox language list is problematic for all of the reasons given, and should be reverted. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)