Talk:Algeria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Status of the french language

Even if french was massively used in some administrations it has been never recognised by any official status.At the end of the 90's this use as been ended and adminstation are now obliged to only use arabic.In the preambule of the constitution of 1996 (most recent update) it is said that:

Climate

Tiguentour 145.9 F/ 63.3C is the correct value that I read , but where is Tiguentour?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.135.59 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

“Art. 3 - Arabic is the national and official language”. So the mention "French is de facto co-official" should be erase. Bosonz0 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Bosonz0

Polaron (talk) have corrected this little mistake.

Subject Close Bosonz0 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Bosonz0

It's not an error

If you see correctly, it's actucally 102.000 billion. You missed out on the decimal point.

Stat Error

Why is it under Nominal GDP the total reads 102000 billion? I believe that's a bit high... Also, opening sentence for the education section needs to be reworded, it's vague to the extent of having no meaning. ("Education in Algeria is reasonable.")

Culture

This message to Khoikhoi: Nobody can't deny that french culture has had a strong influence on Algeria and that algerian civilisation had an influence on french way of life, precisely through music and painting of people like Delacroix, Chassériau or the Abd-el-Tif prize winners. So, why does Khoikhoi always erases this evidence?

Ask User:Mustafaa. --Khoikhoi 01:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to enter the debate on this, but the suggested (repeatedly inserted & reverted) phrasing on Delacroix seems to suggest he was an Algerian painter. Whatever you decide on, that should be reworded. Arre 22:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Khoikhoi (9 january 2006):

Eugène Delacroix is one of the most famous painter artists in the world. His name is tipically french. Only completely uncultured people could be suggested that Delacroix is an arabic name. In the time of the hardest french expansionism, when officialy, the french governements sent the desoccupied lumpenproletariat and the delinquents to the colonies, the pictures of the orientalist painters were the main way to point out to the European opinion, and chiefly to the french "bourgeoisie", that Algerians were civilized people and not Barbarians and pirats who had to be conquested and slaughtered. However, I took your advice in consideration and corrected my text to prevent you to erase it again. K/hotonnec

I am not Khoikhoi, I'm not erasing your text. But I agree with Mustafaa below. Arre 12:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - he's French. This is supposed to discuss the brief highlights of Algerian culture, not of French culture. Delacroix may well merit a brief mention in the France article, but he is no more relevant to an article on Algeria than Mark Twain would be to an article on Morocco, or Bruce Chatwin to an article on Argentina. The Abd-el-Tif prize, even if its winners had included any Algerians, would still stand as a ridiculously obscure piece of info which certainly doesn't belong in a single paragraph summary of Algerian painting. - Mustafaa 19:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I must recall you that many Algerians or French of Algerian origin consider the separation between the two country, in part made by America, as the main reason of actual misery in both. The mutual influence on each other remains and orientalists are still a part of algerian culture. K/hotonnec

French culture is no doubt very important to Algeria, but Delacroix is still not part of a specific Algerian culture, which is what the section talks about. I do think we should mention culturally significant people within the French settler community, such as Camus, if we are not already doing that. (But I do not think that "many Algerians" want France back. The system of rule-by-holocaust is arguably efficient, but not necessarily remembered kindly by its victims.) Arre 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

French language is rare in Algeria??? who wrote this?

Wilayas Number Scheme

Anyone else notice that the order of the wilayas is screwed up? I know the list is alphabetical, but I think it should reflect the actual wilaya numbers.--Amro B.B. 11:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Problem is the map. Does anybody want to redo the map? Or shall we just remove it?

Corrected- I think the official numbering scheme should be used, because it is quite prominent in Algeria's politics and administration as well as algerians daily life. --Djihed 14:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo gallery

I like the gallery, BUT I think it's way too Algiers-centric - 7 out of 8 pictures are from the capital! I propose some changes... - Mustafaa 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe get some from Category:Images of Algeria? - Mustafaa 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of picture galleries in articles. This article already has enough images - I say we remove it. --Khoikhoi 00:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

arab/berber - 2 - 84.6.198.191

We unterstand nothing when berbers talk to us, so they use arabic language, but a small part of them are racists against us mainly Anonymous user 84.6.198.191, please realize you have no support whatsoever for that edit (see talk page above). It will keep getting reverted. You have already broken the three revert-rule, and I will too if I continue this, so I'll just leave it until later. But if you want your point to stick on the page, you'll have to argue for it here on the talk page. Last time you did, you gained no support. Try again if you want; I'm certainly open for changes in the present wording, but not what you're suggesting. Arre 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My name is Abdou (Arabic name) so i am no longer Anonymous now.wikipedia people don't represent the Algerians, (luckyly) so i don't need their support,i just write what i have read in the American goverment website,you want the Algerians to be ARAB/BERBER while many Berbers consider Arabs as scum and many Arabs consider Berbers as scum as well.LUCKYLY,most of algerians don't think that way but still think they are ARABS not Berbers,and Berbers don't want to be called Arabs either they would never admit you tell they are ARAB-BERBER (i talk about the kabyles),so don't force them to be what they are not,esspecially if you have never been in Algeria and know nothing about my people (exept the sand of the desert...).I take it as an insult from you because you force me to be a Berber while i tell i am not,we dont care about our ethnic or racial origin,as i told the word ARAB has many meaning,it isn't necessarilly about race so we are Arabs and don't need anyone to trace back our tree...i always gave official sources and you erase my comments it is pathetic.So i propose you to leave your stupid comments in that paragraph while i will leave mine,wikipedia people will judge themselves.but i still think the people like you and the others don't respect Algerians,the Berber people in wikipedia don't represent Algerian population,they represent only 20%,so they can't talk for us,this type of people wish we were Arabised Berbers because it would serve their agenda but as i told earlier,even if Arab Algerians knew they were Berbers,they would still be Arab because we are proud of our heritage and have nothing to do with Berber culture,if i admit i have Berber ancestors so i would admit i have French ancestors,Scandinavian ancestors,Turkish,ROMANs etc etc,i am Arab and i don't care about what are my ancestors.I m sorry to tell it but unlike what many people tell Berbers are not more discriminated against than Arabs,Arabs were mistrated as well and the terrorists attack happened in ARABS AREA,the most of beheaded people IN THE 90'S were beheaded were Arabs,not Berbers...and we all know many policemena dn soldiers participated in these beheading (100 000 death),so i don't see why some Berbers tell "BERBERS are mistreated",they should tell "Algerians" are mistrated,it is more correct and it is the truth,not personal feelings,wikipedia must tell the truth not personal feelings or solidarity feelings from westerners to Berbers.

i understand that you feel strongly about this, abdou, but you'll have to understand how wikipedia works. your edits will be deleted unless you manage to convince other editors that they are correct and should stay on the page. you haven't convinced me, and it appears you haven't convinced anyone else either. it's not a matter of telling you or anyone else who you are (or what you are) but of how i and others think the issue of ethnicity in algeria is best described, in a factual and non-biased way. no hard feelings, but i will continue to do this, and i know others will too, if you don't present your claims on the talk page, instead of reinserting a refuted version over and over again. i suggest you write them down one-by-one, with a source for what could be controversial. Arre 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

i just posted 4 links,isn't that enough?plus i recall you you deleted the paragraph over and over again as well,instead to write your text leaving mine,i suggest you to do that.Also i have added a text about the genocide commited by the French in Algeria,then when you delete the paragraph about DEMOGRAPHICS,dont delete the history paragraph.U r not going to tell me how wikipedia works,i already know it,as i told this page is edited by BERBERS or westerners who have simpathy for them,it is not objectiv and i myst tell the truth,you have the same anti Arabs positions about western sahara,you are not a crusader against Arabs and whatever you think or do we won't be Berber,we are the majority,they are the minority,you must deal with it ;)

fine, i've had enough of arguing with you. i will not let you stamp your anti-berber racism, general conspiratorial paranoia and awful grammar onto this page. if you want to keep editing despite getting constantly reverted, that's your business. Arre 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

you mean your anti arab racism...now i am anti berber?just because i don't want to be a Berber?Great,how can i be racist against them since you told i was of berber descent?Your berberophilia must not appears in wikipedia,go learn what is neutral point of view...i think you should keep wrtting about sweden and norway instead to talk about what u don't know...

You don't get it. I agree that Algerian Arabic-speakers are Arab (including myself), even though they're mostly descended from Berbers; Arabness is defined primarily by language, not ancestry. The current text ("Most Algerians are Arab by language and identity, and of mixed Berber-Arab ancestry") is entirely consistent with that. So what exactly are you objecting to? - Mustafaa 18:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are (or ought to be) made of facts, not POVs. In this matter, the facts are : 1. Most Algerians are of Amazigh (Berber) ancestry. 2. Most Algerians are arabs by language and culture. Denying these facts is either ignoring the reality of Algeria or merely a sign of unresolved identity issues. Thus, any POV which questions the arabness of Algeria or its Amazigh ancestry should be pointed out as biased. Finally, I would like to ask the same question as Mustafaa : What exactly bothers you in the current article? --Smiley77 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Algerians are mostly of Berber origin and this is a fact that should be pretty well known by now. Even the current president of Algeria Abdelaziz Bouteflika, who dealt harshly with the Berber Kabyle uprising in 2001 has admitted in his speeches with the following words "We are Berbers who have been Arabised by Islam" (nahnou amazigh arabana el islam). If being an Arab means being a member of a vast nation (the Arab nation) composed of many peoples (among which the Berbers), sharing a language, traditions and culture and being solidary of one another then we can say that Algerians are Arabs mostly. Just like the American nation is composed of many peoples (Irish, Italian, African, etc.). But if being Arab means claiming that our ancestors were predominantly located in the Arabian desert in the 7th century and then took over Algeria then I am not an Arab. In other words if being an Arab means bringing something to the Arab nation, then I am happy to be an Arab and contribute this way to human civilisation like my ancestors have done for 1500 years already. On the other hand, if being an Arab means taking away from the Berbers and the Amazigh culture in general, then I am not an Arab and will never be. Only the idiot ignores his origins and bashes Berbers and their culture. Signed: an Algerian citizen living in Algeria. 82.101.153.210 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since we are on this topic, let me also remnind you that you are in Africa. Aside from all of these other groups that you people mention, you have yet to mention the one group that is in your blood too! Those people are the native, truly from Africa, not invaders, commonly referred to as black Africans. I know that the French and others have convinced you that you are some non-black and non-European, but white people, that blackness is there too! Now I can say that in the north, there are some very white people there. There are also those who have a lot of white in then as far as facial features and straight hair. The hair gets blondish like many mulatto types, Ricky Martin style. This is a result of 1,000's of year of mixing.

Some people like to pass the various looks off as so-called berbers/arabs. This is race-mixing people! We can't pretend that it does not happen! There are other Algerians with so-called white facial features and nappy hair(some with blond it too!), curly hair or wavy hair. The skin tones(mulatto style), lps, hair and a lot of other features of Africa still exist today in Algeria. Of course in the south, there are clearly black Africans there. Are they also berber? Let's not play games, the peoples of North Africa are mixes between the black African and the white man. All of this berber and arab BS is just designed to take away from this FACT.--71.235.81.39 04:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

as an algerian who live in UK for last 20 years- i have never heard british man say i am from this tribe or another - just being british and get on with life and the country seems doing well - unfortunatlly we are getting obsessed with this notion of tribe(arab/berber ..) and this will not benefit the country in whole - it works only in the benifit of the west - so please consider urself algerian and forget about all these craps - in this way we may improve our social life and be lots happier - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.104.55.242 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many Arabs in Algeria (even by blood), not just arabized berbers. heres some scientific and genetic proof from Stanford Uni that many berbers and arabs are very related to each other. the genes that you want to concentrate on are E-M35, Hg J, and J-M267 (found in 70% of middle east people and 90% in north africa). 70 and 90percent is a high number to be considered just "arabized". so since arabs (the closest ones to our genetic lineage in the south of algeria are the khaleeji arabs and to the north are the arabs from khaleej and sham) and berbers are more like brothers and sisters than we thought :) so everyone lets all love each other :D :P

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

As an Algerian Arab I think that it should be edited that all algerians are not berber in origin, there is a large mixture of other cultures and Arab influence is a big one. 72.226.76.120 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 72.226.76.120 (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)reem

I don't want to get into a pointless identity debate, I however recommend to add that Ibn Khaldun in his "history of the berbers" states clearly that arabs from arabic descent represent an almost negligible proportion of the population. It would be more relevant then to consider algerians nowadays as arabized and islamized berbers. Then again, ethnicity has nothing to do with language at least on scientific ground.

ALGERIA AND ALL NORTH AFRICA IS BERBER AND STAY BERBER, AGAINST EVERY BODY, ARABS ONE DAY WILL RETURN AT HOME IN DESERT OF HIDJAZ IN SAUDIA ARABIA WITH THEIR CAMELS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.243.134 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Failed GA

The only real problem is that it lacks references. The only two listed are news articles for currents events. Everything else is unsourced. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added references for the major sections - it seems the CIA world factbook was heavily used. SeanMack 16:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-French

I thought the history section was too anti-French, and that it failed to acknowledge that most Algerians chose not become French citizens for religious reasons, and that the population boom started under the French colonial rule, due to the introduction of modern medicines.

They didn't have the choice to become French citizens. It also didn't mention all of the ways that the French took advantage and discriminated against their captives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.204.9 (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, they had the possibility to become french citizens, by recognizing the French secular law to be above the islamic law which, according to some clerics, would have made them apostates (ie. one of the worst crimes according to the sharia). Sepharadic jews became french citizens by acknowledging the civilian law. On another topic, where does the 1.5 million deads come from? Toitoine (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1.5 Million deads is exagerated, I think it takes famines (in the 1870, maybe 1875-76 if I'm right) into account, and French conquest had nothing to do with these famines. Someone should check. Letting believe that French are directly responsible for so much dead is wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.171.42.159 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't to blame France or afflict them with the burden of a genocide, but it is about showing an actual historical fact that has long ago fallen into oblivion and let people make up their minds throughout further readings. Again, 1871 decret cremieux didn't let the opportunity to "arabs" as referred to at the time to become french citizens. However I do appreciate the irrelevance of your attempt in trying to make the algerian independance another islamic issue.

Literacy rate reference

The article says "literacy plummeted" and gives a reference. The "reference", first of all, comes from an unknown website; then, it does give a figure of 40% literacy before colonization, but no figure of literacy after colonization. At a minimum, the reference is incomplete.

It would help to be able to check that fact exactly. "Plummeted" is a strong term implying a strong decrease in literacy. It's strong enough of a statement to warrant a better reference.

Bdb 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The 40% figure derives from the Library of Congress Country Study of Algeria. Literacy at Independence in 1962 was less than 10% (ditto). - Mustafaa 21:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a bith of topic,but does anyone know an english page,where i can find listings of show of Cannal Algerie?There was an anime i watched,whose name id like to know. David

I know u can watch this channel through TPS satellite. Othmane

Good Article review

A Good Article review has opened on this article that I think might need some editors here to comment on, as somebody claims certain parts of the article have been poorly translated using translation software, but not being familiar with the article myself, I don't know which ones :/. Could some editors shed some light on the situation? Homestarmy 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

please write in English!

The bad writing on this page is a disaster and a disgrace. We cannot ask our students to consult this page if you cannot be bothered to write it in correct English. The section from Ottoman to postcolonial rule in the History section is the worst offender -- a disastrous jumble of nonsensical fragments. If English is not your mother tongue, or you have not bothered to learn correctly how to write it (or consult a competent translator), please refrain from posting on this site. There is French Wikipedia or Arabic Wikipedia or German Wikipedia, or any number of other choices. This is not your private playground for incoherent political ranting in incompetent pseudo-English. Thank you.

GA Review

The Good Article review on this article has ended, and a consensus of four editors have given support for delisting this article. Primarily, as the person who wrote the rather attack-ridden section above points out, the translation problems appear to be affecting the prose something awful, but since nobody responded to me 10 days ago, I guess nobody much patrols this article :/. This all needs to be converted into proper English before it can be a GA. Dispute archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 9. Homestarmy 03:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

removed major corruption

Someone whose English is extremely bad majorly corrupted the history section discussing the French conquest. It looks bad enough to be a machine translation, actually. I put the old text from November 6 or so back in. Removed text follows; Benwing 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Algeria was brought into the Ottoman Empire by Khair ad-Din and his brother Aruj, who established Algeria's modern boundaries in the north and made its coast a base for the corsairs; their privateering peaked in Algiers in the 1600s. Piracy on American vessels in the Mediterranean resulted in the First and Second Barbary War with the United States. Those piracy acts were the occasion of a slave trade, reducing people captured on the boats to slavery or attacking coastal villages in southern Europe, At the same time Europe also devoted itself it to piracy. But in the XIX century there was no corsairs. On the pretext of a slight to their consul, the French invaded Algiers in 1830, Algerians were exterminated as explained by Olivier Le Cour Grandmaison.

Contrary to Morocco and Tunisia, the conquest of Algeria was long and particularly violent since it resulted in the disappearance of about a third of the Algerian population. .

The French Army subjected village after village, whereas it was enough to sign some agreements to impose a protectorate on Morocco and for Tunisia but it should be specified that what characterizes the colonization of Algeria and holds place of characteristic is that it acts of a colony of settlement.

In 1794, when France was attacked on all sides, that its territory was invaded on several faces and that its people and his army were likely to be famished, the dey of Algiers Hussein offered to Convention all facilitated to make its purchases of corn since it did not find what nowhere to nourish its soldiers. Under the directory, since the war does not continue any less and that the treasure is empty, the dey of Algiers authorizes a loan of a million without interêts to France. The finished war, France does not honour its debt, any the modes which follow one another do not pay in Algeria the sums due and the dey is thus in cold with the French Consul, understanding that it will recover neither the payment of the deliveries having however been so profitable for the fight of the borrower against the European powers which had been united against the Revolution nor the lent money.

In 1827, the dey of Algiers still discovers a fact much more serious, at the end is Regency in Calle, France had the concession of a commercial warehouse. The French government, by the voice of its Deval representative, had promised to the dey that the warehouse would not be strengthened - it was a site to make trade, but anything more - but France had strengthened it. Not obtaining explanations on behalf of the in writing solicited French government, April 30, 1827 the dey asked some the French Consul verbally. Being unaware of his requests openly, not condescending to answer, the consul took the thing top, then furious of such a contempt, the dey carried, insulted, and finally gave to the "representative of France" a blow of his drive out-fly. The government of the restoration and Charles X, anxious to regild the image of France abroad and to reinforce the royal authority in France, then found in this incident a pretext to intervene militarily.

However, intense resistance from such muslim personalities as Emir Abdelkader, Ahmed Bey and Fatma N'Soumer made for a slow conquest of Algeria, not technically completed until the early 1900s when the last Tuareg were conquered.

Constantine, Algeria 1840

Meanwhile, however, the French made Algeria an integral part of France, a status that would end only with the collapse of the Fourth Republic. Tens of thousands of settlers from France, Italy, Spain, and Malta moved in to farm the Algerian coastal plain and occupy the most prized parts of Algeria's cities, benefiting from the French government's confiscation of communally held land, and the application of modern agriculture techniques that increased the amount of arable land. People of European descent in Algeria settlers (or natives like Spanish people in Oran), as well as the native Algerian Jews (typically Sephardic in origin), became full French citizens starting from the end of the 19th century (the so-called Pieds-Noirs after the independence); by contrast, the vast majority of Muslim Algerians (even veterans of the French army) received neither French citizenship nor the right to vote. Algeria's social fabric was stretched to breaking point during this period: literacy plummeted[1], while land confiscation uprooted much of the population. However, the population increased steadily[2].

Before the putsch of December 2, 1851 in France, even though the extension of colonisation was made difficult due to the maintain of intagibillity of individual property and banning transactions over tribe's territory, 131 000 Europeans including 66 000 French were installed in Algeria. This name replaces the old name "Possessions françaises dans le Nord de l'Afrique" not because of an official act, like a decree or an ordonance. Indeed, a letter from General SCHNEIDER, Ministre of War, dated from October 14, 1839 to Marechal VALEE General Governor states that the name Algérie (Algeria) shorter and most sgnificant, must be used in all acts and certificates issued by military and civil authorities.

more corrupted text

Someone put back one of the above deleted paragraphs. I removed it again because it still makes little sense; it's included below. The first sentence seems like reasonable info, but I don't know how it fits into the rest of the text (it's out of chronological sequence), while the rest is gibberish or of questionable relevance. Benwing 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Before the putsch of 2 December, 1851 in France, 131,000 Europeans (including 66,000 French) were installed in Algeria. This was despite that fact that the extension of colonisation was made difficult due to the maintaince of intagibillity of individual property and the banning of transactions over tribal territory. This name replaces the old name "Possessions françaises dans le Nord de l'Afrique" not because of an official act, like a decree or an ordonance. Indeed, a letter from General Schneider, Minister of War, dated from 14 October, 1839 to Marechal Valee (Governor-General), states that the shorter and more significant name Algérie (Algeria) must be used in all acts and certificates issued by military and civil authorities.

---

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Algeria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Algeria. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cinema of Algeria

Hi, Project Films is expanding the World Cinema series. It's a good opportunity to start Cinema of Algeria soon. Please, see as layout example Cinema of Egypt. Thanks. Hoverfish|Talk 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

errors

I am very far from an expert on this subject. But the sentences about the 1950s and 60s seem to be full of errors. Europeans in Algeria were called Pieds-Noir long before 1962. I believe the plebiscite was held throughout metropolitan France, not simply in Algeria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.243.66 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Outsourcing

Shouldn't there be a mention of the outsourcing from France that is starting to happen in Algeria, in the Economy section? Amit@Talk 15:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Berbers in Algeria

I have read under ethnic groups of Algeria that the kabyle group is the largest !!!!!! My God !!!! Is there any statistics to prove this. I think that this section has been written by a kabyle...The largest berber group in Algeria is the chaoui group. cause this group exists in more wilayas then the kabyle group which exists in only two. Pleas stop lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.246.2.25 (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are around 5 million Kabyle, and 2-3 for Chaouia. But, it's not a question of content. - 86.69.230.140 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok Let's count them, let's count Chaoui vs. kabyle number logically....

5 million kabyle vs. 2-3 millions chaoui !!!!!!!????????? From where have you brought those numbers? From France I think....This section will be in dispute untill we make an account based on the number of inhabitants of each wilaya in Algeria plus an estimation of the diaspora in other wilayas and overseas....Please stop lying....According to the Inalco the number of kabyle is 7 millions...in few years it will be 8 to 9 an so on.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.246.2.25 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

one third ?!

the page says :

the conquest of Algeria by the French was long and particularly violent since it resulted in the disappearance of about a third of the Algerian population.

I've read the supposed source (*) of this allegation and I find no mention of it ...

(*) > (French) - http://gallica.bnf.fr/, La démographie figurée de l'Algérie, op.cit., p.260 et 261.

At one point it does say that in 1830, the population was evaluated to 3 millions of inhabitants and that in 1872 the population was of 2,125,051. but that's difficult to know what was really the figures before 1856, date of the first census AFAIK. That's why it's not possible to have any certitude about this.

Moreover, it does say that thyphus and famine were also a reason of the mortality (between 1866 and 1872 anyway).

"According to historians, the Berbers were Arab nomads from Yemen (from a Himyarite Arab tribe) with 2 main branches." This seems unlikely, compare the Wikipedia article on the Berbers. According to this studies indicate that arabs in Morocco and Algeria are arabized Berbers!150.227.15.253 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism noticed

207.166.25.126 I noticed vandalism from this user on this article. I removed it.Jourdy288 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

French colonization section missing

Why has the section on French colonization been deleted?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algeria&oldid=178780412 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.217.160 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A propos des origines des POPULATIONS DU NORD AFRIQUE

1dabord est ce que ces chercheurs ont preleve le dna de tous les 11 millions de tunisiens pour pouvoir donner une telle conclusion? 2comment peut on savoir qu un type est du moyent orient par son dna? 3quelle differnce y a til dans le dna entre un arabe un amazigh un hebreux ou un europeen du sud etant donne que ces populations appartiennent tous a la sous race mediterranide(petite stature cheveux du noir jusuq au blond yeux du noir jusqu au plus clair cranes brachycepahles peau de differnts teins du blanc pilosite pas tres abondante largeur moyenne des epaules)? 4comment savoir si un type est arabe par son dna s'il a par exemple un seul ancetre amazigh qui au cours de dizaines de generations s'est brasse avec des dizaines d'individus arabes? ou bien si dans ces ancetres existent des arabes des amazigh des pheniciens des proto-mediterraneens (les populations paleolithique de l'afrique du nord avant la migration des neolithiques amazigh puis les neolithiques arabes)? c'est a dire disons que un type a 20 milles ancetres(depuis l'apparition du premeir homo sapiens habilis qui avait la capacite de parler cad il y a quelques 80-100 milles ans de nos jours) dans ces ancetres l'ecrasante majorite on ne sait pas quelle langue ils parlaient l'infime reste est partage par exemple entre 100 arabes 23 arabophones 47 amaizgh 6 amazigh arabises 3 grecs turquises n X Yises quel est le critere pour etablir son origine linguistique ethnique nationale ou identitaire(ce sont des contextes differents)? aussi comment savoir "la langue ou l ethnie"de ces ancetres au dela de cette periode(cad depuis l apparition du premier homme homo sapiens sapiens erectus habilis il y a quelques 500 milles annees de la? 5aussi quelle est la difference genetique entre les differentes populations semito-hamitiques (amazigh arabes egyptiens beja etc etc)pour pouvoir determiner qui est qui? 6aussi quelle differnce genetique entre les differentes populations semitiques(arabes hebreux canaanites assyriens pheniciens)pour pouvoir dire qui est qui? 7comment considerer les populations paleolithiques presentes en nord de l afrqiue avant l arrivee des migrations neolithiques des amazigh puis des arabes vu que ces populations se sont amazighises en liassant quelques mots dans les different dialectes amazigh d'apres l'article wikipedia sur les origines genetiques des amazigh

Y chromosomes are passed exclusively through the paternal line.

Bosch et al. (2001), found little genetic distinction between Arabic-speaking and Berber-speaking populations in North Africa, which they take to support the interpretation of the Arabization and Islamization of northwestern Africa, starting with word-borrowing during the 7th century A.D. and through State Arabic Language Officialisation post independence in 1962, as cultural phenomena without extensive genetic replacement. According to this study the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (M78, M35, and M81), 13% Neolithic (J1-M267 and J2-M172), 4% historic European gene flow and 8% recent sub-Saharan African. They identify the "75% NW African Upper Paleolithic" component as "an Upper Paleolithic colonization that probably had its origin in Eastern Africa." The North-west African population's 75% Y chromosome genetic contribution from East Africa contrasted with a 78% contribution to the Iberian population from western Asia, suggests that the northern rim of the Mediterranean with the Strait of Gibraltar acted as a strong, albeit incomplete, barrier. However this study only analysed a small sample of Moroccan Y lineages.

on voit que 75%"sont des M78 M38 et M81"paleolithiques 13%sont des j1-m267 et des j2-m172"neolithiues et les autres europeens et sub sahariens (sans nous donner les haplogroupes de ces derniers ) alors ma question est qui sont les M78 les M35 les M81 les j1-M267 les j2-M172? et aussi si un male est m78 et sa femme est jem267 alors que seront leurs enfants? aussi comment savoir que les m78 sont paleolithiques et les j sont neolithiques et comment etaienet les haplogroupes de leurs ancetres avant d'entrer dans l ere paleolithique et l ere neolithique? 8aussi on sait que les arabes ont vu le jour en ethiopie (d'apres wikipedia)alors comment savoir si il n y a pas des arabes venus d'afrique? et comment determiner les autres populations venues du moyent orient comme les hebreux les pheniciens les kurdes etc etc? 9autre point disons que le type a un ancetre avec M78 alors si cet ancetre se mariera avec un type M35 ou des J quel haplogroupe dominerait ? 10si le type a des ancetres J et parmi ces ancetres certains se sont croise avec des M alors est ce qu on trouvera toutes ces hybridations de J et de M et de x ou y (s'il y a d'autres melanges autres que ces 2)ou bien quoi? 11dans le meme article de wikipedia sur les amazigh

Archaeology The Neolithic Capsian culture appeared in North Africa around 9,500 BC and lasted until possibly 2700 BC. Linguists and population geneticists alike have identified this culture as a probable period for the spread of an Afro-Asiatic language (ancestral to the modern Berber languages) to the area. The origins of the Capsian culture, however, are archeologically unclear. Some have regarded this culture's population as simply a continuation of the earlier Mesolithic Ibero-Maurusian culture, which appeared around ~22,000 BC, while others argue for a population change; the former view seems to be supported by dental evidence

on dit que la culture neolithique caspienne est apparue a 9,500 jusuq a 2,700 ac et on dit que les chercheurs estiment cette culture comme afro-asiatqiue cad elle peut etre semite amazigh egyptienne beja etc etc ou bien tout simplement proto afro-asiatique or dans l article sur l afro-asiatique on estime que cette famille linguistique a vu le jour soit au yemen soit en ethiopie? 12par les analyses genetiques il s avere que 75%des nord africains ont les fameuses haplogroupes M paleolithique et la on nous dit que la culture amazigh est une culture neolithique qui a vu le jour en periode neolithique alors soit les populations originelles paleolithiques ont ete afro-asiatiquophonise linguistiquement soit cette culture caspienne n'est pas afro-asiatique? 13aussi comment savoir si la culture caspienne est une proto culture amazigh en l absence de vestiges d'ecriture ? 14aussi on nous dit que cette culture est la continuation de la culture mesolithique ibero-maurusienne d'ou quelle est la nature ethnique et linguistique de cette culture? 15dans ce passage du meme article

Arab settlement, on the other, a fusion took place that resulted in a new ethnocultural entity all over the Maghrib[10]. Another study on Haplogroup J (Semino et al. 2004) agrees with Nebel et al.'s suggestion that J1-M267 may have spread to North Africa in historic times (as identified by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22; Algerians 35.0%, Tunisians 30.1%), which they assume to be a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period.[11]. This theory is disputed by Arredi et al. 2004, who argue like Bosch et al. 2001 that the J1-M267 haplogroup (formerly H71) and North African Y-chromosomal diversity indicate a Neolithic-era "demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East."

on nous dit que la majorite des tunsiens et algeriens sont issus de differentes migrations d'afro-asiatiques(amazigh puis berberes)venus du moyent orient or en plus haut ils donnent un taux de 75%d'individus de haplotype paleolithiques? 16aussi on voit qu il y a des amazighophones et des arabophones de race negroide ma question est .est ce qu il est question des memes haplogroupes en question independamment de la race cad quoique on soit caucasoide ou negroides il est tjs question du meme haplogroupe? merci pour l'attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzukik (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by formation dates

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at List of countries by formation dates that concernes Algeria as well. It relates to the fact that some user include former colonies (such as Algeria or Western Sahara) in the columm for the last territorial changes of their respective colonial power, and this because "formely" such colonies were considered "provinces" of la metropóle. I believe this discussion and its result may interest you. Thank you! Shukran! The Ogre (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

infobox

Shouldn't "Republic of Algeria" be written in French as well? I mean it is a language there. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chréa

There are two Chréa at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bougara_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouled_Ya%C3%AFch_District

One of them should be Oued Slama, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.202.75.120 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

district area maps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%AFn_Abid_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zighoud_Youcef_District Should colour different areas? Although named differently, it shows the same area —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.202.75.120 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Algerian Suffrage

In the Politics section of the Algeria article, it is written that: "Algeria has suffrage for Islamic men at 30 years of age."

But in the CIA: World Fact Book, it has been stated that the Suffrage in Algeria is: "18 years of age; universal" Which one is correct?

I am giving the reference link below: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ag.html#Govt

Rajeshm1980 (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Recognised regional languages

I removed French and Berber form Recognized regional languages because:

1. French had never has any official status after Algerian independence. And Arabization is the official politic of the Algerian government.

2. I replaced Berber with Kabyle, as far as I know, the Algerian government never talked about Berber language. Its official name is Amazigh or Kabyle. In Algeria's case, Kabyle language has a limited Recognition.

I also edit the percentage of people speaking Kabyle and Arabic in Algeria. All I did is checked the source, and match the numbers.

I didn't add any source myself. Koumed (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know what this is suppose to mean?

Constitutionally, Algeria is defined as an Arab, and Amazigh (Berber) country.[3]

This has nothing to do with the constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrinathompson (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Languages

I just changed the language infobox a little bit, showing that Arabic is the official language of Algeria (both de jure and de facto) with Algerian Arabic as the spoken variant and that French is de facto co-official. Also, Tamazight is a "national language", according to the constitution, even though it is only co-official in Kabylia, in addition to AR/FR, but this doesn't seem to look very good to me. Isn't there a "national languages" field in this box?

Constitution:

Article 3 [Language] Arabic is the national and official language.

Article 3 (a) Tamazight is also a national language. The State works for its promotion and its development in all its linguistic varieties in use throughout the national territory. --ANONYMOUSPUSSY 19:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

about 16th century to 19th

When i read this article I was totally chocked, in the part “ottoman rule” “….The Barbary pirates, also sometimes called Ottoman corsairs or the Marine Jihad (الجهاد البحري), were Muslim pirates and privateers that operated from North Africa.. » I never heard that expression of “jihad bahri” before in Algerian Books or French history books. This is an oppressive expression to Islam and it’s is the result of what is happening in the world last decades we cant call whatever Muslims did this or that jihad. The history is not an individual opinion .the article talk more about piracy referring only to European positions. Mediterranean Pirates existed before, and Khayr ad-Din Barberousse never been a Barbary pirate. 黒天使 (24/12/2008)

Language

hello all

I just changed two things in the Language section: I set the figure of Arab speakers at 83 / 72% which are the figures given by the source mentioned (instead of 55% which is not at all mentioned in the source and is surprisingly low) and I have changed the 'Berber majority' to 'Berber minority' because there is no Berber majority in Algeria if we speak about linguistic groups (the ethnic majority is of course of Berber ancestry, but that is not the issue here, I hope nobody gets that confused). And then, the sentence as it was "The language issue is politically sensitive, particularly for the Berber majority and the Arab minority, which has been disadvantaged by state-sanctioned Arabization." makes really no sense, because the Arab group can't have been disadvantaged by Arabization. I hope this edit does not stir a new war about discrimination of Berber culture - the issue here is just to stick to the figures given by the available sources about number of Berber speakers, as long as they are below 50%, they are minority. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

hello, I did change again the recent changes at the section: Berbers are not exactly a 'small' minority, because the most widespread figures are around 20-30%, thats at least middle. I put these figures rather then the 27% given in the source 39, as to show that there is no clear-cut official figure, the estimation of 27% is plausible, but not the only one. And then I changed the figure of over 90% over Algerians speaking Arabic, because this figure is not mentioned in the source 39, there it's over 80%. I would think it possible that the true figure is higher, but then we must look for another source. And I added "spoken or understood" because of the context it is clear that this figure includes non-native speakers: Arabic is taught at all schools, so most people speak it, but the figure for Berber (27%), which is nowhere taught, includes almost exclusively native speakers, so figures for native Arabic speakers cannot be higher that 73%. Hope you are okay with the changes.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alamawi, you changed the figure of 80% Arabic speakers back to 90%. Possibly you are right, so I won't undo that. But don't you feel you should look for another source, as to match this figure? Right now, the source given does not support the figure! Thanks for an answer. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user 195.221.243.134 has changed once more the figure of Arabic speakers to 55%, not matching at all the source. I've changed back to the figure given in the source. If this edits with no logic and no explanations on the talkpage don't stop, I'll request semi-protection of this page. Alamawi, I hope you agree.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous user 195.221.243.134 goes on vandalising the page at a daily basis, changing figures with no explanation at all and giving data that do not match at all the sources quoted. I'll request blocking. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If the vandalizing is mainly done from a single IP it would make more sense to have this IP blocked, in my opinion. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

hello Njaelkies, I agree. I reported the IP 195.221.243.134 on the page for blocking requests, but he's still putting his own figures in, almost every morning. Can you block him or give further advice? I'm not too experienced in these details. Thanks!--Ilyacadiz (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't block him/her myself because I'm not an admin on the English Wikipedia, but I have given the user a final warning and if the vandalizing continues tomorrow I'll report the IP which should lead to a block. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic composition

hello

User Alamawi still changes with no sources and with no explanations on the talkpage the statement of about ethnic composition in Algeria; figures of 80% Arabs and 20% Berber might seem acceptable when speaking about languages, but ethnic composition - whatever that is - is not exactly the same. Although most Arab-speaking Algerians might like to think of themselves as "Arabs", scholars agree that the Algerian population is not in its majority the result of a massive immigration of tribes from the Arabian peninsula but the result of a mostly indigenous population (which only could have been Berber) arabised by a much smaller group of people. I give the source of Gabriel Camps; he is a renowned scholar who worked at important French institutions. Let's keep clear from figures about nowadays ethnic composition, as there are no official figures and 9 centuries is a long time to mix up.

Alamawi, if you disagree, please explain yourself here, any contribution is welcome, but it must me explained. Thanks!--Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is quite a heavy problem of vandalism going on at this page: some want Algeria to be an Arab country, some put Berber speakers at 55%. Please, everyone editing here, don't forget to put sources. I'm happy with any figure... as long as you can source it adequately. And please leave your explanation on the talkpage. If not, you risk being blocked, I fear.

I just had to replace my text about religion, I don't know if somebody reverted it for not agreeing or if it was done inadvertently when reverting vandal edits. If somebody thought my text was not good, please explain here. In the text I replaced, blatant contradictions occured: Christians were estimated at "at most 5.000" and also as "1% of the population" (which would be around 300.000). Be careful no to go back to this version, it's not helpful. Thanks--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arab?

hello Alamawi, you keep introducing the word "Arab" in the lead section as to define Algeria as an Arab country. You gave a source, which is always appreciated; namely the Algerian Constitutions. I'm sort of sorry for having deleted that, but we should consider the following:

• the Algerian constitution does not define Algeria as "an Arab country". It defines it as "Algeria, being a land of Islam, an integral part of the Great Maghreb, an Arab land, a Mediterranean and African country". In its first sentences, the Constitution says explicitly that "the fundamental components of its identity which are Islam, Arabity and Amazighity". So it is not too justified just to pick out the word "Arab" there.
• Most countries do not need to be explicitly identified in the header as belonging to a specific ethnicity/identity. Check out Slovakia or Poland: they are not in the lead defined as "Slavic countries".
• Some people, who identify themselves as Algerian and Berber, might protest when reading that Algeria is an "Arab country" - remember that that was a sensitive issue which has been addressed by changing the Constitution and adding the word "Amazighity". We shouldn't ignore that there was a political consensus in Algeria that Amazighity is as much part of the country's identity as Arabity.

On the other hand, I've not reverted your remark of Algeria being the second biggest country in the Arab World - personnally I don't like this term, but it has a WP entry and is commonly used. I just linked the term. Hope you agree. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody apparently thought it would be funny to change the "Capital (and Largest City)" entry in the box from "Algiers" to "sex".

Real mature....

68.143.206.155 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction in ethnic groups and History

I've changed the "Scholars, nevertheless, agree that the biggest part of the Algerian population is of Berber descent, given that the tribes which spread the Arabic language in Algeria since the 11th century did not amount to a massive population influx" since this is incorrect by the opinions of many Algerian and non-Algerian scholars. Quoting a French scholar over renowned historians of the region might be insulting to Algerian readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamawi (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alamawi, I'm happy to discuss the subject here. I don't think it too right to delete just the whole text I put into - quoting Gabriel Camps, who is a renowned French scholar, can't be much more insulting to Algerians than quoting the US State Department, which, by the way, is not a very good scholarship source and doesn't give any details. Anyhow, for an encyclopedia it's really not important where a scholar comes from - it is important if he or she is well considered in this field. And Camps is. If there are Algerian or non-Algerian scholars who say the contrary, please put their opinion alongside that of Camps and source it. It would be very good to have both (sourced, of course).

Then I don't understand why you deleted Ben Bella's comment - it was sourced and I think it sheds light on the effort of Algerian authorities to give the Arab aspect the bigggest possible weight. I'll put it back. Please tell me why you think it shouldn't be there and we'll reach a consensus.

For the History section, I'll reduce somehow the Ibn Khaldun text, as I find it very long to read and unnecessary to have it in all its extension. A shorter version will do. And I'll counter it by Camps opinion, because Ibn Khaldun, although very respected, is not considered the absolute authority today, if Camps has an different opinion, we may state this alongside. As this is a sensible subject, I think we might both look for other scholars who support one view or the other and thus give a broader range of opinions. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

hello Alamawi, you'll see that I deleted most of the Ibn Khaldun quote; I did so for the following reason: The "destructive plague" that "devastated nations and caused populations to vanish" described the Ibn Khaldun does not appear to be the Arab invasion but an entirely different historic event. The full sentence is: " The Arabs outnumbered and overpowered the Berbers, stripped them of most of their lands, and (also) obtained a share of those that remained in their possession. This was the situation until, in the middle of the eighth [fourteenth] century, civilization both in the East and the West was visited by a destructive plague which devastated nations and caused populations to vanish... " So the plague does not seem to be related to the subject of the Arab migration. Anyhow, I think the first part of the sentence, which stays in the text, makes very clear your point of the arrival of an ethnic Arab majority. And it's not very usual to make a point stronger by bold types, therefore I just put it in normal types.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Sourced Material

Why are you deleting sourced information about Algerian ethnicity? Also, the majority of Algerians are Arabic speakers who claim Arab ancestry and with historical works to back it up - Why are you so bent on saying that they are non-Arabs? You seem to have a serious bias. May I also quote Arthur Koestler on every Jewish page on Wikipedia saying that modern Jews are only converts to Judaism not true Israelites?

Also, many historians say that the Berbers themselves are of Yemenite/Arab origin. Why were you not quick to quote that?

Not bias but sources: if there is a good source which says that certain Berber tribes consider themselves of Arab origin, please insert that into Berber people, it would be interesting (more there than here). But normally, Berbers are not considered Arabs by scholars. Regarding Koestler, yes, of course Koestler and his detailed scholarly work about the Caucasian origin of European Jews should be quoted on the pages which refer to the origin of Jews. I normally don't work on these pages, but if you can do it, and you find it is missing, I'll be happy to support you.

I didn't delete sourced material - I shortened Ibn Khaldun's quote because I consider that the rest of the sentence did not belong here, but I did not maim in any way the main point. If you think I'm mistaken and Ibn Khaldun refers with the "plague" to the Arab invasion, let's discuss that here. And I didn't delete the other source you - assuming you are Alamawi - gave, that of www.answers.com, which is not a very good scholar source, I think. But I didn't delete it, I just put back my own sourced material. Hope we can find an consensus. No hurry - look for good academic sources about Algerian ethnicity. I'll do the same. We will put both opinions. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the minor changes you made are completely okay with me. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

here is some information on berbers coming from the middle east: its scientific genetic evidence

In a very recent study (2008) done in northwestern Algeria (Oran area),[1] the most common haplogroups observed in the Algerian population (n=102) were :

   * E1b1b (50.9 %)
         o E1b1b1b (M81) (45.1%) very common in northwest Africa and also found, with much lower frequencies compared to those observed in northwest Africa, in Turkey, the near East, the Balkans, southern Europe and in Iberia
         o E1b1b1a (M78) (5.8%).
   * J (27.4 %)
         o J1 (M267) (22.5%) frequent in Egypt and the Middle East
         o J2 (M67) (4.9%)
   * R1 (12.8 %)
         o R1b (M269) (10.8%) typically found in European
         o R1a (M17) (1%)
         o R1 (M173) (1%)
   * E1b1a (M2) (7.8%) which is subsaharan African.

   * Others
         o Q (M242) (1%)

In a recent genetic study by Semino et al. (2004),Algerian Arabs and Berbers were found to have more genetic similarities than was once believed. The Y chromosomes present are:

J1 22.5% E3a-M2 8.6% E3b1-M78 6.12% E3b2-M81 45.1% J2f-M67 5.1% R1-M173 1% R1b3-M269 11.2% Q-M242 1%

Recent studies on the common J1 Y chromosome suggest it arrived over ten thousand years ago in North Africa, and M81/E3b2 is a Y chromosome specific to North African ancestry, dating to the Neolithic. A thorough study by Arredi et al. (2004) which analyzed populations from Algeria concludes that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation (including both E3b2 and J haplogroups is largely of Neolithic origin, which suggests that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic–speaking pastoralists from the Middle East. This Neolithic origin was later confirmed by Myles et al. (2005) which suggest that "contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East",

the sources are....

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf http://www.springerlink.com/content/x428750458w4080r/

im sorry if i posted this incorrectly, im new to using wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reemjazair (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Deletions and Additions

"Algerian law forbids population censuses based on ethnic, religious and linguistic criteria" was added by you, Ilyacadiz, but at the end of the section you say "there were 13-14 million Berbers in Algeria, which would amount to nearly 60%." A clear contradiction which shows your bias.

Also, if you are willing to accept such a statement, then why not accept the Algerian constitution which states that Algeria and the greater Maghreb is an Arab land?

I will remove that contradiction and to avoid your bias we will remove the ethnicity section.

Hello Alamawi, I hope you look into this talkpage sometimes... I've put back the sentence that says that there are no official figures for ethnic composition in Algeria, because that was well sourced and I think it's a basic information for the reader: there are no official figures. It's not a good idea to delete sentences which have a good source. I kept the information of the Encarta encyclopedia, but I attributed it directly to Encarta in the text, because this is not a very good source when coming to sensitive details. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion - here a detailed discussion is taking place, so this source is not really acceptable here. I've kept it, anyhow, but I've added another source, which should be quite good: the Algerian representant for Human Rights at United Nations. I find his estimate of 60% for Berber population quite high, even strangely high, but it surely helps to show the reader that there are no definite figures and estimates vary widely. I hope you understand my viewpoint. Cheers.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if you know they are high then you would agree that Algeria is made up of Arabs and Berbers. So then leave at that without giving figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamawi (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Alamawi - I assume that you wrote the comment above - because I was a little late putting my remark on the talkpage. Please do not remove sourced material, that is not a good idea. There are no official figures, the estimate of M. Semichi is just an estimate, given by an Algerian official, yes, but it is not an official figure. So we may quote it, but we can't say - and I do not say, for sure - "there are 60% Berbers in Algeria". I do not "accept" his statement, I quote it, that's all. Why do you accept that the Encarta figures are correct? They give no explanation at all how they arrive at these figures.

I deleted the "Arab" definition from the leader, because the Constitution does not only say "Arab" - it says "Arab, Mediterranean, African", and below it says "Amazigh". We can't put all this in the leader, and it is not needed there. A leader should be short. We can of course add a new section about what the Constitution says, that's a good idea. Count on me.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was the first not to put figures into the text. You started putting figures from Encarta which are not very logic - the figure for ethnic Berbers is far lower than the figure for Berber speakers given under "Languages"... that does not make sense. But once we have the figures, I think we should keep them - any reader will be better served by knowing the wide range of estimates than just not finding any figure.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case then why hasn't the "Algerian Arabic is spoken as a native language by 72% percent of the population" statement been changed? It was there for quite a long time. --alamawi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamawi (talk • contribs) 00:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your quoting an unofficial statement made by an Algerian, I think it's quite messy because I can quote others saying opposite since it's unofficial. For the sake of brevity one should just mention that it's Arab and Berber. However, if you do want to mention figures then we should mention official figures which are ~80-20. Alamawi (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have official figures? That would be great! What's the source? I mean, there must be a better source than Encarta if official figures are found. I would put all of the available figures, adequately sourced - that's what's usually done at Wikipedia: not truth but verifiability. So if you can quote others saying the opposite of M. Semichi, please go ahead! The sake of brevity is important in the lead text, but here we can afford a few lines to show that there is ongoing debate. We don't need to give a conclusion. We just give the information (and by the way, of course I agree with you that Algeria is Arab and Berber, and I find the ethnicity-debate useless, I'm interested in how many people speak actually Berber in Algeria, not if they can be called ethnic Berber - but once the subject is up and there, I think it's equally mistaken to call them ethnic Arabs. But that's my personal viewpoint and it does not matter here. Sources matter).

Do you think it a good idea to put in the same text block a few sentences about what the Constitution said and says (there were at least two revisions since 1963)? --Ilyacadiz (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you don't like too much an article which gives so different estimates that most probably both are completely wrong. But an encyclopedia which states only "Algerians are either Arabs or Berbers" is a very poor encyclopedia. Once we have the figures, we must offer them the reader. We will of course improve the article - the more figures you can find, the better will the conclusion be which the reader can reach. We cannot give the conclusion, we can't state at this moment how many Algerians are Arabs or Berbers. We can just give an overview over what is estimated, written, said by important sources and let the reader come to his or her own opinion. But we must offer him/her this possibility, not hide the debate. Even if we are conscious that there is no fixed conclusion nowadays. Therefore I had no choice than to revert your deletion. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your question why the statement about the 72% Arabic-speakers has not been changed: because nobody came up with a better source or with another figure which could be attributed to a good source. If you can find one - there should be - we will either replace this one or add it to this one, that depends on how good the source is. I'm not very comfortable with having only one estimate for the Arabic vs. Berber speakers - it can't be the only one. Others should disagree with that figure. But I didn't find any. Please keep trying. If there are no official figures, we should really have more than one estimate regarding speakers.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just gave you a source yet you still didn't feel the need to change it or play with the words as you did with the ethnic section. I understand that you have a bias however the ending still must be changed since clearly the "60%" remark is baseless since the beginning clearly mentions that Algeria doesn't allow census on ethnic composition and language, therefore how can he obviously come to the conclusion that he came to? Alamawi (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the language source, I didn't notice any new source for speakers, if I did undo an edit in this sense I apologize - tomorrow I'll have a look. Regarding the ethnic text, you definitely cannot delete a well-sourced attribution - that's not how Wikipedia works. You give now three different sources for the 83/16% figures, I could challenge them all as worthless: they are tertiary sources which are not considered too reliable by Wikipedia standards - nothing more that Internet pages that copy any material. No real sources, no research, no authors. I could delete them. But I won't do it. I will only put back my source: an Algerian representative at the United Nations is definitely somebody I can quote. How HE might have arrived at his figures is not my concern, not any more than you start thinking how Encarta might have arrived at theirs. If Algeria doesn't allow a census, why are there figures at Encarta? Estimates, nothing more. And for an estimate, an Algerian government official will always be a better source than an Internet encyclopedie which is not accepted as trustworthy by Wikipedia standards. So I hope you won't delete that once more. I do not need to ask myself WHY an Algerian official expressed this estimate. HE did - that's enough to quote him.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting, why then did you not delete the 72% figure for languages and you had months to do it? It's source isn't reliable either; Matter of fact it is less reliable than Encarta and others. This is not an isolated case as these kinds of figures are all over Wikipedia. Look at languages of Algeria and you'll find the 72% figure again. As far as Encarta, I said I will take it out and simply put "Arab and Berber" but you didn't like that and you're contradicting your own statements again.

"they are tertiary sources which are not considered too reliable by Wikipedia standards - nothing more that Internet pages that copy any material." Ilyacadiz

so the l'Humanite article you quoted for "the Algerian authorities fostered the idea that being Algerian means being Arab, as expressed by the then-president" is allowed? O.k, since you accept news articles as authentic then you will accept Algeria figures from news articles then. Although I don't agree with the figures from these news articles, I will post them to make you happy. If not why don't we comply with Wikipedia standards and delete both of them INCLUDING the "72%" language figure which you "didn't notice" for the past few months.

Alamawi (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have left your sourced material for E.Semichi. Thanks Ilyacadiz Alamawi (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't "leave" the material, you tried to denigrate it by writing "When grilled by Western officials over why the Berbers and their language is being neglected, M. Semichi, in an attempt to downplay their neglect gave suspicious figures of 13 million Berbers.." The fact is, an Algerian official gave a figure at a United Nations meeting. He even gave a detailed figure for the different regions. The rest is your opinion. And you can't write your opinions into Wikipedia. Really not. By the way, the figures would only be out of line with other figures given here if M. Semichi referred to Berber speakers. He probably did not - because he mentiones Berber languages in the next text block, not in this one. So he probably counted as "Berbers" the whole of the Aurès population, regardless of wether they speak Berber or not. Therefore his remark is correctly located under the "Ethnic" header - not under Languages.

You understant that I had to restore the former version. And than it is not right to quote Encarta at the beginning of the section as if it were the ultimate source. I'll direct a question to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page as to know if internet sited such as Indonesian Ministery, - Nations Online or Populstat are at all allowed as sources - Encarta might, but at least the last two have no backing whatsoever and clearly don't do any more than the copy and paste figures that are around there, maybe from Encarta, maybe even from a former Wikipedia version. What you can't deny is that the official remark of the representant of the Algerian government is a source which can be quoted, whether you trust this government or not. Please understand that to downplay this remark in the article by adding your viewpoint is not allowed at Wikipedia.

As for the languages, the source [3] quoted could surely give the impression that it's just another internet site. But I think it can be quoted: its author is the linguist Jacques Leclerc who is a renowned scholar, member of several universities, and the material is offered by the Trésor de la langue française au Quebec, which is a body of researchers financed by the prestigious Canadian Université Laval. So I think that the material can stay. Of course, if you have any other figures by a source with a similar or better quality, please do not hesitate to add it - but don't delete this one, it seems good enough to stay. If you don't agree, we will ask for a third opinion.

As for the L'Humanité Article: yes, newspapers are allowed as sources, if they are considered more or less serious. I think L'Humanité is good enough. It has an ideologic bias, but note that it is here quoted only to source a fact - what Ahmed Ben Bella said. Unless you think it's a made-up story and Ben Bella DID NOT say that. If so, please tell me and we will research further.

If you find figures for ethnic groups or speakers in Le Monde, in the New York Times or any other big newspaper, you are very welcome to add them here, this sources are allowed and appreciated. (Add - don't replace). Hope we can get well along together

--Ilyacadiz (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You yourself agreed that his figures seemed high, and I mentioned his statement in context. The reason why he said what he said was because he was being grilled by the UN and other western officials about what seems to be a targeting of the Berber minority. Alamawi (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be right, Alamawi, but that's your opinion, I respect it, but the reason why we think somebody said something does not belong in the Wikipedia article. Unless you can find a source which says that the Algerian government inflated the figures for Berber population as to avoid being labelled as oppressing a minority. If somebody said - and published - that, we must put it.

Please help me to keep an eye on the page because it seems that a certain Amazigh Man is trying to get his own ideological viewpoint into it, which seems very much opposed not only to what you may think but also to common Wikipedia policies. I've just reverted some of his deletions (see below). If he goes on disrupting, let's work hand in hand to keep the article just as it is now - we can sort out our differences later. Okay?

By the way, do you agree that a reference to the Algerian constitution (and its changes) would be welcome under the Ethnic header? I would put it but I'd like to know if you think it's right.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)--Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If this 13-14m figure have been officially disputed or criticized in credible sources or by important politicians it should be worth mentioning, but we'll need a source.. On the same matter I noted CIA World Factbook writes "almost all Algerians are Berber in origin, not Arab; the minority who identify themselves as Berber live mostly in the mountainous region of Kabylie east of Algiers; the Berbers are also Muslim but identify with their Berber rather than Arab cultural heritage;" Is this a disputed fact? Otherwise it could worth clarifying in the article. I'm guessing the encarta figure are people who identify as berber and arab, not by origin. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Njaelkis Lea. The CIA World Factbook entry could be cited alongside Encarta - it is not altogether accurate, as the Berbers of Kabylie are the most politically outspoken, but do not seem to make up the vast majority of the Berber population - at best slightly more than half of it. If "almost all Algerians are Berber in origin, not Arab" or not is a very disputed fact... here the Factbook is in line with Gabriel Camps, but most Algerian textbooks probably give the view that Arabic speakers are descendents of Arab immigrants - Alamawi, please can you check that and look for a good quote?

I wouldn't trust CIA to hold the absolute truth in this matter, but if we can find a contradicting quote it could be interesting to put them both in there to reflect the different opinions. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As the for the other three sources that give the same figures as Encarta, I'll think we must delete them, I just directed a question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and they tell me that Encarta is good, but the other three are not. As they give the same figure, anyhow, Encarta is sufficient - better one serious source than three unreliable which tell the same.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There must be an original source somewhere, Encarta won't just guess. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Language source

I had to correct wording you introduced in the Language section. You wrote"Algerian Arabic is spoken as a native language by 72% percent of the population, while over 83% speak some form of Arabic.[52]" That seems to be directly from the header of the source ("variétés d'arabe (83,2 %) mais particulièrement l’arabe algérien (60 %)") but it's somehow impossible, because if we talk about native speakers, than we can't have 83% Arabic + 27% Berber - that would make 110%. Where is the error? Scroll down 2. Données démolinguistiques and then to 2.1 Les arabophones, there it is made very clear: "Aujourd'hui, la majorité des Algériens sont arabophones dans une proportion de 72 %. Parmi les Arabophones, c'est l'arabe algérien qui dominent nettement avec 60 % de la population totale et 83,2 % des arabophones. Les autres arabophones parlent le hassaniyya (11,3 %), l'arabe marocain (0,4 %), l'arabe du Sahara (0,1)". That means that the figure of 83,2% refers to the percentage of Arabic-speaking Algerians who speak Algerian Arabic as opposed to other Arabic dialects. It would be 60% of the total population. Add 11% Hassaniya and the very small other groups and you come to 72%. This matches with the other figures in the same source.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC) variétés d'arabe (83,2 %) mais particulièrement l’arabe algérien (60 %) Groupes minoritaires: langues berbères (27,4 %),

Be careful with new edits

hello, there have just been a few edits by Amazigh Man, I've kept one - the accurate figure of almost 34 million instead of 35 million people - but I've reverted the rest, because it was mainly deletion of terms referred to membership in Arab institutions / federations. These references should not be deleted. The subject is somehow politically sensitive and before suppressing a reference to Algeria as being part of the Arab World, a consensus must be reached on the talkpage (and membership in the Arab League is a clear-cut fact and cannot be deleted) We had quite a lot of vandalism a few days ago in this sense, so we might be oversensitive right now, please understand that. Thanks for coming to the talkpage and welcome --Ilyacadiz (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alamawi, you have just introduced a detailed edit which shows why M. Semichi's figures can't be right. You have been reverted for POV- editorializing (it's not me who did that). The point is - you are more or less right. I would express it with a much more neutral wording, and than we have no source about what exactly is the Aurès - you mention only two provinces, in other - not reliable - pages I found the following: "La région des Aurès comprend les willayas de : Batna, Khenchela, Oum el Bouaghi, Souk-Ahras ,Tebessa, Sétif, Constantine et la partie nord de la wilaya de Biskra." I added the inhabitants up, according to the Algerian statistic page and arrive at around 5 million. The fact stays - at best 5 million against 8 or 9. I don't know if such a kind of mathematics is allowed in the WP entry itself. Or maybe Semichi meant: in the Aurès AND in the east? The Chaouia population is considered to go beyond the Aurés and he might just refer to all of them (even if not all speak nowadays tachawit).I wait for comments to leave the remark alone or introduce a short, neutrally worded sentence about the number of inhabitants of the Aurès region. As to the fact that they might be Arab majority, that depends so much on how you define Arab, that the comment is worthless here - Britannica might define it as somebody speaking Arabic, Semichi not.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You've deleted sourced material - Something which you told me not to do. Your bias and propaganda is obviously clear. Alamawi (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia's definition of Aures is the arabic section also conforms to what I've said, but you'll probably change that now as well. You didn't find fault with it for the past months and years, but now you're going to tell me it's inauthentic of course [4] Alamawi (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Alamawi, it's not ME who deleted your edit about the figures. You can see that on the Page History. The English Wikipedia entry for Aurès has no figures, as fas as I can see, and the French one has 3 million. I was trying to fit that into the text, but somebody - not me - thought that your whole edit was inappropriated. I keep asking if we should introduce something along your remark. But if you get reversed once more, don't blame me. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alamawi, I imagine you'll be the first to read this. I have reworded your comments about Semichi's figures; as you remember, User:Hmains deleted the whole block because he/she considered it editorializing and POV and it was probably not a good idea to revert that instead of trying to reword it in a more neutral manner. I did it now - I hope the reader can still see your point: there are not 8-9 million people in Aurès. This is a fact (although we should find a really reliable source as to what is considered Aurès and adapt the figures accordingly - in the French WP there are 3 million inhabitants and on other sites, seven and a half wilayas are included, which gives 5 million...) As to why Semichi said that, we can't speculate about it and we don't need to. He said it - that's all. Let his figures stay and let the Aurès figures stay, the reader is intelligent enough.

Than I've deleted the other three sources which said the same as Encarta. As I explained above, they might very well copy from each other. I've run a - neutrally worded - question at Noticeboard and I got the answer that Encarta is reliable, the rest is not (you might look up the answer for yourself). As these other three sources just tell the same as Encarta, there is no need to keep them - better one good source than three bad ones for the same figure.

Finally I've deleted the remark that the Aurès is by its majority Arab inhabited because that's not the point- the very same people considered Arabs by the Britannica because they speak Arabic may very well be considered by Semichi as Berbers because he thinks they are of Berber ancestry. It's precisely this lack of definition which gets us into the mess when speaking about "ethnic" groups. So the comment is worthless here because it doesn't help any further to show if Semichi is right or not. The Britannica's view is already mentioned in the same text block below. I hope you understand my reasoning. Cheers--Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you're correct that the Arabic entry for Jbel Aurès talks only about Batna and Khenchela wilayas - but did you consider that sometimes "the Aurès" might be used in a broader way than just the mountains? I've not intention to say the the Arabic WP is wrong here, but it isn't sourced neither and different definitions for "Aurès" might be used in different places. If you have one standard definition, put it into Aurès and source, it would be much needed. Thanks--Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ottoman Empire

Please give your views at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Ottoman Empire. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Infobox

I'm quite surprised that this was overlooked. In the language part of the infobox, I saw some total nonsense like "zolo ancata" and "jack chien language". Please, someone protect this page to protect its encyclopedic value. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Large exageration of the number of christians, probably deliberate.

the article states that the number of christians in Algeria is estimated between 270.000 and 350.000 which is a large exageration , no credible source gives such a number , the Protestant Church of Algeria says they are 30.000 to 50.000, the UN statistics say between 20.000 and 30.000 , including 10.000 foreigners, different sources give numbers between 10.000 and 50.000 ; then the article says 350.000 would make 2% of the population , this is of course false , it is 1%. then the graphic figure says the proportions are of 97% Muslims and 3% christians! It is clear that some editor here is doing his best to increase the number of christians in algeria, using all sorts of tricks, first giving very inflated numbers, then giving percentages even higher than these inflated numbers. Then, i don't know if atheists and other non-believers should be considered in the statistics, if they should, then there are at least 10% of them in Algeria, maybe even 20%, so the reality is probably 80 to 90% of Muslim believers , 10 to 20% of atheists, agnostics or "cultural Muslims", and some 0,1% of christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjan (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

December 2018

With regard to this revert:

Why there’s the French name? It is not longer an official language[5] The content that you removed doesn't say or even suggests that it is.

removed French from native name entry of the infobox, since French is not a native language[6] That depends on the narrowness of the interpretation of the parameter "native" (in the context of the infobox). By your standard, we should also remove the classical Arabic since it's not a native language either. Do you honestly think that's a good idea? M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't put classical Arabic, but Arabic was there before my edit as a native language of the country/nation. Can you explain to me why French should be considered as a nation language?

Yes, Arabic was there before your edit, and so was the French. What you seem to miss is that neither of those two languages is a "native" language per se, therefore, there is no valid reason to concentrate on the French only. Your question should be directed at whomever made that suggestion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Mauritania.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

GDP figures no longer match source

There's been a GDP vandal frequenting articles. I think the vandal and perhaps well meaning editors have been changing these figures. I don't know what they should be now to match the source. If someone can fix this, great. If not I'll remove them if I remember. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I have fixed the GDP urls (the figures were slightly off). I have also fixed the population figure and added a RS. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: that's much appreciated. This sort of vandalism can be extremely time-consuming. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)