Talk:Algeria/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The official name of Algeria

The official name of Algeria is written in French, which makes the article biased and misleading, French is now an Official Language of Algeria Please Edit. This is actually again Wikipedia’s polices, so I will delete it. Thanks in advance Ziad adam (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said or even suggested that French is an official language. However, as a lingua franca, it is used everywhere and by everyone, including the politicians. M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi M.Bitton and Ziad adam, lingua franca means, as per that article, a language or dialect systematically used to make communication possible between people who do not share a native language or dialect, particularly when it is a third language that is distinct from both of the speakers' native languages. Excuse me, but when an Algerian Berber meets an Algerian Arab they speak Algerian Arabic not French. Adding French in the lead is a non sense. --Helmoony (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Arabic is the official and main language of Algeria, with Tamazight as second official language. Unlike other Maghreb countries (Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania), Algeria isn't even part of the Francophonie. It is only part of the Arab League. When an Algerian Berber and an Algerian Arab speak together, they speak Algerian Arabic, not French. So the French name should be removed. The name title is already too long, so the layout is not looking good - if someone wants know the French name, he can click on the French wiki article, very easy to find on the left bar. --2.243.104.167 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Arabic is the official and main language of Algeria, with Tamazight as second official language. Arabic is not the main language of Algeria, it's an official language, just like Tamazight, and that's what it says in the Infobox. Incidentally, the two official languages have one thing in common, nobody speaks either of them at home or in the street.

Unlike other Maghreb countries (Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania), Algeria isn't even part of the Francophonie. It is only part of the Arab League. The country with the second largest number of francophones after France has been shunning the Francophonie for political and ideological reasons.

When an Algerian Berber and an Algerian Arab speak together, they speak Algerian Arabic, not French. They speak their mother tongue, the Algerian language, which is a mixture of many languages.

The name title is already too long, so the layout is not looking good - if someone wants know the French name, he can click on the French wiki article, very easy to find on the left bar. The same could be said about the Arabic. Since neither of the two languages is a native language per se (with regard to the parameter of the Infobox), why are you concentrating on the French only? M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Because French has no official status in Algeria. Algeria is no longer a French colony for more than a half century. French has just a short history of 200 years, while Arabic and Tamazight have a history for more than one thousand years. Algeria is an independent country. On the article of England we also don't see the name in Latin in the title, just because it was at some time a Roman colony.

Regarding the official languages, both Arabic and Tamazight are official and national languages. However, Tamazigh is not used in the administration, because it is not a single language, but a language group composed of multiple languages. Nevertheless, in addition to Arabic, I prefer that the name of Tamazight should be added, because it is a real language of Algeria, but not the name of a foreign language like French.

And regarding the use of French in some companies and public authorities - this does NOT make French a native language nor an official or national language. German companies also use English and several government offices in Germany also often use English, but that does not mean that English is a native language of Germany. --78.49.57.196 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"They speak their mother tongue, the Algerian language, which is a mixture of many languages." The correct name is not Algerian language, but Algerian Arabic with the language code arq (ISO 639-3), which can be both viewed as a variety of Arabic and as a single language. The situation is similar to Switzerland, where Swiss German is the spoken language and Standard German the written language. This linguistic phenomenom is called diglossia. Algerian Arabic is not a mixture of many languages, but a Semitic- and Afro-Asiatic-based language with Semitic grammar and sentence structure, an Arabic-based numeral system, Arabic-based pronouns and Arabic-based conjuctions. You can see the language family tree in every professional linguistic book. English has many foreign loanwords (even more than Algerian Arabic), i.a. from Latin, Norman and many other languages, but is still clearly a Germanic language, the same goes with Algerian Arabic, which is clearly an Arabic/Semitic language. But nevertheless, what only cares is the official language status. Arabic is the official language of the state of Algeria. In Switzerland, where a similar diglossic situation persists, the name of the Swiss German variety is also not written in the title. --78.49.57.196 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

French has no official status in Algeria. Algeria is no longer a French colony for more than a half century. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. We're just acknowledging the fact that it's an integral part of the native language, the Algerian language.

I prefer that the name of Tamazight should be added, because it is a real language of Algeria. Tamazight is an artificial language that nobody speaks. The only reason we haven't added it yet is because its standardization and transcription into one of the Latin, Tifinagh or Arabic alphabets is still being debated.

but not the name of a foreign language like French. Apart from being irrelevant, what is foreign and what isn't depends on which side of the fence you sit on. To the Berbers, Arabic is a foreign language.

German companies also use English and several government offices in Germany also often use English, but that does not mean that English is a native language of Germany. Does Angela Merkel address the German people in English? Does the German education minister (Anja Karliczek) struggle to express herself in German (the official language)? M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The correct name is not Algerian language, but Algerian Arabic. The correct name is Algerian language, which is a mixture of many languages, including, but not limited to Algerian Arabic, French and Berber. It's the mother tongue of Algerians.

There's no such thing as Algerian language to begin with. Citing one paper that uses the whimsical construct "Algerian language" is not an evidence. As has been noted, the French is not official language in Algeria, it is not even mentioned in the country's Constitution. Brandmeister^talk 22:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of how it's called, which is irrelevant to begin with, the language that Algerians use to communicate with one another happens to be a mix of at least 3 languages, with French being one of them. As has been noted: a) Nobody is suggesting that French is an official language. b) Being official doesn't even mean that the language is used by Algerians (nobody uses classical Arabic at home or in the street) or that the language even exists (Tamazight is an artificial language that nobody speaks). M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Algerian Arabic is classified by linguists as an Arabic-Semitic variety, it is neither a pidgin nor a creole. And nevertheless, a colloquial "language mix" has nothing to do with the official state language. The official state languages are Arabic (Modern Standard Arabic) and Tamazight (not standardized yet). The official name of Algeria is derived from Arabic (Al-Jaza'ir = The islands), and has nothing to do with French. There is no single viable argument to add the French name to the article header. --93.133.155.9 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about the Algerian language. So rather than repeat what had been addressed so far, I suggest you read the previous comments. The debatable etymology of the name is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Nomination of Portal:Algeria for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Algeria is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Algeria until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Does Algeria observe Daylight Saving?

The time zone given in the infobox is Central European Time rather than West Africa Time (both UTC-01:00). So:

1. does Algeria observe CEST daylight saving?
2. does Algeria have a civil time defined in law? What is it? (It may have been inherited from French colonial law and just transposed at independence).
3. is there a citation that says CET and not WAT?

Thank you. --Red King (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Photo tebboune abdelmadjid 05072017.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

@Trafalgar47: Regarding this revert:

• You claim that Algeria's official transcription for berber is Neo-tifinagh.: In that case, it shouldn't be difficult for you to find reliable sources to WP:PROVEIT.

• You replaced the note that explains what the CIA World Factbook says about the ethnic self-identification of the Algerians with some genetic gibberish. Why?

• You changed People's National Assembly to National People's Assembly. Why?

• You changed French government favored the Kabyles to French government tried to favor the Kabyles. Why?

• ... Kabylia was not colonized until 1962.. This is not only unsourced, it's factually incorrect, and frankly, moronic. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated article

noticed that the article mentions outdated information (mohammed mediene as the strong man of the country, and bouteflika loyalists in key positions..) - will go through the article and update what needs updating 📙 😃 --Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 17:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Juba II as King of Numkidia (French)

the Louvre.

Amyntas in 26, Cilicia was given to King Tarcondimotus. When Augustus added Juba II’s kingdom of Numidia to the province of Africa in 25, he gave Juba Mauretania (Morocco) to rule instead. In Armenia, on the Aspects of Roman History 82BC-AD14: A Source-based Approach By Mark Everson Davies, Hilary Swain [1]

Encyclopedia of African History 3-Volume Set - Page 251 Kevin Shillington - 2013 - ?Preview - ?More editions Mauritania then, too, became involved in the civil wars of Rome, and the kingdom was annexed to Rome by Caesar Octavian in 33BCE and then reformulated as a client-kingdom in 25BCE with Juba II of Numidia as king. Juba, son of an ... [2]

[3] education in Italy. Octavian, the future emperor Augustus, befriended Juba when he was a young man and in 29 ».c. made him ruler of his father's former kingdom of Numidia, which had become a Roman province after the death of Juba I in 46

[4]

Herods Contemporaries In Britain And The West J Creighton - Herod and Augustus, 2008 - booksandjournals.brillonline.com … BCE the king of Mauretania died and for a few years this part of Africa was ruled directly by Rome, however in 25 BCE Augustus installed Juba II there as king, where he … Iconographically the coinage marks a radical shift between Juba I in Numidia and Juba II in Mauretania …

[5] New Masters for Africa S Raven - Rome in Africa, 2012 - taylorfrancis.com … True, King Bocchus of Mauretania was rewarded for his support in the Thapsus campaign by being given the western part of Numidia; but after his death in 33 BC his kingdom was ruled directly by the Romans, and then handed over in 25 BC to Juba II, the romanized …

[6] The Roman Maghreb K Amine, M Carlson - The Theatres of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, 2012 - Springer … 10 The Pre-Colonial Maghreb citizen, highly cultivated in the arts and natural history. The Emperor Augustus restored Juba II as king of Numidia between 29 BCE and 27 BCE and married him off to Cleopatra Selene, daughter of Cleopatra and Mark Anthony … Related articles

[7]

… of the largest cities of Roman North Africa. It also had a long and distinguished history, starting as a Punic colony; becoming a royal Numidian capital, perhaps from … TW Potter - cambridge.org … long and distinguished history, starting as a Punic colony; becoming a royal Numidian capital, perhaps from the second century BC, and most notably under the client king, Juba II (25 BC … is a fine theatre, built in Juba's reign; an unusual amphitheatre, perhaps Augustan in origin …

Doug Weller talk 13:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Juba Was Native North African Berber . and All the north Africans Berbers ADAM dZ7 (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Age of Berbers.

"Indigenous Berbers as well as Phoenicians..."

I think Phoenicians are more indigenous than Berbers. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Berbers are still in Algeria and they are most population in Algeria 76% and After Iberia-Italia 20% Arab 4% ADAM dZ7 (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Images for geography section

The American Gemini program captured several interesting images of Algeria from space that could be used in the geography section or a new geology section.

Jstuby (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Regarding this change:

+location specification[8] That's not a good reason to remove the template (which is perfectly adequate for this country).

Western Sahara (disputed)[9] Whether Western Sahara is a sovereign state or non-self-governing one (as described by the UN) is irrelevant to Algeria's geographical position.

Mali has the longest border with Algeria to the southwest.[10] Again, this is irrelevant since the surrounding countries are cited clockwise. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The Real Ethnicity of Algeria:

According to the science and the Analysis of the DNA Results Show that: BERBERS:76% IBERIANS-ITALIAN:20% ARABS:3% OTHERS:1% This is the The ethnicity groups in North Africa [ Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia,Libya] So everybody should stop thinking that we are majority Arab because it's opposite we are majority Berber. ADAM dZ7 (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Amen; finally someone has said it Nlivataye (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Number of districts

The article has

"Algeria is divided into ... 553 districts (daïras) ...."

In Provinces of Algeria the table under "List" shows a total of 547.

In Districts of Algeria we find

"The provinces of Algeria are divided into 547 districts (daïras)."

In other wikis (frwiki, itwiki, ptwiki) one can find 548.

So which should it be? Is there a source for the 553? Or either of the other numbers? –Tortoise0308 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Refusal of 3O

Dear fellow editors. User:YAC-med-2010 placed a request for a 3O on this question (here: [11]). I have deleted it, and this is simply to explain why. A 3O is for cases where no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved. That is not the case here, so please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. With all good wishes and respect to all, Springnuts (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Tamazight

While Tamazight is recognized as an official language, its transcription and standardization are still being debated. Right now, nobody knows for sure which of the three proposed alphabets will be adopted:

• The Arabic alphabet (the choice of the Mozabites).
• The Tifinagh (the choice of the Tuaregs).
• The Latin alphabet (the choice of the Algerian scholars and the Kabyles).

Anyone wanting to include the name of Algeria in Tamazight, such as here, needs to explain why we (as Wikipedians) should: a) chose one alphabet over the other and b) use a language that is yet to be standardized. M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@ M.Bitton The Algerian constitution does not specify which writing system is to be used. All three writing systems are used in Algeria, but since the 1990s the Latin script has been the most popular, while the Tifinagh one is used almost exclusively for logos and symbols. For more information, you can see the French version of the article where the Latin script is used. There is no reasonable explanation not to include the official Tamazight name, since it is an official language just as Arabic (while French is not, but the name in French is still displayed). --YAC-med-2010 (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't because they have yet to decide which one to adopt. The Latin script has always been more popular, that's why it's favoured by the Algerian scholars. What some editors have managed to include in the French version (Tifinagh and not Latin as you seem to think) is irrelevant to us. That being said, you haven't addressed any of the raised concerns (See a and b above). M.Bitton (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, tamazight is an official language in Algeria and in Morocco, its alphabet is tifinagh and etymology of Algeria must be improved because there is no explanation about Bologhine Ibn Ziri (founder of Algiers and Ziride dysnasty) who is an important people.--Noname JR (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You haven't addressed any of the raised issues. I suggest you read them again. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In Morocco, there is tamazight too (official status)--Noname JR (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Needless to remind you that Algeria is not Morocco. Again, for the nth time, I suggest you read what I wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What are official languages in Algeria (and in Morocco)?--Noname JR (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Either you address the raised issues or you start another thread where you can ask questions whose answers can be found in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Responses are Arabic and Tamazight (no french, even if it's a lingua franca) Algerian constitution--Noname JR (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about where the constitution specifies the alphabet? —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The alphabet is Tifinagh Somehwhere in Tizi ouzou but you can write in latin or in arabic.--Noname JR (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Random signs are not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Or [12]--Noname JR (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

May we safely conclude that you do not have a published source that specifies the orthography for Tamazight? —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

[[13]],[[14]], and you have some books of Mouloud Mammeri.--Noname JR (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The French wiki is unreliable. The second source does not contradict what I said above, and is therefore irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is the source for kabyle people ? Because in kabylia they write in latin, arabic and tifinagh alphabet [15]--Noname JR (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

How many times should we repeat to you that random signs are not a reliable source? M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@ M.Bitton I have not addressed any of your concerns because they are nonsensical and not validated. I don't know why are you insisting on the question of the script. The true problem here is that Tamazight is an official language of Algeria (which we all agree on) but the name of Algeria in Tamazight is not included. The name in Tamazight must be included. Now, which script to be used is not a problem, because as I said Algerian people are fine with either Tifinagh or Latin scripts. A solution might be to include both scripts, as is the case with some languages in Eastern Europe that use both Latin and Cyrillic scripts. I can't understand your logic here, you are fine with including the French name (although, as I repeat again, French is not an official language of Algeria), but you immediately delete any attempt to include the Tamazight name. Don't you think this is misleading people who read the article to know more about Algeria? These people have the right to know that Tamazight is an official language of Algeria. This is also suggesting a quite hostile attitude towards Tamazight speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YAC-med-2010 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Describing as "nonsensical" the issues that, for some unknown reason, you can't or are unwilling to address doesn't make them so. Which script is to be used and why is the core of the problem, and using a random script (from the three) that is yet to be standardized is what I would describe as misleading the readers. As for the French language (another issue), I suggest you read the previous discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@ M.Bitton While I still disagree with you, you have not said anything about the suggestion of including both scripts (or all three of them). Also, why is it only you who is making decisions on the edits? Could we have the input of other editors, especially Algerian ones, because they are the most concerned? or could we create a vote/survey to see the opinions of different editors? Regardless of your position, and regardless of whether your concerns are nonsensical or not, it is not fair that you are making individualized decisions without consulting othersYAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC).

I don't usually encourage the inclusion of original research, that's why I haven't commented on your idea. Feel free to create whatever you want, though, I personally don't see the point since consensus among a select group of editors does not trump Wikipedia's policies. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello @M.Bitton:, I did not read the above discussion before adding the official name in tamaziɣt (see context), hope u don't mind (I've included reliable sources: HCA & interior ministry.) Sami At Ferḥat (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that there is no official Tamazight name of Algeria and there won't be so long as the choice of the transcription and the standardization that will follow haven't been settled by the "académie de la langue amazighe" (as stipulated in the constitution). The HCA (your source), which has been around since 1995, has already opted for the latin alphabet and it will have its say like everyone else, but the final word belongs to the Academy. The Tifinagh and the Arabic alphabets aren't codified and stand little chance of being adopted. Right now, all we have is a) individuals scribbling away and deciphering various irrelevant documents, leading to the various discrepancies (as can be seen by the difference between the Tifinagh name that you added, taken from a communiqué for the Hajj, and the ones before it, as well as the name in the fr.wp) and b) others wanting to include the name in an encyclopedia, under the pretext that the language is official, while overlooking the fact that the name itself is not official.

As for the context, thank you for your honesty, but the canvassing by "Noname JR" doesn't do them any favours. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton:Article 4 of the constitution: 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. My own interpretation is this: Tamazight is not yet an official language in Algeria (maybe in 2100 when all Berber languages will be dead) and that fact should be reflected in the article (Tamazight is not official now therefore it should not appear in the list of official languages).

As I said, that's my interpretation (and yours converges with mine), but an interpretation is not a valid argument (Original research?) for deleting a sourced and consistent name (Tagduda Tazzayrit Tamagdayt Taɣerfant) used by several official institutions: HCA,University of bejaia,University of Tizi Ouzoufirst official document in tamazight released by the interior ministry,official book used to teach tamazight,education ministryCNRPAH ....etc. Its equivalent in tifinagh (ⵜⴰⴳⴷⵓⴷⴰ ⵜⴰⵣⵣⴰⵢⵔⵉⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⴳⴷⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵖⴻⵔⴼⴰⵏⵜ) cannot easily be googled because it is only mostly present in images. As for the one present in the french article, its latin equivalent gives this: Tagduda Tamagdayt Taɣrfant Tadzayrit, which means that it has not been deciphered as you claim but written from scratch by a wikipedian who clearly knows how to write in tifinagh but at the same time is not good enough at writing the language. So I guess you have two choices, either you revert what you deleted or you keep being consistent and let met delete Berber from the list of official languages (both from the infobox and from the article itself) which is something I wanted to do for so long but was hesitant since both the standard language and its so called officialization are just another joke. @C.Fred: what's your opinion? Sami At Ferḥat (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

While Tamazight is official, the choice of the alphabet and its standardization are yet to be decided (how long will that take is irrelevant). This is factual and neutral, there is no need to go to the extreme and remove its status from the article. M.Bitton (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton:Less extreme: mention that it will be official in the future. You did not comment on the sources I provided, are they official documents or not? (notice the seal), if they are, what makes you say that some of its content (country's name) is not official? NB: Needless to say, your interpretations (and mine) are irrelevant. Sami At Ferḥat (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it is already official and it is certainly not the government's fault if those who are supposed to chose the most suited alphabet are are fighting among each other. Of course they are not ofiicial. How can they be given the fact that they have to chose an alphabet, let alone codify it? M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: What's not official? the document or some of its content? (no need to go offtopic plz) Sami At Ferḥat (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of Tamazight in any form by the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Bitton (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: If the use of Tamazight in any form by the government is not official (your own interpretation, and mine as well), that means that tamazight itself is not official, right? Sami At Ferḥat (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it's official. It just means that they are waiting for the "académie de la langue amazighe" to do its job (as I explained before). M.Bitton (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry our brains function differently, let's wait for a third brain to translate. @C.Fred: maybe? farewell dear @M.Bitton:. Sami At Ferḥat (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the constitution, Tamazight is stated to be also an official language ("également langue nationale et officielle") with the following provision that the Academie is charged with helping Tamazight achieve its status as official language. Since it has constitutional status, it's reasonable to mention it in the infobox. It might be worth a note that the written form is not codified, so its use is limited. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: « It might be worth a note that the written form is not codified, so its use is limited», that's Bitton's extrapolation, the same extrapolation that made him conclude that statements published by the government -with the seal of the republic- are not official documents (how can you be more stubborn than that? honestly?). He's hijacking the article with your help, do something about it. As for me, I have provided enough sources (my edit that has been reverted by Bitton and more on the talk page), and anyone can find 100 times more sources (such as the whole constitution in tamazight, official education books from 1st year in primary school to PHD, official websites, government news agencies...etc.) they all use Tagduda Tazzayrit Tamagdayt Taɣerfant. That's my last message on this thread/subject/article, good luck in ur admin job. Sami At Ferḥat (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ M.Bitton Even when Sami At Ferhat provided strong and reliable sources from the Algerian government itself, you are still not open for discussion or welcoming a different perspective on the issue. I will proceed to request a third opinion on this matter. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

They did no such thing, in fact, they agreed with me, except that in their extreme interpretation, Tamazight shouldn't even be described as an official language. Their that's Bitton's extrapolation (with regard to the fact that it's not codified) was simply ignored, along with their uncalled for accusations, since it contradicts what the reliable source that I added above says. M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@ M.Bitton I have submitted a dispute resolution request as suggested in the third opinion response. I hope members of the dispute resolution team could offer some insights to reach an agreement that satisfies everyone. I will continue my efforts until the Tamazight name is included. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Name and Etymology Section

I have renamed the Etymology section to Name, inserting Etymology as a subsection, because the first paragraph always was the name and not its origin. The romanized version of the Berber name was already there. I have inserted the Tifinagh representation. My use of the {{lang-ber}} template may need tweaking. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon the official name in the Name section is still missing. I will add it in the three writing scripts, unless there is an objection. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@YAC-med-2010: Why are singling out the Arabic Berber alphabet? What you added is the Arabic and not the "Berber Arabic version" (as I did here). This is the second time that the Arabic Berber gets somehow "forgotten"; so either you add that as well as you promised or your "two chosen ones" will be removed. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@ M.Bitton I have added the Tamazight official name in the Arabic script.YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Since the previous (see above) has stopped, I have rearranged the added names in the name section to fit the first line, "cn" tagged the unsourced problematic edits and added notes about them not being codified. I have also removed the recently added] name "Lezzayer" from the intro as per MOS:FORLANG (I don't see the French name there as falsely claimed above). M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Representation of Name in Tamazight

There has been a case request opened at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the representation of the name of the country in the Tamazight language. The dispute request was made by User:YAC-med-2010, but they have not edited in the past 48 hours since filing the request, and so have not responded to my request to list and notify the other editors. I am willing either to offer an opinion on request as to how I think this should be done, or to develop a Request for Comments. I will be closing the request at DRN unless someone will list and notify the editors, without prejudice, meaning that a new request can be filed if it lists and notifies the editors. Please let me know whether you want a neutral party. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello @ Robert McClenon. I am sorry that I missed your note on the DRN page. I see that you suggested formulating an RFC. That would be very helpful and most appreciated. The official name in the Tifinagh script is ⵜⴰⴳⴷⵓⴷⴰ ⵜⴰⵎⴳⴷⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵖⵔⴼⴰⵏⵜ ⵜⴰⴷⵣⴰⵢⵔⵉⵢⵜ. Also, please share any other ways on how to proceed other than DRN; I was not sure if that was the best way to solve the issue. Please let me know if you need additional information or details. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

User:YAC-med-2010 - At this point, discussion here is the best way to resolve the issue. Discussion at the article talk page is usually a good way to resolve article content issues; that is what article talk pages are for. If the Tamazight language is one of the official languages of Algeria, then its name in that language in some form should be in the article. What have you proposed, and what have other editors said? Does the question have to do with the lede sentence, the infobox, or the body of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton, User:C.Fred, User:Sami At Ferhat, User:Noname JR - There was a request filed at DRN concerning the name of Algeria in Tamazight. That request wasn't followed up on, but I am now following up. I don't see a discussion of the official languages in the body of the article. Am I missing something? Also, is there any reason why the three versions of the Tamazight name should not be mentioned in the body of the article, possibly in the Etymology section (which maybe should be renamed to Name)?

@Robert McClenon: I think you're onto something there. The original question, as I understood it, was about listing the name in the infobox—and I think that given the instability in writing system, it is best to omit that name from the infobox.

I do agree that we should mention the name somewhere in the article, and there's no reason not to mention the Tamazight version of the name in all three systems within the Name section of the article. (I do agree with renaming the section header.)

Along those same lines, I wouldn't object if we moved the French long-version of the name out of the infobox and into the Name section. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon the original discussion about the Tamazight name can be found under "12. Tamazight" of this talk page.

@ C.Fred the original discussion was not only about the infobox. @ User:M.Bitton has removed previous edits where I included the name at the beginning of the article. I still disagree with not including the name in the infobox.

@ Robert McClenon @ C.Fred I agree with including the name in Tamazight in all three scripts, but not only in the Etymology/Name section but also at the very beginning of the article. I also agree with removing the name in French. I would suggest, however, including the Tamazight name in the infobox in Tifinagh. I did not want to make any more edits before we agree on what is going to be included/removed. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A Proposal on Naming

I think that there is a three-part question, and I think that one part of the question can be resolved, and two parts can be submitted to the community by RFC:

• 1. What should be in the lede section of the article?
• 2. What should be in the infobox?
• 3. What should be in the former Etymology section?

I think that we have agreement to rename the Etymology section to Name and have it provide all versions of the name in the various languages (French in the Latin alphabet, Arabic in the Arabic alphabet, Tamazight in three alphabets). I think that the lede section and the infobox can be addressed by an RFC. Do we agree on that? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon I agree. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to start a RfC, then the only fair and long-lasting solution would be to let the community have its say on the whole issue. Something like the following:

Should all three versions of the Tamazight name be included in the article and, if so, where?

• A. No, they shouldn't be included in the article.
• B. Yes, include all three in the article:

  1. Somewhere in the article's body (create a name section for it).

  2. In the lead section.

  3. In the Infobox.

M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton - I have a question. What would be the reason for A? What is the reasoning as to why the three versions of the name should not all be included in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I thank you for stating the issue so plainly. However, I had thought that it should be agreed that the three versions of the name should be included somewhere, and that the question was where. I thought that there could already be consensus on the A/B question as to B, and the issue would be 1/2/3. Are you saying that there is a reason for A/No? If so, what is that reason? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The the A/B question is the core of the issue that was raised in the previous discussion, so it wouldn't make sense to exclude it from the RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton - Is the fact that Tamazight is an official language of Algeria verifiable, and is there due weight for the inclusion of that fact in the article, and are the three scripts of the name of the country verifiable? If so, option A. above can go into the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless I am given a good reason why I should not do this, I will submit a one-part RFC, which is:

• • • • Should the Etymology section be renamed Name, and include the Arabic name, the French name, and the three forms of the Tamazight name?

Then there can be subsequent argument about the lede and the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: That's a question that I'll leave for those who want their inclusion to answer. The etymology section is another issue that needs to be discussed first, and as its name implies, it's about the origin of the word "Algeria" (al Djazair).

What is wrong with the proposed RfC? It's neutral and allows the community to have its say without unilaterally excluding it from any the disputed content. isn't that for RfCs are for? M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I think the concern about including option A in your proposed RFC is that it is excluding an official language of the country, which is not founded. Do you think it is acceptable to delete France's official name in French? or China's official name in Chinese? I think we all agree that the answer is no. We can have a discussion about where to include the Tamazight name, but including it is not a subject for discussion. This could have been discussed before 2016 when Tamazight was a national language and not an official one. Since 2016, Tamazight has been an official language. If you cannot understand the reason for including the Tamazight name yet, then I really suggest you review the definition of the official language of a country. 19:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)YAC-med-2010 (talk)

Given the complexity of the issue, your comparison doesn't make any sense. As for option A, if it's that easy to dismiss, then you'll have no trouble convincing the community and everyone will be happy. M.Bitton (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton - What is your reason for taking issue with including all three forms of the Berber name in the body of the article? By the way, the lede sentence lists three names of the country, the French name in Latin letters, the Arabic name in Arabic letters, and the Berber name in Latin letters. What do you want? Do you want to omit the romanized form of the Berber name from the lede sentence? Why do you think that there even is a question about listing the three writings of the Berber name? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton I am surprised that you are now concerned with the opinion of the community. Until now, you have been making unilateral decisions of overlooking all attempts to discuss or edit the article to include the Tamazight name in a way that satisfies everyone. If you genuinely care about what the community thinks, you should have proposed an RFC a while ago. Even now you are trying to impose your own vision and formulation on the RFC that @ Robert McClenon proposed. @ Robert McClenon I really do not see a point in this current discussion. I think the original RFC that you proposed is the one that reflects the valid issues and the one that should be submitted. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The official name of a country is way too important to be left in the hands of amateurs and activists, and the editors who want to include the 3 alphabets have yet to acknowledge the fact that the proposed alphabets are not standardized, let alone offer a rationale as to why they should be used in this case. That's why I suggested we hand it over to the community, even though I'm not usually keen on RfCs when the subject is complicated and the sources are sparse and in a foreign language to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@ M.Bitton I hope you would respect the proposed changes to the name section and that you would not attempt to delete the Tamazight name there, since there is a consensus to include it. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon are you the one who will submit the RFC about the lede section and info box? I think this is the best time, as there seems to be a consensus about the Name section. I am glad to do it myself, but I just did not want to do that without asking for your permission since you were the one who formulated the request. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@YAC-med-2010: You don't need to ask anyone's permission to launch a RfC, but you do need to work with the others to formulate one that is neutral and includes everyone's concerns, but first things, first. I suggest you start by addressing the missing "Arabic Berber" version (see comment below) M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to formulate the RFC on the lede and the infobox. I will take care to word it neutrally, but I first would like to be sure what is at issue. We don't need an RFC on any matter on which there is agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon There seems to be an agreement about the Name section. The name section now has the Tamazight name in all three scripts. I also think no one who is neutral would question the validity of including the Tamazight name (an official language of Algeria) in the article. Thus, I think the RFC should be on how (and not whether) to include the Tamazight name in the lede and the infobox. Should it be the same as the Name section, i.e. include all three scripts. Or should it be similar to what is done in other Wikipedia versions, i.e. include only the Tifinagh name in the infobox and all three scripts in the lede. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as the RfC is concerned, neutrality means that all three alphabets will be treated equally and presented as such to the readers. You'll get your !vote like everyone else and the chance to explain why you think a particular alphabet is more suitable than the others.

While the name section has the names, some important information is still missing. What reliable source did you use for the Arabic version? M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The Algeria Press Service can be cited as a source if needs be (https://www.aps.dz/en/). Its Tamazight version is available in all three scripts (Tifinagh, Latin, and Arabic). YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there a difference between its Latin and Tifinagh versions and the ones that you added? M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No. The Tifinagh and Latin writings of the official name that I added are the same in APS and in other official sources. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we're looking at different sources, but they don't look the same to me. I suggest you provide the APS links that you're referring to. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

These are links to some of the recent articles on the APS: in the Latin script https://www.aps.dz/tamazight-tal/algerie/2874-asenfar-u%C9%9Biwed-n-tmendawt-tamazi%C9%A3t-d-tutlayt-tun%E1%B9%A3ibt; in the Tifinagh script https://www.aps.dz/tamazight-tif/algerie/10719-2021-02-28-09-46-13; and in the Arabic script https://www.aps.dz/tamazight-arb/algerie/10919-1. Unless you are a proficient speaker of the language, you are not in a position to check the references (are you a proficient speaker of one of the Tamazight languages?). I wonder if you are this meticulous about your other editing duties; if so, your perfectionism should be an example for all of us. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 02:37, 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. While the Tamazight-Arabic script is attributable to a single source (you search for it inside the page and it will be highlighted for you), the Tifinagh and the Latin that you added are nowhere to be found in the above APS links that you provided. Where did you get those two names from? M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to have this type of discussion with a proficient speaker. How do you claim to be able to verify sources in languages that you do not even speak? All decisions, including the validity of the sources, can be made after the RFC has been established and discussed. I am not willing to have any more direct discussions with you or answer any of your questions. You are trying to divert the attention from valid concerns to meaningless side discussions. I also do not think you should be part of the ongoing Tamazight name discussion. Since the beginning, you have been quite hostile to including the Tamazight names. You even implied that the language is disorganized and anarchic. Your position is not in any way neutral. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon Delaying the RFC any further would cause more side discussions that would make the issue more complicated than is now (please see the discussion above). It would be very helpful if we could have the RFC as soon as possible so that everyone is satisfied. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

User:YAC-med-2010 - I have created a draft RFC on the infobox, which is for view at Talk:Algeria/Draft RFC. I don't think that we need an RFC for the Name section, which does list all of the forms of the name. I don't think that we need an RFC for the lede sentence. I will be copying the draft RFC to here, and turning it on, in about 24 hours, unless I am persuaded not to do so. If another RFC is also wanted, please explain; there can be two RFCs running at the same time, with slightly different date ranges. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I agree about the lede sentence; it already has at least a representation of the Tamazight name. I think the current RFC should focus on the infobox (as it already is). Although I do not agree with the "none" option on the current RFC, I think it would be better to give a chance to everyone to express their opinions. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I have just checked, and The Tamazight name that used to be in the lede sentence has disappeared. If some editors continue making individualized decisions like this, I think we need an RFC for the lede sentence as well. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of the RfC is to solve the disagreement. Omitting the bothersome part that some involved editors disagree with will defeat its purpose by making one sided. If that's going to be an issue, then pinging some experienced editors and admins will be next. Other than that, I have no problem with another RfC for the lede. M.Bitton (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Kabyle Kingdoms in the Ottoman era at their height .jpg (discussion)
• Zirid Dynasty.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Name in Berber languages

Hi, so we need an Algerian official source that tells us that Algeria use official Berber language name and how it is spelled.. Many editors have added differenet names and got reverted. How can we know which one is right? We need an official source.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe use the one mentionned in the french version ?tamazight ⴷⵣⴰⵢⵔ (Dzayer) Laguends (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Laguends: The French version of which official source? —C.Fred (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

'Wikipedia Fr' does have the infos already.

Can we copy the info in the wiki-fr to wiki-en that states the info ? Makes sens no ?

Only difference is that i d put the native berber language first and the foreign languages like arabic and french after. Laguends (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Plus we can find tbe info into the new version of the algerian constitution as well. It is mentionned clearly. Laguends (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@SharabSalam in the new constitution available online Laguends (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And for the full name of the country, you can find everywhere :

Tagduda Tazzayrit Tamagdayt Taɣerfant Laguends (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

( i know 3 alphabets are used in berber ) Laguends (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Last point, all references to french language should be removed since it does not have any official status in this country and is not used except in one region. Laguends (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Infobox and Lede

Which of the forms of the Tamazight (Berber) name of the country should be included in the lede sentence and the infobox (in Tifinagh, in the Arabic alphabet, in the Latin alphabet)? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

In the Survey for each option, you may answer All, Tifinagh, Arabic, Latin, or None, or provide the combination of forms that you support, with a brief explanation. Do not reply to each other in the Survey. You may discuss with other editors in the Threaded Discussion.

Survey on Lede Sentence

Which forms of the Tamazight name of the country should be included in the lede sentence of the article?

• None a) Per MOS:FORLANG, the subject is not closely associated with any of them and b) we have no way of knowing which of the three will achieve such status at some point in the future or indeed what form the name will take. 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. From an official point of view, article 4 of the constitution (officially transcribed in only two languages, Arabic and French) talks about developing the Tamazight language in order to integrate it as an official language in the future.. Please see my comment on the second part of this RfC for more details. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• All Tamazight is an official language of Algeria and has been since 2016 as outlined by the Algerian constitution, article 4 (please see this link: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2016?lang=en). The page must have a representation of the Tamazight name. It is not logical or acceptable to completely omit a country's name in its official language. The English Wikipedia is the only version that I have consulted so far that does not have a representation of the Tamazight name in the lede sentence. Tamazight, and as many other languages globally, has been written using different writing systems: Tifinagh, Latin, and Arabic scripts. All three scripts are still being used in modern-day Algeria. As such, all three scripts have to be included in the lede sentence. This is not a bizarre situation for anyone with a minimum knowledge of linguistics. Serbian, for instance, is written in both the Cyrillic and the Latin scripts, and both scripts are included on the Serbia page. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Survey on Infobox

Which forms of the Tamazight name of the country should be included in the infobox?

• None That's what the name section that has been created recently is for, and frankly, as it stands, having those unsourced names in it is already a stretch.

While Tamazight has been recognized as an official language, there is a lot of work that needs to be done, chief of all is the adoption of a single alphabet for its transcription. This is clearly stated in article 4 of the constitution (officially transcribed in only two languages, Arabic and French) which talks about developing the Tamazight language in order to integrate it as an official language in the future.

Right now, nobody knows for sure which of the three proposed alphabets will be chosen.

• The Arabic alphabet (the choice of the Mozabites, the Chaouis and those who associate the alphabet with Islam): it is not codified.
• The Tifinagh (the choice of the Tuaregs): also not codified.
• The Latin alphabet (the choice of the Algerian scholars and the Kabyles): the most developed of the three.

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. Given this situation and the fact that it is not our job to choose (that would be taking sides in a dispute in which we have no say) or to propagate names in languages that aren't even codified, I truly believe that the best option is to simply leave those names in the name section (which needs a lot of work to avoid misleading the readers) until the issue is resolved. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Tifinagh and the Latin scripts First, the infobox must have a representation of the Tamazight name. As outlined by article 4 of the Algerian constitution https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Algeria_2016?lang=en, Tamazight is an official language of Algeria, and as such, must be valued and present in the article and its major sections. Deleting a country's name in its official language is nonsensical and cannot be founded on any reasonable arguments. The French, the German, the Spanish, and many other major languages versions of Wikipedia all have at least some representation of the infobox's Tamazight name. I do not think that editors of these versions are in any way less diligent than the English Wikipedia ones. Tamazight, and as many other languages globally, is written in different scripts. This is a sign of the richness and the ancient history of the language. Claiming that the presence of the three scripts makes the language anarchic and disorganized is an argument often used by extremist Arab nationalists who oppose the promotion of the Berber languages and culture, and I am sure that we all do not want Wikipedia to be on the same line with this group. Second, ideally, the infobox should have all three scripts; however, because the space is rather limited, I think we should only use the Tifinagh and the Latin scripts. Tifinagh is the most ancient and the most emblematic script of the language, and Latin helps a universal representation of the Tamazight name (as often the romanization does). The official names in Tamazight can be found on the Algerian Press Service website https://www.aps.dz/en/ that uses all three scripts of Tamazight. The official Latin name can also be found in this Tamazight version of the Algerian constitution https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/tamendawt-2016-s-tmazight.pdf. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 04:07, 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. CMD (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion on Infobox

• @CMD I am amazed how you picked-up only examples of ministries/official authorities that do not use Tamazight and overlooked many others that do. This shows an obvious lack of neutrality. Here are some counter examples: The Algerian Ministry of Culture (in the Latin script) https://m-culture.gov.dz/tam/index.php; The Algerian Telecom (in the Tifinagh script) https://www.algerietelecom.dz/ta; and the Algeria Press Service (uses all three scripts of the Tamazight language) https://www.aps.dz/en/. Tamazight has been an official language since 2016, which is a short period. Normally, it takes time for all authorities to create Tamazight versions of their websites. The discussion here is not about the availability of websites/Facebook pages in Tamazight but about including the official Tamazight name. Examples of ministries/official authorities that do not have a Tamazight version of their websites but they list the Tamazight name of Algeria and/or of the authority in question in Tamazight: The Ministry of Transports http://www.mtp.gov.dz/; the National Meteorology Office https://www.meteo.dz/; The Ministry of Religious Affairs https://www.marw.dz/; The Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security https://www.mtess.gov.dz/ar/. Also, I do not understand how you concluded that "Arabic is the only common language" just by consulting a few websites? this shows an obvious lack of exactitude. YAC-med-2010 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Chipmunkdavis: Since you !vote is being question: 1) Talking of "exactitude": If you look at the examples cited above, you'll notice that not only is the name spelled differently in all of them, it is also different from the name that was added to the name section of the article, further highlighting what I said previously about amateurs and activists having a go at a language that isn't even codified. 2) There is no "official Tamazight name", it simply does not exist yet (see my comments above). The constitution clearly states that Arabic is the official language of the State (article 3) and that An Algerian academy for the Tamazight language shall be established .. to develop the Tamazight language in order to integrate it as an official language in the future (article 4). 3) Should examples be needed, we can list plenty. Here's a non exhaustive list of government websites that use either Arabic, French or both (with no Tamazight in sight): the presidency https://www.el-mouradia.dz/, the prime ministry http://www.premier-ministre.gov.dz/fr/, the ministry of interior https://www.interieur.gov.dz/index.php/fr/, the ministry of defence https://www.mdn.dz/site_principal/accueil_fr.php, the ministry of justice https://www.mjustice.dz/fr/, the ministry of finance https://www.mf.gov.dz/index.php/fr/, the ministry of agriculture http://madrp.gov.dz/, the ministry of water resources http://www.mre.gov.dz/, the ministry of culture https://www.m-culture.gov.dz/index.php/fr/, the ministry of health http://www.sante.gov.dz/, the ministry of postal services https://www.mpt.gov.dz/fr, the ministry of fisheries https://mpeche.gov.dz/, the national council http://www.majliselouma.dz/index.php/ar/, the constitutional council http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.dz/index.php/fr/, the social and economic national council http://www.cnes.dz/fr/, etc.

Incidentally, I have noticed that you didn't comment on the first part of the RfC and was wondering whether you missed it. If that wasn't the case, then no explanation is necessary. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Very helpful sources in both bullets above. I am somewhat disinclined at the moment to further participate given the apparent lack of good faith in the discussion, but hopefully such sources (well, the ones that work, not all loaded for me) can help inform further opinions on the matter, as well as source the direly unsourced Name section. CMD (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• La battaglia di Algeri screen.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• La battaglia di Algeri screen.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

confused...

"In February 2016, the Algerian constitution passed a resolution that made Berber an official language alongside Arabic."

Iʼm pretty sure the constitution didn't do anything since it's a piece of paper. What legislative body passed the resolution? 2600:8800:2C0A:5700:977:8CA:8ADF:B438 (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kabyle Kingdoms in the Ottoman era at their height .jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Algeria is bordered to the northeast by Tunisia; to the east by Libya; to the southeast by Niger; to the southwest by Mali, Mauritania, and Western Sahara; to the west by Morocco; and to the north by the Mediterranean Sea.

Algeria is bordered to the northeast by Tunisia; to the east by Libya; to the southeast by Niger; to the southwest by Mali, Mauritania, and Western Sahara; to the west by Morocco; and to the north by the Mediterranean Sea. 37.217.37.199 (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and? Largoplazo (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the Berber name of Algeria?

Not mentioned in the informbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCDEAN (talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Modern Algerian Writers

What about Mohammed Moulessehoul, aka Yasmina Khadra, who wrote the Swallows of Kabul, the Sirens of Baghdad, Wolf Dreams, and the Detective Llob series, set in Algiers? Certainly worth mentioning! 2001:5B0:4ED4:F308:C901:B4CA:A45C:FED2 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Unprotect 140.213.33.18 (talk) 12:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Not with the history of disruption. You can request a specific edit on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Evidence from the Ain Boucherit archeological site, in Algeria, demonstrated that the country has been inhabited since 2.4 million years ago, before any other country in the Mediterranean

Source: Sahnouni; et al. (14 December 2018). "1.9-million- and 2.4-million-year-old artifacts and stone tool–cutmarked bones from Ain Boucherit, Algeria". Science. 362 (6420): 1297–1301. Bibcode:2018Sci...362.1297S. doi:10.1126/science.aau0008. hdl:10072/383164. PMID 30498166. S2CID 54166305.

Already cited in the page twice. Can editors explain why they are removing the subject text systemicall? If no objection please use the subject-text with the indicated reference. Amar Al Djazairi (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, your cited source says "hominims." This isn't likely speaking of modern humans, aka Homo sapiens. For another, the only mention of the Mediterranean is that this is evidence of humans (or hominims) inhabiting the "Mediterranean fringe" earlier than expected. It doesn't actually speak to anything else, including the Levant or Mesopotamia. Certainly, I would agree it is likely that hominims reached the region now known as Algeria before those other regions, but this article doesn't speak to that. What you are proposing violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Indeed, we have sources from other articles which suggest other similar tool use in the Middle East at similar time spans, with overlapping ranges that made it difficult to say what was "first". There are sites in Israel dating at 1.96 - 0.78 million years ago, and evidence of early human habitation in Syria dates at least as far back as 2 million years ago. We don't know that the habitation in Algeria dates to 2.4 million years ago; rather, we know it is within a range of 1.9 - 2.4 million years ago. If it is on the shorter end, then evidence for habitation in Syria would be older. We just do not know as of yet. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! The article is precise. The title is "1.9-million- and 2.4-million-year-old artifacts and stone tool–cutmarked bones from Ain Boucherit, Algeria". It's not "between" 1.9-million- and 2.4-million- years. The abstract of the article is very explicit "Here we report older stone artifacts and cutmarked bones excavated from two nearby deposits at Ain Boucherit estimated to ~1.9 Ma ago, and the older to ~2.4 Ma ago". Please, mind the "older" of the two deposits dates to ~2.4 Ma ago. Again, it's not saying a deposit is between ~1.9 Ma ago and ~2.4 Ma ago. Amar Al Djazairi (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens didn't yet exist in that timeframe, and prior forms of the genus homo did not form 'countries' that could be inhabited. These would've been stone tools used by Homo habilis. And evidence of stone tools does not equal the first location inhabited. We have bones with evidence of tool cut marks that are older than this. In any case, this is a recent find, and will need more vetting before we'd use it here. If we went with any single paper, we'd say that the earliest homininds living near the Mediterranean would be Graecopithecus, a claimed find of a 7 million year old hominid jawbone in Greece. MrOllie (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent Administrative District information

The information listed in the province table under Algeria#Administrative divisions differs from the information given in the Provinces of Algeria page. In some cases this is a minor transposition - e.g. Chlef is listed at 4795 km² on the Provinces page, but 4975 on this page. In other cases, the difference is larger: Adrar is 254,471 km² on the provinces page, 402,197 km² on this page, and 424,948 km² on the Adrar page. These bigger discrepancies seem to be a result of the break-up of a few provinces into smaller provinces in 2019 - I see a similar discrepancy for Tamanrasset.

Anyhow, I can't determine how to edit the table (or if it is protected @C.Fred), so I thought I would mention it here. 47.215.148.220 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Fatimid

Why people remplaced fatimid by sulaymanid ? Fatimid was born in kingdom of kutama (Algeria) and suleymanid was arab vassal dynasty Hamza3110022 (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You're confusing the first Fatimid State (established in Tazrut) with the Caliphate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No the caliphate fatimid was born in Algeria and the kutama berber founded the caliphate i have many source Hamza3110022 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Those sources should be discussed on the concerned article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi M.Bitton But no, In the concerned page there's a lot sources so ??

Hamza3110022 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Algeria relief.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Majority of Algeria Population is Arab and practice Islam is misleading

The phrase is deliberately misleading the source isn't a scientific study on Algerian population genes but a CIA (usa) website i quote : Ethnic groups: Arab-Berber 99%, European less than 1%

note: although almost all Algerians are Berber in origin (not Arab), only a minority identify themselves as primarily Berber, about 15% of the total population; these people live mostly in the mountainous region of Kabylie east of Algiers and several other communities; the Berbers are also Muslim but identify with their Berber rather than Arab cultural heritage; Berbers have long agitated, sometimes violently, for autonomy; the government is unlikely to grant autonomy but has officially recognized Berber languages and introduced them into public schools)thus the person who put that phrase is misleading they're ready to denial their identity for political reason shameless pls correct that thanks you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.96.217.64 (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

@Simoooix.haddi: since you seem to be having difficulties using the talk page, I'm starting this discussion for you (after reverting the article to its stable version) so that you can seek consensus for your changes. In the meantime, I urge you to refrain from edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Simoooix.haddi: don't edit my comment again. M.Bitton (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, my issue is that it's mentioned in the history section that the almohads were founded by abd al-mu'min which is not historically correct and contradicts the almohad article itself. I suggest to mention that he was just the first caliph, that would actually be more safe. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope! Your issue is with the undisputed fact that Abd al-Mu'min was the founder of the Almohad Caliphate and its ruling dynasty. I'll let the others deal with your false claims about what the Almohad article states, as well as your usual nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the intro, please add that Algeria is part of the Maghreb region. 2600:100C:A21C:E44E:9CFD:64F3:D2BB:A3AA (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Already done It already states that Algeria "is considered part of the Maghreb region of North Africa". M.Bitton (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• National Emblem of Algeria.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Emblem of Algeria.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Algeria Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Make the article Semi-protected

this article is probably the only non-protected one that talks about a country, which gave vandalism a chance here Gattor1 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is the coat of arms?

Why Algeria has no coat of arms? It has an offical emblem. 2001:448A:11A1:122C:647C:CD4:81A2:EB6F (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

197.145.243.219 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There is only the kingdom morocco from 788

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 11:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Update the gdp and add the other algerian dynasties and kingdoms

update the gdp (206.1 billion$ in 2023) and the gdp per capita/gdp ppp,

you guys should also add the other algerian dynasties that are missing:

ifrenids,

kingdom of the aures,

kingdom of altava,

and kingdom of tuggurt Seniorjackfr (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Repatriates

There is a discussion here that could do with more input. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal Of The Sulaymanids From The History Infobox.

First, The Sulaymanids were really not close from a major dynasty in algerian history, why you may ask, it is because it was a governate of the idrissids and was founded after idris I conquest of tlemcen, making it just a pity vassal of the moroccan idrissids Second, The Sulaymanids have a poor history, as not much historians talk about it, and its history is also poorly understood, as they werent as important as the for example, fatimids or the zirids or the hammadids, and since it was founded by idris I, a moroccan, i think it shouldnt be here. TBATlol (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you meant by the Sulaymanids being "just a pity vassal of the moroccan idrissids"? That makes no sense. Morocco did not exist back then, and the Sulaymanids had their own separate kingdom. Regardless, it's worth noting that the Sulaymanids were among the first Muslim states in the region, and their significance should be duly acknowledged in the infobox. Skitash (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 December 2023

Seeing as some users are committed to disruptive editing this page, I suggest that this article be moved under protected status for a little while.

Wikipedia explicitly encourages consensus to be found especially on large edits on important articles like this one.

Removing entire sections in the infobox unilaterally is a violation of those guidelines. Daran75 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Protection isn't for resolving content disputes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Protection is about stopping disruptive editing and revert war. Please try to read the guidelines before using Wikipedia. Daran75 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

At WP:RFPP I declined User:Daran75's request for protection of this article. The proper scope of this article is a content issue which needs the agreement of editors. The article talk page is a good place to negotiate this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad someone started this discussion about the formation parameter which seems to attract a lot of needless attention from some SPAs. I will ping Izmir18 (who just reverted the OP's revert after adding a bunch of entries to the Morocco article) to see where they stand on this issue. M.Bitton (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I also removed the unnecessary entries from the Tunisia article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton. In their last change in Morocco they wrote: "Per your edit on the Algeria article". The edit here in Algeria has nothing to do with the one in Morocco. It sounds like: "Yes, if there is no dynasty in Algeria "They're not allowed in Morocco." These are two different topics. But I would be happy to explain my point of view to you. It is the case that Algeria's formation includes all dynasties that took place on Algerian soil or Algerian capitals. This is the case in Algeria and Tunisia. Except in Morocco it's not like that. The formation of Algeria even includes the "Roman Empire". If the current formation of Algeria says "Kindom of Telcem" and Hasfid Dynasty in Tunisia, then it is not wrong to write Marinid Dynasty under Morocco's formation. If "the Regency of Algiers" is in the formation of Algerirn and Ottman Tunisia in Tunisia, then it is not wrong to write Saadi Dynasty under Morocco's formation. Or how do you see that? Izmir18 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the usual nonsense that SPAs tend to target. In any case, I intend to sort out this once and for all. As for your edit: now that you understand what WP:ONUS is about, you know exactly what to do. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Please explain, why are you changing the formation of Tunisia? You only change them because they were changed in Algeria. Just like in Morocco. Why are you doing that? Why can't the formation in Tunisia stay like this? Izmir18 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I already did and anyone who disagrees is free to seek consensus (for the same reason that you mentioned when you reverted Daran75). M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you think that your unilateral decisions should only be reverted after a consensus is found screams of entitlement.

A consensus should only be sought before changes are to be made to the article, not after. Daran755 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm only applying the same principle to all articles to prevent the disruption. The fact that you seem to agree with Izmir18 (the editor who reverted your last edit after adding a similar list to another article) means that I'm moving in the right direction. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

"all articles" so why stop at Tunisia and Morocco then? I obviously don't agree with Izmir18 since he appears biased against Algeria. As far as I'm concerned my "edits" were just reverts of non-agreed removals in the infobox. I haven't removed any content. Daran755 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Izmir18: Your edit summary unfounded change, partly apparently for nationalistic reasons. is a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

No i say ,,apparently". I report you to the admins. Izmir18 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

report him for what? you're the one who should be reported since you deem yourself authorized to remove content on the Algeria article and add similar content into the Morocco one. Daran755 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Daran75: you're welcome to share your thoughts on the matter. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, I don't care. Please stop mentioning me and do whatever you want with the article. Daran75 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Skitash: the trouble with restoring what one thinks is an important state or whatever is that it opens the door for more of the same as there will never be an agreement as what is important and what isn't. That's why I only kept the first and the last known states. M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Right, I see what the problem is. I have taken out the Aghlabids from the Tunisia infobox to prevent any potential edit wars in the future. Skitash (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Much appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)