Talk:Arabized Berber

message: The subject is great, but the content is a little bit less than that. The article tends to consider some facts as "berberist's opinions". The content must also include that many berberists do not recognize the north africa people with pan-arab ideologies as berbers even if they had the berber language as mother tongue.
It would also be interesting if some one knows the opinions of the various north africans [including the berbers and the arabs]Read3r 19:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, being in the family, the article is bizarre. collounsbury 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there's a lot to elaborate here on the effective genocide that the arabs have perfomed on berbers, similar to the ones in Sudan, Druzes, Kurds, Maronites, Copts and Jews, and generally all indigenous people that the Arabic empire conquered and enslaved. Amoruso 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no and never has been an "effective genocide" of Berbers (and where the bloody hell Druze comes from I have no idea, since they're Arabs by self identification usually), never mind Copts, etc. collounsbury 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't agree. The Berbers adopted finally the Islam, and there were many Berbers among the conquering Arabs to conquer the other berber territories. The elaboration should exist to get their rights. I don't know anything about the other people.[Off topic] Read3r 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is hard to see why this needs to be a seperate article.
It is a mere fact that most of the Maghrebine populations that are presently "Arab" in identity are Arabised berbers, or rather persons descending either recently or not from groups that were Berber speaking. Nothing controversial per se about this. The cultural / political nexus, which is largely an Algerian issue, can be discussed quite well under the Berber article (itself a mish-mash of POV incoherence). collounsbury 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is not a fact, unless to your tapeworm mind, a study of solely 100 or so subjects, from a historically and demoraphically sub-saharan region such as the one cited, mauritania, with some from southern morocco, a country whose demographics, particularly in the south, has been impacted by an influx of sub-saharan africans or mauritanians, in most cases illegally or not, amounts to a mere "fact." Perhaps your use of the word mere betrays your own uncertainty. I do not think that you are from the region, and thus take no offense at your blatant ignorance. However, wikipedia is not the venue for your biased, personal views. I have therefore deleted a section that is not sourced, yet one that si charged, propogandistic and partial. I might also suggest that this anti-Arabism be left out of wikipedian articles. Mariam83 06:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision or Merge

message: hello Alamawi, probably you are not too happy with my edit of your text - I'm very glad you found a study and sourced it, it's great to have this kind of scientific information. But then we should be carefully when condensing its findings in one sentence: the subject of the study is the frequency of genetic markers in North Africa and Southern Europe (from Libya and Italy to France, Portugal and Morocco), defining genetic subhaplotype Vb as Berber (because found mainly among Berber-speaking citizens) and Va as Arab (because found mainly among Arabic-speaking citizen of North Africa). So this study, for its purpose, calls "Arabs" the Arabic-speaking population, but it does not make any claim to any genetic link with "Arabs" outside North Africa. Nothing is said about the frequency of Va in Arabia, Syria or Jordan; this link might or might not exist, but the present study can't be cited as supporting the notion that Arabic-speaking people in North Africa are of "Arab" origin (defining this as originating in Arabia). The study takes care to clarify the following: "In the present study all the non–subhaplotype Vb subjects bearing haplotype V are classified as subhaplotype Va (Arab); they probably correspond to a heterogeneous group representing various ethnicities". This does show a genetic difference between Berbers and non-Berber speaking population, but the first conclusion is just that the latter has been more "mixed" with other population influx - how much of that came from Arabia is not clarified in the study. I hope you understand my reasoning. Cheers --Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA studies 

message: I'm starting merger discussion, following tagging of this article for merger by user:Zoupan on April 20th. Please note that Maghrebis in France has been proposed for deletion, which might affect this proposal as well.GreyShark (dibra) 19:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , please see the Maghrebis article. There is a section on anthropology where it is best explained. There is no reason to have them separate as all information in the Arabized Berber (which btw is short) is directly related to Maghrebis. Support merge.--Zoupan 18:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it turns out two of the editors commenting in this discussion were sockpuppets, but if it matters, I don't support this merger. --Calthinus (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given (in part) the uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: This article is clearly made by berber nationalists, there is nothing called "arabized berbers", north africansare mixed because of intermariage between arabs and berbers, and the majpority are arabs culturaly, so stop bulshiting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.6.69 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. Most North Africans, according to several studies (history, anthropology, genetics) are of Amazigh origin. I suggest you check Genetic studies on Moroccans and Genetic studies on Algerians for example. Ideophagous (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not true 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Berbers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 15:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: What is the actual, substantive difference between an "Arabized Berber" and an "Arab-Berber"? It can't be a matter of genetics, because the "Arabized Berber" and the "Arab-Berber" are typically the same generically (mostly being "native" Northwestern African in origin). It can't be a matter of linguistics, since because the "Arabized Berber" and the "Arab-Berber" are Arabic-speaking practically by definition. It can't be a matter of history, since both the very concepts of the "Arabized Berber" and "Arab-Berber" are entirely the products of the Arab invasions of Northwest Africa, and could never have existed prior to such an event.
There isn't any, making "Arabized Berber" an entirely redundant article. Its redundancy is even more apparent when you compare the two concepts to the idea of the "Magrebhi (Arab)", which, given the history of the region, one can argue to include populations whose ancestral origins have nothing to do with the Northwestern Africans proper. TolidoDido (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the other unsourced article (full of WP:OR) that should either be deleted or merged with this one. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the merger going the other way around too. TolidoDido (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking for this to be merged with the article "Arab-Berber"