Talk:Arabized Berber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

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)

I do, being in the family, the article is bizarre. collounsbury 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

This article is a load of shit, it really needs rearrangements. (Toira 10:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Revision or Merge

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)

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)