Talk:Berbers

Berbers do not view the term ‘Berber’ as pejorative

I'm back from two weeks in Morocco, half of it spent with Berbers in the high Atlas. I booked a tour with a Berber-owned company—our driver, all guides, and every hotel, shop, and restaurant were Berber-owned. They introduced themselves as Berbers. Some also said Amazigh—but in absolutely no way did they view Berber as a pejorative term. Please delete the sentence that is cited by footnote 54, which is apparently academic BS. ~2026-25856-3 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Re: the sentence that 'Berber' is viewed as pejorative by many who prefer 'Amazigh' — that's currently sourced to Maddy-Weitzman's *The Berber Identity Movement and the Challenge to North African States* (University of Texas Press, 2011), which is about as solid as WP:RS gets on this topic. (Footnote numbers shift over time, so the one you cited may have moved, but the sourcing on the sentence itself is strong.)

Travel experience is interesting but it isn't how Wikipedia decides content — WP:RS and academic consensus are. There's a substantial, sourced literature on the etymology of 'Berber' (from Greek *barbaroi*, with present equivalence to the Arabic word for 'barbarian') and on the increasing preference for 'Amazigh' ('free people') among the community and its scholars. That individual Amazigh people you met in Morocco use 'Berber' in conversation isn't in tension with any of that — exonyms are commonly used by their subjects, especially with outsiders, without that constituting an endorsement of the term's etymology. Calling the source 'academic BS' isn't a basis for removal under WP policy; if you want to challenge the sentence, the path is to bring contrary reliable sources, not a trip report. ~~~~ QuietLantern (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2026

I request for Copts to be added to the See also section, since Copts are North Africans too. ~2026-96055-3 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: That article is not sufficiently related to this one. Day Creature (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2026

I request for the main title of the article to be moved to Amazigh or Imazighen as well as moving the term Berber to the end of the listing in the beginning of the article according to Wikipedia:NPOV, I feel that using an exonym for this article which has its roots in ignorance and is often perceived as a pejorative is antithetical to the NPOV policy.

this is my first time making a request on a protected page and my intentions are to improve the article, please AGF if you see a fault in my reasoning, I am on this website to learn so I am more than open to constructive criticism :) Hackerman654 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hackerman654: I agree that the title should be Amazigh or Imazighen. From what I am seeing it's what's used by the people themselves, and berber is an external term stemming from the word barbarus = barbarian. Personal anecdote, in my college history classes the term Amazigh was used, so I suppose academia is also increasingly using it. There is a case to use "Berber" historically as it is not always viewed as pejorative or viewed as so by every Amazigh, but there really is no reason not to use the preferred word.--CarthageMapleSyrup (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

We use common name for titles. Masterhatch (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I read this in that article:

"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:

-Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later

-Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious"

I feel as though "Berber" is a (arguably pejorative) colloquialism, when there is a far more encyclopedic alternative; 'Amazigh' or 'Imazighen'...

I hope this makes sense, if you still disagree I would love to read you arguments for keeping "Berber" in favor of this arguably far more academic alternative..

with love,

Hackerman654 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Correct, and even when these two particularly "concerned" editors (no need to name them) argue that "Wikipedia prefers the most common term/with most results", they fail to argue why the article on the formerly named "Eskimo languages" had been titled "Inuit languages" for a very long time, despite the term "Inuit" being specific to one subgroup withing the family and being Eskimo the most commonly used term up to that time. Obviously it was a matter of sensible correction using a term preferred by the people themselves. Same with "Romani people", which was universally applied to the whole macro-group and the article itself doesn't have any initial clarification that Gypsy was the formerly most known term for the people (and despite the fact that the Spanish Gypsies completely ignoring the term since they aren't part of the Romani group, because they are Calo and simply call themselves Gypsies). Again, it is an acceptable correction up to date with modern standards.

Amazigh in favour of Berber is the same case and matter. But obviously those editors don't care about other cases, because they have a stance to lobby for and push regarding North Africa, as their edit history demonstrates. And the fact that some completely neutral editors give them a pat on the back and defend their position with the same disdainful tone as them is quite appalling... ~2026-18597-73 (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Which is it? Amazigh or Imazighen? Gotta pick one or the other. And as far as i can tell, neither are common in English. As for Roma and Inuit, those were reasonably common in English and Gypsy and Eskimo were viewed by a large audience as derogatory. While I think a lot of people know barbarian came from Berbers, just like vandalism from the Vandals, i can't agree that a large audience of people view Berbers as derogatory. That said, this edit request is the wrong format for a name change. May i suggest Wikipedia:Requested moves? Go there, follow the steps and see what the community has to say. Masterhatch (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

"Imazighen" is the plural, so "Amazigh" works better as an adapted borrowing. That's how it's already being used extensively in the English language (pretty much at the same level as Inuit and Roma were only 20 years ago, no they weren't that "reasonably common").

"Barbarian" doesn't come from "Berber", but the other round.

"i can't agree that a large audience of people view Berbers as derogatory." Well, that's a matter of perception, maybe not quite up to date. Almost every journalistic article and video on YouTube these days treating the subject of "Berbers" will consistently clarify the etymology of the term and use "Amazigh" alternatively. The total audience of this media is a lot of people indeed.

"i can't agree that a large audience of people view Berbers as derogatory." So the sum of Amazigh speakers that know of the term's usage and meaning aren't enough, plus all the non-Amazigh that also know about the issue? Do you need a study, a survey, a definite number? ~2026-18671-56 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Do a move request. Masterhatch (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: give the terminology discussion more prominence in the lead

The note that 'Berber' is viewed as pejorative by many who prefer 'Amazigh' currently sits in the fourth paragraph of the lead, after a long passage on medieval dynasties. Given how much article body content is dedicated to the terminology question (etymology section, identity movement section, the citation cluster around the exonym/'barbarian' equivalence), I think the lead is underweighting it relative to WP:LEAD, which says the lead should proportionally summarize key article content. Proposed change: move the terminology sentence into the first or second paragraph of the lead, and expand it slightly to include (a) the etymology from Greek barbaroi / Arabic 'barbarian,' and (b) the fact that 'Amazigh' is the community's endonym with attested ancient usage. Roughly:

Berbers, also known as Amazigh (sing.) or Imazighen (pl.), are an ethnic group indigenous to North Africa. The exonym 'Berber' derives from Greek barbaroi and shares a root with the Arabic word for 'barbarian'; many in the community view the term as pejorative and prefer the endonym 'Amazigh' ('free people'), which is attested in antiquity and is now standard in academic and official use in Algeria and Morocco.

This is purely an editorial weighting change — no new claims, all sourced to material already in the article. Open to wording suggestions. QuietLantern (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to reordering some of the information. However, I do not think your suggested lead is an improvement. The name controversy is important, but it is not the first thing a reader needs to know. Your proposed lead gives it too much weight. lankdadank (chat) 12:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair point — re-reading my draft, I agree it front-loads the terminology debate before the reader has a sense of who the Amazigh actually are. Let me offer a lighter version: keep paragraph 1 essentially as is, and just move the existing pejorative-note sentence up from paragraph 4 to paragraph 2, with a short etymology half-clause. Something like:

[Paragraph 1 unchanged: 'Berbers, also known as Amazigh or Imazighen, are an ethnic group indigenous to North Africa...' through the geography sentence.]

Many in the community view the exonym 'Berber' — which shares a root with the Arabic word for 'barbarian' — as pejorative, and prefer the endonym 'Amazigh' ('free people').

That's essentially just a reorder of material already in the lead, plus a six-word etymology clause, rather than the heavier rewrite I originally proposed. Does that address the weighting concern? QuietLantern (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it could be worth including in the lead. However, you should be careful with the exact wording. It does not just "share a root" with the Arabic word for "barbarian", they are the same word in Arabic: بربر. Also, the etymology of "noble/free" is disputed, so it should perhaps not be included in the lead but stay in the "Name" section. The paragraph also does not necessarily need to be moved, it can stay in both locations. lankdadank (chat) 12:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

All three of those are good corrections — thank you, I really appreciate your feedback.

You're right that it's the same word in Arabic, not just a shared root; that's actually a stronger version of the point than I had. And fair on dropping the 'free people' gloss — the article itself flags that translation as disputed, so it shouldn't appear in the lead as if settled. Keeping the existing paragraph-4 treatment in place and just adding a brief mention earlier also works for me; the two can do different jobs.

Revised proposal, then — add this short sentence to paragraph 2 (or end of paragraph 1), leave paragraph 4 untouched:

Many in the community view the exonym 'Berber' — identical to the Arabic word for 'barbarian' (بربر) — as pejorative, and prefer the endonym 'Amazigh.'

Workable? QuietLantern (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I would be okay with including there as long as it does not interrupt the flow. lankdadank (chat) 14:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Making sure it doesn't interrupt the flow makes sense to me. I'll place it so it follows naturally from the identification and language sentences in Paragraph 1. Will make the edit shortly and link this discussion in the edit summary. Thanks for working through this with me. QuietLantern (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and integrating the terminology note! I originally placed it at the end of the first paragraph because I felt it flowed naturally right after the mention of the language family, setting up the context immediately.

I noticed you moved it to the second paragraph (apologise I duplicated the work not realising you moved it). Could you share your thoughts on the structural reasoning for placing it there? I am always looking to better understand how to flow these lead sections, so I'd appreciate your perspective! QuietLantern (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I moved it because the first paragraph should focus on who the Berbers are and what defines them (ethnicity, language). lankdadank (chat) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see! Thanks for taking the time to explain your thought process! Do we not need to cite it? QuietLantern (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Updating terminology from "Berber" to "Amazigh" in the article body

Following up on the recent consensus to add a terminology note to the lead, I propose updating the terminology throughout the rest of the article body. Specifically, we should transition from using the exonym "Berber" to the preferred endonym "Amazigh", using "Imazighen" for the plural.

From a structural perspective, this change makes sense for the article's flow. Now that the opening paragraph explicitly introduces "Amazigh" as the preferred endonym and notes the pejorative nature of the older term, shifting to "Amazigh" for the subsequent sections creates a much more cohesive and logical reading experience.

I expect WP:COMMONNAME will be part of this discussion. While "Berber" has historically been the most prevalent term in older English literature, the landscape of reliable sources is actively shifting. WP:COMMONNAME requires us to look at contemporary usage, and modern academic literature, journalism, and institutional sources are increasingly adopting "Amazigh". For example, the Society for Linguistic Anthropology has explicitly advocated for this terminology shift due to the pejorative history of the exonym. Major academic reference works like Brill's Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics use "Amazigh", and standard reference works like the Encyclopaedia Britannica now actively integrate "Amazigh" alongside historical terms.

Rigidly applying a historical common name when that term is widely recognized as a pejorative exonym conflicts with the encyclopedic goal of maintaining a neutral, objective tone. Updating the body text ensures the article flows naturally from the lead, reflects current scholarly standards, and respects the community's established endonym.

I look forward to hearing what others think about implementing this update. QuietLantern (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)