Talk:Algeria

Terminology of Algeria and Algiers

I think the § Name and § Etymology sections are okay as far as they go, but they don't go nearly far enough. Two basic facts must be explained in this section:

1. the term Algiers (that is, the term derived from الجزائر" (Al-Jazā'ir)) goes back to the Middle Ages, while the term Algeria (derived from the French Algerie) dates back only to colonial times; and:
2. while English and French (and other languages) have two distinct words for Algiers and Algeria, Arabic does not, and الجزائر" (Al-Jazā'ir) is the term used to denote both the capital, and the country. Usually, context is sufficient to distinguish them.

There may be more, and I'm no expert on these matters, but these are basic facts about terms central to this article (and to the Algiers article, which also fails to explain them) that need to be described here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Algeria/Algerie is not only from the colonial period, but the name was 'francized' by the French from Algeria. The term existed long before. Riad Salih (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Riad for pointing to that source. I forget where I heard about it coming from colonial times, but it spoke about usage in French (first) and English in colonial times in the early 19th century; I don't believe it mentioned the earlier Latin roots. The Latin source also uses the term Algeria for the city, as Arabic does, and doesn't mention any separate word for the region. Other terms for the city mentioned in the first paragraph are Algira, Algerium, Argyria, and Geseir (clearly their romanization for the Arabic الجزائر less the al- particle); adding "We call this city Algira" (hanc vrbem nos Algiram vocamus). One interesting tidbit I learned from it was the claim that it was founded by the "Mesgana family". I added a discussion about this at Talk:Algiers because that article never mentions the name at all.

Coming back to the origin question: the part of the origin story I haven't found yet, is how the French picked up the Latin term, using it for a new meaning. Interestingly, the online OED does not have an entry for Algeria; they do have one for Algerian, but not Algeria:

OED entry for Algerian

Information from Summary and Etymology tabs from OED online entry for Algerian; may require login. From proper names, combined with English elements. Etymons: proper name Alger, Algiers, ‑ian suffix; proper name Algeria, ‑an suffix. Partly (originally) < †Alger (although this is apparently first attested slightly later in an English context: 1585), †Algier, †Arger, †Argier, variants of Algiers (Arabic al-Jazā'ir, lit. ‘the Islands’, French Alger), the name of a city in North Africa (now the capital of Algeria) and in early use also of the territory controlled by it + ‑ian suffix; and partly (in later use) < Algeria (1575 in an English context), originally another name of the territory controlled by the city of Algiers, now the name of an independent country in North Africa (named after the city; Arabic al-Jazā'ir, French Algérie) + ‑an suffix. Compare French algérien (1575 or earlier as noun). Notes The name of the city (and hence the country) in Arabic is al-Jazā'ir < al the + jazā'ir, broken plural of jazīra island, so called on account of four former islands off the shore of the city, which became part of the mainland in the 16th cent. Forms of the place name beginning in Ar- and their derivatives (compare the β forms) are apparently the result of assimilation in European languages. Algiers and its sphere of influence along the coast were part of the Ottoman Empire from 1516 from to 1830. This territory and a large part of the adjacent desert subsequently came under French rule and were known in French as Algérie française. Algeria gained independence in 1962. Compare the following earlier references to the name of the city in English contexts: 1545 The emperour his maiestie him selfe, at the Citie of Argier in Aphricke had h[is] hooste sore handeled wyth the Turkes arrowes. R. Ascham, Toxophilus i. f. 36vCitation details for R. Ascham, Toxophilus 1549 His notable seruice in themperours affaires (as in his viages to Tunise and Algier). W. Thomas, Historie of Italie f. 187Citation details for W. Thomas, Historie of Italie

The Dictionnaire de l’Académie française has this definition of algérien (also no Algérie, which I now believe is because they don't include proper names, which the adjectival form is technically not; that may explain the OED content as well, and both may have a geographical dictionary where they have that content, but I haven't found them, yet. My go-to source for French etymology is CNRTL, and they have attestations of algérien to 1792 (link), where it had the meaning of "someone from Algiers" until 1892, when algerois became the demonym for the city, and my guess is that that's when algerien started to be the dominant meaning for someone from the region, although CNRTL doesn't make this claim. This would make sense, as one of the demonymic suffixes for cities ending in -er is +ien (-ienne fem.), however rules of French demonym formation are complex, and there are many other forms (Tangerois, Vancouverois, Rochestérien, Lancastrien, Hanovrien, Exonien < Exeter, Mancunien < Manchester, etc.) so Algerien for someone from Algiers is a possible usage, which, (I speculate), became confusing by the end of the 19th c. when they were dealing with the larger region of N. Africa, and relegated Algerois as the city demonym (another legitimate suffix) and Algerien for the region. Just my theory, but seems reasonable, and I'd love to find a source somewhere to disentangle all of this.

One other interesting side issue is the confusion in English about the demonym for Algiers. Some sources just say it's Algerian, and I've seen Algerine (but mostly in older sources). For Tangiers it's Tangerian, and that suffers no such ambiguity, because there's no country "Tangeria". Reminds me a little bit of the confusion in English about the demonym for "Niger": with no good answer in English, we fall back to French, and even so, there's no agreement whether it's Nigerien or Nigerois in English (the NYT apparently switched to the latter in 2011, and M-W lists both currently). Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2024

change ethnics group arab 85% berber 25% to arab-berber 99% european less than 1% .

according to the source cited ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The source says that only 15% of the population identifies as Berber. Skitash (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think i don't see the same source as you,can you please give me the actual source ? 105.109.176.241 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The source I'm referring to is the source you're alluding to. Skitash (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

here's the information I got from reading the source (2021 and 2024 versions):

"

Ethnic groups: Arab-Berber 99%, European less than 1%.

note : -almost all Algerians are Berber in origin (not Arab)

-only a minority identify themselves as primarily Berber,about 15%

" ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The last line is your answer. That's exactly what I said. Skitash (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

can you please tell me why they choose the second sentences from the note,and not the fist line that (Ethnic groups...)? ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Simply because there is no such thing as an Arab-Berber. The very definition of such concept is unsourced (just take a look at Arab-Berber). Most sources agree that Arabs constitute 75 to 85% of the population while Berbers compose 15 to 25%. Skitash (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that they should remplace the source that mention that "such a thing" by the "most sources that agree". ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a point in doing so given that the CIA source already states what people identify as but you may take a look at the sources in Algeria#Ethnic groups if you're interested. Skitash (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion,they need to provide a different source that say specificaly what is will be written in the page.or if they can't,include all the informations in the source (no selection of informations) to avoid cofusion. ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"there is no such thing as an Arab-Berber"

Please provide the source for your claim.

Source that contradicts your claim: Ethnic groups Mystrixo ✉️ 23:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed,genetics studies points more towards an heterogenecity of the algerian population (and the north african population in general) than to a clear distinction of arabs and berbers.so,Arab-Berber 99% is more realistic. ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024

~~HDI in algeria is 0.790

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Skitash (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024

Remove "French" from "Other languages".

It has no official status and isn't native to the region. It is merely a remnant of colonialism and isn't even widely used in the country. Please remove this to prevent readers from thinking French has any significance in Algeria. Kurdish Elf (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources cited in Algeria#Languages and French language in Algeria say otherwise. Do you have alternative reliable sources that refute these claims? Liu1126 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That “source” is the francophonie organization. Of course they would have a vested interest in making as many countries as possible seem francophone. The reality is that no one in Algeria uses French or speaks it natively. Time to let go of old colonial contexts and have the article apply to the current day. Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You are evading my question; the burden is upon you to use reliable sources to demonstrate that French is not commonly used in Algeria. Claiming that a source is biased also does not preclude its usage to support material; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources for more information. Finally, there are numerous other reliable sources in French language in Algeria, such as the articles from the CIA World Factbook, the Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government, and the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use, just to name a few. Do you claim that all these sources are also unreliable? Liu1126 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do. These sources are all going off the assumption that Algeria is a post-colonial Francophone nation like its southern neighbours when it’s much, much closer to Morocco in reality. Notice how none of those sources are actual Algerian sources, but rather outside sources that have very little contact with Algeria.

The Morocco article has French under the “Foreign Languages” section because that’s a much more accurate description of the French language in the country (and in North Africa as a whole for that matter).

Now you can keep pushing falsehoods under the guise of biased French-language sources, but French is nothing more than a foreign language in Algeria and sees no wide use at all. The Morocco and Tunisia articles both have this information correct. I can tell this is out of your area of knowledge. Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to categorically dispute the reliability of all these sources, you are welcome to start a discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. On the other hand, you have yet to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Liu1126 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not an official language in Algeria, currently considered of lesser importance and government undertook several measures to depromote it, French has no reason to be anywhere other than "Other languages" in the infobox. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This is the issue that arises when country articles are overtaken by outsiders. They’ll regurgitate whatever falsehoods their Eurocentric sources tell them despite people from that very country proving them false.

French is not widely spoken in Algeria. Not even remotely despite what the “francophonie” (a literal propaganda org) tries to tell you. Kurdish Elf (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Back up the claim that French is foreign to Algeria? Do you also want a source backing up the claim that Japanese is foreign to Algeria? Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

My response was to the suggestion to entirely remove French from the infobox; I have no objection to list it under a separate section similar to the Morocco article infobox, as long as it is still acknowledged in the article that it sees significant usage in the country. If I am to take your satirical question seriously, the answer is no, because there are no existing sources saying that Japanese is widely used in Algeria, unlike the situation about French. Liu1126 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That change is the best compromise I think. It should be listed under "Foreign Languages" like it is for the Moroccco and Tunisia articles. This makes the most sense, because the French language in Algeria plays exactly the same role it does in Morocco and Tunisia.

Also, French is NOT widely spoken in Algeria. Not even remotely. Take it from someone who has actually been there and not Eurocentric francophone sources that have a political interest in portraying French as an international language. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Skitash. As for the latter part of your comment, what I've said above still applies; we have no way to verify who you are, and even if we could, individuals are rarely considered reliable sources anyway. Unfortunately, until published reliable sources have been found that state the contrary, like what I believe Mystrixo is trying to do below, it's unlikely that anything will change on Wikipedia about the use of the French language in Algeria. Liu1126 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Take it from someone who has actually been there I know for a fact that you assertions are baseless. M.Bitton (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you say. I won’t argue about a country with someone who has never set foot in said country. Kurdish Elf (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no valid reason given for the proposed removal. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

How is the language literally not being spoken in the country “no valid reason”?

Why not do what the Morocco article does and include French in a “Foreign Languages” section along with Spanish, English and whatever languages other colonial languages you want to include?

It being included with Algerian Arabic gives the false impression that they are equally spoken when in reality nearly everyone speaks Algerian Arabic but barely anyone speaks French in daily life. Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

they should be include both on foreign languages (French and Arabic) as they are both remanants of a recent and an old colonialism respectively ,by your reasoning. ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

and what M.Bitton is asking you is to provide reliables sources to your claims ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A RECENT COLONIALISM IN ALGERIA ?!!!

Please elaborate! Mystrixo ✉️ 22:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

the french colonialism (1830-1962) ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake 😂, I assumed you were referring to a current colonization that is still going on. Mystrixo ✉️ 00:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Arabic has been spoken in Algeria for over 1400 years and is the mother tongue of the majority today. French was spoken for 100 years by colonialists who don’t even live there anymore.

What a false equivalency that is. Kurdish Elf (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Its the same subject(replacing a language with another one ),Arabization has succeeded when Francization failed,it in that and only that that i see the equivalence. ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The aim is not to put down languages, the languages spoken by algerians (darja,kabyle,chaoui...) are a witness of all the colonization ,for example, the darja with a clear arab and punic base(arab and carthage colonization) borrows a lot from turkish,spain,berber and french languages and should be differntiated from the french language.

if we talk about what you see instead of using sources,I live in Algeria and french is present,talked and used. ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Lmao. You think elder people inserting a French word here and there in their Arabic/Amazigh sentences somehow makes them French speakers? I guarantee you those people would not be able to function in an actual French-speaking country. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What valid reasons are not reasoning with you? French is not an official language, whether it is spoken by a small group or not, so what more is there to discuss?! Mystrixo ✉️ 22:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not included as an official language ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There are reasons, I will provide them in the next reply, powerful reason from the Algerian Government Gazette.

But eve so ,what about this, then, using French, an unofficial language, in an English article about Algeria: French

MEANWHILE...

Tamazight, which is official, was removed from the article: Tamazight, I got banned for 72 hours for reverting an obvious edit that day, isn't it, M.Bitton !

Your allegation and source were: "The transcription of Tamazight in the Tifinagh alphabet is not codified.", with a non-reliable source about a personal opinion written by HAFID AZZOUZI in El Wattan Press. Mystrixo ✉️ 23:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right about the inclusion of French in the english wikipedia (they should delete it) , and all my edits to include tamazight were reverted for the same reason as you.

for the Algerian Government Gazette,the reasons are obvious and justified no need to clarify it.

but we are talking about sources and they are credible. ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Create a “foreign languages” section and move it there like the Morocco article does.

Including French in other languages along with Algerian Arabic makes it seem like they see equal usage which is false. Kurdish Elf (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You'are right,Creating a “foreign languages” section is the best solution. ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Citing credible, reliable sources, I mention and incorporate:

• Algeria Facts | Britannica
• People's Democratic Republic of Algeria - Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Community Abroad > About Algeria
• GECF - Algeria People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (Member)
• Algeria Constitution - Algeria Government Gazette - PDF format (Article 3 and 4)

Mystrixo ✉️ 23:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources that you provided are credible and reliable sources,they say that the official langauges of Algeria are : Arabic and Tamazight.

but they don't contadict the other credible and reliable sources that says that french is spoken and used in Algeria. ⴽⵓⵙⴰⵢⵍⴰ (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Even Spanish is widely used in the U.S.A., but it's not included in the article United States. Mystrixo ✉️ 23:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Don’t you find it contradictory that French is included then? It’s a colonial language that hasn’t had any importance since 1962. Kurdish Elf (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, @Kurdish Elf, but we need to include credible sources that contradict other sources.

I believe I am very close to finding it, and I am 100% positive about it.

Until then, let's Assume good faith.

However, this needs to be taken out for the French that is in Article. Mystrixo ✉️ 00:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking to remove French altogether, but rather to simply include it under "Foreign Languages" like the Morocco article is doing. That's literally it. You don't need a source to tell you French is foreign to Algeria just like you don't need one telling you Korean and Swedish are foreign to Algeria. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree with removing the French name of the country from the article. It makes as much sense as having it in Korean or Swahili, lol.

Imagine how people would react if you added the Arabic name for France in the France article. Post-colonial orientalist double standards are alive and well. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, these are not trustworthy sources; if I am not correct, do point me in the direction of some.

Next to that, but they don't contadict the other credible and reliable sources, which is correct in the event that reliable sources are given,

and do not contradict the Algerian Government Gazette, which I have seen several years ago,

has an instruction to refrain from using any other foreign language in any field.

Until that time, I would want to reprint it here whenever I locate it. Mystrixo ✉️ 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking to remove French altogether, but rather to simply include it under "Foreign Languages" like the Morocco article is doing. That's literally it. You don't need a source to tell you French is foreign to Algeria just like you don't need one telling you Korean and Swedish are foreign to Algeria. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Plus, Please do not bite the newcomers. Mystrixo ✉️ 02:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, Here is the link to the Algerian Government Gazette article on Law No. 91-50, which was published on January 16, 1996: Article 4.

It declares that only Arabic must be used; Tamazight was added subsequently when it was made official.

There is no mention of French in reputable sources, official government rules, or laws.

French should be included separately on the Algeria article and taken out of the Infobox,

since it is still solely used as a lingua franca and not as an official language or vernacular.

Additionally, take off French: République algérienne démocratique et populaire, abbreviated as RADP,

Heavens knows where you got the acronym; I assumed it was referring to the Regional Agricultural Development Program.

There are no more good reasons & excuses required. Mystrixo ✉️ 02:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially since there are plenty of sources showing that there is significant usage of French in Algeria, regardless of purpose. The current compromise of listing French separately in the infobox adequately shows is unusual status; I don't see why it should be completely expunged from the infobox.

Regarding your second point, may I point you towards the French versions of the websites of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Defence, as examples? The name "République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire" is quite prominently displayed on these government sites. Liu1126 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It is displayed as per lingua franca, nothing official about French. Mystrixo ✉️ 03:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we then use this to incorporate Tamazight? Algeria Telecom, since it was removed from the Name section. Mystrixo ✉️ 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you want to add? M.Bitton (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's up to me to decide whether I want to add, remove, edit and exist.

I tried so hard, I assumed good faith and stayed polite, but what makes you think you are the only one responsible on editing Algeria article? isn't it the free encyclopedia? What makes you think I will not assume bad faith after this treatment we are facing and get bold ? Why is it annoying you when we remove anything about french even though it's unsourced or add Tamazight ? who appointed you the guardian of Algeria page? nobody is able to edit anymore, and you make threaten editors by warring and warnings, what is this ? some kind of béton armé? god ! Mystrixo ✉️ 04:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Liu1126 Why don't we add English to foreign languages? Algeria Telecom English, I am just trying to use your own reasoning right? Mystrixo ✉️ 04:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

My response was to show that the French name of the country wasn't conjured out of thin air, as you were suggesting. The actual usage of French in Algeria is attested by the multitude of sources that we have repeatedly discussed here. Regardless of its role as a lingua franca or otherwise, its significant usage makes it deserve its special mention in the article. Please actually make an effort to use reliable sources that explicitly support your claims that French is not widely used in Algeria to back up your viewpoints (like I said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; the fact that some government documents don't use French doesn't mean that French isn't used in Algeria), instead of using logical arguments to try to catch other editors out on technicalities. Liu1126 (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think Spanish qualifies as a foreign language even if it is widely spoken in the United States, according to this article United States? But it is not included in the Infobox in any sort. Mystrixo ✉️ 12:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that you acknowledge the validity of the sources both of you and M.Béton, provided for the French information in the Infobox,

let us also insert English as per your sources:

Ministry of Defence, In light of your arguments and those of M.Béton,

this can be regarded as a trustworthy source. The Infobox should also list English under Foreign Languages.

In addition, we can use the same source you gave, Prime Minister,

to undo M. Béton's modification, which eliminated Tamazight from the article's Name section.

Should we continue using that reasoning? Mystrixo ✉️ 12:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You are still failing to understand my comment. I'm not using those websites to show that French is widely used in Algeria; that has been sufficiently shown by the other sources. For Spanish in the US, only about a tenth of the US population speaks Spanish, whereas sources state that between half to two-thirds of the Algerian population speak or understand French; the two are not comparable. The issue of Tamazight was discussed multiple times in the past, as seen in Archive 3. You should start a different thread if you want to discuss it, as the problem is very different from the one at hand here.

In any case, I advise you to stop these WP:POINTY lines of reasoning; they are not being of any help other than artificially prolonging this argument. You are welcome to bring this issue to other venues for discussion, but I don't see this thread being productive anymore. Liu1126 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not failing at anything, you just said that those websites are considered as reliable sources, M.Béton confirmed that.

As for Spanish in the US

41 Million speaker.

But that's not the case, just by looking at the chart above, we can clearly see what widely used means.

The problem of Tamazight is related since you provided a source that includes the Tamazight transcription of Algeria's Name.

I did not want to bring that up if it was not because of WP:PA on me by M.Béton made in a revert edit comment and I quote Read the cited sources on the TP or find yourself another hobby

Even that I was assuming good faith.

I am not illustrating a point, I clearly said provide Reliable sources,

I agree, I don't see it productive either ! Mystrixo ✉️ 13:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The source about Spanish speakers in the US are censuses. These numbers are very accurate.

In the case of French in Algeria, the sources are biased francophone organizations that are creating estimations out of thin air. Anyone who has set foot in Algeria can attest that these numbers are ridiculous. Claims that 2/3s of Algerians speaking French are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts by post-colonial institutions to make French appear as an “international language” (which it stopped being long ago). Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding expunged from the Infobox, I did not state that the entire of it must be removed from the whole article.

Please let me know how many times we should reiterate that French is used in Algeria,

to be sufficient ? French everywhere in the article,

I stated that it should be enough to mention it in the article's Language section; why does it need to be included in every word?

The disruptive reverts made by M.Béton to Tamazight, one of the official languages in opposition to French, are what really drives me crazy!

That is blatantly unjust. Mystrixo ✉️ 12:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mystrixo: did you read the above official sources? M.Bitton (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Since I am still operating on the premise that I am acting in good faith, could you kindly supply the official source that you are referring to? Mystrixo ✉️ 03:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking me to read Liu1126's comment for you? It's just above mine. Take all the time you need to read it. M.Bitton (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

But this is an English Wikipedia, it's not right to include French in every angle of the article, French is not official,

and an Algerian website using French is not a reliable source, please understand what reliable means. Mystrixo ✉️ 03:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Since it has become incredibly difficult to make edits in Algeria, as you can see, fellow editors,
even though we wanted to remove French from an English article about Algeria consensually,
it does not even matter to provide reliable sources.
Probably, I will listen to M. Bitton since he told me to go and find another hobby,
even though I assumed good faith but this failed. I think I give up. Mystrixo ✉️ 03:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t. We need people who are knowledgeable about the country to make edits.

If it was up to Mr.Bitton, the article would probably have Korean spellings of all the names in the article since, you know, it’s not listed as an official language and all. Kurdish Elf (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it is wildly off. French is indeed not official (only Arabic and Berber are) but as far as foreign languages go, Algeria has more French speakers than any other country in the world except for France itself, and the Dem. Rep. Congo (some sources say Algeria is #2 after only France in number of speakers). About one third of the country speaks French (15 million speakers)—no other foreign language in Algeria comes anywhere close to that. And even though it is not official, French is also used in government, and in higher education. Mathglot (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Untrue. These numbers are estimations, and not based on censuses. Literally no one knows for sure how many people in Algeria speak French, but the vast majority of those that do (if not all) are non-native speakers, meaning that French is a second or third language for them. Francophonie numbers are not to be taken seriously because the whole point of that organization is to promote French as an international language (which it really isn't).

Also, Algeria replaced French with English in higher education about 2 years ago. The government has never officially used French since it was created in 1962. I would know, I am of Algerian descent and dealt with their bureaucracy while not knowing Arabic (they offer absolutely zero services in French). Kurdish Elf (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024

41.109.9.48 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Human development index score of Algeria is 0.790

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The most recent UN report clearly states that Algeria's HDI is 0.745. Liu1126 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hdi in algeria

Human development index score of Algeria is 0.790 41.109.9.48 (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024 (2)

Remove the French name for the country from the article: https://imgur.com/0uz4auQ

French has no official status in Algeria and is a foreign language. Having the name in French makes about as much sense as having it in Tibetan or Swedish. Kurdish Elf (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Note: This edit request is related to the discussion above. Liu1126 (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Liu, please understand that there are multiple Algerians who have called out M.Bitton for holding back our edit suggestions to remove French names from the article. Algeria is an Arabic and Amazigh-speaking Muslim country. French has no place in the article. It is not an official language and the French spellings aren’t the way we call ourselves or our country.

Something really needs to be done, because this inconsistency is not only jarring, but it also opens the door to including unrelated languages in other country articles (Swedish name for Japan in the Japan article for example). Kurdish Elf (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kurdish Elf, this is probably the last time I intend to participate in this affair, so here are my final comments for you:

As I said before, individuals are almost never considered reliable sources. Even if I believe that you are an Algerian (which I have no way of verifying; you may be from Turkey, Canada, or even the Moon from what I know), you cannot be considered a reliable source on anything, Algeria related or otherwise, just like I wouldn't be considered a reliable source for anything about my own home country.

If you and your compatriots really want to advocate for this cause, you have many other avenues to achieve this. Write newspaper articles, petition the government, publish research papers; all these will eventually reflect in Wikipedia, but the current situation shown in reliable sources does not support your claims, and directly pushing your point of view here on Wikipedia won't lead to anything.

I strongly advise that you carefully read Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy and Reliable Sources Guideline, linked in this sentence. You will benefit from knowledge of these policies and guidelines in future discussions. Good luck. Liu1126 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Like how you purposely avoided the issue at hand in favour of regurgitating stuff that has nothing to do with the suggested edits. Sources won’t do anything here. The edit is about REMOVING French names from the articles, not about adding information, which would obviously need to be backed up by valid sources. You don’t seem to grasp this concept.

Furthermore, your own sources contradict what you’re saying. French is not an official language of Algeria so why translate every country/city name in the article to French? That would be like translating every Chinese name in the China article to Japanese since, you know, the Japanese occupied China in the past. But you know just as well as I do that would be a ridiculous change.

Lastly, your suggestion about publishing papers and pressuring governments just so a power-tripping wikipedia user lets you make an edit is peak comedy. I won’t even address that ludicrous statement. Kurdish Elf (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to get consensus support, and at this point you know what you have to do to get that: provide sources. You can either do that or WP:DROPTHESTICK. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Provide sources to remove French names in an article about an Arabic country?

How do you do that exactly? Is there a source that says that wikipedia shouldn't use foreign language names of countries in said countries' articles? Kurdish Elf (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no valid reason given for the proposed deletion: 1) the article doesn't describe it as an official language. 2) the comparison with Swedish makes no sense whatsoever. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why is the French name in the article if it’s not an official language?

1) Would you be opposed to adding the Japanese name for the country since it’s also not described as an official language in the article.

2) Not a comparison, but an analogy. One that flew right over your head. Kurdish Elf (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You are wasting your time; find another article to edit. Algeria article is reserved for tête de béton and his companions. Mystrixo ✉️ 20:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s almost maddening that country articles are fully controlled by outsiders with zero input from people who actually live in these countries. The dismissal of our valid suggestions in favour of those of outsiders doesn’t help either. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia, you've got to work within the system and the policies we have. No one gets a pass on following policy, not even people who live in the country in question. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Mr.Bitton dismissed my argument without even understanding it and went based off false assumptions. He then proceeded to ignore my replies to his concerns and instead accused me of using personal attacks. I assumed good faith on his part, but his behaviour is anything but. Kurdish Elf (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to the non-content-related portion of your comment at your Talk page. This page is an article Talk page, and is to be used for collegial discussion of how best to improve the article. Article improvements are based on neutrally summarizing the content of reliable sources; personal information gained from long residence in, or knowledge of, a country is out of bounds in the article, as we Wikipedia editors are not considered reliable sources, no matter the depth of our knowledge. Indeed, our own knowledge and experience with a topic is what Wikipedia calls "WP:Original research", and original research is forbidden in Wikipedia articles. Please confine follow-up discussion on this page to discussion about improving the article. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Off-topic discussion may be collapsed or removed. Mathglot (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

English in Algeria

@Mathglot Hi, i don't think English is on the same level as Spanish, German and Russian in Algeria, English is being heavily promoted, it's equally spoken in the domains you listed, but still not at the same extent as French, which is gradually leaving its place for English. English is considered of higher importance than French in Algeria at the moment, so i support adding English and French as Foreign languages, both are thaught in earlier stages at school. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick research can provide the answer. Anyone can check the academic papers available in ASJPT to read about the linguistic landscape in Algeria. English is also used in the government, similar to French, and in the media and with the new generation in society. If someone disagrees, they must provide evidence to the contrary and present reliable sources. Riad Salih (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This discussion section is about the addition of "English" to the Infobox as one of the "foreign languages" used in Algeria. It was added by User:Riad Salih in revision 1216466920‎ which I reverted, and then reinserted by Riad in this edit.

Template:Infobox country is not very clear about what may be placed in the |languages2= group, but conventionally, foreign languages are one of them and used in other country articles (Lebanon, Morocco) so there is a precedent for that, but there is certainly no description in the template doc of what level of use is required to be included there. The guideline on the lead states that lead material should be a summary of material in the body, and there is nothing about English in the body; the languages section does not mention English even once, and that is the place to start, not in the Infobox, and certainly not with unique information not detailed elsewhere.

You could add something about English to the article in the § Languages section of this article following the model of how minority foreign languages Spanish and English are treated at Morocco#Languages, a country in which, like Algeria, French is vastly more popular and used than any other. Another model for the status of English is at Lebanon#Languages. So please add it to the body first, and then it can be added to the lead.

Your last statement above about disagreement and who must source is mistaken, and is not the policy of Wikipedia. The burden of proof is on you to provide a source for this; unsourced assertions can be removed at any time. (The current explanatory note linking a Wikipedia article is is not a reliable source and therefore insufficient.) If you wish to keep this edit, please add sourced content to the body explaining the use of English in Algeria sufficient to support a claim of use of English widespread enough to support using it in the Infobox. If no source is forthcoming, it will be removed again. See also your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Quickly to answer to this long text, there are hundreds of academic articles available in ASJPT, and English is clearly mentioned in them. Anyone can take the time to read those articles. I am already aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your comment above as well as the edit summary in this revert at your Talk page as a refusal to engage in supporting your edits with citations. Accordingly, I have removed your edit once again. I will not revert a third time, however further insistence on this point will land you at a noticeboard. Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot can you show me where it is mentioned that the infobox according to the manual of styles must have a reference linked to each information in it? As far as I deal with infoboxes, they are used to encapsulating the content, not to source them. Riad Salih (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not a MOS issue (which is only a guideline), but it is a policy issue, explained at WP:Verifiability; see paragraphs one and two there. Also, in the first section, this:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports^[b] the contribution.

As far as your last sentence, you are correct, to an extent. Were there a paragraph in the #Languages section of this article, as I mentioned previously, which described and sourced the content then arguably you would not need a duplicate citation in the Infobox to support it. But, there is no such content in the body of the article. (If contentious material were challenged, you might need to include a duplicate citation in the Infobox anyway, but that is not the case here.) The proper approach is body first, with citations; lead afterward. Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This will be my final reply to you. I will develop the section and restore the edit :

Initially, when you reverted my edit, you mentioned that : English, like Spanish, Russian, and German, is offered in schools and universities but none are widespread, and they don't belong in the Infobox, unlike French with its millions of speakers, as well as being used used in government, media, and higher education,

Your statement relies on personal opinion rather than accurate information, since there is no single source that supports the claim that English is similar to the other languages you named, you just quickly reverted the edit without acknowledging the topic and without proper justification. I can't see Russian or German listed as languages of Algeria, but I do see English.

Then you came up with another personal opinion about how foreign languages should be included in the Infobox and insisted on adding sources there. However, if you have a look at the interwiki link I added, it leads to an article specifically about English in Algeria. So my edit wasn't just some random information out of nowhere, as you're trying to imply, and including sources in the Infobox is not the norm; it's typically done within the body of the article itself.

And to wrap it up, in my opinion, it seems like you checked my contributions, noticed that they are fewer compared to yours, and attempted to intimidate me by directly pasting a misleading edit warning in my talk page. The fact is, I only reverted once and stated my reasons on the talk page, while you haven't participated before in the discussion at all. You went so far as to threaten me with a noticeboard and reverted the edit again, disregarding the ongoing conversation where we haven't reached an agreement yet.

I will continue working on the section about the languages, and if you have anything else to share, please provide reliable linguistic sources. Otherwise, personal opinions don't hold much weight in this talk and refrain from using these techniques that are inconsistent with Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:WikiLove. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no reason to include French but not English when the Algerian government itself operates in English (along with Arabic) but not in French. Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's slow down here ..... We should not be having sections for individual languages.... this is simply not how country articles work. A sentence o or two would be acceptable. Moxy🍁 21:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Moxy

I added a section under construction to prevent edit wars. Once I have completed all the sections, feel free to add your edits. There is already a full article about languages in Algeria, but I am expanding on that part. The linguistic landscape in Algeria is extensive and complex, and cannot be summarized in just a few lines. If you have any additions, please add it here in the talk page or in my draft. But when I'm editing the article and the templates are in place, please refrain from making changes. That is the purpose of those templates. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not the article to have a huge section on one minority laguage.....Languages of Algeria would be better. We should not give WP:UNDUE weight to one language here as outlined at Wikipedia:Main article fixation. Pls look at other counrty articles for an example...Canada, Japan, Germany etc.. Moxy🍁 21:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a large template clearly stating that the section is under construction. I have already begun working on it, and I am aware of the points you mentioned. If you read the talk above, you will have an idea of how it started. Therefore, please refrain from engaging in edit wars. I will add the template again and continue working on the section. Once I am done, you can provide your feedback. Riad Salih (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

As seen by page history ...going to ask you to propose additions here first ...thus far what i am seeing is both Wikipedia:Main article fixation and Wikipedia:Advocacy edits making the section WP:UNDUE. Have you looked at the examples? Moxy🍁 21:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Besides, I'm not really new to Wikipedia, those are basic things. I work using my draft and under construction templates to avoid such cases. This is not the full version, which is why the template mentions using the talk page.

In the end, I will create a shortcut to ensure coherent information and avoid making the language section seem like an article within an article. Riad Salih (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Moxy on this. Riad, please don't misunderstand my views and comments. I am not against adding English, not against you, or anyone else who proposes it. I don't care one way or another what languages are in the Infobox. What I care about is adhering to Wikipedia policy, and unsourced material is non-compliant with WP:Verifiability, and like Moxy says, too much material would be non-compliant with WP:DUEWEIGHT. Per WP:Summary style, the better place to develop your section about English would be at Languages of Algeria, which is the child article, with a summary sentence or two here, in the parent article. If you do that, with appropriate sourcing, nobody is going to oppose that.

One more thing: the {{Under construction}} template is a helpful tool that assists other editors avoid edit conflicts, but it is nothing more than that. In particular, it is not a padlock that gives you control of the article, nor a ban on discussion of it. If someone else wants to work on the article at the same time and risk the edit conflict, or if they wish to comment on the Talk page about it as it happens, they are free to do so; there is no policy or guideline that prevents that. That said, a collegial request might get you a bit of leeway from others to wait for a short while, but the way you phrased it makes it sound like you believe it is locked down and you have the key, and that is not the case. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Believe me, I do understand all of this. When I finish, we can talk about it. Riad Salih (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Great. I forgot to include an example I had in mind in my last comment, namely this one: I don't care that we do or don't include Korandje in the languages section, but I could imagine someone coming here and adding it unsourced and without it appearing in the article body— then, if I reverted it as unsourced, they might get all bent out of shape that I'm a hater of Algerian minority languages or something. Nothing of the kind: all they have to do, is source it properly and include body content (preferably a summary, referring to the child article). But from your last comment, it sounds like you understand my position now. Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I just wanted to express that I didn't appreciate receiving the edit warning. It felt like you were giving me lessons without even allowing me to explain myself before reverting the changes, nothing personal, and I do respect your position.

but @Moxy, I find your attitude very disrespectful. There is a discussion going on, you don't participate and instead force your edits.

You removed sourced content without explanation, even from the infobox. Reverted my edit without letting me finish what I started so we can see the final result, you continue to remove the under construction template from that section without providing any reason. In that section, the information is not based on very reliable linguistic sources.

If this continues, I will open a case in the Administrators' noticeboard in the next few hours regarding this attitude. Riad Salih (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read over WP:BRD. Moxy🍁 06:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's still an explanatory essay, while WP:CIV is a policy. Engaging in discussions always takes priority, no matter what. You're forcing your edits without even suggesting a formulation here. We were engaged in an edit war, which was evident, but anyway, ain't gonna play this back-and-forth game with you for a year, It's just waste of time and energy. Riad Salih (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Your bold edit was moved as per all the linked protocols and conventions above....its that simple. Moxy🍁 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You have no right to make edits without discussion and delete the ones we agreed upon. Just stop it, edit warring will not go in your favour. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2024

Change "French also serves as an administrative and educational language in some contexts, but it has no official status." to "French served as an administrative and educational language in some contexts, but it has no official status and is gradually being replaced by English in administration and education."

Multiple sources show that Algeria has replaced French with English as the language of instruction. This information is therefore out of date and should be changed accordingly.

Sources:

https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4412916-algeria-replace-french-language-english-its-universities https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230705-algeria-to-replace-french-with-english-at-universities/ Kurdish Elf (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: your sources do not support your proposal. M.Bitton (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They literally do. You are just straight up ignoring facts.

French isn't used in education anymore and hasn't been used in administration since 1962. Why not update the article to reflect reality? Kurdish Elf (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Both sources cover a plan to replace French with English at universities, this does not confirm that it is being replaced in education generally. The second source mentions a decision to "start teaching English" in primary schools, it does not say that all instruction will be done in English. Neither source confirms the administration part - the first says the government is shifting to Arabic for correspondence, the second source doesn't mention this at all.

It might be appropriate to add a note about the planned switch to English instruction, but until the transition actually happens we shouldn't be putting French in past tense. Jamedeus (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

French has been replaced in September of 2023 with English as the new language of instruction in higher education. See the first source (https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/4412916-algeria-replace-french-language-english-its-universities).

And you seem to be mistaken, but French (and English for that matter) were never the language of instruction in primary schools. Arabic was (and still is), but they're now putting a greater emphasis on English.

French was never used in primary education, so it should be removed from the article now that it has been replaced by English in higher education. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The government has always used Arabic for correspondence (since its independence, anyway). The claim that the government operates in French is unsubstantiated. French President Macron literally needed translators during his visit to Algeria in August of 2022 (https://www.france24.com/en/video/20220825-replay-macron-gives-joint-press-conference-with-algeria-s-president-tebboune). Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Creating new requests that substantially repeat the same things and toggling obviously answered requests back to unanswered is becoming disruptive. You should not reactive or add a new requests until you get consensus support for you changes. Edit warring over request templates and making personal attacks on other editors will not help you get your preferred changes into the article. MrOllie (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

They’re completely different requests asking to change different parts of the article.

If you don’t like it, don’t respond. You’re not addressing any of the content anyway. Kurdish Elf (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Tamazight name of Algeria

Add Tamazight name of Algeria to Name section.

Reasons:

• Official language of Algeria.
• It is taught in schools in Algeria.
• Used by Imazighens in Algeria.
• There is a Wikipedia for it , prefixe (zgh).
• Tifinagh is part of Unicode Tifinagh (Unicode block).
• Tifinagh is used by the Algerian government, (e.g. Prime minister official website).
• Tifinagh wide use in articles and Algerian press e.g. Algeria Press Service(part of Federation of Arab News Agencies).
• Preprocessing, feature extraction, and classification of Tifinagh characters is present (International Journal of Computer Vision and Image Processing ISSN: 2155-6997).
• Widely used in other Imazighen countries e.g. Morocco.

105.235.131.146 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please see the previous discussions on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Which previous discussions? All of them are gone.

I don't see any good reason for not including the native Amazigh name when other Amazigh-speaking countries already do this. This is even more baffling considering the fact that non-official and foreign languages like French are included in this English-language version of the article. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is run by non-Algerians who are hellbent on portraying us as a European-adjacent colony with no culture or language of its own. It's not going to happen until these people stop controlling this article.

I did everything to gain consensus, but in the end you have 3 times as many neocolonialists as you have Algerians editing this article, so good and accurate edits will never pass. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A dominant-party system

I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already brought this up, but shouldn't Algeria be considered a dominant-party system since its politics is dominated by the National Liberation Front party, even if there are some shenanigans to give the system a semblance of multi-party competition? Gorgedweller (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Most countries have a dominant party to give the system a semblance of multi-party competition, so I see no reason why Algeria should be singled-out. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well I gues for the same reason Angola and Tanzania are currently presented as such on their respective pages because no, these are no typical situations. Since 1990s a large chunk of African nations have become genuine (even if flawed) democracies with ruling parties regularly losing elections. Gorgedweller (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Since you seem to be referring to the "dominant-party" in the literal sense, then your comparison is baseless as no single party managed to win a majority in the last Algerian parliamentary election (or the one before it). So the answer to your question is much simpler: no it shouldn't because it isn't. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting four similar discussions about French usage at other Algeria-related articles

In order to prevent fragmentation and duplication of discussions that already appear on this page, I'm noting for the record the following essentially identical discussions at other Algeria-related articles:

• Talk:Algerian Air Force#Remove French translations from this article.
• Talk:Algerian Civil War#Remove French translation from this article.
• Talk:Republican Guard (Algeria)#Remove French names from the article.
• Talk:Territorial Air Defence Forces#Remove French from this article.

All of them are on the same theme as previously discussed on this page in multiple discussions. Unless there is something essentially unique or different pertaining to any of the articles listed above, imho this discussion should continue in one place, and this page, where the conversation has already started, is the place. (A WikiProject could be an alternate venue, but since there are already several discussions about this here, I see no advantage to moving them.) Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The following is my comment on French language on Algerian military unit: While French is not an official language in Algeria, the documentation for the |native_name= parameter on Template:Infobox military unit specifies that the name of the unit in the local language, not necessarily an official language. Additionally, the presence of a French language version on the official website of the Algerian Air Force (https://www.mdn.dz/site_cfa/accueil_fr.php), Algerian Territorial Air Defence Forces (https://www.mdn.dz/site_cfdat/accueil_fr.php) and Algerian Republican Guard (https://www.mdn.dz/site_cgr/accueil_fr.php) suggests that French is indeed considered a local language in Algeria. Therefore, we have a source for the unit name in French, satisfying the verifiability requirement. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

French is not considered a local language, but rather a foreign language Riad Salih (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the fact that official website have French language version indicate French as local language. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This very article itself lists French as a "foreign language".

Respectfully, foreign language translations in official government websites do not indicate that a language is a "local language". There needs to be a huge logical leap for this statement to make sense. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

No, that does not confirm that French is a "local language". It absolutely isn't a local language and if you had any surface-level knowledge of Algeria, you would know this.

The US government website offers Spanish translations and Spanish is way more spoken in the US than it ever was in Algeria (50 million native Spanish speakers vs < 100,000 native French speakers). If we go by your logic, then every term in the US military article should be translate to Spanish so why don't we do that instead? Kurdish Elf (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You may suggest to include Spanish into US military article, I cannot stop you to do that but here we are discussing Algeria (esp military article) which happen the official website do have French language version. Btw, as I look up official US military unit website, such US Air Force (https://www.af.mil/), US Army (https://www.army.mil/), US Navy (https://www.navy.mil/), US Space Force (https://www.spaceforce.mil/), and US Coast Guard (https://www.uscg.mil/), none of them have non-English version for the official website. So, the existing fact also do not support your claim that official US website have Spanish version. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.usa.gov/ , https://www.whitehouse.gov/ , https://home.treasury.gov/ , and many other US government websites have Spanish-language versions. Does that mean we should add Spanish translations to articles about the US government? I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous simply based on the fact that Spanish, while very common in the country, has no official status.

To be absolutely clear, foreign language translations in official government websites do not indicate that a language is a "local language". It absolutely isn't in this case and even this very article lists French and English as "foreign languages" in Algeria.

So then, why use the same flawed logic here? The US has way more native Spanish speakers than Algeria has native French speakers (about 500:1 to be precise) yet I don't see people making the case for Spanish in articles about the US. Kurdish Elf (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, our focus in this section is on Military Unit articles, and we are comparing the official military unit websites of Algeria and the US. It's important to note that the US military unit website solely offers an English version, so introducing Spanish language content into the US military unit article isn't applicable as we do not have reference on official website for that. However, this differs for Algerian military unit articles. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This reasoning sounds very arbitrary. Militaries are themselves branches of governments. Military website or not, the US government websites are also clearly available in Spanish. This, as you probably agree, does not mean that US articles should translate key terms in Spanish like they are for French in the articles mentioned above.

Also, the US Army does operate Spanish-language websites. They are just under different domains. See the following: https://www.goarmy.com/espanol.html . Kurdish Elf (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What sounds very arbitrary to me, is any discussion of the United States military and Spanish, neither of which has anything to do with Algeria. What's relevant to this article, are the reliable sources about Algeria, and that's pretty much it. I find comments about whether French is a "local language" or a "foreign language" a little bit like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; who cares what you call it? Call it a "despised colonial imperialist hegemonic oppressor language" if you want (although that would be kind of long for the Infobox)), but nothing will change the fact that millions of people speak it, far more than speak any of the minority native language other than the two majors (and although it's hard to find statistics, estimates I've seen count more speakers of French than Berber). If you want to expunge French totally from the Infobox, put up an argument that is more than just "I don't like it" and get consensus for it; so far I've seen nothing like a policy-based argument for that. Continued comments about the U.S. and Spanish won't get you closer to that goal. Mathglot (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagreed. There needs to be a level of consistency across country/government/military articles. This is a blatant inconsistency that is not being addressed here and it is a very valid point. If anything, it proves my point about the academic invalidity of including translations in non-native/foreign languages to English-language articles.

Adding on to my point of consistency between articles (or lack thereof), these discussions about how much French is spoken in Algeria make no sense when there are way more native Spanish speakers (50 million) in the US than there ever were native French speakers in Algeria (100,000 in the 90s, likely fewer today). You cannot accurately say that "millions of people" speak it in Algeria because all of those people are second (and third) language speakers. The number of speakers who are actually fluent in the language is much, much lower than what you're thinking. Unfortunately, Algeria's relatively low profile on the global stage makes it hard to find sources that corroborate this fact. We are instead left with Francophonie and other sources that have a vested interest in promoting the French language. *Also, there is no singular language called "Berber". Amazigh (the correct term) is a family of native languages spoken in the country.*

Finally, if you think my argument is "I don't like it", then you are misunderstanding what is being said. The whole reason I am even posting this in the first place *is* to gain consensus. My arguments are (1) French is not an official language and has no status in Algeria, (2) a foreign language being spoken in a country is not a valid reason to include that language in an English-language article about said country, (3) the Algerian government and military do not operate in French and never have since their inception, and (4) Algeria has quite literally been phasing out French in education, the last sector where French was even remotely relevant. I would appreciate if you could respect my arguments and not employ straw mans. Thank you. Kurdish Elf (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no point replying, as this has become circular: it has all been stated before, and now it's just repeating old arguments, which just makes this page longer without getting closer to a resolution, and wasted time when we could all be doing something productive. If the discussion were deadlocked 1 to 1, I'd say try WP:3O, but that won't work when there are four editors who have reverted you. (Did I count that right?)

What you could do, if you still want to invest time in this, is to *neutrally* attract additional editors to the conversation, and try to sway their opinions your way. Don't go looking for people who agree with you, because that is called WP:CANVASSING and can get you in trouble. Read WP:APPNOTE, and apply the directions there to attract some random editors, for example, at some WP:WikiProject whose opinions you can't be sure of one way or the other, and that would not be CANVASSING and is allowed. If after further discussion among a larger number editors the trend is fairly equal for and against but no clear consensus, then you could try an Rfc as a last resort to resolve it, but please check in before you do that, because there are some formalities for setting it up correctly, and getting it wrong just wastes everybody's time for about a month. But that's getting ahead of ourselves; I'd try expanding the discussion via a WikiProject first, and see how that goes. Let me know if you need any help doing that. Mathglot (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look into these options to gain consensus. For now, Riad Salih (and a few editors from earlier discussions) seem to agree with this change.

I also want to say that I believe I am being unfairly targeted by these reverts. Most of the people who are reverting have not addressed my arguments. One person kind of did but ignored all my subsequent replies addressing their counterarguments. I say this respectfully and hope this isn't counted as a personal attack, because I genuinely want to understand these editors' points of view. Kurdish Elf (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't sound like a PA, but the reverts are not about you, personally, being targeted; that's the wrong way to think about it. It's about an edit that doesn't appear to be an improvement to the article, in the view of several editors who have looked at it. Removing sourced material from an article is always problematic, and you need a good reason for it. Merely stating your opinion that it doesn't belong is not persuasive, because you can line people up on both sides saying, "I like it!", or, "I don't like it!", but that just devolves into a shouting match and there is no end to it, as some time later, someone else will shout differently. The idea is to improve the article, not based purely on preference but on Wikipedia policies and guidelines; in your case, this would mean to demonstrate how and why removing a French name, say, is an improvement to the article for policy reasons, despite the fact that there is ample reliable support for it. Ask for help from the WP:Help desk if you need it. Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

https://indonesia.go.id/?lang=2

according to your respected personal analysis, English is a local language of Indonesia. Yet, we are unable to find any entry for local language in Indonesia article on Wiki.

I respectfully  Disagree. 105.235.132.223 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The position of Spanish in the US is comparable to that of Berber in Algeria, not that of French. There's also a religious dimension here, with Islamicists wanting a monolingual Arabic-speaking state, and secularists wanting a bilingual Arabic and French–speaking state. The fact is that French is widely used in government, education and business. There is no comparable language in the US. It would be weird to call French a "local" language, but it is a semi-official one. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)