Talk:Kabyle language

Untitled

Algeria
Kabylie : 4.5 million
Algiers : 50-70% so ~ 1 million
others : ~ 500,000 (annaba, constantine, setif,...)

France : ~1,0 million (immigration since 1900')

and Canada, US, Belgium, Netherlands
and Liban, Palestinne, Syrie (since 1870'-1880 "révolte des Mokranis" - during french colonisation) : 50-100,000

- Yacine O., Annaba, Algeria. 5 june.

Ethnologue profile for Kabyle:

Population

2,537,000 in Algeria (1995). Estimates by some sources are up to 6,000,000 in Algeria (1998). 49,000 in Belgium. Population total all countries: 3,123,000.

I'm reverting back. —Khoikhoi 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should give a range rather than one number or the other. —Khoikhoi 18:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Map

Image:Kabyle-speaking-map.jpg is rubbish. It:

• includes Algiers, which does not have a Kabyle-speaking majority;
• includes Boumerdes, which does not have a Kabyle-speaking majority;
• includes Dellys, which does not have a Kabyle-speaking majority (though the first Kabyle-speaking villages on the coast west of Algiers start almost immediately west of Dellys);
• includes Jijel, which is not Kabyle-speaking at all (though their dialect of Arabic is heavily Kabyle-influenced, and Jijel might be considered "ethnically" Kabyle, whatever that would mean);
• includes the Chenoua language, which (despite its location) is more similar to Chaouia than to Kabyle;
• includes the town of Cherchell, which (unlike the villages around it) speaks Arabic;
• is completely unsourced.

Please keep this piece of unsuccessful guesswork out of Wikipedia, and use the academically sourced map Image:Kabyle-map.jpg until such time as someone produces something larger-scale and at least equally well-sourced. - Mustafaa 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

(sorry I speak badly english)
It is not a map of Kabylie (or of the kabyle' wilaya) but a map showing areas where Kabyle is spoken
Kabyle is spoken in Algiers, Cherchell or Boumerdes, north of wilaya Setif, ect...
in Algiers, more 50% of population are kabyle (and speak kabyle and arabic dialect), and this is the same for Boumerdes, Jilel, Setif, ect.. and in Cherchell there are a big immigration of kabyle who speak kabyle (a famous example is Baaziz, a singer).
It is not a story of majority because or else we can say arabic (because it's official language) is spoken in Tizi Ouzou, Bouira and in Bejaia so even your map is rubish.

anyway, in any case your map is nonsense, because he show just the border of the wilaya of Tizi, Bouira and Bejaia but no "where Kabyle is spoken".

-source of map: you can see that for example on: aricle of the reliable newspapers L'Expresse] (L'Expresse)

• A map showing anywhere that anybody spoke Kabyle would have to cover the whole of Europe - London, Quebec, Paris, Marseille, not to mention Oran or Saudi Arabia. What the map has to show is areas where a majority speak Kabyle.
• Your claims are incorrect. Kabyle is spoken by much less than 50% in Algiers, Boumerdes, and Jijel, let alone Cherchell.
• My map does not have any connection to wilaya boundaries. For example, it excludes Dellys and Boumerdes but includes Thenia and Bordj Menaiel, though all are in Boumerdes.
• The L'Expresse map shows a very poor rendition of Kabylie, not where Kabyle is spoken, and even it disagrees with your map. Nor is L'Expresse an academically reliable source: it doesnt even explain who produced the map, nor on what data it is based. - Mustafaa 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mustafaa, tu parles français? (do you speak french?)

For the record, I support keeping Mustafaa's well-sourced map rather than the newer one, which indeed seems inaccurate. — mark ✎ 06:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put together a new, much more detailed map based on Basset 1936 (see Image:Kabyle.gif for full bibliographic details.) Input welcomed... - Mustafaa 11:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, Mustafaa do you speak french?

Oui, malgre que je ne l'utilise pas beaucoup. Pourquoi? - Mustafaa 14:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

La nouvelle carte que j'y ai placé est fondée sur la carte très détaillé d'André Basset, Atlas Linguistique des Parlers Berbères: Algérie - Territoires du Nord, Université d'Alger, Institut des Etudes Orientales 1936. - Mustafaa 15:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Could someone more familiar than I with Kabyle possibly add more examples, notably of: nouns that do not follow the general gender prefixes/suffixes, as well as the verb tenses? If there could also be a pronunciation guide added for the sample words, that would be very nice. One more thing to note, Chenoua language makes several references to Kabyle, notably on the subject of Adjectives and Numbers, it would likely benefit both articles if someone could elaborate on them. -- Dalrymple 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

GA comments

Hey y'all:

This article shows tons of hard work! I am impressed! KUTGW!

Unfortunately, it will probably get quick-failed :-( at WP:GAC because of a near-total lack of citations. See the FA Mayan languages for an example to follow...

Later! --Ling.Nut 23:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am failing this sorry, to add to the above the article contains too many lists and tables, one sentence sections, and one sentence paragraphs thus making it fail the "Well-written" criteria. M3tal H3ad 08:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

404

Deleting dead link from Online dictionaries:

• kabyle.com Sort of wiktionary.

Thnidu (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fricatives vs. stops

This article doesn't make it clear whether the stops are allophones of the fricatives or have phonemic status. Mo-Al (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ref to displacement by other written language needs help

current version states "Tifinagh alphabet disappeared in the 7th century, when Latin became the official and administrative language in North Africa (as in rest of ex-Roman empire)."

This statement cannot be accurate, as Latin became the official and administrative language with the Roman conquest in the 2nd century BC, remaining until the Vandal conquest in the fifth century AD. The Byzantines returned briefly in the 7th century but Greek was their official language, and they were followed in the late 7th century by the Arabs, who would have considered Latin the language of their arch enemy and never used it as an official language.

However, I have not yet changed it because I don't whether "..disappeared in the 2nd century BC, when Latin became the official.." or "..disappeared in the 7th century, when (Greek OR Arabic) became the official.." would be more faithful to facts.

I was not able to successfully research this. someone else will need to take up that torch..

Old books of historical interest

Notions succinctes de grammaire kabyle (1881)

https://archive.org/details/NotionsSuccinctesDeGrammaireKabyle

Cours de langue kabyle (1887)

https://archive.org/details/CoursDeLangueKabyle

dictionnaire kabyle (1901)

https://archive.org/details/DictionnaireKabyle

Rajmaan (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kabyle language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124150058/http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/afrique/algerie-1demo.htm to http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/AXL/AFRIQUE/algerie-1demo.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/cbl23/revisedjesaraber.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kabyle language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011013741/http://www.agraw.com/modules/Music/Kabyle-Music.php to http://www.agraw.com/modules/Music/Kabyle-Music.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070603085927/http://www.inalco.fr/crb/crb_2/fiches_dialectes/kabyle.htm to http://www.inalco.fr/crb/crb_2/fiches_dialectes/kabyle.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710022121/http://www.inalco.fr/crb/crb_2/fiches_thema/kabylie_dialectologie_knz.pdf to http://www.inalco.fr/crb/crb_2/fiches_thema/kabylie_dialectologie_knz.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710091004/http://www.inalco.fr/crb/crb_2/fiches_crb/kabyle_SC.pdf to http://www.inalco.fr/crb/crb_2/fiches_crb/kabyle_SC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061125190805/http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/sitespersonnels/bendjaballah/bendjaballah2.pdf to http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/sitespersonnels/bendjaballah/bendjaballah2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060902004419/http://www.tamazight.fr/ to http://www.tamazight.fr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105044941/http://makabylie.info/kabyle.php3?lang=kbl to http://www.makabylie.info/kabyle.php3?lang=kbl
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317141610/http://www.dicokabyle.com/ to http://www.dicokabyle.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314094437/http://www.makabylie.info/tutlayt_langue/dico-fra-kbl-a.php3 to http://www.makabylie.info/tutlayt_langue/dico-fra-kbl-a.php3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kabyle language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516052439/http://www.kabylia.info/index.php/Axxam to http://www.kabylia.info/index.php/Axxam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Population estimate

The estimate of "three million" is from the 2003 International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. This encyclopedia used Ethnologue as its source and described Ethnologue as "a comprehensive listing of the world's languages, with genetic classification" (source). It seems that no more recent edition of this encyclopedia exists. That's why I suggest we only use Ethnologue's latest estimate (guesstimate?) as 1/ it is way more recent 2/ it is a reliable source 3/ the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics was based on Ethnologue anyway.

What do you think @M.Bitton? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Another recent reliable source: Asya Pereltsvaig 2020, Languages of the World, p. 203: 5.6 million. I note that the Algerian population has grown by 40% since 2003. So the 2003 figure is definitely outdated. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics cites Chaker 1983 as one of its sources (for the whole section, not only for population), however Chaker 2004 gives 5.5 million for the number of speakers. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1) Algeria's population growing by 40% since 2003 doesn't explain the 120% jump in the number of Kabyle speakers (as claimed by Ethnologue), especially given the fact that the number of Berber speakers has been declining in general. 2) Asya Pereltsvaig also makes another claim that is at odds with Ethnologue's: 2.5 million Kabyle speakers in Algeria (compared to the 6,200,000 claimed by Ethnologue). 3) as one of its sources he's cited in the bibliography section as one, among many sources that were used used. What source does Ethnologue cite to back its claims? M.Bitton (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1. The 40% population growth alone doesn't explain the difference, but it shows that the 2003 figure is outdated.
2. Pereltsvaig's Languages of the World 3rd edition (published in 2020) says "5.6 million Kabyle speakers mainly in Algeria". Which is close to Ethnologue's estimate. You're citing the 1st edition (published in 2012), which has of course been superseded by the 2nd and then 3rd editions as explained in their respective introductions.
3. My point is that the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics citing Chaker 1983 confirms that Salem Chaker is a reliable source. And one year later, Chaker provided estimates in line with Pereltsvaig and Ethnologue. Ethnologue sources are listed here and there.

That's why I suggest keeping the 2003 in the text but removing it from the lead and the infobox as it is outdated and as we have two recent (2020) reliable sources (Pereltsvaig and Ethnologue) agreeing on 6–7 million speakers worldwide, mainly in Algeria. What do you think? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

1. The 40% population growth, when compared to the extraordinary 120% growth of the speakers (as claimed by Ethnologue), shows that something is not right (the numbers don't add up).

2. a) Pereltsvaig's claim is not close to Ethnologue's. b) The unexplained change from the 2012 to the 2020 is unaccounted for, though "mainly" doesn't mean much (is it 3, 4 million or more?). At least the change from the 2017 edition (5.5 million) to the 2020 edition seems to make sense.

3. Chaker is a Paris-based Berber activist, and therefore, not an WP:INDEPENDENT source with regard to the number of speakers. Furthermore, Ethnologue's WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, which isn't backed by any of their cited sources, is not in line with the highest next estimate. It surpasses it by 1.2 million (which is a lot, given the small number involved).

4. According to Matthias Brenzinger, the number of Kabyle speakers in Algeria is 2.5 to 3 million. Again, Ethnolgue's extraordinary claim surpasses this one by 3.2 million.

Ultimately, since all these numbers are nothing but claims, our choice is rather simple: we can either present all of them to the readers and let them come to their own conclusions or we can remove the extremes from the lead and the infobox and keep the conservative estimate (circa 5.6 million). M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Yes something is not right: the 2003 figure may be underestimated.
2. "The unexplained change from the 2012 to the 2020 is unaccounted for": I guess it was a mistake that they fixed?
3. Chaker is RS but yes he may be biased. I don't think Ethnologue's figure is extraordinary compared to the other recent we have.
4. Brenzinger seems to be a good source that is more recent.

So we could exclude the 2003 source and replace it by Brenzinger 2015. And then, let readers come to their own conclusions.

Unless we find another recent RS? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ethnologue's claim is indeed extraordinary and I have given enough examples to show that it is. So, either we present all of them of we do what I suggested as a compromise. M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What I suggested was: in the lead and in the infobox we stick to recent RS: Brenzinger 2015, Pereltsvaig 2020 and Ethnologue 2022.

In the rest of the article, we can expand more and cite the 2003 source, Chaker, etc.

Because we cannot present all sources in the lead and in the infobox. We have to choose.

And I don't think we should "compromise" and cut in the middle among recent RS. What if Pereltsvaig and Ethnologue were wrong and Brenzinger was right? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

These are all unsubstantiated claims (they could all be wrong for all we know). Do you mean we keep the 3 million figure and attribute it to Brenzinge? M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me (as long as the change concerns the source and nothing else). M.Bitton (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just edited, let me know if that's okay for you. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not what we agreed and Brenzinge's claim is about Algeria (not Kabylia). I think it's best to list everything and let the readers come to their own conclusion and have therefore restored the source that you removed. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I misunderstood you. The 2003 source is still in "Distribution". I think the lead and the infobox should focus on recent sources. We could have in the lead: "Recent estimates of the number of Kabyle speakers range from..." (and leave historical estimates below in the rest of the article) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just found another recent RS by Prof. Bruce Maddy-Weitzman: Routledge Handbook of Minorities in the Middle East (2018) => "more than 5 million" in Algeria only (20%*39m*2/3 = 5.2m)

So we have:

• 2003: 3.1m globally / 2.5m in Algeria
• 2015: 2.5-3m in Algeria
• 2018: 5.2m in Algeria (and "Between 1 and 2 million Berbers live in the Diaspora" [not only Kabyles])
• 2020: 5.6m worldwide / "mainly" in Algeria
• 2022: 6.8m worldwide / 6.2m in Algeria

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

2003 is not "historical". Feel free to add the other claim. The readers are smart enough to work it out by themselves. M.Bitton (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We have three recent RS that give 5–7 million Kabyle-speakers in the world. And two older that give ~3m globally. + Chaker 2004 6m So now I think we can choose the average of the recent estimates and say "circa 6 million" in the lead and the infobox. (which was your alternative suggestion) And add all the various estimates in "Distribution". What do you think? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand. First, you challenge the sources that aren't "not centered on the topic" and then you bring one (Bruce Maddy) that isn't. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand you either:

1. When did I challenge sources not centered in this discussion?
2. Bruce Maddy is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Middle Eastern and African History at Tel Aviv University. He wrote a chapter called "The Berbers (Amazigh)" in a book about "Minorities in the Middle East". Hard to be more centered on the topic...

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That's what you did when editing the article and Bruce Maddy doesn't give any estimate of the "Kabyle speakers". M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean here when I removed a old link about Kabyle music that has nothing to do in the "External links"? How is this related to our discussion?

Maddy gives estimates for each Berber variety: "Speakers of Tachelhit, constituting roughly 8 million persons, are concentrated in the High Atlas and Anti-Atlas mountains and valleys and southeast pre-desert area. Speakers of Tamazight (the same term used to denote the Berber language as a whole), numbering 3 million persons, are centered in the Middle Atlas region. Speakers of Tarifit, also numbering approximately 3 million persons, live primarily in the Rif Mountains of the north. Berbers constitute roughly 20% of Algeria’s population of 39 million. Two-thirds of them (more than 5 million) are Kabyles, originating in the mountainous Kabylie region between Algiers and Constantine, whose dialect is Taqbaylit."

I guess you argue that Maddy says that there are more than 5 million ethnic Kabyles and that the dialect of Kabyles is historically Taqbaylit but that not all ethnic Kabyles speak Kabyle/Taqbaylit? This other source from the same author makes it more explicit then: Berbers (Amazigh) in The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Nationalism 2016 (edited by Rutledge Dennis and Anthony D. Smith): "Algerian Berbers, numbering approximately 20–25 percent of the country’s total population, are divided into two primary groups and four smaller ones: Kabyles, speakers of Taqbaylit, numbering five million persons and residing in the mountainous Kabylie region between Algiers and Constantine" a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The Encyclopædia Universalis gives seven million: "langue berbère parlée en Kabylie par environ 7 millions de personnes" a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

All I see is "claims made in passing" and contradicting each other to boot. Give them all to the readers and let make whatever they want with them. M.Bitton (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ethnologue and the Encyclopædia Universalis are tertiary sources: these are not "claims made in passing". The other sources are centered on Berber people, Berber languages, or Kabyles. Again, the number of speakers is not "made in passing". We should give the consensus of reliable sources. And not just provide all the numbers and give undue weight to some sources.

And from what I understand, the consensus of recent RS is c. 6 million Kabyle speakers. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

They are very much claims made in passing as they are not substantiated by a census or other on the ground research. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but this is not the case, which explains why each one of them is plucking a number from god knows where and calling it a day. Cherry picking some sources would be giving UNDUE to some of them, but so long as all of them are considered "reliable" (a big statement in this case), then it's not our job to decide which one is wrong in its claim. M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Since 1966, the Algerian census no longer has had a category for Berbers and languages. All these sources therefore extrapolate based on this census and other data they have.

I don't suggest cherry picking some sources but choosing a figure in the infobox that is the viewpoint of the majority of recent reliable sources. That viewpoint is about 6 million speakers. (it was also your suggestion to "remove the extremes from the lead and the infobox and keep the conservative estimate (circa 5.6 million)." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is fine as it is I didn't realize that you edited the infobox. Anyway, to stop this discussion from being dragged out, I'm fine with having the 3 million in Algeria and the 5.6 million worldwide. What do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a bargain, we have to follow reliable sources. For the population in Algeria, they're not clear. For the population worldwide 6 million seems to be the consensus. So I would put 6 million in the infobox and the lead and then detail in "Number of speakers". a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If we start following what is clear and what isn't, then none of them is. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What is clear is that we have the following sources:

• Lacoste-Dujardin 2001: 4m in Kabylia
• International Encyclopedia of Linguistics 2003: 2.5m in Kabylia / 3.1m worldwide
• Chaker 2004: 3–3.5m in Kabylia / 5.5m worldwide
• Brenzinger 2015: 2.5–3m in Algeria
• Maddy-Weitzman 2016 & 2018: 5m in Kabylia / "Between 1 and 2 million Berbers live in the Diaspora" [not only Kabyles]
• Pereltsvaig 2020: 5.6m worldwide "mainly in Algeria"
• Ethnologue 2022: 6.2m in Algeria / 6.8m worldwide
• Encyclopædia Universalis (year?): 7m worldwide

So I see a consensus for circa 6m worldwide as of 2022. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You see what you want to see. Here's what I see: an article that presents to the readers all the information (baseless and contradictory claims) that they need without making a decision for them. I like the way it is. M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I understand that you like it but I don't think that's the way we should do. In the infobox and the lead we should summarize the information, not delve into details, and not give undue weight to extraordinary claims as you mentioned earlier. Especially if these claims are older and the minority view.

It would be good to get more input on this though. Should I ping related Wikiprojects? (languages, Algeria, Berber?) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I asked here and there. Should I ask in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages as well? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Language Diversity Endangered Citation

@M.Bitton replacing the citation to Language Diversity Endangered was just discussed on the Berber languages page, and our third opinion @Kwamikagami agreed that "2015" is not a representative date for that source. I switched it to the Leclerc citation because it uses 3 million as the number of Kabyle speakers, and it seemed like everyone agreed to accept it as a reliable source for the purposes of the article. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Leclerc's numbers are used by Ethnologue, so if there is any switching to be done, it would have to be on theirs and theirs alone. In any case, I replaced it now with a more recent one. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The infobox is the same as before. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to replace Ethnologue's numbers with Leclerc's. M.Bitton (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason to use Leclerc's figures from 2004 in the infobox which should reflect the latest estimates. Leclerc's figures are already cited ("2.5 million speakers in Kabylia in 2003 out of 3.1 million worldwide") because the "International Encyclopedia of Linguistics" relied on Ethnologue's data. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ethnologue's figures are based on them, so what applies to the 2015 source that you removed, should also apply to Ethnologue. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding: what I meant was that the numbers were identical ("3 050 800" and "3.1 million"). But I was actually mistaken: Leclerc's numbers are for Algeria only. So it's worth adding them indeed. (then I don't know why you say that Ethnologue's 2023 figures are based on Leclerc's as they don't cite Leclerc) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Simple question: what would you do if their numbers are based on Leclerc's? M.Bitton (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: forgot to ping. M.Bitton (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(no worries, I subscribed to the discussion)

I'm not sure I understood. Do you mean "What if Ethnologue's 2022 figures are just updated figures from Leclerc 2004 using Leclerc's percentages and applying them to Algeria's current population?"

If I understood correctly, then it wouldn't change anything for me because:

• Ethnologue is a reliable source (until proven otherwise)
• The above method makes sense in terms of order of magnitude, even though Kabyle speakers are shifting to Arabic and it may overestimate the Kabyle population. On the other hand, Kabyle being more rural they may have more children than non Kabyle speakers, etc.
• Other sources give similar numbers around 6 million people worldwide.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Kwamikagami emailed Ethnologue about their Kabyle figures in the 2022 edition, and they said they used Leclerc's numbers, adjusted for the 2020 population of Algeria. (This is mentioned in the Berber languages "Population - Third Opinion" discussion.) Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Perfect. (I must say I didn't read the whole wall of text that is "Population - Third Opinion"...) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Now, that you know, why should we treat Ethnologue differently from the source that you removed? M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Which source? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Really? The 2015 source of course. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Because I understood that the 2015 source was using old data. And, in the case of the lede and the infobox, because we have more recent reliable sources and that in these parts we should keep recent estimates only. Did I misunderstand something? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

(please note that I answered your original question above @M.Bitton) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: that doesn't really answer my question, because Ethnologue is also using old data (no difference between 2001 and 2004). M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

There are two options:

1. Either a source copy/pastes figures from another source, and in that case the date of the estimate is the date of the previous source and the recent source shouldn't be used.
2. Or, a source uses a previous estimate as a reference and updates it based on other information. For instance, using percentages from an older source and updating the number of speakers based on population changes. If the newer source is a reliable source then this process is okay.

I understood that the 2015 source (Brenzinger, LDE) was using the first option (that's why they both gave 3 million speakers, otherwise, had Brenzinger updated his figures based on the population growth, the total estimate would have been higher), whereas Ethnologue resorts to the second option.

Am I wrong? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the 2015 source gives different numbers for the Kabyles (2.5 to 3 million vs 2.5 million given in the source they used). So, essentially, it's the same scenario. M.Bitton (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case then it's fine to keep Brenzinger's estimate in the "Number of speakers" subsection (where it currently is). But we shouldn't mention it in the lede and in the infobox as we have more recent RS (including one, Ethnologue, that uses the same methodology as Brenzinger). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ethnologue 2001 says 2.5-6 million speakers, not just 2.5 million. (see: https://web.archive.org/web/20060502170527/http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_country.asp?name=Algeria) Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

What is Ethnologue 2001? There's the 14th edition of Ethnologue released in 2000 and the 15th edition released in 2005. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That's beside the point (which is about sources using old data). M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The 15th edition (2005) gives: 2,537,000 in Algeria (1995). Estimates by some sources are up to 6,000,000 in Algeria (1998). 49,000 in Belgium. Population total all countries: 3,123,000. (source: https://www.ethnologue.com/15/show_language/kab/ )

So Brenzinger giving in 2015 "2.5 to 3 million": what did he update? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Algerian population: 1995 = 28.48 million / 2015 = 39.54 million. Brenzinger obviously didn't update anything. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Brenzinger uses the 14th edition, although it doesn't seem like the 14th and 15th editions differ regarding the estimated totals of Kabyle speakers. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so as I said above, Brenzinger didn't update any number from the 14th edition and just copy/pasted it. Goodbye Brenzinger 👋! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope, that's your own interpretation. Anyway, do you mind replying the below question that you keep ignoring? M.Bitton (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to be nice? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

You have already been warned (by someone else) for personally attacking me before (which I ignored). This is the second PA. M.Bitton (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

How is this a personal attack? I would just like you to be nicer in our discussion. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Be nice. M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

🤔 a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope, it says 2.5 million and that is the number that is picked by others (you know that), Something else (with regard to Ethnologue): given the fact that they are using Leclerc's (whose percentages are known), don't you find it strange that their numbers don't line up with his? M.Bitton (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, I'll ask them now! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Pereltsvaig presumably suffers from the same kinds of problems as Ethn. They're not a source we use much, so I think a broader discussion would be warranted before we start.

Mettouchi's numbers are consistent with them using Leclerc; no indication that they're an independent source. They do however estimate 2M diaspora, whereas Ethn. estimates 1M. So I left those sources for the diaspora population but not the Algerian. Unless someone finds a better source, I suspect this is probably the best we can do. I made a note in the lead as to what the population would be today if (a) Leclerc's percentage is for speakers and not just ethnicity (he does give a separate figure for Arabicized Berbers, so that's quite possible) and (b) that percentage has remained steady over the past two decades. The primary problem is that the Algerian census is not allowed to ask about language, ethnicity or religion, so it will be difficult to get around that. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why Mettouchi would be more reliable than Pereltsvaig, Ethnologue, or Universalis (Universalis gives 5M in Algeria and 2M in the diaspora and it is written I think by authors who "have the expertise to evaluate the numbers they're using"). They all just give a number without explaining how they reached that conclusion. It's not satisfactory for sure, but we have to follow the sources. And for what it's worth, Leclerc's methodology isn't clearer either (and his use of significant figures is non-sensical). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't see why I should repeat myself.

We certainly shouldn't claim that data from 2004 is from 2020, given as you say that the population grew substantially in that time. As for Universalis, who's the author? The EB isn't particularly reliable in such things. I only used Mettouchi because he gave a different diaspora number than Ethn. Neither are necessarily reliable. — kwami (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: then we should keep the % only but not the raw numbers. And picking Mettouchi seems arbitrary as she doesn't give any reasoning for her high estimate of the diaspora. I emailed her, here's her answer: I have always given rough estimates, to give an idea, but never intended to work out the exact number of speakers. 3 million in Kabylie is probably lower range estimate. There is no census on Amazigh speakers in Algeria as you know, and from my personal experience there, Kabyle is a growing, expanding language, it has prestige among Amazigh speakers and is adopted by speakers of nearby regions. I would not be able to give a reliable estimate though. (poke @Blueshiftofdeath) So I see no reason to highlight her guesstimate specifically in the infobox. She only dropped a number in passing in an article about morphology. (it's fine to keep it in the rest of the article though).

The Universalis article is written by Professor Semmoud Bouziane and M'Barek REDJALA. But it actually cites a source from 2005, so not worth it in the infobox if we have more recent numbers.

"We certainly shouldn't claim that data from 2004 is from 2020"? What do you mean? Ethnologue says their data is from 2022 and they give 14.5% of Kabyle speakers in Algeria. So they're definitely not using Leclerc's 9.4%. Unless they made a mistake, which is possible, as @M.Bitton rightly pointed out. I asked them and I'm waiting for their answer: https://cam.ethnologue.com/contribution/13948f4e-5716-4977-ad06-33e78e37d592 ). In any case, Ethnologue is a RS (or at least that's what other RS say) so if Ethnologue's editors consider that they can keep the % of Kabyle speakers constant to update the absolute number of speakers, who are we to judge and dismiss their methodology? Unless we don't consider Ethnologue to be RS for population figures, but that's a broader debate that should go to WP:RSN. Should we start it? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Ethnologue is not RS. We already know that they are using Leclerc's, so there is no reason to use them, especially since they seem to be struggling with simple arithmetic. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping the Mettouchi estimate for the diaspora. But yeah, the Ethn. data is 2004 adjusted to 2020. Better IMO to give the raw 2004 data and let the reader do the calculation if they like. That way they'll at least have a better idea what the numbers mean. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: have you read my message? Ethnologue (26th ed.) is NOT "2004 adjusted to 2020". They may have made a mistake but they give 14.5% of Kabyle speakers in Algeria (2022) while Leclerc 2004 gives 9.4%.

OK to drop the Mettouchi's (inflated) estimate for the diaspora from the infobox and the lede. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Then it's simply uncited, because they say the number is Leclerc adjusted to 2020. So hardly a RS. I can ask again; perhaps Kabyle is from some other source than the other 2020 figures. — kwami (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I've already asked them: https://cam.ethnologue.com/contribution/13948f4e-5716-4977-ad06-33e78e37d592?returnTo=

"they say the number is Leclerc adjusted to 2020": when? In the 24th or 25th edition? They may have changed their methodology since then and updated the number accordingly. (or it may be a mistake)

In any case, the 26th edition is currently NOT an update of Leclerc. Let's wait for their answer... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Either their number is based on Leclerc's (in which case, we don't need their miscalculation) or it's unsourced. Their "methodology" is as meaningless as their made up numbers. M.Bitton (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't care whether it's sourced or not. Leclerc is not sourced either. What matters is whether the source is a reliable source or not. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We already know that their number is based on Leclerc, so unless they can provide a valid reason (based on RS) on how they came with their new one, it will simply be ignored as the rest of their usual made-up garbage. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You don't make the rules. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The rules are clear: user generated content such as Ethnologue is considered unreliable (unless proven otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ethnologue is not user-generated content. Users cannot edit it, they can only provide feedback. Then editors decide to integrate it or not. Anyway, this is not the good forum to decide whether Ethnologue is RS or not, but I would be happy to have this discussion. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It is since it accepts contributions from anyone (literally), something that scholars would never ever do. It is the perfect place to talk about their reliability for the Kabyle estimates. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Again: It does not accept contributions from anyone. Anyone can SUBMIT a feedback that is then analyzed by Ethnologue's editors and integrated (or not). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"Analyse" is a big word that doesn't apply to those who hide their sources and methodology. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it would be amazing to have more details about their sources and methodology. But what are the sources and methodology behind Mettouchi's and Leclerc's figures? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

All I know is that they are using Leclerc's and therefore, there is no reason for us to pay any attention to what they have to say. M.Bitton (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you please answer my question? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I did, but for some reason, you keep comparing Ethnologue (whose numbers are based on Leclerc) to scholars. M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your answer so I repeat: what are the sources and methodology behind Mettouchi's and Leclerc's figures? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't know. But Leclerc is the source used by multiple other scholars, so until something better comes along, at least with Leclerc we have something they evaluate to be reliable (or perhaps the least unreliable). — kwami (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, as for the Ethn. percentage of 14.5% not matching Leclerc's 9.4%, notice that several of Leclerc's entries are not reflected directly in Ethn. That is, they conflate several of them into distinct languages. That may be why Ethn. does not match L's Kabyle entry: it's actually Kabyle plus several other peoples who speak the Kabyle language, or what they judge to be dialects of Kabyle. I can't get the numbers to work, because e.g. Ghardaia is included in Moabite, but it's not a one-to-one comparison. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

There is only one Kabyle and one mozabite (tumzabt) language. Their percentages are roughly the same as in the source that I cited in the other discussion (the one that uses Leclerc for them). I think I mentioned this before, but as far as Leclerc is concerned, I wouldn't use any of their numbers for languages that are not mentioned elsewhere (in fact, many of them contradict every source out there). M.Bitton (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Leclerc lists ethnicities and the language spoken by each. More than one speak a language listed as a synonym for Kabyle, so the number might be more than the number of ethnic Kabyle, or that might be how Ethn interpreted it. Because otherwise they're underreporting the number of Berber speakers in their source. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Leclerc only lists one Kabyle language that he treats as a Berber variety (this is repeated throughout the article). The other languages and their corresponding numbers don't make any sense and are rightfully ignored by the sources that use him. M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

You know as we as I do that they don't cite either their sources or their methodology (this has been mentioned in the other discussion), so why ask? Don't tell me that you're trying to compare Ethnologue to the source that they used. M.Bitton (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI, here's Ethnologue's answer: Dear Antoine, Thank you for this information on the speaker population of Kabyle (Amazigh) [kab] in Algeria. Interestingly enough, I received the same message from another prominent user of the Ethnologue just a few days ago. It was decided to correct this number to one representing 9.4% of the population. Best wishes, Chuck Fennig Managing Editor, Ethnologue (source) I assume you're this other "prominent user of the Ethnologue" @Kwamikagami? Thanks for pointing the discrepancy @M.Bitton (and congrats for your first contribution to Ethnologue 😉)

Now we have another issue: how come Kabyle people form the minority (~1/3) of Algerian Berbers in Leclerc but the vast majority in all other sources? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad that they're finally correcting it. I wouldn't worry about Leclerc's other numbers that are not used by others (for a reason). M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI: I asked the official Haut commissariat à l'amazighité (contact [at] hcamazighite [dot] dz) about data on the number of speakers, their answer was: Bonjour; Aucune source fiable, Notre pays n'effectue pas ce genre de recensement. Cordialement

I still think the inconsistency in Leclerc number is problematic. I mentioned that to Ethnologue and their answer is: Yes. Leclerc had groups that just had Tamazight as their language, but it turned out to be dubious at best, erroneous at worst. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Since it has been decided to use Leclerc because his numbers are used by others, it stands to reason to only use the numbers that are referenced in other sources (which also do seem reasonable). M.Bitton (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)