Talk:Kabyle myth

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article. Consider creating section headings such as "Background".

Bruxton (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

The Kabyle myth is clearly specific to the Kabyles. Even the source that was added makes the difference between the Kabyle myth (which was about assimilation into the French civilization) and the Berber myth in general (which was perceived as a strategy to divide and conquer). In fact the Kabyle myth doesn't even apply to the other Berber groups within Algeria, let alone other countries. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @إيان:: also, most of what was added was moved to the appropriate section (and not removed as claimed). M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton, thank you for starting the discussion.

If you flesh out your distinction and clarification—the Kabyle myth (which was about assimilation into the French civilization) and the Berber myth in general (the strategy to divide and conquer)—I'm sure it would be a useful addition to the article.

But let's see how the aforementioned source, "French and Spanish colonial policy in North Africa: revisiting the Kabyle and Berber myth," introduces the topic:

The French colonial presence in North Africa gave rise to a view that was founded on attributing certain – supposedly distinctive – qualities to the Kabyle people (Algeria) and the Berber people in general (Algeria and Morocco). This became known as “the Kabyle (or Berber) myth” and was propagated both by North African nationalists and by the academic world in order to validate their accusations against the colonial powers of practicing a “divide and conquer” policy.

Clearly, while the article should be attentive to details and distinctions, the main topic is the overarching invented colonial dichotomy between autochtonous people and Arabs in the Maghreb, and it's better not to make a separate article. إيان (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The Kabyle and Berber myth is telling you that it's not the same thing. You're welcome to create an article about the Berber myth, but the Kabyle myth is notable in its own right and way too important, and its consequences far reaching to the present day, to be mixed with others. M.Bitton (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton, as I've said before, I generally have great appreciation and respect for the contributions you make, but I tend to find it frustrating and exhausting when it's just the two of us on a talk page. I've opened an RFC below for the discussion to benefit from the insights of others—may the article and the encyclopedia be the better for it. إيان (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Scope of article

Should this article treat the topic as applying exclusively to the Kabyle people or should it discuss the topic as applying also to Berber people more generally? إيان (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

After 21 days without comment, posted about this RfC to talk pages of WikiProjects Berbers, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia. إيان (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, do the sources only refer to Kabyle people or to Berber people more generally? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Antoine, thank you for participating in the RfC. These excerpts are from the first three sources cited in the article:

The French colonial presence in North Africa gave rise to a view that was founded on attributing certain – supposedly distinctive – qualities to the Kabyle people (Algeria) and the Berber people in general (Algeria and Morocco). This became known as “the Kabyle (or Berber) myth” and was propagated both by North African nationalists and by the academic world in order to validate their accusations against the colonial powers of practicing a “divide and conquer” policy.

• Tilmatine, Mohand (2016-05-01). "French and Spanish colonial policy in North Africa: revisiting the Kabyle and Berber myth". International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2016 (239): 95–119. doi:10.1515/ijsl-2016-0006. ISSN 1613-3668.

Between 1871 and 1919 the stereotypes of the colonial vulgate crystallised into a racialised image of Algerian society (Ageron, Citation1960). This found direct expression in the Algerian colonial gospel—a patterned set of stereotypes about the nature of Muslim Algerian society. Of greatest importance was the so-called Kabyle myth, a set of stereotypes on the supposed differences between Arabs and Berbers. The persistence of the Kabyle myth was one of the most enduring aspects of the French sociology of Islam (Lorcin, Citation1995).

• Burke, Edmund (2007-12-01). "France and the Classical Sociology of Islam, 1798–1962". The Journal of North African Studies. 12 (4): 551–561. doi:10.1080/13629380701633414. ISSN 1362-9387.

Through these writings, Tocqueville succeeded in outlining the major avenues for the production of what would become known as the ‘‘Kabyle Myth.’’ Throughout the colonial period in Algeria (1830–1962), ethnological and military reports from Algeria outlined the ethnic boundary between Arabophone and Berberophone populations and used such a division to justify economic and social policy.

• Silverstein, Paul A. (2002), "The Kabyle Myth: Colonization and the Production of Ethnicity", From the Margins, Duke University Press, pp. 122–155, doi:10.1215/9780822383345-005, ISBN 978-0-8223-2861-2, retrieved 2023-02-21

إيان (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on the above, it seems that the Kabyle myth applies to Berber people in general. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: the cherry picked quotes above are misleading (better quotes citing only the Kabyles can easily be cited). The sources that are centred on the Kabyle myth subject (know as fr:Mythe kabyle in French) only refer to the Kabyle people. Why would they call the myth "Kabyle" otherwise? Those that talk about how it might have influenced the Berber Dahir (which has its own article) do so in the same manner as we do in the legacy section (though it must be stressed that historians are divided about the purpose of the Dahir). M.Bitton (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @M.Bitton, thanks for the clarification. The source that you cited clearly mentions Berber in its introduction p. 384: "The purpose behind the myth was to create an ontological difference between Arabs and Berbers (primarily the Kabyles)"

So I guess this article should be focused primarily on the Kabyles. But I'm not sure what the exact issue is here... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Kabyles are Berbers, but unlike the other Berbers, they were the only ones that were deemed superior to the Arabs (and to other Berbers) and therefore worthy of integration into the French civilization. Did you read the article (the part about the Kabyle myth) that I linked to? M.Bitton (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton, I only read the beginning where the quote comes from. But again: what's precisely the issue at stake? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Therein lies the issue. I suggest you read a bit more about the myth in question to understand what it meant and in many respects, still means to those who revived it in the 1960s and 1980s. M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: what I mean is: what are the consequences for this article? Is this RFC about the scope of the article? The title? The introduction? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: I believe it's about the scope. Unfortunately, it was started before we've had a chance to discuss the important subject properly. M.Bitton (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: thanks, without more context it's indeed hard to reach a conclusion on this matter... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is scope of the article in general, and consequently how it's reflected in the introduction. You can get a sense of the issue if you compare versions in the article history before and after M.Bitton removes or moves pertinent, cited material to push their POV in flagrant contradiction of what is in the reliable sources—most recently here. If they wanted to go ahead and elucidate "what it meant and in many respects, still means to those who revived it in the 1960s and 1980s" with reliable sources and put it in the article instead of ominously using it to guard their POV editorial line, Wikipedia would be the better for it. إيان (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing pertinent in the cherry picked BS that you added to the lead, and since you refused to discuss it like an adult, you now found yourself in a sorry position where your only avenue is personal attacks. You will simply be ignored from now on. Others can ping me if they wish. M.Bitton (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@إيان: I don't see a massive issue between the two version, the "analogous dichotomy" is in the introduction in one and in the "legacy" section in another. We could mention the expression "Berber myth" there.

Or is the issue only "Should 'Berber myth' be mentioned in the introduction as another name of the 'Kabyle myth'?" Or "Should the article be renamed 'Berber myth' and also cover the situation of Moroccan Berbers and non-Kabyle Berbers in Algeria?" a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

myth or not

how can the fact that two different ethnic groups, one native to the arabian peninsula and southern levant, another to north central western africa, both with different original languages as well, be 'all' myth, as appears dismissed as in the article..12.146.12.2 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)