Talk:Algeria

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)

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)

"Local language" is the word used in documentation of Template:Infobox military unit, IMO it's the best definition to be used in documentation, but it generally refer to whatever non-English language commonly used to particular country. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That may be, but I can see why people would object to calling it that. "Local" suggests it's indigenous.

As for "foreign language", where it is now, there are lots of foreign languages in Algeria, such as English. Ethnologue lists Egyptian and several other varieties of Arabic, Hausa, Somali, Spanish and Turkish.

French is a second language. I don't know the best way to word that, but regardless it should definitely be given a prominent place in the info box. — kwami (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What does religion have to do with language? and what's that semi official term and should have prominent place in Infobox and should be second language, the Algerian's fought against the french colonialism, gained independence and established laws that clearly states which languages are officials, there are two Arabic and Tamazight according to the Algerian's constitution, there is no second or semi or quarter official language, We believe Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives for intact information based on citations and references, not on personal analysis. With all the respect but the statement about which group wants what language based on religious beliefs can be interpreted as a PA to Algerians, so please kindly discuss about language without hurting the feelings of others who have family members that were martyred please. 105.235.132.199 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Answer: religion has nothing to do with it, and nobody said it did; this comment is a red herring. If you are responding to the word Islamicists in kwami's comment above, they are merely pointing out the non-language based agenda of some groups arguing the point; it is a fact that one of those groups is Islamicists, and there is no ascription of religious reason to why they are pushing their point of view, and it may be anticolonial, or any of a dozen reasons. You are going around in circles, and beating the drum of "official languages" even though it is has been stated over and over and over again that this is not about official languages. You don't have consensus for the changes you want to make at numerous articles about French language; please just drop it now. With respect to your PA claim above: that is non-content related, and I have responded at your (registered) Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Now five discussions: Talk:Djamaa el Kebir#I propose removing the French name for the mosque from the article. Mathglot (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot. I agree with you (the matter has nothing to do with religion). That was not the case with the comment, which I did make a clear remark about because I detected a significant derivation from the issue. The user directly associated Islamicists and Arabic 《Islamists wanting a monolingual Arabic-speaking state, and secularists wanting a bilingual Arabic and French-speaking state.》. Plus, I did not say make a change to the infobox if you want to include all the languages as you may, but please refrain from saying hurtful things in this discussion, such as French should be second and should be that it's not about should be, it's about what it is in reality and based on references and what the Algerians choose in their constitution. As for registered page that is not me Sir, plus why nobody stops making fights in this discussion, just stop it, kindly please, a pretty please? 105.235.132.199 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this section, and the topic of the other five discussions linked at the top, and the topic of previous discussions on this page are all the same: they are about whether to list French in the Infobox as one of the languages used in Algeria (however you wish to label it). The answer, as seen by overwhelming sourcing, and way too much discussion (about one word in an Infobox!!) as well as consensus here is that French should be listed. Removing French from the list because it hurts someone's feelings, or because it is not official (agreed: that is not at issue); or because it is a foreign colonialist language (agreed; not at issue) or because it is not in the Constitution (so what?); or because it is—or is not—connected with religion is irrelevant and not worth discussion. If you have a beef with someone's comment or you find something hurtful this is not the page to raise that issue; please go to their User talk page instead. Mathglot (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why was the Etymology section removed?

Zurkhardo, would you like to explain why you removed the well-sourced section on etymology from the article? Mathglot (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It was removed in error during a computer glitch — I since reinstated it. Zurkhardo (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

Change Didouche Mourad to Mourad Didouche. The current hyperlink links to a province in Algeria rather than the person in the photo. EarthGamerTheFirst (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! Jip Orlando (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2024

Water percentage was changed from "negligible" to 1.1% with no source. It should either be reverted or the water percentage should be completely removed. The false change came in this commit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Algeria&oldid=877577588 99.64.160.215 (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)