Talk:Algeria

The opening of the article is not about Algeria enough and is different from other Middle Eastern countries.

Skitash and MrOllie didn't explain why do they think my edit is not improvement? my edits were with sources I improved my edits several times and they still didn't explain why do they think these other new changes are not improvement?

I wanted to add more information with sources about history of Algeria and dynasties and states centered in Algeria because the opening article just mentions ottomans and romans and byzantines....etc even though these empires dominated most West Asia and North Africa not just Algeria, the openining article is not about Algeria enough

The Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine), East Europe, Egypt and Iraq were occupied for centuries by the Greeks, Byzantines, Romans, Persians, Ottomans....etc In addition to these empires, other empires, The Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine) were occupied by the French crusaders for 200 years. Iraq was occupied by the Central Asians (Jalayirid Sultanate, Ilkhanate, Timurids) for 196 years and Iraq was also occupied by Persians for centuries

however most opening pages of these countries don't mention these empires that occupied these countries for centuries or just mention a few of them not all of them.

for example, the opening page of Lebanon just mention very few empires who occupied Lebanon but not all of them, it doesn't mention in the opening page most empires that occupied Lebanon.

Same thing with Egypt and Syria, no mention of Greeks, Persians and Romans...etc and it doesn't mention the empires of french crusaders, romans, byzantines, greeks..... dominating Syria etc.

there are some people who makes politically motivated edits on Wikipedia history articles more than other kinds of articles, some pan-nationalists mentions these empires dominating Algeria online to claim that most Algerians are not Berbers

I made this the edit and it was reverted again without a reason by some Wikipedia here, (the same Wikipedian has been criticized on some websites for editing a lot of articles about Berbers)

"Algeria has been inhabited since prehistory and was historically known as Numidia, like many other Mediterranean countries it has been at the crossroads of numerous cultures and civilizations, including the Phoenicians, Numidians, Romans, Vandals, and Byzantine Greeks. The territory of modern-day Algeria was the foundation of several states, such as Numidia, the Hammadids, the Zirids, the Regency of Algiers and other states"

I suggest removing "Turks" because regency of algiers was largely independent

and I suggest removing vandals because vandal kingdom was in small part of algeria it is like mentioning Muslim occupation of Southern France in the opening article of France.

North Africa

There is a discussion at Talk:North_Africa#Recent_additions_(January_2026) that could do with more input. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2026

Template:Edit semi-protected why are you blocked the edit ~2026-87567-8 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 15:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Algerian Jews

There is a RfC at Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Algeria#RFC_on_including_perspectives_of_Heuman_and_Perrin_on_the_1963_Nationality_Code. M.Bitton (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Berber name in infobox

@Whatever748 I removed the Arabic spelling of the name because it appeared to be unsourced, and I could not find a source myself. That said, I would be glad to keep it if a proper source is provided if, indeed, a source is needed at all.

Regarding the infobox, it is my understanding that the main argument for excluding the Standard Algerian Berber name on the infobox is the lack of an officially preferred script. However, I fail to see why we cannot include all three scripts alongside Arabic, perhaps in a collapsible list, as seen in the article for Switzerland. Lankdadank (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Lankdadank A source is not needed for translations of names generally (you can see this basically everywhere), you are however free to edit it if you find any inaccuracies in the translations of these names. If you want sources, you can easily find translations in practice here[1] on the site arabic scripted Tamazight page of Algeria Press Service (official state news agency of Algeria), and various government communiques. If you have additional sources, alternative spellings, or any other issues please present them.

As for the infobox, this consensus was made a while ago, and i don't necessarily oppose inclusion of tamazight within the infobox, but it would be important to make sure that the arguments and reasoning in favour of it are included and discussed here in good faith and following wikipedia policy, on the talk page, rather than overwriting previous consensus without any discussion whatsover. I would like you to articulate how you would include Tamazight without prioritizing any of the scripts or languages which was the main issue during the previous discussion (though i do find not including Tamazight may be prioritizing Arabic), though the Switzerland example may be functional.

Whatever748 (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. For the infobox, what we want is achievable with a collapsible list. Here is how it would look:

Name in official languages

• Arabic:	الجمهورية الجزائرية الديمقراطية الشعبية al-Jumhūriyyah al-Jazāʾiriyyah ad-Dīmuqrāṭiyyah ash‑Shaʿbiyyah
  Berber:	Tagduda tazzayrit tamagdayt taɣerfant (Latin alphabet) ⵜⴰⴳⴷⵓⴷⴰ ⵜⴰⵣⵣⴰⵢⵔⵉⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⴳⴷⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵖⴻⵔⴼⴰⵏⵜ (Tifinagh) ثاڨدودا ثازايريث ثاماڨدايث ثاغيرفانث (Arabic alphabet)

Do you have any suggestions or concerns with this approach? Lankdadank (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

For me personally as far as i am concerned this works fine. No one else really joined the discussion in opposition, though it's only been a day. The previous discussion was 2 years ago, and opposition ultimately really down to script prioritization. I would personally suggest you go ahead with it and edit the article, but i would also leave this discussion open, in case anyone else wants to join it.

Whatever748 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, just implented the change. Lankdadank (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)