Talk:North Africa

Proposed content addition

Haratins are considered the descendants of ancient inhabitants of the northern Sahara, with admixture from Berbers, groups of Haratin families are scattered across North African, Saharan Arab and Berber tribes.^[3] Haratins account for 40-45% of Mauritania's population^[4] and are present in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.^[5]

Nubians are present in the Upper Nile Valley, an estimated 3-5 million population in Egypt with notable communities in the Aswan Governate.^[6]

Beja people have existed in Sudan and Egypt and long assimilated Arab populations.^[7] There are 2.2 million Beja living in Sudan, Egypt and Eritrea. In Egypt, Beja live in the south-eastern region and Eastern Desert.^[8] WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Survey

Note: please see this comment and the ensuing discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I see some active exchange of views on this in the edit section.

Would welcome input from @Daniel Case, @Roxy the dog, @Axiom Theory, @Skitash among others ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: please see this comment and the ensuing discussion, per M.Bitton - Walter Ego 08:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks WikiUser4020. I've refactored a bit to make sure that the RfCs are simple to answer. I suggest that this one be focused on ethnic groups section text so that there's always just one topic. I also removed a line that wasn't well-supported. Let me know if you have questions. Axiom Theory (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Axiom Theory Largely agree but I think having one RfC contain the whole set of proposals may be easier to navigate. Otherwise, it may create discussion duplication, dillute wider attention and focus. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a question. Why are you still editing this page despite your ban? Walter Ego 18:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Where was the user banned? Largoplazo (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Axiom Theory Can you just confirm on record, whether you support or oppose the proposal ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I support it. My comment is below. Axiom Theory (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Support adding these sentences to the body, seems like an obvious improvement? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Support for reasons previously stated. Assorted-Interests (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose none of them is associated with North Africa. The fact that the Nubians and the Haratins are mentioned in the article is already a stretch since Mauritania and Sudan are not usually considered^{[9][10][11][12][13]} as part of North Africa. M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton @WikiUser4020

Pardon me for not diving super-deep into the extensive discussions, but:

Would not the best step be to include groups which are indigenous minorities who are not primarily from this region, as exactly that? Include them, while stating that while they are a present, endemic minority, they are not primarily North African, and frame it accordingly. I feel like this should both satisfy the concerns of both sides, and be the most accurate representation of reality.

Does that seem amenable? If I'm missing out in something major please feel free to let me know. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم I don't think that is an accurate characterisation. Those groups are very much primarily from those regions. Nubians, Beja and Haratins have long established presence in North Africa and the Sahara extending back over the millennium, especially the Nubians occupying the shared Nile Valley since the Holocene Era (10,000-5,000 years ago). Framing them as "North African" suggests that North Africans have a monolithic, core identity when it is clearly heterogeneous. I think presenting them as modern context as minority groups in Arab-dominated or Berber dominated societies rather than suggesting they "are not primarily North African" or from the region would be more accurate. WikiUser4020 (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

If Nile Valley is a part of North Africa by consensus, then groups which are primarily from the Nile Valley are Primarily from North Africa. I have no issue with that.

Your own description of the groups you mentioned doesn't seem to fit what I mean by "primarily". As I stressed, not being primarily from a specific region does not mean that you are not endemic/indigenous/native to it. Arabs are not primarily from North Africa, as we have a far wider range than that. That doesn't mean that North African Arabs are not indigenous groups. Same goes for Saharan or Sub-Saharan groups which have a long-standing presence in North Africa, but have a wider range. I think that you can agree that Berbers are primarily North African, in the sense that that is basically the only place they are from, as opposed to other groups which are from there but also from other places.

At any rate, do you agree that these groups should be framed somewhat differently than Berbers? Please see this comment, and focus on the 3 categories I suggested. Does that seem like a reasonable overall framing, even if there might be disagreements on where certain groups belong between 2 & 3?

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم - The issue is that current nation-states across the continent are recent and arbitrary constructs. Groups have migrated and traversed across boundaries, regions across North Africa, Sahel and Sahara. As an example, Egypt and Sudan were once a consortium in the previous century and Lower Nubia was part of Egypt prior to the flooding which fragmented communities between southern Egypt and northern Sudan. The classifications around ethnic, national identifies becomes blurred in that instance.

I think framing the content around modern majority vs minority ethnic groups seems to have a more agreeable, factual basis. Otherwise, we shift to more subjective and contentious criteria.

Can you reshare your link around categories/comments ? I cannot access it. WikiUser4020 (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why that link is not working. Does this work?

At any rate, I understand what you are saying regarding changing definitions, but it doesn't seem relevant to what I'm saying. North Africa as a region is an accepted construct, as the existence of this article reflects. The difference between groups whose indigenous range includes this area vs groups whose indigenous range is largely within this area seems to me to be relevant when discussing the groups native to the area. Of course, minority/majority is also very important, as mentioned.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم I've seen the classification now. The link works.

My view is that it will be contentious around having consensus on terms "primarily North African" without robust, strong evidence. What constitutes as "North African" ? Is this expressed in terms of ethnic, cultural or religious terms ?

It may be worth revisiting and proposing an RfC later down the line. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that the classification should be necessarily reflected in the article itself, but could be a way to find the correct balance on framing.

As a personal bit of advice/feedback, it seems to me like some of your contributions have been problematic in creating a false balance, and in effectively muddying the water on some of the unique elements of the prevalent groups, even if you were acting out of completely good faith. People on the other side of the discussions also seem to me to have been too aggressive in removing mentions of more minor groups you added, rather than trying to find an appropriate place for them. Mind you these are my impressions from a pretty shallow skimming of this incident, but it seems like you are open to feedback, so I wanted to give you my two cents.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Since problems always have a root cause, I will point to the one that started all of this. M.Bitton (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, I'm definitely in agreement that some things were done inappropriately there. However, I also think that the article is in urgent need of becoming more of a North Africa article and less of a Maghreb article, and that these minorities should be mentioned, even if not in the way that was attempted. I can understand feeling exasperation, but I hope that you find truth and reason in the outsider's perspective I'm trying to give here. It seems to me like you can find a reasonable compromise between 4020 and yourself, which will appropriately mention non-Arab non-Berber groups without undue weight and without taking away from the Arab and Berber groups.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم I can take your point, although there was hardly any mention at all of any other ethnic groups in that section. My proposals were relatively minor additions (factual short summaries and images). Definitely, look to build compromise but as you've mentioned but the hostile and combative views of others have very much made this a far more heated area of discussion than needed. Will see at the end of process, the eventual consensus view and taking things forward. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Try and take into consideration that people can naturally be very sensitive when it comes to culture, ethnicity and nationality, especially if they have already dealt with similar issues before. I don't justify the hostility, but I would like to help you to understand it. It does seem like some edits that were made seemed to kind of push main subjects of this article down or away from the center, and that can easily ruffle a lot of feathers.

Thanks and good tidings, User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم Of course. Let's see the RfC run its course and take things from there. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest to you that even if any of the RfC's goes "your way", you do not immediately go about implementing things in the most "your way" way, such as putting back all of the images as is, etc. I think that you should first work on developing the article to include more info on eastern North Africa and on various minority populations, with appropriate framing. Then, you will have more natural places to put in images, and summaries can be changed to be more inclusive (with appropriate weight of course. Good luck! User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم All outcomes from RfCs are implemented per consensus, so it is all dependent on the majority view. Of course, the desire is for consensus building. WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@غوّاص العلم - Just because we moved attention to other points, I just want to re-clarify your position - support or oppose ? WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Support if it is clarified that certain areas are not usually or consensually considered to be North Africa.

If Haratins and Nubians have a significant presence in consensual North African regions, that should obviously be included. Ideally, though, there should be sources that explicitly name them as present in North Africa, otherwise we're wading into wp:synth territory. If Sudan is sometimes considered part but not always, that should be clarified. And whatever is appropriate for Mauritania, Eritrea, etc. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I think those points are already included the lead body around applicable definitions. I'll look to include in brackets (Northwest or Northeast) Africa but I think the proposed sentences included their presence in Egypt and Morocco along with the broader territories. WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Support addition. Arguments so far presented against don’t actually make any case against this brief mention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Support by being well-sourced and agreement with BobFromBrockley and others. Axiom Theory (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose as none of these ethnic groups are closely associated with North Africa. The Haratins, Nubians, and Beja are minorities in Mauritania and Sudan, neither of which are consistently considered part of North Africa, with their geographic placements (whether West Africa for Mauritania or East Africa for Sudan) still very much in dispute. The ethnic groups section already gives WP:DUE weight to the main, closely associated ethnic groups of North Africa, which constitute the vast majority of the population across all relevant countries. Skitash (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Skitash Nubians and Beja communities have a clear presence in southern Egypt (Aswan, Luxor, Kom Ombo) and the Eastern Desert. Haratins are visible in Morocco and southwestern parts of the Maghreb. There is no reason for their exclusion as they have long established presence in North Africa and the Sahara. WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Their presence in the core North African territories is hardly more than negligible. RS for Haratin are elusive and often lacking proper figures as to how many Haratins there are outside Mauritania, though they often describe them as descendants of enslaved populations rather than a distinct ethnic community. Nubians constitute roughly 1–3% of Egypt's population, whie the Beja in Egypt number only in the tens of thousands at most. Skitash (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Skitash This still does not justify an omission from their feature in the page. At most, a preface indicating their minority status in Arab or Berber majority societies. This logic could be extended to Western country file pages, (USA, Canada and Western European) societies, including documented but brief summaries highlighting the white majority and ethnic minorities or indigenous minorities. I see no legitimate grounds for their omission or total exclusion from this entry. WikiUser4020. On the point, around the Haratins, their origins is disputed but some scholars have argued they descend from the earliest inhabitants of the Sahara with others highlighting their recent status as emancipated populations (both points could be featured in the wider article). (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Since you've cited the United States and Canada as exemplar articles, note that neither of those articles' demographics section enumerate tiny marginal groups. They only focus on the major demographically significant groups such as Whites, Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians. Skitash (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Skitash - All of those groups are minority groups. United States and Canada definitely make reference to Indigenous minority groups. US demographic section explicitly references 1.7 Native Americans (1%).France and United Kingdom also make reference to minority groups with comparatively low numbers. Nevertheless, the point stands. All of those articles contain factual references or summaries capturing the presence of minority groups (this ranges in numbers) but they are featured regardless. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

They're minorities with a meaningful presence, unlike the ones being proposed here: Haratins with virtually no significant presence, and the Nubians and Beja forming roughly 1–3% and <0.1% respectively of one country's population (Egypt). Skitash (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Skitash This is a very subjective criteria - what qualifies as a "meaningful presence" can this be measured purely on a quantitative basis or cultural impact ?. Furthermore, Indigenous Americans are featured in US and Canada demographics with comparably low numbers (>15%). This is the same feature with ethnic minorities countered across Western European article pages (UK, France etc). In terms of rationale and logical argument, there is no sound basis for excluding minority groups in North African section as minority groups are featured in other regions with comparably low numbers. Excluding some minority groups and keeping others seems to be predicated on a subjective, arbitrary and inconsistent basis. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not subjective, it's simply what WP:DUE demands; coverage proportional to significance in reliable sources. RS like the Britannica article on North Africa hardly ever make any mention of the peripheral groups you're proposing. Indigenous Americans obviously merit coverage in the U.S. and Canada articles due to their historic centrality and significance. Skitash (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Skitash WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION does not mean total exclusion of other content but placing greater weight i.e. coverage for majority groups over minority groups rather than total omission. Viewpoints (fringe theories) are not the same as representation of ethnic minority groups. The RfC is a reasonable proposal. In regards to Britannica article, it has no explicit, in depth section on ethnic groups at all, hence why there is no explicit reference to majority or minority groups. Indigenous groups still have low figures and ethnic groups in Western states (US, UK and France) are featured. We are really delving into semantics but the core substantial points stand 1) minority groups with comparable figures are featured in the demographic/ethnic group section of related pages of articles across Wikipedia. There is an abundance of examples we can choose. Regardless, you have made your choice and I'll leave it for other users to decide. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Support as an obvious improvement. Oppose arguments are not convincing. Ryuudou (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2026 (UTC) (Blocked sock)

Note: It looks like there are other editors who !voted who might be socks. Please wait until this SPI has been formally closed before closing this RfC. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

(summoned by bot) Weak Support - I think the core issue here is scope and weight. North Africa has no single fixed definition. Reliable sources (including major statistical and regional frameworks) sometimes include Mauritania and sometimes include Sudan, while common usage often focuses on the Maghreb plus Egypt. When the scope is unclear, adding specific ethnic groups can look like taking sides, or giving undue prominence to a few groups compared to others. That said, the current "Ethnic groups" section feels too narrow and mostly centered on broad majority labels. A small, well-framed expansion can improve balance, especially for the eastern and Saharan parts of the region. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. As stated in the article in the Berber Encyclopedia (M. Gast, Harṭâni,doi:10.4000/encyclopedieberbere.1704), the Haratin have two hypotheses regarding their origin: slavery (or what is euphemistically called "trans-Saharan trade"=) or an endogenous origin. The most widely accepted hypothesis among experts is that they originated from slavery. The etymology of Haratin is, moreover, given by a primary source, the Kitab al-Istiqsa. Haratin or Hartani in Arabic comes from el hor el thani: "free of the second category (understood to be of slave origin)." This social category is at the origin of the creation of the guich of the Abids Boukhari (see Kitab al-Istiqsa, trans., Volume IX, p. 77. The proposed version directly posits as an established and indisputable truth that the Harratin come from the ancient inhabitants of the Sahara, which is the minority academic hypothesis and contradicts the etymology. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monsieur Patillo The source you shared states the following - that genetics have undermined the view that the Haratins descended solely from slavery. In fact, it states:

"With the spectacular evolution of genetic analysis methods in recent years (particularly with regard to DNA), it is now possible to evaluate in an increasingly precise way the specific and original characteristics of these populations, which for too long have been considered as a by-product of slavery when they are one of the oldest components of the Saharan population." WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding their origin, the article cites G. Camps (line 16), according to whom the majority of authors give them a slave origin.

Modern (genetic) data puts this into perspective, and you are right to say that it refutes one hypothesis, but it's the one just above (line 18): Toutefois, une partie importante de ce peuplement noir s’est retrouvée peu à peu subjuguée par les Paléoberbères, nouveaux maîtres du Sahara... Ces groupes noirs que l’on retrouve çà et là en Afrique du Nord ce sont ces Tzzaggaren’ou ‘Harratines’ des oasis, une population préhistorique devenue résiduelle mais gonflée plus tard du flot de l’esclavage des temps modernes au point qu’on ne peut plus distinguer aujourd’hui les uns des autres” (M. Hachid, 1998, p. 300).

The idea behind the proposal is that the original component of the Sahara was an indigenous sub-Saharan population, subjugated by the Paleo-Berbers. However, this is precisely what genetics refutes, if I understand the article correctly.

Returning to the term « Haratin », the article states: Les Haratines aujourd’hui, issus d’un brassage permanent d’individus, quelles que soient leurs origines, ont acquis le statut d’hommes libres et la couleur de leur peau importe peu désormais. How could I accept a proposal (Haratins are considered the descendants of ancient inhabitants of the northern Sahara) that is categorical on the subject?

On the other hand, for Mauritania, a source from opendemocracy.net is cited, which identifies the Haratin as former slaves in the moors society. This further contradicts the proposal that attributes this category solely to the ancient inhabitants of the Sahara. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monsieur Patillo Let's take things word by word.

The source quotes G. Camps, sourced from 1970, clearly dated source,' who made that view on two hypothesis prior to modern proliferation of anthropological and genetic studies. We have to give relative weight to sources as the later sources are sourced from biological anthropologists and modern historians. WP:RS WP:AGE MATTERS

Secondarily, I never said in the proposal that the Haratins were "subjugated" by the Berbers but had admixture with Berbers as stated in the secondary source. M. Gast states that genetics has refuted the last hypothesiss that Haratins were just residue populations absorbed by Berbers via conquest and black groups can no longer be distinguished "one from the other". M.Gast highlights that genetics shows in fact clear distincton between Haratins and other Sub-Saharan African populations along with mixed populations. Furthermore, M.Gast does conclude and expresses his view position that "they are one of the oldest components of the Saharan population". WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You cannot ignore the fact that the proposal includes the Harratin « descendants of slaves », and not the Harratin, « a group among the first inhabitants of the Sahara ». What does the figure of 40% for Mauritania, for example, refer to? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monsieur Patillo I'm not ignoring the point around Haratins descending from emancipated slaves. That is already cited in the North Africa article in the demographics sub-section and I mentioned it in the preceding talk discussion pages. The point around the Haratin's presence in Mauritania is sourced from Giuseppe Maimone, historian, writing for open democracy via here:

"According to IRA, after having exploited them as slaves, nowadays the Arabs turn their affinities with Haratines against black-Mauritanians. This is a key point. Haratines are estimated to be 40-45% of the total population."

I think you are conflating points. The recent sources generally maintain that the Haratins share early origin in Saharan communities and reference their recently emancipated status. The open source does not discuss their ancient origins at all but rather focused on their modern, contemporary issues with slavery in modern Mauritania.

Rather having a circular discussion, I think we should leave scope for other users to give their input. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't dispute Maimone's observations. However, the 40% he refers to are the Haratin of Mauritania, whom he says are descendants of slaves.

Yet you state in the "introduction" of your proposal: "Haratin are considered the descendants of ancient inhabitants of the northern Sahara..." I don't mind changing the opinion to neutral if clarification can be provided later so as not to mislead the reader about the origin of the populations and if there will be further development on what is meant by this term depending on the country and situation. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monsieur Patillo Yes, he discusses the fact that the Haratins are descendants of slaves in Mauritania but he does not contest or express any wider view around the population origins in the Sahara. Those are two separate points and not contested in that article. We have several sources including M.Gast stating that the Haratins have shared descendance from ancient Saharan populations along with modern, enslaved status in Northwest Africa. These are non-controversial points. WikiUser4020 (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monsieur Patillo Can you reshare the link as it is a broken link and I cannot view anything in quotation around majority or minority positions.

Other sources have presented a differing view, that this in fact the general view. Please see the sourced statements.

Sourced from the Haratin article page.

Biological anthropologist SOY Keita - "Paoli (1972) found dynastic mummies to have ABO frequencies most like those of the northern Haratin, a group believed to be largely descended from the ancient Saharans"^[14]

Near Eastern historian John Ralph - "Although the origin of the Haratin is shrouded in mystery, it is generally believed that they were indigenous to the north Saharan oases, hybrids between an ancient black population and Berbers, and most of them had dark skin and negroid features. The Haratin did not constitute a tribe, rather they were groups of families scattered amongst North African and Saharan Arab and Berber tribes. Though the Haratin were free men, they were generally considered to be of inferior social status, between slaves and free men (hur thani). Most of the Haratin were farmworkers and not landowners, receiving a fifth (Khammas) of the harvest from Arab and Berber landlords, for their work. In general, the Haratin were a class of people "who were in many ways like slaves: i.e. non-tribal, economically vulnerable, socially debased and pheno-typically distinct."^[15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiUser4020 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Support These are ethnic groups of the region, and the sources are solid. BlackVulcanX (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)