Talk:Couscous: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

By /

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 
Line 229: Line 229:

:I think all of these compounding effects from both sides make not only Arabic but the Tamazight languages also as a “closely associated language” to the topic which in accordance to [[MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV]]: {{tq|”When the subject is closely associated with more than one non-English language, the lead sentence should normally not single out one of them. In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a “Names” section or similar),”}}

:I think all of these compounding effects from both sides make not only Arabic but the Tamazight languages also as a “closely associated language” to the topic which in accordance to [[MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV]]: {{tq|”When the subject is closely associated with more than one non-English language, the lead sentence should normally not single out one of them. In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a “Names” section or similar),”}}

:”’2. [[WP:OR]] and the usage of tifinagh”’

:”’2. [[WP:OR]] and the usage of tifinagh”’

:Another point of issue that stands is the use of tifinagh in the case of those Tamazight languages, Tifinagh is as it stands the official script regarding Tamazight languages along with the latin berber script as is stated in [[tifinagh]], it’s codified by the moroccan government and used widely by the Algerian government in government buildings, road signs and much more. All of this information is easily verifiable. But the issue still stands that some editors think writing Those berber languages in tifinagh is in violation of [[WP:OR]], which after reading i can’t find. Tifinagh is simply a script, a script that is honestly pretty close to latin and not hard to write in at all. This issue is as it stands less relevant than the first one. [[User:Yaghmosus|Yaghmosus]] ([[User talk:Yaghmosus|talk]]) 15:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

:Another point of issue that stands is the use of tifinagh in the case of those Tamazight languages, Tifinagh is as it stands the official script regarding Tamazight languages along with the latin berber script as is stated in [[tifinagh]], it’s codified by the moroccan government and used widely by the Algerian government in government buildings, road signs and much more. All of this information is easily verifiable. But the issue still stands that some editors think writing Those berber languages in tifinagh is in violation of [[WP:OR]], which after reading i can’t find. Tifinagh is simply a script, a script that is honestly pretty close to latin and not hard to write in at all. This issue is as it stands less relevant than the first one. [[User:Yaghmosus|Yaghmosus]] ([[User talk:Yaghmosus|talk]]) 15:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:27, 30 January 2026

So i started a new discussion to reach consensus:
Change “Origin:Numidia” to “Origin:North Africa” Reason:in the article there is clearly a disagreement between historians. While some claims Numidia to be the origin, others say Almohad Caliphate and Hafsid Caliphate. Probably some will say we have an archeological evidence, actually that’s not enough, the fact that they may have founded Couscoussiers (the term is very recent) doesn’t give us any clue of whay they prepared with it. Couscoussiers are actually used for many recipes other than Couscous. The 12th century Almohad claim is also interesting since the earliest description of the Couscous recipe dates back to this period (Kitab al-Tabikh). 102.52.63.85 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have I think the following sources
Perry uses literary sources; Bolen is using archaeological sources. Perry’s work establishes the latest time that couscous was as we understand it first existed. However pre-modern cookbooks tend to cover elite foods and coverage can be spotty. He mentions the Zirid dynasty as being empty of reference but how many cookbooks exist from that time and place? I wonder it there is a more recent scholarly article that cover the timing issue? If so, they are likely in either French or Arabic neither of which I read at the necessary level (I do know some French). I’m inclined to “Maghreb circa 12th century CE, possibly earlier” and reverse the first two paragraphs of the history section. Erp (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, i have no objections. But maybe we need to wait for what others have to say. Thank you 105.75.55.39 (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no objection to replacing “Numidia” with “Maghreb” (without the mention of any date), I see no reason to remove relevant and well sourced content from the article’s body. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not suggesting any be removed; just reverse the order of presentation since I think there is a definite consensus on couscous being present by the 12th century CE. Bolens’ date may lack the same consensus though I’m not sure. Erp (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how I managed to misread it.
You’ll find that Bolens’ date is the one that is repeated in multiple RS (especially, recent ones). Since we don’t have a definite answer, the chronological order makes more sense. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change “place of origin: Numidia” to “place of origin: Maghreb”. See discussion above. 160.89.7.12 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Skitash (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think the sources should be removed as well, otherwise you add the other sources supporting 11th-13th centuries theory. 160.172.1.22 (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why remove the sources? Note that the discussion of when is in the history section and includes all the sources. Erp (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Jews or anything Jewish at all in the article, so why are the Judaism navbox and Jewish-related categories at the bottom, and why is couscous included in that navbox? Largoplazo (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the navbox and the categories. Most of the entries in that navbox shouldn’t be there. M.Bitton (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mizrahi Jewish cuisine has it listed in it’s page. Vesperius (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More commonly eaten with eggs or butter in the breakfast than with meat (which leans more lunch-like). It’s traditionally cooked in a special pan called a “cuscuzeira” by which it gets a recognizable format of a round mound with a little “nipple” Morgueço | Morgueco (he/him) 🦇 🇧🇷 talk • contributions 23:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered in the article at Couscous#Cuscuz. Largoplazo (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t. The traditional northeastern cuscuz (called usually just “cuscuz”) which is also what most people from north to south will think of upon hearing the word “cuscuz” is barely covered before it pivots to the southeastern cuscuz (“cuscuz paulista”). Cuscuz Paulista is not very common outside the state of São Paulo. ( https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/47/47134/tde-17072018-155847/en.php )
On cuscuz itself, there’s like a thousand different variations inside Brazil because ultimately cuscuz is made of just flour (usually corn) and water. People made as many different versions of those as they did bread.
– All about cuscuz: https://www3.sp.senac.br/hotsites/blogs/revistacontextos/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/29_Revista-Contextos_ed-vol-3-n-1.pdf
But to put it short, my issue with the section is that it gives undue weight to the “cuscuz paulista”. Morgueço | Morgueco (he/him) 🦇 🇧🇷 talk • contributions 15:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You titled this section “Brazilian couscous” and your comment implied that you were giving information about something that wasn’t covered at all. So I told you there is a section on Brazilian couscous.
Then you changed what your mind about what your problem with the existing article is: you said that the coverage of a particular variety that’s different from the variety you described is undue. It is’t. It would be undue if it made it seem as though that were the only preparation (which is what you did in your original comment with respect to your preparation). You can’t expect people to refrain from giving details about something they know about just because they don’t know the details of every other variant and therefore can’t write about those. You’re welcome to expand coverage to other varieties, if you have sources. Largoplazo (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
> You titled this section “Brazilian couscous”
Which I in fact did.
> and your comment implied that you were giving information about something that wasn’t covered at all.
Nope, my initial comment had already shown that I disagreed with something written in the article, because otherwise I wouldn’t have said that the Brazilian couscous is more commonly eaten with eggs and butter than with meat. Because in the part of the article that comments about the broader variety of couscous (not the Paulista variety) it says it’s “eaten hot with meat”.
> So I told you there is a section on Brazilian couscous.
Which you did.
> Then you changed what your mind about what your problem with the existing article is: you said that the coverage of a particular variety that’s different from the variety you described is undue.
Nope, I had the same complaint from the start.
> You can’t expect people to refrain from giving details about something they know about just because they don’t know the details of every other variant and therefore can’t write about those.
WP:RSUW
> You’re welcome to expand coverage to other varieties,
WP:SEMI
> if you have sources.
I just linked a doctoral thesis and an academical periodic. Morgueço | Morgueco (he/him) 🦇 🇧🇷 talk • contributions 14:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaghmosus: what makes you think that those languages are closely associated with the subject? Also, since when is Tifinagh associated with those languages and where did those tifinagh names come from? M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly want the footnote back, could you please enlighten me with the part in WP:OR that states you can’t write a language in its original script? . And for the record all those languages are closely associated with the subject, The Origin section of this page literally explicitly states that couscous originated in the times of numidia in the region of Kabylia Yaghmosus (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where did those tifinagh names come from? It’s a simple question
And for the record all those languages are closely associated with the subject that’s a baseless assertion. You can’t possibly compare a written language (Arabic) that is spoken by everyone to a non-written language that is spoken by a minority.
The Origin section of this page literally explicitly the origin has nothing to do with the language. M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
they are not tifinagh names, tifinagh is a script, if you want to know where the names came from there are plenty of sources that i cited, it’s not original research either, all i did was write it down in the script that is equivelant to the different tamazight languages. (neo tifinagh)
“that’s a baseless assertion”. I really don’t understand what you’re trying to get at here, nor care since it’s irrelevant to the topic. Yaghmosus (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the tifinagh come from? What makes you think that Couscous is closely associated with it?
I really don’t understand… nor care therein lies the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean where did the tifinagh come from?. its the script associated with the tamazight languages, the tifinagh is simply the written form of the formulated words that the tamazight speakers use. just like any other language, this is used across all pages that have Tamazight etymologies, the French language pages for couscous and berkoukes use it too?. I really don’t understand your issue here. Yaghmosus (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it’s baseless WP:OR. The French wiki is unreliable and irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
what? i’m just going to reword this for you quickly. The tifinagh script (according to the english wiki itself) “is a script used to write the Berber languages”. its not WP:OR because I didn’t make anything up, i literally just wrote it in tifinagh just like “couscous” is written arabic. maybe you prefer the Berber Latin alphabet?.
also “The French wiki is unreliable and irrelevant.” is a breach of WP:NPV. Yaghmosus (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
is a script used to write the Berber languages does that mean you could scribble anything without a supporting source?
maybe you prefer the Berber you’re missing the point: as far as those Berber names are concerned, neither the tifinagh nor the Latin or Arabic script are relevant since the subject is not closely associated with those languages. M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ok “does that mean you could scribble anything without a supporting source?” calling tifinagh scribbles is a MAJOR breach of WP:NPV. I don’t need a source because it’s a script not a language, just because you can’t read it doesn’t mean I need to source it for you, do people need sources when writing in Russian? Arabic? French? that’s what I thought. the arabic sentence in this page itself literally isn’t source either.
“the subject is not closely associated with those languages.” how so?, it’s literally indigenous to not only the Maghreb, but to the kabyle mountains. the way the Tamazight languages say and spell couscous is relevant because its an indigenous common way to say them. Yaghmosus (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
… is a breach of WP:NPV: If you understood M.Bitton to mean that “French Wikipedia isn’t reliable in contrast to the very reliable English Wikipedia”, which is how it read, you’d have reason to think that, but that wasn’t the point. As user-generated content, no Wikipedia meets Wikipedia’s reliability requirements. Verification cannot rely on other articles here or on other wikis. Largoplazo (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“therein lies the issue.” look buddy either elaborate on what your point is or spare me the whole passive aggressive shtick. keep this professional. Yaghmosus (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate on what? the fact that you don’t understand… nor care? M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
look buddy I really dont understand your point in this secondary part, for your own knowledge, Tamazight is at stands by both algerian and moroccan laws the official script for the berber languages, its used for government buildings, road signs, i don’t understand if you’re like in denial or something? heres a source if you care https://web.archive.org/web/20170907212936/http://www.tamazgha.fr/Which-Script-for-Tamazight-Whose-Choice-is-it,359.html Yaghmosus (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I know what Tamazight is, what it’s used for, when, how and by whom. It’s obviously irrelevant to Couscous and your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
how is it irrelevant to couscous??? what are you talking about. it’s another indigenous way to say couscous, A Notably Berber dish. Yaghmosus (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ not going to repeat what I said about the close association, so I suggest you remember where this dish is consumed and by whom. M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it is consumed in the Maghreb by Maghrebians (people of arabo berber origin). telling me “to remember where this dish and consumed and by whom” to me,is a hilarious statement since i’m an arabized maghrebian myself Yaghmosus (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who overwhelmingly have been speaking and writing in Arabic for centuries. M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
that’s a heavily debatable topic Yaghmosus (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing debatable about that. It’s a fact. M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the french book “Exploration scientifique de l’Algérie” made in the 1840s explicitely denotes that almost half the population still spoke an Berber dialect, Dropping to around 40% of Auguste Warnier’s work “L’Algerie devant L’empereur” in the 1860s, same thing with a higher berber percentage is seen in french records of morocco such as the Book “Le Maroc” in the early 20th century. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exploration scientifique de l’Algérie the creators of the Kabyle myth. M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
no, that only happened later on the 60s, shows how little historical context you have of the region. and again, how you feel about something doesn’t give you authority on it. breach of WP:NPV Yaghmosus (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the article the core of the Kabyle myth is that the Kabyle people were more predisposed than Arabs to assimilate into “French civilization” You would raise that to argue that Berbers are in fact less assimilated than were being reported, which would be contrary to the arguments you’ve been making here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don’t attribute your misunderstanding of what I wrote (to dismiss the so-called “scientific..”) to me. M.Bitton (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe you should state it clearly. Largoplazo (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t 1840 or 1860 or early 20th century Wikipedia. Is there a significant association between those languages and couscous now? Largoplazo (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not a written one. 22:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t matter. This notion that a language counts only if it’s written is your invention. A language is a language whether written or not. Largoplazo (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All one has to do is prove the close association using the very language that they want to add. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not the one claiming a close association, so why are you asking me that? I’ve only been pointing out the flaws in your argumentation, as well as those that I see in the arguments presented by others here. As you can see, this discussion has already become huge, and that’s in large part because each of you has been going off on tangents and non-sequiturs. Largoplazo (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you concentrate on the flaws of your arguments. 22:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why, do you think you’re entitled to flaws in your arguments when you make them, and no one should point them out because otherwise you wouldn’t be able to feel you’d won? Largoplazo (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please concentrate on the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was discussing it. And you were telling me that my discussion shouldn’t include doing what’s normally part of a discussion, which is to point out flaws in other participants’ arguments—specifically when that other participant is you. If you’re going to say something that amounts to the preposterous notion that other participants shouldn’t point out flaws in your arguments, then you’re the one who precipitated the digression to discuss that. If you don’t want that to happen, then acknowledge that you’re as fallible as anyone and you don’t have a special immunity against having your arguments picked apart. Largoplazo (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You already attributed your baseless conclusion to me, so do me a favour and concentrate on the flaws of your arguments. Further comments about me will simply be ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid aspects of your arguments stand whether you acknowledge them or not, and really do give the impression that, as a participant in this discussion, your attitude is “I’m right because I’m right”. Largoplazo (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid aspects of your arguments stand whether you acknowledge them or not, and really do give the impression that, as a participant in this discussion, your attitude is “I’m right because I’m right”. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
so professional. No wonder all you’ve been saying this entire discussion is opinionated novelties. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this to elaborate.
I think the tamazight languages are associated with couscous based on the sole fact that it is as much of a core cultural element to them as it is to maghrebi Arabic speakers. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They have also historically consumed the food and contributed to its development Yaghmosus (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point. MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV explicitly requires that we use a single “closely associated” non-English language. Skitash (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
couscous is closely associated with Berber, and this isnt some kind of crazy new thing im saying. this page itself LITERALLY corroborates it, the entire baseline of “KS” is of tamazight origin as said by the citations in the page itself.
i can cite 50 other sources that corroborate the same thing, what’s the confusion here? Yaghmosus (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll try to make this a bit clearer:
  • The origin of either the thing or the word is irrelevant. The origin of “electricity” is Greek, but the lead of Electricity doesn’t and shouldn’t give the Greek translation of “electricity”.
  • What does matter, which you are also trying to establish, is whether a language can be considered to be closely with the subject today. You should confine your focus to that in the interest of productivity.
Largoplazo (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear. The first sentence says a single closely associated non-English equivalent can appear in the lead. It goes on to say that there may be more than one non-English equivalent and, if so, they should all be placed in a footnote. It doesn’t say there can’t be more than one. Largoplazo (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Largoplazo, and that’s exactly what i said, keep the footnote, why is it removed? @M.Bittonseems to be in complete denial that the berber languages are even associated with couscous Yaghmosus (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be closely associated with a language that has no history of being written? M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it’s a spoken language. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Less so than Arabic and certainly, not a written one (unlike Arabic and without which North Africa wouldn’t have much of a history to talk about). M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
without Arabic it would’ve just been written in latin. I don’t see your point Yaghmosus (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The disagreement here is clearly over what “closely associated” means. If it means “used by people with whom the subject is closely associated”, then the food is closely associated with those languages whether they’re written or only oral. Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Largoplazo And I think we have a consensus here. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t say I agreed with your conclusion, I only made a distinction among your arguments as to which were relevant and which weren’t, so you could concentrate on the former. Largoplazo (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not as closely associated with those than the majority, but that aside: why just those people and why write their language in the Tifinagh script? M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the tifinagh script is the current official script for the Tamazight languages along with the berber latin script, The tifinagh script is officialized as such and used by both the algerian and moroccan states. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s official in Morocco only. How is that relevant to Couscous, its written history or the groups that you cherry picked? 22:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s official in algeria too, it’s literally on every government building, and this is corroborated by many sources. i didn’t cherry pick any group i just added the other groups that are associated with couscous, if anything associating it only with maghrebi arabs is a cherry pick. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You’re making a factually incorrect statement. Tifinagh is not even codified in Algeria, much less official.
i just added the other groups that are associated with couscous based on what? 22:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
its a berber origin dish, and they are berbers. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The origin is irrelevant, but why those and not the others? And why Tifinagh and not Arabic or Latin? M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll add others as I find citations. Do you how hard it is to find citations on spoken berber languages?. And I used tifinagh because it’s an official written form of berber languages as per tifinagh if you want we can add the berber Latin script. As for arabic I dont think there is an existing berber Arabic script. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think there is an existing berber Arabic script there has been one for much longer than the ones that have been recently created.
We’re going around in circles with your baseless and irrelevant assertions about what is official and what isn’t. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the necessary citations state them and add it to the berber languages and scripts pages. If not spare me your opinions. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t need a citation to refute your unsourced and totally baseless assertions. M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt make assertions you made them?. You stated a berber arabic script exists and refused to cite it. Yaghmosus (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt make assertions you made them?. You stated a berber arabic script exists and refused to cite it. Yaghmosus (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A word is a word regardless of what script is used to write it. If a word, taken with no regard as to how or whether it’s written, is closely associated with a subject, then it belongs and the only remaining question is whether there’s a script that’s suitable to write it in or whether we can give only a phonetic representation. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since the overwhelming majority of the concerned population speaks and write Arabic, then there is no issue. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m unsure why we’re debating Tifinagh being an official script (it is only official for Moroccan Standard Berber by the way). The single closely associated language here is Arabic, and that is also true of the very word “couscous” itself per the etymology section. Skitash (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining “closely associated”? Largoplazo (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The most relevant and connected language. Skitash (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to say “single” and “the” after I already pointed out to you that there’s no such restriction on the numbers of languages that can be presented. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we can add “مرسيليا” to Marseille (there are plenty of Arab speakers who live in it)? M.Bitton (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to be argued on its merits. Unless you’re trying to establish that there is only ever one language that qualifies as closely associated, it can be true that only one language is closely associated for Marseilles but more are for other subjects. And if you look at MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV, it’s clearly provided for that there are cases where more than one language qualifies. So we aren’t arguing here whether there can ever be more than one. There can be, that’s a given. The only legitimate concern here is whether there’s more than one in this case. Largoplazo (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC) Largoplazo (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How often the words are published (in reliable sources) in the language should tell us whether it’s associated with it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See how much more pleasant it is when you answer the question or argument with a straightforward, constructive, non-combative response instead of going into defensive barricades mode? Yes, that makes sense. I’ll counter by saying that reliable sources written in Arabic or English or French or Russian can report that the subject is very much tied to communities speaking those languages. Would that not count? Largoplazo (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t follow. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what it is you’re not understanding, but maybe I can expand on “reliable sources written in Arabic or English or French or Russian can report that the subject is very much tied to communities speaking those languages”? In other words, a reliable source can verify that a language other than the one the source is written in is closely associated with a subject. A French source can verify that Berber is closely associated with couscous. A source doesn’t have to be written in any of the Berber languages to achieve that. (I’m sorry, I’d write Tifinagh or Tamazight or Amazigh but at the moment it isn’t coming to me which of these is the preferred term for the languages as opposed to the script or the people.) Largoplazo (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Unfortunately, that doesn’t solve the issue of either the Berber languages (there are many of them) or the scripts that are used to write those languages (Arabic, Tifinagh and Latin). M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure it’s more published in french than any other language. Nice one.
And as is stated, I agree the main language here is arabic but other tamazight languages are also associated with couscous under historical cultural and linguistic precedents that i appropriately cited. Meaning the footnote should stay. Yaghmosus (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
except tamazight speakers have been consuming kouskous. And contributing to its development since it was created. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
tifinagh is used by the Algerian government. Tamazight languages are written exclusively in tifinagh in government buildings and much more. Yaghmosus (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The berber etymology for the word is literally right there on the pag aswell.
Moroccans are consumers and developers of couscous and berber is one of their languages. @Skitash Leprous3 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As an account that was created 5 minutes ago, this looks very much like a sock or an WP:SPA. Skitash (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every account has a starting point, this happened to be mine. Why would i have bothered making one before if i never started contributing?
More importantly why don’t to counter my argument instead of straying off topic? Leprous3 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
{{CU needed}} a new account (Leprous3) that was created after the uncalled for templating and hounding by Axiom Theory is too much of a coincidence to be coincidence. M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How is this hounding? ( he singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding) who am i exactly hounding and how could that be possible when i haven’t interacted with any user before? Leprous3 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @M.Bitton, I’m struggling to see grounds for a check here. I asked another CU who managed to talk themselves into it, and they had nothing to report. Please don’t bite the newbies. Thanks. — asilvering (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
hello @Asilvering, since this discussion is unable to go anywhere. Do I need to place it on some board. Or is the majority consensus already enough for me to push the agreed upon changes (a footnote on the related tamazight languages). Yaghmosus (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not going anywhere because most of it was spent dealing with the baseless assertions and the denial of simple facts (such as the Arabic script being used to write the various Berber languages).
I agree the main language here is arabic it is indeed the main language of all the countries involved, and the word itself (Couscous) is Arabic. This is what makes it the “single equivalent name in another language” that MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV is referring to.
If mentioning how it’s called in the different regions and different languages is what you’re after, then I see no problem in creating a “Names” section where we could add all of them, so long as they are properly sourced, especially the scripts. Taking what you added as an example:

in Taqbaylit as ⵙⵉⴽⵙⵓ seksu, in Tacawit as ⴰⴱⴻⵔⴱⵓⵛ aberbuc

In the Names section, we would add:

in Kabyle language as seksu, in Shawiya language as aberbuc

. M.Bitton (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“such as the Arabic script being used to write the various Berber languages” you refused to send a single source of an officially used arabic script for tamazight languages.
“and the word itself (Couscous) is Arabic.” the word itself is of berber origin, as is attested to by the citations used, as it is said in the “Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery, 1989: Staple Foods : Proceedings” “… coupled with the evident Berber origin of the Arabic word Kuskusu
and in the other cited source “Couscous, boulgour et polenta. Transformer et consommer les céréales dans le monde” which explicitly states “mais tout un faisceau d’indices et de données confirment la thèse de l’origine locale, ancienne et berbère du mot couscous”
same thing is attested to in “Couscous : sur l’étymologie du mot” which reiterates the Berber origins of the “KS” found in all variations (couscous, kaskasa, kuskusu, seksu…)
can’t forget the other used etymologies like the chaoui Aberbuc or the mzabi uccu, which are all local.
“This is what makes it the “single equivalent name in another language” that MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV is referring to.” and i infact agree to this.
“If mentioning how it’s called in the different regions and different languages is what you’re after, then I see no problem in creating a “Names” section where we could add all of them, so long as they are properly sourced, especially the scripts.” MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV clearly states they are supposed to be added as a footnote, but yeah we also add them as a section, and now it just comes down to the script used.
I argue that since Tifinagh (or more so neo tifinagh) is currently the official script used for Tamazight languages (explicitly stated in tifinagh,codified officially by the Moroccan government and used by the Algerian Government for Tamazight sentences (like government buildings and road posts)), it would make sense that in the context of Tamazight languages they would be written in their appropriate script, just like the Arabic is written, or how you write a russian word of a french one.
I don’t see it as necessary to find official sources for a literal script but if you insist.
there is one for seksu (https://en.glosbe.com/en/zgh/Couscous)
The rest I have in the Berber Latin script (which is usually and easily rewritten in tifinagh).
i just don’t understand your opposition to the usage of tifinagh as the script here, even though it’s common. Yaghmosus (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Widely known simple facts don’t need a source in a discussion, but since you insist, here’s one about the Kabyle language (which also mentions the other Berber languages).
the word itself is of berber origin The word Couscous is Arabic (that’s the language that it was borrowed into English from). The etymology of the Arabic word shouldn’t be mentioned in the lead (per MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV).
Tamazight languages … would be written in their appropriate script they are written in three scripts (Arabic, Latin and Tifinagh).
Moving forward:
and i infact agree to this. that’s great.
add them as a section excellent.
now it just comes down to the script used What I said above about the scripts is related to the WP:V and WP:DUE policies. We don’t need to rely “Glosbe” (an unreliable source) when we have better sources mentioning how it’s pronounced in the Kabyle and Shawiya languages (the source that you added uses the Latin script). M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is great, i backtrack, seems i was misinformed or misled, Newest concise comment is my official statement regarding this issue. Yaghmosus (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Inclusion of foreign equivalents
“When the subject is closely associated with more than one non-English language, the lead sentence should normally not single out one of them. In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a “Names” section or similar), rather than in the text of the first sentence, in order to avoid clutter and disputes over which language to feature.”
@Largoplazo‘s edit adhered exactly to this. I don’t see how you can justify any other modification without breaking this rule.The rule is very clear. Leprous3 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
an insane breach of WP:GF Yaghmosus (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Largoplazo and Yaghmosus here. Not really seeing the issue as there is a citation. Axiom Theory (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This stinks of WP:HOUNDING. M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton, if you think someone’s hounding you, discuss it on their talk page, or take it to ANI. The stonewalling and lack of basic courtesy in this discussion is absurd; it shouldn’t be a surprise to you to receive some warning templates about it. — asilvering (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I don’t think they are hounding me, I know they are. I did leave a note on their talk page and will take it to ANI if it continues. M.Bitton (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one is hounding you and respectfully, we’re all allowed to improve the encyclopedia. Axiom Theory (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a thorough read of both MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV and WP:OR. I wish to make a concise list of arguments, And How the page should be changed for it to be in the most accordance with the aforementioned rule pages. and I will split this into 2 parts
1.MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV and the “closest associated language” issue:
At first I thought the closest associated language is simply the language used by the majority of the Couscous consumers, which by this argumentation would be Arabic. But after further reading I noticed this isn’t what MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV states, it simply states “association” which due to the lack of context could only be interpreted in a general fashion. (I apologize for this confusion)
My take regarding this issue is one of neutrality, Arabic is the language used by the majority ( around 80% in Algeria and 60% in Morocco) of couscous consumers, and at the same time not only is it also consumed unanimously by Berbers alike as it core to their culture and cuisine, The word Couscous or any variations of it, is of Berber origin as is attested to by “Oxford Symposium on Food & Cookery, 1989: Staple Foods : Proceedings” which reads “… coupled with the evident Berber origin of the Arabic word Kuskusu. By “Couscous, boulgour et polenta. Transformer et consommer les céréales dans le monde” which explicitly states “mais tout un faisceau d’indices et de données confirment la thèse de l’origine locale, ancienne et berbère du mot couscous” and the “Couscous : sur l’étymologie du mot” which reiterates the same conclusions.
I think all of these compounding effects from both sides make not only Arabic but the Tamazight languages also as a “closely associated language” to the topic which in accordance to MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV: “When the subject is closely associated with more than one non-English language, the lead sentence should normally not single out one of them. In such cases, all non-English equivalents should be placed together in a single explanatory footnote (or in a “Names” section or similar),”
2. WP:OR and the usage of tifinagh
Another point of issue that stands is the use of tifinagh in the case of those Tamazight languages, Tifinagh is as it stands the official script regarding Tamazight languages along with the latin berber script as is stated in tifinagh, it’s codified by the moroccan government and used widely by the Algerian government in government buildings, road signs and much more. All of this information is easily verifiable. But the issue still stands that some editors think writing Those berber languages in tifinagh is in violation of WP:OR, which after reading i can’t find. Tifinagh is simply a script, a script that is honestly pretty close to latin and not hard to write in at all.I also dont find the usage of the tifinagh script as a breach of WP:V as it is easily verifiable with any tifinagh script book or online translator.And i’m also confused here since as i said the script just like any other script is just an assortment of sounds, if you want to verify if the sounds are accurately represented, than this is easily verifiable. This issue is as it stands less relevant than the first one. Yaghmosus (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version