Talk:Daghaghra

Merge proposal

I propose merging Daghaghra into Deghaghra. The Daghaghra page contains an inconsistency introduced by its creator, notably the "Origin" section, which mentions a Berber origin, while the infobox suggests an Arab Banu Sulaym origin. Furthermore, the Deghaghra page contains more academic sources. Mhmdgrd (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but this page is the first one published since many month. The "deghaghra" is just another create the 28th of december only after a long debate on the french wikipedia. This merging is'nt valid actually, the second page is'nt valid itself. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Origin

Hello, the first secondary source, André Louis, a specialist historian who studied Ibn Khaldun's writings in light of local tradition, concludes that the deghaghra are Berber. His work was later taken up by Menel Znidi, and these two sources are the most reliable and widely accepted academic references.

For this type of subject, web articles are not a suitable source. Forums, personal websites, blogs, commercial sites… unfortunately, too often lack objectivity or rigor, or are simply inspired by… Wikipedia.

As for Mohamed Bouzrara, he is not described as a historian at all, and this was evident in my own research. His works are more popular and do not necessarily possess the required precision and rigor, citing his statements with uncertainty and hesitation, and suggesting an "Omani" origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhmdgrd (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

What are you trying ? We already had a debate on the french Wikipedia. You never came to finish the debate and on the english wikipedia you are harassing page, you created a biased version, you tried to delete it, and know you return with this arguments, already debated and discussed. We can't accept this type of vandalization anymore. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The debate led nowhere and just kept repeating the same arguments. So, after consulting Wikipedia's rules, we must rely on academic consensus. The only historian who addresses the issue in detail is André Louis. His work will be taken up by Manel Znidi, which is supported by the academic community.

Historians François Pouillons, Gianni Albergoni, and Sonia Ben Meriem, in collaboration with the Institute for Research on Contemporary Maghreb, will revisit and modernize this work. They will not delve into the details of the Daghaghra, but they will go further, asserting with certainty that all the populations located between Gabès and Tripolitania are Berber (page 21).

And as I said in my first message, web articles and summary books lack the necessary rigor to address the subject. If you have academic sources, it would be relevant to include them. Read Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thank. Mhmdgrd (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

You are just trying to deny an actual tunisian historian, expert of this region by called his book "a summary book", and you are actually deleting all of the sources i used to create this page, to put yours with all the contempt possible. The debate already lead that you don't came to finish, even with other accounts during you banishment. This was actually war-editing, you already did that at the end of the last year and now you come back, also you tried to create a second page about this with all your sources who are just a random theory of 50 years old and finally tried also to delete. What is your problem with this page ? Al-Hilali Z (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

"just a random theory of 50 years old" We're dealing with a major WP:AGF and WP:NPOV problem here.

Sources from 1975 are perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia and modern sources. Especially when they come from recognized historians and to speak of a "random theory" when he relies on Ibn Khaldun and local tradition, as he himself states, is disingenuous. (SEO: 1 and 2). Especially since, as I said, this work will be resumed by François Pouillons, Gianni Albergoni, and Sonia Ben Meriem, in collaboration with the Institute for Research on Contemporary Maghreb page 10: "...André Louis (1912-1978), qui produisit à ce sujet des travaux fort estimables (Louis, 1975a ; 1975b)." in 2019 and Manel Znidi 2018. This is a point of consensus among all historians who have dealt with the issue, and none have questioned it or even supported the historical facts.

In your latest edition, You refer to an academic and contemporary source when discussing François Pouillon's source (which draws on the work of André Louis) to support your claims, which is true; however, on pages 118-119 there is no mention of Daghaghra on this page 118-119 and his just talk about nomadism of the region. And i repeat, in his book he definitively classifies any individual located between Gabès and Tripolitania as Berber page 21. You are therefore going against this academic and contemporary consensus.

As for Mohamed Bouzrara, I invite you first to prove to us that he is a historian because when I do my research, whether in Arabic, English or French Google, there is no reference to him as a historian nor any academic mention in his book WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. Moreover, these statements contradict the academic consensus, he does not review them, he bases his theories on nothing, and above all, he does not support this as fact because he hesitates with other origins and theorizes with an "Omani" topography. Mhmdgrd (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

There is litteraly an entire part of his book about Daghaghra and telling that they are from Banu Sulaym (https://archive.org/details/rr-373 page 145), he is litteraly an expert of his birth region, he wrote 3 books about it, and stop to say that there is nothing about him (https://integ02-mclt.archimed.fr/Default/doc/SYRACUSE-AUT/4443/%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-04-02-1949-00-00-00?_lg=ar-TN). You base all you works on a list telling that the Meguebla and Daghaghra are berbers (by André Louis), but actually there is also a debate on the Meguebla roots, some other writers tell they are also Arabs. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

And also i use a more recent source, we already had this debate on the french side of Wikipedia, and we already saw that it's better to have modern source, you are trying here the same thing that you tried and don't succeed on the french side, I invite everybody who read this "conflict" to check the french page of discussion and also the actual banishement you got for all you are doing. (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur%3AMhmdgrd&redlink=1) (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Daghaghra) Al-Hilali Z (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

We go by what the bulk of RS say, so (with quote please) each of you present 3 RS supporting your version. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

- For the first André Louis the historian who first conducted the in-depth study of the region on this book, He speaks in depth about this small tribe in the 14th century, drawing on local tradition and Ibn Khaldun page 113 "– Plus loin, dans ce qui sera le Djebel Ghomrassen, des Berbères Hamdoun, et dans le contrefort qui forme le Djebel Abiodh, des Berbères Chehaban, Meguabla et Dghrara, installés dans leurs “ksars” ou dans les parages et des Berbères Beni Barka et Guettofa, rattachés aux Berbères Zénètes qui se sont implantés dans le Djebel Gouatir."

- François Pouillons, Gianni Albergoni, and Sonia Ben Meriem, in collaboration with the Institute for Research on Contemporary Maghreb page 23 "À lire la littérature scientifque consacrée à l’Extrême-Sud tunisien (5) , on retire une certitude : tous les groupes instal- lés entre Gabès et la frontière tripolitaine peuvent être défnis comme « berbères », comme empreints à des degrés divers d’une « berbérité » qui les caractérise collectivement.", The book is about the region they come from (they are from Tataouine in Tunisia), This book also aims to modernize the work of André Louis page 10 "L’Extrême-Sud avait été ainsi abandonné à l’ethnographie un peu vieillotte d’un Père Blanc rattaché au musée des Arts et Traditions populaires, André Louis (1912-1978), qui produisit à ce sujet des travaux fort estimables (Louis, 1975a ; 1975b)."

- We have also Mohamed Hassen page 270 of this book who is talking about the Ourderna (the tribe to which the Dagara belong) "parmi les fractions de Demmer, Ibn Khaldoun mentionnait Banu Wirgimma dans les mon- tagnes de la Tripolitaine. D’après les sources ibadites, elle était au XI e siècle une tribu mal connue de la Tripolitaine. Ce n’est qu’à la fin du Moyen Âge et au début de l’époque moderne qu’elle regroupait toutes les tribus berbères de la montagne et de la plaine de Ğefāra, en quatre fractions : Wadārna (dont l’ancêtre est Wudrin),..."

- https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ouerghemma-League otherwise, simply a tertiary source from Britannica which reports that the Ouerghemma (the confederation to which they belong) are Berber "In Medenine… was the capital of the Ouerghemma League of three Amazigh (Berber) groups and was the chief town of the Southern Military Territories during the French protectorate (1881–1955)..." Mhmdgrd (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybre I was unclear, you need to produce a source that says the Ouderna tribe were Berber. Not that they were similar, or linked or some were, that is the (whole) tribe's origin. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

"Les tribus berbères de la montagne et de la plaine de Ğefāra, en quatre fractions : Wadārna (dont l’ancêtre est Wudrin)..." The Wadarna are another way of writing ouderna, but in the source, on page 115 of André Louis's work or on this another work from him page 16, he reports that the tribe incorporated the Ouled Debbab and Ouled Chehida – Les Oudernas, après s’être incorporés des tribus arabes debbabiennes, dont les Ouled Chehida, peuplent la haute Djeffara ;, who are other branches of the Ouderna.

"– Les Oudernas, après s’être incorporés des tribus arabes debbabiennes, dont les Ouled Chehida, peuplent la haute Djeffara ;"

And on the second book "Les Ouderna, qui après s'être incorporédes tribus arabes comme les Ouled Debbab ou les Ouled Chehida, vont peupler la Haute Jefâra. C'est cette dernière tribu, en mouvance autour et au-delà de Tataouine, qui retiendra surtout notre attention."

He discusses the Daghaghra in detail on page 111, as i have shown you.

Ouerghemma ---> Ouderna ---> Ouled Slim ---> And the all tribe of ouled Slim = Ouled Debbab, Daghaghra, Ouled Chehida, Adjerda et Dehibat (I highlighted the Arab tribes according to him) Mhmdgrd (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Litteraly the source of https://www.academia.edu/90507154/Berbe_res_Arabes_colonisation_s_ tell that the Daghaghra are Arabs... Saying that they get some part of berber culture or get partially berberized it's for the average Arab tribe in Maghreb... Fork found in kitchen. But it don't make them ethnically and in the lineage berber. And the debate are not about the berberity of Ouerghemma and Ouderna, they are of berber core offcours, but they integrated some Arabs clans like Daghaghra, Ouled Chahida, Ouled Debbab etc. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

That's never been written down. I don't know why you want to lie, it's useless stop please. Mhmdgrd (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Go to pages 119 & 120, you are lying. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

There is absolutely no mention of Daghaghra; the note clearly states that it refers to the Ouled Debbab. Mhmdgrd (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

" Al-Hilali Z (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

”mais il arrive que les choses prennent l'allure d'un véritable règlement de comptes, y compris entre ’arab; ou peut être surtout entre ’arab. À l'époque de notre enquête, un différend à propos de l'accaparement de terres de labours, vient d'opposer les Ulad Debbab aux Daghaghra.” (page 119). Its litteraly talking about the conflictual relationship between Arabs "entre ’arab", the Daghaghra are in, because after the example used is a conflict between Ouled Debbab and Daghaghra. It's an easy sentence, and we both speak french, everybody can easily understand this. You are just openly lying. And the text after told us that the Ouled Debbab are extremely proud of their origin (belonging to the great Debbab fraction of Banu Sulaym) and degrading the Daghaghra. This text is an academic one, and litteraly call the Daghaghra as Arabs. Also in research of academic texts, i have this theses from the Durham University, "Tribesmen and the colonial encounter : Southern Tunisia during the French Protectorate 1882 to 1940 - Volume 2", where at the page 44, the Daghaghra are named to be Arab tribes and have alliance with the Sedra berbers (and the Ouled Chahida Arabs with the Tazardanet berbers. (Link access from the Durham University website : https://etheses.durham.ac.uk/id/eprint/6764/). I give today to you 2 academic sources about this tribes, you can't ignore it today or trying to invalidate them. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to exploit the confusion between the descriptions of nomads and Arabs. The book clearly states that this is a colonial perspective that divides the nomads and settled populations of the region. Furthermore, François Pouillon's book clearly indicates the Arab origin of the Ouled Debbab, not the Daghaghra. The quotation marks are not there for decoration. Moreover, these books are not primarily focused on the study of origins. André Louis was clear on this point and addressed the subject: all nomadic tribes were considered "Arab" by the colonial authorities, who exploited the Kabyle myth, not just the Ouled Chehida and Daghaghra. And again, André Louis addressed the question of origins in detail, so I don't know why you insist on including the Daghaghra. The Arab tribes are the Ouled Debbab (name of Sulaym tribe) and the Ouled Chehida (name of the Arab woman whom Slim married).

Page 47-48 "Si l’onomastique identife chaque groupe singulier, il est aussi des classements de ces mêmes groupes en fonction d’une identité sociale générique : ainsi le lexique régional distingue ‘arab et jbalîya. Pour l’ensemble du Sud tunisien et au-delà en Tripolitaine (De Agostini, 1917 ; Despois, 1935, 137 sq.), cette distinction est, de tous les critères génériques qui peuvent coexister ou interférer, celle qui présente la plus grande généralité et conserve aujourd’hui même une pré- gnance surprenante. Les observateurs coloniaux n’ont certes pas ignoré longtemps cette distinction ni son importance. Leurs premiers textes avaient évoqué simplement des Ber- bères, voire « les Kabyles du Sud tunisien ». Par la suite ils ne négligèrent plus de rappeler la terminologie vernaculaire, et c’est en jouant de celle-ci et de ses ambiguïtés, que l’équation Berbères = montagnards, est implicitement posée le terme de jbalîya désignant en effet littéralement des « montagnards ». Cependant le lexique se révèle plus ambigu qu’il ne semble et le sens de la distinction moins évident que ne le laisse sup- poser la trop hâtive traduction par le couple Arabes-Berbères. On ne saurait en effet attribuer au terme de jbalîya une valeur descriptive : des montagnards par exemple, qui ne se disent ni ne sont dits jbalîya, désignent en revanche par ce nom un groupe vivant sur le même territoire et que rien ne distingue quant à sa localisation. Le terme n’indique pas non plus direc- tement une appartenance ethnique, bien qu’il semble y renvoyer... Quant à l’autre terme de l’opposition, ‘arab, il offre la même ambiguïté : marque d’une origine bédouine, à valeur aristocratique, ou défnition d’un genre de vie spécifque, le nomadisme. Aucune ambi- guïté en revanche si l’on demande qui parle dans ce discours : ce sont les ‘arab. Jbalîya ce sont toujours les autres ; tandis que ceux qui sont ainsi désignés, s’ils n’ignorent pas qu’on leur applique une telle appellation, ne la reprennent certes pas à leur compte. Aujourd’hui, et devant cet étranger qu’est l’ethnologue, on ne l’utilise qu’avec réticence ; à moins que ce ne soit avec acrimonie et comme pour dénoncer l’indignité cachée de certains..." I'm not going to list everything; the book is literally mostly about that. Mhmdgrd (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

He litteraly classed the Daghaghra as Arabs but said that the Ouled Debbab, descendant of a great known confederation (the Debbab of Banu Sulaym) they was more "noble" than the Dagha ghra, that the ancestors are not know and dont have the same acknowledgement than the Ouled Debbab ones. Stop manipulating the sources. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill, im sorry to id you on this but it's to showing actually the sources i have (one from an academic institution about Maghreb and the other from Durham University, in addition of those on the page. All say that they are Arabs, all this sources are confirming the reality of Daghaghra, i known some dagharis and they are formal, they are an arab tribe, and a bedouin one. The sources confirming this, litteraly making the difference between Arab bedouins who was the protectors of berber sedentaries cheikhdom. Actually Mhmgrd is telling anything based on only 1 source and even it's litteraly non-sense, because Ibn Khaldoun died before the foundation of the Ouerghemma confederation and just tell that berbers (with no link known with Daghaghra) lived in the area. It's the same thing to say "New York was inhabited by natives, the people there today are all natives", by ignoring the immigrations and colonizations... And one source from André Louis is'nt a perfect truth, he can litteraly make errors. Me, i gave multiple sources, a historical and ethnical consensus. The Daghaghra are Arabs. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

RfC about The origin

• Option A: The Daghaghra are a Berber tribe (example permalink)
• Option B: The Daghaghra are a Arab tribe (example permalink)
• Option C: Other suggestion

Mhmdgrd (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This is not a correctly formatted RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry, idk how. Mhmdgrd (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing what I understand to be the disputed diff, it seems like there's actually three questions at play here: 1) should the lead, infobox and short description characterize Daghaghra as a Berber group? 2) should the Origins section include claims of Bedouin origin and 3) should a clearly-attributed legendary origin be included in the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

1) As mentioned above, I am basing my work on the study by the historian André Louis, which draws on the writings of Ibn Khaldun and local tradition, and reports that this tribe is Berber and that it lived in the forts of the Jebel Abiodh mountains.

2) For me, it relates to a lifestyle and not to an origin.

3) I think that initially we need to look at the quality of the source, especially since this isn't a definitive statement; several myths of this kind have been created in the region the last century. Mhmdgrd (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

For the infobox, the introduction, and the brief description, I'm not really sure. I just set it to the default, replacing the basic content. It's true that it's a small tribal sub-faction, and I think it would be more appropriate to highlight the factions above it in the hierarchy. I don't know what you think. Mhmdgrd (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

1) The majority of sources say that the Daghaghra are an Arab tribes (from Banu Sulaym), and for the case of André Louis there is litteraly nothing about Ibn Khaldoun who spoke about Daghaghra. The Daghaghra tribe, like Ouled Debbab and Ouled Chahida, are Arab tribes who entered in alliance (hilf) with a bigger berber confederation, the Ouerghemma.

2) They are bedouins, in roots and was in lifestyle

3) The legend about the abandonned man is just a foundation myth, there is no debate to delete it, true or false, it's clearly named a "legend". Al-Hilali Z (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• Calling for procedural close, a.s.a.p. We have a huge backlog already. A minimum of effort is not too much to ask. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  Rosguill Slatersteven Have you reached a conclusion? Mhmdgrd (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  I would agree with The Gnome's proposal for a procedural close. This still isn't properly formatted for an RfC, and I'm not solidly convinced on either of the questions based on your arguments thus far. On 1, I am leaning towards including "Berber" based on the sources you have cited, but would like to see a reply from Al-Hilali Z that provides sources that could establish that a majority of sources describe Daghaghra as only Arab. On 2 and 3 I don't see anything to sway the argument either way and would expect to see citations to sources that justify/dismiss the inclusion of Bedouin lifestyle for 2, and sources that emphasize/ignore the legendary account for 3. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, I've updated the RFC. Let me know if it's okay please.

  I'm not opposed to integrating the "Bedouin" way of life, especially since it's already in the history category article; however, in my opinion, it doesn't belong in the origin section.

  For the legendary tale, we have better-known examples, notably with the Ghomrassen tribe, which is larger and more famous. There is a recent legend circulating that says it comes from the city's builders in the 15th century and that it comes from the Arabic phrase "he hid his head." However, it is even easier to attest with this tribe that they are Berber, that etymologically it is Berber, and that it means "chief/stallion of the tribe" in Berber, and that the tribe was already present in the 14th century, notably with the traveler Abdallah Al-Tijani who traveled among them.

  Source : "La petite ville de Ghomrassen était jadis la capitale politique et religieuse de tout le Sud tunisien. Certains racontent que Ghomrassen aurait été fondée par sept frères, venus dans la région au XVIᵉ siècle. Alors qu'ils avaient atteint la vallée d'un oued, l'un d'eux s'était arrêté et avait demandé aux autres d'attendre qu'il ait plongé la tête dans la rivière. Et c'est cette anecdote, ghom rassou en arabe ("il a caché sa tête"), qui serait à l'origine du nom de ce lieu, devenu Ghomrassen. En réalité, le mot Ghomrassen est composé de deux mots berbères : ghomr (tribu) et sen (l'étalon, le chef)..." Mhmdgrd (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  No, I don't think the new opening statement is adequate, it doesn't introduce the topic for other editors to assess and it seems to deviate rather significantly from what I identified as the main questions at issue. I'm going to remove the RfC template now. Please take some time to workshop a statement that actually can provide the basis for a decent RfC before rushing to reopen it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, okay, so that was the problem. No worries, I'll fix it. I wanted to keep it simple to avoid any neutrality issues. Mhmdgrd (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  All the sources i have are in the actual version of the page if you want to check, they are with the pages numbers and when it's in french or arabic you can translate with Google Lens or Google Traduction if you want to verify by yourself for the neutrality. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Rfc about the origin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I am contacting you regarding a disagreement on the origin of the Daghaghra, let me explain.

My counterpart, Hilali Z, reports the Daghaghra are of Arab origin, specifically Banu Sulaym. He bases this on a source attributed to Mohamed Bouzrara (p.115). However, I disagree with this source and its reliability because, despite presenting Bouzrara as a historian, I found nothing about him. When I asked him to justify his claim, he presented this source, describing him as a radio host and a member of the labor movement since 2016, who had completed secondary education. I would add that, in my opinion, the author is uncertain about the Daghaghra's Banu Sulaym origins and hesitates between them and an Omani origin. He also added this source (p.367), which doesn't give an author's name but says nothing about the origin of the Daghaghra, but presents the tribal faction to which they belong and nothing specific about their origin: "Slim: The sons of Diab, the sons of Shahbida, the sons of Slim al-Wadarna, the sons of al-Daghagh"

In my case I rely on André Louis (p.115) who dealt with the question based on local tradition as well as the texts of the medieval historian Ibn Khaldoun who reports that they are Berber. This source is not reliable for him because " just a random theory of 50 years". The work of André Louis will be taken up by several academics including Manel Znidi (who will confirm the Berber origin based on him p.120 on the note), Gianni Albergoni,François Pouillon and Sonia Ben Meriem (p.10) in collaboration with the Institute for Research on Contemporary Maghreb (which aimed to modernize his work but without going into detail on the origin of the Daghaghra). There is also Zouhir Gabsi (p.11) who will quote André Louis directly, which will facilitate the translation: "According to Ibn Khaldun, in the fourteenth century, the Berbers inhabiting Southern Tunisia can be classified as follows (cited in Louis 1975:27):... In the Jebel Ghomrassen, there are the Hamdoun Berbers and in Jebel Abiodh one finds the Berbers of Chehaban, Meghebla and Dghaghra".

There's also the inclusion of "Bedouin" in the origin section, which, in my opinion, doesn't belong there because it refers more to the nomadic way of life, especially since he already mentioned this in the history section, referring to André Louis himself, even though he considers his source unacceptable for the origin section. "André Louis described them as lords due to their nomadic status, while sedentary people were described as serfs of the Bedouins."

There's also this source on the tribe's founding, which raises the same reliability concerns for me because it comes from a web article and lacks the necessary rigor to discuss origins. Furthermore, I think we all agree it's not real; we don't know where this myth comes from, and it's never been repeated before, which I consider unprecedented.

• Option A: The Daghaghra are a Berber tribe (example permalink)
• Option B: The Daghaghra are a Arab tribe (example permalink)
• Option C: Other suggestion

Mhmdgrd (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Option C We don't know, and if we'd want to find out we need to do large scale DNA research which is costly and doesn't solve a real problem. We can report Ibn Khaldun's statement and attribute it to him, but his work was also politically motivated (like everything is ever). Usually the way to report this is: V is disputed, W said X, Y said Z. Polygnotus (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Could you tell me what you think of the current version? I added Mohamed Bouzrara's source, although i don't think it's a reliable source since he's not a university professor and isn't considered a specialist or academic in the field. Mhmdgrd (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I saw you guys had a long discussion over at frwiki without a clear conclusion. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Daghaghra#Vandalisme @Dr. Blofeld: What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The IRMC book states on page 23:

L’una- nimité est telle sur ce point que l’on est surpris d’entendre aujourd’hui les intéressés refuser avec véhémence de se voir appliquer une telle étiquette considérée à la limite comme in- famante, proclamer au contraire leur arabité et la prouver par des titres symboliques proprement indiscutables.

Mais la domination coloniale, sous sa forme scientifque, ne consiste-t-elle pas précisément à prendre possession de la parole vraie, à se substituer au sa- voir constitué que les groupes en place ont sur eux-mêmes, au « discours indigène » qui est dès lors relégué au niveau de fables enluminées, parfois plaisantes mais dénuées d’intérêt scientifque.

So to me it looks like choices A and B in this RfC are wrong, the reliable sources do not support a clean binary choice, and option C is the only valid choice. Polygnotus (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, however the book deals precisely with the fact that the individuals of this region are Berber and call themselves Arab today. He also reports on page 27 the testimony of Lucien Berthelon (fr):

On a commis à l’égard de cette région la même erreur qu’autrefois pour la Kabylie. Nous avons trouvé entre Gabès et la Tripolitaine une sorte de petit État berbère, semi-indépendant ; notre intérêt était de lui conserver son originalité et son autonomie ; au lieu de cela nous l’avons soumis à l’influence beylicale. Grâce à nous actuellement on l’arabise ; de la sorte on unifie la Régence. Cette unification ne peut se réaliser qu’à notre détriment en vertu de l’axiome qui commande de diviser pour régner (Bertholon 1894, 170).

I don't mind that the article doesn't take sides; I just want to add Ibn Khaldun's 14th-century testimony, which seems to me to be the most reliable source about this tribe. Is there anything I should change to make it more impartial? Mhmdgrd (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

And you also deleted academic sources... Why ? You deleted the foundation legend, who is a legend just and should'nt be deleted. The sources about the relationships with the berber cheikhdoms, who are an academic source from Durham University, also one from the Institut de Recherche du Maghreb Contemporain, why are you deleting academic sources and only using the Bouzerara's one like you was neutral ? You are deleting sources and texts that you don't like litteraly and you are obviously against the hypothesis that the tribe can be Arab. Also the point of Tamazight, no source talk about the speaking of it by the tribe, why spamming it so ?? Al-Hilali Z (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Where is the clear Ibn Khaldun's statement ? There is no saying of him telling about "Berbers of Daghaghra" directly. Actually what @Mhmdgrd is doing is POV-pushing, he litteraly deleted sources i putted from Durham University who are talking about the fact that they are Arabs and also their relationship with real berber cheikhdoms in the region. Why he is deleting all the sources i putted and using only the Bouzerara's one ? I said that i putted other sources who say the same thing, that the Daghaghra are an arab tribe. Actually Mhmdgrd is using only one source who clearly (and again it's in a list) that the Daghaghra are berbers, but using a source of Ibn Khaldun telling that berbers lived their before is litteraly non-sense and anachronistic, we can do the same thing with the Ouled Chahida and Ouled Debbab tribes, who are Arabs who came after Ibn Khaldun and lived on a land previously inhabited by berbers. We can do the same thing for every Arab tribes. And it's know that many Berbers of this region fled the Arab migrations in the mountains (founding the "Djebala" tribes) and using a source a historian who died before the foundation of the Ouerghemma and possibly the foundation of the Daghaghra.

Actually, it's full of anachronistic sources, and no direct link in the sources, only one of André Louis. During this time i putted many sources who tell that the tribe is Arab, bedouin, from Banu Sulaym. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

1) Zouhir Gabsi (p.11) "According to Ibn Khaldun, in the fourteenth century, the Berbers inhabiting Southern Tunisia can be classified as follows (cited in Louis 1975:27):... In the Jebel Ghomrassen, there are the Hamdoun Berbers and in Jebel Abiodh one finds the Berbers of Chehaban, Meghebla and Dghaghra". Western Sydney University It is not up to you to judge whether the specialists are right or wrong; a contributor should simply provide reliable sources and what they report, nothing more.

2)The Durham University sources don't say they are Arab and don't even discuss their origins; they simply rely on colonial classifications: Arab = nomadic and Berber = sedentary. It's not for nothing that they use quotation marks "'" when they say Arab, because they know it's just a colonial view of society. source p.29 :

"La frontière, d’abord fort mouvante que l’on établit entre les deux races qui se partagent la région, se stabilise en une sorte de point d’équilibre à mi-chemin entre les préjugés des observateurs et les réalités socio-politiques qu’ils affrontaient. Elle a le mérite de la simplicité et peut se résumer en deux équations : "berbère : agriculteur sédentaire : montagnard ; arabe : pasteur nomade : habitant des plaines". C’est la distinction la plus récurrente dans les analyses de cette région ; distinction erronée à notre sens et qui est à l’origine de distorsions importantes dans une lecture qui s’en nourrissait trop..." You know what, we'll use this source if the others agree, despite the reported facts; however, according to the source, they are only Arab and there is no mention of Banu Sulaym :)

3) The Ouled Chehida and the Ouled Debbab cannot be reasoned in the same way because they are of Arab origin, specifically Sulaym (these are the two only branches cited as such within the Ouderna tribe, and there are sources to support this), unlike the Daghaghra, for whom there are literally sufficient sources to explain their existence. However, the Daghaghra remain distinctly Berber. The Ouled Chehida appeared after Ibn Khaldun and are never mentioned by him, given that the tribe originated from the union of Slim and Chehida, an Arab woman. The Ouled Debbab, on the other hand, are mentioned by Ibn Khaldun and are a very ancient tribe; therefore, they did not exist after Ibn Khaldun.

4) As reported by the academic specializing in the language Zouhir Gabsi (p.11) , who wrote a comprehensive work on the Berber language of the region, it is spoken by the Daghaghra and the population of Djebel Abiodh. The travelers Abdallah Tijani of the 15 century even reported that the tribes of Arab origin were Berberized and called them "Berberized Arabs". source p.28 : "La proportion est inversée si l’on suit les classifications raciales opérées dans les nomenclatures tribales pour lesquelles, à quelques exceptions près, tous les groupes peuvent être dits « berbères » à des degrés divers de métissage et d’acculturation qu’autorisent les notions de « Berbère arabisé » et d’« Arabe berbérisé » (10). (10) Cette notion remonte loin puisqu’on la retrouve, au XVe siècle, sous la plume de Et-Tijani (1852, 192)." So the Berber language clearly has its place in the article, especially when talking about this region where it is still spoken.

@AndreJustAndre @Polygnotus @Rosguill @Slatersteven

Please, I'm starting to lose patience. It's not normal that it's so hard and long for me. I'm trying to act in good faith; how can this problem be resolved? Everyone who gave their opinion seems to agree with adding Ibn Khaldun's source, except for him. His source is based on a radio host who only had a secondary education. Knowing that academic sources are the best for Wikipedia (or so I've been told), I brought them in, and he didn't provide any equivalents except for articles from a lost Arab website and those from Bouzrara, which isn't an academic source. What should I do? Mhmdgrd (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

wait the 30 days of the RFC then request a formal close if the consensus is unclear. Closure requests. You don't need to engage in a back and forth. Let the RFC attract uninvolved editors Andre🚐 21:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you. I'll come back on May 5th then. Mhmdgrd (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

First thing, the Zouhir Gabsi's writing on the "Daghaghra berbers" theory is just a copy past from André Louis. Also it's litteraly not from Ibn Khaldun. Second thing, you litteraly prove that you don't read the sources and the arguments, by quoting and talking about "Berbères, arabes et colonisations" for talking about the Durham source, who is not this text. You are totally in the contempt of what I gave in the debate. And also, it have NOTHING COLONIAL, in the description of the tribes roots, the Arab tribes was majority of the nomadic groups, and the berbers was the majority of the sedentary ones, but you know, many Berber tribes in the south were nomadic, but they wasn't called bedouin for this and they was known as berbers, why are you lying ? There is great nomadic berber groups all across Maghreb who are not called as Arabs. Ait Atta in Morocco, Touareg of Algeria, and in the Ouerghemma themselves, the Touazine who are nomadic, and berbers, and described as berbers. Third point, it's litteraly that, what are you trying to do ? Ibn Khaldun never talked about the Ouled Debbab of Ouderna, but of the Debbab Kubra, the great Debbab fraction of Sulaym. And the Daghaghra dont remain distinctly as berbers. Fourth point, why putting tamazight as the first language ? And why dont putting sources in the page so ?

Honestly, in this debate, it's me who are losing patience against someone who attack this page since many month, on the french and english side, and who is totally blinded by his point of view and litteraly enter in pov-pushing. You are litteraly deleting the sources that you don't like, i putted many and many sources of quality, and you are talking about one source, an academic one, who is just a copy of what André Louis is saying, nothing else new, no new real expertises ? Stop, you are litteraly here in an ideologic fighting, like in the french side. I call @AndreJustAndre@Polygnotus and everybody who touched a little bit this debate if they can and when they have the time to check everything, all the debates, and the sources and also the history of this user. He was already banned on the french side, and known for using of pov-pushing, litteraly the same thing here, when he created a second page where the Daghaghra are fully a berber tribe, and the other time when he tried to make it deleted. And now, he just want to "restore a truth about it". Since the beginning he have a problem with this tribe, or this page. This debate is much longer than just sources battles, but litteraly we are infront of someone who just want to spread his ideology by any way. I will restore the text he deleted until the end of the debate and a arrangement of this one, but not by this user who is litteraly deleting what he don't like. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I putted all the sources that tell the tribe is an Arab bedouin tribe, also the book at the page 367 dont tell about the "sons of Daghagh" but only the word "Daghaghra", its again that you are lying in your translations. Also Ibn Khaldoun never talk about Daghaghra, there is no sources of Ibn Khaldun talking about them. Like I said further, I have also many academical modern sources who describe them as arabs. You have actually just one source who is against the historical and ethnical consensus. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

C false dichotomy, basically per Polygnotus. Attribute and balance. Andre🚐 03:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a joke ? I wait always the sources of Ibn Khaldun telling that the Daghaghra are berbers, and directly, not the "there is berbers in Djebel Abiodh", like i said, many Arab tribes lived today on ancient berber tribes territory who abandonned this land, or migrated, or get conquered/expulsed. And this in the both ethnicity, it can be the Arabs who made fled the berber tribes to the mountains in south Tunisia, and founded the "Djebaliyah tribes", or the berber tribes who pushed the Arabs out of there territory or new conquered territory like the Zemmour tribe and the Bani Ahsen in Morocco with Maamora forest. So telling that Ibn Khaldoun said that a place was inhabitated by berbers during a Time is not valid. The only thing valid is that Ibn Khaldoun litteraly wrote something about Daghaghra directly, and named them as Daghaghra, actually your source is off-topic. I told that during all the debate, but litteraly nobody seems to care about what I said. Check the sources, everything is sourced, all the pages, all the link, you can check by yourself what I say. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Option C; attribute and balance; oppose B. Out of curiosity, I explored Fozzard (the Durham thesis), which a pro-Arab origin editor had introduced. The citation given is to page 44 of volume 2. The content there does not actually support a claim of Arab origin; note how it's 'Arab' as opposed to Arab sans quotation marks. If one reads preceding pages, one finds a few clarifications:

Superficial similarities between the disparate Berber communities of North Africa were advanced as arguments for distinct Berber historical, religious, and linguistic tradition, a unity of Berber culture and society across the Maghreb, a unity that confirmed the distinction between the Berber and Arab.

Contrasts were seen in every facet: in race Caucasian/Semitic, in character industrious/lazy, in politics democrats/tyrants, in economy farmers/nomads, and so by extension good/bad...That these distinctions were fallacious was demonstrated when commentators attempted to identify specific Berber communities in Southern Tunisia. It was generally accepted that the Berbers were in place before the Arab invasions (though the debate as to whether they were the indigenous inhabitants or, as the Arab historians argued, early immigrants still continues). How great a proportion these racial Berbers were in the population of the south was never assessed, their predominance was simply assumed.

— Volume 2, page 39

So Fozzard throws doubt both on the Arab origin theory and the strict categorization of Berbers.

As Berbers adopted Islam, Arabic, Arab culture and genres de vie they became, to use the French classification, Berbers-Arabisés.

... These mountain communities, in contrast to the Berbers-Arabisés, identified themselves as of Berber origin and made an effort to preserve their Berber identity through rigid endogamy and social segregation.

— Volume 2, page 40

So 'Arab' denotes not origin but self-identification and behavior.

I would oppose, then, based on my reading of this source and only this source, a description of an Arab origin. I have not reviewed any other source and so cannot in good faith go for option A. AHZ claims to have modern sourcing supporting that origin, which, I must presume, is of high quality. I encourage them to show their hand, but this is the only participation I will make in this discussion. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see in any of what you quoted something telling that they are not Arabs, he litteraly just said in the first quote that the indigenous people of South Tunisia (and like all North Africa) are Berbers. The "Berbères arabisés" (Arabized Berbers) are not Arabs and are not called Arabs, but "Berbères arabisés" in the french texts. His thesis's topic is South Tunisia, so it's logic to talk about Berbers. But in this 2 quote there is nothing telling that they are not Arabs. They are classified as, and even between quotation marks, they are classified as, in addition of all the other sources. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus final about origin

Hello, I am therefore producing this last RFC (I hope) on the origin of the Daghaghra with this time.

Indeed, in the source that was added to the introduction by the historian Mohamed Hassen, I managed to access it, and it adds more detail on the origin of this tribe on page 143: "...The Ouderna, who come from Ouardiyun of the Bani Demmer, from whom the Zorgane, the Krachoua, the Daghaghra and the Djellidet descended... See Ibn Hawal, p. 102 ; Ibn Khaldoun, p. 108 ; Al-Shammakh, Al-Siyar, p. 289"(trad.) This means that the Ouderna are a Berber tribe of Zenata origin descended from the Aït Demmer, whose ancestor was Ouardiyun.

Add to that the source of the historian André Louis(p.115), which is based on Ibn Khaldun, and which is widely accepted by academics such as Zouhir Gabsi(p.11) and Manel Znidi(p.141) "According to Ibn Khaldun, in the fourteenth century, the Berbers inhabiting Southern Tunisia can be classified as follows (cited in Louis 1975:27):... In the Jebel Ghomrassen, there are the Hamdoun Berbers and in Jebel Abiodh one finds the Berbers of Chehaban, Meghebla and Dghaghra" There is also the historian François Pouillon, but he does not mention the Daghaghra.

Next to it is the source of Mohamed Bouzrara (p.145) who presents them as Banu Sulaym Arabs: "The Daghaghra, an important Arab tribe in the Tataouine region, are descended from the Bani Salim and are among the oldest inhabitants of the Djebel Abiodh, alongside the Meghebla and the Chehaban."(trad.). What I find problematic about this source is that it doesn't come from a historian or academic, but from a "radio host with a secondary education." Furthermore, the author seems to base most of his text on André Louis, as can be seen in the footnote on the previous page, but for the Daghaghra, he cites no author and seems to simply reproduce André Louis's writings, this time replacing "Berber" with "Arab Banu Sulaym."

See also previous RFC.

Mhmdgrd (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are you litteraly deleting other sources about the foundation legend ? Why are you deleting the academic sources and dont talk about it, and where is the conclusion ? Al-Hilali Z (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Moumou82 I allow myself to id you on this, the situation is becoming critical, actually the user Mhmdgrd litteraly deleting all sources that the Daghaghra are Arabs, and only take one (and use another one based on the André Louis's source) that is litteraly just a list of tribe that he classified as berbers. But why deleting when Mohamed Bouzerara, the chief of the Cultural Center of Remada, an office of the Tunisian Ministry of Culture. And all the other sources from Tunisian historians and from universities. Also why deleting a legend ? There is not debate about this, it's just what the tribe members telling, why deleting it ? Because they claim to be descendant of an arab men from Ouled Yagoub ?

Mhmdgrd talk about the Mohamed Bouzerara's source only to look like to be neutral, but his historic on the encyclopedia is known. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Al-Hilali Z, if you have an issue, then this should be reported to administrators. Moumou82 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. Feedback from the previous RfC's close included an ask for a brief statement. Also, the question itself is unclear. If I am reading between the lines correctly, I recommend that the RfC be simply:

Should the Daghaghra be described in wikivoice as of Arab origin, Berber origin, or should conflicting claims be attributed and balanced appropriately?

with arguments and sourcing to follow after the RfC statement. This keeps things clear and encourages outside participation. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 23:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Mhmdgrd (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Rfc for a final consensus on the origin of the Daghaghra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, after a Request for Complaints (RFC) on the origin of the Daghaghra (Arab or Berber) which resulted in no consensus, I created a very brief new one to settle the matter. The participants agreed on adding the quote from Ibn Khaldun who describes them as Berber, without taking a definitive stance for either origin.

Should the Daghaghra be described in wikivoice as of Arab origin, Berber origin, or should conflicting claims be attributed and balanced appropriately? Mhmdgrd (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

To attribute a Berber origin. Indeed, with the elements from this source in the source that was added to the introduction by the historian of the Institute for Research on the Contemporary Maghreb Mohamed Hassen that were not in the old RFC, I managed to access it, and it adds more detail on the origin of this tribe on page 143: "...The Ouderna, who come from Ouardiyun of the Bani Demmer, from whom the Zorgane, the Krachoua, the Daghaghra and the Djellidet descended... See Ibn Hawal, p. 102 ; Ibn Khaldoun, p. 108 ; Al-Shammakh, Al-Siyar, p. 289"(trad.) This means that the Ouderna are a Berber tribe of Zenata origin descended from the Aït Demmer, whose ancestor was Ouardiyun.

Add to that the source of the historian André Louis(p.115), which is based on Ibn Khaldun, and which is widely accepted by academics such as Zouhir Gabsi(p.11) and Manel Znidi(p.141) "According to Ibn Khaldun, in the fourteenth century, the Berbers inhabiting Southern Tunisia can be classified as follows (cited in Louis 1975:27):... In the Jebel Ghomrassen, there are the Hamdoun Berbers and in Jebel Abiodh one finds the Berbers of Chehaban, Meghebla and Dghaghra" There is also the historian François Pouillon, but he does not mention the Daghaghra.

Next to it is the source of Mohamed Bouzrara (p.145) who presents them as Banu Sulaym Arabs: "The Daghaghra, an important Arab tribe in the Tataouine region, are descended from the Bani Salim and are among the oldest inhabitants of the Djebel Abiodh, alongside the Meghebla and the Chehaban."(trad.). What I find problematic about this source is that it doesn't come from a historian or academic, but from a "radio host with a secondary education." Furthermore, the author seems to base most of his text on André Louis, as can be seen in the footnote on the previous page, but for the Daghaghra, he cites no author and seems to simply reproduce André Louis's writings, this time replacing "Berber" with "Arab Banu Sulaym". Apart from the source of Mohamed Bouzrara on which AHZ bases the Arab origin banu sulaym entirely, even describing him as a historian in the article but does not deny on the discussion page that this is not the case, there is no other source. Aside from Mohamed Bouzrara's source, on which AHZ bases the entire Arab origin of the Banu Sulaym, even describing him as a historian in the article (though he doesn't deny this on the discussion page), there are no other sources. He claims to have other credible ones, but when asked to cite or provide them, he replies that "they are available and we should go and consult them ourselves" as with @Rosguill,@Iseult or @Polygnotus. Mhmdgrd (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Only one source telling directly that the Daghaghra are berbers.

Stop your pov-pushing.

Telling that the Ait Demmer are all berbers zenata go again what said André Louis, by saying that many Arab tribes joined them. You are obviously cherry-picking what you want. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Mohamed Hasssen (p.270) : Banū Demmer : ayant le sens primitif de relief élevé, Demmer est devenu d’abord un oronyme. Le nom a connu par la suite une deuxième évolution, concrétisée par le passage du nom de la montagne à celui de la tribu, faisant partie de la confédération tribale de Zenāta... You want to have a debate about the Ait Demmer, but the same source states that the tribe descends from Ouardiren ibn Demmer, ancestor of all the Zenata Demmer. And you know this very well; it's yet another example of bad faith. I have no hope for you. Try to complicate the debate as much as you can, if you think they won't understand by questioning the Berber identity of the Ait Demmer. Mhmdgrd (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You can spam any sources you want, the debate is not on the Ouerghemma, Ait Demmer or the Ouderna, but on the Daghaghra, and there is a lot of sources telling that they are Arabs and many sources show that there is Arab tribes in the Ouderna confederation. You are just coping at this level. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.