Talk:Shilha people

Untitled

At 8-10 million people, the Islhin (Cheuh is the most common, though Francophone, spelling) comprise the largest Berber group of Morocco. They deserve a better article than this. Please expand if you have reliable sources! — mark ✎ 13:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Shilha people → Chleuh – Relisting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC) per WP:NCP, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NCL, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:ENGLISH. Tachfin (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's my rationale: This is a case where the people's name is unambiguous as a noun. and different from their language name (i.e not the classical case of French language/French people Russian/Russian language etc..)
Even grammatically this title is false since Shilha has never been used to refer to a group of people.

All searches have been done using quotes and English results only

1. Google book search:1990-Now

• Chleuh: 1,740 results [1]

• Shluh: 427 results [2]

• Shleuh: 89 results [3]

• Shilha: 525 results [4]

• Shilha people: 0 results!! [5]

• Summary: Chleuh/Shluh/Shleuh (pronunciation is the same only spelling differs) VS Shilha:

2256 to 525

• • Even when you go further back in history same pattern of results:

Google book search 1970-Now:

• Chleuh: 2,590 results [6]

• Shluh: 770 results [7]

• Shleuh: 252 results [8]

• Shilha: 889 results [9]

• Shilha people: 0 results!! [10]

1. Google Scholar search: since 1992 (preferences set to "English only")

• Chleuh: 121 results [11]

• Shluh: 69 results [12]

• Shleuh: 14 results [13]

• Shilha: 112 results [14]

• Shilha people: 0 results!! [15]

1. Google News search: 1990-Now

• Chleuh: 28 results [16]

• Shluh: 0 results
• Shleuh: 0 results
• Shilha: 1 but Acutally 0 result!, since the term Sudha in a 1994 NP has been falsely read by Google as Shilha [17]
• Shilha people: 0 results!

• • General remarks: Bias in search in favor of "Shilha"
  • It seems some people have this term as a surname and are thus included in the search results (e.g Marianne M. Shilha)
  • Shilha ,when used, always denotes a language not its speakers. The term was somewhat more popular than it is now in older "studies", so even when used to refer to a language it was included in the searches above.
  • The term Shilha means Berber Language in Moroccan Arabic and thus many authors use it, not as an authoritative or common name, but rather as an "in brackets" further precision as to how the language is called in its native land by Moroccan Arabic speakers.

1. EB Uses Shluh [18][19]

• In sum, the burden of proof is overwhelming, the Editor who initially and Single-handedly moved this page after 5 years (2005-2010) of implicit consensus and protests from various editors, after the move, as evidenced by the page's history (people trying to move manually) and the language talk page where vehement disapproval was expressed. Disregarded Wikipedia policies mentioned above and most notably one of its most important policies: WP:Consensus. If the concerned editor doesn't have rudimentary knowledge, to this extent, of the topic than WP:Competence applies.
  

The fact that the term Shilha people has never been in any book written in the last 40 years, should be the only argument I'm using here, so sorry for being long, but I had to since thick-headedness was displayed in the initial opposition to the move see this, where I'm also going to request a move
Tachfin (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• This proposal needs more input from partial parties. The impressive list of Google results are coloured by numerous non-English sources in the returns. Also remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mere reflection of search engine results. However, I have no problem with the proposal myself. —  AjaxSmack  03:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Weak agree -- Given that there's no organization setting standard names for Berber groups and languages, it would seem like the most commonly-used term 'Chleuh' makes the most sense. On the other hand I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to use the endonym ašelḥi. Mo-Al (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the discussion below I retract this vote. Mo-Al (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Relisting - After looking into this a little bit, I'd like to see input from more editors, including the person who moved this article from Chleuh a year ago. I've left a note for that editor ([20]), and notes with two WikiProjects ([21],[22]). If there's any other venue that should be notified, I didn't omit it intentionally; please feel free to correct that.

  We'll see if another week leads to any clearer direction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The 800+ examples of "Shilha" would seem to belie the claim that there are 0 examples. Shilha is the closest in English to the endonym ašelḥi that Mo-Al prefers; that was a major reason for choosing this name. Also, the Shilha language is not called "Chleuh" that I'm aware of, and it's generally a good idea to have the same name for a people and their language, if possible. — kwami (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The language is certainly called "Chleuh" -- it's the default name in French ([23]) and is found in some English publications ([24]). Mo-Al (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, I knew it was French, I just wasn't aware it was used in English. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Invalid objection: Articles are not named according to personal preferences. Yes it would be nice if all names for language/people could be the same but the real-world is more complicated: Arabic/Arabs, Hebrew/Jews (Ever heard of Hebrew people??), Latin/Romans, Hanyu/Han. Also the endonym is not Ashelhi but Ishelhin, the supposed closeness to Shilha is not an argument. And yes it is not called "Chleuh" since you moved the language article a year ago against the lack of consensus and after 5 years of stability under the previous name. --Tachfin (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Hold up. Every objection is valid. Every interested user should have a voice in this discussion. Mo-Al (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• comment Chleuh is actually more common than I previously thought just done a search of Chleuhs (plural form) in google books English 1990-Now: 421 results [25]. The overall imbalance between Chleuh in all its different spellings and Shilha is actually: 2677 vs 525. A ratio of more than 5 to 1. Notwithstanding that Shilha has never ever in the last 8 decades denoted a people, in a published book, that can be found on google books. Doesn't that sound really odd?--Tachfin (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, calm down. Arguments are not "invalid" just because you do not like them.

Ashelhi and Ishelhin are both the ethnonym: one is singular, the other plural.

Yes I have heard of "Hebrew people". See Hebrew people.

Of course Hanyu/Han are the same name, since yu just means "language". Anyway, we tend to go with "Chinese" in English, not Hanyu.

"Shilha has never ever in the last 8 decades denoted a people, in a published book, that can be found on google books." Perhaps you should check GBooks before making that statement.

"imbalance between Chleuh in all its different spellings and Shilha" – since Shilha is just one of its many different spellings, you could divide this up any arbitrary way you please, all equally meaningless.

Anyway, I've gone over your first set of fudged GBooks results, and de-fudged it by using the same search parameters for each term (neat concept, huh?). I get the following:

• Chleuh 3,[26]
• Shluh 1,[27]
• Shleuh 1,[28]
• Shilha 4 2.[29]

So it would seem that Shilha is plurality usage, per your criteria, and that Shilha "and its spelling variants" an actual majority, 6/9 4/7.

Of course, we don't decide things by Google count, but there you go.

PS. In a search for "Chleuhs", though restricted to English, 7 of 10 on the first page are actually in French, and one more is an account of what the French call them,[30] so it's not a very accurate tab of English usage. — kwami (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you're not being honest in the discussion; using Straw man arguments and taking my examples out of context while conveniently ignoring others. Shilha "is not" a diffrent spelling since "it is pronounced differently". Ishlhin is the endonym since Ashelhi means one Chleuh man (singular masculine). I suggest you recheck the definition of endonym and stop approximations.

As for your searches, "Shilha people actually gives 3 not 4 results. The first two books contain the same text of "Royal African society 1931" and actually say: "These tribes belong to the Shluh (Shilha) people and fall naturally into three". That is they say Shluh before Shilha. Searching for "Chleuh people" doesn't make sens since it is a pleonasm: "Chleuh" already denotes a people not a language; that is like searching for "The Jews people"

Another dishonesty in your search Mr. is that you limited the search for "Chleuh people" to 1990-Now range while you done the search for "Shilha people" with an unlimited time range. 6 results for Chleuh people with unlimited time range [31]

"So it would seem that Shilha is plurality usage, per your criteria, and that Shilha "and its spelling variants" an actual majority, 6/9." I sincerely don't understand how you logically come to this "arithmetic" conclusion --Tachfin (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the dating. You're correct: that should be 2 hits for "Shilha". I changed the number above. (The URL did not show up in the address bar like it did for the other searches. I had to refresh several times to get the URL so I could link to it from this page, and perhaps it reset. I didn't check the dates because I simply replaced the word "Chleuh" in your original search and it never occurred to me that anything else would change. But I suppose if we disagree, I must be dishonest. Glad to see we're observing WP:Good faith here.)

Pleonism: really? But restricting "Shilha" but not the other terms to "people" is a valid comparison?

Yes, of course the arithmetic is ridiculous. That's the point!

BTW, I just went through the 413 hits for "Chleuhs" in English. The large majority were actually in French, as the first page would suggest. Some were in German or Spanish. Some were in English, but italicized to show that it was a French word, not English. (In one English text, les chleuhs.) In some cases it didn't even refer to Berbers: in several of the hits which were in English, "Chleuh" meant "German"! Evidently it was the French equivalent of "Kraut" during the war. I'm left with only 13 hits out of 413 actually being in English and meaning "Berber", though in a few of those I'm only guessing because the word doesn't show up when I click on the preview. So maybe 3% of the hits are actually valid.

If I run Shilha OR Shilhas -inauthor:"Books, LLC", English, 2000-present, I get 299 hits. Of those perhaps 100 are confirmable. If I do the same with Chleuh(s), I get 815 hits. Given that of the 413 hits for just the plural, only 10–13 were in English, that's equivalent to 25 hits for Chleuh. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

One other point: your misrepresentation of the move as being "single handedly" by me. It was part of a more general cleanup of Berber articles that involved several editors. Yes, there were complaints to many of the moves, some vociferous, but they were handled (by other editors) according to the evidence presented in those complaints.

Besides the vast majority of "English" usage actually being French, there's another problem: Is Chleuh pejorative? That may be an argument to use something closer to the endonym:

"Do we really think that it is the time to awaken among still-rebellious Chleuhs [a pejorative term for Berbers] a taste for risk and triumphal cavalcades?" —Levine 2010:72, Framing the nation: documentary film in interwar France

"The Chleuhs [pejorative name given to the German enemy] would ask how we stole it." —Manning 2000:110 A Time to Speak

"Chleuh is a term commonly used by Arabs to refer to the Imazighen. Some Imazighen feel that the term is derogatory." —Becker 2006:209 Amazigh arts in Morocco: women shaping Berber identity

— kwami (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a substantial issue. Of course, the term "Berber" is considered by some to be derogatory too, but in that case popular usage of the term is well-established, unlike here. Mo-Al (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I presented many searches (Scholar, Books, News) to show that "Chleuh" was more common in English. You just quickly went through a first page for Chleuhs and you conclude that only 3% are valid? I still don't get the arithmetic.

"Chleuh" is not pejorative and this is so obvious, it's not because you found such a claim in some book that it must be true. And since you brought this up, "Shilha people" would be closer to "pejorativeness" in the ears of someone educated about the subject since "Shilha" means "A Berber woman", "Shilha people" sounds like "The Berber woman people". French/German relation are totally irrelevant to this.

Yes searching for "Chleuh people" is a pleonasm, you have to forget your analogy habits that all names for language/people are the same. Chleuh is the equivalent of "Jews"/"Arabs", whereas "Shilha" has been used in early sources as an adopted term from Moroccan Arabic that denotes that language, as "Arabia" (Arabic language)

Another point: Not all "Chleuhs" speak what you call "Shilha language". In fact close to 50% speak Central Atlas Tamazight. So your analogy is even more wrong from the basis.

You claim that your move was some kind of clean-up to Berber related articles, you might have been honest in your intentions but this has just brought more confusion between conventional terms, and it shocked many. If you can point to the discussion that decided this because I don't see any. I assume it just you that did this for personal preferences reasons thinking you were doing the right thing.

Regarding WP:AGF, I called your search and argumentation dishonest (and they were), and said why. AGF does not mean to admit bogus arguments Tachfin (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you can't follow how 10–13 out of 413 is 3%. Perhaps you don't actually read the arguments you respond to?

Ah, a point worthy of a response hidden in there: These are the Chleuh/Shilha people, but only half of them speak the Chleuh/Shilha language. You argue from that that we should not call them "Shilha". You could just as easily argue that we should not call them "Chleuh". After all, only half of them speak the Chleuh language. I don't see how half of Chleuhs not speaking Chleuh means that we should use different names for the Chleuh people and Chleuh language. And what about the ones who speak Arabic? I take it that we should deny that they are Berber, even if they self-identify as Berber? — kwami (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion: how about "Ashelhi people"? (it is used by at least some authors: [32]) That might be more culturally neutral. Also, Tachfin, I think "Ashelhi people" is probably better grammatically than "Ishelhin people", just like you would say "Amazigh people" rather than "Imazighen people" (compare [33] and [34]); or how you say "Iraqi people" rather than "Iraqiyun people". Mo-Al (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(This would also be an argument for renaming the Shilha language article to "Tashelhit language"). Mo-Al (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Our articles had been inconsistent, with Ashelhi–Tashelhit-type names for some but not all Berber peoples and languages: I think Kabyle, for example, had always used the English form exclusively rather than native form. So, per ENGLISH and the naming conventions for peoples and languages, we moved all Berber people and language articles to a common root. In two or three cases, including this one, it was difficult to argue that purely from COMMONNAME, but the current name does reflect ENGLISH ("Chleuh" is often italicized as French) and our naming conventions, which encourage the X language / X people format, and is consistent with our articles on other Berber peoples and languages. — kwami (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Mo-Al. Kwami, you're misquoting policy and mixing things up. Where a name for people/language exist and is common than it is encouraged to have the same name for the language and people article, not that editors should invent such terms. Otherwise everybody will just go ahead and rename "Jews" to "Hebrew people" or "Ancient Romans" to "Latin people" etc...An claim consistency. You have to be aware that not everybody sees these articles in the same scope as you do Tachfin (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So, the word "invent" means "I don't like it"? I didn't "invent" the name Shilha, as is of course obvious. I'm not sure why you'd say that: it's not like anyone would believe you.

"Jews" and "Hebrews" are distinct, as are "Romans" and "Latins". Try a dictionary. "Shilha" and "Chleuh", on the other hand, mean the same thing: they're variants of the same name. As above when you didn't know that the Hebrews were a people, it seems to be you that's mixing things up. Of course, we might still want to go with "Chleuh", but not for the reasons you're giving. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright since it is "so obvious", how many sources do you have in Google books or scholar where "Shilha" is used to refer to a people? I know the searches and sources I've provided all use "Chleuh/Chleuhs/Shluh" to refer to a people not to a language; you can have fun checking them one by one if you're not convinced.

"Jews" speak "Hebrew", "ancient Romans" spoke "Latin", I was just using your rationale.

P.S: I'm not asking anybody to "believe me", not here proselyting; I don't know why you'd use such an expression in a debate. Tachfin (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? That's just bizarre. In a debate you want people to believe you, unless you're trying to sabotage your own argument.

"Chleuh" and "Shilha" are just variants of the same ethnonym. They're both used for both the people and their language, as a simple search will show. — kwami (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mmm now you're contradicting yourself; you said earlier: "Also, the Shilha language is not called "Chleuh" that I'm aware of".

Since things here are determined by WP:RS and not by bold statements (as if you didn't know that already) I repeat my request: how many sources do you have in Google books or scholar where "Shilha" is used to refer to a people? Tachfin (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not contradicting myself. Please look up the word "aware" in a dictionary.

As for how many, I already gave you the figures, and you accused me of being dishonest. You'd better count them for yourself, then, rather than take my word for it. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Kawmi, please don't respond in the middle of the comments, it makes the discussion difficult for other people to follow. You're still taking my argument out of context (that was a response to you arguing in favor of using the same name of the language and the people) and not responding to the points (WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU)...This is a dead talk. I've seen some of your moves in the same area, respectfully, you made a complete mess due to your lack of knowledge of North Africa I assume Tachfin (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Where did I post in the middle of a comment? And why are you saying it now, after the talk is "dead", rather than at the time? — kwami (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Souss

Shilha/Chleuh/Išlḥiyn are the native Berbers of Souss. Soupforone (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No OR, unsourced claims

@Soupforone: Your edits are puzzling and not reflecting the source. Please explain your addition of Judaism/Christianity without a source, and other changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The edits were as per policy. What wasn't were the redundant links contra WP:NOTSEEALSO, as well as various other tidbits (such as the somewhat jingoistic tone). The Abrahimic links in the religion parameter were due to an edit conflict (i.e., we were apparently editing at the same time). Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Soupforone: We need to be faithful to the source, if it is allegedly "jingoistic to your tastes" in the reliable source, we must still retain the sense of the source. Don't replace "invasion" with some weasel wording, if the sources say invasion. I have no issue with WP:NOTSEEALSO, since those links were from old version, before I edited this article. I suggest we clean the See Also section further. Same goes for other links. Since the Britannica article is already cited the article, there is no need to repeat that link either. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Claiming that Morocco became an Arab majority and the controlling ethnic group in Morocco is not being faithful to the source. On the contrary, it is indeed jingoistic, as what Minahan actually indicates is that in 1549 Arabs took control of Morocco, stressing Arab history, culture and language [35]. He is of course referring to the establishment of the Alawite dynasty, not to a population replacement (!). There were many other unfortunate tidbits like this, which I fixed. Anyway, per WP:BRD, please heretofore discuss any major changes beforehand on the talk page with myself and Aṭlas for consensus. Soupforone (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Masmuda Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MEN CHEL7I.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)