Talk:Chiadma

Hi user:Carlstak! I also added sources about the arab origin of the tribe that you removed. These sources include:
1. Villes et Tribus du Maroc; Documents et Renseignements, Volume 11.Morocco. Direction des Affaires Indigènes. 1923. France. Pages 39-188. 28-07-2016.
2. A la conquête du Maroc Sud avec la colonne Mangin, 1912-1913.Charles Joseph Alexandre Cornet.France. 28-07-2016.
3. De l'extrême occident : tapis et textiles du Maroc. Textile Museum (Washington, D.C.). page 49. 28-07-2016.

These sources say that they are of arab origin. The regraga is a celebration week in which the chiadma take part aswell. The doukkala tribes is made up of different fractions, which include arab tribes aswell. I meant with the "Arabian Doukalla", the arab fractions of the Doukkala tribe. In the city Essouira, the north is inhabited by the berber-speaking berber tribe Haha, and the south is inhabited by the arabic-speaking arab tribe chiadma. The sources state this aswell. Chiadma is it's own tribe. I have other sources aswell.

1. Essaouira: Perle de l'Atlantique. Abdelkader Mana. Page 18. ISBN:9981-896-44-6.
2. Morocco. Paul Clammer, Helen Ranger, James Bainbridge, Paula Hardy. Page 115. 2014. ISBN: 9781-7422-042-60

The sources that the unkown user (JovanAndreano) used are not reliable aswell. His first source mentions that the chiadma tribe is actually arab which I used aswell as a source, so it is impossible that he uses the same source to claim they are berbers.
The second source actually directly states that the Chiadma tribe is part of the larger Maqil tribe, so I can use that as a reference for my text. His third sources doesn't have any pages, so I dont know where he got it from.
And his fourth source doesn't state that the chiadma tribe is arabised, but that the Djebel Hadid tribe which became part of the larger chiadma tribe are originally berbers. That doesn't mean they are all berbers know, the tribe is still dominantly of arab origin.

Alhaqiha (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Au contraire, Alhaqiha. These sources absolutely do not say that the Chiadma are of Arab origin. The first given source Villes et Tribus du Maroc; Documents et Renseignements Volume 11, says: "Les Chtouka et les Chiadma, Berbères arabisés, ont perdu l'usage de la langue tamazight et parlent l'arabe. Quelques mots berbères ont été conservés;" Translation: "The Chtouka and Chiadma, Arabized Berbers, have lost the use of the Tamazight language and speak Arabic. Some Berber words have been preserved;"

The second given source Le Maroc, says: "Dans l'arrière-pays de Mogador, les Chiadma parlent arabe : ils sont pourtant les frères des Haha berbérophones, qui habitent près d'eux sur le premier gradin du Haut Atlas." Translation: "In the hinterland of Mogador, the Chiadma speak Arabic yet they are the brothers of the Berber-speaking Haha, who live near them on the foothills of the High Atlas".

And the third given source, Anthropologie et groupes sanguins des populations du Maroc, says: "Nous présentons ici le graphique comparatif de la taille des trois tribus : Chaouïa, Doukkala et Chiadma." Translation: "We present here the comparative graph of the size of three tribes: Chaouia, Doukkala and Chiadma." These are treated as Berber tribes.

Some sources do treat the Chiadma as having a mixed Arab and Berber composition. One source I've consulted, Le peuple marocain: l'e bloc berbère says: "On trouve, aux environs de Mogador, l'importante tribu des Chiadma, qui sont complètement arabisés et mélangés d'éléments étrangers et maraboutiques ; pourtant, ils se distinguent "encore par leurs qualities de guerriers". Translation: "We find, in the environs of Mogador, an important tribe, the Chiadma, which are completely Arabized and of mixed foreign and marabout elements; they are still distinguished "by the qualities of their warriors." Carlstak Carlstak (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, apart from the annual pilgrimage called by the name "regraga", the term is used for a subtribe of the Masmuda Berber confederacy, as the linked-to WP articles, as well as the Brill Encyclopaedia of Islam and Henri Terrasse in his History of Morocco indicate. Carlstak (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is what I found in his sources [[[User:Carlstak|Carlstak]].

1.Le Maroc dans la tourmente: 1902-1903 Page 52:

“Les Djebal Hadid appartient a la tribu des chiadma, qui sont des berberes arabises”. 

Translation: “The Djebel Hadid belongs to the tribe of Chiadma, which are Arabized Berbers.” So that means that the Djebel Hadid are part of the Chiadma tribe, because the chiadma exist of many fractions, it doesn’t mean that the chiadma as a whole is arabised. That is what it says on page 52.

2.Le Maroc (in French). p. 81.

“l'arierre du Mogador, les chiadma parlent arabe. Il sont pourtant les freres du Haha berberophones, qui habitent pres deux sur le premier gradin du haut atlas. Aux chiadma succedent, vers le nord, le abda du safi sont Arabes Maqil, transformes, par le virtu des tirs, en excellents agricultures.”

Translation: `the arierre of Mogador, the Chiadma speak Arabic. They are however the brothers of the Berber Haha, who live near two on the first bench of the High Atlas. Chiadma to follow one another, to the north, the Abda of Safi are Maqil Arabs, transformed by the virtu of shots, excellent in agriculture.

So it only states that they speak arabic, it doesn´t say they are actually arabised. And the Abda tribe in the North are originally of the arab Maqil tribe, which chiadma belongs to aswell.

3.  Villes et Tribus du Maroc; Documents et Renseignements . p. 172.

 "Les Chtouka et les Chiadma, Berbères arabisés, ont perdu l'usage de la langue tamazight et parlent l'arabe. Quelques mots berbères ont été conservés;"

Translation "The Chtouka and Chiadma, Arabized Berbers, have lost the use of the Tamazight language and speak Arabic. Some Berber words have been preserved;"

This part is very confusing, because he also writes these parts in the following pages of the book aswell.

`Il resulte du ce passage que Leon African considere les chiadma comme des Arabes Hilaliens.` page 187

Translation: "It follows from this passage that the Leon African Chiadma regarded them as Arab Hilaliens."

De ce passage on pourrait induire que les chiadma sont probablement un branche qui a subsiste du Kelabia. Il est assez vraisemblable du imaginer que quelques groupes de ces turbelent Arabes Hilaliens campes en pays haha. Page 188

Translation: From this passage we could induce the Chiadma are probably a branch that remains of Kelabia. It is quite likely that some groups of these turbelent Hilali Arabs encamped in the country of haha. It talks about the Hilali tribes camping there. Chiadma is of Maqil origin, and the Maqil is originally a fraction of the Hilali tribes. It also only talks about encamping in the land of HaHa, where were the chiadma tribes at those times, because today they both live in Essaouira.

4. Anthropologie et groupes sanguins des populations du Maroc

"Nous présentons ici le graphique comparatif de la taille des trois tribus : Chaouïa, Doukkala et Chiadma."

Translation: "We present here the comparative graph of the size of three tribes: Chaouia, Doukkala and Chiadma."

So that means that the size of the three tribes are comparable. You said after this "These are treated as Berber tribes". I didnt find that anywhere in the text, it only states that those three tribes are comparable in size, because they are all three small tribes which is stated in this other book, link. "Les notables du chtouka et chiadma, deux tribes miniscule". Translation: The chtouka and chiadma, two miniscule tribes.

And why are the sources I inserted about the origin not taken in consideration. And I found other sources aswell.

Africana Bulletin, Volumes 10-13. page 43. link

Essaouira: la ville de mon père. Pagina 136.link Le cote du Nord, les chiadmas du origine arabe, impregnes du berberes. Translation: The coast of the North, Chiadmas of Arab origin, with Berbers impregnated.

De l'extrême occident : tapis et textiles du Maroc.link Les ouled bousbaa, les chiadma, les rehamna, les ahmar. Bien qu´il y ait eu des marriages entre les groupes arabes et berberes, leur histoire et leur langue revelant la predominance du l´heritage arabe.

Translation: The ouled Bousbaa the Chiadma, Rehamna them, Ahmar. Although there have been marriages between Arab and Berber groups, their history and their language revealing the predominance of the Arab heritage.

Maghreb & [i.e. et] Sahara: études géographiques offertes à Jean Despois. Page 256.link

Ou des groupes arabo-berbers come les doukkala, Abda, chiadma, ahmar et sraghna. Il faut noter que l´introduction du les arabes en ces regions est relativement recent.

Translation:Or Arab-Berber groups such as doukkala, Abda, Chiadma, Ahmar and sraghna. Note that the introduction of the Arabs in these regions is relatively recent.Alhaqiha (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed, Alhaqiha, that you have a habit of distorting and misrepresenting not only other editors' edits, but also the text of given sources. Here you have copy-and-pasted raw Google translate translations, which are unreliable representations of the intended meaning of the referenced texts, and thus more subject to misinterpretation.

It is clear to any native English speaker that the first text, Le peuple marocain: l'e bloc berbère, when its says (in your translation, the English of which I've corrected): "The Djebel Hadid belong to the tribe of Chiadma, which are Arabized Berbers", the subordinate clause, "which are Arabized Berbers" modifies "the tribe of Chiadma", not "The Djebel Hadid". I realize that English is not your native tongue, but you understand it well enough that you should get this. The text clearly says the Chiadma are Arabized Berbers.

Regardless of your equivocations, the text I quoted from Villes et Tribus du Maroc; Documents et Renseignements, unambiguously says that the Chtouka and Chiadma are Arabized Berbers: (translation) "The Chtouka and Chiadma, Arabized Berbers, have lost the use of the Tamazight language and speak Arabic."

The properly translated (i.e., not a copy-and-pasted machine translation) text of Le Maroc says, "In the hinterland of Mogador, the Chiadma speak Arabic yet they are the brothers of the Berber-speaking Haha." The word "brothers" surely indicates that they are blood relatives, and it is inconceivable that the author would refer to Arabs as "brothers" of a Berber tribe or sub-tribe.

These examples directly contradict your assertion elsewhere in reference to the IP user, 105.156.224.28, that "none of his sources state the origin he wants them to be, they only state the opposite."

The text of your first source, the Africana Bulletin, is inaccessible to me, so I won't speak to that.

Your second source, Essaouira: la ville de mon père (Essaouira: My father's city) states (English paraprase): that the Chiadma are of Arab origin, with an admixture of Berber." The source is not an academic one, and appears to be a personal memoir, so it is certainly not authoritative regarding the ethnic origins of different tribes.

And your third source, De l'extrême occident : tapis et textiles du Maroc, is about Moroccan textiles, hardly the first place to look for authoritative information about the ethnicity of Arab or Berber tribes. Even so, it says that "in this recent Chiadma slit tapestry weaving there are many motifs used by other peoples. Motif: 1. Is used by rural Arab groups in Jordan. 2. Is used throughout the Mediterranean area including Tunisia. 3. This tree of life symbol is used by many Arab groups". It plainly says (in the English translation) that the motifs of the Chiadma slit tapestry weaving are used by other peoples, which would indicate the Chiadma are a separate people from "Arab groups". Consequently, this source doesn't support your contention at all.

This edit of yours, where you removed the reference to the Berber language in the statement " Arabic, along with Berber, is one of two Morocco's official languages", and changed it to "Arabic, is one of two Morocco's official languages" shows that you seem to be promoting an Arabist agenda at the expense of the rightful inclusion of the contributions of Berber culture. Carlstak (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oke, well obviously we have different opinions about the interpretation of the texts, and that is fine, it can stay like that. I'm not going to let you call me a editor with a "Arabist agenda" though, you can seek a explanations first before labeling people! The page about Moroccan languages includes a chapter with "arabic languages" and a chapter with "berber languages". The chapter about berber languages is fully dedicated to only the berber languages, when the section with arabic languages is being de-emphasized by constantly naming the berber lanuage aswell. There is already a very nice section in which the berber language is fully explained, the arabic langauge can have it's own chapter dedicatd to itself aswell. And the lead of the page already mentioned the different languages which are being spoken in Morocco and that they both belong to the two officials languages, so no information went missing, but you didnt find it yourself anyways link!Alhaqiha (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The texts of your sources are written in plain French, and do not agree with your interpretations. You accuse others of using unreliable sources, but those you offered are inferior to the academic and government sources given.

And here again, you're making false accusations. No one called you an "editor with a "Arabist agenda" [sic]. Saying, "you seem to be promoting an Arabist agenda" is not the same as saying you are an "editor with a "Arabist agenda", and you know it.

Despite your protestations, there was no valid reason for removing the mention of Berbers in the text of the "Languages of Morocco" article, which says, "Arabic, along with Berber, is one of two Morocco's official languages". Changing it to "Arabic, is one of two languages spoken in homes and on the street" is indefensible, and you know this as well.

Finally, I would like to congratulate you on your display of telepathic powers. Would you care to explain what was the source of your information that I didn't find that diff myself? I'm sure God himself would like to know. Carlstak (talk)

LINK. I Already gave the link before. And I thinkt the discussion is saturated enough now. Alhaqiha (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course you don't recognize sarcasm. The link shows only that Kansas Bear asked me to repost the content I wrote here to EdJohnston's talk page, and obviously does not prove that he directed me to that diff, a fact which you know very well. I found it myself randomly following links from the users who posted on Ed's page about the complaint. This false imputation is just another example of misdirection and pretending to know something that you can't possibly know. Carlstak (talk)

Sure!Alhaqiha (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about where this book's information comes from. In Morocco, arabic history books tend to focus more on arabs than berbers. As someone familiar with the Chiadma region, I can say there are likely more berbers there than arab race. It doesn't seem logical to claim that 100 tribes migrated to one region. There's a historian who visited the area between Essaouira, Safi and ELjadida '' locals claim arab descent but they speak berber'' Also not all Chiadma people speak only Arabic; in the south, they speak Tachelhit, Taftachet, Henchan, Ounagha, kourimat, Meskala and more , note these are commune not tribes imagine who many people lives there, So saying all Chiadma people are from arab origins doesn't make sense. I encourage you to do research or consult with Moroccan historians to understand our history. Also I read about a war or conflicts between berber and arab tribes in the area between Essaouira and El jadida. Chiadma's dialect includes many berber words and existing tribe names are often berber. As for why they dont speak berber by majority , the answer is related with Regraga history and Islam. @Alhaqiha @Carlstak 89.72.8.64 (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have restored the info that was replaced without discussion by IP 86.152.160.112 with this edit on 17:06, 24 September 2022; anyone who reads French can see that it is bogus. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Carlstak (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Usacin Hello. I reverted your edits because they replaced sourced content with a bunch of either unsourced additions or content that is not backed up by the sources they cite. It is pretty clear that you used a LLM to generate the content (which would explain the hallucinations). This is extremely disruptive.

Threatening to "request an investigation" on my editing patterns for removed LLM-generated content is baffling. Keep on mind it is on you to establish consensus when making a controversial change. I would not recommend taking this to ANI but you can request a third opinion even if that probably will not end for you Mayouhm (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mayouhm Stop using the AI excuse to delete factual history you don't like. I am a person, not an LLM and I am writing this because I know the Chiadma region and its history.

The hallucinations you claim are actually documented in "Assafi wa ma ilayhi qadiman wa hadittan" (1860-1937) by the historian Muhammad bin Ahmad Al Kanuni. He explicitly discusses the Regraga (Masmuda) roots of the Chiadma alongside the later Arab arrivals. This is a tribal confederation (حلف), not a single ethnic group.

By removing these details, you are the one hallucinating a simplified version of history that doesn't exist. If you want to talk about "consensus" then stop reverting and actually look at the sources I am providing.

I'm happy to provide specific page numbers from Al Kanuni or other Moroccan chronicles if you actually want to improve the article instead of just biting new editors with templates. Otherwise, your constant removal of the Amazigh components of the Chiadma looks like POV-pushing. Bidak (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are very clearly using AI for both the edits filled with hallucinations and unsourced content and the replies on talk pages where you are denying AI use. Why you are using AI for these replies is beyond me.

Besides the fact that the article as it stands already mentions the Berber fractions within the Chiadma, we cant cite directly from old sources like Kanuni on Wikipedia. You need modern secondary or tertiary sources. As I not a time traveller, it is impossible for me to look at the source by Kanuni that you only mentioned now.

I can only go off the sources you used in your edits which as I mentioned earlier were not backing up the content you're adding. There was also the paragraphs and sections of unsourced content you added which I rightfully removed. I would recommend reading Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and sourcing as well as LLM use Mayouhm (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mayouhm Listen, I am literally from Chiadma. I use digital tools to check my English grammar and translation but the knowledge is 100% mine. Stop hiding behind LLM accusations just because you don't like the facts I'm bringing.

You are pushing a very specific, one-sided narrative that completely ignores the reality of the region. For example, even in the modern day, the south of Chiadma still speaks Tamazight alongside Darija, and they are strictly Chiadma, not from the Haha region. But you wouldn't know that, because you are deleting the Amazigh history to fit your own POV.

Dismissing a foundational Moroccan historian like Al-Kanuni just because you think he's too old or because you personally don't have the book is not how Wikipedia works. If you continue to erase the complex heritage of this confederation and refuse to collaborate, my next step is reporting you for POV-pushing and WP:BITE. Bidak (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry but you being from Chiadma is irrelevant and I am glad you are now being somewhat honest about your LLM use. Whatever the case, you would notice that my problem is not just the LLM use but all the consequences of it that your edits reflect. As I already mentioned before, there are hallucinations and unsourced additions.

As I have mentioned the current article as it stands now, already acknowledges the presence of Berber fractions in the Chiadma like the Regraga (and it is sourced reliably). Like I said you should read Wikipedia's guidelines on sources. Start with WP:RS and in this case WP:AGEMATTERS. We don't use sources from a century ago because they are not reliable and are ancient. A good source would be a modern secondary or tertiary source, ideally published academically.

Like I said you can take this to WP:3O. I don't think you actually want to discuss the substance of your edits which are frankly very disruptive Mayouhm (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mayouhm You are deliberately twisting my explanation of using translation tools into a confession of LLM hallucinations. That is textbook bad faith.

Furthermore, your understanding of WP:AGEMATTERS is fundamentally flawed. That policy applies to rapidly changing fields like science or medicine not foundational historical chronicles. Al-Kanuni is a recognized Moroccan historian. You cannot blanket-ban 20th-century historians just because their facts contradict your preferred ethnic narrative.

You claim the article already acknowledges Berber fractions but you are actively reverting details that explain the depth of that Masmuda/Regraga connection, including the Tamazight speaking realities of the south (Meskala).

Since you are refusing to engage with historical sources by pretending they are too ancient, and using AI accusations to stonewall, I am taking your advice. I am filing for a WP:3O right now so a neutral editor can review your POV-pushing and your misuse of sourcing policies. Bidak (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: Any changes to this article must be supported by reliable sources. Given the number of proposed changes, I recommend presenting each one here, along with the supporting source and the relevant passage that justifies the change. Until there's a consensus for a change the status quo should remain. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)