Jump to content

Talk:Harka (Maghreb)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9865741234

[edit]

Harka magar@700com 2402:8100:258B:9E8D:80BA:CE39:6D3F:7577 (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harka as a Moroccan-Arabic term

[edit]

Hello @M.Bitton. As shown by Boussellam's Moroccan Arabic dictionary, volume 1, page 544, this is clearly a "Moroccan Arabic word or phrase", and this should be enough to add the category given the context where the term is used. In addition to that, the term "harka" حرْكة with this pronunciation and meaning (military campaign) is not found in Standard Arabic dictionaries (I've checked several, including almaany which collects meanings from multiple known Arabic dictionaries). They only list "haraka" حَرَكة and its various meanings. Of course you're free to add categories related to Tunisian and Algerian Arabic, if they are listed as terms in these languages/dialects in some reliable source(s). Ideophagous (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being used in Morocco doesn't make it a specifically Moroccan term (as you claimed). As far as I know, in the Maghreb, Harka simply means a mobile war party. M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here is about adding the category. My edit comment was meant to clarify the edit, but is not part of the article, and as such does not need to be justified or discussed. Once again, feel free to add a category related to Tunisian and/or Algerian Arabic if there are sources proving that the term "harka" is part of them as well. Ideophagous (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree that Harka is not a specifically Moroccan term? M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are reliable sources that give its meaning: [1][2][3]. M.Bitton (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that this is a specifically Moroccan term is baseless and I provided enough sources that prove that, so there is no reason for you to continue trying to impose that view. Also worth noting is the fact that the Arabic word is spelled exactly the same whether in Algerian Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, Tunisian Arabic or classical Arabic. M.Bitton (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need to be specifically Moroccan for the category to be added. Ideophagous (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


There's a dispute between @M.Bitton and myself as to whether the article should contain Category:Moroccan Arabic words and phrases. M.Bitton claims it should not be added on the basis that the term is not exclusively Moroccan. I don't think this is a necessary condition, and adding that category does not exclude adding similar categories for Tunisian and Algerian Arabic, provided there are sources to support. M.Bitton keeps removing the changes I made in the article, including a reliable source (Dictionary of Moroccan Arabic). So as to avoid edit warring, I request comments from experienced editors in the project.--Ideophagous (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton claims it should not be added on the basis that the term is not exclusively Moroccan that's another baseless assertion. The fact of the matter is that you made the claim that a specifically Moroccan term and when asked to substantiate it, you refused. You're also adding the Moroccan version in the lead while the RS is clear that this is an Arabic term. This article is just a stub, more content will be added to it, especially about the change of the meaning of the term for the last 70 years or so (see harki for more info). M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote in a clarifying comment, that was not meant to be added as content to the article itself, is irrelevant to the discussion. The simple fact that the term "harka" حَرْكة (without vowel after the R) is listed in a Moroccan Arabic dictionary, and cannot be found in Standard Arabic dictionaries, as only the original word "haraka" حَرَكة (with a vowel after the R) can be found in MSA dictionaries, in addition to the fact that the article is about the historical term itself, are more than sufficient reasons to add the category. Ideophagous (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it's listed in some cherry picked source (a Moroccan dictionary that isn't even RS to boot)? The word Harka is Arabic, a fact that is based on multiple RS. The rest of your comment doesn't address the raised concerns about your baseless claims. M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no and have not been any baseless claims in the article. Please stick to the main topic which is whether the category Category:Moroccan Arabic words and phrases should be added or not. Ideophagous (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is clearly meant to introduce the baseless claim (highlighted above). In any case, I said what I had to say and most important of all, provided the supporting diffs. M.Bitton (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF - Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in declarative statements. So, if it is reliably sourced, then include it, if not, then exclude it. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 20:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source I used is page 544 of the Moroccan Arabic dictionary, volume 1, which was edited by Moroccan researcher Mohamed Boussellam (wkdt). That's fairly reliable in my opinion. My understanding is that adding the category does not exclude adding similar categories for other languages/dialects if it is proven that they use the same term with the same meaning, and as such the edit should not be controversial. This source also specifies that the equivalent historical term in Algeria and Tunisia is "mahalla", i.e. "harka" is not used there with the meaning "military campaign to impose authority", though the term may exist in the whole Maghreb with a generic meaning, as pointed out by the source M.Bitton provided (which are too brief and offer limited information). This a quote from my second source:
    Enfin, le sultan exerce son autorité en se déplaçant, par des harkas du verbe h/r/k = bouger : colonne militaire, pour faire reconnaître son autorité, ce qui rend aussi l’autorité difficile car le temps passé à se déplacer ne permet pas de se consacrer à l'administration (comme les mahallas (colonnes militaires) à Alger et, avec le bey puis son successeur à Tunis)
    Ideophagous (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you expect to find in a Moroccan Arabic dictionary (if not a word written in Moroccan Arabic)? The second source doesn't mention the word Harka at all, making your conclusion 100% WP:OR. I really don't see the point of this cherry picking nonsense. You're literally going out of your way to redefine a word that is known as being Arabic (as well as the proper RS that I already supplied, there are many more that can be added if needs be). M.Bitton (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "harka" is mentioned in the second source "le sultan exerce son autorité en déplaçant, par des harkas du verbe h/r/k = bouger...". In case you don't understand French grammar, "harkas" is the plrural for "harka", since French usually adds an "s" to form the plural, just like English. There's no WP:OR, just basic grammar. Concerning the dictionary, if a word does not exist in Moroccan Arabic, it should not be included in a Moroccan Arabic dictionary. If it's included in a Moroccan Arabic dictionary, then this is a Moroccan Arabic word, and as such the category Category:Moroccan Arabic words and phrases can be added to the article. This is very basic logic. Similarly, if the word exists in an Algerian or Tunisian Arabic dictionary, or there's an equivalent source confirming that fact, the corresponding categories can also be added. Here are several references from JSTOR referring to "harka" in a Moroccan context, such as this source (pages 36, 44 and 46):
    "... du Maroc contemporain. Le fait que certains journalistes, voire des entrepreneurs, ait convoqué le concept de harka (campagne militaire que le Sultan entreprenait ..."
    And another (page 45):
    "Like later sultans, M. Ismail governed most effectively in the northern cities, but because he had a professional army, he was also able to enforce his authority in the countryside. With a large standing army deployed permanently in a number of kasbahs, he did not have to govern exclusively by Harka (ad hoc punitive campaign) as did so many later sultans."
    And yet another (page 244):
    "At the age of fifteen, he was already part of a mahzan force (harka) that was levied under the qa'id of Demnat for the service of the sultan. After fulfilling his duties for the mahzan, he returned home. According to Spillman, Hamida declined to be part of a second harka under the sultan and decided to take life in his own hands." Ideophagous (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not in this source (the second source that you mentioned) and in any case, you have failed to provide a source that says that it's exclusively Moroccan (as you claimed). All this waste of time and energy could have been avoided if you simply answered the initial question instead of evading it by trying to make it look as though it was about the category (which it obviously wasn't). M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is obviously about the category, first and foremost, and once again edit comments are mostly irrelevant. The focus should rather be on what was modified in the article itself. Yes, it is in the source. Check again in page 19 at the beginning of the 4th paragraph or use ctrl F and look for "harka". Ideophagous (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The issue is about your baseless claim (highlighted in green multiple times). M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Confer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki, which has as its etymology: "Adjective from the Algerian Arabic "ḥarka", standard Arabic "ḥaraka" [حركة], "war party" or "movement", i.e., a group of volunteers, especially soldiers" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and as I mentioned to @M.Bitton, he's very much welcome to add a corresponding category in Algerian Arabic if there are references confirming that. The term "harki" as far as I know is only used in an Algerian context, thus referring to Algerian Arabic in that article is very much appropriate. "Harka" on the other hand has strong ties to Moroccan military history (as shown by several sources I added above), regardless whether it has also been used in other non-Moroccan contexts or not. Adding the category Category:Moroccan Arabic words and phrases in any case does not exclude adding other categories, if they are appropriate for the topic. Ideophagous (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know very well that the issue is not about the category (as repeated multiple times). It's about the fact that you claimed that it is a specifically Moroccan term and then went on to change the lead sentence. Please don't make me repeat this ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is mainly the category. The first edit you rolled back consisted in adding the category Category:Moroccan Arabic words and phrases using HotCat gadget, and nothing else. The second edit is where I added "ary" instead of "ar" in the lead, to point out that this is not a Standard Arabic term. If you're worried about lack of inclusivity of other Maghreb dialects, you could have simply put "Maghrebi Arabic" instead of "Moroccan Arabic". At best you could have only rolled back the second edit. Rolling back edits wholesale, including good ones, is certainly not a good practice to improve Wikipedia. Ideophagous (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The issue is about your baseless claim (highlighted in green multiple times). M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you object to the current state of the page, @M.Bitton? If not then there's no point in arguing about irrelevant details. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @IOHANNVSVERVS: what are you on about? Mentioning the forum proves that you either haven't read the discussion or are intentionally ignoring what was said, either way, so please do me a big favour and don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category has now been added again by @إيان:. As @M.Bitton: mentioned earlier, the article should be developed further in any case, and I think we've done some of the work already by collecting relevant sources.--Ideophagous (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know very well that the issue is not about the category (as repeated multiple times). It's about the fact that you claimed that it is a specifically Moroccan term and then went on to change the lead sentence. Please don't make me repeat this ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is only with the category. Edit comments are only relevant in so far as they roughly explain the edit. They are not part of the article, and therefore are not subject to most rules and guidelines that apply to the content of the article. Concerning the lead, this is a different matter that we can certainly attend to. Ideophagous (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The issue is about your baseless claim (highlighted in green multiple times). M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Harka is not a specifically Moroccan-Arabic term. Neither are other subjects in this category such as Sidi, Lalla, Makhzen, Djellaba. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harka_(Maghreb)&oldid=1202590434"