Talk:Rifians

Berbers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Morocco High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Help expand the project:

You can help! يمكنكم أن تساهموا

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mounir Charïbi
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Morocco articles and Unknown-importance Morocco-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to articles in Category:Morocco articles missing geocoordinate data
Photo : See requested photographs in Morocco
Stubs : Morocco stubs
Other :
- Translate from Arabic: Sellam Ameziane, Mrebih Rebbu

Ethnic groups

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Demonym

The demonym for this page is based on old sources. Until the 1930s, Riffian was used for the people of the Rif, but the name of the country at that time was Riff as well. Now that Rif is the accepted transcription of the name of the country, it makes sense to have the demonym follow suit. David Montgomery Hart, author of the most authoritative study on the Rif used Rifian instead of Riffian.

Untitled

This article should probably be merged with Rifains. Elostirion (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've carried out the merge, although the current state of the article is quite pathetic. Elostirion (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population data

How can such precise data for the population in places like France and the Netherlands be determined? I have my doubts about some of these figures given. 71.205.174.204 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, sir in france and netherlands and also germany and belgium there is more than 2000000 riffians living in these countries, and because they contributed in the developpment of these countries they are also contributing in political life, in france for example, Najat Belkacem is a riff minister, and in netherlands many senators are riff, and also in belgium, so the data of the population are recommended by those people who run the political life, they have political power ( at least somehow ) unlikely in morocco we do not have clear data of the number of riffians but it is clearly that its about 4-5 million in Arrif, and 2 million in the Diaspora. User:Syphax Amaynu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syphax Amaynu (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "racist" to include their anthropology?

Just because a couple of liberals get upset over any mention of race doesn't mean you can edit out the information. How is it racist to say what race they are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.129.148 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

The sources cited are from the late 1930s and their "anthropology" is based on little more than "these people look like Vikings". It's not "racist because liberals", it's just not based in historical or scientific fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodovision (talk • contribs) 05:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected due to edit warring

The article is fully protected for 3 days. Discuss the disputed content here. Vsmith (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was one of the people involved in this, I will give my take on this situation.

You see, Ryantheravensfan1 removed an entire section of sourced text, claiming the guy who sourced the content (Carleton S. Coon) is racially incorrect. This edit was reverted by Pinkbeast for removing a ton of sourced content. Ryan then reverted Pinkbeast's edit, which I then re-reverted. I then left a message on Ryan's page explaining what he was doing was wrong. Keep in mind, during all of this, Ryan refused to actually give a reliable source claiming the sourced text was false, which is a reason as to why we kept reverting. After David Biddulph reverted Ryan and Ryan reverted David, you (Vsmith) protected the page.

Now, in the last revert, Ryan actually gave a source. Had the page not have been protected, I personally would've stopped reverting Ryan, since he actually gave something to claim his statement that time. With the previous reverts, however, Ryan gave nothing, which is why I, personally, reverted him. Due to Ryan not giving any sources to back up his claim, I thought his claim was opinion, and the section removal was vandalism. That's my take on this situation.

Now, determining whether Carleton S. Coon is a reliable source or not is a different topic and different discussion, one that has started this whole edit war thing. Anyone involved in this may either discuss their edits and why they did such edits, or/and discuss whether Carleton S. Coon is a reliable source or not. Pyrotle {^T/_C} 22:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, here is the link to the paper from the Journal of the History of Biology mentioned above. Vsmith (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not unworthy of attention (indeed, I've already proposed we take a look at it). I'm just waiting a bit to see if Mr Revert becomes aware of the existence of article talk pages. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You <personal attack removed> trying to get away with your crap. http://comm.colorado.edu/~jacksonj/research/coon.pdf This the link here as well as other links of modern scientists disproving this claim. This piece tells the origins of why Coon did his work and why he is wrong today. Page 29 it begins https://www.academia.edu/1086757/_All_With_Theories_To_Sell_Carleton_S._Coon_Bentley_Glass_Marston_Bates_and_the_struggle_by_life_scientists_in_the_United_States_to_construct_a_social_mission_after_World_War_II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryantheravensfan1 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 March 2015

I've issued a 48 hour block for the personal attack. Will unprotect the page now, play nice. Vsmith (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton S. Coon as source

Let's make this a new section. Potted summary of what I think:

Coon was a scientific racist: sure. His 1962 book clearly deeply dodgy: sure.

But does that mean that his observations of physiology in the 1930s were inaccurate? He wasn't then engaged in a rearguard action against the American civil rights movement - bluntly, in the 30s, the idea that Caucasians were best was not really in need of propping up. Even if he had been, would there have been some motivation to make the Rif out to be the blondest people in North Africa, rather than someone else?

That said, clearly the wording of the section is inappropriate (Alpine race, no less). I propose it be rewritten, but not removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've arrived at a reasonable compromise. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I know and have heard of many Jewish Riffians (My Grandfather is one) I don't know if the Jewish Riffians were a. Large enough of a community to be counted as the large religions that Riffians follow does anyone know if I should add Judaism to the Religions Riffians follow Dahound575 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any references about this subject (Jewish Riffians) I would be happy to edit this page. --Aṭlas (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved for lack of opposition. @Born2cycle: The proposed title is in line with convention (see, e.g., Poles) and I checked Google ngrams (see below) to make sure that the term is in widespread use (and has been for a century). (non-admin closure) Srnec (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rifian people → Riffians – New title is more accurate in terms of spelling and phraseology Dergadoo (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dergadoo and Born2cycle:
Articles about peoples have a convention and we better be sure we're in line with that. --В²C ☎ 05:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Riffian Republic's currency - The Riffan note, which is sourced and pictured on the very "Rif Republic" page itself, spells it Riff. Dergadoo (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Google ngram

Requested move 25 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riffians → Rifians – I think the spelling should be based on the way it is spelled in the Rifian language itself, which as you can see in this very article, is with just one F. TheRifian (talk) 11:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica uses "Rif people" for their article (which would be an option here) and uses both Riffian and Rifian in other articles. NYTimes uses Riffian. Most mentions of them in English news are from the 1930s, when 'Riffian' was used. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Rif people" would be worse; That would be equivalent of "Galicia people" or "Sicily people" when there's "Galician" and "Sicilian", plus it is certainly used less. As for most mentions of them in English news and the latter Britannica article, which I believe is also based on content from either the 1930s or 1920s, I noticed there is actually content at the very top of this page of someone addressing that the double F version of the demonym has fallen out of favour compared to the single F version since then, that the name of the region itself was also spelled with two Fs back then but is more commonly spelled with one F now and that David Montgomery Hart, author of the most authoritative study on Rif, used the single F version instead of the double F version, for which doesn't even have any response. And as far as the modern NYTimes article, Al Jazeera and The Guardian have used the single F version instead of the double F version in modern articles.TheRifian (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Both are valid spellings in English. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this Google ngram shows that the single F version is in greater usage than the double F version. That the name of the region itself was the double F version back then - Their banknotes/currency and an informational video of them from back then (But the single F version is in greater usage now - Some more Google ngrams for Rif/Riff alone and with the "mountains" distinction. That David Montgomery Hart used the single F version instead of the double F version - First example of his book, second example, third example. And that he was an expert on Rifians - One obituary, another. TheRifian (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon further review of the Google ngram for the demonym, I believe that while the single F version is in greater usage in the English language from some time in the late 90s to some time in 2005 that the double F version is in greater usage in the English language thereafter even beyond the time documented in that Google ngram, as I have discovered from this one. However, I would like to point out the fact that just because a pronunciation/spelling is a more common pronunciation/spelling in the English language that that doesn't necessarily make it the correct pronunciation/spelling (Even when the media uses it) where as that on the other hand the single F version being both an at all common spelling in the English language and the correct spelling in its own language as well is more authoritative. And I would also like to add the argument that the single F version would help distinguish it from this Riffian. TheRifian (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ait Iznassen as under riffian tribes Aitiznassenn (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia?

“ They are overwhelmingly SunniMuslims, but retain their pre-Islamic traditions such as high status for Riffian women.”

So low status of women is an Islamic thing??? This is just subversive islamophobia at its peak… 2607:FB91:830:C4EE:D5C5:B483:4D05:87A7 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]