Talk:Haratin

Split proposal

The introductory states that Haratin is an exonym with negative connotations. IMO this article should focus on the term Haratin, with everything else split off into a more neutrally named article or articles. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added the {{POV-title}} tag due to the same issue. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Split declined and POV tag removed. This topic is covered by reliable sources including Encyclopaedia Britannica under this title. The sentence regarding that the Haratin do not accept the term is not sourced, and if true, is something than can be discussed within the article when appropriate sources have been found. SilkTork *^YES! 12:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hartani

The word Hartani, plural form haratine is derived fron Arabic word (Hor Tani) Free a second time or free again, contracted into "Hartani" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.166.98 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

'Historiographic and conceptual problems of North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Haratin' section

Entire section, which goes on for many paragraphs and sounds like a screed, is sourced to exactly one guy "Mohamed, Mohamed Hassan" and exactly two publications: "Africanists and Africans of the Maghrib: casualties of Analogy" and "Africanists and Africans of the Maghrib II: casualties of secularity". Pretty sure some tags need to be added to get more reliable sources and remove NPOV; but I'm a copy editor and I hate working with Wikipedia tags. I'll do it if noone else does, but someone else should really have a look at that. Thanks. Mercster (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed here as well. And frankly, the section needs substantial work beyond this, if it ought to be kept. The first paragraph is a total non-sequitur; this is a page about an ethnic group, not a soapbox for someone to pontificate about "the current major problem in African studies." The gist of this whole section is that the notion of a bipartite (i.e. sub-Saharan and trans-Saharan) Africa is a colonial construction, which the Haratin problematize. Mohamed argues that the Haratin are indigenous to the Maghreb, but that this inherited colonial paradigm suggests that their origins are south of the Sahara, owing to their complexion. But this topic is already covered, with good sources and more concise writing, in the Etymology and History sections. Is this section worth keeping? Portuni (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mercster There's been enough and convincing critical discussion of this paragraph. To make it concise and up to standards, somebody who's read these arguments should quickly shorten it and spare new readers' time. Munfarid1 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Art historical discussion about Haratin

There is an interesting discussion about Haratin in Cynthia Becker's reply to a review of Becker's work Amazigh Arts in Morocco that might be useful for further elaboration in this article: 1) Helene E. Hagan. 2008. “Amazigh Arts in Morocco, Women Shaping Berber Identity Cynthia Becker.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 40 (2): 341–42. doi:10.1017/S0020743808080719. 2) Becker, Cynthia. “A Reply to Helene E. Hagan’s Review of Amazigh Arts in Morocco, Women Shaping Berber Identity (Ijmes 40 [2008]: 341-42).” International Journal of Middle East Studies 40, no. 4 (2008): 725–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40206043 Munfarid1 (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Broken and Misleading Links

The introductory section features the sentence "The Haratin are both culturally and ethnically distinct from modern sub-Saharan Africans", however the Gast (2000) source states "the African essence has been its own for several millennia" but notes the Haratins had a distinct gene flow. Georges Colin (1971) is a broken link and arguably out of date. Alain Froment is a non-English text: file:///home/chronos/u-e85965ccc0f93c89ea513ef0868dacd3fc373e6b/MyFiles/Downloads/101.FROMENTBellasOursi%20(1).pdf

The sentence should either feature new links or be rephrased to be present a more accurate representation of the sources.WikiUser4020 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

February 2026

@~2026-10210-68: regarding this addition.

Could you please quote the relevant parts from the cited sources that support what you're attributing to them?

To make it easy, I will start with the obvious (we'll go through the rest once you answer this question): where in the census that you cited does it say Tunisia does not publish a straightforward official census breakdown for Haratin specifically, so the precise population size is uncertain? M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, your question obviously makes it clear to me that I don't fully understand how citing works on wikipedia. I am supposed to do an entry as a part of one of my classes in university. I thought that the way citing worked, in the case of this example, is that the official census of Tunisia did not include a section or any info about the population of the haratin people, so it was a good source to include with that info. Obviously, because of you're question I now understand that the quote has to be directly derived from the source; is that true? If so, all the other information within the text I posted comes directly from the sources I mentioned. If possible... are you comfortable with only deleting that section of the entry and having everything else still be on. If not, what other sources do you have a problem with? ~2026-10210-68 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I removed the parts about france, and the part about population sizes as it was hard for me to find a reliable source that talked about it directlty. I kept in the sections about the arab spring and its impact on these peoples and what they are called in Tunisia. The sources I included with these are reliable and directly state these statements. Is this good now? ~2026-10210-68 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

is that true? yes. It's all covered in WP:OR.

Regarding your last edit:

• This edit summary is highly misleading as it falsely suggests that you're undoing an edit of mine, when in fact, you're undoing your own edit. Please read WP:ES.
• The first source mentions Haratin in passing. It claims that the Haratin are called Shwashin in Tunisia, when in fact:

1. the Haratin are found in the western Sahel and the southwestern Maghreb, i.e., nowhere near Tunisia.
2. the Haratin are an ethnic group, while the Shwashin are not. The term "Shwashin" used to refer to the freed slaves (who were mostly agricultural workers). In the 17th and 19th century, it was used to differentiate between the old freed slaves, who by then were well integrated into Tunisian society, and the newly freed ones (of various origins, such as Hausa, Kanuri, etc.). Later on, it was used to used to refer to the agricultural workers (regardless of their ethnic origin) who didn't own the land.

• The second source doesn't say that there are Haratin in Tunisia.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with our core content policies. M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The wikiepdia article we are on right now states that there are haratin peoples in Tunisia, "Areas with a significant population". When it comes to my secod source it says the haratin people whether in tunisia or not were put in a new spot light. The arab spring started with Tunisia so i feel like it fit in that sub section. My apolpgies for the edit summary. If i am mistaken and all my sources and this very page is wrong about the existence of the haratin in people, then I will go familiarize myself more with the topic. Otherwise, I would still rather meet some kind of agreement on this subsection. If Tunisia is insignificant enough within this topic to not include it let me know. ~2026-10210-68 (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

In The "Origins" Section: "Inedible"?

In the "Origins" section we find the sentence "The rain was so heavy that it washed all the characters of the holy book on to Ham’s skin; these characters, being sacred, were inedible, and so they turned Ham and his offspring black forever!". Is that a correct citation? Has someone perhaps mis-transcribed the word "indelible"? I don't see any source for the citation and so can not check it myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-19257-97 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Good eye. The source from El Hamel mistakenly wrote it as "inedible" and I copied it over from there. I checked the citation from Ensel and the quote from the original source and it is indeed indelible (I also moved the citations to be clearer) Mayouhm (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Repetitive info

In the Mauritania section, the 3rd paragraph (starting with "In 1981") repeats the same info multiple times.

If there's no objection, I'd like to make it more concise to state the Presidential decree of 1981 abolished slavery, the practice was criminalized via laws passed in 2007 & 2015, these are rarely enforced, many are still enslaved or bound to former masters in different ways.

I'd rather get consensus about this change than just make it and deal with a potential edit war later. Shana3980 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)