Talk:Melhfa

Title move to Toub (Melhfa)

This is to clarify the recent move to Toub (Melhfa). The garment in question has older historical roots in ancient Sudan, where it is known as toub, derived from the Classical Arabic thawb, used since pre-Islamic times. The term melhfa appears much later (11th c.) in the western Sahel and Maghreb.

The goal of this move is not to replace regional naming, but to reflect the garment’s trans-Saharan history and evolution across linguistic, trade, and cultural lines. All existing content on melhfa was retained. This is a historically justified framing based on strong sources, not a duplication or fork. Gingerfruit (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Start by proving (using RS) that Melhfa and Toub are the same thing. As far as I can tell, 1) Melhfa is the common name for the garment covered in this article, and 2) there is no such thing as "Toub (Melhfa)". M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: In case you missed the connection that was already established in the version you reverted, it was made clear that toub and melhfa are connected by multiple reliable sources.

1. Melhfa and Toub refer to same style of garment: an unstitched, full-length rectangular cloth wrapped around the body, traditionally worn by women in the Nile Valley, Sahel and Western Sahara. This form appears in both regions with regional naming variation. See: Introduction of Melhfa as well as Clothing in Sudan which cites murals from Kerma and Kush (Kadish 1977; Talebi 2024; Samuel 2025), showing long wrapped garments predating the melhfa.
2. Term toub is older of the two for this style of garment, derived from Arabic thawb (ثوب) attested in pre-Islamic literature. It is still used in Sudan and parts of Chad to describe same garment worn in Western Sahara as melhfa. See: Gerald Kadish (1977), Nubia: Corridor to Africa, and Samuel, Isaac (2025), “Cloth in African History,” africanhistoryextra.com.
3. Migration and cultural transmission support this continuity. Diffusion of Sudanese cotton textiles and wrapped attire across trans-Saharan trade routes is well documented from 11th century onward. See: Talebi, Tessa (2024), “Connecting the Two Sudans,” Project on Middle East Political Science.
4. Visual and construction similarities: Toub and melhfa are both single, rectangular pieces of cloth averaging 4–5 meters in length, unstitched, and wrapped identically across the body, differing only in regional style and name.

Additional source: Eicher, Joanne B. & Ross, Doran H. “Dress and Gender: Making and Meaning in Cultural Contexts” (1992, Berg Publishers). Chapter on West African dress traces similarities in wrapped garments from the Nile to the Sahel. Bouhdiba, Abdelwahab. Islamic Culture: Dress and Identity in the Sahara, UNESCO Cultural Series, 2000.

The page move to Toub (Melhfa) was about framing the garment within its full historical and geographic continuum. Melhfa remains intact in the article as a regional variant, but toub reflects the older, broader term. Gingerfruit (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

are connected and same class of garment don't mean the "same garment" (which is what I asked above). Also, the sources about the Melhfa (plenty of them in Google books) don't seem to make that connection. M.Bitton (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: you're shifting the goalposts. Originally asked to “prove (using RS) that melhfa and toub are the same thing.” Sources cited in article show that the toub and melhfa are structurally and functionally identical garments, both historically and in current use: unstitched, full-length rectangular wraps worn by women, with regional naming variations.

If you’re now requiring that the exact phrase “melhfa is the same as toub” appear in a single modern source, that’s also provided here. The article cites peer-reviewed scholarship, archaeological evidence, and ethnographic analysis showing: the same garment form in Sudan and Western Sahara, diffusion of this form via trade and cultural exchange, continuity of use and identical wrapping technique. If you disagree, please provide reliable sources stating they are not the same garment. So far, you haven’t.

As for WP:REDACT, no edit to talk history was made, so not applicable. Gingerfruit (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

you're shifting the goalposts I'm not.

no edit to talk history was made, this diff says otherwise.

In any case, you're welcome to seek consensus for whatever you're after. Also, please don't ping me again from this talk page (it's in my watchlist). M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

As an aside (regarding this edit), please read WP:REDACT. M.Bitton (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Correction: I only corrected typos and clarified wording in my own comment no material meaning was changed. That’s allowed per WP:TALK. so yes WP:REDACT doesn’t apply here. Gingerfruit (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Origin

The content that was recently added is about the Sudanese garment (Toub), while this article is about the Melhfa. There is nothing that suggests that the two garments are the same. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The section starting with This was facilitated by centuries ... appears to be about textile in general and not the Melhfa. The one source that is accessible doesn't mention the subject, therefore, I have tagged the sources for verification. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I tagged the various irrelevant sentences about Toub (for the same reason as above). M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Gingerfruit: Please don't remove the maintenance tags again. I also suggest you engage in this discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Since Toub is a different garment that doesn't have an article, how about you dedicate one to it? The one that you created earlier could be appropriately renamed if you'd rather not create another one. M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Toub was already part of the original article, along with Sudan being referenced as one of the regional names and origins of this garment. You removed that content yesterday without justification or counter-sourcing. What you’ve been doing since isn’t collaborative editing, it’s passive-aggressive gatekeeping, edit warring, and dismissive commentary that avoids any real engagement with the extensive academic sources I’ve provided.

As a historian and a woman from this region, I’m not just citing credible references, I’m representing lived cultural knowledge, supported by peer-reviewed research. Ignoring that and repeatedly shifting the goalposts (without offering a single counter-source) undermines the standards this platform is built on. This isn’t how informed editorial discussion works. Gingerfruit (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, however, the original version of this article already included toub and Sudan as a regional name along toungou, tassaghnist, and dampé until you erased it yesterday. So instead of creating a new page, it makes more sense to restore that earlier framing and build on it.

What I suggest we do is revert original version that acknowledged the full Sahel to Western Sahara scope including variations. From there we expand it in a way that honors historical connections, cultural exchanges and evolution of the garment. Nothing about this garment’s history happened in isolation. It’s clear we both care deeply about this topic and want to see it represented accurately. So instead of continuing this unproductive edit loop, let’s actually work together to make it stronger and inclusive. If the title change is the sticking point, we can set that aside for now and open it up for wider consensus later. Gingerfruit (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I do realise that the word "Toub" was there, but that's a not a reason to keep it. The reliable sources don't say that the two garments are the same, that's why I suggested you create an article that is dedicated to the Sudanese garment (toub). Is there a reason why you don't think that's a good idea? M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok so applying the same logic, should we also remove toungou, tassaghnist, laffaya, and dampé from the article, since reliable sources don’t say they are the same? What was the basis for removing toub entirely while leaving others? This selective inclusion raises a WP:NPOV issue, since all these terms refer to regional names or variants of same garment.

I’m assuming the core issue may be a misunderstanding of my initial intend. I’m not suggesting that melhfa or other regional styles originated from toub, only that this broader category of wrapped garments has existed across the Sahara Sahel region for centuries, with toub being the earliest documented form based on available archaeological and textual evidence from ancient Sudan.

We can work on clearer framing and language that reflects regional diversity of these garments without implying linear origin. That seems like the more accurate and collaborative way forward. Gingerfruit (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

If that would make you feel better, then the answer is yes. I understand what you're after, but I see no reason to add unrelated garments to this one. If Toub is notable (it looks like it is), then you're welcome to dedicate an article to it. M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)