Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Western Saharan clashes (2020–present)#Requested move 6 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lolekek (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, we are looking to get opinions from other editors for a question about the best format for the infobox images at Marrakesh. Your input would be welcome at Talk:Marrakesh#Question for all editors. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'm not sure if someone will read this or an admin or anything but an user keeps on deleting the names of Moroccan cities when they're written in Tifinagh script. This cannot continue. Amazigh is as much an official langage of Morocco as Arabic. If you have some time and you notice the Tifinagh script is lacking, then please undo the modifications that erased them. If for some obscure reason Amazigh is unauthorized on this platform, then can someone please tell me why.Zeblade12 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend perhaps starting a "Request for Comments" about this if no consensus is forthcoming. I'm pinging Skitash here as well, instead of continuing the discussion at User talk:Zeblade12.

Two initial comments: 1) there should be no problem including Tifinagh in relevant articles per

MOS:FORLANG (but possibly in a footnote alongside Arabic), but 2) Tifinagh names present certain difficulties for verifiability

.

Verifiability concerns include: it's easy to look up Arabic names in many sources, whereas I'm not sure if any Tifinagh dictionary exists or where to access one if it does, and it's unclear whether the editors adding their own Tifinagh transcriptions are following a standard convention or making up their own transliterations/translations. Naturally, the existence of multiple regional Amazigh languages also complicates the matter. The fact that I've seen various editors and IPs arbitrarily change Tifinagh names over the years without explanation (other than a terse "corrected") illustrates this problem. On at least one occasion I found that a Tifinagh name added by an editor this way looked nothing like the one seen on official signage.

This puts Wikipedia in the awkward position of acting like a pseudo-dictionary for Tifinagh without being able to cross-check it for reliability. Ideally, we could use whatever Tifinagh names are used by official sources, but the latter often omit Tifinagh. I imagine similar problems must exist for other local languages around the world that unfortunately have very limited institutional support (constitution notwithstanding). R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This was exactly my point. The names being used are not backed by verifiable sources and are very likely to be inaccurate. For instance, the English and French Wikipedia articles for

MOS:FORLANG as a potential solution to this issue, but I am uncertain about the objections raised against this rule. The guideline states that "a single foreign language equivalent name may be included in the lead sentence" and advises against the use of alternative lengthy names to avoid cluttering the lead sentence. The rule's example of a Ukrainian province is applicable to Moroccan cities in this context. Skitash (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

For your first point: indeed I noticed the inconsistent names across French and English wikis previously, that's another good example of the problem. For the last point (lead sentence clutter), the policy recommends using a footnote, so in cases where we do have accurate version in both languages, I think that's an easy enough solution. R Prazeres (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

As I mentioned above, an RfC might be the best way to obtain a wider and more constructive consensus. The question would need to be worded more neutrally than what's above, but I'm happy to help craft one. Let me know if any of you want to proceed this way. R Prazeres (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I'm fine with a RfC. I had posted a message onto @Skitash's user page, but it'd be way more appropriate to hold such a discussion here. I honestly don't think that the argument of the use of the Amazigh language being irrelevant should even be entertained, if it's notable enough for many municipalities to include it alongside Arabic in their logos and official documentation, it's good enough for Wikipedia.

Regarding inconsistent names in Tifinagh, and fears of unavailability regarding reliable sources -- which is the main concern you express here -- I propose the following procedure to have the most accurate and reliable spelling especially in cases of BLP:

1. For public Moroccan personalities which were either known to be native Berber speakers or alive during or after the 2001 Ajdir speech where Standard Tamazight was announced, attempt to find transcriptions in the Std. Amazigh version of sites relating to their profession (i.e. the Agadir municipal council, members of Government on the Prime Minister's site, Tiznit film festival, etc...).
2. If this is unfruitful, attempt to find a spelling on the Tamazight service for Maghreb Arabe-Presse (MAP; i.e. appointment of Mohammed Berrid as Ins.-Gen. of the FAR, announcements of royal appointments of governors for 2023).
3. If this is again unfruitful, attempt to find a spelling on Amazigh-speaking news sites (AgadirToday, AkalPress, AzulPress, AmadalAmazigh). If a proper transcription cannot be found, then it is better left omitted per WP:OR.
4. For institution, rely on their own usage (Ministry of Health, CDAI, etc); for more secretive institutions, rely on their use by the MAP or in the IRCAM's DGLAI dictionary.
5. For places, rely on the usage used by respective municipal governments (for Fes-Meknes, the commune's logo gives the inscription of ⴼⴰⵙ-ⵎⴽⵏⴰⵙ; the commune of Sale has its own website in Tamazight) or maps made by the appropriate agency for more rural places (i.e. maps published by the Agadir Urbanism Agency).
6. If this is unfruitful, perhaps rely on weather reports made by the General Directorate of Meteorology and published by the MAP or the same royal appointments published by the MAP. If this is once again unfruitful, rely on reports from other branches of government, then other press reports.
7. For things dated to the Andalusian period, perhaps rely on Ibn Tunart's lexicon and make use of the Berber Arabic alphabet or the Berber Latin alphabet. For people, places, or things mentioned in Roman-era inscriptions, write in Latin or in Tifinagh. For pre-Roman things, write in Tifinagh with perhaps something similar to Template:MongolUnicode to replicate top-to-bottom writing in original Tifinagh inscriptions.
8. For Algeria, replace the IRCAM with the HCA and Maghreb Arabe-Presse with Algerie Presse Service.

I understand that many of these are primary sources, but in this specific case, they are the most reliable for transcriptions per

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD especially considering how lacking sources are. Apologies if this too long or overwhelming, but calling this a controversial subject would be an understatement. Have a nice day! NAADAAN (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I think those are good tips. With the exception of #7: for historical topics, we should stick to only what secondary sources use, otherwise we will certainly fall into

WP:OR (sometimes even the Arabic names/translations in these articles have this problem too); whereas that isn't really an issue for contemporary names, which should indeed be based on current usage that we can verify. R Prazeres (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

With regards to #7, I was thinking of early Roman-era Tifinagh inscriptions in the case that secondary source affirms not only its spelling but the meaning as well (i.e. this) -- I do agree that relying on a primary source in that way would stir up the pot in some way, so perhaps only rely on secondary literature citing it. Do you think this is an issue still worth raising to an RfC? Either way, do you think it would be a good idea to reinstate those names and add an inline citation to the appropriate source? I already did such a thing with Morocco. NAADAAN (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For things like historical inscriptions, I think generally speaking it's of course fine to mention them in the body of the article, where relevant, but it's not a good idea to introduce them as alternate names in the lead section (which should be only a summary of essential, straightforward facts; anything that needs further explanation, context, or debate should be in the main body). And yes, always rely on secondary sources.

I don't see a problem with adding Tifinagh names to relevant contemporary topics if they're supported by a relevant citation. As

MOS:FORLANG recommends, we can use a footnote to avoid clutter in the opening sentence. Either way, though, the important thing is also to not continue edit-warring, so don't do this if it's already being reverted. R Prazeres (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Frankly, I am uncertain about the reliability of the provided sources, as they seem to pose certain issues. As NAADAAN correctly highlighted above, all of these are primary sources, and I question the applicability of

external links at the end of the article, rather than relying on them as authoritative references. Moreover, the other referenced websites (AgadirToday, AkalPress, AzulPress, AmadalAmazigh) appear to be of questionable reputability and credibility. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that all of these articles are written in Tifinagh, which can not be translated easily, making them inaccessible and incomprehensible to readers and editors alike. I have no issue with holding an RfC. If that method isn't viable, and should Tifinagh text be included, I would recommend integrating it into footnotes as @M.Bitton had aptly done in Tamazgha due to verifiability issues. Skitash (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

"This issue is exacerbated by the fact that all of these articles are written in Tifinagh, which can not be translated easily" there is a romanization protocol under ALA-LC, if that is what you are inquiring about. You can try a web-app here. If it is going to be put as a footnote despite its verifiability, then it should also be included with Arabic like in the case of Morocco.

Also, any supposed promotional or ideological bias that you may perceive in sites for the Agadir City Commune, or the MAP, or Tamazight-language news sites wouldn't hinder the quality of the transcriptions insofar as it fits the criteria in

WP:BLPSELFPUB

. When it comes to differing transcriptions, then the most authoritative one should be picked, and especially in the case of BLP or organizations, it's better to use the wording used by themselves or organizations closest to their field of work.

Per

WP:PRIMARYCARE a "person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable", as well as an "organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." NAADAAN (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The question of the weak sourcing aside, I think that there is a problem with how

MOS:LEADLANG is formulated since it appears to contain information that is open to interpretation. I raised the issue on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

As per the above, Tifinagh transcriptions and transliterations are not standardized, and the cited sources are primary (with PRIMARYNOTBAD being nonpertinent here); this has also been discussed extensively at Talk:Algeria. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"with PRIMARYNOTBAD being nonpertinent here" Why exactly? NAADAAN (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3 of

WP:PRIMARY states "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"; Tifinagh names, transcriptions and transliterations are not verifiable. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Per the proposal I wrote and in harmony with

MOS:NAME

. Is there a problem with this?

They can be verified by transliterating such to Latin through the ALA-LC standard. Also, I seldom understand why knowing Tamazight would be considered "specialized knowledge" or would be irrelevant if a good part of the Moroccan population (at least 1/4!) speaks it and especially so knowing that Tifinagh is generalized in the Moroccan school curriculum. Of course, it would be considered "specialized" for

WP:AVERAGE, but the same can be said for knowledge in Arabic. NAADAAN (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

"Also, I seldom understand why knowing Tamazight would be considered "specialized knowledge" or would be irrelevant if a good part of the Moroccan population (at least 1/4!) speaks it" While that is true, it's important to note that merely speaking Tamazight doesn't necessarily imply proficiency in the Tifinagh script or written forms of the language. I assume the quarter you mentioned is based on the 2014 census. That percentage constitutes the speakers of individual Berber languages (4% Tarifit, 14.1% Tashelhit and 7.9% Central Atlas Tamazight), which are primarily oral without a major written component. Furthermore, while it may be generalized, only 9% of children are taught Standard Moroccan Amazigh in schools. Hence, in this context, knowledge of Tamazight could indeed be considered "specialized knowledge".

Regarding your proposal in harmony with

MOS:NAME, I fail to see the applicability of these rules to the current discussion. The former rule relates to autobiographies and companies while the latter concerns biographies and personal names, and neither pertains to the topic of geographical locations and cities. Skitash (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

"it's important to note that merely speaking Tamazight doesn't necessarily imply proficiency in the Tifinagh script or written forms of the language" There's a new census coming in a few months, so I deem it counter-productive to go around in circles over it at the given moment. I'm ready to concede to add the ALA-LC transliteration of the Tifinagh transcription if this is a valid source of concern like in the page for Aziz Akhannouch.

"The former rule relates to autobiographies and companies while the latter concerns biographies and personal names" It's worth considering that @Snowstormfigorion also removed the Tifinagh inscriptions for Mohammed VI, Moulay Hassan, and Aziz Akhannouch; also, who wouldn't be more qualified to know the name of an established city than its regional government? NAADAAN (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadaan, no one's going around in circles except you. As elaborated by everyone, Tifinagh, period, is non-verifiable, that also includes its romanization. The PRIMARYCARE and PRIMARYNOTBAD explanatory essays are not applicable here per their parent policy PRIMARY. So stop

WP:STONEWALLING, would you? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:NEGOTIATE

.

You have needlessly reverted the articles back against

WP:EDITCON despite consensus building not being over and there being explicit calls in this conversation for this not to be done. Cc. @R Prazeres, do you believe this is worth making an RfC over? I don't want to take overly drastic measures. NAADAAN (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

This has been a recurring issue for a long time and it potentially concerns a lot of articles. So I think that yes, an RfC would help (hopefully) to clarify and set the best way forward. R Prazeres (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC created, hope I did not screw this up. NAADAAN (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Language and linguistics Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should Tifinagh transcriptions be included in articles relating to Morocco following the proposal set forth in the WikiProject's previous talk page discussion? NAADAAN (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for a few reasons:

• Tifinagh transcriptions and translations lack standardization or codification. This resulted in numerous cases of contributors and IPs arbitrarily altering Tifinagh spellings based on what they think is right. This inconsistency is also evident across other language versions of Wikipedia. For instance, the English and French Wikipedia articles on Zagora, Inezgane and Midelt present contrasting Berber spellings, creating confusion over the correct spelling. In the real world, the standardization of the Tamazight language, its script, and teaching methods faces "real problems" in Algerian schools. According to Morocco World News, "Tamazight cannot achieve a purely standardized status that is understood by all Imazighen because, in reality, such a single standard does not exist".
• The verifiability and accuracy of Tifinagh texts are questionable due to the absence of Tifinagh dictionaries or credible sources providing correct spellings or translations. All of the sources presented above are primary sources and unreliable sources. Although Berber is an official language in Algeria and Morocco, the Algerian constitution (available in Arabic and French) indicates that efforts are ongoing to develop Tamazight to ultimately lead to its adoption as an official language in the future, implying that there is still work that needs to be done.
• There are numerous regional mutually unintelligible Berber languages. Articles featuring Berber language text often represent different Berber languages such as
  Tashelhit (in Agadir), which are neither verifiable nor official. This issue is also reflected in real world challenges by Algeria in deciding which of its six Berber dialects should be taught
  in schools.
• The
  MOS:FORLANG guideline advises including only one foreign language equivalent name in the lead sentence. This was further clarified in response to a query by @M.Bitton on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
  .
• Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to this RfC that took place on Talk:Algeria concerning the inclusion of Berber language text. The consensus was against using Tifinagh text.

Skitash (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly don't understand why you bring up Algeria, the Algerian constiution, or Kabyle when this is exclusively focused on Morocco,

Standard Moroccan Tamazight (SMT) is standardized by IRCAM

and is largely intelligible between Tamazight, Tachelhit, and Tarifit. The RfC on the Algeria article was on the basis that Tamazight recognition wasn't codified in Algerian legislature. Any implication made by Algerian legislators on the state of Tamazight is irrelevant to Morocco and has no effect on this conversation.

In Morocco, Article 5 of the constiution puts SMT in an equal pedestal as Arabic as "common heritage of all Moroccans with no exception". In accordance with the constiution, the use of SMT has been codified into law under organic law 26-16, Royal decree 1-19-121 with specification that it be used with Tifinagh. A royal decree also sets forth the use of Tifinagh. I set forth a proposal in the previous conversation to obtain an accurate Tifinagh spelling of places, words, and people; I don't see how

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD doesn't apply in this case, and in the case of Maghreb Arabe-Presse, any percieved bias would not affect the accuracy of spelling. There are inconsistent and disputes in spellings in English for Boucraa, Laayoune, Es-smara, and Benguerir; as a matter of fact -- the French article for Agadir lists a myriad of spellings in Arabic. Need there be a new conversation? NAADAAN (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the confusion may stem from what you proposed in the discussion: For Algeria, replace the IRCAM with the HCA and Maghreb Arabe-Presse with Algerie Presse Service. M.Bitton (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I assumed that Algeria had a similar legal framework as Morocco since I had noticed the existence of the HCA and a Tamazight service ran by the APS; I stand corrected after doing more research, since the relevant laws don't really mention specifics about standardization and the Algerian governement hasn't chosen which alphabet to use as of 2017. NAADAAN (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe Algeria's situation is not relevant here, then what prompted your suggestion to use HCA and Algerie Presse Service for Algerian articles? Like Morocco, Algeria also faces problems with standardizing and codifying Berber, making Algeria's context relevant here. Since you find Kabyle irrelevant, let's instead focus on

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, as they are certainly not "authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control". Skitash (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Because I wasn't aware of the previous RfC, I clearly explained my stance in my past message. I addressed the concerns raised in the Algerian RfC and demonstrated why it wouldn't be an issue in this case. Per my proposal, a source can be found that shows that the Commune of Chakrane uses the transcription "ⵛⴰⵇⵔⴰⵏ"; case closed. Also, proper nouns wouldn't change based on dialect of Tamazight so I don't know why this needs to be discussed. Furthermore, this wouldn't explain the subsequent content removal in Morocco even though an official translation of the constitution was sourced. I would like to know your explaination on how the official site for the Agadir city commune isn't "authoritative" and how the MAP isn't "subject to editorial control". Do other languages that encounter pedagogic "challenges" lack verifiability by your standards? NAADAAN (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain about the ruling on whether or not images can be interpreted and cited as sources. However, I have not been able to find any mention of "ⵛⴰⵇⵔⴰⵏ" in any websites or articles on Google. Furthermore, your assertion that "proper nouns wouldn't change based on dialect of Tamazight" lacks substantiation. Contrary evidence exists:

external link at the end of the article, rather than being cited as a source. I didn't claim that the MAP source you provided lacks "editorial control". My concern is that it's entirely written in Tifinagh script, rendering it incomprehensible and inaccessible to readers and editors. Skitash (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the fact that Chakrane is a village of 6,000 people could explain why it's underrepresented in search results, even in French. Either way,

WP:ECREE

.

Focusing on Morocco: the Tamazight article says Dzayr (ⴷⵣⴰⵢⵔ), it's Dzayr in Tachelhit Wikipedia, and it's Dzayer in Tarifit Wikipedia. There are number of people who edit Tamazight Wikipedia, correct? Would they not be able to verify the names on the English Wikipedia? A lot of them are members of this exact WikiProject on English Wikipedia and if this is such an impossible task that it requires content removal then it defeats the point of even having a Tamazight Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you are concerned about it being "entirely written" in Tifinagh, I can concede to adding an ALA-LC romanization like with Aziz Akhannouch. NAADAAN (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just because a language doesn't have a standardized spelling doesn't mean it should be given less prominence than it otherwise would be given, and neither should languages with standardized spelling be specially priviliged. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather indifferent... While @

notability.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that notability is proven at the given moment that at least a quarter of the population speaks a dialect of Tamazight, that the Moroccan constitution recognizes Tamazight as a language equal to Arabic, that an institution was charged with standardizing Tamazight, as well as there being an entire legal framework around the use of Tamazight in government with Tifinagh being the script used in Government.

Sure, there are challenges you can observe from a language that began being standardized just over twenty years ago -- but I have never seen this be an argument for omission, there are languages in much more dire places when it comes to educational challenges or lack of standardization that's still included on Wikipedia. My proposal remains the same (include the Tifinagh inscriptions used by local governments for places, and employers or news reports for people as they are the most authoritative); but I deplore the fact that I haven't gotten in-depth criticism of my proposal despite the ongoing conversation. NAADAAN (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there seems to be a sense of notability on the topic.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 13:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I previously said ([1]), I think relevance (or notability) is easy enough to establish here for many cases (e.g. for place names). I do feel, however, that to ensure competent transcriptions (and to avoid arbitrary back and forth changes) under the present circumstances, some form of verifiability is needed.

So I wonder if other editors could also comment more directly on the verifiability concerns? Do we need citations to sources to verify Tifinagh transcriptions? If so, what kind of sources are acceptable? Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI, the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use issued a guide two years ago for Neo-Tifinagh romanization, this includes a list of "Approved Names" for places in Morocco in Tifinagh. I think this is reliable, I added Tifinagh text back onto Morocco pursuant to that and an official translation of the constitution. NAADAAN (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: If a language is spoken somewhere by an indigenous population, their names for these places should be included. As for the points made by @Skitash:

• Transcriptions of Arabic Abjad also lack standardization, there are several different transcription standards that are being used in Wikipedia and in almost all cases, the official name does not abide by these standards. Accordingly, this argument doesn't hold any merit for this case. Popular transcriptions are mostly a simplified approximation and do not follow scientific transcription standards
• The
  MOS:FORLANG is only relevant for the lead sentence though, this RfC is about the general inclusion in the article.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi all, there is a splitting proposal at the Alawi dynasty article that might be of interest to members of this project. See Talk:Alawi dynasty#Splitting proposal (and seeking feedback). Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]