Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Morocco was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result April 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 9, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 1, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed October 18, 2009 Good article nominee Listed October 24, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 13, 2004, March 2, 2005, March 2, 2006, March 2, 2007, March 2, 2008, March 2, 2009, and March 2, 2010. Current status: Delisted good article

This article is about a topic whose name is originally rendered in the Berber script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Berber script. For more information, see: MOS:FOREIGN.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Economy of Morocco#Services|services sector]] The anchor (Services) has been deleted. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

2026 figures, according to the IMF: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/MAR ~2026-27651-85 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Change dead cite (cite 130) to archived source, here it is: https://web.archive.org/web/20250327213002/https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/DI-final-version-report.pdf

The dead source cited is: https://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/DI-final-version-report.pdf Simple linkrot. Thatrunit (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: The citation already contains a working archive link, but I changed the url-status parameter to "dead" so it will be presented first. Day Creature (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the Infobox at the top of the page, the percentages don't add up. There is an extra 17.5 percent in the total and that isn't factually possible. I don't know who put it in, where the information was gotten from, or what the actual numbers are, so I will merely point it out so that it can be fixed so that no one gets any wrong information. ~2026-29967-95 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some people speak more than one language in Maroc. 'Tis a very special place. - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 14:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lankdadank, I removed “Berber” for neutrality and consistency. Since the section also mentions dynasties of Arab origin, highlighting only the Berber identity of certain dynasties creates imbalance. If ethnic labels are included, they should be applied consistently, including to the Idrisid, Saadi, and Alawi dynasties.

Please also do not remove again the sourced explanation of who applied the term “Maghrib” to the region.--AbuAtrak (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Xeniades, The constitution of Morocco does not establish *Tageldit n Lmeɣrib* as a separate official name of the state. Article 5 recognises Arabic and Tamazight as official languages, but that does not automatically make every Tamazight translation of the country’s name a separate official constitutional name. Unless a reliable source explicitly supports this wording, it should be described as a Tamazight translation, not as an “official Berber name”. AbuAtrak (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AbuAtrak This Berber name is the official name of the country in Standard Moroccan Tamazight. The source you removed is a reliable source. Xeniades (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Tamazight form is simply the Tamazight translation of المملكة المغربية. It is not established in the constitutional text as a separate official country name. The Constitution recognises Tamazight as an official language, but that does not mean Morocco has a separate “official Berber name”, rather it is the Tamazight translation of the Arabic name.

I hope you understand this. AbuAtrak (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have to provide reliable sources that corroborate what you say. The official Tamazight name is found in the official Tamazight translation of the constitution by IRCAM. Your revert also removed reliable sources. lankdadank (chat) 22:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is a translation. Therefore, it should not be described as a separate “official Berber name”, since Maghrib itself is not originally a Berber term. The text can mention theTamazight translation, but the wording should make clear that it is a translation/rendering of the official name, not a distinct official country name. Thank you. AbuAtrak (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The two languages are co-official, equal in status, and neither name is a translation of the other. Since the WP:ONUS is on you, unless you provide sources that state the only accepted official name of the country is المملكة المغربية the wording will have to be restored to as it was before. lankdadank (chat) 22:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tamazight became an official language in 2011, and IRCAM itself presents the Tamazight constitution as a translation. Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on the editor adding or restoring the disputed “official Berber name” wording to provide a source that directly supports that claim.

You can add the Tamazight as a translation. AbuAtrak (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one disputing it, so you have to provide sources corroborating what you say. The other editor has provided a reliable source. Again, unless you source any of your claims, this will just go in circles. lankdadank (chat) 22:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand right that IRCAM's 2021 publication just provided Tamazight translation of Arabic constitution of Morocco?

Official original constitution: المملكة المغربية

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/13535 AbuAtrak (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided is the official state translation of the constitution by IRCAM, a government agency. If a language is constitutionally co-official, the name of the state written in that language in the official constitution is, by definition, an official name. It can't really get any more official than that! lankdadank (chat) 23:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's official translation of the Kingdom of Maghreb.

IRCAM page calls it “Cette traduction” , “this translation” AbuAtrak (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So because it's an "official translation" in a co-official language, that somehow stops it from being the official name in that language? That is pure semantics. Unless you have actual sources backing this up, we are done going in circles. lankdadank (chat) 23:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind including the Tamazight wording, but not with the label “official Berber name”. The source only shows a Tamazight translation in a co-official language; it does not directly state that Morocco has a separate “official Berber name”.

The burden is on the editor restoring that exact claim to provide a source that directly supports it. “Tamazight translation” would be more neutral. AbuAtrak (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:ONUS, the responsibility for achieving consensus is on the editor seeking to include disputed changes: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content."

You altered the long-standing, sourced text based entirely on WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and semantics. I am asking for the 4th time: provide a reliable source stating that the Tamazight name holds no official status despite the language's constitutional equality. If you cannot provide a source to back up your claim, your unsourced change cannot stay. lankdadank (chat) 00:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use “Berber” here, as the appropriate term in this context is “Tamazight.”

I do not want us to keep going around in circles, so I think we should try to find a middle ground. My main concern is the wording. The Tamazight form is better described as an equivalent or translation of the state’s Arabic name, while still acknowledging that Tamazight itself has official status under the constitution. AbuAtrak (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern has no basis. If you acknowledge Tamazight is a co-official language of the country, then the name as it appears in the official Tamazight constitution and on official government websites is, by definition, an official name of the country in that language. I'm fine with changing "Berber" to "Tamazight" for accuracy, but describing it as a "translation" or "equivalent" implies a hierarchy between the two official languages for which you have not given any sources for. You are also forcing your POV against two editors who disagree with your interpretation. It just looks like you are WP:STONEWALLING. lankdadank (chat) 13:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the same official name used in official Moroccan websites like the Representatives House website ([1] [2]), the official news agency's website ([3]), DGSN's wesbite ([4]), HACA's website ([5]), the government's website ([6]), etc. So I don't see where you're getting that this is not the official Berber name. Xeniades (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the language is ''Tamazight”. No one is arguing that Tamazight is not official. The point is that the Tamazight version is a translation of the existing official name and constitutional text. I reworded it more neutral. AbuAtrak (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what Lankdadank is talking about. The translation by IRCAM is the official Berber name. Please you're just dragging out this discussion to nowhere. If you don't consider the Royal Institute of Amazigh Culture as a reliable source, you can take your concerns to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and discuss it there. Xeniades (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand and your source says translation. AbuAtrak (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please also do not remove the part about who applied or coined the term Maghrib because there are many academic sources obviously stating it was the 7th century conquest and Arab historical writers. [7], AbuAtrak (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Muslim conquest of North Africa is not an article in wikipedia, that's why I changed it to the already existing article Muslim conquest of the Maghreb.Xeniades (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

and Lankdadank , translations don't make it a different official name, the official name is Maghrib, the Tamazight equivalent is a translation. --AbuAtrak (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]