Talk:Oriental (Morocco)#c-ElijahUHC-20250507212900-Skitash-20250507211400

Can anyone supply the Arabic name, with a transliteration? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

@Skitash please explain why you deleted the tifinagh. Just adding WP:Primary doesn’t explain it.

if you don’t have any explanation reverting might be considered edit warring. 176.3.39.125 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I added a source. It was an official page of the Moroccan government. @Skitash still reverted it and is now ignoring me. 176.3.1.248 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::https://www.maroc.ma/amz is a primary source. A cursory search landed no results for ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ but Google translates it as "decline" which would weigh against your interpretation. 2601:340:8200:57C0:2067:8D2C:4376:3260 (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Google translate is not reliable for tamazight. It is not based on the standard Moroccan tamazight. 176.3.32.67 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Skitash

::::the third opinion agreed, that the mentioned source is a primary source. Why are you still reverting? That’s edit warring 2A02:3037:30E:2850:3C9F:C3AE:B1E8:3AED (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Have you even read WP:PRIMARY? On Wikipedia, we use reliable, published secondary sources — not primary sources. The Third Opinion wasn't endorsing the use of your source. Now I suggest you refrain from edit warring. Skitash (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not going to edit anything related to this, but I'd like to remind you that the last time the subject of using the Tifinagh script was brought up (Berbers page), we clarified that if it's relevant to the subject matter, it should be included—being a recognized language that is commonly used today. Also, there's no need to 'source' the translation, just as you wouldn't for Arabic, Spanish, Aramaic, Greek, and any language. ElijahUHC (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|"we clarified that if it's relevant to the subject matter, it should be included"}} This is not true.

:::::::{{tq|"there's no need to 'source' the translation"}} We do need a source, especially given that Tifinagh lacks standardization or codification, and that translations can vary significantly (as highlighted by the 3O above). Skitash (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:NATIVENAME says if a native name is in official use, historically significant, or commonly used by reliable sources, it can be included. WP:LEADSECTION and WP:INFOBOXNAMES also support using native languages when relevant and properly sourced. and Morocco officially recognizes Tamazight, and state materials do include Tifinagh for region names; that makes it relevant. Especially for this "region" which has a big Berber-speaking population.

:::::::As for lacking standardization, we will need to get further confirmation about the subject at some point, but if we go with how you explain the issue, perhaps we could use one of the many recognized dictionaries for now, though we will have to use latinized Tarifit as that is what is commonly used. ElijahUHC (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The source is reliable. We can use primary sources as well as long as they are easily verifiable which they are in this case.

::::::please refrain from edit warring and playing games. This is a clear case. 176.3.32.67 (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The proposed source is an official source. I reviewed the webpage and was unable to interpret the content. It does seem plausible that this source is RS insofar as it is an official source using a place-name. Https://www.dictionnaire-kabyle.com/tazwart.html gives lqblt or ššrq as the Tamazight word for East.2601:340:8200:57C0:28C0:83BA:5E64:506B (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Don't start another case of edit warring, it is obvious that it should be added to the region name as the language is COMMONLY used. I'll do a few checks later on when i get back to editing on Wikipedia. But I'd recommend you to do a deep read on Wikipedia rules, prior issues on articles similar to this, and then opening a dispute should the issue continue ElijahUHC (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::as this is a clear case of Misapplied WP:PRIMARY; trying to block any use of primary even when it’s legitimate here. as if a native language name is officially recognized, historically important, or commonly used, it can and should be added ElijahUHC (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::1. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. If anyone here is edit warring, it's the editor repeatedly trying to impose their WP:OR changes.

::::::::::2. The 3O isn't here to "edit war." They're a neutral mediator who correctly pointed out that the cited source is a WP:PRIMARY source and that the translations of the name are inconsistent. Your position here seems to be based on WP:JDL rather than policy and verifiability. Skitash (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Just to point out, i was not referring to you for the edit warring; it was directed to the user i placed my comment on. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I have not edited the article at all. I'm assuming that you are referring to somebody else. I am the 3O commentator. I was not aware of the policy that a primary source may be used for place-names used in public webpages of the Moroccan state. If there is such a policy, then let it apply here as well. 2601:340:8200:57C0:CC4E:1BC0:5459:7C24 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Apologies — yeah, it wasn’t you. Either way, I do believe this subject will need an administrative decision. This issue has been ongoing for over three years now, and it’s been discussed not just on Wikipedia, but also on Reddit, other forums, and even in university settings. Hopefully, over time, things will become clearer. It’s really interesting how there’s a conflict over the inclusion of an official language in a region with a large native-speaking population. ElijahUHC (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Per WP:V and WP:DUE, what matters is actual usage and reliable sourcing and not just political status. Skitash (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Understood - but this framing creates a bias loop. Tifinagh is excluded for lacking secondary sources, yet it’s absent from those sources because it’s historically undervalued. Official status, public use, and cultural relevance do matter — this isn’t a scientific topic but a social one. If policy doesn’t account for that, it’s a structural issue, not a valid editorial defense. ElijahUHC (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Also, keep in mind: Per WP:BIAS and external factors, Wikipedia’s reliance on easily accessible, English-language sources often limits fair representation of marginalized cultures. Tamazight in Tifinagh is a clear case: it’s official in Morocco and used in state signage, yet underrepresented in secondary sources due to historic neglect — not lack of relevance.

::::::::::::::::Wikipedia is meant to support native names when they are officially used or historically significant — both apply here. And under WP:IAR, hard rules shouldn’t block improvements or reinforce structural exclusion. ElijahUHC (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Logically speaking, there has to be a few different written records where ideally multiple reputable authorities gave an in-depth analysis of the term, otherwise any unknown term that appears in a government webpage can be interpreted by Wikipedia editors to mean anything they want it to. The webpage provided was particularly vague, since for content it had nothing but the word itself emblazoned above an embedded Youtube video that couldn't itself be parsed into anything tangible. (Personally, Tifinagh script looks really cool and I am very much in favor of representing words and phrases in Tifinagh script on the English Wikipedia where they're due and good sources by authors writing in Tifinagh.) 2601:340:8200:57C0:9191:CC48:5125:90DC (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::It would certainly be best if editors could work together toward resolving this issue collaboratively. However, I’m not entirely sure the current situation will be resolved easily, as this appears to follow a similar pattern by the same editor. I want to clarify that I'm not making any assumptions or accusations — just noting that a consistent approach has been observed. Perhaps the best path forward is to work on identifying multiple reliable sources and reaching a consensus based on them. Even with agreed-upon sources, it seems likely that there will still be attempts to remove the Tifinagh text by citing other policies, as has occurred in similar cases[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&target=Skitash&offset=20240314121835 Skitash's contribution history]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&target=Skitash&offset=20240314115434https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Skitash&target=Skitash&dir=prev&offset=20240314121819 ElijahUHC (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::What are you talking about the source is the official page of the Moroccan government. If they are not reliable in the naming of places within morocco who else is supposed to be? They define it. 176.6.61.10 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If you are as well the same opinion as me I would read the tifinagh now. 176.6.61.10 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I will have to repeat this under here since its clear the argument is dragged unnecessarily:

:The Moroccan government is the naming authority for its administrative regions, and its official website (maroc.ma) publishes ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ as the Tifinagh name for the Oriental region. This is a straightforward, verifiable fact about government usage—not an interpretation or linguistic analysis. Under WP:PRIMARY, government sources can be used for simple factual statements about official terminology, which is exactly what this is.

:The name ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ is not being asserted as a "common" or "preferred" name in the Tamazight-speaking community, only as the one used officially by the Moroccan government in a multilingual context, including Tifinagh. If other reliable sources present competing official designations, they should be discussed. Otherwise, there's no basis under WP:OR or WP:RS for excluding an official government name from the infobox.

:This follows the same logic as using Arabic or French names from official Moroccan maps or publications—we don’t require a secondary source to verify that Casablanca is officially called الدار البيضاء, for example. ElijahUHC (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|8}} {{re|Lankdadank}} I have to agree with what the IP said. Since edit warring (including while logged out) is not a solution, I suggest finding a reliable source that supports what you're suggesting. It shouldn't be that hard, and if it is, then the problem is elsewhere. M.Bitton (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The source is an official page of the Moroccan government regarding one of its regions. It is a reliable source. 176.6.61.10 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:@M.Bitton I was not aware there was a topic on the talk page on this issue. Regarding the accusation that I am edit warring while logged out, it's a serious accusation that's not really provable or disprovable, so it's not really a productive thing to say. As for the source not being enough, why not have multple reliable sources for the Arabic name, the French name, or the English name? The same level of scrutiny should be applied there logically, in my opinion. Lankdadank (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Nobody accused you personally of edit warring. As for the source, it's not just not being enough (please read this comment). the names in Arabic and French can easily be attributed to hundreds of reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes I realize it was not directed at me now. I just rechecked the original source and am of the opinion that it may not be the best source to use after all, if a better source were to be found, am I correct in understanding that the issue would be solved and the Tifinagh would be allowed to stay? Lankdadank (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I still find it difficult to understand why we would need to find any sources for regional names that were officially decided by the government—other than a source from the government itself. Also as noted below, nearly all pages on Moroccan regional names in Wikipedia used to include the Tifinagh script before the sudden wipeout ElijahUHC (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think in the case of Amazigh specifically, there may be a stronger case for sources to be provided, since there have been cases of own translations being employed. The fact that the officialization of the language is so new makes it harder to find sources to confirm whether these names are correct or not, that's a valid concern. So we should strive to find reliable sources to back everything up. Lankdadank (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I believe that, per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY, the use of Tifinagh for the regional name is valid. If the Moroccan government uses the Tifinagh name on an official webpage and the name is clearly presented (not interpreted), then that usage satisfies verifiability, even if the source is primary. This is because the Moroccan government is the definitive authority on its own regional names. Also, the Tifinagh script was standardized and promoted by IRCAM, which is itself a government institution. That adds further weight to the reliability of such sources for place names.

:::::Also, per WP:BIAS, Wikipedia should take care not to exclude underrepresented languages or scripts due to systemic issues such as limited secondary sources. Tamazight has been historically marginalized, which is likely why secondary sources are limited - not because the script or name lacks relevance or official status. Excluding Tifinagh on these grounds reinforces that bias.

:::::Finally, I would like to point out WP:IAR again. If rigid application of certain sourcing rules prevents us from accurately and fairly representing an official language and script of a country — especially when the content improves the encyclopedia and is not in dispute factually — then we should consider applying WP:IAR. The goal is to build a better, more inclusive encyclopedia, not just follow rules for their own sake. ElijahUHC (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have found multiple sources that point to ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ (asnqr) being the official name of the region in Standard Moroccan Amazigh: [https://www.cg.gov.ma/amz/node/11491 https://www.cg.gov.ma], [https://www.chambredesrepresentants.ma/amz/%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%99%E2%B4%BD%E2%B5%94-%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%94%E2%B4%B0-%E2%B5%8F-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%8E%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%8E%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%B0%E2%B4%B1%E2%B5%95%E2%B5%8D%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%8F-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%89-%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%8F%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%94%E2%B4%B0%E2%B4%B1%E2%B4%B1%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%8F-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%A1%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%94%E2%B5%89-%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B4%B3%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8D%E2%B5%8F-%E2%B5%99-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%96%E2%B5%94%E2%B5%89-%E2%B4%B7-%E2%B5%93%E2%B4%B9%E2%B4%BC%E2%B5%95-%E2%B5%8F-0 https://www.chambredesrepresentants.ma], [https://www.mapnews.ma/am/actualites/%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%A2/%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%96%E2%B5%95%E2%B4%B0-%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%99-%E2%B4%B1%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%95%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%9F%E2%B4%B0-%E2%B4%B0%E2%B4%BC%E2%B4%B0%E2%B4%B7-%E2%B5%8F-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%9A%E2%B4%BD%E2%B4%B0-%E2%B5%8F-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%B7%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%8F%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%8F-%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%8D%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%A2%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%BD%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B5%9C-%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%A2%E2%B4%B0%E2%B4%B7-%E2%B5%9C%E2%B5%95%E2%B5%A5%E2%B5%8E https://www.mapnews.ma], [https://mjcc.gov.ma/zgh/%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%99-%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8E%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%A1%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%99-%E2%B4%B1%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%84%E2%B5%89%E2%B4%B7-%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%94%E2%B5%A3%E2%B4%BC-%E2%B4%BD/# https://mjcc.gov.ma]. As for all of these being primary sources, "primary" does not mean "bad". Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. I believe that this does not go against WP:NOR. Lankdadank (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::This is strange, considering you previously insisted that "ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ" was the correct Tamazight name. In any case, as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oriental_(Morocco)#c-2601:340:8200:57C0:9191:CC48:5125:90DC-20250429194700-ElijahUHC-20250429122300 the 3O already noted], the primary sources cannot be understood by the average reader and are open to interpretation by editors. Skitash (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The only thing I insisted was that "ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ" was indeed found in the source. Here is the French translation of the first source: https://www.cg.gov.ma/fr/node/11491, here the Arabic translation: https://www.cg.gov.ma/ar/node/11491. Lankdadank (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Well, I suppose this should resolve the whole issue then? I don’t see any need to continue the argument now that more sources have been found. I’d also recommend that individuals here read my earlier comment, where I tried to explain how this issue should be approached—assuming, of course, that everyone here is actually interested in following Wikipedia’s policies rather than selectively enforcing certain rules for the sake of it. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::So what makes you confident that "ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ" is the correct translation, but not "ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ" or "ⵜⴰⵎⵏⴰⴹⵜ ⵏ ⵓⴳⵎⵓⴹ"? Without reliable secondary sources clearly establishing which is accurate, we're left with conflicting interpretations of a WP:PRIMARY source, which falls under WP:OR. Skitash (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I'd like to remind you that language translation is subjective — 'East' can have multiple words in Tamazight and several ways to be written. After all, 'Oriental' also means 'East'. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::If there are multiple Tamazight terms for "East," that’s exactly why we need a reliable secondary source confirming which one is official and applies here. Otherwise, it's WP:OR. Skitash (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The official name is the government-designated one, since we're dealing with administrative regions, not cultural or historical ones. These aren't rigid or universally applied rules—refer to the comment I made earlier about how the guidelines were ignored during this conversation. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tq|"government-designated one"}} You still haven't established which one that is. Skitash (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Where did you get "ⵜⴰⵎⵏⴰⴹⵜ ⵏ ⵓⴳⵎⵓⴹ" from? I will admit that "ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ" is an outlier (used in only one page), perhaps both are co-official. I will try and find a secondary source that confirms which one is used the most. I will still stand by the fact that the Moroccan government is a valid source, since they officialize the names themselves. As would, for example, the American government be for their city names. Lankdadank (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The best course of action, considering the continued use of WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR to block inclusion of content that follows policy, is to show multiple Moroccan government sources that consistently use the same name. Even though the official regional page should be enough — it’s the government’s own translation of a governmentally chosen name for an administrative region — some are still blocking it for some reason.

:::::::::::If multiple spellings exist, just note that transparently in the article. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Here.[https://zgh.walaw.press/articles/%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%99%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%93%E2%B5%8D%E2%B4%BC%E2%B5%93_%E2%B5%8F_%E2%B5%93%E2%B4%B3%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%94_%E2%B5%8F_95_%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8D%E2%B4%BB%E2%B4%BC_%E2%B5%8F_%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%BD%E2%B4%BB%E2%B4%B1%E2%B4%B1%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%8F%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%A2%E2%B5%89%E2%B5%8F_%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%94_%E2%B5%9C%E2%B4%B0%E2%B4%B3%E2%B4%B3%E2%B4%B0%E2%B5%94%E2%B4%B0_%E2%B5%8F_2024/GMLSGFPFWSXG] And apparently "ⵍⵇⴱⵍⵜ" is yet another translation. Skitash (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::1 seems to be using the Standard Moroccan Amazigh wikipedia name which is unsourced. Again I don't know where you got "ⵍⵇⴱⵍⵜ" from. Lankdadank (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well, here you go—ⵍⵇⴱⵍⵜ transliterates to lqblt, and in Arabic, that's القبلة (al-qibla), meaning "the direction of prayer," which for Morocco is east. As I said before, you can't just claim one word is the translation—use the governmental version. You're dragging out this conversation instead of trying to find a resolution. This just feels like arguing against adding anything in Tifinagh. its like referencing any word in arabic that in one way or another could mean East, Like القبلة—you can't just pick any Arabic word to represent a region. No, we're supposed to use the official government chosen term, especially when dealing with a governmental subject. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{tq|"we're supposed to use the official government chosen term"}} Which one would that be? Back it with a reliable secondary source. Skitash (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That name is ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ. I understand where the other editor is coming from, but we are meant to use the government-designated version of the name. While many words can exist in any language, the official name chosen by the Moroccan government is ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ, as shown here: https://www.maroc.ma/amz/taxonomy/term/9.

::::::::::::::If you want another reason this is the correct one: go to https://www.maroc.ma/amz, scroll down to the map, and hover over the region. That is the only source needed, because it comes directly from the authoritative source — the Moroccan government itself. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I would also like to remind @Skitash that you're pulling translations from other wikis. I understand what you're doing, but when you include ⵜⴰⵎⵏⴰⴹⵜ ⵜⴰⴳⵎⵓⴹⴰⵏⵜ, that phrase is meant to be read in Tachelhit — as you can see on its own wiki if you follow that path. However, other wikis are not strict in enforcing correct usage; they often just copy and paste from each other.

:::::::::::::::Standard Moroccan Tamazight reads things differently.

:::::::::::::::Please focus on Standard Tamazight, not Tachelhit or other dialects.

:::::::::::::::Also, Tifinagh is a script, not a language. We are using Tifinagh for Standard Moroccan Tamazight, which uses the Tifinagh script officially. Please keep that in mind. ElijahUHC (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I'd suggest using both. Something like: {{langx|zgh|ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ}} or {{langx|zgh|ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ|label=none}}. Both are officialy used by the Moroccan government, which is the sole authority over official city names. I see no reason why this is not the best solution. Lankdadank (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::{{tq|"we are meant to use the government-designated version"}} Well, Lankdadank dropped sources (also unreliable and WP:PRIMARY) which assert that "ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ" is supposedly the official government-designated version. Meanwhile, I've found other primary sources giving different translations. So without a reliable secondary source, which one exactly are readers supposed to believe is the correct translation? Skitash (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Have you even checked the sources? Where do they say ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ? The sources themselves do not carry the same weight as the official government site. Regardless, I think we’re taking things out of context, no? For example, this article he listed - https://www.mapnews.ma/am/actualites/ⴰⵎⴰⵜⴰⵢ/ⵉⵖⵕⴰ-ⵎⴰⵙⵙ-ⴱⵓⵕⵉⵟⴰ-ⴰⴼⴰⴷ-ⵏ-ⵜⵜⵓⵚⴽⴰ-ⵏ-ⵜⴷⵉⵏⴰⵎⵉⵜ-ⵏ-ⵙⵙⵍⴰⵎⵜ-ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵢⵏⵓⵜ-ⵜⴽⵎⴰⵎⵜ-ⵎⴰⵢⴰⴷ-ⵜⵕⵥⵎ - is about the region of Berkane, which is within the Oriental region, not the region itself. It only uses the central city as a reference. The other article is about a person from Oujda — it never even mentions the 'Oriental Region.'

::::::::::::::::Why are we using these as references? Just use the governmental site for the region. What's all this dragging for? You don’t need secondary sources when the official government already coined the term. Maybe search the articles properly before bringing them up here again. ElijahUHC (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::{{tq|"Have you even checked the source?"}} Have you even read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oriental_(Morocco)#c-Lankdadank-20250507194300-ElijahUHC-20250507184800 this message]?

:::::::::::::::::{{tq|"You don’t need secondary sources"}} Yes, we do. Especially when you can't agree on what translation to use. Skitash (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::yes? where is ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ in those articles? ElijahUHC (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::And No, because you seem to be conflicted over something that doesn’t actually exist. Where exactly does it say ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ? There is only one agreed-upon and easily accessible reference to the regional name — and that comes directly from the official site. Perhaps stop creating confusion and actually read the sources that were referenced, because from what I can see, they were cited incorrectly. Everything so far seems to be wrongly cited, as i explained earlier, and you can check it yourself no? ElijahUHC (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::{{tq|"Where exactly does it say ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ"}} Ask whoever cited those sources.

:::::::::::::::::::{{tq|"There is only one agreed-upon and easily accessible reference"}} That's simply false. Skitash (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::So? You see now? So far, every other name—other than ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ—seems to have no real standing. The references you mentioned had no direct relation to the Oriental region in the first place. Others, like ⵜⴰⵎⵏⴰⴹⵜ ⵏ ⵓⴳⵎⵓⴹ, were taken from the Tachelhit Wikipedia and pasted into other wikis, without even referencing where they were brought from. The use of ⴰⵙⵏⵇⵔ was misattributed, and even then, it was only mentioned in the wiki talk, with no inclusion in the actual articles.

::::::::::::::::::::So, we’re back to square one: governmental sites and the word that clearly references ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ. What now? Are we just going to keep bringing up more words only to find out they don’t appear in any official article or have nothing to do with the region itself?

::::::::::::::::::::An easily accessible reference should be simple: you open the link, it shows you the name, you switch the site language to English, and you get the translation. Most of the other references are just articles—not about the entire region—and don’t even include the word we've been repeatedly discussing.

::::::::::::::::::::Can we please work together instead of one side constantly trying to refute every attempt to reach a consensus?

::::::::::::::::::::We're back to the only word, ⵓⵏⵇⵇⴰⵔ, and with that in mind, we can only follow the logical pathway under wikipedia policies, as referenced here Talk:Oriental (Morocco)#:~:text=I believe that, per,7 May 2025 (UTC) ElijahUHC (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::If we're truly "back to square one," then the article should reflect that. No WP:OR translation until a reliable secondary source supports it. Until then, there's nothing more to add. Skitash (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::WP:OR is about interpretation.... no interpretation beyond pointing at a published label on an governmental (the entity behind the term) and official map... have you even read the whole text i wrote about how you cant simply put WP:OR on this subject? ElijahUHC (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ref-talk}}