Talk:Maghreb

New sub-articles

Leaving a note here that two new related articles have just been created: Central Maghreb and Extreme Maghreb. I'm not convinced that these merit separate articles, given that they are just general geographic terms already explained in this article, while the history of these regions is covered in multiple articles already. This seems like unnecessary splitting and borderline content-forking to me, but I invite other editors to consider whether this is fine or if it would best to merge and direct readers back to this article. (Courtesy ping also to @Monsieur Patillo who created the new articles.) R Prazeres (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for notifying me. I created these articles by a parallelism of form with the article Ifriqiya, also known as Maghreb al-Adna. From then on, the creation of the other two seemed obvious to me, especially since this is what has been done in several projects (Arabic, Spanish, French, Italian). For the article Central Maghreb, it even has a certain potential for development (see: fr:Maghreb Central). I will follow the decision taken, if you do not want these articles the content will be merged elsewhere which will be indicated..

Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I don't see anything wrong with the content of course, just that it unnecessarily creates extra articles about topics covered here or at History of North Africa, or notably at History of Algeria and History of Morocco (which, modern names aside, are very close in scope), and so on. Looking at fr:Maghreb central, for example, which I think you mostly expanded: most of the content there seems to be another history overview.

I think the case of Ifriqiya is different, insofar as the term sees much more regular usage in English references (e.g. ) and it had a political definition under the early caliphates aside from merely a geographical one. In fairness though, the Ifriqiya page also contains a lot of material that is potentially redundant in relation to other articles, so some revision is needed there too.

In any case, it's not an urgent problem and I appreciate the constructive contributions, I'm just thinking of what's best in the long-term for readers. I'll let other editors comment and we'll see if any changes are needed. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

One of the main objections is that today's Algeria has a Saharan space that is not that of the Central Maghreb. We also have the same reference in French fr:Algérie pendant le Moyen Âge and fr:Histoire de l'Algérie. Although the subjects are similar, seeing the past through the lens of a current entity is problematic in my opinion, with a high risk of anachronism.

For the occurrences of Central Maghreb, it might be necessary to compare them with that of "Medieval Algeria", or "Algeria during the Middle Ages" etc... because Ifriqiya is indeed a more notorious subject which is also found in the French language in relation to the Central Maghreb (alternated with Maghreb al awsat).

I did not understand on which point of the article fr:Maghreb Central I had expanded it? Your opinion interests me. I remained in the plan of the dynasties cited by the work of Mahfoud Kaddache, and Gilbert Meynier to a lesser extent.

Either way I would be happy to contribute in whatever article format the community finds useful in wp:en. Contents can still be moved and merged, this is not a problem otherwise.

Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with R Prazeres who pretty much summed it all (including the special case of Ifriqiya). M.Bitton (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with R Prazeres as well. Those two new articles are WP:CONTENTFORKs and should be merged into this one. Skitash (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Population and languages

I came across this article and I'm surprised by some of the inaccuracies in it. I see there have been previous discussions on ethnicities that didn't go anywhere.

Under Ethnic groups, "Predominantly Arabs; also Berbers, Europeans, Jews, and Sahrawis" seemed quite inaccurate, but it can be excused. However, the details given under Population, Ethnic Groups look cherry-picked, "The Maghreb is primarily inhabited by peoples of Arab and Berber ancestral origin. Arabs inhabit Algeria (70% to 80%), Libya (97%), Morocco (67%), and Tunisia (98%). Berbers inhabit Algeria (20%), Libya (10%), Morocco (35%), and Tunisia (1%)."

There are two problems with that sentence, 1) It's conflicting percentages of Berber speakers with those of Berber ethnicity. Language can be an indicator of ethnicity, but it's not the only defining feature. Irish people can speak English without becoming English themselves. My grandma can stop speaking Berber and switch to Arabic without becoming ethnically Arab. 2) The sources are clearly cherry-picked, the CIA Factbook does define Tunisia as 98% Arab, but it defines Algeria and Morocco are predominately "Arab-Berber". There are sources that expand on Tunisia's ethnic composition and align it more with that of the Arab-Berber composition of the rest of the Maghreb. The authors seem to have used CIA Factbook for Tunisia, but avoided it for Algeria and Morocco since it doesn't back the claim that they're predominately "Arab".

A similar point was raised in previous discussions, and it seems there was disagreement on whether "Arab-Berber" is an ethnicity in and of itself. I can't help much with that, as it seems pretty obvious to me. Anyways, I don't feel strongly about these changes, I just thought it'd be good to point them out. I understand Wikipedia can be biased or misrepresentative at times. The French Wikipedia seems to be more accurate on this topic (not surprising, since there'd be more Maghrebi editors active over there and way more sources on the Maghreb in French).

PS. Under Languages, it'd be more accurate to cite Maghrebi Arabic and Hassaniya if listing spoken languages in the region, or drop some of the other languages if we're only interested in the official languages. GeekEmad (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Tifinagh

@ElijahUHC The tifinagh in the infobox says Tamazgha, which is not what this article is about. In fact, the map shows Sudan, which does not have an Amazigh population. I would be inclined to support the inclusion of the Tamazight name if it were actually accurate. lankdadank (chat) 18:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You’re right I apologize, though Sudan does have an Amazigh population called the Kinnin, who are Tuareg; that’s mentioned in the Tuareg article. But yes, the Tamazight name used here is wrong. Tamazgha is not the same entity as the Maghreb. The correct form would be ⵎⴰⵖⵔⵉⴱ, Maɣrib. ElijahUHC (Talk) 18:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I did not know that, thank you for letting me know. Also, I actually was wrong about my claim that Sudan is featured in the map, I must have confused this article with the one for North Africa. Are you fine with temporarily self-reverting until you can find a source for "ⵎⴰⵖⵔⵉⴱ"? lankdadank (chat) 18:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course, I can self-revert. Though for ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ, it is literally the same as Morocco, since both Morocco and Maghreb article use the same Arabic term/transliteration: Maghrib / المغرب. If you check that article, or any direct transliteration of the word into Tamazight, it is ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ, which is the same thing, just with the el-/l- spelled out.

Morocco is literally the same word as Maghreb in Arabic btw. ElijahUHC (Talk) 19:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you self-reverting. My question is: how would you handle the different Tamazight varieties without favoring one over another? The Morocco article uses Standard Moroccan Amazigh. And how would you source whatever choice you make? lankdadank (chat) 19:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Because the way it is transliterated is essentially the same, it is a script, you would write it the same regardless, unless you were using a different word for the subject in that language, which is not really the case for the word Maghreb. The exception would be if you wanted the literal translation, which is “west” but I doubt that is what this article intends. The only reason SMT is favored in OTHER articles is simply because it is the standardized language for the entirety of Tamazight languages in Morocco and is actually implemented (you can drive to the next sign or building next door and you'll find any text with its SMT translation under it) ElijahUHC (Talk) 20:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right, Tifinagh is a script, not a language. Are you saying the the word is the same in all Amazigh languages, or at least the majority? lankdadank (chat) 20:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Not quite. I would not want to claim that the word is necessarily the same in every amazigh variety without a source. My point is simpler, if the article is using a transliterated form of the Arabic/English term “Maghreb” rather than a distinct native amazigh term (which MANY exist), then the tifinagh spelling would mainly reflect the script representation of Maghrib/Maɣrib just as English does, not a separate variety-specific translation. Similar to how Arabic-script names are included for Moroccan cities with Amazigh-origin names, such as Marrakech or Agadir. The Arabic form is not necessarily the etymological origin, it is a script/language representation of the place name. ElijahUHC (Talk) 00:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have no objection to introducing a Tamazight name, if it's adequately referenced, however I still have my concers:

1. What are you proposing to add exactly? A Tifinagh version of the Arabic name "Maghrib"?

2. If the only aim is to write the Arabic name using the Tifinagh script, then the question becomes: what is the linguistic basis for that? Tifinagh is used to write Amazigh languages, not Arabic. It would be strange, and possibly misleading, to adapt it for Arabic.

3. If you want to add a native Tamazight name, we need a reliable source showing that this is actually used by Tamazight speakers for the whole Maghreb region and not a transliteration of the Arabic word.

Thank you, lankdadank (chat) 01:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

My main point is that this is a geographic and cultural article, and the broader meaning of being “maghrebi” is not exclusively Arabic but Arab-Berber. That is similar to why the French and Spanish versions of this article include Tamazight.

However, I understand the concern that this needs to be handled carefully, especially since the proposed form is only a transliteration rather than a clearly sourced tamazight name for the whole maghreb. I will look for reliable sources first and return to the issue later if I find something suitable. For now, I understand the reason for leaving it out ElijahUHC (Talk) 01:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Name

@Lankdadank According to this, Arab Maghreb is more common than Greater Maghreb Mayouhm (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I did check out the Ngram Viewer, and both terms appear to be relatively uncommon. However, I also ran some Google searches. "Greater Maghreb" returned many articles and books using the term. "Arab Maghreb" mostly returned results for the "Arab Maghreb Union." When I searched for "Arab Maghreb" excluding the word "union" (-union), I struggled to find reliable sources using the term on its own. It seems that both are direct translations of the more common Arabic names. lankdadank (chat) 14:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I still think it's worth including if it's a commonly used phrase amongst Maghrebis Mayouhm (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It is still covered in the "Terminology" section. That feels like the appropriate place for a term which is less common in English, but still common in Arabic. lankdadank (chat) 14:48, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Maybe we should delete every group except for Arabs and Berbers. The current listing is arbitrary and does not help. Of course there are Europeans living somewhere in the Maghreb. However there are certainly Chinese and South Americans too there.

another problem is mentioning solely sahrawis separately. I thought they count as Arabs. If yes then why don’t we include other Arab groups like jebala too? If they are separate cause they are of mixed heritage then we have a big problem with the definition of ethnicities and should remove the whole section. Bananakingler (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Sahrawis are considered their own ethnic group, as the article states. I have readded both Maghrebi Jews and Sahrawis, and added the Toubou people. lankdadank (chat) 13:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The ethnic group subsection under demographic mentions neither though. It’s fine for me to mention them but then we should also other specific groups of Arabs and should consider the same for special Berber groups like Tuareg.

In order to avoid arbitrariness I would prefer either deleting the whole thing from the infobox or focus on the two biggest native supergroups. Arabs (including Arabized Berbers) and Berbers. Bananakingler (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The Tebu people are not Arabs, and the Sahrawis are also considered a separate ethnic group, not a subgroup of Arabs. lankdadank (chat) 14:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. I didn’t want to say that Tebu are Arabs.

Alright let’s say that Sahrawis, despite descending from Banu Hassan, Claiming Arab descent and speaking Arab language are Not Arabs.

They and the tebu are still not mentioned the article. At all.

Maybe we should delete the space untill we find a good source which all the ethnic groups of the Maghreb simply and precise? Bananakingler (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Another option is to add a citation needed template instead. lankdadank (chat) 14:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

hmm i always got reverted when i added something to the infobox that was not mentioned in the body of the text precisely in that way. Bananakingler (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this claim is entirely accurate. Sahrawi identity and Arab identity is not really mutually exclusive. Sahrawi nationalism is after all clearly quite Arabist.

Anyways, I do think the Haratin ought to be mentioned. Although, maybe not to get too cluttered it could just say "and more" and discuss the Haratin and other unmentioned ethnic groups in the main body Mayouhm (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I think I overemphasized the split a bit too, but think it still deserves a separate mention instead of being excluded. lankdadank (chat) 22:09, 28 August 2026 (UTC)