Jump to content

Talk:Morocco/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Recent edits

@Hamamat32 I suggest you to start using the talk page before you risk getting blocked for violating WP:3RR. Clearly, your edits are not improvements since it looks like all you've done was revert to an older version of the page. I have no idea why you would remove the hatnote that clarifies the potential reference of "المغرب" to the Maghreb region (which you did not explain in your edit summary). Furthermore, the official language you changed is recognized as Standard Moroccan Amazigh, not Standard Moroccan Tamazight, and it's commonly referred to as Berber (just as the other official language indicates "Arabic," not "Modern Standard Arabic"). The change you made, which "tweaked the layout," does not make much sense either. There is no need to repetitively include "(Arabic)" and "(Standard Moroccan Tamazight)" after every Arabic and Berber phrase in the motto and national anthem. Take a look at the formatting of the infobox on other country pages, like those for Tunisia and Algeria, to get an idea of how it should appear. Skitash (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I told you, I did not revert to an older version, and you defiantly violated 3RR, with four reverts in the span of a day ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I explained in the summary of my first eidt that the "about addition" is unneeded, which is referring to the "المغرب" note. As this is the English Wikipedia, having that at the top of the page is unnecessary since it's not a common mishap among English speakers and readers. As for the other changes you and Hero7373 made, they are what I would call not improvements. I do not see anything wrong with having the languages clarified in parentheses, nor with the SMT wording, and adding an additional name in the lead is also unnecessary. Regarding the examples you mentioned, other stuff exists. Hamamat32 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Once again, you have failed to explain how your edits are supposed to constitute improvements to the page. XTheBedrockX's edit [5], which you have blatantly reverted without an explanation, is entirely valid, considering that English Wikipedia is not restricted to English native speakers but rather to an international audience per WP:AUDIENCE, and therefore articles should be made more accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Hence, the Arabic name should be clarified for readers who encounter it across the article. Regarding what you personally perceive as improvements or not does not matter here, for this is a consensus-building platform where you can not expect to force your edits and mass revert several editors. All edits of the three users which you have unexplainedly reverted so far were intended to either clarify certain words, e.g. "المغرب" and "Berber," or reduce redundant repetition. Skitash (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd have to agree. There's a reason the "R from alternative language" shell template exists, after all. XTheBedrockX (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I honestly still think that the al-Maghrib disambiguation note is completely unnecessary, but alright, fair enough. I'll just change the wording to English to make it more intelligible to the non-Arabic speaking reader. As for the "Berber" phrasing in the infobox, I'll alter it Berber languages, as this is much less vague than just Berber but still not as wordy as Standard Moroccan Tamazight. Having the language clarified in parentheses in the motto and national anthem is fine, I don't see much of a reason for removing them. Hopefully this is a compromise that we can settle with. Hamamat32 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This won't exactly solve the problem. Maghreb and Morocco are two different words in English, unlike in Arabic. Morocco is not referred to as "Maghreb" across the article, and thus your proposed hatnote "For the subregion also known as Maghreb in Arabic, see Maghreb" is pretty useless. As XTheBedrockX said, there is a reason why the "R from alternative language" template exists. Your proposed edit to change "Berber" to "Berber languages" is inaccurate. Standard Moroccan Amazigh is one standardized language, unlike the several mutually unintelligible Berber languages that exist. Berber would be a more appropriate term as it is commonly used to refer to this standardized official Berber language. Regarding your final point, no, it is not fine just because you think it is. Take a look at any other country's infobox formatting. Skitash (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay then, Arabic wording it is. But your edits to the infobox are contested, and as such you'll have to gain consensus here prior to implementing them as per WP:CON. Therefore, I'll restore to the version before for now. Remember, you've already violated 3RR, so don't add this to the list. Hamamat32 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
What you added to the Maghreb article doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone look for an Arabic word in the English Wikipedia? M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
See above. I agree. Hamamat32 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:EDITCON, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement." Since you have reverted several editors who had achieved Wikipedia:Presumed consensus, it is up to you to establish a new consensus. I suggest you stop edit warring and respect the ongoing consensus. Skitash (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I've withdrew my reversions of the other editors, but not for your edits; thus, per the policy, your edits do not have consensus, and as such what you're saying applies to you. Hamamat32 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you try to make sense for once? My edit took place nearly two weeks before MIHAIL and Hero7373's edits (and you're still persisting in undoing the changes made by the latter), meaning the edit has achieved presumed consensus. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Consensus again. "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Skitash (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Could you? I don't think you're understanding the polices and guidelines you're citing, nor are you listening. WP:SILENCE has no WP:DEADLINE, so what you're saying does have any pertinence. Wikipedia:Consensus states, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement"; to put it in the most simple words possible: You made your edit, It had presumed consensus, I disputed and reverted it, no other editor as of yet has revised that reversion, your edit no longer has presumed consensus. As such, you are the one stonewalling here. You also haven't explained why you agree with Hero's edit, and it seems you're just using it as a red herring, but sure, I won't undo it. Now, I've reverted your and only your edit (this one), thus, per the above, the onus is on you to establish consensus for it. Hamamat32 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
You are definitely not making any sense now. WP:LISTEN solely applies to you in this situation, as you are the one attempting to force an edit on presumed consensus that had been established by three editors. In other words, nobody is agreeing with you here, and you're the one sticking to their meaningless viewpoint. Furthermore, the link you've drawn between WP:DEADLINE and WP:SILENCE is tenuous at best. Regarding Hero7373's edit, the responsibility falls on you to provide an explanation for your disagreement with their edit, considering that you have reverted what appeared to be a clear and beneficial edit without providing an edit summary or an explanation on this talk page. Regarding your final point, it's important to note that I have already presented reasons for my edits and refuted your points. On the other hand, you have failed to provide meaningful reasons for your edits and have yet to respond to any of my arguments. Instead, your approach seemed to shift towards insisting that I establish consensus [6] instead of making a meaningful point. Your reliance on Wikipedia:I just don't like it/I just like it as your main argument, particularly in the context of your statement "Having the language clarified in parentheses in the motto and national anthem is fine, I don't see much of a reason for removing them." is not in line with the principles of Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to "provide a substantive rationale for the reversion," as outlined in Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Skitash (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Phosphate phosphate phosphate

Morocco is home to (by an astonishingly wide margin) the largest known phosphate reserves at roughly 50 billion tonnes. The phosphate industry is Morocco's largest foreign exchange earner but gets effectively zero coverage on this article, less than comparatively insignificant sources of revenue.

I think this article could use either a mention or section on how at least 85% of the entire planet's phosphate is located in this very specific part of the world. I feel this is important and unique enough to the geography, economy, and consequently the geopolitics of Morocco to warrant more than a brief mention in the articles Tourism section of all places. 2600:8800:104:D300:C41F:A2D:CAA5:B0FC (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This proposal (although not developed into something that fits in the article) makes sense. The economy section briefly mentions mining (not even linking to the Mining industry of Morocco article and it would make sense to add some more on this resource in the economics section (phosphate is a critical component of fertiliser and concerns about maintaining global food production when Morrocco's mines run out (estimated late this century) are non-trivial - and voiced by agronomists from time to time). Arnoutf (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to be confused with...

Really? We need this at the top of the page? Seems patronizing:

Not to be confused with Maraca, Monaco, Comoro Islands, or Comoros.

Aren't we forgetting these?

Not to be confused with Macaque, Macaca, Marac, Maracanã, Morokro, Maracas, Mokoro, Macaron, Maroc, Maruca, Marocconus, Moruca, Maroko, or Marruecos.

By the way, one of those really does mean Morocco; the others don't. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Almoravid, Almohad and Marinid dynasties missing in the description

Hello, may i ask why do we jump from Idrisid dynasty to Alawi dynasty in the history section by omitting more than 600 hundred years of our history? We have to be consistent.. we can't say that the establishment of the moroccan state is in 788 and then we jump directly to the alawi dynasty as if there was nothing after. Those other dynasties are also moroccan dynasties. We need clarification. Thanks. Moorishino (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been addressed before (e.g. here). The infobox is a summary of essential points, not a list of everything. This is consistent with other articles. R Prazeres (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Country area

I've tried to clean up some edits made by a sockpuppeter, but the country area totals could really use some attention from someone with knowledge of the country. In particular, the "territory" footnote in the infobox needs a citation or two, and the body of the article needs to repeat the detailed info that's in the lead. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ethnic groups" in infobox

I entertained a conversation like this before, but I didn't set forth an awfully thorough argument and it has been archived since. I deem it useless to have an "ethnic groups" parameter in the infobox because:

  1. There is no authoritative source regarding ethnic groups or diversity in Morocco. Such parameters are not included in the census. Prior to 1975, the census kept a tally of Berbers, Arabs, Foreigners, and "Israelites" but this is not up to date.
  2. Despite this, there are multiple surveys (AfroBarometer, ArabBarometer, Britannica, etc...) in which Moroccans are asked their ethnic identity throughout time. Nearly all of them differ on the percentage and methodology -- some observe more Berber respondants than Arabs, some include Baydhan and no Sahrawis, etc... They may be from reliable sources, but per WP:ONUS and WP:SOURCESDIFFER I deem the best response to this to be simply removing the "ethnic groups" parameter
  3. Even if multiple reliable surveys can be found, the methodology between them will inevitably differ and I fear this page will simply boil down to an edit war on who has the latest and best survey for this parameter. Per Britannica's "Berber" entry, "an accurate count of Berbers is difficult to come by for a variety of reasons, including a lack of thorough surveys". I fear this article turns into a tug-of-war regarding what defines racial identity, which is a debate that I'm certain nobody wants to occur here.

A solution could be like with the France article, with a Nationality parameter -- per the 2014 (latest) census; this number should be 99.7% Moroccan and 0,25% other. I seek consensus regarding this. NAADAAN (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, the source used in the article claims it's an approximation -- whilst it's presented as an uncontested fact in the article. NAADAAN (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
There has been a similar discussion to this on Talk:Moroccans, and consensus has been established that most sources agree on the ~70% Arab and ~30% Berber ethnic breakdown. As of now, the 2012 source appears to be the most recent source available regarding ethnic groups. The situation in the article regarding France differs from that of Morocco, considering that French nationality is intertwined with ethnicity. The French people are both an ethnic group and nation, whereas Morocco is multi-ethnic. Skitash (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
You can understand that a subject as polarizing as ethnic identity probably shouldn't be dependant on consensus based on vague, unclear, numbers with unclear methodologies. Morocco's multi-ethnic nature can be made justice just as well in the lead without having to resort to estimating numbers IMO. NAADAAN (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Ethnic demographics, by their nature, are complex and multifaceted. It is practically impossible to obtain exact figures. This is why Wikipedia articles rely on estimates, which is the case in many country articles, such as Sudan. Even reputable sources, such as the CIA World Factbook base their information on estimates. In my opinion, highlighting the country's nationalities "99.7% Moroccan and 0.25% other" is not useful at all, and does not tell us anything. Template:Infobox country does not have a nationality parameter for a reason.
It seems that numerous sources align on a comparable ethnic breakdown range, and generally do not significantly differ from one another. Here are a few sources I could find:
  • Encyclopedic World Atlas: "Arab 70%, Berber 30%" [7]
  • The Report: Morocco 2012: "Morocco's population is approximately 67% Arab, 31% indigenous Berber and 2% Sahrawi" [8]
  • World Health Systems: "More than 80% of Moroccans are Arab, while the remaining 20% are Berber" [9]
  • Arab Barometer: 71% Arab, 28% Berber, 1% others [10]
  • Genetic Disorders Among Arab Populations: "Majority Arabs, 35% Berbers" [11]
  • Guide to African Political and Economic Development: "Arab 70%" [12]
  • Snapshot of Past and Present Historical Events in African Countries: "Arabs make up 65% of the over 33 million population of Morocco while the Berbers consist of the rest."[13]
Given this, it is reasonable to agree on an approximate range of 65-70% Arab and 30-35% Berber. Skitash (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
"Infobox country does not have a nationality parameter for a reason" doesn't mean anything, that parameter can easily be implemented. The policy of the state under Mohammed VI has been to prioritize a mixed "national identity" above perceived ethnic differences, and ommitting it would be the wiser choice rather than arguing over this endlessly.
Out of the 7 sources you have provided, 1 was a business brochure, 2 were more focused on public health than demographics. Regarding the Arab Barometer, the data is very versatile, with "20% Berber; 44% Arab" (2021) to "28% Berber; 70% Arab" (2023) -- such an increase in the number of Arabs within 2 years is odd. Furthermore, this doesn't take bias into account; I would assume that Arabs would be more avid to participate in the ArabBarometer and the fact the survey is done online would likely put others in disadvantage.
This is a very cautious subject, I wish not to fall in a pithole of debates about "what is truth" and playing around with semantics but the amount of surveys (including the ones I provided) elaborate on what an Arabized Berber could be classified as (Berber or Arab, Distinct?) and there are multiple reliable sources claiming that "the majority of Maghrebis are Arabized Berbers" and that "the origins of the Maghreb's population are therefore Berber: the vast majority of today's Arabic speakers are simply Arabized Berbers". There are numerous reliable sources that disprove the earlier estimate of Berbers and Sahrawis in the country, a few I could find:
We could go around in circles about this for ages, but the reality is that this is practically a minefield and there are thousands of arguments we could raise towards one another. From my personal experience, ethnic statistics are seen as an academic taboo in Morocco (probably a remnant of French colonialism where it was outlawed). Following a cultural Arabization campaign led by the Istiqlal Party, I am pessimistic that an accurate number will be determined. I have refrained from even scratching the surface regarding genetic analysis, I apologize for the essay. NAADAAN (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, however:
  • The New Arab source [14] which you provided bases its estimates on an advocacy group made for indigenous people [15] which itself is based on estimates claimed by the Amazigh Cultural Movement, which is not necessarily neutral. Additionally, the New Arab article says that 70% of Moroccans claim Amazigh heritage, contrary to what the source actually says "While the 2016 census in Morocco estimated the number of Tamazight speakers to be 28% of the population, the Amazigh associations claim a rate of 65 to 70%". This is about language, not ethnicity.
  • The Western Sahara conflict source [16] says that Western Sahara makes up 2.7% of the total Moroccan population, not Sahrawis. Sahrawis themselves constitute about a third of the population of Western Sahara.
  • Veremen's source [17] gives a very wide range "28-60%", therefore making it unreliable.
  • [18][19] These sources are outdated.
  • The figure in the Indigenous peoples’ rights in Morocco source [20] is based on the claim of a leading Amazigh activist. Not necessarily neutral.
  • The Britannica source [21] is also quite outdated. Additionally, "Arabized Berber" is not an ethnic group, but its solely a term which signifies Berbers who underwent Arabization, who would usually consider themselves culturally and linguistically Arab. The source also gives a percentage of 10% "Mauritanian Moors", and it is not very clear as to what this is supposed to mean.
  • [22] Berber speakers does not equate to ethnic Berbers.
In relation to your last point, it is important to note that there is a distinction between ethnicity and genetics, and there shouldn't be intertwining of the two. Genetics and Berberist assertions aside, ethnic estimates generally approximate that 65-70% of Moroccans identify as part of the Arab ethnic group. This is what constitutes the basis for determining ethnicity. Skitash (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
"Berber speakers does not equate to ethnic Berbers." Not all rectangles are squares but all (in this case most) squares are rectangles, if this is your qualification then I am curious on what makes an Arab or a Berber in your opinion considering most Berber speakers are native. You forget that some of the "not necessarily neutral sources" are not only scholarly but peer-reviewed, which would be the best per WP:SOURCETYPES.
You seem to have a grievance against older sources and "Amazigh activists" but in such a circumstance where there are no official metrics regarding this, this is close to the best we can have -- furthermore, I assume good-faith and wouldn't believe it would serve their interest to exaggerate in scholarly papers (but rather underestimate it). I also doubt that demographics in Morocco significantly shifted from 2000 to now.
Nonetheless, here are some sourced statements:
So I conclude, with all of the past arguments, the following:
  • Reliable sources regarding Berbers in Morocco range from ~20-60%, some activists give the number as high as 80%.
  • Based on my personal experience (I acknowledge that I am not a reliable source) and some media reports, ethnic statistics are at best lacking and an academic taboo, at worst forbidden.
  • There has not been any reliable tally, census, or large-scale regarding the number of Berbers in Morocco
  • It would be futile given this limited data to even attempt to separate Berbers and Arabs from a country comprised in a majority of "Arabized Berbers".
  • As a point of reference, many country-related GAs based their ethnic statisics on the Census, which we don't dispose in this case. (see Philippines, New Zealand, Singapore, Azerbaijan, Jordan seems to actually conjure ethnicity from religion which is less reliable than language, )
I propose, in such a severe case of WP:SOURCESDIFFER, and attempting to figure out our own statistics here would be approaching original research WP:SYNTH, to completely ommit ethnic statistics in the infobox and instead opt for either:
  • Linguistical statistics (i.e. 90% Darija, 40-60% Tamazight dialects, etc...), using numbers from the IRCAM & the HCP.
  • Nationality (92% Moroccan, 5% European, 2% Subsaharan and 1% other in 2022 per an HCP/MFA report or 99.7% Moroccan and 0.25% other per the HCP's 2014 census), using data from the HCP and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  • Ommiting any statistics on the infobox and adding the varying estimates onto the lead.
Anthropologists Thomas K. Park and Aomar Boum describe Berbers as a "group of people who epitomize the inulity of racial classificaons, whose narrow focus on a small subset of a group's genetic inheritance makes scant sense of modern genetic knowledge" (p. 130), ultimately this is beyond "a complex subject", attempting to put any numbers into sense and presenting it as an ultimate fact onto Wikipedia would be reckless at this point where we don't have any reliable sociological study about this. This is finding a needle in a haystack, but perhaps the upcoming 2024 census may offer some answers. Good night :) NAADAAN (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I get where you're going but there is something that you should consider. The sources you provided exclusively focus on estimating Berber percentages without accounting for Arabs or other ethnic groups, unlike the ones I provided which present an ethnic breakdown of all ethnic groups. Your citations, asserting Berber percentages ranging from 60% to 80%, attribute Berber identity to populations that, in reality, do not identify as such. The main premise behind this claim lies in the assertion that many Arabs are Arabized Berbers (Berbers who became Arab, and are today Arab), which is something you also mentioned. In accordance with the broad definition of ethnicity, which takes into account aspects such as identity, language, culture, etc, these individuals would be considered as part of the Arab ethnic group. Government censuses (not accessible in this case) usually provide individuals with the opportunity to self-identify with their ethnic affiliation, and this is what forms the basis for determining ethnic percentages of countries. It is not activists that decide. Given that most Moroccans identify as Arab, it would not be possible for a Berber percentage to be so high if an official census was conducted. Unofficial surveys which take place (e.g. Arab Barometer) usually indicate a percentage range of 60/65% to 70% for those identifying as Arab. This perfectly aligns with the ethnic breakdown sources which I provided.
I will have to disagree with your proposal. Again, a nationality parameter is needless and does not tell us anything. While you drew a comparison between this article's context and that of France, these two articles clearly differ, given that ethnicity is intertwined with nationality in France. I suggest either leaving the long standing version of the article as it is, or perhaps changing the range to the widely accepted 60%/65% to 70% Arab and 30%-35% Berber. Skitash (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to deconstruct all of this through helping to distinguish what constitutes what ethnic identity in Morocco in relation to Arabs and Berbers compared to the scope of the available sources we have.
The only survey or study that provide methodology regarding any tally of Berbers in comparaison to Arabs that I could find were the census on Berber speakers, and the Arab Barometer. I will address the Berber speakers statistics in a later message.
Despite your past assertion, there's a myriad of sources that demonstrate that in the case of Morocco, Berber speakers equate to the amount of Berbers in the country (I will provide them if necessary). The available literature would lead me to conclude that while not all Berbers speak Tamazight, virtually all Tamazight speakers are Berbers and a percentage of Tamazight speakers would equate to Berbers in Morocco.
The Arab Barometer is janky at worst and inaccurate at best, judging that per the 2022 AB Wave VII technical report, data in Morocco were only collected from Arabic-speaking urban Moroccans, this causes some bias when it comes to ethno-lingustic parameters especially considering that the main purpose of the Arab Barometer is to serve as an opinion poll -- this is nonwithstanding that there are concerns of a social-desirability bias in the survey which would be relevant in the case of Amazighs taking part in a pan-Arab poll. What do you think can remedy this? NAADAAN (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
"There's a myriad of sources that demonstrate that in the case of Morocco, Berber speakers equate to the amount of Berbers in the country" If you believe this is the case, then wouldn't Berbers constitute 26% of the population, given that 26% of Moroccans are Berber speakers according to the 2014 Moroccan census you provided? Since a reliable census on this already exists, there is no need to rely on estimates. There are individuals who speak Berber but identify as Arabs and vice versa. Therefore, equating Berber speakers to ethnic Berbers is not entirely accurate. I suggest sticking to what reliable ethnic breakdown sources say; that Berbers comprise 30% to 35% of the population.
"Data in Morocco were only collected from Arabic-speaking urban Moroccans" Actually, the source explicitly states that data in Morocco was collected from both urban and rural populations. It also covered all 12 provinces of Morocco, which obviously includes Berber-inhabited areas. Again, Arabic-speaking doesn't mean anything. Many individuals may choose to identify as Berber while exclusively using Arabic as their native language. I don't see why Amazighs wouldn't take part in a "pan-Arab poll", and it is noteworthy that Arab Barometer has been peer-reviewed[23] (best among WP:SOURCETYPES), and it has been described as a non-partisan research network that has been conducting high quality and reliable public opinion surveys in the MENA region. Skitash (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid we're both getting side-tracked here. My main grievance here is that there is no authoritative source or survey regarding ethno-demographics in Morocco, and it would be reckless to present any number as fact in such a gray-zone. I have offered to replace that with nationality and linguistic statistics which could demonstate a similar or equating point in a case where there is an authoritative source.
The initial argument I had raised was that the affirmation that Arabs were the majority of the population was contradicted by assertions made by other reliable sources, and the fact an accurate count cannot be determined with relevant data being "both scarce and hotly contested" -- this led me to conclude that it should likely be changed rather than throw numbers around and presenting it as fact.
There are individuals who speak Berber but identify as Arabs. [...] equating Berber speakers to ethnic Berbers is not entirely accurate. El Aissati (2001): "In the case of Amazigh, [...] the most prominent index to ethnicity is linguistic. People define themselves as Imazighen once they speak the Amazigh language." (p. 58, WP:YANARS)
The source on the infobox is the 2012 Oxford Business Group report on Morocco, the 2020 report states has completely ommited such statistics and opted for linguisitcs, stating that "it is estimated that at least 40% of the population, [...] speak one of three Berber or Amazigh languages, which were the region's native languages." (p. 13)
The peer-review in question was done by FinEquity, which is a working group that seems to focus more "women's economic empowerement" than ethnodemographics. Ultimately, you conceeded that it was reliable and high-quality as a public opinion survey notwithstanding that ethnic identity surveys involve a different methodology. There has also been a peer-reviewed paper that rises concerns of social-desirability bias in the survey, which would effectively poison the survey in a question as sensitive as ethno-identity. Excuse any possible delays in my response, my schedule's getting tighter and tighter. --NAADAAN (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
As I previously mentioned, the sources you've presented seem to overlook the existence of various ethnic groups in Morocco and primarily focus on emphasizing the prevalence of Berbers (while also claiming Arabized Berber populations), when only a minority of the population identify as such. Your argument that "people define themselves as Imazighen once they speak the Amazigh language" contradicts your sources, as you would be suggesting that only 26% identify as Berber.[24] While determining the exact number of people with Berber ancestry might be challenging, establishing identity (the basis for determining ethnicity) is definitely achievable and is certainly not a gray-zone. The third link to Lameen Souag you provided which claims that that relevant data is "both scarce and hotly contested" accounts for speakers of Berber languages, and this is contradicted by the 2014 Moroccan census (a reliable source) which provides accurate percentages of Berber speakers. I don't see why a government census would not be reliable. If you take another look at the sources I provided, you will observe that they align on comparable percentages and consider all ethnic groups, avoiding exclusive emphasis on either Berbers or Arabs, in contrast to your sources. The absence of ethnicity mention in the 2020 Oxford report does not contradict prior estimates or diminish their validity. We still have older figures and other reliable sources which support similar percentages. Public opinion surveys can be useful in judging ethnic percentages, and if you're concerned with Arab Barometer possibly containing any bias, the Afro Barometer can serve as an alternative (notice how the percentages are strikingly comparable to those of Arab Barometer and other reliable sources).[25] Skitash (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience, "You will observe that they align on comparable percentages and consider all ethnic groups, avoiding exclusive emphasis on either Berbers or Arabs, in contrast to your sources." I will rely on other articles as a rule of thumb -- the pages for other countries in the Maghreb (ref. Tunisia, Algeria) use sources focusing on each specific ethnic group rather than comparative sources, must they be removed? As a matter of fact, the page for Egypt has had no ethnic statistics whatsoever since 2011 despite a significant divide between Arabs and Copts.
I don't understand your argument regarding the census, I wouldn't say it's clear-cut and undisputed as you portray it to be since the IRCAM had contested the census's results and criticized its methodology (the president of the HCP adds that they had not "conducted an ethnic census"), I think it is useless to entertain an argument about a census considering that a new one is due in a few months. Your argument is The Afro Barometer also only claims to be a reliable source regarding "evaluations of democracy, governance, and quality of life" and not sociodemographics.
My argument is as follows: there are reliable sources (some being WP:TIER1, others WP:TIER2) contesting the numbers shown in the infobox, per WP:SOURCESDIFFER "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say", summarizing those sources would give us a vague range which would be counter-productive concludes that it's better if it's removed, especially in such a polarizing subject. Best regards NAADAAN (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
It appears that you are relying on other articles to bolster your argument, when this goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT. Whether or not Egypt had no ethnic statistics since 2011 is irrelevant here, particularly given that most Wikipedia articles do include ethnic statistics in the infobox. Your assertion that the 2014 Moroccan census is unreliable due to criticism by IRCAM bears no merit and does not undermine the census's validity. Splitting hairs like this is not an efficient way of arguing. What I don't understand is your eagerness to eliminate widely accepted ethnic percentage range by attempting to contradict them with sources that are mostly mere estimates by activists and advocacy groups. These sources exclusively focus on highlighting the Berber percentages while disregarding the Arab populations, a flaw which I have already addressed and pointed out. Not only that, but one of the articles you cited does not even interpret the original source properly, and claims something completely different. What I also don't seem to understand is why you have just decided to delete the Arab and Berber ethnic percentage ranges in the demographics section of the article. Without an edit summary, you have replaced it with one estimate focusing on Berbers and completely omitting the existence of Arabs, and this just seems to be a neutrality issue. Skitash (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
particularly given that most Wikipedia articles do include ethnic statistics in the infobox Why should this article be any different then? You raised WP:OTHERCONTENT, but I must remind you that this policy states that "while comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case" -- considering that another editor had agreed citing other FAs like Canada and Germany and that I raised the cases of other countries in the Maghreb, this point still stands.
What I also don't seem to understand is why you have just decided to delete the Arab and Berber ethnic percentage ranges in the demographics section of the article. I've been planning to expand further on the demographics section of the page to make it more concise with details about the modern effect of Arab Hilalian migration, as I deemed the previous version on the page to be haphazardly written. Of course if these edits keep being reverted then I sadly don't have an awful lot of wiggle room.
Insofar that others editors agree on being at least cautious about this data, it is better off omitted from the infobox. Using the Census linguistic data for the infobox would be undue per our previous understanding, this especially fueled by disagreement between sources -- these are the only factors at play here. I will ask for a WP:3O. NAADAAN (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with being cautious, especially given the contentious nature of ethnicity in Morocco (as in many other places). It might help to know where the cited source ([26]) obtained its figures to begin with and which other reliable sources cite the same or similar figures. If the census doesn't ask for ethnic identification, then where is this coming from? R Prazeres (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It's worth noting the cited source seems to be a business brochure rather than a demographic review. For information, here's the questionaire used for the latest census in 2014, with no mention of ethnicity.
A point I ommited is that surveys like the AfroBarometer and ArabBarometer are done through the internet, hence privileging people living in urban centers and creating an inherent bias against more rural Berbers and Sahrawis. NAADAAN (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Clearly not clear with just stats in infobox ....dont list in infobx like FA articles Canada, Germany or Japan..let prose in body explain.!!!!!Moxy- 19:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ARH 371_The TransAtlantic_Cross-Cultural Representations

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dawhite5 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dawhite5 (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

Iddir el bourki (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Morocco

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 16:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

Morocco is one of the safest countries in the world. Iddir el bourki (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The site you provided is the webpage of a Moroccan travel agency, which is neither reliable nor independent. Liu1126 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Who provides travel Morocco and what you want to know clear about. 49.184.15.103 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

@R Prazeres: I have no issue with removing the paragraph According to social anthropologist Cristiana Strava, .. if you believe that it's UNDUE. The only reason I restored is because "Vogelman29" described it as spam and deleted it while falsely claiming that it doesn't exist. M.Bitton (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes the revert was reasonable, as it wasn't spam. If there's no other objection, I'll remove it for the reason I stated here. The source in question is perfectly relevant to cite in a discussion of contemporary Morocco, just not in this manner, and maybe not in this specific location. R Prazeres (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Why is the 712,550 Km² area removed from the lead section and infobox? 808 AD (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not, it's in the same place it used to be, with explanation. R Prazeres (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
No, it certainly has been removed from the lead section and the infobox, I'm not talking about the footnote. This change doesn't respect neutrality and has to be reverted. 808 AD (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
We're already giving the baseless claim UNDUE weight by mentioning it in the infobox, which is meant to summarize facts. M.Bitton (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The de facto rule over WS, and the US recognition are indeed facts. Nothing is Undue here. 808 AD (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Please read WP:FRINGE. M.Bitton (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@808 AD: please read WP:ONUS and refrain from edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I actually missed that the figure was trimmed inline in a recent edit by Snowstormfigorion ([27]). That said, footnote or no, I don't think quoting two radically different numbers inline in the lead is a very good idea. For that matter, I don't see why land area would be stated in the lead at all; it's not essential information (e.g. none of the featured country articles give that figure in the lead) and if the borders of the country are disputed, even more so a bad idea. R Prazeres (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
In this case, I have no problem with removing the land area from the lead (both numbers). What about the infobox? 808 AD (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
The area of Morocco ends at its southern border with Western Sahara. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, the Moroccan de facto rule doesn't. And the US recognition isn't fringe theory, we're talking about the recognition of a whole goverment, a very important member of the UN. 808 AD (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The US recognition is the definition of WP:FRINGE. The so-called de facto rule (illegal occupation) covers parts of the claimed territory. M.Bitton (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no consistent policy I believe for the infobox figures, but from a quick look at various other country articles where territory is a complicated question, there is typically one figure accompanied by a footnote explaining alternative estimates. I have no strong opinion about the best approach here, though obviously the figure excluding disputed territories should take precedence at least. R Prazeres (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
the Israel article is a good example. 808 AD (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
No it's not. The Russia article is much better in that sense. M.Bitton (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, or for that matter, India (which is a featured article), Pakistan, Argentina, China, etc. R Prazeres (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Sultanate of Morocco" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sultanate of Morocco has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 14 § Sultanate of Morocco until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

@NAADAAN: you keep mentioning the constitution, but without citing it. Is there a reason for that? M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I believed that citing different translations of the constitution was redundant, I believed that in this case -- giving a citation edit summary would be enough. Here is the official Tamazight translation of the constitution made by the IRCAM as was commanded under a 2019 law, I cited it previously in some of my edit summaries. You can see that "Kingdom of Morocco" is translated as "ⵜⴳⵍⴷⵉⵜ ⵏ ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ" and that "God, Homeland, King" is translated as "ⵕⴱⴱⵉ, ⴰⵎⵓⵔ, ⴰⴳⵍⵍⵉⴷ" and that is the terminology used by the government. I have no idea why it's ommited. NAADAAN (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not redundant when it's disputed. It was removed by Snowstormfigorion who cited unsourced transcription and transliteration as an explanation. The source that you provided (I haven't checked it) should satisfy the transcription. Adding it will also prevent editors from fiddling with it, as is often the case with unsourced and badly sourced tifinagh words. Since the transliteration has also been challenged, finding a RS for it wouldn't be a bad idea. M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I think a government source is good enough, I will indeed cite it now. NAADAAN (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I have set the transliteration issue across other articles NAADAAN (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
If you mean the transcription, then I suggest you take certain precautions while doing so. This addition, for instance, is anachronistic. M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024

Move "French" to "Foreign languages" in the sidebar.

It makes absolutely no sense to have English and Spanish in foreign languages but not French. It is just as foreign as these two languages and isn't widely spoken by the population. Kurdish Elf (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Skitash (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Country area

Why was Western Sahara removed? Way to offend an entire country... 2A02:908:820:AB00:90A8:2BEC:BC83:B14B (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

HDI ranking error

In the info box for the HDI, Morocco is ranked as "120rd". Please correct to "120th". Intilyc (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2024

105.155.7.152 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, please use corrected map:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Morocco_WS-included_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

Western Sahara status

Please to change the following statement: "Part of the territory, the Free Zone, is a mostly uninhabited area that the Polisario Front controls as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Its administrative headquarters are located in Tindouf, Algeria. As of 2006, no UN member state had recognised Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara."

By this correction: Part of the territory, Demilitarized Zone, is a mostly uninhabited area controled by Morocco's Air Defense (Permanent drones surveyance) and the UN mission MINURSO. At least 22 member states of the United Nations had recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, and are holding a diplomatic representation in the Moroccan Western Sahara province tied to their Moroccan embassies in Rabat, the capital of Morocco. 149.117.79.69 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: your claims are contradicted by the cited RS in the WS article. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morocco/Archive_7&oldid=1244670588"