Talk:Demographics of Morocco

old data

Looking on Status of Women I read about women not going to school, but the world bank says there is a 97% enrolment in 2018. Those that finish primary school is 94%. So I don't know how boys can be 28 times more presented than girls?

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.TENR.FE?locations=MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.214.114.140 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

October 2023

@Hero7373: You need to make up your mind: either the statement is about culture or ethnicity; and please, refrain from edit warring.

The context is clearly to do with ethnicity this contradicts your earlier statement “Arabised” is in reference to culture, not ethnicity..

You clearly also don’t understand what Arabised even means enlighten me. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s clear to me you have a problem reading or understanding basic words. The context is about ethnicity, that most Moroccans are indigenous Berbers (Berbers are an ETHNICITY), many of which (not all) are “Arabised” (a term used for people who are “culturally Arab”, but are NOT ethnically Arab). I’ve made my point. Not going to repeat myself. Hero7373 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

What is clear to you is obviously your problem.

“culturally Arab”, but are NOT ethnically Arab what is the difference between the two? M.Bitton (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

"Moors" in infobox

Belated follow up on this & this. Courtesy ping to @Ibrahim Alkaseer and @Skitash.

The word "Moors" in English is an old exonym that can refer to roughly any or all North Africans, Andalusis, etc (a bit like Saracens referring to Arabs and/or Muslims). Its use here is confusing. The word is linked to Beidane; assuming this is correct, then per MOS:EASTEREGG it's preferable to just use that term. Any WP:COMMONNAME issues might be better discussed at that article. The cited source, Britannica, uses the term "Mauritanian Moors", which would be fine too. I've seen both used in current news/documents. R Prazeres (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and I agree. Skitash (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Vital statistics table

How can TFR stay about the same if births declined by about 100k from 2022 to 2023? Chaptagai (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and ethnic statistics pt. 2

Hi @Skitash, may you please justify your revert further? I was under the impression that the RfC chose to remove ethnic statistics due to the lack of data, making it too nuanced to merely present as unadulterated fact on the infobox. NAADAAN (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This RfC you're talking about is clearly about the infobox country template in Morocco. You initiated the RfC there with the following question: "Should the "ethnic groups" parameter on the infobox be ommited in favor of the "national languages" parameter which is already present?". Skitash (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you please tell me, in your own words, what issue led to the RfC concluding with the parameter being omitted and how that issue doesn't also apply here? Because otherwise this seems just like you're playing with semantics, infoboxes are infoboxes and hold the same value regardless. Personally, I'd rather avoid status-quo stonewalling without having to seek consensus through RfCs over the same issue being different because a different template was used. NAADAAN (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

1. That RfC has nothing to do with this article.

2. Most editors who voted to remove the ethnic data did so to maintain consistency with FA country articles and because the ethnic groups had not yet been properly summarized in the article's body, rather than due to concerns about the sources. Skitash (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

1. You still haven't addressed what I said three months after the fact;
2. The main argument raised in the discussion on the RfC: "it is wholly unacceptable for inclusion in the infobox, which is meant to summarize key facts at a glance. It follows that if data is murky, poorly-sourced, or has dubious methodology, it is completely unacceptable in the infobox" -- you were part of the discussion and had an opportunity to offer a counter-argument, but you didn't.

NAADAAN (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

"it is wholly unacceptable for inclusion in the infobox" And what is the infobox in question? Per WP:RfC#What an RfC is, "Often, the issue is what an article should say." We didn't agree to change anything beyond that article's infobox. The ethnic data was removed from Morocco's infobox mainly for 1) consistency with FA articles and 2) lack of proper summarization. This page, however, is a demographic article, and ethnic data fits in the infobox, especially when it's covered extensively here with several sources. And frankly, given how long this has dragged on for, I think you should just WP:DROPTHESTICK as this is getting tedious. Skitash (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Trying to make a distinction that the RfC only applied to "Infobox country" rather than "Infobox place demographics" is honestly weird, it still built precedent insofar as the arguments still apply here. The main argument was that the data available was contradictory and there were no official metrics... I haven't seen any new counter-argument to this, and it still applies in this case.

If you were concerned about how "tedious" this process was getting, perhaps someone should seek dispute resolution (again) over this. I don't know what drives you to stonewall to this level, but there are other problems worth addressing yes I agree. NAADAAN (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)