Talk:Morocco/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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 (, , , ). 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 , 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 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%"
• The Report: Morocco 2012: "Morocco's population is approximately 67% Arab, 31% indigenous Berber and 2% Sahrawi"
• World Health Systems: "More than 80% of Moroccans are Arab, while the remaining 20% are Berber"
• Arab Barometer: 71% Arab, 28% Berber, 1% others
• Genetic Disorders Among Arab Populations: "Majority Arabs, 35% Berbers"
• Guide to African Political and Economic Development: "Arab 70%"
• 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."

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:

• Akram & Stora, Les 100 portes du Maghreb (1999): 40%-50% Berbers in Morocco (p. 90)
• Roussellier, Morocco’s Two-Track Approach to the Western Sahara Conflict (2013): 2.7% Sahrawi
• Chaker, Berbères aujourd'hui (1999): ~40% Berbers in Morocco (p. 14)
• Vermeren, Le Maroc en 100 questions (2020) ~75-80% Berbers in 1912, now 28-60% (p. 255)
• Deroche, Les peuples autochtones et leur relation originale à la terre (2008): "could be" 40% in Morocco (p. 14)
• The New Arab (2023): "estimates range as high as" ~70% of Moroccans "claiming Berber heritage"
• MacDonald, Political Discourse in the Maghreb (2021): 50-60% percent of Moroccans "believed to be Amazigh"
• Britannica (2000): 44% Arab, 24% Arabized Berber, 21% other Berbers (adding up to 45% Berber vs 44% Arab), 10% Mauritanian Moors (Sahrawis???), 1% other.
• Gagliardi, Indigenous peoples’ rights in Morocco (2019): 40-60%, as high as 70%
• Hart, Tribe and Society in Rural Morocco (2000): ~50% Berber speakers, "would have been" 70-80% pre-colonialism

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 which you provided bases its estimates on an advocacy group made for indigenous people 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 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 gives a very wide range "28-60%", therefore making it unreliable.
• These sources are outdated.
• The figure in the Indigenous peoples’ rights in Morocco source is based on the claim of a leading Amazigh activist. Not necessarily neutral.
• The Britannica source 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.
• 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:

• al-Jazeera (2006): "there are no accurate statistics available on the real number of [Imazighen] in Morocco, most unofficial studies [approximate] the number to be around 60%."
• Lugan, Histoire des Berbères (2012, re-ed. 2016 by Avatar Media) states that "no [modern] census of Berbers have been done" but ~35-40% of Moroccans claim to be Berbers (p. 14)
• Maddy-Weitzman, Amazigh Politics in the Wake of the Arab Spring (2022) states that "current numbers are commonly estimated 40-45% of Moroccans being Amazigh" (p. 6) and that "accepted percentages of Amazigh in the population" were determined by those who "actively used the language and thus defined themselves as such" (p. 177)

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 (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. 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). 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 () 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 (). 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2024

The Roman Empire's involvement in Morocco, then known as Mauretania, began in the 2nd century BCE and lasted until the 5th century AD. The Romans were drawn to the region's strategic importance, establishing settlements, trade routes, and fortifications. Their presence left a lasting cultural impact and a legacy of archaeological sites across the country's northern landscape ArthurEFex (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 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. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 08 August 2024

Change from "HDI (2022) 0.698" to "HDI (2024) 0.698"

Reason : The source date is 2024, not 2022.

Thank you 194.154.197.119 (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Barbary lion as national animal or emblem

Many places say the Barbary lion is the national animal of Morocco, but none of them appear to be reliable sources. This article references the CIA World Factbook, which is usually pretty good, but I'd think there should be a better source. Maybe in another language? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So, is the Factbook acceptable or not? If so, I'm not sure why we'd need additional sources. Remsense诉 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The Factbook says "lion" instead of "Barbary lion", so it's not sufficient for Barbary lion. Perhaps there are sources in Arabic that say "Barbary lion". The sources I can find are all of indiscriminate collection of facts, or repeating beliefs without saying why they believe that. Has the government ever said anything about it? SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

May be worth generalizing to merely "lion" for the time being. Remsense诉 01:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Cursory search finds a sources in Morocco and abroad that talk about the subject, but I'm not sure if they're reliable enough:

1. SNRT News (state-owned broadcaster): "the Atlas Lion is also the symbol of the Moroccan royalty", this is coroberrated by the Journal de Dimanche in France;

2. The Université Rennes 2 published an article stating that the Atlas lion "symbolized Morocco", but I'm not sure about context;

3. An article on al-Arab says the Atlas lion is the "symbol of Morocco in the world".

I will probably update with more sources when I find the time. NAADAAN (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the sleuthing! Remsense ‥ 论 00:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

For ethnic group the Arab section is wrong it should be Arab-Berber 2601:140:8C00:1010:F569:C267:2A57:97A5 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Skitash (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

RfC on "ethnic groups" in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to omit the ethnic groups parameter. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the "ethnic groups" parameter on the infobox be ommited in favor of the "national languages" parameter which is already present? NAADAAN (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Languages and ethnic groups are not the same. A lengthy discussion has already taken place on this topic, with no consensus reached on omitting the ethnic groups. There's a myriad of sources that support the 65–70% Arab / 30–35% Berber ethnic percentage range, as discussed in Talk:Moroccans#Third Opinion? and Talk:Morocco/Archive 7#"Ethnic groups" in infobox. While featured articles can serve as good examples, omitting ethnic groups from the infobox is not a mandatory practice for FAs, many of which do include ethnic groups. I think it’s best we leave the infobox as it is. Skitash (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  "There's a myriad of sources that support the 65–70% Arab / 30–35% Berber ethnic percentage range" This sounds a lot like WP:SYNTH if you're trying to build an average out of many different sources. NAADAAN (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Omit per my remarks below. Remsense ‥ 论 05:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Omit as we do with our best FA country articles Australia, Germany, Canada, Japan. Let the body explain in detail MOS:USEPROSE.....and drop languages junk.Moxy🍁 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps language statistics from the census should be moved to the body too then? Seems like Canada doesn't mention them in the infobox either but rather in the demographics section... It's worth mentioning that the article for Egypt has had ethnic data ommited since 2011, with no opposition. NAADAAN (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Arabs and Berbers are the largest ethnicities which should be a key fact. Can they be mentioned in the infobox even if there is no precise number for each? Senorangel (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  In lieu of the ability to quantify those ethnic populations in the infobox, this would seem particularly redundant with the listing of Tamazight and Arabic as the languages commonly spoken in the country—of course understanding that the mapping between language speakers and ethnicity isn't one-to-one. Remsense ‥ 论 05:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about "in favor of the 'national languages' parameter', but given the body devotes a single sentence to ethnic groups, it doesn't present as key information that needs summarizing. CMD (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Omit for consistency with other quality articles, because there isn't enough about it in the body to summarize, and because it is probably too nuanced and unclear a situation to summarize, even if we wished to. If at all, it should be covered in the body only. Mathglot (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like that's enough, any more consensus before I close this? NAADAAN (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

NAADAAN, you should not close this yourself, but you can WP:Request closure. I wouldn't, though, as if closed now, the consensus would be based on little participation, thus not as strong as it could be. Try keeping it open a bit longer, and requesting additional feedback to generate a stronger consensus. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! It's been over three months since they started and a few weeks after the last votes, and earlier attempts to resolve this had way less participants. Personally, I've done some canvassing on WikiProject Morocco when the RfC started; I think I'll request closure now and hope that will lead to more attention to this. NAADAAN (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I know you meant notification, and not canvassing; and if you think closure works now, go ahead, but requesting closure is *only* about closing this, and will not lead to more attention in the way of responses. Your choice. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

lol slip of the tongue, sorry. Thank you for the help!! NAADAAN (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC on "ethnic groups" in infobox)

• The Higher Planning Commission (HCP), who coordinates the national census, only publishes linguistic statistics rather than ethnic, the sourcing for the "ethnic groups" in the infobox is quite flimsy, and other country FAs such as Canada simply ommit ethnic groups in their infoboxes despite their multicultural society. We have discussed this at length before, but it had degenerated into an argument over sourcing and its semantics.

Considering that there is no single reliable nation-wide survey on ethnic origin in Morocco (and I suspect that they are outlawed like in France), the controversial nature of the subject, the divergence in sources, and the fact that the "national languages" would be more accurate; I propose that it should be ommitted in favor of languages. NAADAAN (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Because of Morocco's demographic history, mentioning "ethnic groups" seems appropriate. Senorangel (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Of course we mention it, but do we mention it in the infobox?

  There is no authoritative source regarding ethnic groups or diversity in Morocco. Such parameters are not included in the census

  By itself, this fact about the data (complemented with @NAADAAN's description of its incomplete replacements) is enough to convince me that 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. Moreover, if the sourcing or methodology of data even needs to be explicitly explained to the reader for them not to misunderstand what it means and doesn't mean—it is equally unacceptable for the infobox. This information should be treated with the nuance it requires where it belongs, which is in the body of the article itself. Remsense ‥ 论 05:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

  Recent press conference regarding the 2024 census with Ahmed Lahlimi, the head of the HCP (nat. statistics agency):

  The aim behind these calls [to include Amazighs in the census], according to their authors, is to ensure “better representation” of this population. However, according to the official, “speaking Arabic or Amazigh makes no difference, just as asking for the language spoken serves no purpose. It's a general population census, not an ethnic census”.
  In the same vein, the High Commissioner highlighted Morocco's cultural plurality, where different civilizations have coexisted throughout history, making diversity a strength of the country. “It's impossible to say with any certainty who the Amazighs, Arabs or others are. There are Amazigh families who speak only Arabic, just as there are Arab families who speak Amazigh,” he said by way of example.
  He was also asked religion and faith, Lahlimi replied: “People's beliefs are their own business. It's strictly personal. It has nothing to do with the objectives of the [census].”

  This reinforces the point being here that, in the very least, these are waters too murky to be worth including in an infobox. Perhaps it'd be worth considering the removal of the language parameter too? NAADAAN (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2024

The borders of Morocco are from the Mediterranean in the North to Mauritania in the South. Western Sahara is a part of Morocco 2A02:9B0:3D:F418:70A9:D2A5:DA93:65F7 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: First of all, this is not an edit request and second, I suggest you read the article. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Content removal

To @Skitash, can you elaborate on your content removal? I also provided sourcing. NAADAAN (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

1) The fact that "Morocco is home to the largest Berber population in the world" is as irrelevant as stating in Mexico#Ethnicity and race that Mexico is home to the largest Mestizo population in the world.

2) "with estimates typically ranging between 40-60%" is WP:UNDUE when compared to all the other sources that place the Berber percentage between 30% and 40% (which you've removed without a valid reason). Furthermore, the source supporting the 60% figure pertains to ancestral origins rather than ethnic identity.

3) "A notable portion of Arabic speakers in Morocco are also considered Arabized Berbers, a term coined by King Mohammed V" is also irrelevant given that ethnicity is about identity and not ancestry (these "Arabized Berbers" identify as Arabs by virtue of their language and identity). The fact that Mohammed V coined it doesn't make it any more relevant. Skitash (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Always nice to see you again!

1) I think it is worth mentioning at least somewhere in both articles. If you disagree, that's fine -- I'm not gonna be hard pressed over that.

2) I removed your estimates because these are the sources you cite for your claim that Arabs are the "largest and majority":

1. "Genetic Disorders Among Arab Populations", this is a medicine paper from 1997 (you called a source from 1999 "outdated", may I remind you);
2. "Sustainable Development and Human Security in Africa", this is not about demographics but about governance.

3) Furthermore, these are the extra sources you cite on your estimates:

1. "The Report: Morocco 2012", this is a business brochure made by a business school (not by a research institute) that doesn't even mention these numbers in their later editions;
2. "Philip's Encyclopedic World Atlas 2002", this doesn't source where their numbers are from and I found this was first published in 1996, quite old;
3. "Guide to African Political and Economic Development", this is also not about demographics and is also pretty inconsistant like Libya being included as "Arab/Berber" but Morocco and Algeria being "Arab";
4. "WorldAtlas" is a WP:NEWSBLOG at best.

4) So I replaced them with these:

1. "Victory for Africa or the Arab world? Moroccan nationalism, Arab exceptionalism, pan-African solidarity and digital fandom during the 2022 FIFA World Cup" which was peer-reviewed and cited a BBC article (WP:TIER2),
2. "Amazigh in Morocco through the Lens of the U.S. State Department's Reports between 1999 and 2020: A Critical Discourse Analysis" which was also peer-reviewed,
3. "Maroc : population" on Larousse, while a WP:TIER3 I deemed it fair to use since Encyclopedia Britannica was also mentioned;
4. I kept the Encyclopedia Britannica statistics since, while a TIER3 that was quite old, it was better than nothing.

5) It would be quite hard to explain ethnic origin without delving into ancestry, the page for Ethnicity literally cites "common ancestry". If you disagreed with this, why would you cite a paper about historical migration changing gene pools? If self-identified ethnicity and ancestry (which genetics are) had no relation whatsoever, this could be just discarded, right?

6) Your edit insisted that "Arabs form the largest and majority ethnic group"; you cannot say this if the previous paragraph is about how hard Berbers and Arabs are to distinguish. The earlier RfC was literally about how difficult it was to present such nuanced and sporadic data as absolute fact. A statement like this needs better sourcing than two passing mentions on articles where the subject aren't about demographics in the slightest.

Frankly, I don't know what's fueling all of this. I can start another RfC or undergo other dispute resolution if you want. NAADAAN (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

"I think it is worth mentioning at least somewhere in both articles" I believe it's worth mentioning in Berbers, but it does not add value here.

"I removed your estimates because these are the sources you cite for your claim that Arabs are the "largest and majority"" Both cited sources are reliable with sections dedicated to ethnicity. I don't see a good reason to remove them. Besides, the fact that the majority of Moroccans identify as Arab is easily attributable.

""The Report: Morocco 2012", this is a business brochure made by a business school (not by a research institute)" The Oxford Business Group is a credible research firm.

""Guide to African Political and Economic Development", this is also not about demographics" This source covers multiple aspects of African states, including their history, ethnic diversity, and religions.

""WorldAtlas" is a WP:NEWSBLOG at best." I don't think so. WorldAtlas is reliable when it comes to demography.

"Amazigh in Morocco through the Lens of the U.S. State Department's Reports between 1999 and 2020: A Critical Discourse Analysis" This source is about ancestral origins rather than ethnic identity. Furthermore, your source doesn't mention Arabs at all and broadly categorizes the remainder of the population as "other people from other origins".

""Maroc : population" on Larousse" "Arabized Berber" is not an ethnic group.

"It would be quite hard to explain ethnic origin without delving into ancestry" Not necessarily since ethnic identity is a social construct rooted in identity, language, and culture.

"the page for Ethnicity literally cites "common ancestry"" It also states that "Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with some groups having mixed genetic ancestry".

"why would you cite a paper about historical migration changing gene pools?" The source is there to underscore the demographic impact of the Arab migrations, whether linguistic, cultural or genetic, and not to define ethnicity in terms of genetics.

"you cannot say this if the previous paragraph is about how hard Berbers and Arabs are to distinguish" A claim by a government official doesn't make it an indisputable fact. Skitash (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you were a bit more serious about this. Semantics aside, all of your claims about the "WorldAtlas" blog and the Oxford Business Group being reliable are from WP:SPS, I honestly would prefer relying on something like WP:RSP over your own judgement.

"the fact that the majority of Moroccans identify as Arab is easily attributable" I'd appreciate if you provide better, verifiable sources then.

"Not necessarily since ethnic identity is a social construct rooted in identity, language, and culture" Can you provide sources that back the fact that, in this specific case (Morocco), ancestry has nothing to do whatsoever with ethnic identity? I don't dispute the possibility that this may be the case in other cultures, but in a Moroccan (or in a broader sense Islamic) context? For someone gloating of their filiation to the pioneers of Ilm el-Ansab, the case you give is pretty unconvincing.

"A claim by a government official doesn't make it an indisputable fact." but a claim made by a business brochure is? BTW, I cited a second source that states it is "impossible to distinguish Berbers and Arabs amongst the Arab speakers" and vice-versa.

I'll just go forward with dispute resolution now. NAADAAN (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"I'd appreciate if you provide better, verifiable sources then"

"Can you provide sources that back the fact that, in this specific case (Morocco), ancestry has nothing to do whatsoever with ethnic identity?" Can you provide sources that prove otherwise? From my understanding, ethnic identity is a social construct, which holds true globally. Specifically, in the Arab and Muslim worlds, it’s widely recognized that people who speak Arabic as their native language are considered Arab.

"I cited a second source that states it is "impossible to distinguish Berbers and Arabs amongst the Arab speakers" and vice-versa." The first sentence in Morocco#Ethnic groups explicitly states that "ethnic identity is deeply intertwined with language and culture" does it not? The two ethnic groups can indeed be differentiated based on what language they speak and what culture they follow.

I'd also appreciate it if you refrained from casting unwarranted aspersions, otherwise I won't feel the need to entertain this conversation further. Skitash (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Life is not long enough to argue on semantics about what an ethnic group or what an Arab is. The data available is too low-quality and contradictory to make such an assertion, and the difficulty of distinguishing Arabs and Berbers in North Africa is well-documented. It'd be nothing short of reckless to make such an assertion that Arabs are a majority, especially if your definition of ethnic identity allows for one to be both Arab and Berber if they were taught both languages at childhood. NAADAAN (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"The data available is too low-quality and contradictory" It isn't. You just need to look at sources that objectively consider both Arabs and Berbers rather than those focusing exclusively on one group (e.g. the ones you provided above). Numerous sources support the fact that the majority of Morocco's population identifies as Arab, while no credible sources assert the opposite.

"especially if your definition of ethnic identity..." It's not my definition. This source further reinforces that ethnic identity in Morocco is based on language and culture. Given that language serves as "a main index of ethnic identity", how can it be argued that one group is indistinguishable from the other when these key differences are central to their ethnic classification? Skitash (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion insofar as the previous RfC agreed that the data available was murky at best. I think we've overlooked all points of discussion here -- I'll seek consensus now. NAADAAN (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Ceuta & Melilla

This article states a couple of times that Morocco claims the enclaves. Is there a chance we could get an updated source?

The citations are for a BBC article [17] which doesn't say that Morocco claims them, just that it covets them - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14114627

and a book from 2012 [8] (AN EVALUATION OF MOROCCO'S CLAIMS TO SPAIN'S REMAINING TERRITORIES IN AFRICA) which appears to cite a book from 2000 in the relevant section (Europe or Africa? : a contemporary study of the Spanish North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla)

I don't have access to this last book from 2000 so I'm unable to see what it references and keep following the chain but I would have thought I could find an actual statement from the Moroccan government on it, if it were really true. Does anyone have some better citations for this? I'm aware in 2023 the Moroccan embassy in Madrid published a map that showed the enclaves highlighted in a colour indicating they were Moroccan and also West Sahara, but I can't find this map anymore online so wouldn't want to try to cite that. MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a source about last year's controversial diplomatic protest by Morocco regarding the Spanish territories. M.Bitton (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There is also this scholarly article, which says: "One of Rabat’s main claims relates to the Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla... Morocco claims the two as its own despite more than 500 years of Spanish presence in territories which, at the time, were not politically rooted in areas over which Maghrebi rulers enjoyed sovereignty." M.Bitton (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

Morocco's population is not divided between "Arabs" and Berbers but rather between historically Arabized Berbers and Tamazight-speaking Berbers with andalusians and Haratins (Moroccans with a significant sub-saharan ancestry) being the prominant minorities. A purely ethinic "Arab" demographic have ceased from existing centuries ago as they've been mixed & merged with the local Berber tribes, thus any genepool that traces its origins back to the arabian peninsula have been severely diluted.I Hope you guys would consider. Bm98bm98 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 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. Skitash (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

On the map of Morocco, show the territories that are actively controlled by Morocco and Western Sahara instead of highlighting the entire Western Saharan territory Dvorakuser1 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: as with similar situations, the light green highlights the parts that are occupied as well as those that are claimed. M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025 (2)

Hello, I request the change of the motto of morocco. I'd like to change the word 'Country' into 'homeland'. The word 'watan' means homeland, country is translated to 'dawlah'. Amazighpro (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The English translation comes from the cited source. Generally, we should stick to translations verifiable directly in sources when possible. If you have other reliable sources| that translate the motto differently, feel free to share them. Remsense ‥ 论 22:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Productions du Maroc.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

a drought is hitting Morocco since 2018

They are trying Dams, ‘water highways’, desalination plants and drastic austerity measures

see also

Main article: Climate change in Africa

Vieilissant (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Anthem Section Wrong

The anthem section is wrong. The Arabic and English don't match up. The Arabic (ٱلنَّشِيْد ٱلْوَطَنِي, an-Našīd al-Waṭanīy) says "National Anthem" but the English says "Cherifien Anthem". This is simple. A dictionary or anyone else who knows Arabic can confirm this.

The section should be updated to one of these two:

Anthem: ٱلنَّشِيْد ٱلْوَطَنِي "an-Našīd al-Waṭanīy" "National Anthem"

or

Anthem: النشيد الشريف "an-našīd aš-šarīf" "Cherifian Anthem" LoneShadow42 (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

No, the non-English equivalent is not wrong. It only appears that way to you because you're contemplating a literal translation that doesn't make sense in Arabic (since an anthem cannot be Sharif). M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

النشيد الشريف is on the Arabic language page, but if the Arabic language page is wrong, then, in my opinion, the English title should at least be changed. ٱلنَّشِيْد ٱلْوَطَنِي (an-Našīd al-Waṭanīy)(النشيد الوطني without Arabic diacritics) literally translates to "anthem national" or "hymn of the nation" and non literally "National Anthem." Nothing there means شريف and thus "Cherfien Anthem", I would think, can't be considered a translation but a seperate title entirely. I can't say i've seen a country page with a seperate title in Native and English language. No, it's not wrong on it's own, but it's wrong or I suppose different in the grand scheme of country wikipedia pages.

I will refrain from any edits. It should stay the same until (if ever) someone besides me says otherwise. I realise this is, so far, my viewpoint and understanding. Apologies. Wikipedia:Assume good faith LoneShadow42 (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The translation of "النشيد الوطني" (with or without diacritics) is "national anthem". For what it's worth, the diacritics are not used in the source, so I support their removal. M.Bitton (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2025 (2)

Change"Morocco,[c] officially the Kingdom of Morocco,[d] is a country in the Maghreb region of North Africa. It has coastlines on the Mediterranean Sea to the north and the Atlantic Ocean to the west, and has land borders with Algeria to the east, and the disputed territory of Western Sahara to the south, occupied by Morocco since 1975."

To "Morocco,[c] officially the Kingdom of Morocco,[d] is a country in the Maghreb region of North Africa. It has coastlines on the Mediterranean Sea to the north and the Atlantic Ocean to the west, and has land borders with Algeria to the east, and Mauritania to the south." 160.176.2.169 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No Reliable Source provided Untamed1910 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Area of Morocco

Why doesn't the article show Morocco's total area when Western Sahara is included in it? I understand it's an emotive and controversial topic and might set a bad precedent e.g Crimea and Russia but the realities on the ground cannot be ignored as Morocco has almost complete control over the territory. Thanks Neon Blueskin (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Sahara

UN voted on full control of the sahara now the image here is out dated show the true map of Morocco that reflects this. 205.178.19.51 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That's a factually incorrect statement. M.Bitton (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you seriouslt saying that its incorrect they literally agreed on referendum yesterday you are super biased if this is the case and not a goodlook.https://apnews.com/article/un-western-sahara-morocco-peacekeeping-force-0a07d389db0e88c35beeb5f0462ea221 205.178.19.51 (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing with the point made before you are extremly biased in your talking and now youre going to put your account in risk due to the fake information you are spreading across wikepedia. it was worldwide known that Morocco came to a referendum regarding the Sahara with the UN which is a worldwide agreement. Dismissing it and calling it a factually incorrect statement is going to bring you no where. No evidence was provided to support your claim and now you are stating that it is incorrect. Check any article and you will see. Waffine (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the IP's claim is factually incorrect. You would have known that if you bothered to read what the latest resolution is about. M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If you read properly and intelligently, you will see the keyword "Morocco's autonomy". This frames and constrains the solution to autonomy under Moroccan sovreignty, that is to say the autonomy of Sahraoui under the Moroccan state. Moroccan Autonomy as a basis is a sine qua condition. The 11 member votes support the basis and hence affirms the integrality of western sahara as an autonomous region within Moroccan unitfied territory.

Read, Mr Bitton. 41.140.45.13 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It is factual. I have been observing you throughout a number of articles in wikipedia...you will be tagged and pursued for misinformation and propaganda 160.89.43.213 (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)