Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Morocco

Former good articleMorocco was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 9, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 1, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 18, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 24, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 13, 2004, March 2, 2005, March 2, 2006, March 2, 2007, March 2, 2008, March 2, 2009, and March 2, 2010.
Current status: Delisted good article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
May be worth generalizing to merely "lion" for the time being. Remsense诉 01:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the sleuthing! Remsense ‥ 论 00:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seems like that's enough, any more consensus before I close this? NAADAAN (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
lol slip of the tongue, sorry. Thank you for the help!! NAADAAN (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Content removal

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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.[1]
""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.[2]
"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.[3][4][5][6]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"I'd appreciate if you provide better, verifiable sources then" [7][8][9][10][11]
"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.[12]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morocco