Revision as of 17:13, 22 September 2005 edit208.255.152.227 (talk) →I contest the neutrality of the map/article← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:36, 11 January 2025 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors62,140 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025 (2) | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=y}} | |||
Featured on ] (may be in HTML comment) | |||
{{Notice|{{find}}}} | |||
-------- | |||
{{British English|date=April 2024}} | |||
{{Article history | |||
| action1 = GAN | |||
| action1date = 7 April 2006 | |||
| action1link = | |||
| action1result = listed | |||
| action1oldid = 47264954 | |||
| action2 = GAR | |||
''Neighbouring countries are Mauritania to the southwest '' Looks like the border is with Western Sahara, not with Morocco. Shouldn't we delete this reference in the geographic boundaries? Looks like a political challenge rather than geography... ] 14:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) | |||
| action2date = 9 December 2007 | |||
: definitly No ! if this subject is noticed, I am afraid this will lead to an edit war, moroccans are really very very naive about the Western Sahara subject a war was held here in morocco,africa | |||
| action2link = Talk:Morocco/Archive 3#Good Article Reassessment | |||
| action2result = delisted | |||
| action2oldid = 175502176 | |||
| action3 = GAN | |||
::Wetman, ] is disputed territory. We should not ommit this fact from the article Morocco and Morocco's boundaries, because some users are more outspoken than others. Facts and the principles do matter! ] 23:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| action3date = 00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Wetman, once the Western Sahara is declared a sovereign country, you can ommit that. Regards ] 21:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC) <sup>]</sup> | |||
| action3link = Talk:Morocco/GA1 | |||
I think the map should show Western Sahara as at least marked in some way. We can not ignroe the Moroccan viewpoint that Western Sahara is part of Morocco, even if we disagree with it. --] 21:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| action3result = failed | |||
| action3oldid = 317003891 | |||
| action4 = GAN | |||
A scheduled U.N. referendum on the Western Sahara issue has not yet taken place. Up until then, Western Sahara is effectively under Moroccan administration, and this fact should be acknowledged in the map in some way. --] 21:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| action4date = 17:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| action4link = Talk:Morocco/GA2 | |||
| action4result = listed | |||
| action4oldid = 320475552 | |||
| action5 = GAR | |||
| action5date = 22:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| action5link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Morocco/1 | |||
| action5result = delisted | |||
| action5oldid = | |||
| currentstatus = DGA | |||
===>'''Why on the map?''' It's discussed at length in the article and in others, also. Plus, Morocco does not administer the entirety of the territory. ] 22:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| topic = geography | |||
: I support this point of view, the only way to be NPOV here is to present ''all'' the points of view regarding this issue, otherwise the edit war will never end. For the map we need to take into account the fact that moroccans consider it a moroccan territory, while the rest of the world generally consider it a diputed territory.--] 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
|otd1date=2004-07-13|otd1oldid=4760278 | |||
|otd2date=2005-03-02|otd2oldid=16334922 | |||
|otd3date=2006-03-02|otd3oldid=41945609 | |||
|otd4date=2007-03-02|otd4oldid=112098405 | |||
|otd5date=2008-03-02|otd5oldid=195193616 | |||
|otd6date=2009-03-02|otd6oldid=274514319 | |||
|otd7date=2010-03-02|otd7oldid=346910661 | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Morocco|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=Top|AFR10k=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject Countries}} | |||
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Berber script needed}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
== Recent edit to this and ] == | |||
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
|counter = 7 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
|algo = old(100d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Morocco/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{Broken anchors|links= | |||
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (Services) ]. <!-- {"title":"Services","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":1193974621,"parentid":1193970516,"timestamp":"2024-01-06T15:34:07Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> | |||
}} | |||
== Barbary lion as national animal or emblem == | |||
===>'''Issue:''' A user from an anonymous ip (), has been editing out references to borders with ] using this justification: "Western Sahara is not an internationally recognized country." Granted. But, if a country, such as ], borders a dependency (]), that border is mentioned in the description of the geography. Furthermore, deleting references to Western Sahara makes the maps unintelligible. The issue is discussed at length in several articles, and I trust that readers are intelligent enough to digest this information. ] 22:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC) | |||
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 '']'', which is usually pretty good, but I'd think there should be a better source. Maybe in another language? Thanks, ]|] 00:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Sorry, but this is not a real argument. ] is under effective administration of ], while ] is not under effective administration by the RASD. Mentioning Western Sahara as a state is factually incorrect (after all: this is a political, not a geographical or topological map). As soon as the U.N. referendum has taken place, and the result turns out to be a new state, then (and only then) will the formulation be correct. Anyway: as a compromise, let's keep references to Western Sahara, and add a sentence about the disputed character of Morocco's southern (and Mauretania's northern) border. Effectively, both countries ARE sharing a common administrative border. --] 15:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
:So, is the ''Factbook'' acceptable or not? If so, I'm not sure why we'd need additional sources. ]] 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
===>'''On the contrary:''' It is a "real" argument. I was objecting to the justification used to delete Western Sahara (it isn't a state), and how that justification is arbitrary (which it is). To mention that Morocco borders the SADR '''is not''' POV, and is in fact the policy of the United States State Department, which does not recognize the SADR. To say that Western Sahara is a part of Morocco '''is''' POV. I never mentioned Western Sahara as a state, and the example that I gave (French Guiana) shows that it is not necessary for a state to border another state: it can border a separate entity entirely. I would still argue that Mauritania is not sharing a common administrative border with Morocco, as the part of Western Sahara administered by the SADR is south of the berm, and conseqeuntly directly north of Mauritania, but I think your compromise is generally fair and useful to readers. ] 18:43, May 1, 2005 (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? ]|] 01:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::May be worth generalizing to merely "lion" for the time being. ]] 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. (state-owned broadcaster): "the Atlas Lion is also the symbol of the Moroccan royalty", this is in France; | |||
::::2. The published an article stating that the Atlas lion "symbolized Morocco", but I'm not sure about context; | |||
::::3. An says the Atlas lion is the "symbol of Morocco in the world". | |||
::::I will probably update with more sources when I find the time. ] (]) 23:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks for the sleuthing! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== RfC on "ethnic groups" in infobox == | |||
Thank you Justin. Most Moroccans can live with that too. Thank you for clarifying this. --] 20:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
{{Closed rfc top|result=There is a '''consensus to omit''' the ethnic groups parameter. <small>(])</small> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- ] 00:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1727395281}} | |||
Should the "ethnic groups" parameter on the infobox be ommited in favor of the "national languages" parameter which is already present? ] (]) 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 ] and ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ] if you're trying to build an average out of many different sources. ] (]) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Omit''' per ]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
* '''Omit''' as we do with our best FA country articles {{icon|fa}} ], {{icon|fa}} ], {{icon|fa}} ], {{icon|fa}} ]. Let the body explain in detail ].....and drop languages junk.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 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 , with no opposition. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] and ] as the languages commonly spoken in the country—of course understanding that the mapping between language speakers and ethnicity isn't one-to-one. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Seems like that's enough, any more consensus before I close this? ] (]) 14:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Regarding the legend to the CIA-provided map: a writer modified the legend, stating that this map reflects the neutral policy of the CIA w.r.t. the sovereignty of Western Sahara. I beg to disagree on two points: first of all, Morocco doesn't consider this map as neutral. It is a possible POV, but to call it neutral is stretching the limits beyond correctness. Secondly, the CIA doesn't make or have a position on foreign relations. This is not their prerogative. The CIA just reflects the official position of the United States. I strongly think that it is important not to hide from readers the fact, that Morocco uses a map both in schools and official documents that differs from the provided one. We may agree or disagree with them on this particular issue, but it is an important piece of information to understand the local situation, so it should not have been removed. Thanks. --] 20:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
:: ], you should ] this yourself, but you can ]. 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 ] to generate a stronger consensus. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: I know you meant ], and not ]; 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. ] (]) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::lol slip of the tongue, sorry. Thank you for the help!! ] (]) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Discussion (RfC on "ethnic groups" in infobox) === | |||
===>'''True.''' You are, of course, right. The CIA does not establish policy like this - it is the State Department. I'll edit the map description accordingly. ] 21:32, May 1, 2005 (UTC) | |||
*The ] (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 ] simply ommit ethnic groups in their infoboxes despite their multicultural society. We have discussed this ] 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. ] (]) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Because of Morocco's demographic history, mentioning "ethnic groups" seems appropriate. ] (]) 04:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Of course we mention it, but do we mention it in the infobox? | |||
*:{{talk quote|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 @]'s description of its incomplete replacements) is enough to convince me that it is wholly unacceptable for inclusion in the infobox, which is meant ]. 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. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 05:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:: regarding the 2024 census with Ahmed Lahlimi, the head of the HCP (nat. statistics agency): | |||
*::{{talk quote block|The aim behind these calls , 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”.</br>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.</br>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 .”}} | |||
*::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? ] (]) 03:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Closed rfc bottom}} | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024 == | |||
:The US Dept. of State's defines the official position of the United States: "While recognizing Morocco's administrative control of Western Sahara, the United States has not endorsed Morocco's claim of sovereignty." --] 01:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
{{Edit semi-protected|Morocco|answered=yes}} | |||
==External links== | |||
For ethnic group the Arab section is wrong it should be Arab-Berber ] (]) 19:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
This articles has over 30 external links! isn't that madness? Two or three should be enough. We are not google after all! ] 16:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 19:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2024 == | |||
:It is more organized and selective than Google.--] 10:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
{{Edit semi-protected|Morocco|answered=yes}} | |||
::Still more than 30 doesn't really serve a purpose does it? ] 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
The borders of Morocco are from the Mediterranean in the North to Mauritania in the South. Western Sahara is a part of Morocco ] (]) 19:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> First of all, this is not an edit request and second, I suggest you read the article. ] (]) 20:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Content removal == | |||
:::Perhaps some can be removed, after studying which are the least useful.--] 21:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
To @], can you elaborate on ? I also provided sourcing. ] (]) 20:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== I contest the neutrality of the map/article == | |||
:1) The fact that "Morocco is home to the largest Berber population in the world" is as irrelevant as stating in ] 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 ). 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. ] (]) 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": | |||
::# "Genetic Disorders Among Arab Populations", this is a medicine paper from 1997 (you called a source from 1999 "]", may I remind you); | |||
::# "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: | |||
::# "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; | |||
::# "Philip's Encyclopedic World Atlas 2002", this doesn't source where their numbers are from and I found this was first ], quite old; | |||
::# "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"; | |||
::# "" is a ] at best. | |||
::4) So I replaced them with these: | |||
::# "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 and cited a BBC article (]), | |||
::# "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 , | |||
::# "" on Larousse, while a ] I deemed it fair to use since Encyclopedia Britannica was also mentioned; | |||
::# 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 ] literally cites "common ancestry". If you disagreed with this, why would you cite 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 ] 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. ] (]) 21:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{tq|"I think it is worth mentioning at least somewhere in both articles"}} I believe it's worth mentioning in ], but it does not add value here. | |||
:::{{tq|"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. | |||
:::{{tq|""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. | |||
:::{{tq|""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. | |||
:::{{tq|""WorldAtlas" is a WP:NEWSBLOG at best."}} I don't think so. WorldAtlas is reliable when it comes to demography. | |||
:::{{tq|"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". | |||
:::{{tq|""Maroc : population" on Larousse"}} "Arabized Berber" is not an ethnic group. | |||
:::{{tq|"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. | |||
:::{{tq|"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". | |||
:::{{tq|"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. | |||
:::{{tq|"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. ] (]) 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 ], I honestly would prefer relying on something like ] over your own judgement. | |||
::::{{tq|"the fact that the majority of Moroccans identify as Arab is easily attributable"}} I'd appreciate if you provide better, verifiable sources then. | |||
::::{{tq|"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. | |||
::::{{tq|"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 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. ] (]) 18:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{tq|"I'd appreciate if you provide better, verifiable sources then"}} | |||
:::::{{tq|"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. | |||
:::::{{tq|"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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{tq|"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. | |||
:::::::{{tq|"especially if your definition of ethnic identity..."}} It's not my definition. 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? ] (]) 20:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::That's your opinion insofar as the ] agreed that the data available was murky at best. I think we've overlooked all points of discussion here -- I'll seek consensus now. ] (]) 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 which doesn't say that Morocco claims them, just that it covets them - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14114627 | |||
===>'''There are three maps:''' | |||
and a book from 2012 (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) | |||
The first map, due to design issues, does not actually feature borders, but rather negative space between states and dependencies, so a dashed line would not work. It also reflects the internationally-recognized borders of the country. See similar situations with ] and ]. Since the annexation of Western Sahara is not recognized by any country, this map shows Western Sahara as a separate entity. | |||
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? | |||
The second map is modified from the ], and represents the ]' position of neutrality on the subject. A discussion about this very issue arose earlier on this talk page, and I modified the caption accordingly after reaching consensus. In this map, the border is a continuous line, but Western Sahara's font is not the same as other entities recognized as states. | |||
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. ] (]) 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Here's about last year's controversial diplomatic protest by Morocco regarding the Spanish territories. ] (]) 01:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
The final map is a satellite photo which shows the landscape of Morocco. It does not have borders on it, as it is not a political map, and contains portions of several political entities. | |||
:There is also 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." ] (]) 02:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024 == | |||
The '''facts''' are that Western Sahara is ], Morocco's annexation is not recognized by any state, Morocco does not administer the entire territory, the article discusses the dispute and attempts a neutral position on them, and ]s feel very strongly about their independence. | |||
{{Edit semi-protected|Morocco|answered=yes}} | |||
Do you have objections other than the ones raised in the conversation above? ] 15:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
] (]) 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 ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 17:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025 == | |||
:With respect to both comments, I must say that the article is neutral whereas the map is not. Many things you stated Koavf are true but that doesn't mean that if for technical problems we cannot use the dashed verion than we have to use the one featured now. | |||
:If you have a look at ] map, or ] you would notice (maybe in purpose in order to avoid controversy) that the maps are shown so small. However, if we take a look at the map at ] you would notice the dashed map! | |||
:My opinion, is that if for technical problem we cannot have the dashed version than better show nothing instead a map that nobody has agreed about yet (refering to the UN while waiting for a referendum). Everywere in the world, disputed territories are shown using dashes. Therefore, Wikima is somewhat right in his comment. Cheers ] 16:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC) <Sup>]</sup> | |||
{{Edit semi-protected|Morocco|answered=yes}} | |||
===>'''CIA maps''' featured and (and reproduced on Misplaced Pages) do not feature dashed lines, and rely on the context of the article to explain the political situation. In point of fact, the only dashed lines I see on the maps are in reference to Israel, Gaza Strip, and the West Bank (for some reason, the Golan Heights article has been deleted). Since the other disputed territories are all islands (Taiwan, Spratlys, Antarctica, etc.), there is no clear indication of why two standards are used in the two disputes. I have seen and own several maps of Western Sahara, and dashed lines make up the majority of them, with straight lines and different fonts making up something like 40% (pure speculation). The '''only''' maps that I have ever seen incorporating them as one territory are Moroccan. While I'm happy to discuss the matter, I don't see how this issue is any different than the one discussed previously, and why the consensus reached then can't apply now; if anyone can enlighten me, please do. ] 19:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
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 ] (]) 00:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> as with similar situations, the light green highlights the parts that are occupied as well as those that are claimed. ] (]) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025 (2) == | |||
:I am not arguing for including the Western Sahara into the Moroccan map. I simply argue the fact that disputed territories use dashed frontiers. The map featured in the article suggests that it is the definite political map, which isn't. Another thing is that you are giving reference to the CIA maps while you had said earlier that it represents the position (neutral it might be) of the US toward the issue. I also invite you to check the last updated map of Africa by ] (though it is not completely neutral as it is shows the dashes but still mentions (Western Sahara -Morocco). (pls use the zooming feature). Cheers ] 21:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC) <Sup>]</sup> | |||
{{Edit semi-protected|<span class="recent_addition">Morocco</span>|answered=yes}} | |||
===>'''National Geographic map''' This map is incorrect both geographically and politically, as it shows Asian Egypt on the map, and does not address the Western Sahara issue in any depth. Personally, I think National Geographic is not as accurate as, say, Rand-Mcnally. I honestly don't understand the problem with the map as it stands, considering the caption that accompanies it and the treatment given in the article. ] 23:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
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'. ] (]) 22:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> The English translation comes from the cited source. Generally, we should stick to translations verifiable directly in sources when possible. If you have other ] that translate the motto differently, feel free to share them. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I just mentionned National Geographic as an example and not as a justification. I've said that it is not neutral. The problem with the featured map Koavf is that it decides something not yet decided (and we don't want WP to decide things for anyone)! Cheers -- ] 23:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ] | |||
>> '''Additionally to Svest's comment''': | |||
Again the sahara issue is still a conflict and it is not resolved. It is pending and this is a fact that '''none''' can deny. If the international community does not "recognise the annexion" of the sahara by Morocco it has not decided yet whether the sahara is moroccan or not. The map however has already decided. And this is deviously. | |||
Fact also is that the recognition of the "SADR" by several countries does not mean that the sahara is already an independent and sovereign country. This recognitions can not be substituted to decisions of international instances. | |||
Also these recognitions are highly instable and partly rooted in the cold war. Ca. 25% of the countries who recognised the "sadr" have cancelled, frozen or suspended their recognition. Other pro-socialistic countries whose recognition is anchored in the cold war (most prominently cuba) may change their position in case of a regime change. Is this a basis for drawing maps?? | |||
Most of the sahara territory as well as all urban centres and important cities are under moroccan control and administration. It’s a conflict case and it is fully normal that Morocco will not control 100% of the territory. Even algeria can not have full control of its desert although it enjoys sovereignty on it. | |||
A balanced view of the topic must keep also in mind that chances for a political solution as wished by the Moroccan government (autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty) are real as well! | |||
For at least these reasons I maintain that the current map is inaccurate. | |||
There are actually three sorts of maps: | |||
1) Morocco map without the sahara (as in the article), | |||
2) Morocco map including the sahara as part of its territory (used in Morocco and some Morocco friendly media etc.) | |||
3) Maps that show Morocco with the sahara but separated in format (dotted line, different colour temperatures etc.) and suggest that the situation is unclear. The latter reflect more the current situation and show that the sahara conflict still persists. Here you can see some examples ans see how widely they are used. This should inspire for a compromise in this article: | |||
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38717000/gif/_38717539_morocco_sahara_map150.gif | |||
http://www.uneca.org/aisi/nici/country_profiles/image/morocco.jpg | |||
http://www.universes-in-universe.de/islam/eng/archiv/mar/map.html | |||
http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/sos-children-charity/morroco.htm | |||
http://www.lintelligent.com/images/fiche_pays/maroc/carte.jpg | |||
A presentation in wikipedia must follow these examples. | |||
PS: The satellite photograph is similar to the the political map without the Sahara. So non relevant because disputed as well. | |||
Wikima 11:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
==>'''Allow me to respond to Wikima''' | |||
:"If the international community does not "recognise the annexion" of the sahara by Morocco it has not decided yet whether the sahara is moroccan or not." | |||
This is untrue. There are several independent states in the international community who '''have decided''' that Western Sahara is '''not''' Moroccan. The others have simply decided a policy of neutrality or chosen no policy at all. Furthermore, the African Union has also made up its mind, by admitting the SADR as a full member. All you are really saying is that '''no one''' has made up their mind that Western Sahara '''is''' Moroccan, except of course for Morocco themselves. | |||
Of course. Political maps represent political realities. If the next regime in Cuba does not recognize the SADR, then so be it. If no state recognizes the SADR, it will no longer be a ''de jure'' state, but may well be a ''de facto'' state, such as Somaliland. The maps are necessarily political. Some recognitions are unstable, others aren't. Some have been bought off by Morocco, some can't be. The fact that South Africa and Kenya have both given full recognition to the SADR as the rightful government of the territory in the past year proves that there is a legitimate cause for believing it a state, and recognition is not simply a product of the Non-Aligned Movement or Third World Cold War politics. | |||
:"Even algeria can not have full control of its desert although it enjoys sovereignty on it." | |||
Yes, but no other state controls that desert. The SADR is the law in the other portion of the territory, and administers it whereas no one else does. | |||
The Moroccan government staunchly denied this very position for almost a quarter century, and only acceded to it ''after'' it was suggested by the United Nations, so this is hardly the Moroccan position. If Morocco could have any outcome it wanted, that would be full integration into the Kingdom of Morocco. Although, I agree that all options presented as viable solutions should be explored: independence, partition, autonomy, integration, and the status quo. Of course, all of these are to the benefit of Morocco other than the first option. | |||
This part is confounding, and borderline offensive. The most reliable polling data suggests that 80% or so of the Sahrawi population favors independence. There are no studies that indicate anything approaching a majority in favor of Moroccan sovereignty. To say that there are many unionists is true, but is a deceptive statement. Every Polisario member who has defected has been given a lavish lifestyle compared to living in a refugee camp - it may simply be a matter of being tired of living as a refugee in the most hospitable environment in the world other than Antarctica. Furthermore, it is an established fact that Morocco has abducted, imprisoned, and murdered innocent civilians, so it is entirely possible that these unionists are choosing defection to keep their family members from becoming "the disappeared". I have no idea what you mean when you write that "many of the main and prominent Polisario politicians fled to Morocco" - as far as I'm aware, only some generals, and no members of government have ever defected. | |||
>>>> '''My answer (although I do not want a long polemic around this).''' | |||
I have provided above some examples of maps that are used by different medias and institutions that I have really selected randomly via google. There much more examples that show that not only the Moroccan or the polisario exists but that people deal with the matter by using their brains. I suggest to think of such a compromise. We need a decision. The current map is disputed, one-sided and does not reflect the current situation in an objective and accurate way. | |||
As re Justin's reaction this is what I can reply, quickely (lack of time): | |||
''" This is untrue. There are several independent states in the international community who have decided that Western Sahara is not Moroccan."'' | |||
Sorry they do not represent the whole world and can decide for themselves but not in the absolute global sense. And I am talking about the international community as represented by the intrantional instances and not about individual countries or geopoltical entities that may recognise one day and cancel recognition an other day just following the politicial opportinities of the moment. | |||
When more than 25% (almost a third) of these countries and not just a few specific cases cancel their recognition then this means that this basis is heavily instable. | |||
In this sense I maintain that the international community has not decided otherwise we would have a situation of no dispute, which is, sorry, not the case. The CIA yearbook is not the bible for absolute knosledge and the US neutral position is the position of a country which is the USA and not the position of the entire world. | |||
And this MUST be reflected at the level of the map if this is to be an objective neutral encyclopnedia. | |||
''" Of course. Political maps represent political realities. of the Non-Aligned Movement or Third World Cold War politics."'' | |||
''"Yes, but no other state controls that desert. The SADR is the law in the other portion of the territory, and administers it whereas no one else does."'' | |||
''" The Moroccan government staunchly denied this very position for almost a quarter century, and only acceded to it after it was suggested by the United Nations, so this is hardly the Moroccan position. "'' | |||
''" This part is confounding, and borderline offensive. The most reliable polling data suggests that 80% or so of the Sahrawi population favors independence."'' | |||
''" I have no idea what you mean when you write that "many of the main and prominent Polisario politicians fled to Morocco" - | |||
as far as I'm aware, only some generals, and no members of government have ever defected."'' | |||
''" Because Morocco started a border war with Algeria as the latter was being decolonized Morocco has always wanted to appropriate the territory of other independent states and former colonies as a part of its nationalist vision "'' | |||
This must stop and I will not comment on it. It has nothing to do with the topic nor with the encyclopedia. | |||
(Wikima 15:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)) | |||
:Koavf and Wikima, your comments are not touching the core of this section. And I don't believe we can reach a consensus easily that way. | |||
:What I stand for is that the '''map is INACURATE''' simply because it doesn't reflect the present situation. All world is uncertain about the outcome of the conflict. We are not talking about who is right and who is wrong but rather we are talking about facts. I repeat my stance... The map should be dotted to reflect the status quo and not to reflect ''feelings'' of both sides. | |||
===>'''My final word''' | |||
Okay. So, Wikima, you claim the international community has not decided their view of the status of Western Sahara. This is not the case for several states, but nonetheless, we can overlook that. This article is about Morocco, not Western Sahara. The international community '''has''' made up its mind in regards to what constitutes '''Morocco'''. No state prints maps, or has diplomatic relations with Morocco on the grounds that "Morocco" is composed of the area that stretches from the Atlas mountains to Mauritania, inclusive. None. The international understanding of "Morocco" is exactly what is reflected in the map - the community ''has'' made up their minds, without exception. NOWHERE (other than Morocco, of course), will you EVER find a map that has Morocco and Western Sahara undivided as "Morocco". Since what is presently in our maps as "Morocco" is what EVERY state recognizes as "Morocco" there should be no dispute at all. EVERY state recognizes the geographic and political entities of "Morocco" and "Western Sahara" as two separate things. This alone should be case closed. I will give you two maps, also chosen at random, by reputable news organizations, one American, and one European, that show exactly what we have here: | |||
Every map printed by Rand McNally since 1976 shows the same thing, also. The fact of the matter is, the situation is unresolved; until it is, we will require more than pictures to explain it. This and several other articles explain the Moroccan annexation in detail, and the readers of Misplaced Pages are smart enough to read them and understand themselves. You say "we need a decision"; well, the decision has been made, and it's simply not the one that you want. The issue has been discussed, consensus reached, and the map captions amended to explain. | |||
You also say that states cancel recognition of the SADR due to "political opportunities of the moment" and then you claim that Morocco is too poor to buy off recognition. Which one is it? No state has anything to gain by recognizing the SADR - what incentive is there? However poor Morocco is, the Sahrawi population living in Tindouf is by far poorer; they're refugees! Morocco can trade favors ("political opportunities"), whereas the SADR cannot, and that is the simple fact of the matter. The same thing occurs between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. The PRC is not rich (per capita, they are poorer than the ROC by far), but they spend tremendous amounts of money to buy recognition as the sole China (see Grenada). | |||
You're calling "personal interpretation" on matters that are clearly historical fact. King Hassan II refused to meet with anyone from Polisario without Algerian accompaniment for ''decades''. Is that a fact or interpretation? This forces the hand of Algeria to represent the Sahrawis themselves. '''You''' were the one who initially mentioned "feelings", and '''did not''' present evidence for them. If you want to check my facts, read the definitive English book on the subject, Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War by Tony Hodges or Toby Shelley's Endgame in the Sahara: What Future for Africa's Last Colony? | |||
The organization (Polisario) is credible precisely because defectors are the exception to the rule - they live in the most hostile conditions on the planet as refugees, and the vast majority remain loyal, and have remained loyal for decades. Who can impugn their credibility? Yes, the citizens are obliged to stay in the camps: go west, you'll run into the wall of anti-personal landmines that Morocco strewn about the desert in contravention to international law, go south or east, and you will leave the borders of Algeria, go north, and you will encroach on the native population of Algeria. The Algerian state already supports the refugees under a tremendous strain, and to integrate them into society would be disastrous for both Algerians and Sahrawis. | |||
To be Sahrawi is to be something different than Moroccan. Sahrawis have different societies and ways of living, economics, a different dialect of Arabic, have never lived under a king, and instead desire democracy, they make different music. The Sahrawi nationality is distinct from the Moroccan, and that is clearly the case - no one can dispute that. Even when Sahrawis live inside of the borders of Morocco, they still identify as Sahrawis. Also, you imply that Mohammed Abdelaziz is the first leader of the Polisario, and this is also not true: the movement was founded and lead for three years by El-Ouali Mustapha Sayed. Polsario will only "lose basis for the fight" once Western Sahara is independent; that is why the fight was started and those are the terms on which it will end. | |||
The most offensive part is when you say that Morocco's nationalist and irridentist visions have nothing to do with the map, and they must stop. What about maps of so-called "]" that had the entirety of other countries and portions of even more? Moroccan nationalism has everything to do with the map controversy, because it caused the conflict in Western Sahara in the first place. | |||
'''Since a map can only reflect one point of view (as it is one image), this map should reflect the view of ALL states other than Morocco: that Morocco is a geographic and political entity that is bordered by Algeria, the Atlantic Ocean, and Western Sahara.''' | |||
Faysall, I appreciate your diplomatic approach to the discussion, but I disagree with your assertion for the same reasons stated above: a dotted map '''is not''' the universally-accepted way of dealing with the dispute, and the dispute is '''irrelevant''' anyway, since the international community '''never''' includes Western Sahara as a part of what it calls "Morocco". Since this is a map of "Morocco", it should not matter if there is a dispute over Western Sahara, since that is a different entity. | |||
I understand that Morocco has a rich history, and as a kingdom has ebbed and flowed in size. But, directly prior to colonization, it '''did not''' control the Sahara. This is reflected in every map that I've seen from the time period (and I personally own over a dozen maps of northwest Africa printed between 1890 and 1914). This is also consistent with the ruling of the ]. Their ] from 1975 ('''prior to''' the annexation) explicitly reads that both Morocco and Mauritania had '''no claim''' to '''soveriegnty''' or '''ownership''' over the Sahara. None. Feel free to read the opinion from the itself. Morocco did invade the Sahara - it took troops into the territory and attacked with lethal force, which contradicted the will of the people and the promises made by Spain as the colonizing state. | |||
As for why I don't have Palestine among the flags on my , it is, of course, a complex issue. First of all, I would largely consider myself pro-Israel. Also, I have never really had a passion or interest in the conflict (unlike the Sahara or Papua). I feel that the plight of the Palestinians is different from the Sahrawis in several fundamental aspects: | |||
#The Sahrawis have no state (the Palestinians have Jordan) | |||
#The Sahrawis have largely resorted to peaceful measures and abided by international agreements for the past 20 years, whereas the Palestinians have not. | |||
#The Polisario have, with very few exceptions, targeted aggresive military personnel. High-level Palestinians support terrorism by harboring terrorists, encouraging the destruction of private property and giving subsidies to families of suicide bombers, essentially encouraging the deaths of innocent people. | |||
#Israel exists under constant threat of destruction from its neighbors, and has to defend itself from lethal, aggressive opposition constantly, whereas Sahrawi (or, for that matter, Algerian) independence posed absolutely no threat to Moroccan well-being. | |||
#Israel has made genuine attempts on several occasions to disengage Palestinian territories, whereas Morocco never has. In fact, when Ehud Barak offered to help create a Palestinian state the next day, and Yasser Arafat refused to make a counter offer, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia said that blood would be on his (Arafat's) hands. Shortly thereafter, the Second Intifada was declared. | |||
#There is a very real possibility that an internationally-recognzied, de facto Palestinian state will exist within a matter of months, due in large part to the cooperation of Israel, whereas that is not the case with the Sahara. | |||
Those same statements could essentially be said of Papua and Indonesia also. I personally feel for the people who live under occupation and their human suffering is indefensible, but Palestine has supporters and a network of information and resources that does not exist for the Sahrawis or Papuans. ] 05:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
>> '''Knowledge never ends''': | |||
Justin, knowledge and science never end. As long as there are members asking questions, discussing, requesting and/or suggesting other views you can not close the topic if you you don't want to force a decision. | |||
Again: Everyone knows that the issue of the sahara is unresolved. And until then this very situation MUST be reflected at the level of the map. None is asking to present the Moroccan view, but to provide something that is close the what the reality is. And the current map does not reflect to reality. It reflects a political position. | |||
This must apply to the whole topic. One-sided information MUST be avoided. | |||
I have proposed a couple of links to show that there ways to better reflect the situation as many media and institutions do. I think we MUST take this thought into consideration. | |||
Your very long reaction appears to me as your expressing your political position mentioning what you call "historical facts". Some of them are extremely fragile and out of the subject (e.g. re polisario's credibility, sahrawi identity, omission to mention the green march, etc.). | |||
I will not react to that as I do not think this is the right place for such polemic. | |||
The rest does not convince (me). | |||
I will not be there for the next couple of weeks. But I will return, sure. | |||
I request again: | |||
- To leave this topic open as I do NOT think that there is a consensus reached for the map | |||
- To mention in the comment under the map the way how many other medias and institutions present the Moroccan map as well (diff. colours, dashed or dotted line etc.). For now it only shows the source (CIA) and says that Moroccan does not recognize it. As I show above there are numerous other ways. And this must be mentioned until a final solution. | |||
In order to provide more clarification on this topic I suggest to add a sub-section that presents showing all the three versions of the map, the pro Moroccan version, the pro "sadr" version and the version of compromise (s. examples that I list above). | |||
Cheers | |||
Wikima 11:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
==POV tag== | |||
The POV tag is irrelavant at the top of the aricle. The thing disputed are the Western Sahara issue (this means only the provinces section and geography would be disputed). In WP, there's a {SectNPOV} dedicated to disputed issues and sections. I had to put a tag on the two section mentioned above. Cheers -- ] 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ] | |||
==Phosphates== | |||
I don't agree about the sentence related to the production of phosphates. It goes like ''largely from occupied ]''. There's only one major production site/mine in the Western Sahara. The rest are found between the region of Khenifra and Marrakech. Here are the details in billions of cubic meters (Source: Mining-Technology.com) | |||
* Khouribga: 37.3 | |||
* Bengurir: 31.1 | |||
* Marrakech: 15.9 | |||
* Oued Eddahab/Rio de Oro (Western Sahara): 1.1 | |||
For the currently mined sites, you can find a detailed map here . | |||
I hope that would make it clear why I was removing the sentence from there. Cheers -- ] 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ] | |||
==Treaty of Friendship== | |||
To whom he removed that part w/o any comment or notice: | |||
"Morocco was one of the first countries to accord recognition of the new American republic when it allowed American ships access to Moroccan ports in 1777, shortly after the outbreak of the American Revolution. Less than ten years later, the two countries signed a Treaty of Friendship and Peace which was renewed for an indefinite term in 1836. As testament to the special nature of the U.S.-Moroccan relationship, the Moroccan city of Tangier is home to the oldest U.S. diplomatic property in the world, and the only building on foreign soil that is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, the American Legation in Tangier." (source ) | |||
"Moroccans recognized the Government of the United States in 1777 | |||
before the end of the Revolutionary War. Formal US relations with | |||
Morocco date to 1786, when the two nations negotiated a Treaty of | |||
Peace and Friendship. Renegotiated in 1836, it is still in force, | |||
constituting the longest unbroken treaty relationship in US history." (source ) | |||
I hope also he can find about what he delated in the following links and sources: | |||
* | |||
* . | |||
* | |||
* | |||
I hope that would not be deleted again. Cheers -- ] 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ] |
Latest revision as of 22:36, 11 January 2025
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Morocco article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Morocco 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is about a topic whose name is originally rendered in the Berber script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Berber script. For more information, see: MOS:FOREIGN. |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
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)
- May be worth generalizing to merely "lion" for the time being. Remsense诉 01:11, 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)
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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 , 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 .”- 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)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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":
- "Genetic Disorders Among Arab Populations", this is a medicine paper from 1997 (you called a source from 1999 "outdated", may I remind you);
- "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:
- "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;
- "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;
- "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";
- "WorldAtlas" is a WP:NEWSBLOG at best.
- 4) So I replaced them with these:
- "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),
- "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,
- "Maroc : population" on Larousse, while a WP:TIER3 I deemed it fair to use since Encyclopedia Britannica was also mentioned;
- 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)
- 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)
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 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 (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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in Geography
- C-Class vital articles in Geography
- C-Class Morocco articles
- Top-importance Morocco articles
- C-Class Africa articles
- Top-importance Africa articles
- Articles created or improved during the WikiProject Africa 10,000 Challenge
- WikiProject Africa articles
- C-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- C-Class Arab world articles
- Top-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- C-Class Anthropology articles
- Unknown-importance Anthropology articles
- C-Class Oral tradition articles
- Unknown-importance Oral tradition articles
- Oral tradition taskforce articles
- Articles needing Berber script or text