Talk:Morocco/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Recent edits
@Hamamat32 I suggest you to start using the talk page before you risk getting blocked for violating WP:3RR. Clearly, your edits are not improvements since it looks like all you've done was revert to an older version of the page. I have no idea why you would remove the hatnote that clarifies the potential reference of "المغرب" to the Maghreb region (which you did not explain in your edit summary). Furthermore, the official language you changed is recognized as Standard Moroccan Amazigh, not Standard Moroccan Tamazight, and it's commonly referred to as Berber (just as the other official language indicates "Arabic," not "Modern Standard Arabic"). The change you made, which "tweaked the layout," does not make much sense either. There is no need to repetitively include "(Arabic)" and "(Standard Moroccan Tamazight)" after every Arabic and Berber phrase in the motto and national anthem. Take a look at the formatting of the infobox on other country pages, like those for Tunisia and Algeria, to get an idea of how it should appear. Skitash (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I told you, I did not revert to an older version, and you defiantly violated 3RR, with four reverts in the span of a day ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I explained in the summary of my first eidt that the "about addition" is unneeded, which is referring to the "المغرب" note. As this is the English Wikipedia, having that at the top of the page is unnecessary since it's not a common mishap among English speakers and readers. As for the other changes you and Hero7373 made, they are what I would call not improvements. I do not see anything wrong with having the languages clarified in parentheses, nor with the SMT wording, and adding an additional name in the lead is also unnecessary. Regarding the examples you mentioned, other stuff exists. Hamamat32 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, you have failed to explain how your edits are supposed to constitute improvements to the page. XTheBedrockX's edit [5], which you have blatantly reverted without an explanation, is entirely valid, considering that English Wikipedia is not restricted to English native speakers but rather to an international audience per WP:AUDIENCE, and therefore articles should be made more accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Hence, the Arabic name should be clarified for readers who encounter it across the article. Regarding what you personally perceive as improvements or not does not matter here, for this is a consensus-building platform where you can not expect to force your edits and mass revert several editors. All edits of the three users which you have unexplainedly reverted so far were intended to either clarify certain words, e.g. "المغرب" and "Berber," or reduce redundant repetition. Skitash (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd have to agree. There's a reason the "R from alternative language" shell template exists, after all. XTheBedrockX (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, you have failed to explain how your edits are supposed to constitute improvements to the page. XTheBedrockX's edit [5], which you have blatantly reverted without an explanation, is entirely valid, considering that English Wikipedia is not restricted to English native speakers but rather to an international audience per WP:AUDIENCE, and therefore articles should be made more accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Hence, the Arabic name should be clarified for readers who encounter it across the article. Regarding what you personally perceive as improvements or not does not matter here, for this is a consensus-building platform where you can not expect to force your edits and mass revert several editors. All edits of the three users which you have unexplainedly reverted so far were intended to either clarify certain words, e.g. "المغرب" and "Berber," or reduce redundant repetition. Skitash (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I honestly still think that the al-Maghrib disambiguation note is completely unnecessary, but alright, fair enough. I'll just change the wording to English to make it more intelligible to the non-Arabic speaking reader. As for the "Berber" phrasing in the infobox, I'll alter it Berber languages, as this is much less vague than just Berber but still not as wordy as Standard Moroccan Tamazight. Having the language clarified in parentheses in the motto and national anthem is fine, I don't see much of a reason for removing them. Hopefully this is a compromise that we can settle with. Hamamat32 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- This won't exactly solve the problem. Maghreb and Morocco are two different words in English, unlike in Arabic. Morocco is not referred to as "Maghreb" across the article, and thus your proposed hatnote "For the subregion also known as Maghreb in Arabic, see Maghreb" is pretty useless. As XTheBedrockX said, there is a reason why the "R from alternative language" template exists. Your proposed edit to change "Berber" to "Berber languages" is inaccurate. Standard Moroccan Amazigh is one standardized language, unlike the several mutually unintelligible Berber languages that exist. Berber would be a more appropriate term as it is commonly used to refer to this standardized official Berber language. Regarding your final point, no, it is not fine just because you think it is. Take a look at any other country's infobox formatting. Skitash (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I honestly still think that the al-Maghrib disambiguation note is completely unnecessary, but alright, fair enough. I'll just change the wording to English to make it more intelligible to the non-Arabic speaking reader. As for the "Berber" phrasing in the infobox, I'll alter it Berber languages, as this is much less vague than just Berber but still not as wordy as Standard Moroccan Tamazight. Having the language clarified in parentheses in the motto and national anthem is fine, I don't see much of a reason for removing them. Hopefully this is a compromise that we can settle with. Hamamat32 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay then, Arabic wording it is. But your edits to the infobox are contested, and as such you'll have to gain consensus here prior to implementing them as per WP:CON. Therefore, I'll restore to the version before for now. Remember, you've already violated 3RR, so don't add this to the list. Hamamat32 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- What you added to the Maghreb article doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone look for an Arabic word in the English Wikipedia? M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:EDITCON, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement." Since you have reverted several editors who had achieved Wikipedia:Presumed consensus, it is up to you to establish a new consensus. I suggest you stop edit warring and respect the ongoing consensus. Skitash (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've withdrew my reversions of the other editors, but not for your edits; thus, per the policy, your edits do not have consensus, and as such what you're saying applies to you. Hamamat32 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Could you try to make sense for once? My edit took place nearly two weeks before MIHAIL and Hero7373's edits (and you're still persisting in undoing the changes made by the latter), meaning the edit has achieved presumed consensus. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Consensus again. "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Skitash (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've withdrew my reversions of the other editors, but not for your edits; thus, per the policy, your edits do not have consensus, and as such what you're saying applies to you. Hamamat32 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay then, Arabic wording it is. But your edits to the infobox are contested, and as such you'll have to gain consensus here prior to implementing them as per WP:CON. Therefore, I'll restore to the version before for now. Remember, you've already violated 3RR, so don't add this to the list. Hamamat32 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Could you? I don't think you're understanding the polices and guidelines you're citing, nor are you listening. WP:SILENCE has no WP:DEADLINE, so what you're saying does have any pertinence. Wikipedia:Consensus states, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement"; to put it in the most simple words possible: You made your edit, It had presumed consensus, I disputed and reverted it, no other editor as of yet has revised that reversion, your edit no longer has presumed consensus. As such, you are the one stonewalling here. You also haven't explained why you agree with Hero's edit, and it seems you're just using it as a red herring, but sure, I won't undo it. Now, I've reverted your and only your edit (this one), thus, per the above, the onus is on you to establish consensus for it. Hamamat32 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are definitely not making any sense now. WP:LISTEN solely applies to you in this situation, as you are the one attempting to force an edit on presumed consensus that had been established by three editors. In other words, nobody is agreeing with you here, and you're the one sticking to their meaningless viewpoint. Furthermore, the link you've drawn between WP:DEADLINE and WP:SILENCE is tenuous at best. Regarding Hero7373's edit, the responsibility falls on you to provide an explanation for your disagreement with their edit, considering that you have reverted what appeared to be a clear and beneficial edit without providing an edit summary or an explanation on this talk page. Regarding your final point, it's important to note that I have already presented reasons for my edits and refuted your points. On the other hand, you have failed to provide meaningful reasons for your edits and have yet to respond to any of my arguments. Instead, your approach seemed to shift towards insisting that I establish consensus [6] instead of making a meaningful point. Your reliance on Wikipedia:I just don't like it/I just like it as your main argument, particularly in the context of your statement "
Having the language clarified in parentheses in the motto and national anthem is fine, I don't see much of a reason for removing them.
" is not in line with the principles of Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to "provide a substantive rationale for the reversion," as outlined in Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Skitash (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are definitely not making any sense now. WP:LISTEN solely applies to you in this situation, as you are the one attempting to force an edit on presumed consensus that had been established by three editors. In other words, nobody is agreeing with you here, and you're the one sticking to their meaningless viewpoint. Furthermore, the link you've drawn between WP:DEADLINE and WP:SILENCE is tenuous at best. Regarding Hero7373's edit, the responsibility falls on you to provide an explanation for your disagreement with their edit, considering that you have reverted what appeared to be a clear and beneficial edit without providing an edit summary or an explanation on this talk page. Regarding your final point, it's important to note that I have already presented reasons for my edits and refuted your points. On the other hand, you have failed to provide meaningful reasons for your edits and have yet to respond to any of my arguments. Instead, your approach seemed to shift towards insisting that I establish consensus [6] instead of making a meaningful point. Your reliance on Wikipedia:I just don't like it/I just like it as your main argument, particularly in the context of your statement "
- Could you? I don't think you're understanding the polices and guidelines you're citing, nor are you listening. WP:SILENCE has no WP:DEADLINE, so what you're saying does have any pertinence. Wikipedia:Consensus states, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement"; to put it in the most simple words possible: You made your edit, It had presumed consensus, I disputed and reverted it, no other editor as of yet has revised that reversion, your edit no longer has presumed consensus. As such, you are the one stonewalling here. You also haven't explained why you agree with Hero's edit, and it seems you're just using it as a red herring, but sure, I won't undo it. Now, I've reverted your and only your edit (this one), thus, per the above, the onus is on you to establish consensus for it. Hamamat32 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Phosphate phosphate phosphate
Morocco is home to (by an astonishingly wide margin) the largest known phosphate reserves at roughly 50 billion tonnes. The phosphate industry is Morocco's largest foreign exchange earner but gets effectively zero coverage on this article, less than comparatively insignificant sources of revenue.
I think this article could use either a mention or section on how at least 85% of the entire planet's phosphate is located in this very specific part of the world. I feel this is important and unique enough to the geography, economy, and consequently the geopolitics of Morocco to warrant more than a brief mention in the articles Tourism section of all places. 2600:8800:104:D300:C41F:A2D:CAA5:B0FC (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- This proposal (although not developed into something that fits in the article) makes sense. The economy section briefly mentions mining (not even linking to the Mining industry of Morocco article and it would make sense to add some more on this resource in the economics section (phosphate is a critical component of fertiliser and concerns about maintaining global food production when Morrocco's mines run out (estimated late this century) are non-trivial - and voiced by agronomists from time to time). Arnoutf (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Not to be confused with...
Really? We need this at the top of the page? Seems patronizing:
Aren't we forgetting these?
By the way, one of those really does mean Morocco; the others don't. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Almoravid, Almohad and Marinid dynasties missing in the description
Hello, may i ask why do we jump from Idrisid dynasty to Alawi dynasty in the history section by omitting more than 600 hundred years of our history? We have to be consistent.. we can't say that the establishment of the moroccan state is in 788 and then we jump directly to the alawi dynasty as if there was nothing after. Those other dynasties are also moroccan dynasties. We need clarification. Thanks. Moorishino (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- This has been addressed before (e.g. here). The infobox is a summary of essential points, not a list of everything. This is consistent with other articles. R Prazeres (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)