![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I have restored the lead to the status ante for the moment. I support the edit by Soupforone with more precise language and the addition of the source. But rather than battling it out in edit summaries, let's please discuss here. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 20:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Soupforone's edit is clearly cited, makes sense, and supported by every editor other than Tarook97 - a familiar situation. It should be restored at once. Editors (ie, Tarook97) also should not abuse the minor edit facility for edits they know are contentious. Pinkbeast ( talk) 22:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
So far your arguments have been:
And now it seems you have resorted to counting noses. Please leave the lead as it is. Feel free to improve/add to the Etymology section, however. Tarook97 ( talk) 00:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Tarook97, MOS:BEGIN is irrelevant since the lede already inaccurately claimed that "the Moors[...] initially were Berber and Arab peoples from North Africa". The key word here is initially, which neither of the cited links make. More importantly, per Leo Africanus, a native of Al-Andalus, the Moors were Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores." [1]). Soupforone ( talk) 05:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Tarook97, I'm sorry but that won't work. Per Leo Africanus, the first Moors were Berbers rather than Arabians (his translator explains this too-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers" [2]). MOS:INTRO indicates that the lead should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". As Pinkbeast and Laszlo Panaflex have pointed out, that would certainly include this important fact, which is covered in the etymology. Soupforone ( talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a single plausible argument has been made by the three parties until now. Removing 'initially' from the current lead and placing the order as (Arab and Berber) seems to be the only reasonable thing to do. Sarah Canbel, what do you think? Tarook97 ( talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Leo Africanus was writing in the medieval period. You're therefore wrong about that as well. Soupforone ( talk) 05:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Laszlo, how about mentioning that the term was first applied to pre-Islamic Berbers in the lead section, but not the opening sentence? I suggest placing the statement in the third paragraph of the lead section and going with phrase# 1 for the opening sentence. I think this will solve the dispute. Tarook97 ( talk) 22:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Recent driveby edits have further confounded this issue that if the first sentence says "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages" we get these rather spurious "Ah, but not all Moors" objections, along with the equally spurious argument above that we can write nothing at all about any other Moors because that sentence is a straitjacket.
I suggest we try and head both of these off by changing the first sentence to read: The word "Moors" refers primarily to the Muslim inhabitants...
Or perhaps simply "The Moors were primarily the Muslim inhabitants ... Pinkbeast ( talk) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
hi
The term derives from the latin term maurus. first used during the roman empire period to denote an inhabitant of the Roman province of Mauritanian kingdom (present-day north of morocco), and the kingdom of Numidia present-day algeria and old Libya. that's mean the term used before Islamic period to donate to people in Maghreb (north west Africa, exactly north Africa without Egypt).
I suggest: The Moors were the Native inhabitants of the Maghreb, and their precence during middle age in Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta. محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» ( talk) 12:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thanks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok, the proposals for the lead are:
All opinions are welcome. Tarook97 ( talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: The proposals are for the opening sentence of the lead section. Tarook97 ( talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
autochthones, I still remember its general definition, so I'm not too opposed to its use. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Soupforone: I added several reliable sources for the accepted academic mainstream definition of the term:
Please do not remove them. There wasn't any sources to back the claim when the former consensus was made. In Wikipedia we conform to sources, not opinions.
Loaka1 (
talk) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Per
WP:ONUS-- "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." As noted in the talkpage discussion
here, the consensus for the lead wording is for phrasing #2 (viz. "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. They initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb. The name was later also applied to Arabs.").
Soupforone (
talk) 06:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
:You cite WP:ONUS and your reason is that "the consensus for the lead wording is for phrasing #2". Let me repeat myself, there wasn't any sources to back the definition when that RfC happened. Also, consensus for something at one point in time does not simply mean that it is carved in stone. Wikipedia is
an encyclopedia and the community of people who build it, if several reliable sources are found supporting a definition that would help improve the article and constructively add to it, then it should not be removed, no merit.
Loaka1 (
talk) 07:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
There were indeed citations, as time signatures show. Also, per
MOS:LEADCITE-- "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Anyway, consensus is for phrasing #2.
Soupforone (
talk) 15:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
:No, there weren't any citations supporting the definition as it is. The Manual of Style matter is not a reason to not include the material, this can be adjusted. Your replies are devoid of merit. Can someone kindly look into this? Thank you.
Loaka1 (
talk) 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
That is incorrect as well (as per the 31 August
[5] & 1 September
[6] time signatures). Anyway, consensus is for
phrasing #2. Also see
WP:ESDONTS.
Soupforone (
talk) 04:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
:I'm afraid it is you who's mistaken; the definition I'm talking about is this:
That is incorrect too. The actual phrasing in the lead sentence was/is-- "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. They initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb. The name was later also applied to Arabs."
[7] That is as well the consensus phrasing #2
[8]. Also see
WP:CIV.
Soupforone (
talk) 15:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
:How is that "incorrect"? I never mentioned anything about the "phrasing in the lead sentence". I explained as to what definition I was talking about. And please tell me, in what way have I been uncivil during this discussion? Your whole reply is a
red herring.
Loaka1 (
talk) 16:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::::During the RfC, there were no sources supporting phrase #1. The definition "Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa" is the widely accepted mainstream definition of the term per the sources above and almost every other academic source. The Leo Africanus source is for the pre-Islamic term "Mauri" while all the sources above are for the Moors, the "Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages." as the article lede reads.
Loaka1 (
talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::Of the two cited pages from Leo Africanus, page 20 does not mention Berbers, it instead states "Africans", the "white or tawnie" and the "Negros or blacke". Page 108 discusses the pre-Islamic "Mauri". The definition of the sources above however, and almost every other academic source, clearly and indisputably states that the Moors were Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa. In a way that is not vague or speculative.
Loaka1 (
talk) 05:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, per Leo Africanus (a native of Al-Andalus), the Moors were initially Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores"
[10]. Leo Africanus' translator explains this too-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers"
[11]. Anyway, consensus is for phrasing #2.
Soupforone (
talk) 15:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
:'Al-Andalus' was non-existent by the time Africanus was born. The definition of the sources above precisely states "Arabs and Berbers" instead of the vague "Africans", see
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And again, page 108 concerns the pre-Islamic "Mauri". You are
not listening.
Loaka1 (
talk) 16:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Support Soupforone and Doug Weller. Let the RfC outcome stand. Pinkbeast ( talk) 15:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Loaka1, Doug Weller is an administrator, and he just explained to you above that consensus has already been established through the RFC discussion. That consensus is for phrasing #2 [12]. Soupforone ( talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, agreed. Soupforone ( talk) 06:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That the Moors were initially Berbers is indicated on page 108 (not page 20)-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers" [13]. Soupforone ( talk) 15:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Struck sockpuppet edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarook97/Archive Doug Weller talk 09:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe it would improve the article to add a etymology about the root of the word moor.
(from the Greek adj. μαύρον, mouros) meaning to be ruddy, black or dark-skinned.
I spoke with user Doug Weller and was told that these two links were more than adequate to include in the article.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1075/jgl.7.03 https://www.springer.com/gb/book/9781441980700 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.117.186 ( talk) 19:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, the term mauri is Punic in origin, and it passed from Latin into Greek:
After the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C., the Latin word Mauri indicates a group of relatively sedentary tribes who lived between the Atlantic and the rivers Moulouya and Chélif in the Roman provinces of Mauretania Caesariensis and Mauretania Tingitana. Later, the Latin word Mauri passed into Greek in the form of Muupoq (Pauly-Wissowa, xiv [I930], cols. 2348-51), and both terms were then used to indicate, in a rather general way, the Berbers. In Spain, Mauri became Moros, and it was under this name that the inhabitants of the Peninsula designed the Muslim conquerors during the whole period of the Muslim domination (711-1492). The term Moros, which has been adopted into the various languages of Western Europe (Mauren, Maures, Mauri, Mohren, Moors, Moren, etc.), thus has a geographical meaning, i.e. indicating the people coming from the African coast, rather than an ethnographical one. [1]
Mauretania, which was variously divided at different periods, was all of north-west Africa north of the desert and west of Numidia. Mauri -- Moors-- eventually came to mean all of the non-romanized inhabitants, including those in Numidia and even the former Africa Proconsularis. It was probably a contraction of a Punic word for 'westerners'. [2]
In the 20th century, in 1927 to be precise, Stephan Gsell affirmed that the Latin name of the Mauri was Libyan in origin and could be related to the name Mauros, attributing a Punic etymology to Maho. He also related it to the form Maouharim, whose meaning ("the Westerners") designated the ethnic groups who had settled in the far North-West of the Maghreb (Cabrera, 1993: 16; 1996: 74). A couple of years later, Alvarez Delgado (1957) argued that Maoh could be a generic word translatable as "the earth" or "the country", but made no reference to the name of the island itself. Therefore, Mahoreros would be an archaism derived from Maho and, with the addition of the Spanish suffix "era" which is very common in the Canaries, it would mean "the settlers". Later on, Georges Marcy (1962: 282-283), rejecting Alvarez Delgado's opinion and seconding Gsell, related the term Maho to the Mauros. [3]
References
M.Bitton ( talk) 23:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The wiktionary article explains as such
Moor (people) Etymology
From French More, Maure, from Latin Maurus (“a Moor, meaning a Mauritanian, an inhabitant of Mauritania”), possibly from Ancient Greek Μαῦρος (Maûros), μαυρός (maurós, “black, dark”), an aphetic form of ἀμαυρός (amaurós, “dark, obscure”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Moor
I'm only seeking unilateralism across the whole of the Wikimedia Foundation. Maghrebi94 ( talk) 20:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I will include a gallery of the moors of the Early Modern Ages, a paintings of the time, there are existing in the world strangelly just a few, and more few in the commons, i will add exacty 6 images , 4 from morocco, and 2 from middle east. it shows the large variation of etchnic that were part of the moors until early mniddle ages.
The article also try to found a description of the ethnic moors. well, the images gives a more clear aswer of that. if you see the artcile half of this is about try to found that.
the artcile is called moors, but it not clear how the moors look. who were the moors. its just a galley. remember that moors dont disappear after the middle ages. so what is the problem to add that-- BrugesFR ( talk) 23:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
remember that moors dont disappear after the middle agesNobody said that they have, but if one were to apply that kind of logic, 21st century pictures of Maghrebis will do just as well (clearly, a non acceptable proposition regardless of how you look at it). I will revert your edit and ask you politely not to revert again (you've made 8 edits so far, so I'll be very careful if I were you). M.Bitton ( talk) 00:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You pretty much are making a solid case for why the RFCs were needed in the first place, but like I said, don't let that stop you, feel free to challege them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. M.Bitton ( talk) 00:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I will include a gallery of the moors of the Early Modern Ages, a paintings of the time, there are existing in the world strangelly just a few, and more few in the commons, i will add exacty 6 images , 4 from morocco, and 2 from middle east. it shows the large variation of etchnic that were part of the moors until early mniddle ages.
The article also try to found a description of the ethnic moors. well, the images gives a more clear aswer of that. if you see the artcile half of this is about try to found that.
the artcile is called moors, but it not clear how the moors look. who were the moors. its just a galley. remember that moors dont disappear after the middle ages. so what is the problem to add that-- BrugesFR ( talk) 23:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
remember that moors dont disappear after the middle agesNobody said that they have, but if one were to apply that kind of logic, 21st century pictures of Maghrebis will do just as well (clearly, a non acceptable proposition regardless of how you look at it). I will revert your edit and ask you politely not to revert again (you've made 8 edits so far, so I'll be very careful if I were you). M.Bitton ( talk) 00:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You pretty much are making a solid case for why the RFCs were needed in the first place, but like I said, don't let that stop you, feel free to challege them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. M.Bitton ( talk) 00:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
An edit summary led me to check the most likely North American granted the heraldry, who is Daniel C. Boyer. A quick search led to User:Daniel C. Boyer who was blocked for adding his name everywhere he could. And has been socking continually since. I've done a range block. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Polish word for Black (=race) is murzyn, which comes from Moor.
Add it? Zezen ( talk) 17:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The following are my comments from User talk:Beyond My Ken#Moors:
I disagree with your edit and your edit summary. The term Moors does not generally equate to Arabs. In origin, it means Berbers and only later does it common to include Arabs and even all Muslims of Spain or North Africa. The article should deal with the use of the term and if it has nothing to say on the use of the term in or connected with Sicily, then that stuff should be removed. In my experience, the term is not commonly used in reference to the Muslims of Sicily. This paper in the European Journal of Human Genetics says explicitly, "Referred to either as Moors (in Iberia) or Saracens (in South Italy and Sicily) . . ." Srnec ( talk) 14:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the facts. I'm disputing their relevance to a page titled "Moors". Neither am I talking about professional usage in genetics. That paper was just an example. (1) In Alex Metcalfe's Muslims of Medieval Italy, the only reference to Moors in Italy is a quote from Pope Leo IV referring to "Saracens and Moors". (2) The term doesn't appear in his Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily. (3) Nor does the term appear in William Granara's Narrating Muslim Sicily. (4) No references to Moors in Sicily in Hiroshi Takayama's Sicily and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. (5) Likewise no references to Moors in Sicily in Where Three Worlds Met: Sicily in the Early Medieval Mediterranean by Sarah Davis-Secord (who happens to cite the genetics paper). Srnec ( talk) 18:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm removing the information. It doesn't belong on the page Moors. It's in the history if you think it needs to be added elsewhere. There is a page on the History of Islam in southern Italy, which is already extensive. Srnec ( talk) 03:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Beyond My Ken: You ask in your edit summary "you don't doubt the fact, so why are you deleting them"? I've answered that. I'm deleting them because they are not relevant in an article on Moors. It is hard to prove a negative, but I have cited several sources on Islamic Sicily that do not reference Moors. What is it you don't understand? In the Encyclopaedia of Islam′s article "Moors", they are defined as "the ancient Muslims of Spain and the inhabitants of the Mediterranean ports of North Africa". No Sicily. That island is mentioned only once in that article, where it says the term "Moorish" could refer "to art objects fashioned in Muslim countries or European countries under Arabo-Muslim influence, like Sicily, the Balkans, and especially Spain." A History of Islamic rule in Sicily is completely out of place here. It belongs where it already is: at Emirate of Sicily and History of Islam in southern Italy. — Srnec ( talk) 03:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
In Europe, Moor means dark, black or swarthy, i.e. more black than say the average Spaniard or Italian. Here are some depictions of Black people you will not see on Wikipedia. https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/326792516685206069/?lp=true 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 14:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Black-a-Moor nobles playing chess and being waited upon by servants, from The Book of Games by Alfonso X in the 13th century https://pdjeliclark.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/book-of-games-alfonso-x-13th-century.jpg
Roland (L) battles Marsile (R), black “heathen” Saracen king in the Song of Roland. Courtesy of Grandes Chroniques de France, Bibliothèque Nationale https://pdjeliclark.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/song-of-roland.gif
Interesting video, pretty much showing the ridiculousness of showing all the moors as white, the way they are portrayed on this Wikipedia page. "African Conquerors of Spain: The Moors", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hISBst26ZGE 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 13:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
More depictions of the Blackamoors from the Middle Ages: http://en.lisapoyakama.org/the-moorish-civilization-when-blacks-ruled-spain/ 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 14:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The Legacy Of Black Soldiers in North Africa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3avSE5B9U 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 20:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The term "Moors" refers primarily to the term Mauri (from which derives the English term "Moors") and in English usage a Moroccan, Moors was the Latin designation for the Berber population of Kingdom of Mauretania. It was located in the part of Africa west of Numidia, an area coextensive with present-day Morocco [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
Even the Roman Historian Sallust define that Moors are the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Mauretania and that is their true name, while you're trying to show just what is the opposite. Jamaru25 ( talk) 18:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
At the beginning of this Article it talks about how "Moors" were Indigenous berbers initially, then Later applied to Arabs.
The article is missing a vital component. After the name was applied to Indigenous maghrebian berbers, It was a synonym for "negro" during the middle ages; 5th -15th century. It was applied to Arabs, Persian & Indians during the16th - 17th centuries.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/moor
Minokichi2 ( talk) 06:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Should this page contain information about Sicily? Srnec ( talk) 19:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@ QuestFour: Regarding this revert: The claim that the statement that you removed is disputed is baseless. As I clearly explained to you in the edit summary, that particular sentence had been a subject of a RfC and was introduced through consensus. In fact, the only editor who had a thing against its inclusion - Tarook97- was indefed, though one of his socks - Laoka1- had another go, in vain. You are more than free to dispute it again, but you need consensus for its removal. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
For section discussing Philippines and Motors. Xenoyakozabo ( talk) 07:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
MOOR (ⴰ ⵎⵓⵔ) in Berber Moroccan language : The word Moor (ⴰ ⵎⵓⵔ) is a word used by the Moroccan Berbers since long time ago,and the word means land in berber language (tamazight) , and the word may mean right for exemple Moroccans says "a Moor ino , ⴰ ⵎⵓⵔ ⵉⵏo " and it means my right or my share , and in another word like " ait tammoort , ⴰⵉⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⵎⵓⵔⵜ" and it means the people of the country, as the name of the city of Marrakesh "a Moor n Akuch, ⴰ ⵎⵓⵔ ⵏ ⴰⴽⵓⵛⵀ" and it means the land of the God , also the name "mauretanie" (old name of Morocco) "moor tanaya" and in berber it means our Land.
105.158.124.241 ( talk) 17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I have restored the lead to the status ante for the moment. I support the edit by Soupforone with more precise language and the addition of the source. But rather than battling it out in edit summaries, let's please discuss here. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 20:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Soupforone's edit is clearly cited, makes sense, and supported by every editor other than Tarook97 - a familiar situation. It should be restored at once. Editors (ie, Tarook97) also should not abuse the minor edit facility for edits they know are contentious. Pinkbeast ( talk) 22:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
So far your arguments have been:
And now it seems you have resorted to counting noses. Please leave the lead as it is. Feel free to improve/add to the Etymology section, however. Tarook97 ( talk) 00:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Tarook97, MOS:BEGIN is irrelevant since the lede already inaccurately claimed that "the Moors[...] initially were Berber and Arab peoples from North Africa". The key word here is initially, which neither of the cited links make. More importantly, per Leo Africanus, a native of Al-Andalus, the Moors were Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores." [1]). Soupforone ( talk) 05:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Tarook97, I'm sorry but that won't work. Per Leo Africanus, the first Moors were Berbers rather than Arabians (his translator explains this too-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers" [2]). MOS:INTRO indicates that the lead should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". As Pinkbeast and Laszlo Panaflex have pointed out, that would certainly include this important fact, which is covered in the etymology. Soupforone ( talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a single plausible argument has been made by the three parties until now. Removing 'initially' from the current lead and placing the order as (Arab and Berber) seems to be the only reasonable thing to do. Sarah Canbel, what do you think? Tarook97 ( talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Leo Africanus was writing in the medieval period. You're therefore wrong about that as well. Soupforone ( talk) 05:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Laszlo, how about mentioning that the term was first applied to pre-Islamic Berbers in the lead section, but not the opening sentence? I suggest placing the statement in the third paragraph of the lead section and going with phrase# 1 for the opening sentence. I think this will solve the dispute. Tarook97 ( talk) 22:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Recent driveby edits have further confounded this issue that if the first sentence says "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages" we get these rather spurious "Ah, but not all Moors" objections, along with the equally spurious argument above that we can write nothing at all about any other Moors because that sentence is a straitjacket.
I suggest we try and head both of these off by changing the first sentence to read: The word "Moors" refers primarily to the Muslim inhabitants...
Or perhaps simply "The Moors were primarily the Muslim inhabitants ... Pinkbeast ( talk) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
hi
The term derives from the latin term maurus. first used during the roman empire period to denote an inhabitant of the Roman province of Mauritanian kingdom (present-day north of morocco), and the kingdom of Numidia present-day algeria and old Libya. that's mean the term used before Islamic period to donate to people in Maghreb (north west Africa, exactly north Africa without Egypt).
I suggest: The Moors were the Native inhabitants of the Maghreb, and their precence during middle age in Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta. محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» ( talk) 12:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thanks.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok, the proposals for the lead are:
All opinions are welcome. Tarook97 ( talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: The proposals are for the opening sentence of the lead section. Tarook97 ( talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
autochthones, I still remember its general definition, so I'm not too opposed to its use. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@
Soupforone: I added several reliable sources for the accepted academic mainstream definition of the term:
Please do not remove them. There wasn't any sources to back the claim when the former consensus was made. In Wikipedia we conform to sources, not opinions.
Loaka1 (
talk) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Per
WP:ONUS-- "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." As noted in the talkpage discussion
here, the consensus for the lead wording is for phrasing #2 (viz. "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. They initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb. The name was later also applied to Arabs.").
Soupforone (
talk) 06:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
:You cite WP:ONUS and your reason is that "the consensus for the lead wording is for phrasing #2". Let me repeat myself, there wasn't any sources to back the definition when that RfC happened. Also, consensus for something at one point in time does not simply mean that it is carved in stone. Wikipedia is
an encyclopedia and the community of people who build it, if several reliable sources are found supporting a definition that would help improve the article and constructively add to it, then it should not be removed, no merit.
Loaka1 (
talk) 07:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
There were indeed citations, as time signatures show. Also, per
MOS:LEADCITE-- "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Anyway, consensus is for phrasing #2.
Soupforone (
talk) 15:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
:No, there weren't any citations supporting the definition as it is. The Manual of Style matter is not a reason to not include the material, this can be adjusted. Your replies are devoid of merit. Can someone kindly look into this? Thank you.
Loaka1 (
talk) 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
That is incorrect as well (as per the 31 August
[5] & 1 September
[6] time signatures). Anyway, consensus is for
phrasing #2. Also see
WP:ESDONTS.
Soupforone (
talk) 04:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
:I'm afraid it is you who's mistaken; the definition I'm talking about is this:
That is incorrect too. The actual phrasing in the lead sentence was/is-- "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. They initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb. The name was later also applied to Arabs."
[7] That is as well the consensus phrasing #2
[8]. Also see
WP:CIV.
Soupforone (
talk) 15:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
:How is that "incorrect"? I never mentioned anything about the "phrasing in the lead sentence". I explained as to what definition I was talking about. And please tell me, in what way have I been uncivil during this discussion? Your whole reply is a
red herring.
Loaka1 (
talk) 16:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::::During the RfC, there were no sources supporting phrase #1. The definition "Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa" is the widely accepted mainstream definition of the term per the sources above and almost every other academic source. The Leo Africanus source is for the pre-Islamic term "Mauri" while all the sources above are for the Moors, the "Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages." as the article lede reads.
Loaka1 (
talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
::::::Of the two cited pages from Leo Africanus, page 20 does not mention Berbers, it instead states "Africans", the "white or tawnie" and the "Negros or blacke". Page 108 discusses the pre-Islamic "Mauri". The definition of the sources above however, and almost every other academic source, clearly and indisputably states that the Moors were Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa. In a way that is not vague or speculative.
Loaka1 (
talk) 05:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, per Leo Africanus (a native of Al-Andalus), the Moors were initially Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores"
[10]. Leo Africanus' translator explains this too-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers"
[11]. Anyway, consensus is for phrasing #2.
Soupforone (
talk) 15:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
:'Al-Andalus' was non-existent by the time Africanus was born. The definition of the sources above precisely states "Arabs and Berbers" instead of the vague "Africans", see
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And again, page 108 concerns the pre-Islamic "Mauri". You are
not listening.
Loaka1 (
talk) 16:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Support Soupforone and Doug Weller. Let the RfC outcome stand. Pinkbeast ( talk) 15:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Loaka1, Doug Weller is an administrator, and he just explained to you above that consensus has already been established through the RFC discussion. That consensus is for phrasing #2 [12]. Soupforone ( talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, agreed. Soupforone ( talk) 06:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That the Moors were initially Berbers is indicated on page 108 (not page 20)-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers" [13]. Soupforone ( talk) 15:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Struck sockpuppet edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarook97/Archive Doug Weller talk 09:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe it would improve the article to add a etymology about the root of the word moor.
(from the Greek adj. μαύρον, mouros) meaning to be ruddy, black or dark-skinned.
I spoke with user Doug Weller and was told that these two links were more than adequate to include in the article.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1075/jgl.7.03 https://www.springer.com/gb/book/9781441980700 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.117.186 ( talk) 19:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, the term mauri is Punic in origin, and it passed from Latin into Greek:
After the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C., the Latin word Mauri indicates a group of relatively sedentary tribes who lived between the Atlantic and the rivers Moulouya and Chélif in the Roman provinces of Mauretania Caesariensis and Mauretania Tingitana. Later, the Latin word Mauri passed into Greek in the form of Muupoq (Pauly-Wissowa, xiv [I930], cols. 2348-51), and both terms were then used to indicate, in a rather general way, the Berbers. In Spain, Mauri became Moros, and it was under this name that the inhabitants of the Peninsula designed the Muslim conquerors during the whole period of the Muslim domination (711-1492). The term Moros, which has been adopted into the various languages of Western Europe (Mauren, Maures, Mauri, Mohren, Moors, Moren, etc.), thus has a geographical meaning, i.e. indicating the people coming from the African coast, rather than an ethnographical one. [1]
Mauretania, which was variously divided at different periods, was all of north-west Africa north of the desert and west of Numidia. Mauri -- Moors-- eventually came to mean all of the non-romanized inhabitants, including those in Numidia and even the former Africa Proconsularis. It was probably a contraction of a Punic word for 'westerners'. [2]
In the 20th century, in 1927 to be precise, Stephan Gsell affirmed that the Latin name of the Mauri was Libyan in origin and could be related to the name Mauros, attributing a Punic etymology to Maho. He also related it to the form Maouharim, whose meaning ("the Westerners") designated the ethnic groups who had settled in the far North-West of the Maghreb (Cabrera, 1993: 16; 1996: 74). A couple of years later, Alvarez Delgado (1957) argued that Maoh could be a generic word translatable as "the earth" or "the country", but made no reference to the name of the island itself. Therefore, Mahoreros would be an archaism derived from Maho and, with the addition of the Spanish suffix "era" which is very common in the Canaries, it would mean "the settlers". Later on, Georges Marcy (1962: 282-283), rejecting Alvarez Delgado's opinion and seconding Gsell, related the term Maho to the Mauros. [3]
References
M.Bitton ( talk) 23:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The wiktionary article explains as such
Moor (people) Etymology
From French More, Maure, from Latin Maurus (“a Moor, meaning a Mauritanian, an inhabitant of Mauritania”), possibly from Ancient Greek Μαῦρος (Maûros), μαυρός (maurós, “black, dark”), an aphetic form of ἀμαυρός (amaurós, “dark, obscure”).
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Moor
I'm only seeking unilateralism across the whole of the Wikimedia Foundation. Maghrebi94 ( talk) 20:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I will include a gallery of the moors of the Early Modern Ages, a paintings of the time, there are existing in the world strangelly just a few, and more few in the commons, i will add exacty 6 images , 4 from morocco, and 2 from middle east. it shows the large variation of etchnic that were part of the moors until early mniddle ages.
The article also try to found a description of the ethnic moors. well, the images gives a more clear aswer of that. if you see the artcile half of this is about try to found that.
the artcile is called moors, but it not clear how the moors look. who were the moors. its just a galley. remember that moors dont disappear after the middle ages. so what is the problem to add that-- BrugesFR ( talk) 23:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
remember that moors dont disappear after the middle agesNobody said that they have, but if one were to apply that kind of logic, 21st century pictures of Maghrebis will do just as well (clearly, a non acceptable proposition regardless of how you look at it). I will revert your edit and ask you politely not to revert again (you've made 8 edits so far, so I'll be very careful if I were you). M.Bitton ( talk) 00:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You pretty much are making a solid case for why the RFCs were needed in the first place, but like I said, don't let that stop you, feel free to challege them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. M.Bitton ( talk) 00:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I will include a gallery of the moors of the Early Modern Ages, a paintings of the time, there are existing in the world strangelly just a few, and more few in the commons, i will add exacty 6 images , 4 from morocco, and 2 from middle east. it shows the large variation of etchnic that were part of the moors until early mniddle ages.
The article also try to found a description of the ethnic moors. well, the images gives a more clear aswer of that. if you see the artcile half of this is about try to found that.
the artcile is called moors, but it not clear how the moors look. who were the moors. its just a galley. remember that moors dont disappear after the middle ages. so what is the problem to add that-- BrugesFR ( talk) 23:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
remember that moors dont disappear after the middle agesNobody said that they have, but if one were to apply that kind of logic, 21st century pictures of Maghrebis will do just as well (clearly, a non acceptable proposition regardless of how you look at it). I will revert your edit and ask you politely not to revert again (you've made 8 edits so far, so I'll be very careful if I were you). M.Bitton ( talk) 00:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You pretty much are making a solid case for why the RFCs were needed in the first place, but like I said, don't let that stop you, feel free to challege them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. M.Bitton ( talk) 00:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
An edit summary led me to check the most likely North American granted the heraldry, who is Daniel C. Boyer. A quick search led to User:Daniel C. Boyer who was blocked for adding his name everywhere he could. And has been socking continually since. I've done a range block. Doug Weller talk 12:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Polish word for Black (=race) is murzyn, which comes from Moor.
Add it? Zezen ( talk) 17:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The following are my comments from User talk:Beyond My Ken#Moors:
I disagree with your edit and your edit summary. The term Moors does not generally equate to Arabs. In origin, it means Berbers and only later does it common to include Arabs and even all Muslims of Spain or North Africa. The article should deal with the use of the term and if it has nothing to say on the use of the term in or connected with Sicily, then that stuff should be removed. In my experience, the term is not commonly used in reference to the Muslims of Sicily. This paper in the European Journal of Human Genetics says explicitly, "Referred to either as Moors (in Iberia) or Saracens (in South Italy and Sicily) . . ." Srnec ( talk) 14:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the facts. I'm disputing their relevance to a page titled "Moors". Neither am I talking about professional usage in genetics. That paper was just an example. (1) In Alex Metcalfe's Muslims of Medieval Italy, the only reference to Moors in Italy is a quote from Pope Leo IV referring to "Saracens and Moors". (2) The term doesn't appear in his Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily. (3) Nor does the term appear in William Granara's Narrating Muslim Sicily. (4) No references to Moors in Sicily in Hiroshi Takayama's Sicily and the Mediterranean in the Middle Ages. (5) Likewise no references to Moors in Sicily in Where Three Worlds Met: Sicily in the Early Medieval Mediterranean by Sarah Davis-Secord (who happens to cite the genetics paper). Srnec ( talk) 18:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm removing the information. It doesn't belong on the page Moors. It's in the history if you think it needs to be added elsewhere. There is a page on the History of Islam in southern Italy, which is already extensive. Srnec ( talk) 03:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Beyond My Ken: You ask in your edit summary "you don't doubt the fact, so why are you deleting them"? I've answered that. I'm deleting them because they are not relevant in an article on Moors. It is hard to prove a negative, but I have cited several sources on Islamic Sicily that do not reference Moors. What is it you don't understand? In the Encyclopaedia of Islam′s article "Moors", they are defined as "the ancient Muslims of Spain and the inhabitants of the Mediterranean ports of North Africa". No Sicily. That island is mentioned only once in that article, where it says the term "Moorish" could refer "to art objects fashioned in Muslim countries or European countries under Arabo-Muslim influence, like Sicily, the Balkans, and especially Spain." A History of Islamic rule in Sicily is completely out of place here. It belongs where it already is: at Emirate of Sicily and History of Islam in southern Italy. — Srnec ( talk) 03:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
In Europe, Moor means dark, black or swarthy, i.e. more black than say the average Spaniard or Italian. Here are some depictions of Black people you will not see on Wikipedia. https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/326792516685206069/?lp=true 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 14:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Black-a-Moor nobles playing chess and being waited upon by servants, from The Book of Games by Alfonso X in the 13th century https://pdjeliclark.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/book-of-games-alfonso-x-13th-century.jpg
Roland (L) battles Marsile (R), black “heathen” Saracen king in the Song of Roland. Courtesy of Grandes Chroniques de France, Bibliothèque Nationale https://pdjeliclark.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/song-of-roland.gif
Interesting video, pretty much showing the ridiculousness of showing all the moors as white, the way they are portrayed on this Wikipedia page. "African Conquerors of Spain: The Moors", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hISBst26ZGE 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 13:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
More depictions of the Blackamoors from the Middle Ages: http://en.lisapoyakama.org/the-moorish-civilization-when-blacks-ruled-spain/ 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 14:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The Legacy Of Black Soldiers in North Africa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3avSE5B9U 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 20:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The term "Moors" refers primarily to the term Mauri (from which derives the English term "Moors") and in English usage a Moroccan, Moors was the Latin designation for the Berber population of Kingdom of Mauretania. It was located in the part of Africa west of Numidia, an area coextensive with present-day Morocco [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
Even the Roman Historian Sallust define that Moors are the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Mauretania and that is their true name, while you're trying to show just what is the opposite. Jamaru25 ( talk) 18:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
At the beginning of this Article it talks about how "Moors" were Indigenous berbers initially, then Later applied to Arabs.
The article is missing a vital component. After the name was applied to Indigenous maghrebian berbers, It was a synonym for "negro" during the middle ages; 5th -15th century. It was applied to Arabs, Persian & Indians during the16th - 17th centuries.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/moor
Minokichi2 ( talk) 06:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Should this page contain information about Sicily? Srnec ( talk) 19:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@ QuestFour: Regarding this revert: The claim that the statement that you removed is disputed is baseless. As I clearly explained to you in the edit summary, that particular sentence had been a subject of a RfC and was introduced through consensus. In fact, the only editor who had a thing against its inclusion - Tarook97- was indefed, though one of his socks - Laoka1- had another go, in vain. You are more than free to dispute it again, but you need consensus for its removal. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
For section discussing Philippines and Motors. Xenoyakozabo ( talk) 07:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
MOOR (ⴰ ⵎⵓⵔ) in Berber Moroccan language : The word Moor (ⴰ ⵎⵓⵔ) is a word used by the Moroccan Berbers since long time ago,and the word means land in berber language (tamazight) , and the word may mean right for exemple Moroccans says "a Moor ino , ⴰ ⵎⵓⵔ ⵉⵏo " and it means my right or my share , and in another word like " ait tammoort , ⴰⵉⵜ ⵜⴰⵎⵎⵓⵔⵜ" and it means the people of the country, as the name of the city of Marrakesh "a Moor n Akuch, ⴰ ⵎⵓⵔ ⵏ ⴰⴽⵓⵛⵀ" and it means the land of the God , also the name "mauretanie" (old name of Morocco) "moor tanaya" and in berber it means our Land.
105.158.124.241 ( talk) 17:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)