Talk:Moors

Edit Request to rid the article of Racialism.

In the first paragraph of this article there is a distinction made between Berbers and black africans which is absurd. Modern Berbers are not a race nor a complexion. They are an indigenous group of Africans who range from very fair skin to dark skin. A wide range of historical sources all point to the dark skin of the ancient Berbers. I have already cited many of these sources. Here is one quote from Ibn Butlan (from 11th century Baghdad) I forgot to cite:

"Their color is mostly black though some pale ones can be found among them. If you can find one whose mother is of Kutama, whose father is of Sanhaja, and whose origin is Masmuda, then you will find her naturally inclined to obedience and loyalty in all matters ..."

In particular references to the Almorhavids all the historical sources commenting on their ethnicity portray them as mostly darkskinned, which is not surprising considering the Almorharvid movement was sparked and developed in Senegal, where some of the blackest people in the world live.

I also find it strange that this artticle absurdly defines Moors as strictly moslem when many of the famous Moors are Christians, black christians. I would appreciate it if you allowed the necessary changes to be made in this article. As my first attempt has been reversed.

My first attempt was in the first paragraph. Where i tried to get rid of the distinction between Berbers and black Africans as Berbers were frequently or mostly black Africans themselves. Here is my paragraph:

"The term Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations, used principally in reference to the Berber people but also came to be used for converted Muslims of Iberian descent,and also for other Africans besides Berbers as well as Arabs and Persians who made up the populations of Islamic Spain. After the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, the term up to the 19th century was widely understood or accepted as reference to any dark skin person of African descent, including Christians . From their base in northern Africa, they came to conquer, occupy and rule territories in the Iberian Peninsula for varying periods in different regions, ranging from two decades in the north-west to nearly eight hundred years in the south-east. At that time they were Muslims, although earlier these people had followed religions other than Islam. They called the territory they controlled in Iberia Al Andalus, which at its peak comprised most of what is now Spain and Portugal. For a shorter period called Islamic Sicily, they controlled all of Sicily and Malta, as well as other smaller parts of southern Italy."

I would appreciate feedback.

Ahmedbaba (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Berbers today are overwhelmingly Caucasian, so the distinction between them and black Africans seems appropriate to me. And for what it's worth, "Caucasian" does not have to mean that one possesses light skin; Middle Easterners and Northern Africans in general have dark skin, but are still Caucasian. The fact that they have dark skin doesn't make them black. Indians are another example.ElliotJoyce (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)sockpuppet of Vost

Following the Lead is cited material noting that people from West Africa (sub-Saharan) became incorporated into the dynasty - I read the section you're objecting to as noting the wide variety of peoples who were historically referred to by that term.Parkwells (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the image of St. James the Moor Slayer contribute to the overall narrative?

I don't understand it's purpose. Personally I would move to have it deleted, simply because it's purpose is reflective of anti-Moorish notions amongst the Aragonese, but is ultimately irrelevant, I feel that you would find that kind of sentiment against other ethnic and religious groups to be common for all groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.162.83 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that showing this image in the lead section is odd, to say the least, in this context. I'll be bold and remove it. If someone cares to move it into an appropriate section, I won't object, but its current placement in the lead is inflammatory. Honestly, I came to this article by way of heraldry-related edits and never paid much attention to the rest of the article until recently, but I'll be looking it over in the next few months. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Berbers are not African!!!! Their racial features do not resemble any African traits at all. They are a different group of people NOT AFRICAN. One can tell when one looks African, based on facial features NOT color of skin. The writer is basing her/his assessment solely on color which is ridiculous!! Most North Africans will agree with what I have to say because I am from there. We are from North Africans but do not carry any African DNA. There are North Africans with strains from the south of the continent; it is clearly evident in their outlook. The writer needs to research correctly not based on emotions and feelings and his/her opinion!!! Egyptian culture enslaved most Africans, some inter married, few rose to prominence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.149.199 (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the lead

I've seen editors go back and forth over racial/ethnic issues in the lead, someone asserted that the Moors conquered and ruled [all of] the Iberian peninsula for over 800 years (which is factually false), and someone else added a fact tag to it. The lead is unstable because it has been the subject of poorly written, poorly sourced and sometimes counterfactual POV-pushing. I would REALLY like to know how this does anything to improve the article. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Changed it to "medieval Muslim inhabitants". Because the statement "populations from Northern Africa" was wrong because the population was not exclusively North African. Even the caliphs of Córdoba themselves were not from North Africa. Khestwol (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the lead. I will see if I can get some time in the library this weekend to work on bringing more reliable sources into the article. I also have two research papers to work on, so it's a matter of time management for me. Thanks Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. The section "Medieval Sicily" mentions Moorish Muslims of medieval Sicily and Lucera in Italy too, I added a mention of them to the lead. Khestwol (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I see we are still going back and forth over the inclusion of "muslim", "arab" and "berber", and I think some citations to reliable sources with these mentions in the lead would help. My American Heritage Dictionary states Moors are "people of mixed Berber and Arab descent," but that is a tertiary source. Anybody got reliable secondary sources handy? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Improving citations

This article has been tagged since September 2011 for need of additional citations, inappropriate or misinterpreted citations and disputed factual accuracy. If we are to improve the article, some additional details here on the talk page would be useful, such as what facts are in dispute and what citations may have been misinterpreted. If anyone knows of a citation that does not support the attributed sentence, please note the details here, so that I or another editor can remedy the situation. Also please note here any other dubious assertions of fact not already tagged with . If none are noted within about 30 days, I intend to remove the tag. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The etymology of Moor needs to be better cited than etymonline.com. I have a much more scholarly citation; here it is: "Indeed, by the time Isidore of Seville came to write his Etymologies, the word Maurus or ‘Moor’ had become an adjective in Latin, ‘for the Greeks call black, mauron’. "In Isidore’s day, Moors were black by definition…” (Staying Roman: Conquest and identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, 439-700. Jonathan Conant, 2012 Cambridge University Press.) Am going to change the meaning and citation of the Moor etymology.Before I do so, does anyone object and on what ground? Kaigama33 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem unreasonable. On a technical note, however, you've got some Windows quote damage in that, which shouldn't be transcribed into the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the "debate"

It seems to me that gray areas are being assumed relevant to the lead.

The remedy would appear to be to note these disputes right under the head with subheads pertaining to what they are about, something like this:

"Reader Disputes

"Race Defined by Color

"Some who have read this article find it insulting that portions of the head, and references in it, explain history that also explains how that history defined race by color and nothing else. Reason and science in the modern day reject this means of defining race but this principle was relevant to the more oppressive and tyrannical past of mankind, portions of which are being discussed in this article. Thus, to accurately explain and portray that history, it is germane to the purposes of the article.

"The Iberian Peninsula

"There has also been a dispute amongst readers where some suggest the Moors conquered and ruled [all of] the Iberian peninsula for over 800 years. Until citation to a verifiable record of this information is made this article will reference it as a dispute amongst readers, and this is done in an effort to be inclusive of those with this view while explaining that there is no known factual basis for it."

"These disputes have been set forth and classified in this manner in an effort to help them be resolvable disputes within an arguable and provable context instead of as a "static-in-crosstalk" unable to be resolved in a manner that contributes to the article."

My 2 cents as a reader who found this in searching for some information on Moors.

Thank you and apologize for typos etc., no grammarian here.
--71.223.40.124 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  The "reader who found this in searching for some information on Moors" could of course better have stated the proposal in terms of our DABbing practices and NPoV, but more to the point they will hopefully be around to help correct our probable misunderstandings of their concerns and of their arguments for fixes. I'll probably have more to say on this talk page -- tho my own interest in the article is more concerned with the DAB problems than the NPoV ones.
--Jerzy•t 22:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Gallery revert

About this [1] revert: I removed the gallery not because I have some general objection against galleries, but because the contents of this particular gallery were inappropriate. It was a random and rather tasteless collection of mostly late, non-contemporary paintings, several of them full of orientalist stereotype (such as the clichéed and utterly ahistorical "Picking the Favourite", a typical example of 19th-century European salacious phantasizing about "oriental" harems and the like, or the equally stereotyped (and mislabelled) File:Moorish King Of Grenada.jpg. These things tell us a lot about western European imaginations of the "other", but they tell us precious little about the actual historical Moors. These images need to be removed, unless they were embedded in some insightful and well-sourced commentary, in a section about "cultural depictions" or something like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I c the kind of stuff that would make Edward Said turn in his grave. No problem. --Inayity (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Heraldry

The moor and savage are utterly distinct. It's as if a person said a lion was sometimes called a tiger. I am going to edit. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Population Genetics section

There are multiple issues with this section. First, a source and statement are needed to frame its necessity in the article (i.e., that the genetic and ethnic origins and make-up of Moorish peoples is in dispute). Without such a statement, the section's necessity is in question. Speaking specifically to what is already there: the first paragraph regarding the Howard University professor contains weasel words and should be cleaned up. The second paragraph likewise contains no explanation or statement framing its reason for inclusion. Additionally, this section addresses only one of the groups that the term "Moor" was applied to (and briefly, at that). The Berber article adequately addresses the genetic attributes of that ethnic group, so reiterating it here is unnecessary, unless the section is intended to briefly address the genetic attributes of all the above-mentioned groups.

In all, however, I believe that the earlier sections discussing the ethnic and geographic dynamics of Moors adequately addresses the concerns this section is supposed to, and it may therefore be completely unnecessary. As it exists now, I understand that these concerns may be contentious, so I've refrained from editing the content as of yet. However, I am adding a section tag so that these concerns may be addressed. 68.34.18.128 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Correcting Weasel words has never been that controversial. --Inayity (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, went ahead and edited it, then. The other concerns should still be addressed. 68.34.18.128 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

As there has not yet been suitable justification for the inclusion of the Berber y-haplogroup information in the genetics section, and as that information is covered more adequately in other articles, I'm going to remove it for now. While it is in and of itself well-cited, there is no mention of its direct connection to the Moors, and only an offhand mention of its relation to modern Andalusian and Iberian populations (which does not itself connect it to the historical Moors that are the subject of this article). I can conceivably see why genetic information of the Moorish peoples would be of interest to readers, and would love to see someone with greater expertise take up this challenge and expand the section. However, right now it is underdeveloped, confusing, and unfortunately not completely justified in its inclusion. I'll be cleaning up the issue tags also. Feel free to comment.68.34.18.128 (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The images in this article are completely wrong

These images in this article in NO WAY represent the physiognomic Moor. It is hard to believe that such a "reputable" online encyclopedia would allow such false images of the Moors when there are literally dozens of painted images with captions of the artists, along with many descriptions describing the Moors who are in fact the Moabites as cited by the Christian writers of the Middle ages, as dark skinned (misnomer black) men and woman. Such misinformation is seen as a greater western academic attempt to disconnect the greatness of those whom are being called black or african american, from their Moorish roots because these roots can literally be traced back to the paradisiacal myth of the Garden of Eden and who the worlds first men are, how they looked and what they were called, MOORS, Who came from the sacred MT. MERU. After my experience with the Noble Drew Ali page dealing with the Moorish Science Temple of America and its history, proves my point. This articles imagery sets the tone for a "whitewashing" of historical facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2013‎

Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

what is the problem here ? some users just don't seem to get it . the pictures in the article are contemporary. are you saying that a contemporary depiction of a berber moorish king isn't relevant ? why would cherry picked 16th century paintings of random , fictitious people be representative of the actual historical moors ? paintings like Rembrandt's " two moors " and " saint george and the moors " don't belong in here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paypayvay (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How are contemporary depictions of a moorish king more relevant or suitable than a picture by Rembrand ? The 16th centuiry would be a periuod closer to Moorish Spain than now, and besides these historic paintings would have been informed by knowledge that Europeans had first hand of Moors serving in Royall courts all over Europe long afdter thye collapse of Andalusia. This comment on your part betrays a lack of respect for responsible scholarship.Kaigama33 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And on the image of Othello; In the Literary world there is no debate anymore that Shakepeare intended his character to be black. However the image in the article shows a tawny moor:

It is of course true that the term ‘Moor’ was a remarkably flexible one in the early seventeenth century (fig. 7): not only was it indiscriminately applied to both North Africans and sub-Saharan Negroes (sometimes subdivided into ‘White’,‘Tawny’, and ‘Black’ Moors), but it could also be deployed as a religious category denoting all Muslims (regardless of their ethnicity), or used as a loose descriptor of colour, embracing on occasion even the inhabitants of the New World.2

However, the language of the play—especially the slurs of Iago, Roderigo, and Brabantio—makes it fairly plain that (as with Aaron the Moor in Titus Andronicus) it was a black African that Shakespeare had in mind. The stage tradition, moreover, is unequivocal: from Betterton in the late seventeenth century until Kemble at the end of the eighteenth, the hero was invariably played in blackface as a sub-Saharan ‘black Moor’. The Oxford Shakespeare: Othello: The Moor of Venice (The Oxford Shakespeare)Michael Neill, 2008.

This picture should be changed. Kaigama33 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

How about a disambiguation link to the land feature known as a moor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.71.233 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Afrocentrism anyone?

The term "Moor" might apply to blacks in the Sahara and the Niger Delta/Senegal River, but in al-Andalus, the Moors were definitely not black, only a few were. Knowing all the medieval paintings of Muslims in Spain, there are only a couple of them that depict black Muslims, whereas literally dozens and dozens more show light-skinned (not even medium/brown-skinned) Muslims. I feel many of the pictures on this article are misleading; consider the classic picture that Afrocentrists love using: black Muslims playing chess. I checked the picture source, and it comes from an Afrocentrist website ("realhistoryww"). This is very biased because in the whole Book of Games, only a couple of pictures depict blacks whereas almost all of the other Muslims in the book are depicted as light-skinned. Are those pictures appropriate if they described Muslims from the Sahara or west Africa (Mali/Nigeria/Senegal)? Yes. Are those pictures appropriate if they described Muslims from Spain or Portugal? No. And that picture attempts to show what Muslims in al-Andalus looked like, which is inaccurate cherry-picking the two or three pictures of black Muslims in the Book of Games. That picture can be kept, but more pictures need to be added, otherwise this seems biased and even Afrocentrist.--Fernirm (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Is Afrocentrism a crime? the way you write makes it sound like one. Also the statement "Moors were def not black, only a few were" is contradictory. To illustrate a point about images, if you took all the media pictures from South Africa it would be hard to believe Africans are the majority."black" is a modern non-academic term,and we should leave it out of history. West African Muslims is better than black Muslims.--Inayity (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.13.113 (talk)

Depiction and Information involving Moors

I'm not the only one to complain about the depiction of the Moors on this article. The guy above me whose post was not even two months ago was also complaining. I had to restore his post by manual reverting cause I accidentally deleted it. Either way no more need to digress -- the depiction of the Moors is clearly false. I want to remove all images of the Moors except for ones that came from Islamic Iberia in order for an accurate representation of the Moors. A painting from a German artist in the 19th century is not an accurate depiction of the Moors, at all. A painting of the Moors that came from Al-Andalus is much more realistic and has much more authenticity. I am an editor that is precise and like to get the the most accurate, congruent, and logical pictures and sources for articles, and the ones currently for this page are not that great. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors think about this change. I know quite a few watch the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My recent string of edits replace the former sources that are nonexistent and go to deadlinks. It also makes it explicit that the original Moors were inhabitants of North Africa and primarily of Arab and Berber descent, but the term "Moor" in Europe referred to anybody who was Muslim regardless of race/ethnicity and the Moors who became more diverse as time went on. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you wait for the Talk Page before making changes to the article. This is how we do it. You do not make changes and then tell us what you have done. You make the suggestion, since there is no agreement. And Please show me the reference which backs up your statement. I did not see the word EXPLICIT, in the lead.--Inayity (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to discuss changes on the talk page before making edits to articles son. I know how Wikipedia works when it comes to editing, obviously you don't if you think I have consult you or wait for a consensus before making new edits. If you disagree with my edits you can revert them. Oh, you mean my sources that make it clear as the sky on a summer day in LA regarding the Moors? Did you even go to them? I pick unbiased logical sources, but the current paintings on this page consist of paintings of the Moors from hundreds of years after by German Artists and information regarding the Moors coming from sources that are nonexistent and contain deadlinks and by a known Afrocentrist whose claims consist of idiocy such as Black Olmecs, lmao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.13.113 (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Once you see an edit in dispute and it has been reverted and the reason given you are required to follow Wikipedia protocol and establish compliance with wiki policy. You are supposed to PROVE your claims, not insult other references. And if you do not have any ref for your def of Moor then why are you inserting it?--Inayity (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Except my new string of edits were just reverted now, not originally. If I was to make over 3 reversions in one day after your dispute, then I would be violating WP's decree. Also me attacking citations would fall under this. I also had new references for the Moors that actually work and aren't antiquated sources that are deadlink or nonexistent or sources that lead to books by an author who has been chastised for his "psuedohistory" literature. When we deal with topics of history we need historicity and a neutral point of view, not biased editing or pictures with no validity or sources. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a ref then raise the issue as opposed to make vague references to sources. i see no dead links to non-exitenent sources. As as for books, I did not realize Afrocentrism was a crime against Wikipedia. Per NPOV, the article should be NPOV, but where will you find a 100% NPOV source? I mean a source that has no politics, no agenda to promote, may it be Afrocentric or usually the case Eurocentric. --Inayity (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The second source citation actually goes nowhere. There is also a citation that has been labelled a deadlink since July 2010 and the 5th source currently being a deadlink for me also and I have left a note there. As for the second citation and I just replaced it along with some of the article. As for the "Afrocentric" citation regarding an author has has been reprimanded for his views on history is definitely a questionable source and I have replaced it. We do not need sources that come from Afrocentrists who have been criticized for their illogical historical revisionist extremist views or Eurocentrist sources. We need reliable sources that are not questionable and good. I've made some changes to the article by making some parts of the article more comprehensible and replacing sources that are deadlink and questionable. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not continue to disrupt this page with your agenda of adding back in your position while deleting an established talk page stable version. And read WP:LR, and you can take the Afrocentrism issue to the relevant page, here people of all political persuasions can be used as ref, the merit of work must be disproved. they are not thrown out b/c of skin color or politics. --Inayity (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a dead link citation to one that wasn't working (not removing it) and replaced the other citation (#2) that is completely nonexistent or as you so eloquently put it "non-exitenent" -- also an author currently being used as a source who has been criticized for his extremist historical revisionist views is a [2] without doubt and should be replaced by a better reliable source like I gave. Wikipedia needs to be based off neutral editing and reliable sources, this is what makes Wikipedia articles good. Especially when dealing with a topic such at hand where the Moors were a huge part in history. We do not need sources from authors who are known for psuedohistory or ones that don't even work. What problem do you have with my last edit? Elaborate please? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What edit would that be. Dead links should not be deleted, I have updated the Ornament ref. and re-added your minor corrections. So we will now have to discuss Ivan Van Sertima for the 100th time. You see His point on the Almoravid inclusion of West Africans is actually accurate. No book will be 100% accurate or RS for everything. But he was correct on that point. If you have a better ref let us know! that makes that point of West Africans inclusion. --Inayity (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

My last edit. I added the dead link citation to the 5th reference, made that part more explicit there and moved a couple words around. I have no problem with "Berbers, North African Arabs, Muslim Iberians[3] and West Africans from Mali and Niger who had been absorbed into the Almoravid dynasty" or the source for #3 as you have updated it. I have a problem with a man who has been criticized for psuedohistory as a source. I replaced that source with a more reliable one but left the wording prior to it. Citation #2 does not work at all, it's not even a deadlink, it goes nowhere and I replaced it with a different source. So can you look back at my preceding edit and tell me the specific problem? Thanks. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

DOes that ref say what the sentence is saying, the same thing Van Sertima is saying about West Africans?--Inayity (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, the only thing I can find about West Africans in reliable sources is how part of the Almoravid_dynasty was in Mali, that's it. Van Sertima is not a reliable source, he's a questionable source due to his widely known extremist views. We're dealing with a huge part of history here man. We need all the historicity possible and that can only come from reliable sources and NPOV editing. That information currently is the following and nothing more. Okay, look, this dispute has been going on for awhile now and I am willing to make a deal with you by allowing that source by Van Sertima to stay, if you allow me to make my edit. Sound good? Yes or no? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why dont you do your edit without deleting the existing sentences, integrate something. I would rather not use Van Sertima as I cannot deny his track record is not that good. --Inayity (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)--Inayity (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only sentence I actually got rid of was the one preceding the second source and replaced it almost entirely because the source isn't there at all. I added a few minor details on to the part regarding the Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania and added a new source there and didn't get rid of the one currently there. So really I did my edit without deleting most stuff. Okay, so I made my edit again and would like to know your exact problem with it. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize your edit A. has no ref. B. is less nuanced that what you replaced it with. Critical info on the European usage of Moor is now missing: e term "Moors" has also been used in Europe in a broader sense to refer to Muslims, especially those of Arab or African descent, whether living in Spain or North Africa. During the colonial years the Dutch introduced the name "Moor", in Sri Lanka. The Bengali Muslims were called Moor. So this is the issue. You can integrate both positions with out deleting sourced content which is important. Moor is used beyond Islam see Sri Lanka!--Inayity (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually forgot my reference, my bad. It has been added now and it states how people in Sri Lanka have been called "Moors" in my source too. Check the new source I added man. Generally speaking when people use the term "Moor" they are referring to medieval inhabitants of the Middle Ages though and sometimes just a Muslim in general. Either way, source has been added.

I also want to point out that the current sixth reference goes to this and not to an actual source regarding information on the Moors. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

2-1 that you r contributions are not an improvement, please accept this before continuing to revert. You can now use request for comments to build agreement or request input from others--Inayity (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Yes, another editor feels my edits are "not an improvement" but just because there is a 2-1 count does not mean consensus has been made from all sides. Sure, another editors sentiments are of importance, but that does not mean a majority count by 1 point is a substitute for discussion. I would like to hear his opinion on why he dislikes my edits. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that your edits actually are not an improvement and poorly written. No need for democracy when you make the article less professional.--Inayity (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I make the article "less professional" yet citations currently don't work and the ones that do go to sites that are deadlink or have nothing to do with Moors. You add a picture of a Moor that has absolutely no historical authenticity to the slightest as he was fiction and the painting is based off a fictional story. My attempts at delineation for this article regarding information and pictorial representation of the Moors for this article is apparently "not an improvement" even though you can't seem to give me a logical reason how on my last edit.

Oh wait, another editor came along and gave a poor reason but since you think consensus on Wikipedia works by voting, you decided to stop your attempts at logicality. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but consensus doesn't consist of you ignoring every other editor who disagrees with your edits, either. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Who have I ignored? I've been on this page discussing this article for quite some time and been willing to converse with other editors on it. I haven't ignored anybody as far as I know and if you can tell me who I have ignored, go ahead please. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You've ignored every other editor apart from you. You have never, as far as I can see, got any other editor to agree to the changes you make. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't "ignored" them at all son. I've been conversing with them on here and wanting to know their specific problem with my edits. Actually Inayity has agreed with my edits to a certain degree and some minor changes have been made -- but he can't give me a reason for disliking my last edit for this article regarding information of the Moors. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

New edit has been made to the article by thyself as the previous one currently contradicted itself. It said "The term "Moors" has also been used in Europe in a broader sense to refer to Muslims, especially those of Arab or African descent, whether living in Spain or North Africa." and then it said "Moors are not a distinct or self-defined people" and then it said "

were initially Arabs and Berbers" so I rectified this article by replacing a source that doesn't work, at all. I then moved some words around by placing them in the correct chronological order and got rid of a few words also. If you disagree with this edit, please tell me the specific problem. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Before editing the article please get some argument here first. It is going around in circles. And I will just revert the changes or request the page be protected. You can use a sandbox to experiment. --Inayity (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Argument about what? I made a new edit and I didn't revert the article back to my prior edit. What problem do you have with my new edit? Tell me, go ahead. Oh wait, you don't have a logical reason to revert, just like you haven't gave any rational reasons for reverting the last time I made an edit for information on this article. You say "it is going around in circles" but it's not technically edit warring so it's fine, but it is starting to get ridiculous and this is your fault. Why? Cause you can't give me any cogent reasons for your continuous reverting. It seems to me you can't just take an L plehboi. So I'll ask you once again: what problem did you have with my last edit? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Several days have gone by and Inayity has still failed to give me a logical reason for his reversion. I changed the article basically back to how my previous edit was and made some minor changes too. If you revert my edit again without giving an actual reason then I will report you as you have failed to give me a specific reason twice then. So if you have a problem with this new edit, please tell me why. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you have no consensus for the changes. I'm not surprised Inayity hasn't replied, since you've got further and further from any actual comment on the content of the article. I'm not even sure "It seems to me you can't just take an L plehboi" is in any language I speak. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you not even familiar with any of Wikipedia's basic editing policies? This is the second time I have been reverted without a specific reason why. One from you and one from Inayity. If it happens again from either of you without a logical reason, expect a report. Also, you ain't familiar with ebonics bruh? Sad. Regarding the content of the article in my new edit -- what about it? It contradicts itself the current way it is. Multiple sources don't work and I fixed them by replacing them and I formatted the article correctly. My changes were explained a couple posts up, but I keep getting reverted for no valid reason. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version is far better and more encyclopedic than your version. The ref in the current are better than ref to another encyclopedia. please read also WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:LISTEN we cannot burden ourselves with replying to every poor edit you make. But you can request for comments! if you feel your 'version' makes the article better. The lead is fine as is. --Inayity (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The page you link to as a "basic editing policy" is not a Wikipedia policy, something stated clearly at the top of that page. Consensus is; and a start to consensus would be to find any other editor who likes the changes you propose. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just curious Inayity did you even take a gander at this page itself breh? You are the epitome of a disruptive editor and fall into the #4 aspect of that primer. It explicitly says "a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" which you do perfectly. How many times must I ask for a specific problem with my edit? You obviously object my edits cause you revert them but when I ask you for a problem with my edit not one logical reason. It is quite clear you been ducking this question nonstop son. My edits have been reverted for the most idiotic reasons and even one that is advised not to do on here. Just curious - how is the article better the current way it is? It's better with sources that go nowhere and a reference that does go somewhere goes to a page with no connection to this article? It is better with poor formatting, contradictory, and references? Hilarity at its finest here brehs. I'm just curious and I'll ask once again... WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH MY LAST EDIT? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Inayity discussed your changes on several occasions; that they decline to do so again, now you are not discussing the content of the article at all, is not remarkable. It doesn't seem to me that they improve the article either; I'm generally leery of edits that remove a reference that happens not to suit the editor, and I really can't see any reason to remove Othello, who's enormously well known by virtue of being a (fictional) Moor.

I also would appreciate it if you would not address me or other editors as "breh", "son", etc. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes he has discussed the article on several occasions, it regards reversion and not telling me a specific problem with my edits as I have asked a couple times now. You reverted my article last time -- what problem do you have it? Tell me. Oh wait, your reason for reversion was one not advised to do on WP. Lol at "now you are not discussing the content of the article" so me in post above talking about formatting, references, and contradictory in the article isn't discussing it? Sorry if you don't like my Ebonics bruh bruh, but being from America it is a variety of American English that a lot of people use. I'm still waiting for a specific reason for not liking my last edit, besides Othello which was really just a small part of the edit pictorial wise, but information wise I would like to know what's the problem. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I described my problem above; I don't see that your edit effects any improvement to the article, it removes a reference for no reason, and it's pretty clear you've got an axe to grind. I am not taking exception to your use of this dialect - but that you seem to be using it in a condescending fashion, consistent with the rest of your tone. Or perhaps you will tell me "plehboi" is a term indicative of deep respect? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Son it's just common slang for me, not any disparagement that is overt or subliminal with it. There is no "axe to grind" here either breh and there never has been. Me removing references were for valid reasons such as updating a reference that went to a wrong link by replacing it with a new source that goes to the same book it referenced but an actual working link with the exact same book and a page number there too. Article is formatted incorrectly and most of it comes off as redundant and contradicting, as I already pointed out. My editorial is not to push some subliminal POV behind it or vandalize pages -- my edits are trying to rectify problems within articles by replacing sources that are problems (antiquated, not working, biased, etc) and by putting images that are congruent with the article, and formatting the articles correctly too. Your biggest problem with my last edit was removing references even though it was quite clear why I removed them and have explained it several times and the Othello picture? Yet you didn't explain that -- you reverted it for a reason not advised to do on here. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know if you are, at some point in the future, willing to discuss things in a civil fashion without using condescending terms, after apologising for your use of them to both me and Inayity. I've had quite enough of it. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Son they aren't condescending terms to me, it's common slang. If you interpret them as "condescending" then that's not my fault homie. I'm willing to discuss things in a civil fashion and have been ever since this new topic on talk page started. I've made edits to the article and my edits have been reverted several times without elaboration and for the most trite and idiotic reasons and for reasons not advised by Wikipedia. I'm willing to continue this discussion, so go ahead and tell me what problem you had with last edit after elucidating it in my last post. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not your son, your breh, bruh, homie - or "plehboi", whatever one of those is, although not even Urban Dictionary seems to know that one. I think it is perfectly clear from your tone that you do not intend those terms to be polite; in particular, I'm not aware of any English-speaking country where addressing someone as "son" is not condescending (and quite inappropriate for half the population). I have already described my issue with your edits clearly and concisely, and I don't intend to do so again until you address me in a civil fashion. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How you interpret those terms is different from thyself. I'll stop using them though cause you apparently aren't a fan of em. So can we can get back to discussion about the article now? Hopefully. So what exactly was your problem with my last edit? You said you didn't like how I removed Othello (a new edit to this page) and removed references and replaced them with new ones or updated broken ones. That was your problem with last edit? If so, why didn't you come on the page and state that before giving me the most pathetic reason for reversion? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New edit has been made to this article which is basically the same as my last editorial except adding and remaining a few things. I have left the picture of Othello on the article while removing a picture of this Moroccan sultan as the Moors were medieval Muslim inhabitants of certain areas -- that man is not a Moor he is a sultan of Morocco from the 19th century and has nothing to do with this article. Sure the Moors came from Morocco but not much of a relation to a Moroccan in the 19th century as it even explicitly says so in the beginning of this article the Moors were medieval Muslim inhabitants, not 19th century ones. I also added a date to a picture in the article as it is best to tag pictures in this article with a specific time period of their creation for exactitude as we do not want to cause confusion. Sources have been updated by replacing ones that go nowhere and by

amending one that was going to a incorrect link. I formatted the article correctly by editing it accurately in chronological order and removed contradicting parts of the article and redundant sentences. I decided to remove another topic on the talk page for space as this topic covers that former conversation by the way. If you have a problem with my new edit on the article, please elaborate why on here and be specific, thank you. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again Inayity has reverted me by deeming me a "disruptive editor" without discussing the article on the talk page and failing to elaborate on his issues with my edit. He is the disruptive editor and falls into #4 of that primer perfectly. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again WP:DISRUPTSIGNS seek a Request for comments, we do not have to go over it again and again. Your version is weaker and less encyclopedic. "Moor is a term" used by WHO? Seek agreement for your edits as a measure of quality control. No one else agrees with them. --Inayity (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the disruptive editor here as I have just pointed out. As for "your version is weaker" based off what? Be specific, why do you keep ducking this question? Why do you keep ignoring me when asking for a reason as to why you dissent with my edit? As for "no else agrees with them" it is advised not to revert because of no consensus but to revert for a specific reason as to why you dislike someones edits. Also "Moor is a term" who are you quoting here? You're not coming off as very articulate or making any sense here for that matter. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So Inayity you gonna tell me what your problem is with my last edit or continue to ignore me and be a disruptive editor? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I find one part in the lead to be quite unsound and it's the "especially those of Arab or African descent" part which comes off as redundant and vague. "African" is a very vague term and can refer to North African Arabs, Caucasian Berbers, or an Angolan Negroid and is not a specific denotation. "Arab" is also vague, but not as much as "African" is, either way it seems redundant to put that part there as well cause in the same paragraph as it states the Moors specific racial composition with more detail. I feel like that part would just be better suited for removal from this article in order to avoid some confusion. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As an African person I am not too sure how Vague the word African is. I know when at any airport and someone "says the African guy over there with the suitcase" it is extremely clear to most people on planet Earth. We know without much thought they are not referring to the Arab Swahili guy, the Libyan, the White South African, or the Indian from Durban. So African usually refers to the 80% racial group that occupy Africa. And the reason it is here is b/c editors, such as myself feel (rightly so) that the habit of Eurocentric washing Africans out of history should not go on. --Inayity (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well considering the fact that I attempted to look at your sources for that paragraph on that sentence and they don't work, so that part just comes off as OR editing right now and this article does seem a bit over the place. I also am no 'Eurocentrist' for certain; also when you say "washing Africans out of history" you're referring to the Moors being black? I'm sorry, but the Moors were not originally black (it even states that on this article currently) but Afrocentrists have done a good job at pushing the fact that they were and someone has complained about Afrocentrism on this article before which you defended to a certain degree and Afrocentrism doesn't have the best reputation for history. If anything this page definitely has some POV Afrocentrist undertones (not the first editor to see this as aforesaid) but I would like to help clean up this article with you in the best way possible with editing. Maybe we could start by getting these sources to actually work? ShawntheGod (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how "whitewashing history = "Moors were black debate", the ref speak for themselves. And my position is Moors were a mixture of various different people, including by not exclusively Native Africans Aka Black people(now that is a vague term). If you take a look at Afrocentrism you would see I am certainly no fan. But Poole also repeats that Moors was a way of discussing the people today you call "Black"--Inayity (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the only source I added was Poole and Maria. The rest came with the article and have always been a hot topic. Review the last 4 years of war over the issue of race. Call the current lead a compromise. --Inayity (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you just said responded to my post meaning with basically 'when I say "African" I'm referring to black Africans' so know I know what the "especially those of Arab or African descent" means now. When you say the "Moors were a mixture of various different people" it's entirely correct. They were not some homogenous ethnicity and they never were from their beginnings as they were Arab-Berbers, not just Berbers or Arabs. The problem is the "especially of Arab or African descent" part just comes off as POV editing and redundant. I look at two particular paragraphs in this article (3 and 4) that regard the ethnicities of the Moors and while I can agree with it to a certain degree, it comes off a bit implanted chronologically and the sources don't even work mostly and one that does is Afrocentric nonsense that needs to be replaced apparently anyways. Perhaps you could get the correct links going for those sources that don't work? Cause looking at those sources that are linked improperly (besides that) they seem fine. Also looking at the history of this talk page and the article real quick (as you just said) it's the same racial arguments over and over. What would be the best way to settle this? Hmm, by getting rid of "especially those of Arab or African descent" for starters cause that's just gonna be seen as some POV editing and it can be seen as vague too and redundant cause the Moors racial composition are elaborated right after that sentence anyways. We can also make the depictions of the Moors on this page better by getting rid of unnecessary pictures that I see and false depictions of the Moors that hold not even the slightest historical validity and are ahistorical. I think that could be good for starters, yes? ShawntheGod (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how you conclude getting rid of it will help, when that was the compromise. YEARS of compromise per the talk page. So I will not go through that entire process every 2 weeks--sorry. It has been discussed to death, and it totally fine to state that the term was mainly used for Berber, Arab and African Muslim groups. Have no idea how that could be now a problem.--Inayity (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A good way to settle it would be to leave it well alone, especially as a new editor; there are probably better places to start than here, especially trying to repeat changes from an editor who resorted to meatpuppetry. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to repeat changes from the creator of this topic and what the IP has proposed on here is not something new either as I see other topics on here basically stating the same thing. I do not want to get rid of paragraphs in their lead in the entirety or anything, like others have done. I'll make my plans to this article more explicable for people to understand so they can see what I would like to do:

1)I would appreciate it if the citations on here were linked properly to their sources. We need these to work for people to understand them. I honestly don't see how anyone could have a problem with this edit proposal.

2) I would like to merge paragraph 4 with paragraph 3 and add a little more detail. Inayity posted earlier "Why dont you do your edit without deleting the existing sentences, integrate something" which is exactly what my edit would be with a little emend too.

3) I would like to add some more pictures of Moors in Al-Andalus as they seem to have more much historicity than ahistorical pictures I see on here and images that are not pertinent to this article.

So what exactly would you think of these proposed changes? ShawntheGod (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure no-one would object to improving the way references are cited. Do you have a specific example of a change you might make? I quite like paragraphs 3 and 4 the way they are, actually; I don't think it's a chronological reversal because para 4 is leading up to the modern term.

Do you have some examples of pictures that might be added? Contemporary pictures of a Muslim state are always going to be a tricky one. I'm very twitchy about removing "ahistorical" pictures; before we know where we are, we'll be back to Othello again. Some of the labelling of pictures as "not pertinent" seems to have been in error; for example, the 1845 picture of Abd al-Rahman is next to the section describing more wide-ranging use of "Moor" later in history. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To Inayity who just said "I have read the book, it does not say that in the book" I was referring to my source where it states the Moors came from North Africa (which is true) and a decent amount of them (the Berbers) came from Morocco. I've also been trying hard to find the book by Maria in its entirety, but can only find certain pages. It does state the Moors were initially Arabs and Berbers in the book and it does state they came from North Africa actually. I did not see the point of reversion for my last edit. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

At the end of that sentence is a ref, the ref does not make that claim at all. If you have a big point then add a big ref that says something as significant as Most of them came from x,y, and z. b.c then it can be called if they are mainly from a particular country (which did not exist back then) then we need to be clear what we are telling the reader. --Inayity (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My source states the Moors came from North Africa with the Berbers coming from Morocco and the Berbers were a large portion of the Moors make up and in the book by Maria it even elaborates on the Arab/Berber feud that occurred for aristocracy too. Addendum: source is now linked and is working properly to the book by Maria that shows the Moors were initially Arabs and Berbers at the time of the conquest of Iberia and that part has been on this page for awhile now. Just making sure the source is now working. I unfortunately cannot find the book in its entirety, but only small samples or else I would have more sources linked correctly. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A scholarly source would be appreciated. Spanish web does not look RS--Inayity (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur, it's not the best source in the world, but I have a source from National Geographic that states the Moors were a North African people, so that Spanish-web source is gone and replaced by the epitome of a reliable source. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Does NG say they were Originally from this place or that? And We need a scholarly source, not even that NG article of images. That means a book by an expert on the subject. Not 4 lines and some pictures which is discussing Moorish Architecture not origins of the moors. --Inayity (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "The ref does not say that" it states the Moors were a North African people. So if they were a North African people, where do you think they originally came from? Jupiter? The obviously originally came from North Africa, but as time went on they included people other than North African Arab-Berber descent. NG is the epitome of a reliable source and falls under "the most reliable sources" category. The Moors were a group of people from North Africa that were initially of Arab and Berber descent, your source from Maria backs up the Arab and Berber part, my source backs up they came from North Africa. Where exactly are we dissenting here? ShawntheGod (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Did it say Originally, because to say Jews are from Israel and Jews are originally from Israel is a different statement. African Americans are from America, originally they come from AfriKa. origins of Moors needs a scholarly source. And if it was so clear you would find the opinion in many books by experts. --Inayity (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you like me to put "they came from North Africa" instead of "originally came from North Africa"? I can do that, if the word "originally" bothers you that much. We all "originally" came from Africa if you wanna get technical about it. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I want you to leave it as it is b/c such additions are neither ref, nor improvements to the article. I am struggling to see why we need to say anything else than what the current sentence CLEARLY elaborates on. --Inayity (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The current sentence does not state the Moors came from North Africa, which they did. It states they were initially Arabs and Berbers, but did not initially come from North Africa. The Moors came from North Africa and that is important to note. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Moors were initially a people who came from North Africa of Arab-Berber descent and your source supports the latter and mine supports the North African part. NG is the epitome of a reliable source and is one of the most reliable possible as it falls under "the most reliable sources are" primer due to the fact is is a respected publishing house magazine. You had a problem with the word "originally" so I left that out. I don't think there is anything we dissent about here. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit hours later? You also have 3 reverts currently. There was nothing wrong with me putting the Moors came from North Africa. They came from North Africa initially and were of Arab-Berber descent, your source states the latter. My source (NatGeo) is as reliable as it gets. Not only does Natgeo support my view but so does just about every other valid source in the internet support it whether they be tertiary or not. You reverted for no reason too. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note — ShawntheGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Absolutely ridiculous revert and Inayity feels National Geographic is a bad source? Hilarious, even though it isn't in anyway possible. Fine, I'll cite work by the late historical scholar Richard A. Fletcher then. His views are no different than any other valid sources, but apparently Inayity isn't a fan of respected publishing magazines or academia. The citation by Richard states exactly what plenty of other valid sources state about the Moors coming from North Africa and your own source by Maria states the Gibraltar part. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

About this recent image editorial: [3] Tariq was a Muslim general and one of the most important Moors there was, he needs to be on here and I replaced the utterly ahistorical late cherrypicked image of the so called "black Moors" that has absolutely nothing do with this article. It's on par with me posting a picture of Muslims centuries after the Moors were gone from Iberia with lightskin and Caucasian features and putting 'white Moors playing chess' or ones with Mongoloid features and putting 'Asian Moors playing chess' it's almost completely extraneous to the article and barely pertinent in anyway. Tariq is arguably the most important Moor, he needs to be on here and not some random painting of Moors created hundreds of years after Moors reign. ShawntheGod (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly seems to be the issue here? The discussion appears to have gotten unnecessarily personal; naming calling is uncalled for and makes it difficult to agree on anything. With regard to ShawntheGod's comment above about "African" being a vague term because the continent of Africa is inhabited by a variety of different populations, he is correct. As I understand it, depending on the context, "Moor" referred to individuals in Al-Andalus of Berber, Arab or West African heritage, or mixtures thereof, who were all part of a larger Islamic cultural heritage. Inayity doesn't appear to take exception to this, though. Is the issue, then, over which of these (or other) groups produced the first "Moors"? Or something more basic perhaps? Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, I wish it was something as important as that. Shwan the god formerly know as ip 70 has for months be trying to make more a term exclusive to Muslims. The article is discussing plural def of the term Moor. And the origins of the Moor is not something I have fought over. As I see no ref which says they first came from this country or that. Nor have I suggested they were of one race. --Inayity (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Key facts about Moors

• Moor is not a specific ethnic group or even a race. Just like calling people black, it has been applied throughout the European colonies to very different people.
• Moor is a term used by Europeans to refer to the "other" Muslims. It has been a disparaging term, like Saracen.
• Moor is an ethnonym, Muslims did not call themselves Moors.

These key points are supported by numerous references. Notable is the work of the late scholar Maria Menocal. And Poole, and I will be adding ref from poole: The Story of Moors . --Inayity (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Moor is not a specific ethnic group or even a race" except is says in the lead "especially African or Arab descent" and then it says "applied the name to the Berbers, North African Arabs, Muslim Iberians and West Africans" and then it says "initially Arabs and Berbers" so you're saying "Moor is an ethnonym" which would make them a specific ethnic group and the sentence "Moors are not a distinct or self-defined people." contradicts itself because they're being self-defined right after that and preceding that. Yes, Moor is a term Europeans used to refer to Muslims inhabiting certain areas throughout the Middle Ages. Yes, also Moor is an ethnonym and the Moors initially came from North Africa and were of Arab and Berber descent just like the article says currently. My editorial formatted the article correctly by making it not contradict itself, putting it in chronological order, and replacing sources that weren't working and updating ones that were incorrectly linked. I still don't see how you dissent with the article in anyway on my last edit. Hopefully we can get back to civil discussion now and you will be willing to tell me why you disagree with my edit.70.126.13.113 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

About this 1 revert: the reference you put goes nowhere and has no specific page number -- that's not even my main problem with this source as you referenced Stanley Lane-Poole a orientalist who is not a reliable source and while his oeuvre tells us a lot about Eurocentric sentiments, they lack any historicity at all. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please review Paul disagrees, I disagree and so does Pinkbeast that is 3 which do not find your contributions helpful to this article. What this means is use the talk page for your points and do not revert! You do not delete a ref if a page number is missing! Learn the rules of editing. Please now.--Inayity (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

My recent reversion was regarding a new addition to this page and my editorial has changed over time. Pinkbeast reverted for a reason not advised by Wikipedia and Paul reverted my edit awhile back before my edits changed. I didn't delete your ref because the page number was missing as I put "that's not even my main problem with this source" as I then elaborated on my problem with the source and author. You obviously are illiterate and have demonstrated your illiteracy several times with misspellings, failure to read my posts, and misquotes. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get in too much in to this, but if you have a problem with a source but others feel it's okay, you should take it to WP:RS/N or use some other form of dispute resolution. As for the page number issue, you are welcome to politely request that a page number be added, as I think you understand, it's not a reason to remove a source. And please refrain from personal attacks like calling someone illiterate or you're likely to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Depiction and Information Involving Moors 2.0

This current article is a mess in various ways. The blatant contradictions, bad formatting (anachronism), sources, and awful pictorial representation of the Moors (not the first to complain about this) that are ahistorical and some even pictures even being extraneous and having nothing to do with Moors. I would like to rectify this article by fixing it innumerable ways (obvious hyperbole) but still a few ways. I just like to pintpoint the problems out right now. Obviously here's an example of contradictory in the lead it says "The term "Moors" has also been used in Europe in a broader sense to refer to Muslims, especially those of Arab or African descent" and then it says "Moors are not a distinct or self-defined people" but you just defined and distinguished them to a certain degree right there. It gets worse though cause it says "Europeans applied the name to the Berbers, North African Arabs, Muslim Iberians and West Africans" so now you are defining them and making a distinction as to what ethnicties/races consisted of the Moors. Yet in the next paragraph it says "were initially Arabs and Berbers" so now you're making a distinction and defining them again. It just comes off as completely contradicting and chronologically misplaced too.

Now onto the sources -- the first reference goes nowhere and has no page number. It also refers to a book by Stanley Lane-Poole who was a British orientalist. I mean, really? Having a reference by a orientalist in this article about the Moors who were Muslim but as the first reference too? It's the epitome a questionable source and should be replaced by a different one. The third reference goes to an incorrect link. The fourth 4th reference goes nowhere either and lacks a page number too. The 6th source has no page number as well but it goes to a source that is a book by Ivan van Sertima a well known Afrocentrist for distortion of history and has been chastised for his psuedohistorical views. Thankfully this one has been deemed a questionable and there is a "better source needed" mark. The 7th reference is the same as the 3rd reference and goes to an incorrect link but this one lacks a page number. So there are my problems with the sources.

Now onto the bad pictorial representation of the Moors. One of the pictures consists of Abd al-Rahman of Morocco who was a sultan of Morocco in the 19th century. How does this man have any correlation to the Moors when the Moors were medieval Muslim inhabitants? Not sure, cause he was a Moroccan in the 19th century, not the 12th century. The picture is completely extraneous. The next pictures I have a problem with are images that depict the Moors that came from paintings in 19th and 20th centuries. I'm just bewildered as to why exactly these pictures are here when we can use actual historical pictures of the Moors from Islamic Iberia that have much historicity and aren't ahistorical and can't possibly be seen as biased or POV editing. So as you can see I want make a decent amount of ramifications to this page and I can do it all in one edit, but would like to hear what other editors have to say first. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE: Request for meatpuppets in-progress. [4] NYPA, dawg. 2601:B:B680:23:AD67:BFB0:C620:91E2 (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Safest option Leave LEAD, Get agreement first

Please discuss any and all changes to any significant aspect of the lead before making changes. The discussion around these changes has already come and gone. By talk page the lead has been established and is stable. Discuss, get agreement, then make changes is the best policy.--Inayity (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please gain talk page agreement before changing the well balanced lead. --Inayity (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to make some changes to lead by merging paragraphs 3 and 4 as they state similar things, but also getting rid of contradictory sentences and adding some more detail. I can quote work by John Baker (biologist), arguably the greatest anthropologist ever Carleton S. Coon, National Geographic, and more scholarly reputable sources regarding the Moors. Some of the sources in the lead currently are a joke and have no validity, not to mention the information is formatted incorrectly by contradictory and anachronism. I can correct this information easily in one simple edit, but I would like to other editors sentiments on this first. ShawntheGod (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The first source on this article is nonsensical. It comes from an orientalist with hardly any credentials and is not scholarly at all. Not only that I don't even see the point of the source either. I replaced it with the Maria source that we both agree on and specified a page and correct link to show the inhabitants more renowned as "Moors" were Muslims. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

STOP, you have no agreement to delete any ref, if you have a problem with a ref, that is for the talk page. And then WP:RSN. All such controversial edits will be reverted. your rationale against the ref is nonsensical beyond belief. And it has been discussed already--Inayity (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Revering because "no agreement" is not a logical reason for reversion and is not advised to revert because no consensus. What exact is the point of the ref by the self-published orientalist with no scholar or credentials Stanley Lane Poole there? How is that ref that says "The Story of the Moors in Spain. Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman. "In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes." with no page reference even pertinent to that first part of the article? It is not relevant, at all. Also it is a self-published source coming from someone with hardly any credentials or scholarship. Also chill out, no reason to go crazy. Just discuss the source with me in an articulate and literate way. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clear from your comments and your editing quality, replying to the above is not necessary.Take your concerns here WP:RSN. As per reverting you, it has been established (on this talk page) you are a POV pushing editor who uses various IP and meatpuppets. taking up time with extended illogical prolix text. It is a mild form of trolling and your account seems SINGLE PURPOSE. contribs --Inayity (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing editor? What I am "pushing"? Enlighten me. My edits have changed over time and several of my recent edits have been accepted into the article. Various IP? I'm only using this account, no sock-puppetry. As for meat puppetry? Do you have any proof that I made those posts on 4chan? That site is well known for trolling, could have been you attempting to sabotage my edit consensus for all I know. My account is not "single purpose" either as I'm currently engaging in discourse on this topic, but have edited other ones also. Replying to the above is not necessary? So you just go against well known advise on Wikipedia and revert for no reason? Not very nice, would just like a concise answer, but you can give me a verbose one if you feel like it.

Either way, what is your judgement of my last major edit? I merged paragraph 3 and 4 by keeping the best information and integrating the textual, also coalesced other text of importance that seem germane with those paragraphs, so they to go with that part. I kept sources that we both concurred on and ones that are clearly reliable. I added another one for due weight too. I got rid of pictures of so called "Moors" not coming from the actual Moorish civilizations during their reign or real factual ones, so got rid of ahistorical pictures. I put an image up there of the modern day King of Morocco to go along with the "modern meanings" part of the word. I belief this editorial makes the article have much more historicity, realness, and organization. I also am not "trolling" in anyway, not even a mild form, my edits and posts are with earnest. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a ref and no one else does, please use either request for comments or WP:RSN. you are a disruptive editor and your ridiculous oodles of incoherent MAKE IT UP AS YOU GO text on the talk page are worrying. At least learn to write proper English in the articles and use ref properly. You have created a page to disruptive the quality of the article as your edit patters show nothing but conflict with other editors. if I disagree then why are you edit warring?--Inayity (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Over 3 reverts in 24 hours. I ask you what my POV is, you can't respond logically. You revert my edits without a logical reason and I already told you what my plans for an editorial were before the edit. I do use references properly, you apparently like OR Afrocentric ones. Your grammar is awful; learn to use punctuation by the way. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Where did you just come from that you come here telling people who do serious work on this article for years what your plan is. Get agreement for any of your controversial plans per Wikipedia rules. Is there something unclear about that? If your edits disagree, then do not go ahead with them! BTW, which editor supports any of your changes? No they call them semi-literate. [5]--Inayity (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So your edits are explained, What does that mean?

You said your edits are explained on the talk page. What does that mean? My edits are explained on the talk page also. So why POV push your agenda? And this habit of editing in one swoop, i.e. taking out ref, and adding in another ref is no protection against revert. B/c it is a trick to waste time. I will not sit down with every edit you do and pick out the good from the bad. Your pattern of editing is Single agenda, and disruptive as serious contributors to Wikipedia who have established this article are having their work erased by your poor grasp of wiki policy and good editing (which included proper sentence structures). And this INNOCENTS will not work this time around. You know what you are doing! You behave like a troll provoking a reaction. I will not waste time reading your endless nonsense over and over again and repeating rules to you.--Inayity (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

One example of total nonsense POV single focus editing

I will use one example for any other edit visiting of the nonsense being added to a quality article. The term "Moors" has been used to describe several historic and modern populations of Muslim people (Maria)

• The ref by Ornament makes absolutely no such statement. None whatsoever.
• The article already discusses the wide application of the term Moor, which is not exclusive to Muslim people. Yet here you come and contradict that with a POV agenda edit.
• Already you have been reverted by SEVERAL editors for this particular edit, yet you force it back into the article.

For Months you being pushing this POV, first under the WP:SPA Ip 70.126.19.148 and 70.126.13.113 where you went to great lengths against me, ALL backfired.--Inayity (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop making so many redundant excessive topics/posts? I can't respond to your posts if you make a new one under a new topic every second. I'll converse with you under the "Depiction and Information involving Moors" one, thanks. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please point me to the talk page rule which supports what you just said. Please start by doing that. Until then the charge of why your edits have been reverted is explained in technicolor above. As for good English I will make sure I continue to use it in all my actual edits to the article. --Inayity (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. First off, what are you responding to with "please point me to the talk page rule which supports what you just said." part? Me asking you to stop making so many topics? It's easier for us to converse about the article if we remain on one topic, not various at a time. My reference by Ornament was referring to the fact the Moors were Muslim. I forgot to include my other article which refers to the fact that the term "Moors" generally got referred to by Europeans as to the North African people, it even mentions how back in the day the Romans would call the Berbers "Mauri" it was forgotten. The Ornament reference was showing how they were Muslim, that's all. "The article already discusses the wide application of the term Moor" it states "especially of Arab and African" descent and the African part is OR due to the fact the only source that even mentioned 'Black Moors' (you already said you meant black with African earlier in a post basically) supports that view on here is by an Afrocentrist author known for pseudohistory and is a bad source. I agree about the Arab and Berber part, not the Iberian or African part. The term "Moor" is applied to primarily Arabs and Berbers by all valid sources. That includes the two sources we agreed on (Maria and Richard) and it includes other valid sources online. The Moors were initially Arabs and Berbers, that is a known fact and an agreed one by me, you, and has been on this article forever too. Stating that the word "Moor" goes with Arab and Berbers primarily, is correct. The Moors initially came from North Africa and to be specific Morocco? Correct; you agreed on this earlier and other valid sources support this view. When you say "reverted by several editors" you're not referring to any recent edits, besides you. Not any on this account, stop mentioning so called "edits" that don't belong to me and come from awhile ago. This is a new editorial, new ramifications, not the same ones again and again. ShawntheGod (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent or Old, the issues is the same POV agenda. It could be from 10 years ago. No one has ever agreed to the edits I have marked as Controversial. NO ONE. And please read WP:SYNTHESIS. give us some credit, are you suggesting you are not the exact same person as from the good old days Mr. 70.126.13.113? I could be wrong the ip could have a twin with identical agenda's, identical English, identical typos, identical syntax and identical edit warring and POV pushing against the stable article. It is possible. And hedge your remarks it is not a Novel. 2000 words is over kill.--Inayity (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Another way to hedge your prolix ways is to only address the issue I have raised in this section. I am not interested in Afrocentrism, but the issue of POV pushing and misuse of a ref. Afrocentric ref is only one in the entire article. Only one.--Inayity (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of ref by me with the Ornament one was an accident, not intentional. I apologize and you say "I am not interested in Afrocentrism" as I'm not interested in it or any other form of subtle or overt tones of racialism such as Eurocentrism, Nordicism, Asiocentrism, etc, it's all garbage to me and involves distortion of history and more. I simply want the truth to be stated. ShawntheGod (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you seek truth then you have just admitted to making mistakes, my response has been to revert all of those mistakes, which include bad sentences, misuse of ref, and poor placement of content. In this entire long article I see one ref to an Afrocentric, yet that has disturbed you. If you have a ligit problem with a ref you will gain no fans by adding a personal opinions about Poole. The issue can be filed at RS noticeboard, it can also be discussed in specific terms. As it relates to Poole, you have given us nothing but a personal opinion. I see NOTHING in the ref that is not 100% true. Moors was used in the medieval period, negro in the later to refer to all/different groups of Africans.--Inayity (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Moors Information and Imagery

I'll be using this topic to discuss the article and edits I plan on making or make. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Our agreement is for you to discuss edits and gain agreement before making them. You do not need my agreement you need to gain consensus if it is a controversial edit from more than 1 editor. Your options are many: Request for comments, invite editors from Wikipedia Africa to contribute, etc. But these process come before making changes that will cause an edit war. --Inayity (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You said "discuss any controversial edit" on the talk page. I think an edit that is "controversial" is a major edit, not a simple picture addition or replacement. Either way, one of the sources we agreed on (the one by Richard Fletcher) refers to the Moors as medieval Muslims. I think we can replace the first source with a source we both agree on, as the current source only mentions an excerpt of "in medieval times most Africans were called Moors" whereas the one by Fletcher mentions how they were Medieval Muslims, like the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then keep both, I am in favor of the notable work by Poole and it frames the issue of the name. There is absolutely no RS issue with Poole.--Inayity (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who previously appealed for meatpuppets should make any change to the article. Clearly not acting in good faith. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"no RS issue with Poole."

There is, but I'd rather forget about that for a second cause nowhere in the book [6] does Stanley Lane-Poole write "In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes.", at all. As a matter of fact the only time he uses the term "medieval" is once, which is apart of a persons name. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How many books on Moors have you actually Read from cover to cover? If you do not understand the ref, or have any doubt, just trust that some of us putting these ref in there are well versed in the contents of these books we use. AND, as opposed to taking stuff out (without agreement, which you agreed to do) use WP:RS, you can use your energy there --Inayity (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

He never said that in his book. I just proved that to you right there in the post above. That can fall under libel which you're supposed to delete when identified. We also agreed to discuss "any controversial edit" and I did not see that as controversial. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree now go here and see what others say WP:RSN and we do not need to discuss it anymore. Until you have proven your case do not continue to alter ref of controversial content which will only lead to edit war. I think you should read more about WP:LBL and if it applies to your claim.--Inayity (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now what I will not do is have the book in-front of me and spend my time fighting with you over its contents b.c of the fact that probably none of these books you have read. And there is a difference b/t reading a book and knowing the subject and googling orphan sentences. --Inayity (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic has been made on the sources noticeboard. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Inayity a source we already agreed states the same thing about the Moors being medieval Muslims and I can put the direct link and page number up, right now. Also, that's a republished version of the book in 2013 by Black Classic Press which was republished way after Stanley's death. Also, Stanley did not put that part down either, another person did and the copyright has expired for Stanlety's original work and this could libel for all we know. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What is confusing me is your issues with the source, because far too much energy is being spent to get rid of it. Which raises other concerns, what exactly is your underlying politics? Is it to remove Native Africans as included in the def of Moor, is it to restrict the def of Moor to People from North Africa. I do not get it. B.c I do not think any of the objections you have just raised actually matter or challenge us using that book. --Inayity (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone who has called for meatpuppets should not edit the page. If you persist in doing so I'll file an SPI. It's as simple as that. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"I'll file an SPI" you do understand what sock puppetry is, right? It says WP:SOC "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose" an IP does not fall under an account. Also, you could only prove I made those posts on 4chan by getting them to tell my information, which is against the rules of 4chan. That site is filled with trolls, not exactly the best way to prove I was using meatpuppets. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you or are you not 70.126.13.113? Simple question. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming I have a POV User talk:Inayity, so why can't you tell me what it is? Because I have none, the only thing I want is for this article to have as much historicity as possible, that includes reliable sources. Not the use of extreme Afrocentric sources, not the use of pictures of the so called "Moors" created hundreds of years later. I want the truth to be stated and that means getting rid of material that is OR. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with such a single focus and single usage has a POV. not the 1st time. If you are worried about Afrocentrism I do not think the statement about Inclusion of Africans in Spain would bother anyone who knows the topic--be serious now. --Inayity (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have two minor problems with this article and it's the first source which has been deemed unreliable by me and another editor. I also have a problem with the "especially those of Arab and African descent" part of the sentence. The term "African" is vague as another editor has agreed, we also know who the Moors have been referred to as it states it in same paragraph in two sentences away. So that part seems redundant, possible POV too, as we have no idea what the exact demographic percentage of the Moors race was or statistics for reference to them regarding race, so we don't know if they were especially black, Arab, or white. It seems best to just remove that part. So besides those two things, the article seems fine. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Moors below the Senegal River

I just added this:

or even residents of [[Sub-Saharan Africa]] in general.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Imaging the Moor in Medieval Portugal|author=Josiah Blackmore|pages=27-43|journal=Diacritics|volume=36|number=3/4|date=Fall-Winter 2006|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204140|quote=[[Gomes Eanes de Zurara|Zurara]] refers to the Sub-Sarahan Africans inhabiting these lands [below the [[Senegal River]]] alternately as ''negros'' (blacks), ''guinéus'' (Guineans), or ''mouros'' (Moors).}}</ref>

I found it while looking for a better source for the phrase right before it about the Almoravid dynasty. The source only quotes the one guy, Zurara, for this usage, but also doesn't find the usage remarkable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. It's about time someone did some source-chasing (he says, hypocritically). Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice catch, my recent edit [7] removes the source by Ivan as he has been deemed unreliable by me and other editors, also the new source states the exact same thing he was saying and the "West African" syntax can be removed now. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your passion to remove has been part of your agenda for months! And that worries me.--Inayity (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a part I wanted to remove because it holds no validity. Ivan has already been deemed unreliable and you see that. The new source replaces Ivan and states the same thing, except Sub-Saharan Africans in general and not just West ones. So why revert? We already agreed to stop the edit warring, that was not controversial my friend. I have other editors who back my sentiments of Ivan up. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem with this edit?

I thought this edit by ShawntheGod improved things. First of all, if there's a dispute about the sources for the Almoravid dynasty thing, this is a reasonable way to dodge it. West Africans are a subset of people who live below the Senegal River, so the Blackmore source naturally supports the statement that they were called Moors. Since Blackmore says that black Africans were called Moors, why distinguish the subset of them that's discussed in a disputed source when we can just cite the superset to a source that seems to be acceptable to all? I'm not going to revert because everyone's evidently a little touchy right now, but I did think that the edit reverted by Pinkbeast clarified things and was a good edit, supported by the source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please revert me, then. I respect your opinion on the subject. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, but you really do think it's better? I don't want to seem to be taking sides in something I don't understand.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, ShawntheGod has solicited meatpuppets and has no place editing the page. Ideally, they would describe their preferred edits here and they would be discussed. Failing that, the next best idea is that their edits to the page are discussed post-facto by more experienced editors. Your argument above seems reasonable, and you have actually chased up some sources to improve the page, so I think you are qualified to comment; obviously, I'm open to persuasion, but as it stands I do think it is better.

What I'm saying is that, at the moment, I am convinced by your argument, so I do think that version is better. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to look over the article a little more. I just came to it from whatever noticeboard that was it popped up on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

‎Inayity, what's the problem with the edit? Why revert with no edit summary and without joining the ongoing discussion here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

please refrain from making this article a problem. We have discussed controversial changes need agreement yet despite me being a main contributor i have been involved in no agreement while radical changes are being made. this is how serious edit wars occur as a single agenda editor has a POV push which has one clear agenda which i do not see as the overall improvement of the article but in removing certain refs.Single focus editing is not welcomed. keep stable version until all agree! dont get one other editor from out of the blue and then push ahead with a month old agenda edit.--Inayity (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If a statement is sound and a ref is bad we can leave the statement Wikipedia is a WIP, but deleting good info from the lead is a problem just because someone says the ref is bad--then why did Wikipedia create tags?. We know Almoravid included people from West Africa as it had engagements with modern Senegal and Mali. Ancient Ghana so it is good info, now as this is an ongoing project we can keep looking ref--Inayity (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. You say "We know Almoravid included people from West Africa." That's fine. Nobody is disputing that. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Almoravid did not include any West Africans altogether it would still be true that all West Africans included in Almoravid were living below the Senegal River. Therefore to say that Africans below the Senegal River were known as Moors implies that Almoravids from below the Senegal River were known as Moors. Furthermore, since the Almoravid dynasty isn't discussed anywhere in the article except for that sentence, it seems to violate WP:LEAD anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why was it deleted when the Almoravid are obviously Moors? So the problem is the rest of the article not the mention in the lead--Inayity (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you possibly try to rephrase it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I also do not understand what you are trying to say.--Inayity (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I will try to make the points more clearly in separate sections.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not respect your comment Pinkbeast, as my edit warring has come to a stop and me and the editor I was predominately warring with has come to an end and we agreed to discuss any controversial edits on the page and we would not make them unless consensus was made. You do not have the right to tell who can make and not make edits. There was nothing wrong with my edit as supported by another editor. West Africans are Sub-Saharan Africans. Ivan is not reliable, it has been deemed that by me and other editors. The new source states the exact same thing, except Sub-Saharan Africans in general and not just West Africans. So why revert? ShawntheGod (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What has been elided from history here is that this comment was first posted by the 70.126.19.148 sock. I don't have the right to tell who can make edits, but I am entitled to have an opinion, and my opinion is that someone who solicits meatpuppets should not edit Wikipedia. Go away. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, that's your opinion, but there is no coronation on here that made you all high and the mighty King of Wikipedia that gave you authorization as to who can make edits and who can not. You are not the social arbiter on here, nor will you ever be able to prove "meatpuppets" were being solicited by me either. The edit warring that was I was previously entailed in with that involved another editor mostly is over with, and we've agreed to discuss the article in a civilized way. It's best for us to discuss the article currently at hand, not editorial that occurred in the past that is not pertinent now. The past is the past, the present is now, and the future is ahead, you seem to dwell on irrelevancy of the past. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out something I said in the edit you were replying to: "I don't have the right to tell who can make edits". That obviously achieved a lot.

If you don't like me pointing out that you solicited meatpuppets, too bad. It's not like anyone but you will believe your denials.

Obviously you are in favour of forgetting the past, since it's in the past that you proved grossly untrustworthy. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Almoravids in the lead

Per WP:INTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Note that Almoravids are not mentioned at all in the article. Therefore there's no real reason to mention them in the lead. I propose that this overly specific detail be excised until such point as there is actually material in the body of the article that it is to summarize.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree and the source has been deemed unreliable by me and other editors. The West African Almoravid syntax does not need to be there and the new source says basically the same thing, except refers to Sub-Saharan Africans in general, and not just West ones. ShawntheGod (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The above rule does not preclude the information being added to the lead, b/c we are developing the article top down. It has been in this article for YEARS. As we are discussing Who the Moors were that one little line is explaining the inclusion of West Africans. The fact that the word Almoravid is not mentioned elsewhere carries no H20, since I could easily replace it with Moorish Empires, and it would still be true--but not as specific. In any event if LEAD is the issue then why not move it? --Inayity (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The material is OR due to the fact Ivan is not reliable. The new source replaces Ivan and states basically the same thing, except Sub-Saharans in general, not just West Africans. You have a problem with the removal of OR and replacement in what way? ShawntheGod (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should spend time reading what OR is. B/c a source is probably not RS does that now mean by deleting the ref it becomes OR? Strange. b/c I am not sure that is how it works. The statement is already tagged. That is what tags are for. The outcome of the RS is not concluded. And While Van Sertima is not RS for Olmec civilizations, the issue of Moors must be weighted on its own. And I have not seen many Peer reviews complaining about that sentence. --Inayity (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Were you not aware of me making a thread on reliable sources noticeboard for this article? Sertima getting deemed not reliable here and the definition of WP:OR is "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" so it's quite clear that the material being substantiated by Ivan would fall into that. Would you like me to make a thread on the no original research board now? I will if you insist, because you are so stubborn when it comes to the removal of a clearly OR material with an unreliable source for some reason. I mean, it's not like the new source and material states the exact same thing about the usage of the term Moor except towards Sub-Saharan Africans in general, not just West Africans, right? Oh wait, it does. You also have this thread (started by another editor) who doesn't believe the Almoravid West African part should be in the article. So not sure what you mean with "many peer reviews complaining about that sentence", at all. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise, why don't we move the material about the Almoravids down into the body into a new sentence. Then @ShawntheGod:'s edit will bring the existing sentence in the lead into compliance with WP:LEAD since, as has been stated repeatedly, the new material and source does imply that that claim is true, so acts as a summary for it. Then we can discuss the sourcing and the appropriacy of the Almoravid material separately, which was my intention in starting this new section anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine with me to move down the material about the Almroavids into a new part, since it does not seem apposite for the lead anyway. We can then discuss that material being OR (I'll probably a thread about it on the noticeboard) and then make some minor edits to the lead too. If you wanna move the Almoravid part to another body, I'll then make a minor change to the lead which incorporates the most important material being included to the lead in a concise way. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll wait till others comment before moving the material. A noticeboard thread will, sadly but probably, be necessary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, WP:NORUSH, we can just chill for a little. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is if it is too detailed just move it into the body. These are not statements that are controversial, and a link to the RS should have been posted here. --Inayity (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so how about if we go back to ShawntheGod's version of the lead for now and you find a place in the body of the article where you think the Almoravid material is appropriate and put it there?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In theory that sounds cool, but we all know that once it is deleted no one is going to remember to go and put it another place in the body. Let us see what Pinkbeast suggest.--Inayity (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why he said "you find a place in the body of the article where you think the Almoravid material is appropriate" as in he's telling you that you can move that material elsewhere, not delete it and then incorporate it later (which is how I believe you interpreted his post), but you move it to another part of the article right now. ShawntheGod (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Do both edits at the same time. It would be best that way.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I think alf laylah wa laylah is correct here. Move the material if need be. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Moors in Art and Popular Culture

I propose we add a new subtopic, Moors in Popular Culture. It should include moors from popular movioes, plays, stories and paintings. It would be a downright shame if we left out the historic paintings and images of moors for the sake of them being too black to suit the tastes of some wiki editors. This would be keeping in spirit with the historic conception of the "moor" for several centuries after the moors were expelled from Spain.Kaigama33 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 1.165.6.3 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, the section formerly labelled Moors in Popular Culture has been edited by me. I changed the subtitle to Moors in Art, Literature and Popular culture. And the previous content was too much centered around the modern day pop culture one associates with American TV, as opposed to actual history. I intend to extend and edit what I added to include Moors as portrayed in Literature during the Islamic conquest of Visigothic Spain, and also the idea of the Moor as expressed in European medieval art, paintings, sculpture, ornaments, which carried unto the modern period.

I also intend to discuss the peculiar European Court culture associated with the acquisition of black Moors as slaves or servants or savants, often used as status symbols. Angelino Soliman, the Moor of Vienna Austria, being the perfect example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. So someone got rid of my additions to the section labelled moors in art and popular culture. Why was that? Was there a problem with my sources, since everything was properly referenced. its not as if I got rid of the original input I found in the section. This is a historical article. i dont see how shallow and superficial references to American Tv ought to bemore valued than things like Medieval literature and art. Could someone please explain. If people are more interested in TV than history, what are they doing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Moor Imagery and Information

I recently removed a painting of a Moroccan sultan from the 19th century as that image has nothing to do with this article. It has been attempted to be removed several times before and I think remember someone saying it was there as an example of a modern picture of a Moroccan to go with "modern meanings" even though the picture is not "modern" and just completely irrelevant. I put up an image of Mohammed VI who is the current King of Morocco and very modern. WP:IRELEV, we need images to be relevant to the article, that one of the Moroccan sultan currently is not. Also @ Pinkbeast you do not need to have "discussion" first before making a change to a article. You know how WP:Consensus works, don't act like you OWN this article. Valid reason for reversion should be needed, not a poor one like that. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is kingdoms capitalized Kingdoms?--Inayity (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You can change it back if you want, just wanted to make a minor edit to inform him on the history page that a section on the talk page was opened. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How many of the previous removals were you in a different hat? In my view you should still not touch this article after acting in such bad faith. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not proud of former edit warring actions that occurred on this page. I will concede here and admit that I was not as an informed editor overall back then as I am now. I am much more enlightened on Wikipedia policies and guidelines now and feel more experienced as an editor. Any more changes I make to this article shall be backed up by WP's guidelines and policies. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Where in those policies does it suggest you mention the actions of your own socks to support the idea that a removal is justified? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to my former edit warring and everything that entails it, I just told you that I am not proud of it. I just told you that any edit that shall be made to this article (or other) will be ones that are backed up by WP's guidelines and policies. The recent removal of that Moroccan Sultan picture was justified, as explained above. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Time Will Tell--Inayity (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So can anybody explain how the Moroccan Sultan picture is pertinent to this article? If not, the removal is suitable. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. As defined at the beginning of the article, it is, in the English language, a term that is applied only to a medieval people. The king of Morocco is not a Moor in English, and to describe him as such would generally be considered racist and offensive, IMHO. As a subsidiary point, the large section on a cognate term that is used in modern romance languages is utterly irrelevant to this article and needs to be cut back. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely concur and I decided to remove the image of the Sultan and Mohammed VI. Neither of them seem very relevant to this article. "Moors" or "Moor" is such a polysemous term and just because Mohammed VI might fall under that subcategory of an ambiguous term usage in modern times doesn't mean he deserves to be in the article. Sultan is not even relevant and Mohammed VI might fall under the modern usage of the term, but he still is not literally a "meanings" of the word or is he described in the article anywhere. It's best to just keep both out. ShawntheGod (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Source has been deemed unreliable by other editors and me. It has no scholarship and is questionable. Removal is clearly justified. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I almost believed you had changed. As it relates to that sneaky removal of the Book By Poole. We can now start a discussion of the problem with the images from the stable platform. B/c Currently one agenda pusher (Shawn) and Decausa do not want the image. b4 we edit war, let us discuss!--Inayity (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to edit war about here. That book is not reliable, deemed so by me and other editors. What don't you comprehend about that? The questionable views are transparent and it has no scholarship. As for the images? The sultan is not even relevant to this article and Mohammed IV does not belong in the article in my opinion. Another editor has agreed with me on that too. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

By what process was it deemed un RS? Have you even read the book? So I see not scholarly debate about it not being RS. If so take me to Google Scholar where that discussion is happening. Or you can get some fly-by editor to say he "had a quick look and did not like it" is that what you mean about "other editors", why not go and get some more puppets and do a vote. 200 uninformed editors cannot be one scholar on a topic--Inayity (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard is where this discussion should be carried out, go there to continue this conversation regarding the source, thank you. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Inayity "finally an actual rational for removing John Jackson, I am reasonable"; I have no doubt that you are my man. Me and you can both discuss things with civility as we agreed to do, no need to edit war. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent addition of a of a source by the scholar John Baker and minor textual change to "Berber" due to the fact "African" is a vague term (another editor agreed with me on this) and the original Moors were Arabs and Berbers. In modern day Iberia they refer to North Africans as 'Moors' and modern day North Africans are predominately Arabs and Berbers, so the "Berber" change makes much more sense. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Othello Not Relevant

Recent editorial removes Othello from the article due to the fact he is not relevant to the article. How? Because this article is about medieval Muslims who inhabited those areas listed in the lead. Othello was not a "medieval Muslim", nor did he inhabit any of those areas listed in the lead. Just because the appellation of 'Moor' was applied to Othello does not make him relevant to the article. You could apply that term to anyone, this article is about the medieval Muslims of certain areas, one that Othello was not. Removal of Othello from the article is clearly justified per WP:PERTINENCE and WP:IUP as he is extraneous to the article due to the fact he is not a Moor in the notion of this article and does not fit appositely towards any concepts described in this article. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The last sixty-eight times you proposed this - from your wide variety of identities - there was no support from anyone who wasn't you in a different hat. Give it a rest? Pinkbeast (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My contributions to this article has been significant. If you can tell me how the picture is relevant to the article, it can stay, but at this very moment in time it's extraneous. Othello is not a medieval Muslim and has no correlation to the article in anyway because he does not depict any concepts described in the article. Yes, the term 'Moor' was applied to him, it can be applied to anybody. Is he a Moor in the sense of this article? No. The last image of the Sultan was removed because it lacked pertinence to the article. If your best logicality for combating my rationale is "give it a rest?" that's not a very good one. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you refer to the discussion with all your previous personas? It's right up there and no doubt you read it at the time. I will gladly discuss this change with a good-faith editor - ie, not you - who supports it but it seems quite unnecessary to restate what I have stated before merely because you have changed identity. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly is your reason for Othello's pertinence to this article? If you can tell me how he's relevant, just do so right now, don't make such a lame post in which you duck giving me an actual reason. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Same as last time. And - like last time - let's see if an editor who's not a meatpuppeteer thinks you've got the right idea. Because - like last time - otherwise, there's not a scrap of consensus for the bee in your bonnet about Othello, so leave it alone?

I am not obliged to waste my time restating things I have stated before for the benefit of someone who, besides meatpuppeting, has yet to apologise for their prior incivility. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, the ol' reverting because no consensus, huh? Another lame post by you ducking an actual reason, because you have none. Othello fails to meet relevancy standards to this article, if he was pertinent, you could give me a bonafide reason. As for the whole 'meatpuppet' thing -- you're still dwelling on the edit war of the yore? The editor I was edit-warring with predominately and I agreed we would discuss the article in a manner of civility and abide WP's guidelines and policies, which I have done since then and have contributed greatly to this article. Can you give me a reason how Othello is relevant now or no? ShawntheGod (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, reverting because no consensus (more accurately, no support for your change). Yes, I'm still dwelling on you being a meatpuppeteer. You should have been blocked for it; you will be permanently tainted by it. Why should I ever trust you to be acting in good faith?

As I mentioned, I'm not obliged to repeat myself every time you get bored; no more than Talk:The Mousetrap would repeat the discussion about the plot summary every time some fresh person arrives.

I will gladly discuss this issue with any good-faith editor. That's hardly ducking it; it's entirely your own fault that you don't fall into that category. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So you have no reason for how Othello is relevant at hand, huh? You continuing to ignore the editorial at hand, huh? You don't think I'm a good-faith editor, huh? Even though I've made tons of edits that been included into this article -- I'm still not "good-faith" enough for you, huh? Oh, by the way, if you have a problem with me editing WP because of something that you believe happened in the past, take it to the correct noticeboard, don't continue to make the same trite comment. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also the image of Othello isn't copyvio, unlike the one you replaced it with - clever editing there! I do have a reason at hand; refer up the page to the previous discussion. I certainly intend to continue to mention you're a meatpuppeteer. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have done it. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How is my image a copyvio? What is the "reason at hand"? How is Othello relevant? Tell me, oh wait cause you can't, more ducking. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

11:22, 2 April 2014‎ Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,374 bytes) (-156)‎ . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:IbnBattutaportrait.png (en). It was deleted on Commons by Denniss (Copyright violation; see Commons:Commons:Licensing).)

I'm not ducking; I'll gladly discuss the issue with any good-faith editor, but I won't repeat myself for a meatpuppeteer. You are hardly the only other person who reads this talk page, so why not wait and see if anyone else joins the discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it was a copyright violation, it was an edited image of this one right here, which permission was granted by the author to be modified. Either way, that's irrelevant, why not tell me how Othello is relevant? Just tell me straight up, don't front. You keep ducking right now, so if Othello is relevant, how? Just tell me. If you can't, then it's quite clear you're ducking (again); I already told you too, if you have a problem with me as an editor because of the past, take it the correct noticeboard and complain properly, not on here. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Take it up with the deleting admin, not me. OK, since you are apparently completely incapable of searching the talk page, Othello is "enormously well known by virtue of being a (fictional) Moor", and please spare me the absurdity of discussing the genaeology of a fictional character. And I told you, I'll mention that you're a meatpuppeteer wherever I like. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have done it. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "I don't like it" it's the fact that's it completely irrelevant to our discussion about Othello now. He's a fictional Moor, so what does he have to do with this article? I already told you, he doesn't. He's extraneous, not a Moor in the sense of this article, he was not a medieval Muslim of any of those areas. He isn't a concept in this article, at all. He lacks pertinence to the article because nowhere is he relevant to the article at hand. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant because I only really want to discuss this with a good-faith editor and you aren't one.

As I said, discussion of whether a fictional character is of Moorish origins is absurd; you might as well worry about whether Jean-Luc Picard is a well-known fictional Frenchman in view of his accent. This is a pointless repetition of previous discussion on this talk page; you don't like the Othello image, no-one else (and I am quite willing to be corrected on this point) supported your position, leave it alone. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So your reason is simply because no consensus, that's it. Poor reason; Othello lacks pertinence to the article, you know this, or else you wouldn't be struggling to give me a reason as to how he's relevant. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No; my reason for pertinence is "extremely well-known fictional Moor". Shakespeare thought he was portraying a Moor, even if he was not well-informed on the subject; just as 30s SF views of Venus as ocean planet (as the science of the time supposed it was) are pertinent to the planet Venus even though the authors were equally ill-informed. You may not suppose that qualifies, but it's more than good enough for me.

The reason you should not make this edit is that the only person who wants it made is you, yes. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about 'fictional Moors' though, it's about the actual Moors of those areas listed in the article. Othello lacks pertinence to this article because he has nothing to do with any concepts described in it besides the fact the appellation of 'Moor' was applied to him. It could be applied to anybody, that doesn't mean they're Moors in the sense of the ones for this article. I also see another image that isn't congruent with the articles concept and should be removed in my opinion. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a great many other Wikipedia articles about real things which mention fictional depictions of those things, so your objection is moot. Are you going to remove the picture of an invading tripod from Mars? That's a fictional Martian, and it's probably rather less like the unicellular organisms that might just about possibly be present on Mars than Othello was like a real Moor. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because that's congruent with the section next to it. Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF; Othello lacks relevancy because he does not depict any concepts described in this article and is therefore irrelevant. I'll make a deal with you right now -- the Othello picture gets deleted and the Trarzas one too. They both get removed from the article and an image of Ibn Battuta goes up in replace of Othello. Why? Cause Ibn was an actual medieval Muslim from Morocco and he was a notable Moor for his great explorations. Does my proposed editorial sound good or not? If not, tell me why. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Very relevant as per all the explanations above. Wikipedia does not have these concerns and neither should we. A notable fictional character known to most of the English speaking world is relevant per the article Moor. Esp when it is crystal clear that Moor is NOT a official term used by any person called Moor. Muslims did not call themselves Moors, so the perception includes popular fiction.--Inayity (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"so the perception includes popular fiction"

That is not something this article is about, which all that Othello is. This article regards the Medieval Muslims of certain areas, meanings of the word, detail information of the Moors in (Iberia, Sicily, etc,) their influence there (architecture and heraldry section), and population types and notable Moors from those civilizations. Othello fails to meet the criterion of these concepts. Othello is a known fictional person; Ibn Battuta is a real Moor of accomplishment who fits the criteria of this article. Othello fails to meet relevancy in the current article. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but notice your "deal" is "ShawntheGod the meatpuppeteer will do whatever they want; every other editor will stop objecting". No thanks. Obviously, this proposed edit sounds terrible, for reasons which I do not propose to re-re-re-re-iterate. (The question of whether Battuta might go in is a bit of a red herring; clearly a separate issue).

You're approaching a bit of a circular argument here where the present content of the article (less the bits you don't like) define the content permissible in the article (so take out the bits you don't like). There isn't really a need for anything beyond the words below the picture of Othello because his identity is common knowledge and they link to the main article about him, but, if you want to write a short section about him, be my guest.

Please also try to indent talk pages correctly. If nothing else, it's in your best interests because it will remove one obvious tell from your next editing persona. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So you see that at the current state of the article Othello is not apposite in terms of criterion Pinkbeast? Good, if that's the case then removal is justified and the Trarza man is too, as the Emirate of Trarza has nothing to do with the Moors. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that is almost precisely not what I am saying. I'm saying the title of the article defines what it is about; the present content is not a rigid straitjacket for all future content. The title is Moors, Othello is a fictional Moor, the other chap is identified as Moorish and very likely of Moorish descent. No problem. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the title may be "Moors" but the images should depict concepts described in the article. See WP:IUP to be exact "images should depict concepts described in the article" something Othello fails to do. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It does depict a concept described in the article, viz, a Moor. It is very precisely the painter's concept of a Moor, even if it is inaccurate. Next? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so now anybody deemed a "Moor" can be included in the article? If I call myself a "Moor" and take a selfie of myself can I go along next to the "modern meanings" part? Don't be ridiculous now, it doesn't depict any direct concepts of the article. Notice how it says under content "concepts" referring to the article and its sections and "text of the article" referring to the textual in the articles sections. Othello does not meet relevancy. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are as well-known as Othello and the photo of you is a genuine attempt to depict a Moor by a photographer as notable in their field as Shakespeare is in his, I don't see why not. Of course, that doesn't apply. So, we're back where we started; you don't like the picture of Othello, no-one else agrees, stop sneaking back every few months to remove it in the hope we're tired of repeating ourselves endlessly? 14:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So once again, Othello fails to meet criterion. I'll quote the WP policy again "In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article.". Othello fails to meet relevancy because nowhere does he fit the criterion of concepts described in the text of the article. Is he a Moor of Iberia? No. Is he a Moor of Sicily? No. Is he a Moor of Morocco? No. Are you getting my point now? ShawntheGod (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I got your point about forty-eight iterations ago, probably not even on this sock. I just don't think it's valid, and mere repetition has failed to make it any more convincing. Is he a Moor? Yes. Would a real Moor who happened to be living in Venice be potentially relevant? Yes.

I don't propose to respond to any more replies until you at least start indenting correctly. I think we've gone around this quite far enough, and as mentioned, I really am only interested in discussing this with editors without a history of meatpuppetry. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So you understand my point? I'll even emphasize the exact words of much importance this time, last reiteration here. "In general, images should depict the CONCEPTS described in the TEXT of the ARTICLE." Nowhere does Othello go along with the concepts in the text of the article currently, therefore he is extraneous and removal is justified. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I comprehend your argument but it does not justify its conclusion. Enough said; I'm done here, at least until the next time you pretend silence implies assent. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So if you comprehend my argument then you see how Othello is not pertinent at the moment. He does not go along with any concepts in the article. Not the Moors of Iberia, Sicily, the architecture part, none. If he's not relevant, then how is the removal not justified? ShawntheGod (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the conclusion that he is not pertinent is false. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You just said @Pinkbeast that "I comprehend your argument" so if that's the case, then how is Othello relevant? What concepts in the article does he go along with? The Moors of Iberia? The architecture part? Enlighten me how he's relevant at this very moment. If you can tell me how he's relevant and therefore congruent at this moment, then please do so. If not, then the removal is clear. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a great many things, I imagine, that I would find it impossible to explain to you. That doesn't mean they are not necessarily true. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, @Pinkbeast, there is lucidity on both sides here. You know that the way the current article is Othello and some other images are not harmonious with the current concepts. You comprehend this; I also comprehend as to why you don't wanna remove Othello. He is a very noteworthy person the word "Moor" was applied to, probably the most renowned. I understand this, but you also know that he doesn't go along with the current concepts in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that at all. He's a Moor and the article is about Moors. What next, remove the chess-playing images because there's nothing specifically in there about Moors playing chess? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014

(UTC)

I'm not just singling out Othello, there are other images on this page that aren't congruent with the concepts too. The Moors playing chess are from Iberia -- they go along with the Moors of Iberia concept. Othello doesn't go along with any concepts. I understand your rationale for wanting to keep him in the article, but he isn't harmonious with the current concepts in the article and therefore extraneous to the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Modern meanings"

With the exception of Sri Lankan Moors, this section is largely irrelevant as it does not deal with "Moors", but with cognate terms used in other languages. This is of only tangential interest in an en.Wikipedia article and should be relegated to a footnote or just two or three lines. DeCausa (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Images That Don't Go along with the Concepts in the Article

I see some images at the very moment in the article that don't go along with concepts in the article. PER WP:IUP and to be specific"images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." and I see a lot of images that don't depict current concepts in the article. Yes, some of these images the people in these images may have been deemed 'Moorish' or 'Moor' but that doesn't mean they deserve to be in the article. They don't go along with any concepts in the article (Moors of Iberia, Sicily, architecture etc) and are completely extraneous to the article. Just because something has been deemed 'Moor' or 'Moorish' doesn't mean they are congruent with the article, if that was the case I could get someone to call myself a 'Moor' and a picture of me in the article could be fitting. The images of "Moors" or a 'Moor' in the article should depict direct concepts to go along with the article (Iberia, Sicily, etc) and the tasteless images that lack relevancy with the articles concept should be removed and possibly replaced. ShawntheGod (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me forestall the usual next stage where the meat puppeteer does whatever they like because "no-one objected". Leave it alone. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"leave it alone"

Some of these images seem completely superfluous and the ones that might be relevant to the article lack direct relevancy to the articles concepts. If you can't tell me how some of these images go hand in hand with the articles concepts, then they should be removed and that's per WP policy. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, WP policy is not that anything that can't be explained to one meatpuppeteer should be removed. Sorry. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So you can tell me how an image like Othello is relevant to the article? What concept is it depicting? Moors of Iberia? Sicily? Architecture? He is not even a medieval Muslim. If you can't tell me how Othello is pertinent, then it gets removed per WP policy. Let us build consensus here and converse with civility, not make off-topic comments or direct insults. Just answer the question about Othello. ShawntheGod (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what. Every time you want to repeat yourself, why don't you just look up there to find my previous reply? I've already replied to that question about half a dozen times. That'll save me some time, and you can continue this exercise in argumentam ad nauseam without having to wait for me to actually write anything. Since you appear to think that mere repetition will suddenly cause me to undergo a Damascene conversion, well, you'll be able to expedite the process that way. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Every time you corresponded to my rationale it was 'hurr durr he's a Moor so he can go in the article' but once again, he's not a 'Moor' in the sense of this article. He's not a medieval Muslim, he is not pertinent to the article in any of its various concepts. What don't you comprehend about that? The only "ad nauseam" that's occurring here is to thyself because of your trite responses that are nonsensical. You wanna keep Othello in the article? Fine. I understand he's a notable person the appellation of 'Moor' or whatever was applied to him, but he's not one in this sense of the article. Your rationale for wanting to keep him is because of his notability and famosity. My rationale for wanting to remove him is because he's not relevant to the article currently. How about I remove another picture that lacks congruency instead? Would this be better for you? Removing a picture of a so called 'Moor' or whatever that lacks relevancy and is lesser-known instead of removing Othello? ShawntheGod (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

See repeated previous responses above. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I just see the same trite response that makes no sense with WP image policy. You saying Othello can stay in the article cause he's a 'Moor and this article is about Moors' makes no sense. Not a Moor in the sense of this article, if anybody who was called a 'Moor' could be included in this article then my madre could call me that term and a picture of myself could go in the article. You do see how idiotic your logic is now, right? Images need to depict concepts in the article, something a few images in this article currently do not delineate. ShawntheGod (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent editorial replaces an image that lacks historicity (did not come from an area the Moors inhabited but from a German tapestry) and replaced with an image of historicity (taken from Cantigas de Santa Maria) and depicts concepts (Reconquista battle) described in the article, unlike the former image. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And replaced, no other editor supporting this change. Selfie "argument" responded to above, not repeating self. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why have a problem with an image that has historicity and depicts concepts in the article with an image that has no historicity and doesn't depict concepts in the article? You're not making any sense here. Reverting because no consensus is not a valid reason. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't replace the image you added, and much as you dislike being reverted because you never have any support for your changes, you might be used to it by now? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You know reverting because no consensus is such a reason of poverty. One advised against by our fellow WP brethren too. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed those two images in my recent editorial because they aren't pertinent to the article. They don't depict any concepts described in the article, completely extraneous. A man from the Emirate of Trarza is not a Moor and a German painting reconstructing the Moors is not depicting the Moors in Iberia, Sicily, etc, irrelevant too. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to the page adds a popular culture section (therefore allowing Othello to remain in the article), removal of the Wild Men and Moors image due to its failure to delineate any concepts in the article, and an image of the great explorer Ibn Battuta in the article in replace of the former image. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That is simply "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". Do you know what else is the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors? It's "leave the Moors article alone, meatpuppeteer". If you take the former as Gospel truth, why not the latter?

I've restored the images you removed, since there seems to be no support for your changes. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you have a problem with my removal of those three images? They don't depict any concepts described in the article. I didn't wanna remove Othello because he's such a noteworthy person the term 'Moor' was applied to so I made a pop culture section so he can be congruent with the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The definition of Moor.

Why are Moors defined as Medieval Moslems? The word Moor was used by Greeks and Romans to describe the ancient inhabitants of North Africa, the definition of Moor should begin with the Ancient Greek Roman period, not the Medieval ages. I think this article focuses too much on Islamic Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have frequent examples of Moor being used in non Islamic contexts. Such as the the Black Magus. If I am able to redefine moor to include moor as used in preislamic, Roman or Christian contexts in the lead, will the edit be allowed. And if no, why not? Because the lead which defines moor as medieval moslems has no references. Its just the opinion of a wiki editor, which is not good enough. Or at least it should not be.Kaigama33 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)