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)

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)

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)