Talk:Moors/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Lead

I have restored the lead to the status ante for the moment. I support the edit by Soupforone with more precise language and the addition of the source. But rather than battling it out in edit summaries, let's please discuss here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Laszlo, your edit summery "restoring intro, stable for months, no need to rearrange..." is not a really plausible reason for your change. Please keep the intro as it is per consistency with the rest of article. Tarook97 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You keep switching these words and claiming "consistency". With what? For the record, the cited source, Fletcher, places Berber first, and the current form has been stable for months. Please stop edit warring. Per WP:BRD, we restore to the status ante until the issue has been discussed. You are currently at 5RR on this page today. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

With the lead paragraph and the rest of the article as I mentioned before. And again your stance on the argument is "has been stable for months". Again, please leave the intro as it is per consistency. Tarook97 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, the rest of the article. The first section, Etymology, begins with a discussion of Berbers and mentions Arabs among other groups only at the end. Then the Modern meanings also discusses Berbers before Arabs. So your claims of consistency make no sense. More importantly, you also reverted the change of wording added by Soupforone, and its source. If you do not have a reason for removing that, it should be restored. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that is because the etymology section deals with the word Mauri, which was a term used to refer to the Berbers, the rest of the article is consistence with the current order in the intro. As for Soupforone's edit, I thoroughly support restoring it in the etymology section and not the lead. Tarook97 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That edit had a portion in the lead, and a portion in the Etymology section. I believe you mistakenly thought they were both in the lead. I already restored the portion that was already in the Etymology section. The more precise language that he also added to the lead paragraph, with source, should also be restored, and you have offered no reason why it should not. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone's edit is clearly cited, makes sense, and supported by every editor other than Tarook97 - a familiar situation. It should be restored at once. Editors (ie, Tarook97) also should not abuse the minor edit facility for edits they know are contentious. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Laszlo, reasons were explicitly stated in my edit summaries. Etymology has no place in the introductory text per MOS:INTRO and MOS:BEGIN. I suggest re-writng the portion in the etymology section with more 'precise language' as you have stated. Tarook97 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Those sections of the MOS don't actually support this assertion that etymology should never go in the lead. The extremely minimal amount in Soupforone's version of the lead is entirely appropriate because it is directly relevant to the cited point that the Berbers were first. It should be restored. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

MOS:INTRO states "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" and "...avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols", MOS:BEGIN states "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". Again, I suggest re-writng the portion in the etymology section with more 'precise language' as Laszlow have stated. Tarook97 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The addition that Soupforone made to the Etymology is the more precise language, and his addition to the lead summarizes that, just as policy advises. And his detail about the name simply describes the subject of the article, as the policy supports. Your entire argument smacks of WP:IDHT. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit supports the MOS:BEGIN policy "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific"? Are you sure WP:IDHT applies to me? Tarook97 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone's edit clearly works toward defining the subject, and it cites an established RS. I don't see how it is too specific. Apparently no one but you does. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So far your arguments have been:

"It has been stable for months" (an argument against my edit, but not Soupforone's apparently)

"But the Etymology section mentions Berbers first"

"It supports [sic] the policy"

And now it seems you have resorted to counting noses. Please leave the lead as it is. Feel free to improve/add to the Etymology section, however. Tarook97 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"counting noses": Otherwise known as the consensus view. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You've done this before. It's a bit rich to complain about counting noses when what you want to do is count your own nose and stop there, no matter what anyone else thinks. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've put it back. That they "initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb" is well cited and hardly too specific for the lead. If any other editor sees any merit in Tarook97's position, we can reconsider it. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I am Sorry to Interrupt You, but... Pinkbeast, I think you've been quick to react, this is outside the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines especially you are not an administrator. Regards--Sarah Canbel (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. We'll end up with Soupforone's version, since every other editor supports it. The only question is how long Tarook will WP:IDHT. While we're waiting for that to happen - it can take a while - let's have the version that everyone else supports and that we're going to end up with. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Tarook97, MOS:BEGIN is irrelevant since the lede already inaccurately claimed that "the Moors[...] initially were Berber and Arab peoples from North Africa". The key word here is initially, which neither of the cited links make. More importantly, per Leo Africanus, a native of Al-Andalus, the Moors were Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores." [1]). Soupforone (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright then, we'll remove 'initially' from the introductory text for it to be "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages, who were Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa." (Arab and Berber per consistency as stated before). Now that that's done, the details from Africanus, as I have stated (and quoted) numerous times before, should not be listed in the introductory text per MOS:INTRO and MOS:BEGIN. Tarook97 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we won't. We'll use Soupforone's version which everyone but you prefers. Please stop wasting time with this; your claim that the MOS supports your point of view is simply not correct. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The only thing those policies state about etymology is "Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology," and "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section." Describing where the name came from is not disallowed by policy, and in fact is part of defining and identifying the topic, which is stated as the primary function of the opening. Consensus is clearly against you. That isn't simply nose counting; it is noting that nobody else agrees with you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Tarook97, I'm sorry but that won't work. Per Leo Africanus, the first Moors were Berbers rather than Arabians (his translator explains this too-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers" [2]). MOS:INTRO indicates that the lead should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". As Pinkbeast and Laszlo Panaflex have pointed out, that would certainly include this important fact, which is covered in the etymology. Soupforone (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone, you do realize that the lead (and the whole article) is about the "Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages" right? Mentioning the pre-Islamic "first Moors" of the former Roman Africa Province in the introductory text is a clear violation of MOS:BEGIN "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" and is plainly WP:IDHT. Tarook97 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a single plausible argument has been made by the three parties until now. Removing 'initially' from the current lead and placing the order as (Arab and Berber) seems to be the only reasonable thing to do. Sarah Canbel, what do you think? Tarook97 (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Leo Africanus was writing in the medieval period. You're therefore wrong about that as well. Soupforone (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed he was, but he was writing about the "first Moors", as you have stated earlier, and this article is not about that. Tarook97 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sez who? The opening sentence isn't a strait-jacket; to discuss the first Moors is entirely pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Laszlo, how about mentioning that the term was first applied to pre-Islamic Berbers in the lead section, but not the opening sentence? I suggest placing the statement in the third paragraph of the lead section and going with phrase# 1 for the opening sentence. I think this will solve the dispute. Tarook97 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Insert "primarily" into first sentence

Recent driveby edits have further confounded this issue that if the first sentence says "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages" we get these rather spurious "Ah, but not all Moors" objections, along with the equally spurious argument above that we can write nothing at all about any other Moors because that sentence is a straitjacket.

I suggest we try and head both of these off by changing the first sentence to read: The word "Moors" refers primarily to the Muslim inhabitants...

Or perhaps simply "The Moors were primarily the Muslim inhabitants ... Pinkbeast (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I thoroughly support adding 'primarily' to the opening sentence. Since the second paragraph states that the term was also applied to "Muslim Europeans", I suggest adding it to phrase# 1 for it to read:

The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages, who were primarily Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa.

— Tarook97 (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

hi

The term derives from the latin term maurus. first used during the roman empire period to denote an inhabitant of the Roman province of Mauritanian kingdom (present-day north of morocco), and the kingdom of Numidia present-day algeria and old Libya. that's mean the term used before Islamic period to donate to people in Maghreb (north west Africa, exactly north Africa without Egypt).

I suggest: The Moors were the Native inhabitants of the Maghreb, and their precence during middle age in Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta. محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks.

I think that the meaning of the word has changed. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Britannica defines 'Moor' as "a member of the Muslim population of what is now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins"[3] and only mentions its pre-Islamic use when discussing the origin of the term. Tarook97 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Lead

Consensus is for the second (#2) wording proposal for the opening sentence of the lead.- Mr X 23:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ok, the proposals for the lead are:

1. The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages, who were Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa.

2. The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. They initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb. The name was later also applied to Arabs.

All opinions are welcome. Tarook97 (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: The proposals are for the opening sentence of the lead section. Tarook97 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Phrase #1. The article concerns the "Muslim" inhabitants during the "Middle Ages", and the term 'Moors' was applied to "Arabs, North African Berbers, and Muslim Europeans". Mentioning the pre-Islamic "Mauri" or the "first Moors" of the former Roman Africa Province in the opening sentence of the article is unfitting and violates MOS:INTRO and MOS:BEGIN. It is also already mentioned in the Etymology section. Tarook97 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Phrase #2 - Per Leo Africanus, a native of Al-Andalus, the Moors were initially Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores." [4]). Soupforone (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Phrase #2. The body of the article, and the sources cited, make it clear that the term "Moor" was first applied to Berbers, and later extended to cover all Muslims. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Phrase #2 - Per the body of the article and various sources. And of course it is already mentioned in the body. Per WP:LEAD, the intro is a summary of the body; everything in the intro should be discussed in greater detail in the body. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I certainly support mentioning that the term was first applied to pre-Islamic Berbers in the lead section, but not in the opening sentence. Tarook97 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. It is presently the case that it's mentioned in the lead, but not in the opening sentence. I'm glad you've decided you're happy with the majority version after all. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Phrase #2 - the opening sentence is not a straitjacket, and the material seems entirely pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Phrase #1 - In fact, I don't like to interfere with the issue of ethnicity because Wikipedia is not the one who determines the origin of nationalities. We always find these variations on Wikipedia and social media. Here everyone wants to prove that he is right, to be more precise *who were Arab-Berber.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: this is not about ethnicity. As the second paragraph of the article explains, "Moor" was never an ethnicity. The word was variously used by different peoples at different times, but was never a self-designation. Maproom (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about any other editor but I'm certainly not grinding some kind of nationalist axe; I have no known Arab or Berber ancestors, not that I've looked. Furthermore, I think Soupforone has very effectively shown that they _are_ right. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The argument concerns the placement of Soupforone's edit, not its validity. Tarook97 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The unbolded portion of Sarah Canbel's comment does not simply concern itself with the placement, no. You may wish to reread it, although since you have agreed above that the present version is fine it seems we might conclude this RfC. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that, this RfC concerns the placement of Soupforone's edit, not its validity. And when did I agree that the 'present version is fine'? My suggestion is going with phrase #1 for the opening sentence of the article and placing Soupforone's addition in the second or third paragraphs of the lead section. I also support inserting 'primarily' into phrase #1, as I've done in the section below. Tarook97 (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

However, as you will be able to see if you review the indentation (most of us get it right, unlike you), I was replying to a specific comment and my reply is pertinent to that comment.

You said above "I certainly support mentioning that the term was first applied to pre-Islamic Berbers in the lead section, but not in the opening sentence". That is the present situation, and indeed it never has been placed in the opening sentence. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I'll rephrase that too: I certainly support placing Soupfornone's addition in the lead section, but not in the opening sentence. Tarook97 (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Great. It is in the lead section and not in the opening sentence. Since you support what we have now, I think we can close this RFC? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion is going with phrase #1 and placing Soupforone's addition in the second or third paragraphs of the lead section. I hope that's clear. Tarook97 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Phrase #1. It's more succinct, conveys the pertinent information, and flows better. The specifics can be explained later. Dbrote (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
2, as more informative, but maybe avoid using "autochthones", a specialist word understood by few. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
2 (Summoned by bot) Agree with aboves. Regarding use of word autochthones, I still remember its general definition, so I'm not too opposed to its use. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Phrase #2. The addition is well supported by sources in the article, and a bit of extra precision never hurts. – Joe (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Content of 2, but strong preference for rephrasing - I consider myself at least generally intelligent and I can't say I knew what "autochthones" meant. In the lead I think it's important for anyone to be able to understand it - after all, that is all some people will read. It should summarize without requiring /much/ background knowledge (yes, I know this isn't simple English WP, I've been mocked for that before, but alas). Further, I think it should be shortened into two sentences. "The term originally applied to the native peoples of North Africa, but was later expanded to include the Arab[ic] inhabitants of the region." That may not be 100% factually accurate, but that is the kind of idea of what I had in mind. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521105207/http://www.upf.edu/enoticies/home_upf_en/1206.html to http://www.upf.edu/enoticies/home_upf_en/1206.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123233237/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Moors to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Moors

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sources

~~@Soupforone: I added several reliable sources for the accepted academic mainstream definition of the term:~~

Houtsma, M. Th (1993). E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936. BRILL. p. 560

GhaneaBassiri, Kambiz (2010). A History of Islam in America: From the New World to the New World Order. Cambridge University Press. p. 25.

"Moor | people". Encyclopedia Britannica.

Flesler, Daniela (2008). The Return of the Moor: Spanish Responses to Contemporary Moroccan Immigration. Purdue University Press. p. 3.

~~Please do not remove them. There wasn't any sources to back the claim when the former consensus was made. In Wikipedia we conform to sources, not opinions. Loaka1 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)~~

Per WP:ONUS-- "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." As noted in the talkpage discussion here, the consensus for the lead wording is for phrasing #2 (viz. "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. They initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb. The name was later also applied to Arabs."). Soupforone (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC) :You cite WP:ONUS and your reason is that "the consensus for the lead wording is for phrasing #2". Let me repeat myself, there wasn't any sources to back the definition when that RfC happened. Also, consensus for something at one point in time does not simply mean that it is carved in stone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the community of people who build it, if several reliable sources are found supporting a definition that would help improve the article and constructively add to it, then it should not be removed, no merit. Loaka1 (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There were indeed citations, as time signatures show. Also, per MOS:LEADCITE-- "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Anyway, consensus is for phrasing #2. Soupforone (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC) :No, there weren't any citations supporting the definition as it is. The Manual of Style matter is not a reason to not include the material, this can be adjusted. Your replies are devoid of merit. Can someone kindly look into this? Thank you. Loaka1 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect as well (as per the 31 August [5] & 1 September [6] time signatures). Anyway, consensus is for phrasing #2. Also see WP:ESDONTS. Soupforone (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC) ~~:I'm afraid it is you who's mistaken; the definition I'm talking about is this:~~

~~"...who were Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa."~~

~~There weren't any citations supporting it as it is. Again, your replies have no merit. Loaka1 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)~~

That is incorrect too. The actual phrasing in the lead sentence was/is-- "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. They initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb. The name was later also applied to Arabs." [7] That is as well the consensus phrasing #2 [8]. Also see WP:CIV. Soupforone (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC) :How is that "incorrect"? I never mentioned anything about the "phrasing in the lead sentence". I explained as to what definition I was talking about. And please tell me, in what way have I been uncivil during this discussion? Your whole reply is a red herring. Loaka1 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in the content dispute at the moment, but To editor Loaka1:, your comments "your replies have no merit" and "your whole reply is a red herring" are uncivil and show lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, now I've looked. The version accepted by consensus had sources. I don't see any reason to overturn the RfC. You'll have to give better reasons than those above. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

::::During the RfC, there were no sources supporting phrase #1. The definition "Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa" is the widely accepted mainstream definition of the term per the sources above and almost every other academic source. The Leo Africanus source is for the pre-Islamic term "Mauri" while all the sources above are for the Moors, the "Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages." as the article lede reads. Loaka1 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Leo Africanus equates the Moors with Berbers and specifically differentiates them from Arabs. This was explained in the consensus discussion (with link-through), so everyone was already aware of it [9]. Anyway, we understand that you object to the phrasing #2. That doesn't, however, mean that there isn't a consensus for phrasing #2. Soupforone (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

::::::Of the two cited pages from Leo Africanus, page 20 does not mention Berbers, it instead states "Africans", the "white or tawnie" and the "Negros or blacke". Page 108 discusses the pre-Islamic "Mauri". The definition of the sources above however, and almost every other academic source, clearly and indisputably states that the Moors were Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa. In a way that is not vague or speculative. Loaka1 (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, per Leo Africanus (a native of Al-Andalus), the Moors were initially Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores" [10]. Leo Africanus' translator explains this too-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers" [11]. Anyway, consensus is for phrasing #2. Soupforone (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC) :'Al-Andalus' was non-existent by the time Africanus was born. The definition of the sources above precisely states "Arabs and Berbers" instead of the vague "Africans", see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And again, page 108 concerns the pre-Islamic "Mauri". You are not listening. Loaka1 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Al-Andalus reached its peak before Leo Africanus, but still existed during the time when he was born (albeit barely). Ergo, Category:15th-century Al-Andalus people. As for the rest, I think I'll go with what the actual text above indicates, thanks. Soupforone (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I respect your comment on what you'll "go with"; however, in Wikipedia we do not vote. I now ask for an administrator's attention on the matter for achieving consensus per WP:CCC & WP:CONADMIN. Thank you. Loaka1 (talk) 07:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Soupforone and Doug Weller. Let the RfC outcome stand. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Loaka1, Doug Weller is an administrator, and he just explained to you above that consensus has already been established through the RFC discussion. That consensus is for phrasing #2 [12]. Soupforone (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CCC policy states: "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." Doug Weller asked me to provide further reasons why the change should be implemented, which I did. As for Pinkbeast, you haven't really given a reason for your stance. I, however, did. Thank you. Loaka1 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the reasoning has been well enough elucidated by others. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

~~I'm afraid this will not suffice. Give a reason for your stance and do not just vote. Loaka1 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)~~

The reasons you provided were that "Al-Andalus was non-existent by the time Africanus was born" (proven incorrect by the category page above), and that "the definition of the sources above precisely states "Arabs and Berbers" instead of the vague "Africans"" (also proven incorrect by the Leo Africanus quote above). Also see WP:IDHT. Soupforone (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast, agreed. Soupforone (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Proven incorrect", is that argument by assertion? My comment on al-Andalus was not a reason, it was merely a correction (although, he is in fact not listed in the category). And where exactly is the word "Berbers" stated in page 20? Are you sure I'm the one who's not listening? Loaka1 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That the Moors were initially Berbers is indicated on page 108 (not page 20)-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers" [13]. Soupforone (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

~~Page 108 concerns the pre-Islamic "Mauri", I have explained that countless times in Simple English. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and etymological fallacy. Loaka1 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)~~

~~I will now go ahead and restore the sources and the definition per WP:SILENCE. Loaka1 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)~~

The consensus is for phrasing #2, as myself, Doug Weller and Pinkbeast have pointed out above. Soupforone (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Struck sockpuppet edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarook97/Archive Doug Weller talk 09:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding Etymology for Moors

I believe it would improve the article to add a etymology about the root of the word moor.

(from the Greek adj. μαύρον, mouros) meaning to be ruddy, black or dark-skinned.

I spoke with user Doug Weller and was told that these two links were more than adequate to include in the article.

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1075/jgl.7.03 https://www.springer.com/gb/book/9781441980700 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.117.186 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Springer and Brill are certainly reliable sources. There aren't two journal articles, there's a journal and an Encyclopedia Doug Weller talk 19:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I do wish this had been brought up earlier. Brill and Springer, as publishers, are certainly reliable sources, and I don't dispute that, so I'm certainly willing to withdraw my earlier objections, as long as the articles are properly sourced. (Which, of course, I'll gladly do, if for no other reason than to fully test Provelt.) — Javert2113 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The first of these links on the talk page seems to be a 404. The second lets me search in the text of the book and says "mouros" and "Moor" cannot be found when I do.

Presently, however, this material is in the article cited to:

http://imbs.uci.edu/~kjameson/ECST/Warbuton_AncientColorCategories.pdf - a chapter from the Springer encyclopaedia, in which the words "mouros" and "Moor" do not appear.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/ananda-triulzi/ancient-greek-color-vision - a piece by a student in which these words also do not appear.

http://www.kennycoventry.org/pdfs/greek.pdf - a paper in which these words also do not appear.

Hence I find the recent reinsertion of this material by Roger 8 Roger quite remarkable. Yes, cites are provided and the first and third may be reliable - but, unless I am missing something, they don't discuss the etymology of "Moor" at all.Pinkbeast (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Those, indeed, were (and are) my original issues with the articles themselves. I admit, I edited my earlier statement before publishing it, removing a line about the methodology of the journals: the Coventry paper (aside from its strange sourcing from Coventry's own website) indeed doesn't mention anything about Moors, and the Springer encyclopaedia lacks it, too (and spends too much time discussing colours in Chinese, might I add, but that's neither here nor there). And the blog post can be dismissed, correctly. All in all, upon further reflection, I spoke too hastily earlier. — Javert2113 (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the term mauri is Punic in origin, and it passed from Latin into Greek:

After the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C., the Latin word Mauri indicates a group of relatively sedentary tribes who lived between the Atlantic and the rivers Moulouya and Chélif in the Roman provinces of Mauretania Caesariensis and Mauretania Tingitana. Later, the Latin word Mauri passed into Greek in the form of Muupoq (Pauly-Wissowa, xiv [I930], cols. 2348-51), and both terms were then used to indicate, in a rather general way, the Berbers. In Spain, Mauri became Moros, and it was under this name that the inhabitants of the Peninsula designed the Muslim conquerors during the whole period of the Muslim domination (711-1492). The term Moros, which has been adopted into the various languages of Western Europe (Mauren, Maures, Mauri, Mohren, Moors, Moren, etc.), thus has a geographical meaning, i.e. indicating the people coming from the African coast, rather than an ethnographical one.^[1]

Mauretania, which was variously divided at different periods, was all of north-west Africa north of the desert and west of Numidia. Mauri -- Moors-- eventually came to mean all of the non-romanized inhabitants, including those in Numidia and even the former Africa Proconsularis. It was probably a contraction of a Punic word for 'westerners'.^[2]

In the 20th century, in 1927 to be precise, Stephan Gsell affirmed that the Latin name of the Mauri was Libyan in origin and could be related to the name Mauros, attributing a Punic etymology to Maho. He also related it to the form Maouharim, whose meaning ("the Westerners") designated the ethnic groups who had settled in the far North-West of the Maghreb (Cabrera, 1993: 16; 1996: 74). A couple of years later, Alvarez Delgado (1957) argued that Maoh could be a generic word translatable as "the earth" or "the country", but made no reference to the name of the island itself. Therefore, Mahoreros would be an archaism derived from Maho and, with the addition of the Spanish suffix "era" which is very common in the Canaries, it would mean "the settlers". Later on, Georges Marcy (1962: 282-283), rejecting Alvarez Delgado's opinion and seconding Gsell, related the term Maho to the Mauros.^[3]

References

^ Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb (1993). The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Brill. p. 236.
^ Susan Raven (6 December 2012). Rome in Africa. Routledge. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-134-89239-6.
^ A. José Farrujia de la Rosa (2005). Imperialist archaeology in the Canary Islands: French and German studies on prehistoric colonization at the end of the 19th century. John and Erica Hedges. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-84171-394-6.

M.Bitton (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The wiktionary article explains as such

Moor (people) Etymology
From French More, Maure, from Latin Maurus (“a Moor, meaning a Mauritanian, an inhabitant of Mauritania”), possibly from Ancient Greek Μαῦρος (Maûros), μαυρός (maurós, “black, dark”), an aphetic form of ἀμαυρός (amaurós, “dark, obscure”).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Moor

I'm only seeking unilateralism across the whole of the Wikimedia Foundation. Maghrebi94 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works (not that that says more than "possibly"). To make a change to this page, you need to present a source for use on this page - and, unlike the anon editor above, you need to present a source that actually says what you are claiming. You can't use Wiktionary as a source. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Depiction of Moors

I will include a gallery of the moors of the Early Modern Ages, a paintings of the time, there are existing in the world strangelly just a few, and more few in the commons, i will add exacty 6 images , 4 from morocco, and 2 from middle east. it shows the large variation of etchnic that were part of the moors until early mniddle ages.

The article also try to found a description of the ethnic moors. well, the images gives a more clear aswer of that. if you see the artcile half of this is about try to found that.

the artcile is called moors, but it not clear how the moors look. who were the moors. its just a galley. remember that moors dont disappear after the middle ages. so what is the problem to add that--BrugesFR (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Per, Wikipedia:NOETHNICGALLERIES, "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members." --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@BrugesFR: remember that moors dont disappear after the middle ages Nobody said that they have, but if one were to apply that kind of logic, 21st century pictures of Maghrebis will do just as well (clearly, a non acceptable proposition regardless of how you look at it). I will revert your edit and ask you politely not to revert again (you've made 8 edits so far, so I'll be very careful if I were you). M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: 8 edits? do you counted i just revert one or two. is not the same all people know how now magherbis look like, i beside only included famous people. morishg empires continues to exists in the early-modern agest, not finished in medieval times. now not exist maoorish but are divided in maghrebis and arabs. its different, its like to say celtics and spaniards. they are different people that were in the same country at diferent times--BrugesFR (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

but if they were a clear painting that how to look like the celts why not to add that--BrugesFR (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@BrugesFR: Did you read the article posted by Kansas Bear? M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes before but this not appy because the is a defunct denomination, no there not a region called "of the moors" or "moorish" there are not 20th century moors but other denominated regions of peoples--BrugesFR (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you don't agree with these two RFCs.[14][15] In that case, I suggest you start a new new one. M.Bitton (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

One this is Moroccans or English people and other is celtics, ancien-egiptians, ancient-romans, the leatter is a active discussion i just help to solving add images of the time representing all the etnics that cvomposed the moors--BrugesFR (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You pretty much are making a solid case for why the RFCs were needed in the first place, but like I said, don't let that stop you, feel free to challege them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups. M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the gallery. Please state here a rationale before adding it back. Images in Wikipedia articles should support or illustrate things that are written about and add significantly to the reader's understanding. --John (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)