Talk:Moors/Archive 1

Duplication
I hope we can agree that the duplication of "notable Moors" is not necessary. If I had more than a few minutes, I would combine the two sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainbrain27 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right editing artefact, my mistake. collounsbury (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Racist Term
Having lived in Spain I soon realised that the use of the word 'Moro' is in fact racist and is used by spanish racists when they refer to Moroccan people. A Moroccan man killed a Spanish man because he called him a MORO. This happened in the Spanish city were I was living at that time. Where do Moros/moors come from? Here's a clue (M-O-R-Occan/M-O-R-Occo) - if you really think about it why do people have to deny this when it is a fact? Every Spanish person I know do not deny this. I even have met a Spanish man who has said he has Moroccan ancestry! The Spanish really confess that they are too proud to admit defeat by the Moroccans who so happen to belong to a culture and different religion and who so happen not to be white so to cover this up they start inventing words such as 'the moors or moros once conquered Spain'. This is not any different to the racist terms used to refer to black people and Pakistani people.

Historically, Morocco and Spain have always had a bittersweet relationship due to the very close proximity of the two countries, where they have each conquered some parts of each other's countries. During the Spainish Civil War the dictator Franco even recruited Moroccans to join the Spainish army refering them to being strong people in regards to their colonial presence before in Spain for 800-1000 years. In the last bloody conquest of Spain the Spanish forcibly converted anyone Muslim or Jewish to become Christian or they would be killed. So ironically as if in an act of revenge, soon after the re-conquest the Moroccan sultan, Moulay Ismail was responsible for enslaving around one million white europeans Most of the slaves were Spanish and just as the Spanish treated the Moroccans during the reconquest, they forced the Christian slaves to convert to Islam even though no forced conversions were made when the Moroccans were happily living together with fellow Christians and Jewish in Spain. Acquiring jobs are made difficult due to racism especially in gaining Spanish citizenship even though Spain still colonize two Northern Moroccan cities - Ceuta and Mellila! Many Spanish people were born there and have lived there without problems in regards to difference of culture and religion and celebrate Christian festivals, have their own cemeteries all on Moroccan soil with absolute no problems! In contrast to this, there are around 5 million Moroccan people presently living in Spain and who are the largest Muslim group living in Spain.To even have a Mosque as a place of worship involves a lot of bureaucracy from the local governments as well as the many racist protests held by the Spanish people as well as an ever increasing presence of Nazi Spanish movements where they grafitti on walls ' Fuera Moros' - This means 'get out Moros', aimed at the Moroccan people whose increased migration to Spain has forced these Spanish racists to come face to face with their ancestral past whether they accept it or not.

In 2006 the Andalusian government had introduced a recent Article into the law to allow any Moroccan person to acquire Spanish citizenship with ease, as they are found to be descendents of 'Moriscos' (Moroccans whose ancesters are of Moroccan and Spainish mixed descent during the time of Islamic rule in Spain). The Spanish and Moroccan Academics and historians have called for equality for the Moroccan people since 1992. Currently Morrocan people have to live and work 10 years in Spain for them to gain Spanish citizenship, and only 5 years if a Moroccan is married to a Spanish person. Other people from the Spanish colonies such as from Latin America, Philippines and Equatorial Guinea are granted Spanish citizenship after 2 year of living and working in Spain. Again, this highlights the inequal treatment of Moroccan people because the North of Morocco was once conquered by the Spanish. At present the Spanish are still in control of the Moroccan cities of Ceuta and Mellila.

The Spanish tried energetically to remove historical facts as to the origin of the Muslims who ruled in Spain between 800-1000 years and have used the word Moro to hide the fact that it was the Moroccans who conquered Spain. The strong Arabic influence on the language (nearly 4,000 words are of Arabic origin, many nouns and few verbs)exists today [49]. The word 'Moro' has been extensively used within Tourist books and brainwashed into tourists to Spain to describe the historical Islamic past of Spain without realising that the word is racist. Soon after the Spanish reconquest, Spain colonized Philippines. Once again anything non-christian was eradicated to almost all parts of the Philippines where the people were forced to change their names to Spanish names and forced to convert to Christianity or be killed. No tactic was any different to how the Spanish treated the Muslims and Jewish living in Spain during the reconquest. The Spanish worked so hard to remove any evidence of pre-colonial times before colonization. The only part of Philippines which the Spanish failed to colonize and covert remains an Islamic part of the south of Philippines (Mindanao), where the filipinos remain Muslim. This is the greatest evidence to suggest that filipinos were once Muslim. The Spanish even had the cheek to call muslim filipinos 'Moros' which is still used in Philppines to describe a Muslim person! If you think about it, if a 'Moro' is supposedly a person of muslim/arab descent then how come the term 'Moorish' and 'Moro' are not used at all in the Middle East to describe anything Arabic or a Arab person?

Moroccan people have the most diverse range and look compared to any people from any country in the world, and have done for many centuries even before the expedition of Europeans to native countries outside Europe. Within a Moroccan family you can even see the striking diversity in skin colours and facial features. There are native Moroccans who have blonde/ginger hair, blue/green eyes (especially in the northern part – Rif), black/brown haired, afro haired people. They can look like Northern European people, Mediterrean people, South American, South East Asian, Arab looking, black African, black with european features, and even Oriental looking. Moroccans can represent each continent of the world. It is difficult to say how a typical Moroccan person looks like, because there isn't one look to define them. To believe it, you would have to travel to Morocco yourself.

"There exists a number of studies which focus on the genetic impact of the centuries of Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula (al-Andalus) on the genetic make up of the Iberian population. Iberia is the region of Europe (along Sicily) with highest presence of the typically North West African Y-chromosome haplotypes E-M81 and Haplotype Va . A thorough Y-chromosome analysis of the Iberian peninsula reveal that haplotype E-M81 surpasses frequencies of 10% in Southern Iberia. As for Mtdna analysis (Mitochondrial DNA), Iberia has much higher frequencies of typically North African Haplogroup U6 than those generally observed in Europe.   . North African ancestry in Iberia (Algarve and Alentejo, Portugal) is largely on the maternal side where the mtDNA contribution of NW Africa to Iberia  (given that the average frequency of U6 is 10% in NW Africa compared with 1.8% in Iberia) can be estimated at 8% " 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC) (J Manuel)

!!
ALL THIS above is only bull-shit. Genetic modern studies shows that african genes has insignificant presence in Iberia (Gibraltar strait was always an efficient barrier). This very low frequency of african genes is, on the other hand, primaryly bereber, from Neolithic, but not from Islam conquest age. But besides, muslims people of Al-Andalus weren't never arabs, neither moores, they were just hispano-romans (culturally) and racial-genetic just celti-iberians, people that saw changed their militar authorities (minority) after Roman Empire collapsed: Rome transmited their culture and language to celtiberians people. This is the cultural tradition (+ christianism) that Spain & Portugal modern states belong and their people practice. After Rome came the Gothics (probably from Scandinavia), assimilated culturally because their cultural values were quite inferior to classical tradition (greco-roman).Then Omeya caliphat (arabs educated in Classical traditions and of course the only cult muslims that come to Iberia), later almohade and almoravide fanatic tribes of Magreb that destroyed all christian art in Al-Andalus and massacred populations. All of them, militar elites that imposed Islam rules and muslim laws and forced to convert celti-iberians christians to Islam (by violence use and economical discrimination policies). But, never there was a "crossbreed" iberian-moor, neither racial, neither cultural. Only celtiberians muslims, not celti-iberians-moores half christians half muslims. You should learn before real Spain history, rather believe in false romantic cliches. (Fernando Rodriguez)

-- In response to Fernando Rodriguez, the only ignorant Spanish person who denies all I say. Whatever text books or crap you copied from is the most BULL-SHIT I have ever read. I'd be interested to know where you got your so called facts and quotations from since you left those out. But of course I already know that all of the above is lies, lies, lies, doesn't make sense at all- you know it, your parents, grandparents and people who feed you these lies knows it. Don't be angry with Spain's history just because the Arabs and Moroccans were stronger than the Spainish people before. Why is it that white, European people always feel bitter and cannot admit defeat? Just live with it. Let me tell all some home truths, ignorance and racism is still very present in Spain today so I am not surprised with all you say. I would suggest that you go get a D.N.A test to confirm your ancestry because the truth is running in your veins. Trust me, I know enough about Spain and it's history, good and bad without you having to tell me. I suggest you need to go out there and do more research on Spain - travel to Andulacia, speak and converse with people and while you're there you might as well take a short ferry trip to Morocco and see how close to home you'll feel, it might be an eye opener for you and will stop you from continually spitting out lies, really it's an abomination what you are saying, you should be ashamed with yourself. (JM) 14:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)(J Manuel)

Pencil and Charcoal Drawing
Of what time and place is the pencil and charcoal drawing ?S710 19:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a photograph that user:elohimgenius is dishonestly presenting as a drawing by photoshopping it. It looks c1900. It seems to have bee copied from hee Paul B 06:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The image actually has been labeled properly. Also fellas let's try to keep our new comments at the bottom of the page which is the norm. I don't know if the photo is trying to be passed off or not Paul B. but apparently the correction has been made with the proper copyright info. I emailed Elohimgenius and he responded by saying that it wasn't his intent and he couldn't find the right link for the copyright info. Let's try not to be so quick to judge shall we? I pointed him in the right direction of the correct copyright tag. Thank You


 * You emailed him Mr Oh-So-Anonymous? Oh really? What tosh. The image was deliberately manipulated to appear to be a drawing - after it had already been deleted in its original form because of copyright issues. Paul B 20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did receive an email Paul B. I couldn't find the appropriate link for it and it kept being deleted. And after asking a few times no one offered any help. So you are correct. But wouldn't it be the wiser to help a fellow Wikipedian out instead of ridicule. Apparently one person on here has nice enough to let me know the mistake and show me how to correct it.--Gnosis 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate and Entlire Misleading
In Spanish history, the Moors were NOT the Spanish Muslims but invaders from North Aftica invited into the country in 1086 CE by defeated Muslim princes called taifas. The two Moorish dynasties -- Almoravids and Almohads -- were violent and fundamentalist followers of the Maliki school of Islam and radicalized Spanish Christians against their Muslim neighbors.

Ironically, they were also not properly "Moors" or Moroccans, but Senegalese -- black Africans, hence the famous dark skin color associated with the "Moors". Check the map on the Almoravid page.

The Christians merely assumed that they were from Morocco becasue they came to Spain from the south. The Moors built the great archetectural gems produced by Spanish Arabs or Muslims, such as the Alhambra.

I wonder what the procedure will be, and how long it will take the arbiter to remove the "disputed" tag.S710 17:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites sources that the word "Moor" is now commonly used for all Muslims inhabiting Spain from 721 until 1492, not just Berbers or blacks. You do not cite any sources proving otherwise.S710 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't give a damn how "commonly" the term is now used, it is innacurate and an injustice.68.5.64.178 05:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't give a dame how upset you are. The article is supposed to list the meanings of the term. "Moor" came to have general meaning of North African Muslim. It also acquired the meaning of "dark skinned person". Paul B 06:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I don't give a "dame" about how ignorant YOU are. Try reading the article Almoravid dynasty and for heaven's sake get off it. The article contains a map that clearly shows the migration of the Almoravids (or Morabits) from Morocco into Spain. The Spanish were occupied for sixty years by this particularly vicious, Taliban-style dynasty which was really, really, dark (unless you can find evidence of a white tribe from that part of the world, I can't). The Almoravids were eventually succeeded by the Almohad dynasty or Muwahhids (confusing names, I know), Berbers who were intially as nasty as their predecessors (they exiled Maimonides, for example) but eventually matured somewhat.
 * Hence, the confusion -- The first black people the Spanish were likely to have ever seen came to Spain as brutal conquerors by way of Morroco in 1086. Sixty years of Almoravid terror had a predictable effects. Spanish Christians ultimately mirrored their enemy. They became militant, religiously intolerant, expansionist, and racist. And they confused "dark" skin with Moroccans. Scott Adler 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that was a load of baloney. The map does not show the "migration of the Amoravids from Senegal". Indeed it states that they originated in "South Morocco"! So please give over the self-righteous ranting. Your use of the term "dark" in a way that merges claims about skin-pigmentaion with moral qualities is disgraceful. Paul B 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
For what reason do my Quotes section keep getting deleted?

Moors Depicted In European Art
Traditionally Moors were often depicted in European art as Black African people. Not always flattering works of art but none the less it leaves no doubt that 19th century Europeans had addressed Black People as Moors. I have a few links that you guys should look at:



Many painters such as Rembrandt had a fasination with the Black people living and working in the Netherlands. In fact the Dutch art historian Esther Schreuder is having an exhibiton on the subject of Dutch painters who loved to paint Moors in 2008. I will make a personal trip to see it. I can't wait. Here is the website along with audio of an Schreuder interview.



[Nita June 19, 2006]

Yet more links to help people come to understand that the Moors that invaded and brought culture and spirtuallity to much of Europe were indead Black Africans.

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/collection/features/black_presence/moors_head.htm http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/collection/features/black_presence/default.htm


 * yes, but noting that the NG says in the first link:"The Moors (of black and mixed Arab heritage)...." Johnbod 11:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which means they were black. And to show you that they were a Black African race of people they showed you the paintings. (75.2.244.109 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

Don't play the racist card
Depicted in art? I have mainstream books with artwork depicting the battles between the Muslims and Christians in Spain. The Muslims and Christians are indistguishable in terms of color, and are only known because of the garb they where, besides one black man in a large crowd of Moors. That shows there was indeed a black presence, but that the majority were not black, as you claim. Afro-centrist books do not matter, simply because over and over they claim that everyone in Africa was black. Hannibal, the famous Carthaginian general, is often claimed by the Afro-centrists as a black man, even though he has always been depicted (even in ancient times) as not. While the Egyptians definitely have gained black admixture over time, it is also false to claim the Egyptians as black, as many Afro-centrists do. If they were, the Nubians would not be portrayed differently, or regarded as obvious foreigners. In addition, you calling people who don't agree with you as racist is an ignorant thing. I do not deny the might and power of Sub-Saharan African civilizations. The Nubians, the Ethiopians, the Zulus, and the Ancient Kingdom of Ghana to name a few are great examples. However, I do have a problem with Afro-centrists claiming non-black civilizations or principally non-black civilizations as their own. '''I do too but you need to leave Egypt out of this since Egypt actually was a black civilization and ancient writers knew that. They definitely weren't white or semitic, and white North Africans/Lybians didn't enter Egypt until right before the 12th Dynasty I believe, as it is recorded'''.Taharqa 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) I do realize that you said not all Moors were black, but you said MOST were. And that is simply not the case. Mainstream sources tell us this. In England the term Moor came to mean black people because most Englishmen had never seen Moors. '''Not true, Maures means "black"! You're so evasive from common sense'''.Taharqa 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) The civilization that conquered Spain was not principally black; This is seen not only in the present population of Spain (since black genes are genetically dominant over Caucasoids, they should somewhat resemble the people of Haiti), but in the present populations of North Africa. JBull12 20:29, 19 April 2006

Here's a link: Mainstream Encarta...http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558815/Moors.html

^'''This is the most idiotic claim I've ever read, Spain has substantial amounts of e3b African haploid in much higher frequencies than the rest of Europe. Haitians started off as African you imbecile'''.Taharqa 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you regard Encarta, which is a mainstream encyclopedia, as "Euro-centric" shows your bias. You cannot simply blow it off, as I can with your sources, because your sources were written either by White supremists who would like to regard Muslims as enemies of the "white race", and therefore not white or even caucasoid, or by blacks who would like to claim their civilization. Nobody is claiming anything, you definitely can't claim it either as the original moors were described as black-skinned as the native inhabitants of Mauretania. 500 A.D., http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/anc-nafrica.html. You sound stupid by rejecting mainstream works, and because of that, I don't even have to explain it anymore. You've proven that you are irrational simply by that statement. Your authors are obvious with their Afro-centric slant, and that is why they fail to receive little mainstream attention, if any. Keita says they weren't all or even mostly white, yet he gets all the attention in the world and is a leading anthropologist published in peer reviewed journals. Taharqa 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) You are the one that has the burden of proof, because modern Arab and Berber inhabitants of North Africa are mostly Caucasoid. '''No they're not idiot! On a genetic grapg Berber groups cluster exactly in between the two extremes of negro and caucasoid, right in the middle! They're neither caucasoid nor negro, Arabs plot a little closer to K-Zoid, which really is an obsolete term, there's no such thing as "Extra-European Caucasoid", white people adapted in Europe and people who are white skinned in Africa are descendants of invaders. No one develops "white" skin in Africa naturally, no no where in Africa because no where is it cold and cloudy and UV rays penetrate easily'''.Taharqa 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) If the Moors of Spain were mostly black as you say, then why don't they make up a large portion of the population in North Africa? And you can't cite the vast land in North Africa either, because most of it isn't inhabited.

^Look up the history of Mauretania on wikipedia, a lot of Africans got pushed south by arabs and Berbers like the Taureg.Taharqa 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And to respond to your overused Othello comment: The English lived in England and had relatively little contact with Arabs, Berbers, or Blacks. When they did have contact with blacks, who were obviously more conspicuous than Arabs, the ones they came into contact with typically did hail from Muslim civilizations simply because Muslim civilizations were more advanced in terms of their travel and navigation, as well as more motivated. Just as the term Hispanic has been modified in English to describe people who typically appear more Native American from a Spanish-speaking country rather than a Caucasian from Iberia, Moor came to mean Black in England, in common usage. The majority Caucasoid Muslim civilization of Spain continued to be called "Saracen" by Northern Europeans, whilst the Iberians used the term "Moro". Moor became later used by the Northern Europeans, looking back, and using an Anglicized Spanish term. This happened as well with the term "Arab", which in the middle ages meant only what the modern term Bedouin (desert-dweller) means today.

I'm done, I've come to the conclusion that most white people are fucking brainwashed and don't even see your own folly and errors in logic.. smhTaharqa 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:

"I do have a problem with Afro-centrists claiming non-black civilizations or principally non-black civilizations as their own." (substitute the word 'white' for the word "black" in this sentense) - lol, do you have the same problem with eurocentrists claiming non-barbarian civilizations (i.e. rome, greece, egypt, etc...) as their own by descendants of barbarians? please stop. look at depictions of pharaoh akhenaten's mother, then get over it. remember (or learn) that egypt was divided into two kingdoms (upper and lower). please, by all means, with the same energy and enthusiasm go to the roman, greek, egyptian and stress the distinctions between them and the germanians, gauls/french, etc... go split hairs with the same exact intensity and challenge the overwhelmingly dominant eurocentrist erroneous historical distortions (which are abundant). or you could start with the grossly distorted western perspective of polynesia.

"...it is also false to claim the Egyptians as black, as many Afro-centrists do. If they were, the Nubians would not be portrayed differently..." dude, for the love of god think hard, apply these same cricisms to the eurocentrist perspective! i.e. depictions of gauls and germanics. yes, its true (contrary to the eurocentrist view) africans are diverse and black africans have a history of subjugating other black africans. do you know why? because the word "african" was defined by a european and has no definite or functional meaning (other than geographical). many black "africans" have different features/characteristics and skin tones than other black "africans". there is immense diversity in africa and same point can be made about whites. many "white" european groups have distinctly different features/characteristics than other “white” european groups. Dude, there are nappy headed “black” people walking around right here in america that have “whiter” skin than many “white” people.

Finally, “Caucasian” is part of the absurd, erroneous and fabricated ideological belief in “race” which an obsolete concept. don't perpetuate it anymore, its over. Schools out.

"While the Egyptians definitely have gained black admixture over time, it is also false to claim the Egyptians as black, as many Afro-centrists do. If they were, the Nubians would not be portrayed differently, or regarded as obvious foreigners."

^^That is the most idiotic and biased argument I've heard in my life. The Egyptians distinguished themselves from Europeans and Eurasians in even bigger contrast. They were portrayed as "White skinned" or "Yellow", while the Egyptians were portrayed as "dark brown", and no where do these paintings indicate that these "Black skinned" drawings the only type of "blacks". I'm not that fucking dark, but I'm black and I'm not mixed. Egyptians had no word for "Nubian", that's a recent term. They could of just been of other Africans who were darker than some of the population on average, especially in the north. Like Ethiopians and Kenyans, or indigenous Sahaliens and West Africans, even though they're right next door. Cranial studies and body/limb proportions suggest more relationships with other Africans than anyone else. Give me one up to date study that says the Egyptians were white or even "Caucasoid", then show me one that says they were Asian. They were Africans no different than any others as all blacks don't look the same, stop being ignorant Eurocentric dude..

Update your reading, here, from 2005. The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africaTaharqa 06:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Read a book and update your self because you're ignorant and there's no way you can swing it around to an "afrocentric" issue, it's a eurocentric one. Also Strabo attested to the fact that the original people of Mauretania as "black skinned, in contrast to white skin, not relativly speaking as some racist crack pots try to convince people to believe. Hannibal was a descendant of phonecia so most likely he was semitic, but that doesn't mean he wasn't mixed sense Keita attests to the fact that a lot of people in the area varied in phenotype. And why would you ignore that guy's pictures of the moors and only accept your own? That's bias, the Moors were depicted as black and white skinned.. Moor means "black" anyways, let's not forget that, literally jet-black, not swarthy or dark. Everything you're saying is nonsense and your spin language doesn't work on anyone besides your girlfriend..Taharqa 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The people of al-andalus was not black, they were mostly arab and iberian converts and some berbers from morocco and not mauretania. Mauretania was conquered long after the iberian peninsula, the arabs did not bring any blacks to iberia. The Iberian muslims at that time did not look different then the present day Spanish and Moroccans. Mauratania is some 1000 miles away.Orrin_73 17:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

TAHARQA. Afrocentrism has the same intellectual value than Nordicism. Both are usseless, because both just promote myths and a lot of ignorance. All educated people know Roman Empire was forged by italian people of Latium (like Greek Civilization was forged by greek peoples), not for scandinavian vikings or for german tribes, just barbarian and ignorant people. Same to Egypt. Black people hasn't to do with Ancient Egypt. There aren't any ancient source that supports those myths. Only modern brainless ignorants like nazi-nordicists and afrocentrist claim that garbage. Is logic because both suffer from heavy-cultural inferiority-complex. Unfortunately for them this illness is almost incurable. It's called IGNORANCE and only recover reading good books of history.

The Moors where black people and everyone knows that so lets stop the games and give black people whats rightfully theirs, "their history",. Thats one thing that the white man knows best is that if you learn and know a particular race history you can control them and thats exactly what the white man has done to the black people of the world. But the time is coming when the black man and people of color will learn the truth of thier pass therefore they will regain the great history that is rightful theirs. Oh yea and where about to get a black president.!!!

To the one who said "Book Don't Matter."
It's ignorant to say a book published by someone doesn't matter because YOU don't agree with it! Just so you know, afrocentrist is a fallacy, because first of all, black people aren't the only ones making these claims. What was said in books like 'Black Athena' had been hypothesized by "afrocentrist" scholars before Bernal even wrote that book. Is he supposed to be some sort of self-hating white person because he claimed Greece didn't spring up out of nothingness? Second of all, 'Berber' is a misleading term...and misused for that fact. Yes, there were some Arab Moors, but the vast majority of them were in fact black africans. How do I know this? Well, all you have to do is look at the way they were depicted in art, quotes (like the one I gave on the front page) from people alive back then telling about how black they were, and every other referance to Moors being black. At one point in time, "Moor" was synonymous with black...or dark-skinned. It wasn't until the 19th century, and the racist "Historians" of that time, that the Moors suddenly became white...or "North African Caucasians," or "Berbers" or some other misleading term used to confuse and distort the truth. This is not about afro-centrism...this is about correcting a decades-old wrong!

The Neutrality is disputed. The article is left intact, save for that warning, which is used to further the dialog. It will stay, or further action will sought against those who delete it. JBull12 19:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because you say Moors are black, and that you have shown published sources to back this up means nothing. Historians generally agree that the Moors were of Berber, Arab, and later Iberian extraction in Spain. These groups were not black, although there were black, as well as Slavic, slaves that later become a part of the community. It is generally agreed that most Moors were NOT black, however. Mostly Afro-centrists claim they were mostly black. I mean no offense to those of black descent, Africa does not equal black. I have even heard some argue that the Caucasoid Berbers displaced supposed "native" black populations in North Africa, which is generally agreed as being false, and only in recent centuries have black sub-saharans push beyond the Sahara. I am told that I need information to back up these claims. I am sorry that I don't have the time to find other specific authors. But once again, just because a book is published doesn't make it a fact. We all know this. If all someone is going to do is re-edit the article back to the way they want it, I am through. I have a life, and don't have time to play childish games. I do however, wish the neutrality of this article to be questioned, and openly on the page. It doesn't even agree with the other articles on Wikipedia itself, like about Berbers and such. Moors, who were and are still mostly Berbers (the term is almost synonomous), on wikipedia are treated as something totally different from Berbers. THE CURRENT ARTICLE IS RACIALLY BIASED. JBull12 19:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-"Historians" use to generally agree in the Lost White Tribe myth too, and the Hamitic Hypothesis too, and we see how that turned out! Just because a majority says something doesn't make it right. Especially when there's contradicting evidence. Who exactly are these people you refer to?

Published Sources Don't Mean Anything?
What are you talking about published sources don't mean anything? You haven't provided any proof to your claims. My argument is not that Moors were black, they were an ad mixture. But let me drop some more knowledge on you so you can learn something about Moors and Berbers etc

'' In 711AD Spain was invaded by Islamic invaders who would rule there for the next hundred years. These invaders would build lasting monuments and influence the culture of Europe in the area of science, medicine, literature and music for centuries to come. Among these invaders were Arabs, Berbers and West Africans (Almoravid period). The latter types would be called by Europeans, Moors. Just what racial grouping these Moors belonged to is a perplexing question. In most modern texts, the Moors are regarded as white Mediterranean-type tribes who existed in North Africa at the time. Black Africans are discounted from these Islamic invaders, except perhaps in the role of a few minimal slaves. However the answer to the Moorish racial makeup is by no means so simple. According to the old versions of the Oxford English Dictionary, the Moors, as early as the Middle Ages and as late as the 17th Century, were "commonly supposed to be black or very swarthy, and hence the word is often used for Negro."''

''However more modern texts, such as Webster's New World Dictionary, identify Moors as "a member of Moslem people of mixed Arab and Berber descent." This deletion of "black" or "Negro" from the term Moor is generally recent. According to historian Wayne Chandler, "Although the term Moor has been put to diverse use, its roots are still traceable. Circa 46BC the Roman army entered West Africa where they encountered black Africans which they called "Maures" from the Greek adjective 'mauros,' meaning dark or black." Though the word "Moor" originally seems to have been meant to indicate Blacks, it in time came to be applied to Muslims in general, especially the Berbers. During the European Renaissance explorers, writers and scholars began to apply the term Moor to Blacks in general. Information courtesy of Blacks in Antiquity by Frank Snowden, Golden Age of the Moor ed. by Ivan Van Sertima, Black Brittanica by Edward Scobie and National Geographic Magazine)''

''In the Arab literature there is little mention of the word Moor. Rather the term Berber is used to describe these non Arab peoples who occupied the Maghrib (Islamic North Africa west of Egypt). The term Berber may have been derived from the Latin "barbari," a forerunner to the English "barbarian." Webster's New World Dictionary states that the term Berber refers to, "any of a Moslem people living in North Africa." Though this definition is extremely vague, the stereotypical idea of a Berber often depicted in literature and the media are of Caucasoid Semitic types. Anthropologist Dana Reynolds contends that the Berbers emerged as the result of admixture between non-African populations who moved into the Maghrib during the second millenium BC and the more ancient African indigenous inhabitants. This would account for the variance noted among the Berbers even in ancient times. According to Roman documents, among the Berbers were the "black Gaetuli and black-skinned Asphodelodes." Procopius in the 6th Century, in comparing another North African racial group to the Moors, states that they were "not black-skinned like the Moors."Harold A. MacMicheal pointed out that African Blacks such as the Tibbu and Tuwarek, resembling the ancient Nigiritians of the Sahara, are Lamta Berbers by origin. The Haratin of Morocco and Mauritania have also been called "Black Berbers." The Berber clans that were most instrumental in the Moorish conquest of Spain were the Nafza, Masmuda, Luwata, Hawwara, Zanata, Sanhadja and Zugwaha. Writing of the women of the Berber clan the Sanhadja confederation a Muslim scholar states, "Their color is black, though some pale ones can be found among them." It would seem that no monolithic racial type fits the Berbers. In the European Romance of El Cid some of the Berber women are described. A "black Moorish woman" named Nugaymath Turquia is said to lead a contingent of 300 Black Moorish "Amazons." They are described as "negresses" with their heads shaven, leaving a topknot. They are members of the Almoravid Dynasties which occupy Spain in 1086AD. Though not homogenous, the Almoravids held a heavy Black population which is not surprising as they originate in southern Morocco and Northern Senegal in western Africa. In all probability most Moors were probably North African Berbers of various phenotypic make-up. Yet the deemed "black-a-moors" among their number, even if a minority, left a lasting impact in the medieval European psyche.''

"Reading Is Fundamental"--Gnosis 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above and with what has been said about the Moors probably being a group whose name refers to them collectively as a foreign invading group in Spain, regardless of their racial or ethnic origin, who were united and grouped together as a result of their common religion and/or language. My issue with the original article is its obvious lack of objectivity, and its grandstanding on the issue of race, leading to nothing less than a flame session on race and culture. To wit:

"Black does not exist- in cannot exist because no human can be a color- black, negro, colored are all terms that eruopeans used to supress moors after the inquisition - therefore a moor cannot be black. furthermore there is no nationality of black people. they do not have a flag, country nor a constitution and can never exist. The right to have nationality is inalienable, see United nations -"

Pardon me, but that is utter bull crap. Not only is this a subjective opinion, but the idea that one biased person has the nerve to define or negate the existence of a whole group of people based purely on circular logic is ridiculous. Starting from the statement that "black does not exist"; who or what gives you the authority to make this a "factual" statement? Your uninformed opinion is not enough to make such a premise valid. To go on from there and make the illogical leap that a Moor cannot be black as a result of your unsupported, biased statement that "black does not exist" is specious at the very least, and irresponsible as well. With respect to the statements about nationalities and flags, there are plenty of people of all colors who have nations and flags to call their own, but so what? Their are also distinct ethnic groups, such as the Palestinian Arabs, who have no official country; yet that doesn't stop them from claiming their Arab ethnicity, language and religion. Therefore, the author's statement that one needs to have a nation or flag in order to have a claim to ethnicity, color, race or what have you, is downright stupid.

Whatever anyone thinks or feels or believes about race as a scientific or biological premise is irrelevant for the simple reason that no matter what one's genes say about one when analized under a microscope, it is the social construct of race and the visible marker of skin color that matter and make the difference in our daily interactions with one another. What some scientist has discovered regarding the biological evidence for or against the existence of "race" has absolutely no bearing on whether someone is discriminated against because of their skin color or has the history of their people white washed or re-written as the result of prejudicial views.

pardon me: But Im not going to try to speak with all the big words but what i have to say is factual. All this history is being told by a liar race. First off There was no such thing as a WHITE MOOR. They all were Of the Black race. But as usual The white man doesnt give no credit to people of color our people. A light skinned black man is black because he has melanin. A dark skinned black man is black also. Either you have melanin or not. Either you have the dominant gene or the recessive. White people dont have melanin all Moors had melanin slave or not. so stop trying to separate us. white moors lol...oh yeah and if there can be no person black there definetely cant be a person white, that would be a ghost...

t is for these reasons that I find this article on the topic of Moors written by this author to be of no academic merit, and am of the opinion that it should be removed for being biased, inaccurate, harmful and thoroughly irresponsible. It does nothing but incite base passions, and contributes nothing to furthering anyone's objective understanding of the subject.

The following text was moved from the article. olivier 12:22 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

''Although this sort of maniqueism seems to be recurrent in Anglo Saxon historiography of that period, the Inquisition was invented by the French in the 13th century during the crussade against the Albigesian heresy in the Languedoc. It is true that it was Ferdinand of Aragon, the model of prince used by Machiavelo(Macchiavelli?), who scaled it as the general repressive instrument to control the state dissidents of any kind, and it was perfected by Philip II in the repression of the protestants in the Spanish Netherlands.''

Source for my details on the expulsion of the Moriscos: Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, trans. Sian Reynolds (Harper Colophon, 1976), pp. 780 - 797. -- llywrch 18:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Moors&oldid=4329182 this article was never correctly.Aziri 11:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

if here is anyone who speak arabic (such mustapha) should see this link in ar. :http://www.libsc.org/st/p0003.htm#50 (when were the Moors black ? or nomadic ?Aziri 11:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC).


 * The article doesn't claim they were black; it says they were darker-skinned than Europeans, which is true. In Roman times, they certainly were (famously) nomadic.  This article looks fine to me. - Mustafaa 17:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the page? It doesn't say they were nomadic anyway. - Mustafaa 18:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

please tell me what is this ? The Moors is the ancient name for the indigenous nomadic Berber people in North Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Moors&oldid=4329182)Aziri 14:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, so you corrected it. So why are you complaining about it if it's fixed? - Mustafaa 19:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You know, I figured out what the issue is - you think "Moors" means the same thing as "Mauri". It doesn't, not in English. - Mustafaa 04:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moor is just mauri, but Mauri is latijn. you can see this : Zie het artikel “Moriscos”, van G.A.Wiegers, in de EoI, vol. VII, fasc. 117-118 (1991), pp. 241-244; maar vooral L.P.Harvey, The political, social and cultural history of the Moriscos, in: Jayyusi, I (1994), pp. 201-234 (pp. 201-203 over de dubbelzinnigheid van de benaming: “morisco” betekent op zich weinig meer dan “moors”; Janssen Perio,o.c., p. 471 n. 19, geeft als letterlijke vertaling van Moriscos: "Moortjes"). Zoals bekend, komt de benaming “Moor” van de naam “Mauri”, d.w.z. de Berberbewoners van de Romeinse provincie Mauretanië. Het gebruik ervan heeft niet enkel raciale connotaties, nl. van zwarte huidskleur (in werkelijkheid zijn vele Berbers blond en blauwogig), maar beklemtoont ook de Berberse component in de Andaluscultuur. Zie Glick (1979), pp

or :

Article sees "Moriscos", of G.A.Wiegers, in the EoI, full. VII, fasc. 117-118 (1991), pp. 241-244; but especially L.P.Harvey, The political, social and cultural history or the Moriscos, in: Jayyusi, I (1994), pp. 201-234 (pp. 201-203 concerning the dubbelzinnigheid of the denomination: "morisco" mean in itself a little more than "Moor"; Janssen Perio, o.c., give n. 19 to p. 471 as litteral translation of Moriscos: "Moortjes"). Confessed as, the denomination "moor" comes of the name "Mauri", i.e. the Berberbewoners of the Roman province Mauritania. The use of it does not have only racial connotations, viz. of black skin colour (in reality its vele berbers fair and blue-eyed), but emphasises also the berberse component in the Andaluscultuur. See Glick (1979), pp

source :http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/RUG/deley21_3.htm

"...The word Moors derives from the Latin mauri..." source : http://www.spanish-fiestas.com/andalucia/history-moorish-spain.htm you know that there a one word for Moor or Mauri in arabic. Aziri 14:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The word "Moor" derives from the word Mauri (as the article already notes) just as the word Berber derives from the word Barbarian. Does that imply that "Berber" and "barbarian" mean the same thing? - Mustafaa 20:47, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it mean the same , if you call me berber. and that is the reason why we don't use berber ,well amazigh. the difference between mauri and moor is so : mauri is latin and moor is dutch and english and arabic ... therfor you can improve the article. and i did give you the needed source. but i don't think it.Aziri 10:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

French derives from Frank. Do those mean the same thing? - Mustafaa 19:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Welsh derives from a word meaning "foreigner". Do those mean the same thing? - Mustafaa 19:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i don't know, i know that Mauri is Moor and differnce is : Muri is latin and Moor is germanic and arabic ... such as Français and Frensh. but that is a good reason to not write the correct article.Aziri 10:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

according to mustafaa is Mauri not Moor. and the article about the Mauri is not the article woch would be about the Moors. if that is realy so ,then i ill write an other article about the Mauri's. but i have firstly to ask an other users. because i m sure that Mauri just the latin name for the Moors (not latin ) such as français and Frensh. if i'm not right ,then i will the other articles about the Mauri's. and therfor i have the source of two prof. Aziri 10:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you want to write an article on the Mauri, go for it! Read Mauretania first, that has a good start. - Mustafaa 17:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maures(Moor)(germ. de:Mauren) is the same as Moor(germ. de:Mohr but has not the same meaning in germany. Mohr is assoziated with Black/Brown People from africa since the colonial times: translated by altavista: With the term Mohr (Latin: maurus = Maure, english moor) designated one originally a Mauren, since these become quite dark membranous by sun effect, associated one with them also the black African. The Mauren controlled since the 8. Century the iberian peninsula and are even half-breeds from Berbern and negriden peoples of west Africa. Mohr applies today like also negroes as discriminating. In this connection also: Mohrenkopf, Mohr of Moerlau, Mohr of Venice Idiom: The Mohr did its work, to which Mohr can go. (the Mohr Muley Hassan, the Mohr of Tunis, in Schillers "The conspiracy of the Fiesco to Genua")

Langenscheidt, our usual dictonary in germany, translates: germ. -> engl. : Maure   Moor Mohr    Moor, blackamoor, negro engl. -> germ. : Moor    Maure; Mohr

''French derives from Frank. Do those mean the same thing? '' take a look at Franks --Peter Littmann 07:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heraldry
Should discuss Moors in heraldry. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reference
Shouldn't there be a note on this page saying that the term "Moor", in some references, could also just mean "Muslim", "Arab", or "African"?--iFaqeer 23:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

See Moors (Meaning). I tried merging all this stuff about Muslim Spain into Andalus and making this Moors (Meaning)), but someone else disagreed. - Mustafaa 21:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On March 23, 2005, I made an edit inserting the following reference: ''Some scholars propose that the characterization of the Islamic civilization in Iberia as "Moorish" is a misnomer which implies the predominance of Berber traits in the civilization, rather than Arab and Islamic ones. The Muslim conquest of Iberia was undertaken by Arab caliphates. The soldiery of the first wave of invasions was derived predominantly of Berber peoples of North Africa.'' That satisfies some of your concerns, I think. --AladdinSE 22:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

True Romance?
Anyone here seen True Romance? There's a dialogue scene about the moors and their part in italian history. Is this true? If so, I think it should be included in this article because it's very interesting. If it's not true, then I think it should be included as well, but explained that it's bogus/fiction
 * EliasAlucard|Talk 23:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * - The claims in True Romance are nonsense. The moslems who occupied Sicily for two centuries were overwhelmingly Semitic Arabs, and to a lesser extent North African Berbers, not black Africans. WikiEditor 09:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The same as the moors in the Iberian Peninsula. So, the claims are FULL of sense because the only "black moors" are descendant from former slaves.--Menah the Great 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true, the moors were more more than slaves, they were travelers, artisans, businessman, nobility, military generals, etc. (75.2.244.109 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC))

^^^ true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.114 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Challenge: Afrocentrist slant
This article seems to have a somewhat Afrocentrist slant. The Moors who occupied Spain and other parts of Europe were, from an anthropological point of view, overwhelmingly Arab (Semitic, Near Eastern origin) and North African Berbers, not Sub Saharan blacks, as is often asserted by Afrocentrists. Also I request documentation or else removal of the following questionable claim made in the article:

"... The Webster's New World Dictionary identifies Moors as "a member of Moslem people of mixed Arab and Berber descent." This deletion of "black" or "Negro" from the term Moor is generally recent. Though the word "Moor" originally seems to have been meant to indicate Blacks, it in time came to be applied to Muslims in general, especially the Berbers. "

It seems tome that [precisely th eopposite is true - that the Moors have historically been understood to be Moslems of Arab Semitic and North African Berber stock, not black Africans. The idea of Moors as black Africans is what is recent. WikiEditor 09:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You people are beyond ignorant, anthropological remains rules out that they were "European" (true white) and was a variety of types, just read the article! A black African isn't a real term, since no one is literally "black", and all africans, especially sub saharans differ in traits. "Updated" anthropological studies confirm this. Berbers are mixed with Arab now a days but descend from East Africa and the Sahara. Besides, you have no source, are we just to believe some loser wikipedia editor or a real anthropologist like Shomarka Keita.Taharqa 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Taharqa, you are quite welcome to provide your knowledge to this page but using terms 'loser wikipedia' is considered a [WP:Personal Attack]] and is forbidden by wikipedia rules. Even offhand insults reduce usefulness of discussion pages. 58.110.91.13 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Afrocentrist Slant
"It seems tome that [precisely th eopposite is true - that the Moors have historically been understood to be Moslems of Arab Semitic and North African Berber stock, not black Africans. The idea of Moors as black Africans is what is recent."

I would have to say that I respectfully disagree with this statement. I do not believe that the depiction of Moors as dark-skinned or "black Africans" is recent. The evidence suggest that Afro-Arab Muslims were all Moors. There is a book published in 1902 entitled "The Moors" which is full of photographs of Moors, many of them dark-skinned. There are also many postcards from North Africa in the late 1800's early 1900's which show dark-skinned people as Moors. In addition to that there are books from the 1700's and early 1800's which have drawings of the Moors, many of them being shown as dark-skinned. Lastly there is even Christopher Columbus' own writings which document encounters with dark-skinned Muslims. Not just the Moors of Grenada, but also Moors in the area of what is now Jamaica.


 * No offense, but try visiting Morocco or Mauritania sometime. Darker-skinned than Europeans, yes; black, clearly not. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)


 * Have any of you read Othello? Othello is a 'Moor' and is regularly described in terms that suggest 'negroid' features: thick lips, 'sooty' face etc. The term Moor was often merged with notions of blackness in the Renaissance/17th C period. At this time the expression blackamoor ] was often used to clarify the notion of the 'black moor'. I think these perceptions should be discussed. Paul B 08:07 30 June 2005 (UTC)

"I do not believe that the depiction of Moors as dark-skinned or "black Africans" is recent." --I would have to say I agree. Writings from 16th & 17th century Europe prove this. Mustafaa, the reason you do not see as many "black" Moroccans in Morocco today is because Arabs have taken over and have been controlling much of North Africa for years. The African "moors" are certainly a marginalized group, today, in their own country (as are many Africans in their respective countries). You can see mostly Arabs in Egypt as well, but the Egyptians of ancient dynastic Egypt were certainly not Arabs--this is proven by ancient historians such as the Greek Herodotus "father of history" and also artwork from the times. Meditteranean Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East have always been closely connected and have certainly been integrating for thousands of years (only more recently, in human history, have we suffered the setbacks of racism.) Anyway, my point is that the natives of North Africa were certainly "black Africans" though integration and, even, imperialism have been the reality for years. We could take this all the way back to the scientific arguement of "Lucy" and the theory that all people originated in Africa, anyway--but I don't think this is necessary. ~Olga

Hi all and specifically Mustafaa,

I HAVE visited those places, and I have tons of friends that are from both Morocco and Mauritania. They come, as do most speakers of Arabic, in many many different colors. Yes, the Arabs came to N. Africa, and of course they mixed with the people. That is the normal and logical conclusion, that there are elements of Arab and African culture in the culture of North Africa which came to be known in the West as Moorish culture. On an interesting side note, I myself am bi-racial, half Euro-American, half African-American, and I am often mistaken for Mauritanian or Moroccan *BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THOSE COUNTRIES*. That might be something to think about....

Nourah


 * Shakespeare was no anthropologist, and "dark-skinned" isn't synonymous with negroid. Large numbers of blacks were brought north over the Sahara during the Arabic slave trade, which explains the black presence today.  It appears that there were sub-Saharans present in Moorish society, but the Moors themselves weren't black Africans.  Some artwork and arguments:,  -- Jugbo


 * Shakespeare's anthropological knowledge is not at issue. The issue being discussed here was whether the usage of the word "Moor" at the the time of Shakespeare should be included in the article. The reference to Othello was designed indicate that the word meant "dark-skinned person" and that no clear distinction was made between North Africans and Sub-Saharan peoples. Shakespeare's language implies that a number of stereotypical features - not entirely consistent with one another - associated with Africans are being used. At present there are two articles on Moors, the Renaissance european usage being hived-off to another article. See below. Paul B 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue being discussed by you was Shakespeare's usage of the term (to which I fleetingly responded), but my actual argument was against that of the above unsigned contributor who disagrees with the assertion that the association of the term "moor" with black Africans is a recent idea by referring to postcards that he has seen depicting people labeled "moors" that he describes as "dark-skinned"; as well as to those who followed him in agreement that the moors were "black". I was pointing out that his comparison of the adjectives "black" and "dark-skinned" was incongruous, and also that if the North Africans at the time of the Moorish invasion of Iberia (or ever) were "black" that that doesn't mean that the Moors themselves were, as anthropolgical evidence suggests (in contradiction to this claim) and as the orthodox anthropological community maintains.  This section seems to be mainly about whether or not the Moors were black Africans (the affirmation of Afrocentrism), although how they were perceived at different times in the European imagination is not irrelevant.  My speculation is that the Moorish invasion brought about the first pervasive appearance in European culture (excluding Greece and Rome) of the decidedly "black" person (coming with the Moors), and that this association of black Africans with the non-black Moors is what led to the designation in the European cultural sphere of black people as "Moors"; although, as you point out, there was a distinction made with the specification in the term "blackamoor".  I'm not too sure what the implications of these cultural phenomena are, but whatever the particular ethnohistoric significance, perhaps it should be mentioned in the article. --Jugbo 20:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare was no anthropologist, and "dark-skinned" isn't synonymous with negroid

Obviously you're no anthropologist either, because there is no such thing as a "Negroid", what the hell is that? No one uses that term anymore but teenagers in race debates. Either you're dark skinned and indigenous to Africa or not. You'll never hear a well-read africana student arguing that anybody was "Negroid", that's a 20th century racial designation that doesn't even apply to the majority of 'black people'. I'm not Negroid either, but I'm dark skinned with whooly hair. Taharqa 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Moors/Mauri/Moroccans/Blackamoors etc
OK, I wrote the above comment before I'd looked into the edit history of this article and of Moors (meaning). As The Singing Badger and others have already pointed out, the latter article is pretty poor. I think the best thing would be to merge it with this one to create a more substantial discussion of the history of the word and its meanings. It seems that Moors (meaning) was created in July 2004 when this article had an earlier Neutality Dispute notice slapped on it. I guess the intention was to separate the "racial" debate from the account of the history of the Moorish kingdoms. I think that was a bad decision, creating a garbled dumping-ground of an article at Moors (meaning) and a stubby thin one here. The article before July 2004 gave a clearer sense of the meanings of the word.

I propose that the two articles be merged so that a proper discusion of the range of meanings of the word can be included in a single article. That way, the complex usage of "moor" in Othello and elsewhere can be discussed, along with later usages such as Timothy Drew's. These more modern usages can then be properly placed in relation to ancient ones, avoiding complaints of censorship, Afrocentrism etc etc. Paul B 15:01 30 June 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree they should be merged. I attempted long ago to remove the unnecessary historical info from this article, sticking it into al-Andalus, and make this article about the various meanings attached to the term; however, somebody else decided that the meaning "Muslims of Spain" should be primary. - Mustafaa 1 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)


 * As a Moroccan I agree that the second part of the article is complete BS. There is no European Moors in my view, Moroccans are in fact a complex mixture of Mediteraneans, Europeans, people from the Middle East and Black. I think that Moors is an old mediaval word which can't be applied to modern day populations. Medieval Moors was in fact at that time synonym with Muslims, than actually means Arabs and Berbers. Moors are not present day Mauritanians, Mauritania is a word coined by the French when they invaded that country probably because the Berber dynasty Almoravides which established itself in Morocco and later invaded Al-Andalus came following a fuzzy tradition from an Island in the Senegal_River south of present day Mauritania hence the big confusion.--Khalid hassani 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"blackamoor"?! How do you say that in latin? Blackablack? .Taharqa 21:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Moor = Black African?
Well, according to the artwork that they themselves created and DNA studies, the answer would be NO.

To view these artworks please go here: http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html

The DNA reports:

"An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small."

(Bosch et al., Hum Biol, 1997)

Caucasoid mtDNA (maternal) sequences, labeled L3E and U6, were detected at frequencies of 96% in Moroccan Berbers, 82% in Algerian Berbers and 78% in non-Berber Moroccans, compared with only 4% in a Senegalese population.

(Rando et al., Ann Hum Genet, 1998)


 * Medieval illuminations are not good evidence of anything concerning race, but in any case, you miss the point. This is not about trying to prove that North Africans were black or were white. Yes, there are, mainly US-based, Afrocentrists who do try to prove the former, and there are others who react strongly against the claim for various reasons (both sensible and not-so commendable). But the question is whether we should discuss full range of the meanings and history of the word Moor here, which would allow for these debates to be made more meaningful and more richly explored by being put under one heading. It would also, I hope, help to avoid neutrality disputes.


 * And it wasn't just in English that Moor meant 'dark skinned'. It did so elsewhere in Renaissance Europe too. It was tied to negative colour symbolism and theories about Hamitic descent. Paul B 10:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Maurii is derived from Latin and Greek with a slight difference in spelling and both mean black. The Romans had encountered Egyptians who were clearly of African but did not apply Maur to thme nomenclaturelly, nor did they apply these terms to the much darker Semitic peoples of the middle east yet applied it to those of the Northeast region of African. Berber derived from the Arabic word Barbar and therefore did not exist at the time the Romans conquered Carthage and divided that entire region into two Roman kingdoms. The Romans, therefore did not use the word Maurii because the people were a little darker than themselve, which, again, they had encounter for centuries with other dark peoples, but instead use this word because these people were clearly black and not tanned as many middle eastern people were during there day. It stands to reason that with the exception of Egypt and Nubia (Ethiopia) which already had centuries old established empires the Romans would have label other darker complexed people whom the came into contact with Maurii long before do so with the people of Northeast Africa when one considers that these other people were noticeable darker than the Romans via a tan or amalgamation. The people of Northeast Africa were of the African stock and the Romans being notorious for naming a land by it's terran or people gave every indication of that when they selectively and deliberated used this word to describe the people of Northeast Africa and not other dark groups of the middle east. Also, for the record, Maurii was not used until the Romans applied the term. A great chunk of this region was known as Numibia which exist before and concurrently with the Carthage empire which was later ruled by white a caucasoid stock of people. One must look at Northwest Africa even before the Phoenicians arrived and established Carthage which was long before the Punic wars and even longer for the Arab invasions during the 7 AD.


 * Comments such as the unsigned statements above indicate why it is imperative to discuss the range of meanings here. AFAIK, the standard Greek word for black/dark is "melas", and the standard Latin one is "niger". "Mauro" does appear in late Greek to mean dark, and may have derived its meaning from the perceived darker complexion of North Africans, along with other post-Classical European uses of 'Moor' - or it may not have done. But the fact is that the etymology of Mauri is not known for certain. Some sources I've seen suggest a Semitic term for 'Westerner' as the source. We should articulate these issues in the main text. It's also the case that there are also many cases in which terms meaning black or dark have been applied to people whose complexions were only very relatively darker. Paul B 18:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

^Maures means jet-black, if you deny that you're Eurocentric trash, that's all I have to say, I'm tired of the spin language and manipulation, I really am. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaureTaharqa 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On the Racial Issue!
Anthropological composition of Moors North Africans compared to Sub-Saharans

A Bust believed to be King Juba or a young Hannibal Barca

Tpilkati 23:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

yeah, these are geocities pages. did you hear me?! GEOCITIES, SYNONYMOUS WITH IRREFUTABLE PROOF! this is the final word on RACE (a scientifically proven human characteristic). the moor RACE is not the same as the north african RACE according to this GEOCITIES (aka bible of knowledge) page, clearly, according to this GEOCITIES page, north africans are caucasiod in race and as we all know south africans are caucasiod in race, so that leads one to conclude that africans only reside in the central/sub saharan regions and everyone else is of caucasiod race. i don't know why they can't trace egyptian DNA to the caucasiod, but we can safely say, you guessed it, they were the CAUCASIOD RACE. also there is a clear portrait of hannibal. he is WHITE as you can clearly see, he pesonally comissioned this bust so it must be an accurate portrayal.

Maybe I can help you with greater understanding. Here is a link to The National Gallery of London:

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/collection/features/black_presence/moors_head.htm

(75.2.244.109 09:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

^Why can't people get into their thick heads that North Africans of today are mixed!!! And caucasoid features in skeletons are not Caucasoid features, they're africa, there is no such think as a distinctive 'sub-saharan type', you can't pigeon hold black people to below the sahara, how the fuck did we people the rest of the entire fucking world if blacks couldn't even get past the sahara? Bullshit!!! Take down these eurocentric links, they're worthless and only look to undermine black/African culture, in which white people had nothing at all to do with, nothing!! What loser uses geocities as a source? I have a geocities page also ignoramous! People are so ignorant, how in the world can everybody in the world be "Caucasoid" and Mongoloid and the first people on this planet only a mouth to a few tribes in central and west Africa!! You perception of race is ignorant as hell!!!! Caucasoids span over 3 continents and blacks only a part of one? Does that really make sense unless you're to admit that the original inhabitants of North Africa were black and simply are mixed now or got displaced. I hate american psuedo-science, I truly do, all white people do is still history!Taharqa 21:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Moor racial crap
I have recently returned from the middle east.there are a variety of peoples of diffrent shades and colors,the argument of whether the moors are white or black is due to a lack of pure ignorance on the subject of race other than caucasian,in caucasian culture it is assumed if u look a cetain way thats what ur race ,i find this interesting considering the varietys of peoples that exist within the european ethnic groups,u have a mediterranian and a scandanavian looking totally diffrent and variations of everything in between,however the african ethnic group dosent seem to possess that capacity from your point of view, what exactly is the marker for blackness any way the nap of your hair? the width of your lips?dosent sound very scientific to me,the link u provided is to a site that promotes an antiquated view of race,the author" charelton s.coon " was considered a promoter of "scientific racsism".current genetic testing proves that humans are much closer genetically than ever imagined back in the 1940's(id like to think that scientifically weve come a long way since then ,i mean if u want to be a computer scientist u dont read a textbook from 1947 would u? you would never get your degree that way)I believe the best modern paralell would be with that of the populations of present day puerto rico or brazil,thats probably the best way to classify the moors,there are some familys in these areas where the children of the same two parents look as if they were of diffrent races,but still possess characteristics of both parents,this is a more realistic view of race in areas where many ehtnic groups meet.there is not a particullarly "white" puerto rican or "black "puerto rican.Its a mixed culture. [unsigned]


 * u n33d 2 leern how 2 spell and u need 2 reed a book n00b. [unsigned]


 * Good job—a childish ad hominem attack against someone who's absolutely correct. Or are you just trolling? — Lumbercutter 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From Spain
I am spanish.

There is a generalization about the use of the term "Moros" (Moors in english) along the history of Spain.

Since the times of "El Cid" is used the term "moros" for every foreign and muslim people from Northern Africa and Middle West in the Spain of VII-XV centuries.

It does not matter if they are arabs, turkish, morocan or from every Magreb because all of them are considered moors in Spain since "Cid" Times.

This does not mean about this is the real origin of the name of the correct use of the term. This only reveal the generalization about the use of the term "moors".

Actually, the "Real Acadamia Española de la Lengua" ( Spanish Royal Academy of the Language ) say this word come from the latin word "maurus" and consider the use of this word for: 1 People from the Northern Africa next to Spain. 2. Everything coming from this place. 3. Who profess islamic religion 4. Muslim who lived in Spain since VII century to the XV century. 5. Everything from this age. 6. People from Mindanao or Malasya Islands. 7..... A Kind of horse.

You can see this searching "moro" in http://www.rae.es or here http://buscon.rae.es/diccionario/drae.htm.

Moroccan people says "moors are people from Mauritania" but their ancients are moors too because when they were droped out of Spain they gone to live in Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania...

Why do Spanish people always make up stories and or too proud to admit defeat that it was indeed the mighty strong Moroccans who colonized Spain? Both Spanish people and Moroccan people all know the true meaning of the term Moro. It is racist and is used presently in Spain today by Spanish in reference to Moroccan people. If Moroccan people really didn't know what this word meant then why do they retaliate in anger and even murder a Spanish person when a Moroccan person is called a Moro- like where I lived in Barcelona? Why do the Spanish Nazi Movement graffitti the walls with 'Fuera Moros'? 82.110.177.76 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Moroccan people says "moors are people from Mauritania"  : Sorry but this completly false, most Moroccan people have probably never heard of that word as this a medieval term, those who have certainly don't confuse them with Mauretanians, please see my answer to the topic: Moors/Mauri/Moroccans/Blackamoors etc. On the other hand people who came to Morocco from Al-andalus in fact Moriscos are perfectly aware of that, and I can assure you that they are very proud of it, they once composed the Moroccan elite, though this is slowly changing now--Khalid hassani 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

African Berbers
The Berber gene pool is LARGELY EAST AFRICAN ORIGIN 75% it is about 13% middle eastern and 4% european an almost non-existant trace of "european blood" just look up the article "BERBER" in wikipedia it has a link on that article page that a stanford team genetically tested them, (bosch et al.2001)


 * The mtDNA yes, because not the nuclear DNA and the Y cromossome!!

parts not is the all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.71.7.220 (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment originally posted in article
This is a poor excuse for educating the public on the true mystery (my-story)of the Moors! First, I would like to comment on your usage of the term "Black Moor". The term "Moor" itself describes BLACK so why is Black used as an adjective in this article. Secondly, there must be "MOOR" information on these "white moors" that you claim. Moor isnt a term that was created by black populaces, but instead by whites who encountered these skilled artisans, magicians etc; It was quite simply used by non-Melanated people to describe "dark" peoples. Refer to the movie "Black Knight" where Martin Lawrence was referred to as "Moor" throughout the entire movie. Would Wikipedia please be so kind to reference it serious readers and researchers to more scholarship on or about "white moors".


 * "White Moors" are those Moors of Arab, Berber, or Arabo-Berber descent; and are called so because of the relative lightness of their skin when compared to "Black Moors", or those Moors of sub-Saharan descent   .  As you can see, statistically any black African is distinguished from the Moors, and the blacks that are considered Moorish ("black Moors"/Haratins) are mostly descendants of the natives that were enslaved by the Arab and Berber invaders ("white Moors"). Both "white" and "black" Moors were darker than most Europeans, which is why their designation by Europeans means "dark".  Citing the movie "Black Knight" to support your argument that all Moors were "Black" (i.e. negroid) is inadequate. --Jugbo 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the first time ever i hear about black & white Moors! Any more explanation apart from that? Cheers -- Szvest 03:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * What other explanation are you wanting? There are Moors who are called "white Moors" because they have lighter skin than (and are a different race from) "black Moors".  "White Moors" are Arabs and Berbers (or mixed Arab and Berber), and "black Moors" are sub-Saharans who are descendants of the slaves of the "white Moors".  "Black Moors", although they are related to the other black natives of West Africa consider themselves separate from them and identify with the Moors instead, because they are ethnically Moorish, having adopted the culture and language of the invading Arabs (and Berbers from the north, who apparently were sufficiently similar to the Arabs racially not to be enslaved)    .  M-Kay? --Jugbo 22:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Berbers until conversion were enslaved, race had nothing to do with it. Further, the Haratine (black moors as styled in the article) are hardly merely 'sub-Saharan Africans' they clearly are mixed and distinct from say the Toucouleurs and Wolof. (Collounsbury 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)).


 * Really? My mistake.  However, if race had "nothing to do with it" (the enslavement by Arabs), then why did this most lowly of social ranks fall to the black West Africans the Moors encountered.  Have they not converted?  Why a stratified society that is obviously based on race?  I've read nothing indicating that the "black moors" are mixed, but rather that the classes of "white moors" and "black moors" are rigidly separate, and my impression was that miscegenation was quite limited; but you're apparently from the Berber world, so I believe you.  However, this mixed condition of the Haratine isn't clear to those of us who receive no evidence in support of the positions of those who disagree with us. --Jugbo 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, where to start? Why did the most lowly of social ranks fall to black slaves? Take a look at the bloody map, mate. European slaves hardly made it to Mauretania, slave trade headed South, for the obvious reasons. The Haratine are Muslims of course, but that's hardly the point. As to your reading, well I have no bloody clue as to what you've read (likely racialist agitprop), but "mixing" is hardly limited, pretty bloody common as those "white" moors are pretty "black" by European standards of colour, and the Haratine are physically distinguishable from the Wolof, the Toucouleur, the Peuhl and the Mande peoples south and east. One need only visit the bloody country. Rigid seperation there is not, although there is clearly skin colour based prejudice. The skin colour prejudice certainly followed the racialisation of slavery - racialisation driven by simple accident of geography. You can see a similar racialisation occuring the Maghreb and Egypt once their access to white slaves dried up. Until the Europeans stopped the slave raiding, there was zero compunction against white slaves. Re race and slavery attitudes, Moroccan historian Mohammed Ennaji had an interesting and honest work about Morocco; an American historian, John Hunwick at Northwester has done some work. An article on this is Hunwick, J.O. "Black Slaves in the Mediterranean World: introduction to a Neglected Aspect of the African Diaspora"


 * I am not, by the way, from the Berber world, I am a good old fashioned Anglo Saxon, however, I am married to a fine woman from the Sahara, who sure is not "white". I do live and work in the region, as well, and have had the fine occasion to bang around Senegal, Mali, Mauretania and the entire Middle East. I should add my problem with your text is its inaccuracy and complete lack of factual support, I have zero love for the Beidan Moors nor Mauretania. Despicable bunch of unpleasant bigots the lot of them. However, they're hardly pure breds, neither they nor the Haratine. (Collounsbury 07:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)).


 * Well, "mate", I can "bloody" see that you're "bloody" "good old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon", now; but based on your history, I assumed you were Berber (as pertinent topics are obviously your preoccupation and you seem to profess an authority on the subject), so excuse the hell out of me. It appears that I was't far-off by assuming that you at least had a connection to that area.
 * My, what a sensitive person. Incoherent as well (Collounsbury 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))


 * My question was not why did slavery fall to black people but why did slavery fall to black people, so a map doesn't answer this question, and I didn't need all this crap about white slaves, either, "mate". You seem to have a political (and personal) ax to grind by emphasizing this "zero compuction against white slaves" as part of this alleged non-racialized enslavement.
 * Well, mate, this paragraph is largely incoherent. In fact entirely incoherent. But the answer remains the same. Proximity. Blacks dominated the slave class in Mauretania because the lighter skin Berbers were raiding south for slaves, and south meant blacker. North, whiter, the Moroccan sultanate. Stronger state. Simply introducing you to elementary logic and history. (Collounsbury 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))


 * So - What is this "racialisation driven by simple accident of geography"? Are you suggesting that geographical factors caused invading Arabs and Berbers to perceive others (who happened to be negroid) in a racialized way, and thus enslave them rather than merge with them (as the Arabs did with the Berbers to produce "white" Moors)? Whatever. "The bloody map" doesn't answer this question, either.
 * No, my dear dimwit. First, the Arabo-Berber nomads did indeed merge with the black populations. One need only look at the closely related Taureg (Berbers) who get more and more 'negroid' as one looks at the southern and eastern tribes. Racialisation in the Hassaniya context occured because there was no source of white slaves. (Collounsbury 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))


 * As for what I've read, it's posted above, and it's not "agitprop", but genuine examination of the Moorish ethnic group and its affairs (as much as those of us who can't "visit the bloody country" can find online, so don't make rash assumptions about others). What would you have considered to be "factual support" that I could have cited instead of the ones I used? I would like to point out that your "text" lacks "factual support" when you simply assert that "'mixing' is hardly limited".
 * Factual support would be actual academic sourcing. As per citations, like I provided supra. (Collounsbury 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))


 * My point, throughout all of this, is that there are "white" Moors and that there are "black" Moors, the difference between whom the two other individuals in this section were ignorant. My other point was that these two "classes" are based on race. I cited what I found that led me to deduce this and that the "black" Moors were enslaved because they were "black", because that is the emphasized distinguishing characteristic that obviously caused them to occupy the lower class.


 * Well, you're ignorant and wrong - as well as overly emotional and incoherent. (Collounsbury 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))


 * By the way, you've never been to Mauretania, because it doesn't exist, anymore. --Jugbo 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mauretania most certainly does exist my dear idiot. Wikipedia's artful division of Mauritania for the modern country and Mauretania for the Roman province is nice, but artificial.


 * If you think spouting insults makes you sound authoritative, I can assue you that it doesn't. Paul B 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, citations do. The insults simply compensate me for Jugbo's incoherent stupidity. Again, see supra, esp Hunwick and Ennaji w respect to the Haratine / "Black Moors" and ethnicity in the Saharan region.


 * Well, my question's been answered, and I stand corrected and informed. However, I don't want to leave this on such a poisonous note, so I'd like to apologize for my immaturity and thank you for your efforts in improving the article. Keep it in shape, as it's obviously a frequent target of vandals, and Wikipedia can always use more people with specialized interests like you to combat that. --Jugbo 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good mate, and my apologies in turn for twisting the knife. You're a good sport in the end and I appreciate the closing note. On the other hand, my edits to the Haratin article that supports this article needs some help as I suck at coding so my citations are just plopped down (collounsbury 04:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)).

THE PART JBull12 Didn't Read
To be honest everyone here debating the fact that Moors were one race as opposed to another has a lot to learn and a lot more to read. There was no determination to race during the times the Moors ruled. Just as there is no difference between black or white muslims. This article shoud be factual and contain a NPOV as it stands this discussion between the the race of the Moors is irrelevant. I will point out that there are several books that back up this fact and there are several paintings and historical eveidence in the National Gallery in London as well as the National archives supporting this. Please read J.A. Rogers Nature Knows No color Line and Dr. Yusef A.A. Ben Johannan's "Africa Mother of Western Civilization. In this book alone it proves that Moors were of Ethiopic origins. Once you read those books which should take you some time. Especially with Dr. Ben Johannan, I have several others. Before editing and changing pictures and changing text based on your opinions of what limited information you have you need to do a lot more research on Moors to really see what I mean and find out about Moors. I am a 3rd generation Moor here in American and I'm not claiming to know more than anyone on this subject although I more than likely do. But there is a more important issue here. Moors as it states in the article did not, do not and should not distinguish between racial types. In addition through educating yourself you will find that through the various battles won it was because of the great number of African Moors that many of the battles fought were won. The number of Berber or as it is put lighter skinned tribes were a minority during this time. But as I stated before, race was not an issue then because it didn't exist. You should also look up another Moor by the name of Lusius Quietus to see that the term Moor described Africans long before this racial division that is being implied here. On another note, slavery existed long before the Mid Atlantic slave trade and Africans were't the only individuals enslaved. The origins of the word slave originates from the word slav or the slavic people. Europeans, Africans, Asians and other groups were enslaved. Moors themselves enslaved Europeans, as well as Africans. Slavery was not just a thing done to Africans as it is falsely believed in the US. Many Moors were in American before the Mid Atlantic Slave trade. If you doubt this I can give you another list of books to support this fact. Please read more before just posting opinions. Also read more than just one book or a website. Besides it is not historically true or probable that such a small group of nomads could defeat an enormous group of Africans to rule them. Where is this information coming from?--Gnosis 05:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Racial Biased Views
The only racially biased views I really see is from the postings and the ranting by yourself JBul12. I am not sure as to where you are getting your information from but I can assure you it is not accurate. Your statement that Moors were caucasian or white clearly contains a somewhat racially prejudice view. As it states in the article historically the term Moors applied to all groups but it was initially applied to Africans of darker skinned. The term carried a more universally applied definition to include all muslim or islamic people of course and there was no distinguish between white or black Moors by Moors. In addition if you would read some books or post book listings or post books you've read then the topic can definitely be open to discussion. I can assure information I post is real and based on evidence by Historians and Egyptologists. I have yet to read somewhere in a discussion where you show proof or evidence of what you claim. If you are in dispute with what is posted the the talk page is a perfect forum. I as well as others whom have edited this page are open to discussion and welcome it. In addition Berbers were not only caucasian. Berber is a generic name given to numerous heterogeneous ethnic groups that share similar cultural, political, and economic practices.

'' In 711AD Spain was invaded by Islamic invaders who would rule there for the next hundred years. These invaders would build lasting monuments and influence the culture of Europe in the area of science, medicine, literature and music for centuries to come. Among these invaders were Arabs, Berbers and West Africans (Almoravid period). The latter types would be called by Europeans, Moors. Just what racial grouping these Moors belonged to is a perplexing question. In most modern texts, the Moors are regarded as white Mediterranean-type tribes who existed in North Africa at the time. Black Africans are discounted from these Islamic invaders, except perhaps in the role of a few minimal slaves. However the answer to the Moorish racial makeup is by no means so simple. According to the old versions of the Oxford English Dictionary, the Moors, as early as the Middle Ages and as late as the 17th Century, were "commonly supposed to be black or very swarthy, and hence the word is often used for Negro."''

''However more modern texts, such as Webster's New World Dictionary, identify Moors as "a member of Moslem people of mixed Arab and Berber descent." This deletion of "black" or "Negro" from the term Moor is generally recent. According to historian Wayne Chandler, "Although the term Moor has been put to diverse use, its roots are still traceable. Circa 46BC the Roman army entered West Africa where they encountered black Africans which they called "Maures" from the Greek adjective 'mauros,' meaning dark or black." Though the word "Moor" originally seems to have been meant to indicate Blacks, it in time came to be applied to Muslims in general, especially the Berbers. During the European Renaissance explorers, writers and scholars began to apply the term Moor to Blacks in general. Information courtesy of Blacks in Antiquity by Frank Snowden, Golden Age of the Moor ed. by Ivan Van Sertima, Black Brittanica by Edward Scobie and National Geographic Magazine)''

''In the Arab literature there is little mention of the word Moor. Rather the term Berber is used to describe these non Arab peoples who occupied the Maghrib (Islamic North Africa west of Egypt). The term Berber may have been derived from the Latin "barbari," a forerunner to the English "barbarian." Webster's New World Dictionary states that the term Berber refers to, "any of a Moslem people living in North Africa." Though this definition is extremely vague, the stereotypical idea of a Berber often depicted in literature and the media are of Caucasoid Semitic types. Anthropologist Dana Reynolds contends that the Berbers emerged as the result of admixture between non-African populations who moved into the Maghrib during the second millenium BC and the more ancient African indigenous inhabitants. This would account for the variance noted among the Berbers even in ancient times. According to Roman documents, among the Berbers were the "black Gaetuli and black-skinned Asphodelodes." Procopius in the 6th Century, in comparing another North African racial group to the Moors, states that they were "not black-skinned like the Moors."Harold A. MacMicheal pointed out that African Blacks such as the Tibbu and Tuwarek, resembling the ancient Nigiritians of the Sahara, are Lamta Berbers by origin. The Haratin of Morocco and Mauritania have also been called "Black Berbers." The Berber clans that were most instrumental in the Moorish conquest of Spain were the Nafza, Masmuda, Luwata, Hawwara, Zanata, Sanhadja and Zugwaha. Writing of the women of the Berber clan the Sanhadja confederation a Muslim scholar states, "Their color is black, though some pale ones can be found among them." It would seem that no monolithic racial type fits the Berbers. In the European Romance of El Cid some of the Berber women are described. A "black Moorish woman" named Nugaymath Turquia is said to lead a contingent of 300 Black Moorish "Amazons." They are described as "negresses" with their heads shaven, leaving a topknot. They are members of the Almoravid Dynasties which occupy Spain in 1086AD. Though not homogenous, the Almoravids held a heavy Black population which is not surprising as they originate in southern Morocco and Northern Senegal in western Africa. In all probability most Moors were probably North African Berbers of various phenotypic make-up. Yet the deemed "black-a-moors" among their number, even if a minority, left a lasting impact in the medieval European psyche.''

"Reading Is Fundamental"--Gnosis 02:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think that you guys need to break it down on what a Berber is and what it is not. It is not what you think it is - a race. It is aos not what you think it is - on type of people. Despite what white write and some Northwest African white type groups go along with, Berbers are not indigenous whites. You can look back at statues of Numidians and Carthiginians and you will see clear-cut blackness that can only be denied by racist whites (and Iberians) who want to rewrite history in order to try and lie away the black blood that is in Europe. This is the new plan based on an old one.

They want to make it appear as if whites had always been the master and the black the slave. They want to show that many Europeans got dark from the sun, but we know they did not! This is why when you know about non-European invaders of Europe, they call them Semites, Moors, Berber or whatever to take away blackness. When you look each one up, you come back to two term to throw you off - "caucasoid" and "sub-Saharan." The "caucasoid" term it meant to make you think of white people. When you actually see these "caucasoids," you do question what a white man is. Then they break it down by facial features. Northern Africans can have so-called white features, but they must be white. They hate to talk about race mixing as the cause, then they would have to call them black.Juba II They also fail to address many, many whites with black features and kinky, "frizzy," or curly hair as being African in origin. In their world, only the white can mixed with everyone else. In order to prove that the Moors were black and to show why whites seem to hate backs (they go hand in hand), then you need to understand the moves made by the European(Portuguese) after the Moorish period came to a close. That will answer many questions...

Whites always throw out the term "sub-Saharan" at us. Like that is supposed to mean something. They want to put into our minds that is where the actual black man lives AND the only place that he should or could be in Africa or in the western hemisphere. They also want us to think that blackness stops at the Sahara desert! It does not. Darfur shows you that! Blacks in the Sahara are in fact the blackest people in Africa! This is why they never show you these people on TV. Not to mention the fact that they are Muslims. They seem to hate showing African Muslims on TV from West Africa in particular. American TV has it all planned out on it's strategy to hide certain things about the present black world. You already know that The so-called "History Channel" seems to leave out all blacks. I was surprised when they had a show about Roman Nubians/Egyptians. Other than that, they must always get some 'others' to portray clearly black Egyptians. What good is a "History Channel" if they don't like to tel the truth?

This whole thing is about racism and whites trying to prove that they were never subjects of blacks or others. Many whites in Northwest Africa are victims of slavery. They are not so-called Berbers who are white, but whites who were taken as salves or come from invaders of the past and who have been FORCED into a non-European culture and religion. Instead of admitting this embarrassment, whites simply say that the groups that these whites are now a part of are simply white groups and have been from the start. Just supress the bad part and you hide the truth! They cannot deny that they were controlled by Asians during the Mongol raids and again somewhat during the Ottoman times. The 'special' relationship between the black man and the US is what makes all of these lies possible. The French hardly lied about the black man in Northern Africa - the land he ruled much of. When you look up that Juba article and picture, look at his relatives and others of ancient Northwest Africa and you will see the much hidden part of Africa was indeed African, but with some mixture in there. The Africaness was still so strong that you see it clearly. That's without color!

You don't or should not have to be a genius to see the evidence of race mixing. It is no wonder why southern Euopeans are darker then those white northern Europeans(who oftern have African facial feature and kinky blond hair no less!). Even Hitler saw this. Again, this is to rewrite hsitory and some who are apart of this history would like to be seen as official, unmixed whites in the eyes of the racist Anglo/German/Celt peoples.--71.235.81.39 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Moors 101 Don't be Late to Class
Apparently JBul12, you don't know how Wikipedia works. You make a suggestion or post a dispute. Then discuss it. With all disputes or postings you have to give sources. That's the way things work in this world, including Wikipedia. If you did a report on a subject in school and didn't include any sources you will without doubt receive an F. Your disputes and claims are unsourced. You have been asked numerous times to provide information on your claims and if they are legitimate then we can include them in this article. But you haven't done that at all and I won't allow you to hold this article hostage. Either point out your disputes with sourced information or I will take down the tags.

Historians generally agree that the Moors were of Berber, Arab, and later Iberian extraction in Spain. Okay where is your proof of this? Who are these historians you claim are saying this?

These groups were not black, although there were black, as well as Slavic, slaves that later become a part of the community. When did the Slavic slaves become part of this community? Where are you getting this information from?

The word slave is derived from Middle Latin sclavus or slav, in turn derived from the ethnonym discussed above, because of the large number of Slavs captured during the raids of Turkic nomads and sold to Europe through slave markets of Caffa and Egypt.

''It is generally agreed that most Moors were NOT black, however. Mostly Afro-centrists claim they were mostly black.'' Again by who? Where are you getting your information from? Who are mostly saying this? You have to substantiate your claim here.

Mostly Afro-centrists claim they were mostly black. This is also untrue there is historic text proving that Europeans supported this notion not just Afro-centrist as you put it.

I have even heard some argue that the Caucasoid Berbers displaced supposed "native" black populations in North Africa, which is generally agreed as being false, and only in recent centuries have black sub-saharans push beyond the Sahara. Again who told you this? A little bird? You can't make such claims without proof. In this world you need facts to back up your argument and you haven't provided any up to date. Other than I heard, or someone told me, or Mostly these people are... All of this is empty rhetoric and there is not place for it on Wikipedia.

''I am told that I need information to back up these claims. I am sorry that I don't have the time to find other specific authors.'' Then you don't have the right to post something you can't back up. This is how Wikipedia works. Postings must be sourced. I can say Big bird and Snuffleuppagus were Moors. But that doesn't make it true.

''But once again, just because a book is published doesn't make it a fact. We all know this.'' This is true, but when it comes from let's say a scholar on the subject who worked for the British Museum and studied and taught at Oxford University who also is an Egyptologist. Then I'd have to say I would take his word over yours. I'm sure most people would. Including those you state, "generally agreed that most Moors were NOT black". But then again you have no source or "time to lookup anything" which means it's your opinion against a noted highly educated authority on the subject. I would much rather take the word of the latter.

Lastly Berbers can be Moors. No where in the article does it state that they can't. Just as there can be European and African or the racist terms you used "white" or "black" Moors. Moors didn't distinguis between color of skin as you racist do today. see: racism The aim of this article is to discuss Moors heritage culture and the ethnic makeup. I would love to include more info on moors being Berber which they were as well. But I will not and do not agree with you saying that they were all caucasian and not black. See I'm saying Moors were of all ethnic makeups but the term itself was applied to dark skinned Africans first then to everyone else who converted to islam and lived in the North Eastern to North Western Regions and certain sub saharan countries. Can you even tell me what a Berber is? If you're truly a Moor what do the 5 points on the star on the Moroccan (Moorish) Flag represent? Can you even tell me why the flag is red? Proof is the way we do things here. Not just posting random beliefs. And trying to force your view on others. Moors were of all ethnicities... However the greater make up were dark skinned Africans, Arabs, and Berbers. Lookup Maure and please don't start editing pages because someone told you or you heard something unless you have proof. "I heard there's a Lochness Monster" "I heard the moon is made of green cheese" Come on these are the childish games that are being played here. Grow up and learn how do do research like they teach in Highschool and College and provide proper sources to substantiate your claims.--Gnosis 17:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Still Empty Rhetoric
Encarta? LOL is that the best you can do? Encarta? That's about as bad as Encyclopedia Britannica. Which many of the stories were written by Euro-Centrists. Plus this doesn't even prove your point. Moors adopted islam in 640CE when the Arabs invaded. The term was used over 500 centries before that. "The only thing Arab about Moors was the fact that they adopted Islam," Dr. Yosef A.A. Ben-Johannan Egyptologist, History Author of: "Africa Mother of Western Civilization." The term was loosely used for all muslims since Islam swept across the continent so fast. Nice try. But if this website is your only source, you are fighting a hopeless cause. Many encyclopedias have been proven to be written from a Euro-centric slant. Where are these books you say you've read? Where are these pictures? Do we really need to continue this?

You have books with artwork!!! So what? First of all artwork is just that, artwork, a painting that portrays the individual who painted it's point of view. I can paint pictures all day long with dogs playing poker, does that mean that the event really took place? No. Listen. You still haven't proven your point or given the name of any book that proves what you are saying. YOU STILL HAVE NO PROOF!!! Second I don't even think you know the meaning of the word racist. You are so caught emotionally that you aren't even thinking straight. Look up the meaning of the words race, racism then we can discuss that issue. You are giving me so much ammo here I love it. Egyptians, you mean Kimit don't you. You know it was called this before the "Haribus" or "Jewish People" who changed the name to Egypt. Oh wait maybe you didn't know that. Hmm, what do you know? Well let's see the original Egyptians were actually called Romitu or Rotu, and their country, see, it was called Kimit, or KAM. Do you even know these words? (See Dr. Albert Churchward, Origin And Evolution of The Human Race (p.403). Like how I backed up my statement by a source. You should try that some time. Oh and wait let me stop you before you think it or say it. He was an Afro-centrists right? WRONG.. He was a and I'll use your racist terms "White Man" here's a

link http://www.churchward.com/cw/albertc/

Wait maybe he's a "White" Afro-centrists. I'll bet that's what you were gonna say next right?

I think you're the only one playing the race card here trying to state that Moors were only white. Now you're trying to say that they contained some blacks. Look the bottom line is this. You know nothing about this subject. You haven't provided any proof and you are trying to force your slanted racist views. Yes I said it RACIST. There's a difference between Racist and racial prejudice. You should look it up. There's a good site you can find the definition on it's called Wikipedia.org Now back to class,

''besides one black man in a large crowd of Moors. That shows there was indeed a black presence,''

Are you serious right now? Are you really serious? Who wrote that book? What's the name? I'll bet it was written by a Euro-centrist. I bet the painting was done by a Euro-centrist. Or, are the only centric books Afro-centric?

While the Egyptians definitely have gained black admixture over time, it is also false to claim the Egyptians as black, as many Afro-centrists do.

Well let's see. Do you know what a Hyksos is? Well they invaded Egypt or Kimit. This is why egyptians are portrayed differently. Because during their rule they not only changed the statues and paintings the people were changed through mixing. Wait where did I get this info from? Wikipedia.org is one. And I guess they are Afrocentrists also. Maybe it's easier to ask you who isn't an Afrocentrist since everyone is.

''I do realize that you said not all Moors were black, but you said MOST were. And that is simply not the case. Mainstream sources tell us this. In England the term Moor came to mean black people because most Englishmen had never seen Moors. The civilization that conquered Spain was not principally black; This is seen not only in the present population of Spain (since black genes are genetically dominant over Caucasoids, they should somewhat resemble the people of Haiti), but in the present populations of North Africa.''

Black genes and Caucasoids is it now? Why are you using a racist term as a correlation to a an anthropological term? Which is obsolete for that matter and is no longer considered the norm. You should have said Europid and Africoid.

Artwork? So what you found some art in a book. I don't buy it. What book? What mainstream sources are you talking about? Where are these books? When were they written? Who wrote them? Have you even read them? When did the term Moor come to mean black people in England? Was it before Lusius Quietus the Moorish Prince was Roman general and governor of Judea in 117? I see pictures painted by many people but just because it's a painting doesn't mean it's real.

The civilization that conquerd Spain was not principally black.

The fact is that it was comprised mostly of African Moors, Arabs Moors, and Berber Moors. Berbers does not necessarily mean "White" as you would racistly like it to mean although there were those if you choose to use the racist term white Moors present. The reason why the population is like it is today is because the Moors, Jews and Christians were murdered and expelled from Spain. Then the land and valuables were taken and helped to finance "Christopher Colon" or "Columbus" journey to the New World.

In regards to Hannibal being "Black" He was more of an mix between European and African. But according to todays standards that's considered, (using a racist term) "Black". But I personally don't agree with this. Because it can't be substantiated. However he did use an enormous number of I'll use your racist term "Black" Africans in his armies similar to the Moors. Bottom line is this. Back in these times when you wanted to wage war you needed troops. What do you do? You invade a nearby town and take slaves and make them soldiers. This is why the armies were full of Africans because they were everywhere. They would wage war and pickup anyone in the area. Most of them being (racist term) black but there were others (racist term) white as well in these groups.--Gnosis 03:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Art of Arguing from a Flawed Foundation
''The fact that you regard Encarta, which is a mainstream encyclopedia, as "Euro-centric" shows your bias. You cannot simply blow it off, as I can with your sources, because your sources were written either by White supremists who would like to regard Muslims as enemies of the "white race", and therefore not white or even caucasoid, or by blacks who would like to claim their civilization.''

Number one I said many articles in Britannica was written by Euro-Centrists. This doesn't mean the whole book or volumes of books. I said Encarta was just as bad however, which it is. It's slightly better but not by much margin. I also don't reject the books as they do have some good information. So please don't say I reject them, if I didn't say that.

Okay so now you claim, Europeans that write books on Moors are white supremists, or if it's written by "blacks" then these are people who would like to claim the civilization. I'm so glad you are an authority on this JBull12. You've picked the right username. JBull obviously means Just Bull. I would think it would be hard to find a white supremists who would argue anything in the favor of anyone other than their own "White Race". Number one you have one source from Encarta, an online link for that matter. Which contains no dates and no sources from where the article got it's information from. I bet you don't even know who wrote that Encarta article. Second, burden of proof is on you because as I have done properly I have stated my case. Posted my sources and done everything within the guidlines of how you handle postings on Wikipedia. You are arguing from a "Flawed Foundation" and really need to stop this nonsense.

You are knowlegable about all things except your ignorance. You are not even seeing what your statements are revealing about you. Why can't you provide names of books and other sources that you have said you have found information from? Because you can't. This is like arguing with a little kid who thinks there is a Santa Claus.

Second you are just looking for a reason to argue and it is really pitiful. When did I make a comment about Othello? I don't beleive I did. It was actually Paul B who made that comment. I made a comment on Lusius Quietus Please read everything I write before you make a comment. You are now exposing your real problem. You don't read or pay attention to detail. ''I asked: When did the term Moor come to mean black people in England? Was it before Lusius Quietus the Moorish Prince was Roman general and governor of Judea in 117 or after?'' Do you even know? You didn't even answer. You haven't answered anything. You just keep posting unsourced information, biased claims, racist weltanschauungs, and empty rhetoric.

Once again you are wrong and prove to be as flawed as the very foundation of your arguments. To be honest, I've never even read the play Othello or seen it. So I wouldn't really have anything to say about it. That's what's different about you and me. I don't speak about things I don't know, you do. It is pitiful that I have wasted my time up to this point explaining this. I could be reading and learning about many other things, instead of entertaining an ignorant person such as yourself. You don't know anything, you don't have any sources, and to be honest, you are proving to be the one who is really "ignorant" in this situation. Oh by the way, I know you probably wouldn't know what the meaning of the word ignorant is but, it means without knowledge of a particular thing. You are really funny... Saracens? All the other jibberish you are talking about you know nothing about the Saracens nor Mamelukes or any other groups in history. Spain is not even considered Nothern Europe.. Duhhhh?!


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe
 * Denmark
 * Estonia
 * Faeroe Islands
 * Finland
 * Iceland
 * Ireland
 * Latvia
 * Lithuania
 * Norway
 * Sweden
 * United Kingdom - I'll give you the benefit on this one since the English were in Spain for some time. But hell I had to help you out on this one.

''The English lived in England and had relatively little contact with Arabs, Berbers, or Blacks. When they did have contact with blacks, who were obviously more conspicuous than Arabs, the ones they came into contact with typically did hail from Muslim civilizations simply because Muslim civilizations were more advanced in terms of their travel and navigation, as well as more motivated.''

Could you possibly be more biased and wrong? Please stop using racist terms like black that refer to a meme. And by the simple fact that you keep using this racist term to correlate to a anthropological term to try to prove your spurious points shows you limited knowledge of this topic.

So I guess Rome and Greece had little contact as well with these, as you recistly put it (Blacks). Once again you are making pie in the sky statements without sources. Better Navigators? How would you explain the African Moors in the Americas in the Pre-Columbus era? You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The funny thing is, the more you say the more you prove it. I would suggest you stop while you're behind, go to your local library. You know, the place where they have books? Do some reading and then come back here and prove your points with sourced evidence. There's a catch though. You can't just read one book. You have to read several because some information is wrong and some is right. The more you read the more you find flaws in what is written and the more you find the truth as well. One or two books won't cut it.

I guess the folks at PBS are white supremists or trying to claim a civilization as well. I truly doubt it because they do something called fact checking. I know this is a new term to you so I'll provide you with a link so you can learn somehting. WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/ssecretum1.html

Well to be honest I'm tired of this. You should be paying me to teach you this. Go read a book and learn something...--Gnosis 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Due to the ignorance of a certain individual JBull12 and the enlightenment of Tombseye I have decided to remove all references of the word Black from the article except where it is stated in quotes which I will not change because as all writers know it is inappropriate to edit an individuals quotes. I am however leaving proven sourced works by individuals with proper credentials on this subject and who are considered authorities by esteemed institutions. As a result of this I am removing the neutrality dispute tag from the page. Having no reference to Blacks which is an inappropriate term anyway leads to discussions with uninformed individuals takes away from the integrity of the article.--Gnosis 02:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Grief
For God's sake, people, have some order. There's a method of organization that's followed consistently throughout Wikipedia and that is moving down the page as you progress in your discussions. No one's gonna know what's happened on this page the way you two, JBull12 and Gnosis, have chaotically exchanged here. From now on, start a new topic at the bottom of the page, and post newer comments below older ones. --Jugbo 07:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Duh?
"The majority Caucasoid Muslim civilization of Spain continued to be called "Saracen" by Northern Europeans, whilst the Iberians used the term "Moro". Moor became later used by the Northern Europeans, looking back, and using an Anglicized Spanish term."

You really need to read that. Iberians = inhabitants of Iberia...meaning Portugal and Spain. Did you know that? Saracen to Northern Europeans, Moro to Iberians....Wow...talk about not being able to read. Besides that, you need to stop cursing and using foul language. Those who talk louder don't talk the best, as is seen in your case. Your arguments are lame, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Go home and read your Afro-centrist tales of white demons and blacks originally ruling the entire world and everyone else just displacing them. Have fun. JBull12 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Still Moor of J's Bull12 Just Empty Rhetoric Without Proof
How can you say go read something and not say where to read it? Of course Iberia refers to Portugal and Spain. Iberia was an ancient region of Transcaucasia roughly equivalent to the present-day Republic of Georgia. Iberia was allied to Rome and later ruled by a Persian dynasty. It became a Byzantine province in the sixth century A.D. No one is disputing that. But Spain is not a part of northern Europe as you claim. I just showed proof of that before. Never did I say Moors were "Black" or "White" the article doesn't even state that. It said Moors didn't use those terms or consider themselves either. What is being disputed is your idea and desire to consider all Moors Caucasoids and you should really stop using the term "black" or "white". It makes you sound very ignorant and it makes you a racist, along with the fact that you don't show refrence material. Plus you're arguing to try to prove a point of something I didn't say. You are the only one making references to Moors being only Caucasian. This term is considered obsolete although you insist on using it.

''Hannibal, the famous Carthaginian general, is often claimed by the Afro-centrists as a black man, even though he has always been depicted (even in ancient times) as not. While the Egyptians definitely have gained black admixture over time, it is also false to claim the Egyptians as black, as many Afro-centrists do.''

?????

What the hell is black admixture? Is that something you buy in a store like cool-aid? I've never heard of black admixture? Sounds like a racist term if I ever heard of one. You probably still think your "Caucasians" originated in Europe?

Do you even know who founded Carthage?

Carthage was an ancient city and state of northern Africa on the Bay of Tunis northeast of modern Tunis. It was founded by the Phoenicians in the ninth century B.C. and became the center of Carthaginian power in the Mediterranean after the sixth century B.C. The city was destroyed by the Romans at the end of the Third Punic War (146 B.C.) but was rebuilt by Julius Caesar and later (A.D. 439-533) served as capital of the Vandals before its virtual annihilation by the Arabs (698)

I bet you think the Phoenicians were all Causcasoids also.

The bottom line the issue has been resolved. There are no references to white or black in the article except quotes. Therefore the issue is closed. No more caucasoid, negroid or any other references either.--Gnosis 21:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
Jbull please stop placing the Neutrality tag on the Moors sight. The problem you had has been corrected. There are no racial or anthropological references. No "black", Caucasoid, Negro etc... So you should have no dispute with the neutrality. This is the reason you stated that it was disputed. Any additional tag placing without proper dispute can be considered vandalism. You can't just post the tag just because you feel that it doesn't say what you want. Your issue was with the reference to Moors being "Black" or mostly "Black" there was a dispute with you saying "Caucasian" stop your bickering. If you have other issues please let them be known otherwise refrain from the childish acts--Gnosis 23:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow....talk about dense
Of course Spain is not part of Northern Europe! I never said that! Can you not read? Why do you think I showed you that quote? I clearly differentiated between Iberia and Northern Europe.....hence my use of Iberians and Northern Europeans.....And why are you talking about all this other random crap? I definitely know the difference between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe, I'm Italian. My people were restricted from entering the US based on small number quotas because of Nazi Northern Europeans controlling immigration based on being from Southern Europe. I know about the Phoenicians, and I know the Phoenicians are Semitic, and are Caucasoid. I have Lebanese friends, and them being the descendents of the Phoenicians, it's clear. You're telling me to stop saying "black" and "white" when you're the one who claims there were two Moorish groups, the "black" one being the largest that took over Spain. "Do you even know who founded Carthage?"....Wow you are arrogant. Do you think no one knows history except you? The term Punic means Phoenician, which is why the wars with Carthage were called so. Hannibal's image can clearly be seen on coins, and he wasn't black. These images were contemporary, not some European looking back trying to claim him for their own. And the issue has not been resolved, just because you say it has. You're arrogance is disgusting. You seem to think because you say something, it makes it true, despite the current demographics of the Maghrib, Spain, and the Middle East. JBull12 18:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Pointless Arguing
The random crap I am arguing are things that you have randomly stated or brought up withoug sources. Unless you state a reason why you keep on posting the Neutrality tag then it should be removed. The bottom line is this. The reason why you claim your dispute has been corrected. Therefore you have no reason to dispute Neutrality. In addition you are the one claiming Moors were Caucasian. I stated they were comprised of various groups of people and didn't use the terms "white" or "black" as you have been using. Unless you have another reason to dispute the page then you should remove the tag. You haven't even reread the article. You are an individual who feels the need to be heard. There shouldn't be any reference to Caucasian, Negro, White or Black. This is not an article on Anthropology or Race. You haven't backed up any of your claims. I tried to be the bigger one here and remove anything you found in dispute. That means reference to any group in particular. This is the best way to be neutral and avoid any arguments or biases. This is keeping within line of the NPOV Wikipedian standards. If you don't feel that is what you like who cares? The problem has been solved by keeping the article from referring to any group specifically. And, unless you show some proof or sources to what you say, you haven't yet proven your point. It's not between you and me, there is a bigger picture here and you are obviously not seeing it. I am tired of bickering with you because you are a total waste of time. The bottom line is you need to provide facts, proof, and sourced material, if not it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. However it really doesn't matter now because the racial and anthropological terms should not be included since Moors were comprised of so many groups of various people. Provide some sources or proof until then, I have nothing else to say.-- Gnosis 00:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view
 * NPOV dispute

''Wow...talk about not being able to read. Besides that, you need to stop cursing and using foul language. Those who talk louder don't talk the best, as is seen in your case... Your arguments are lame, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Go home and read your Afro-centrist tales of white demons and blacks originally ruling the entire world and everyone else just displacing them. Have fun.''

Those comments among others were brought by User:JBull12 and obviously are against our policies (see Civility). Please refrain from using such a method to prove your point. Tagging the article w/ NPOV template w/o discussing in depth your concerns would be considered as vandalism. So please, think about it. Please use reasonable discussion to solve this matter. I also suggest that you remove the uncivil comments above. Cheers -- Szvest 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

One sided
"You've picked the right username. JBull obviously means JBullshit." That's from Gnosis. I love how I get called out for being "uncivil"...He edited it after cursing up and down the page, and I get called out. Lovely. JBull12 16:58, 23 April 2006
 * If you have any examples, give them out. Be specific please! Cheers -- Szvest 22:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMoors&diff=49818195&oldid=49657545 There's your information. He changed tons of rude comments just so he could complain about me later. Not that you'll do anything about it.JBull12 17:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * JBull12, the link you just gave to me above is not clear yet. I had to go checking every single edit on that span and scope. What i found is that he/she was changing her/his own edits. Nothing wrong w/ that as nothing is misleading out there. It's simply a problem of confusing readers. Here's what i found:


 * You stated these comments:
 * If you have other issues please let them be known otherwise refrain from the childish acts


 * Can you not read?...Wow you are arrogant. Do you think no one knows history except you?...You're arrogance is disgusting. 


 * He did these changes
 * here he changes JBullshit to JBullish to Just Bull


 * So please, you refrain from any uncivil comment and for Elohimginius, please don't change your edits so often and never ever any others' edits as you did above except if it is a personal attack. Cheers -- Szvest 23:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

No problem. I changed my edits after realizing I shouldn't have lowered myself to JBull12 statement that I was an idiot. I shouldn't have allowed myself to stoop to that level it was wrong. It weakens my argument when I lose my cool based on another individual doing so. I accept the fact that I changed my edits but it was either before or after you made your statement to remove them. I accept blame. For that as well as attacking JBull12 after his initial attack. In addition I never changed anyone's edits nor will I ever. I only changed personal attacks on JBull12 not his edits.

This is the one that actually set me off.


 * You sound stupid by rejecting mainstream works, and because of that, I don't even have to explain it anymore.

This is what I said in return. The only curse. Not up and down the page as JBul12 states, as you can see if you review the history. I thought it was funny though.
 * JBull obviously means JBullshit

But I'll refrain from those comments even if I am attacked, two wrongs don't make a right. In addition just for the record JBull12, I didn't complain at all about the attacks. But as I stated I shouldn't have attacked you upon your initial attack.

--Gnosis 23:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, if you look at my comments they never said "you're an idiot". I called you arrogant...whereas you insulted my intelligence several times. And to Szvest, how is that not clear? The differences are highlighted between the two pages. Wikipedia does that, and you know that. And, I have never edited anyone else's statements, so I don't even know why you mentioned that, even if it's just a "forewarning". Gnosis was the first one to resort to insults, and that can be seen in the page, nor did I ever call him anything similar to "stupid". This discussion is a waste of time. JBull12 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Moors were definitely black people as in the decedents of "Negro" African. The "Negro" has planted his seed and it continues to grow and splinter into sub-races. Africans were and are a great people who have traveled far and wide. Spreading civilization, however civilizations rise and fall. And remember, that which falls shall rise again.
 * From: [OneMoorTyme] - June 2, 2006 11:31pm (CST)


 * The Moors were Arabs and Berbers, not black Africans. "Moor" is just a name used by native Europeans to refer to the southern invaders of their land, due to their relatively darker complexion. If they had known what they called themselves, they wouldn't have called them "Moors" or "Saracens", which term refers primarily to geographical origin rather than racial characteristics. The Arabs began spreading Islam and their empire in the late 7th century, eventually conquering North Africa. No black African state existed at this time, so why would a society of black Africans simply up and decide to expand and conquer Iberia, for which the Moors are best known, coincidentally at the time that the Arabs would have done so? People don't do things like that for no apparent reason. Besides that, they would have had to move through North Africa, inhabited by Berbers, and then expand into Europe. The Moorish occupation of Spain and Portugal is consistently referred to as the "Arab period", and the invasion as the "Arab invasion". So the Moors weren't black, and black Africans simply didn't play a major role in their affairs. The current article by Elohimgenius is bogus, no matter how "Moorish" he thinks he is. --Jugbo 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all Jugo I think you owe me an apology because I have tried to keep the article clean of racial terms white and black. The comment listed above yours was written my someone named [OneMoorTyme]. I have not and would not make such claims as I know them to be inflamatory. Second I can trace my ancestry back to Morocco and my whole family are Moors. SO your comment of "No matter how Moorish I think I am" Is truly an ignorant statement. Who are you to judge someone's heritage and what they know about their ancestry. You sound like a racist making such comments like that. In addition Berbers are neither white nor black but a combination of various groups of ethnically diverse backgrounds. Just as Moors were. I am tired of explaining this to you and others who keep trying to say I am saying Moors were black or Moors were white. They were neither. As I state time and time again. It is only a racist who speaks like this. If you don't understand this you will remain ignorant on this subject.--Gnosis 01:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No Black African State Existed
You are speaking as a racist so I will try to reason with you Jugbo. First of all your statement of no Black African state is obviously out of ignorance. Let's just take race out of the equation for a second. The only truth to that statement is your use of the word black as there is no such thing as a black state. However if I use racism as you have chosen then I will say here is an brief information to prove you wrong in that statement.

[[The oldest centre of gold production in West Africa was Bambuk. Its people guarded its secret so that outsiders had to deal with them on their own terms. Takrûr, Ghâna and Gao were three states which competed for the diminishing gold of Bambuk and resold it to the Arabs. We have accounts by the Arabs of these kingdoms:

The town of Takrûr, whose people are black, like the rest of the black peoples practised the Magi religion and the worship of idols until Wârjâbî ibn-Râbîs (who had a military alliance with the Berbers) became their ruler. He established the laws of Islam and converted them to these laws. Wârjâbî died in 1040-1 and the people of Takrûr are Muslims today.

Silâ likewise consists of two towns on the banks of the Senegal River. Its people are Muslim, having become Muslim at the hands of Wârjâbî. From Silâ to the town of Ghâna is the distance of 20 days' journey over land inhabited by one tribe after another. The king of Silâ makes war on his pagan neighbours. The king of Silâ rules over a large territory with many people and is almost a match for the king of Ghâna.

Then there is the kingdom of Ghâna, whose king is also powerful. In his land are the gold mines, and he has many other kings under him. It borders on the land of the gold mines, where great nations live. They have a boundary which anyone who wants to deal with them may not cross. When traders bringing goods reach this boundary they put their goods and cloths on it and pull back. The blacks then come with gold and leave it next to the goods and pull back. The traders return and if they are satisfied they take the gold, otherwise they go back. The blacks keep returning with more gold in this manner until the sale is completed.

Ghâna is the wealthiest king on the face of the earth. Yet he stands in pressing need of the goodwill of the kings of Awdaghust because of the salt which comes to them from the lands of Islam. They cannot do without this salt.

The town of Ghâna consists of two towns on a plain. One of them is where the Muslims live, and is a big town with 12 mosques, one of them a Friday mosque with imâms and mu'adhdhins, some of them appointed, as well as legal experts and learned men. The king's town is six miles away, and is called al-Ghâna [the grove], but dwellings cover the way between the two towns. The king has a palace and some domed buildings surrounded by a wall resembling a city wall. The king's town has one mosque, near the king's court of justice, where the Muslims pray who come there. Around the king's town are domed buildings and groves and shrines where their sorcerers, who keep their religion going, live. In these places are their idols and the tombs of their kings. The groves are guarded, and no one can enter them or know what is in them. There also is the king's prison, and if he imprisons anyone there, no news of him is ever heard. The king's interpreters are from the Muslims, likewise the treasurer and most of his ministers.

Their king wears necklaces and bracelets like the women, and puts on his head a high cap decorated with gold, and over that a turban of fine cotton. He receives people or judges grievances against officials in a domed building, around which stand ten horses with gold decorated covers. Behind the king stand ten pages holding shields and swords decorated with gold. On his right are the children of his vassal kings with fine clothes and their hair braided with gold. The governor of the town sits on the ground before the king, and around him sit the ministers. At the door of the building are specially bred dogs who guard the king and hardly ever leave his place. Around their necks are collars of gold and silver, with a number of golden and silver balls. People are called to the audience by a drum made from a long hollowed log. When the people of his religion approach him they fall on their knees and sprinkle dust over their heads; that is their way of greeting him. But Muslims greet him by clapping their hands. ]]

In addition of course the Arabs would have to move across North Africa. In doing so they acquired slaves. Berbers being of light and dark skinned. I have cousins living in North Africa currently with very light skin and they surely don't consider themselves white. Nor do they consider themselves black. These are views of people who choose to practice racism as you have chosen. As the Arabs swept across North Africa fighting Berbers they won and lost battles. However eventually Berbers of all shades of color skin eventually converted to Islam. Some of them were already muslim after converting from previous contact with Arabs. Having a racist POV as you do is not something that should be added to this article. Uses of the terms black and white are not really relevant since there were intermarriages and children were born of Arabs men who took Berbers of light and dark skin into their harems. Berbers having racists views of being black and white is only something new to modern times and only perpetuates the oppression of a people.--Gnosis 21:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My point was that none of those places got off the ground until Arabs entered the region, and none of them would have had the means or the cause to expand and conquer other areas, especially ones as far away a Iberia, as the Arabs did, who obviously were the Moors we're speaking of. Also, I would call the great majority of these people "white", just FYI. --Jugbo 01:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ludovico Il Moro
Maybe Other Moors in History should be restricted to people who were of the Moorish culture and not people who were called "The Moor" because of dark skin/African ancestry? Ludovico, as far as anyone knows, was not part of the actual Moorish culture.

JBull12 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

JBull12, here's the thing. We should be able to have a civilized discussion without resulting to the "you sound stupid" comments by you and the "JBullshit" comment by me. The issue is closed let's move on shall we? I'll look into your comment and do some more research on Ludovico. I think you have a valid point I found some documents that show he may have been part of the Moorish culture. However tonight I found several reputable sources that dispute this. With that being said, I will remove him from the section. He did study the culture but only on the surface do to the fact that he was called Moor because of his comlexion.--Gnosis 05:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Slavery And The Tinted Glass of Race
...No African State existed at this time....

Under any other circumstance, I would simply have written this off as another poorly thought statement.But it bothers me greatly because it comes from someone who is supposed to contribute to the Wikipedia. My reservations concerning the Wikipedia aside, let me say a thing or two. There are a lot of historical documents written about ancient African kingdoms. As a student of Ethiopian history let me restrict myself to the things I know well. The Axumite kingdom of Ethiopia was described by the great Persian historian Mani as one of the great four empires of ancient times along with Rome, Persia and China. This is written right here in the Wikipedia if the writer of the above statement bothered to check. It was an indigenous African civilization dating back to the 4th century B.C. It became Christian before most Europeans did. It goes back more than a thousand years before Islam.Aksum had(Ethiopia has)its own written characters. Now I wonder why someone would so easily write about something he/she doesn't know for certain. This possibility, in my opinion, is one inherent weakness of the Wikipedia but I suspect in this particular case it might be something more.I don't want to accuse Wikipedia per se of impartiality but there is a tendency I have noticed also elsewhere to minimize the achievements and contributions of African civilizations. I understand no discourse occurs in a vacuum and the historical context( especially in the United States) tends to color every little discussion. But let us not forget the ultimate objective. We are here to put stuff that is going to be referred to, quoted and scrutinized. It is a forum of learning not propaganda. As an afterthought, some of the extensive back-and-forth on this page just reminds me of the arguments I once overheard about the heritage of Tiger Woods and why he should not be considered "black". The thing is, if Mr. Woods had not been a great golfer, would people have argued as much as they did? I don't know. In my opinion it really does not matter. The point here is, we should not be using influential platforms of knowledge( such as this one) as vehicles for personal bias. If anyone keeps his/her ignorance to himself/herself- fine! But I think, to maintain the credibility of the Wikipedia we should hold all facts and truths to higher standards. In the process we can even learn from each other. Let us not assume there is no truth outside of what we know. People will always bring their personal prejudices to the table but let's back every little thing up. Accepted scholarship, author name, title, chapter, page number, edition etc. Then let the reader judge. -Moh

Foolish White People, Always trying to steal other people History
You white people are foolish !!!

Until at least around - 1500 BC, this whole region was dominated by Negroes.

White people who appear - 20 000 years ago, were trapped in europe a long time by the Last glacial period. So while Negroes built big civilizations like Ta-Seti in nubia 10 000 years ago and later kemet and the big kushite empire. The whites lived in caves, sometimes eating their own children if there was nothing else to eat.

References: - Lenormant. - The African Origin of Civilization, Cheikh Anta Diop.

The men found in Canaan in prehistoric times, the Natufian, was a Negroid. The Capsian tool industry, which doubtless came from north Africa to that region, was also of Negroid Origin. In the Bible, when the first whites races reached the place coming from europe after the last glacial period, they found a black race there, the canaanites, descendants of canaan, brother of mesraim, the egyptian, and kush, the ethiopian, sons of ham.

The Canaanites thus the phoenican,the Moors were originally Negroes, already civilized, with whom nomadic, uncultured white tribes later mixed.

Toward the middle of the second millennium 1450 B.C. under the increasing pressure of white tribes who occupied the hinterland and drove the phoenicians back toward the coast, the sidonians founded the first phoenician colonies in Boeotia, where they installed the excess population.

References: Lenormant, Cheikh Anta Diop.

Examples: Babylonians in the time of Dareios I and Artaxerxes II http://greatcommission.com/berlin/60.jpg

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/we/we11.htm "Arabia was originally settled by two distinct races, an earlier Cushite Ethiopian race and a later Semitic Arabian. 'The Cushites were the original Arabians and dwelt there before Abraham came to Canaan"

"The Cushites were their superiors in knowledge and, civilization.' It had been a Cushite principle to mete out equal justice to aliens. For many years the Semites lived subject to the laws of the Sabaeans, silently increasing in strength. They accepted in part the language, manners and institutions of the Cushites. At last they rose and overthrew those who had given them the light."

Mapungubwe: SA's lost city of gold One thousand years ago, Mapungubwe in Limpopo province was the centre of the largest kingdom in the subcontinent, where a highly sophisticated people traded gold and ivory with China, India and Egypt. http://www.safrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/history/mapungubwe.htm

Caid--84.130.37.188 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Funny to observe how this page has turned into some black vs whites... Interesting is that the state of liberia is grounded by freed slaves from america,and they have civil wars. And the dominican republic and haiti is on the same island,dominican is hispanic,and its kindda ok to live there.Haiti is black and its a totally collapsed state.One also remembers zimbabwe expelling the white farmers...and now economic collapse. And now somebody desperatly is trying to steal history from others ,instead of solving later problems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.129.21.126 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Additional Historical Facts" Copyvio
The "Additional Historical Facts" section appears to be a cut-and-paste of this site, with the exception of a few paraphrased sentences. The first revision to include this section even preserved the last line including the original author's name. Should the section be re-written or scrapped entirely? --HonztheBusDriver 21:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what the big contention is. It is always entertaining to me how fired up caucasian people become about black history or the perceived lack thereof. In all my time reading wikipedia this is the first article that I've seen demanding a rewrite. As far as the Moors being "Berbers"; it is obviously a contrived term used to cause confusion and deny blacks any claim to the history of Europe. I notice it is a prerequisite that any history regarding negroes has to be prefaced by "freed slave". "Scholars" have also claimed in the past that the ancient Egyptians were caucasian, when they had the sculptures and paintings showing them as negroid. Ask yourself why all the ancient Egyptian and Babylonian statues seem to have their noses missing but the Greek and Roman ones are in perfect condition? Where are the artifacts from Carthage since there seems to be so much confusion over whether or not Hannibal was black? Notice in the movie "Ten Commandments" starring Charlton Heston they had to make the Egyptians caucasian with the sinister understanding that Moses, being a Hebrew Israelite, blended in with the Egyptians. "Scholars" have also whitewashed the true images of the biblical Israelites, Babylonians, and Sumerians. Blacks have to understand that history and knowledge is power, whites know this, so it is incumbent upon us to do our own research and stop looking to whites to validate our history, legacy, and existence. Why would they empower us with knowledge of ourselves. Why do you think the slaves that could read were put to death. As far as the depictions of medieval European battle scenes with only a couple of negroes in the picture, DO YOUR RESEARCH. What do you think the "Renaissance" was about other than a systematic whitewashing of Europe and the eradication of all evidence that negroes ruled during the "Dark Ages", hint hint. Not only were the Moors negroes but so were the Germanic tribes. The Roman historian Tacitus describes the men of the British Isles as negroes. For proof of this see: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-2595445-7741540?%5Fencoding=UTF8&dym=0&search-type=ss&index=stripbooks%3Arelevance-above&field-keywords=ancient%20and%20modern%20britons. I wonder what Shakespeare's interest in the Moors could have been. Check this link and see for yourself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/art/shakespeare_later_01.shtml. Believe me when I tell you, that is just the tip of the iceberg. From a purely physiological, non-racist, perspective: caucasians do not have the physical characteristics necessary to thrive in a climate such as the Middle East or Northern Africa for any elongated period of time so the Caucasoid Moor theory is preposterous. I've read "theories" stating that the Somalians and Ethiopians are Caucasians based on their sharp noses. How racist is that. Hell, how stupid and desperate is that. In the Bible the ancestor of the Caucasians is known as Esau which means, "wasted away is he" because of the lack of skin pigmentation. I would like to thank wikipedia and it's users for perpetuating the whitewashing of history and inspiring me and those like me to even more rigorous study and research. For those of you thinking of editing my entry the way you edited history....be my guest but the truth is the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laamaj23 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC).


 * If you want people to believe your argument that Germanic people used to be black, then I suggest that you quote Tacitus. Few people are credulous enough to believe that, as it contradicts genetic, archaeological, and geographical evidence, not to mention common sense. Germanic people have a common origin in Central Asia with other Europeans, which is another reason why your argument lacks merit. As for white Middle Easterners, see this page (my post is the penultimate one in the section). --Jugbo 22:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Conquerors Were Moors
My goodness, My goodness. We have complicated things, haven't we??? The Islamic conquerors of Spain & Southern Italy were called Moors. We must delve more deep into the question "Who were the Conquerors?" instead of just one term that describes them. History has been recorded on both sides of the fence. Arabs, Berbers & to a lesser extent West Africans are those very Moors. West Africans played a vital role during surges in history, yet the Arabs & Berbers were in it for the duration.

Next point can be illustrated thusly, a popular term racists call Arabs is, Nigger. Arabs walking down the road frequently hear shouting of "Niggers" at them. It seems in the nature of the Caucacian Racist to use "black" (his opposite) as a derogotory term rather then "You slightly Tanish, Brownish Person!!".

Europe at that time and until very recently had no concept of other human beings, non-whites. The vulgarity of Europene history is well documented and concidered the norm for that time. Even now Southern Italians are cursed with being called "slave" or "black", while they to do not resemble West Africans. The English have quite a few words for the Welsh of Wales as to their "blackness", whilst the Welsh just possessed darker hair and didnt turn as red in the sun. If you wish to equate Europene history of the Dark Ages one must only look to modern racist groups and understand that they are one and the same.

The Muslims too had a hierarchy in Muslim Spain.. Arabs then Berbers then West Africans, yet they broke the color barriers that were never before broke.

Back to the point about the Conquerors, they in general divided their Army into 3 seperate nearly equal in size entities. One was called the Yemeni Army, an all Arab Yemeni group. Second was the Amazigh Branch, an all Berber group. And third was called the Arab group that comprized of Arabs from the 4 corners of the empire but also contained at different times "West Africans". This third group although called the Arab group could be understood to be an all inclusive group of any Muslim of any nationality/ethnicity. And just as in pecking order the spoils went first to the Arabs then the Berbers.

Another point is that a very light colored Arab still possesses genes for an easy tan. And those that traveled and fought in the Sahara, didn't have cars, soldiers that were in the gleeming sun all day (on camel or horseback) was hardly "white". Even today a Moroccan Arab that spends all his days at the beach soakin in the rays resemble dark brown Brazilians.

The ever tanning Arab sweltering in the Sahara, was but a Nigger in the eyes of the Europene. The derogotory terms used here are evil & vile, yet part of history. by BB

Racial References
Mustaafa, please refrain from using racial references with this article. Being that Moors represented a large population of ethnically diverse groups of people. It is best to not use today's terms White, Black etc... Besides those terms are modern terms that did not exist during those periods. And just because you hadn't heard of something doesn't mean that it is not true. You can't have possibly read every book that has been written on this subject. I think you may have intelligent things to add to this article but let's try to refrain from dividing Moors into racial groups.--Gnosis 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ethiopians? This article says Moor comes from word Maure that is CORRECT! But, Ethiopians? Arabs yes, Berber yes...but Ethiopians? Where did you get that fact? I have never heard read or seen Ethiopians in history being Moors.


 * He got it from Yosef Ben-Jochannan. --Jugbo 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Although some may choose to write Yosef Ben-Jochannan off as just an Afrocentrist, the historical facts and research he presents is indisputable as to proof to his knowledge in this area. Yosef Ben-Jochannan goals are to dispell much of the negative views towards African written during the 16th-19th century and he backs up these facts with proof and also European views that dispell the myths about Africans that were thought in that particular area. Although he may be viewed as a Afrocentrist historical facts and evidence is what should be used in determining if articles are accurate. I would say just as we should keep views from Eurocentrist from articles we should do the same for Afrocentrist. However facts are facts and opinions about a person for their views should hold no account as to the validity of an article. He actually is trying to get individuals frommoving away from racism. Ideally not using the terms White, Black and Negro. Dr. Ben Jochannan actually never said that the Moors were Ethiopians. So those who claim this have obviously never read his book. So the above comment as to someone geting itfrom Dr. Jochannan is totaly untrue and is only an opinion. and shows lack of specific knowledge on Dr. Ben Jochannan.--Gnosis 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if ben-Jochannan didn't claim that the Moors had Ethiopian origins (and I wouldn't know, since I've never read his book and don't intend to), he's still an Afrocentrist, as his page and the Afrocentrism page state, as does this one, which refers to him as an "icon of African Centered [sic] Studies and Egyptology". He has an ax to grind. --Jugbo 01:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Biology and the Origin of the Moors
Dr. Shomarka Keita, a biological anthropologist from Howard University, populations in Carthage circa 200 BC and northern Algeria 1500 BCE were, unlike what the Afrocentrists claim, a very diverse lot. As a group, they plotted closest to the populations of Northern Egypt and intermediate to Northern Europeans and tropical Africans. Keita stated “ The data supported the comments from ancient authors observed by classicists: everything from “fair-skinned blonds to peoples who were ‘Ethiopian’ or part Ethiopian in appearance.” “The Moors were Berbers with black blood and the Haratin the reverse (and some Berbers were black)” you concluded. Modern evidence showed a similar diversity among present North Africans, suggesting that migrations did not affect this area. Moreover, this “diversity” of phenotypes and peoples was probably due to “in situ” differentiation, not foreign influxes. Modern Afrocentrists ignore this diversity, and have often hurled insults at the modern populations of Egypt and North Africa as "usurpers" of "our history " (see Van Sertima and Asante).

Since Homo Sapiens have lived in Africa longer than elsewhere, and given the size and different environments of the continent, it is easy to conclude that phenotype diversity there would be greater than elsewhere. Everyone from fair skinned, blue-eyed Berbers to West Africans with the stereotypical “negroid” features to East Africans of Ethiopia with “Near Eastern” features” can all be rooted to the continent itself and not to invasion. The modern differences between Egyptians, Algerians, Ethiopians, Nigerians and Sudanese exist for the same reasons it does between Chinese, Indians and Arabs: intercontinental diversification over tens of thousands of years. Albert Hourani, author of “History of the Arab Peoples” sums up the state of current knowledge: “ The expansion of the Banu Hilal and others Arab tribes (13th century), like the initial Arab conquests, does not seem to have involved sufficiently large numbers to transform the make-up of the Maghrebs population”.

Herodotus in his “the Histories” described two types of northern Africans: the light skinned Garamentes of northern Libya and the dark-skinned, “Trogdolyte Ethiopians” in the southern Fezzan. Frank Snowden’s book “Before Color Prejudice” the Garamentes were sometimes spoken of as “white Ethiopians”: “Melanogaetuli (black Gaetuli) and Leukaethiopes (white Ethiopians). Some Garamentes did live in the modern Fezzan of northwestern Africa and were described by Lucan as nigri (black), furvi (swarthy) and other diverse adjectives. According to the 1st century AD Roman poet Manilius, there was a wide spectrum of color schemes: Ethiopians, the darkest; Indians, less sunburned; Egyptians, mildly dark; and the Mauri (Moors), the lightest. The Roman word for “black” was niger, for “very dark”, “fusco”. In some but certainly not all, cases, Moors were described as “fuscus”

In portraits that go back to the Old Kingdom, the Egyptians often portrayed their surrounding enemies: Nubians, Libyans and Asiatics. The Libyans were shown with light hair and fair skin. When the Arabs arrived in North Africa during the 7th century AD, ending the Greco-Roman period, they also used various terms to describe the Berbers of this region. However, it was the area south of Egypt and the Berber-populations that was called “Bilad-al-Sudan” or “land of the blacks”, not the coastal regions. In pictures from Islamic Spain during the 7th to15th centuries, the Moors are portrayed, with some exceptions, looking no different than the Spaniards (distinguished only by their dress). Dark Skinned and East Africans were called “Zanj”. In the country of Mauritania, the “Maurs” are the light skinned, Arabic-speaking persons of Berber descent, also known as “beydanes (white man). Black Mauritanians are not “moors” but “Haratin”.

It is ironic that Afrocentrists denounce those who disagree with them as “Eurocentric” but then proceed to use European notions of race as an all-encompassing factor in their history, rigidly and polemically, without ambiguity, claiming who was “black’ and who was not. These categories, as you stated, are passé. The definition of “black” and “white” are different in the U.S. than they are in Panama, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic and elsewhere. If a dark-skinned Egyptian from Luxor or Karnak walked into a restaurant in the South in the 1950s, they would be denied service because they were “colored”. However, when these same Egyptians arrive in the U.S., they are classified as “white”, regardless of how they look. So these categories make little sense.

The Afrocentrists, who are the main aources for thos eclaiming the Moors were universally "black", are neither professional historians nor are they anthropologists, Arabists, Linguists, classicists, Egyptologists, archaelogists or any other qualified field taht would make them an authority on this history. JA Rogers, Yosehf Jochannan, John H Clarke, Molefi Kete Asante and Ivan Van Sertima (author of the faux "Golden Age of the Moors")are little more than radical, race-obsesses Afrocentrists who are hellbent on proving that most ancient civilizations were created by black Africans who gave these to Europe and the rest of the world. Everyone from the Egytptians, Carthaginians, Moors, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Hannibal and Cleopatra are subsumed as "black" (much as the Nazis searched for anyone who "tutonic" in history). Those who disagree with their fundamentalist positions are denounced as "racist", Eurocentrist" and worse. This "scorch and Burn" strategy is employed because they cannot argue point for point with real scholars. Somehow, magically, all of these peoples were now changed , and the modern populations of North Africa and the Middle East are ignored, or denounced as "Invaders", apparently of Arab extraction (who are accused of creating a "holocaust" in this region). Ivan Van Sertima pioneeded this in his ridiculous book on the Moors, where he puts in pictures of modern West African Muslims and claims they are "mmors", all but ignoring the people of Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morooco and the people of Mauritania. Has he ever been to these places?

Moreover, it cannot be assumed that the Moors, whatever their color, founded civilzation in Europe. The Arabs and Berbers were largely nomads, and, according to Bernrd Lewis, who is fluent in 6 languages, simply moved into the prior Christian Byzantine administration that existed in North Africa and the Middle East 6 centuries before the Isalmic invasions. Only a small number of Arabs and Berbers entered Spain as conquerors and settlers. The vast majority of the 5.6 muslims in Spain in 1200 were native Spanish converts. And in an obvious fit of hypocrisy, 7 centuries of "African" imperialism, which relegated the native Christians to 2nd class status and even forced many Jews to leave, is portrayed as a "Golden Age", while European imperialism in Africa and elsewhere, evene indirect, is denigrated in every way, shape or form. You cannot have it both ways.

But the notion that modern North Africans were no different in ancient times, or that such diversity was due to natural evolution of different phenotypes in different environments, is anathema to most Afrocentrists and their followers. It is possible to see these peoples as both “African” (as anthropology rather than outdated racial theories. They are no different than their modern descendantts. Chris Wiley cjw080500@aol.com

LET'S TAKE RACIAL DEBATE OUT OF INTRO
i see that the debates between the rationals and the afrocentrists have left quite a mark on the intro. Can this be relocated to the main part of the article, perhaps under a section discussing the debate over the racial origin of these folks?

ok, just did it myself

Berbers and the Terms Black and White
I think the following is safe to say to conclude.

''The Berbers of northwest Africa and the Sahara were not Arabs, though many converted to Islam, adopted Arabic as their language and assimilated with Arab society. Though most parts of Sicily were conquered by Arabs, certain areas where settled by people who, strictly speaking, were Muslim Berbers. Like many Berbers, some Arabs were nomadic.

With the emergence of the Byzantine Empire, groups of Arabs lived in bordering areas in the Arabian peninsula and parts of what are now Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt. Their language, Arabic, is a Semitic tongue of various dialects related to Hebrew and Ethiopic, written in script from right to left.''

Berbers according to skin color varied just as does the areas of North Afirca do now. Trying to associate these groups and separate them according to todays racist views is at best ignorant, demeaning and unacceptable. I have Moorish cousins who live in Morocco and are extremely light skinned and they don't consider themselves white. Nor do they consider themselves black. We choose to not use these terms when we identify ourselves. The reference to Moors being black in the site is in response to the continued edits statements that Berbers were white and Moors were Berbers therefore they are white, or european, or caucasian. This is such a distrortion of the truth that it is sad to see one stooping to such racist levels as is the same case in those stating that Moors were Black. Moors were neither because color of skin was not a factor as it is now. Let's try to keep race out of the equation here.--Gnosis 01:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Negritos of Seville
On the idea of black slaves in Al-Andalus and Spain after the reconquista, I would like to provide a few links (mostly in Spanish), in case someone would like to follow this up.


 * 1) "... A hundred years or more before the conquest of the New World, Black African slaves had been imported to the Iberian Peninsula[16] where they formed their own religious brotherhoods. It was these Christianized slaves who were the first to be sent to the first Spanish colony, Española. “The first enslaved Africans in the Caribbean were imported from Latin Europe’s slave market, which was already over half a century old in Portugal…direct importation of enslaved Africans to the Caribbean was underway by 1518”. Cofradias were urban religious associations formed for the purpose of providing their members with financial assistance, support in the nursing and caring of the sick, and organizing celebrations in honor of their protector saint. The earliest Spanish black cofradia dates from the late fourteenth century Seville. The cofradia “Los Negritos“ was formed in Seville at the end of the14th century.
 * 2) "Ya en el año 711, con la invasión árabe, llegaron los primeros esclavos negros a Andalucía y durante toda la época árabe, su número creció considerablemente. Durante mucho tiempo, era costumbre en la clase alta de los árabes ofrecer niños negritos como “regalo”. Estos niños esclavos a veces fueron comprados como “recuerdo” durante una peregrinación a La Meca o viajes por el norte de África. A partir de 1095, cuando los Almoravides conquistaron Sevilla, también vinieron en su ejército muchos negros y mulatos libres a Andalucía. Después de la Reconquista de 1248, los conquistadores cristianos hicieron esclavos o sirvientes muchos de la gente de color. Así que ya antes del Siglo XV, cuando los portugueses manejaron el comercio masivo de esclavos, el porcentaje de los hombres de raza negra y mulatos en Sevilla era considerable : unos 10% - 15% en el año 1400."
 * My own translation: "After 711, following the Arab invasion, the first black slaves arrived in Andalusia, and their number progresively increased during the rest of the al-Andalus period. For a long time, it was traditional for the upper classes to present black children as gifts. Sometimes these children were bought as a souvenir following a visit to Mecca or trips to North Africa. When the Almoravids conquered Seville in 1095, there was a considerable number of free blacks and mulatos in their ranks. After [Seville's] reconquista in 1248, the Christians enslaved or took in as servants many black and coloured people. Even before the 15th Century Portuguese's slave trade, the percentage of blacks and mulatos in Seville was remarkable: around 10%-15% in 1400"
 * 1) Some other interesting links in Spanish:.

I clearly understand that this is not completely relevant to this article but I believe someone may find this info useful. Regards, E    Asterion  u talking to me? 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Moors in european Literature
In David MacRitchie, « Ancient and Modern Britons » , 1884,VOL I, page 46: "Any latin dictionary, any old one at least, will tell you that maurus is a "moor ", a " blackamoor " or a "tawny moor ". And Shakespeare uses the world "moor " as a synonym for "negro" (Merchant of Venice, act III, scene V). At that last world bears nowadays a somewhat restricted meaning, it may be better to take the old fashioned « blackamoor »,as the nearest English rendering of maurus signifying thereby any black, or brown skinned man."

In Page 214:

"And in the diction of the past, A black man was a moor"

'''Collection of Sir Thomas Wriothesley garter king of Arms (1504-1534) In Golden age of the moors and African presence in ealy Europe'''

The Moorish "noblesse" of Yorkshire:

http://tinypic.com/mw6r1z.jpg

Moor-Women: http://tinypic.com/mw6tuf.jpg

SIR MORIEN, BLACK KNIGHT OF THE EUROPEAN MIDDLE AGES:  http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/morien.html

'''Reference of this painting: Westminster Tournament Roll (1511) By permission of The College of Arms, London Representing a Moor'''

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/images/early_times/blacktrumpeter.jpg

Niger Val Dub : The Moors were dominant in Scotland in the 10th century. One of them, was known as King Kenneth, sometimes as Niger or Dubh, a surname which means 'the black man.' It is a historical fact that Niger Val Dubh lived and reigned over certain black divisions in scotland - and that a race known as 'the sons of the blacks' succeeded him in history. (JA Rogers, Sex and Race)

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/niger_val_dub.html

In the french tale "La chanson de Roland", the frenchman ROLAND loose a battle against the moorish King MASSILE: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/231/charlemagneafricain5bf.jpg

Crowning Scene of a moorish KING: http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1610/roiafricain9xa.jpg

ATTACK Of a CASTLE BY CHARLEMAGNE - DATE: 1335: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3667/charlemagne1sz.jpg

Moor Presence within the English Royal Family 1504-1534: http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3314/photosnoirsafricains5zo.jpg

ALESSANDRO DEI MEDICI, DUC of FLORENCE,called "ALESSENDRO LE MAURE - son-in-law of emperor CHARLES V. His father was Pope Clement CLEMENT VII - " http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7949/ecrivainafricain6bh.jpg

ANNA - Mother of ALESSANDRO DEI MEDICI: http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5949/histoireeuropeafrique0qy.jpg

MOOR-King IN EUROPE - DATE: 1400 http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4978/noireseuropes3rg.jpg

References about Moors in Europe:

The Golden Age of the Moor:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560005815/qid=1123820060/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-4337635-3223302

Ancient and Modern Britons Volume 1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0939222108/qid=1137116062/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-6901085-5422503?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Ancient and Modern Britons Volume 2

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0939222116/qid=1137116062/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-6901085-5422503?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

HISTORY NOTES - BLACK PEOPLE IN THE BRITISH ISLES AND EARLY NORTHERN EUROPE:

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/british.html

HISTORY NOTES - DR. EDWARD VIVIAN SCOBIE AND THE AFRICAN PRESENCE IN EARLY EUROPE :

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/scobie.html

HISTORY NOTES - MINOAN CRETE AFRICAN INFLUENCED FORERUNNER OF EUROPEAN CIVILIZATIONS : http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/crete.html

REFERENCE NOTES - THE AFRICAN STAR OVER EUROPE: A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE AFRICAN PRESENCE IN EARLY EUROPE:

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/europe.html

REFERENCE NOTES - AFRICANS IN EARLY BRITAIN: A BIBLIOGRAPHY:

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/britbib.html

HISTORY NOTES - THE MOORS IN EUROPE :

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/moors1.html

HISTORY NOTES - THE MOORISH CONQUEST OF SPAIN:

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/moors2.html

HISTORY NOTES - LEO AFRICANUS: MOORISH MAN OF LEARNING :

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/africanus.html

HISTORY NOTES - THE INFLUENCE OF THE MOORS IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL:

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/portugal.html

HISTORY NOTES - MOORS AND ARABS :

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/moors_arabs.html

REFERENCE NOTES - THE MOORS IN ANTIQUITY A BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/moors-bib.html

HISTORY NOTES - A NOTE ON THE BLACK MADONNAS OF EUROPE

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/madonnas.html

REFERENCE NOTES - THE BLACK MADONNAS OF EUROPE A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY:

http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/madonbib.html

King Kenneth of the Picts 997a.d. to 1004a.d. :

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/niger_val_dub.html

Caid--84.130.66.224 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fake picture at top
The picture claims to be a "charcoal and pencil drawing", but it is clear to anyone with any experience of image editing software that this has been simply run through a photoshop filter to make it appear as such - and done a very bad job of it too, I may add. I'm amazed you've all been fooled for so long by such a cheap fake. It is likely this photo is either stolen from the web or a text book and edited with the crappy filter or simply fake to begin with. I suspect the former, which means there is no permission for this stolen item and it must be removed to prevent further problems and embarrassment.

Carry on with the arguments with racism now, I've said my piece. ;)


 * Yes, the picture isn't new, but the photoshop effects are new as is the caption claiming it to be a charcoal drawing. That probably why the change hasn't been noticed. It seems that the modestly named "Elohimgenius" has been rather dishonest in his captioning of the uploaded image. I guess he's trying to get round copyright restrictions. Paul B 17:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrections made. I think he/she used the wrong tag. No harm done.

Someone tracked down the original. It was a B&W photograph, quite possibly downloaded from the following link: I don't think it was a case of the "wrong tag" but a deliberate attempt to obscure the origins of it and the theft of the image as mentioned previously. At the very least we should at least steal the better original image rather than the current corrupted image that has been savaged by a bad filter. No one "accidently" does all that. Change the picture to the better one or get rid of the stolen image would be the best course, I think.

Merge
Moors (race?) If Moor is about the people, then why is there a "Moors (race)" article? That's self-contradictory. The latter is a stub anyway, so merge the content. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure merging is the solution. If there is a consensus to merge I think we should lose the title "Moors(race)" or at least place it under a section with that title. The problem here is the debate as to whether Moors where White or Black etc... This is stupidity in my opinion. There are asian Moors do we call them yellow people? Indian Moors, do we call them brown or black people? I think that Moors should be looked at as a nation of individuals, with their own culture. The fact is that because they came together after being oppressed they welcomed Islam. Let's not forget that even before Islam came there were groups of corrupt invdividuals in power across various parts of Africa. As we all know all rulers have the ability to be corrupt. "Power Corrupts." So when these rulers etc fell to the group of Moors the people welcomed the new movement of the(used loosely) "invaders". I think that the article has become bogged down with things that actually overshadow the acheivements of the Moors and rich history and heritage. Maybe we should focus on how coming together to unite without racism allowed Moors to come to power so quickly. In addition to how the country flourished during their rule. --Gnosis 15:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * These articles are on the same subject aren't they? If so, they should be merged. Brad T. Cordeiro 22:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

afrocentrist? race card? lol, the response alone tells the true story here
boy do they come out to split hairs over a different shade of black or what? why don't i see this kind of intensity applied to the western perspective? I guess the western perspective is completely factual. No fiction from the 'western perspective' at all just concrete facts. hmmmmm so to sum it up, what i'm getting here is; black africans are nothing, they could not possibly conquor a white european even in a wet-dream, black africans never had and are not capable of civilization, black africans are not and never have been islamic OR SEMITIC, they have no history, the black africans only function is to be the subject of white men, eurocentrism doesn't exist, afrocentrism is an evil lie, you can take two black people with the same complexion and characteristics but if one of them had a great civilization that predated europe he is no longer considered a “black african” and other moniker must be adopted to address him, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Clarke Duncan and tayshaun prince are all considered negroid but eqyptions and moors were not but nubians negroid, egyptians aren't “black people” even though the labors to concede they are amalgamated with black africans but “african americans” are black no ifs ands or buts about that (even though egyptians were just as nappy), black africans should all be genocided hallelujah jesus was a white man and so were adam and eve. White people were the first to discover america and Polynesians are asians but we don't talk about them. Jew are and always have been lily white complected as they labored building pyramids in the african sun and arabs are, well who knows but they are not black thats for sure (somewhere between a tanned white and asian). Indians, no matter how dark, are mongoloid or Caucasoid. because we all know that egyptians were tanned white guys, it was proved in that movie remember?

afrocentrist? race card? lol, the response alone tells the true story here
first and foremost, race doesn't exist and is obsolete pseudoscientific ideological garbage. make the connection mcfly race=racism

"I do have a problem with Afro-centrists claiming non-black civilizations or principally non-black civilizations as their own." (substitute the word 'white' for the word "black" in this sentense) - lol, do you have the same problem with eurocentrists claiming non-barbarian civilizations (i.e. rome, greece, egypt, etc...) as their own by the descendants of barbarians? please stop. look at depictions of pharaoh akhenaten's mother, then get over it (she's nappy headed). remember (or learn) that egypt was divided into two kingdoms (upper and lower). please, by all means, with the exact same energy and enthusiasm go to the roman, greek, egyptian pages and stress the distinctions between them and the germanians, gauls/french, etc... go split hairs with the same exact intensity and challenge the overwhelmingly dominant eurocentrist and erroneous historical distortions (which are abundant). or you could start with the grossly distorted western perspective of polynesia.

"...it is also false to claim the Egyptians as black, as many Afro-centrists do. If they were, the Nubians would not be portrayed differently..." dude, for the love of god think hard, apply these same cricisms to the eurocentrist perspective! i.e. depictions of gauls(french) and germanics by Romans. The Romans considered the barbarians to be "unassimilable" but not the Egyptians. Yes, its true (contrary to the eurocentrist view) "africans" are diverse and "black africans" have a history of subjugating other "black africans" ("white europeans" also have a history of distiguishing themselves from, killing, and subjugating other white european groups). do you know why? because the word "african" was defined by a european and has no definite, legitimate or functional meaning (other than a geographical reference). many "black africans" have different features/characteristics and skin tones than other "black africans". "white european" groups have different features/characteristics and skin tones than other "white european" groups. there is immense diversity in africa and europe. Dude, there are nappy headed “black” people walking around right here in america that have “whiter” skin than many “white” people. i've seen "black people" with green eyes, white skin and natural blond hair. schools out, gtf outta here

the word "caucasian" is also a part of the rasicists ideology along with the terms caucasoid, negroid and Mongoloid. its all bogus, get over it. you are an organ match with someone of another "race" and not with someone of your own.

etymology
Without absolutely having read all the above (too depressing) I haven't seen mention of the fact that we have a long etymology section, not to mention the origins one above it, and then in the lead para the completely different claim that:

"The name Moors derives from the ancient tribe of the Mauri and their kingdom Mauretania."

- both can't be right I think Johnbod 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts please
I don't see what is the need to mention Egypt here. Arab didn't take Egyptians as slaves. Egypt stayed as a majority Christian nation for almost 300 years after the Arab conquered it. Here is Wikipedia article about Muslim conquest of Egypt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt Barbers were the main force in North Africa long time before Arab invasion and they resist the Muslims advance in their land. Barbers have their own language and customs. So please get your facts straight. --ThutmoseIII 20:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ThutmoseIII you cannot delete large blocks of text just because you feel you should. You have been warned several times. Second the information you provided via the link actually supports the majority of the information you deleted. The word slaves will be removed for now however, in the future please provide additional sources other than just Wikipedia.

''It was in the context of this state of affairs that an army of some 4,000 Arabs, led by Amr ibn al-As, was sent by the Caliph Umar to spread Islam in the land of the ancient pharaohs. The Arabs crossed into Egypt from Palestine in December 639 and advanced rapidly into the Nile Delta. The imperial garrisons retreated into the walled towns, where they successfully held out for a year or more. But the Arabs sent for reinforcements and the invading army, joined by another 12,000 men in 640, defeated a Byzantine army at the Battle of Heliopolis. Amr next proceeded in the direction of Alexandria, which was surrendered to him by a treaty signed on November 8, 641. The Thebaid seems to have surrendered with scarcely any opposition.''--Gnosis 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC) First, there were no references to support this claims about Egyptians and it doesn’t contribute to the subject of this article. I already added some references like 3 to support my editing. Thank you --ThutmoseIII 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Stick to topic
Snowden is discussing something other than the root of the word, his aim is the silly claim that Egyptians were not black because they said they were different from their southern friends, thats strange because the Ethiopians did the same thing, and guess what so did the khoisan and guess what so did the tutis, so it means nothing, anyway it should be here. Ethnic groups of Africa, which the ANcient EGyptians clearly were one.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 08:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Duplication
There is quite a bit of duplication in the article, bits and pieces of info here and there sometimes in contradiction with each other. There is also information that does not belong in the article. Anyone with good copy editing skills around? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed material that was copied and pasted from websites. The copyvios URLs are in the edit summaries of the deletions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Assertion
While I am certain that Sri Lankan Muslims may in part trace ancestry to Arabs (and given Arabo-Persian / Muslim trading presence in the region from India to the Indonesian archipelago and beyond this is likely factual in part), I very, very much doubt they tie their ancestry to North African Moors as such. The Moor usage, presuming it exists, likely derives from the generic Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese) usage of Moro for all Muslims, as noted in the article itself. I would advise changing the reference to keep it in line with the Philappine etc. examples. collounsbury 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a moor. My family history is moors. I was excited to find out I was part "black" but now I see that black was a cultural term. Compared to the very white anglo-saxons, my people were black to them though not ethiopian black. There are still black Irish and black English and Scottish but they are definitely not black as we use that term today. Western Africans were darker than white with diverse hair colors. Too bad as I was excited by my mixed heritage. My sister has extremely dark brown eyes and "black" skin--she tans darker than my apparent more "white" and extremely burnable scottish clan skin.

Actually they do tie their history to Moors from Africa. Not particularly the ones from North Africa but Ethiopian and sub-saharan. You should read Africa Mother of Western Civilization. By Dr. Ben-Ben.--Gnosis (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Of Moor Descent
I am of early Moor descent. I was excited that I had some "black" african in me but after reading all the info and knowing the etymology of the moors in Great Britain, I am disappointed to realize that "black" was a culturally relevent term. The darker skinned west african people were definitely darker and therefore "black" and definitely Muslim. There are still black irish and black english and scottish. I am scottish and I am not sure, but I believe Othello was scottish. I do not show the "black" characteristics unfortunately, but my sister does with much darker skin and almost black brown eyes and dark hair. My great grandmother also had these characteristics. No one that I know of has the curly hair or very pigmented "black" skin. Western africa became more diverse after 1000 BCE, but not so diverse that you could say it was predominately the heavily pigmented "black" skin.

Etymology
The bulk of the first paragraph seems to have been poorly copy and pasted from this website: http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html Jlfthescourge 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

^^^I erased it for plagiarism and original research.. A lot of the details in the effort to make a case was waaay off too.. Zanj were not described physically, all that is known is that they were on the coast of east Africa and were definitely not Berbers. Sudan means black in Arabic and referred to the people south of Egypt only, at that time. Maures means Black, literally, not swarthy or dark, but jet-black. All of the Moors weren't 'black', but c'mon now, you write an article don't just copy and paste and make sure you get your facts right. I'm not racist but some white people are fucking annoying with their biases and mis-information/mis-conceptions about Africa. They try and include themselves in any way as a part of everyone's history... Shit is annoying for real...

 Everyone from fair-skinned, blue-eyed Berbers to West Africans with "Negroid" features to East Africans of Ethiopia with elongated features can all be rooted in the African continent itself rather than in invasion

^That's a lie, blue eyed white people can in no way be separately indigenous to Africa unless they've had genetic exchange with Europeans. If that's the case, these blue eyed people would be closer genetically to negros then to blue eyed Caucasoids, but lightning doesn't strike twice, especially white skin in 100 degrees heat.Taharqa 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened?
I was just reading this page and clicked on a link to the Berbers. When I came back it had been deleted and replaced with Moor = Whore.

Mike

63.162.143.5 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Spanish mora
In Spanish, for example, the word for blackberry is mora- a noun which originally meant Moorish woman.

I doubt originally meant "moorish woman". The word for blackberry is mură in Romanian, so the Latin word "mora" meant "blackberry", too. bogdan 13:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Real Academia Española (Del lat. vulg. mora, y este del lat. morum). So it comes from Latin. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  15:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but didn't the greeks also speak latin?

Moors does not = Black, but Mixed Race. Moorish Empire is a prime example of early miscegenation and cultural fusion
Specifically, the native/indigenous sub-Saharan genes and aesthetics associated with them is what the criteria for belonging the Black Race consists of, a criteria that was not established by any person of sub-Saharan descent. Thee genes originated among Capoid and Congoid groups who are the indigenous groups of sub-Saharan African. Yes, the ancestry has been long present among N. African populations for centuries; however, it's not native to N. African, but rather sub Saharan Africa. The notion isn't racist, but more scientific. Arab and Berber groups are native to North Africa and first evolved as distinct Caucasian groups. Furthermore, modernly, most of North Africa (especially among those who fit the White, Middle Eastern or Mediterranean aesthetic) doesn't not claim to be Black.

The native/traditional cultural practices of most N. Africans tend to be more Arab, Berber, Persian influenced than influenced by cultural practices of sub-Saharan. North Africans tend to speak dialects/languages indigenous to the region which had little to no influence of sub-Saharan dialects. Conversely, some sub-Saharan African regions have been significantly influenced genetically, linguistically, and culturally by N. Africa. Places like Zanzibar or Nigeria have a dominant presence of N. African and sub-Saharan African infused cultural and linguistic roots inherited by the local sub-Saharan descended population.

Also, because Black is more of a social construct there is much discrepancy with labeling the Moors as Black. Yes, many Moors had sub-Saharan ancestry, but not all of them. The sub-Saharan gene was present in various frequencies throughout the Moorish population, but not all Moors had this ancestry. The Moors where indeed a diverse population; however, they obviously made little to no distinction of this sub-Saharan ancestry among them. Most of the distinction of aesthetic differences was drawn due to the darker skin hue of many Moorish invaders compared to that of the native Europeans of the time. The distinction was made by the Europeans. This skin hue was by default associated with Africa with no distinction or notation made of how the Moors that they saw came to acquire it. The acknowledgement was of the skin color and not of the sub-Saharan genetic connection. The insinuation then evolved that that all of Africa was dark skinned; that all of Africa was one raced (BLACK) - which isn't the case. This has NEVER been the case. Africa has always been diverse. Africa is where man first evolved, it is where the first instances of racial and ethnic distinctions existed. Africa has seen centuries of miscegenation among it's people - even before Hellenic and European rule/influences.

As a matter of fact, the Moor identity was more Arab than sub-Saharan, especially since the sub-Saharan ancestry was mostly obtained via rape and the Moors has dominant social, cultural, political and linguistic influence that spanned from Asia, to Europe and into sub-Saharan Africa. Moor/Arab identity was the unifying factor that allow them to rule for so long and so many people of different ethnic/racial heritages. Furthermore, if you were to go back in time and ask any of the Moors who were on the forefront of their society how they identified, I doubt any of them would have said Black, or have even been familiar with the implied social construct or the concept of identifying as such. Black is how WE see them today due to the social construct that we and our recent ancestors were born into; however, it doesn't make the Moors Black by default. This is especially so because not all Moors were of sub-Saharan African descent. The predecessors of the Moors were Arab/Berber people who were indeed Caucasian. If anything, the Moors were mixed raced people. 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather they were a group of different peoples than mixed race individuals. Some were Middle Eastern, some were black African, and some were North African. Funkynusayri (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement about Moors being more Arab than Sub-Saharan. There were actually more Ethiopian and Egyptian. And Egyptian is not synonymous with Arab. I will agree that they were mixed. My question is with all the proof of race not existing according to new DNA research, why are we still arguing about race? Color of skin does not signify a race. The term race is archaic and useless. Complements to those who have kept within the style and direction I fought long and hard for on this article.--Gnosis (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology redux: There is a problem with reading too much into nominalized adjectives
I just realized that there is a problem with the "Etymology" section: I think that it reads too much into the nominalization of adjectives.

It has several sentences on the theme of "a word for 'X' that originally meant Moorish woman", etc. But that reasoning is flimsy. I think it mistakes correlation for causation. It's obvious that the /maʊr/-/mor/-etc root has been pan-European and has referred generally to things dark in color. From there, especially in continental European languages more than in English, it can readily be expected to be nominalized in reference to any dark-colored thing, because that's the way nominalization goes.

In other words, what I am trying to say is this: you didn't get one nominalization of /maʊr/-/mor/ to refer to a Moorish woman, and then later see that one nominalization figuratively extended to get a word for "blackberry" or whatever else. Rather, what you probably got was multiple independent nominalizations of /maʊr/-/mor/—any time someone wanted to refer to something by the dark-color handle. The only example I can come up with in English at the moment is fatty (noun): You may hear various things called fatty—a woman, a child, a spliff, a particularly plump berry, bird, eggplant, or fish—but that doesn't mean that all those senses of fatty are derived from each other. They are independent nominalizations of fat (adj).

If no one has any linguistic sources to back up this figurative-extension hypothesis, I will shorten the "Etymology" section to leave it out.

— Lumbercutter 01:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: Done. — Lumbercutter 22:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Population genetics section
Haplogroup V is tought to be indigenous to Europe (Spain).See the link. The article has other contradictions. Somebody should put this in order. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

THE FACTS ABOUT RACIAL SUPREMACY BLACK VS WHITE
WE ARE GETTING SO DEEP INTO THE FACT OF WHO IS "BLACK" WHO IS "WHITE" WHO IS "IRISH" WHATERVER WE AS HUMANS HAVE ONLY BEEN SEPARATED FROM OUR AFRICAN ANCESTORS(THE NON-AFRICANS) FOR ABOUT 50000 YRS GENETICALY SPEAKING THATS A SECOND AND A HALF IN A 24 HR CLOCK WE HAVE NOT CREATED MATH ART LOGIC AND LANGUAGE BECAUSE OF OUR SKIN COLOR(THEY WERE ALREADY CREATED BEFORE WE LET AFRICA IE BLOMBOS CAVES,ISHANGO BONES ) THESE ARE REDICULOUS TO EVEN CONTEMPLATE IN THE BROADER SCEME OF THINGS. WE ARE NOT THAT DIFFRENT EXCEPT ASTHETICALY IE APPEARNCE AND LANGUAGE .WELL MAYBE WERE NOT THAT DIFFRENT LINGUISTICALY EITHER THE WORDS (MAMA AND PAPA ARE UNIVERSAL FOR MOTHER AND FATHER)I BELIEVE THESE ARE WORDS THAT HARKEN BACK TO THE DEEPEST RECESSES OF OUR COMMON ORIGIN. I ALSO PONDER WHY ALL PEOPLES CREATE FIGURE ART HAVE CAVE PAINTINGS AND DESIGN PYRAMIDS ALTHOUGH OCEANS ARE BETWEEN US THE AWNSER IS SIMPLE. WE ALL THINK THE SAME BECAUSE ESENTIALLY WE ALL ARE THE SAME.


 * http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Are_Humans_Evolving_Faster.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.52.64 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

THE OBVIOUSLY BIASED AND RASCIST LINK THAT WAS PROVIDED ABOVE IS A BLATANT CONTINUATION OF SCIENTIFIC TRADITION THAT BASES ITS ASSUMPTION THAT" WHITES " ARE SUPERIOR. THIS IS REDICULOUS. WE HAVE NOT EVOLVED TO THAT MUCH OF A DEGREE SINCE THE DAYS OF FIRE .JUST THINK THE ABILITY TO HARNESS FIRE IS NO LESS AMAZING THAN DEVELOPING INTERPLANETARY TRAVEL ,FOR INSTANCE IF "WE" AS MODERN HUMANS PARTICULARY THE CLOWN WHO CREATED THAT "SCIENTIFIC STUDY" OR THE CLOWN WHO POSTED THAT LINK  WERE SOOOOO ADVANCED AND SOOOOO SMART WOULD YOU WITH SUCH AN ADVANCED MENTAL CAPACITY AND NO MODERN DAY EDUCATION BE ABLE TO CREATE SPONTANEOUSLY  A PYRAMID AND ALL THE MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEGE THAT IT TAKES TO BUILD THESE WONDERS. OR EVEN SURVIVE IN THE JUNGLE WITH NO TRAINING HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SURVIVE IN THE SAHARA OR THE CONGO OR THE AMAZON OR EVEN PREHISTORIC EUROPE WITHOUT BEING EATEN BY A TIGER OR STUBBING YOUR TOE AND LOSING YOUR FOOT TO GANGRENE OR GETTING BITTEN BY A SNAKE OR HAVING YOUR TEETH FALL OUT AND STARVING TO DEATH FROM A LACK OF NUTRITION BY EATING THE WRONG TYPES OF VEGETATION .I BET THE KNOWLEGE THESE "SAVAGES" HAD WOULD SEEM PRETTY DAMNED IMPOATANT AND VALUABLE .MY POINT IS BEFORE YOU START CALLING PEOPLE LESS ADVANCED SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE BENEFITS OF ALL THE KNOWLEGE OF THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE (INCLUDING THE "SAVAGE" AFRICANS WHICH BY THE WAY PROVIDED THE BASIS THAT ALLOWED ALL OF HUMANITY TO EXIST )MAYBE YOU SHOULD MAKE SURE YOU ARE CAPABLE OF AT LEAST SURVIVING IN THESE ENVIRONMENTS. GIVEN THE FRAILTY OF THE HUMAN FORM THIS TAKES MASTERY OF THE MIND AND THE ENVIRONMENT. ME PERSONALLY I DONT THINK YOURE SO SMART OR YOU COULD SURVIVE THAT LONG YOU COULDNT EVEN FIGURE THIS OUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.45.163 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Take it easy with the all-caps. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"In English"
"in English, the term has only historical contexts, with no proper present-day referent."

That really doesn't seem to be true, have a look at the ethnic groups of mauritania for example:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mr.html#People —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.52.64 (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Almoravids
Quick question. If the Almoravids (who were what a particular group of "Moor" called themselves) took over Spain can we conclude that whatever race they were is the race of the Moors? If so, Almoravids were not primarily North African but Saharan African. Their capital was Aoudaghost in present-day Lower Mauritania. If any of you know anything about Africa (which I suspect you don't) Mauritania is filled with particularly dark Berbers. Because Berbers aren't even a race, were these Saharan Africans in the U.S. they would be called black, because Americans are obsessed with race. Remember children, a huge black group named Tuaregs are still Berbers.

Anyways, the point is the capital of the Almoravids dynasty was in a place that was undeniably African and whose people were either black or had significant black admixture...so I don't understand the controversy.

Also, why do we just call them Moors? If we referred to the names of the particular dynasties and caliphates we could EASILY determine the ethnic group of the so called Moors. Some were only North African.

Lastly, if anyone is willing to argue this point I'll be happy to. Eurocentric views of history may be default, but that doesn't mean they're correct. Also, please don't make the mistake in thinking all dark Africans look the same or have the same culture. Saharan Africans (another generalization) look different from other West Africans but are still black. Please don't just ignore these fact because you think African rule of Spain is improbable. If enough real scholarship went into this issue, I suspect many Spaniards would be quite disgruntled. History is written by the ...--Yellowfiver (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Moor is a term that has different meanings in different contexts. The whole premiss of your argument is flawed. You seem to think tyhat one should identify the "true" original Moors and thus resolve the meaning. The meaning is sinply how the word is used. When it is used in Othello or as a nickname of Ludovico Sforza it means "dark skinned". In other contexts it refers to North African peoples in a generic sense. In others it refers to particular dynasites or cultures. Paul B (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. So the term "Moor" has numerous meanings. I thought it referred to the Islamic conquerers of Spain. I also thought from that conquest came the general European term of Moor which ended up being used for all Islamic/Arab people.

Either way, the article doesn't mention particular dynasties such as the Umayyad or Almoravid. And everything I read from non-scholarly sources about Moors always tries to downplay their African-ness by suggesting Berbers and Arabs are the same or tries to make the case that Moors never referred to what we know as 'black' people. Thanks for the info --Yellowfiver (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Otello
Paul Robeson as Otello as an image to illustrate this article? The connection will be lost to most readers. Best to move that image lower on the page and explain the connection.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted due to lack of sourcing/copyright clearance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Facts Please
There is a lot of fake information incorporated into this article to sever a certain claims. There is no recorded description of Yusuf ben-Tachfin and by the way he was not moor from Spain he was the leader from Morocco. Most of the Moors had settled in North Morocco in which the population is more white than the south. I have a friend from morocco and he can trace his ancestor back to the moors and he is actually white with blond hear.--ThutmoseIII (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is no one definition or usage of "Moor" so some could be very pale North Africans, some could be very dark North Africans and some could be pale or dark Saharan Africans. As far as your friend, he is not a "reference" or a "source" in the Wiki way. --Yellowfiver (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you I was just giving an example I didn't mean that every moors should be white. Creditability of Wikipedia is more important than people agenda. North Africa civilization doesn’t have to be black to be African civilizations. --24.136.160.78 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The use of word 'Moro' is in fact racist and is used by spanish racists when they refer to Moroccan people. Where do Moro's come from - if you really think about it?

Historically, Morocco and Spain have a bittersweet relationship due to the very close proximity of the two countries, where they have each conquered some parts of each other'countries. Presently, Spain still colonize two Northern Moroccan cities - Ceuta and Mellila. Many Spanish people were born there and have lived there without problems in regards to difference of culture and religion. In contrast to this, there are around 5 million Moroccan people presently living in Spain and who are the largest Muslim group living in Spain. Acquiring jobs are made difficult due to racism especially in gaining Spanish citizenship. To even have a Mosque as a place of worship involves a lot of bureaucracy from the local governments as well as the many racist protests held by the Spanish people as well as an ever increasing presence of Nazi Spanish movements.

In 2006 the Andalusian government had introduced a recent Article into the law to allow any Moroccan person to acquire Spanish citizenship with ease, as they are found to be descendents of 'Moriscos' (Moroccans whose ancesters are of Moroccan and Spainish mixed descent during the time of Islamic rule in Spain). The Spanish and Moroccan Academics and historians have called for equality for the Moroccan people since 1992. Currently Morrocan people have to live and work 10 years in Spain for them to gain Spanish citizenship, and only 5 years if a Moroccan is married to a Spanish person.

The Spanish tried energetically to remove historical facts as to the origin of the Muslims who ruled in Spain for eight centuries and have used the word Moro to hide the fact that it was the Moroccans who conquered Spain. The word 'Moro' has been extensively used within Tourist books to describe the historical Islamic past of Spain without realising that the word is racist. If you think about it, if a 'Moro' is supposedly a person of muslim/arab descent then how come the term 'Moorish' and 'Moro' are not used at all in the Middle East to describe anything Arabic or a Arab person?

The use of word 'Moro' is in fact racist and is used by spanish racists when they refer to Moroccan people. Where do Moro's come from - if you really think about it?

Historically, Morocco and Spain have a bittersweet relationship due to the very close proximity of the two countries, where they have each conquered some parts of each other'countries. Presently, Spain still colonize two Northern Moroccan cities - Ceuta and Mellila. Many Spanish people were born there and have lived there without problems in regards to difference of culture and religion. In contrast to this, there are around 5 million Moroccan people presently living in Spain and who are the largest Muslim group living in Spain. Acquiring jobs are made difficult due to racism especially in gaining Spanish citizenship. To even have a Mosque as a place of worship involves a lot of bureaucracy from the local governments as well as the many racist protests held by the Spanish people as well as an ever increasing presence of Nazi Spanish movements.

In 2006 the Andalusian government had introduced a recent Article into the law to allow any Moroccan person to acquire Spanish citizenship with ease, as they are found to be descendents of 'Moriscos' (Moroccans whose ancesters are of Moroccan and Spainish mixed descent during the time of Islamic rule in Spain). The Spanish and Moroccan Academics and historians have called for equality for the Moroccan people since 1992. Currently Morrocan people have to live and work 10 years in Spain for them to gain Spanish citizenship, and only 5 years if a Moroccan is married to a Spanish person.

The Spanish tried energetically to remove historical facts as to the origin of the Muslims who ruled in Spain for eight centuries and have used the word Moro to hide the fact that it was the Moroccans who conquered Spain. The word 'Moro' has been extensively used within Tourist books to describe the historical Islamic past of Spain without realising that the word is racist. If you think about it, if a 'Moro' is supposedly a person of muslim/arab descent then how come the term 'Moorish' and 'Moro' are not used at all in the Middle East to describe anything Arabic or a Arab person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.160.4 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some start on revising this article
As no group defines (or as near as I can tell has ever defined itself) as a "Moor" or "Moorish", this article REALLY needs a change of focus (instead of being a poor history of Muslim rule in Iberia). In short, like Saracen for Arabs, its a European term to describe people from North West Africa. The article really needs to offer redirects to actual peoples states and ethnicities which have been referred to as Moors, and a history of the terms use by Europeans (as well as Francophone Black Africans and Filipinos, apparently). Added to the lead to reflect this, and some images of people labeled as Moors (there are many more in commons) that show the variety of peoples so labeled in the past. T L Miles (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive this huge talk page
I suggest that this talk page be archived, at least back to the end of 2007. I would suggest a manual move to Talk:Moors/Archive1. See Help:Archiving a talk page. I'll check back in a few days to see what consensus the is on this. T L Miles (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone disagrees, we're just lazy. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of costumes
The image is from a German book which reconstructs ancient costumes by basing them on archaeological evidence and old illustrations. Why exactly is that inappropriate? If you think it is factually incorrect, then demonstrate this by actually pointing the incorrect features out one by one here, instead of just reverting. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My friend... I did not say it was inappropriate! But the link provided as sources does not state the "archaeological evidence and old illustrations" from which it was drawn from. This just lloks like a 19th century (German, but it could be from anywhere else in Europe) idea of what Moorish princes (and to what Moors does it refer to?) dressed like. I'm not against the image per se, but I do think I should at least sate something like "a 19th century German depiction of Moorish aristocratic costumes". And by the way, the burden is on the one that makes a statement, not the reverse! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll rework the caption, and as for source, you can see that by simply clicking on the picture. There is plenty of evidence in the form of old illustrations and actual surviving objects, so why would this particular image had been made up when the other illustrations are based on evidence? See first image here, for example: Some are even drawn after actual photos. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did click on the picture - I see no sources of the archaeological evidence and old illustrations. You speak of picture?!? Of whom? The 8th century Moors? The 12th century ones? The 15th century ones? Or of "modern" populations labeled as such. Still, for me, the pic can remain with a proper caption. The Ogre (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is ok now, with the caption. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some examples right before you replied. Other examples from the book clearly show that they've pretty much based the drawings precisely on old reliefs and other artifacts: It was supposed to be a reference work for how the actual costumes looked like. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article appears to contradict itself
From the article: ''"In the Spanish language, the term for Moors is moro; in Portuguese the word is mouro. There consequently seems to have been some confusion about the relationship of the word moro/mouro with the word moreno (which means tanned or dark or brown-skinned; in origin the term was used to refer to a person with brown or black hair color, regardless of skin or eye color - synonym for Brunette, nowadays both meanings co-exist). However, the two words have different etymological roots, and the Moors, though most were probably swarthy, were not 'negro'.'" then ''"'...Keita stated that 'the data supported the comments from ancient authors observed by classicists: everything from fair-skinned blonds to peoples who were dark skinned 'Ethiopian' or part Ethiopian in appearance.' Modern evidence showed a similar diversity among present North Africans. Moreover, this 'diversity' of phenotypes and peoples was probably due to in situ differentiation, not foreign influxes.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felve (talk • contribs) 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another famous "Moor"
"Moor" was the nickname of Karl Marx from the time he was in college because of his dark skin. Nobody who was close to him called him anything else.

ENGELS TO CUNO

London, March 29, 1883

Dear Cuno: Your letter gave rise to universal laughter here last night. Every one who knew the Moor in his home life and in intimate circles knows that he was never called Marx or even Karl, but only the Moor, as each of us had his nickname, and they stopped using one's nickname only when a relationship of close intimacy ceased. The Moor was Marx's nickname from his university days; at the Neue Rheinische Zeitung they likewise always called him Moor. If I had ever called him by some other name, he would have thought some misunderstanding had arisen between us that had to be cleared up,

Yours, F. Engels

(page 136 Letters to Americans 1848-1895 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

--Mmclic (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Page Edits
It appears someone has went into this page and not only disregarded the previous discussions, documented and cited work but have also added documentation based on western views that have proven to be wrong and biased and Euro-centric in nature. I am reverting the edits back to the earlier pages and/or will attempt to clean up this page to restore it's factual information. When you have older texts from UK like Cambridge and other respectable authors from respectable institutions predating newer information, you cannot just use newer publication as a means of citing work as proof. It can be added to the bibliography but it should not serve as the authority. You must use a reference from the older texts and list several sources in order to challenge the substantial amount of work that has been done on this page. It shows lack of respect to the previous editors not to mention the research they did. Using solely western sources provides a single one-sided view, which has already been agreed that western views are not in line with the rest of the world's views. Britannica and Penn Press are only two references when there is a list of other documented other sources you must take those into account. In this case the older sources trump the newer ones. For that reason I will be reverting the changes.--Gnosis (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This paragraph is borderline incoherent. Other than ranting about "Western sources" (whatever that means) what is your issue? It appears your edit adds the following:
 * Sherwood L. Washburn and several other authors debunk this myth by disproving credibility in use of the term "Negro" by explaining that anthropologically various groups in the world maintain Negroid traits due to race progression. This fact alone dispels any idea of a negroid race. The truth is that Moors were made up of many African diaspora which includes Berbers and Arabs in the African diaspora.
 * The statement is incoherent and the citations appear to have nothing to do with the actual subject, Moors. I shall remove this then pending a coherent explanation of the phrase. I also note that you appear to be edit waring with other users on this page over the past few days, and have clearly violated the 3RR rule. (collounsbury (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
 * As an added observation it appears that you probably have an issue with the current introduction that talks about "Negroness" (or not) of moors. That particular line is indeed problematic and should either be removed and substantially rephrased. collounsbury (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You collounsbury... I think you see my point. It was not my intention to engage in edit wars. That's why I just posted the fact with proper citation. In addition those citations do address Moors. I wanted to be clear because I was questioned before about my sources being "Afrocentric". --Gnosis (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They were as far as I can tell, almost entirely questionable, dated and off point. (collounsbury (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

The point that needs to be addressed here is why are we trying to separate Moors as being one group or another? Black, white, Arab etc... are not issues and as I tried to clean up this article several times in the past, it has been proven that Moors were made up of a number of various African Diaspora. It is quite racist to suggest that Moors weren't "Negro" or "Black" just as it would be racist to suggest Moors weren't "white" or "Arab". The point is this... any racial overtones should be removed completely throughout the article as suggested a couple years before when the same thing happened. It seems that we're right back talking about race when it should talk about Moors. It is a proven fact.. Once again a FACT that Moors were comprised of numerous African Diaspora. Which means when we speak about this group of people it is wrong to distinguish them in terms of race. That has racist overtones. Separating people according to race is in essence practicing racism. Even Berbers themselves are comprised of various groups from this African Diaspora. Arabs themselves have Ethiopian ancestry. This can be proven and verified. Race should not be the slant of this article. The article should talk about the richness of the Moorish history and their accomplishments and credits to humanity. The sources I provided disprove the statement of Moors not being "negro" which shouldn't even be in the article as was the consensus a year and a half ago. I will be editing new information and adding it to the article that is from only credible sources. Not just people writing articled from Penn Press or any other opinionated person. As you will see mine are from noted anthropologist, and sources published by Cambridge University, as well as it will be from a Europe or eastern world view as opposed to anyone from the USA which has historically had problems when it comes to race and should always be questioned when using an author from there. This being "Afrocentric" or "Eurocentric" in the opinion of some both embellish the truth. The goal is to keep this article truthful and clear from any racial overtones which will affect the readers ability to read without a POV of any author.--Gnosis (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First, try to write in clear paragraphs, the above is painful to read, and annoying.
 * Second, the article is about a discrete population term - Moors, a term with varying meaning over time. It is in no way racist to note that the population called "moors" in a certain time period (Medieval Spain) may not have met a modern population profile.
 * Third, your 'proven fact' is obscure. African Diaspora in terms of Medieval Spain is meaningless and political posturing. The same for your assertion regarding the Arabs. Ethiopian ancestry is at best a tendentious rendering of a hypothesis that Semetic groups have their origin in North East Africa. One can say the same about most Ex African populations, rendering the statement meaningless.
 * Fourth, as for your final comments about 'richness' of culture etc - that is merely ahistorical ethnocentric posturing - in short POV pushing that has no place in an encyclopedia.

(collounsbury (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Permit me to offer the obvious warning: more edit warring will lead to blocks. It seems to have died down for the moment, which is good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Picking up a conversation from Talk pages, (see mine) let me note the following: (i) It would appear that Gnosis finds the citation to Moors not Negros to be irritating. While his edits I believe do not meet factual standard, at the same time that bald statement seems at once out of place and overdrawn by itself in the intro. (ii) There seems to be a better, more nuanced discussion further on in the article. (iii) I would suggest that the issue of Moorish 'race' or ethnicity (itself clearly changing meaning over time) be deferred to the article body, and treated more full out. While we do not need ahistorical Afrocentric "Diasporas" nonsense, the subject can be dealt with better than the current intro cite all by itself. (collounsbury (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

There's much to be said about staying calm and just researching the information presented. I just looked at the book with the alleged statement that Moors were not "Negro". I have yet to find it in the book contrary to what the citation suggests. I made a mistake in my assumption that Silverblatt was a Eurocentric. I stand corrected the book actually backs up what I have been saying. Irene actually discusses the migration patterns of Moors. The citation Irene Marsha Silverblatt, Modern Inquisitions, (Duke University Press: 2004), p.257 it is not on page 257 as the citation suggests. In addition the book aims at discovering the root of Spanish racism towards Indian, Jewish and "Black" groups in a desire for Spaniards to be considered white. This is on page 115. trust I'm reading the book I like it. It's a good book. And nowhere does it say Moors weren't Negro as Causteau suggests. So it would seem that the argument I had, although not appropriately handled was accurate. I suggest we remove the sentence due to the fact that the citation is a false one. There are however several other citations from the book that could help this article. I will finish reading the book to see what can be added to help this article.--Gnosis (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Racialist Editing
First, adding in, for Afrocentric POV pushing purposes, romantic 19th century paintings (19th Century Orientalist - Charlemont, 1878 -paintings are not actual historical depitions of 7-15th century populations (plural) that bore the name "Moor") to assert Moors as Black Africans is hardly good editing. Second, removal of the Notable Moors section was without discussion or justification, I am not even sure I care for that section, but simply deleting without comment or discussion is unacceptable. Never mind I rather suspect you did not like the skin colours in the illustrations. Third, the entire discussion on "race" in terms of Moors does not correspond with the substantive parts of the article and is POV. Thus I removed. Examples of unscientific text inserted are "There were white Moors, especially because of their part Berber ancestry and after they had lived in Europe for centuries and had been ‘whitened’ by mating with Europeans." - this is POV and racialist language without support. "Whitened"being a key racialist bordering on racist formulation. Argumentation afterwards is skewed and racialist bordering on racist in tone. For actual discussion of race or colour issues with respect to the historical Moorish populations, the Haratin article does a fine job of providing balanced references and non-selective presentation. Fourth, I do agree with the removal of race reference in the old consensus version (c. 18 Nov). collounsbury (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)]

Now that we have a discussion before blanking out large bodies of text it should be discussed here based on Wiki Best practices. If you pay attention you will see that it's not to paint Moors as black Africans it's to show verifiable proof that the Moors were comprised of various groups. How is it based on racialist tones? It comes from cited sources and the sources are non Afrocentrist. And what do you mean without support all the sources are there and cited. What you are doing is trying to start an edit war. All of the sources were cited and were from books. Wo how are they POV and non supported. Please answer this question. Otherwise the content should stay as it it. Those are not my words they come from the citations. Which is clearly in line with Wiki. Please explain.--Gnosis (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Primo, I removed your long, poorly written text for the reasons described supra. The added text does not coherently address the body of the article, contradicts other sourcing and is written from an entirely POV perspective. Inappropriate racialist phrasing such as "whitening" of Moors by an asserting Europeanisation, itself assuming facts not supported by the Genetics section is at once off the core topic - Moors - and not supported by other portions of the article. Your addition was a poorly written, argumentative POV insert. Further, I find it ironic that you complain about my explained removal of your tenditious edit after you removed large chunks of text without substantive explanation as to reasoning, nor engagement with our prior conversation. Now as to your text, since you don't get it, I will go through step by step. (collounsbury (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC))


 * Secundo: on the added text, reproduced here, contrary to your perception it is highly POV, racialist and of dubious factual foundation, never mind phrasing (you will note it had already attracted a copy edit Tag:

There were white Moors, especially because of their part Berber ancestry and after they had lived in Europe for centuries and had been ‘whitened’ by mating with Europeans.The mixed racial make-up of the Moors is confirmed by their own writing: the Moorish historian Ali ibn Abd Allah, writing in the 1300s, (recall that the Moors were only finally expelled from Spain in 1452) said that a Moorish Sultan of the time, Mohammed ben Idriss is described as “blond” while Abou el-Hassan el Said had as mother “a Nubian slave. . . dark and of mixed blood,”.
 * Emphasis Added
 * First, in this section, you are asserting a racialisation of the Moors (itself as clearly indicated in the article a term that has covered different populations over time, and of dubious to no ethnographic utility: to put that perhaps in terms you will get, means fuck all for saying Moors were any one thing) unsupported by the generic evidence cited in the article, or cited in related articles with respect to Berbers. Now, your cite to a medieval source certainly is fine for underlining the ruling Arabo-Berber elite had children by slaves, and those children, unlike under American historical experience, inherited into power.


 * It does not say anything as such about "Moors" - if you wish to use these sources to highlight the mixed nature of Maghrebine and Iberian - Moorish society and elites, without overdrawing for a comment on larger population balance - which is a question answered by genetic markets, not by anecdotes, then I can fully support that.
 * However, I can not support racialising the article with faux "debates" and selective anecdotal quotations about ruling classes, which may or may not reflext mass populations (in fact, with respect to Maghrebine genetics, it is clear they did not as such).
 * The same with the following text (which has uncessary literary embroidary.

The favorite wife of Yusuf ibn Tachfin, was a white Christian slave captive, called Fadh-el-Hassen, or ‘Perfection of Beauty’. She was the mother of his frizzy-haired son and successor, Ali. Abu Hassan Au, “The Black Sultan” whose beautiful mother a black slave, had as his favorite wife, Shams-ed-Douha (The Morning Sun), a white captive. .

Of the three Moorish kings killed in the battle of Alcazar in 1578, two were mulattoes and one, an unmixed black, Mulai Mohammed “the Negro.”. Even more interesting is how the Moors described their European foes: Sa-id of Andalusia (1029-1071) wrote the following of his White Iberian opponents: They “are nearer animals than men. . . They are by nature unthinking and their manners crude. Their bellies protrude; their color is white and their hair is long. In sharpness and delicacy of spirit and in intellectual perspicacity, they are nil. Ignorance, lack of reasoning power and boorishness are common among them.”.
 * None of the terms here are either historical or scientific: mulattoes and one, an unmixed black - "Unmixed black?" - this is a serious addition? It's worthy of 19th century racist texts, not a 21st century encyclopedia (and nonsense in the context of the genetic data).

To the earlier Greeks, the Moors were “a black or dark people” (Mauros) and to the Romans, Maurus, a black wooly-haired people, known synonymously as Ethiops, Niger (Negro) and Afer (African). As late as the 5th Century A. D. Procopius, a Roman historian, called the people of Morocco “black.” In the ‘Chanson of Roland’ (Song of Roland) written after the Moors invaded France in 718 A.D., the invaders are described (verses 145 and 146) as “blacker than ink with large noses and ears” and with “nothing white except the teeth.”.
 * This text in no way matches my own reading in history on this subject. I find it absurd that you are trying to slip this in. A reference to Snowden (~p11 re multiple usages of Mauri - not black as such) highlights the dishonest manner which you are spinning this, and further again, the population genetics clearly tell another tale.
 * It would be factual to highlight North Africa contained several populations, as highlighted in the Haratine article, several of which tradition and ambiguous genetic evidence suggests were indigenous (rather than imported slaves) to the region.
 * Growing tired of comment, let me note that your racialist word play has plenty of space on the Afrocentrism and Black people pages. If one wants to play tedious selective quotations, I am most happy to pull up ones "proving" opposite points - notably from Moroccan (original Arabic) sources differentiating themselvs from and denigrating "blacks." As it happens, I prefer not to as selective anectdote are not good writing nor history, and it would be one sided. collounsbury (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion to get beyond impasses
 * While I find Gnosis edits entirely unacceptable POV pushing, with skewed presentation, it may be fair to highlight in a section that Moor as a term historically could refer to multiple possible ethnic backgrounds.
 * On one hand from the genetic evidence, it is clear most populations referred to as Moor in an Iberian or Maghrebi context would be more or less synonymous with Berber/Arabised Berber, and htus Berber origins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people#Origin answers the question (although that article itself is an edit-warred mess.
 * On the other hand, the term had wider usage (as Tmiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:T_L_Miles) noted supra there remains too much presumption in the article that this term refers to a coherent population group).
 * As such, perhaps a section on Moorish ethnicity simply indicating that (i) The term referred to widely varying populations, as a European reference to Muslims as well as groups associated by them with Muslims from North Africa, (ii) that as such (as highlighted in the intro "As early as 1911, mainstream scholars recognized that "The term Moors has no real ethnological value."[2]" and has referred to populations both dark and light skinned, often in inherently contradictory manners.

(collounsbury (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Notable Moors Duplication
I know someone else has commented above that there has been a lot of duplication on this page. The Notable Moors section appears twice, images and all (sections 5 and 9). I assume no one would have an objection to one of these being removed? 81.132.245.84 (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

POV rant
I've removed a paragraph added by a user which relies on three questionable sources to support its claims. The editor writes that: "However, Moors were not a race or ethnicity but were a grouping of different groups of peoples from North Africa, West Africa, the Near East and West Asia. Some Moors are documented to have been Islamic converts from northwestern Africa, largely Mauritania, Mali and Niger, while some were black-looking Berbers." However, his first source is a link to this website, which is a religious advocacy site that is verboten per WP:QS (the page is referred to as a "Prayer Profile" and readers are asked to "Pray for the effectiveness of the Jesus film among the Moor", among other bizarre things). The second ref is a link to a website which explicitly and repeatedly equates Moors with the Sahrawi, not with the Tuareg. And the third is a link to a blog, which is inadmissible per WP:SPS. Causteau (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The religious source was deleted by me. While I agree that the sources could be better the language of the article borders on racialist. What exactly is a "negro"? Besides sounding like language from the 19th century there are different types of black peoples in Africa. Full Shunyata (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, there are other sources stating that some Moors came from Niger and Mauritania.
 * http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Moors
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=UoxAwrVzc88C&pg=PA982&lpg=PA982&dq=Moors,+Timbuktu&source=web&ots=vL8L96uKSV&sig=-kVltRjVuZeYhgS7WRwNaHFwFLU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_of_Bilad_el-Sudan#The_Islamic_Era
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=7QEjPVyd9YMC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=Moors,+Tuareg&source=web&ots=uotGVMkzOz&sig=1ey7r8w76iczadeCDRxy1HCW6aQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Full Shunyata (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. Your first source above is a link to a wiki-like site that has an editing interface which is open to anyone including yourself i.e. an unreliable source:
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For this reason, it is usually not acceptable in Wikipedia to cite self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, podcasts, vcasts, patents, patent applications, forum postings, and similar sources."
 * Your second source is a dead link. Your third is a link to a Wikipedia article, which is obviously also an unreliable source. Your fourth source, like the other source you produced in your previous post, expressly differentiates between the Tuareg and the Moors ("Tuareg are considered by scholars to be more closely related to speakers of other Berber languages than they are to the Moors, who speak a Hassaniya dialect of Arabic"). And none of the sources above state that the Moors came from Niger and Mauritania (not that that actually means anything, since to this day Berber communities exist in both countries and all of the former originally migrated down from North Africa); the last source actually states that one troupe of Tuareg musicians is grateful to the Moors of Mauritania for having welcomed them as refugees. Causteau (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the reasoning for removing this?
 * "However, it is worth noting that sometimes some Moors were referred to as "blackamoors" in parts of Europe denoting some Moors having an Africoid appearance. " Full Shunyata (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple: the first "source" that supports your statement is a link to this Wiktionary page on blackamoors (not Moors), which for the umpteenth time is an unreliable source. And the second reference (also on blackamoors) doesn't once mention the corny, Afrocentric "Africoid" concept. LOL But honestly, with the stunt you just pulled on the Berber people page where you produced a fake quote from a study, I honestly don't expect you to understand any of this. Causteau (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I used the term "Africoid" because Negroid is now considered defunct. And honestly, who still uses that word in the year 2009? 2) The quote is not fake at all. Read the article, the quote is from the article itself. Full Shunyata (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the problem, I used the wrong source. Sorry, that was my fault. Here is the correct source:
 * http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/~vincent/papers/980656.web.pdf
 * "one-third of Mozabite Berber mtDNAs have a Near Eastern ancestry, probably having arrived in North Africa ∼50,000 years ago, and one-eighth have an origin in sub-Saharan Africa. Europe appears to be the source of many of the remaining sequences, with therest having arisen either in Europe or in the Near East."
 * It's on page 247, second paragraph, right side of page. Please look.Full Shunyata (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the Berber page, since I see you didn't respond to what I said on the discussion page but you're discussing it here, where exactly is your source for claiming the Berbers are "white"? Your racialist source claims "Alpinid and Nordic" (outdated racialist terminology) admixture, but does not say the Berbers are "white". So it appears the source does not back the claim.Full Shunyata (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This little game is getting tedious.
 * (I): Negroid appears to be standard usage, and Shunyata's whinging on is pure PC POV pushing, if there is an objection on biased content, rather than his disliking for political reasons a phrase, let it be expressed with substantive support. Demonstration of "defunctness" of Negroid in scientific literature, for example.
 * (II), the spin on the Macaulay et al article is ... queer, one wonders if Shunyata understood anything in the article. The article in fact ties Berbers to the Neolithic expansion parallel and related to the European expansion, associated with Cro Magnon. (collounsbury (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
 * 1) Look at the Negroid page. It says the usage of the word is outdated just like Caucasoid and Alpine race. Not many people seem to use the term except you and a few other people (and some Stormfront-type people and self-proclaimed "racial realists").
 * 2) There is no "spin" on the article, it's a direct quotation. The article covers the genetic ties of the Berber people along with the Neolithic expansion.Full Shunyata (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As charming as your clumsy attempt to associate criticism of your spin and misreadings with the racists of Stormfront, etc. the Wiki Negroid page you rather typically misrepresent says nothing of the sort. Negroid race of course, that is not the same as a non-essentialist descriptor, which indeed the article notes.... Queer your spin. & boring. (collounsbury (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

The article should not state the moors where not Negros. The moors them self where mixed and did have Negros blood not only that there were many black moors, especially in the military. Those people can not be cut out of that history. I really do understand how these some editor use personal bias to justify the things they write. Nillarse (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seinfeld Moops
How about mentioning the Seinfeld episode about the Moops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.58.145 (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivia was removed. Hardly needed in any event. The proper place for Seinfeld trivia is the Seinfeld page, not the Moors. (collounsbury (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Moors: Ethnicity, "Negroness" & NPOV Treatment
Although perhaps moderately Quixotic, a discussion of the Moors text and coverage of ethnicity seems warrented to perhaps end the slow motion edit war, in particular with this comment copied from above:
 * [COLLOUNSBURY REQUOTING] The article should not state the moors where not Negros. The moors them self where mixed and did have Negros blood not only that there were many black moors, especially in the military. Those people can not be cut out of that history. I really do understand how these some editor use personal bias to justify the things they write. Nillarse (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To a limited extent, I think this comment has merit. In particular as the term Moor covers, over its millennium of usage, some rather different peoples. I believe that we should be able to take the present baseline text and massage it to include the following: (i) It is difficult to ascertain the physical type of the Mauri who gave rise to the term, given inconsistent usage in Antiquity (See Snowden in Ch 1 of Blacks in Antiquity) and genetic evidence suggesting the Maghreb region populations, while dominated by Mediterranean types from an ancient date, also included other physical types ('Negroid' / Saharan), etc. - Ancient usage being mixed it seems the predecessor or source term had an ambiguous meaning over time; (ii) In historical usage (Medieval to early modern) Moor had both an ethnic/religious meaning, i.e. in re Spain, Maghrebi Berbers and Arabs of a generally Mediterranean physical type AND a religious meaning (Islamic) with, as our friend notes, a particular angle for the Black slave troops of the era and region (for Europeans). (iii) As such, could adopt phrasing that indicates that while most of the population the Europeans of the late medieval / early modern was not Negroid, but of a Mediterranean type, the term was also used to cover 'Blacks' by extension - the problem in writing this being the change of meaning (back and forth) over time. Hopefully with some reasonable phrasing we can overcome some reasonable objections (such as as phrased by Nillarse, although not as expressed in the users Edits), while avoiding POV pushing. I believe, if I may comment directly to Nillarse, that much of the editing away from 'black' has been in reaction to overdone POV pushing and clear exaggeration. I would support a NPOV approach that makes clear the term, over time and historically, had confused usage, and covered both 'White' and 'Black' Moors. (collounsbury (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Seensawsee's edits
Seensawsee ( talk ) continously not only destroys the format in the beginning of this article, but also and more importantly amputates a direct quote of Irene Marsha Silverblatt's Modern Inquisitions: Peru and the Colonial Origins of the Civilized World (Duke University Press: 2004, p.257), were she says: "'Thus, contrary to expectations, it would appear that Moors were not considered to be 'negro'. There seems to be some contemporary confusion about the relationship between 'moro' and 'moreno' (brown)...'" Seensawsee's actions amount to vandalism (removal of content) since he is always removing the sentence Though most were probably of swarthy complexion, the Moors were not "negro". I'll revert him, again..., warn him, and report him to AIAV. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you had half a brain or new anything about this topic you seem to be so passionate about you would you know that the racist comment was wrong and at least try to talk to me about the edit first before you made petty treats. Were in the so called reference provided state that the moors were not "negro"? I doubt that you can never find a historical reference to back up that ignorant claim. The moors  like most North Africans were a mixed group of people and whether it was through slavery or trade or miscegenation they did have black "negro" blood so how can that article make a claim like that.Seensawsee (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * NPA I think thats right, but if it isn't, I shall direct you to No Personal Attacks.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say I agree I shouldn't have used Personal attacks, but that editor placed 2 warning on my page and threatened to report me for so called "vandalism". Without even trying to talk to me. If I'm gulity of anything the he/she is tooSeensawsee (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My friend, there is no need for personal attacks. And yes, you have removed a direct quote (cited above). And no that is not a racist statement. The author is just saying (that is why "negro" is between quotation marks) that the Moors did not correspond to the racial category of "negro". And your "racial" categorization of Moors is much simpler than reality shows (look up the genetics section!). The main point is also that Moors has practically no ethnological utility whatsoever, since its refers to very different population in very different places and historical times. All in all, the quote that says they were not considered "negro" is, I think, useful. Of course one may discuss that. You did not. You just erased a sourced direct quote of a published academic book by a credible and known author! As such I am reverting your revert. Please read the sentence better, understand its context, search the source (which clearly, as quoted above in my firts intervention, backs up the assertion!). If you still have a problem with it discuss before reverting. I am, however, giving notice of your edit behaviour to AIAV. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seesaw and the admin Ssteiner are correct. The ogre I can not believe, The disputed genetic section is the proof for you claims? What a pity. You say the moors did not go by the racial category “negro”. Well I don’t see any part of the article that claim they did, however since you want to state that they were not negro, you have to also state that they were not Arabs or Berber or even european because, all of these were exactly what they were, they were not one or the other. The moors were a diverse racial group of people. Which indeed included “negro”. If you are going to make outlandish claim find something to back it up and refrain from vandalizing the page. You claim that the quote is sourced information, but the reference does not support the claim, judging from your edits you seem to have a fixation with "black people" please refrain from personal biases when you making edits, you can not claim the entire moorish population did not have "negro blood" when history teaches us other wiseCitionthehill (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The facts
This is getting out of hand... And I wonder why two new editors seem to have the same agenda, use the same type of personal attacks, and the same fixation on removing the same sentence paired with the same exact depiction of Moors' "racial" identity (basically trying to state that they mixed with Black Africans). Let's go step by step:
 * I am being personally attacked and I never attacked any of the users in question (Seensawsee and Citionthehill); warning editors about the problematic nature of their edits is not an attack;
 * Regarding Seensawsee, I first welcomed in to wikipedia, then warned him in a friendly manner (level 1) about his edits , warning that was immediately deleted by Seensawsee , then undeleted by me also with the addition of a level 2 warning , and again immediatley deleted by Seensawsee ;
 * All this made Seensawsee leave the following comment in may talk page accusing me of being a vandal: diff.
 * My warnings were due to the fact that Seensawsee was removing a sourced sentence (I'll get to that in a minute) without any discussion whatsoever and with no edit summaries explaining the reasons for the aforementioned removal (diff);
 * Only after Seensawsee's reversal of my reversal, again with no explanation for his actions, did I revert him again (diff) explaining why I did so; I then warned him with a maximum level and immediate template, convinced as I was that this was not a good faith editor;
 * This warning was again promptly deleted by Seensawsee from his user page ; this warning was then undelet by Jakezing/Ssteiner209 (saying "warnings are not nonsense" - ), blanked again by Seensawsee (calling Jakezing's action vandalism), which deserved a note by Jakezing/Ssteiner209 saying "I suggest you read up the rules, since you HAVE done things worthy of getting warnings" ;
 * My warning prompted Seensawsee to personally attack me on my talk page and to give me the same type of maximum level warning I had given him diff;
 * Seensawsee then reverted my edit just saying in the edit summary "restore back to original", when in fact the original was the one I was restoring (diff);
 * Here we find Citionthehill's first edits in this article, immediatley following Seensawsee's actions, adding "fact" templates (diff);
 * Seensawsee's and Citionthehill's edits were then reverted by User:Causteau, saying "rvt to last good version; restored source" (diff);
 * This action was reverted by Citionthehill, again without explanation of his reasons (diff);
 * I then reverted Citionthehill's edits saying "rv to version of 10:58, 18 April 2009 - PLEASE DO NOT MESS UP THE FORMAT AND AMPUTATE EXACT QUOTES!!" (diff);
 * This was reverted by Seensawsee saying "unfounded claims and alleged ref. does not/can not support claim" (diff), when in fact it does (as shown above in my first comment on this issue);
 * This was then reverted by User:Collounsbury (diff), which was reverted by anon 69.126.251.101 (diff);
 * User:Causteau reverted the anon, restoring back to the original with the sourced statement (diff);
 * Causteau was then reverted by Seensawsee (diff);
 * All of this made me open up this discussion (diff), where I provided the exact quote from the published academic source for the sentence in question, and which produce the above reactions, with personal attacks from Seensawsee and Citionthehill;
 * After opening up the discussion I reverted Seensawsee's edit (diff), was again reverted by Seensawsee (diff), which I reverted again saying "again rv the rm of a sourced quotation - see Talk:Moors#Seensawsee's edits" (diff);
 * My edit was the reverted by Citionthehill (diff);
 * Meanwhile Seensawsee again attacked me on my talk page (diff), which prompted Jakezing/Ssteiner209 to also write there "Don't throw around warnings please. and No personal attacks", I believe refering to Seensawsee's actions;
 * At last Citionthehill decided to give me a maximum level warning (diff).
 * Also meanwhile I reported Seensawsee's action W:AIAV twice, saying I was doing so in this page:
 * In the first report (diff), the result was "No edits since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising." by admin Toddst1 (diff);
 * In the second report (diff), the result was "No edits since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. While still arguing the validity of their edit since the final warning, they haven't repeated it since. I feel this has moved to dispute resolution." by admin LessHeard vanU(diff);
 * this was followed by a comment by admin Jayron32 saying "Despire claims to the contrary, this is clearly a content dispute, and not vandalism. There can be valid reasons to remove sourced quotes, like relevance and WP:UNDUE. I am not saying that is necessarily the case here, but the user is discussing their edits, which is proof of good faith here; this is not simple random vandalism, but a content dispute. If you are right, find a consensus of other editors who say that you are. If the user in question violates WP:3RR, then report to WP:ANEW. Otherwise, seek dispute resolution to find where consensus lies on this issue." (diff) (needless to say I believe him incorrect...);
 * The sentence in question has long been the target of pov edits, either from an afrocentrist point of view, either from a white-racist point of view, either from those editors who do not understand that the use of the word "negro" in the sentence is not racist, but a reference to a "racial" category that, in the Portuguese and Spanish linguistic context, was not applied to Moors:
 * Seensawsee and Citionthehill claim that the sentence is not supported by the source, when in fact the source say (let me repeat it...):
 * "Thus, contrary to expectations, it would appear that Moors were not considered to be "negro". There seems to be some contemporary confusion about the relationship between "moro" and "moreno" (brown)..." - Irene Marsha Silverblatt, Modern Inquisitions: Peru and the Colonial Origins of the Civilized World, Duke University Press: 2004, p.257;
 * So... the sentence in question («Though most were probably of swarthy complexion, the Moors were not "negro".») IS SUPPORTED by the source;
 * The two editor in question have never tried to discuss the usefulness of the sentence, they just say, other then claiming wrongly that it is not supported by the source, that one can not say that the Moors were not "negro", and this without any sources whatsoever, giving a rather simplist picture of the Moors' "racial composition" (Citionthehill goes to the point, above, of saying "The disputed genetic section is the proof for you claims? What a pity." - disputed or not, that section is an effort of dealing with this complex question in a modern scientific manner, and not just saying that "The moors like most North Africans were a mixed group of people and whether it was through slavery or trade or miscegenation they did have black "negro" blood" or "you can not claim the entire moorish populations did not have "negro blood" when history teaches us other wise"):
 * Not only the source supports the sentence, as the sentence has to be read in context (granted that that could be better explained): the full sentence is "In the Spanish language, the term for Moors is Moro; in Portuguese the word is mouro. There seems to have been some confusion about the relationship of the word moro/mouro to the word moreno (which means brown), both from Greek maúros, i.e. black. However, the two words have different etymological roots. Though most were probably of swarthy complexion, the Moors were not "negro"." - this is meant to say that in Portuguese and Spanish languages contexts the Moors were not categorized with the word "negro", which was used (and still is) for Black people (notice that the word "negro" here does not mean the English word, but the Spanish and Portuguese one, languages were that word generally has little or no pejorative meaning whatsoever);
 * The sentence is not a statement about the "racial" composition of Moors, not only because Moors can refer to very different populations geographically and historically (notice that the previous paragraph says "As early as 1911, mainstream scholars recognized that "The term Moors has no real ethnological value." Britannica Encyclopedia, 1911, p.811 of original), but also because it is not a statement about population genetics; instead it is a statement about linguist categories in the Spanish and Portuguese speaking worlds; what is said there is that in those contexts that word was reserved for Black people, and not applied to the Moors.
 * I am not defending, in this dispute (though I do have a sourced view on those issues), what is the racial composition of Moors. In a way I couldn't care less if they were Black or not! (and no, I don't «have a fixaton with "black people"», as Citionthehill accuses me...). What is in question here is:
 * The existence of a sourced statement saying that in the mentioned linguistic contexts, Moors were not categorized as "negro";
 * The fact that two editors (and some others, there is the anon referred to above, and Seensawsee's and Citionthehill's edits are reminiscent of Tromboneman0's edits), without really explaning why, seem to find that their ideas about the Moors' racial identty do not need to be sourced and, in fact, are strong enough to remove sourced info (by the way, remember, wikipedia, as any other good encyclopedia, is not about what the world is, but about what published credible sources say the world is!);
 * The continuous personal attacks by two newly arrived editors that seem almost only or only to edit this article (see Seensawsee's contribs and Citionthehill's contribs), never at the same time (in fact in alternation), which makes one suspect of sockpuppetry.

Nothing of this is personal. If these two editors are willing to seriously discuss issues, then welcome! And no one should think of warnings and straighforward accusations (such as sockpuppetry) as personal attacks. If you are not sockpuppets, my apologies. However I do find it difficult to see you as goods faith editors. I hope you prove me wrong.

Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: All the mentioned users, and others, have been invited to participate in this debate. The Ogre (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: All the mentioned Wiki Projects have been invited to participate in this debate. The Ogre (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Sock puppeting is illegal so i would report him.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Collounsbury Comment:
 * This is a bit long and hard to followed, but as I understand it The Ogre is being attacked by several new editors, and most of the above is a clarification of that.
 * My views:
 * (i) It has been clear from the past few months that someone is sockpuppeting to edit something they do not like (the Not Negro quote), as new editors (I believe going back to November 08, going on memory) with precisely the same obsession and style keep coming in and removing.
 * (ii) No response was had to my February 2009 demarche to reach some compromise that was at once accurate and incorporated several editors understandable reaction to the largely accurate "Not Negro" quote.
 * (iii) the quote does need better context and perhaps the full out sentence, thanks to Ogre for the full out quote above btw. In general the article could allow better for the following items:
 * (iv) balanced acknowledgment that (1) a subset of the wider population labelled by Moors was drawn from sub-Saharan background and ended up in later European usage driving the image, (2) the general origin and source of the word applied to "not negro" populations, even if that later morphed in usage.
 * It seems to me the article is largely correct, and with and efforrt to address point (iv) - which I think Ogre touches above supra in re context, there would be no reasonable further objection.
 * (collounsbury (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

The orge it seems like you are trying to divert the issue at hand which is your claim that the Moors were not “negro” in to making a case against Seensawsee and others of being sock puppets, because they are challenging you. If that’s the case that you think they are socks them report them but judging from the edit history they aren’t the only ones that have edited that sentence in fact many editors have. Do not try to divert the issue at hand. You said yourself that you reported the editor and now are saying now that he (they) are attacking you and you are willing to talk to them, but why didn’t you take that action before you began reporting them in the 1st place. This is exactly why the administrators did not take any action. Its seems to be that the administrator who intervened Ssteiner209 agreed with Seensawee’s edit and only criticized him for using personal attacks against you. The orge it seems to me that you are trying to play victim, but all of you have been warring with each other. Especially your friend editor collounsbury who have been warring with other editors longer that you have, but is now criticizing the editors claiming and sockpuppetry. Find it hard to belive that all the editors who happen to challenge your quote are socks you said you’ve been editing back and forth since november 2008, but if that’s that case why haven’t you reported this?. This is a small thing that is being blown out of proportion.

The orge you say “". ….The sentence is not a statement about the "racial" composition of Moors…then you say….. the Moors did not correspond to the racial category of "negro”. 1st of all your claims are contradicting each other if the sentence is NOT about the racial composition of the moors then the editors are correct and automatically the word “Negro” who be removed because the word represents a race, however if you turn around and say “The Moors did not correspond to the racial category of "negro”. The editors are also correct because the moors did not correspond with ANY racial category. to say that the moors where not negro is to say that they did not have any black African ancestry which is incorrect as an editor mentioned earlier. They were a diverse group of people and and whether it was trough war, trade, slavery, miscegenation they were mixed. The reference provide does not say that the moors did not have black African ancestry therefore THE SENTENCE CANNOT STATE THE THE MOORS WERE NOT NEGRO AND AS LONG AS IT DOES EDITORS WILL REMOVE IT. You also have another claim saying that….”this is meant to say that in Portuguese and Spanish languages contexts the Moors were not categorized with the word "negro", which was used (and still is) for Black people (notice that the word "negro" here does not mean the English word, but the Spanish and Portuguese one, languages were that word generally has little or no pejorative meaning whatsoever”…  basically you are trying to say that the word negro that is presented in the sentence is a Spanish and Portuguese version that does not mean the same thing in english. WRONG! The irony about this claim is that the english word negro came from that exact  Portuguese and sapnish word and that is what the Portuguese used to call black Africans. ….this is a direct quote from the wiki article negro '….”Around 1442, the Portuguese first arrived in sub-Saharan Africa while trying to find a sea route to India. The term negro, literally meaning "black", was used by the Spanish and Portuguese to refer to people. From the 18th century to the mid-20th century, "negro" (later capitalized) was considered the proper English term for all people of sub-Saharan African origin'.” I agree with the editors and think that since you don’t have anything to support you claim you are trying to divert the issue which is your claim that the moors were not Negro into a case of sock puppetry against the many editors who disagree with the quote. It would be best for administrators to investigate this and the issue of socks and handle it accordingly.69.126.251.101 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time right now to deal with your confusions and distortions of what I said. I will came back to it, though. Just wanted to note that is is at least funny that you make the same mistake abou my name that Citionthehill did here (where he said "The orge is Persistent in tempering with the article..."). I am therefore convinced that you are just another sockpuppet. You do quack quite a bit... The Ogre (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see:
 * I meant that the sentence in question is not an apreciation of "objective" genetic nature, but a statement about racial categorization in Portuguese and Spanish language contexts.
 * I made no statement about the Black African component, or not, of Moors. The sentence only ilustrates the history of the category and some of the ambiguities or confusions in its genesis.
 * And yes, the word "negro" does not have the same meaning and conotations in English versus Spanish or Portuguese; even if the English word derives from the previous, it does not have the same value and it is not applied to the same type of people (for example, most of those that in a US context are labeled Black, would be labeled "mulato" in a Portuguese context), and furthermore, does not posses in modern Iberian languages the strong pejorative sense it has in English (in modern Portuguese, the word that would be the same as the English word "negro" is "preto").
 * Most importantly, you say nothing about the sourced reasonings I produce (the exact quote, ect.), you just go with the the other two saying my accusations (let me say, my honest and good faith accusations) are a way to escape discussion.
 * The question for me remains that you and the other two editors have, without suficient explanation and misreading the sentence in question, removed a sourced sentence, and a sentence that does not say that the Moors were not "negro", but instead says that in Portuguese and Spanish language contexts (look at the begining of the statement!) the Moors are not described as "negro", a category that is only applied to Black Africans.
 * For the purpose of my last point, it is irrelevant that you all, or none, are sockpuppets. The reasoning stands by itself. I still believe all of you to be, though!
 * By the way, why the violence in your tone? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Violent? I don’t know what you are talking about.. Also you now you say you don’t have time for this yet you’re the one who created this along with the charges against others and then invited me to join. Do not personally attack me, because you are being called out on your inconsistencies. The Ogre You claim people are attacking you yet your attacking me. You are just going on and on and repeating the same things that does not support or prove anything. The word "negro" weather its used in English or Portuguese means the exact same thing because the English word derived from the Portuguese and mean the same thing, so twisting and try to bend it will not change the issue. If I'm a sock as you say I’m sure the administrators will deal with it accordingly. Another reason your giving for putting in the article that the moors were not Negro is because you say… “Moors are not described as "negro", a category that is only applied to Black African”. But what is the point of this? Since the article has never claimed they were categorized as such. Do not try to divert the issue at hand the reason you have nothing to support what you say because it is not legit and all your claims have no merit. If you put that the moors were not Negro in the article you are saying that they did not have black African ancestry which is incorrect. Since you claimed you wanted to talk about it but has now decided you do not have time then I will not further discuss with you and like I said before this matter should be dealt with by the Administrators.69.126.251.101 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion is getting nowhere because all of the parties are failing to assume good faith. There is constant, pointless, back and forth about the editor's motives with little discussion of the substance of the dispute.  This is not the place to evaluate sockpuppetry and it should not be a part of the discussion if the accuser does not bring the case to WP:SPI.
 * Is this a better statement? (just an example - not checked for grammar or flow):
 * "While the Moors were made up of various racial backgrounds, one would not classify the group, as a whole, as negro by the current English definition."
 * -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my english I am not a native speaker. Mufka you almost had it, but no one is claiming the moors as a whole were considered negro neither is the article. The whole point is that certain editors want to Specifically state that the moors where not negro in the article. My point is that the moors did not go by ANY racial classification at all, they weren’t Negros nor Arabs they were MOORS, like you said they were made up of VARIOUS backgrounds so why specifically state in the article that the "moors were not negro? that is the point of this dispute. If some one is going to go out of their way to state in the article then they also have to say the moors were neither negro nor abrab nor Iberian etc. Why purposely discredit one part of the entire populations ancestry and leave the other part? There is no way the article can state that. As you said yourself this discussion isn't going anywhere so I live it to you administrator69.126.251.101 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I get what you're saying. You're saying that putting in the disputed sentence would be like going over to the George Washington article and putting in a sourced statement that he was not of Chinese descent.  True, but entirely immaterial.  Please confirm.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure I will answer, No I am not saying that, if George Washington did not have Chinese ancestry and you went and put that in his article, then it would be TRUE to state that but immaterial, however if George Washington DID indeed have Chinese ancestry and you said he DID NOT then that would be a complete lie. Such is the case of stating the moors where "not negro" when they did in fact have black african heritage. This is the reason editors are warring with The ogre and Collounsbury. Who want to randomly make this illegit statment. Also if he did have chinese ancestry he would be a bi/multi-racial person wouldn't he? now would you randomly state that he is not chinese and leave out the rest? After all he can't be one without the other if he is mixed with both... Also this source you speak of does the reference actually state that he did not have chinese ancestry when he in fact did? or did you just add things to an already sourced sentence to say that he wasn't chinese? 69.126.251.101 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Were the Moors of a particular race? I think the answer is no.  Is there general confusion that they were predominantly of black African descent?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, if they were not of one particular race why discredit one part and leave another? And no there is no such confusion that they were predominantly of black African descent. Why do you ask? Is there something here or in the article that is suggesting that? because that is not the even issue at hand nor has it even been brought up. The confusion would be 2 editors(The ogre and Collounsbury) stating that they didn't have any black ancestry AT ALL with a statement like the "moors were not negro" and the orge try to defend it with illegit claims (as noted above) like the meaning of the word etc, and then try to divert it by saying all the people that challenge them are socks. So incase you didn't understand the point of the edit wars or dispute here it is. I ask all of you admins to look into it and deal with this because as you can see its not going anywhere 69.126.251.101 (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand the rationale for including the statement. If there is no widespread confusion it seems that including it puts undue emphasis on a non-issue.  If the statement that they are not negro is included, then why not include that they are not some other race.  With that said, I'd like to see if the other interested parties chime in to explain why my reasoning might be wrong.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again; my point exactly why emphasis on a non-issue or constantly feel the need to add that they were not negro to the article? Of course other editors are going to take it out. I don't see the logic in purposely and specifically discredting and commenting on just that one part of the ancestry, if they are mixed then they can not be one with out the others..... Anyhow I’ve said what I have to say so that’s that. I hope this issue is dealth with69.126.251.101 (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Over and above User:The Ogre's documenting of what has transpired, I would concur with User:Collounsbury's comment above that there definitely appears to be some sockpuppeting going on. The IPs involved in the dispute, for one, are very similar to the 69.118.72.18 anonymous IP linked to the User:Nillarse & User:ProfXY accounts that were recently blocked over edits pertaining to this very issue & article. For the rest, Collounsbury's summary above looks like a reasonable synopsis of the situation at hand. A clarification of his point (iv), in particular, seems necessary to clear up any lingering confusion. Causteau (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since none of the accusers have put the alleged sockpuppet accounts to WP:SPI, I have done so to clear up the issue. If the parties are exonerated, then this discussion can move forward with no more distraction about sockpuppetry.  If they are found to be sockpuppets, then the discussion should move forward to find a consensus for the wording that will withstand future challenge.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mufka! I completely agree with your action. I'll try to get back as soon as possible and elaborate on my substantive reasonings about the sentence in question. See you soon. The Ogre (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just added some comments in Sockpuppet investigations/69.126.251.101‎. The Ogre (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 questions here: Hope I clarified my position. The Ogre (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The edits without explanation by the 3 editors who constantly remove the sentence in question, whose actions have not been the most civil and who are now under investigation for sockpupetry - I believe we can leave this question aside for now and concentrate in the substantive issues.
 * 2) My reversals of the 3 editors' edits - prompted basically not by a strong defense of the sentence in question, but by the nature of the editors' actions (unexplained removel of a sourced statement agreed upon in past versions by, at least, the majority of the main contributors to this article).
 * 3) The substantive reasons for the permanence of the sentence. Regarding this last and central point, I might had I am not really happy with the present formulation. First the use of the word "negro" will always be misunderstood and attract editors who will remove it on sight. Secondly there isn't enough explanation of the context. The sentence is as is because there is a general misconception in the English speaking world that the Moors were all Black Africans. The sentence just aims to explain that, in the case of Iberians "Moors" (most of whom were Iberian native converted to Islam, even if there also Berbers, Arabs, Saqaliba, and others) the word Moro/Mouro was not applied to Black Africans - the word for these was generally "Negro" (there were others, such as "Preto/Prieto", or "Cafre"). The Iberian use is important because, just read the article, most of what is written about the Moors regards the Al Andalus period. I believe something about this must be said, which is not the same as making statements about the "racial" or genetic composition of the Moors - which starts with the problem of defining whom are we talking about.


 * It seems that there might be some disagreement about the level of general confusion about the racial makeup of the Moors and that might be at the heart of the matter. If there is indeed confusion, then it is reasonable to state so explicitly within the article.  That would rule out any disagreement about why the term negro or an equivalent is necessary.  Would it not suffice to say that the Moors cannot be identified by a particular race but instead are documented to consist of x, y, z races?  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Moors cannot be identified by a particular race nor can one particular race be discredited. Your claims like these are what I don’t understand The Ogre you say “The sentence is as is because there is a general misconception in the English speaking world that the Moors were all Black Africans.” ...So you are speaking for the entire English speaking world now? Where is this misconception you speak of? I do not see anywhere in the article that make this claim or single statement that can be inferred as “the moors were all black African.”  No one thinks this. You are making edits based on your own personal opinion and speculations and you also said “The sentence just aims to explain that, in the case of Iberians "Moors" (most of whom were Iberian native converted to Islam, even if there also Berbers, Arabs, Saqaliba, and others) the word Moro/Mouro was not applied to Black Africans “, but this article is NOT about Iberian moors nor does it talk about the iberian moors racial background. This article is an overview of the ENTIRE Moorish population which did consist of black African ancestry...and also bringing up this random new “Iberian” claim. The moors were not native to the Iberian peninsular they migrated there from north Africa. So who is to say that the make up of the ones that were Iberian didn’t include “Negro.”? I don't even see how that is even related to the topic. This article is talks about the moors as a WHOLE and not just a particular group that lived in a certian geographical location. So that claim has no merit.

You seem to not answer the question instead you and the others divert it to random things and cases of sock puppetry, which some claim it have been going on since November 2008, yet not one of you have done anything about it, but the moment you are asked to answer your edits, you cannot seem to stop mentioning sock puppets. So since the case has been reported lEAVE it to the Admins to handle that and lets focus on why you keep putting in an article that does not deal with a specfic group but the entire population that “Moors were not negro”. In all honesty this is really not going anywhere because the issue at hand is still not being dealt with. I don't know what else to say, I hope the administrators deal with accordingly, because it is a simple thing that has been blown out of proportion That. statements that the "moors were not negro" is legitimate and should not be included in the article. and the fact that you or anyone else can give a valid reason shows that, it truly does not belong there.69.126.251.101 (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing random about the accusation of sock puppetry, there has been a clear pattern. As for your substance, the article covers the concept of Moor, which it makes rather clear has no great ethnological utility given it was applied to different populations at different times. Regardless, even excluding Iberia (and you are wrong, the convert Iberians were generally not referred to as Moors), the term Moor was equally applied to the Northern Maghrebine populatios, which genetics very clearly demonstrate are in their majority not of (recent) sub-Saharan ancestry. The Iberian rant supra is a red herring and reinforces the view that your engagement is ideological and not in good faith. (collounsbury (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

"(and you are wrong, the convert Iberians were generally not referred to as Moors)" well maybe you mis-read but if you take a look your "co-defendant" is the one that brought up this Iberian moor thing not me. So actually I'm right and the "Iberian" excuse for his edits has no merit. Now if you say "the article covers the concept of Moor, which it makes rather clear has no great ethnological utilty given it was applied to different populations at different times  If this the case why do you go out of your way to mention one and make claims that they were "not negro"? since no racial/ethnological references were made in the article in the 1st place.....also you say the term Moor was equally applied to the Northern Maghrebine populatios, which genetics very clearly demonstrate are in their majority not of (recent) sub-Saharan ancestry. So you are saying black Africans or Negros are "recent" to "Sub- Saharan Africa? .. Well according to anthropology they originate from there. Ist of all this is not about the genetics of this " Northern Maghrebine populations”. This article deal with the entire moors as a WHOLE and not a specific group that lived in a certain location, so you do not have any merit even in you claims of this "Northern Maghrebine population". So called "MAJORITY" as you say does not equate to TOTAL. Your own "reasons" discredit you because, The fact that you even mentioned that they ( This "Northern Maghrebine population") had black African ancestry, whether it was the majority or not, show that it was indeed THERE and part of the Moorish population. Also if you agree that the moors were mixed and the term was used for different people, why then do you continue to put out one specific group in the artlce and say moors were "not negro." 69.126.251.101 (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found something Collounsbury this is a direct quote from you, from this very page in reponse to one of the people you claim I am, afterall everyone that challenge this statement is me isn't it.[]

"Although perhaps moderately Quixotic, a discussion of the Moors text and coverage of ethnicity seems warrented to perhaps end the slow motion edit war, in particular with this comment copied from above:
 * [COLLOUNSBURY REQUOTING] The article should not state the moors where not Negros. The moors them self where mixed and did have Negros blood not only that there were many black moors, especially in the military. Those people can not be cut out of that history. I really do understand how these some editor use personal bias to justify the things they write. Nillarse (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To a limited extent, I think this comment has merit. In particular as the term Moor covers, over its millennium of usage, some rather different peoples. I believe that we should be able to take the present baseline text and massage it to include the following: (i) It is difficult to ascertain the physical type of the Mauri who gave rise to the term, given inconsistent usage in Antiquity (See Snowden in Ch 1 of Blacks in Antiquity) and genetic evidence suggesting the Maghreb region populations, while dominated by Mediterranean types from an ancient date, also included other physical types ('Negroid' / Saharan), etc."

..... You said this and in there you acknowledged that the term moors was used for DIFFERENT people And you also noted that they indeed had “negro” ancestry and agreed that the article should not say they didn't. How ironic you seem to go aganist your words and contradict yourself now. It just further prove my point.This is not about "measuring their "blackness" to say whether it was 100% or just one drop. As long as it was present its there, and the article should not have the statement "the moors were not negro" because it's simply not accurate69.126.251.101 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally, last but not least since the issue of sock puppetry has finally be dealt with and Administrators have closed that case. Please do not use that excuse to divert from answering and explaining your edits on why you constantly put in the article the false statement that "the moors were not negro" any longer 69.126.251.101 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Colllounsbury comment:
 * The only response to this is
 * (i)Clear paragraphs and block quoting, learn to use them and
 * (ii) Short declarative sentences
 * I am not going to wade through multiple paragraphs of confusingly quoted gibberish. (collounsbury (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

This is quite amusing. … This is exactly why I named where it was found the quote and placed a link of the entire thing above. The fact that you are talking about the format of the quotes I got from you, and not your inconstancies and contradictions about what you said concerning the matter further prove my point. The only thing you can do is try to divert it because you don’t have anything valid to support your claim on why you put in the article that “the moors where not negro”. Like they say either put up or shut up. I am not going to waste my time with you while you beat around the bush to dodge answering, because you can’t provide anything valid for your weak argument and you have reduce to secondary things like claiming I do not use "Short declarative sentences", instead dealing with the actual issue. 69.126.251.101 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever mate. Your screeds are long and unreadable. This is not a debate, it is about the page. When you can present an argument that is not about the other editors, in a short, concise fashion, feel free. I am not going to wade through long screeds of incoherent badly formatted text to try to figure out what the bloody fuck you are actually proposing. (collounsbury (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

He said that he started a discussion in February but no one responded. But now that there is a discussion going on he doesn’t have anything to say. As far as I’m concerned this discussion is over. You can’t say the moors were not Negro when history teaches us otherwise. I guess it’s easy to make outlandish comments but hard to back it up isn’t it? collounsbury make me laugh, this is coming from the person who said someone is personally attacking another person. you said This is not a debate, it is about the page. Well unlike you no one have tried to switch the focus to anything other than addressing and dealing with the issue concerning the page; and that if your false claim. I tell you this is not a debate or an argument it’s a discussion. In which you have been called on what you said. And oh just so you know everyone else seems to be able to understand the sentences just find. You can play the fool if you like but unless can support what you say and address your contradictions, put the nonsense aside and stop wasting time “mate”.Citionthehill (talk) 0:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Vulgarities will not help you much. Its plain and simple, that statement should not be there and the fact that thoese who said it, is avoiding it and can not support it proves the reason why it shouldn't be there. 69.126.251.101 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I made an edit to the page under my I.P 98.206.220.235 before. It was removed by one of these editors, I don't dispute the removal of my edit, because I don’t think I stated what I meant clearly. I could have express myself better. What I meant to say was that they were a mixture of people. So I also do not think that phrase saying they were not "negro" is appropriate and should not be included in the article. Icetown (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, all the socks are coming out. (collounsbury (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Dude, didn't you already file a case about socks and administrators confirmed that there were no socks. so why the fuck do you keep bringing that up. If I was a sock why on earth would I even identify myself as making an edit with my I.P Stop making yourself look more stupid and stop going in circles. Everyone can see what you are doing and can see through your embarrassment and bullshit because you said something and can't prove it. If this is about the fucking page then deal with the page Icetown (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I filed nothing my dear socks, I was simply asked to comment by others, and indeed this is my first comment on the socking which strikes me as painfully evident, including the bizarre hostility of the commentators and their shared style. (collounsbury (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

You are just a liar, you lied about what you put in the article and your lying now. If I was a sock I would not say that I made an edit with my I.P so fuck off. F.Y.I The link of the sock puppet case that was filled is right there and so spare the lies about how you haven't said anything about socks. This is a discussion about the page so deal with it and talk about the fucking lies you put in it, instead of trying to pull this.

Why don’t you try answering why you put that shit in the article for ones. You are not fooling anyone. What you said is right there. How the fuck do you say in February that they are mix and they included negro and even provided a source telling folks to look at Snowden in Ch 1 of Blacks in Antiquity. Then later you say were not negro yet you can’t answer why or give a valid reason. Seriously dude where is your fucking dignity? You can’t pull this petty crap just because you are trying to hide your embarrassment.

The way you’ve acted and have gone back on your words show the kind of lying hypocrite you are, and it's there for anyone to see. Talk about hostility, I didn't know it only worked one way. Are you crazy? You're the fool who started cursing at other people 1st and personally came at me. I did not say a word to you when I left my comment, you attacked me saying I'm a sock. So I’m responding to you the way you came at me. You should be like the other editor Ogre who shut up and left disgraced because he couldn't support his lies. I won’t even waste a sec of my time on a fool like you Icetown (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For your information, now I am reporting this little game of socking and bizarre abusive interaction. For the record, I did not enter the disputed phrase, and I find this interaction bizarre, paranoid (as well as abusive). (collounsbury (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

“For the record, I did not enter the disputed phrase” Actually you did, here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moors#Moors:_Ethnicity.2C_.22Negroness.22_.26_NPOV_Treatment you admitted that the moors did indeed have black ancestry. You are the one that should stop playing games. You should also stop contradicting yourself. 69.126.251.101 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously collounsbury your sock claim has already been reported and you were part of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/69.126.251.101, but do what you want. You began using vulgarities toward me, when I had never insulted you. The Administrator Mufka already told you that this is not the place to make charges against sock puppetry and for us to focus with the issues at hand. That is why he REPORTED it to begin with. Stop making excuses for your short comings, It s getting very tiring. Everyone has discussed the issues concerning the page, but you continuously have tried to divert it. Like I said before, the fact that you can’t back up your claims is more the reason why that false statement should not be there 69.126.251.101 (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon my observations. Hopefully, this will not reignite a repeat of the circular discussions above...  Is whatever position against using the term "negro" or "black" versus using the term "Moor" a general rejection of the theory of racial classification toward Nationality?  I mean, that would kind of simply things; and possibly move this discussion to another forum, right? I only ask because I just saw a similar-type discussion about including the self-identifier "Kemet" in the Ancient Egypt article; which is missing and not even cross-linked.  One person said, everyone is not familiar with it...the other said that Ancient Egyptians did not call themselves 'Ancient Egyptians' as that is a Greek name/term; they self-identified from the land of Kemet, so they should be respected historically as such.


 * If I decided to change my name and re-identify myself as "JEFF" I would expect people to respect that and call me "JEFF." If I term myself "Moor" I would not appreciate someone calling me a Negro or a Black or Colored person. If I was Tasmanian, or Melanesian, or Dravidian, or what e-v-e-r, I would want not want to be called out of my name either. If I was Scottish, Irish or Norweigian or a Brit, I would not want to be called an UnColored/Pink/Pale person (weird as it may seem I've heard it used as a slur in Texas) just because someone decided on some arbitrary classification. If I was a Wabanaki, I would not appreciate being called an Indian [cause Indians are from India, remember?].  So in the spirit of truth, and releasing the constraints of cultural superiority, let us be aware that everyone has the right to self-identification and be addressed as such.


 * Oh, by the way, the old English for black is blæc (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/black); which also means bleach, blond, bald, bale, pale. Niger (latin), Negra, Negro...all mean Black. So, now were the Moors 'black' or 'white', or unblack, or non-white, or ... or ... or ... or ... or ...   Neser (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction
I would like to correct this statement that is in the MOORS wikipedia page. Magellan was not a Spaniard, he was portuguese so why would they write this sentence to make it seem as if he were. Please double check and correct this

"This was one of the major islands of an archipelago which the Spaniards had reached during their voyages westward from the New World. By 1521, the ships of Magellan and other Spanish explorers had reached that island archipelago..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.194.127.36 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Refs please for both your assertion above and the text you would like to insert. Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Magellan was without a doubt born Portuguese, even if he turned Spanish latter on. I believe there is nothing to be changed, since the sentence in question does not state he was Spanish, just saying that other Spanish explorer (etc). If the problem is the "other", well... he was in the service of the Spanish crowns! Do you wish to add "the ships of Magellan (Portuguese explorer in the service of Spain) and other Spanish explorers"? I really see no need for it... But well, it really does not make a big difference. The Ogre (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are Portugese, it does. Just as if someone stated that Stonehenge was not built by Albino Europeans, you would probably not be too pleased and question why they would try to claim something which is not theirs, right?  Give credit where credit is due. Wikipedia is used by children, so let us get it right for their sake to be as accurate as possible.   Neser (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)